-

 

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 -

 

 

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

December 2010 

Pathways to Desistance 

How and why do many serious 

adolescent offenders stop offending while others continue to 

commit crimes? This series of bulletins presents findings from the 

Pathways to Desistance Study, a 

multidisciplinary investigation that 

attempts to answer this question. 

Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator 

Substance Use and Delinquent 

Behavior Among Serious Adolescent 

Offenders 

Edward P. Mulvey, Carol A. Schubert, and Laurie Chassin 

Investigators interviewed 1,354 

young offenders from Philadelphia 

and Phoenix for 7 years after their 

convictions to learn what factors 

(e.g., individual maturation, life 

changes, and involvement with 

the criminal justice system) lead 

youth who have committed serious 

offenses to persist in or desist from 

offending. 

As a result of these interviews 

and a review of official records, 

researchers have collected the most 

comprehensive dataset available 

about serious adolescent offenders 

and their lives in late adolescence 

and early adulthood. 

These data provide an unprecedented look at how young people 

mature out of offending and what 

the justice system can do to promote positive changes in the lives 

of these youth. 

Highlights

The Pathways to Desistance study followed more than 1,300 serious juvenile 

offenders for 7 years after their conviction. In this bulletin, the authors present 

some key findings on the link between adolescent substance use and serious 

offending: 

•	 Serious/chronic offenders are much more likely than other juvenile 

offenders to be substance users and to qualify as having substance 

use disorders. Substance use and offending at one age is a consistent predictor of continued serious offending at a later age. 

•	 Dispositional factors (e.g., sensation seeking, behavioral disinhibition, poor affect regulation, stress, depression) can lead to “externalizing” behaviors such as substance use and criminal activity. 

•	 Substance use and serious offending fluctuate in similar patterns 

over time, suggesting a reciprocal or sequential relationship, but no 

causal relationship has been proven. 

•	 Substance use and serious offending decrease in late adolescence. 

Understanding the factors that enable youth to desist from these 

behaviors as they learn new skills and mature may reveal avenues 

for intervention. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ojjdp.gov
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECEMBER 2010 

Substance Use and Delinquent Behavior Among Serious 

Adolescent Offenders 

Edward P. Mulvey, Carol A. Schubert, and Laurie Chassin 

Introduction 

The nexus between substance use and offending during 

adolescence has important implications for juvenile justice 

interventions. Many of the adolescents who get in trouble 

with the law have problems with substance use, and their 

offending is tied to their involvement with drugs or alcohol. Gaining a deeper understanding of the dynamic ebb 

and flow of these behaviors is critical to refining treatment 

approaches and more effectively targeting prevention efforts for adolescent offenders. The right intervention at 

the right time in the development of these offenders could 

forestall a lifetime of substance use and offending that fuel 

each other in a destructive pattern. 

Much work has been done on the relationship between 

adolescent substance use and offending, but most studies 

have focused on general community samples or samples of 

at-risk youth as they begin to engage in these behaviors. 

These efforts have produced a sizable literature documenting the factors related to the onset or maintenance of 

these behaviors independently of each other. Less research 

has focused on the reciprocal effects of these behaviors 

on each other during adolescence. Also lacking is a clear 

understanding of how these behaviors play out beyond the 

point in early adulthood when youth with established histories of offending and substance use cease one behavior 

or the other (see Hussong et al., 2004, for an exception). 

Information gathered from this vantage point, joined with 

extant research, will contribute to a more complete understanding of the link between substance use and offending 

and will enhance the knowledge base available to juvenile 

justice policymakers and practitioners. 

One OJJDP-sponsored longitudinal study offers a particularly detailed and rich picture of substance use and 

offending in serious adolescent offenders over time, using 

regular interviews conducted over a period of 7 years after 

court involvement. The study, Pathways to Desistance: A 

Prospective Study of Serious Adolescent Offenders, follows a 

large sample of serious (overwhelmingly felony) offenders 

into early adulthood, providing insight into changes across 

multiple life domains that contribute to offenders’ desisting from or persisting in antisocial activities (Mulvey et 

al., 2004) (see “About the Pathways to Desistance Study” 

on p. 8).1 The Pathways study is important to the juvenile justice field because serious offenders, such as those 

followed in this study, drive much of the policy debate in 

juvenile justice (Greenwood, 2006) and present the system 

with some of its most vexing practical challenges. Among 

its many goals, the study tests whether the relationships 

between substance use and offending observed in previous 

studies of community-based youth or youth in detention 

also hold for individuals who have more serious and/or 

chronic problems. The study also observes the joint desistance process for substance use and offending. 

This bulletin describes what is known about the relationships between substance use and offending based on 

extant research and the Pathways data. It is the beginning, 

rather than the end, of an involved story. Researchers 

have observed several interesting and relevant relationships between these behaviors in the sample overall and in 

individuals during the 2-year period following their court 

involvement. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how substance use and offending interact and 

affect the desistance process in these adolescents. 

What Do We Know? 

Several general statements seem warranted, given previous 

research on this topic. 

2 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Substance Use Problems and Serious 

Delinquency Are Linked 

Researchers consistently find a strong link between substance use problems and serious delinquency, regardless 

of how they structure the inquiry. 

•	 Studies of youth in juvenile court demonstrate that a 

majority of court-involved adolescents have recently 

used illegal substances and that more serious and chronic adolescent offenders have used more substances and 

are more likely to qualify for a diagnosis of a substance 

use disorder (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program, 1999; Huizinga and Jakob-Chien, 1998; Wilson 

et al., 2001; Teplin et al., 2002). 

•	 Investigators who study large samples of community 

youth observe a strong association between reported 

serious offending and substance use in these groups 

(Johnston, O’Malley, and Bachman, 2006; Ford, 

2005). 

•	 Researchers who follow adolescent offenders over time 

find that substance use at one age is one of the most 

consistent indicators of continued serious offending 

at a later age (Dembo et al., 1993; Lipsey and Derzon, 1998; Dembo, Wareham, and Schmeidler, 2007; 

D’Amico et al., 2008; Hussong et al., 2004). 

The issue of when and how individuals develop these 

co-occurring patterns of substance use and illegal activity 

is less clear. Some of the same factors that put an individual at risk for involvement in criminality also put that 

individual at risk for substance use problems (Hawkins, 

Catalano, and Miller, 1992; Iacono, Malone, and McGue, 

2008; Mamorstein, Iacono, and McGue, 2009). Parental 

substance use disorders, poor parenting, conflictual family 

environments, and dispositional factors such as sensation 

seeking and behavioral disinhibition place an adolescent at 

higher risk of using drugs and alcohol and/or engaging in 

illegal acts (Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992). 

