Single Moms Can’t Be Scapegoated for the Murder Rate Anymore

This post originally appeared on TheAtlantic.com

Homicides in D.C. have hit a historic low, while the percentage of single-parent households remains steady.

As the year draws to a close, the Washington Post reports that the District of Columbia is heading for a historic low number of homicides: fewer than 100 for 2012. That’s down from the highs of about 450 per year at the start of the 1990s (while the population is about the same size).

Not mentioned in the story: the breakdown of the family. That’s surprising, because it was a big part of the story 20 years ago, when D.C. was the murder capital of the country during a national crime wave. I think single mothers—especially those who were raising their kids back in the 1990s—deserve an apology from the conventional-wisdom purveyors of that time.

Using the numbers from the Washington Post feature and Census data, I constructed homicide and single mother rates for 1990, 2000, and 2011, for Washington, D.C. Both trends have been pretty linear, so it’s reasonable to illustrate them with just a few points:

cohen_singlemomchart.pngSources: Homicide rates calculated from number of homicides reported by the Washington Postand population totals from the U.S. Census Bureau, along with single-mother rates, for 1990 and2000-2011.

The Post attributes the declining murder rates to rising incomes, improved law enforcement technology and community relations, and better trauma care (although the number of non-fatal assaults has fallen similarly). But if you go back to the Post from the late 1980s and early 1990s, you would have heard a lot about family structure.

A very early story, from 1985, raised the alarm about an apparent growing epidemic of amoral, violent, black young men:

Such incidents have raised new fears here [in D.C.] and across the country about the growing instability of urban black family structure and the creation of an underclass of young men capable of killing for a warmup jacket or a pair of running shoes. Social scientists, law enforcement officials and community leaders share some of the same theories about the reasons for this kind of homicide among poor black youngsters. They point to the intense desire for material things amid deprivation, easy access to handguns, and the inability of parents—often young, unmarried mothers—to control or instill values in their children.

In 1991, when Health and Human Services Secretary Louis W. Sullivan released a study on homicide trends, he declared:

The collapse of the American family in the past few decades is historically unprecedented in the U.S., and possibly in the world. Nowhere is this trend more apparent than in the black community…. Some argue that the high rate of single parenthood has not adversely affected our children. But, sadly, the research does not bear them out. . . . Study after study has shown that children from single-parent families are five times more likely to be poor and twice as likely to drop out of school. . . . They are also more likely to be involved in criminal activity, to abuse drugs and alcohol, to suffer ill health, and to become trapped in welfare dependency.

Sullivan’s solution was a return to a “culture of character,” which he described as “a culture in which parents invest time and attention in their children, and the children of a neighborhood; a culture in which children growing up without a father are a small minority.”

A 1994 article focusing on the increase in homicide among young people summarized it this way:

At the bottom of all this, people in every section of the juvenile justice system say, is a critical lack of parenting. … Federal officials estimate that 70 percent of children in juvenile court are from single-parent households. In the last 30 years, the proportion of single mothers has grown from one in 20 to one in four.

Family structure and parenting were not the only explanations offered for the epidemic of murder. There was plenty written about crack cocaine and the drug war turf disputes, the availability of guns, and about poverty and failing schools. But that single-parent theme was quite widespread.

I’ve written before about the assumption that the rise in single-parent families was responsible for the violent crime bonanza of the 1980s and 1990s. (Romney and Ryan returned to this theme.)

Looking at it from the perspective of 1990, it was easy to assume a strong causal relationship between the rise in single motherhood and the murder epidemic. By my reading of the research, it is true that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes. But other factors are more important. That must be the case, or we wouldn’t see the overall trends in the United States split this dramatically starting in the 1990s:

cohen_singlemomchart2.pngSources: Crime data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, family structure from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Violent crime has fallen through the floor (or at least back to the rates of the 1970s) relative to the bad old days. And this is true not just for homicide but also for rape and other assaults. At the same time, the decline of marriage has continued apace. Looking at two aggregate trends is never enough to tell a whole story of social change, of course. However, if two trends going together doesn’t prove a causal relationship, the opposite is not quite as true. If two trends do not go together, the theory that one causes the other has a steeper hill to climb. In the case of family breakdown driving crime rates, I don’t think the story will make it anymore.

