Causes and Correlates: Findings and ImplicationsCauses and Correlates study findings have important implications for the design of such programs. Strategic Risk-Based Response to Youth

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Volume IX • Number 1

Causes and Correlates:Findings and Implications

Also◆ Risk-Based Response to Gangs

Points of view or opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarilyrepresent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531

John AshcroftAttorney General

Deborah J. DanielsAssistant Attorney General

J. Robert FloresAdministrator


Office of Justice ProgramsPartnerships for Safer Communities

www.ojp.usdoj.gov


www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of JusticePrograms, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, theNational Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531

(202) 307–5911


William WoodruffDeputy Administrator

Policies and Programs

Roberta Dorn Associate Administrator

State Relations and Assistance Division

Ronald LaneyAssociate Administrator

Child Protection Division

Donna Ray Associate Administrator

Demonstration Programs Division

Executive EditorEarl E. Appleby, Jr.

Managing EditorCatherine Doyle

Associate EditorEllen McLaughlin

Juvenile Justice (ISSN 1524–3230)is published by the Office of Juve-nile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention (OJJDP) to advanceits mandate to disseminate infor-mation regarding juvenile delin-quency and prevention programs(42 U.S.C. 5652).

Office ofJuvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

Volume IX • Number 1 September 2004

FEATURESThe Causes and Correlates Studies: Findings and Policy Implicationsby Terence P. Thornberry, David Huizinga, and Rolf Loeber ................................3Developing effective intervention programs based on scientific understanding of theorigins of delinquency is essential to the prevention of delinquent behavior. TheCauses and Correlates study findings have important implications for the design ofsuch programs.

Strategic Risk-Based Response to Youth Gangsby Phelan A. Wyrick and James C. Howell ..................................................20Establishing a comprehensive communitywide approach may not be a practical optionfor every community. Strategic risk-based responses to youth gangs can be adopted,however, even in the absence of a communitywide response and regardless of whetherthe focus is prevention, intervention, or suppression of gangs.

IN BRIEFJustice Matters

A Community Approach to Reducing Risk Factors ............................................30

PublicationsRisk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency..............................................32Co-occurrence of Delinquency and Other Problem Behaviors ..........................32Juvenile Delinquency and Serious Injury Victimization......................................33Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention ....................................33Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior ..................................................34Prevalence and Development of Child Delinquency ..........................................34Treatment, Services, and Intervention Programs for Child Delinquents............35

NCJ 203555

The first step in solving any problem is to determine its causes. The mostobvious solution may not be the best. When the problem is juvenile delinquency,the cost—in terms of human potential, public safety, and tax expenditures—is espe-cially high. Research that assesses how and why children become delinquent is asound investment because it can provide the foundation for effective intervention.This issue of Juvenile Justice focuses on such research and its value in preventing andcombating delinquency.

The Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency works toimprove the understanding of serious delinquency, violence, and drug use by exam-ining youth development in the context of family, school, peers, and community.Researchers at the program’s three sites are tracking the experiences of large samplesof high-risk children throughout their developmental years. This longitudinal researchprovides important insights for program design, as principal investigators TerenceThornberry, David Huizinga, and Rolf Loeber note in their review of the studies’“Findings and Policy Implications.”

A major finding from the Causes and Correlates studies is an association betweengang involvement and delinquent behavior. Phelan Wyrick and James Howelldiscuss how communities can use research on risk factors to address their local gangproblems more effectively through a “Strategic Risk-Based Response.”

In this issue’s In Brief section, Susan Chibnall and Kate Abbruzzese describe howthree communities made measurable inroads against delinquency by addressing riskfactors. Publications that can help communities identify their own risk factors andtake action to create a brighter future for their children are also noted.


A Message From OJJDP

The Causes and Correlates Studies: Findings and Policy Implications

Volume IX • Number 1 3

The Causes andCorrelates Studies:Findings and PolicyImplicationsby Terence P. Thornberry, David Huizinga, and Rolf Loeber

Delinquent behavior has long been a serious and costly problemin American society. Although the U.S. delinquency rate has declinedsince the mid-1990s, it is still among the highest in the industrializedcountries. To reduce delinquent behavior and improve societal well-being, it is essential to develop effective intervention programs. In turn,effective programs depend on a firm, scientific understanding of the ori-gins of delinquency. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention’s (OJJDP’s) Program of Research on the Causes and Correlatesof Delinquency constitutes the largest, most comprehensive investigationof the causes and correlates of delinquency ever undertaken.

Terence P. Thornberry, Ph.D.,is Distinguished Professor at theSchool of Criminal Justice, theUniversity at Albany, and Prin-cipal Investigator of the RochesterYouth Development Study.

David Huizinga, Ph.D., is aSenior Research Associate at theInstitute of Behavioral Science atthe University of Colorado andPrincipal Investigator of theDenver Youth Survey.

Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., is Professorof Psychiatry, Psychology, andEpidemiology at the Universityof Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,and Principal Investigator of thePittsburgh Youth Study.

For the past 17 years, the program, whichconsists of three longitudinal studies(the Denver Youth Survey, the Pitts-burgh Youth Study, and the RochesterYouth Development Study) has con-tributed substantially to an understand-ing of delinquent behavior. This articlesummarizes a few of the many empiricalfindings generated by these studies andpolicy implications arising therefrom.1

The StudiesEach study uses a longitudinal designin which a sample of children and/oradolescents was selected and then

followed over time to chart the course oftheir development. The studies oversam-pled youth at high risk for serious delin-quency; however, because the studiesused statistical weighting, the samplesrepresent the broader population of urbanadolescents.

Denver Youth SurveyThe Denver Youth Survey is based on aprobability sample of households in high-risk neighborhoods of Denver, CO, se-lected on the basis of their population,housing characteristics, and high officialcrime rates. The survey respondents

include 1,527 children who were ages 7,9, 11, 13, or 15 in 1987 and who livedin one of the more than 20,000 random-ly selected households. The sample ofchildren includes 806 boys and 721 girls.These respondents, along with a parentor primary caretaker, were interviewedannually from 1988 until 1992 and from1995 until 1999. The younger two agegroups were reinterviewed in 2003. Thesample is composed of African Ameri-cans (33 percent), Latinos (45 percent),whites (10 percent), and youth of otherethnic groups (12 percent). To date,Denver researchers have studied subjectsranging in age from 7 through 27.

Pittsburgh Youth StudyThe Pittsburgh Youth Study is based on asample of 1,517 boys from Pittsburgh, PA,selected in 1987–88. To identify high-risksubjects, an initial screening assessment ofproblem behaviors was conducted in thefirst, fourth, and seventh grades of thePittsburgh public school system. Boys whoscored above the upper 30th percentile fortheir grade were identified as high risk,and approximately 250 of them were ran-domly selected for followup, along with250 boys from the remaining 70 percent.The subjects, parents or primary caretak-ers, and teachers were interviewed at 6-month intervals for the first 5 years ofthe study, although the fourth grade sam-ple was discontinued after seven assess-ments. Since the sixth year of the study,followups of the first and seventh gradesamples have been conducted annually.In the followup period, researchers arestudying data regarding the sampledyouth from when they were age 7 to theircurrent age of 25.

Rochester Youth Development StudyThe Rochester Youth DevelopmentStudy is based on a sample of 729 boys

and 271 girls who were in the seventhand eighth grades (ages 13–14) in thepublic schools of Rochester, NY, in 1988.The sample is composed of AfricanAmerican (68 percent), Hispanic (17percent), and white (15 percent) youth.Each student, along with a parent orprimary caretaker, was interviewed at 6-month intervals for the first 41⁄2 yearsof the study. From ages 20–22, the sub-jects and their caretakers were inter-viewed annually, and the subjects arecurrently being reinterviewed at ages 28and 30.

The Studies CollectivelyThese studies provide data on delinquentbehavior from 1987 to the present, andhave included more than 4,000 subjectsranging in age from as young as 7 to asold as 30. The samples have a strongrepresentation of serious, violent, andchronic offenders. To date, more than100,000 personal interviews have beenconducted, and volumes of additionaldata from schools, police, courts, socialservices, and other agencies have beencollected.

The Causes and Correlates studies haveaddressed scores of different topics relatedto juvenile delinquency and juvenile jus-tice. In the following pages, the authorssummarize just a few of these many inves-tigations. Some of the topics are specificto one of the projects; other topics areinvestigated with data from two or allthree projects.

Patterns ofDelinquencyThe Causes and Correlates studies haveprovided descriptive data that trace theonset and development of delinquency.Three key topics are childhood aggression,developmental pathways to delinquency,and the overlap of problem behaviors.

Juvenile Justice

4

Developmental PathwaysChildhood aggression that continues andescalates as individuals age raises two keyquestions: Does the movement to seriousdelinquency progress in an orderly fash-ion, and is there a single dominant path-way or are there multiple pathways?

