The Delinquent Child and the Home
Chapter 10: The Child from the Comfortable Home: the Problem of the Unmanageable Boy
Sophonisba Breckinridge and Edith Abbott
Table of Contents | Next | Previous
IN the preceding chapters we have considered in succession different conditions in the home or in the neighborhood which have seemed to explain in some measure the delinquency of the children who have been brought to court. There still remain, however, some more baffling cases in which none of the untoward conditions that have been discussed seem to be present-cases of children who have become delinquent in spite of kind and sympathetic parents and good homes. The table of economic groups which was given in an earlier chapter[1] showed that only one-fifth of the delinquent boys and one-tenth of the delinquent girls came from what may be called "fairly comfortable homes," that is, homes we have placed in Group III ; and that not a per cent of the children came from the wealthier homes of Group IV. It will be recalled that the most typical family in Group III was that of the "skilled artisan who was earning good wages and was regularly employed." The homes were often pleasant as well as clean and decent, and were seldom in poor neighborhoods. The figures which have been given do not mean that the children of the poor are more seriously delinquent than the children of the well-to-do, but rather that the offenses of the latter do not easily bring them within reach of the court. Bad children in good homes are for the most part disciplined at home or "sent away to school," while bad children in poor homes get into the juvenile court and are frequently sent to the John Worthy School or to some similar institution.
The problem of the delinquent child from the comfortable home is, then, so far as the court is concerned, a comparatively small one and almost exclusively a problem of the boy. Some of
(161) the families in this group, however, although they may be in good circumstances when the child is brought to court, were at one time very poor, and the child's delinquency may, of course, be related to an earlier condition of poverty. In some of the cases, for example, a widowed mother has remarried, and the stepfather is well-to-do and good to the children, but they may have been much neglected owing to the mother's effort to support the family during her widowhood. Moreover, in some of the homes in which the pecuniary circumstances are satisfactory, there are cases of degradation, incompetence, or orphanage, which place that particular family in one of the groups already discussed. When all deductions are made, however, there still remain a few children, almost entirely boys, who come from good homes and have good parents, and whose delinquency does not seem to be in any way attributable to neglect.
This brings us to the indisputable fact that the bad boy is not necessarily the product of poverty or misfortune. Even in the most respectable families, there are boys who find the amusements provided by civilized life very dull and who must occasionally fare forth to feed the gnawing spirit of adventure. It is of course too much to hope that on these occasions they will always be able to escape the delinquent paths which lead to the juvenile court and beyond. There are also those more difficult cases both of boys and of girls who may be said to have marked tendencies to vicious ways, some of whom must inevitably be brought to the court for extra parental discipline.
The offenses charged against these children from good homes are chiefly those which suggest the unmanageable boy that every mother knows. The "flipper" is much in evidence, and there are many such "larking" offenses as breaking a Chinaman's window; "being with some other boys who broke street lamps and let out oil"; stealing watermelons from a freight car; entering a church and destroying the key of the organ; selling transfers; shooting craps; knocking down signs in front of Chinese laundries; taking locks from a basement door; "always fighting, and neighbors wished it stopped"; stealing apples from a freight car; building a fire on the railroad tracks; breaking a slot machine; taking waste from an axle box; calling neighbor a scab (gang of four boys); throwing
( 162) snowballs at another lad (mother says "all boys get into a fight sometimes"); "fighting with other boys and father could not make him go to school." There are many cases of what may be called adventurous stealing, such as stealing a bathing suit; stealing a tent; stealing chickens; stealing linseed oil barrels with a gang of boys; robbing a man and carrying a loaded revolver; "carrying a wrench intending to hold up people"; breaking into a store, church, or house with other boys; stealing canned goods; breaking seals on railroad cars and stealing things of various sorts, brass, copper, wire, a brass handle from a passenger coach, and occasionally, but more rarely, grain, and even coal.
