Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 6471

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Do childhood experiences of neglect affect delinquency among child

welfare involved-youth?
Susan M. Snyder a,, Darcey H. Merritt b,1
a
School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 325 Pittsboro St. CB#3550, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
b
Silver School of Social Work, New York University, 1 Washington Square North, Ofce # 316, New York, NY 10003, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Child neglect, which is the most common form of maltreatment in the United States, has been repeatedly linked
Received 22 April 2014 to an increased risk of delinquency. However, the existing literature lacks studies that simultaneously investigate
Received in revised form 26 July 2014 how distinct types of neglect differentially inuence delinquency among child welfare involved-youth. In addi-
Accepted 7 August 2014
tion, few studies of the relationship between neglect and delinquency include measures of ADHD, peer deviance
Available online 15 August 2014
or community violence, even though these variables have been strongly associated with delinquency. This study
Keywords:
uses data from 784 11 to 17 year old youth who participated in Wave I of the Second National Survey of Child and
Child neglect Adolescent Wellbeing (NSCAW II) to examine whether supervisory neglect, physical neglect and parental
Delinquency substance abuse affect delinquency after controlling for ADHD, peer deviance, exposure to community violence,
Child welfare and out-of-home placements. We conducted a negative binomial regression to account for the low rates of delin-
Negative binomial regression quency among NSCAW II participants. We did not nd signicant main effects for supervisory neglect, physical
neglect or parental substance abuse. Our study found that as youth age the count of delinquency acts increases.
Black and Hispanic youth had higher counts of delinquency than youth with White, multi-racial, or other racial
identities. Youth in out-of-home care had nearly double the rate of delinquency. Youth with more deviant peer
afliations and youth who had been exposed to community violence engaged in more delinquent behaviors.
Our ndings underscore the importance of the environment surrounding the youth, and the peers with whom
the youth afliates.
2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
While it is well-established that child neglect increases the risk of
delinquency (c.f. Chapple, Tyler, & Bersani, 2005; Kazemian, Widom, &
Farrington, 2011; Maxeld & Widom, 1996; Zingraff, Leiter, Myers, &
Johnsen, 1993), studies have yet to simultaneously investigate how
distinct types of neglect, such as supervisory neglect, physical neglect
and parental substance abuse differentially inuence delinquency. In
addition, few studies regarding the relationship between neglect and
delinquency include measures that capture the inuence of peer rela-
tionships (for exceptions see Chapple et al., 2005; Garnier & Stein,
2002; Kim & Cicchetti, 2010) or the exposure to community violence
(for exceptions see Manly, Oshri, Lynch, Herzog, & Wortel, 2013). The
absence of these variables is problematic because they have been
strongly associated with delinquency. As a result our knowledge about
how child neglect impacts delinquency needs further development in
these respects.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 919 962 4372.
E-mail address: darcey.merritt@nyu.edu (D.H. Merritt).
1
Tel.: +1 212 998 9186, +1 323 839 4144 (mobile).
For the past 30 years scholars have referred to the dearth of studies
regarding child neglect as the neglect of neglect (c.f. Hildyard & Wolfe,
2002; Kendall-Tackett & Eckenrode, 1996; Wolock & Horowitz, 1984).
This study aims to help ll this gap in the literature by investigating
how supervisory neglect, physical neglect and parental substance
abuse impact delinquency. To ensure that this study elucidates the
association between each type of neglect and delinquency, the study
also controls for the inuences of ADHD, deviant peers, exposure to
community violence, and living in out-of-home care, because each has
strongly been associated with a risk for delinquency.
In 2012, child neglect accounted for 78.3% of substantiated child
maltreatment victims in the United States. Child neglect is considered
to be an adverse childhood experience with long-term deleterious ef-
fects (Duke, Pettingell, McMorris, & Borowsky, 2010). The consequences
of neglect may be as detrimental as sexual or physical abuse (Erickson &
Egeland, 2011), or more detrimental (DePanlis, 2006; Garbarino &
Collins, 1999). Approximately 70% of child maltreatment-related deaths
were due to child neglect (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's
Bureau, 2013). Additionally, child neglect contributes to adverse brain
development and compromised neuropsychological and psychosocial
outcomes (De Bellis, 2005; DePanlis, 2006). These alterations in brain

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.08.007
0190-7409/ 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 S.M. Snyder, D.H. Merritt / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 6471
development can affect memory acquisition, cognitive functioning,
personality development, social interactions, and how children respond
to fear and stress later in life (APSAC [APSAC], 2008). Finally, child
neglect constitutes a traumatic experience that causes children to
experience anxiety and distress (De Bellis, 2010).
1.1. Denitions
Although denitions of neglect vary widely in the literature, this
study denes neglect as an overarching construct that includes acts of
caregiver omission, wherein caregivers fail to provide necessary care
for a child (APSAC, 2008). Although experiences of physical neglect,
supervisory neglect and parental substance abuse fall within this rubric,
each subtype may have distinct etiology and sequelae. Each subtype
should accordingly be dened separately (Zuravin, 1999), as this
study does. Physical neglect entails situations when a parent fails to
protect a child from harm, or does not provide basic necessities, such
as food, shelter and clothing (Erickson & Egeland, 2011). Supervisory
neglect encompasses situations when a parent does not adequately
protect a child from harmful people or situations (Coohey, 2003).
Parental substance abuse includes situations where a parent's ability
to adequately care for a child is impaired (Child Welfare Information
Gateway, 2012).
1.2. Social development model
Our study applies the social development model to investigate
delinquency among child-welfare involved-youth. The social develop-
ment model blends key elements of social control, social learning, and
differential association theories to explain how risk and protective fac-
tors inuence problematic behaviors, such as delinquency (Catalano &
Hawkins, 1996). According to social control theorists, youth commit de-
linquent acts when the pleasure (i.e., benets) associated with the
behavior exceeds the punishment (i.e., costs). Thus, social control theo-
rists assert that all youth are equally susceptible to engaging in
delinquent behaviors, and the decision whether or not to engage in
delinquent behavior depends on social controls (Hirschi, 1986, 2002;
Kornhauser, 1978). Social controls are internal (i.e., guilt or shame) or
external (i.e., supervision or surveillance) rewards or punishments
that result from conforming to or deviating from societal norms
(Hirschi, 2002). Primary sources of social control include a youth's
bonds to his or her family and peers, and the community context that
surrounds the youth. Naturally, experiences of neglect can impinge
upon the development of internal and external social controls. In
addition, youth with attention decit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
may not be able to focus enough to recognize the consequences of her
behavior in advance. Wikstrm and Loeber (2000) found that youth
with ADHD were at greater risk of engaging in delinquent behaviors.