In addition, adolescents with poor affect regulation, high 

levels of environmental stress, or depression may use 

drugs and alcohol to medicate themselves as a coping 

mechanism. However, these relations are less consistently 

found—especially once “externalizing behaviors” (e.g., 

substance use and criminal offending) are considered— 

and often appear in complex interactions (Hersh and Hussong, 2009). The relation between negative mood and 

alcohol use has been reported to be stronger among adolescents with fewer conduct problems (Hussong, Gould, 

and Hersh, 2008). 

Substance Use and Offending Fluctuate 

in Similar Patterns Over Time 

It is clear that these two behaviors are associated over 

time, although there does not seem to be a clear progression from one to the other. Several investigators report 

evidence that behavior problems and aggression at a 

younger age predict later adolescent illicit substance use 

(Henry, Tolan, and Gorman-Smith, 2001; Kellam et al., 

1983; Mason, Hitchings, and Spoth, 2007; Wiesner, Kim, 

and Capaldi, 2005), escalations in use over time (Hussong 

and Chassin, 1998), and later diagnoses of substance abuse 

and dependence (Chassin et al., 1999; Disney et al., 1999). 

In addition, studies suggest that early substance use predicts subsequent criminal behavior in adolescents (Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry, 1995; Bui, Ellickson, and 

Bell, 2000; Ford, 2005; French et al., 2000; Loeber and 

Farrington, 2000). 

Recent advances in statistical methods (e.g., joint trajectory analyses) have produced other insights into this 

temporal relationship. Joint trajectory analyses allow the 

researcher to examine the comparability of the patterns of 

these two behaviors as they progress over the same time 

period (Nagin, 2005). Research using this technique has 

demonstrated that criminal behavior and substance use 

follow parallel courses over time (Sullivan and Hamilton, 

2007), suggesting a reciprocal relationship between the 

two behaviors. Whether the relationship is sequential or 

reciprocal can be debated; it may be that the relationship 

follows different patterns in different groups of youth. It is 

clear, however, that delinquent behavior and substance use 

problems go hand in hand in adolescence. 

Multiple Mechanisms May Link the 

Behaviors 

Substance use and delinquency can interrelate in several 

ways over the course of adolescence to promote dual involvement and set the stage for a difficult entry into young 

adulthood. 

Substance use in and of itself is certainly not the primary 

cause of involvement in illegal activity. Substance use, 

however, may initiate or heighten the risk of offending 

either independently or in conjunction with other risk factors. There are several ideas about the ways that substance 

use might exert this effect, as illustrated in figure 1. 

Substance use and offending might have a simple reciprocal relationship. “Being high” can lower inhibitions against 

involvement in criminal acts (a psychopharmacological 

explanation), and/or committing crime might be a way 

to obtain funds to support substance use (an instrumental 

explanation) (White et al., 2002; Goldstein, 1985). According to this formulation, one behavior indicates that 

the other behavior is more likely to occur. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Factors That May Link Substance Use and Offending 

in Adolescents 

Drug 

involvement 

Offending 

*Effects on developing brain 

*Reward + self-regulation 

Intoxication Deviant 

peers 

Need for 

income 

Failure to assume 

adult roles 

Impaired coping 

and competence 

As described earlier, substance use and offending might 

also be linked because they are both driven by common 

causes such as parental substance use disorders, disrupted 

and conflictual family environments, or shared dispositional risk factors. For example, Young and colleagues (2000) 

found a single spectrum that linked novelty seeking, conduct disorder, substance experimentation, and attention 

deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a sample of adolescent 

twins. One explanation is that a common tendency toward 

novelty seeking and difficulty with behavioral regulation 

leads to a variety of externalizing behaviors, including 

substance use and criminal offending. Alternatively, adolescents dealing with a particularly difficult or pervasive set of 

problems, like difficulties learning in school and a violent 

home life, might find escape in either substance use or illegal activity or both. 

However, the common links are not necessarily limited to 

the individual adolescent. The influence of the peer group 

and/or neighborhood (social context) might determine 

the co-occurrence of substance use and offending. A large 

proportion of serious delinquent acts in mid- and late adolescence are committed in groups (Zimring, 1998), and 

substance use might be a particularly potent component 

of the group process (Mason et al., 2007). Alternatively, 

regular substance use may place adolescents in group situations where crime (particularly violence) is more likely 

(Goldstein, 1985; Fagan and Chin, 1991; MacCoun, 

Kilmer, and Reuter, 2003). Continued gang involvement, 

which increases the risk for crime and substance use during 

late adolescence (Thornberry, 1998; Thornberry et al., 

2003), is an extreme case of this dynamic. Similarly, youth 

who live in high-crime neighborhoods 

might be introduced to drug use or recruited for criminal activities at a disproportionate rate compared with youth who live 

in more stable neighborhoods (Ellickson 

and McGuigan, 2000; Little and Steinberg, 

2006). 

Finally, criminal offending and substance 

use may both be part of a process of 

delayed development. In the years following adolescence, an individual’s continued 

drug or alcohol use may reduce his or her 

chances of a successful transition to developmentally appropriate adult roles such as 

employee, spouse, and parent (Chassin et 

al., 1999; Yamaguchi and Kandel, 1985). 

Adolescent substance use can produce a 

false sense of reality and autonomy that 

interferes with the development of emerging social competencies and coping skills 

(Baumrind and Moselle, 1985). Some data 

support this idea: Adolescents’ illegal drug 

use predicts a lower level of autonomy 

and less competence in young adulthood (Chassin, Pitts, 

and DeLucia, 1999), and adolescents in the juvenile justice 

system have a lower level of decisionmaking ability than do 

adolescents in the community who are of similar age and 

ethnic background (Grisso, 2004). However, the interplay 

among maturity, attainment of developmental competencies, 

drug use, and delinquency is largely unexplored terrain. 

Substance Use and Offending Decrease 

in Late Adolescence 

Another intriguing question about these behaviors, aside 

from how they fuel each other during adolescence, is 

how and why they both usually cease in early adulthood. 

Many studies show that both substance use problems and 

delinquency start during mid-adolescence and then stop 

or sharply decrease for many individuals in their 20s and 

30s (Arnett, 2000). Criminologists agree on the existence 

of an age-crime curve, which shows that the likelihood of 

both official and self-reported criminal activity decreases 

during late adolescence and early adulthood (Piquero et 

al., 2002), with less than half of serious adolescent offenders continuing their criminal career into adulthood (Redding, 1997). Notably, similar age curves are observed for 

alcohol and drug use, substance use problems, and substance use diagnoses (Chen and Kandel, 1995; Bachman et 

al., 2002). One or more processes during late adolescence 

and early adulthood cause some individuals who engaged 

in these activities when they were younger—even very serious offenders or heavy substance users—to stop altogether 

or slow down their rate of offending and/or substance use 

if they remain active. 

