Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Residential Mobility and Delinquency Revisited: Causation or Selection?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the role of selection in the observed association between residential mobility and delinquency among adolescents.

Methods

This study draws on a sample of adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). We first examine whether adjusting regression models for several well-established determinants of moving attenuates the association between mobility and delinquency. We then employ propensity score methods to estimate the effect of residential mobility on delinquency among a sub-sample of movers and non-movers who had similar likelihoods of moving.

Results

The association between mobility and delinquency is significant and positive in regression models, although it is somewhat attenuated by additional control variables that are rarely considered in prior work. However, the distribution of mobility determinants differs substantially across movers and non-movers, potentially biasing these estimates. After covariate balance is achieved using a propensity score approach, we observe no differences in delinquency between groups.

Conclusions

Results suggest that certain adolescents are more likely to move than others, explaining the observed association between mobility and delinquency. Future research should therefore be mindful of selection when trying to account for differential outcomes between mobile and non-mobile adolescents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Following standard convention we generated five imputed datasets using chained equations. Missing values on each of the covariates was estimated as a function of the remaining covariates presented in Table 1. The models presented in the following section were estimating on the imputed datasets and average coefficients are reported. Missing data was not imputed on either of the dependent variables. We also estimated the proceeding models using list wise deletion and detected no significant departures from the results presented here.

  2. Other studies have also operationalized mobility as both residential and school moves (Gasper et al. 2010). In this study we are specifically interested in addressing literature that establishes an association between residential mobility and delinquency, although we also conducted supplementary analyses that consider ‘movers’ to be adolescents who moved both census tracts and schools. The findings were not substantively different than models presented here (Results available upon request). In addition, movers could also move blocks within the same census tract. In the Add Health survey we identified 63 such movers. Supplemental analyses were also conducted with an expanded definition of “mover” that included these 63 intra-tract moves. This expanded definition also did not alter results substantively (Results available upon request).

  3. Of course, relying on administratively defined units to differentiate neighborhoods is an imperfect practice. Without more elaborate data on street patterns and social network structures, however, census tracts are the most valid measure available in this case (see Sampson et al. 2002 for a summary of neighborhood effects research).

  4. Many studies find that the incidence of moving among adolescents is more common. We surmise that only a small percentage are classified as movers because we are looking at moves that occurred over a one year period, rather than over a period of several years (as many of the earlier studies using Add Health have done).

  5. We expressly focus on residential moves, although other studies have noted the relevance of school mobility as well (Gasper et al. 2010). Thus, we replicated the analyses presented here measuring mobility as whether a respondent had moved both tracts and schools between waves. Results do not differ substantively and are available upon request.

  6. The relationship between mobility and family structure is potentially complex. Unfortunately it is not possible using the Add Health data to ascertain the mobility of a second parent or caregiver in cases where the respondent splits time between two households. As such, it is possible that our measure of mobility underestimates mobility in instances where one parent moved, but the other did not, especially when the mobile parent does not have joint or full custody.

  7. Within parsimonious approaches, there is also some disagreement over which variables best reduce bias: (1) variables that are highly correlated with the treatment, and not highly correlated with the outcome, (2) variables that are highly correlated with the outcome, and not the treatment, and (3) variables that are highly correlated with each. We adopt an approach most consistent with the work of Steiner et al. (2010), who show that only a minimal set of covariates that are central to the selection process are necessary and sufficient for bias reduction (p.261).

  8. We estimated model fits by multiplying the difference between likelihood functions of the full and restricted models by −2. The quotient approximates a Chi square distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in parameters between the two models. A significant Chi square value indicates the full model is preferred over the restricted model.

  9. We also estimated the propensity score models separately for males and females as prior research indicates moving may be more detrimental for males (Kling et al. 2005). However, for both males and females we detected no significant difference in these outcomes in the matched samples. Models are available upon request.

  10. As noted by Abadie and colleagues (2009), bootstrapping techniques for estimating the variance of matching estimators may be inaccurate and significance tests of treatment effects should be interpreted with caution.

  11. Covariate adjustment and propensity score methods were also implemented to estimate the effect of moving on delinquent peer affiliation, since past research posits that the mobility-delinquency link operates through shifts in the behavioral composition of peers. These results were also largely consistent with self-reported delinquency models, suggesting that any link between these variables is due to selection (Results available upon request).

