U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

N A TIONAL SURVEY OF

Children’s Exposur s Exposure to Violence

Robert L. Listenbee, Administrator October 2013 

Office of Justice Programs Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov

A Message From OJJDP

Children are exposed to violence every 

day in their homes, schools, and communities. Such exposure can cause 

them significant physical, mental, and

emotional harm with long-term effects 

that can last well into adulthood.

The Attorney General launched Defending Childhood in September 2010 to 

unify the Department of Justice’s efforts

to address children’s exposure to violence under one initiative. Through 

Defending Childhood, the Department

is raising public awareness about the 

issue and supporting practitioners, 

researchers, and policymakers as they 

seek solutions to address it. A component of Defending Childhood, OJJDP’s 

Safe Start initiative continues efforts

begun in 1999 to enhance practice, 

research, training and technical assistance, and public education about children and violence. 

Under Safe Start, OJJDP conducted the

National Survey of Children’s Exposure 

to Violence, the most comprehensive 

effort to date to measure the extent 

and nature of the violence that children 

endure and its consequences on their 

lives. This is the first study to ask children and caregivers about exposure to 

a range of violence, crime, and abuse in

children’s lives.

As amply evidenced in this bulletin 

series, children’s exposure to violence 

is pervasive and affects all ages. The 

research findings reported here and 

in the other bulletins in this series are 

critical to informing our efforts to protect 

children from its damaging effects.

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.gov.

Learn more about the Attorney General’s Defending Childhood 

Initiative at justice.gov/ag/defendingchildhood.

Find out more about OJJDP’s Safe Start Initiative at 

safestartcenter.org.

Children’s Exposure to 

Violence and the Intersection

Between Delinquency and 

Victimization 

Carlos A. Cuevas, David Finkelhor, Anne Shattuck, 

Heather Turner, and Sherry Hamby 

The association between delinquency 

and victimization is a common focus in 

juvenile justice research. Some observers have found that victimization and 

delinquency largely overlap, with most 

victims engaging in delinquency and most 

delinquents being victimized at some 

point in their lives (Lauritsen, Laub, and 

Sampson, 1992; Lauritsen, Sampson, and 

Laub, 1991; Singer, 1986). The literature 

in the bullying and peer victimization 

field paints a different picture. It points 

to three distinct groups of children: in 

addition to the children who are both 

victims and offenders (often referred to 

as bully-victims or, as in this bulletin, 

delinquent-victims), a second group are 

primarily victims and a third group are 

primarily offenders (Dodge et al., 1990; 

Olweus, 1978, 2000). One may explain the 

contrast in this way: many studies have 

relied simply on measures of association 

between delinquency and victimization 

(e.g., correlation or regression analyses) 

(see, e.g., Chang, Chen, and Brownson, 

2003; Jensen and Brownfield, 1986; Sullivan, Farrell, and Kliewer, 2006). When 

researchers look beyond the association 

between delinquency and victimization 

(even when that association is strong), 

they are likely to find groups of children 

who are primarily victims or primarily 

offenders. Research has not fully explored 

how large these groups are and how their 

characteristics and experiences differ. 

Defining Delinquents, 

Victims, and DelinquentVictims in the NatSCEV 

Study Group 

The National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) is a national 

study that is both large and comprehensive in its assessment of victimization and 

delinquency (see “History of the National 

Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence”). Thus, it provides a look at how 
History of the National Survey of Children’s 

Exposure to Violence 

Under the leadership of then-Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder in June 1999, 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) created the 

Safe Start initiative to prevent and reduce the impact of children’s exposure to 

violence. As a part of this initiative and with a growing need to document the full 

extent of children’s exposure to violence, OJJDP launched the National Survey 

of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) with the support of the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention. 

NatSCEV is the first national incidence and prevalence study to comprehensively examine the extent and nature of children’s exposure to violence across 

all ages, settings, and timeframes. Conducted between January and May 2008, 

it measured the past-year and lifetime exposure to violence for children age 17 

and younger across several major categories: conventional crime, child maltreatment, victimization by peers and siblings, sexual victimization, witnessing 

and indirect victimization (including exposure to community violence and family 

violence), school violence and threats, and Internet victimization. This survey 

marks the first attempt to measure children’s exposure to violence in the home, 

school, and community across all age groups from 1 month to age 17, and the 

first attempt to measure the cumulative exposure to violence over the child’s 

lifetime. The survey asked children and their adult caregivers about not only the 

incidents of violence that children suffered and witnessed themselves but also 

other related crime and threat exposures, such as theft or burglary from a child’s 

household, being in a school that was the target of a credible bomb threat, and 

being in a war zone or an area where ethnic violence occurred. 

OJJDP directed the development of the study, and the Crimes against Children 

Research Center at the University of New Hampshire designed and conducted the 

research. It provides data on the full extent of violence in the daily lives of children. 