A further word with regard to the stealing among boys in this group should perhaps be added. Examples have been given of the kinds of thefts committed, and it is clear, after a careful study of offenses committed by boys in Group III, that much of the stealing is either taking "junk" or grain from the railroad or something similar which can be sold for spending money, or stealing as an incident to some adventurous exploit such as breaking into a house, or robbing a man. There are a few cases, however, that must be regarded as serious. There is the case, for example, of a boy who was the terror of the neighborhood. At one time he had six or seven stolen bicycles in the basement of the apartment house in which he lived, and he regularly stole dogs to get rewards. At the age of fourteen the boy was brought into court as incorrigible. His morals were bad; he would not attend school, stole from stores, and could not be controlled. He was finally sent to a school is the East, where he was put at mechanical work. He has turned out to be a very good machinist, is living in a suburb, working in a machine shop, and studying hard. In this case the boy was one of seven children, the family lived in a comfortable apartment, and the father was well-to-do. There were two untoward circumstances in the family: the boy's own mother was dead and his father is reported to have been a professional gambler and bookmaker. Neither of these circumstances, however, seems to explain his bad conduct, for his stepmother was very kind and his father seems to have been good in the home.
There is another case of a similarly bad boy with a home only slightly less favorable, who also turned out well. He was accused
(163) of stealing rugs and carpets from a hotel and was sent to the John Worthy School for six months. At the age of fourteen he was brought in again, charged with breaking into a barn and stealing a revolver; this time he was put on probation; but the next year he was sent to the John Worthy School accused of loitering around the railroad tracks, throwing stones at passenger trains, breaking windows and signal lamps. It should be added that this boy's school statement is an especially intelligent one and that he is now working in a garage and pays his board at home.
A similarly interesting case, though one in which the outcome is still uncertain, is that of an American boy whose father was once a western farmer but is now a post-office clerk in Chicago. The boy had two older brothers, who were both wards of the court and who belonged to a "gang that made stealing and robbery their pastime," and unquestionably their influence had much to do with his delinquency. At the age of thirteen, this boy was in court on the charge of "disorderly conduct" because he had become associated with a "gang" that had led "an assault" on the boys of another school; at fourteen he was brought in again for assaulting a boy at school and trying to take away his watch; at sixteen he with three other boys was charged with breaking into several stores and stealing $50 worth of goods. Within a year, he came in for a fourth time, charged with stealing candy and cigars worth $40; and finally, a fifth time, at the age of seventeen, he was brought in again, charged with setting fire to a garbage can and burning a back porch. This record in a good many ways is a typical one, beginning with the trouble at school and going on through so-called "burglaries" with a gang until the final act of wrongdoing which threatened most serious consequences; for the house might only too easily have gone with the back porch. The interesting part of this record, however, is the story of the boy's progress under probation. Each time when he was brought into court he was put on probation, for he had a good home and good parents who were eager to do all that they could to co-operate with the court in the discipline of the boy. He was, at different times, under the care of two regular probation officers who finally solicited the aid of a "friendly visitor" with very good results indeed. In one of her recent reports she says the boy " has been working for
(164) three months at the , and a month ago was given charge of the vault there. He has been attending night school and that he may pass he has been meeting me down town at the noon hour, twice a week, that I might help him with his grammar. He is inclined toward adventure and twice this winter he has been camping on the dunes in a small tent. He has given up his old companions and the new ones are of a distinctly better type. One of the best things about him is that he has a real interest in the city and would make an earnest fight for good politics if such an opportunity were clearly presented to him." Her final comment, however, is of interest, " I don't vouch for this boy's future unless he is given some cause which is worthy to arouse his loyalty and enthusiasm." It may be of further interest to quote from the probation schedule that " the friendly visitor has been deeply interested in this boy and has taken him to the theater, to lectures, to parks, and other places of amusement. The boy goes to her every week, though she does not require it."