  12. As one reviewer notes, the disparate results across models might indicate that the association is sensitive to modeling strategy rather than evidencing that a propensity score approach reduced a selection bias that is driving these differences. To test this possibility, we conducted a negative binomial regression of general delinquency and violence on moving using our matched sample. If the effect is sensitive to modeling strategy we would expect a negative binomial regression using the matched sample to yield significant results consistent with the models presented in Tables 2 and 3. However, moving remained a non-significant predictor of both types of delinquency (Results available upon request).

References

  • Akers RL (1985) Deviant behavior: a social learning approach. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander KL, Entwisle DR, Dauber S (1996) Children in motion: school transfer and elementary school performance. J Educ Res 90:3–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin PC (2009) Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 28:3083–3107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett AL, Oropesa RS, Kanan JW (1994) Neighborhood context and residential mobility. Demography 31:249–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke KA, Kenkel B, Rueda MR (2011) Misspecification and the propensity score: the possibility of overadjustment. Unpublished

  • Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94:S95–S120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiPrete TA, Gangl M (2004) Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments. Sociol Methodol 34:271–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasper J, DeLuca S, Estacion A (2010) Coming and going: explaining the effects of residential mobility on adolescent delinquency. Social Sci Res 39:459–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilman SE, Kawachi I, Fitzmaurice GM, Buka SI (2003) Socio-economic status, family disruption and residential stability in childhood: relation to onset, recurrence and remission of major depression. Psychol Med 33:1341–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo S, Fraser MW (2009) Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan J, MacMillan R, Wheaton B (1996) New kid in town: social capital and the life course effects of family migration on children. Am Sociol Rev 61:368–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynie DL, South SJ (2005) Residential mobility and adolescent violence. Soc Forces 84:361–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynie DL, South SJ, Bose S (2006a) Residential mobility and attempted suicide among adolescents. Sociol Q 47:693–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynie DL, South SJ, Bose S (2006b) The company you keep: adolescent mobility and peer behavior. Sociol Inquiry 76:397–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynie DL, Silver E, Teasdale B (2006c) Neighborhood characteristics, peer networks, and adolescent violence. J Quant Criminol 22:147–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaton T, Fredrickson C, Fuguitt GV, Zuiches J (1979) Residential Preferences, Community Satisfaction, and the Intention to Move. Demography 16:565–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Todd P (1997) Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training program. Rev Econ Stud 64:605–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman JJ, Ichimura H, Todd P (1998) Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Rev Econ Stud 65:261–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi T (1969) Causes of delinquency. University of California Press, California

  • Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA (2007) Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis 15:199–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman JP, Johnson RA (1998) A national portrait of family structure and adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and the Family 60:633–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iacus SM, King G, Porro G (2009) Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Harvard University, Working Paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Imai K, King G, Stuart EA (2008) Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. J Roy Stat Soc 171:481–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King RA, Massoglia M, McMillan M (2007) The context of marriage and crime: gender, the propensity to marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminol 45:33–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kling JR, Ludwig J, Katz LF (2005) Neighborhood effects on crime for female and male youth: evidence from a randomized housing voucher experiment. Quart J Econ 120:87–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Krysan M (2002) Whites who say they’d flee: who are they, and why would they leave? Demography 39:675–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuven E, Sianesi B (2003) PSMATCH2: stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Boston College Department of Economics, Statistical Software Components. Available at http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html

  • Long L (1988) Migration and residential mobility in the United States. Russell Sage Foundation

  • Lu M (1999) Do people move when they say they will? Inconsistencies in individual migration behavior. Popul Environ 20:467–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meeus W (2011) The study of adolescent identity formation 2000–2010: a review of longitudinal research. Journal of Research on Adolescence 21:75–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozer MM, Engel RS (2012) Revisiting the use of propensity score matching to understand the relationship between gang membership and violent victimization: a cautionary note. Justice Q 29:105–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pais JF, South SJ, Crowder K (2009) White flight revisited: a multiethnic perspective on neighborhood out-migration. Popul Res Policy Rev 28:321–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pribesh S, Downey DB (1999) Why are residential and school moves associated with poor school performance? Demography 36:521–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum P, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum P (2002) Observational studies, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

  • Rossi PH (1955) Why families move. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Royston P (2006) ICE: stata module for multiple imputation of missing values. Statistical Software Components S446602, Boston College Department of Economics, Revised 14 Aug 2010

