Runaway Youth: the Complexity of Family Structure and Its Effects on the Decision to Leave

Runaway Youth: The Complexity of Family Structure and its Effects on the Decision to Leave

Brianna Rodriquez, B.A.

A Thesis

Sociology

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Dr. Brandon Wagner Chair of Committee

Dr. Luis Ignacio Ramirez

Mark Sheridan Dean of the Graduate School

May, 2020

Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work I have produced has exceeded the upmost expectation of myself and wouldn’t be half of what it is without Dr. Wagner and Dr. Ramirez. These scholars are brilliant, and I am more than fortunate to have had the ability to work with them. Dr.

Ramirez was very understanding and patient, especially when I experienced a tremendous family loss during my time of work. Dr. Wagner had more faith in me than I had in myself sometimes and there are no words to express my gratitude. Dr. Wagner, thank you for the guidance through this journey. You have taught me far more than I ever expected to learn, within my thesis and about life in general.

I also couldn’t have done this without the support and love of my parents, partner, and friends. Mom and Dad, you two have been my biggest driving force throughout this whole process. I know the true meaning of hard work and it’s all thanks to you. I hope this research I worked so hard on makes you proud. I love you both so much. As for Joe and my friends, your immense support and encouragement got me through the hardest tasks of this thesis.

Lastly, I want to thank my sweet Janie. You inspired me to persevere through every single challenge. I love you and I miss you

ii Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii ABSTRACT ...... iv LIST OF TABLES ...... v LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi 1. INTRODUCTION...... 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 3 2.THEORY ...... 10 Attachment ...... 12 Commitment ...... 16 Involvement ...... 17 Belief ...... 18 3. SUMMARY ...... 24 4. METHODS ...... 26 Data Collection ...... 26 Sample...... 27 5. MEASURES ...... 28 Dependent Variable ...... 28 Independent Variable ...... 28 Controls ...... 29 Models...... 32 6. RESULTS ...... 34 7. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ...... 38 Limitations ...... 39 Future Research ...... 40 REFERENCES ...... 42

iii Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

ABSTRACT

Though researchers have explored a variety of delinquent juvenile behaviors, one such behavior, running away, has been relatively understudied. Running away can put the child at risk: engaging in substance abuse, dropping out or not completing school, and in some cases put them into the homeless population. One particular risk factor for whether adolescents run away is family structure because disturbances within this can provoke externalized behaviors, such as running away. To examine the association between living with a mother or father and running away, I use longitudinal data from the Fragile

Families and Child Wellbeing Study. I find that children who lived with their mother through middle childhood were less likely to report running away as adolescents, after controlling for a variety of individual, household, family, and parenting characteristics.

These results suggest living full time with your mother will decrease the likelihood of running away.

iv Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Descriptive Statistic…………………………………………………….……...31

Table 2: Logistic Regression ……………………………………………………………33

v Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Safe Place Logo ...... 5

Figure 2: Predicted Probability of Running Away By Living Status with Mother .. 36

Figure 3: Predicted Probability of Running Away by Living Status with Father ..... 37

vi Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This research examines the association between living with a mother or father and running away. Understanding the complex process of running away is important because children and adolescents can suffer great consequences once they leave the home. Many runaway youth are at risk for engaging in substance abuse, dropping out of school, and becoming homeless. When unpacking the circumstances and reasonings behind an individual’s decision to leave the home, many youth give common answers. The research done on runaway youth thus far has provided further insight and information on what factors play part in the decision to run away.

Gutierres & Reich (1981) were some of the first researchers to look at children and adolescents who engaged in running away. Their research points to physical abuse as a potential factor in the later decision to leave the home. In form of a different type of abuse, sexual abuse, Molnar et al., (1988) and Tyler et al., (2001) both found in their research that sexual abuse was reported to happen before the child left the home. Tyler and colleagues found sexual abuse was experienced more within girls than within boys

(2001). Research has also pointed to mother’s mental health and family financial issues as a factor in the decision to leave. In the studies done by the National Law Center on

Homelessness & Poverty teenagers stated mother’s with mental health issues and parent’s with financial issues continuously suggested that the child leave the home because they couldn’t care for them (2019). Within runaway literature it has been noted that the

1 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 research done on this population in scarce because it is a challenged to reach individuals who have ran away.

Research within family structure gives further direction into additional potential factors that play a role in the decision to leave. Over time family structure has varied within the United States, and researchers have noted the change. Cherlin has addressed this change and stated that cohabitation and single parent families have become more evident in the United States (2014). Cohabitation can hold consequences for children as

Manning found that this family structure is linked to delinquency (2000). As a variety of different family structures are placed on children and adolescents, some do not adapt well to the changed. Sanchez and colleagues found that family structure was a strong factor in their decision to run away (2006).

Some research has been done on the association between family structure and literature, such as Sanchez et al., (2006), however the specifics of family structure and the time spent with mom or dad, certainly needs to be explored to a greater extent. I argue the specifics of family structure are important and will contribute to runaway literature. In doing so I use the framework of Hirschi and focus on the first component of the social bond, parental attachment. As Hirschi states, a strong attachment to a child’s mother and father are equally important and if present, will constrain the child’s desire to commit a delinquent act, such as running away (1977).

2 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

LITERATURE REVIEW

Running Away is a complex process for children and teenagers that engage in it.

Even the legal status of such youth is complicated; though, many children leave to protect themselves (Hammer, Finkelhor, & Sedlak 2002) in some states running away is a criminal act. Even the experiences of running away vary dramatically for youth, with some becoming homeless while others runaway to a trusted home with friends or family

(Hammer, Finkelhor, & Sedlak 2002). Many runaway youth have individuals such as parents, families, and friends that are aware of their whereabouts (Hammer, Finkelhor, &

Sedlak 2002). Understanding who runs away and why they do so is an important first step towards addressing the issue for children and adolescents in the future. To put this problem in to perspective, I begin by documenting the trends and statistics previously collected on runaways.

Trends

According to the National Runaway Safeline, NRS, there has been a noticeable shift toward youth calling the hotline during a runaway episode over the past two years

(2016- 2017) (NRS 2019). In 2017, 16 % of the 29,841 calls to the hotline involved runaways while 31% involved those who were contemplating running away (NRS 2019).

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, they assisted law enforcement and families with more than 25,000 cases of missing children in 2018. 92% of which were considered endangered runaways (NCMEC 2020). Given the nature and uncertainty of the behavior, recent, reliable statistics on runaway youth are hard to find.

For example, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report stopped collecting data on children and

3 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 adolescents who have been arrested for running away in 2010. Because numbers on runaway youth are hard to come by, it is difficult to understand the scope and nature of the issue.

Resources

One resource runway youth have is the National Runaway Safeline. This resource provides emotional support for both parents and children. Either can get on the website and call the number provided to chat, email, and post in the form with any questions and concerns about running away (National Runaway Safeline 2019). The agency also vows confidentiality and does not allow information to leave the conversation between the worker and the individual (National Runaway Safeline 2019). The website also provides youth and parents additional services, including referrals to other agencies and other organizations such as National Safe Place.