Social learning theory assumes that youth engage in delinquent
behaviors because youth act out of perceived self-interest that exceeds
the risk of punishment. Both long- and short-term consequences of
behaviors act as behavioral reinforcers. These reinforcers can provide
either punishments or rewards for behavior. Within social learning
theory, age, gender, and race determine an individual's location in the
social structure. These characteristics can inuence the extent to
which an individual engages in prosocial or antisocial behaviors
through social learning variables, including differential association
(e.g., associating with peers who use engage in delinquent behaviors)
and modeling (e.g., imitating a parent's disregard for laws, which the
parent demonstrates by abusing illegal substances; Akers & Lee,
1999). Crime rate plots by perpetrator age show a steep upward slope
during adolescence, which indicates that delinquent behaviors increase
with age (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983). While several studies have
found that males are at greater risk of delinquency than females
(Connell, Cook, Aklin, Vanderploeg, & Brex, 2011; Farrington et al.,
2010; Schwartz et al., 2010), others have found that females who have
65
experienced child maltreatment exhibit more delinquent behaviors
than boys (Garbarino, Levene, Walsh, & Coupet, 2009). Both Black
(Franke, 2000; Martin et al., 2011) and Hispanic youth have been
found to be a greater risk of engaging in delinquency (Franke, 2000).
It is difcult to disentangle the effects of race and class. According to
Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, and Elder (1999), The effects of race
confound differences in resources, opportunities, history, and culture,
and combinations of these elements (p. 57).
Differential association theory pinpoints the causal pathways that
lead child welfare involved-youth either to engage in delinquent
behaviors or prosocial behaviors. Prosocial family and peers can thwart
delinquency, while parents and peers who model deviant behaviors,
such as substance abuse or delinquency, can function as conduits to de-
linquency. The social development model also posits that prior experi-
ences, such as child neglect, can have different impacts over the
course of development (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996).
1.3. Physical neglect
Of all of the forms of neglect, physical neglect has been most clearly
linked with poverty (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996). Eamon and Kopels
(2004) review of court cases found that youth who lived in poverty
were more likely to be placed in out-of-home care. Unfortunately,
being placed in out-of-home care has been associated with a greater
likelihood of delinquency (Ryan & Testa, 2005). Jonson-Reid, Drake,
and Kohl (2009) found that poor youth with child maltreatment reports
are at substantially greater risk of negative outcomes, including delin-
quency. Although poverty has been linked with physical neglect it is
important to emphasize that poverty is not synonymous with physical
neglect. It is also important to acknowledge that impoverished commu-
nities may expose youth to more violence, which may contribute to de-
linquency. Thus, it is necessary to differentiate whether physical neglect
or exposure to community violence are correlated with delinquency.
Although the extant literature has furthered our understanding of
the relationship between physical neglect and delinquency, the few
studies that have focused explicitly on physical neglect as a risk factor
for delinquency have some noteworthy limitations. While most youth
offenders initiate delinquent behaviors between 12 and 13 years old
(Thornberry, 1996), much of the literature regarding physical neglect
focuses on young children. In addition, existing studies have used fairly
small samples drawn from limited geographical areas. Manly et al.
(2013) followed 101 urban low-income children in upstate New York
from four to nine years old, and found that the severity of physical
neglect was positively associated with externalizing behavior. They
also found that rates of neighborhood crime mediated the relationship
between neglect and externalizing behavior. Using data from cohorts
of 310 rst graders and 361 fth graders from a mid-sized metropolitan
area, Knutson, DeGarmo, and Reid (2004) found that physical neglect
predicted antisocial behavior both at baseline and ve years later.
Erickson and Egeland (2011) had teachers complete the Child Behavior
Checklist for 267 children in grades 1, 2, 3 and 6 in Minneapolis. They
found that teachers rated youth who experienced physical neglect
with higher delinquency ratings on the child behavior checklist com-
pared to children who had not been maltreated. Furthermore, youth
who had been physically neglected were more likely to be expelled
from school or dropout, and use alcohol. Chapple et al. (2005) found
that physical neglect predicted adolescent violence. They also found
that youth who experienced physical neglect were rejected by their
peers, and that peer rejection led to violent behaviors. Chappell and col-
leagues concluded that peer rejection functioned as the impetus for
forming relationships with deviant peers.
1.4. Supervisory neglect
Although supervisory neglect is the most common form of neglect
(Coohey, 2003; Mennen, Kim, Sang, & Trickett, 2010), it is one of the
66 S.M. Snyder, D.H. Merritt / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 6471
least studied forms of maltreatment (Coohey, 2003). APSAC (2008)
suggests considering supervisory neglect as a separate subtype because
it differs from other types of neglect in important ways. While other
forms of neglect can be characterized by their chronicity and insidious
harm, supervisory neglect involves discrete events that can have
immediate and sometimes disastrous consequences. Knutson et al.
(2004) study of the rst and fth grade cohorts found evidence of a
relationship between supervisory neglect and delinquency among
youth in the fth grader cohort, but not the rst grade cohort. These
results suggest that the consequences of supervisory neglect differ
over the course of development. Maughan and Moore (2010) used
data from 389 participants of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Devel-
opment (CSDD) to form factors of neglectful behavior. They found that
when the male participants were 24 years old the parental supervision
factor predicted a greater risk of being convicted for a crime.
1.5. Parental substance abuse
Several studies have found that children of substance abusing
parents experience difculty adapting socially, and engage in more
externalizing or delinquent behaviors than their peers (Barnard &
McKeganey, 2004; Hill, Tessner, & McDermott, 2011; Hussong et al.,
2007; Solis, Shadur, Burns, & Hussong, 2012). As the result of being
incapacitated by the substances they abuse, parents may be less
involved and responsive to their children (Suchman & Luthar, 2000).
