Delinquency, School Attendance and Dropout

Author(s): Delbert S. Elliott

Source: Social Problems, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Winter, 1966), pp. 307-314
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social
Problems
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/799257
Accessed: 05-05-2017 14:19 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/799257?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press, Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Fri, 05 May 2017 14:19:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 DELINQUENCY, SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND DROPOUT*

DELBERT S. ELLIOTT
San Diego State College

tions because of their lower-class

Theoretical explanations of delin-
quent behavior have come to place in-
socialization are consequently "pro-
creasing emphasis upon some form
voked"of to engage in delinquent be-
"status deprivation" as the motiva-
havior in an attempt to avail them-
tional source of lower-class delin-
selves of illegitimate means to reach
quency.' According to these views,legitimate
the goals3 or to express their
socialization of lower-class boys rejection
does and disdain for middle-class
not adequately prepare them to com-
goals which are not available to them.4
pete effectively for status rewards Delinquency
in is not the only alterna-
middle-class-dominated institutions.
tive open to youth who experienced
The intense frustration experienced by
status deprivation in school. Dropping
these boys consequently motivates them
out of school also offers a solution to
toward delinquent patterns of be-this problem and is not confined to
havior in an attempt to recoup theirthose lacking intellectual ability.
loss of self esteem.
Studies of school dropouts suggest that
Albert Cohen in Delinquent Boys capable youth are leaving school prior
suggests that the school in particular to graduation to escape a condition
awards status upon the basis of similar to that described by Cohen and
middle-class standards. Here, lower- Cloward and Ohlin. For example,
and middle-class youths compete for Lichter and his associates concluded
status in terms of the same set of that the capable dropout leaves school
middle-class criteria, with the result
because of his desire to escape frustra-
that lower-class youths are relegatedtions
to encountered in the school milieu:
the lowest status positions. As a resultThe dropouts left school because they
of the unequal competition, lower-class were motivated to run away from a dis-
youths develop feelings of insecurity, agreeable situation; they did not feel
become frustrated, and begin to search impelled to run toward a definite and
positive goal. Although they discussed
for some solution to their status prob- employment, their talk was vague, aim-
lem.2 less, or unrealistic. . . . The decision to
drop out was the outcome of an accu-
Delinquency is thus viewed as a by-
mulation of school problems and the
product of the unequal competition at belief that it was too late to correct the
school. Youth who are denied oppor-
tunities to achieve higher status posi- 3 Cloward and Ohlin maintain that some
communities have both conventional and
* This study was supported in part by
criminal opportunity structures. Boys in
a faculty research grant from the San Diego
these communities who experience aspira-
State College Foundation. Grateful ac- tional blockage in the legitimate opportu-
knowledgment is made to Harwin L. Voss,nity system turn to the illegitimate oppor-
University of Kentucky, and David L. tunity system in an effort to achieve their
Dodge, San Diego State College, for their aspirations. This solution is essentially that
critical reading of the manuscript. described by Merton as an innovating mode
1 See David J. Bordua, "Sociological of adaptation. Robert K. Merton, Social
Theories and Their Implications for Juve- Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe, Ill.:
nile Delinquency: A Report of a Children's The Free Press, 1957, pp. 141-149.
Bureau Conference," U.S. Department of 4 Cohen, on the other hand, maintains
Health, Education, and Welfare, 1960; that the delinquent subculture engages in
Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys, Glen- behavior which expresses rejection and
coe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955; and Rich- derogation of middle-class norms and goals.
ard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, Delinquency Vandalism, for example, is seen as an ex-
and Opportunity, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free pression of the delinquent's disdain of the
Press, 1960. niddle-class norm regarding private prop-
2 Cohen, op. cit., pp. 112-119. erty.

