Children trapped in abusive families are doubly or even triply
jeopardized. Not only are they at risk as potential victims themselves,
but witnessing violence creates its own chain of adverse events –
including irritability immature behaviour, sleep disturbances, emotional
distress, fear of being alone, difficulty concentrating in school,
aggression, depression, anxiety and even post-traumatic stress disorder
(Osofsky, 1999; Buka, Stichick et.al, 2001). The protective factor that
would help most is a strong relationship with a competent caring,
positive adult preferably a parent- may not be available if the parent
is either the perpetrator of the violence or another victim (Osofsky
1999).
Some researchers have focused on attachment or rather,
the lack of attachment that occurs in child abuse as a possible
explanation for the inter-generational nature of abuse (Bacon and
Richardson, 2001; Finzi, Har. Even et.al 2002). This situation is
complicated by the fact that the aggression, isolation, “compulsive
self-relianceâ€, and avoidant attachment seen in abused and neglected
children are, in that context, adaptive survival skills (Zolotor, Kotch
et.al 1999, Finel, Har-Even et.al, 2002).
(b) Family factors and juvenile’s drug use:
The research on how family factors affects drug use has centered on
the effects of parental monitoring (Steinberg, 1994), how parents
influence their children’s association with different types of peers
(Brook, Brook et al. 1990), and how parents transmit conventional values
(Brook, Whiteman et.al, 1993). Steinberg and Colleagues combined these
questions in their study of parental monitoring and peer influences on
adolescent substance abuse. The study, which uniquely collected data
from both adolescent and their peers focused on, four questions:
(i) Does parental monitoring deter adolescent drug use?
(ii) Does peer drug use increase adolescent drug use?
(iii) Does the relative influence of parents and peers differ by stage of drug use?
(iv) Does parental monitoring work even after an adolescent is engaged with drug-using peers?
The
researchers concluded that parental monitoring is indeed an effective
tool in preventing and ameliorating drug use. Monitoring discouraged
boys who were heavy users to lessen their drug use. Likewise, girls who
were experimental drug users stopped drug use under the influence of
parental monitoring. However, peer group allegiance complicated the
picture. For example, boys who used drugs in a pattern similar to that
of their peer group were not influenced by parental monitoring. Girls
were influenced by both peers and parents and seemed more susceptible to
influences from their parents. Because of monitoring direct effects on
levels of drug use and on choices of peers, the researchers concluded
that “strongly monitored adolescents are, in essence, doubly protected
from involvement in drug use (Steinberg, 1994).
Blum and Rinehart’s
analysis of Add Health data found that among both older and younger
teens, those who felt very, connected to parents and other family
members reported less frequent use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana
(Blum, 1997). The presence of parents at home during key times of the
day was associated with a lower likelihood of smoking, cigarettes or
drinking alcohol among older teens (those in grades 9 – 12) and with a
lower likelihood of marijuana use among both older and younger teens.
The researchers noted that the parental presence did not need to occur
at a particular time of day; instead overall access to parents and
supervision in general seemed to be the significant factors (Blum,
1997).
Parents of drug-using children, like those of sexually active
teens, tend to underestimate their children’s involvement in risk
behaviour. If parent are unaware, or in denial, of their children’s risk
behaviour, then their level of responsiveness is essentially
meaningless. For example, Bogenschneier et. al. studied 199 white mother
– teen dyads and 144 father – teen dyads. All of the teens reported
regular alcohol use, but only a third of their parents were aware of the
teen’s drinking. (The one-third proportion was generous, since the 6%
who said they were unsure were included in the “aware†group).
Commenting on the responsiveness of mothers in their study, the authors
note that “responsivenessâ€, although widely considered optimal, may
actually have adverse consequences if mothers are not aware of their
adolescent’s involvement in potentially risky behaviours (Bogenschneider
1998). This suggests that in many cases, an accurate awareness of both
actual, and potential risk is an important prerequisite for appropriate
monitoring and supervision. Otherwise, parents may fail to monitor and
supervise appropriately, mistakenly believing that their children will
not benefit from these parenting practices.
(c) Family factors and juveniles’ school achievement
Schools are almost a vortex for measuring family factors in juvenile
delinquency. They conveniently collect children, peers, parents, and
other important adults in one place. They offer several outcomes of
adaptation and success such as grades, attendance, and college
aspiration. Schools even have their own growing body of connectedness
research and results, paralleling and reinforcing the work on
connectedness in families.
One of the ways researchers have used
schools to gauge family factors on anti-social behaviours is to assess
the type and extent of parents’ involvement in their children’s
educations. Many studies have used Epstein’s six types of parental
involvement in schools:
(i) Creating a positive learning environment at home.
(ii) Communicating with the school regarding a child’s progress.
(iii) Participating or volunteering at the school.
(iv) Communicating with the school about a child’s learning activities at home.
(v) Becoming involved in a school’s decision – making or governance bodies.
(vi) Accessing community resources (Epstein, 1992).
Although,
a number of studies have supported the connection between parent
involvement and school achievement a recent review of parent involvement
programs found little empirical support for this (Mattingly, 2002). The
authors concluded that the studies were plagued by design,
methodological, and design flaws.
In a study of the contribution of
parent involvement to the motivation of 196 students in two Florida High
Schools, Gonzalez et.al found that parent involvement – as perceived by
the student – predicted a “mastery†orientation to learning,
characterized by persistence, seeking new challenges, and overall
satisfaction (Gonzalez, 2002).
Darling and Steinberg have suggested
that parenting style may account for variations in the overall positive
effects of parent involvement. For example, they have shown that among
families where parent involvement led to greater adolescent school
achievement, the effectiveness of parent involvement was greater among
families practicing authoritative parenting styles than those that were
not (Steinberg, Lamborn, et.al, 1992). This difference may be explained,
they suggest, by the quality of parent involvement. That is, in
authoritative families, the parent’s school – related interactions with a
child might involve more encouragement and autonomy – granting. This is
an example of how style may enhance the effectiveness of a specific
parenting practiceâ€, they observe in a later reflection, “making it a
better practice than it would be in a different stylistic context
(Darling 1993)â€. This explanation and observation are similar to the
explanations for how family factors may account for variations in the
effectiveness of parent child communications about sex.
Another way
to gauge family factors’ role in school achievement is to study its
absence. Using parent – child interviews, teacher ratings, and school
records, Kurtz et.al studied 139 school aged children and adolescents,
22 of whom had been physically abused and 47 of whom had been neglected.
The abused children exhibited “pervasive, severe academic and
socio-emotional problemsâ€, according to the study authors. This group
was more likely to drop out of school experience teen pregnancies, or be
institutionalized. The neglected children fared better in terms of
socio-emotional development, but had severe academic delays in part
because they were not performing at grade level in math, reading, or
language, and in part because of extremely high rate of absenteeism
(21.35 days, on average, compared to the non-abused (non-neglected
children in the cohort-a 5-fold difference). Not surprisingly, the
neglected children repeated grades and had low educational aspirations
(Kurtz, Gaudin et.al (1993).
Again, some caveats are in order.
Immigration status and history affect how well the parent – involvement
model predicts outcomes. In a study of family environments and
achievement among Mexican high school students, Rodriquez explored the
different contributions of family involvement, monitoring, control and
feminism (defined as the perceived worth of spending time with one’s
family). Family monitoring and involvement were related to grades and
school achievement, with family involvement a strong predictor of
grades. However the patterns differed significantly according to the
family’s immigration status. Third generation students had higher rates
of monitoring and involvement than first or second-generation students,
but lower grades. The researchers conclude that current models may not
be equally appropriate to immigration histories (Rodriguez, 2002).
