Last updated: December 2015 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2015. “Risk Factors for Delinquency.” Literature review. Washington, 

D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Risk%20Factors.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002.

Risk Factors for Delinquency

Risk factors are personal traits, characteristics of the environment, or conditions in the family, school,

or community that are linked to youths’ likelihood of engaging in delinquency and other problem

behaviors (Murray and Farrington 2010). The presence of risk factors and the early exposure to them

has been shown to increase the likelihood that youths will engage in early delinquent behavior during 

adolescence and continue to offend throughout the life course (Reingle, Jennings, and MaldonadoMolina 2012; Mmari, Blum, and Teufel-Shone 2010). For example, youths who witness violent crimes

in their neighborhoods or experience abuse/neglect in their homes at a young age have an increased

chance of engaging in violent acts later in life (Reingle, Jennings, and Maldonado-Molina 2012).

The idea of risk factors is common across a number of different fields. For example, in the medical field,

doctors often assess their patients’ risk factors for certain ailments, such as cancer or diabetes, and

recommend certain courses of action that patients can take to reduce their odds of becoming sick. 

Similarly, in the justice field, there are certain risk factors that increase youths’ odds of becoming 

delinquent (Shader n.d). Treatment or prevention programming may target those risk factors, to reduce 

the chances that youths will commit delinquent acts or escalate into committing serious and violent

offenses.

There is no single risk factor that can predict who is likely (or not likely) to engage in delinquent

behavior (Mmari, Blum, and Teufel-Shone 2010), but the effect is cumulative: the more risk factors

present in a youth’s life, the greater the probability of the youth committing delinquent acts (Reingle,

Jennings, and Maldonado-Molina 2012; Green et al. 2008; Wasserman et al. 2003). Similarly, prolonged

exposure to risk factors may increase the likelihood of negative outcomes, and age of exposure to risk 

factors amplifies this relationship (Green et al. 2008; Hoeve et al. 2009). In other words, the younger a 

child is when exposed to risk factors and the longer that the child is exposed to those factors, the greater

the risk that the child will engage in later delinquent behavior.

Furthermore, while exposure to more than one type of risk factor may increase cumulative risk, it can

also separate high-risk from at-risk youths. At-risk youths can include any child who is exposed to a 

risk factor, whereas high-risk youths are children who are exposed to multiple risk factors, 

particularly when this exposure occurs at a young age (Odgers et al. 2008; le Vries et al. 2015). For

example, school adjustment problems associated with a stressful life event, such as the death of a 

parent, may worsen when another stressful event or circumstance, such as witnessing a violent crime 

in the neighborhood, happens at the same time (Draper and Hancock 2011).
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

In addition, there are two types of risk factors: static and dynamic. Static risk factors are those 

historical characteristics of juveniles that cannot be changed through treatment or programming, such

as history of violent behavior and parental criminality. Dynamic risk factors are characteristics that can

change over time, because of treatment or the normal developmental process (Vincent, Guy, and 

Grisso 2012). Some examples are poor parenting practices, association with delinquent peers, and 

poor academic achievement. (For information about the use of risk factors in assessments of youths, 

see Risk/Needs Assessments for Youths).

Risk factors are typically organized into the following domains (see the discussion below for further

details on the five domains): 

 Individual (e.g., biological and psychological dispositions, attitudes, values, knowledge, skills, 

problem behaviors)

 Peer (e.g., norms, activities, attachment)

 Family (e.g., function, management, bonding, abuse/violence)

 School (e.g., bonding, climate, policy, performance)

 Community (e.g., bonding, norms, resources, poverty level, crime)

Although risk factors can take on a variety of forms, from biological traits to broad environmental

conditions, they all increase a youth’s vulnerability to negative developmental outcomes (Reingle,

Jennings, and Maldonado-Molina 2012; Wong, Slotboom, and Bijleveld 2010). 

Risk factors can have both direct and indirect effects on overall risk. For example, environmental

conditions, such as poverty, can directly affect a child by lowering the quality of food and shelter.

Poverty also acts an indirect risk factor, because it puts parents under strain, which may negatively

affect familial relationships, ultimately leading to the breakdown of family bonds, which has been

shown to increase delinquent behavior in youths (Hoeve et al. 2012). 