The National Safe Place has many “Safe Places” at different establishments across the United States. Safe Place is a national youth outreach and prevention program for young people under the age of 18 (up to 21 years of age in some communities) in need of immediate help and safety (National Runaway Safeline 2019). As a collaborative community prevention initiative, Safe Place designates businesses and organizations as

Safe Place locations, making help readily available to youth in communities across the country (National Runaway Safeline 2019). Safe Place locations include: libraries,

YMCAs, fire stations, public buses, churches, and social service facilities. Many Safe

Place locations can be seen by their signature sign outside of the establishment, which can be seen in Figure 1. As with the National Runaway Safeline, there is also a hotline available 24/7 with workers available to take calls.

4 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

Figure 1. Safe Place Logo

Lastly, individuals can visit the Homeless Shelter Directory website to get an updated list of homeless shelters and social services that will help those who have runaway and have no place to stay for the night and upcoming days. Each state in the

United States in broken down by city so individuals can navigate the website more efficiently.

Consequences

Despite the availability of resources, there are a variety of consequences for those who run away from home. One detrimental effect of running away is on an academic achievement. Running away from home decreases the likelihood that a you will graduate from high school by 10% (Aratani & Cooper 2015). Running away from home multiple

5 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 times decreases the likelihood of completing high school by 18% (Aratani & Cooper,

2015).

Another consequence of running away is increased substance abuse. Using four nationally representative samples, Green and colleagues (Greene, Ennett, & Ringwalt

1997) document higher use of marijuana, hallucinogens, crack cocaine, inhalants, sedatives, and alcohol abuse than those who have not had a runaway experience. In study of the runaway population in Denver, Colorado, runaway youth who weren’t living with their family reported significantly more use of the marijuana cocaine, and hallucinogen use (Leeuwen et al., 2004). From interviews of a longitudinal study in eight Midwestern cities in the United States, roughly two thirds (60.5%) of the runaways met lifetime criteria for at least one of three (Alcohol abuse, alcohol dependence, and drug abuse) substance disorders (Johnson, Whitbeck, and Hoyt 2005). They also found that nearly one half (48.1%) met 12-month criteria for at least one of the disorders (Johnson,

Whitbeck, and Hoyt 2005).

Running Away as Delinquency

The literature on juvenile delinquency primarily focuses on drinking, smoking, and drug use and abuse. Consequently, there is little literature on running away. This omission is particularly noticeable in that running away is different in many ways from other delinquent acts. To begin, unlike other common juvenile delinquent behaviors (e.g., smoking, drinking, drug use), running away is not considered a statutory offense in all jurisdictions. Currently, only nine states consider running away a status offense (NLCHP

2019). Its consistency across states as a status offense makes running away, in some

6 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 ways, a complicated fit within the delinquency literature. Running away is also different from other delinquent acts in that the process of leaving a home is very much an individualized process. Children and adolescents cite a variety of different reasons as to why they chose to leave. According to the NRS, in line with the 2017 trend report, family dynamics were the most common issue raised by youth (2019). 47% of runaway youth report conflict between them and a parent/guardian in the home (NRS 2019). Over 50% of youth in shelters or the streets reported that their parents told them to leave or knew they were leaving but didn’t care. A study done by Molnar et al., (1988) found that 34% of runaway youth reported sexual abuse before leaving home and that that 43% of runaway youth (girls and boys) reported physical abuse before leaving home (Molnar et al, 1998). This is consistent with studies done by Tyler et al., (2001) and Gutierres &

Reich (1981). Research done by Tyler et al., found that among runaway youth, high rates of sexual abuse were reported (2001). They also found that girls reported experiencing much greater rates than boys (Tyler et al., 2001). Gutierres & Reich found that children who experienced physical abuse were more likely to engage in later escape acts such as running away (1981).

Research on this population is challenging because of the difficulty in reaching individuals who have run away. To be included in studies, youth who run away must either return home, be put in a different placement, or in a homeless shelter in order to be included in research. Most of the literature out on runaway youth have sampled from these three placements, as youth who do not return to one of these situations are unable to be sampled. Longitudinal data on these children and adolescents may also be difficult as

7 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 their living situation may not be stable throughout the rest of their life, resulting in relatively high rates of sample attrition.

Incidences of Running Away

As previously stated, running away is an individualized process, with children and adolescents providing a variety of reasons as to why they ran away. Peled and Cohavi

(2004) found that in describing the “final moments” before running away, one girl spoke of a feeling of “no alternative,” of the hope that her situation would improve if she ran away from home, as well as of the triggers and the opportunities that prompted the decision to run away. She stated

“Once there was an argument, and for no reason my mom began shouting at me that I’m not her daughter and she’s sorry she didn’t give me away when I was small chairs flew and I screamed at her the whole time, “I’m not a small child any more that you can hit and do what you want with!,” and things like that Shahaf, age 16).

Research done by Hyde (2005) found that discussions about leaving home revealed a multifaceted set of circumstances that were not easy to reduce to one factor.

The majority of participants discussed physical abuse (59%) and intense familial conflict

(50%) as primary factors underlying their decisions to leave home (Hyde 2005). One individual in particular, Twig, stated that the physical abuse he received from his step- father was too much so he decided to leave.

“My step-father wasn’t that great of a guy, he was a real bad drunk and he would always smack me around or push me when he was drunk…Being beat all my life—first by my real dad and then by my step-dad—He was constantly jabbing at me and trying to control my life. If he was in a bad mood, I was his punching bag. You know, I took it for a little while, but it was just too much. When I turned 13 I got sick of it. I snapped one day and tried to kill him. I grabbed a chain from the weight bench and just started hitting him. He gave my

8 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

mom an ultimatum—either he leaves or I leave. I couldn’t deal with it anymore, and I didn’t want my mom to have to decide. I just packed up and left.

As seen in both situations just described, children cite familial conflict as a factor in their decision to leave the home. In understanding exactly, what about the family impacts the children to run away I point towards Travis Hirschi’s Social Control Theory.

I use the first component of the social bond, attachment, specifically parental attachment, to argue that the choice to run away is influenced by not living full time with one parent.

In discussing this theory, I will first begin by broadly outlining Social Control Theory, who has contributed their own work to this field, and then focus in on Hirschi’s Social

Control Theory and how it applies in the choice to run away or not.

9 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

CHAPTER II

THEORY Social Control Theory

Control Theory, a theory which became prominent in sociology during the 1960s, suggests that all people are ‘relatively free of the intimate attachments, the aspirations, and the moral beliefs that bind most people to a life without the law (Hirschi 1969).” This theory assumes that the potential to engage in crime is omnipresent but morality and ties to other people and institutions prevent us from doing so (Hirschi 1977). Essentially, this theory helps to better understand why people follow the rules. It postulates that the importance of differences between delinquents and nondelinquent doesn’t lie within the motivation, it lies within the extent to which natural motives are controlled (Hirschi

1977). Therefore, this theory focuses on the restraint put on delinquent behavior, and on the circumstances and desires that prevent it. Circumstances and desires are best understood as factors that weaken the conscience or the effectiveness of an institution’s control, rather than predictors of crime directly. While Social Control theories do not imply that the delinquent act is produced by one single cause, it maintains the assumption that the act is determined by all causes present at the moment it is committed (Hirschi

1977). It is important to note that while reasons and motives are provided, they cannot be interpreted as forcing the individual to commit a crime against his or her will (Hirschi

1977).