4 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is also clear that this dropoff does not follow the same 

pattern for everyone. Numerous analyses of data on longitudinal criminal offending and substance use indicate 

that this change follows several different patterns over 

time. Some subgroups continue at a high rate, others stop 

quickly and completely, and still others drop off at different rates of decline or at later ages (Broidy et al., 2003; 

Bachman et al., 2002). Although differences in sampling 

strategies, outcome measures, and analytic approaches affect the number of groups and the shapes of the “dropoff” 

curves obtained, studies consistently find different pathways of desistance from both substance use problems and 

criminal involvement in the period from late adolescence 

to early adulthood. A better understanding of the life 

events or interventions that affect these pathways would 

have important implications for developing interventions 

to enhance the desistance process. 

Little Is Known About What Promotes 

Desistance 

Several general mechanisms may promote desistance from 

substance use and/or criminal activity. One possibility is 

that normal developmental change in late adolescence and 

early adulthood makes criminal behavior and/or substance 

use less attractive or acceptable. As individuals become 

more mature socially, emotionally, and intellectually, 

changes in their moral reasoning, considerations regarding 

the future, impulse control, or susceptibility to peer influence may steer them away from antisocial, risky, and dangerous behavior and toward more socially desirable and 

safer activities (Keating, 2004; Steinberg and Cauffman, 

1996). Immediate thrills and impressing friends hold less 

sway in the now larger picture of the world. In addition, 

individuals may acquire new skills (either personal or vocational) that lead to new opportunities and offer alternative 

forms of validation. 

A different, but related, possibility is that the transition 

into adult roles (employment, family, and citizenship) 

promotes new behavioral patterns and demands that make 

involvement in antisocial activity less acceptable and rewarding (Cernkovich and Giordano, 2001; Hamil-Luker, 

Land, and Blau, 2004). Criminologists have long discussed 

the notion that increased involvement in “routine activities” should curb criminal involvement (Cohen and Felson, 1979; Osgood et al., 1996) because working at a job, 

engaging in more serious romantic relationships, starting 

a family, and fulfilling community roles should result in 

reduced exposure to settings where antisocial activities are 

the norm (Warr, 1998; Uggen and Manza, 2004; Sampson and Laub, 2003). In concrete terms, individuals who 

spend their daytime hours in a supervised workplace, their 

evening hours with their spouse and children, and their 

nighttime hours sleeping to rest for the next workday have 

little opportunity to engage in serious antisocial behaviors. 

Evidence on substance abuse shows that adult role transitions are related to decreases in alcohol and drug use 

(Kandel and Yamaguchi, 1999; Bachman et al., 2002), 

and it is likely that regular fulfillment of activities related to 

adult roles also moves individuals out of the circles where 

criminal involvement is more prevalent and accepted. 

A significant corollary of the general developmental view 

adds the dimension of social investment as a potentially 

important factor in this process (Laub, Nagin, and Sampson, 1998; Laub and Sampson, 2001). According to 

this view, it is not simply social roles that are important. 

Rather, the strength of individuals’ attachment and commitment to these new roles and opportunities plays a large 

part in determining whether they will continue their antisocial activities. If these new roles and opportunities create 

valued experiences (e.g., a loving relationship, respect as 

part of a work group) that are important to the individual 

offender, the individual increases his or her “social capital” (Portes, 1998) and may reach a point where the new 

lifestyle becomes a reality that is worth protecting. Once 

individuals form a commitment to work and family, they 

have something to lose and therefore something to guard. 

Many contend that positive change then occurs as an internal psychological realignment of self-conceptions takes 

hold (Kiecolt, 1994; Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph, 

2002); that is, an individual takes a proactive role in creating new opportunities for positive social involvement and 

integrates experiences and opportunities in light of a newfound, “reformed” self (Shover, 1996; Maruna, 2001). 

In short, many substance-abusing juvenile offenders will 

desist from one or both of these behaviors in early adulthood, but very little is known about how these processes 

of desistance operate or what factors influence them. 

Without longitudinal information about the interaction 

of these two antisocial behaviors over time, it is difficult 

to guide the design of effective programs and policies for 

these adolescents. 

Evidence From the Pathways to 

Desistance Study 

The data in the Pathways study will increase understanding of the dynamics between substance use and criminal 

offending among serious adolescent offenders, individuals for whom interventions (either treatment or sanction 

oriented) would seem most appropriate and could hold 

considerable promise. It is not apparent that the relationships seen in broader samples of adolescents hold for 

this more restricted and problematic group of offenders. 

The relationship of substance use to offending over time 

may not be as powerful in a group of serious adolescent 

offenders, where both of these behaviors are more common. In addition, intervention and monitoring may be less 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

effective, considering that these adolescents may be more 

established in a substance-using and criminal lifestyle. 

The initial analyses presented in this bulletin include the 

early followup periods of the study and focus on several 

basic questions about the level of substance use problems 

found in this sample and the relationship of substance use 

and substance use problems to offending. Some interesting regularities emerge in these early followup periods, 

and the research team continues to examine these issues in 

ongoing analyses. Following is a summary of findings to 

date on several key issues. 

Levels of Substance Use and Substance 

Use Problems Are High in Serious 

Offenders 

Researchers examined baseline data and followup interviews to address this issue, providing insight into the patterns of substance use and substance use problems found 

in these adolescents at the time of their involvement with 

the court and in the subsequent 2-year period. In general, 

analysis found that reported substance use and substance 

use problems were both very high in this sample. The 

baseline data yielded the following information: 

•	 Eighty-five percent of the sample reported using marijuana at some point in their lives, 80 percent reported 

using alcohol, 25 percent hallucinogens, 23 percent 

cocaine, 21 percent sedatives, 15 percent stimulants, 13 

percent inhalants, 7 percent opiates, 16 percent ecstasy, 

4 percent amyl nitrate odorizers, and 6 percent reported using some “other” drug at some point in their life. 

•	 Forty percent of the participants reported consuming 

alcohol in the past 6 months, averaging between one 

and three times per month. 

•	 Fifty-seven percent of the participants reported using 

marijuana in the past 6 months, averaging between one 

and three times per week. 

•	 Twenty-seven percent reported using other illegal 

drugs (i.e., cocaine, hallucinogens, sedatives, inhalants, 

opiates, ecstasy, amyl nitrate odorizers, or “other”) an 

average of one or two times in the past 6 months. 

The baseline data reveal considerable use of multiple 

substances. At the time of the baseline interview, approximately 48 percent of the sample reported having used 

more than one substance in the past 6 months. More 

than one-half (57 percent) of the sizable proportion of 

youth who reported using marijuana in the past 6 months 

also reported drinking alcohol, and 77 percent of youth 

who reported drinking alcohol in the past 6 months also 

reported using marijuana in that same time period. At 

each followup interview, 28 to 30 percent of the sample 

reported using more than one substance in the previous 

6 months. 