In turn, the parentchild relationship may be undermined and the
attachment may be insecure (Barnard & McKeganey, 2004). Not surpris-
ingly, youth with parents who abuse substances experience a multitude
of related problems including being removed from their homes on a
recurring basis, and remaining in out-of-home placements longer than
youth without substance abusing parents (Brook & McDonald, 2009;
Fuller & Wells, 2003; Miller, Fisher, Fetrow, & Jordan, 2006; Wolock &
Magura, 1996).
Marmorstein, Iacono, and McGue (2009) used data from 1252
17 year olds and their parents who participated in the Minnesota
Twin Family Study to assess the relationship between parental
substance abuse and youths' externalizing disorders including opposi-
tional deance disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), and adolescent
antisocial behavior. Specically, they investigated whether parental
alcohol dependence (adjusted for parental drug dependence), parental
drug dependence (adjusted for parental alcohol dependence), parental
cannabis dependence, or parental non-cannabis drug-dependence
increased the risk of ODD, CD or antisocial behavior. They found that,
with the exception of parents who abused cannabis, signicant relation-
ships existed between parental drug dependence and each of the youth
externalizing disorders. Although Marmostein et al.'s study provides
key insights, one limitation is that the results may not be generalizable
to a larger population; the sample was predominantly Caucasian, and
was limited to individuals living in Minnesota at the time of birth.
Not all studies have linked parental substance abuse to delinquency.
A study by Clark, Cornelius, Wood, and Vanyukov (2004) used data from
1167 6 to 14 year old youth and their mothers and fathers to determine
whether parental substance use disorders or the presence of parental
psychopathology predicted child psychopathology, including CD. They
found that parental substance abuse was not associated with conduct
disorders after controlling for other forms of psychopathology. One
limitation of Clark et al.'s study is that the sample was 63% male. Anoth-
er limitation is that the study was limited to one geographic area, which
may limit the generalizability of the results.
It is important to point out that while the studies by Marmostein
et al. and Clark et al. further our understanding of the relationship be-
tween parental substance abuse and externalizing behavior they both
focus on CD, rather than delinquency. Thus, their focus was on the
most extreme cases. We believe that it would be informative to examine
a range of delinquent behaviors because this would allow for an earlier
intervention point.
1.6. Current study
The purpose of our study is to investigate whether experiencing
supervisory neglect, experiencing physical neglect, or having a parent
who abuses substances are independently associated with delinquency
beyond the effects of deviant peer afliation, substance abuse, and
demographic characteristics among youth involved in the child welfare
system. Our study asks: Do supervisory neglect, physical neglect or
parental substance use increase delinquent behaviors among child
welfare involved-youth? Our study has the following hypotheses:
(1) Hypothesis: We expect that the results of this study will show
that experiencing physical neglect will increase adolescent delin-
quency even after controlling for ADHD, peer deviance, exposure
to community violence, out-of-home placements and demo-
graphic characteristics (i.e., gender, race, and age).
(2) Hypothesis: We also anticipate study results will indicate that
experiencing supervisory neglect abuse will increase adolescent
delinquency even after controlling for ADHD, peer deviance, ex-
posure to community violence, out-of-home placements, and de-
mographic characteristics (i.e., gender, race, and age).
(3) Hypothesis: We predict that the results of this study will show
that experiencing parental substance abuse will increase adoles-
cent delinquency even after controlling for ADHD, peer deviance,
exposure to community violence, out-of-home placements, and
demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, race, and age).
2. Methods
2.1. Study design & sample
This study used data from Wave I of the Second National Survey of
Child and Adolescent Wellbeing (NSCAW II) dataset, which was
obtained from the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect
(for information on obtaining the restricted use NSCAW II dataset see
http://www.ndacan.cornell.edu/datasets/request-nscaw-information.
cfm). Contracts from Administration for Children and Families (ACF),
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) are used to ad-
minister and fund NSCAW II. NSCAW II was designed to address critical
program, policy and practice issues that affect child welfare agencies,
local governments, states and the federal government (The NSCAW Re-
search Group, 2010).
NSCAW II is a national longitudinal study of 5873 children (birth to
17.5 years old) who had child maltreatment investigations that were
closed between February 2008 and April 2009. Between April 2008 and
December 2009, trained NSCAW II staff conducted face-to-face inter-
views of children, parents and nonparent adult caregivers (e.g., foster
parents, kin caregivers, group home caregivers), and investigative case-
workers from 83 counties nationwide. Data for this study were drawn
from (a) primary caregiver interviews, (b) youth interviews, and
(c) child welfare services caseworker interviews (Casanueva, Smith,
Dolan, & Ringeisen, 2011; Dolan, Smith, Casanueva, & Ringeisen, 2011;
Dowd et al., 2011; Ringeisen, Casanueva, Smith, & Dolan, 2011).
NSCAW staff sent personalized introductory letters to caregivers
approximately 45 days after the investigation was closed. Then 35
days after the letters were sent the NSCAW staff contacted the house-
hold by either phone or in-person and requested permission to
interview the caregiver and the youth, and to assess youth using
standardized measures. Caregivers and caseworkers provided consent
for the interviews, and youth provided assent for the interviews. On
average, child and caregiver interviews and assessments occurred
123 days after the closure of the child welfare services maltreatment
investigation, while caseworker interviews occurred an average of
134 days after the closure of the investigation. Interviews of the
caregivers and youth were conducted in English or Spanish at the
children's homes. Caseworker interviews were conducted at child
 S.M. Snyder, D.H. Merritt / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 6471
welfare agencies. On average caregiver interviews were 107 min, child
interviews were 76 min long, and investigative child welfare worker in-
terviews were 38.5 min. Audio computer-assisted self-interviewing
(ACASI) were used for sensitive questions (Dowd et al., 2011) According
to Bowling (2005) ACASI reduces social desirability bias and increases
disclosure of sensitive information (e.g., child maltreatment and delin-
quent behaviors). Caregivers received an honorarium of approximately
$50, and youth 1117 received a gift certicate valued at $20 for a local
video or music store for their participation in each interview. Although
caseworkers did not receive direct compensation for their participation,
child welfare agencies were renumerated between $100 and $1,000 for
costs associated with study participation. Child welfare services case-
workers completed computer-assisted personal interviewing sessions
and they were instructed to consult the case record as needed during
the interview (Dowd et al., 2011).
