8/13/2019 188676

1/8

Juvenile Delinquencyand Serious Injury

VictimizationRolf Loeber, Larry Kalb, and David Huizinga

This Bulletin is part of the Office of Juve-nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP) Youth Development Series, which

presents findings from the Program of Re-search on the Causes and Correlates of

Delinquency. Teams at the University atAlbany, State University of New York; theUniversity of Colorado; and the Universityof Pittsburgh collaborated extensively in

designing the studies. At study sites in Roch-ester, New York; Denver, Colorado; and

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the three researchteams have interviewed 4,000 participantsat regular intervals for a decade, recordingtheir lives in detail. Findings to date indi-cate that preventing delinquency requiresaccurate identification of the risk factorsthat increase the likelihood of delinquentbehavior and the protective factors thatenhance positive adolescent development.

Public opinion often supports the ideathat offenders are vastly different fromtheir victimsoffenders inflict physical

harm and cause property loss while vic-tims are innocent bystanders. A propor-tion of victims no doubt fall into thiscategory. However, another category ofvictims exists. These victims are moreprone to (1) engage in illicit activities thatcause conflict (e.g., belong to a gang, dealdrugs, fence stolen goods), (2) associatewith delinquent friends who have poorsocial and problem-solving skills, (3) vic-timize other delinquents, and (4) havelittle recourse to legal means of conflict

resolution (e.g., the justice system). Analy-ses of juveniles who are killed or wound-ed by guns show that almost all of thesejuveniles had been highly delinquentthemselves (Loeber et al., 1999).

Delinquency and victimization are oftenintertwined and mutually stimulate eachother (Lauritsen, Laub, and Sampson,1992; Simon, Dent, and Sussman, 1997;Singer, 1986; Thornberry and Figlio, 1974).Huizinga and Jakob-Chien (1998) reportedthat as the seriousness of offending in-creases, so does the probability of beingviolently victimized (49 percent of maleserious, violent juvenile offenders wereviolently victimized compared with 12percent of nondelinquents). This indi-cates that as the occurrence of delin-quency increases in the juvenile popula-tion, the chances of victimization increaseas well. Victimization, in turn, is thoughtto increase the risk of delinquent acts,particularly violent victimization and of-

fending. In the most extreme cases, forexample, when a gang member is killed orseriously wounded by a rival gang mem-ber, retaliation often takes place, followedby counterretaliation.

Knowledge of patterns and predictors ofvictimization could be beneficial in devel-oping intervention strategies to reduceboth offending and victimization. Fewlongitudinal studies on victimization,however, have provided insight into thepredictors of victimization (see Esbensen,

A Message From OJJDP

Conventional wisdom generally con-ceives of victims of violence as in-

nocent bystanders. Although manyvictims fall into this category, thisBulletin focuses on another set ofvictims: youth involved with juveniledelinquency. These victims are proneto engage in illegal activities, associ-ate with delinquents, victimize otherdelinquents, and avoid legal recoursein resolving conflicts.

It appears that delinquent behaviorand victimization are inextricablylinked for some individuals. A recentstudy found that 1 in 2 males whowere serious, violent juvenile offend-

ers were violently victimized com-pared with 1 in 10 of their nondelin-quent peers. Being victimized, inturn, may lead to victimizing others.Retaliatory acts of violence, oftenassociated with gangs, are classicexamples of this cycle of behavior.

A clearer understanding of the pat-terns and predictors of juvenile vic-timization thus offers the potential forincreased effectiveness in designingand implementing strategies to re-duce both victimization and offending.

This Bulletin draws on data from two

OJJDP longitudinal studies on thecauses and correlates of juveniledelinquencythe Denver Youth Sur-vey and the Pittsburgh Youth Studyto enhance our appreciation of theinterrelationship between delinquen-cy and victimization.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

August 2001

8/13/2019 188676

2/8

2

factors or combinations of risk factorsbest predict victimization involving seri-ous injury? Throughout this Bulletin, thefocus is on victims of assaults or rob-beries who sustained serious injuries as aresult of the victimization. The termsvictim and victimization will be usedto refer to victimization involving seriousinjury.

Two LongitudinalStudiesThe prospective longitudinal researchdesign of the Denver Youth Survey andthe Pittsburgh Youth Study permits theinvestigation of developmental processes

over the life course. The two projectshave involved more than 3,000 inner-citychildren and youth who, at the beginningof the research in 1987, ranged in agefrom 7 to 15. Youth and parents havebeen interviewed in private settings atregular intervals.