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Fri, 05 May 2017 14:19:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
308 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

difficulties. Dropping out was

sition is examined in this not
study inonly
the
the easiest course to take, but a passive,
not an active resolution of the educa- form of two specific hypotheses:
tional problem.5 1. The rate of delinquency is greater for
boys while in than while out of
school.8
One significant point regarding the
decision to drop out of school as2. an Delinquents who drop out have a
alternative to the status frustration ex- higher delinquency rate while in
than while out of school.
perienced in school is that it should
reduce the motivational stimulus toThe
en- Study Design
gage in delinquent behavior. The indi-
The study population is composed
vidual who drops out is no longer
of 743 tenth grade boys who entered
involved in the competiton the with
two largest high schools in a large
middle-class youth at school and the city in September, 1959.9 In
western
adjustment problem described
thisby
ex post facto design, data were
Cohen as the motivational source of
gathered on this group of boys for a
delinquency is at least partially re-
three year period beginning with their
solved.6 If status deprivation experi-entrance into high school in Septem-
enced at school is causally related ber,
to 1959 and ending with their class
delinquency, it follows that the prob-
graduation in June of 1962.10 The re-
ability of engaging in delinquent be-
havior is less for out-of-school youth 8 It is recognized that leaving school
may not reduce the likelihood of a boy who
than for in-school youth.7 This propo-
is already delinquent committing another
delinquent act. The delinquent's identifica-
tion and involvement with an existing de-
5 Solomin Lichter et al., The Dropouts,
New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, linquent group may lead him to continue
his delinquent activities, as a requirement
1962, pp. 247-248. of group membership, even though the
6 It is possible, however, that the indi-
original motivational stimulus for this kind
vidual has merely traded the status frus-
of behavior has been eliminated. However,
trations encountered at school for those if the dropout is not a member of a delin-
encountered in our economic institutions.
quent group prior to leaving school, the
The availability of satisfactory employment probability of his joining this kind of group
may well be a necessary condition for the or committing another delinquent act
effective resolution of the status deprivation
should be reduced.
problem. o The total number of males entering
7 The hypothesis that delinauency is re- these two schools in 1959 was 821. Sev-
lated to frustrations encountered in the enty-eight of this original group transferred
school milieu and that leaving this milieu out of the area during the three year study
reduces the motivation for delinquentperiod be- and were dropped from the analysis,
havior appears consistent with the fact leaving
that 743 subjects.
offense rates in the U.S. drop significantly o10 Police contacts during the summer
after 17, when most lower-class American months of 1960 and 1961 were not con-
sidered in this analysis. Almost all of the
youth leave school and enter the labor force.
Walter Lunden, Statistics on Delinquents subjects were out of school during this
and Delinquency, Iowa: The Art Press, period of time and there was no practical
1961, p. 28; Jessie Bernard, Social Prob- way of determining how many subjects left
lems at MAidcentury, New York: Dryden, the area and for what periods of time.
1957, pp. 421-444; William McCord etDuring al., the school year, all graduates were
Origins of Crime, New York: Columbia in school and only dropouts had to be
University Press, 1959, p. 21; W. H. Dun- contacted to determine their whereabouts.
ham and M. E. Knaver, "The Juvenile The official referral rate declines during
Court and Its Relationship to Adult Crim- the summer months. [San Diego Police
inality," Social Forces (March, 1954), pp. Department-Juvenile Division, Monthly
290-296. In England, the rate of delin- Reports, 1960, 1961, and 1962.] Had con-
quency drops much earlier, at the age of tacts reported during the summer months
14 or 15; again, this is when most English been included, the most probable effect
youth leave school and enter the labor force. would have been a decrease in the out-of-
John Barron Mays, Growing Up in the school referral rate. Since this works in
City, Liverpool: University Press, 1954. favor of the hypothesis, it was decided to

