Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 6:74–89, 2013

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1936-1521 print / 1936-153X online
DOI: 10.1080/19361521.2013.735353

Childhood Instability and Girls’ Delinquency: Role

of Changes in Schools, Homes, and Caregivers

JENNIFER MCLEER AND DANA DEHART

University of South Carolina

There are indications that stressful live factors—such as instability of childhood

residence, schools, and primary caregivers—may be associated with occurrence of ado-
lescent delinquency. Using self-report interviews with 100 girls committed to a juvenile
facility, we examined the duration of substance use and running away as it related to
childhood instability indicators including changes in caregivers, residences, and schools
in the girls’ lives. Findings showed significant associations between status offending and
childhood instability. Specifically, girls’ substance abuse was positively associated with
number of schools attended. Additionally, running away was positively associated with
number of schools and number of different primary caregivers, but was negatively asso-
ciated with number of different residences. Potential explanations and implications for
future research are addressed.

Keywords female offenders, status offenses, residential mobility, school mobility,

running away, substance use

Previous research shows that adolescents who experience trauma are at a greater risk for
committing acts of delinquency (Falshaw, Browne, & Hollin, 1996; Widom, 1989). In fact,
a majority of juvenile delinquents report exposure to abuse, neglect, and violence (Steiner,
Garcia, & Matthews, 1997). Although traumatic experiences, in general, may have effects
on development of delinquency, much research has tended to concentrate on the role of
victimization and witnessing violence. Here, we examine the role of other stressful life
events—specifically changes in residence, schools, and primary caregivers.

Stressful Life Events

Stressful life events can significantly alter the future of an individual. Examples of stressful
life events include parental divorce, death of a family member, caregiver inconsistencies,
and residential or student mobility. Because individuals are shaped by the occurrences in
their daily lives, changes to these occurrences can have life-altering effects. Perkins and
Jones (2004) define a stressful life event as: (a) adversely affecting the development or
adjustment of the adolescent, (b) procuring continuous or short-term overwhelming stress,
and (c) being linked with long-term maladaptive behaviors. Researchers have correlated
stressful life events with physical disease, psychological disorders, and delinquent behavior

Submitted April 10, 2010; revised July 14, 2010; revised September 7, 2010; revised April 7,
2011; accepted April 7, 2011.
Address correspondence to Dana DeHart, DeSaussure College, College of Social Work,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail: dana.dehart@sc.edu

74
 Instability and Delinquency 75

(Dohrenwend, 1973; Myers, Lindenthal, Pepper, & Ostrander, 1974; Rahe, Bennett, &
Siltanen, 1974; Theorell, 1974; Vaux & Ruggiero, 1983).
Stressful life events are often measured using questionnaires that produce “life change
scores.” Using this method, Masuda, Cutler, Hein, and Holmes (1978) examined the num-
ber and severity of life changes in male prisoners over a 10-year span (i.e., 5 years before
incarceration and 5 years after incarceration). They found that the year before incarceration,
life change scores were highest. This implies that during the year prior to incarceration,
prisoners experienced more stressful life events. Additionally, using a different measure of
stressful life events, Levinson and Ramsay (1979) found a relationship between life stress
and engaging in dangerous behavior.
Additional research shows that number of stressful life events during childhood is
correlated with maladjustment (Sandler & Block, 1979). However, although most indi-
viduals are affected in some way by stressful life events, adolescent females in particular
suffer the most negative effects (Raviv, Keinan, Abazon, & Raviv, 1990; Zahn et al., 2010).
Specifically, stressful life events increase adolescent females’ reports of depression and use
of illegal substances more than any other age-group/sex combination. Peer drug use and
low parental support exacerbate these effects (Hoffman & Su, 1998).
Because stressful life events have such significant effects on the life of any individual—
and a particularly detrimental effect on the life of an adolescent—the current research iden-
tifies relationships between particular stressful life events concerning childhood instability
and delinquency; namely, residential mobility, school mobility, and caregiver inconsistency.

Childhood Instability
Generally speaking, stability refers to a lack of transition between situations. Adolescents
are particularly affected by unstable environments because they do not possess the same
coping skills as adults. Fomby and Cherlin (2007) posit the “instability hypothesis” to
explain why children who experience multiple transitions while growing up have lower
well-being than children who do not. Specifically, they argue that transitions cause stressful
experiences. The more transitions, the more stress that person exhibits. In turn, multiple
transitions have a cumulative effect on those that experience them. Instability during ado-
lescence is associated with many negative outcomes, such as disruptive behavior at school,
trouble with emotional adjustment, and poor school performance (Kurdek, Fine, & Sinclair,
1995; Martinez & Forgatch, 2002; Pong & Ju, 2000). Female adolescents may be partic-
ularly affected, as some research shows that females are more affected by instabilities in
interpersonal relationships, such as those in family and peer groups (Morris, 1965). Here
we examine several types of instability pertinent to the lives of adolescent females.