  • Rubin DB (2007) The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 26:20–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin D (1997) Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med 127:757–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ, Laub JH (1993) Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Gannon-Rowley T (2002) Assessing ‘neighborhood effects’: social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology 28:443–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey P, Sampson RJ (2010) Destination effects: residential mobility and trajectories of adolescent violence in a stratified metropolis. Criminology 48:639–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South SJ, Haynie DL (2004) Friendship networks of mobile adolescents. Soc Forces 83:315–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South S, Crowder K, Trent K (1998) Children’s residential mobility and neighborhood environment following parental divorce and remarriage. Soc Forces 77:667–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South SJ, Haynie DL, Bose S (2005) Residential mobility and the onset of adolescent sexual activity. Journal of Marriage and Family 67:499–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South SJ, Crowder KD (1997) Residential mobility between cities and suburbs: race, suburbanization, and back-to-the-city moves. Demography 34(4):525–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South SJ, Haynie DL, Bose S (2007) Student mobility and school dropout. Soc Sci Res 36:68–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner PM, Cook TD, Shadish WR, Clark MH (2010) The importance of covariate selection in controlling for selection bias in observational studies. Psychol Methods 15:250–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland EH, Cressey DR (1955) Principles of Criminology, 5th edn. Lippincott, J.B

    Google Scholar 

  • Temple JA, Reynolds AJ (1999) School mobility and achievement: longitudinal findings from an urban cohort. J Sch Psychol 37:355–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandersmissen M-H, Séguin A-M, Thériault M, Claramunt C (2009) Modeling propensity to move after job change using event history analysis and temporal GIS. J Geogr Syst 11:37–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

A version of this paper was presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology in San Francisco, CA. We are grateful to Ryan D. King, Scott J. South, Shawn Bushway and anonymous reviewers for feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. The Center for Social and Demographic Analysis of the University at Albany provided technical and administrative support for this research through a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24-HD044943). This research uses data from Add Health, a program project directed by Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add Health website (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Kent State University, 329 Merrill Hall, Kent, OH, 44242, USA

    Lauren Porter

  2. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis, 324 Lucas Hall, One University Blvd., St. Louis, MO, 63121-4499, USA

    Matt Vogel

Authors
  1. Lauren Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matt Vogel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren Porter.

Additional information

Lauren Porter and Matt Vogel contributed equally to this project.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Delinquency Items

In the past 12 months how often did you…

(Never, 1 or two times, 3 or 4 times, 5 or more times)*

  1. 1.

    Paint graffiti or signs on someone else’s property or in a public place?

  2. 2.

    Take something from a store without paying for it

  3. 3.

    Get into a serious physical fight?

  4. 4.

    Hurt someone badly enough to need bandages or care from a doctor or nurse?

  5. 5.

    Steal something worth more than $50?

  6. 6.

    Go into a house or building to steal something?

  7. 7.

    Use or threaten to use a weapon to get something from someone?

  8. 8.

    Sell marijuana or other drugs?

  9. 9.

    Take part in a fight where a group of your friends was against another group?

During the past 12 months, how often did each of the following things happen?

(Never, Once, More than Once)

  1. 10.

    You Pulled a Knife or a Gun on Someone

  2. 11.

    You Shot or Stabbed Someone

*Each item was collapsed into a dichotomy indicating whether the respondent participated in any of these activities. The variety scale was computed by summing across these dichotomous indicators

Appendix 2: Violence Items

In the past 12 months how often did you…

(Never, 1 or two times, 3 or 4 times, 5 or more times)*

  1. 1.

    Get into a serious physical fight?

  2. 2.

    Hurt someone badly enough to need bandages or care from a doctor or nurse?

  3. 3.

    Use or threaten to use a weapon to get something from someone?

  4. 4.

    Take part in a fight where a group of your friends was against another group?

During the past 12 months, how often did each of the following things happen?

(Never, Once, More than Once)

  1. 5.

    You Pulled a Knife or a Gun on Someone

  2. 6.

    You Shot or Stabbed Someone

*Each item was collapsed into a dichotomy indicating whether the respondent participated in any of these activities. The variety scale was computed by summing across these dichotomous indicators

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Porter, L., Vogel, M. Residential Mobility and Delinquency Revisited: Causation or Selection?. J Quant Criminol 30, 187–214 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-013-9200-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-013-9200-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation