J. Robert Flores, Administrator November 2003

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Access OJJDP publications online at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

Past Approaches 

To Studying Youth

Victimization

To understand how the risk for violent

victimization varies among adolescents,

researchers have typically relied on two

resources: (1) interview data from selfreport surveys and (2) information from

official records maintained by police

departments and child welfare organizations. Official records provide important

information about the victims who come

to the attention of these agencies (e.g.,

age, sex, race, and circumstances of the

event). For some types of violence, such

as homicide, police data are highly reliable for estimating risk. In fact, for crimes

such as homicide, risk estimates for victimization can only be determined by

using official records.

Fortunately, most violent acts are not

lethal. Unfortunately, about half of serious

violent incidents involving juvenile victimization are not reported to the police or

other officials. This lack of information

presents a serious challenge for determining who is at greatest risk for nonlethal

violence and why (Snyder and Sickmund,

1999; Finkelhor and Ormrod, 1999). Because

of the limitations of official data, self-report

How Families and

Communities Influence 

Youth Victimization

Janet L. Lauritsen

Until recently, researchers studying

how family and community factors influence violent victimization among youth1

faced a significant hurdle: insufficient

data. As a result, the link between these

factors and violent victimization remained largely unexamined. Now, however,

because of a special release of National

Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

data from the U.S. Census Bureau and

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS),

researchers can explore this important

issue in a new light. For the first time,

factors associated with violent victimization are receiving the same critical

attention that has been focused on violent offending. Drawing on newly available NCVS data, this Bulletin offers a

unique analysis of how family and community characteristics affect violent victimization among U.S. youth ages 12–17.

1 In this Bulletin, the phrase “violent victimization

among youth” refers to nonlethal acts of violence

committed against youth ages 12–17.

A Message From OJJDP

When youth are victimized, they

suffer physical, psychological, and

emotional injuries that may take considerable time to heal. The repercussions of youth victimization also affect

their families and communities. Each

victimization represents a tear in the

social fabric that is supposed to

protect children.

With limited data, past research

focused on violent offenders rather

than their victims. As a result of

recently available data from the

National Crime Victimization Survey,

however, researchers can explore

violent victimization in a new light.

Drawing on that data, this Bulletin

explores how individual, family,

and community factors influence

the risk for nonlethal violence among

U.S. youth ages 12–17. By examining

the connection between such factors

and the risk for violent victimization,

the Bulletin shows that disadvantaged

communities with high proportions of

young people and single-parent families experience the greatest difficulty

in protecting youth from victimization.

Understanding how individual,

family, and community factors influence violent victimization is the

first step toward preventing it. With

this knowledge, community leaders

and policymakers can make sound

decisions and implement effective

programs that prevent youth from

becoming victims.
2

surveys based on large random samples

have been especially useful sources for

studying violent victimization. Earlier

research using self-reports has generated

important information about how violence varies among youth. For instance,

self-report surveys show that black youth

experience greater risks for being victims

of serious violent crime than white youth

(Perkins, 1997) and American Indian youth

face the highest risk overall (Snyder and

Sickmund, 1999).

Interpreting these findings, however, can

be problematic. Some researchers will

assume that the risk patterns reflect individual differences in lifestyle activities or

friendships and associations, whereas others will assume that the patterns result

from differences in social, economic, or

family characteristics. Unless research

simultaneously examines individual, family, and community factors, the relative

contribution of each set of characteristics

cannot be isolated, nor can the differences

in risk be fully understood.

This Bulletin describes how individual,

family, and community characteristics

influence the risk for nonlethal violence

among youth. Until now, determining the

relative importance of these factors has

been hampered by a lack of sufficient

data. To facilitate research on this topic

and others, the U.S. Census Bureau and

BJS have made available “area-identified”

NCVS data. These data differ from the

public NCVS files in that they include

state, county, and census tract codes for

each household in the sample. These data

make it possible to link the NCVS victimization information for each household

and person in the sample to other sources

of community-related data available from

the U.S. Census Bureau.

The area-identified NCVS data are used

here to address several important but previously unexamined issues associated

with the risk for nonlethal violence among

U.S. youth. The Bulletin examines the following issues:

◆ The relationship between the types of

families in which adolescents live and

their risk for violent victimization.

◆ The relationship between the types of

communities in which adolescents live

and their risk for violent victimization.

◆ Whether family circumstances are more

important in some kinds of communities than others.

◆ How risk factors vary among youth of

different racial and ethnic groups.

◆ Which risk factors are the most significant for understanding violent victimization among youth.

Using NCVS To Study

Youth Victimization

Before addressing these issues, it is important to describe the advantages and disadvantages of using NCVS data to study

youth victimization. NCVS is a large sample survey designed to be representative

of persons and households in the United

States. In 1995 (the year used for this

analysis), approximately 100,000 persons

in 50,000 households were interviewed

every 6 months about their victimization

experiences. Interviews were conducted

with each person age 12 and older in the

household, and participants were asked

whether they had been the victim of an

attempted or completed violent or personal theft crime.2

Because violence is a relatively rare event

in random samples of the population, the

large sample size of NCVS is useful. Equally important, the sample is designed to be

nationally representative; households are

chosen on the basis of census information

rather than published telephone numbers

or random dialing procedures, which

often produce biased samples. Participation is voluntary, yet more than 90 percent of households surveyed in 1995

agreed to participate in NCVS, making it

one of the most representative social surveys in the country. This Bulletin is based

on approximately 19,000 interviews with

youth ages 12–17.

NCVS data contain family details that are

difficult to find in other surveys of youth.

For example, NCVS captures information on

family income, size, length of residence, and

configuration. Because the area-identified

NCVS data contain census tract codes for

each household or family, numerous indicators about a community (such as neighborhood poverty rates) can be linked to

each household and youth in the survey.

