Last updated: December 2016 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

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

Gun Violence and Youth 

Youths in the United States can be involved with violence as perpetrators, victims, or 

witnesses/bystanders (David–Ferdon and Simon 2014; OJJDP 2014). Violence is the “intentional use of 

physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or 

community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological 

harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation” (OJJDP 2014, 14). Applying this definition to the scope of this 

literature review, youth gun violence is when a gun or firearm1 is present in the process of a youth (ages 

10–24) intentionally using force or power to threaten or harm others. A youth is a victim of gun violence 

when he or she is injured or killed as a consequence of someone (a youth or an adult) intentionally 

using a gun to threaten or harm someone (whether the youth victim was the intended target or not). 

This literature review will focus on intentional gun violence involving youths ages 10 to 24, which 

includes homicides (victimization and perpetration), nonfatal injuries, suicides, community violence, 

and school violence/school shootings. Unintentional gun violence (including accidental injuries or 

deaths from guns) will not be explored. 

Scope of the Problem 

The scope of the problem of youth gun violence in the United States is reflected by the incidence and 

prevalence of gun-related homicides, suicides, and nonfatal injuries of youths.

There are as many as 33,000 gun-related deaths every year in the United States, and youths 24 and 

younger represent about 20 percent of that number (Kochanek et al. 2016). Even youths who are not 

hurt or killed by guns but who witness gun violence are likely to experience adverse outcomes later in 

life (Finkelhor et al. 2015b). While mass shootings tend to be the focus of national news stories, they 

account for less than half of 1 percent of gun deaths each year (Luca, Malhotra, and Poliquin 2016). 

Youth Gun Homicide. Homicide was the third-leading cause of death among youths 10 to 24 years old 

in 2014. This reflects a decline from 1999, when homicide was the second-leading cause of death 

among youth (CDC 2016). Between 1993 and 2010, the firearm homicide rate declined by 51 percent 

for 18- to 24-year-olds and by 65 percent for 12- to 17-year-olds (Planty and Truman 2013). Similarly, 

1The terms gun and firearm will be used interchangeably throughout the review, depending on the terminology 

in the source of the information.

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2016. “Gun Violence and Youth.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/gun-violence-and-youth.pdf

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

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

between 1994 and 2010, serious violent crime against 12- to 17-year-olds involving a firearm declined 

by 95 percent (White and Lauritsen 2012).

Youth Victims of Gun Homicide. Firearms were the murder weapon in 86 percent of youth homicides 

in 2014 (CDC 2016). The following information, using a variety of data sources, provides greater detail 

on youth homicides attributable to firearms:

 During 2014, homicides with a firearm accounted for 3,702 homicides committed against youths 

ages 10 to 24 (CDC 2016; Child Trends Databank 2015). 

 Of the 3,702 firearm homicides committed against youth, 68 percent were carried out against 

African Americans, 19 percent against Hispanics, 12 percent against whites, and 1 percent 

against American Indians/Alaskan Natives or Asians/Pacific Islanders (CDC 2016).

 Youth firearm homicide victims are more likely to be male, with 89 percent of homicides against 

youths ages 10 to 24 in 2014 committed against males (CDC 2016). 

 Youths ages 15 to 24 experienced a higher rate of homicides with a firearm than any other age 

group, at about 8.2 per 100,000 people (CDC 2016; Kochanek et al. 2016). 

 During 2009–10, 70 percent of all firearm homicides of 10- to 19-year-olds were committed in 

the most populous metropolitan statistical areas in the country (Kegler and Mercy 2013). 

Overall, these trends reflect that youth homicide victims ages 15 to 24 are more likely to be male and 

African American or Hispanic and to live in highly populous/urban areas of the country (Planty and 

Truman 2013; Teplin et al. 2015).

Youths Who Commit Gun Homicides. Based on the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Supplementary 

Homicide Reports (SHRs), there were an estimated 3,374 homicides with a firearm committed by 

known 12- to 24-year-olds in 2014 (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang 2016). 

 Of the estimated 3,374 homicides committed by known youths, 70 percent of the cases involved 

an African American individual, 27 percent of cases involved a white individual, and 1 percent 

were American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asians, or Pacific Islanders (Puzzanchera, 

Chamberlin, and Kang 2016). The UCR SHR demographic data cannot be broken down by 

ethnicity (Hispanic versus non-Hispanic).

 Males accounted for more than 90 percent of the known 12- to 24-year-olds who committed a 

homicide with a firearm in 2014 (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang 2016). 

 The estimated number of firearm-related homicides committed by known juvenile offenders 

(ages 12–17) more than quadrupled between 1984 and 1994, from 543 to 2,271. However, 

between 1994 and 2001 the rate of firearm-related homicides committed by juveniles declined. 

Firearm-related homicides by juveniles increased by 50 percent from 2001 to 2007, but decreased 

from 2007 to 2014 by 39 percent (OJJDP 2016a).

Overall, these trends reflect that the majority of firearm-related homicides involving known youths are 

perpetrated by males and African Americans. 

Nonfatal Gun Violence. There is conflicting information about whether the trend in nonfatal firearmrelated violence has been increasing or decreasing over time. Data from the Centers for Disease Control 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

and Prevention (CDC)—which is primarily based on reports from U.S. emergency departments—

indicate that nonfatal gunshot injuries (specifically rates of assaults and self-harm) are increasing.

However, data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) 

suggest there has been a decline in rates of nonfatal firearm victimizations of youths, which includes 

victimization reports in which the offender had shown or used a firearm (Planty and Truman 2013; 

Truman and Langton 2015). Using available data from these sources, the following trends emerge when 

the scope is limited to those ages 12 to 17 and 18 to 24: 

 According to CDC (2016) estimates, there was a roughly 7 percent increase in the rate of nonfatal 

firearm gunshot injuries for youths ages 12 to 17 from 2001 to 2014 (from 21.1 to 22.6 per 100,000) 

and a 20 percent increase for youths ages 18 to 24 (from 59.5 to 71.2 per 100,000).

 In contrast, the NCVS reported that the rate for nonfatal firearm victimizations against youths 

12 to 17 declined by about 36 percent between 2001 and 2011 (from 2.2 to 1.4 per 1,000). Further, 

the rate declined by about 24 percent for 18- to 24-year-olds during the same period (from 6.8 to 

5.2 per 1,000) [Planty and Truman 2013].

Disparities between these two data sources could explain differences between the reported trends. 

Planty and Truman (2013, 11) acknowledge the differences in NCVS and CDC trend data. Their report 

notes that NCVS is a residential household survey and does not include hidden populations such as 

those who are homeless or institutionalized (e.g., jails or mental health facilities). Further, some of the 

CDC estimates used to calculate injury trends may be based on small sample sizes, and should be 

interpreted with caution. 

Youth Gun Suicide. According to the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System, suicide was the 10thleading cause of death in the United States in 2014; however, it was the second-leading cause of death 

in youths 10 to 24 years old (Kochanek et al. 2016; CDC 2016). This is in contrast to suicide’s rank as the 

third-leading cause of death among youths 10 to 24 in 1999, showing that while homicides may be 

decreasing for youths suicides are increasing (CDC 2016). 

 Of the 5,504 youths ages 10 to 24 who died by suicide in 2014, almost half (2,444) were carried 

out with a firearm (Child Trends Databank 2015; CDC 2016).

 Of the 2,444 suicides with a firearm by youths 10 to 24 years old in 2014, 76 percent were white, 

10 percent were African American, 10 percent were Hispanic, and 4 percent were by American 

Indians, Alaskan Natives, Asians, and Pacific Islanders (CDC 2016). 