Caregiver Consistency
The role of family is significant in determining instances of juvenile delinquency (Bartol
& Bartol, 1998). Particularly, dynamics between caregivers affect adolescents. A caregiver
is an adult that is responsible for a child’s health and well-being. Traditional nuclear fami-
lies have two caregivers: the mother and the father. However, in contemporary society, the
number of caregivers and their relationship to the child is not always as stable. Differences
in care-giving structure have been shown to impact the outcomes in adolescent life. For
example, adolescents who have divorced caregivers score lower on a variety of well-being
measures (Amato & Keith, 1991).
76 J. McLeer and D. DeHart

Additionally, the number of caregivers present throughout a child’s life also affects
their life stability. Findings show that adolescents that are raised in families that have a
larger number of children relative to caregivers are more likely to be delinquent (Hirschi,
1983, 1991). This purportedly happens because the resources that a caregiver is supposed
to deliver to their child are spread out amongst many children. Additionally, children whose
parents divorce and remarry are at increased risk for psychosocial maladjustment and
delinquency (Amato & Keith, 1991; Asarnow & Callan, 1985; Guttman, 1993; Wadsworth,
Maclean, Kuh, & Rodgers, 1990). Similarly, in research within juvenile detention cen-
ters, children with no primary caregivers show increased rates of recidivism (Tille & Rose,
2007). Children without a steady caregiver do not experience consistent parental monitor-
ing, support, and control. This makes them more likely to exhibit risky behavior (Forehand,
Miller, Dutra, & Chance, 1997; Parker & Benson, 2004).

Residential and School Mobility

Residential mobility occurs when an individual moves from one home to another. This
includes moves down the street, across town, or across the state or country. For children
and adolescents, research has linked residential mobility with emotional problems, social
and physiological vulnerability, and difficulties adapting to the new neighborhood (Gordon
& Gordon, 1958; Holland, Kaplan, & Davis, 1974; Sandler & Block, 1979). Although
residential mobility affects individuals of all ages, adolescents may experience a loss of
their social ties at a time when they have yet to fully develop their own self-identity (Brett,
1982; Douvane & Adelson, 1966; Khleif, 1970).
One consequence of residential mobility is student mobility. Student mobility occurs
when a student changes schools for reasons other than normative promotions, such as the
move from elementary school to middle school and from middle school to high school.
Student mobility can result from either: (a) changes in student’s home residence (Long,
1992; Smith, 1995), or (b) changes due to student’s behavioral problems (Bowditch, 1993;
Fine, 1991). However, regardless of the reason for the move, adolescents that change
schools are more likely to have problems in school, both academically and behaviorally
(Jason et al., 1992; Wood, Halfon, Scarla, Newacheck, & Nessim, 1993).
The negative effects of residential and school mobility increases when there are
more moves. Research shows that adolescents that frequently move are more likely to
initiate drug and alcohol use and engage in earlier sexual activity (Catalano, Hawkins,
White, & Pandina, 1985; South, Haynie, & Bose, 2005; Stacks, 1994). Additionally, fre-
quent movers are more likely to be depressed, commit suicide, and have low self-esteem
(Beautrais, Joyce, & Mulder, 1996; Brown & Orthner, 1990; Haynie, South, & Bose, 2006;
Hendershott, 1989; Simpson & Fowler, 1994). For low-income and minority populations
that frequently move, these negative effects may occur because frequent moves tend to
result from poor housing conditions, economic displacement, divorce, and other negative
circumstances (Newman & Owen, 1982). Academically, frequent movers are more likely
than nonfrequent movers to have a learning disorder, to repeat a grade, or to have frequent
behavioral problems (Wood et al., 1993). Residential mobility has also been associated with
adolescent use of violence (Haynie & South, 2005).

Instability and Girls’ Delinquency

Leve and Chamberlain (2004) note that, despite substantial increases in the number of
girls referred to the justice system, theoretical and empirical models of girls’ antisocial
 Instability and Delinquency 77

development are lacking. There is some indication that caregiver consistency and residen-
tial or school mobility may be especially important factors in emerging theories on girls’
pathways to delinquency. In their examination of 62 girls in an alternative juvenile justice
program, Leve and Chamberlain (2004) found parental transitions (i.e., number of changes
in adult household members) to be among key predictors of the onset of delinquency for
girls. Chamberlain and Moore (2002) point to family fragmentation experienced by delin-
quent girls and the corresponding stress reactivity as possible contributors to intrarelational
and interrelational chaos that may lead to girls’ social aggression. Moretti, Catchpole, and
Odgers (2005) hypothesize that girls’ socialization prompts them to attend to close rela-
tionships and regulate behavior accordingly, with relationship disruption having significant
impact on patterns of delinquency. Silverthorn and Frick (1999) theorized such social-
ization may include both parental and school-based manifestations and may discourage
external expression of girls’ antisocial behavior. In a randomized evaluation of an alter-
native juvenile justice program, Leve and Chamberlain (2007) found girls’ participation
in homework to play a predictive role in outcomes for girls in the justice system; these
authors note similar findings by Fergusson and associates (Fergusson, Swain-Campbell, &
Horwood, 2002) and note that engagement in school may help deter delinquency among
girls.

The Current Study

Although previous studies have examined the role of stressful life changes in delinquent
behavior, little research has specifically addressed relationship of girls’ delinquent behavior
to three particular types of stressful life change: caregiver inconsistency, residential mobil-
ity, and school mobility. The current study examines associations between delinquency and
these indicators of instability using self-report interviews with 100 girls committed to a
juvenile facility. Because our sample was incarcerated, the girls were presumably engaged
in delinquency. Therefore, knowing that they have already committed crimes, we assessed
the duration of different types of delinquent offending—particularly status offenses, that is
offenses that are defined as crimes on the basis of the juvenile’s status as a minor—in rela-
tion to caregiver inconsistency, residential mobility, and school mobility. Here we examine
offenses including alcohol and drug use and running away from home.