This wealth of information makes it possible to study how individual, family, and

community characteristics are related to

violent victimization among youth and

whether these patterns are similar for

youth living in different types of families.

For this Bulletin, a person is considered

to have been the victim of violence if he

or she reported at least one incident of

attempted or completed assault, robbery,

sexual assault, or rape during a 6-month

period in 1995.3 Simple assault includes

attempted or completed attacks without

a weapon; aggravated assault includes

attempted or completed attacks with a

weapon and completed attacks with serious injury. Robbery includes attempted

or completed thefts by force or threat

of force. Sexual assault and rape include

attempted or completed attacks involving

unwanted sexual contact, verbal threats,

or forced intercourse.

Most violent crimes involving youth are

simple assaults (approximately 72 percent), followed by aggravated assaults

(17 percent), robberies (8 percent), and

sexual assaults and rapes (3 percent).

The majority of these crimes (about 68

percent) are attempted rather than completed incidents of violence (Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 2000).

No data can address all of the questions

raised by a phenomenon as complex as violent victimization, and NCVS is no exception. Although NCVS has many strengths,

its findings have been criticized in the past

for underestimating rape and sexual assault,

nonstranger assaults, and, more generally,

crimes against females (see Bachman and

Saltzman, 1995, and Kindermann, Lynch,

and Cantor, 1997, for a discussion of these

issues). In response to these criticisms,

the survey instrument was redesigned,

and the new measures have shown estimates of female assaults that are comparable to the estimates provided by the

National Violence Against Women Survey

(Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000). This Bulletin draws on data from 1995 because

that was the year when the redesigned

survey was first fully implemented.4

2 A designated household respondent reports on

household experiences with crimes such as burglary,

vandalism, and theft from the property.

3 NCVS measures attempted and completed violent

victimization using a series of survey questions. For

questionnaire details, see Bureau of Justice Statistics

(2000).

4 Information from the decennial census is used to

describe the social and economic characteristics of

communities throughout the United States. The

research described in this Bulletin began before the

release of data from the 2000 census. Although the

data for each community were collected 5 years

before the victimization interviews, they are highly

reliable indicators of area characteristics because

communities change slowly in most places (for more

detail on the area measures, see Lauritsen, 2001).
3

Several limitations of the data should be

noted. First, although the sample is much

more representative than most youth surveys, it does not include youth living in

institutional settings, such as a juvenile

detention facility, or homeless youth. Second, children younger than 12 years old

were not interviewed because of their perceived inability to provide valid and reliable responses to the standard NCVS

questions. The victimization of children

younger than 12 appears to differ from

that of older youth: crimes against young

children are much more likely to involve

family members, whereas crimes against

adolescents are more likely to involve

acquaintances (Finkelhor and Ormrod,

2000). Thus, although the data reveal a

great deal about stranger and acquaintance violence among the majority of

adolescents, it is difficult to determine

whether the patterns reported here apply

to children younger than age 12 or to

crimes such as family violence or child

abuse (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000).

Measuring Family

Characteristics

As described above, NCVS is a householdbased sample that contains important

details about individual families (e.g., family income, size, and length of residence in

the neighborhood). The overall configuration of each household or family is coded

according to 32 different categories. The

main elements of these original categories

delineate whether a family is headed by a

husband and wife or by a single female or

male and whether any children, other relatives, or nonrelatives reside in the household. The relationship between each youth

and the primary adult in the household

is also coded. By combining these three

measures, researchers can distinguish

families in numerous ways. Preliminary

analyses of the statistical validity of the

survey’s family categories, however, indicated that youth could be combined into

two major family types. Initial analyses

also showed that this could be done without masking important distinctions in

either victimization risks or individual

and community characteristics.

The first family type consists of youth living with two married parents. According

to NCVS sample information, nearly 71

percent of youth ages 12–17 live with two

married parents, and the vast majority of

those youth (97 percent) are the children

of the adults. The remaining 3 percent of

youth in this group are typically relatives

of the married couple. Among all youth

living with two married parents, few differences were found between youth living in

households with parents and children and

youth living in households with parents,

children, and others (such as grandparents). Consequently, additional distinctions among families composed of married

couples were not made.

The second family type consists of youth

living in a single-parent or other family

arrangement. According to NCVS sample

information, about 25 percent of youth

live in single-parent families; most of these

youth (91 percent) are the children of the

unmarried adult. Approximately 20 percent of children in these single-parent

families live with their father, whereas

nearly 80 percent live with their mother.

It is important to note that no significant

differences in victimization were found

between youth living with single mothers

and those living with single fathers. Therefore, single-mother and single-father families are combined in these analyses.

Also included in this second category

are the 4 percent of all youth who live

in other family arrangements, including

those living with a grandparent, adult

brother or sister, aunt, uncle, cousin, or

nonrelative. No significant differences in

victimization risk were found between

youth living in single-parent and these

other types of families. Because the relatively small number of youth in this

“other” category does not allow for statistically reliable assessments of risk, youth

in single-parent and other types of families

were combined into one category. Using

the categories described above, NCVS data

indicate that approximately 71 percent of

youth ages 12–17 live with two married parents and 29 percent live in a single-parent

or other family arrangement.5

Measuring Community

Characteristics

Communities are complex places that can

be described in numerous ways. This Bulletin presents two strategies to describe

them. The first strategy relies on a commonly used summary index known as

“community disadvantage” (see Lauritsen,

2001; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls,

1997). This index was created by using

factor analysis, a statistical technique that

helps researchers create summary indexes. The results of factor analysis led to

the creation of a single reliable index

based on five census tract attributes: 

(1) the percentage of persons living in poverty, (2) the percentage of female-headed

families with children, (3) the percentage

of persons unemployed, (4) the percentage

of households receiving public assistance,

and (5) the percentage of the population

that is black.6 By using a single summary

index, it is possible to understand how

violence is generally associated with area

characteristics.