At the same time, a considerable proportion of the sample 

reported very limited substance use over the 24-month 

followup period. Approximately 26 percent of the sample 

reported no alcohol use during this period, 34 percent 

reported no marijuana use, and 64 percent reported no 

use of other drugs. Approximately 19 percent of the 

sample reported no use of any type of substance over the 

24-month followup period. 

For many of these adolescents, however, substance use 

and the resulting problems have reached a point of clinical concern. A substantial number of adolescents in the 

sample have diagnosable substance use disorders, based on 

criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 

Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM–IV) (American Psychiatric 

Association, 2000).2 According to the DSM–IV, alcohol/ 

drug abuse is characterized by the persistence of the substance use despite repeated negative consequences such as 

problems with work, school, and relationships. Alcohol/ 

drug dependence is characterized by an inability to control 

or limit use; the development of tolerance (a need for increased dosages to achieve the same effect) and withdrawal 

symptoms are two indicators of substance dependence. 

In the Pathways data, at baseline, 37 percent of male 

participants and 35 percent of female participants met 

6 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Adolescent substance use can produce a false sense of reality 

and autonomy that interferes with the development of 

emerging social competencies and coping skills.” 

the DSM–IV diagnostic threshold for drug Figure 2. Percentage of Pathways Study Sample Meeting Diagnostic 

or alcohol abuse/dependence. These rates Threshold for Substance Use Disorder in Year Before Administration of 

of disorder are approximately three to four CIDI at Baseline Interview 

times higher than those seen in samples of 

a comparable age group within the com­ 50 

munity as a whole (Lewinsohn et al., 1993; 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, 2003). 40 

Substance use is also linked to other illegal 

activities in this group. The presence of a 

drug or alcohol disorder and the level of 30 

substance use were both shown to be 

strongly and independently related to the 

level of self-reported offending and the num­ 20 ber of arrests. This relationship held even 

when drug-related offenses and behaviors 

were removed from the offending measures 

and when a variety of covariates (i.e., socio- 10 

economic status, gender, and ethnicity) were 

controlled statistically. 

0 There are strong, consistent relationships 

among ethnicity, gender, and substance use 

problems in this sample. African Ameri­ Male-drug Male-alcohol Female-drug Female-alcohol

African American Hispanic Non-Hispanic 

Caucasian 

can adolescents have fewer symptoms of 

substance use dependence and social consequences from substance use than do 

Hispanic adolescents, and Hispanic adolescents have fewer 

symptoms or consequences than do white adolescents. 

Females also report significantly lower levels of dependence symptoms and social consequences, although with 

the same pattern of ethnic differences as shown for males. 

As seen in figure 2, African American adolescents are least 

likely to meet the diagnostic threshold for substance use 

disorder in the year prior to enrollment in the study. (This 

pattern also was found in other samples of juvenile offenders; see Teplin et al., 2002.) 

The pattern of ethnic differences is also found in nonadjudicated community samples (Armstrong and Costello, 

2002), indicating that some consistently powerful cultural/ 

ethnic factors appear to operate in the lives of these serious 

offenders and also in their less antisocial community 

counterparts. These findings may also indicate that there 

are likely significant variations in the role of substance use 

and offending among different ethnic/racial groups of 

serious offenders. The mechanisms behind these observed 

ethnicity effects, however, are complex and underexamined in both community and offender samples. Economic 

and neighborhood opportunity as well as cultural and 

familial factors undoubtedly play some significant roles in 

producing the widely observed differences in substance 

use among these groups. 

The Pathways study provides the opportunity to examine 

a particular mechanism related to these ethnicity differences, at least in relation to the Hispanic adolescents in the 

sample.3 Pathways investigators used a subset of the Pathways sample (300 male Mexican-American offenders) to 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About thE PAthWAyS to 

DESIStAncE StuDy 

The Pathways to Desistance study is an ongoing multidisciplinary, multisite longitudinal investigation of how serious 

juvenile offenders make the transition from adolescence to 

adulthood. It follows 1,354 young offenders from Philadelphia 

County, PA, and Maricopa County, AZ (metropolitan Phoenix), 

for 7 years after their conviction. This study has collected the 

most comprehensive data set currently available about 

serious adolescent offenders and their lives in late adolescence and early adulthood. It looks at the factors that lead 

youth who have committed serious offenses to persist in or 

desist from offending. Among the aims of the study are to: 

•	 Identify initial patterns of how serious adolescent offenders 

stop antisocial activity. 

•	 Describe the role of social context and developmental 

changes in promoting these positive changes. 

•	 Compare the effects of sanctions and interventions in promoting these changes. 

Characteristics of Study Participants 

Enrollment took place between November 2000 and March 

2003, and the research team concluded data collection 

in 2010. Youth enrolled were 14 to 17 years old and had 

been found guilty of at least one serious (almost exclusively 

felony-level) violent crime, property offense, or drug offense. 

Although felony drug offenses are among the eligible charges, 

the study limited the proportion of male drug offenders to 

no more than 15 percent; this limit ensures a heterogeneous 

sample of serious offenders. Because investigators wanted to 

include a large enough sample of female offenders—a group 

neglected in previous research—this limit did not apply to female drug offenders. In addition, all youth whose cases were 

considered for trial in the adult criminal justice system were 

enrolled, regardless of the offense committed. 

At the time of enrollment, participants were an average of 16.2 

years old. The sample is 84 percent male and 80 percent minority (42 percent African American, 33 percent Hispanic, and 

5 percent American Indian/other). Approximately one-third 

(32 percent) of study participants had no prior petitions to the 

juvenile court. Of those participants with prior petitions, 68 

percent had two or more prior petitions; the average was 2.98 

in Maricopa County and 2.72 in Philadelphia County. At both 

sites, more than 40 percent of the adolescents enrolled were 

adjudicated of felony crimes against persons (i.e., murder, 

robbery, aggravated assault, sex offenses, and kidnapping). 

At the time of the baseline interview for the study, 50 percent 

of these adolescents were in an institutional setting (usually 

a residential treatment center), and during the 7 years after 

study enrollment, at least 85 percent of the sample spent 

some time in an institutional setting. 

Interview Methodology 

Immediately after enrollment, researchers conducted a structured 4-hour baseline interview (in two sessions) with each 

adolescent. This interview included a thorough assessment 

of the adolescent’s self-reported social background, developmental history, psychological functioning, psychosocial 

maturity, attitudes about illegal behavior, intelligence, school 

achievement and engagement, work experience, mental 

health, current and previous substance use and abuse, family 

and peer relationships, use of social services, and antisocial 

behavior. 