NatSCEV documents the incidence and prevalence of children’s exposure to a 

broad array of violent experiences across a wide developmental spectrum. The 

research team asked followup questions about specific events, including where the 

exposure to violence occurred, whether injury resulted, how often the child was exposed to a specific type of violence, and the child’s relationship to the perpetrator 

and (when the child witnessed violence) the victim. In addition, the survey documents differences in exposure to violence across gender, race, socioeconomic 

status, family structure, region, urban/rural residence, and developmental stage of 

the child; specifies how different forms of violent victimization “cluster” or co-occur; 

identifies individual-, family-, and community-level predictors of violence exposure among children; examines associations between levels/types of exposure to 

violence and children’s mental and emotional health; and assesses the extent to 

which children disclose incidents of violence to various individuals and the nature 

and source of assistance or treatment provided (if any). 

victimization and delinquency converge or 

diverge among youth of different ages. 

Using the interview data from NatSCEV 

(see “Methodology” on page 7) (Finkelhor, 

Turner, Ormrod, and Hamby, 2009), the research team categorized adolescents ages 

10 to 17 into one of four groups: those 

youth who were primarily delinquents 

and not victims (primarily delinquents), 

those who were primarily victims and not 

delinquents (primarily victims), those 

who were both delinquents and victims 

(delinquent-victims), and those who were 

neither victims nor delinquents. The criteria for defining these groups are based on 

work done in an earlier study (Cuevas et 

al., 2007) and take into account that many 

children have minor victimizations and 

that they engage in different kinds of delinquency, including violent delinquency, 

property delinquency, and forms of mild 

delinquency, such as skipping school or 

getting drunk. 

In the interest of clarity, the researchers defined the subgroups in terms of 

key characteristics that the literature on 

victimization and delinquency suggests 

(Dodge et al., 1990; Jennings, Piquero, and 

Reingle, 2012; Malinosky-Rummell and 

Hansen, 1993; McGrath, Nilsen, and Kerley, 

2011; Olweus, 1978, 2000; Windle and Mason, 2004). Table 1 illustrates the typology 

groups and defining criteria. 

Definition of Victimized 

Versus Nonvictimized Youth 

From previous analyses (Finkelhor, Hamby 

et al., 2005; Finkelhor, Ormrod et al., 

2005a; Hamby et al., 2004), the researchers 

determined that one of the best measures 

of victimization intensity is the number 

of types of victimization per respondent 

based on the screening categories that 

the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire 

(JVQ) uses (see “Methodology” on page 7). 

Although simply adding up the number of 

different types of victimization (including 

parental abuse, sex offenses, property offenses, and peer victimizations) does not 

take into account repeated victimizations 

of the same type, analyses have suggested 

that factoring in repeated victimizations 

and other measures of victimization severity does not produce substantively different results in identifying highly victimized 

youth (Finkelhor, Hamby et al., 2005; 

Finkelhor, Ormrod, and Turner, 2007). 

For the purposes of this study, the researchers defined victimized youth as 

those who suffered three or more victimizations in the past year. They chose 

this number because the mean number 

of types of victimization in the past year 

per respondent in the NatSCEV study was 

2.68 and because the JVQ and NatSCEV 

include many common kinds of victimizations, such as being hit by a sibling or 

having property stolen. Consequently, the 

researchers categorized non-/lowvictimized youth as those who suffered 

two victimizations or fewer in the past 

year. 

Definition of Delinquent 

Versus Nondelinquent Youth 

Based on the literature on delinquency (e.g., 

Snyder and Sickmund, 2006; Windle and 

Mason, 2004), the researchers considered 

it important to distinguish among types of 

delinquent behavior. The researchers clearly 

delineated the study’s delinquency measures 

into the following types: those that involved 

violent behavior (assaults and carrying 

weapons), those that involved property 

delinquency (breaking something, stealing 

from a store), those that involved drug and 

alcohol use (drinking, smoking marijuana), 

and those that involved minor delinquency 

(truancy, cheating on tests). Violent behavior and property delinquency are categorized as separate types, and for the most 

part delinquency involving substance use or 

minor forms of rule violating is categorized 

as mild delinquency (see table 1). 

2 
As with victimized youth, some categories 

of delinquent youth are defined as those 

who committed more delinquent acts than 

the past-year mean (i.e., two or more types 

of delinquent acts within the past year). 

Given the inclusion of relatively minor 

and perhaps normative delinquent acts in 

the Frequency of Delinquency Behavior 

(Loeber and Dishion, 1983) (see “Methodology” on page 7), the researchers decided 

that defining those who committed fewer 

than the mean number of delinquent acts 

in the past year as nondelinquent would 

adequately identify youth with no or only 

minor delinquency. 

Categories of 

Delinquent-Victims 

The researchers first defined three groups 

of youth who fell into the delinquentvictim overlap category (see table 1). They 

defined “Violent Delinquent-Victims,” 

consistent with descriptions from other 

studies of victimization and delinquency 

(Haynie et al., 2001; Olweus, 1978, 2000; 

Schwartz, Proctor, and Chien, 2001), as 

youth who in the past year engaged in 

violent, interpersonal acts or carried 

weapons and who experienced three or 

more violent victimizations in the past 

year. As suggested in the trauma response 

literature (Briere et al., 1997; Finkelhor, 

1990; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; Wilsnack et 

al., 2004; Windle and Mason, 2004), the 

research team termed the second defined 

group as “Delinquent Sex/Maltreatment 

Victims,” who had experienced sexual victimization or a form of child maltreatment 

and had engaged in two or more delinquent acts in the past year. They defined 

the third group, “Property DelinquentVictims,” as delinquent and highly victimized youth whose delinquencies were 

related solely to property crime and who 

had three or more victimizations of any 

type in the past year. 