Method

Participants
All methods were reviewed and approved by a university human subjects review board and
by the funding agency, state juvenile justice agency, and an advisory board of community
experts and advocates. Prospective participants were identified via intake rosters of state
department of juvenile justice. These children in state custody are considered “in loco par-
entis,” with policy stating that girls may provide their own assent to participate in approved
studies. Girls were invited to meet individually with the interviewer in a private room at the
juvenile facility in order to learn more about the study. Study procedures and assent forms
were presented both in written form and read aloud to the child. If the child chose to par-
ticipate, the research interview was conducted at that time. Girls who chose to participate
received a $20 cash deposit to their institutional spending account. We conducted exhaus-
tive sampling of incoming girls over a three-year period in order to obtain our sample of
78 J. McLeer and D. DeHart

100 girls. Participation rates were 98% for eligible girls, and demographics of our sample
were nearly identical to those reported among the state’s overall juvenile justice population
(South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice, 2009).
Participants ranged in age from 12 to 18, with the mean, median, and modal age being
16 years old. Sixty-three percent of girls were African American, 35% were White, and 2%
were Hispanic. Fifty-eight girls were sampled from the long-term commitment facility, and
the remaining girls were from the moderate-management (n = 22) and high-management
(n = 20) group homes. Exploratory Chi-square analyses using Bonferroni adjustments for
number of comparisons indicated no differences between girls sampled from the long-term
facility and those sampled from group homes for key variables including: having ever
engaged in alcohol or drug abuse (χ 2 = 0.38) and running away (χ 2 = 0.13), df s = 1,
N = 100, all ps ns at the .005 Bonferroni-adjusted level.

Measures
We used life-history interviews (Freedman, Thornton, Camburn, Alwin, & Young-
DeMarco, 1988) to examine childhood instability and status offending. The life-history
method uses a calendar-like matrix, providing visual cues said to encourage recall and
increase power of autobiographical memory (Axinn, Pearce, & Ghimire, 1999; Belli, 1998).
In past studies, this method was found to have high test–retest reliability, good construct
validity, and to elicit more reports of specific life events than administration using only
structured interview prompts (Yoshihama, 2009). Here the method was used as framework
to quantify childhood instability and status offending.
Childhood instability indicators included the girls’ self-reports of number of schools
attended, number of homes in which the girls lived, and number of different primary
caregivers with whom the girls resided. In operationalizing number of schools and homes,
the first school (or home) was coded “1” and an ongoing count was kept with each move
thereafter. In operationalizing number of primary caregivers, we counted only one primary
caregiver per household, and we kept an ongoing count when there was a change to a new
(nonredundant) caregiver (i.e., moving from mom to dad back to mom would only count as
two distinct primary caregivers).
For status offending, we asked girls to tell us about times when they had run away from
home or used drugs or alcohol. Duration of offending was operationalized as the number
of calendar years in each girl’s life history that the event was present. For instance, if a
girl used drugs or alcohol from ages 14 to 17, duration of substance use would be coded as
4 years within her life history; if she used drugs or alcohol at ages 14, 15, and 17, duration
of substance use would be coded as 3 years.
We used field notes in conjunction with life-calendar mapping to document interviews.
Given our success with shorthand-style field notes (Easyscript; Levin, 2001), we felt that
benefits of audiotaping were outweighed by the elevated risk to participants. The project’s
Principal Investigator (DeHart) conducted all interviews and transcription. Beyond the
interviewer’s past experience with qualitative interviewing and field notes (e.g., DeHart,
2008), she underwent additional training in life-calendar mapping, a technique specifically
designed to increase accuracy of self-reports. Interviewer training included a one-day work-
shop with experts in the methodology as well as additional pilot and mock interviews until
errors and omissions were nearly absent across trials. To promote integrity of data, the
interviewer transcribed speedwritten notes into interview transcripts and translated life cal-
endar data into electronic format within 24 hours of each interview. Within transcripts, we
 Instability and Delinquency 79

attempted to be as accurate as possible in representing each girl’s thoughts and to use the
words and language she used, as well as to honor veracity of her account (i.e., omitting out-
sider inferences about plausibility). We chose to transcribe using third-person perspective
to underscore that these are not direct quotes, in that thoughts have been necessarily filtered
through the interviewer in the transcription process. Pseudonyms are used in our excerpts
here to protect confidentiality of participants.

Analyses
SPSS (version 17.0) was used to perform descriptive statistics attesting to characteristics of
our sample and self-reported experiences of instability and status offending, as well as for
linear regression to examine associations between continuous variables. Qualitative inter-
view transcripts were coded and analyzed using ATLAS/ti software (version 6.0), which
allows the researcher to mark computerized text passages in a manner akin to underlining
in a book. Passages can be tagged with commentary or labeled with codes (e.g., “self-
worth”). Passages, codes, and commentaries can be sorted into hierarchies, and participant
files can be grouped into “families” or categories (e.g., “violent offenders”). For purposes of
the present report, we used a first-cycle coding method with provisional top-down coding
based on categories of items in girls’ interviews. Provisional coding establishes a prede-
termined starting list of codes based on the study’s conceptual framework and research
questions (e.g., substance use, running away, family, homes, schools), but modifies and
builds upon anticipated categories as data are collected, coded, and analyzed (Saldana,
2009). This simple qualitative approach allowed us to identify specific exemplars to illus-
trate findings revealed in quantitative analysis of girls’ interview data. In this way, we
brought ATLAS/ti’s powerful capabilities to bear upon inferences as these emerged from
the quantitative data, helping us to understand manifest associations between variables.