After the baseline interview, researchers interviewed study 

participants every 6 months for the first 3 years, and annually 

thereafter. At each followup interview, researchers gathered 

information on the adolescent’s self-reported behavior and 

experiences during the previous 6 months, including any 

illegal activity, drug or alcohol use, and involvement with treatment or other services. Youth’s self-reports about illegal activities included information about the range, the number, and 

other circumstances of those activities (e.g., whether or not 

others took part). In addition, the followup interviews collected 

a wide range of information about changes in life situations 

(e.g., living arrangements and employment), developmental 

factors (e.g., likelihood of thinking about and planning for the 

future, and relationships with parents), and functional capacities (e.g., mental health symptoms). 

Researchers also asked participants to report monthly about 

certain variables (e.g., school attendance, work performance, 

and involvement in interventions and sanctions) to maximize 

the amount of information obtained and to detect activity 

cycles shorter than the 6-month reporting period. 

In addition to the interviews of study participants, for the first 

3 years of the study, researchers annually interviewed a family 

member or friend about each study participant to validate the 

participants’ responses. Each year, researchers also reviewed 

official records (local juvenile and adult court records, and FBI 

nationwide arrest records) for each adolescent. 

Investigators have now completed the last (84-month) set of 

followup interviews, and the research team is completing the 

analysis of interview data. The study maintained the adolescents’ participation throughout the project: At each followup 

interview point, researchers found and interviewed approximately 90 percent of the enrolled sample. Researchers have 

completed more than 24,000 interviews in all. 

8 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

examine the relationship of cultural adaptation to patterns 

of heavy episodic drinking and marijuana use from ages 15 

to 20 (Losoya et al., 2008). Because of the richness of the 

Pathways data, these analyses were able to identify clear 

patterns of cultural adjustment over this time period as 

well as control for time in a supervised environment. 

Losoya and colleagues found that bicultural adaptation 

(i.e., successful adaptation to both the ethnic and mainstream cultures) is related to lower substance use. That is, 

youth who retain some of the values of their native culture 

while also adapting to the mainstream culture do better. 

This work goes beyond simple racial comparisons to gauge 

the power of cultural processes that might affect MexicanAmerican youth. It is also important because it is the first 

time that researchers have considered these developmental 

processes for serious offenders. In addition, these findings 

highlight the interaction of cultural values and beliefs with 

behavior—a reminder that racial comparisons alone do not 

reveal the full story of ethnic differences. 

Investigators also examined how involvement in offenses related to drug dealing and substance use overlap. 

Although the proportion of drug offenders was capped at 

15 percent of the sample for the Pathways study, it is still 

possible to get a glimpse of how drug offenders may differ 

from other types of offenders. Sixty-three percent of the 

individuals in the sample who had drug charges also met 

the diagnostic criteria (based on the Comprehensive International Diagnostic Interview [CIDI]) for a substance use 

disorder. This is a significantly higher proportion than for 

offenders whose presenting offense was not a drug charge 

(63 percent versus 40 percent). 

It is important to keep in mind that the prevalence rates 

of substance use and substance use problems in the study 

sample do not represent those likely to be found in the 

broad sample of juvenile offenders appearing before the 

court. The adolescents in the Pathways sample were 

chosen because they had been adjudicated of a serious 

offense and the number of individuals charged with a drug 

offense was capped. However, these prevalence rates 

provide some information about the magnitude of these 

problems among adolescent offenders at the “deep end” 

of the juvenile justice system. The problem of substance 

use seems rather formidable. A vast majority of these 

offenders have notable histories of substance use, a large 

proportion have diagnosable problems, and there is a clear 

link between the level of offending and the level of 

substance use in this sample of serious offenders. 

Substance Use and Offending Appear 

To Have a Consistent Relationship 

As noted earlier, offending and substance use and substance use problems appear to co-occur regularly in serious 

offenders; that is, offenders with high scores on one selfreport measure also have high scores on the other selfreport measure. One advantage of a longitudinal design 

such as that used in the Pathways to Desistance study is 

that behaviors can be examined for the consistency of their 

relationship to each other over time in the same individual. 

For example, investigators can examine whether one behavior (e.g., a certain level of substance use) consistently 

precedes or follows another behavior (e.g., self-reported 

offending) in a series of observations of an individual over 

time. Investigators in the Pathways study conducted such 

an analysis to determine whether the level of substance use 

was systematically related to the level of reported offending over time. 

This analysis used the structural equation modeling (SEM) 

method to determine whether increased substance use 

predicted increased self-reported offending in the next 

followup period or the reverse (i.e., increased offending predicted increased substance use). This model also 

controlled for the effect of substance use and the level of 

offending in one time period on the likelihood of repeating that behavior in a subsequent time period. 

As expected, substance use and offending in this model are 

significantly related to each other in the same time period 

and across time periods. In other words, individuals involved in substance use in one time period are more likely 

to be involved in offending during that same period and in 

the next time period. However, these preliminary analyses 

demonstrated that substance use predicts offending in the 

next time period more consistently than offending predicts 

substance use. 

It is important to note two cautionary points about these 

findings. First, although SEM permits an assessment of 

the relationship between outcomes, the findings do not 

demonstrate causality and should not be interpreted as 

such. Second, these observed relationships are only preliminary because the study did not control for other case 

characteristics or life events that might alter the observed 

patterns. D’Amico and colleagues (2008) have taken a 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

similar approach, but they introduced controls for other 

characteristics. When the controls were introduced, they 

found a reciprocal relationship between the two behaviors 

over time. As the Pathways study continues, investigators 

will need to add controls to determine whether the same 

effects are observed. 

Offenders With Identified Substance Use 

Problems Are Receiving Treatment 

Participants in the Pathways study provide information 

about the types of social services they receive while in 

institutional care and while in the community during 

each of the followup periods. In addition, investigators 

administer a structured clinical assessment instrument 

(the CIDI) that provides a diagnosis for several disorders, 

one of which is substance abuse/dependence. With these 

sources, researchers can ascertain whether the adolescents 

in the sample who most need treatment for substance use 

actually receive it. Following are some of the preliminary 

findings: 

•	 Those with diagnosable substance use problems were 

four times more likely to receive treatment for drug and 

alcohol abuse than those with no substance use problems (44 percent versus 11 percent). This statistic suggests an appropriate targeting of services, even though 

many juvenile offenders with substance use disorders 

did not receive treatment. 

•	 The residential setting matters (see Mulvey, Schubert, 

and Chung, 2007): 

■	 Individuals with diagnosable substance use problems 

in adult jail and juvenile detention facilities were 2.7 

times and 5.4 times as likely, respectively, to receive 

treatment for drug and alcohol abuse than youth 

without a diagnosable substance use problem. 