Categories of Primarily 

Delinquent Youth 

In contrast to these three groups of 

delinquent-victims, the study also categorized some youth as primarily delinquent. 

These were youth who had rates of victimization below the mean of three in the 

past year, but who had engaged in violent 

(youth categorized as “Assaulters”) or 

property delinquency (youth categorized 

as “Property Delinquents”), which were 

the most serious and least frequent 

delinquencies (see table 1). 

Categories of Youth Who 

Are Primarily Victims 

The researchers defined two groups who 

were primarily victims but not delinquents. 

These were the “Mild Delinquency Victims,” who had greater than mean levels of 

victimization (three or more victimizations 

within the past year) but no property or 

violent delinquency, and “Nondelinquent 

Sex/Maltreatment Victims,” who had experienced a sexual victimization or a form 

of child maltreatment but had committed 

fewer than two delinquent acts in the past 

year (see table 1). This last group was distinguished as a separate category because 

the victimization literature suggests special 

seriousness for youth who experience even 

one incident of sexual victimization or child 

maltreatment, which are also acts that lead 

to the involvement of child protective services or police referrals (Briere et al., 1997; 

Egeland et al., 2002; Finkelhor, 1990; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; Wilsnack et al., 2004; Windle 

and Mason, 2004; Wood et al., 2002). 

Table 1: Delinquency and Victimization Criteria for Typology Groups 

Delinquency Victimization 

Name Criteria Criteria 

Delinquent- Violent Delinquent- Any interpersonal violence ≥3 violent

victims Victims or weapon carrying victimizations 

Delinquent Sex/ ≥2 delinquencies Any sexual 

Maltreatment victimizations or 

Victims child maltreatment 

Property Property delinquency, no ≥3 victimizations 

Delinquent-Victims interpersonal violence 

Primarily Assaulters Any interpersonal violence <3 violent 

delinquent or weapon carrying victimizations 

Property Delinquents Property delinquency, no 

interpersonal violence 

<3 victimizations 

Primarily victims	 Nondelinquent Sex/ <2 delinquencies Any sexual 

Maltreatment Victims victimizations or 

child maltreatment 

Mild Delinquency No violent and no ≥3 victimizations 

Victims property delinquency 

Low delinquency/ Mild Delinquency Non-/ No violent and no <3 victimizations 

victimization Low-Victimized Youth property delinquency 

Source: Cuevas et al., 2007. 

The grouping criteria illustrate, to some 

degree, the intricacy of establishing these 

categories given the complexity of victimization and delinquent behavior. As such, 

the categorizing approach examines both 

the number of types of behavior (above 

or below the mean for victimization and 

delinquency) and the type of delinquency 

or victimization (e.g., violent, property, 

sexual, or maltreatment). As a result, 

some youth may fit into more than one of 

the established categories. To keep the 

groups mutually exclusive, the researchers established a hierarchy for categorizing individuals who fell into more than one 

typology group (e.g., a youth who committed a violent act or carried a weapon 

within the previous year and had been 

sexually victimized in addition to undergoing three or more violent victimizations, 

and who therefore would fall into both the 

violent delinquent-victim and delinquent 

sex/maltreatment victim typology groups). 

The hierarchy is as follows, from the most 

severe to the least severe combination 

3 
of delinquency and victimization: violent 

delinquent-victims, delinquent sex/ 

maltreatment victims, assaulters, nondelinquent sex/maltreatment victims, 

property delinquent-victims, property 

delinquents, mild delinquency victims, 

and mild delinquency non-/low-victimized 

youth (note that assaulters and nondelinquent sex/maltreatment victims, although 

they are categorized as primarily delinquent and primarily victims, respectively, 

are regarded as higher in the hierarchy 

than property delinquent-victims). This ordering was presented in the original typology using the Developmental Victimization 

Survey (DVS) data (Cuevas et al., 2007), 

which established this order according 

to which group of individuals was most 

similar based on their demographic characteristics. For consistency, the ordering 

remained the same for the purposes of 

this analysis based on the NatSCEV data. 

Findings by Gender 

and Typology Group 

for Delinquents, 

Victims, and 

Delinquent-Victims 

Victimization and Delinquency 

Patterns Among Boys 

Among boys overall, the primarily delinquent group comprised 20.8 percent of the 

total sample (see “Methodology” on page 7 

for sample size). Boys who were primarily 

victims with little or no delinquency comprised 17.9 percent of the total sample, 

and the group who were both victimized 

and delinquent comprised 18.1 percent 

(figure 1). Substantial percentages of all 

three groups were evident throughout 

the developmental course for boys ages 

10 to 17 (figure 2). However, the proportion of boys in the primarily victim group 

differed between ages 12 and 13 (declining from 27.8 percent to 15.5 percent). At 

ages 13 and 14, the proportion of boys 

in the delinquent-victim group increased 

from 14.7 percent to 28.2 percent and was 

elevated through age 17. 