Risk factors are also related to the developmental stages of childhood and adolescence. For example, 

early in a child’s life, risk factors are tied to individual factors (such as hyperactivity) and family factors 

(such as poor parenting practices). However, as the child grows up, new risk factors related to 

influences from peers, the school, and the community begin to play a larger role in the child’s life 

(Wasserman et al. 2003). Research suggests that delinquency prevention efforts that are implemented 

during early childhood may be more effective at reducing the likelihood of delinquency than 

intervention programs targeted at adolescents who have already engaged in delinquent acts; as youths 

grow up and encounter additional risk factors, they will need more treatment or rehabilitative services 

to bring them back to a normal developmental trajectory (Zagar, Busch, and Hughes 2009).

While the presence and exposure to risk factors can increase the likelihood of negative outcomes for

youths, protective factors can diminish the occurrence of negative outcomes and increase resiliency.

For example, living in a disadvantaged and disorganized neighborhood is a risk factor for delinquency,

while having a supportive relationship with parents and other family members is a protective factor. 

The good relationship with family may not affect the neighborhood conditions, but it can buffer youths
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

from some of the negative effects of living in a poor area (Mmari, Blum, and Teufel-Shone 2010). (For 

more information, see the Model Programs Guide literature review on Protective Factors)

Finally, research has also begun to examine risk factors related to specific subgroups of youths and how 

they may be affected differently. For example, American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) youths face

risk factors that are particular to tribal communities, such as the loss of tribal language and culture

(Mmari, Blum, and Teufel-Shone 2010). Similarly, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning

(LGBTQ) youths face certain risks because of their sexual orientation, including rejection from family

members (Ryan et al. 2009). Further research is needed to thoroughly explore the particular risk factors

that disproportionately affect certain populations of youths, and examine how prevention and

intervention programming can appropriately target these groups and reduce their risk for delinquency

and criminal behavior. 

Theoretical Background

Research on risk factors is grounded in the following theoretical perspectives: the social–ecological

model of development, social learning theory, social bond–social control theory, and social

disorganization theory. 

The multidomain aspect of risk factors draws from the social–ecological model of development

(Bronfenbrenner 1979, 2005), which sets out multiple levels of influence on child development, from

the individual to the microsystem (a child’s immediate surroundings, including family and school); the

exosystem (an environment in which a child is not directly involved, but may have an effect on the

child, such as a parent’s workplace); and the macrosystem (the larger cultural context). 

Social learning theory (Akers 1973; Bandura 1977, 1986) emphasizes the role of social surroundings

within families, schools, peers, and communities and how these relationships affect delinquent

behavior (Reingle, Jennings, and Maldonado-Molina 2012). Social learning explains how risk factors 

can influence delinquent behavior, especially if youths are exposed to negative stimuli and antisocial

surroundings. For example, by following the example set by antisocial peers, youths can be pressured

into experimenting with drugs or engaging in other delinquent behavior. 

Social bond–social control theory (Hirschi 1969) claims that the absence of “conventional ties” is highly 

predictive of delinquency (Vaughn et al. 2009; Church, Wharton, and Taylor 2009), including bonds to

1) institutions (family or school); 2) beliefs (laws and normative standards); and 3) prosocial others

(teachers, parents, peers). Family-based risk factors, such as parental criminality, also contribute to the

weakening of an adolescent’s social bonds (Glasgow Erickson, Crosnoe, and Dornbusch 2000). If these

bonds are weakened, particularly early in life, the youth may be at an increased risk of delinquency

throughout the life course (Murray and Farrington 2010). 

Social disorganization theory (Shaw and McKay 1942) is a variation of social bond theory that focuses

specifically on external influences of communities where youths live (Reingle, Jennings, and

Maldonado-Molina 2012). Common examples include neighborhoods with high crime rates and gang 

activity, availability of drugs and alcohol, and high poverty rates. A youth growing up in a

disadvantaged area may therefore be at increased risk for delinquency (Murray and Farrington 2010).

Risk Factor Domains and Indicators

Risk factor indicators are ways that researchers and practitioners understand and measure the presence

of risk factors. For example, antisocial behavior and delinquent beliefs can be measured using official

arrest records or self-reports of delinquent behavior (Murray and Farrington 2010). As mentioned
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

above, risk factors (as well as protective factors) are organized into the following five categories:

individual, family, peer, school, and community levels. 

Each of the following sections includes descriptions of the risk factor categories and the related

indicators, which may be used to measure the corresponding risk factors. The sections below also 

provide examples of evidence-based programs that aim to reduce risk factors and decrease the

occurrence of delinquency and problem behaviors among youths.