 Males ages 10 to 24 years old (88 percent) were more likely than their female counterparts to kill 

themselves with a firearm (12 percent) [CDC 2016].

Overall, the numbers suggest that the majority of suicides committed by 10– to 24-year-olds are male 

and white.

Community Gun Violence. While youths can be directly exposed to gun violence—through 

victimization or perpetration—they can also be indirectly exposed, by witnessing gun violence in their 

communities (Listenbee et al. 2012). Youths who witness gun violence experience similar negative 

psychological and physical harm as youths who have had direct exposure (Futures Without Violence 

2016).
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

There are various forms of violence that youths may witness in their lifetimes, including assaults, 

physical abuse, thefts, and shootings. According to the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to 

Violence (most recently conducted in 2014), about 38 percent of children age 17 and younger have 

witnessed violence in the family or the community in their lifetimes (Finkelhor et al. 2015a). With regard 

to specific exposure to gun violence:

 About 8 percent of children reported being exposed to a shooting (including hearing gunshots 

or seeing someone shot) in their lifetimes, with children 14 to 17 years reporting the highest 

levels of exposure to a shooting (13 percent). Additionally, boys were more likely than girls to 

report exposure to shootings (Finkelhor et al. 2015a).

 Youth exposure to shootings has decreased between 2008 and 2014, although this change has 

been minimal (Finkelhor et al. 2014; Finkelhor et al. 2015a).

 Youths are more likely to witness assault in their communities in their lifetimes than to be 

exposed to a shooting (28 percent compared with 8 percent, respectively) [Finkelhor et al. 

2015a].

 Although the national level of youth exposure to shootings is low, violent crimes in urban areas 

are more likely to involve guns than those in suburban or rural areas (Duhart 2000). 

Overall, although exposure to gun violence isn’t as prevalent as other forms of community violence, it 

is still a potentially traumatic event that many youths will experience in their lifetimes.

School Gun Violence. During the school year of 2011–12, school-related homicides accounted for less 

than 2 percent of all homicides (Child Trends Databank 2015; Robers et al. 2012; Planty and Truman 

2013). While school shootings are rare, most homicides against youth at school were committed with a 

firearm (Planty and Truman 2013). 

 During the 2009-10 school year, there were 1,749 reports of firearm possession incidents at 

schools (a rate of 3.5 per 100,000 people). During the 2013–14 school year, this number decreased 

to 1,501 (a rate of 3.0 per 100,000) [Zhang, Musu–Gillette, and Oudekerk 2016].

 About 4 percent of students in grades 9–12 reported carrying a weapon at least 1 day during the 

previous 30 days in 2015, a decline from about 12 percent in 1993 (Zhang, Musu–Gillette, and 

Oudekerk 2016; Kann et al. 2016). 

 In 2013, 3.7 percent of students ages 12 to 18 reported having access to a loaded gun without 

adult permission, either at school or away from school, which is a decrease from 6.7 percent in 

2007 (Zhang, Musu–Gillette, and Oudekerk 2016). 

 White male students were more likely to have carried a gun than any other demographic (Kann 

et al. 2016).

School Shootings. According to Stanford’s Mass Shootings in America database, there have been an 

estimated 220 victims in school-related mass shootings, 140 of which were fatalities, from the 

Columbine High School (Littleton, Colo.) shooting in 1999 through the Umpqua Community College 

(Roseburg, Ore.) shooting in 20152 (Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries 2016).

 

2This number includes shootings at the following schools: Columbine High School; Appalachian School of Law (Grundy, 

Va.); University of Arizona College of Nursing (Tucson, Ariz.); Red Lake High School (Red Lake Indian Reservation, Minn.); 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5

Bushman and colleagues (2016) examined the differences between and similarities of school shooters 

and street shooters. Overall, they noted that school shooters generally were white, male adolescents 

from stable, low-crime towns or suburbs, and they generally did not know the people they killed 

personally. Conversely, street shooters tend to live in densely populated areas with high crime levels 

and poverty rates, and they tend to aim to hurt or kill individuals they know. In addition, using data 

from the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (the most recent data available), the report 

authors found that nearly half of all street shooters under age 18 obtain their weapons from street or 

black market sources, 37 percent receive them from a friend or family member, and 13 percent steal 

them. In contrast, findings from other data sources have shown that more than half of school shooters 

obtain their weapons from home or a relative (Bushman et al. 2016).

International Comparisons of Youth Gun Violence. In 2012, firearms were involved in nearly 50 percent 

of all homicides committed worldwide (Butchart and Mikton 2014; Kieselbach and Butchart 2014; 

Mikton et al. 2016). In addition, according to a World Health Organization global status report on 

violence prevention, 43 percent of annual homicides worldwide involve youths ages 10 to 29 years 

(Butchart and Mikton 2014). Youths are disproportionately affected by homicide regardless of country 

level of income (Butchart and Mikton 2014; Mikton et al. 2016); however, the youth homicide rate in the 

United States is higher than other high-income countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, United Kingdom) 

[Bushman et al. 2016; David–Ferdon and Simon 2014]. For example, in 2003, the firearm homicide rate 

among U.S. youths ages 15 to 24 was 42 times as high as the rate for youths in similar high-income 

nations (Richardson and Hemenway 2011).

Gun Prevalence Compared With Other Weapons. From 2004 through 2013, most violent victimizations 

committed by adolescents ages 12 to 17 were simple assaults that did not involve a weapon. However, 

among homicides with a weapon committed by youth, firearms were the weapon of choice (Oudekerk 

and Morgan 2016).

 According to the SHRs, of the 4,743 reported homicides committed by youths ages 12 to 24 with 

a weapon in 2014, 71 percent were carried out by firearm (Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang 

2016). In contrast, about 12 percent were committed with a knife, 6 percent were committed 

with a personal weapon (e.g., hands, fists, feet), 8 percent were committed with another type 

(e.g., poison) or unknown weapon, and only 3 percent were committed with a blunt object 

(Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang 2016). 

Risk Factors for Youth Gun Violence

A significant body of research suggests that youth engagement in the most serious forms of violence is 

strongly linked to the convergence and interaction of individual, family, peer, school, and community 

risk factors (Hawkins et al. 2000; Herrenkohl et al. 2012; Shetgiri et al. 2016). Risk factors are categorized 

as having the ability to increase the likelihood of youth violence (Jolliffe et al. 2016). There is no single 

risk factor or specific combination of risk factors that can predict who is more likely to engage in violent 

 

West Nickel Mines Amish School (Bart Township, Pa.); Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Blacksburg, Va.); 

Northern Illinois University (DeKalb, Ill.); Chardon (Ohio) High School; Oikos University (Oakland, Calif.); Sandy Hook 

Elementary School (Newtown, Conn.); University of California, Santa Barbara (Isla Vista); Marysville (Wash.) Pilchuck High 

School; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry; and Umpqua Community College.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6

behavior (Mmari, Blum, and Teufel–Shone 2010) However, the more individual, family, peer, school, 

and community risk factors present in a youth’s life, the greater the probability of youth violence 

(Reingle, Jennings, and Maldonado–Molina 2012; Williamson, Guerra, and Tynan 2014) [for more 

information, see the Model Programs Guide literature review on Risk Factors for Delinquency].

Nevertheless, while little research has yet to be conducted on specific risk factors for youth gun 

violence, the risk factors associated with serious youth violence are relevant to any discussion of youth 

gun violence. Among the known risk factors for youth violence, emotional distress, violence exposure, 

alcohol use, and peer delinquency have been directly linked to youth gun violence. Of these risk factors, 

the strongest and most consistent predictor of youth gun violence is the exposure to or a history of 

violence (Shetgiri et al. 2016). In addition, the access to and availability of firearms increase the 

likelihood of weapon-related violence among youth (Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway 2002; Slovak and 

Singer 2001; Lizotte et al. 1994).