The onset of minor aggression (e.g., argu-ing, bullying) tends to occur first, fol-lowed by the onset of physical fighting(including gang fighting), and then bythe onset of other violence such as rob-bery or rape (Loeber and Hay, 1997).These results suggest that developmenttoward serious forms of delinquencytends to be orderly.

Initial research comparing single andmultiple pathways found that a modelof three distinct pathways (see figure 1)provided the best fit to the data:

◆ The Authority Conflict Pathway,which starts with stubborn behaviorbefore age 12 and progresses to defianceand then to authority avoidance (e.g.,truancy).

◆ The Covert Pathway, which startswith minor covert acts before age 15and progresses to property damage andthen to moderate and then to seriousdelinquency.

◆ The Overt Pathway starts with minoraggression and progresses to physicalfighting and then to more severe vio-lence (no minimum age is associatedwith this pathway).

Childhood AggressionThe vast majority of the youth in theDenver and Pittsburgh studies reportedinvolvement in some form of physicalaggression before age 13 (85 percent ofthe boys and 77 percent of the girls inDenver and 88 percent of the boys inPittsburgh) (Espiritu et al., 2001). Wellover half (roughly 60 percent of bothgenders in Denver and 80 percent ofthe Pittsburgh boys) reported such aggres-sion before age 9. In addition, approxi-mately half of the Denver children (57percent of the boys, 40 percent of thegirls) and 32 percent of the Pittsburghboys reported more serious aggression inwhich the victim was hurt (bruised orworse), and 47 percent of the boys and28 percent of the girls in Denver and 14percent of the Pittsburgh boys reportedassaults that resulted in more seriousinjuries to the victim (e.g., cuts, bleedingwounds, or injuries requiring medicaltreatment).

As these findings indicate, aggression dur-ing childhood is quite common, althoughexactly how widespread depends on howaggression is defined. Involvement inaggression, however, is not necessarilyextensive or long lasting. A substantialamount of delinquency, including aggres-sion, is limited to childhood. For exam-ple, only about half (49 percent) of theDenver children involved in minor vio-lence in which the victim was hurt orinjured continued this behavior for morethan 2 years. In fact, much aggressive be-havior, and an even larger proportion ofother delinquency, appears to be limited tochildhood. However, a large proportion—about half—of aggressive children con-tinue to be aggressive for several yearsinto at least early adolescence. Exactlywhat distinguishes children who ceaseto be aggressive and those who continueremains to be determined.



What distinguishes children who ceaseto be aggressive and those who continue?

Zhang, 1997). Researchers found someevidence that development along morethan one pathway was orderly. For exam-ple, aggressive boys committing overtacts were particularly at risk of also com-mitting covert acts, but not vice versa.Further, conflict with authority figureswas either a precursor or a concomitantof boys’ escalation in overt or covert acts(Loeber et al., 1993). Also, an early age ofonset of problem behavior or delinquencywas associated with escalation to moreserious behaviors in all the pathways(Tolan, Gorman-Smith, and Loeber,2000). The pathway model accountedfor the majority of the most seriouslydelinquent boys, that is, those who self-reported high rates of offending (Loeberet al., 1993; Loeber, Keenan, and Zhang,

These results were replicated for AfricanAmerican and white boys in Pittsburghacross three age samples (Loeber et al.,1993, 1998). They have also been repli-cated in a sample of African Americanand Hispanic adolescents in Chicagoand in a nationally representative U.S.sample of adolescents (Tolan, Gorman-Smith, and Loeber, 2000). Replicationsalso have been successfully undertakenin the Denver Youth Survey and theRochester Youth Development Study(Loeber et al., 1999).

As they became older, some boys pro-gressed on two or three pathways, indi-cating an increasing variety of problembehaviors over time (Kelley et al., 1997;Loeber et al., 1993; Loeber, Keenan, and

Juvenile Justice

6

Figure 1: Developmental Pathways to Serious and ViolentOffending

Violence rape, attack,

strong-arm,

homicide

Physical Fightingphysical fighting,

gang fighting

Minor Aggressionannoying others,

bullying

Serious Delinquency

auto theft,

burglary

Moderately SeriousDelinquency

fraud, pick pocketing

Property Damagevandalism, fire setting

Minor Covert Behavior

shoplifting, frequent lying

AuthorityAvoidance

truancy, running away,

staying out late

Defiance/Disobedience

Stubborn Behavior

Overt Pathway Covert Pathway(before age 15)

Age of Onset:

Late

Early Authority Conflict Pathway(before age 12)

Percentage of Boys:

Few

Many

1997) or those who were court-reporteddelinquents (Loeber, Keenan, andZhang, 1997).

The pathway model shows that the warn-ing signs of early onset of disruptive behav-ior cannot necessarily be dismissed witha “this-will-soon-pass” attitude (Kelley etal., 1997). However, it is not yet possibleto distinguish accurately between boyswhose problem behaviors will worsen overtime and those who will improve. Thepathway model is a way to help identifyyouth at risk and optimize early interven-tions before problem behavior becomesentrenched and escalates.

The Overlap of ProblemBehaviorsThe pathways analyses found that manydelinquent youth, especially the moreserious offenders, engaged in multipleforms of delinquency. Many youth whocommit serious offenses also experiencedifficulties in other areas of life. With theexception of drug use, however, little isknown about the overlap of these prob-lem behaviors in general populations. Domost youth who commit serious delin-quent acts have school and mental healthproblems? Are most youth who haveschool or mental health problems alsoseriously delinquent?

The Causes and Correlates studies ex-amined these questions in all threesites (Huizinga and Jakob-Chien, 1998;Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry, 1993;Huizinga et al., 2000). Recognizing thatinvolvement in delinquency or in otherproblem behaviors can be transitory orintermittent, the studies examined thelevel of overlap of more persistent druguse, school problems, and mental healthproblems2 that lasted for at least 2 of the3 years examined (Huizinga et al., 2000).

There was some consistency of findingsfor males across sites. Although a sizeableproportion of persistent and serious of-fenders do have other behavioral prob-lems, more than half do not. Thus, itwould be incorrect to characterize per-sistent and serious delinquents generallyas having drug, school, or mental healthproblems. On the other hand, drug,school, and mental health problems arestrong risk factors for involvement inpersistent and serious delinquency, andmore than half (55–73 percent) of themale respondents in all three sites withtwo or more persistent problems werealso persistent and serious delinquents.

For females, the findings were differentand varied by site. As with the males,fewer than half of the persistent and seri-ous female delinquents had drug, school,or mental health problems. In contrastto males, however, these problems aloneor in combination were not strong riskfactors for serious delinquency. This resultstems, in part, from the fact that a sub-stantially smaller proportion of girls (5percent) than boys (20–30 percent) wasinvolved in persistent and serious delin-quency, while their rates (within sites) ofother problem behaviors were roughlysimilar to those of males.

It is important to note that these findingsare for general population samples. Addi-tional analyses of the Denver data foundsubstantial differences between popula-tion findings and findings among youthwho had been arrested and became in-volved in the juvenile justice system(Huizinga and Elliott, 2003). Amongmales who were persistent and seriousoffenders, 69 percent of those who hadbeen arrested had one or more problems,whereas only 37 percent of those whohad not been arrested had such problems.Although there were too few persistent



serious offenders among females to per-mit control of delinquent involvement,81 percent of the females who werearrested had one or more problems com-pared with only 1–2 percent amongfemales who were not arrested.

Thus there appears to be a concentrationof offenders entering the juvenile justicesystem who have drug use, school, ormental health-related problems. Accord-ingly, the capability to identify the par-ticular configuration of problems facingindividual offenders and provide inter-ventions to address these problemsis critical to the effectiveness of thejuvenile justice system.

Two Key Risk Factorsfor DelinquencyThe Causes and Correlates studies haveinvestigated a host of risk factors involv-ing child behavior, family functioning,peer behavior, school performance, andneighborhood characteristics that precedeand potentially lead to delinquency. Find-ings on just two topics—child maltreat-ment and gangs—are summarized here.3

Child MaltreatmentPrior research indicates that child maltreat-ment (e.g., physical abuse, sexual abuse,neglect) that occurs at some point priorto age 18 is a risk factor for delinquency(Widom, 1989; Zingraff et al., 1993). Thisrelationship was also observed in the Pitts-burgh and Rochester studies (Smith andThornberry, 1995; Stouthamer-Loeber etal., 2001, 2002). In the Rochester study,for example, Smith and Thornberry(1995) found that subjects maltreatedbefore age 12, who may or may not alsohave been maltreated between ages 12and 18, were significantly more likely tobe arrested and to self-report more delin-quency, especially serious and violentdelinquency, than subjects who had not

been maltreated prior to age 12 (see alsoWidom, 1989; Zingraff et al., 1993).