The sample for the current study was restricted to youth who were
1117 years old because questions regarding delinquency were
restricted to this age range (Dowd et al., 2011). In addition, the sample
included only cases with complete data for all measures used in
analyses (n = 784). The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Institutional Review Board approved this study.
2.2. Weighted design
Our analyses included statistical sampling weights to ensure
unbiased analytic estimates. Study weights represent the probability
of selection into the study, and weights were adjusted to account for in-
stances of nonresponse and under-coverage (The NSCAW Research
Group, 2010).
2.3. Study sample
The sample consisted of 784 1117 year old (M = 13.62 SE = 0.12)
participants in Wave 1 of NSCAW II.
2.3.1. Measures
2.3.1.1. Youth reported delinquency. A modied self-report of delinquen-
cy drawn from the Denver Youth Survey was used to ask 36 questions
regarding youths' participation in a range of delinquent or criminal
activities including arson, felony assault, felony theft, robbery, fraud,
petty theft, property damage, public disorder, public intoxication, prop-
erty damage, and status offenses (e.g., skipping school or running
away). Items were summed. The Cronbach's for the 36-items is 0.88.
2.3.1.2. Neglect. Caseworkers were asked what type of abuse or neglect
had been reported using the Limited Maltreatment Classication
System (L-MCS; Barnett, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1993). Caseworkers
indicated the most serious type of maltreatment identied at the time
of the report. The original variable was a nominal variable that we
converted into separate dichotomous variables (1 = yes) to indicate
whether the youth had experienced (1) physical neglect, (2) lack of
supervision and/or (2) the presence of a substance abusing parent. The
reference group for each of the three forms of neglect would be all
other forms of child maltreatment.
2.3.1.3. Deviant peer afliation. Capaldi and Patterson's (1989) Deviant
Peer Afliation scale was used to assess youths' association with deviant
peers. The scale ranges from 1 = none to 5 = all of them. Youth were
asked during the past year how many friends: (1) cheated on school
tests; (2) ruined or damaged something on purpose that was not theirs;
(3) stole something worth less than ve dollars; (4) stole something
worth more than ve dollars; (5) hit or threatened someone without
any real reason; and (6) suggested doing something against the law.
Items were summed. The Cronbach's for the six-items is 0.88.
67
2.3.1.4. Community violence exposure. Youth provided responses to the
severe violence subscale of the Violence Exposure Scale (VEX-R),
which assesses whether youth had been exposed to violence in the
environment surrounding their home with self-report items and uses
cartoons depicting violent and criminal acts (Fox & Leavitt, 1995).
Although the original responses used a 4-point scale (never, once, a
few times, lots of times), we considered any response of 1 or greater
on any of the items to constitute exposure to severe violence. We used
the following six items: (1) saw a person steal stuff from another
person; (2) saw a person point a knife or a real gun at another person;
(3) saw a person stab another person with a knife; (4) saw an adult
stab another adult; (5) saw a person arrested; and (6) saw a person
deal drugs. The Cronbach's for the six-items is 0.69.
2.4. ADHD
Parents reported if the youth had previously been diagnosed with
ADHD (yes = 1).
2.4.1. Demographics
Study participants reported their gender, age, race or ethnicity, and
with whom they lived (i.e., biological parent(s), adoptive parent(s) or
out-of-home placement). Our analyses included the following variables:
Male was coded 1 = yes, Black was coded 1 = yes, Hispanic was coded
1 = yes; out-of-home-placement was coded 1 = yes. Ages were mean-
centered for analyses to make the results more interpretable.
2.5. Statistical analysis
We used Stata 13 to conduct all analyses. Our rst step was to check
the correlations of our study variables to ensure that there were not
issues of collinearity. Our second step was to examine bivariate relation-
ships between the independent variables and delinquency. Our third
was to run the null model to explore whether the intraclass correlation
coefcient (ICC) was sufcient to justify a two-level model. When the
results indicated that the ICC was too small to include level-two
variables, we proceeded with the third step, which was to decide
between using a Poisson model or a negative binomial regression
model. To make this determination we checked to see if the mean of
delinquency (our dependent variable) was equal to its variance. We
found that the count variables were over-dispersed with the variance
being much greater than the mean (Hilbe, 2011). Because the mean
was not equal to the variance, this violated a key assumption for Poisson
regression (Hilbe, 2011; Land, McCall, & Nagin, 1996). Another issue is
that Poisson models are unable to represent count data's relative
frequency patterns as accurately as negative binomial regression
models, which are more exible than Poisson models. An additional
limitation of Poisson models is that they are not as conservative as
negative binomial regression models. Thus, Poisson models may inate
statistical signicance of certain factors because they decrease the
standard error estimates (Land et al., 1996). As a result, we used nega-
tive binomial regression, which has been recommended for highly
skewed dependent variables and because the delinquency data for
NSCAW II counts youths' delinquent offenses.
2.6. Missing data
We lost 270 cases because Stata employs listwise deletion for miss-
ing covariates. As a result our analytic sample was reduced from 1054 to
784 cases.
2.7. Attrition analysis
We conducted an attrition analysis to investigate differences
between the analytic sample and the attrited cases. We found that the
attrited cases contained more youth living in out-of-home care
68 S.M. Snyder, D.H. Merritt / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 6471

(p b 0.01). Otherwise, the attrited and analytic cases did not differ 4. Discussion
signicantly.