The second research strategy is to study

the relative influence of specific aspects of

community disadvantage, such as poverty,

family composition, and racial and ethnic

composition. This strategy is used to determine which aspects of community disadvantage might be most strongly associated with the risk of violence. Both of these

strategies were used, and the findings are

discussed below.

Findings

Total violence and stranger and nonstranger violence are examined to assess

whether the sources of risk correlate with

certain types of events. Adolescents are

classified as victims of nonstranger violence

if they experienced at least one incident of

attempted or completed violence at the

hands of an offender who was a friend,

acquaintance, or family member.7 Adolescents are classified as victims of stranger

violence if the offender was someone with

whom they had no prior relationship.

important questions, they do permit a more detailed

analysis of youth victimization than has been possible

in the past.

6 The overall reliability of this factor is very high

(alpha=.92). See Lauritsen (2001) for additional details

on the results of this factor analysis and for information about the process of merging the area-identified

NCVS data with census tract data.

7 Because of the small number of cases, conducting

reliable analyses of more specific kinds of nonstranger

violence (e.g., friends versus family members) is not

possible.

5 The “relatives and nonrelatives” of the adult head

of household include a wide variety of persons, such

as brothers, sisters, parents, and boyfriends and girlfriends. Moreover, in many of the families with children and other relatives or nonrelatives, the youth

was that relative or nonrelative (e.g., a youth living

with an aunt and cousins or a youth living with another family). Unfortunately, it is not possible to use these

data to make finer distinctions about various family

types because information about the relationship of

each child to each member of the household is not

available. For instance, it is impossible to determine

whether children living with their mother and grandmother are at lower risk for violence than children

living with their mother and her sister. Also, children

living with their mother and her boyfriend cannot be

compared with those living with their mother and

some other nonrelative because this information is

not available. Although the data cannot address these 
4

To assess how community characteristics

are related to violent victimization, events

that occurred within a youth’s residential

community are examined separately from

those that occurred elsewhere. This distinction is made because NCVS data contain location information on the residential communities of each youth, but not

all incidents of violence take place within

an adolescent’s neighborhood. Although

the majority of violent events occur within

a youth’s neighborhood (defined here as

within 1 mile of his or her home), a substantial minority of violent events (47.0

percent) occur more than 1 mile from

home (see table 1). Therefore, the analyses of how community factors are related

to risk will focus primarily on events that

occur near the victim’s home.

Relationship Between Risk

Factors and Family Types

The risks for total, stranger, and nonstranger violence among youth living in

single-parent/other and two-parent families are presented in table 2. Youth in

single-parent families experience significantly higher risks for violence than youth

in two-parent families. Approximately 60

out of every 1,000 children in single-parent

families reported at least one violent victimization during a 6-month period, whereas approximately 40 out of every 1,000

children in two-parent families were victimized. In other words, the overall risk for

violence is about 50 percent higher among

youth living in single-parent families than

among youth living in two-parent families.

The difference in risks for neighborhood

violence is even more pronounced: youth

in single-parent families are about twice

as likely as youth in two-parent families to

become a victim of violence in their own

neighborhood (40.8 versus 19.9 per 1,000).

Moreover, these levels of risk are significantly higher than those found for most

Americans. In 1995, the 6-month risk for

violence among all Americans (ages 12

and older) was approximately 18 per 1,000

and the risk for neighborhood violence

was roughly 9 per 1,000 (Lauritsen, 2001).

Thus, children living in single-parent families have an overall risk for violent victimization that is about three times higher

than the average American (60 versus 18

per 1,000).

The same differences are found when

stranger and nonstranger violence are

examined separately. For youth in singleparent families, the risks for stranger and

nonstranger violence are about 50 percent

greater than for youth in two-parent families, and the differences in risk for these

events in their own neighborhood are about

twice as great. Similarly, adolescents in

Table 1: Violent Events Involving Youth Ages 12–17, by Proximity to the

Victim’s Home

Distance From Victim’s Home Incidents (%)

In or near the victim’s home 15.9

Not at home, but not more than 1 mile 36.6

More than 1 mile, but not more than 5 miles 31.2

More than 5 miles, but not more than 50 miles 14.4

50 miles or more 1.3

Unknown 0.6

All incidents 100.0

Note: Interviewers marked the first category identified by respondents.

Source: Author’s own data file combining information from the 1995 Area-Identified National Crime

Victimization Survey with census tract information from the 1990 decennial census. Original data

collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Table 2: Rate of Risk for Victimization Among Youth Ages 12–17, by Type of

Violence and Type of Family

Total Stranger Nonstranger

Family All Neighborhood All Neighborhood All Neighborhood

Type Violence Violence Violence Violence Violence Violence

Single-parent/

other 60.5 40.8 36.4 23.6 31.6 22.4

Two-parent* 40.4 19.9 24.0 12.0 21.1 10.2

Note: The rates presented here are 6-month prevalence rates, representing the number of youth 

(per 1,000) who experienced at least one incidence of violence (stranger or nonstranger) during 

the 6-month period.

*All differences in risk between youth in the two family types are statistically significant at p < .05.

Source: Author’s own data file combining information from the 1995 area-identified National Crime

Victimization Survey with census tract information from the 1990 decennial census. Original data

collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Describing Risk

The risk for victimization can be

described in various ways. Prevalence rates (such as those used

here) describe the probability that

a youth will become a victim of violence during a 6-month period. These

rates are calculated by taking the

total number of young victims of violence and dividing that number by

the total number of youth. Victimization rates—the measure used by the

Bureau of Justice Statistics—reveal

the number of victimizations experienced by a population. Victimization

rates differ from prevalence rates

because some victims of violence

experience more than one event in a

6-month period and because a single

incident of crime can have multiple

victims. BJS reports use victimization

rates covering a 1-year period to

measure the total volume of crime.