Many researchers have modified Social Control Theory and applied it to different situations. Beginning with the earliest form of this theory in 1901, Edward Ross argues social control is a consequence of social order (Ross 2017). His most notable work on

10 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 this theory was seen in his book “Social Control” (1901). A different modification of this theory developed later on was brought forward by Albert J. Reiss. Reiss argues groups such as families provide reinforcement for non-delinquent acts (Cullen & Wilcox 2010).

He first used this theory to describe weak egos among delinquents (Cullen & Wilcox

2010). Later on, in 1957, Jackson Toby modified the literature on Social Control Theory by creating a notion of stakes in conformity and argued that if an adolescent’s stakes were low they were less likely to conform (Toby 1957). One year later in 1958, F. Ivan

Nye modification came about when he operationalized control mechanisms within Social

Control Theory. He specified three different type of controls: Direct control (punishment and rewards), indirect control (affectionate identification), and internal control

(conscience or sense of guilt) (Nye 1958). As these modifications within Social Control

Theory came about, the extent of discussing families influence on delinquent acts was just discussed by Reiss. Shortly after, a dominant and highly cited modification of Social

Control Theory was developed by Travis Hirschi. Hirschi discussed in more depth how an attachment to family, specifically parents, played a part in delinquent acts. In using this modification of Social Control Theory, I am able to support my argument with the first component of the social bond that, attachment, specifically parental attachment, is an influential factor in the choice to run away.

Hirschi’s Social Control Theory

Hirschi’s own contribution to Social Control Theory was to examine what a delinquent act is and how those acts and behaviors can be explained. Hirschi describes delinquent acts as acts contrary to law (Hirschi 1977). He states that since the law embodies the moral values of the community, the task of explaining delinquency follows

11 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 as, (1) delinquent acts are contrary to wishes and expectations of others, (2) they involve risk and punishment, both informal and formal, (3) they take (and save) time and energy, and (4) they are contrary to conventional moral belief (Hirschi 1977). If these assumptions are true, he argues that those most likely to engage in delinquent acts are less likely to be concerned about expectations and wishes of others, least likely to be concerned about the risk of punishment, most likely to have the time and energy the act requires, and least likely to accept moral beliefs contrary to delinquency (Hirschi 1977).

Hirschi also points to social institutions and looks at the effectiveness of one’s institution and how it can also help explain delinquency. Institutions, such as family or the school, can be considered to the extent in which individuals work together or their purpose in the control of delinquent behaviors (Hirschi 1977). With that being said, it is argued that some institutions are more effective than others at meeting human needs and controlling the behaviors of their members (Hirschi 1977).

From this perspective, Hirschi’s Social Control Theory argues that individuals maintain four main social bonds: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief, and these bonds control the actions of potential delinquents. Weakening of the bonds between individual and society, enables one to engage in delinquent acts.

Attachment

Beginning with the first component of the social bond, attachment refers to a person’s sensitivity to and interest in others. The acceptance of social norms and the development of a social conscience depend on attachment to and caring for other human beings (Siegel & Welsh 2014). Sociologist term these individuals as “significant others” which are those people we consider important, who opinions we value, and who are

12 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 capable of influencing our behavior (Hirschi 1977). Hirschi understands that not everyone has “significant others” and for these individual this sort of attachment is not present; however, he argues this accounts for a small portion and a majority of individuals do have important people in their life. For those who do have significant others, it must also be noted that while one is closer to some people than others it does not assume that one is all equally close to everyone (Hirschi 1977). This is important because an individual’s behavior must be interpreted as reflecting lack of interest in the opinions of some (Hirschi 1977). In childhood, an individual is expected to be close to their parents (Hirschi 1977). Hirschi emphasizes two different attachments. One being an attachment to one’s parents during childhood (Hirschi 1977). The second attachment is an attachment to the school which also occurs during one’s younger years (Hirschi 1977).

With parental attachment, Hirschi argues this is the most influential and important bond out of the four. The examination of the relationship between parent and child has been an integral part of delinquency research (Krohn & Massey 1980). In general, parents do not want their child to engage in delinquent acts (Hirschi 1977). Although there are some cases in which a parent encourages delinquent acts, Hirschi’s argues that majority of parents do not (1977). Cohesiveness, respect, and love are just some of the components that are used in determining the relationship and attachment between child and parent (Hirschi 1977). Hirschi states children consider the expectations, opinions, and the consequences of acts on their parents (Adler & Laufer 1993). Upon a child’s interaction with their parents over the years, they learn the expectations and consequences set for them. Therefore, when the child is faced with the temptation to commit the crime, the psychological presence of their parents causes them to think about

13 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 their parent’s opinion of the delinquent act and the possible consequences that will be imposed (Adler & Laufer 1993). Though academic opinions on which parent has a more influential attachment to their child is argue both directions, it is clear the attachments to both mother and father are important. Therefore, we can assume a child’s attachment to both a father and mother is equally important. If a child does not care about their parent’s reaction, they are more likely to engage in delinquent acts (Hirschi 1977). If the child could care less about the parent’s opinion, then they are also more likely to not care about the opinion’s and reactions of others (Hirschi 1977). One possible reason for a child not caring about their parent’s opinion is because they do not believe they are worthy of respect and don’t have the resources to make them conform (Hirschi 1977). A second possible reason is that they do not live up to the child’s standard and feel that the parent can be easily fooled or manipulated (Hirschi 1977). If a child’s attachment to their parent is weak, they are more likely than those whose attachment to their parents is strong, to lack respect for their parents. This lack of respect can carry on to other adults in their life such as teachers, coaches, and mentors (Hirschi 1977). A main mechanism used by adults to demand respect is threatening to call the child’s parent. However, if the child does not respect the parent, this threat holds no value (Hirschi 1977). If no adult can demand social conformity from a child, then they are more likely to commit delinquent acts. It is important to note that there is evidence of variation in assuming all children with weak attachment to their parents commit delinquent acts (Hirschi 1977). However, Hirschi argues that the vast majority of children who have weak attachments to their parent are more likely to commit delinquent acts (1997).

14 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

Attachment to school is also part of the social bond. Hirschi discusses this concept of school attachment in terms of academic achievement (Adler & Laufer1993). In school, just as with parents, the bond of affection and respect is crucial (Hirschi 1977).