Figure 1: Victimization-Delinquency Co-occurrence by Gender, 

Ages 10 to 17 

100 

90 

80 

43.1% 52.5% 

17.9% 

21.2% 

18.1% 

20.8% 

13.3% 

13.0% 

70 

Percent 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20

10 

0 

Male Female 

Primarily delinquent Delinquent-victims Primarily victims None 

Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding. 

Figure 2: Victimization-Delinquency Co-occurrence by Males 

Ages 10 to 17 

100
 

90
 

12.3% 

13.8% 

29.0% 

44.9% 

20.9% 

10.4% 

20.1% 

48.5% 

14.3% 

9.0% 

27.8% 

48.9% 

20.9% 

14.7% 

15.5% 

48.8% 

19.1% 

28.2% 

14.5% 

38.2% 

24.6% 

23.8% 

13.8% 

37.7% 

33.6% 

19.5% 

11.7% 

35.2% 

21.4% 

26.7% 

9.2% 

42.7% 80 

70 

60 

Percent 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

Primarily delinquent Delinquent-victims Primarily victims None 

Percentages may not add up to 100% because of rounding. 

The boys in the delinquent-victim group 

had considerably more victimization than 

the boys who were primarily victims, 

disclosing 6.3 and 4.5 different kinds of 

victimization in the past year, respectively 

(table 2). This delinquent-victim group had 

a greater percentage of victims than the 

primarily victim group in every category 

of victimization except for bullying victimization. These boys had particularly 

4 
 

Table 2: Characteristics by Delinquent/Victim Group and Gender 

NatSCEV 10- to 17-year-olds 

N = 2,090 (unweighted) 

Delinquent/Victim Group 

Males (n = 1,039) Females (n = 1,051) 

Primarily 

Delinquent (a) 

DelinquentVictims (b) Primarily 

Victims (c) 

Primarily 

Delinquent (d) 

DelinquentVictims (e) Primarily 

Victims (f) 

Total n (unweighted) 222 198 167 140 155 214 

Age 13.9c 14.2c 12.7a.b 13.9 14.4f 13.3e 

Total number of victimization screeners 

Victimization type (% yes) 

2.0b,c 6.3a,c 4.5a,c 2.7e,f 6.4d,f 4.2d,e 

Witness family violence 15b 26a,c 12b 18e 36d,f 19e 

Exposure to community violence 49b.c 70a 63a 54e 71d 63 

Assault 57b,c 91a,c 80a,b 62e 90d,f 68e 

Sexual victimization 0b,c 40a,c 13a,b 7e,f 58d,f 27d,e 

Property victimization 24b,c 56a,c 43a,b 38e 63d,f 45e 

Maltreatment 1b,c 45a,c 25a,b 4e,f 59d,f 33d,e 

Bullying 16b,c 40a,c 58a,b 34e,f 51d 53d 

Internet victimization 5b 14a,c 1b 12e 33d,f 7e

Past-year adversity score (mean) 1.1b 1.9a,c 1.1b 1.6e 2.2d,f 1.6e 

Total delinquency score (mean) 2.7b.c 3.9a,c 0.3a,b 2.0e,f 3.3d,f 0.3d,e 

Violent delinquency (mean) 1.3b,c 1.5a,c 0.0a,b 1.0e,f 0.8d,f 0.0d,e 

Property delinquency (mean) 0.6b,c 0.9a,c 0.0a,b 0.4e,f 0.8d,f 0.0d,e 

Drugs/minor delinquency score (mean) 

Mental health symptoms (mean) 

0.8b,c 1.4a,c 0.3a,b 0.6e,f 1.7d,f 0.2d,e 

Anger 9.8b 11.3a,c 9.3b 10.8e,f 12.4d,f 9.7d,e 

Depression 11.5b 12.3a 11.7 13.2e 15.3d,f 12.6e 

Anxiety 

Parenting characteristics (mean scale scores) 

6.4b 7.2a 6.9 7.5e,f 8.3d,f 6.6d,e 

Warmth 38.0 37.9 38.5 38.5 37.9 38.1 

Inconsistency/harshness 11.2 11.3 10.6 10.4e 11.8d,f 10.8e 

Supervision/monitoring 4.9 5.0 4.8 4.7 5.0 4.8 

Social support score 27.1b 25.7a,c 27.5b 27.6e 24.7d.f 27.1e 

Notes: Estimates are weighted. Sample sizes are unweighted. Superscript letters indicate that a value is significantly different from the value in the column labeled with the same 

letter in parentheses. Comparisons were made using one-way analysis of variance and post-hoc Bonferroni tests. 

Past-year adversity score: total number of adverse events, out of 15 possible, that the youth experienced in the past year. Examples of items: natural disaster, a parent going to prison, and 

homelessness. 