Applying the social development model, this study investigated how
supervisory neglect, physical neglect and parental substance abuse in-
3. Results uence delinquency among child welfare involved-youth who partici-
pated in Wave 1 of the NSCAW II survey. Specically, we wanted to
The descriptive statistics for variables used in the analyses are further the eld's understanding of the association between each type
provided in Table 1. Delinquency rates were quite low among the of neglect and delinquency, after controlling for the inuences of
sample. The most common form of neglect was supervisory neglect. ADHD, deviant peers, exposure to community violence, and living in
Few youth had delinquent peers, while most youth had witnessed com- out-of-home care, which have been strongly linked with a risk for
munity violence. The rates of ADHD exceeded national incidence rates, delinquency.
which were estimated to be 9% in 2009 (Akinbami, Liu, Pastor, & Because physical neglect was not associated with delinquency we
Reuben, 2011). did not nd support for our rst hypothesis. These results are
A correlation matrix of the variables used in the study is presented in counter to the ndings of prior studies involving youth in the general
Table 2. Because none of the variables we used in our analyses were population (Chapple et al., 2005; Erickson & Egeland, 2011; Knutson
highly correlated (r N 0.60; see Kweon & Oh, 2011) the results indicate et al., 2004). One explanation for this difference is that our sample
that collinearity is not a problem. consisted only of child welfare involved- youth. Each participant in
The bivariate results of the relationship between the dependent var- our study has experienced an event that brought them to the
iable, delinquency, and each independent variable are presented in attention of a child welfare agency, and thus they may differ in
Table 3. Signicant bivariate relationships existed between delinquency unique ways from members of the general population. Another
and the following variables: mean-centered age (F(6,777) = 4.87, issue may be how delinquent behavior was dened by each study.
p b 0.01), living in out-of-home care (F(1,782) = 4.87, p b 0.01), peer While youth in our study self-reported a wide range of delinquent
deviance (F(21,762) = 8.05, p b 0.001) and community violence behaviors, Manly et al. and Erickson and Egeland used teacher's
exposure (F(1,782) = 23.10, p b 0.001). It is important to note that reports of behavioral problems, Chapple et al. asked whether youth
relationships between the independent and dependent variables may had gotten in a ght at school or work, or if they had hit or threat-
be hidden until other variables are added to the model. In a regression ened to hit another person, and Knutson et al. used parent reports,
model each covariate's unique effect is determined after adjusting for teacher reports, peer nominations and playground observations. It
all of the variables in the model (Henry & Muthn, 2010). would be helpful if future studies would validate self-, parent- or
Table 4 provides our results for our negative binomial regression. teacher-reports of delinquency with other sources, such as ofcial
We found that the count of delinquency acts increases as youth age court records.
(IRR = 1.05, SE = 0.05, p b .01). Black and Hispanic youth were more Our nding of a signicant relationship between exposure to com-
likely to engage in delinquency than youth with White, multi-racial, or munity crime and delinquency serves as one explanation for the lack
other racial identities (IRR = 1.82, SE = 0.48, p b .05 and IRR = of an effect of physical neglect. It may be that the environment where
1.52, SE = 0.31, p b .05 respectively). Youth who lived in out-of-home impoverished families reside is actually more inuential for transmit-
care were nearly twice as likely to engage in delinquency (IRR = 1.94, ting criminological behavior than the family context. Alternatively, as
SE = 0.46, p b .01). As youth increased the number of deviant peer Manly et al. (2013) propose, it may be that the inuence of community
afliations they engaged in higher counts of delinquency (IRR = 1.12, violence becomes relevant after enduring neglect for sustained periods
SE = 0.02, p b .0001). Exposure to community violence also contributed of time. More research is needed to understand when and how commu-
to delinquency counts (IRR = 1.71, SE = 0.26, p b .001). nity violence inuences delinquency.
It may be, as Chapple et al. (2005) posit, that youth who experience
early physical neglect are rejected by prosocial peers and then turn to
Table 1 deviant peers for social support. If this is the case, then neglect's effect
Weighted sample characteristics. on delinquency is indirect, and the nding of peer deviance's effect on
Actual sample size 784 delinquency underscores the importance of early parentchild bonding.
Weighted sample size 544,084 We also did not nd support for our second hypothesis; supervisory
Percent 100.00 neglect was not associated with delinquency. Some key differences
% or Mean (SE) Minimum Maximum between the existing literature and our study may explain our results.
Delinquencya 1.75 (0.22) 0 36
Age 13.61 (0.13) 11 17
Because Maughan and Moore's (2010) study used a sample of young
Gender adult males from London their results may not generalize to our sample
Male 38.57 of child welfare involved-youth in the United States. Maughan and
Race/ethnicity Moore's study also relied on ofcial records, rather than self-reports of
Black 19.26
delinquent behaviors. Thus, only individuals who were caught were
Hispanic 23.42
White 49.38 considered delinquents. Knutson et al.'s (2004) study found a signicant
Biracial/multiracial 5.74 relationship between delinquency and supervisory neglect among their
Other 2.20 fth grade cohort, but not among their rst grade cohort. Their results
Living situation suggest that supervisory neglect may have different effects over the
Out-of-home care 15.40 0 1
course of development. Because our sample consisted of youth 11
Lack of supervision 20.26 0 1
Physical neglect 6.17 0 1 17 years old it may be that the effect of supervisory neglect is not as pro-
Parental substance abuse 9.04 0 1 nounced for older youth, and other inuences predominate.
ADHD 22.95 0 1 In addition, counter to the ndings of several studies (Barnard &
Peer deviance 8.97 (0.19) 6 30
McKeganey, 2004; Hill et al., 2011; Hussong et al., 2007; Solis et al.,
Community violence exposure 55.14 0 1
2012), we did not nd a relationship between parental drug abuse
Note: Above are frequencies for categorical variables and means and standard errors for and delinquency. Thus, we did not nd support for our third hypothesis.
continuous variables.
a
Youth were asked 36 questions regarding a range of delinquent or criminal activities
It may be that the effects of substance abuse are indirect. Perhaps youth
(i.e., status, property, and violent offenses) using a modied self-report of delinquency who have grown up with substance abusing parents are more likely to
drawn from the Denver Youth Survey. associate with deviant peers. Alternatively, it may be that youth who
 S.M. Snyder, D.H. Merritt / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 6471 69

Table 2
Correlation matrix of delinquency and predictor variables (n = 784).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Delinquency 1
2. Age 0.16 1
3. Male 0.01 0.09 1
4. Black 0.04 0.04 0.04 1
5. Hispanic 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.32 1
6. Live in out-of-home care 0.12 0.14 0.05 0.12 0.01 1
7. Physical neglect 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.03 1
8. Supervisory neglect 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.12 1
9. Substance abusing parent 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.13 1
10. Peer deviance 0.37 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.03 1
11. Community violence exposure 0.17 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.27 1
12. ADHD 0.00 0.08 0.18 0.03 0.12 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 1

Note. All values were slightly above zero, but the rounding masks these values.