Denver Youth Survey

The Denver Youth Survey is based ona survey of more than 20,000 house-holds randomly selected from high-risk

Huizinga, and Menard, 1999, for an excep-tion). On the one hand, because delin-quency and victimization often are inter-twined, predictors of delinquency ingeneral (e.g., coming from a low socio-economic background, poor parental su-pervision) also may be expected to pre-dict victimization. On the other hand, itmay be expected that victimization canbest be predicted by proximal risk factors(i.e., risk factors occurring close in timeto the event), such as weapons carrying,drug dealing, and association with delin-quent peers.

This Bulletin reports empirical findingson victimization from two sites of OJJDPsProgram of Research on the Causes andCorrelates of Delinquency: Denver, CO,and Pittsburgh, PA. The longitudinal, mul-tisite approach used by these studiesmakes it possible to answer a number ofimportant questions concerning victim-ization involving serious injury. Specificquestions addressed are (1) What is theprevalence of victimization involving seri-ous injury in the general population? (2)What are the proximal and distal factorsassociated with becoming a victim whosustains a serious injury? (3) Which risk

neighborhoods in Denver, CO. The sampconsists of 1,527 youth, approximatelyequal numbers of boys and girls, whowere ages 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 in 1987. Thethnic composition of the sample is 33percent African American, 45 percentHispanic, 10 percent white, and 12 per-cent other, as self-identified by the re-spondents. This Bulletin focuses on thethree oldest cohorts of youth (464 malesand 411 females), who were ages 11, 13,and 15 at the start of the study, and cov-ers the first 5 years of the study.

Interviews have been conducted annuallwith each youth and a primary caretaker(usually the mother figure of the house-hold). Attrition has been low in this studmore than 92 percent of the respondentscompleted interviews annually from 198to 1992.

Pittsburgh Youth Study

The Pittsburgh Youth Study initially tooka random sample of boys in the first,fourth, and seventh grades in inner-citypublic schools in 1987. Through inter-views with each boy, one of his parents,and a teacher, the boys were screened fo

Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency

The three sites have collaborated touse a common measurement pack-age, collecting data on a wide rangeof variables that makes possiblecross-site comparisons of similari-

ties and differences.

Each project has disseminated theresults of its research through abroad range of publications, reports,and presentations. In 1997, OJJDPinitiated the Youth Development Se-ries of Bulletins to present findingsfrom the Causes and Correlates pro-gram. In addition to the present Bul-letin, eight other Bulletins have beenpublished in the Youth DevelopmentSeries: Epidemiology of SeriousViolence, Gang Members and De-linquent Behavior, In the Wake of

Childhood Maltreatment, Develop-mental Pathways in Boys Disruptiveand Delinquent Behavior, Family Dis-ruption and Delinquency, TeenageFatherhood and Delinquent Behavior,Co-occurrence of Delinquency andOther Problem Behaviors, and GunUse by Male Juveniles: Researchand Prevention.

The Program of Research on theCauses and Correlates of Delinquencyis an example of OJJDPs support oflong-term research in a variety of fields.Initiated in 1986, the Causes and Corre-lates program includes three closelycoordinated longitudinal projects: thePittsburgh Youth Study, directed by Dr.Rolf Loeber at the University of Pitts-burgh; the Rochester Youth Develop-ment Study, directed by Dr. Terence P.Thornberry at the University at Albany,State University of New York; and theDenver Youth Survey, directed by Dr.David Huizinga at the University of Col-orado. The Causes and Correlates pro-gram represents a milestone in crimino-logical research because it constitutesthe largest shared-measurement ap-proach ever achieved in delinquency

research. From the beginning, the threeresearch teams have worked togetherand have used similar measurementtechniques, thus enhancing their abilityto generalize their findings.

Although each of the three projects hasunique features, they share several keyelements:

All three are longitudinal investigationsthat involve repeated contacts with thesame juveniles over a substantial por-tion of their developmental years.

In each study, researchers have con-ducted face-to-face interviews withadolescents in a private setting. Byusing self-report data rather than juve-nile justice records, researchers havebeen able to come much closer tomeasuring actual delinquent behaviorsand ascertaining the age at onset ofdelinquent careers.

Multiple perspectives on each childsdevelopment and behavior are ob-tained through interviews with thechilds primary caretaker and teachersand from official school, police, andcourt records.