Individual-Level Risk Factors

Factors in this sphere are identified as any characteristics directly related to or within a specific person

that affect the likelihood of that individual engaging in violent and delinquent behavior. Individualrisk 

factors vary among youths, but stem from many origins such as genetics, early moral development,

personality traits, negative life events, and attitudes toward delinquency (Wong, Slotboom, and

Bijleveld 2010; Hodgins, Kratzer, and McNeil 2001). Genetic risk factors include cognitive deficiencies, 

conduct disorders, and mental illness (le Vries et al. 2015). Non-genetic examples include an antisocial

personality, substance abuse problems, and past physical or sexual abuse (Hoeve et al. 2009;

Wasserman et al. 2010). Examples of some individual-level risk factors and their indicators are

displayed in Table 1.

Table 1: Individual-Level Risk Factors and Indicators*

Risk Factors Indicators

Antisocial behavior and alienation (delinquent 

beliefs, general delinquency involvement)

-Attempted suicides

-Juvenile arrests for vandalism, drug 

abuse, or general alcohol- or drug-related 

arrests 

-Reported gang involvement

-Rebelliousness

-Antisocial personality

Gun possession (illegal gun ownership or 

carrying a gun)

-Self-report of gun carrying on school 

property

-Juvenile arrests for weapons or gun 

possession

-Gun confiscations at school

Favorable attitudes toward drug use, early 

onset of substance use

-Positive attitudes toward alcohol abuse 

or drug use

-Juvenile self-reported first and/or 

regular use of alcohol or drugs

-Drug use initiated before age of 15

Early onset of aggression or violence or other 

problem behaviors

-Aggressive in grades K–3

-Juvenile arrests for violent crime and 

serious violent crime 

-Juvenile externalizing behavioral 

problems 

-Drop out of school before 9th grade

Violent victimization and children exposed to 

violence

-Injured in a physical fight

-Threatened or injured by a weapon

-Dating violence

-Past physical or sexual abuse
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5

Cognitive and neurological deficits, 

mental/behavioral health disorders

-Learning disabilities

-Emotional disturbances

-Traumatic brain injury

-Attention deficit hyperactive disorder

(ADHD)

-Low self control, impulsiveness

-Special education enrollment

-Low IQ

-Sensation seeking

*From: DSG 2001; ADBH 2011; Arthur et al. 2002

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Program. The Promoting Alternative Thinking 

Strategies (PATHS) program aims to reduce aggression and behavior problems in elementary school–

aged children. The curriculum focuses on the developmental integration of affect, behavior, and 

cognitive understanding as they relate to social and emotional competence.

In an evaluation of the PATHS program, Kam, Greenberg, and Kusche (2004) found that children in the 

intervention group displayed a significant increase in the percentage of solutions that were nonconfrontational, indicating higher levels of self-control. Domitrovich, Cortes, and Greenberg (2007) 

found that the intervention group scored significantly better than the comparison group on measures 

of social competence. Specifically, the program was effective in reducing risk factors related to selfcontrol and emotion regulation, and aiding the development of prosocial relationships with others. For 

more information on the program, please click on the link below.

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)

Family-Level Risk Factors

Factors at the family level are related to family structure, support, and functioning (Wong, Slotboom, 

and Bijleveld 2010; Hoeve et al. 2012). Family-related risk factors typically include low attachment to 

parents, negative parenting styles, family conflict or disruption, and parents with past criminality or

substance abuse problems (Murray and Farrington 2010). Other studies have found that parental

education level and marital status can also have an impact on delinquency (Green et al. 2008; Demuth

and Brown 2004). Family-level risk factors and their indicators are listed in Table 2. 

Table 2: Family-Level Risk Factors and Indicators*

Risk Factors Indicators

Family history of problem behavior/parent 

criminality

-Family members in alcohol or other 

drug treatment programs

-Pregnant mothers using alcohol

-Babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome 

-Parents with criminal records; arrests 

and convictions of parents 

-Incarcerated parents 

Family management problem/poor parental 

supervision and monitoring

-Children living outside of the family

-Lack of parental involvement in child’s 

school
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6

-Poor supervision

-Lack of caring, supportive adults

-Large families

Poor family attachment/bonding -Single-parent homes

-Absence of caring adults

-Youth in foster care 

-Death of a parent

Child victimization and maltreatment -Reported child abuse and neglect cases

-Unpaid child support

-Requests for social service intervention

Pattern of high family conflict and/or violence -Divorce

-Domestic violence arrests

-Intimate partner violence, intimate 

murders

-911 calls for domestic violence 

Sibling antisocial behavior -Juvenile arrests for other siblings 

-Older siblings encourage antisocial 

behavior

Parental use of physical punishment/harsh and 

erratic discipline practices

-Inconsistent discipline

-Harsh discipline 

-No discipline or few rules at home

-Poor supervision

Low parental education level/illiteracy -Low educational attainment (less than 

12 years of school)