According to Hirschi the school is expected to engage the attention and maintain the interest of the child anywhere from ten to fifteen years (1977). For many, it becomes apparent very quickly that they are not proficient in reading, writing, or arithmetic, and end up doing poorly (Hirschi 1977). The poor student’s attachment to the school and authority within the school begins to weaken. Schools can pull other resources to ensure the child will conform, like using their future career goals such as a doctor or lawyer, to keep them engaged and motivated in school (Hirschi 1977). The child then understands how engaging in delinquent acts will risk the investments they have made within their grades to qualify for a specific profession (Hirschi 1977). For those students with low or poor grades, such investments do not exist and there appears to be little connection between their present behavior and their adult life (Hirschi 1977). Therefore, Hirschi argues the child has no will to conform to rules, the risk on engaging acts are slight, therefore they are more likely to engage in them (Hirschi 1977).

A second aspect of a weakened attachment to school is that a child “frees” themselves from the shackles of childhood (Hirschi 1977). Once a child completes their education, whether by graduating or by dropping out, he or she becomes, in a sense, an adult (Hirschi 1977). Hirschi argues that children are much more likely to adapt in attitudes and behaviors normally reserved for adults such as drinking, and smoking

(1977).

15 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

Commitment

The second component of the social bond, commitment, examines the time, energy, and effort an individual puts towards conventional actions. Hirschi operationalizes commitment in terms of academic and occupational aspirations and

“passages to adult status” (Krohn & Massey 1980). Aspirations are goal-oriented such as getting an education and saving money for purchases in the future. Hirschi argues that once individuals build a strong commitment to conventional values within society, they are less likely to engage in acts that will jeopardize all they have worked for (Siegel &

Welsh 2015). Commitment within society suggest that most rational individuals calculate the cost delinquent acts have on their future goals (Chriss 2007). Committed individuals do not want to endanger their investments so they are more likely to conform and stay away from delinquent acts.

In regard to the “passages to adult status,” Hirschi focuses on adolescents specifically to explain this. According to Hirschi, passage to adult status is when an adolescent claims adult privileges without adult responsibilities (Adler & Laufer 1993).

When prematurely claiming adulthood, the adolescent is expressing right to act contrary to the wishes of adults, which frees themselves for the commission of delinquent acts

(Adler & Laufer 1993). Essentially the passage to adult status has two concepts: lack of commitment to the education system and a premature claim to adulthood (Adler & Laufer

1993). The adolescent is not committed to the education system when they leave early because they want to enter adulthood prematurely. Once they do so they start to prove their adulthood by engaging in adult activities. However, the individual has a complete disregard for adult expectations. For example, if the adolescent claims the right to drink,

16 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 smoke, date, and drive a car as an adult would, he is more likely to commit delinquent acts (Adler & Laufer 1993). The passage to adult status, when done prematurely, is a result of lack of commitment from the adolescent.

Involvement

The third component of the social bond, involvement, is used to explain an individual’s time spent on positive activities approved by society. Involvement differs from commitment in that involvement focuses on the time one has available when they are not committed. Hirschi argues that one who spends their time within a prosocial activity will not, by definition, spend their time engaging in delinquent acts. Such activities can be legitimate school or sports related (Hirschi 1969). This argument focuses primarily on the individual at the time they engaged in the activity. Hirschi does not account for what the individual does before, after, or any other time outside of these activities. That is not what he argues within this specific bond. One will be less likely to engage in delinquent acts or activities by spending time on prosocial activities that follow moral and social rules. Therefore, Hirschi states that those who are more involved in conventional activities have little time or opportunity to commit delinquent acts. We can also assume that individuals who are involved in unconventional activities, such as those that are against morals and social rules, will be more likely to engage in criminal activity

(Hirschi 1969). For example, in some of Hirschi’s most important findings he found that youths who are involved in conventional activities, such as homework were less likely to engage in delinquent acts (Siegel & Welsh 2015). Youths involved in delinquent behaviors, such as smoking and drinking, were more likely to engage in delinquent acts

(Siegel & Welsh 2015).

17 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

Belief

The fourth component that makes up the social bond is belief. Often, people who live in similar social settings share a common belief. This can include but is not limited to sharing the same values, adhere to the legal code, and admire moral behaviors. From

Hirschi’s perspective, the belief system of the delinquent neither requires nor forbids delinquency (1977). Instead, it makes the choice between law-abiding and delinquent behavior a matter of expediency (Hirschi 1977). These beliefs, he argues, are consistent with a delinquent’s alienation from others or an institution. “Such beliefs are reasonably seen as “causes” of delinquency in the sense that those holding them are as a consequence more likely to commit delinquent acts (Hirschi 1977).” From this view, those who hold such beliefs are more likely to become delinquent because they have a better understanding of how to justify the act or simply disregard the fact that they are going against the belief. Hirschi has also discussed religious beliefs specifically and how that can affect delinquency. Religious beliefs have a significant impact on norms and values within society. According to Hirschi, religious sanctioning systems play an important role in ensuring and maintaining conformity to social norms (1969). Belief functions like the other three in the sense that delinquent is associated with its lack of.

The onset of questioning or doubting these beliefs is when they start to become absent or weakened, which then results in an individual who is more likely to participate in delinquent acts. In general, prosocial attitudes and beliefs constrain people from committing crimes they otherwise would have in the absence of having social bond

(Jones 1969). For example, in one of Hirschi’s most important studies he found that those

18 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 who shared the same beliefs about unconventional acts also both shunned these acts

(Siegel & Welsh 2015).

In summary, Hirschi’s Social Control Theory developed four components that make up the social bond: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief, in which each argue how an individual can be connected to society. The weakening of these bonds explains why an individual will not conform to societal norms and rules. The first component, attachment, suggest that children who aren’t attached to their parents or school, do not value anyone’s opinion, and therefore will not conform to societal rules and norms. The second component, commitment, argues that individuals who create commitments to societal values are more likely to conform. In cases where a child engages in passage to adult status, they claim adult privileges without adult responsibilities, and therefore more likely to engage in delinquent acts. The third component, involvement, suggest that children who are involved in academic and social activities are less likely to engage in delinquent acts, as other conventional activities take up majority of their time. Lastly, the fourth component argues that belief makes the choice between law abiding and committing delinquent acts a matter of convenience. As for religious beliefs, Hirschi argues prosocial beliefs help individuals to conform, but when the bond of belief is broken, they are more likely to engage in delinquent acts.

In all, Hirschi suggests that the more attached persons are to other members of society, the more they believe in and are committed to the values of conventional society, and the more they invest in and are involved in conventional lines of activity, the less likely they are to deviate.

19 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

Social Control puts family at the front and center as a central component. Family can work alone or with other institutions to control delinquent behaviors. Within family,

Hirschi puts emphasis on parents and argues a child’s attachment to their parent is the most influential component of the Social Bond. This component of the bond is highly influential and when established, it lays out the expectations, opinions, and consequences set for the child. Once the child is faced with the desire to commit a delinquent act, the parental attachment appears psychologically and allows them to refer back to the expectations and consequences that will be imposed. However, recent history has demonstrated remarkable changes in family structure. These changes may affect the child’s bond with their parent and therefore affect the attachment as well. Once this occurs, lower social bonds are evident and therefore higher rates of delinquency. This can happen because it can be difficult to maintain an attachment to a parent the child does not live with, compared to the attachment the child does live with. Also, it can be difficult for the parent to help control delinquent behaviors if the child does not live with them. The breakdown of family, as evidenced by not living with a parent suggests limited power of the family to constrain the adolescents desire to commit a delinquent act such as running away.