Participants are interviewed at regu-lar and frequent intervals (6 or 12months).

Sample retention has been high. Asof 1997, more than 80 percent of theparticipants had been retained at eachsite, and the average retention rateacross all interview periods was 90percent.

8/13/2019 188676

3/8

3

participation in serious assault, druguse, drug sales, and association withdelinquent peers. Also included weremeasures of a youths being oppositional,hyperactive, or impulsive. These mea-sures were developed by Espiritu (1998)and employ a configuration of items from

the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbachand Edelbrock, 1987).

Risk factors were measured using infor-mation from youth respondents, parents,and, in Pittsburgh, teachers. Each ofthese informants provided useful andindependent information about a youthrespondents behavior and background.As a result of extensive collaboration be-tween the Causes and Correlates sites, allof the measures used were very similarand, in many cases, identical. In addition,a rigorous effort was made to ensure com-parability of measures used in this Bulle-

tin. In Pittsburgh, all risk factors usedwere measured during the first 2 years ofthe study. In Denver, family and psycho-logical factors were measured during thefirst 2 years of the study, and other indi-vidual risk factors were measured priorto or concurrent with the first reportedincident of becoming a victim. Thus, riskis measured temporally either prior to orconcurrent with reported victimization.

Results

Prevalence of Victimization

Table 1 shows the prevalence of victim-ization for both sites. A striking percent-age of youth and young adults had beenseriously injured as a result of assaults orobberies. Among males, 11 percent inPittsburgh and 20 percent in Denver re-ported having been a victim, as did 10percent of the females in Denver. Preva-lence rates were higher among minoritieat both sites, particularly for African Ameican males.

Risk Factors forVictimization

Because victimization is not evenly dis-tributed across the youth population, thDenver and Pittsburgh studies used con-trol groups that matched the victimsdemographics (age, ethnicity, and, inDenver, gender) to compare risk factorsfor victims and nonvictims.

Table 2 shows the relation of victimiza-tion to individual risk factors. It alsoshows the odds ratio (the increased likehood of victimization given the presenceof a particular risk factor compared withits absence), statistical significance, and

the presence of risk factors involving 21antisocial behaviors. The final sampleconsisted of 1,517 boys, including 30 per-cent of the interviewees who were mostdisruptive and a random sample of theremaining boys. Slightly more than halfthe boys identified themselves as African

American and the remainder as white, aratio similar to that found in Pittsburghpublic schools.1 This Bulletin focuses onyouth who were in the seventh grade atthe start of the study (n=506).

Participants in the seventh grade cohortwere followed from 1987 (average age, 13)to 1993 (average age, 18.5). Followupswere initially conducted every 6 monthsand later once per year. At each assess-ment, the boys primary caretaker (i.e.,the person having primary responsibilityfor the child within the household) andteacher were also interviewed. In most

cases (91 percent), the caretaker was theboys biological mother, stepmother, oradoptive mother. Attrition has been quitelow in this study, with an average partici-pation rate across phases of 92.7 percent.

Assessment ofVictimization andRisk FactorsYouth participants in the Denver YouthSurvey and the Pittsburgh Youth Studyself-reported annually whether they hadbeen victims. Participants were asked if

they had received injuries from an assaultor robbery (e.g., been attacked by some-one with a weapon or by someone tryingto seriously hurt or kill them). Injurieswere considered serious if they involveda cut or bleeding, being knocked uncon-scious, or hospitalization. Victimizationwas identified in the Pittsburgh studywhen the respondents were, on average,ages 16.5 to 18.5, and in the Denver sur-vey when the respondents were, on aver-age, ages 13 to 17. In Pittsburgh, a num-ber of boys who had been murdered (n=14)were included in the victimization group.Weighted data for prevalence figures thatcorrect for the screening methods of eachstudy were used so that population preva-lence rates could be presented.

Risk factors were selected from family,school, peer, and personal domains. Fam-ily factors included low socioeconomicstatus, parental crime, single-parenthousehold, and poor parental supervi-sion. Individual factors included poorschool grades, involvement in gang orgroup fights,2 weapons carrying,

Table 1: Prevalence of Victimization

Number of Number of Prevalence ofYouth Victims Victims, Weighted (%)

Pittsburgh Youth StudyMale 478 62 11

African American 273 43 14White 205 19 9

Denver Youth SurveyMale 460 94 20

African American 173 46 27Hispanic 210 40 19White 32 2 6Other 45 6 13

Female 413 43 10

African American 158 20 12Hispanic 181 16 9White 39 4 9Other 35 3 9

Total 873 137 16

* Prevalence rates use weighted data that provide estimates for the populations from which thesamples at each site were drawn.