■	 Regardless of whether the youth had a substance 

use problem, about 56 percent reported receiving 

treatment for drug and alcohol abuse in contracted 

residential settings, and 64 percent received the service in contracted residential mental health settings. 

Thus, in these settings, it appears that youth receive 

a “package” of treatment services even when there is 

not necessarily a clearly demonstrated need. 

■	 After building in statistical controls for a set of 

background variables, analyses showed that, in the 

state-run juvenile correctional facilities included in 

this study, individuals with diagnosable substance use 

problems were also more likely to receive treatment 

for substance use issues than those without such 

problems. 

•	 The vast majority who received treatment received it 

while in a facility, and very few youth in the sample (less 

than 10 percent) received treatment for substance use 

problems in the community. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of community-based treatment 

for substance use, it is clear that these adolescents, who 

appear to be in considerable need of such treatment, 

receive little of it. 

Pathways investigators have also considered the effect of 

drug and alcohol treatment on later substance use in this 

group of serious offenders. Chassin and colleagues (2009) 

examined reductions in alcohol consumption, marijuana 

use, cigarette smoking, and nondrug offending in relation 

to whether adolescents received treatment, whether the 

treatment occurred over a sustained time period (at least 

90 days), and whether the treatment included family participation. Sustained treatment and family participation are 

considered two elements of “best practices” for adolescent 

drug treatment (Bukstein and the Work Group on Quality 

Issues, 2005; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006). 

Chassin and her colleagues found evidence that, in general, drug treatment produced reductions in substance use 

that could not be explained by other factors (e.g., past use 

patterns, being confined, age-related reductions). In addition, reductions in nondrug offending were found, but 

only when treatment incorporated family members. 

These findings are important because most studies examine a particular research therapy that is implemented 

with high levels of fidelity in a carefully controlled manner. These analyses, however, examine the effect of the 

“Once individuals form a commitment to work and family, 

they have something to lose and therefore something to guard. 

Many contend that positive change then occurs as an internal 

psychological realignment of self-conceptions takes hold.” 

10 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

usual treatments provided to juvenile offenders and have 

found that they do have an impact. In short, the general 

approach taken in the system appears to have an impact in 

reducing substance use and offending, if it is done for a 

sustained period and with family involvement. Substance 

use treatment, if done with recognized quality standards, 

can be a valuable component of the types of interventions 

offered in the juvenile justice system. 

Unraveling to what extent reductions in substance use 

translate to sustained reductions in offending is a question that still needs to be addressed adequately. Reducing substance use is clearly not a panacea for reducing 

criminal offending; other interventions for risk factors 

uniquely related to offending are obviously still essential. 

It is important, however, to note the importance of family involvement to any of these efforts, wherever they are 

focused. It seems apparent that the dynamics of an adolescent’s family play a central role as a potential risk factor 

and are key to unlocking the mystery of how these two 

behaviors develop and continue for serious offenders. 

In addition, Pathways investigators found that treatment 

lasting for at least 90 days was successful in reducing 

marijuana use, whereas reductions in cigarette smoking 

and nondrug offending were found only when treatment 

incorporated family members. These findings highlight the 

need for justice programs to incorporate best practices to 

realize optimal outcomes for this group of offenders. 

Summary 

The evidence from the Pathways to Desistance study provides a rich opportunity to examine the relations between 

substance use and criminal offending in a sample of serious 

adolescent offenders. The study’s data make it clear that, 

for serious offenders, substance use and criminal offending are strongly linked. Analyses so far have also shown 

that substance use is a substantial problem in this group 

of offenders, few offenders are receiving treatment in the 

community, and treatment for substance use holds some 

promise for reducing offending if the approaches reflect 

best standards of practice. 

Further work will unravel some of the mechanisms connecting these two behaviors, and this information will have 

implications for understanding and intervening in both 

behaviors. The linkage between substance use and offending may reflect both reciprocity between the two behaviors 

and common causes; they may fuel each other, and both 

may be more likely given a common risk profile. 

What is clear is that both behaviors decline as individuals, 

even serious adolescent offenders, enter young adulthood, 

and unlocking the factors that promote these declines 

could have substantial implications for improving outcomes for serious offenders. Additional studies are necessary to understand desistance from substance use and 

criminal offending (either in combination or individually) 

as well as variability across ethnic groups and genders. It 

is clear that there is a substantial unmet need for services 

among serious adolescent offenders, and targeting and 

improving substance use services for this group will help 

move them toward a successful transition to adulthood. 

Endnotes 

1. OJJDP is sponsoring the Pathways to Desistance study 

(Project Number 2007–MU–FX–0002) in partnership 

with the National Institute of Justice (Project Number 

2008–IJ–CX–0023), the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur 

Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation, the Robert 

Wood Johnson Foundation, the William Penn Foundation, 

the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Grant Number 

R01DA019697), the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime 

and Delinquency, and the Arizona State Governor’s Justice 

Commission. Investigators for this study are Edward P. 

Mulvey, Ph.D. (University of Pittsburgh), Robert Brame, 

Ph.D. (University of North Carolina–Charlotte), Elizabeth 

Cauffman, Ph.D. (University of California–Irvine), Laurie 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chassin, Ph.D. (Arizona State University), Sonia CotaRobles, Ph.D. (Temple University), Jeffrey Fagan, Ph.D. 

(Columbia University), George Knight, Ph.D. (Arizona 

State University), Sandra Losoya, Ph.D. (Arizona State 

University), Alex Piquero, Ph.D. (Florida State University), Carol A. Schubert, M.P.H. (University of Pittsburgh), 

and Laurence Steinberg, Ph.D. (Temple University). 

2. As part of the baseline interview, researchers administered the Comprehensive International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) (World Health Organization, 1990) to obtain 

a diagnosis of substance abuse or dependence. 

3. The Hispanic subsample was examined mainly because 

researchers had a large enough group of these adolescents, 

adequate measures of acculturation and enculturation, and 

previous work on which to build. 

References 

American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and 

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. 

Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric 

Association. 

Armstrong, T.D., and Costello, E.J. 2002. Community 

studies on adolescent substance use, abuse, or dependence 

and psychiatric comorbidity. Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology 70:1224–1239. 

Arnett, J.J. 2000. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist 55:469–480. 

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program. 1999. Annual 

Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. 

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

Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Bachman, J.G., O’Malley, P.M., Schulenberg, J.E., Johnston, L.D., Bryant, A.L., and Merline, A.C. 2002. The 

Decline of Substance Use in Young Adulthood: Changes in 

Social Activities, Roles, and Beliefs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Baumrind, D., and Moselle, K.E. 1985. A developmental 

perspective on adolescent drug abuse. Advances in Alcohol 

and Substance Abuse 4:41–67. 