Results

Regression Analyses of Quantitative Status Offending and Childhood Instability Data

Table 1 displays mean, median, and mode for each childhood instability and status offend-
ing variable, and Table 2 displays interitem correlations. We performed linear regression
analyses to examine prediction of duration of status offending by the three childhood

Table 1
Central tendency for childhood instability and status offending (n = 100)

Measure of Central Tendency

Mean Median Mode
Number of changes in schools 5.9 5 4
Number of changes in homes 3.94 3 2
Number of changes in caregivers 2.38 2 1
Substance use (duration in years) 3.1 3 2
Running away (duration in years) 1.7 1 1
80 J. McLeer and D. DeHart

Table 2
Interitem correlations for childhood instability and status offending (n = 100)

Number of Number of Running

changes in changes in Substance use away
homes caregivers duration duration
Number of .497∗∗ .136 .462∗∗ .282∗
changes in
schools
Number of −.010 .330∗ −.177
changes in
homes
Numbers of .127 .398∗∗
changes in
caregivers
Substance use .174
duration
∗
Correlations significant at the p < .01 level.
∗∗
Correlations significant at the p < .001 level.

instability factors. Because duration of offending was associated with girls’ ages, we con-
trolled for age using forced entry regression entering age in the first step and entering the
three instability variables as a second step.
Our first equation included duration of substance use as the dependent variable, age as
a control variable entered in the first step, and number of schools, homes, and caregivers as
independent variables entered in the second step. Our control variable accounted for 12%
of the adjusted variance in duration of substance use, F(1, 83) = 12.13, p < .001. Instability
factors added another 10% of adjusted variance, F(4, 80) = 6.74, p < .001. As can be seen
in Table 3, number of schools was the only independent variable to reach statistical signif-
icance at the p < .05 level, indicating that duration of substance use was longer for girls
who had many school changes.
Our second equation included duration of running away as the dependent variable, age
as a control variable entered in the first step, and number of schools, homes, and caregivers

Table 3
Prediction of substance use by childhood instability (controlling for age)

Model Adjusted R-square B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) .117 −8.831 3.440 −2.567 .012
Age .761 .218 .357 3.483 .001
2 (Constant) .215 −6.511 3.308 −1.968 .053
Age .495 .220 .232 2.251 .027
# schools .212 .095 .259 2.232 .028
# homes .162 .104 .175 1.560 .123
# caregivers −.025 .147 −.017 −.171 .864
 Instability and Delinquency 81

Table 4
Prediction of running away by childhood instability (controlling for age)

Model Adjusted R-square B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) .047 −3.362 2.245 −1.497 .138
Age .324 .143 .243 2.267 .026
2 (Constant) .221 −3.125 2.075 −1.506 .136
Age .277 .138 .208 2.004 .048
# schools .124 .059 .243 2.094 .039
# homes −.211 .065 −.367 −3.262 .002
# caregivers .285 .091 .311 3.119 .003

as independent variables entered in the second step. Our control variable accounted for 5%
of the adjusted variance in duration of substance use, F(1, 82) = 5.14, p < .05. Instability
factors added another 17% of adjusted variance, F(4, 79) = 6.90, p < .001. As can be seen
in Table 4, all three instability factors reached statistical significance. Findings indicate
that duration of running away was longer for girls who changed schools and caregivers
often, but—contrary to our expectations—shorter for girls who changed homes often.
Case-by-case inspection of life calendar data demonstrates that for approximately 95% of
cases, onset of substance use and running away coincided with or followed (as opposed to
proceeded) changes in schools and/or homes.

Using Qualitative Data to Elucidate Quantitative Findings

Examination of qualitative data was used to further examine patterns revealed in quan-
titative analyses. We examined co-occurrence of codes within girls’ qualitative interview
transcripts (e.g., coded segments for which status offense codes overlapped with instability
codes) to identify key dynamics of associations between status offending and childhood
instability.

Association between substance use and number of schools. Quantitative data showed a
positive association between duration of substance use and number of schools. To examine
this, we reviewed girls’ stories regarding changes in schools, focusing on cases in which
the substance use code overlapped with the school code. This qualitative data indicated that
substance use might be used as a means for coping with the stress of a new school setting.
One participant, for instance, described misuse of prescription drugs as a result of being
“very depressed about her situation and about moving and school.” After changing schools
eight times, another participant describes herself as “not popular” and an “outcast.” These
moves, and the resulting lack of consistent social relationships, seem to be integral to the
beginning of her use of drugs and alcohol.

Courtney began smoking weed and drinking alcohol. . . . That same year she
did meth, crack, coke, or Ecstasy daily. It all started with her friend . . .
Courtney wasn’t popular or nothing and he lived nearby. He took an interest
in her. They started hanging out every day. They started smoking cigarettes
together. They were both outcasts.
82 J. McLeer and D. DeHart

Others express similar sentiments, including substance use as means of coping with
isolation, peer pressure, or attempts to “fit in.”

From fourth grade through sixth grade, at her new schools, Angela was sort of
a loner and only had a couple of friends. She would smoke cigarettes and sneak
and drink by herself.
Emily went to a Christian school in another state from kindergarten through
ninth grade. . . . Then she moved here and started going to public school,
attending ninth grade again. That’s when she started getting Fs because she
was doing drugs and hanging out with bad friends on weekends.

However, in many cases (e.g., when onset of substance use coincided with the year of
a school change), it was unclear whether substance use was a reaction to a school change or
whether the change in schools may have stemmed from substance use, as in cases in which
girls were placed in alternative schools following disciplinary actions.

Marla attended a different school in seventh grade, but was kicked out and
attended an alternative school for the end of seventh grade. . . . She was
expelled for threatening to throw a chair at the teacher. . . . That was around
the same time she started smoking pot and drinking . . . There was probably a
little pressure for her to smoke it as she didn’t want to get picked on.