Although this Bulletin focuses on 506 youth from the Pittsburgh Youth Study, this table focuseson the 478 youth for whom full data were available.

8/13/2019 188676

4/8

4

percent injured in the risk-present andrisk-absent groups.

Because many of the family and individualcharacteristics were not statistically sig-nificant in Pittsburgh and often were onlysignificant for one gender in Denver, onlythe significant risk variables are includedin table 2. The lack of significance of thefamily and some individual characteristicsin Pittsburgh may reflect the somewhatolder ages of the Pittsburgh sample whenthey were asked about victimization.

Several risk factors were significantlyrelated to victimization at both sites andfor both genders. These included partici-pating in gang/group fights, carrying aweapon, committing serious assault, sell-ing drugs, and associating with delin-quent peers. The group of youth charac-terized by any one of these risk factorswas generally two to four times more like-ly to have included victims than the groupof youth who did not have the risk factor(see figure 1).

As shown in table 2, between 24 and 40percent of males involved in gang/groupfights had themselves been seriouslyinjured, while approximately 12 percentof those who had not been involved insuch fights had been seriously injured.Among females, 27 percent of thoseinvolved in gang/group fights had beenseriously injured, while 8 percent ofthose who had not been involved in suchfights had been seriously injured. Maleswho carried weapons were approximatelythree times more likely to be victimizedthan those who did not carry weapons27 to 33 percent of the weapons carriersbecame victims, as opposed to only 10percent who did not carry weapons.Among females, the results were similar.Of those who carried weapons, 21 per-cent had been victims, and of those whodid not carry weapons, only 6 percenthad been victims. Similarly, both malesand females who committed aggravatedassault, sold drugs, had delinquent peers,or committed violent acts against others

were much more likely to become victimsthan those who did not engage in suchactivities.

Several family and other risk factors wereassociated with elevated levels of victim-ization, but only in the Denver sample.This most likely reflects the age rangeand the concurrent measurement of riskand victimization used in analyses forthat site. Among boys and girls, these riskfactors included coming from a single-parent household, being oppositional

Table 2: Significant Risk Factors for Victimization

Injured (%), by Risk FactoOdds

Risk Factors* Ratio p Present Absent

Family

Low socioeconomic statusDYS, female 2.00 0.03 20 10

Parental crimeDYS, male 1.64 0.00 28 17

Single-parent householdDYS

Male 1.84 0.01 24 13Female 2.33 0.00 14 6

Poor parental supervisionDYS, female 1.78 0.07 16 9

IndividualOppositional behavior

DYSMale 1.70 0.00 29 17

Female 2.00 0.02 16 8Hyperactive

DYSMale 2.07 0.00 31 15Female 1.89 0.05 17 9

ImpulsivenessDYS, male 2.10 0.00 29 14

Poor school gradesDYS, male 1.94 0.00 35 18

Involved in gang fightsDYS

Male 3.63 0.00 40 11Female 3.38 0.00 27 8

PYS 2.30 0.05 24 12

Weapons carryingDYS

Male 3.30 0.00 33 10Female 3.30 0.00 21 6

PYS 3.20 0.00 27 10

Involved in serious assaultDYS

Male 2.19 0.00 35 16Female 3.67 0.00 33 9

PYS 3.92 0.00 33 11

Drug useDYS

Male 2.20 0.00 33 15Female 3.57 0.00 25 7

Drug salesDYS

Male 1.70 0.01 30 17Female 7.50 0.00 60 8

PYS 2.80 0.01 26 11

Delinquent peersDYS

Male 1.60 0.00 27 15Female 4.25 0.01 34 8

PYS 2.60 0.00 25 11

Note: Estimates provided are based on data weighted to reflect these groups in the population.

* DYS, Denver Youth Survey; PYS, Pittsburgh Youth Study (all male).

8/13/2019 188676

5/8

5

and hyperactive, and using drugs. Amongmales, risk factors also included havingpoor school grades, being impulsive, andhaving parents involved in criminalactivities.