In some other cases where the boy was considered very bad or had committed at least one serious offense, certain conditions in the home that have been described in the earlier chapters, were so unfavorable as to seem to explain his delinquency. Such is the case of a boy who had already been in police court for stealing a valuable gold watch and was sent to the John Worthy School for seven months. There is no reason to think that he has since turned out badly, although his present whereabouts are unknown. The boy came from a thoroughly demoralized home although the family lived in a very good house, which they owned, in a respectable neighborhood. The mother had died of tuberculosis. The father, who inherited property and was well-to-do, was a drunkard; and for several years after the mother's death the children had no one to care for them and were "worse off than beggar children." Out of 11 children, nine died of tuberculosis, and the only other one living, besides the boy who came to court, was insane. Another boy who came from a comfortable but demoralized home belonged to an American family in which the father, a steady, hardworking, respectable man, was a fireman, "earning good money." The mother, however, was a drinking, quarrelsome woman who "had a bad name in the neighborhood"; the
(165) home, although well furnished, was dirty and disorderly. The children are all said to be "wild"; the father himself put one daughter in the House of the Good Shepherd, one boy has joined the army, and still another is a ward of the court.
In another case a little Polish boy from a Group III home seemed to be very bad. He was first brought to court at the age of twelve for breaking into a candy store and a flat and was sent to the John Worthy School; he came into court again at the age of thirteen for breaking into and "burglarizing" three different places and was sent to another institution for delinquent boys. In the following year, however, he again broke into a store, was brought to court and this time put on probation. Although the boy lived in a comfortable home (seven rooms with "steam heat and bath") at the time when he was brought to court, the family of 1 1 had formerly lived in four rooms. The parents spoke very little English in spite of the fact that they had been in this country twenty years. This boy was "not very bright," his eyesight was poor, he was "very nervous" and had been threatened with St. Vitus' dance. An older brother, who was brighter than this boy, had had a very bad influence over him and had been sent to the Bridewell for leading him astray. I n this case probation did a great deal for the boy. The officer sent a friendly visitor to the home who visited the boy often. She has helped him in school and tried to provide better opportunities of recreation for him. She has done much to make .the family understand and sympathize with him. The parents like her and she has been an important factor in improving conditions in the home.
A classification of all the offenses committed by the boys in this "comfortable group," which is presented in Table 29, on the following page, makes possible an interesting comparison with the earlier table of charges for all the boys brought into court.[2]
It is interesting to note that a larger proportion of these boys came in for disorderly conduct, and a smaller proportion for incorrigibility. That is, by comparing this table with Table 5, it appears that while 5 1 per cent of all the boys came in for stealing and 47 per cent of these boys have committed this offense, 22 per cent of all the boys were charged with " incorrigibility," but only 12
( 166) per cent of these boys are so charged; 16 per cent of all the boys were charged with "disorderly conduct," which is the offense of 28 per cent of these boys. The difference in the condition of the homes might lead us to expect this. The boy from these "better-off" families who gets into court has been off with his gang stealing or committing some disorderly act which relieves the monotony of life, and which he probably would not have committed alone. On the other hand, the proportion of cases is fewer in which the parents cannot control the boy, and the percentage of incorrigibles is lower than it is for the group as a whole. The incorrigible boy is most frequently an evidence of lack of discipline at home, and these parents are able to give more time and thought and perhaps greater intelligence to the management of their children than can be given in the poorer families.
| Offense | Number | Per Cent |
|---|---|---|
| Stealing | 63 | 47.0 |
| Incorrigibility | 16 | 11.9 |
| Disorderly conduct | 38 | 28.4 |
| Malicious mischief | 5 | 3.7 |
| Vagrancy | 3 | 2.2 |
| Immorality | 1 | .8 |
| Dependent charges | .. | .. |
| Truancy | 8 | 6.0 |
| Total | 134 | 100.0 |
It is also an evidence of greater protection at home that the boys of this "comfortable group" are older when they are brought into court than the boys in the other groups.
Of these boys, only 43 per cent came into court when they were thirteen or under, while the table giving the ages for all boys showed that 48 per cent were thirteen or under; and while only 27 per cent of the well-to-do boys were twelve or under, 33 per cent of all the boys were in this age group.