Prevalence rates are used here

because most victims of violence

experience only a single incident in

a 6-month period and because these

numbers provide a more intuitive

understanding of the likelihood that a

youth will become a victim of violence.
5

below the poverty line is about 56 percent

greater (18.1 percent versus 11.6 percent)

and the proportion of female-headed families is about 58 percent higher (27.4 percent versus 17.3 percent). Compared with

youth living in two-parent families, youth

in single-parent families are nearly twice

as likely to be living in central-city areas

(39.7 percent versus 21.7 percent) and in

places with a greater percentage of black

residents (24.0 percent versus 10.6 percent).

These patterns emphasize the importance

of considering community characteristics

as a potential explanation for why children in different types of families experience varying levels of violence.

Relationship Between Risk

Factors and Community Types

Figure 1 (page 6) illustrates how adolescents’ risk for neighborhood violence is

related to the overall level of socioeconomic disadvantage in their community.

At the 50th percentile, approximately 26 of

every 1,000 youth were victimized by violence. The shape of the curve in figure 1 is

essentially the same when stranger and

nonstranger violence are examined separately. The community type in which the

average white, Latino, and black youth

live is also noted in the figure and demonstrates, for example, that black youth tend

to live in areas that are more disadvantaged than Latino and white youth.

Figure 1 shows that community disadvantage does not have a substantial influence

on violence risk until the 80th percentile.

For most youth (about 80 percent of the

adolescent population), community characteristics are unlikely to account for the

differences in their risk for violence. However, for the 20 percent of youth in the

least advantaged communities, the risk

for violence is much higher. In these areas,

the likelihood that an adolescent will

become a victim of violence is significantly

higher than for youth living outside these

communities.9

single-parent families are about three

times more likely to experience stranger

violence and three times more likely to

experience nonstranger violence than the

average American.

To understand why youth in single-parent

families experience greater risk for violence than youth in two-parent families,

it is important to consider how family

circumstances determine other factors in

the lives of youth. Because NCVS data are

representative of U.S. adolescents and

have been linked to census information,

the data reveal a great deal about the differences in the family and community

resources available to these two groups

of children. Table 3 shows how various

factors differ according to family type.

Many factors are related to the types of

families in which youth live. For instance,

adolescents in single-parent families tend

to live in households that have significantly less income than two-parent families.

The typical income of single-parent families is roughly half that of two-parent families.8 Single-parent families also tend to

have less residential stability—that is, they

are more likely to have moved recently

and have lived in their current home for

significantly shorter periods of time than

two-parent families. Research shows that

the length of time individuals have resided

in their home is related to the risk for victimization (Bureau of Justice Statistics,

2000; Lauritsen, 2001). (See below for a

discussion of how family residential stability is also an important predictor of the

risk for youth victimization.)

Because residential housing often is economically segregated, communities surrounding single-parent families tend to be

more economically disadvantaged than

those surrounding two-parent families.

On average, youth in single-parent families

live in areas with significantly higher rates

of poverty and a greater proportion of

other single-parent families. Compared

with youth living in two-parent families,

youth in single-parent families live in areas

where the proportion of persons living

8 NCVS uses 14 categories of nonequal income brackets to measure household income. For this reason,

household income and group differences in household income can only be estimated. On the 14-point

scale, the average single-parent household income

is 6.9 (where 6=$17,500 and 7=$20,000), whereas the

average two-parent household income is 10.6 (where

10=$30,000 and 11=$35,000).

Table 3: Family and Community Characteristics for Youth in Single- and

Two-Parent Families

Single-Parent/Other Two-Parent

Characteristic (n = 5,460) (n = 14,338)

Family

Estimated household income 

(in thousands) 19.8 33.0*

Household size (number of persons) 3.7 4.6*

Length of residence (in years) 6.2 8.6*

Community

Central-city residence (%) 39.7 21.7*

Below poverty level (%) 18.1 11.6*

Population less than 18 years old (%) 26.2 25.9

Black (%) 24.0 10.6*

Latino (%) 12.6 9.4

White (%) 60.8 77.2*

Female-headed households with 

children (%) 27.4 17.3*

Community disadvantage score† .35 –.23*

* Indicates that the differences between youth in the two family types are statistically significant 

at p < .05.

† Community disadvantage is a standardized index; therefore, a score of “0” represents the average

level of disadvantage in the United States. For 95 percent of the youth population, the values range

from –1 to +2, with higher values indicating greater levels of disadvantage. The remaining 5 percent

live in areas that score between +2 and +3.

Source: Author’s own data file combining information from the 1995 area-identified National Crime

Victimization Survey with census tract information from the 1990 decennial census. Original data

collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.

9 The upturn shown in figure 1 (between community

disadvantage and youth victimization) is similar to that

found in analyses of adults (Lauritsen and White, 2001).
6

The 10 percent of youth who live in the

most disadvantaged communities experience the highest risks of neighborhood

violence in the country. In these areas,

nearly 58 of every 1,000 youth reported

at least one incident of violence during

a 6-month period—a level that is almost

twice as high as that for adults living in

the same areas (Lauritsen, 2001) and

approximately 6 times greater than the

risk for neighborhood violence among

all Americans (58 versus 9 per 1,000).

Although age is a well-known correlate

of risk, the combination of age and community disadvantage is associated with

some of the highest levels of nonlethal

violent victimization in the country.