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Fri, 05 May 2017 14:19:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Delinquency, School Attendance and Dropout 309

search design specified a comparison school. The number of in-school days

of the delinquency rates of these boys for graduates was constant. The num-
while in and out of school. The "in- ber of in-school days for dropouts
school" and "out-of-school" distinc- varied, depending upon the date they
left school. School records were exam-
tion requires that each boy be classified
as a graduate or dropout. Boys whoined to determine this date, and an
graduated in June, 1962 or were inattempt was made to contact each
school throughout the entire studydropout during September and Octo-
period were classified as graduates. Allber of 1962 to determine the number
those who left school (during the three of days he was out of school and in
years) were classified as dropouts. The the study area. This information was
dropout category thus includes those secured for 132 or 73 per cent of the
who were "pushed" out of school for 182 dropouts. For the remainder, an
disciplinary problems as well as thoseestimate of their out-of-school time in
who left voluntarily. Those who left the area was made after examining all
to move to another geographical area available records. The latest date the
were excluded from the analysis." Allsubject was known to be in the area
boys classified as graduates were inwas used to calculate the length of
school during the entire study periodtime this subject was out-of-school and
and consequently contributed only toin the study area. The estimate of the
the in-school delinquency rate. Boys number of out-of-school days is there-
classified as dropouts were in-school fore a conservative one.13
for some part of the study period and Official contact reports by police,
out of school for the remainder of thesheriff, and other law enforcement
period, contributing to both the in- agencies constitute the measure of de-
school and out-of-school delinquency linquency. The date and nature of each
rates.12 Of the 743 boys in the study,offense, as stated on the contact report
182 were classified as dropouts and(referral), were recorded.4 The use
561 were classified as graduates. of official statistics as a measure of
The comparison of in- and out-of- delinquent behavior has been ques-
school delinquency rates also requiredtioned by many.15 Certainly a direct
that these rates be calculated upon a
13 A conservative estimate works against
common base. Consequently, it was the hypothesis in this case, since it max-
necessary to determine the actual num-
imized the out-of-school delinquency rate.
ber of days graduates and dropouts 14 Kobrin asserts that police "complaint
were attending school and the numberrecords" or contact reports are probably the
most inclusive measure of delinquency ob-
of days the dropouts were out of
tainable though he recognizes that they are
not an accurate measure of delinquent be-
exclude summer time contacts from the havior. Solomon Kobrin, "The Conflict of
analysis. Values in Delinquency Areas," The Amer-
11 This was determined by a "request ican Sociological Review, 16, 1951, pp.
for transcript" received by the school of 652-661. Since a comparison of in- and
origin. In several cases boys indicated they out-of-school delinquent offense rates is
were moving but no request for transcript made, truancy offenses were excluded. The
was received. In this event, they were calculation of the total number of in- and
classified as dropouts and an attempt was out-of-school days does not include any
made to locate them in the local area. days after an individual's eighteenth birth-
12 There were two boys who droppedday since an individual is generally not
out of school for a period of time and thentreated as a juvenile after his eighteenth
re-entered school. The number of days theybirthday and only juvenile records were
were out of school contributed to the cal- consulted.
culation of the out-of-school rate and both 15 Thorsten Sellin, "The Significance of
their in-school periods contributed to the Records of Crime," The Law Quarterly
in-school rate. Neither boy had an official Review, 67, 1951, pp. 489-504; and "Cul-
contact.
ture Conflict and Crime," Social Science

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Fri, 05 May 2017 14:19:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
310 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