While prior studies have made importantcontributions to the literature, they donot explicitly take adolescent maltreat-ment into account. This results in twoproblems. First, the victims of childhoodmaltreatment referred to above actuallycontain two groups: those victimized inchildhood only and those victimized inchildhood and adolescence. Second, thecomparison group, youth who were nevermaltreated, is likely to include some youthwho were actually maltreated in adoles-cence (i.e., after age 12), but not in child-hood. Because of these issues, it is hard toknow if the previous conclusion—thatchildhood maltreatment is a risk factor fordelinquency—is accurate. Relying on itslongitudinal design, the Rochester projectwas able to reexamine the link betweenmaltreatment and delinquency, takinginto account when the maltreatment oc-curred (Ireland, Smith, and Thornberry,2002; Thornberry, Ireland, and Smith,2001).

Of the subjects in the Rochester study, 78percent were never maltreated and 22 per-cent were. Of the latter, 11 percent weremaltreated in childhood only (before age12 but not after), 8 percent were mal-treated in adolescence only, and 3 percentwere persistently maltreated (i.e., they hadat least one substantiated case in child-hood and at least one in adolescence).

The relationship to delinquency is intrigu-ing. Figure 2 presents self-reported andofficial arrest data on the prevalence ofdelinquency for four groups of youth:those who were never maltreated, thosewho were maltreated in childhood only,those who were maltreated in adolescenceonly, and those who were persistentlymaltreated. For self-reported general de-linquency that occurs from ages 16 to 18,4the subjects who were maltreated duringchildhood only were not at significantly

Juvenile Justice

8



greater risk for delinquency (53.8 percent)than those who were never maltreated(49.6 percent). Subjects maltreated dur-ing adolescence, however, were at signifi-cantly greater risk. The delinquency levelfor the adolescence-only group (69.8 per-cent) was significantly higher than thatfor those who were never maltreated, andthe delinquency level for those persist-ently maltreated—in both childhood andadolescence—was the highest (71.4 per-cent). The same pattern of results appliesto other self-reported measures of delin-quency: drug use, violent crime, and streetcrime (Ireland, Smith, and Thornberry,2002). For official arrest records, 21.3 per-cent of youth who were never maltreatedhad arrest records and 23.5 percent ofyouth who were maltreated in childhoodonly had arrest records. In contrast, 50.7percent of youth maltreated in adolescence

had arrest records and 50.0 percent ofyouth maltreated in both developmentalstages had been arrested. The latter ratesare significantly higher than the rate forthose never maltreated.

GangsThe Rochester project also investigatedhow gang membership influences ado-lescent development. The results haverecently been published in Gangs andDelinquency in Developmental Perspective(Thornberry et al., 2003). Key findingsare summarized here, as are findings fromthe Denver Youth Survey.

Approximately 30 percent of the Roch-ester subjects joined a gang at somepoint during the 4-year period coveringages 14–18. The membership rate wasvirtually identical for boys (32 percent)

Figure 2: Maltreatment and Delinquency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Self-Reported General Delinquency Arrest

Type of Maltreatment

PersistentAdolescence onlyChildhood onlyNone

Pre

vale

nce

of D

elin

quen

cy (

perc

ent)

Juvenile Justice

10

and girls (29 percent). Gang membershipturned out to be a rather fleeting experi-ence for most of these youth. Half of themale gang members reported being in agang for 1 year or less, and only 7 percentreported being a gang member for all4 years. Two-thirds (66 percent) of thefemales were in a gang for 1 year or lessand none reported being a member forall 4 years.

Although fleeting, gang membership hada tremendous impact on the lives of theseyouth. Gang members—both male andfemale—accounted for the lion’s share ofall delinquency. Although gang memberswere only 30 percent of the studied popu-lation, they were involved in 63 percentof all delinquent acts (excluding gangfights), 82 percent of serious delinquen-cies, 70 percent of drug sales, and 54 per-cent of all arrests.

Two explanations for the strong associa-tion between gang membership and delin-quency are frequently raised. One focuseson the individual: gangs attract antiso-cial adolescents who will likely get intotrouble whether or not they are in a gang.The second focuses on the group: individ-ual gang members are not fundamentallydifferent from nonmembers, but whenthey are in the gang, the gang facilitatestheir involvement in delinquency.

If the second explanation is correct, gangmembers should have higher rates of de-linquency only during the period of mem-bership, not before or after that period.That is precisely what the Rochester datashowed, as illustrated in figure 3. Thispattern is found across the 4-year periodstudied and is observed for various of-fenses, particularly violence, drug sales,and illegal gun ownership and use.

The impact of being in a street gang is notlimited to its short-term effect on delin-quent behavior. It also contributes todisorderly transitions from adolescence

to adulthood. As compared with individ-uals who were never members of a gang,male gang members were significantlymore likely to drop out of school, get agirl pregnant, become a teenage father,cohabit with a woman without beingmarried, and have unstable employment.Female gang members were significantlymore likely to become pregnant, becomea teenage mother, and to have unstableemployment.

The relationship between gang member-ship and delinquency has also been inves-tigated in the Denver Youth Survey andin other studies, including a companionproject in Bremen, Germany (Esbensenand Huizinga, 1993; Esbensen, Huizinga,and Weiher, 1993; Hill et al., 1996;Huizinga, 1997, 1998; Huizinga andSchumann, 2001). Many of Rochester’sfindings about gang membership werereplicated in Denver’s high-risk sample.

For example, a fair proportion of both gen-ders in Denver—18 percent of the malesand 9 percent of the females—have beengang members. Denver findings alsoreveal that gang members accounted fora very disproportionate amount of crime,as do findings in the other studies (Hill etal., 1996; Huizinga and Schumann,2001). Denver male and female gangmembers accounted for approximately80 percent of all serious and violentcrime (excluding gang fights) committedby the sample. Further, over a 5-yearperiod, these individuals committed thevast majority of crimes while they weregang members (e.g., 85 percent of theirserious violent offenses, 86 percent oftheir serious property offenses, and 80percent of their drug sale offenses). Thesocial processes of being an active gangmember clearly facilitate or enhanceinvolvement in delinquent behavior.

The studies have also investigated thedevelopmental processes leading to gang



membership. In the Denver sample,although gang members and nonmem-bers were similar in many respects, therewere substantial differences betweengang members and other serious delin-quents in the years preceding gang mem-bership. In the years before they became

gang members, individuals were morelikely to be involved in higher levels ofminor and serious delinquency and druguse, were more involved with delinquentpeers, and were less involved with con-ventional peers. They also displayedweaker beliefs about the wrongfulness

Figure 3: Self-Reported General Delinquency for MalesActive in a Gang for 1 out of 4 Years Studied

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4

Year of Study

Num

ber

of O

ffens

es

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4

Year of Study

Num

ber

of O

ffens

es

Gang Members in Year 1 Only

Gang Members in Year 3 Only

Juvenile Justice

12

of delinquent behavior and a greater will-ingness to make excuses for involvementin delinquent behavior. The Rochesterproject found these variables, measuredin early adolescence, to be significantrisk factors for joining a gang as well(Thornberry et al., 2003). Poor schoolperformance and brittle parent-child rela-tionships also increased the risk of gangmembership.

Because of the very high contribution ofgang members to the volume of crime,developing effective gang prevention andintervention programs is important andurgent. Police data on gang crimes arehelpful in identifying sites particularlyaffected by gang activity and in provid-ing information for the evaluation of gangintervention activities. Among policedepartments that collect gang-relateddata, however, some define gang crimes asany crime committed by a gang member,others require that several gang membersbe involved in the offense, and yet otherscollect both kinds of information. TheDenver study found that although gangmembers committed more group crimesthan other delinquent youth, both beforeand after joining a gang, they also com-mitted more offenses while alone thanother youth. For example, more than one-third of their serious assaults werecommitted while alone (Huizinga, 1996).Thus, the measurement difference appearsto be significant.

Given the large contribution of gangmembers to the total volume and loca-tion of crime, it would seem helpful forpolice departments to collect and sepa-rate both kinds of data to provide infor-mation about the nature of the localgang problem and to help plan localintervention activities. For more infor-mation on risk factors as they relateto gangs, see “Strategic Risk-BasedResponse to Youth Gangs” on page 20.

Responding toDelinquencyThere are various ways to respond tojuvenile crime, including interventionsthrough the juvenile justice system andthe provision of general social servicesor specialized prevention and treatmentprograms. The Causes and Correlatesstudies have investigated these differentstrategies, and the longitudinal resultssuggest alternative strategies.

ArrestThe Denver study conducted several ex-aminations of the impact of arrest usingvarious analytical strategies (Esbensen,Thornberry, and Huizinga, 1991; Huizingaand Esbensen, 1992; Huizinga, Esbensen,and Weiher, 1996; Huizinga et al., 2003).The findings from these studies are quiteconsistent. In general, arrest has littleimpact on subsequent delinquent be-havior, and when it does have an impact,it is most likely an increase in futuredelinquent behavior. These findings arein agreement with several other studiesof the impact of arrest (Klein, 1986;Sherman et al., 1997). In addition, thosewho are arrested and incarcerated as ju-veniles are substantially more likely to beincarcerated as adults (Huizinga, 2000).