As noted earlier, the general index of

community disadvantage is one way of

describing the economic and social composition of a neighborhood, but what

components of this disadvantage index

are most responsible for the higher levels

of risk? Ascertaining a clear answer to

this question is difficult because most

components of disadvantage are interrelated. For example, areas with high proportions of female-headed households

with children tend to have higher rates

of poverty. Nonetheless, statistical techniques provide some insight into this

important issue.

To determine which components of the

disadvantage index are most responsible

for higher levels of risk, the relationships

between victimization and each of the

components of disadvantage (i.e., poverty,

unemployment, public assistance, race,

ethnicity, and family composition) were

examined in a series of analyses. Of these

factors, poverty, family composition (i.e.,

female-headed households with children),

and race (e.g., the percent of persons who

are black) were most strongly associated

with an adolescent’s risk for violent victimization. In urban samples, these characteristics tend to be extremely difficult to

separate because many U.S. cities are segregated along economic and racial lines

(see, for example, Sampson, Raudenbush,

and Earls, 1997). NCVS, however, includes

a representative sample of persons and

places outside central cities where the

statistical problems associated with separating these aspects of communities are

reduced. In this sample, poverty, family

composition, and race were examined

simultaneously. The results of these analyses are presented in table 4.

These analyses reveal that one of the most

important community predictors of youth

risk for violence is the proportion of

female-headed households with children.

Results show that the other important

correlates of risk (i.e., levels of poverty

and race) are not statistically significant

when family composition is taken into

account. Moreover, the results show that

the effect of the family composition coefficient does not change significantly once

racial composition and poverty levels are

included in the analysis. This evidence

suggests that youth face a higher risk

for victimization in disadvantaged areas

because these places contain greater proportions of children living in single-parent

families—not because they tend to be

poorer or have larger percentages of

racial and ethnic minorities.10

The patterns described above show that

an adolescent’s family type is related to

risk and that certain characteristics of

the community also are associated with

victimization. Figure 2 examines whether

community disadvantage has a similar

influence on victimization among youth

in single- and two-parent families.

Figure 2 reveals an important connection

between families and communities that

is not apparent when these factors are

examined individually. When community

factors become increasingly important,

they do so primarily for youth living in

single-parent families. Compared with

youth who live in single-parent families,

adolescents in two-parent families appear

to be much better protected from the consequences of living in the most disadvantaged areas. In the most disadvantaged

areas of the United States, approximately

66 percent of youth live in single-parent/

other families, compared with about 28

percent in the rest of the country. In areas

characterized by the highest socioeconomic disadvantage, the ability of families to monitor and supervise children’s

activities is particularly important. Under

conditions of serious community disadvantage, youth in single-parent families

experience much greater levels of victimization risk than youth living in singleparent families in more advantaged places

or youth in two-parent families, regardless

of area of residence.

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Neighborhood Violent

Victimization (per 1,000)

Community Disadvantage Percentile*

White youth

Black youth 

Latino youth

Figure 1: Risk of Youth Victimization, by Level of Community Disadvantage

* Community disadvantage is measured by a summary index that describes the relative level

of socioeconomic disadvantage in an area. The numbers on this scale represent the percentile

or ranking of the community according to this index for all census tracts in the nation.

Source: Author’s own data file combining information from the 1995 area-identified National

Crime Victimization Survey with census tract information from the 1990 decennial census.

Original data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.

10 Additional analyses found that residential stability (an index representing the percent of persons who have lived in their home for more than

5 years and the percent of housing units that are

occupied) is unrelated to youth victimization

once disadvantage is taken into account. Similarly,

no significant relationship was found between

the percent of foreign-born persons or the percent of Latino residents and victimization risk

(see Lauritsen, 2001).
7

Relationship Between Risk

Factors and Racial and

Ethnic Groups

Because family and community characteristics vary among racial and ethnic

groups in the United States, it is important

to consider differences in victimization

risk across racial and ethnic groups. With

this in mind, NCVS race and ethnicity

items were combined to create three

major racial and ethnic groups. Table 5

(page 8) presents the risks for adolescent

Table 4: Key Components of Community Disadvantage, by Type of 

Victimization

Component of Type of Victimization

Disadvantage Total Stranger Nonstranger

Female-headed households .017* (.007) .023* (.008) .014* (.008)

Racial composition .000 (.003) .000 (.004) –.003 (.004)

Poverty .001 (.008) –.007 (.010) .009 (.009)

Constant –3.940* (.107) –4.499* (.133) –4.603* (.140)

Note: These logistic regression coefficients are provided for researchers interested in the technical

aspects of these analyses.

*Statistically significant at p < .05.

Source: Author’s own data file combining information from the 1995 area-identified National Crime

Victimization Survey with census tract information from the 1990 decennial census. Original data

collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Neighborhood Violent

Victimization (per 1,000)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Single-parent/other families Two-parent families

Community Disadvantage Percentile*

Figure 2: Risk of Youth Victimization, by Level of Community

Disadvantage and Family Type

* Community disadvantage is measured by a summary index that describes the relative level

of socioeconomic disadvantage in an area. The numbers on this scale represent the percentile

or ranking of the community according to this index for all census tracts in the nation.

Source: Author’s own data file combining information from the 1995 area-identified National

Crime Victimization Survey with census tract information from the 1990 decennial census.

Original data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.

How the Data Are

Analyzed

The study of community influences

on victimization risk involves a statistical technique known as surveyweighted logistic regression analysis.

By conducting a series of analyses,

it is possible to assess the relative

contribution of a variety of neighborhood conditions. Because many

community characteristics are highly

correlated, researchers must carefully examine the statistical properties of their analyses.