History of Family Structure

Recent changes in family dynamics have led to remarkable shifts in family structure. In the past, married couple families were the dominant unit in raising children, but cohabiting parent and single-parent families have become much more common

(Cherlin 2014). Within these recent changes, living together outside of marriage was shameful. Short-term cohabiting relationships began to form and in some situations these

20 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 relationships end in having children in these brittle unions (Cherlin 2014). Regarding cohabitation, the United States has the shortest average duration of cohabiting unions of any Western country (Cherlin 2014). Within five years after having a child, about half of urban cohabiting parents are no longer living together (Cherlin 2004). To put this into perspective, that is about twice the breakup rate experience by children born to married parents. Breakups are often then followed by another cohabiting union and perhaps disruption (Cherlin 2014). Children can then see a number of parents’ partners and stepparents who enter and exit their homes in succession (Cherlin 2014). In The Marriage

Go Round, Cherlin states children in the US experience more turnover in their family lives than do children in any other wealthy country. The dynamics of family began to involve more parents’ partners and stepparents who move in and out of households more frequently compared to other countries (2014). This change in family structure has effects on children, in particular on, juvenile delinquency and more specifically on the decision to run away.

Family Structure and Juvenile Delinquency

Many studies have also suggested that family structure has an impact in the decision to run away. When transitioning from one family structure to a different one,

Manning (2000) found that family transitions such as living with both biological parents to cohabitation with at least one biological parent was associated with delinquency.

Manning and colleagues also found that delinquency is lower in adolescents living with just their mother rather than those living with their mother and her cohabiting partner

(Manning & Lamb 2003). Apel and Kaukinen looked at the risk of delinquent behavior

21 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 among adolescents who were in a parental cohabitation situation and found that these children were more likely to engage in delinquent behavior compared to those who were in a married family with both biological parents (2008). A separate study by Brown

(2004) also found that children in cohabiting families reported more behavioral and emotional problems than children in married families. Lastly, Osborne & McLanahan

(2007) found that children in a cohabiting family had experienced more behavioral problems than those in a married family.

Sanchez and colleagues designed a study to create an overall demographic profile of runaway youth in the United States (2006). They found that approximately 6.4% of youths ran away in the 12 months before the 1996 survey and that family structure was a strong predictor of running away (Sanchez et al., 2006). Those living with both biological parents were least likely to run away whereas those with at least one nonbiological parent, those with single mothers, and those with other family structures were more likely to run away compared to those living with both biological parents (Sanchez et al., 2006).

In looking at family dynamics, two different studies look at the impact the dynamics could have on a child who had ran away. In a study of runaway youth from

New York, Sayfer and colleagues found that many adolescents blamed both themselves and family dynamics for why they ran away (2004). Results suggested that from the runaway youth’s perspective, the majority of the individual’s blamed themselves and roughly one-third of the adolescents (41.2%) attributed family dynamics as to what lead them to runaway (Sayfer et al., 2008). In a somewhat different study, Holliday and

22 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 colleagues found that running away was predicted by youth-rated family functioning

(2017).

As many researchers have looked at family structure and the impact it has in the decision to run away, they do not discuss time spent living with each parent. Sanchez and colleagues do discuss the child’s living situation in 3 categories: with 2 biological parents, 2 parents (at least 1 not biological), and single mother (2006). However, the time spent in each category is not measured. In terms of literature examining children living with single fathers, there is little research and not much can be said. In examining fathers and their roles, Berger and Langton state that father figures in child’s lives now are more likely to be non-residential (2011). To my knowledge, no study has examined running away as it is related to the child’s time spent living with each biological parent. As each family situation varies so does the attachment to each respective parent. This is important because as I stated earlier, not living with a parent suggest limited power of the family to constrain the adolescents desire to commit a delinquent act such as running away. As

Hirschi argues, a child’s attachment to both a father and mother is equally important and therefore a child’s time spent in each living situation is also important. This study will address the current gap in the literature by examining a child’s time spent living with mother and father and the association that has with running away.

23 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

CHAPTER III

SUMMARY

Research regarding family structure and the impact it has in the decision to run away is limited. Despite the importance of living situation for the bonds that children have with parents (Rankin 1983, Matsueda and Heimer 1987), little is known about how living situation influence the decision to run away. Some work has highlighted that household configuration is associated with running away (Sanchez et al., 2006), this work does not consider time spent in the specific household (i.e., with each parent). To address this limitation, I will do what this study does not and discuss the living situation in terms of time spent with each parent. Sanchez and colleagues do discuss the child’s living situation in 3 categories: with 2 biological parents, 2 parents (at least not biological), and single mother (2006). However, the time spent in each category is not measured. To my knowledge, no other study looks at the child’s time spent with each biological parent. As each family situation varies so does the attachment to each respective parent. This is important because as I stated earlier, not living with a parent suggest a weakened bond and limited power of the family to constrain the adolescents desire to commit a delinquent act such as running away. Hirschi argues, a child’s attachment to both a mother and father is equally important and therefore a child’s time spent in each living situation is also important. To account for this gap un literature, this study looks at a child’s time living with both mother and father and its association with running away.

Based on existing literature, I therefore seek to answer the research question.

24 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

RQ1: Is a children’s living situation with their Mother or Father associated with running away?

25 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

CHAPTER IV

METHODS Data Collection

This study used data from a secondary source, the Fragile Families and Child

Wellbeing Study (FFCWS). This dataset is a longitudinal study that follows roughly

4,800 children born in twenty large, U.S. cities that had a population of 200,000 or more, between 1998 and 2000 (Waldfogel et al., 2010). Sixteen of the twenty cities were selected using stratified random sample grouped according to their policy environments and labor market conditions (Waldfogel et al., 2010). The study consists of interviews with the focal child’s mother and father at birth and again when the child was approximately one, three, five, nine, and fifteen. A child interview is also included at year nine. I was able to access the data by filling out a brief application with an abstract discussing my research project.

FFCWS is a suitable dataset for this research for a variety of reasons. The child’s living situation and the amount of time spent in this situation was reported by both the mother and father. Using both reports I was able to get data on the child’s living situation from each parent rather than relying on information provided just by one parent, which enabled me to collect missing data on the father using the mother’s survey. I was also able to look at a specific type of juvenile delinquency, running away. The specifics of running away came from the child’s report in in Wave 6, when they were approximately fifteen years old. Many datasets measure delinquency as whole and typically do not get into specifics. One other dataset (NISMART 1999) looks at running away specifically but did not have the living situation in terms of time spent as FFCWS did.