There are different possible explanationsfor these findings. For example, those ar-rested may be more serious offenders whoare on a different life trajectory than de-linquents who are not arrested. However,arrest and sanctioning do not appear tohave had the desired effect on the futureoffending of many delinquent youth. Itshould be noted that arrest and sanctionsneed not demonstrate an ameliorative ef-fect to justify their use because the needto protect public safety, perceived needsfor retribution, and the influence of



these actions on general deterrence with-in the population cannot be disregarded.Nevertheless, the findings do suggest thatarrest and subsequent sanctions generallyhave not been a particularly viable strate-gy for the prevention of future delinquen-cy and that other alternatives are needed.The findings also suggest that the use ofthe least restrictive sanctions, within thelimits of public safety, and enhanced re-entry assistance, monitoring, and supportmay reduce future delinquency.

Given these general observations, it alsomust be observed that progress has beenmade and continues to be made. Thereare some intervention programs withinthe juvenile justice system that have beenshown to reduce future delinquency;other promising programs are currentlybeing evaluated (Aos et al., 2001; Howell,2003; Huizinga and Mihalic, 2003; Lipseyand Wilson, 1998; Mihalic et al., 2001;U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, 2001).

Utilization of ServicesSeveral service-providing agencies canpotentially help both youth involved indelinquency and their families. Theseagencies include the juvenile justice sys-tem and external agencies such as schoolsand social services. Are they utilized?The Pittsburgh Youth Study investigatedthis question by examining the extentto which the parents of delinquent boysreceived help for dealing with their prob-lems (Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, andThomas, 1992; Stouthamer-Loeber et al.,1995). The study considered help receivedfrom anyone (including lay people) andfrom professionals (especially mentalhealth professionals). In general, seekinghelp for behavior problems was twice ascommon for the oldest boys as compared

with the youngest (21 percent versus 11percent, respectively). In 25 percent ofthe cases, however, seeking help resultedin only one contact with a help provider,and it is doubtful that positive resultswere achieved in one session.

The percentage of parents who soughtany help—help for behavior problems orhelp from mental health professionals—increased with the seriousness of thedelinquency. However, less than half ofthe parents of seriously delinquent boysreceived any help, and only one-quarterof the parents of these boys receivedhelp from a mental health professional(Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, andThomas, 1992).

Help in schools. Division of the Pitts-burgh sample into four groups (nondelin-quents, persistent nonserious offenders,persistent property offenders, and persist-ent violent offenders) showed that allthree persistent offender groups wereplaced in special education classes forlearning problems at the same rate asnondelinquents (less than 10 percent).However, more of the persistently delin-quent boys, as compared with the non-delinquent boys, were placed in classesfor behavior problems; this was particular-ly true for the violent boys (22.3 percentversus 2.8 percent of the nondelinquents).Nevertheless, three-quarters (77.7 per-cent) of the persistent violent offenderswere never placed in a class for behaviorproblems, and two-thirds were neverplaced in any special class.

Programs within the juvenile justice system have reduced future delinquency.

Juvenile Justice

14

It is commonly believed that certaingroups of boys receive a disproportionateshare of resources from various agencies.When researchers examined persistentproperty and persistent violent offenders,they found that just under half did notreceive any help inside or outside ofschool (about 48 percent), and only15.4 percent of the persistent propertyoffenders and persistent violent offendersreceived help from mental health profes-sionals in addition to help in school.

Steps in developmental pathways.Stouthamer-Loeber and colleagues (1995)compared movement along the develop-mental pathways described above withseeking help for services. In general, thehigher the advancement in multiple path-ways, the higher the chances that helpwas sought. An early onset of disruptivebehaviors, however, did not increase thefrequency at which help was sought.

Court contact. Comparison of court-involved boys with those who had nothad court contact showed that the for-mer group received more intensive help.It may be possible that court interven-tion brought the necessity for help to theparents’ attention. Only 17 percent ofthe boys’ parents sought help before theyear in which their boys were referred tothe juvenile court.

In summary, the development of disrup-tive and delinquent behaviors was largelyleft unchecked by parents and helpingagencies. These findings have importantimplications for policymakers and plan-ners of preventive interventions. Merelyhaving programs available may not beadequate; outreach to the most seriouslydelinquent youth and their families mayalso be essential.

Implications forPreventionAlthough the projects of the Program ofResearch on the Causes and Correlates ofDelinquency were not designed to evalu-ate preventive interventions, programfindings have important implications forthe design of appropriate interventions.Knowledge of developmental pathways isrelevant for interventions, in that path-ways reflect current problem behaviorsin the context of the history of problembehaviors. Knowledge of pathways alsohelps identify future problem behaviorsthat need to be prevented.

The studies examined how long disruptivebehaviors had been apparent in boys whoeventually were referred to the juvenilecourt for an index offense5 (Office of Ju-venile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion, 1998). The average age at whichindividuals took their first step in any ofthe pathways was approximately 7; mod-erately serious problem behavior beganat about age 9.5 and serious delinquencyat about age 12. The average age at whichyouth first came into contact with thejuvenile court was 14.5. Thus, approxi-mately 71⁄2 years elapsed between theearliest emergence of disruptive behaviorand the first contact with the juvenilecourt. It should be noted that delinquentboys who were not referred to the juve-nile court also tended to have long histo-ries of problem behaviors.

Research findings from all three Causesand Correlates projects show that youthwho start their delinquency careers beforeage 13 are at higher risk of becomingserious and violent offenders than thosewho start their delinquency careers later(Huizinga, Esbensen, and Weiher, 1994;



Krohn et al., 2001; Loeber and Farring-ton, 1998, 2001). These results imply thatpreventive interventions to reduce offend-ing should be available at least from thebeginning of elementary school-age on-ward. However, it is important to bemindful of the results of the studies’ in-vestigation of childhood offending. Manyof the aggressive children did not progressto serious involvement in serious juve-nile crime. This suggests that great careis needed in the design of interventionprograms for aggressive children. Not allprograms are benign, and some may leadto or exacerbate later problems (Dishion,McCord, and Poulin, 1999).

Further research is needed to identifythose individuals whose childhood aggres-sion leads to violent behavior later in life.Intervention programs for aggressive chil-dren must be developed, and the out-comes for the children served by theseprograms must be carefully evaluated.The pathways model may be particularlyhelpful in designing these interventions.Overall, it seems that the judicious use ofearly interventions known to have long-term effectiveness is warranted.

In addition, although it is “never tooearly” to try to prevent offending, it isalso “never too late” to intervene and at-tempt to reduce the risk of recidivism forserious offending (Loeber and Farrington,1998). There is a complex relationshipbetween when individuals begin to com-mit offenses and how long they persist.A full range of developmentally appro-priate and scientifically validated pro-grams is needed.

The Causes and Correlates results re-garding the impact of maltreatment areconsistent with the importance of devel-opmentally appropriate interventions. Itdoes not appear that childhood-only mal-treatment, as long as it does not continue

into adolescence, is a risk factor for delin-quency. Sources of resiliency, including,perhaps, effective services, must come intoplay to help children overcome this ad-versity. Understanding these resiliencyprocesses is an important goal for futureresearch, as these processes have importantimplications for the design of programs.

Maltreatment that occurs during adoles-cence, however, appears to be a substan-tial risk factor for later delinquency. This

Program of Research on the Causesand Correlates of Delinquency

For additional information about OJJDP’sCauses and Correlates projects, contact:

Denver Youth Survey David Huizinga, Ph.D.University of Colorado at BoulderInstitute of Behavioral ScienceCampus Box 442Boulder, CO 80309303–492–[email protected]

Pittsburgh Youth Study Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., or Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Ph.D.Western Psychiatric Institute and ClinicUniversity of Pittsburgh3811 O’Hara StreetPittsburgh, PA 15213412–647–7118 or 412–647–[email protected]@upmc.edu

Rochester Youth Development Study Terence P. Thornberry, Ph.D. School of Criminal JusticeUniversity at Albany135 Western AvenueAlbany, NY 12222518–442–[email protected]

Juvenile Justice

16

suggests the need for enhanced servicesfor adolescent victims and, in particular,for services that reduce the chances ofdelinquent behavior. As Garbarino (1989)has pointed out, however, few treatmentprograms for adolescent victims exist, andit is often quite difficult to enroll adoles-cent victims and their families in theavailable programs. Much greater atten-tion needs to be devoted to the topic ofadolescent maltreatment and how it func-tions as a risk factor for delinquency.