(167)
| Age | Number | Per cent |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | 1 | .8 |
| 10 | 6 | 4.8 |
|
11 |
10 | 8.1 |
| 12 | 16 | 12.9 |
| 13 | 20 | 16.1 |
| 14 | 37 | 29.9 |
| 15 | 34 | 27.4 |
| Total | 124 | 100.0 |
In these better-grade homes which, it must be remembered, are for the most part not yet in the social stratum in which the proffered help of the court would be resented, an intelligent understanding of the work of the probation officer is usually found, and a willingness to co-operate on the part of the parents. In many of these cases such records as the following occur: "The mother feels that the officer did the boy a great deal of good," "the officer had the co-operation of the mother in everything," "the mother says the officer was always friendly and helpful," "the mother thinks it was good for the boy to be under the care of an officer," " the mother thinks the officer's services were helpful," "the officer received the co-operation of the parents in everything she did for the boy," "the parents were always in sympathy with the court's work and helped the probation officer all they could," "the mother speaks well of the officer's services." In one case, which is in a measure typical, the probation schedule states that "although the mother could speak no English she always received the officer kindly and was ready to carry out any suggestion he made," and the family schedule showed that the mother, in turn, spoke with sincere appreciation of the officer's services. "The boy," she said, "was always glad to see the officer, who was very friendly."
Lack of intelligence on the part of the parents in these homes is likely to show itself in too great leniency rather than in the semibrutal treatment sometimes found in lower-grade homes, which often results in the boy's appearance in court on an incorrigible charge. Thus, in the case of one boy, an only child, who was delicate when young, the probation officer thought that the mother "spoiled the boy and always tried to shield him from punishment"; the
(168) officer could control the boy "only by threats, as he thought that people who talked kindly were dead easy." There are a good many other cases in which equally indulgent parents are indicated. Thus, in one case the "mother thinks the boy is perfect"; in another, the officer believes "the parents are too lenient with the children." In still another case the parents insisted that the presence of the boy in court was only the "officer's spite work"; the boy, they said, "had never given any trouble except getting married six months ago at the age of eighteen." In a similar case, the mother is sure the boy has always been a good boy and that it is "a mistake that he was arrested."
It is impossible in the cases of the "comfortable group" as it was for the whole group of delinquent boys, to ascertain how far "gang influence" may have been responsible for their delinquency. But with these boys, even more than with those from the lower-class homes, the gang seems to throw a halo of good comradeship and security over the wrongdoing. 1 n many cases the boy is undoubtedly tempted to steal or to undertake some high sounding feat of daring, such as "holding up a man with revolvers" or " breaking into a house," which he would never have thought of attempting by himself. The boy who would never steal alone, is quite ready to steal with his gang, and the gang leader is not a common lawbreaker in the eyes of his followers, but a glittering hero who has helped them to live in days of splendor. An interesting case in point is that of a young American boy who, with his gang, "stole ice cream from a Greek." This boy who "had 11 dishes as his share" undoubtedly well deserved the penalty of the four months of institutional life which followed, but the 11 dishes would scarcely have been enjoyed without an admiring circle of followers. There are, indeed, many cases in which the offense as described in the court records would be quite unintelligible without the important qualifying words-"being with a crowd of boys."
It should be pointed out here, perhaps, in conclusion, that in the preceding chapters no attempt has been made to charge up against the home or the community all the offenses of the delinquent children of the court. I t is only too obvious that, when all the explaining is done, there remain a considerable number of had boys
(169) who cannot be explained away.[4] Sometimes a mother seeks to excuse the wrongdoing by saying she is sure the boy is "not quite right"; but probation officer and teacher, who are more disinterested, insist that he is only subject to violent fits of temper and that he will be improved by residence in the john Worthy School or in some other disciplinary institution. The mother is right in knowing in her heart that the boy is not really bad and in feeling sure that he will come out all right, but she is bewildered and frightened at what must seem to her a calamitous result of his bad conduct.
There has, of course, never been a time when restless groups of boys did not live in a golden age where watermelons and apples grew only to be " swiped," and where breaking windows and knocking down signs figured as glorious achievements. In the immortal adventurous days of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, every member of their pirate band escaped the juvenile court, but they are the correct prototypes of many of the boys with whom we have to deal not only in this group, but in families of every social stratum. It may be well, by way of summary, to recall the description of the ingenious leader of that historic gang: " Not bad, so to say-only mischievous. He warn't any more responsible than a colt. He never meant any harm and he was the best hearted boy that ever was."