-Low adult literacy

-Low involvement of parents in school

*From: DSG 2001; Arthur 2002

Functional Family Therapy (FFT). Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a family-based program for highrisk youths that addresses multidimensional problems by decreasing family-related risk factors. 

Targeted youths generally are at risk for delinquency, violence, substance use, or other behavioral 

problems such as conduct disorder or oppositional defiant disorder. FFT therapists maintain a 

strengths-based relationship with clients and decrease the negativity that often characterizes these

high-risk youths and families, such as hopelessness and low self-efficacy. Goals are to reduce and

eliminate problem behaviors and family relational patterns through behavior change interventions

(skills training in family communication, parenting, problem solving, and conflict management). 

Sexton and Turner (2010) found that FFT delivered by therapists who highly adhered to the FFT model 

resulted in significantly lower recidivism rates (20 percent) for youths with the highest levels of family 

and peer risk in the sample. In addition, Celinska, Furrer, and Cheng (2013) also found that FFT had a 

positive effect on youths in the areas of reducing risk behavior, increasing strengths, and improving 

functioning across key life domains. For more information on Family Functional Therapy, please click 

on the link below:

Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

Peer-Related Risk Factors
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7

Factors in the peer domain are related to peer norms and attachment, socialization, and interactions

with peers (Hoeve et al. 2009). Risk factors can include delinquent friends, gang membership, and the

quality of peer relationships (Wong, Slotboom, and Bijleveld 2010). Earlier exposure to negative peer

influences has a strong effect on delinquency risk, and the influence of negative peers may increase

other risk factors such as dropping out of school or disengaging from society. For example, children

who are exposed to drug-using peers are more likely to begin using drugs themselves (Odgers et al.

2008). Peer-related risk factors and their indicators are presented below in Table 3. 

Table 3: Peer-Related Risk Factors and Indicators*

Risk Factors Indicators

Gang involvement or gang membership -Gang activity participation

-Police reports of youth gang activity

-Perceived peer gang involvement

Peer alcohol and drug use -Peers’ positive attitudes toward alcohol abuse or 

drug use

-Reported use of alcohol and drugs by friends

Association with delinquent or aggressive 

peers

-Violent friends

-Peer arrests for violent offenses 

-Peer rejection by prosocial peers 

-Antisocial romantic partner

*From: DSG 2001; Arthur 2002

First Step to Success. First Step to Success is an early intervention program designed to prevent 

antisocial behavior in schools by identifying children with antisocial behavior and helping them to 

develop the competencies needed to build effective teacher- and peer-related social–behavioral 

adjustments. The program targets kindergartners who show early signs of antisocial behavior, 

addressing peer-related risk factors such as peer rejection and the potential for developing maladaptive 

peer relationships. Behavioral coaches work with teachers and parents who help teach students skills

and behaviors to use in place of inappropriate actions, providing positive reinforcement for good

behavior. The goals of the program are to decrease or eliminate early symptoms of antisocial behavior,

and ultimately prevent the escalation of maladaptive behavioral adjustment. 

Walker and colleagues (2005) found that the program resulted in significant improvements regarding 

adaptive behavior and increased students’ academic engagement. Walker and colleagues (2009) also 

found that the program significantly reduced problem behaviors and functional impairment in addition 

to increased academic engagement. Specifically, the program acted as a buffer to negative peer 

relationships by improving adaptive behavioral skills and overall problem behavior. By improving 

academic engagement, students also developed conventional ties (i.e., social bonds) to the school, 

making them less influenced by antisocial peer relationships. For more information on the First Step to 

Success program, please click on the link below:

First Step to Success

School-Related Risk Factors

Factors at the school level are typically related to school attendance, academic performance, and

attachment and commitment to school (Wong, Slotboom, and Bijleveld 2010). For instance, academic

failure and dropping out of school tend to be associated with the occurrence of violent behavior (le

Vries 2015; Hawkins et al. 2000); however, exclusion from school may compromise development of
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8

supportive social relationships, creating a cumulative risk for criminal behavior (Draper and Hancock

2011). Risk factors and their indicators unique to the school sphere are listed in Table 4.