A general strategy for reducing youthcrime also needs to be mindful of thesizeable impact that gang membershiphas on serious and violent delinquency.Working directly with gangs, however,has not yet proved successful and caneven be counterproductive. It may bemore productive for juvenile justice prac-titioners to use gang membership as amarker variable and send gang members,on an individual basis, to programs forserious delinquency that are proven effective (see Thornberry et al., 2003).Several excellent summaries identifyand describe these programs (see Howell,2003; Huizinga and Mihalic, 2003; Loeberand Farrington, 1998 (Part II); Mihalicet al., 2001; U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, 2001). Regardlessof whether an indirect approach is usedor whether gang members are sent indi-vidually to proven effective programs,intervening with gang members is animportant component in reducing acommunity’s level of youth crime andviolence.

Notes1. Longer, more detailed summaries of thesestudies can be found in Taking Stock of Delin-quency: An Overview of Findings from Contem-porary Longitudinal Studies (Thornberry andKrohn, 2003).

2. Drug use included use of marijuana, in-halants, and hard drugs. School problemsincluded poor grades and dropping out of

school. Mental health problems were indi-cated by scores in the top 10 percent ofeither an emotional problem or nondelin-quent behavioral problem measure.

3. For information about other topicsreviewed by the Causes and CorrelatesStudies, see box on page 15.

4. The authors focused on these ages to pre-serve proper temporal order, but the pattern ofresults presented here applies more generally.

5. The index crimes of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation include homicide, rape, robbery,aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, autotheft, and arson.

ReferencesAos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., and Lieb, R.2001. The Comparative Costs and Benefits ofPrograms To Reduce Crime, ver. 4.0. Olympia,WA: Washington State Institute for PublicPolicy.

Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., and Poulin, F. 1999.When interventions harm: Peer groups andproblem behavior. American Psychologist54(9):755–764.

Esbensen, F.A., and Huizinga, D. 1993. Gangs,drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urbanyouth. Criminology 31(4):565–589.

Esbensen, F.A., Huizinga, D., and Weiher,A.W. 1993. Gang and non-gang youth: Dif-ferences in explanatory factors. Journal ofContemporary Criminal Justice 9(2):94–116.

Esbensen, F.A., Thornberry, T.P., and Huizinga,D. 1991. Arrest and delinquency. In UrbanDelinquency and Substance Abuse, edited byD. Huizinga, R. Loeber, and T.P. Thornberry.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Espiritu, R., Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., andCrawford, A. 2001. Epidemiology of self-reported delinquency. In Child Delinquents,edited by R. Loeber and D.F. Farrington.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Garbarino, J. 1989. Troubled youth, troubledfamilies: The dynamics of adolescent mal-treatment. In Child Maltreatment: Theory



and Research on the Causes and Consequencesof Child Abuse and Neglect, edited by D.Cicchetti and V. Carlson. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.

Hill, K.G., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F.,Kosterman, R., Abbott, R., and Edwards, T.1996. The role of gang membership in delin-quency, substance use, and violent offend-ing. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Society of Criminology,Chicago, IL.

Howell, J.C. 2003. Preventing and ReducingJuvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Frame-work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Huizinga, D. 1996. The influence of peers,gangs and co-offending on violence. Unpub-lished report submitted to the U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, Washington, DC.

Huizinga, D. 1997. Gangs and the volume ofcrime. Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the Western Society of Criminology,Honolulu, HI.

Huizinga, D. 1998. Developmental risk fac-tors for gang membership. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the Western Societyof Criminology, Newport Beach, CA.

Huizinga, D. 2000. Who goes to prison? Paperpresented at the Annual Conference onCriminal Justice Research and Evaluation,Washington, DC.

Huizinga, D., and Elliott, A. 2003. The effectof arrest on personal characteristics related tosubsequent delinquency. Unpublished reportsubmitted to the U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, Wash-ington, DC.

Huizinga, D., and Esbensen, F.A. 1992.An arresting view of juvenile justice.School Safety 3:15–17.

Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F.A., and Weiher,A.W. 1994. Examining developmental tra-jectories in delinquency using acceleratedlongitudinal designs. In Cross-National Longi-tudinal Research on Human Development and

Criminal Behavior, edited by H.-J. Kerner andE.G.M. Weitekamp. New York, NY: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F.A., and Weiher,A.W. 1996. The impact of arrest on subse-quent delinquent behavior. In Annual Reportof the Program of Research on the Causes andCorrelates of Delinquency, edited by R. Loeber,D. Huizinga, and T.P. Thornberry. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Huizinga, D., and Espiritu, R. 1999. Delin-quent behavior of youth in the juvenile justicesystem: Before, during, and after differentcourt dispositions. Unpublished report pre-pared for the National Center for JuvenileJustice, National Juvenile Court JudgesAssociation, Pittsburgh, PA.

Huizinga, D., and Jakob-Chien, C. 1998.The contemporaneous co-occurrence ofserious and violent juvenile offending andother problem behaviors. In Serious and Vio-lent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Suc-cessful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber andD. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., and Thornberry, T.P.1993. Delinquency, drug use, sex, and preg-nancy among urban youth. Public HealthReports 108(Supplement 1):90–96.

Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., Thornberry, T.P.,and Cothern, L. 2000. Co-occurrence of De-linquency and Other Problem Behaviors. Bul-letin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Huizinga, D., and Mihalic, S. 2003. The pre-vention of juvenile delinquency. In NewApproaches in Crime Prevention, edited by H.Kury and J. Obergfell-Fuchs. Berlin, Germany:Weisse Ring.

Huizinga, D., and Schumann, K. 2001. Gangmembership in Bremen and Denver: Com-parative longitudinal data. In The EurogangParadox, edited by M.W. Klein, H.-J. Kerner,C.L. Maxson, and E.G.M. Weitekamp. Lon-don, England: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Juvenile Justice

18

Huizinga, D., Schumann, K., Ehret, B., andElliott, A. 2003. The effect of juvenile justicesystem processing on subsequent delinquentbehavior: A cross-national study. Unpublishedreport submitted to the U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, NationalInstitute of Justice.

Ireland, T., Smith, C.A., and Thornberry, T.P.2002. Developmental issues in the impact ofchild maltreatment on later delinquency anddrug use. Criminology 40(2):359–399.

Kelley, B.T., Loeber, R., Keenan, K., andDeLamatre, M. 1997. Developmental Pathwaysin Disruptive and Delinquent Behavior. Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Klein, M. 1986. Labeling theory and delin-quency policy—An empirical test. CriminalJustice and Behavior 13:47–79.

Krohn, M.D., Thornberry, T.P., Rivera, C.,and LeBlanc, M. 2001. Later delinquencycareers. In Child Delinquents: Development,Intervention, and Service Needs, edited by R.Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D.B. 1998. Effec-tive intervention with serious juvenile of-fenders: A synthesis of research. In Seriousand Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factorsand Successful Interventions, edited by R.Loeber and D. P. Farrington. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 313–345.

Loeber, R., DeLamatre, M., Keenan, K., andZhang, Q. 1998. A prospective replication ofdevelopmental pathways in disruptive anddelinquent behavior. In Methods and Modelsfor Studying the Individual, edited by R. Cairns,L. Bergman, and J. Kagan. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 1998.Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: RiskFactors and Successful Interventions. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 2001.Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Loeber R., and Hay, D.F. 1997. Key issues inthe development of aggression and violencefrom childhood to early adulthood. AnnualReview of Psychology 48:371–410.

Loeber, R., Keenan, K., and Zhang, Q. 1997.Boys’ experimentation and persistence in de-velopmental pathways toward serious delin-quency. Journal of Child and Family Studies6:321–357.

Loeber, R., Wei, E., Stouthamer-Loeber, M.,Huizinga, D., and Thornberry, T.P. 1999.Behavioral antecedents to serious and vio-lent juvenile offending: Joint analyses fromthe Denver Youth Survey, Pittsburgh YouthStudy, and the Rochester Youth DevelopmentStudy. Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention8(2):245–263.

Loeber, R., Wung, P., Keenan, K., Giroux, B.,Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W.B.,and Maughan, B. 1993. Developmental path-ways in disruptive child behavior. Develop-ment and Psychopathology 5:101–132.

Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Elliott, D., Fagan, A.,and Hansen, D. 2001. Blueprints for ViolencePrevention. Bulletin. Washington DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. 1998. Serious and Violent JuvenileOffenders. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie,D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., Bushway, S. 1997. Pre-venting Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t,What’s Promising. A Report to the UnitedStates Congress. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, National Institute of Justice.

Smith, C.A., and Thornberry, T.P. 1995. Therelationship between childhood maltreat-ment and adolescent involvement in delin-quency. Criminology 33(4):451–481.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Homish,D.L., and Wei, E. 2001. Maltreatment ofboys and the development of disruptive and



delinquent behavior. Development and Psy-chopathology 13:941–955.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., andThomas, C. 1992. Caretakers seeking helpfor boys with disruptive delinquent behavior.Comprehensive Mental Health Care 2:159–178.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., VanKammen, W.B., and Zhang, Q. 1995. Unin-terrupted delinquent careers: The timing ofparental helpseeking and juvenile court con-tact. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention4(2):236–251.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Wei, E., Homish,D.L., and Loeber, R. 2002. Which family anddemographic factors are related to both mal-treatment and persistent serious juvenile de-linquency? Children’s Services: Social Policy,Research, and Practice 5(4):261–272.