Thus, girls’ accounts indicate substance use may be a means of coping with childhood
instability, particularly as changes in schools pertained to quality and consistency of peer
relationships. However, directionality of associations is sometimes unclear in the tangle of
co-occurring activities and motivations surrounding school changes and substance use.
Associations of running away with number of schools and caregivers. Quantitative
data indicated positive associations between duration of running away and number of
schools and number of caregivers, but a negative association between duration of running
away and number of homes. The most salient theme in examining girls’ stories of running
away concerns escape from conflict at home.

Heather ran away a lot from seventh grade on. Usually it was because she was
frustrated and mad at her mom—her mom talking and yelling and screaming
and not making sense. . . . The longest Heather ever stayed gone was 3 days,
and that was running from her dad, not her mom. She ran from her dad because
his kids got on her nerves and she didn’t want to be there. He wouldn’t let her
go, so she left.

Sometimes, school changes appeared to be part of disciplinary actions for girls’

running away, as in cases in which girls were sent to alternative schools.

Lori being in the juvenile facility all started with a runaway charge. Her dad was
hitting on her (beating) and her brother was hitting on her, so she left . . . It’s
not the first time Lori ran away, so when she tried to come home, her dad has all
these games he plays on her. He’ll lock her out of the house and won’t let her
in unless he’s there. He’ll tape the doors. When Lori got home, he wasn’t there,
so she took a brick and broke the window to get into the house. The neighbor
 Instability and Delinquency 83

called the police. . . . They sent her to the detention center for 3 days, then she
went to court. Then they ordered her back to go to the detention center before
going to a boarding school. Lori ran away from the boarding school because
she didn’t like it.

Again, this story illustrates entanglement of status offenses with childhood instability
factors, including cyclical or reciprocal relationships between the two.
In exploring the quantitative finding of a positive association between duration of run-
ning away and number of caregivers, we reviewed overlaps between codes for “running
away” and “family.” This revealed that moves to kinship care or social service settings
were often accompanied by reactance and running away.

In fifth grade, Jessica got taken into social service custody because her mom
abused her . . . Jessica was put in a foster home for 2 months before going to
live with her dad and her stepmom . . . and then was in group homes from then
on. . . . Jessica ran away to be with her mom. She ran away from every group
home she was in. Usually, she turned herself in to do the right thing, but then
they’d put her in another group home, and she’d do it again.
Marissa ran away a lot from fourth grade on after getting in social service
custody. She usually did it because she was upset and angry. She felt like the
placements were trying to take the place of her mom. . . . Every time Marissa
would talk to her mom, it would make her sad and cry so she’d leave or walk
out of the placement. . . . the Department of Social Services counts how many
places they put you in. This is the 24th or 25th place that she has been in social
service custody.

Associations of running away with number of homes. Quantitative data indicated a

negative association between duration of running away and number of homes. Closer
examination of girls’ qualitative accounts provides some insight into why girls who had
more changes in homes seemed to run away less. For some girls, moving back and forth
between a few different primary caregivers seemed to circumvent running away as a means
of dealing with family conflict.

The reason Cynthia was always moving was because she was arguing with her
mom or with her dad, so she’d move in with the other one. She was disre-
specting them and always getting in trouble at school. Cynthia’s dad was cool
sometimes. Her mom let her do what she wanted. Her grandmom was real
strict.
Amber lived with her mom, dad, and sister in a trailer up through second grade
. . . They divorced and Amber moved to a trailer park with her mom and sister.
But Amber was fighting with her mom and having problems with her babysit-
ter, so she moved back with her dad and grandmother that same year. The
next year her dad began dating Amber’s stepmother, and she moved in with
them when they married. Amber went to the juvenile justice facility in seventh
grade and moved in with her mom when she got out. It didn’t work out so she
moved back in with her dad. She went back to the juvenile facility in eighth
grade and moved in with her mom in ninth when she got out. But things were
rough, so she moved back with her dad again. In tenth grade, she lived with her
84 J. McLeer and D. DeHart

grandmother for a while before going back into the juvenile facility. In eleventh
grade, she was in the juvenile facility and on the run, then lived with her mom,
aunt, grandmother, and dad intermittently between juvenile facility stints in the
twelfth grade.

As the last account illustrates, having an alternative place to live may have provided respite
from conflict or reduced frequency of running away, but it did not prevent this girl from
getting into trouble all together.