26 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

As this study is longitudinal, the focal child’s living situation could be studied before the running away occurred. This also allows me to examine the family structure before the child ran away and not as a reaction of the child running away. Lastly, this study includes a large sample size, including a relatively large number of teenagers who reported running away. This population is hard to capture and FFCWS was able to do so with a large sample size and provide me with the specifics of family structure that was needed, time spent with mother and father.

Sample

Within the Fragile Family dataset, I use data reported by the child, mother, and father. Time spent living with each parent came from the mother and father report.

Running away came from the child’s survey first and 9 individuals were missing an answer to running away and only 1 individual refused to answer so I then used the primary caregivers to recover these responses. Respondents eligible for inclusion in the sample had to have a valid response to the question about the household living situation at year 9 (Wave 5) and running away at year 15 (Wave 6). Only 9 individuals were missing an answer to running away and only 1 individual refused to answer. In total I had a sample of 3,260 adolescents.

27 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

CHAPTER V

MEASURES Dependent Variable

The dependent variable used for this study was self-reported running away at year

15 (Wave 6). This is a dummy variable (1= Yes, 0= No) that is constructed into 1 = have has ran away from home and 0 = has never ran away from home. The variable used questions from both the primary caregiver (PCG) and child survey. The question from the

PCG survey states “Youth runs away from home.” I coded the response “not true” as a 0 and “sometimes and often true” into 1. From the child survey, the statement was “Spent one night away from home without permission” which is considered running away and is consistent with other runaway literature, (Hammer, Finkelhor, Sedlak, (2002). It can be argued that this is an undercount of runaway adolescents as adolescents who are currently away from home or missing are not included in this survey, this will be address further within the limitations.

Independent Variable

The two independent variables used in this study were time living with Mother and time with Father at Year 9 (Wave 5). This measure is comprised of the living situation with the focal child’s mother and father. As mentioned earlier, Hirschi states the child’s bond to each parent is equally important. If a child does not live with one parent they are likely to have a weaken bond, or even no bond at all, to that parent. In that case, they are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors such as running away compared to those who do have a strong bond with their parents. I coded this variable into 1 = all or most of the time and 0 = some or half of the time. This variable was coded in such way to

28 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 closely match joint custody agreements in most states. Joint custody agreements can include the child spending some or half of their time living with a parent on the weekend, and all or most of their time with the other parent during the week. The mother and father’s survey, as well as constructed variables were used to construct these variables.

When constructing the living situation with mother, I first used mother’s response to living with the child full or half of the time (1,0). If this information was missing, I then used the constructed variable done by the FFCWS researchers on the parent’s relationship. This question asked if both biological parents lived together or not. If the focal child lived with the father and father lived with mom this was coded as a 1. If the focal child lived with the mother and mother did not live with dad this was coded as a 0. I also used the father’s survey when asked “Year mother died” and those who gave a numeric value were coded as 0. Lastly, I used two other questions that had an answer of

“No contact with mother during period” and coded those as 0. I follow a similar procedure to construct the measure of the living situation with the father. Using this variety of responses, I was able to create valid estimates for the vast majority of the sample. Some of the sample lacked information from the father’s survey and I will discuss later how I dealt with this missing data.

Controls

I control for age, sex (male, female), and race (1 = White, 2 = Black, 3 = Asian, and 4 = Other). In terms of household environment, I also controlled for mother’s depression (0 = No, 1= Yes), household income (as a ratio of the income to poverty), and mother’s education (1 = Homelessness &

29 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

Poverty, mother’s mental health as well as financial issues are a factor in a teenager’s decision to leave (2019). Some teenagers stated their mother had mental health issues and couldn’t care for herself and suggest the child leave, while other teenagers state the parent told them they could no longer financially afford to have them in their house and also suggested the child leave.

In controlling for parenting, I looked at the involvement and discipline of the parent, as well as the attachment to the parent reported by the child. Involvement and attachment in terms of parenting is language constantly used by Hirschi is discussing parental attachment. Also, research finds that when attachment is adjusted so is juvenile delinquency (Schroeder,Osgood, Oghia (2010). These two variables are not the main focus of my research, but they are contributing factors that help identify the relationship between living situation with each parent and running away. The involvement of the parent was measured using the child survey at Wave 6 and a constructed variable done by the researchers on parenting. This involved, in the past month you, A: Did household chores with child, B: Did outdoor activities with child, C: Watched TV or videos with child, D: played video or computer games with child, E: Read books with child or talked about books, F: participated in indoor activities with child, G: Talked with child about current events, H: you talked with child about his/her day, I: you checked to make sure child had completed homework, J: You helped child with homework or school assignments. I used an index score for this variable, if the parent answered they did each activity at least once a week or more they were given a 1 for every interaction. The attachment to the parent was measured using the child survey at Wave 6. The question asked: How close do you feel to your mom/dad? Answers given were 1= Extremely well,

30 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

2= Quite well, 3= Fairly well, 4= Not very well. I coded 0 = very well (1 and 2) and 1= not very well (3 and 4). The discipline the each parent used were separated into three categories: corporal punishment (frequency mom/dad spanked you 0= never 1 = once or a few times a month), psychological aggression (frequency mom/dad shouted, yelled, screamed, swore, or cursed at you 0 = never, 1 = less than once a month), and nonviolent punishment (frequency mom/dad explained why something you did was wrong 0 = never,

1 = once or a few times a month). I adopted this through the Conflict Tactic Scale used by Straus (1979). I also chose this variable as one of my controls because as stated in the literature review, some studies have shown that physical abuse was a factor in the decision to leave (Molnar et al., 1988, Gutierres & Reich 1981).

Table 1: Descriptives of Analytic Sample

Variable Range Mean Std. Dev.

Runaway 1= Yes, 0= No 0.084 0.004

Living time with 1 = All or most 0.914 0.004 Mother 0 = Some or half

Living time with 1 = all or most 0.426 0.008 Father 0 = some or half Age 0-15 (approx) 15.52 0.012

Sex 1 = male 0.481 0.008 0 = female Household Income 2.38 0.046

Maternal 1 = Yes 0.125 0.005 0 = No Depression

Parental 8.019 0.033 Involvement

31 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 Table 1 Continued Clayton McBryde Corporal2/6/79 0 = never 0.169 0.006 Punishment 1 = once or a few times a month Psychological 0 = never 0.315 0.008 Aggression 1 = less than once a month Nonviolent 0 = never 0.621 0.008 punishment 1 = once or a few times a month Attachment to 0 = Very well 0.496 0.009 Mother 1= Not very well Attachment to 0 = Very well 0.420 0.012 Father 1= Not very well N= 3,260

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the independent, dependent, and the control variables. The mean of running away is .084 and compares relatively close to other research on runaway youth (Meltzer et al., 2012, Holliday et al., 2017). 91% of the respondents live with their mother at least half of the time, but only 42% of them live with their father at least half the time. The mean age for children who had reported running away was 15.52 and is also consistent with other research done on runaway youth (Sayfer et al., 2004, Sanchez et a., 2006, Meltzer et al., 2012, Holliday et al., 2017).