The relation of various combinations ofrisk factors to victimization was examinedusing the five risk factors that were close-ly associated with such victimization atboth sites (participating in gang/groupfights, carrying a weapon, committingserious assault, selling drugs, and havingdelinquent peers). Figure 2 shows clearlythat for males the number of risk factorsa youth has and his chances of becoming

a victim are related. Among males overall,as the number of risk factors increased,so did the prevalence of victimization.While only 6 to 8 percent of males withno risk factors were victimized, 50 to 70percent who had four or more risk factorshad been victimized (see figure 2). Similarfindings held for females. Among femaleswith none of the five risk factors men-tioned above, 5 percent had become vic-tims; among those with one risk factor, 10percent had become victims; and amongthose with two or more risk factors, 42percent had become victims. Althoughthe number of females with four or more

risk factors was small, 100 percent ofthese females had become victims.

Across both studies and for each genderthe combination of committing assaultsand carrying a weapon was particularlyassociated with elevated levels of victimization (see table 3). Among males, 40 to46 percent of those individuals who car-ried weapons and were assaultive werethemselves victims. Among females whocarried weapons and were assaultive, 30percent were victims. Examining all vic-tims as a group, among males in Pitts-burgh, 27 percent had this combination risk factors and 49 percent had at leastone of these risk factors. Among male vitims in Denver, 62 percent had this combnation of risk factors and 84 percent hadat least one of these risk factors. Amongfemale victims in Denver, 26 percent hadthis combination of risk factors and 65

percent had at least one of these risk factors. Thus, in Pittsburgh, about half thevictims carried weapons or were involvein assaults, and in Denver, roughly threequarters of male victims and two-thirds female victims carried a weapon or wereinvolved in assaults.

ConclusionA sizeable percentage of youth and youngadult males and females reported beingvictims. In Pittsburgh, 11 percent of malebetween the average ages of 16.5 and 18.5received serious injuries when they wereassaulted or robbed. In Denver, 20 percenof males and 10 percent of females reported being victims between ages 13 and 17.Quite clearly, victimization was not arare occurrence in these samples. At bothsites, minorities, especially African American males, were more likely to have beenvictims.

Several risk factors for victimization werfound at both sites. These included par-ticipating in gang or group fights, carryina weapon, committing serious assault,selling drugs, and associating with delin-quent peers. Fourteen percent of the mavictims and 28 percent of the female vic-tims in Denver did not have any of thesemeasured risk factors. In Pittsburgh, 34percent of the victims did not have any othese risk factors.

Thus, although not all victims had theserisk factors, the vast majority of victims(66 percent in Pittsburgh and 87 percentof males and 72 percent of females inDenver) were involved in behaviors oractivities that might be associated with

0

10

20

30

40

50

PittsburghDenver

Gang Fights Weapons Carrying

Drug Sales

0

10

20

30

40

50

PittsburghDenverPercentageofV

ictims

WithinGro

up

PercentageofV

ictims

WithinGro

up

Percentageo

fVictims

WithinG

roup

PittsburghDenver0

10

20

30

40

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

PittsburghDenver

Delinquent Peers

Percentageo

fVictims

WithinG

roup

0

10

20

30

40

50

PittsburghDenver

Violent Behavior

Percentage

ofVictims

Within

Group

Risk factor not presentRisk factor present

Figure 1: Effect of Risk Factors on Victimization of Males

8/13/2019 188676

6/8

6

Table 3:Victimization, by Pattern of Risk Factors

Pattern of Number of Number of Rate of Victims WithRisk Factors Youth Victims Victimization (%) Pattern (%)*

PittsburghNo risk factors 150 14 9 34Assault 28 3 11 7Hidden weapon 37 6 16 15Assault and

hidden weapon 24 11 46 27Other risk

factors only 50 7 14 17DenverMale

No risk factors 184 13 7 14Assault 40 9 23 10Hidden weapon 61 11 18 12Assault and

hidden weapon 145 58 40 62Other risk

factors only 30 3 10 3

FemaleNo risk factors 250 12 5 28Assault 24 4 17 9Hidden weapon 74 13 18 30

Assault andhidden weapon 37 11 30 26

Other riskfactors only 21 3 14 7

Note: Assault defined as gang fight or other assault. Hidden weapon defined as carrying a hiddenweapon. Other risk factors were drug sales and delinquent peers.

* Some percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

sustaining serious injuries. This raises anumber of issues for the prevention ofvictimization. First, for the majority ofvictims, successful delinquency preven-tion procedures are likely to preventvictimization. Because most victims arethemselves involved in assaultive be-

haviors, sell drugs, and/or have delin-quent peers, avoidance of these riskybehaviors could result in the lowering ofrisk for victimization. In fact, althoughnot examined in this Bulletin, victimiza-tion may be a fairly strong indicator of ajuveniles involvement in serious delin-quency. Interventions designed to reducthe delinquency of identified victims mabe successful from both a delinquencyand a victimization perspective.