measure of actual behavior which actualbehavior, 2) differences in the

violates legal statutes would provide a
knowledge or reaction of official agen-
cies to the offender, or 3) both of
more adequate test of the hypothesis.
Short and Nye have suggested thetheseuse elements. If the design of the
of a self-reported measure of delin-study permits the investigator to rule
quency to more closely approximate out athe second possibility, then tests of
direct measure of delinquent behavior,
theoretically derived hypotheses will
not be biased by the use of an official
but the nature of this study precluded
the use of such a measure of delin- definition of delinquency. The crucial
question, therefore, is what determines
quency.16 However, an indirect assess-
ment of delinquent behavior canthe bebehavior of official agents and how
obtained from official referrals of law will these factors affect the tests of
enforcement agencies. The definition these hypotheses.
of a delinquent act in terms of official Since the comparison is between
referrals is comprised of two essential dropouts and graduates there are some
elements: 1) it involves behavior logical grounds for assuming that, to
which violates legal statutes and 2) it the extent differences in knowledge or
involves the initiation of official pro- reaction of official agencies are operat-
ceedings by law enforcement agen- ing, they would work against the hy-
cies.7 While the legal definition in- pothesis being tested, i.e., the effect of
cludes an illegal behavior component, these biases would be to increase the
official records are an inaccurate mea- magnitude of the out-of-school delin-
sure of this behavior since the second quency rate. On the basis of available
component requires that the illegal act research evidence, it would appear that
be known officially and that some a major factor influencing the action of
action be initiated aganst the offender. official agents is the social class of the
When an official definition of delin- offender. Not only is the surveillance
quency is used, therefore, any differ- likely to be greater in lower-class
ences in rates of delinquency notedneighborhoods, but the risk of formal
may be attributed to 1) differences in action after detection appears to be
greater for those living in these neigh-
Research Council, Bulletin 41, 1938, pp.borhoods.l's Since the research evidence
17-32; James F. Short, Jr. and F. Ivan Nye,
"Reported Behavior as a Criterion of Devi-also indicates that dropouts come dis-
ant Behavior," Social Problems, 5, 1957, portionately from lower-class neigh-
pp. 207-213; Sophia Robison, Can Delin- borhoods, the effect of this type of offi-
quency Be Measured?, New York: Colum-
cial bias on a comparison of in- and
bia University Press, 1936; John I. Kitsuse
and Aaron V. Cicourel, "A Note on the 18 Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. Mc-
Use of Statistics," Social Problems, 11, Kay, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban
1963, pp. 131-139. Areas, Chicago: The University of Chicago
16 Short and Nye, op. cit. While these Press, 1942; William C. Kvaraceus, "Juve-
authors are aware of the limitations of
nile Delinquency and Social Class," Journal
official statistics when used in etiological
of Educational Sociology, 18, 1944, pp. 51-
research they do not suggest that this 54;
typeErnest W. Burgess, "The Economic
of data is inappropriate for etiological
Factor in Juvenile Delinquency," Journal
studies. "No other system of data collection
of Criminal Law, Criminology and Political
seems practicable on a continuing basis.Science, 43, 1952, pp. 29-42; Ivan F. Nye,
Much etiological research must remain in Relationships and Delinquent Be-
Family
the manipulation of officially defined prob-
havior, New York: John Wiley and Sons,
lems and statistics. . .. We are inclined
1958; Short and Nye, op. cit.; Martin Gold,
to accept Tappan's point regarding Status
the Forces in Delinquent Boys, Ann
validity of legal norms as a unit of study
Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1963,
in preference to nebulous extra-legal ch.
con-
1; Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cres-
cepts." (p. 48) sey, Principles of Criminology (6th ed.),
17 Cloward and Ohlin, op. cit., p. 3; New York: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1960,
Kitsuse & Cicourel, op. cit., pp. 131-137. ch. 15.

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Fri, 05 May 2017 14:19:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Delinquency, School Attendance and Dropout 311