The sex of my sample was almost evenly split with a mean of 0.481. Of the parental activities asked about, the mean number of activities done with a children at least once a week or more was 8.019.

Models

A logistic regression was chosen because the outcome, running away, is a dichotomous variable.

32 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

The regression was estimated using STATA and the results are presented in Table 2

(StataCorp 2019). Missing information on control variables was imputed using the multiple imputation by chained equations (M=20). Multiple imputation by chained equations uses observed data to estimate multiple values that reflect the uncertainty of the true value (Bruin 2006). Majority of the missing data came from the father’s survey, and

I made the decision to account for this via multiple imputation so that this section of my sample was accounted for. Multiple imputation also helped address potential bias due to non-random nonresponse from respondents.

Table 2: Logistic Regression Results Predicting Adolescent Running Away Behavior

Variable Range b SE P Value Live with Mother 1= all or 0.480 0.205 * Part time or less most, 0= some or half Live with Father 1= all or 0.291 0.151 part time or less most, 0= some or half Adolescent Characteristics

Age 0-15 0.373 0.084 ** (approx) Sex 1 = male -0.304 0.131 0 = female Race Black 2 0.176 0.218 Asian 3 0.018 0.239 Other 4 -0.477 0.368 Parenting Parental -0.048 0.037 Involvement Attachment to 0 = Very -0.065 0.146 mother well 1=

33 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 Table 2 Continued Not very well Attachment to 0 = Very 0.083 0.167 father well 1= Not very well Discipline Corporal 0= never 0.074 0.185 1 = once or a few times a month Psychological 0 = never -0.006 0.152 1 = less than once a month Nonviolent 0 = never 0.293 0.150 1 = once or a few times a month Household environment Household -0.306 0.550 Income (ratio of income to poverty) Moms education

+ p<0.1; * p<0.05; ** p<0.01

34 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

CHAPTER VI

RESULTS

As Table 2 shows, there is not a significant association between living with your father and running away. Living with your father part time rather than full time is associated with a 0.291 increase in the log-odds of running away. In comparison to living situation with their father, there is a significant association between living with your mother and running away. Living with your mother part time rather than full time is associated with a 0.480 increase in the log-odds of running away.

There were other associations that were significant to running away. As shown, age is significantly associated with running away, older adolescents are significantly less likely to run away. For every one-unit increase in turning a year older, we expect a 0.373 increase in the log-odds of running away. This is consistent with other runaway literature

(Howell et al., 1973, Sayfer et al., 2004, Sanchez et a., 2006, Meltzer et al., 2012,

Holliday et al., 2017). Sex is also significantly associated with running away and suggest that the probability of running away is less in females. For every one-unit increase from male to female, we expect a -0.304 decrease in the log-odds of running away. Sanchez and colleagues found opposite findings in that the probability of running away is more in females (2016). However, all other studies on runaway youth found males were more likely to run away (Sayfer et al., 2004, Meltzer., 2012, Holliday et al., 2017).

For ease of interpretation, I use my logistic regression model to calculate predicted probabilities of running away living with mother and father while holding all other variables constant. I present the results for living situation with mother in Figure 2.

When holding all other variables constant, living with your mother half time, the

35 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 probability of you running away is 8.7%. When living with your mother full time, the probability of you running away is 5.7%. As suggested in the previous literature of runaway youth (Sanchez et a., 2006, Holliday et al., 2017) family structure is a factor in the decision to run away. These results suggest that specifically within family structure, living situation with the mother is associated with running away. This finding builds on current runaway literature and gives specifics into what about family structure is associated with running away.

Predicted Probability of Running Away by Living Situation with Mother 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Half Time Full Time Predicted ProbabilityRunning of Away TIme Spent Living with Mother

Figure 2: Predicted Probability of Running Away by Living Situation with Mother

The results for living situation with father are presented in Figure 3. When holding all other variables constant, living with your father half time, the probability of you running away is 6.7. When living with your father full time, the probability of you running away is 5.2%. Although not significant, the gap of probability in running away living with your father full or half time is closer in number. There isn’t much variance

36 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 between the two living situations and the probability of running away. This finding reflects current research on father roles and the decline in living with their child as they are now are more likely to be non-residential.

Predicted Probability of Running Away by Living Situation with Father 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Half Time Full Time Predicted ProbabilityRunning of Away TIme spent living with Father

Figure 3: Predicted Probability of Running Away by Living Situation with Father

37 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

CHAPTER VII

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this research was to analyze the association of living situation with mother and father and running away. One research question was formulated to examine this association: RQ1: Is a children’s living situation with their Mother or Father associated with running away? The findings of this study suggest that when holding all other variables constant, the probability of you running away living with your mom half time is 8.7%. When living with your mother full time, the probability of you running away is 5.7%. Although not significant, when holding all other variables constant, the probability of you running away is 6.7% when living with your father half time. When living with your father full time, the probability of you running away is 5.2%.

The findings of this study suggest that a child living with their mother full time has a lower probability of running away compared to living with mother half time and living with father. Consistent with research in runaway literature, (Sanchez et a., 2006,

Holliday et al., 2017) family structure is a factor that affects adolescent’s who run away.

It appears that the presence of a mother in terms of a child’s living situation is associated with lower probability of running away. In terms of family structure, this study discusses time specific living situations with each parent and highlights living full time with your mother.

The findings in this study partially support Travis Hirschi’s Social Control theoretical basis that attachment to both parents is equally important and will control the engagement in delinquent activities, such as running away. As the attachment to the parent becomes weakened, lower social bonds are evident and therefore higher rates of

38 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 delinquency. It can be difficult to maintain an attachment to a parent the child does not live with, compared to the attachment the child does live with. Also, it can be difficult for the parent to help control delinquent behaviors if the child does not live with them. It was proposed that individuals who didn’t live with either parent full time, weren’t able to create a strong attachment, and therefore were more likely than those who had a strong attachment to engage in delinquent behaviors, such as running away. The results of the predicted probability suggest that both parents are not equally important and that living with your mother full time is associated with lower probability of running away. In living with your mother full time, a child can create a strong attachment, which can then allow the parent to control delinquent behavior. However, the findings were not significant for living with the father. Therefore, the findings in this partially support Hirschi’s theoretical basis and argument that weakened parental bond results in increased delinquency but both parental bonds are not equally important.

Limitations

There are many limitations to the current research that need to be addressed. First, this sample comprised of individuals who had ran away and returned home. Runaway youth who didn’t return home are not accounted for and are therefore not represented in this study. After the child leaves home, it is harder to reach the child as there are a variety of places they could go. However, within my limitations, I provided further knowledge on family structure and its association with running away that has not been done in the literature. The implications of my findings, the probability of running away is lower when living full time with mother, could be applicable to runaway youth who are still

39 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 gone. Family structure may be a heightened issue in runaway youth who have not returned home because of their living situation. This limited population is also well documented in other runaway literature. This problem solidifies the importance of research done on this population as many studies to better understand runaway youth are slim. Despite this problem, the population was larger in my sample than in other studies done on runaway youth.