Broidy, L.M., Nagin, D.S., Tremblay, R.E., Bates, J.E., 

Brame, R., Dodge, K.A., Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, 

L.J., Loeber, R., Laird, R., Lynam, D., Moffitt, T., Bates, 

J.E., Pettit, G.S., and Vitaro, F. 2003. Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent 

delinquency: A six site, cross-national study. Developmental 

Psychology 39(2):222–245. 

Bui, K.V.T., Ellickson, P.L., and Bell, R.M. 2000. Crosslagged relationships among adolescent problem drug use, 

delinquent behavior, and emotional distress. Journal of 

Drug Issues 30:283–303. 

Bukstein, O., and the Work Group on Quality Issues. 

2005. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment 

of children and adolescents with substance use disorders. 

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatry 44(6):609–621. 

Cernkovich, S.A., and Giordano, P.C. 2001. Stability and 

change in antisocial behavior: The transition from adolescence to early adulthood. Criminology 39:371–410. 

Chassin, L., Knight, G., Vargas-Chanes, D., Losoya, S., 

and Naranjo, D. 2009. Substance use treatment outcomes 

in a sample of serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 36(2):183–194. 

Chassin, L., Pitts, S., and DeLucia, C. 1999. Consequences of adolescent substance use and parent alcoholism for 

developmental outcomes in the transition from adolescence to young adulthood. Development and Psychopathology 11:915–932. 

Chassin, L., Pitts, S., DeLucia, C., and Todd, M. 1999. 

A longitudinal study of children of alcoholics: Predicting 

young adult substance use disorders, anxiety, and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 108:106–119. 

Chen, K., and Kandel, D.B. 1995. The natural history of 

drug use from adolescence to the mid-thirties in a general 

population sample. American Journal of Public Health 

85:41–47. 

Cohen, L.E., and Felson, M. 1979. Social change and 

crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American 

Sociological Review 44:588–608. 

D’Amico, E.J., Edelen, M., Miles, J.N.V., and Morral, 

A.R. 2008. The longitudinal association between substance use and delinquency among high-risk youth. Drug 

and Alcohol Dependence 93:85–92. 

Dembo, R., Wareham, J., and Schmeidler, J. 2007. Drug 

use and delinquent behavior: A growth model of parallel 

processes among high-risk youths. Criminal Justice and 

Behavior 34:680–696. 

Dembo, R., Williams, L., Fagan, J., and Schmeidler, J. 

1993. The relationships of substance abuse and other 

delinquency over time in a sample of juvenile detainees. 

Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 3:158–179. 

12 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disney, E.R., Elkins, I.J., McGue, M., and Iacono, W.G. 

1999. Effects of ADHD, conduct disorder, and gender on 

substance use and abuse in adolescence. American Journal 

of Psychiatry 156:1515–1521. 

Ellickson, P.L., and McGuigan, K.A. 2000. Early predictors of adolescent violence. American Journal of Public 

Health 90:566–572. 

Fagan, J., and Chin, K. 1991. Social processes of initiation 

into crack. Journal of Drug Issues 27:312–343. 

Ford, J.A. 2005. Substance use, the social bond, and delinquency. Sociological Inquiry 75:109–128. 

French, M.T., McGeary, K.A., Chitwood, D.D., McCoy, 

C.B., Incanardi, J.A., and McBride, D. 2000. Chronic 

drug use and crime. Substance Abuse 21:95–109. 

Giordano, P.C., Cernkovich, S.A., and Rudolph, J.L. 

2002. Gender, crime and desistance: Toward a theory of 

cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology 

107:990–1064. 

Goldstein, P. 1985. The drugs-violence nexus: A tripartite 

conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues 15:493–506. 

Greenwood, P. 2006. Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime-Control Policy. Chicago, IL: University of 

Chicago Press. 

Grisso, T. 2004. Double Jeopardy: Adolescent Offenders 

With Mental Disorders. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 

Press. 

Hamil-Luker, J., Land, K.C., and Blau, J. 2004. Diverse 

trajectories of cocaine use through early adulthood among 

rebellious and socially conforming youth. Social Science 

Research 33:300–321. 

Hawkins, J., Catalano, R., and Miller, J. 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. 

Henry, D., Tolan, P., and Gorman-Smith, D. 2001. Longitudinal family and peer group effects on violence and 

nonviolent delinquency. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 30:172–186. 

Hersh, M.A., and Hussong, A. 2009. The association 

between observed parental emotion socialization and 

adolescent self-medication. Journal of Abnormal Child 

Psychology 37:493–506. 

Huizinga, D., and Jakob-Chien, C. 1998. Contemporaneous co-occurrence of serious and violent juvenile offending and other problem behaviors. In Serious and Violent 

Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., and Thornberry, T. 1995. 

Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings. 

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

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Hussong, A.M., and Chassin, L. 1998. Pathways of 

risk for accelerated heavy alcohol use among adolescent 

children of alcoholic parents. Journal of Abnormal Child 

Psychology 26:453–466. 

Hussong, A.M., Curran, P.J., Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., 

and Carrig, M.M. 2004. Substance abuse ensnares young 

adults in trajectories of antisocial behaviour. Development 

and Psychopathology 16(4):1029–1046. 

Hussong, A., Gould, L., and Hersh, M. 2008. Conduct 

problems moderate self-medication and mood-related 

drinking consequences in adolescents. Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol and Drugs 69:296–307. 

Iacono, W., Malone, S., and McGue, M. 2008. Behavioral 

disinhibition and the development of early-onset addiction: Common and specific influences. Annual Review of 

Clinical Psychology 4:325–348. 

Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., and Bachman, J.G. 2006. 

Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent 

Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings, 2005. Bethesda, MD: 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIH Publication No. 

06–5882. 

Kandel, D., and Yamaguchi, K. 1999. Developmental 

states of involvement in substance use. In Sourcebook on 

Substance Abuse: Etiology, Epidemiology, Assessment, and 

Treatment, edited by P. Ott, R. Tarter, and R. Ammerman. 

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 

Keating, D. 2004. Cognitive and brain development. In 

Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 2d ed., edited by R. 

Lerner and L. Steinberg. New York, NY: Wiley. 

Kellam, S., Brown, C., Rubin, B., and Ensminger, M. 

1983. Paths leading to teenage psychiatric symptoms and 

substance use: Developmental epidemiological studies in 

Woodlawn. In Childhood Psychopathology and Development, 

edited by S.B. Guze, J. Earls, and J. Barrett. New York, 

NY: Norton. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kiecolt, K. 1994. Stress and the decision to change 

oneself: A theoretical model. Social Psychology Quarterly 

57:49–63. 

Laub, J., Nagin, D.S., and Sampson, R. 1998. Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages 

and the desistance process. American Sociological Review 

63:225–238. 

Laub, J., and Sampson, R. 2001. Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 

28:1–69. 