Table 4: School-Related Risk Factors and Indicators*

Risk Factors Indicators

Low academic achievement/academic failure -Average student reading, math, and 

science proficiency 

-Academic failure beginning in 

elementary school (grades 4–6)

Negative attitude toward school/low bonding, 

low school attachment, low commitment to 

school

-Suspensions or expulsions from school

-Frequent school transitions

-Low academic aspirations

-Low parental college expectations for 

child 

-Low commitment to school

-Disciplinary problems in elementary 

school

Inadequate school climate/poorly organized 

and functioning schools/negative labeling by 

teachers

-Exposure to abuse by students, bullying

-Violence/crime in schools

-Teacher attitudes, job satisfaction

-Physical decay of school 

-High levels of distrust between teachers 

and students 

School dropout -School dropout status

-Truancy, frequent absences, chronic 

absenteeism 

*From: DSG 2001; Arthur et al. 2002

Eisenhower Quantum Opportunities. The Eisenhower Quantum Opportunities (also known as the 

Eisenhower Foundation’s Quantum Opportunities Program) is an intensive, year-round, 

multicomponent intervention for disadvantaged teens during their 4 years in high school. The program

was designed as a youth-investment and youth-development intervention for high-risk minority

students in inner-city neighborhoods. Youths targeted by the program are considered at risk for

academic failure. The goal of the program is to improve academic achievement and attitudes toward

school, increase rates of high school graduation and the number of students who advance to 

postsecondary education or training, and decrease problem behaviors.

A multisite evaluation of the program by Curtis and Bandy (2015) showed that youths who participated 

in the Eisenhower Quantum Opportunities (who are referred to as Quantum Associates) had a 

significantly higher final grade point average, significantly higher graduation rate, and significantly 

higher college acceptance rate, as compared with youths in the control group. For more information on 

Eisenhower Quantum Opportunities, please click on the link below.

Eisenhower Quantum Opportunities

Community-Level Risk Factors

Factors at the community level are generally related to the physical environment, economic and

recreational opportunities, existing social supports, and other characteristics or structures that affect
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 9

successful community functioning (Kaufman 2005; Reingle, Jennings, and Maldonado-Molina 2011). 

Communities that are disadvantaged, disordered, and disorganized tend to have higher rates of crime

and delinquency. Specifically, research has shown that youths who have witnessed violence in their 

neighborhoods are more likely to engage in violent, assaultive behavior and carry weapons (Patchin et

al. 2006). Risk factors and their indicators that are unique to the community sphere are displayed in

Table 5.

Operation Peacekeeper. Operation Peacekeeper is a community and problem-oriented policing 

program designed to reduce gang involvement among urban youths aged 10 to 18 and decrease gunrelated violence among gang-involved youths. Operation Peacekeeper relies on Youth Outreach

Table 5: Community-Level Risk Factors and Indicators*

Risk Factors Indicators

Availability of alcohol and other drugs -Total alcoholic beverage sales by location

-Trends in exposure to drug and alcohol use

-Perceived availability of alcohol and drugs

Availability of firearms -Firearms in the home

-Firearms sales 

Community crime/high crime neighborhood -Violent crime rate

-Weapons-related charges

-Murder rate, murders by weapon

-Gang-related activity reported by law 

enforcement agencies 

-Adult drug- and/or alcohol-related arrests

-Adult property-crime arrests

Community instability -Children moving or high rates of mobility

-Low home ownership rates

-Rental occupied housing

-Property vacancy

Economic deprivation/poverty/residence in a 

disadvantaged neighborhood

-Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

(AFDC), Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF)

-Children and/or families living below 

poverty level, living without health insurance

-Food stamp program recipients

-Participation in free and reduced lunch 

programs

-Unemployment rates

Social and physical disorder/disorganized 

neighborhood/feeling unsafe in the 

neighborhood

-Poor external housing conditions/physical 

deterioration

-Vandalism and graffiti

-Broken light fixtures in public areas 

-Non-enforcement of building code 

violations/condemned buildings

-Resident self-report on safety and fear of 

crime 

*From: DSG 2001; Arthur 2002
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 10

Workers who work in neighborhood settings wherever young people at risk of violence are found—

including schools, parks, street corners, and apartment complexes—to communicate to youths that they 

have better options for their lives. Youth Outreach Workers serve as mentors and positive role models. 

Their role is to make sure youths understand the consequences of violence and that there are positive 

alternatives to gang membership.

An evaluation by Braga (2008) showed that the Operation Peacekeeper strategy was associated with an 

overall 42 percent decrease in the monthly number of gun homicide incidents. For more information

on Operation Peacekeeper, please click on the link below:

Operation Peacekeeper

Conclusion

Risk factors are characteristics that tend to be associated with the probability of youths becoming

delinquent (Murray and Farrington 2010; Mmari, Blum, and Teufel-Shone 2010). Risk factors are 

typically organized into the following domains: individual, peer, family, school, and community. A

wide variety of research has been done to determine what factors in youths’ lives can increase their risk

of engaging in delinquent and other problem behaviors, and what can be done to decrease that risk.

Programs focused on reducing risk factors have been emerging based on this research.

References

(ADBH) Alaska Division of Behavioral Health. 2011. Risk and Protective Factors for Adolescent Substance 

Use (and Other Problem Behavior). Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Public Health Department, 

Division of Behavioral Health.

Arthur, Michael W., J. David Hawkins, John A. Pollard, Richard F. Catalano, and A.J. Baglioni Jr. 

2002. “Measuring Risk and Protective Factors for Substance Use, Delinquency, and Other

Adolescent Problem Behaviors: The Communities That Care Youth Survey.” Evaluation Review 

26:575–601.

Akers, Ronald L. 1973. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach, First Edition. Belmont, Calif.: 

Wadsworth Publishing.

Asscher, Jessica J., Eveline S. van Vugt, Geert Jan J. M. Stams, Maja Dekovic, Veroni I. Eichelsheim, 

and Sarah Yousfi. 2011. “The Relationship Between Juvenile Psychopathic Traits, Delinquency 

and (Violent) Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 52(11): 

1134–43.

Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Braga, Anthony. 2008. “Pulling Levers Focused Deterrence Strategies and the Prevention of Gun 

Homicide.” Journal of Criminal Justice 36(4):332–43.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. 

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 2005. Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human 

Development. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. 

Catalano, Richard F., and David J. Hawkins. 1995. Risk Focused Prevention: Using the Social Development 

Strategy. Seattle, Wash.: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.

Celinska, Katarzyna, Susan Furrer, and Chia-Cherng Cheng. 2013. “An Outcome-Based Evaluation of 

Functional Family Therapy for Youth with Behavioral Problems.” OJJDP Journal of Juvenile 

Justice 2(2):23–36.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 11

Church II, Wesley T., Tracy Wharton, and Julie Taylor. 2009. “An Examination of Differential 

Association and Social Control Theory: Family Systems and Delinquency.” Youth Violence & 

Juvenile Justice 7(1):3–15.

Curtis, Alan, and Tawana Bandy. 2015. The Quantum Opportunities Program: A Randomized Control 

Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: The Eisenhower Foundation.

Demuth, Stephen, and Susan L. Brown. 2004. “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent 

Delinquency: The Significance of Parental Abuse Versus Parental Gender.” Journal of Research 

in Crime and Delinquency 41(1):58–81.

(DSG) Development Services Group, Inc. 2001. Title V Training. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Domitrovich, Celene E., Rebecca C. Cortes, and Mark T. Greenberg. 2007. “Improving Young 

Children’s Social and Emotional Competence: A Randomized Trial of the Preschool ‘PATHS’ 

Curriculum.” Journal of Primary Prevention 28:67–91.

Donovan, John E., and Richard Jessor. 1985. “The Structure of Problem Behavior in Adolescence and 

Young Adulthood.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53:890–904.

Donovan, John E., Richard Jessor, and Francis M. Costa. 1988. “Syndrome of Problem Behavior in 

Adolescence: A Replication.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 56(5):762–65.

Draper, Ana, and Maggie Hancock. 2011. “Childhood Parental Bereavement: The Risk of 

Vulnerability to Delinquency and Factors that Compromise Resilience.” Mortality: 

Promoting the Interdisciplinary Study of Death and Dying 16(4):285–306. 

Glasgow Erickson, Kristan, Robert Crosnoe, and Sanford M. Dornbusch. 2000. “A Social Process 

Model of Adolescent Deviance: Combining Social Control and Differential Association

Perspectives.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29(4):395–425.