The results in table 4 indicate that

when the family, economic, and racial

characteristics of a community are

considered simultaneously, the area

of disadvantage that has the most

direct relationship with victimization

risk is the percent of households

headed by females with children. As

discussed in this report, poverty and

racial composition are related to victimization. However, when all three

factors are considered simultaneously,

poverty and racial composition appear

to be less important than family composition. These findings support the

notion that communities with relatively fewer adults in children’s homes

have greater difficulty minimizing

adolescents’ risk for violence.

For those interested in the technical

details of these analyses, table 4

presents survey-weighted logistic

regression coefficients and standard errors. In bivariate regression

models, each of the three measures

was significantly related to victimization. Robustness testing of the

multivariate findings was determined

by running a series of models and

comparing the stability of the coefficients. The coefficients for family

composition in the bivariate models

were .017, .020, and .015 for total,

stranger, and nonstranger violence,

respectively. The coefficients for

racial composition and poverty varied widely, depending on model

specification. Variance inflation factor (VIF) tests revealed no serious

multicollinearity problems among the

three factors (average VIF = 2.89),

despite bivariate correlations ranging

from .51 to .74. Moreover, the family

composition coefficients were not

significantly affected by controls for

individual factors.
8

victimization for black, white, and Latino

youth by gender and type of violence.

In this Bulletin, “black” refers to non-Latino

blacks, “white” refers to non-Latino whites,

and “Latino” refers to respondents who

identify themselves as Hispanic regardless

of race. Although Hispanics may be of any

race, in 1995 approximately 90 percent of

Hispanics reported that they were white,

6 percent reported that they were black,

and 4 percent reported that they were

another racial category (primarily American Indian). Youth were classified into

these three groups (black, white, and Latino) for two reasons. First, these designations represent popular understandings of

the nation’s major racial and ethnic groups.

Second, without this classification, traditional “white versus black” comparisons

result in overestimated risks among whites

because Hispanics are most often classified

as white. Similarly, the traditional “Hispanic

versus non-Hispanic” comparison underestimates group differences because nonHispanic whites and blacks are combined

in the “non-Hispanic” category. Using the

classification described here, approximately 16 percent of youth are black, 13 percent are Latino, and 71 percent are white.

Table 5 shows that the risk for total,

stranger, and nonstranger violence is

significantly higher among young males

than it is among young females. Beyond

this broad statement, however, the data

show a rather complex pattern of differences among youth according to race, ethnicity, and gender. Black, white, and Latino youth, regardless of sex, show roughly

equal risks for nonstranger violence. Differences emerge primarily in the category

of stranger violence. Compared with black

and Latino adolescents, white youth face

a lower risk of stranger violence in their

own neighborhood or community. (Racial

and ethnic differences are explored further in the remaining analyses of individual, family, and community risk factors.)

Individual, Family, and

Community Risk Factors

Research has shown that several factors

are related to the risk for violent victimization among youth. Because some of

these factors are interrelated, it is important to study them simultaneously to

determine which are most strongly associated with violence and which are associated with violence only because they are

related to other, more important factors.

This type of analysis has been difficult

because data on individual, family, and

community factors are rare. This study’s

final set of results describes how these

factors are related to the risk for victimization among U.S. youth when the factors

are examined simultaneously. Separate

findings are reported for total violence

and for stranger and nonstranger violence

because somewhat different patterns were

found, depending on the victim-offender

relationship. A summary of the findings

appears in table 6.

Individual risk factors. The individual factors examined include age, sex, race and

ethnicity, and time spent at home in an

average week. Data show that violent victimization in general and violent victimization in one’s neighborhood are significantly related to age, sex, and time spent at

home. In general, older adolescents face a

lower risk for victimization than younger

adolescents, and males report more violence than females. In addition, the more

evenings that adolescents spend at home

in a typical week, the less violence they are

likely to experience. However, violence risk

is unrelated to race or ethnicity once family and community factors are controlled.

Individual risk factors vary somewhat if

prediction is focused on stranger versus

nonstranger events. Age is significantly

associated with nonstranger violence but

not with stranger violence. That is, younger

and older adolescents experience similar

levels of stranger violence, but older youth

suffer less nonstranger violence. Findings

show important declines in nonstranger

violence for the 12–17 age range, which

suggests that physical, cognitive, and

emotional maturation help to make youth

less vulnerable to violence by nonstrangers.

Likewise, the persistent level of stranger

violence risk may simply reflect the fact

that contact with strangers increases during adolescence. It may also indicate that

developmental processes do not offer

increased protection for this type of event.11

Gender differences associated with violence

risk exist, but they depend on the type of

violence. Male youth experience significantly higher levels of stranger violence, whereas male and female adolescents report

similar levels of nonstranger violence.

Time spent at home in the evenings—a

commonly used indicator of a person’s

lifestyle—is generally associated with lower

levels of all forms of youth violence, except

for nonstranger events in the neighborhood. This exception is likely a consequence of the fact that a larger proportion

of nonstranger victimization takes place

in or near the home. Overall, this behavioral measure had one of the strongest

relationships to violence risk: youth who

spent more evenings at home in a typical

week were least likely to be victims of

stranger and nonstranger violence.

Table 5: Risk for Stranger and Nonstranger Violence (per 1,000 youth 

ages 12–17), by Gender and Race and Ethnicity 

Total Stranger Nonstranger

All Neighborhood All Neighborhood All Neighborhood

Gender Violence Violence Violence Violence Violence Violence

Male 53.5 30.8 34.9 20.2 25.0 14.4

Black 53.6 39.9 35.8 27.1 25.5 17.1

Latino 65.2 42.6 43.4 31.2 24.4 13.1

White 51.4 26.6 33.2 16.6 25.0 14.0

Female 38.4 20.6 19.8 10.1 23.1 12.8

Black 50.9 34.2 24.3 14.2 30.1 22.7

Latino 32.3 20.3 22.7 14.1 16.3 10.3

White 36.6 17.5 18.2 8.5 22.7 11.0

Note: The rates presented here are 6-month prevalence rates, representing the number of youth 

(per 1,000) who experienced at least one incidence of violence (stranger or nonstranger) during 

the 6-month period.