Thornberry, T.P., and Krohn, M.D. 2003. Tak-ing Stock of Delinquency: An Overview of Find-ings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies.New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum Publishers.

Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J.,Smith, C.A., and Tobin, K. 2003. Gangs and

Delinquency in Developmental Perspective.Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Thornberry, T.P., Ireland, T.O., and Smith,C.A. 2001. The importance of timing: Thevarying impact of childhood and adolescentmaltreatment on multiple problem outcomes.Development and Psychopathology 13:957–979.

Tolan, P.H., Gorman-Smith, D., and Loeber,R. 2000. Developmental timing of onsets ofdisruptive behaviors and later delinquency ofinner-city youth. Journal of Child and FamilyStudies 9:203–230.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-vices. 2001. Youth Violence: A Report of theSurgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. De-partment of Health and Human Services.

Widom, C.S. 1989. The cycle of violence.Science 244(4901):160–166.

Zingraff, M.T., Leiter, J., Myers, K.A., andJohnsen, M.C. 1993. Child maltreatmentand youthful problem behavior. Criminology31(2):173–202.

Juvenile Justice

20

Strategic Risk-BasedResponse to YouthGangsby Phelan A. Wyrick and James C. Howell

Once a community pinpoints its most prevalent local problemsand links them to specific risk factors, it is able to develop strategiesthat address the root causes of those problems. This article illustrateshow local leaders can use risk factor research in their efforts to addressone such problem that affects communities nationwide—gangs.

strategic risk-based response discussed inthis article is not a specific program; rath-er, it is an approach to developing andimplementing programs that draws on anunderstanding of youth gangs, risk factors,and state-of-the-art practices in programdesign. Comprehensive approaches stillremain the ideal community-level responseto youth gangs. Many communities, how-ever, cannot implement comprehensiveprograms for a variety of legitimate rea-sons, and these communities can benefitfrom developing a strategic risk-basedresponse to youth gangs.

A strategic risk-based response must begrounded in a general understanding ofyouth gangs combined with an indepthknowledge of local youth gang problems.A community’s assessment of its gangproblem, in turn, must be based on an un-derstanding of how a variety of risk fac-tors relate to the onset and persistence oflocal gang activity and youth violence.The strategic response should implement

OJJDP and others have long advocatedfor comprehensive approaches to youthgangs that involve multiagency collabo-ration and a combination of prevention,intervention, and suppression efforts(Howell, 2000; Huff, 2002; Spergel,1995). There is a sound theoreticalbasis and growing evidence (see Spergelet al., 1999) to support the belief thatsuch approaches will likely have thegreatest communitywide impact. Estab-lishing a comprehensive communitywideapproach is a long-term effort, however,and it may not be a practical option if,for example, key community agencies areunwilling or unable to make respondingto youth gangs a priority.

This article presents a framework for astrategic risk-based response to youthgangs that can be adopted even withoutfull communitywide collaboration andregardless of whether the primary focus isprevention, intervention, or suppressionor a combination of these methods. The

Phelan A. Wyrick, Ph.D., is the Gang Program Coordinatorat OJJDP.

James C. Howell, Ph.D., isAdjunct Researcher at theNational Youth Gang Center,Tallahassee, FL.

Strategic Risk-Based Response to Youth Gangs


state-of-the-art practices in program de-sign to focus activities, optimize resources,and allow for tracking of program effec-tiveness. These topics are each addressedbelow.

Understanding Youth GangsMost U.S. residents live in or arounda city that has experienced youth gangactivity since at least the mid-1990s(Egley, 2002), and much earlier in somecities. Researchers have repeatedly dem-onstrated that gang members commitproperty, weapons, drug, and violent of-fenses at significantly higher rates thanyouth who are not involved in gangs(Huff, 1998; Thornberry et al., 2003)and even than other delinquent youth(Battin et al., 1998). Throughout thenation, lives are lost and devastated everyday because of youth gangs. Althoughthousands of programs have been imple-mented that, directly or indirectly, addressgang involvement (Gottfredson andGottfredson, 2001), the ongoing difficul-ties with youth gangs make one lessonvery clear: there are no quick fixes oreasy solutions for the problems that youthgangs create or the problems that createyouth gangs.

Part of the challenge to effectively re-sponding to youth gangs is counteringcommon assumptions about gangs thatmay not accurately reflect local prob-lems. For example, many people assumethat youth gangs are hierarchical organi-zations that control complex criminalendeavors such as drug trafficking. Incontrast, many researchers have con-cluded that youth gangs are typicallyloose in structure with low levels oforganizational sophistication (Curryand Decker, 2003; Decker and VanWinkle, 1996; Klein, 1995; Weisel,

2002). Gangs in any given locality maybe more or less sophisticated in theirorganization and criminality, but it iscritical that communities not attempt totreat all gangs equally based on untestedassumptions. Differences in organizationalsophistication suggest differences in theresponses that are likely to be effective.

Existing research and certain specializedlaw enforcement training can provideexcellent information about how gangsoperate generally. However, gangs varytremendously across and within commu-nities (see Howell, Egley, and Gleason,2002; Valdez, 2000). Thus, general knowl-edge about gangs should be supplementedwith information gathered through alocal assessment of gang problems. TheNational Youth Gang Center (2002a) hasdeveloped a gang problem assessment pro-tocol that has been tested in approximate-ly 20 sites, ranging from small rural areasto large urban localities.1 Quantitativeand qualitative data are collected toanswer key questions such as: What, whereare, and when are gang crimes being com-mitted? How have these changed overtime? What are the characteristics ofyouth involved in gangs or at risk of ganginvolvement? How do residents and com-munity leaders perceive and define theproblem?

The problem assessment begins by clearlydefining what is meant by gang, gangmember, and gang-related offenses. A re-source inventory is conducted to identifyservices in the community that are beingprovided or could be provided to at-riskyouth, gang members, and their families.The assessment protocol is designed tobe very thorough and requires consider-able collaboration. Programs with limitedresources can adapt the protocol byfocusing on issues of highest relevanceor making adjustments to obtain similarinformation at lower cost.2

Juvenile Justice

22

A common challenge to conducting gangproblem assessments is the availability ofgang crime data. Many jurisdictions lackany mechanism for tracking gang crime,even though one can be quite simple toimplement. A tracking system for gangcrime requires little more than a checkbox on incident and arrest reports, a stan-dard operational definition for determin-ing whether an incident is gang related,and appropriate training and oversight oflaw enforcement personnel. Such a systemprovides a community baseline of gangactivity that can be sorted in multiple waysand compared against future measures forevaluation purposes. In addition, trackingsystems improve the ability to target re-sources during program implementation.

Risk FactorsRecent youth gang research has producedthree important findings regarding theimpact of risk factors on the likelihood ofgang membership. First, risk factors forgang membership span all major risk fac-tor domains—individual characteristics,family conditions, school performance,peer group influences, and the communitycontext—that research has shown to berelated to various adolescent problem be-haviors, including serious violence anddelinquency.

Second, the accumulation of risk factorsgreatly increases the likelihood of ganginvolvement, just as it increases the like-lihood of other problem behaviors. Re-searchers in a Seattle study (Hill et al.,1999) found that the presence of riskfactors from any of the five major domainsin youth ages 10–12 was predictive oftheir joining a gang at ages 13–18. Chil-dren with 7 or more risk factors were 13times more likely to join a gang thanchildren with no risk factors or only 1.

Third, the presence of risk factors in mul-tiple domains appears to increase the like-lihood of gang involvement even morethan the general accumulation of riskfactors.3 Researchers in the RochesterYouth Development Study (Thornberryet al., 2003) found that a majority (61percent) of the boys and 40 percent of thegirls who scored above the median inseven risk factor domains4 were gangmembers. Approximately 20 percent ofthe Rochester youth who experiencedrisk in four to six domains joined a gang.

These findings demonstrate that there isno single cause for youth gang member-ship or delinquency. Therefore, isolatedefforts to target a single risk factor or evena single domain are unlikely to have muchsuccess in reducing a community’s gangproblems. It is the accumulation of riskfactors across domains that greatly contrib-utes to the likelihood of gang membershipand delinquency. Thus, communities needto address not only multiple risk factors,but multiple risk factor domains. One wayto do this is to implement a comprehen-sive communitywide approach to gangprevention, intervention, and suppressioninvolving a broad representation of com-munity leaders and including communitygrassroots efforts (see National YouthGang Center, 2002b).