Total delinquency score: total number of delinquency types, out of 15 possible, that the youth committed in the past year. Violent, property, and drugs/minor delinquency scores 

are subsets of total delinquency. Violent delinquency items: destruction or damage of property, physical assault against a peer or adult, carrying a weapon, and injuring someone 

enough to require medical care. Property delinquency items: theft at school, theft at home, theft from a store, graffiti, and avoiding paying for things such as movies or bus rides. 

Drugs/minor delinquency items: cheating on tests at school, skipping school, tobacco use, marijuana use, and other drug use. 

Scores for mental health symptoms, parenting characteristics, and social support are adjusted for age. 

Mental health symptoms were measured using the anger, depression, and anxiety subscales of a shortened version of the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (Briere, 1996). 

Parenting characteristics are sum scores of items rated on four-point scales asking how often parents engage in certain parenting behaviors. Higher scores indicate more frequent 

behavior associated with each characteristic. Warmth scale: 10 items such as encouraged a child to talk about his/her troubles, gave comfort and understanding when a child was 

upset, and hugged a child to express affection. Inconsistent/harsh parenting: five items such as lost control of temper when child misbehaved and punishments given to child depend 

on parent’s mood. Supervision/monitoring scale: four items such as child is home without adult supervision overnight and child goes out with friends whom parent does not know. 

Social support score is a sum score of eight items rated on a four-point scale asking about the child’s perception of support available from family and friends, with higher scores 

indicating higher levels of perceived support. Examples of items: “I can talk about my problems with my family” and “I can count on my friends when things go wrong.” 

5 
greater percentages of sexual victimization 

(which includes sexual harassment) (40 

percent for delinquent-victim boys versus 

13 percent for primarily victim boys), 

witnessing family violence (26 percent for 

delinquent-victim boys versus 12 percent 

for primarily victim boys), and Internet 

victimization (14 percent for delinquentvictim boys versus 1 percent for primarily 

victim boys). The primarily victim group 

of boys had a greater percentage of victims than the delinquent-victim group 

in only one victimization category— 

bullying victimization (58 percent versus 

40 percent). 

The boys in the delinquent-victim group 

were also more delinquent than the 

primarily delinquent group (3.9 and 2.7 

delinquent activities in the past year, 

respectively) (see table 2), which may 

be in part a function of the definitional 

criteria that set a higher threshold of 

delinquent activities for delinquent-victim 

boys than for primarily delinquent boys. 

The elevation of their drugs/minor delinquency score was particularly large (1.4 

for delinquent-victims versus 0.8 for the 

primarily delinquent group). 

Victimization and 

Delinquency Patterns 

Among Girls 

Girls had different patterns in both typology groups and age of changes in victimization and delinquency. Except for the 

group of girls who were neither victims 

nor delinquents (52.5 percent), the largest 

group of girls was the primarily victim 

group (21.2 percent). The primarily delinquent group (13 percent) and delinquentvictim group (13.3 percent) were smaller 

than the comparable groups among boys, 

reflecting that girls tend to engage in less 

delinquency than boys. A rise in both 

delinquency and victimization for girls appeared particularly notable between ages 

11 and 12 (figure 3); as girls got older, the 

victimization component remained stable 

and then rose, while the delinquency component rose and then fell. 

The patterns of victimization and delinquency for girls are generally similar 

to those for boys in terms of both the 

number and types of victimizations and 

delinquent acts. The delinquent-victim 

girls were more victimized than the 

primarily victim girls, disclosing 6.4 and 

4.2 different victimizations in the past 

year, respectively (table 2). (This is not 

a function of the definitional criteria that 

set a higher threshold of victimizations for 

delinquent-victim girls than for primarily 

victim girls.) The delinquent-victim girls 

had greater percentages of victimization 

in every category of victimization except 

bullying victimization. Their victimization 

rates were particularly higher for sexual 

victimization, for which the rate among 

delinquent-victim girls (58 percent) was 

more than twice that among the primarily victim girls (27 percent); and Internet 

victimization, for which the rate among 

delinquent-victim girls was more than four 

times higher than among the primarily 

victim girls (33 percent versus 7 percent) 

and much higher than the equivalent 

rate among delinquent-victim boys (14 

percent). 

Delinquent-victim girls were also more 

delinquent than the primarily delinquent 

girls (3.3 and 2.0 delinquent activities 

in the past year, respectively). As with 

the boys, their drugs/minor delinquency 

scores were particularly elevated (1.7 

for delinquent-victim girls versus 0.6 for 

primarily delinquent girls). 

Figure 3: Victimization-Delinquency Co-occurrence by Females 

Ages 10 to 17 

100
 

90
 

80
 

70 

10 

Primarily delinquent Delinquent-victims Primarily victims None

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 

5.4% 

4.7% 

24.8% 

65.1% 

11.2% 

6.4% 

17.6% 

64.8% 

17.5% 

10.3% 

23.8% 

48.4% 

12.1% 

11.3% 

25.0% 

51.6% 

14.5% 

15.3% 

21.0% 

49.2% 

8.0% 

23.2% 

17.6% 

51.2% 

18.2% 

15.7% 

23.1% 

43.0% 

18.0% 

20.5% 

16.4% 

45.1% 

Percent 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20

10 

0 

Findings Regarding Other 

Dimensions of Adversity 

As table 2 shows, the groups differ on 

some additional dimensions as well. 