Exposure to Violence. Research suggests there is a cumulative effect of risk factors across individual, 

family, peer, school, and community domains that increases the probability of youth gun violence 

(Mmari, Blum, and Teufel–Shone 2010). The events and circumstances characteristic of the environment 

(home, community, and school) have an influence on the development of individual risk factors for gun 

violence. For example, “Sixty percent of all U.S. youths report exposure to some form of violence... in 

a given year” (Zimmerman and Posick 2016, 178). Exposure to violence refers to direct exposure 

(personal victimization) or indirect exposure (witnessing or hearing about the victimization of a family 

member, friend, or neighbor) [Zimmerman and Posick 2016]. Studies suggest a significant relationship 

between exposure to guns and shootings and psychological trauma (Slovak and Singer 2001). Violence 

exposure is linked to emotional distress, anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder 

(Margolin and Gordis 2000). The psychological injuries connected to the exposure to violence are often 

ignored, but this is problematic since the most significant predictor of future violent behavior for both 

male and female youths is a history of violence (Hawkins et al. 2000). 

Access and Availability to Firearms. Violence exposure and violence commission predict each other 

over time (Henrich, Brookmeyer, and Shahar 2005). Thus, what differentiates youth gun violence from 

other serious forms of violence is the presence of a firearm. The access and availability to firearms is a 

facilitating factor in youth gun violence (Shetgiri et al. 2016; Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway 2002; 

Lizotte et al. 1994). Youths who have witnessed violence in their environments are more likely to 

become involved in assaultive behavior and carry weapons (Patchin et al. 2006). In these instances 

violent behavior progresses from physical fighting to more deadly forms, such as gun violence 

(Dahlberg and Potter 2001). Part of what enables youths to progress to more deadly forms of violence 

is related to their access to and the availability of firearms in their homes and communities (Williamson, 

Guerra, and Tynan 2014). Youths who live in homes where firearms are present but not safely stored 

are more likely to be involved in some form of gun violence (Johnson et al. 2010). Weapons have become 

a significant element in the homicide and suicide deaths among teens (Slovak and Singer 2001). 

Community violence has led to a prevailing fear, among youth, of being shot (Powell, Sheehan, and 

Christoffel 1996) and weapon-carrying in self-defense (Shetgiri et al. 2016). Consequently, of all risk 

factors associated with youth violence, exposure to violence and availability of firearms most increase 

the likelihood of engaging in youth gun violence.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7

Notably, however, there is significant variation in the impact of risk factors on youths. Certain 

psychological and biological characteristics—including hyperactivity and antisocial behavior—link 

male youths to more serious forms of violent behavior than female youths, (Kodjo, Auinger, and Ryan 

2001; Bolland 2003). Female youths who are exposed to violence are more likely to internalize their 

symptoms and are less likely than male youths to cope in positive manners, leading to other individual 

risk factors (Rosario et al. 2008). Whites and Asians tend to witness crime less often than African 

American and Hispanic youths do. Yet, even when compared with Hispanic youths, black youths were 

more vulnerable to violent behavior in that they tended to live in neighborhoods with higher levels of 

violent crime and were more likely to engage in violent crime themselves (Luthar and Goldstein 2004). 

Male youths from all racial and ethnic backgrounds have a greater likelihood of dying from a gunshot 

wound, compared with all other natural causes combined (Jones and Krisberg 1994). Consequently, 

research suggests that there may be gender, racial, and ethnic differences in the factors that lead to 

youth gun violence (Shetgiri et al. 2016).

Protective Factors Against Youth Gun Violence

Resiliency theory indicates that some youths exposed to such risk factors do not develop negative, 

violent behaviors because of the influence of protective factors (Stoddard et al. 2013). Protective factors 

are the events, opportunities, and experiences in the lives of youth that lessen or buffer against the 

probability of violence (Resnick, Ireland, and Borowsky 2004). Protective factors help youths overcome 

the negative effects of risk factors and are essential in helping them compensate for or protect against

the effects of risk on healthy development (Fergus and Zimmerman 2005) [for more information, see 

the Model Programs Guide literature review on Protective Factors Against Delinquency].

Parent and School Connectedness. Of these protective factors for serious forms of youth violence, there 

are two that have been shown to make a slight impact of youth gun violence. Research suggests that 

parent and school connectedness counterbalance the risk of exposure to, and committing, violence 

(Luthar and Goldstein 2004). Parental presence and proper supervision can assist in controlling where 

and with whom youths spend their time, thus reducing the likelihood of violence exposure (Henrich, 

Brookmeyer, and Shahar 2005). However, parental connectedness may be a significant buffer against 

violence only for Latinos and not whites and African Americans (Shetgiri et al. 2016). High education 

aspirations and the physical interventions often found in schools, such as the use of weapon detectors, 

allow for the development of a safe connection to the school environment (Henrich, Brookmeyer, and 

Shahar 2005.) However, high educational aspirations are a protective factor only for Latinos and African 

Americans (Shetgiri et al. 2016), and the effects of school connectedness on exposure to weapon violence 

may not extend beyond the building walls (Henrich, Brookmeyer, and Shahar 2005). Given the racial 

and ethnic disparities for these protective factors, caution should be taken to not generalize their ability 

to protect and buffer against youth gun violence for all youth.

Overall, given the paucity of research on risk and protective factors that directly affect youth gun 

violence, more attention should be paid to this area of research. Knowing what factors increase or 

decrease the risk for all forms of youth violence is necessary to the process of designing empirically 

based gun prevention strategies (Herrenkohl et al. 2000). Concentrated prevention efforts to enhance 

protective factors, such as parental and school connectedness, may help youth overcome the 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8

debilitating effects of risks, such as exposure to violence and the access to and the availability of 

firearms (Stoddard et al. 2013) and ultimately make a significant impact on youth gun violence.

Policy Research on Guns

Federal Laws. There are numerous federal laws that regulate gun purchases made from licensed 

sellers.

 The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968. These laws created 

regulations with regard to the selling of firearms. Under the GCA, businesses selling firearms 

were required to obtain a federal firearm license (FFL), and interstate sales of firearms were 

limited to only those sellers with FFLs. In addition, the GCA established several new 

requirements, such as

 Prohibiting certain individuals (for example, those convicted of a felony offense) from 

buying firearms

 Making it a crime to sell or transfer a firearm to someone who is forbidden from 

possessing one

 Requiring buyers to sign a form stating that had not been convicted of a felony or were 

otherwise disqualified by law from purchasing a gun

However, the GCA did not regulate firearms transfers made by private gun owners (Webster 

and Wintemute 2015). The GCA set age restrictions for the purchase and transfer of handguns 

and long guns (i.e., rifles and shotguns):

 A person must be at least 18 years old to purchase a long gun from a licensed gun seller; 

however, there is no age restriction on a person to possess a long gun or buy a long gun 

from a private seller. 

 A person must be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun from a licensed gun seller 

but may be only 18 to be transferred a handgun from someone who is not a licensed gun 

dealer or to possess a handgun (Webster and Wintemute 2015).

 The Youth Handgun Safety Act. The act was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994 and decreased the legal age of possessing a handgun to 18 (OJJDP 

1996).

 The Gun-Free Schools Act. The act also took effect in 1994, and amended part of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, requiring schools receiving federal education funds to 

adopt a policy that required expulsion (for no less than 1 year) for any student who brings a 

firearm to school (OJJDP 1996). 

