Benjamin Gibbs and Dr. Stephen Bahr, Sociology

I have sought to examine the effects of social capital (family, peer, school and community) on delinquency and to measure the buffering effects of the family when negative peer influence is high. Further understanding of the factors causing delinquency is essential for policy makers and community members. Although millions of dollars are spent by federal, state and local governments to prevent delinquency, a clearer understanding of which forms of capital are the most influential will maximize limited funds and contribute to the most effective solutions.

I hypothesized that the influence of family capital has been underestimated and has a considerable compensating effect (more so than any other form of capital) on delinquent behavior in the presence of low peer, school and community capital. I also hypothesized that the family would have a buffering effect when peer capital is low. Current research is not consistent in how important families are in fostering prosocial behavior. Two limitations of existing research are the small number of studies measuring the compensating and buffering effect of family capital on delinquency and the interaction of family, peer, school, and community variables. Therefore this study examines the buffering effect of the family and the interacting effect of family, peer, school, and community capital on delinquency.

The data was compiled from a probability sample collected in Utah in 1997 from 5,137 students in grades 7-12. The final sample included 82 percent of the total number of students enrolled in the sample classrooms at the time of the survey.

The term “social capital” has been used by theorists to indicate the effects of society on individuals. For the purposes of this study, I have limited social capital to four broad categories: family, peer, school and community. Family capital was measured by questions that indicated family interaction, family conflict, parental attachment, parental education, parental monitoring, communication and structure. Peer capital was measured by the number of close friends involved in drugs, theft or violence. School capital was measured by teacher rewards in the classroom. And community capital measured community variables such as police activity, neighborhood drug usage, prevalence of drugs and neighborhood violence.

To create “high” and “low” capital each variable was dichotomized by splitting at the mean. Therefore high and low capital is subject to the relative distribution of responses in this survey. Questions like “How many friends do you have that are (delinquent)?” were divided by “no friends” (high) to “one or more” (low) with a proportionate number of responses scoring high and low. Dichotomizing the variables created comparable forms of capital regardless of question type or scale.

Table 1 measures the delinquency rates for either family, peer, school or community capital with all other forms of capital held constant; either low (Table 1, top) or high (Table 1, bottom). Therefore, 52.2% represents the delinquency percentage when all capital is low and 2.4% delinquency when all capital is high. Table 2 compares family capital with peer capital. When family capital is low, the change in delinquency from low to high peer capital is 35.4%. When family capital is high, the change in percent delinquent when peer capital moves from high to low is 26.3%. Thus, peer influence on delinquency appears to be 9.1% less when family capital is high rather than low. The high family capital seems to buffer or diminish the impact of peer influences on delinquency.

Contrary to my first hypothesis, peer capital, not family capital, was the greatest factor in influencing delinquency with a 35.4% reduction in delinquency when peer capital is high rather than low. However, family and community capital still significantly reduce delinquency by 19.5% and 19.6%, respectively. Additionally, combinations of social capital can compensate for deficiencies in other areas. For example, those with low family capital still have a low rate of delinquency (5.8%) if peer, school, and community capital are all high (Table 1, bottom).

This research was limited to cross-sectional measures. Further research should examine how social capital at one point in time influences later delinquency.