Green, Amy E., Ellis L. Gesten, Mark A. Greenwald, and Octavio Salcedo. 2008. “Predicting 

Delinquency in Adolescence and Young Adulthood: A Longitudinal Analysis of Early Risk 

Factors.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 6(4):323–42. 

Gutman, Leslie M., Arnold J. Sameroff, and Robert Cole. 2003. “Academic Growth Curve Trajectories 

from 1st Grade to 12th Grade: Effects of Multiple Social Risk Factors and Preschool Child 

Factors.” Developmental Psychology 39(4):777.

Hawkins, David J., Todd I. Herrenkohl, David P. Farrington, Devon Brewer, Richard F. Catalano, 

Tracy W. Harachi, and Lynn Cothern. 2000. Predictors of Youth Violence: Juvenile Justice Bulletin. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Hawkins, David J., Richard F. Catalano, and Janet Y. Miller. 1992. “Risk and Protective Factors for 

Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Implications for 

Substance Abuse Prevention.” Psychological Bulletin 112:64–105.

Hawkins, David J., and Joseph G. Weis. 1985. “The Social Development Model: An Integrated 

Approach to Delinquency Prevention.” Journal of Primary Prevention 6:73–97.

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.

Hodgins, Sheilagh, Lynn Kratzer, and Thomas F. McNeil. 2001. “Obstetric Complications, Parenting, 

and Risk of Criminal Behavior.” Archives of General Psychiatry 58(8): 746–52.

Hoeve, Machteld, Geert Jan J.M. Stams, Claudia E. van der Put, Judith Semon Dubas, Peter H. van der 

Laan, and Jan R.M. Gerris. 2012. “A Meta-Analysis of Attachment to Parents and 

Delinquency.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 40(5):771–85.

Hoeve, Machteld, Judith Semon Dubas, Veroni I. Eichelsheim, Peter H. van der Laan, Wilma Smeenk, 

and Jan R. M. Gerris. 2009. “The Relationship Between Parenting and Delinquency: A Metaanalysis.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 37:749–75.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 12

Jenson, Jeffrey M., and Mark W. Fraser. 2006. “A Risk and Resilience Framework for Child, Youth, 

and Family Policy.” In J. M. Jenson and M. W. Fraser (eds.). Social Policy for Children and 

Families: A Risk and Resilience Perspective. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1–18.

Jessor, Richard, John Donovan, and Francis M. Costa. 1991. Beyond Adolescence: Problem Behavior and 

Young Adult Development. New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.

Jessor, Richard, and Shirley L. Jessor. 1977. Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: A 

Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press.

Kam, Chi Ming, Mark T. Greenberg, and Carol A. Kusche. 2004. “Sustained Effects of the PATHS 

Curriculum on the Social and Psychological Adjustment of Children in Special 

Education.” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 12:66–78.

Kaufman, Joanne M. 2005. “Explaining the Race/Ethnicity–Violence Relationship: Neighborhood 

Context and Social Psychological Processes.” Justice Quarterly 22(2):224–51.

le Vries, Sanne LA, Machteld Hoeve, Mark Assink, Geert Jan J.M. Stams, and Jessica J. Asscher. 2015. 

“Practitioner Review: Effective Ingredients of Prevention Programs for Youth at Risk of 

Persistent Juvenile Delinquency–Recommendations for Clinical Practice.” Journal of Child 

Psychology and Psychiatry 56(2):108–21.

Losel, Friedrich, and David Farrington. 2012. “Direct Protective and Buffering Protective Factors in 

the Development of Youth Violence.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 43(2S1):S8-S23.

Merton, Robert K. 1938. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, N.Y.: Free Press. 

Messner, Steven, and Richard Rosenfeld. 1994. Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, Wash.: 

Wadsworth. 

Mmari, Kristin N., Robert Wm. Blum, and Nicolette Teufel-Shone. 2010. “What Increases Risk and 

Protection for Delinquent Behaviors Among American Indian Youth? Findings from Three 

Tribal Communities.” Youth & Society 41(3):383–413.

Murray, Joseph, and David P. Farrington. 2010. “Risk Factors for Conduct Disorder and Delinquency: 

Key Findings from Longitudinal Studies.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 55(10):633.

Odgers, Candice L., Terrie E. Moffitt, Jonathan M. Broadbent, Nigel Dickson, Robert J. Hancox, 

Honalee Harrington, Richie Poulton, Malcolm R. Sears, Murray Thomson, and Avshalom 

Caspi. 2008. “Female and Male Antisocial Trajectories: From Childhood Origins to Adult

Outcomes.” Development and Psychopathology 20(2): 673. 