 The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The Brady Act was also enacted in 1993, establishing 

several new requirements and standards to sell and purchase firearms (for example, a 5-day 

waiting period before a licensed seller, manufacturer, or importer could transfer a gun to a 

buyer, and mandatory background checks were required for all individuals looking to purchase 

firearms from licensed gun dealers). Like the GCA, the Brady Act exempted background checks 

for firearm transfers made by private gun owners (Webster and Wintemute 2015; Cook and 

Ludwig 2013; Fleegler et al. 2013). 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 9

 The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS was created under the 

Brady Act to help conduct the mandatory background check. Launched in 1998, NICS has 

completed more than 200 million background checks, with about 1.1 million denials (FBI 2014).

State Laws. A recent study on state gun laws found almost 3,200 laws had been passed between 1990 

and 2014, including laws to loosen or tighten gun restrictions (Luca, Malhotra, and Poliquin 2016).

Transactions involving guns generally take place by two means: through licensed businesses or through 

private sellers. Because federal laws regulate gun purchases by licensed sellers but do not regulate sales 

made by private gun owners, many states have attempted to regulate gun sales by private, unlicensed 

sellers (Braga and Hureau 2015).

Following are descriptions of three types of state laws that govern gun sales made by licensed and 

unlicensed sellers.

 Permit to Purchase (PTP). Approximately 11 states have PTP laws, which require individuals to 

obtain a permit or license (contingent on a background check) before purchasing a handgun, 

from either licensed businesses or private sellers (Crifasi et al. 2015). PTP laws vary by state; for 

instance, some states require people to get permits in person, while others allow permits to be 

obtained online or by mail (Webster and Wintemute 2015). However, these laws wouldn’t 

directly affect youths under 21—the minimum age set by federal law to purchase a handgun.

 Background Checks. Although the Brady Act requires mandatory background checks for all 

individuals looking to purchase firearms from licensed gun dealers, sales by private gun owners

are exempted from this requirement. However, some states have sought to strengthen the Brady 

background checks (Rudolph et al. 2015). Approximately 17 states and the District of Columbia 

have adopted stricter background check requirements for private sellers (Rudolph et al. 2015). 

For example, in Massachusetts, citizens are required by law to report all sales, transfers, 

inheritances, and losses of firearms to the Firearms Record Bureau. This law covers private 

transactions of guns (Braga and Hureau 2015).

 Child Access Prevention (CAP) Laws. CAP laws are examples of laws specifically focused on 

preventing youth from accessing guns. CAP laws make it a crime to store firearms in a way that 

can be easily accessible to youth (Webster et al. 2004). Since 1981, some 26 states and the District 

of Columbia have passed a CAP law. CAP laws may vary by state on factors such as the 

requirements to store a firearm or the criminal liability of gun owners if youth gain access to a 

firearm (which can result in fines, imprisonment, or both) [Anderson and Sabia 2016].

Impact of State and Federal Legislation. There are only a limited number of studies examining the 

effectiveness of firearm legislation at the state and federal levels. Cook and Ludwig (2013) examined 

the impact of the Brady Act on rates of homicides and suicides by comparing 32 states affected by the 

law with 18 states that already had background checks in place before the law’s passage. The findings 

showed that although firearm-related homicide rates declined nationwide following the law’s 

enactment, there was no statistically discernible difference in the reduction of homicide trends between 

Brady states and non-Brady states. The result was similar for suicide rates, except for a significant 

difference in suicide rates for adults 55 and older (no other age group was affected) [Cook and Ludwig 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 10

2013; Webster and Wintemute 2015]. However, the study included only data on rates of homicides and 

suicides of adults 21 and older. The study authors argued that the GCA had already set the minimum 

age limits to buy and possess a firearm; thus, the Brady Act would likely not affect access to guns by 

those under 21 (Cook and Ludwig 2013). Therefore, the possible specific impact the Brady Act did or 

didn’t have on youth homicide and suicide rates is not known.

Marvell (2001) examined the impact that juvenile gun possession bans has made on reducing gun 

homicides, especially of youths. The study looked at the impact of state and federal laws that banned 

juveniles from possessing guns (specifically those laws passed in the early 1970s through 1994). The 

focus was on homicides and gun homicides of 15- to 24-year-olds. Overall, the results suggested that 

the various laws with juvenile handgun bans made little or no impact on crime measures, including 

gun homicides of youths.

With regard to state laws, a study of Connecticut’s PTP law found a reduction in homicide rates 

following passage of the law (Rudolph et al. 2015), while a study of the repeal of Missouri’s PTP law 

found an increase in firearm homicides and diversion of guns to criminals (Webster, Crifasi, and 

Vernick 2014). However, these studies were done with state-level data (that include rates of both adults 

and juveniles); therefore, it is unclear what the impact of PTP laws is specifically on youth-related gun 

violence and homicides. Conversely, studies of CAP laws have examined the impact of such legislation 

on youth. Studies have found reductions in unintentional shooting deaths of children (Webster and 

Starnes 2000), reductions in youth suicides (Webster et al. 2004), and reductions in reports of gun 

carrying by youths (Anderson and Sabia 2016).

Public Health Perspective on Gun Violence

Researchers, public health officials, and medical experts have suggested that because of the interrelated 

individual–familial–community risk factors and the large number of individuals affected, gun violence 

is also a public health issue (IOM and NRC 2013b; Butkus et al. 2014). 

The public health field is concerned with problems that are related to significant levels of morbidity 

and mortality (for example, viruses, diseases, or other illnesses) in communities and the general public. 

A public health approach has three important components: “1) a focus on prevention, 2) a focus on 

scientific methodology to identify risk and patterns, and 3) multidisciplinary collaboration to address 

the issue” (IOM and NRC 2013b, 3). 

Public health strategies generally concentrate on the relationships of three elements: 1) the “agent” (or 

the source of the injury, which in the case of gun violence would be the gun or the shooter or both); 2) 

the “host” (which would be the victim of the gun violence); and 3) the “environment” (which would be 

the condition under which the violence occurred, including social, physical, or even virtual 

environments that affect gun policies, norms, and behaviors) [IOM and NRC 2013b].

Although justice personnel may be primarily responsible for the apprehension, prosecution, and 

sanctioning of gun violence offenders, using a public health approach to combat the dilemma of youth 

gun violence allows for justice policymakers and practitioners to use a comprehensive, collaborative 

method that can be informed by research from different fields that have successes in reducing and 

preventing other behavior-related issues (for example, tobacco use and motor vehicle fatalities). 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 11

One example of an initiative influenced by the public health approach is the Shared Framework to 

Reduce Youth Violence and Promote Well-Being. The Shared Framework is a collaborative effort 

between the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the CDC designed to help 

concentrate and strengthen the collective action to reduce youth violence and ensure healthy and safe 

futures for children and youth. The Shared Framework includes a vision statement, values, principles 

for action, and a logic model showing the means to attain goals (OJJDP 2014). The Share Framework 

draws on previous models, including the public health approach to preventing youth violence. 

Outcome Evidence

This section presents several evidence-based practices and programs that were shown to significantly 

reduce the occurrence of gun violence, including homicides, assaults, and other measures of violent 

crime. Overall, there is evidence supporting that interventions can reduce violent crime and offending 

in juveniles, and gun violence in general; however there is less evidence supporting reductions in 

juvenile gun violence. The following are examples from CrimeSolutions.gov and the Model Programs 

Guide that represent some of the most relevant interventions to youth gun violence.