Second, more information is neededabout juvenile victims who are not in-volved in risky behaviors and the events

surrounding their victimization so thatsafety precautions for this group can bedeveloped and taught. Programs for intevening with potential perpetrators of sucviolence also are needed.

Endnotes1. A more detailed description of thecharacteristics of the study participantsand the methods used to select them cabe found in Loeber and colleagues (1998

2. Youth who are not members of delin-quent gangs report involvement in gang

or group fights, in which groups of youtfight each other. This Bulletin uses theterm gang fights in a generic sense; paticipation in a gang fight does not neces-sarily imply membership in a delinquentgang.

ReferencesAchenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S.1987.Manual for the Child Behavior Checlist and Revised Child Behavior Profile.Burlington, VT: University of Vermont,Department of Psychiatry.

Esbensen, F-A., Huizinga, D., and MenardS. 1999. Family context and criminal vic-timization in adolescence. Youth & Socie31(2):168198.

Espiritu, R. 1998. Are girls different?: Anexamination of developmental gender diferences in pathways to delinquency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. BoulderCO: University of Colorado.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1 2 3 4

Number of Risk Factors

PercentageofVictims

WithinGrou

p

PittsburghDenver

5

Figure 2: Victimization Rates for Males, by Number of Risk Factors

8/13/2019 188676

7/8

7

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention is a component of the Of-

fice of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Of fice for Victims of Crime.

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by grants 96MUFX0012 and 96MUFX0017

from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Epidemiology atthe University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, and Principal Inves-tigator for the Pittsburgh Youth Study. His research interests concern developmen-tal psychopathology, antisocial and delinquent behaviors from childhood to earlyadulthood, criminology, juvenile substance use and abuse, juvenile mental healthproblems, family and neighborhood risk processes, protective factors, and publichealth interventions.

Larry Kalb is a doctoral student in the Joint Clinical/Developmental PsychologyProgram at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. His research interestconcerns the development of antisocial behavior in juveniles and childhoodnoncompliance.

David Huizinga, Ph.D., is the Principal Investigator for the Denver Youth Survey.He is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute of Behavior Science, University

of Colorado at Boulder. His research interests concern the child, adolescent, andearly to midadulthood developmental processes related to deviant and successfuladaptations over the life course.

Huizinga, D., and Jakob-Chien, C. 1998.The contemporaneous co-occurrence ofserious and violent juvenile offending andother problem behaviors. InSerious andViolent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factorsand Successful Interventions, edited by R.Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.4767.

Lauritsen, J.L., Laub, J.H., and Sampson,R.J. 1992. Conventional and delinquentactivities: Implications for the preventionof violent victimization among adoles-cents. Violence and Victims 7(2):91108.

Loeber, R., DeLamatre, M., Tita, G., Cohen,J., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., and Farrington,

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. Weencourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, andreprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDPand the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such ashow you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDPmaterials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments andquestions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 208496000

8006388736

3015195600 (fax)

E-mail: tellncjrs@ncjrs.org

D.P. 1999. Gun injury and mortality: Thedelinquent backgrounds of juvenile vic-tims. Violence and Victims 14(4):339352.

Loeber, R., Farrington, D.P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., and Van Kammen, W.B. 1998.

Antisocial Behavior and Mental HealthProblems: Explanatory Factors in Child-hood and Adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates.

Simon, T.R., Dent, C.W., and Sussman, S.1997. Vulnerability to victimization, con-current problem behaviors, and peerinfluence as predictors of in-school wea-pon carrying among high school students.Violence and Victims 12(3):277289.

Singer, S.I. 1986. Victims of serious vio-lence and their criminal behavior: Sub-cultural theory and beyond. Violence anVictims 1(1):6186.

Thornberry, T.P., and Figlio, R.M. 1974.Victimization and criminal behavior in abirth cohort. InImages of Crime: Offendeand Victims, edited by T.P. Thornberryand E. Sagarin. New York, NY: PraegerPublishers, pp. 102112.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant num-

ber 95JDFX0018 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. De-

partment of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do no

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

8/13/2019 188676

8/8

PRESORTED STANDAR

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G91

NCJ 188676Bulletin

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300