are involved in child welfare are more resistant to problem behaviors community violence exposure, which are key variables that are associ-
because they have seen rsthand their consequences. ated with delinquency, but not consistently present in studies regarding
Our nding that ADHD was not signicant is an interesting one, and child maltreatment and delinquency. Third, this study uses a nationally
counters the ndings of Clark et al. (2004). It is possible that other representative sample, which may be more generalizable than a sample
conditions, which are often transmitted genetically from parent to limited to a small geographic area.
child, such as depression or antisocial personality disorder, inuence
delinquency more than ADHD among child welfare involved-youth.
4.1. Limitations
Thus, future studies should explore whether other conditions are asso-
ciated with delinquency.
The study also has some limitations that future studies should
Our nding that youth in out-of-home care are at greater risk of
address. One limitation of this study was its cross-sectional design. It
delinquency is consistent with the ndings of Ryan and Testa (2005).
would be informative to examine how delinquency changes over time.
It seems somewhat intuitive that children are only removed from
Another limitation of the study is that the sample was predominantly
their parents' care are in the most extreme circumstances when a
female, which may limit the generalizability of the results regarding
child cannot safely remain at home. Thus, the experiences of trauma
males. An additional limitation is that our study narrowly focuses on
for these youth may be especially acute.
neglect while many youth may experience multiple forms of maltreat-
Partially consistent with our theory's assertion that age, gender, and
ment. A nal limitation is that questions regarding delinquency are
race determine an individual's location in the social structure, and the
not asked until youth are 1117 years old. It would be helpful to
results of Franke (2000) and Martin et al.'s (2011) studies, we found
examine delinquent behaviors much sooner to understand if maltreated
that older youth, and Black and Hispanic youth were more likely to en-
youth initiate delinquency at the same time as their peers.
gage in antisocial behaviors. These results may indicate that Black and
Hispanic youth are more likely to be live in neighborhoods that house
peers who use engage in delinquent behaviors (Akers & Lee, 1999). 4.2. Implications
We did not nd differences based on gender. Our results regarding gen-
der differ from the studies, which found that males were at greater risk The problem of delinquency among child welfare involved-youth is
of delinquency than females (Connell et al., 2011; Farrington et al., complicated and not easily addressed. However, additional steps can
2010; Schwartz et al., 2010) and the studies that found that females be taken in the areas of research, practice, and policy.
who have experienced child maltreatment exhibit more delinquent be- Beginning with research, future studies of delinquency need to
haviors than boys (Garbarino et al., 2009). The results regarding gender replicate the variables used in this study over the course of develop-
should be interpreted with caution because our sample was mostly ment. It would also be informative to look at a sample of youth who
female. were in out-of-home placement to examine whether the variables
This study has several strengths. First, this study is the rst to used in this study have different effects on this population. In addition,
simultaneously explore the effects of distinct forms of neglect on delin-
quency. Second, this study includes ADHD, deviant peer afliation, and
Table 4
Negative binomial model regressing delinquency on predictors (n = 784).

Table 3 IRRa S.E. t p-value 95% CI

Bivariate results of the relationship between the dependent variable and each indepen- Mean-centered age 1.15 0.05 3.00 0.004 [1.05, 1.26]
dent variable at a bivariate level. Male 1.07 0.16 0.45 0.651 [0.79, 1.45]
Black 1.82 0.48 2.25 0.027 [1.07, 3.09]
F
Hispanic 1.52 0.31 2.04 0.045 [1.01, 2.29]
Mean-centered age 4.87 ** Out-of-home care 1.94 0.46 2.80 0.007 [1.21, 3.11]
Male 0.05 Physical neglect 0.86 0.40 0.32 0.749 [0.34, 2.18]
Black 1.32 Supervisory neglect 0.67 0.14 1.87 0.066 [0.44, 1.03]
Hispanic 0.00 Substance abusing parent 1.34 0.36 1.08 0.284 [0.78, 2.30]
Out-of-home care 10.63 ** ADHD 0.89 0.12 0.89 0.375 [0.67, 1.17]
Physical neglect 0.32 Peer deviance 1.12 0.02 7.50 0.000 [1.09, 1.16]
Supervisory neglect 3.57 Exposure to community violence 1.71 0.26 3.49 0.001 [1.26, 2.33]
Substance abusing parent 2.79 Constant 0.04 0.02 5.04 0.000 [0.01, 0.14]
ADHD 0.01
For ease of interpretation we have chosen to present the results as the incident rate ratio
Peer deviance 8.05 ***
(IRR), which signies the change in the dependent variable in terms of a percentage in-
Exposure to community violence 23.10 ***
crease or decrease, rather than using the coefcient, which is the log of incident counts.
Signicant results are bolded. Signicant results are bolded.
70 S.M. Snyder, D.H. Merritt / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 6471
it would be helpful if future studies of delinquency included ofcial
records of delinquency to validate self-reports. Furthermore, qualitative
researchers could interview child welfare involved-youth who engage
in delinquent behaviors and those who refrain from delinquent behav-
iors about their early childhood experiences, their peer afliations and
effects of community violence. It would be informative to uncover the
risk and protective factors that youth self-identify as important to
whether they engage in delinquent behavior.
With regards to practice, when working with children placed in out-
of-home care social workers should be especially careful to ensure that
youth who have experienced an adverse childhood experience, such as
neglect, receive appropriate evidence-based treatment. Social workers
who work with child welfare involved-youth should also assess youth
within the context of their surrounding environment. In particular,
social workers should explore who the youth's peers are, and the safety
of the surrounding community.