Interventions Specifically Focused on Reducing Gun Violence. The Reducing Gun Violence practice 

concentrated on interventions that aimed to reduce the threat to public safety caused by firearms and 

to decrease the number of illegal firearms or weapons in the possession of criminals. This practice had 

an overall weak to moderate effect on gun crime (note no distinction was made about youth or overall 

gun crime). However, this practice is diverse; the effects reported in a meta-analysis by Makarios and 

Pratt (2012) of different types of programs under the umbrella included law enforcement campaigns to 

reduce gun violence, gun laws, and gun buy-back programs. 

The most promising program strategies were

1. Community interventions, such as Operation Ceasefire 

2. Hot spots policing strategies 

3. Weapon ban laws

4. Stricter probation requirements for juvenile gun offenders, though the authors noted there 

were limited data on this strategy 

The meta-analysis found that enhanced prison terms, waiting periods, and background checks had little 

effect on reducing gun violence. No significant relationships were found between reduced gun crimes 

and prosecutorial strategies such as harsher sentencing, safe storage laws, and gun buy-back programs 

(that is, these programs were found to have no effect on reducing gun violence).

Community-Driven Interventions. Focused Deterrence Strategies is a person-based practice composed 

of several steps, beginning with selecting a particular crime problem such as youth homicide, 

convening an interagency working group (e.g., law enforcement, social services), and developing a 

response to targeted offenders or groups of offenders that uses a variety of sanctions (“pulling levers”) 

to stop continued violent behavior (Braga and Weisburd 2012). A meta-analysis by Braga and Weisburd 

(2012) revealed that focused deterrence strategies have shown a significant, moderate effect on overall 

crime reduction.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 12

The program Operation Ceasefire, developed in Boston, Mass., is a problem-solving police strategy that 

aims to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence and has been replicated and 

modified by other communities. Braga and colleagues (Braga et al. 2001; Braga and Pierce 2005) found 

statistically significant decreases in youth homicides and gun assaults and recovered new handguns.

Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership, based on Ceasefire, targeted high-risk chronic offenders 

(adults and juveniles) to reduce gun violence in Indianapolis, Ind., and has been found to be related to 

reduced gun- and non-gun-related homicides across all ages (McGarrell et al. 2006; Corsaro and 

McGarrell 2010).

Operation Peacekeeper, based in Stockton, Calif., was designed to reduce gang involvement and 

violence among urban youths ages 10 to 18 through the use of Youth Outreach Workers serving as 

mentors for youths in neighborhood settings (Braga 2008). Evaluation results have found a decrease in 

gun-homicide incidents.

Cure Violence, in Chicago, Ill., takes a public health approach, using trained street violence interrupters 

and outreach workers, public education campaigns, and community mobilization to reduce shootings 

and killings (Skogan et al. 2008). Evaluation results found Cure Violence was associated with decreases 

in shootings, killings, and retaliatory homicides in some neighborhoods. 

The Milwaukee (Wisc.) Homicide Review Commission (MHRC) aims to reduce homicides and nonfatal 

shootings through a multilevel, multidisciplinary, and multiagency homicide review process. Azrael, 

Braga, and O’Brien (2013) found that the implementation was associated with a statistically significant 

decrease in homicides from January 1999 through December 2006.

Hot Spots Policing Interventions. Hot Spots Policing is a place-based practice in which law 

enforcement agencies expend limited resources in small geographic areas, usually in urban settings, 

where crime is concentrated and highly predictable (Braga, Papachristos, and Hureau 2012). Overall, 

hot spots policing has been shown to have a significant but small effect on reducing crime, though 

youth gun violence was not assessed.

Overall, there are a variety of interrelated programs and practices that appear to be effective at or 

promising for reducing violence and gun violence. There are some limitations to the research, such as 

the issue of generalizability of the findings to other cities or communities. In addition, there are but a 

limited number of programs and practices that have examined the specific impact on youth gun 

violence.

Conclusion

The data available on the incidents of gun violence in the United States show how greatly youth are 

affected. Available data can describe how many youths are involved in gun violence every year (either 

perpetrating, witnessing, or being a victim of gun violence). However, the numbers cannot explain why 

youth gun violence is so prevalent. One issue is the lack of research focused exclusively on the causes, 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 13

correlates, and consequences of youth gun violence. For instance, although research has examined the 

risk and protective factors related to youth violence in general, gun violence is usually not specifically 

focused on, but rather grouped together with other forms of violence, such as school or community 

violence. Some information is known about the risk factors related to youth gun violence (for example, 

the exposure to or a history of violence and the access to and availability of firearms are strong 

predictors of the occurrence of violence). Nevertheless, a great deal about the complexity of youth gun 

violence still is not known. Specific and well-defined research examining the prevalence and predictors 

of youth gun violence would help inform future policies and programs designed to reduce gun violence 

involving youth.

Some laws and policies that have been enacted at the federal and state levels are intended to reduce 

youths’ access to guns. But while these laws restrict gun access to those under certain age thresholds 

(18 in some cases and 21 in others), with few exceptions the laws do not otherwise directly target youth 

behavior. As more information is gathered and analyzed, more informed policies can be developed to 

effectively address the issue of youth gun violence.

Moreover, many specific programs, using a public health approach, have been developed to target 

various forms of community-based violence, including youth gun violence. Several of these programs 

have been shown to reduce measures of violence; however, few programs have been evaluated to 

determine the particular impact on youth gun violence. What research is available can help guide 

programming efforts focused on reducing youth gun violence. For example, some promising strategies 

to reduce gun violence are community interventions (such as Operation Ceasefire and Cure Violence), 

hot spot policing practices, and weapon ban laws (Makarios and Pratt 2012). Future research should 

explore how these strategies can be tailored to the specific issue of youth gun violence. 

References

Abt, Thomas, and Christopher Winship. 2016. What Works in Reducing Community Violence: A MetaReview and Field Study for the Northern Triangle. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for International 

Development.

Anderson, D. Mark, and Joseph J. Sabia. 2016. Child Access Prevention Laws, Youth Gun Carrying, and 

School Shootings. Discussion Paper No. 9830. Bonn, Germany: Institutes for the Study of Labor. 

http://ftp.iza.org/dp9830.pdf

Azrael, Deborah, Anthony A. Braga, and Mallory O’Brien. 2013. Developing the Capacity to Understand 

and Prevent Homicide: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Homicide Review Commission. Washington, 

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

Battin, Sara R., Karl G. Hill, Robert D. Abbott, Richard F. Catalano, and J. David Hawkins. 1998. “The 

Contribution of Gang Membership to Delinquency Beyond Delinquent Friends.” Criminology

36(1):93–116.

Bolland, John M. 2003. “Hopelessness and Risk Behavior Among Adolescents Living in High-Poverty 

Inner-City Neighborhoods.” Journal of Adolescence 26(2):14558.

Borowsky, Iris W., Rachel L. Widome, and Michael D. Resnick. 2008. “Young People and Violence.” 

International Encyclopedia of Public Health 6:67584.

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

Homicide.” Journal of Criminal Justice 36(4):332–43.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 14

Braga, Anthony A., and David M. Hureau. 2015. “Strong Gun Laws Are Not Enough: The Need for 

Improved Enforcement of Secondhand Gun Transfer Laws in Massachusetts.” Preventive Medicine

79:37–42.

Braga, Anthony A., David M. Kennedy, Elin J. Waring, and Anne Morrison Piehl. 2001. “ProblemOriented Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: An Evaluation of Boston’s Operation 

Ceasefire.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38(3):195225.

Braga, Anthony A., Andrew V. Papachristos, and David M. Hureau. 2012. “The Effects of Hot Spots 

Policing on Crime: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Justice Quarterly iFirst:1–

31.