Discussion
Quantitative data indicate the duration of both substance abuse and running away was
longer for female youths that lacked childhood stability in terms of stable school and
home environments. In line with previous findings about changing schools and caregivers
frequently, our findings imply the importance of stability during adolescence. This empha-
sizes the uprooting nature of school mobility and caregiver inconsistency on adolescents
and underscores the possible role of family disruption in girls’ delinquency. Previous
research indicates that adolescents typically engage in drug and alcohol use as a result of
interpersonal isolation, poor parent–child relationships, and exposure to drug-using peers
(Clayton, 1992; Kandel, Kessler, & Margulies, 1978; Shedler & Block, 1990). Our quali-
tative analyses support these characterizations. Many adolescents reported feeling left out
and were encouraged to experiment with drugs and alcohol in order to fit in with their peers.
Similarly, previous research indicates that running away is usually a result of familial con-
flict (Montemayor, 1983). The patterns in our qualitative data support this notion as well.
Those that ran away more did so to escape conflict at home. However, those who ran away
less had more options of family members with which to stay. These results suggest that the
role of family dynamics in adolescent delinquency should be more closely examined.
Our quantitative findings show a relationship between school changes and duration of
substance abuse. However, our analysis could not make claims about whether or not school
changes occurred as a cause or result of alcohol and drug use. It seems equally plausible
that adolescents may react to school changes by experimenting with illegal substances or
adolescents may be required to change schools because of their problems with alcohol and
drugs. Our method was not able to capture such differences.
Interestingly—and contrary to our predictions—our quantitative findings suggest that
moving homes frequently results in shorter running away durations. This is in contrast to
Catalano et al. (1985) and Stacks (1994) who found an increase in delinquency as number
of moves increased. One explanation might be that more options for living situations (e.g.,
staying with another family member) might offer respite from family conflict and thereby
reduce efforts to run away to the streets. Alternatively, because these are self-report data that
relied on the youth’s own definition of running away, this finding might be a by-product of
variation in the ways girls define their own situations; for instance, one girl might refer to
staying at a friend’s house as “running away from home,” while another might indicate that
she “went to live there.” Moves to different homes might also represent step-ups or step-
downs in placement restrictiveness for youth in the foster system (e.g., Huefner, James,
Ringle, Thompson, & Daly, 2010), or moves might be characterized by changes in socioe-
conomic conditions which could in turn affect girls’ problem behavior (Fauth, Leventhal, &
Brooks-Gunn, 2005). Changes in residence are likely associated with an inordinate number
of collateral consequences such as changes in supervision, social networks, neighborhoods,
 Instability and Delinquency 85

and so on. Based on archival data from a community sample, Gasper, DeLuca, and Estacion
(2010) have posited that associations between residential mobility and delinquency may be
spurious. Thus there exists a much greater need to examine nuances or intricacies that could
contribute to divergent findings in research on the delinquency–instability link.

Limitations and Future Research

The current study provides a foundation for further exploration. First, because our analytic
method does not allow us to draw definitive casual conclusions regarding the direction
of the relationships between variables, future research should attempt to tease apart the
causality of these relationships. Our life-calendar approach does place events in time, but
often, associated events occurred within the same calendar year. Measurement and analytic
techniques that utilize greater segmentation within calendar years (e.g., by month versus
year of occurrence) might assist in revealing potential causality within the associations
found here. Implications for policy making would be drastically different if future research
shows that, for example, substance abuse is predominantly a cause of, rather than a reaction
to, changing schools.
Further, the methods of this study relied upon self-report data and included only incar-
cerated adolescent females. It is possible that girls who report more enduring backgrounds
of substance use or running away might also report more stressful life events, whether this
reporting is accurate, a function of intentional misrepresentation, or a proclivity for greater
recall of certain types of events. Strengthened conclusions could be drawn if researchers
tapped into archival data to replicate these patterns of findings. In order to broaden the
generalizability findings, future research should expand the sample to include nonincarcer-
ated adolescents, possibly including teens on probation or those who have not yet come to
the attention of the justice system. Also, research should be conducted to examine if these
effects persist for samples of adolescent males. Our sample, though largely representative
of our state’s overall juvenile justice population in terms of demographics, is limited in rep-
resenting primarily African American and White youth. Given likely variation in cultural
norms and values concerning family, home, and school, future research should examine
whether these findings generalize to populations of youth who are American Indian or
Alaskan Native, Asian, or Hispanic.
If our findings can be replicated, they have important implications for public awareness
and policy regarding potential consequences that school and residential mobility can have
on adolescents. Because these life changes are so uprooting and have serious consequences
for the future of adolescents, policy makers should be aware of the potential repercus-
sions of these factors. Using this knowledge, they could develop guidelines for professional
practice in justice and child welfare settings, or they could implement youth awareness
programs for first-time offenders. Examination of professional standards and competencies
for child welfare professionals demonstrates that these professionals already place some
emphasis on consistency and minimizing disruptions in children’s lives (DeHart, 2003).
Understanding dynamics of why particular types of disruptions may or may not be detri-
mental to children may help caseworkers and youth alike in evaluating options and taking
precautions to make the best of each situation. Although some of our findings supported
past research findings regarding links between instability and delinquency, our contradic-
tory finding that more home changes was inversely associated with running away merits
further exploration, specifically to identify whether this might be a byproduct of our self-
report methodology, could be an irregularity of sampling, or might indicate a gendered
86 J. McLeer and D. DeHart

issue differentially affecting delinquency among girls and boys. Although we realize that
much more must be done to break cycles of offending and recidivism, these suggestions
could contribute to more comprehensive prevention or rehabilitation programs in settings
ranging from schools and neighborhoods to child welfare and juvenile justice.

Acknowledgments
This project was supported by Grant 2006-WG-BX-0011 awarded by the National Institute of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and with support of the South Carolina
Department of Juvenile Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not
necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the South
Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice.