Among both boys and girls, delinquentvictims tended to experience more life 

adversities and mental health symptoms 

than other groups. They also received 

less social support. Delinquent-victim 

girls experienced higher rates of 

inconsistent/harsh parenting. There 

were few significant differences among 

the primarily delinquent, primarily victim, 

and delinquent-victim groups on features 

such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, 

family structure, disability status, school 

performance, or physical features. 

Implications for 

Adolescent 

Development and 

for Intervention by 

Practitioners 

Age Onset of Increasing 

Risk for Victimization and 

Delinquency 

Delinquency and victimization are widespread among youth ages 10 to 17, and 

they are statistically associated. However, 

in addition to those who experience both, 

it is possible to identify large groups 

within this age range who are victimized 

but not delinquent as well as those who 

are delinquent but experienced few types 

of victimization. 

6 
Methodology 

The National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) was designed to obtain past-year and lifetime prevalence 

estimates of a wide range of childhood victimizations and was conducted between January and May 2008. NatSCEV documented the experiences of a nationally representative sample of 4,549 children ages 1 month to 17 years living in the contiguous United States. This study focuses on the 2,090 children (1,039 male and 1,051 female) who were 10 to 17 years old at the 

time of the survey. These children were surveyed on both their victimization experiences and their participation in 15 different 

kinds of delinquent behavior. 

Sampling Techniques 

The interviews with parents and youth were conducted over the phone. Sample households were drawn from a nationwide 

sampling frame of residential telephone numbers through random-digit dialing. To ensure that the study included an adequate 

number of minority and low-income respondents for more accurate subgroup analyses, the researchers oversampled telephone 

exchanges that had high concentrations of African American, Hispanic, or low-income households. Sample weights were applied to adjust for differential probability of selection due to (1) study design, (2) demographic variations in nonresponse, and 

(3) variations in eligibility within households. Additional information on sampling methods and procedures has been provided 

elsewhere (Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, and Hamby, 2009; Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, Hamby, and Kracke, 2009). 

Interviewers first spoke with an adult caregiver in each household to obtain family demographic information. They then randomly 

selected the child with the most recent birthday to be interviewed. Interviewers spoke directly with children ages 10 to 17. For 

children younger than age 10, they interviewed the caregiver who “is most familiar with the child’s daily routine and experiences.” 

Sources and Analysis of Information Regarding Victimization 

Researchers obtained reports of victimization using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ), an inventory of childhood 

victimization (Finkelhor, Hamby et al., 2005; Finkelhor, Ormrod et al., 2005a; Hamby et al., 2004). The JVQ obtains reports on 

48 forms of youth victimization covering 5 general areas of interest: conventional crime, maltreatment, victimization by peers 

and siblings, sexual victimization, and witnessing and exposure to violence (Finkelhor, Ormrod et al., 2005b). 

Followup questions for each victimization item gathered additional information about each event, including perpetrator characteristics, weapon use (use of a knife, gun, or other object that could cause physical harm), injury, whether the event occurred 

in the past year, and whether it was known to school officials or police. 

The analysis for this bulletin examined victimizations that occurred in the past year. The researchers constructed 8 aggregate 

types of victimization from 32 of the JVQ’s 48 victimization screeners: physical assault, sexual victimization, maltreatment, 

property victimization, witnessing family violence, exposure to community violence, bullying, and Internet victimization. 

Sources and Analysis of Information Regarding Delinquency 

Researchers used the Frequency of Delinquency Behavior (FDB) that Loeber and Dishion (1983) originally developed to 

measure self-reported delinquency. For this study, the researchers adapted the FDB scale from its most recently published 

format (Dahlberg, Toal, and Behrens, 1998; Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1987).* The adapted form asked participants only 

whether they had committed the listed delinquency in the past year rather than how often they had committed each delinquent 

behavior. Researchers asked all NatSCEV participants between the ages of 5 and 17 about a total of 15 delinquency items. 

This study focuses on the 2,090 respondents aged 10 to 17. 

*For a sample of the Frequency of Delinquent Behavior survey and scoring instrument, see www.djj.state.fl.us/docs/jjdp-performance-measurement/ 

frequency_of_delinquent_behavior.pdf?sfvrsn=0. 

The relative sizes of these various groups 

appear to change as children age; they 

also differ by gender. The delinquentvictim group among boys is larger overall 

and increases substantially between ages 

13 and 14. This may reflect an increase 

in delinquent activities around the time 

they enter high school among those who 

had previously been primarily victims. 

The high school environment may expose 

them to older delinquent role models and 

present them with conditions of more 

independence and less supervision than 

middle school. 

For girls, the pattern change appears to 

occur earlier (between ages 11 and 12) 

and is associated with an increase in both 

victimization and delinquency, but particularly victimization. This is likely related 

to the onset of pubertal changes in girls 

and shows up in the data as a particularly 

marked increase in sexual harassment. 