Another way to address multiple risk fac-tors across domains is through a coordi-nated partnership between programs thathave succeeded in eliminating a singlerisk factor or risk domain or in neutraliz-ing its negative impact. To be effectivein reducing gang problems, such a part-nership must be developed and managedwith a broad understanding of local riskfactors across domains. The partnershipmust also coordinate existing programsthat address complimentary risk factors



in the same population. For example, apartnership could involve an intensiveprobation program that ensures accounta-bility of youth with a history of violence(individual-level risk factor), an after-school program that provides prosocialactivities and tutoring to improve schoolattitudes and performance (school riskfactor), and a parenting skills programthat addresses childcare and parent-childrelationships (family risk factor). Thispartnership is likely to have the greatestimpact if the programs involve the samehigh-risk population (Howell, 2003a).

Beyond addressing multiple risk factorsacross domains, consideration should begiven to the relative importance of therisk factor. Researchers have not devel-oped a definitive ranking of risk factorsthat are consistently more or less impor-tant in predicting gang membership andviolent behavior, and such a list may notbe forthcoming soon. However, Lipseyand Derzon’s (1998) meta-analysis of 34independent longitudinal studies identi-fied five levels of risk factors based onhow important they were for predictingviolence and serious delinquency at ages15–25 when measured at ages 6–11 and12–14. The most important predictors atages 12–14 were having antisocial peerssuch as gang members or having few so-cial ties at all. The next set of rankedrisk factors included poor school attitudeand performance, aggression, poor parent-child relationships, psychological condi-tions, prior physical violence, and beinga male. Important predictors for theyounger group (ages 6–11) were generaldelinquency, substance use, being a male,coming from a disadvantaged family,and having antisocial parents. Research-based rankings can be important starting

points, but communities should confirmor modify such information based on dataand knowledge of local risk factors.

Communities should also consider thefeasibility of modifying conditions ofrisk. Certain risk factors—gender, forexample—cannot be affected by any kindof program. Others, such as communitydisorganization, are quite difficult to in-fluence and may require very long com-mitments, and still others, such as schoolperformance, may be more amenable tochange with fewer resources.

Acknowledging both a risk factor’s impor-tance and its amenability to change mayallow for more effective use of limited re-sources. If the risk factors most importantto the local gang problem are also themost difficult to change, it is likely thatchances for success will hinge on whetherthe effort is well funded, broad stakehold-er support is present at the highest levels,and the effort focuses on the long term inachieving results. Absent such resources,a sizeable community-level impact maystill be realized by addressing risk factorsthat are more amenable to change butare perhaps of lower overall importance.

The following sections identify key riskfactors for gang membership by domain,including those that are the most likelyto be amenable to change by gang pre-vention and intervention programs. Fora detailed review of risk factors found in

Acknowledging a risk factor’s importanceand amenability to change may allow foreffective use of limited resources.

Juvenile Justice

24

longitudinal studies, see “Youth Gangs:Prevention and Intervention” (Howell,2003b); for a complete list of risk factorsfound in other kinds of studies, see YouthGangs: An Overview (Howell, 1998, pp. 6–7).

Individual Risk FactorsThe most dysfunctional youth, particularlythose on a trajectory of worsening anti-social behavior, are most likely to joingangs (Lahey et al., 1999). The individualrisk factors for future gang membershipappear at a very early age (Howell, 2003b).For example, increasing levels of conductdisorders—measured thus far as early asthe first grade—predict gang involvement.Youth who use drugs and who are alsoinvolved in delinquency—violent delin-quency in particular—are more likely tobecome gang members than those whoare not as involved in delinquency anddrug use (Thornberry et al., 2003). Earlydating, precocious sexual activity, and

negative life events5 are also strong pre-dictors. It is very difficult to influenceearly conduct disorders and negative lifeevents, but programs that prevent orpostpone sexual activity and deter druguse among delinquent youth may holdgreater chances for success.

Family Risk FactorsKey family risk factors for gang member-ship include the family structure (e.g.,broken home), family poverty, child abuseor neglect, and gang involvement of fam-ily members (Howell, 2003b). Poor familymanagement, including poor parentalsupervision (monitoring) and control ofchildren, has been shown to be a strongpredictor of gang membership (Hill etal., 1999; Le Blanc and Lanctot, 1998;Thornberry, 1998; Thornberry et al.,2003). Among these risk factors, poorfamily management may be the mostamenable to change, primarily throughparenting classes and, in some cases,family counseling.

School Risk FactorsOne of the strongest school-relatedrisk factors for gang membership is lowachievement in school, particularly atthe elementary level (Hill et al., 1999;Le Blanc and Lanctot, 1998; Thornberryet al., 2003). This in turn is related tolow academic aspirations, a low degreeof commitment to school, and teachers’negative labeling of youth (Howell,2003b). Early tutoring and appropriatementoring can address school achieve-ment, academic aspirations, and schoolcommitment. Many future gang membersalso have problems with truancy (Laheyet al., 1999). Another school-related riskfactor for gang membership is feelingCo

pyri

ght ©

1997

–199

9 A

rtvi

lle S

tock

Im

ages



unsafe at school (Gottfredson and Gott-fredson, 2001). Increasing individuals’feelings of safety at school may be moredifficult (Gottfredson and Gottfredson,2001). Nevertheless, such programs(e.g., Safe Schools/Healthy Students)are essential for creating an environmentin which opportunities for educationalachievement can be enhanced.

Peer Group Risk FactorsAssociation with peers who engage indelinquency is one of the strongest riskfactors for gang membership (Thornberryet al., 2003). Association with aggressivepeers, whether or not they are involvedin delinquency during adolescence, also isa strong predictor (Howell, 2003b). How-ever, limiting youth’s choice of peers canbe very difficult. A more feasible approachwould be to increase adult supervision ofyouth since lack of adult supervision isintegrally related to the negative impactof delinquent peers on a youth’s decisionto join a gang (Le Blanc and Lanctot,1998; Thornberry, 1998).

Community Risk FactorsLongitudinal studies have identified theavailability of drugs, the presence of manyneighborhood youth who are in trouble,youth’s feelings of being unsafe in theneighborhood, low neighborhood attach-ment, low levels of neighborhood inte-gration, area poverty, and neighborhooddisorganization (i.e., low informal socialcontrol) as the strongest community riskfactors for gang membership (Howell,2003b). Each of these risk factors, how-ever, is very difficult to modify. Anotherimportant community risk factor—onewith greater potential to be changed—isthe presence of gangs in the neighborhood.

Gangs tend to cluster in high-crime,socially disorganized neighborhoods. Theclustering of gangs in such high-crimecommunities has a negative influenceand provides ample opportunity for re-cruitment of at-risk youth into gangs.Suppression, curfew enforcement, andcivil abatement activities such as publicnuisance ordinances may help reducethis negative influence.

Program Design andManagementThe importance of strategic program plan-ning is too often overlooked in favor ofexpediency. Sometimes it takes a tragicact of violence before communities open-ly recognize their youth gang problem. De-termined to respond quickly, communityleaders may launch into program activi-ties with only minimal attention paidto program planning and development.Efforts aimed at achieving rapid results,however, often undercut the careful plan-ning required to optimize resources andmaximize effects on the complex socialproblems related to youth gangs.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

2002

Pho

toD

isc,

Inc.

Juvenile Justice

26

Kettner, Moroney, and Martin (1999)describe what they call an effectiveness-based approach to program planningthat includes problem analysis, develop-ing a program hypothesis, developing ahierarchical set of goals and objectives,and evaluation and performance meas-urement. In general, problem analysisseeks to determine the nature and distri-bution of the problem, the characteris-tics of those experiencing the problem,how key terms are defined, and the causesor origins of the problem. Note that thefirst three of these items reflect in generalterms the key questions answered throughthe National Youth Gang Center’s(2002a) gang problem assessment proto-col (see page 21). The last item—deter-mining the causes or origins of theproblem—relates back to an examina-tion of local risk factors for violence andgang membership.

The second element of the effectiveness-based approach to program planning, theprogram hypothesis, specifies cause-and-effect relationships between risk factorsand describes consequences or problembehaviors in an if/then format. The pro-gram hypothesis clarifies the relationshipbetween problems to be addressed andactivities, links program activities to out-comes, and provides a framework for on-going monitoring and evaluation. Basedon this information, a hierarchical set ofgoals and objectives is developed to de-scribe how program activities relate tooverall goals and to an evidence-basedunderstanding of the nature of the localgang problem. The National Youth GangCenter (2002b) has developed parallelguidance that provides more detail spe-cific to constructing implementation

A number of resources are available to help communities devel-op and implement strategic risk-based responses to youth gangs.Some of these resources are grouped according to topic below.