Lewinsohn, P.M., Hops, H., Roberts, R.E., Seeley, J.R., 

and Andrews, J.A. 1993. Adolescent psychopathology 1: 

Prevalence and incidence of depression and other DSM– 

III–R disorders in high school students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102:133–144. 

Lipsey, M.W., and Derzon, J.H. 1998. Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In Serious and 

Violent Juvenile Offenders, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. 

Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Little, M., and Steinberg, L. 2006. Psychosocial correlates 

of adolescent drug dealing in the inner city: Potential 

roles of opportunity, conventional commitments, and 

maturity. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 

43(4):357–386. 

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P. 2000. Young children 

who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins, 

risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. 

Developmental Psychopathology 12:737–762. 

Losoya, S., Knight, G., Chassin, L., Little, M., VargasChanes, D., Mauricio, A., and Piquero, A. 2008. Trajectories of acculturation and enculturation in relation to 

heavy episodic drinking and marijuana use in a sample of 

Mexican-American serious juvenile offenders. Journal of 

Drug Issues 38(1):171–198. 

MacCoun, R., Kilmer, B., and Reuter, P. 2003. Research 

on drugs-crime linkages: The next generation. In Towards 

a Drug and Crime Research Agenda in the 21st Century, 

edited by H. Brownstein. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice. 

Mamorstein, N., Iacono, W., and McGue, M. 2009. Alcohol and illicit drug dependence among parents: Associations with offspring externalizing disorders. Psychological 

Medicine 39:149–155. 

Maruna, S. 2001. Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform 

and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Mason, W.A., Hitchings, J.E., McMahon, R.J., and Spoth, 

R.L. 2007. A test of three alternative hypotheses regarding 

the effects of early delinquency on adolescent psychosocial 

functioning and substance involvement. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 35:831–843. 

Mason, W.A., Hitchings, J.E., and Spoth, R.L. 2007. 

Emergence of delinquency and depressed mood throughout adolescence as predictors of late adolescent problem substance use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 

2(1):13–24. 

Mulvey, E.P., Schubert, C.A., and Chung, H.L. 2007. 

Service use after court involvement in a sample of serious 

adolescent offenders. Children and Youth Services Review 

29(4):518–544. 

Mulvey, E.P., Steinberg, L., Fagan, J., Cauffman, E., 

Piquero, A.R., Chassin, L., Knight, G.P., Brame, R., 

Schubert, C.A., Hecker, T., and Lasoya, S. H. 2004. 

Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity 

among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and 

Juvenile Justice 2(3):213–236. 

Nagin, D.S. 2005. Group-Based Modeling of Development. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 2006. Principles of 

Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal Justice Populations: A 

Research-Based Guide. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. NIH Publication No. 06–5316. 

Osgood, D.W., Wilson, J.K., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, 

J.G., and Johnston, L.D. 1996. Routine activities and 

individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review 

61:635–655. 

Piquero, A.R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., and Haapanen, 

R. 2002. Crime in emerging adulthood. Criminology 

40:137–167. 

Portes, A. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and application 

in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24:1–24. 

Redding, R. 1997. Juveniles transferred to criminal court: 

Legal reform proposals based on social science research. 

Utah Law Review 3:709–763. 

Sampson, R.J., and Laub, J.H. 2003. Desistance from 

crime over the life course. In Handbook of the Life Course, 

edited by J.T. Mortimer and M.J. Shanahan. New York: 

Kluwer Academic/Plenum. 

Shover, N. 1996. Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of 

Persistent Thieves. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Steinberg, L., and Cauffman, E. 1996. Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors in adolescent 

decisionmaking. Law and Human Behavior 20:249–272. 

14 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2003. Results From the 2002 National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health: National Findings. Rockville, MD: 

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse Series H–22, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Publication No. SMA 03–3836. 

Sullivan, C.J., and Hamilton, Z.K. 2007. Exploring careers 

in deviance: A joint trajectory analysis of criminal behavior and substance use in an offender population. Deviant 

Behavior 28:497–523. 

Teplin, L.A., Abram, K.M., McClelland, G.M., Dulcan, 

M.K., and Mericle, A.A. 2002. Psychiatric disorders in 

youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry 

59:1133–1143. 

Thornberry, T. 1998. Membership in youth gangs and 

involvement in serious and violent offending. In Serious 

and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D. Farrington. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Thornberry, T., Krohn, M., Lizotte, A., Smith, C., and 

Tobin, K. 2003. Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental 

Perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Uggen, C., and Manza, J. 2004. Voting and subsequent 

crime and arrest: Evidence from a community sample. 

Columbia Human Rights Law Review 36:193–216. 

Warr, M. 1998. Life-course transitions and desistance from 

crime. Criminology 36:183–216. 

White, H.R., Tice, P.C., Loeber, R., and StouthamerLoeber, M. 2002. Illegal acts committed by adolescents 

under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency 39(2):131–152. 

Wiesner, M., Kim, H.K., and Capaldi, D.M. 2005. Developmental trajectories of offending: Validation and prediction to young adult alcohol use, drug use, and depressive 

symptoms. Development and Psychopathology 17:251–270. 

Wilson, J.J., Rojas, N., Haapanen, R., Duxbury, E., and 

Steiner, H. 2001. Substance abuse and criminal recidivism: 

A prospective study of adolescents. Child Psychiatry and 

Human Development 31:297–312. 

World Health Organization. 1990. Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Geneva, Switzerland: World 

Health Organization. 

Yamaguchi, K., and Kandel, D. 1985. On the resolution 

of role incompatibility: A life event history analysis of family roles and marijuana use. American Journal of Sociology 

90:1284–1325. 

Young, S.E., Stallings, M.C., Corley, R.P., Krauter, K.S., 

and Hewitt, J.K. 2000. Genetic and environmental influences on behavioral disinhibition. American Journal of 

Medical Genetics (Neuropsychiatric Genetics) 96:684–695. 

Zimring, F. 1998. American Youth Violence. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 – 

– – 

– – 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

DOJ/OJJDP
 

PERmIT NO. G–91
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~232790*

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

16 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 

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. 

Acknowledgments 

Edward P. Mulvey, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Law 

and Psychiatry Program at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine’s 

Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic (WPIC); Carol A. Schubert, M.P.H., 

is the Research Program Administrator of the Law and Psychiatry Program at 

WPIC; and Laurie Chassin, Ph.D., is Regents Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University. 

This bulletin was prepared under grant number 

2007–MU–FX–0002 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. 

Please direct comments 

and/or questions to: 

National Criminal Justice 

Reference Service 

P.O. Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849– 6000 

800– 851– 3420 

301– 519– 5600 (fax) 

Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.gov 

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 Community 

Capacity Development Office; the National 

Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims 

of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender 

Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, andTracking (SMART). 

ncJ 232790