And I’m open to explanations for why crime has really fallen, even including some minor role for the incarceration craze. But there were a lot of people who were not nearly so circumspect about the soundness of their causal stories when the family-breakdown-crime assumption served their ends. And it would be big of them to own up to it now.

13 Comments

Filed under In the news

13 responses to “Single Moms Can’t Be Scapegoated for the Murder Rate Anymore

  1. Ness Blackbird

    I think it’s likely that consumer electronics have played a role, one way and another. For example, kids today are aware that anything they do is likely to be recorded, so they are less likely to get away with things. Video games, Facebook, etc, take up more time which otherwise might be spent on mischief. If parents of single mothers spend more time playing video games (do they?) they might be more affected.

    • I really like the hypothesis that video games are wasting the time of young people who would otherwise be committing crimes. I have not seen any evidence for this of course. I think it is ironic that maybe violent videogames would especially have a crime reducing effect, by wasting the time of young men who would otherwise get into violence. Who knows?

    • Funny that the same does not seem to be true of politicians. They seem to still be learning that whatever crackpot thing they say to some small church group in SC will haunt them nationally for the rest of their careers now that it will immediately be recorded and uploaded.

  2. Dave

    “By my reading of the research, it is true that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes. But other factors are more important.”

    Could it be that this increased likeliness to commit crimes was offset by increased social spending of some sort in the DC area? (afterschool programs and that sort of thing. There seem to have been massive increases in (inflation-adjusted) per-student spending in recent decades with no real positive change in student achievement).

  3. Dave

    Looking more closely there seems to be more support for my hypothesis. Private school spending seems to be no more than $8-12k/student-year whereas the public system is spending close to $30k/student-year (source – see this Census report for confirmation).

    With Washington, DC spending on public schools nearly 3x as much as the national average for private schools (and about 3x as much as area private schools) I think that I’ll declare your busting of this myth (at least for now) to be busted – it would seem that you’d need to consider a wider population rather than one seemingly anomalous region.

    The Huffington Post reports: “Per student, DC has the most teachers, the most instructional aides, the most instructional coordinators, the second most administrators, and the second most administrative support staff.”

  4. Hyper-incarceration, maybe? Most crimes have always been committed by a small percentage of the population.

  5. Pingback: Jamaican women accused of creating rapists by failing to breastfeed | Feminist conversations on Caribbean life

  6. StraightGrandmother

    I wonder if you saw this article Phillip
    http://news.e-healthsource.com/index.php?p=news1&id=630692

  7. Pingback: Conservatives doubling down on single mothers and crime « Family Inequality

  8. Pingback: How many prisoners grew up with both parents? « Family Inequality

  9. Crystal D

    Here’s my $.02:

    I agree that the availability of technology has contributed to the decrease in crime. I don’t think it’s because young men are wasting their time playing World of Warcraft, however. I think it’s because technology makes it so much easier to get caught. You never know when some passer-by might snap a picture of you with his or her smartphone. Shows like CSI Miami demonstrate that there are more sophisticated crime-solving techniques now, making it difficult to “get away with murder.” Amber Alerts mean that everyone and their dog is going to be out watching for a missing child right away. Call the police and they are less likely to blow you off because they have more tools to solve crime (plus the drop in crime means less workload). It’s much harder for violent crime to pay these days.

    I also think that early intervention for children with learning disabilities contributes as well. Not so much “yay medicated children!” but “yay kids with ADD get help and are not written off as “bad kids” by schools and parents. While there is a long way to go, kids with learning disabilities are at least recognized as *disabled,* not “bad” or “weird,” and there is more help and support and less incentive to turn to crime out of desperation or seething rage.

  10. Pingback: Why Female-headed households decrease violent crime « Iranianredneck's Weblog

  11. Pingback: What’s with the historical trend juxtapositions? | Family Inequality

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s