Overview of General Gang Issues

The American Street Gang (Klein, 1995)

Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A ComprehensiveFramework (Howell, 2003a)

The Youth Gang Problem (Spergel, 1995)

Youth Gangs: An Overview (Howell, 1998)

“Youth Gangs: Prevention and Intervention” (Howell, 2003b)

Assessment of Local Gang Problems and Resources

Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Practical Guide(Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1998)

A Guide to Assessing Your Community’s Youth Gang Problem(National Youth Gang Center, 2002a)

Information on Developing Program Designs


Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness-BasedApproach (Kettner, Moroney, and Martin, 1999)

Planning for Implementation (National Youth Gang Center, 2002b)

Guidance for Developing Program Monitoring orEvaluation Plans


Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman, 2003)

Helpful Resources



plans for comprehensive gang programs.However, the basic elements of effectiveprogram design remain the same.

Evaluation and performance measurementare critical components of program plan-ning. Evaluation activities must beginearly to determine whether a programwas delivered as designed (process evalua-tion) and whether it had the intendedeffects (impact evaluation). An evalua-tion’s level of complexity and scientificrigor directly affect its cost and the tech-nical expertise necessary to conduct theevaluation. However, even relativelyinexpensive program monitoring can bevery beneficial when carefully planned.In any event, communities should makesome effort to measure both the processand the impact of their programs. As pre-viously noted, a tracking system for gangcrime may be one critical community-level indicator for evaluating impact formany programs. Determining individual-level outcomes may require data collec-tion (e.g., through surveys, interviews,individual police histories) before andafter program participation.

Putting It All TogetherThe most desirable program is compre-hensive and communitywide. Failingthat, programs should involve strategicpartnerships among diverse providersserving the same high-risk population.As stated earlier, these strategic risk-based responses to youth gangs synthe-size general knowledge of youth gangswith indepth knowledge of local gangproblems, risk factor research, and state-of-the-art practices in program design.Developing such a response may seemtoo daunting a task to complete beforeservice delivery. However, costs associatedwith program design can be spread acrosspartners and can be justified based onimproved resource targeting and programfeedback mechanisms. In addition, the

use of sound program documentationand evaluation increases a community’sability to access outside funding.

There are no easy solutions to communitygang problems. However, with properprogram planning and development,local policymakers and practitioners canmake informed decisions on the efficientuse of limited resources to respond toyouth gangs.

Notes1. For more information about this assessmentprotocol, please visit NYGC’s Web site atwww.iir.com/nygc/acgp/assessment.htm.

2. Note that this latter strategy could poten-tially detract from data quality.

3. It is important to recognize that risk factorresearch suggests probabilities for groups ofyouth who display certain characteristics,and thus are not predictions pertaining toeach individual in the group. Not all high-risk youth join gangs.

4. The Rochester study, part of OJJDP’s Pro-gram of Research on the Causes and Corre-lates of Delinquency, examined seven riskfactor domains: area characteristics, familysociodemographic characteristics, parent-child relationships, school, peers, individualcharacteristics, and early delinquency. Find-ings from this study are discussed in “TheCauses and Correlates Studies: Findings andPolicy Implications,” page 3.

5. These include failing a course at school,being suspended or expelled from school,breaking up with a boyfriend or girlfriend,having a big fight or problem with a friend,and the death of someone close (Thornberryet al., 2003).

ReferencesBattin, S.R., Hill, K.G., Abbott, R.D.,Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1998.The contribution of gang membership todelinquency beyond delinquent friends.Criminology 36(1):93–115.

Juvenile Justice

28

Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1998. Address-ing Community Gang Problems: A PracticalGuide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau ofJustice Assistance.

Curry, G.D., and Decker, S.H. 2003. Con-fronting Gangs: Crime and Community, 2d ed.Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co.

Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1996. Lifein the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Egley, A. 2002. National Youth Gang SurveyTrends From 1996 to 2000. Fact Sheet. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, D.C.2001. Gang Problems and Gang Programs in aNational Sample of Schools. Ellicott City, MD:Gottfredson Associates.

Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D., andBattin-Pearson, S.R. 1999. Childhood riskfactors for adolescent gang membership: Re-sults from the Seattle Social DevelopmentProject. Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 36(3):300–322.

Howell, J.C. 1998. Youth Gangs: An Overview.Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C. 2000. Youth Gang Programs andStrategies. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Howell, J.C. 2003a. Preventing and ReducingJuvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Frame-work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Howell, J.C. 2003b. Youth gangs: Preventionand intervention. In Intervention With Childrenand Adolescents: An Interdisciplinary Perspec-tive, edited by P. Allen-Meares and M.W.Fraser. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon,pp. 493–514.

Howell, J.C., Egley, A., and Gleason, D.K.2002. Modern-Day Youth Gangs. Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Huff, C.R. 1998. Comparing the CriminalBehavior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youth.Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, National Institute of Justice.

Huff, C.R. 2002. Gangs and public policy:Prevention, intervention, and suppression.In Gangs in America III, edited by C.R. Huff.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,pp. 287–294.

Kettner, P.M., Moroney, R.M., and Martin,L.L. 1999. Designing and Managing Programs:An Effectiveness-Based Approach. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street Gang.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lahey, B.B., Gordon, R.A., Loeber, R.,Stouthamer-Loeber, M., and Farrington, D.P.1999. Boys who join gangs: A prospectivestudy of predictors of first gang entry. Journalof Abnormal Child Psychology 27(4):261–276.

Le Blanc, M., and Lanctot, N. 1998. Socialand psychological characteristics of gangmembers according to the gang structureand its subcultural and ethnic makeup.Journal of Gang Research 5(3):15–28.



Lipsey, M.W., and Derzon, J.H. 1998. Predic-tors of violent or serious delinquency in ado-lescence and early adulthood: A synthesis oflongitudinal research. In Serious and ViolentJuvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and SuccessfulInterventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P.Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, pp. 86–105.

National Youth Gang Center. 2002a. A Guideto Assessing Your Community’s Youth GangProblem. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.[www.iir.com/nygc/acgp/assessment.htm]

National Youth Gang Center. 2002b. Planningfor Implementation. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention. [www.iir.com/nygc/acgp/implementation.htm]

Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W., and Freeman, H.E.2003. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 6thed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Spergel, I.A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Spergel, I.A., Grossman, S.F., Wa, K.M.,Choi, S., and Jacob, A. 1999. Evaluation ofthe Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Proj-ect: The First Three Years. Chicago, IL: Illi-nois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

Thornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership in youthgangs and involvement in serious and vio-lent offending. In Serious and Violent JuvenileOffenders: Risk Factors and Successful Inter-ventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P.Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, pp. 147–166.

Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J.,Smith, C.A., and Tobin, K. 2003. Gangs andDelinquency in Developmental Perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Valdez, A. 2000. Gangs: A Guide to Under-standing Street Gangs, 3d ed. San Clemente,CA: Law Tech Publishing.

Weisel, D.L. 2002. The evolution of streetgangs: An examination of form and variation.In Responding to Gangs: Evaluation and Re-search, edited by W.L. Reed and S.H. Decker.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, National Instituteof Justice, pp. 25–65.

A Community Approach to Reducing Risk Factorsby Susan H. Chibnall and Kate Abbruzzese

By 2000, OJJDP’s Title V Commu-nity Prevention Grants Programprovided incentive grants andcapacity-building tools to nearly1,100 local delinquency preventionprograms nationwide. The risk andprotective factor approach to pre-vention is the cornerstone of theCommunity Prevention Grants Pro-gram model. Communities that useprevention efforts with a risk andprotective factor approach maximizetheir chances of reducing juveniledelinquency and related problems.The experiences of the three TitleV communities presented belowsubstantiate this view.

Youth and Families withPromiseIn its local risk and resource assess-ments, the Utah State UniversityCooperative Extension Serviceidentified several local concernsinvolving youth—specifically, aca-demic and behavioral problems inschool and the community and alack of parental support and involve-ment in structured activities. Re-sponding to these concerns, theCooperative Extension Service useda Title V grant to implement the

Youth and Families with Promise(YFP) program in Carbon andWeber Counties, UT.

YFP, a multigenerational mentoringprogram, targets youth ages 10–14who exhibit low self-confidence, actout in school or the community, orare experiencing academic difficulty.Mentors tutor youth in reading andacademic skills and participate withthem in structured group settings, in-cluding recreational and communityservice activities. Youth, their par-ents, and their mentors also attend“Family Night Out,” a monthly eventdesigned to strengthen family bonds.

In 2000, a self-evaluation of the pro-gram found that family relationshipsimproved and that youth demon-strated greater respect for parentsand increased self-confidence. Youthalso demonstrated improved attitudestoward school, completed morehomework, received better grades,and engaged in less cheating, truan-cy, violence, and visits to the prin-cipal’s office. Among youth who hadbeen involved in problem behaviorsin the community, there were statis-tically significant decreases in policereferrals and incidents of stealing,dam

Causes and Correlates: Findings and ImplicationsCauses and Correlates study findings have important implications for the design of such programs. Strategic Risk-Based Response to Youth

Documents