Patchin, Justin W., Beth M. Huebner, John D. McCluskey, Sean P. Varano, and Timothy S. Bynum. 

2006. “Exposure to Community Violence and Childhood Delinquency.” Crime & 

Delinquency 52(2), 307–32.

Reingle, Jennifer M., Wesley G. Jennings, and Mildred M. Maldonado-Molina. 2012. “Risk and 

Protective Factors for Trajectories of Violent Delinquency Among a Nationally Representative 

Sample of Early Adolescents.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10(3):261–77.

Reingle, Jennifer M., Wesley G. Jennings, and Mildred M. Maldonado-Molina. 2011. “Generational 

Differences in Serious Physical Violence Among Hispanic Adolescents: Results from a 

Nationally Representative, Longitudinal Study.” Race and Justice 1:277–91.

Rohner, Ronald P. 2004. “The Parental ‘Acceptance-Rejection Syndrome’: Universal Correlates of 

Perceived Rejection.” American Psychologist 59(8): 830.

Ryan, Caitlin, David Huebner, Rafael M. Diaz, and Jorge Sanchez. 2009. “Family Rejection as a 

Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latin Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young 

Adults.” Pediatrics 123:346–52.

Sampson, Robert J. 2003. “The Neighborhood Context of Well-Being.” Perspectives in Biology and 

Medicine 46:S53–S64.

Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Steven Raudenbush. 2005. “Social Anatomy of Racial

and Ethnic Disparities in Violence.” American Journal of Public Health, 95(2):224–32.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 13

Shader, Michael. n.d. Risk Factors for Delinquency: An Overview. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/frd030127.pdf

Shaw, Clifford R., and Henry D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago, Ill.: 

University of Chicago Press.

Sexton, Thomas L., and Charles W. Turner. 2010. “The Effectiveness of Functional Family Therapy for 

Youth With Behavioral Problems in a Community Practice Setting.” Journal of Family 

Psychology 24(3):339–48.

Vaughn, Michael G., Matt DeLisi, Kevin Beaver, and John Wright. 2009. “Identifying Latent Classes of 

Behavioral Risk Based on Early Childhood.” Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice 7(1):16–31.

Vincent, Gina M., Laura S. Guy, and Thomas Grisso. 2012. Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A 

Guidebook for Implementation. New York, N.Y.: Models for Change.

Walker, Hill M., Annemieke M. Golly, Janae Zolna McLane, and Madeleine Kimmich. 2005. “The 

Oregon First Step to Success Replication Initiative: Statewide Results of an Evaluation of the 

Program’s Impact.” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 13(3):163–72.

Walker, Hill M., John R. Seeley, Jason Small, Herbert H. Severson, Bethany A. Graham, Edward G. 

Feil, Loretta Serna, Annemieke M. Golly, and Steven R. Forness. 2009. “A Randomized 

Controlled Trial of the First Step to Success Early Intervention.” Journal of Emotional and 

Behavioral Disorders 17(4):197–213.

Wasserman, Gail A., Kate Keenan, Richard E. Tremblay, John D. Coie, Todd I. Herrenkohl, Rolf 

Loeber, and David Petechuk. 2003. Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency. Child 

Delinquency Bulletin Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Wasserman, Gail A., Larkin S. McReynolds, Craig S. Schwalbe, Joseph M. Keating, and Shane A. 

Jones. 2010. “Psychiatric Disorder, Comorbidity, and Suicidal Behavior in Juvenile Justice 

Youth.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 37(12), 1361–76.

Witvliet, Miranda, Pol A.C. van Lier, Pim Cuijpers, and Hans M. Koot. 2009. “Testing Links between 

Childhood Positive Peer Relations and Externalizing Outcomes Through a Randomized 

Controlled Study.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(5):905–15.

Wong, Thessa M. L., Anne-Marie Slotboom, and Catrien C. J. H. Bijeveld. 2010. “Risk Factors for 

Delinquency in Adolescent and Young Adult Females: A European Review.” European Journal 

of Criminology 7:266.

Zagar, Robert John, Kenneth G. Busch, and John Russell Hughes. 2009. “Empirical Risk Factors for

Delinquency and Best Treatments: Where Do We Go From Here?” Psychological Reports 

104:279–308.