out-of-school delinquency rates would each referral.20 After excluding tru-

be to accentuate the out-of-school rate ancy offenses, it was found that less
and increase the likelihood of rejecting than one half of one per cent of the
the hypothesis.'9 referrals identified the school as the
It might be argued that those in source of the referral. Clearly the
school are more "visible" to law en- school is not a significant source for
forcement agents than are those out-of-delinquency referrals in this com-
school. One way the police may learn munity.
about delinquent behavior is through One other factor which might ac-
reports from school officials. To the count for a different response on the
extent schools make such reports topart of law enforcement agents is the
law enforcement agencies, the delin- offense. If offenses committed while in
quent acts of those in school are school are characteristically different
more visible than are those of out- from those committed while out-of-
of-school youth. In connection with school, this could account for a differ-
another study, contact reports filed entialin response on the part of law en-
the county during 1963 and 1964 were forcement agents and a higher in-
reviewed to determine the source of school delinquency rate. The relatively
small number of offenses involved in
this study precluded the use of a de-
19 R. A. Tesseneer and L. M. Tesseneer,
tailed offense breakdown, but the in-
"Review of the Literature on School Drop-
and out-of-school offense patterns were
outs," Bulletin of the National Association
of Secondary School Principals (May, compared with respect to 1) property
1958), pp. 141-153; August B. Hollings- offenses, 2) offenses against persons,
head, Elmtown's Youth, New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1949; Edith G. Neisser, and 3) control offenses.21 The propor-
School Failures and Dropouts, Public tions of in- and out-of-school offenses
Affairs Pamphlet No. 346, July, 1963, pp. falling into these three categories were
4-6; Division for Youth, The School Drop- as follows: property offenses, 48 per
out Problem: Rochester, Part I, State of
New York, May, 1962, pp. 9-10; Daniel cent compared to 50 per cent; offenses
Schreiber, "The Dropout and the Delin- against persons, 4 per cent and 0 per
quent: Promising Practices Gleaned From cent; control offenses, 36 per cent and
a Year of Study," Phi Delta Kappan, 44 25 per cent. The major difference
(February, 1963), pp. 215-221; Bernard noted was in the control offenses
A. Kaplan, "Issues in Educating the Cul-
turally Disadvantaged," Phi Delta Kappan, where the greater in-school proportion
45 (November, 1963), pp. 70-76; and was due to a relatively greater number
Starke R. Hathaway and Elio D. Mona- of curfew offenses. In terms of serious-
chesi, Adolescent Personality and Behavior:
MMPI Patterns of Normal, Delinquent, 2o These data were gathered in connec-
Dropout, and Other Outcomes, Minneap-tion with a five year longitudinal study on
olis: University of Minnesota Press, 1963,delinquency and dropout supported by a
pp. 92-98. This class differential was in Public Health Service Research Grant No.
fact observed in this study with 85 per centMH 07173 from the National Institute of
of the dropouts compared to 69 per centMental Health.
of the graduates residing in areas classified 21 The offenses as listed on the police
as lower SES areas. The measure of socio- contact report were classified as follows:
economic status (SES) is a social area 1) Property Offenses-Auto Theft, Bur-
measure based upon U.S. Census block glary, Petty Theft, Other Theft, Vandalism;
data. Four block characteristics were con- 2) Offenses against Persons-Sex Offenses,
sidered: 1) average house value, 2) averageAssault and Battery; and 3) Control Of-
contract rent, 3) per cent homes owner fenses-Runaway, Dangerous Drugs,
occupied, and 4) per cent deterioration and Drunkenness and Possession of Alcohol, In-
dilapidation. Blocks where two or more corrigible, Beyond Control, & Curfew.
of these housing characteristics were belowOther offenses were classified as miscellane-
the city average were classified as lower ous. Twelve per cent of the in-school and
SES areas. All remaining blocks were 25 per cent of the out-of-school offenses
classified as higher SES areas. were classified as miscellaneous.

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Fri, 05 May 2017 14:19:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 312 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