References
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 26–46. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.26
Asarnow, J. R., & Callan, J. W. (1985). Boys with peer adjustment problems: Social cogni-
tive processes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 80–87. doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.53.1.80
Axinn, W., Pearce, L., & Ghimire, D. (1999). Innovations in Life History Calendar applications.
Social Science Research, 28, 243–264. doi:10.1006/ssre.1998.0641
Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (1998). Delinquency and justice: A psychosocial approach (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beautrais, A., Joyce, P., & Mulder, R. (1996). Risk Factors for serious suicide attempts among youth
aged 13 through 24 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
35, 1174–1182. doi:10.1097/00004583-199609000-00015
Belli, R. (1998). The structure of autobiographical memory and the event history calendar:
Potential improvements in the quality of retrospective reports in surveys. Memory, 6, 383–406.
doi:10.1080/741942610
Bowditch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary procedures and the
production of dropouts. Social Problems, 40, 493–509. doi:10.1525/sp.1993.40.4.03x0094p
Brett, J. (1982). Job transfer and well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 450–463.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.4.450
Brown, A., & Orthner, D. (1990). Relocation and personal well-being among adolescents. Journal of
Early Adolescence 10, 366–381. doi:10.1177/0272431690103008
Catalano, R., Hawkins, D., White, H., & Pandina, R. (1985, November). Predicting marijuana
use and delinquency in two longitudinal studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Society of Criminology, San Diego, CA.
Chamberlain, P., & Moore, K. J. (2002). Chaos and trauma in the lives of adolescent females with
antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 6, 79–108.
doi:10.1300/J146v06n01_05
Clayton, R. R. (1992). Transitions in drug use: Risk and protective factors. In M. Glantz & R. Pickens
(Eds), Vulnerability IO drug abuse (pp. 15–52). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
DeHart, D. D. (2003). National Victim Assistance Standards Consortium: Standards for programs
and providers (Report No. NCJ238288). Columbia, SC: Center for Child and Family Studies,
University of South Carolina.
DeHart, D. D. (2008). Pathways to prison: Impact of victimization in the lives of incarcerated women.
Violence Against Women, 14, 1362–1381. doi:10.1177/1077801208327018
 Instability and Delinquency 87

Dohrenwend, B. S. (1973). Social status and stressful life events. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 28, 225–235. doi:10.1037/h0035718
Douvane, E., & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent experience. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Falshaw, L., Browne, K. D., & Hollin, C. R. (1996). Victim to offender: A review. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 1, 389–404. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(96)00005-5
Fauth, R., Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2005). Early impacts of moving from poor to middle-
class neighborhoods on low-income youth. Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 415–439.
doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2005.04.002
Fergusson, D. M., Swain-Campbell, N., & Horwood, L. J. (2002). Outcomes of leaving school
without formal education qualifications. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 37(1),
39–55.
Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school. Albany,
NY: State University of New York.
Fomby, P., & Cherlin, A. (2007). Family instability and child well-being. American Sociological
Review, 72, 181–204. doi:10.1177/000312240707200203
Forehand, R., Miller, K., Dutra, R., & Chance, M. (1997). Role of parenting in adolescent deviant
behavior: Replication across and within two ethnic groups. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 65, 1036–1041. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.65.6.1036
Freedman, D., Thornton, A., Camburn, D., Alwin, D., & Young-DeMarco, L. (1988). The Life
History Calendar: A technique for collecting retrospective data. Sociological Methodology, 18,
37–68. doi:10.2307/271044
Gasper, J., DeLuca, S., & Estacion, A. (2010). Coming and going: Explaining the effects of resi-
dential and school mobility on adolescent delinquency. Social Science Research, 39, 459–476.
doi:10.1016.j.ssresearch.2009.08.009
Gordon, R., & Gordon, K. (1958). Emotional disorders of children in a rapidly growing suburb.
International Journal of School Psychiatry, 4(2), 85–97. doi:10.1177/002076405800400201
Guttman, J. (1993). Divorce in psycho-social perspective: Theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Haynie, D., & South, S. (2005). Residential mobility and adolescent violence. Social Forces, 84,
361–374. doi:10.1353/sof.2005.0104
Haynie, D., South, S., & Bose, S. (2006). Residential mobility and attempted suicide among ado-
lescents: An individual-level analysis. Sociological Quarterly, 47, 693–721. doi:10.1111/j.1533-
8525.2006.00063.x
Hendershott, A. (1989). Residential mobility, social support, and adolescent self-concept.
Adolescence, 24, 215–232.
Hirschi, T. (1983). Crime and the family. In J. Wilson (Ed.), Crime and public policy (pp. 53–68).
San Francisco, CA: University Press.
Hirschi, T. (1991). Family structures and crime. In B. Christensen (Ed.), When families fail (pp.
43–63). Lanham, MD: University Press.
Hoffman, J., & Su, S. (1998). Stressful life events and adolescent substance abuse and depression.
Substance Use and Misuse, 33, 2219–2262.
Holland, J. V., Kaplan, D. M., & Davis, S. D. (1974). Interschool transfers: A mental health challenge.
Journal of School Health, 44(2), 74–79. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.1974.tb05201.x
Huefner, J., James, S., Ringle, J., Thompson, R., & Daly, D. (2010). Patterns of movement for youth
within an integrated continuum of residential services. Children and Youth Services Review, 32,
857–864. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.02.005
Jason, L. A., Weine, A. M., Johnson, J. H., Warren-Suhlberg, L., Filippelli, L. A., Turner, E. Y., &
Lardon, C. (1992). Helping transfer students: Strategies educational and social readjustment. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kandel, D. B., Kessler, R. C., & Margulies, R. Z. (1978). Antecedents of adolescent initiation into
stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. In D. B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitudinal research
and drug use: Empirical findings and methodological issues (pp. 73–98). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
88 J. McLeer and D. DeHart