Braga, Anthony A., and Glenn L. Pierce. 2005. “Disrupting Illegal Firearms Markets in Boston: The 

Effects of Operation Ceasefire on the Supply of New Handguns to Criminals.” Criminology & 

Public Policy 4(4):71748.

Braga, Anthony A., and David L. Weisburd. 2012. “The Effects of ‘Pulling Levers’ Focused Deterrence 

Strategies on Crime.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 6.

Brookmeyer, Kathryn A., Christopher C. Henrich, and Mary E. Schwab–Stone. 2005. “Adolescents 

Who Witness Community Violence: Can Parent Support and Prosocial Cognitions Protect Them 

From Committing Violence?” Child Development 76(4):91729.

Bushman, Brad J., Sandra L. Calvert, Mark Dredze, Nina G. Jablonski, Calvin Morrill, Daniel Romer, 

Katherine Newman, Geraldine Downey, Michael Gottfredson, Ann Masten, Daniel B. Neill, and 

Daniel W. Webster. 2016. “Youth Violence: What We Know and What We Need to Know.” 

American Psychologist 71(1):1739.

Butchart, Alexander, and Christopher Mikton. 2014. Global Status Report on Violence Prevention, 2014. 

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 

and United Nations Development Program.

Butkus, Renee, Robert Doherty, and Hilary Daniel, for the Health and Public Policy Committee of the 

American College of Physicians. 2014. “Reducing Firearm-Related Injuries and Deaths in the 

United States: Executive Summary of a Policy Position Paper From the American College of 

Physicians.” Annals of Internal Medicine 160:858–60.

(CDC) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. N.d. “Striving to Reduce Youth Violence 

Everywhere.” Fact Sheet. Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, Injury Prevention & Control, Division of Violence 

Prevention. https://vetoviolence.cdc.gov/apps/stryve/docs/Stryve.pdf

CDC. 2016. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National Center 

for Injury Prevention and Control. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html 

Child Trends Databank. 2015. Teen Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm Deaths. Bethesda Md. 

http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=teen-homicide-suicide-and-firearm-deaths

Cook, Phillip J., and Jens Ludwig. 2013. “The Limited Impact of the Brady Act: Evaluation and 

Implications.” In Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick (eds.). Reducing Gun Violence in America: 

Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis. Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins University, 21–32.

Cornell, Dewey, Peter Sheras, Anne Gregory, and Xitao Fan. 2009. “A Retrospective Study of School 

Safety Conditions in High Schools Using the Virginia Threat Assessment Guidelines Versus 

Alternative Approaches.” School Psychology Quarterly 24(2):119.

Corsaro, Nicholas, and Edmund McGarrell. 2010. “Reducing Homicide Risk in Indianapolis Between 

1997 and 2000.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 87(5):851–64.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 15

Crifasi, Cassandra K., John Speed Meyers, Jon S. Vernick, and Daniel W. Webster. 2015. “Effects of 

Changes in Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Laws in Connecticut and Missouri Suicide Rates.” 

Preventive Medicine 79:43–49.

Dahlberg, Linda L., and Lloyd B. Potter. 2001. “Youth Violence: Developmental Pathways and 

Prevention Challenges.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20(1):314.

David–Ferdon, Corinne, and Thomas R. Simon. 2014. Preventing Youth Violence: Opportunities for 

Action. Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence 

Prevention.

Duhart, Detis T. 2000. Urban, Suburban, and Rural Victimization, 1993–98. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

Egley, Arlen, Jr., Joseph E. Logan, and Dawn McDaniel. 2012. “Gang Homicides—Five U.S. Cities, 

2003–08.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 61(3). Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National Center for 

Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention.

Farrell, Albert D., David B. Henry, Michael E. Schoeny, Amie Bettencourt, and Patrick H. Tolan. 2010. 

“Normative Beliefs and Self-Efficacy for Nonviolence as Moderators of Peer, School, and Parental 

Risk Factors for Aggression in Early Adolescence.” Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology

39(6): 80013.

(FBI) Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2014. National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems 

Operations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.fbi.gov/filerepository/2014-nics-ops-report-050115.pdf/view

Fergus, Stevenson, and Marc A. Zimmerman. 2005. “Adolescent Resilience: A Framework for 

Understanding Healthy Development in the Face of Risk.” Annual Review of Public Health

26:399419.

Ferguson, Christopher J., and D. Cricket Meehan. 2010. “Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting:

Antisocial Traits, Fighting, and Weapons Carrying in a Large Sample of Youth.” Psychiatric 

Quarterly 81(4):293302.

Finkelhor, David, Anne Shattuck, Heather Turner, and Sherry Hamby. 2014. “Trends in Children’s 

Exposure to Violence, 2003 to 2011.” JAMA Pediatrics 168(6):540–6.

Finkelhor, David, Heather Turner, Anne Shattuck, and Sherry Hamby. 2015a. “Prevalence of 

Childhood Exposure to Violence, Crime, and Abuse: Results From the National Survey of 

Children’s Exposure to Violence.” JAMA Pediatrics 169(8):746–54.

Finkelhor, David, Heather Turner, Anne Shattuck, Sherry Hamby, and Kristen Kracke. 2015b. 

Children’s Exposure to Violence, Crime, and Abuse: An Update. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, OJJDP.

Fleegler, Eric W., Lois K. Lee, Michael C. Monuteaux, David Hemenway, and Rebekah Mannix. 2013. 

“Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States.” JAMA Internal Medicine

173(9):73240.

Fowler, Katherine A., Linda L. Dahlberg, Tadesse Haileyesus, and Joseph L. Annest. 2015. “Firearm 

Injuries in the United States.” Preventive Medicine 79:5–14.

Futures Without Violence. 2016. Defining Child Traumatic Stress. San Francisco, Calif.: Futures Without 

Violence. https://changingmindsnow.org/science/defining-child-traumatic-stress

Gerstenblith, Stephanie. 2015. NIJ’s Comprehensive School Safety Initiative. Paper presented at the 

American Society of Criminology 71st Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 16

Grossman, David C., Helen A. Stafford, Thomas D. Koepsell, Ryan Hill, Kyla D. Retzer, and Ward 

Jones. 2012. “Improving Firearm Storage in Alaska Native Villages: A Randomized Trial of 

Household Gun Cabinets.” American Journal of Public Health 102(S2):S291–97.

Hawkins, J. David, 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, OJJDP.

Hemenway, David, and Daniel W. Webster. 2015. “Increasing Knowledge for the Prevention of 

Firearm Violence.” Preventive Medicine 79:3–4.

Henrich, Christopher C., Kathryn A. Brookmeyer, and Golan Shahar. 2005. “Weapon Violence in 

Adolescence: Parent and School Connectedness as Protective Factors.” Journal of Adolescent Health 

37(4):306–12.

Hepburn, Lisa, Deborah Azrael, Matthew Miller, and David Hemenway. 2006. “The Effect of Child 

Access Prevention Laws on Unintentional Child Firearm Fatalities, 1979–2000.” Journal of Trauma 

and Acute Care Surgery 61(2):423–28.

Herrenkohl, Todd I., Sheryl A. Hemphill, W. Alex Mason, John W. Toumbourou, and Richard F. 

Catalano. 2012. “Predictors and Responses to the Growth in Physical Violence During 

Adolescence: A Comparison of Students in Washington State and Victoria, Australia.” American 

Journal of Orthopsychiatry 82(1):41–49.

Herrenkohl, Todd I., Eugene Maguin, Karl G. Hill, J. David Hawkins, Robert D. Abbott, and Richard 

F. Catalano. 2000. “Developmental Risk Factors for Youth Violence.” Journal of Adolescent Health

26(3):17686.

IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council). 2013a. Contagion of Violence: 

Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

IOM and NRC. 2013b. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. 

Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

Johnson, Renee M., Catherine Barber, Deborah Azrael, David E. Clark, and David Hemenway. 2010. 

“Who Are the Owners of Firearms Used in Adolescent Suicides?” Suicide and Life-Threatening 

Behavior 40(6):609–11.

Jolliffe, Darrick, David P. Farrington, Rolf Loeber, and Dustin Pardini. 2016. “Protective Factors for 

Violence: Results From the Pittsburgh Youth Study.” Journal of Criminal Justice 45:3240.

Jones, Michael A., and Barry Krisberg. 1994. Images and Reality: Juvenile Crime, Youth Violence, and 

Public Policy. San Francisco, Calif.: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Juby, Heather, and David P. Farrington. 2001. “Disentangling the Link Between Disrupted Families 

and Delinquency Sociodemography, Ethnicity, and Risk Behaviours.” British Journal of Criminology

41(1):2240.

Kann, Laura, Tim McManus, William A. Harris, Shari L. Shanklin, Katherine H. Flint, Joseph 

Hawkins, Barbara Queen, Richard Lowry, Emily O’Malley Olsen, David Chyen, Lisa Whittle, 

Jemekia Thornton, Connie Lim, Yoshimi Yamakawa, Nancy Brener, and Stephanie Zaza. 2016. 

“Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2015.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report

62(30). Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence 

Prevention.

Kegler, Scott R., and James A. Mercy. August 2013. “Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major 

Metropolitan Areas—United States, 2006–07 and 2009–10.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 17

62(30). Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence 

Prevention.

Kieselbach, Berit, and Alexander Butchart. 2014. Preventing Youth Violence: An Overview of the Evidence. 

Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 

and United Nations Development Program.

Kochanek, Kenneth D., Sherry L. Murphy, Jiaquan Xu, and Betzaida Tejada–Vera. 2016. “Deaths: Final 

Data for 2014.” National Vital Statistics Reports 65(4). Hyattsville, Md.: CDC, National Center for 

Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System. 

Kodjo, Cheryl M., Peggy Auinger, and Sheryl A. Ryan. 2003. “Demographic, Intrinsic, and Extrinsic 

Factors Associated With Weapon Carrying at School.” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 

157(1):96103.

Listenbee, Robert L., Joe Toerre, Rev. Gregory Boyle, Sharon W. Cooper, Sarah Deer, Deanne Tilton 

Durfree, Thea James, Alicia Lieberman, Robert Macy, Steven Marans, Jim McDonnell, Georgina 

Mendoz, and Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. 2012. Report of the Attorney General’s National Task Force 

on Children Exposed to Violence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs.

Lizotte, Alan J., Marvin D. Krohn, James C. Howell, Kimberly Tobin, and Gregory J. Howard. 2000. 

“Factors Influencing Gun Carrying Among Young Urban Males Over the Adolescent–Young 

Adult Life Course.” Criminology 38(3):811–34.

Lizotte, Alan J., James M. Tesoriero, Terence P. Thornberry, and Marvin D. Krohn. 1994. “Patterns of 

Adolescent Firearms Ownership and Use.” Justice Quarterly 11(1):51–74.

Logan–Greene, Patricia, Paula Nurius, Jerald Herting, Carole Hooven, Elaine Walsh, and Elaine 

Thompson. 2011. “Multidomain Risk and Protective Factor Predictors of Violence Behavior 

Among At-Risk Youth.” Journal of Youth Studies 14(4):413–29.

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

the Development of Youth Violence.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 43(2S1):S8–23.

Luca, Michael, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin. 2016. The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun 

Policy. Working Paper 16–126. Boston, Mass.: Harvard University, Harvard Business School.

Ludwig, Jens, and Phillip J. Cook. 2000. “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With 

Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.” JAMA 284(5):58591.

Luthar, Suniya S., and Adam Goldstein. 2004. “Children’s Exposure to Community Violence: 

Implications for Understanding Risk and Resilience.” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent 

Psychology 33(3):499–505.

Makarios, Matthew D., and Travis C. Pratt. 2012. “The Effectiveness of Policies and Programs That 

Attempt to Reduce Firearm Violence: A Meta-Analysis.” Crime & Delinquency 58(2):222–44.

Margolin, Gayla, and Elana B. Gordis. 2000. “The Effects of Family and Community Violence on 

Children.” Annual Review of Psychology 51(1):445–79.

Markovic, John. 2012. “Criminal Justice and Public Health Approaches to Violent Crime: 

Complementary Perspectives.” Geography and Public Safety 3(2):1–3.

Marvell, Thomas B. 2001. “The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun Possession.” Journal of Law and 

Economics 44:691–713.

McGarrell, Edmund, Steven Chermak, Jeremy Wilson, and Nicholas Corsaro. 2006. “Reducing 

Homicide Through a ‘Lever-Pulling’ Strategy.” Justice Quarterly 23(2):214–31.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 18

Mikton, Christopher R., Alexander Butchart, Linda L. Dahlberg, and Etienne G. Krug. 2016. “Global 

Status Report on Violence Prevention 2014.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 50(5):652–59.

Miller, Mathew, Deborah Azrael, and David Hemenway. 2002. “Firearm Availability and 

Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide Among 5- to 14-Year-Olds.” Journal of 

Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 52(2):267–75.

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.

(NIJ) National Institute of Justice. 2011. Firearms and Violence Topical Working Group Meeting Summary 

2011. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/238490.pdf

NIJ. 2015. The Comprehensive School Safety Initiative: 2015 Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248381.pdf

(NRC) National Research Council. 2005. “Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.” In Charles F. 

Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie (eds.). Committee to Improve Research Information and 

Data on Firearms. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

O’Donnell, Deborah A., Mary E. Schwab–Stone, and Adaline Z. Muyeed. 2002. “Multidimensional 

Resilience in Urban Children Exposed to Community Violence.” Child Development 73:126582.

(OJJDP) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1996. Reducing Youth Gun Violence: An 

Overview of Programs and Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/redyouth.pdf

OJJDP. 2014. Youth Violence Prevention Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs. http://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/youth-violenceprevention.html#sharedframework_jump

OJJDP. 2016a. Statistical Briefing Book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/

OJJDP. 2016b. National Youth Violence Prevention Update: 2010–16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. http://www.yvpnews.com/yvpupdate.pdf

Oudekerk, Barbara A., and Rachel E. Morgan. 2016. Co-Offending Among Adolescents in Violent 

Victimizations, 2004–13. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Parks, Sharyn E., Linda L. Johnson, Dawn D. McDaniel, and Matthew Gladden. 2014. “Surveillance 

for Violent Deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2010.” Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report 63(1). Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control, Division of Violence Prevention.

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.

Payne, Susan R.T., and Delbert S. Elliott. 2011. “Safe2Tell®: An Anonymous, 24/7 Reporting System 

for Preventing School Violence.” New Directions for Youth Development 129:103–11.

Planty, Michael G., and Jennifer L. Truman. 2013. Firearm Violence, 1993–2011. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 19

Powell, Elizabeth C., Karen M. Sheehan, and Katherine Kaufer Christoffel. 1996. “Firearm Violence 

Among Youth: Public Health Strategies for Prevention.” Annals of Emergency Medicine 28(2):204–

12.

Puzzanchera, Charles, Greg Chamberlin, and Wei Kang. 2016. Uniform Crime Reporting Program Data, 

U.S. Supplementary Homicide Reports: 1980–2014. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, FBI.