Increased Risk of Both 

Delinquency and 

Victimization for 

Delinquent-Victims 

For both genders, the data reveal 

worrying facts about the group who are 

both victimized and delinquent. This 

group manifests higher levels of both victimization and delinquency than either the 

primarily victim or primarily delinquent 

group. This group also has more additional adversities, lower levels of social 

support, and higher rates of mental health 

symptoms (see table 2). This is consistent 

with observations from the bullying literature that the so-called “bully-victims” are 

often the most distressed children (Cuevas et al., 2007; Haynie et al., 2001; Olweus, 

1978, 2000; Schwartz, Proctor, and Chien, 

2001). Improving strategies for identifying 

and helping this group of children is an 

obvious priority. 

7 
Timing of Interventions To 

Reduce Victimization and 

Delinquency 

The current study is not longitudinal, and 

so it is limited in the inferences that can 

be made about how to identify children 

who are on track to become distressed 

delinquent-victims. This group does not 

appear to be discernible on the basis of 

demographic, family, or school variables 

collected in this study. The age comparisons suggest that victims who have 

additional adversities and higher levels of 

victimization and mental health symptoms 

may also be those at greatest risk of moving into delinquent activities. Targeting 

prevention at highly victimized youth with 

mental health symptoms may be important. 

The study points clearly to the importance 

of early intervention. For girls, a large 

jump in victimization and delinquency 

occurs between ages 11 and 12; for boys, 

the delinquent-victim group increases 

between ages 13 and 14. This strongly suggests that delinquency and victimization 

prevention efforts need to be marshaled 

around or before the fifth grade, and they 

need to include components that minimize 

sexual aggression and harassment. 

The transition to high school may also 

be a crucial juncture, especially for boys. 

Further study may better determine how 

children at this juncture both are targeted 

as victims and initiate multiple delinquent 

activities. Better early-warning systems 

may identify students who need special 

guidance and education from early in their 

high school careers. 

References 

Briere, J. 1996. Trauma Symptoms Checklist 

for Children (TSCC): Professional Manual. 

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment 

Resources. 

Briere, J., Woo, R., McRae, B., Foltz, J., and 

Sitzman, R. 1997. Lifetime victimization history, demographics, and clinical status in 

female psychiatric emergency room patients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 

185:95–101. 

Chang, J.J., Chen, J.J., and Brownson, R.C. 

2003. The role of repeat victimization in adolescent delinquent behaviors and recidivism. 

Journal of Adolescent Health 32(4):272–280. 

Cuevas, C., Finkelhor, D., Turner, H.A., and 

Ormrod, R.K. 2007. Juvenile delinquency and 

victimization: A theoretical typology. Journal 

of Interpersonal Violence 22:1581–1602. 

Dahlberg, L.L., Toal, S.B., and Behrens, C.B. 

1998. Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, 

Beliefs, and Behaviors Among Youth: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. Atlanta, GA: 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control. 

Dodge, K.A., Coie, J.D., Pettit, G.S., and Price, 

J.M. 1990. Peer status and aggression in boys’ 

groups: Developmental and contextual analyses. Child Development 61(5):1289–1309. 

Egeland, B., Yates, T., Appleyard, K., and 

van Dulmen, M. 2002. The long-term consequences of maltreatment in the early years: A 

developmental pathway model to antisocial 

behavior. Children’s Services: Social Policy, 

Research, and Practice 5:249–260. 

Finkelhor, D. 1990. Early and long-term 

effects of child sexual abuse: An update. 

Professional Psychology Research and Practice 

21:325–330. 

Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S.L., Ormrod, R.K., 

and Turner, H.A. 2005. The JVQ: Reliability, 

validity, and national norms. Child Abuse & 

Neglect 29(4):383–412. 

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., and Turner, H.A. 

2007. Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization trauma. Child 

Abuse & Neglect 31:7–26. 

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., Turner, H.A., 

and Hamby, S.L. 2005a. Measuring polyvictimization using the JVQ. Child Abuse & 

Neglect 29(11):1297–1312. 

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., Turner, H.A., and 

Hamby, S.L. 2005b. The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national 

survey. Child Maltreatment 10(1):5–25. 

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Ormrod, R., and 

Hamby, S.L. 2009. Violence, abuse, and crime 

exposure in a national sample of children 

and youth. Pediatrics 124(5):1–13. 

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Ormrod, R., Hamby, 

S., and Kracke, K. 2009. Children’s Exposure to 

Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey. 

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Hamby, S.L., Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., and 

Turner, H.A. 2004. The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ): Administration and 

Scoring Manual. Durham, NH: Crimes against 

Children Research Center. 

Haynie, D.L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, 

A.D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., and Simons-Morton, 

B. 2001. Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: 

Distinct groups of at-risk youth. The Journal 

of Early Adolescence 21:29–49. 

Jennings, W.G., Piquero, A.R., and Reingle, 

J.M. 2012. On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. 

Aggression and Violent Behavior 17:16–26. 