Source: Author’s own data file combining information from the 1995 area-identified National Crime

Victimization Survey with census tract information from the 1990 decennial census. Original data

collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.

11 See Finkelhor (1997) for a discussion of developmental processes and youth victimization.
9

Although white youth generally experience lower levels of nonlethal violence

than minority youth, these differences disappear once family and community factors are taken into account. This result

mirrors findings from recent analyses of

adults (Lauritsen and White, 2001) and

is important because it shows that racial

and ethnic differences in nonlethal violence among youth are primarily a reflection of community and family differences,

rather than the result of being part of a

particular racial or ethnic group. The lack

of significant differences across groups

also is important because it suggests that

the sources of risk are similar for all adolescents, regardless of their race or ethnicity. In additional analyses (not shown),

black, white, and Latino youth were examined separately to assess potential differences and similarities. These results found

no significant variation in the individual,

family, and community risk factors for violent victimization across the three groups.

In other words, family and community

characteristics serve as important sources

of risk and protection, and none of the

three groups exhibited unique risk factors

for violent victimization.

Family risk factors. Variations in household income and size and length of residence in the current home were examined

alongside family type to determine their

possible influence on violence. Of these

factors, neither income nor size was associated with risk once other individual,

family, and community factors were considered. The fact that household income

does not have a direct association with

risk suggests that youth in single-parent

families are not at higher risk because

their own families are poor. Rather, they

are at higher risk because they are more

likely to be living in areas of greater

socioeconomic disadvantage—areas with

higher concentrations of single-parent

families and young persons.

Earlier it was noted that youth in singleparent families are at higher risk for

stranger and nonstranger violence and

that these differences are especially pronounced in the most disadvantaged communities. However, when other individual

and community factors are taken into

account, a noteworthy distinction emerges

between stranger and nonstranger victimization risk patterns. Differences in nonstranger violence across family types

remain associated with the level of disadvantage in an area, but differences in

stranger violence do not appear to be contingent on the characteristics of the community. Similar research using additional

years of data is necessary to determine

whether family type is consistently related to violence risk or whether stranger

and nonstranger violence pose unique

challenges, depending on family type.

Although family type remains related

to violence risk when other factors are

Table 6: Individual, Family, and Community Predictors of Violence Among Youth

Total Stranger Nonstranger

All Neighborhood All Neighborhood All Neighborhood

Violence Violence Violence Violence Violence Violence

Individual Factor

Age *(–) *(–) ns ns *(–) *(–)

Male *(+) *(+) *(+) *(+) ns ns

Black ns ns ns ns ns ns

Latino ns ns ns ns ns ns

Time spent at home *(–) *(–) *(–) *(–) *(–) ns

Family Factor

Household income ns ns ns ns ns ns

Household size ns ns ns ns ns ns

Length of residence

in current home *(–) *(–) *(–) *(–) *(–) *(–)

Single-parent family */(+) */(+) *(+) *(+) */(+) */(+)

Community Factor

Central-city resident ns ns ns ns ns ns

Below poverty level ns ns ns ns ns ns

Population less than

18 years old *(+) *(+) ns *(+) *(+) *(+)

Black ns ns ns ns ns ns

Latino ns ns ns ns ns ns

Female-headed

households with children */(+) */(+) *(+) *(+) */(+) */(+)

*(–) indicates a significant negative effect.

*(+) indicates a significant positive effect.

*/(+) indicates a significant interaction effect (i.e., youth in single-parent families have significantly greater risk, especially in highly disadvantaged areas).

ns = not significant.

Source: Author’s own data file combining information from the 1995 area-identified National Crime Victimization Survey with census tract information from

the 1990 decennial census. Original data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau.
10

considered, the family characteristic found

to have the strongest influence on risk was

length of residence in the current home.

Length of residence is related to stranger

and nonstranger victimization risk, even

among adults.12 Youth who have been living in their current home for longer periods of time are less likely to be victimized

by stranger or nonstranger violence. One

interpretation of this finding is that children who have lived in their homes longer

are more likely to be familiar with their

communities and are better able to know

whether certain locations or persons in

the area are safe or dangerous. It is also

possible that youth whose families often

move have other risk factors not considered here (e.g., recent school or family

disruptions and involvement in delinquency). Additionally, this finding may reflect

the fact that it takes time for children and

their families to develop ties and make

friends in new neighborhoods, and that

without established neighborhood ties,

these “new kids on the block” are less

likely to be protected by others.

Community risk factors. In general, youth

living in the most disadvantaged areas

experience the highest risks for violence,

and the most important element of community disadvantage is the percent of

female-headed households with children.

This statement is true even when other

individual, family, and community factors

are controlled. However, another community characteristic has a consistent and

independent effect on the risk for youth

victimization: the percentage of persons

in the area who are younger than 18 years

old. Adolescents who live in areas with

high proportions of young people are

more likely to be victimized by violence—

especially nonstranger violence. This relationship may not be surprising because

violent offending is more prevalent among

adolescents than adults and persons tend

to associate with others of similar age.

However, the proportion of youth in an

area does not affect the risk for violent

victimization among adults (Lauritsen,

2001). Rather than simply reflecting the

number of potential offenders, the proportion of youth in an area is likely to represent the challenges that families and communities face when relatively few adults

are available to supervise and protect

large numbers of youth.

Conclusion

Social scientists have a long tradition of

studying how communities can be important sources of protection from violence

and disorder. Similarly, many communitybased programs have been designed to prevent violence among youth (Osofsky, 2001).