Khleif, B. (1970). The schooling of military dependents. Durham, NH: New Hampshire University.
Kurdek, L. A., Fine, M., & Sinclair, R. (1995). School adjustment in sixth graders: Parenting
transitions, family climate, and peer norm effects. Child Development, 66, 430–445.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00881.x
Leve, L., & Chamberlain, P. (2004). Female juvenile offenders: Defining an early-onset pathway for
delinquency. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13, 439–452. doi:1062-1024/04/1200-0439/0
Leve, L., & Chamberlain, P. (2007). A randomized evaluation of multidimensional treatment foster
care: Effects on school attendance and homework completion in juvenile justice girls. Research in
Social Work Practice, 17(6), 657–663. doi:10.1177/1049731506293971
Levin, L. (2001). Easyscript express [Computer software]. Newton, MA: Legend.
Levinson, R. M., & Ramsay, G. (1979). Dangerousness, stress and mental health evaluations. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 20, 178–187. doi:10.2307/2136438
Long, L. (1992). International perspectives on the residential mobility of America’s children. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 54, 861–869. doi:10.2307/353167
Martinez, C. R., & Forgatch, M. (2002). Adjusting to change: Linking family structure transi-
tions with parenting and boys’ adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(2), 107–117.
doi:10.1037//0893-3200.16.2.107
Masuda, M., Cutler, D. L., Hein, L., & Holmes, T. H. (1978). Life events and prisoners. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 35, 197–203. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770260075009
Montemayor, R. (1983). Parents and adolescents in conflict: All families some of the time and some
families most of the time. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 83–103. doi:10.1177/02724316833
1007
Moretti, M., Catchpole, R., & Odgers, C. (2005). The dark side of girlhood: Recent trends, risk factors
and trajectories to aggression and violence. Canadian Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Review,
14(1), 21–25.
Morris, R. (1965). Attitudes toward delinquency by delinquents, non-delinquents and their friends.
British Journal of Criminology, 5, 249–265.
Myers, J., Lindenthal, J., Pepper, M., & Ostrander, D. (1974). Life events and mental status: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 13, 398–406. doi:10.2307/2136832
Newman, S., & Owen, M. (1982). Residential displacement: Extent, nature and effects. Journal of
Social Issues, 38(3), 135–148. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.tb01775.x
Parker, J., & Benson, M. (2004). Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent functioning: Self-esteem,
substance abuse and delinquency. Adolescence, 39, 519–530.
Perkins, D., & Jones, K. (2004). Risk behaviors and resiliency within physically abused adolescents.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 547–563. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.12.001
Pong, S., & Ju, D. (2000). The effects of change in family structure and income on dropping out
of middle and high school. Journal of Family Issues, 22(4), 147–169. doi:10.1177/01925130002
1002001
Rahe, R. H., Bennett, L., & Siltanen, P. (1974). Recent life changes, myocardial infraction and abrupt
coronary death. Archives Internal Medicine, 133, 221–226. doi:10.1001/archinte.133.2.221
Raviv, A., Keinan, G., Abazon, Y., & Raviv, A. (1990). Moving as a stressful life event
for adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 18(2), 130–140. doi:10.1002/1520-
6629(199004)18:2<130:: AID-JCOP2290180205>3.0CO;2-V
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sandler, I. N., & Block, M. (1979). Life stress and mal-adaptation of children. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 7(4), 41–52. doi:10.1007/BF00894384
Shedler, J., & Block, J. (1990). Adolescent drug use and psychological health: A longitudinal inquiry.
American Psychologist, 45, 612–630. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.5.612
Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. J. (1999). Developmental pathways to antisocial behavior:
The delayed-onset pathway in girls. Development and Psychopathology, 11(1), 101–126.
doi:10.1017/S095457949 9001972
Simpson, G., & Fowler, M. (1994). Geographic mobility and children’s emotional/behavioral
adjustment and school functioning. Pediatrics, 93, 303–309.
 Instability and Delinquency 89

Smith, T. (1995). The condition of education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. (2009). Annual statistical report, 2008-2009.
Columbia, SC: Author.
South, S., Haynie, D., & Bose, S. (2005). Residential mobility and onset of adolescent sexual activity.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 499–514. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00131.x
Stacks, S. (1994). The effect of geographic mobility on premarital sex. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 56, 204–208.
Steiner, H., Garcia, I. G., & Matthews, Z. (1997). Posttraumatic stress disorder in incarcerated juve-
nile delinquents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36,
357–365. doi:10.1097/00004583-199703000-00014
Theorell, T. (1974). Life events before and after the onset of a premature myocardial infraction. In
B. S. Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend (Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effects (pp.
101–117). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Tille, J., & Rose, J. (2007). Emotional and behavioral problems of 13-to-18-year-old incarcerated
female first-time offenders and recidivists. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 426–435.
doi:10.1177/1541204007300355
Vaux, A., & Ruggiero, M. (1983). Stressful life changes and delinquent behavior. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 11(2), 169–183. doi:10.1007/BF00894365
Wadsworth, M., Maclean, M., Kuh, D., & Rodgers, B. (1990). Children of divorced and separated
parents: Summary and review of findings from a long-term follow-up study in the U.K. Family
Practice, 7(2), 104–109. doi:10.1093/fampra/7.2.104
Widom, C. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature.
Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 3–28. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.3
Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarla, D., Newacheck, P., & Nessim, S. (1993). Impact of family relocation on
children’s growth, development, school function, and behavior. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 270, 1334–1338. doi:10.1001/jama.270.11.1334
Yoshihama, M. (2009). Application of the Life History Calendar approach to understand women’s
experiences of intimate partner violence over the lifecourse. In R. F. Belli, F. Stafford, & D. Alwin
(Eds.), Measuring well-being: Using calendar and time diary methods in lifecourse research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Zahn, M., Agnew, R., Fishbein, D., Miller, S., Winn, D., Dakoff, G., . . . Chesney-Lind, M. (2010).
Girls study group: Understanding and responding to girls’ delinquency. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Copyright of Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.