Quint, Janet. 2006. Meeting Five Critical Challenges of High School Reform: Lessons From Research on Three 

Reform Models. New York, N.Y.: MDRC.

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. 

Resnick, Michael D., Marjorie Ireland, and Iris W. Borowsky. 2004. “Youth Violence Perpetration: 

What Protects? What Predicts? Findings From the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent 

Health.” Journal of Adolescent Health 35(5):424.e1–e10.

Richardson, Erin G., and David Hemenway. 2011. “Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm 

Fatality: Comparing the United States With Other High-Income Countries.” Journal of Trauma 

70(1):238–43.

Robers, Simone, Jijun Zhang, Jennifer L. Truman, and Thomas D. Snyder. 2012. Indicators of School 

Crime and Safety: 2011 (NCES 2012–002/ NCJ 236021). Washington, D.C.: National Center for 

Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Rosario, Margaret, Suzanne Salzinger, Richard S. Feldman, and Daisy S. Ng–Mak. 2008. “Intervening 

Processes Between Youths’ Exposure to Community Violence and Internalizing Symptoms Over 

Time: The Roles of Social Support and Coping.” American Journal of Community Psychology 41(1–

2):43–62.

Rudolph, Kara E., Elizabeth A. Stuart, Jon S. Vernick, and Daniel W. Webster. 2015. “Association 

Between Connecticut’s Permit-to-Purchase Handgun Law and Homicides.” American Journal of 

Public Health 105(8):e49–54. 

Schwartz, Heather L., Rajeev N. Ramchand, Dionne Barnes–Proby, Sean Grant, Brian A. Jackson, 

Kristin J. Leuschner, Mauri Matsuda, Jessica Saunders. 2016. The Role of Technology in Improving K–

12 School Safety. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.

Shetgiri, Rashmi, Denise Paquette Boots, Hua Lin, and Tina L. Cheng. 2016. “Predictors of WeaponRelated Behaviors Among African American, Latino, and White Youth.” Journal of Pediatrics

171:27782.

Skogan, Wesley G., Susan M. Hartnett, Natalie Bump, and Jill Dubois. 2008. Evaluation of Ceasefire—

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

Slovak, Karen, and Mark Singer. 2001. “Gun Violence Exposure and Trauma Among Rural Youth.” 

Violence and Victims 16(4):389400.

Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries. 2016. “Mass Shootings in America.” Stanford, 

Calif.: Stanford University, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries. 

https://library.stanford.edu/projects/mass-shootings-america

Stoddard, Sarah A., Barbara J. McMorris, and Renee E. Sieving. 2011. “Do Social Connections and 

Hope Matter in Predicting Early Adolescent Violence?” American Journal of Community Psychology

48(3–4):24756.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 20

Stoddard, Sarah A., Lauren Whiteside, Marc A. Zimmerman, Rebecca M. Cunningham, Stephen T. 

Chermack, and Maureen A. Walton. 2013. “The Relationship Between Cumulative Risk and 

Promotive Factors and Violent Behavior Among Urban Adolescents.” American Journal of 

Community Psychology 51(1–2):5765.

Sullivan, Christopher J. 2006. “Early Adolescent Delinquency: Assessing the Role of Childhood 

Problems, Family Environment, and Peer Pressure.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4:291313. 

Teplin, Linda A., Gary M. McClelland, Karen M. Abram, Darinka Mileusnic–Polchan, Nichole D. 

Olson, and Anna J. Harrison. 2015. Violent Death in Delinquent Youth After Detention. Washington, 

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

Thomas, Anita Jones, Devin Carey, Kia–Rai Prewitt, Edna Romero, Maryse Richards, and Barbara 

Velsor–Friedrich. 2012. “African American Youth and Exposure to Community Violence: 

Supporting Change From the Inside.” Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology 4(1):54–

68.

Truman, Jennifer L., and Lynn Langton. 2015. Criminal Victimization, 2014. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Vanderbilt–Adriance, Ella, and Daniel S. Shaw. 2008. “Protective Factors and the Development of 

Resilience in the Context of Neighborhood Disadvantage.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

36(6):887–901.

Webster, Daniel W. 2015. “Commentary: Evidence to Guide Gun Violence Prevention in America.” 

Annual Review of Public Health 36:14.

Webster Daniel W., Cassandra K. Crifasi, and Jon S. Vernick. 2014. “Effects of the Repeal of Missouri’s 

Handgun Purchaser Licensing Law on Homicides.” Journal of Urban Health 91:293–302. 

Webster, Daniel W., and Marc Starnes. 2000. “Reexamining the Association Between Child Access 

Prevention Gun Laws and Unintentional Shooting Deaths of Children.” Pediatrics 106(6):1466–69.

Webster, Daniel W., and Jon S. Vernick. 2013. Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy With 

Evidence and Analysis. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Webster, Daniel W., Jon S. Vernick, April M. Zeoli, and Jennifer A. Manganello. 2004. “Association 

Between Youth-Focused Firearm Laws and Youth Suicides.” JAMA 292:594601.

Webster, Daniel W., and Garen J. Wintemute. 2015. “Effects of Policies Designed to Keep Firearms 

From High-Risk Individuals.” Annual Review of Public Health 36:2137.

Weinberger, Steven E., David B. Hoyt, Hal C. Lawrence, Saul Levin, Douglas E. Henley, Errol R. 

Alden, Dean Wilkerson, Georges C. Benjamin, and William C. Hubbard. 2015. “Firearm-Related 

Injury and Death in the United States: A Call to Action From Eight Health Professional 

Organizations and the American Bar Association.” Annals of Internal Medicine 162(7):513–16.

Weiner, Janet, Douglas J. Wiebe, Therese S. Richmond, Kristen Beam, Alan L. Berman, Charles C. 

Branas, Rose A. Cheney, Tamera Coyne–Beasley, John Firman, Martin Fishbein, Stephen 

Hargarten, David Hemenway, Robert Jeffcoat, David M. Kennedy, Christopher S. Koper, Jean 

Lemaire, Matthew Miller, Jeffrey A. Roth, C. William Schwab, Robert Spitzer, Stephen Teret, Jon S. 

Vernick, and Daniel W. Webster. 2007. “Reducing Firearm Violence: A Research Agenda.” Injury 

Prevention 13:80–84.

White, Nicole, and Janet L. Lauritsen. 2012. Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994–2010. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 21

Williamson, Ariel A., Nancy G. Guerra, and W. Douglas Tynan. 2014. “The Role of Health and Mental 

Health Care Providers in Gun Violence Prevention.” Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology 2(1):88.

Wintemute, Garen J. 2015. “The Epidemiology of Firearm Violence in the Twenty-First Century 

United States.” Annual Review of Public Health 36:519.

Wright, Darlene R., and Kevin M. Fitzpatrick. 2006. “Violence and Minority Youth: The Effects of Risk 

and Asset Factors on Fighting Among African American Children and Adolescents.” Adolescence

41:25162. 

Youngblade, Lise M., Christina Theokas, John E. Schulenberg, Laura Curry, I–Chan Huang, and 

Maureen Novak. 2007. “Risk and Promotive Factors in Families, Schools, and Communities: A 

Contextual Model of Positive Youth Development in Adolescence.” Pediatrics 119(1):S4753.

Zhang, Anlan, Lauren Musu–Gillette, and Barbara A. Oudekerk. 2016. Indicators of School Crime and 

Safety: 2015. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education; U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs; and National Center for Education Statistics.

Zimmerman, Gregory M., and Chad Posick. 2016. “Risk Factors for and Behavioral Consequences of 

Direct Versus Indirect Exposure to Violence.” American Journal of Public Health 106(1):17888.