Turning to policy, resources are needed to better address complex
needs of youth in out-of-home care. In particular, programs need to
address the adverse childhood experience or experiences that precipi-
tated removal. Interventions should address youths' peer relationships
and the crime youth may be exposed to in their neighborhoods.
References
Akers, R. L., & Lee, G. (1999). Age, social learning, and social bonding in adolescent substance
use. Deviant Behavior, 20(1), 125, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/016396299266579.
Akinbami, L. J., Liu, X., Pastor, P. N., & Reuben, C. A. (2011). Attention Decit Hyperactivity
Disorder among Children Aged 517 Years in the United States, 19982009 NCHS Data
Brief. Hyattsville: MD National Center for Health Statistics.
APSAC (2008). Practice guidelines: Challenges in the evaluation of child neglect. Elmhurst, IL:
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC).
Barnard, M., & McKeganey, N. (2004). The impact of parental problem drug use on chil-
dren: What is the problem and what can be done to help? Addiction, 99(5),
552559, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00664.x.
Barnett, D., Manly, J. T., & Cicchetti, D. (1993). Dening child maltreatment: The interface be-
tween policy and research (Vol. 8). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on
data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 281, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/
fdi031.
Brook, J., & McDonald, T. (2009). The impact of parental substance abuse on the stability
of family reunications from foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(2),
193198, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.07.010.
Capaldi, D. M., & Patterson, G. R. (1989). Psychometric properties of fourteen latent con-
structs from the Oregon Youth Study. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag Publishing.
Casanueva, C., Smith, K., Dolan, M., & Ringeisen, H. (2011). NSCAW II baseline report: Mal-
treatment nal report. Washington, DC: Ofce of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Ad-
ministration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of anti-
social behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current Theories. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Chapple, C. L., Tyler, K. A., & Bersani, B. E. (2005). Child neglect and adolescent violence:
Examining the effects of self-control and peer rejection. Violence and Victims, 20(1),
3953, http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.2005.20.1.39.
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2011). Denitions of child abuse and neglect. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau.
Clark, D. B., Cornelius, J., Wood, D. S., & Vanyukov, M. (2004). Psychopathology risk trans-
mission in children of parents with substance use disorders. American Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 161(4), 685691, http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.4.685.
Connell, C. M., Cook, E. C., Aklin, W. M., Vanderploeg, J. J., & Brex, R. A. (2011). Risk and
protective factors associated with patterns of antisocial behavior among nonmetro-
politan adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 37(1), 98106, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
ab.20370.
Coohey, C. (2003). Dening and classifying supervisory neglect. Child Maltreatment, 8(2),
145156, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559502250786.
De Bellis, M. D. (2005). The psychobiology of neglect. Child Maltreatment, 10(2), 150172,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077559505275116.
De Bellis, M. D. (2010). The neurobiology of child neglect. In R. A. Lanius, E. Vermetten, &
C. Pain (Eds.), The impact of early life trauma on health and disease: The hidden epidemic
(pp. 123132). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
DePanlis, D. (2006). Child neglect: A guide for prevention, assessment and intervention
Child Abuse and Neglect User Manual Series.
Dolan, M., Smith, K., Casanueva, C., & Ringeisen, H. (2011). NSCAW II baseline report: Intro-
duction to NSCAW II nal report. Washington, DC: Ofce of Planning, Research and
Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
Dowd, K., Dolan, M., Wallin, J., Miller, K., Biemer, P., Aragon-Logan, E., et al. (2011).
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being II (NSCAW II) Combined Waves 12,
Data File User's Manual, Restricted Release Version. NY: Cornell University, National
Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect.
Duke, N. N., Pettingell, S. L., McMorris, B. J., & Borowsky, I. W. (2010). Adolescent violence
perpetration: Associations with multiple types of adverse childhood experiences.
Pediatrics, 125(4), e778e786, http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0597.
Eamon, M. K., & Kopels, S. (2004). For reasons of poverty: Court challenges to child wel-
fare practices and mandated programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(9),
821836, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.02.023.
Erickson, M. F., & Egeland, B. (2011). Child neglect. In J. E. B. Myers (Ed.), The APSAC hand-
book on child maltreatment, Vol. 3. (pp. 102119). Los Angeles: Sage.
Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K. G., & Kosterman, R.
(2010). Why are boys more likely to be referred to juvenile court? Gender differences
in ofcial and self-reported delinquency. Victims & Offenders, 5(1), 2544, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/15564880903422963.
Fox, N., & Leavitt, L. (1995). The Violence Exposure Scale for Children-Revised (VEX-R). Col-
lege Park: Institute for Child Study, University of Maryland.
Franke, T. M. (2000). Adolescent violent behavior: An analysis across and within racial/
ethnic groups. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 8(1), 4770, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1300/J285v08n01_03.
Fuller, T. L., & Wells, S. J. (2003). Predicting maltreatment recurrence among CPS cases
with alcohol and other drug involvement. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(7),
553569, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0190-7409(03)00044-6.
Furstenberg, F. F., Jr., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J. S., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (1999). Managing to make it:
Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Garbarino, J., & Collins, C. C. (1999). Child neglect: The family with a hole in the middle. In
H. Dubowitz (Ed.), Neglected children: Research, practice, and policy (pp. 123). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Garbarino, J., Levene, K., Walsh, M., & Coupet, S. M. (2009). Girl offenders. In B. L. Bottoms,
C. J. Najdowski, & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), Children as victims, witnesses, and offenders:
Psychological science and the law (pp. 334). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Garnier, H., & Stein, J. (2002). An 18-year model of family and peer effects on adolescent
drug use and delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 4556, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1023/A:1014085016511.
Henry, K. L., & Muthn, B. O. (2010). Multilevel latent class analysis: An application of ad-
olescent smoking typologies with individual and contextual predictors. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 17(2), 193215, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/10705511003659342.
Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative binomial regression (Vol (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hildyard, K. L., & Wolfe, D. A. (2002). Child neglect: Developmental issues and outcomes.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(67), 679695, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(02)
00341-1.