ness of offense, a dropouts greater and for those residing in of

proportion
out-of-school than in-school offenses lower and higher socioeconomic
would be classified as felonies. If there (SES) neighborhoods. The highest
are differences in reactions of officials delinquency rate was observed among
based on the seriousness of the offense, lower SES dropouts prior to their
this would tend to operate against the leaving school. It is quite possible that
hypotheses in this study. In general, their involvement in this kind of ac-
the observed differences in offense pat-tivity was responsible for some of them
terns do not appear great enough tobeing pushed out of school. What is
evoke a systematic difference in re-surprising is that this same group of
sponse on the part of law enforcementboys had the lowest referral rate after
agents. dropping out of school. Their out-of-
In the light of the above discussion, school rate is less than one-third their
it is argued that the use of official in-school rate. These data clearly sup-
referrals as a measure of delinquency port the hypothesis.
should result in a conservative test of
Cohen's explanation of delinquency
the hypotheses since the kinds of dis- applies specifically to working class
tortions or biases introduced by theboys and the status deprivation vari-
knowledge and reaction of official able automatically incorporated the
agents would tend to work against the class variable. Since there was no at-
hypotheses. If the rates of actual delin-tempt to obtain a measure of this inde-
quent behavior among boys in and out pendent variable in this study, it
of school were in fact equal, the mostseemed important to calculate separate
probable effect of using official police rates for those from lower and higher
contacts to measure these rates would SES areas. While the in-school rate for
be to over-estimate the out-of-school
boys from higher SES areas is greater
delinquency rate among the dropouts than their out-of-school rate, the dif-
who are more likely to be drawn fromference is quite small and may be of
a lower-class background. little substantive significance. In fact,
there appears to be little difference in
Findings any of the rates shown for boys from
The comparison of the in- and out- higher SES areas. The in-school rates
of-school delinquency referral rates is for dropouts and graduates are almost
presented in Table I. The overall in- identical and are only slightly greater
school referral rate is 4.95 compared than the out-of-school rates. It would
appear that leaving school does not
to an out-of-school rate of 2.75.'This
difference is substantial and in the
have the same impact on boys from
higher SES areas as it does on those
direction hypothesized. Table I also
from lower SES areas. One might
presents the in-school delinquency
rates for both graduates and future
expect that leaving school would affect

TABLE I
DELINQUENT REFERRAL RATE* AMONG BOYS IN AND OUT OF SCHOO
In School
SES Out of School
Areas Graduates **Dropouts Sub-total **Dropouts
Lower 4.13 8.70 4.96 2.42
Higher 4.92 4.95 4.92 4.63
Total 4.34 8.03 4.95 2.75

* Number of referrals pe
** These are the same ind

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Fri, 05 May 2017 14:19:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Delinquency, School Attendance and Dropout 313

boys from these two SES areas differ- The data in Table II supports this
ently. While leaving school should hypothesis. The in-school referral rate
help to eliminate the status frustration for delinquents is almost twice their
of boys from lower-class areas, it out-of-school referral rate. This rela-
would not necessarily solve the adjust- tionship holds for delinquents from
ment problem of those from middle- both lower and higher SES areas. The
and upper-class areas. Boys from rates in Table II also suggest that
lower-class areas can retreat into the
delinquents from lower SES neighbor-
lower-class community where they mayhoods have a higher referral rate than
seek employment in the unskilled or do delinquents from higher SES neigh-
semi-skilled occupations which areborhoods. This is particularly interest-
available to them. Their parents and
ing since there is little difference in the
other adult members of their com- proportions (.112 and .118) of boys
munity are willing to accept thesefrom
oc- each of these two areas who are
delinquent, i.e., who had one or more
cupations as legitimate endeavors for
young men. official referrals on file. It appears that
Boys from middle-class areas whodelinquents from lower SES neighbor-
hoods are more frequent offenders
leave school subsequently find them-
selves limited to lower-class occupa-
than are those from higher SES areas.
tions while their parents and other
Conclusion
adult members of their community
continue to hold middle-class expecta-
Cohen suggests that delinquency on
tions for them. They are unablethe
or part of lower-class boys is a re-
sponse to the unequal competition en-
unwilling to meet the formal expecta-
countered at school. Delinquency is
tions of school and are equally unable
thus associated with frustration and
to meet the expectations of their
failure particularly experienced in
parents if they drop out of school.
school, for it is in this milieu that
A separate but related issue involves
the effect of leaving school on youth
the from disparate cultural back-
referral rate of boys who were knowngrounds are forced to compete for
officially as delinquents whilemiddle-class
in success goals.
There are several alternatives avail-
school. Although the rate of delin-
quent referral is less for boys whileableout to those who experience frustra-
of school than while in school, it does tion at school. They may remain in
not necessarily follow that those who school and attempt to deal with their
have official referrals while in school frustration by attacking the system of
will have fewer referrals after leaving norms and values which they believe to
school. To test the hypothesis that be the source of their difficulties.
delinquents who drop out have a Delinquent behavior may thus be
higher referral rate while in school, in- viewed as an expression of their resent-
and out-of-school referral rates were ment toward this system and those
calculated for this group. (Table II) who attempt to enforce its norms. On
TABLE II
OFFENSE RATES* FOR DELINQUENT DROPOUTS BEFORE AND AFTER
LEAVING SCHOOL