Most research and practice emphasize

increasing levels of informal social control

(e.g., adult monitoring of children’s playgroups and residents’ willingness to intervene in youth disturbances) rather than

promoting more formal social control

(e.g., increased policing). 

Community-based research shows that

levels of informal social control are important factors in reducing adult victimization

in a community (Sampson and Groves,

1989; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls,

1997). Informal social control takes advantage of both natural surveillance and residents’ local networks to help maintain

peace and order in a community. Communities tend to have less capacity for informal social control when they lack economic and political resources and the kind of

stability that permits the development of

strong ties to the local area. The research

in this Bulletin shows that communities

will have the most difficulty protecting

youth from victimization if they are highly

disadvantaged and, more specifically, if

they have high proportions of young people and single-parent families. These conditions make preventing violence difficult

because fewer adults are available to monitor youth activities. In addition, those

adults who are available are more economically distressed and have less time

and incentive to develop strong community networks. These findings suggest that

youth victimization prevention programs

and postvictimization services should be

allocated according to an area’s family

and age composition rather than economic and racial or ethnic factors.

This research also suggests that youth

victimization prevention and services

should place more emphasis on youth in

single-parent families. Earlier research has

not paid sufficient attention to how families help reduce violence risk among adolescents. This study suggests that family

type and length of residence are associated

with risk, even when household economic

resources and community factors are controlled. Additional research is needed to

determine what accounts for the remaining differences in risk across youth in

single- and two-parent families.

The finding that children in single-parent

families are at higher risk for victimization

than children in two-parent families may

reflect the influence of recent disruptions

in the youth’s lives. To assess the impact

of recent family and/or school disruption

on youth victimization requires the use of

prospective longitudinal data that contain

information on individuals, their families,

and communities over time.

Nonetheless, it appears that youth are

at the greatest risk for stranger and nonstranger victimization when they spend

less time at home and when they have

lived in their homes for shorter periods of

time. Although being away from parental

surveillance and in less familiar environments may seem like obvious risk factors

to many parents and adolescents, the

magnitude of their importance has probably been underestimated. This research

shows that these two factors are the

strongest and most consistent of all the

characteristics examined above. Although

communities can serve as important

sources of informal social control and

help guard against youth victimization,

parents can help reduce their children’s

risk by recognizing the special difficulties

they face due to residential changes and

by closely monitoring children’s activities

when they are away from home.

References

Bachman, R., and Saltzman, L. 1995. Violence Against Women: Estimates From the

Redesigned Survey. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2000. Criminal

Victimization in the United States, 1995.

National Crime Victimization Survey Report.

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

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Finkelhor, D. 1997. Developmental victimology. In Victims of Crime, 2d ed., edited by

R. Davis, A. Lurigio, and W. Skogan. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Finkelhor, D., and Ormrod, R. 1999. Reporting Crimes Against Juveniles. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

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

12 The 1995 NCVS data show that victimization rates

vary considerably with length of time in the current

home. Among all respondents, victimization rates

were 113.6 (per 1,000) for persons in the home 6

months or less, 72.8 for 6 months to 1 year, 57.9 for

1–2 years, 46.5 for 2–3 years, 41.9 for 3–4 years, 44.5

for 4–5 years, and 29.1 for 5 years or more. Rates

for the period 6 months or less are believed to be

overestimates because many of those interviews

are unbounded (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).

Nonetheless, for length of residence beyond 6 months,

the declines persist.
11

Finkelhor, D., and Ormrod, R. 2000. Characteristics of Crimes Against Juveniles.

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Kindermann, C., Lynch, J., and Cantor, D.

1997. Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Lauritsen, J. 2001. The social ecology of

violent victimization: Individual and contextual effects in the NCVS. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 17(1):3–32.

Lauritsen, J., and White, N. 2001. Putting

violence in its place: The effects of race,

ethnicity, gender, and place on the risk

for violence. Criminology & Public Policy

1(1):37–60.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. 2000. Children as Victims. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Osofsky, J. 2001. Addressing Youth Victimization. Action Plan Update (October) for

the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

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

Perkins, C. 1997. Age Patterns of Victims of

Serious Violent Crime. Report. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Sampson, R., and Groves, W.B. 1989. Community structures and crime: Testing social

disorganization theory. American Journal

of Sociology 94:774–802.

Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., and Earls, F.

1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: 

A multilevel study of collective efficacy.

Science 277:918–924.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National

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

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Tjaden, P., and Thoennes, N. 2000. Full

Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and

Consequences of Violence Against Women.

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

Institute of Justice.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was prepared by Janet L. Lauritsen, Ph.D., Professor of Criminology

and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis, and Visiting Research Fellow

at the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Support for this research was provided by OJJDP and the American Statistical

Association Committee on Law and Justice Statistics. Data for the analyses were

made available through the National Consortium on Violence Research (National

Science Foundation #SBR 9513040) under the supervision of the U.S. Census

Bureau and in cooperation with the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The author thanks Alfred Blumstein, Ph.D., Dave Merrell, Ph.D., and Renee Fields,

Ph.D., for their assistance in accessing the data. The author also thanks Brian

Wiersema for sharing his NCVS expertise and Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D., for his

helpful comments on this report. None of the above agencies or persons bears

any responsibility for the findings presented here.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention is a component of the Office of

Justice Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number

1999–JN–FK–K002 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Find OJJDP Products 

Online

It’s Fast

It’s Easy

It’s Free

Want to know more about the

issues in this publication or related information?

Log on to www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp:

➤ Browse titles alphabetically or by topic.

➤ Discover the latest OJJDP releases.

➤ Subscribe to OJJDP’s listserv JUVJUST

and the electronic newsletter JUSTINFO.

➤ Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Database

to search for publications of

interest.

Find OJJDP Products 

Online
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 201629

*NCJ~201629*