Second, a limitation in using the Fragile Families Dataset is the lack of data from the father’s survey. Although I did as much as I could to recover this data, I did have to impute some missing information. Therefore, some data from the father’s survey is estimated based off the true values. However, imputed data only accounts for 6% of my sample. I made this decision in comparison to throwing out this portion of my sample and risking potential bias for nonresponse data.

Third, living situation was coded in terms of full and half time. This closely mirrors decisions made my judges in family courts when determine a child’s living situation. Texas as well as other many states follow such guidelines where the default custody arrangement is joint. With the given data, I wanted to follow these family court guidelines to reflect current living situations in the United States.

Future Research

This study was limited due to the datasets available on runaway youth. It would be helpful to further understand the relationship between living structure and runaway youth by conducting research on those who did not return home and are now in other placements. These individuals might possess experience with different diverse living

40 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020 situations that might change the results. Constructing a living situation variable that introduces stepparents, parent’s partners, and other relatives is a suggested step to introduce in further studies to provide more information.

The present research raises the following questions for research moving forward:

1) What aspects of a child’s living situation is associated with running away? If so, how often do they engage in running away? 2) Is there an association with a parent’s partner and running away? The present study did present the significance of living with your mother full time and probability of running away. The specifics of living situation

(neighborhood, conditions of the home) and the frequency of running away are not discussed but are good starting points to work off. As this study provides further research on runaway youth and its association with running away, many different subtopics within running away are waiting to be explored.

Runaway youth undergo a complex process when exiting their homes as great consequences await them. A further look into the association of family structure and running away provides a glimpse into the lives of this population. Much of the risk factors and associations with running away have yet to be discussed. As some runaway literature has been produced, more research on this population is greatly needed.

41 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

REFERENCES

Adler, F., & Laufer, W. S. (Eds.). (1993). New directions in criminological theory (Vol. 4). Transaction Publishers.

Alone Without A Home (2019) National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nn4youth.org/wp-content/uploads/Alone-Without-A-Home- 2019.pdf

Apel, R., & Kaukinen, C. (2008). On the relationship between family structure and antisocial behavior: Parental cohabitation and blended households. Criminology, 46(1), 35-70.

Aratani, Y., & Cooper, J. L. (2015). The effects of runaway-homeless episodes on high school dropout. Youth & society, 47(2), 173-198.

Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure and child well‐being: The significance of parental cohabitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 351-367.

Bruin, J. 2006. newtest: command to compute new test. UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group. https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/stata/ado/analysis/.

Cherlin, A. J. (2014). Labor's love lost: the rise and fall of the working-class family in America. Russell Sage Foundation.

Chriss, J. (2007). The Functions of the Social Bond. The Sociological Quarterly, 48(4), 689-712. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40220048

Cullen, F. T., & Wilcox, P. (Eds.). (2010). Encyclopedia of criminological theory (Vol. 1). Sage.

Fernandes AL. CRS report for congress: Runaway and homeless youth: Demographics, programs and emerging issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service; 2007.

Greene JM, Ennett ST, Ringwalt C. Substance abuse among runaway and homeless youth in three national samples. American Journal of Public Health. 1997;87:229–235.

Gutierres, S., & Reich, J. (1981). A developmental perspective on runaway behavior: Its relationship to child abuse. Child Welfare, 60(2), 89-94.

Hammer, Heather; Finkelhor, David; Sedlak, Andrea (2002). "Runaway/thrownaway children : national estimates and characteristics". Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (U.S.)--Statistics.

42 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

Hammer, Heather, Sedlak, Andrea J., and Finkelhor, David. National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART), 1999.

Hirschi, T. (1977). Causes and Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. Sociological Inquiry, 47(3‐4), 322-341.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Key idea: Hirschi’s social bond/social control theory. Key Ideas in Criminology and Criminal Justice,(1969), 55-69.

Hirschi, Travis, and Rodney Stark. 1969. Hellfire and Delinquency. Social Problems 17:202- 213.

Hyde, J. (2005). From home to street: Understanding young people's transitions into homelessness. Journal of adolescence, 28(2), 171-183.

Johnson KD, Whitbeck LB, Hoyt DR. Substance Abuse Disorders Among Homeless and Runaway Adolescents. J Drug Issues. 2005;35(4):799–816.

Jones, O. (1969). Causes of Juvenile Delinquency. The Journal of Education, 96(13 (2399)), 350-352.

Krohn, M., & Massey, J. (1980). Social Control and Delinquent Behavior: An Examination of the Elements of the Social Bond. Sociological Quarterly, 21(4), 529-543.

Missing kids (2020) National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.missingkids.org/

Molnar, B. E., Shade, S. B., Kral, A. H., Booth, R. E., & Watters, J. K. (1998). Suicidal behavior and sexual/physical abuse among street youth. Child abuse & neglect, 22(3), 213-222.

Manning, W. D., & Lamb, K. A. (2003). Adolescent well‐being in cohabiting, married, and single‐parent families. Journal of marriage and family, 65(4), 876-893.

Matsueda, R., & Heimer, K. (1987). Race, Family Structure, and Delinquency: A Test of Differential Association and Social Control Theories. American Sociological Review, 52(6), 826-840.

National Runaway Safeline (2019) National Runaway Safeline. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.1800runaway.org/

Nye, F. I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior.

43 Texas Tech University, Brianna Rodriquez, May 2020

Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well‐ being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(4), 1065-1083.

Peled, E., & Cohavi, A. (2009). The meaning of running away for girls. Child abuse & neglect, 33(10), 739-749

Rankin, Joseph H. 1983. "The Family Context of Delinquency." Social Problems 30:466- 79.

Reckless, W. C. (1961). A new theory of deliquency and crime. Fed. Probation, 25, 42.

Ross, E. A. (2017). Social control: A survey of the foundations of order. Routledge.

Safe Place (2019) National Safe Place. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.nationalsafeplace.org/

Sanchez, R.P., Waller, M. W., & Greene, J. M. (2006). Who runs? A demographic profile of runaway youth in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(5), 778-781.

Schroeder, R. D., Osgood, A. K., & Oghia, M. J. (2010). Family transitions and juvenile delinquency. Sociological Inquiry, 80(4), 579-604.

Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2014). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law. Cengage Learning.

StataCorp. 2019. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.

Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci., 48, 12.

Tyler, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., Whitbeck, L. B., & Cauce, A. M. (2001). The impact of childhood sexual abuse on later sexual victimization among runaway youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(2), 151-176.

Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T.-A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile families and child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 20(2), 87–112

Van Leeuwen JM, Hopfer C, Hooks S, White R, Petersen J, Pirkopf J. A snapshot of substance abuse among homeless and runaway youth in Denver, Colorado. Journal of Community Health. 2004;29:217–229.