Hill, S. Y., Tessner, K. D., & McDermott, M. D. (2011). Psychopathology in offspring from
families of alcohol dependent female probands: A prospective study. Journal of
Psychiatric Research, 45(3), 285294, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.08.005.
Hirschi, T. (1986). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of
crime. In D. B. Cornish, & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice
perspectives on offending (pp. 105118). New York, NY: Springer.
Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of delinquency (3rd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal
of Sociology, 89(3), 552584.
Hussong, A. M., Wirth, R. J., Edwards, M. C., Curran, P. J., Chassin, L. A., & Zucker, R. A.
(2007). Externalizing symptoms among children of alcoholic parents: Entry points
for an antisocial pathway to alcoholism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(3),
529542, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.3.529.
Jonson-Reid, M., Drake, B., & Kohl, P. L. (2009). Is the overrepresentation of the poor in
child welfare caseloads due to bias or need? Children and Youth Services Review,
31(3), 422427.
Kazemian, L., Widom, C. S., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). A prospective examination of the
relationship between childhood neglect and juvenile delinquency in the Cambridge
study in delinquent development. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family
Studies, 2(1/2), 65.
Kendall-Tackett, K. A., & Eckenrode, J. (1996). The effects of neglect on academic achieve-
ment and disciplinary problems: A developmental perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect,
20(3), 161169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(95)00139-5.
Kim, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2010). Longitudinal pathways linking child maltreatment, emotion
regulation, peer relations, and psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology &
Psychiatry, 51(6), 706716, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02202.x.
Knutson, J. F., DeGarmo, D. S., & Reid, J. B. (2004). Social disadvantage and neglectful par-
enting as precursors to the development of antisocial and aggressive child behavior:
Testing a theoretical model. Aggressive Behavior, 30(3), 187205, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/ab.20016.
Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Kweon, Y. -J., & Oh, C. (2011). Identifying promising highway segments for safety im-
provement through speed management. Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 2213(1), 4652, http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2213-07.
Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., & Nagin, D. S. (1996). A comparison of Poisson, negative binomial,
and semiparametric mixed Poisson regression models with empirical applications to
criminal careers data. Sociological Methods & Research, 24(4), 387442.
Manly, J. T., Oshri, A., Lynch, M., Herzog, M., & Wortel, S. (2013). Child neglect and the de-
velopment of externalizing behavior problems: Associations with maternal drug de-
pendence and neighborhood crime. Child Maltreatment, 18(1), 1729, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1077559512464119.
Marmorstein, N., Iacono, W., & McGue, M. (2009). Alcohol and illicit drug dependence
among parents: Associations with offspring externalizing disorders. Psychological
Medicine, 39(01), 149155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291708003085.
 S.M. Snyder, D.H. Merritt / Children and Youth Services Review 46 (2014) 6471
Martin, M. J., McCarthy, B., Conger, R. D., Gibbons, F. X., Simons, R. L., Cutrona, C. E., et al.
(2011). The enduring signicance of racism: Discrimination and delinquency among
black American youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(3), 662676, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00699.x.
Maughan, D., & Moore, S. C. (2010). Dimensions of child neglect: An exploration of paren-
tal neglect and its relationship with delinquency. Child Welfare, 89(4).
Maxeld, M. G., & Widom, C. S. (1996). The cycle of violence: Revisited 6 years later.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 150(4), 390, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1001/archpedi.1996.02170290056009.
Mennen, F. E., Kim, K., Sang, J., & Trickett, P. K. (2010). Child neglect: Denition and iden-
tication of youth's experiences in ofcial reports of maltreatment. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 34(9), 647658, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.02.007.
Miller, K. A., Fisher, P. A., Fetrow, B., & Jordan, K. (2006). Trouble on the journey home: Re-
unication failures in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(3), 260274,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.03.010.
Ringeisen, H., Casanueva, C., Smith, K., & Dolan, M. (2011). NSCAW II baseline report:
Children's Services nal report. Washington, DC: Ofce of Planning, Research and Eval-
uation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Ryan, J. P., & Testa, M. F. (2005). Child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency: Investigat-
ing the role of placement and placement instability. Children and Youth Services
Review, 27(3), 227249, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.05.007.
Schwartz, S. J., Forthun, L. F., Ravert, R. D., Zamboanga, B. L., Umaa-Taylor, A. J., Filton, B. J.,
et al. (2010). Identity consolidation and health risk behaviors in college students.
American Journal of Health Behavior, 34(2), 214224.
Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). The national incidence study of child abuse and ne-
glect. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Solis, J. M., Shadur, J. M., Burns, A. R., & Hussong, A. M. (2012). Understanding the diverse
needs of children whose parents abuse substances. Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 5(2),
135.
71
Suchman, N. E., & Luthar, S. S. (2000). Maternal addiction, child maladjustment and socio-
demographic risks: Implications for parenting behaviors. Addiction, 95(9),
14171428.
The NSCAW Research Group (2010). National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being:
Overview of NSCAW and NSCAW II, and main ndings of NSCAW.
Thornberry, T. P. (1996). Empirical support for interactional theory: A review of the liter-
ature. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 198235).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, Children's Bureau (2013). Child maltreatment 2012. Washington, DC: Ad-
ministration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Fami-
lies, Children's Bureau.
Wikstrm, P. -O. H., & Loeber, R. (2000). Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-
adjusted children to become adolescent delinquents? A study of male juvenile seri-
ous offending, individual risk and protective factors and neighborhood context.
Criminology, 38(4), 11091142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.
tb01416.x.
Wolock, I., & Horowitz, B. (1984). Child maltreatment as a social problem: The neglect of
neglect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(4), 530543, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1939-0025.1984.tb01524.x.
Wolock, I., & Magura, S. (1996). Parental substance abuse as a predictor of child maltreat-
ment re-reports. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(12), 11831193, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/S0145-2134(96)00114-7.
Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Myers, K. A., & Johnsen, M. C. (1993). Child maltreatment and
youthful problem behavior. Criminology, 31(2), 173202.
Zuravin, S. J. (1999). Child neglect: A review of denitions and measurement research. In
H. Dubowitz (Ed.), Neglected Children: Research, Practice, and Policy. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.