Jensen, G.F., and Brownfield, D. 1986. Gender, 

lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine 

activity, Violence and Victims 1(2):85–99. 

Kilpatrick, D.G., Ruggiero, K.J., Acierno, 

R., Saunders, B.E., Resnick, H.S., and Best, 

C.L. 2003. Violence and risk of PTSD, major 

depression, substance abuse/dependence, 

and comorbidity: Results from the national 

survey of adolescents. Journal of Consulting 

and Clinical Psychology 71:692–700. 

Lauritsen, J.L., Laub, J.H., and Sampson, R.J. 

1992. Conventional and delinquent activities: 

Implications for the prevention of violent 

victimization among adolescents. Violence 

and Victims 7(2):91–108. 

8 
Lauritsen, J.L., Sampson, R.J., and Laub, 

J.H. 1991. The link between offending and 

victimization among adolescents. Criminology 29:265–292. 

Loeber, R., and Dishion, T.J. 1983. Early 

predictors of male delinquency: A review. 

Psychological Bulletin 94:68–94. 

Loeber, R., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. 1987. 

The prediction of delinquency. In Handbook 

of Juvenile Delinquency, edited by H.C. Quay. 

New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 325–382. 

Malinosky-Rummell, R., and Hansen, D.J. 

1993. Long-term consequences of childhood physical abuse. Psychological Bulletin 

114:68–79. 

McGrath, S.A., Nilsen, A.A., and Kerley, K.R. 

2011. Sexual victimization in childhood and 

the propensity for juvenile delinquency and 

adult criminal behavior: A systematic review. 

Aggression and Violent Behavior 16:485–492. 

Olweus, D. 1978. Aggression in the Schools: 

Bullies and Whipping Boys. Oxford, England: 

Hemisphere. 

Olweus, D. 2000. Bullying. In Encyclopedia 

of Psychology, vol. 1, edited by A.E. Kazdin. 

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 487–489. 

Schwartz, D., Proctor, L.J., and Chien, D.H. 

2001. The aggressive victim of bullying: 

Emotional and behavioral dysregulation as 

a pathway to victimization by peers. In Peer 

Harassment in School: The Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized, edited by J. Juvonen and 

S. Graham. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 

147–174. 

Singer, S.I. 1986. Victims of serious violence 

and their criminal behavior: Subcultural 

theory and beyond. Victims and Violence 

1:61–70. 

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 2006. Juvenile 

Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Sullivan, T.N., Farrell, A.D., and Kliewer, W. 

2006. Peer victimization in early adolescence: 

Association between physical and relational 

victimization and drug use, aggression, and 

delinquent behaviors among urban middle 

school students. Development and Psychopathology 18(1):119–137. 

Wilsnack, S.C., Wilsnack, R.W., Kristjanson, 

A.F., Vogeltanz-Holm, N.D., and Harris, T.R. 

2004. Child sexual abuse and alcohol use 

among women: Setting the stage for risky 

sexual behavior. In From Child Sexual Abuse 

to Adult Sexual Risk: Trauma, Revictimization, 

and Intervention, edited by L.J. Koenig, L.S. 

Doll, A. O’Leary, and W. Pequegnat. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 

pp. 181–200. 

Windle, M., and Mason, W.A. 2004. General 

and specific predictors of behavioral and 

emotional problems among adolescents. 

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 

12:49–61. 

Wood, J., Foy, D.W., Goguen, C.A., Pynoos, 

R., and James, C.B. 2002. Violence exposure 

and PTSD among delinquent girls. Journal 

of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma 

6:109–126. 

Acknowledgments 

This bulletin was written by Carlos A. Cuevas, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of 

Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University; David Finkelhor, Ph.D., 

Director, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire; 

Anne Shattuck, Data Analyst, Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire; Heather Turner, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Sociology, University of New Hampshire; and Sherry Hamby, Ph.D., Research Associate 

Professor, Department of Psychology, Sewanee: The University of the South. OJJDP 

wishes to acknowledge the contributions to this bulletin of Melissa T. Merrick, Ph.D., 

Epidemiologist, Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention 

and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). OJJDP also wishes 

to acknowledge the support of CDC for the National Survey of Children’s Exposure 

to Violence and its partnership in the Safe Start initiative to create safe, stable, and 

nurturing environments for children and their families. 

This bulletin was prepared under grant number 

2005–JL–FX–0048 from the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

Points of view or opinions expressed in this 

document are those of the authors and do 

not necessarily represent the official position 

or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department 

of Justice. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention is a component of the Office of 

Justice Programs, which also includes the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics; the National Institute of 

Justice; the Office for Victims of Crime; and the 

Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. 

Share With Your Colleagues 

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and reprint it in 

your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP and the authors 

of this bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you received 

a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP materials meet your 

individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions to: 

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse 

Publication Reprint/Feedback 

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849–6000 

800–851–3420 

301–519–5600 (fax) 

E-mail: responsecenter@ncjrs.gov 

Web: www.ncjrs.gov 

9 


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

*NCJ~240555*
 

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 240555