-
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: [email protected]
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