SES Areas Before After

Lower 64.96 34.52

Higher 40.12 23.75
Total 60.78 31.01

* Number of delinquen

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Fri, 05 May 2017 14:19:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 314 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

the other hand,referral

thoserate while inexperiencing
school than while
failure may leave school
out of school. making
The data supported both a
"retreatist" adaptation hypotheses. The in an effort
small difference be- t
escape from the tween in- and out-of-school
situation offense
which pro-
duces the frustrations. rates for boys No from higher SES
longer frus
trated by the unequal neighborhoods competition
suggests that dropping at
school, there is little or no need to out of school may not constitute a solu-
attack the school or the normative sys- tion to problems of status deprivation
tem it represents. for boys from higher SES areas. One
It was hypothesized, therefore, that might infer that dropout is a satisfac-
1) the rate of delinquency referral is tory solution for those from lower SES
greater for boys while in school than areas for the delinquency rate of such
while out of school; and 2) delin- youth is lower after leaving school
quents who drop out have a higher than it was while they were in school.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND REPORTED

DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR
HARWIN L. VOSS
University of Kentucky

Nearly all writers who deal with Social class is treated as a critically
juvenile delinquency in American so-
important variable in a number of the
ciety conclude that it is primarily con-theories of delinquency. These
current
centrated in the lower socio-economic
explanations have extended the hy-
strata, but few would deny the pothesis
exist- proposed by Merton that
ence of delinquency among middle
"aberrant behavior may be regarded
class youth.1 Many undoubtedly sociologically
would as a symptom of dissoci-
agree that middle class delinquency is
ation between culturally prescribed as-
increasing, though the evidence for and socially structured ave-
pirations
such a view is impressionistic and non-
nues for realizing these aspirations."3
statistical.2 The effect of these theories has been

1 Ernest W. Burgess, "The Economic to focus attention almost exclusively on

Factor in Juvenile Delinquency," Journal lower class delinquency, particularly
of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police gang delinquency. For example, Cohen
Science, 43 (May-June, 1952), pp. 29-42; and Cloward and Ohlin have directed
Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys: The
Culture of the Gang, Glencoe, Ill.: The
their efforts toward explaining gang
Free Press, 1955, p. 37; Bernard Lander, delinquency, though presumably it ac-
Towards An Understanding of Juvenile counts for a small, but highly im-
Delinquency, New York: Columbia Uni- portant proportion of all delinquency.4
versity Press, 1954; Clifford R. Shaw and
Henry D. McKay, Juvenile Delinquency
and Urban Areas, Chicago: University of Police Science, 50 (March-April, 1960),
Chicago Press, 1942; William W. Watten- p. 535; Albert K. Cohen, "Middle-class
berg and James J. Balistrieri, "Gang Mem- Delinquency and the Social Structure,"
bership and Juvenile Misconduct," Ameri- paper read at the annual meeting of the
can Sociological Review, 15 (December, American Sociological Society, 1957.
1950), pp. 746-752. 3 Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and
2 Ralph W. England, Jr., "A Theory of Social Structure, rev. ed., Glencoe, Ill.: The
Middle Class Juvenile Delinquency," Jour- Free Press, 1957, p. 134.
nal of Criminal Law, Criminology and 4 Cohen, Delinquent Boys, op. cit.;

This content downloaded from 193.226.52.248 on Fri, 05 May 2017 14:19:56 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms