childhood criminal behavior
Breezyyybug
comorbidity.pd_.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator
From the Administrator
Seriously delinquent youth often ex- hibit other problem behaviors. Under- standing the extent of overlap be- tween delinquency and these other problem behaviors is important for developing effective prevention strat- egies and targeted interventions.
Using data from the first 3 years of OJJDP’s Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delin- quency, this Bulletin examines the co-occurrence of serious delinquency with specific problem areas: school behavior, drug use, mental health, and combinations of these behaviors.
Preliminary findings show that a large proportion of serious delinquents are not involved in persistent drug use, nor do they have persistent school or mental health problems; that the problem that co-occurs most fre- quently with serious delinquency is drug use; and that, for males, as the number of problem behaviors other than delinquency increases, so does the likelihood that an individual will be a serious delinquent.
These findings emphasize the impor- tance of identifying and addressing the unique needs of individual youth, rather than proceeding under the as- sumption that all offenders require similar treatment, to most effectively prevent and reduce serious, chronic delinquency.
John J. Wilson Acting Administrator
November 2000
Some studies of youth who have been incarcerated or arrested suggest that the overlap of these problems is substantial (see references in Huizinga and Jakob- Chien, 1998). However, not all youth in- volved in illegal behaviors are arrested or come in contact with the juvenile jus- tice system. Understanding the extent of overlap of these problem behaviors re- quires studies based on representative samples drawn from complete popula- tions of youth, where the examination of overlap is not limited to particular sub- groups defined by official delinquency, school issues, or mental health status. However, there are only a few studies of national or community samples that ex- amine these issues.1
Answers to the questions posed above are important because a large overlap may indicate general risk factors that prevention and intervention initiatives should address. On the other hand, a small overlap may indicate that preven- tion and intervention initiatives should be more tailored to risk factors related to the specific problem behaviors of in- dividual youth.
1 See, for example, Elliott and Huizinga, 1989; Elliott, Huizinga, and Menard, 1989; Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry, 1993.
Co-occurrence of Delinquency and Other Problem Behaviors
David Huizinga, Rolf Loeber, Terence P. Thornberry, and Lynn Cothern
This Bulletin is part of the Office of Juve- nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Youth Development Series, which presents findings from the Program of Re- search on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency. Teams at the University at Albany, State University of New York; the University of Colorado; and the University of Pittsburgh collaborated extensively in designing the studies. At study sites in Roch- ester, New York; Denver, Colorado; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the three research teams have interviewed 4,000 participants at regular intervals for a decade, recording their lives in detail. Findings to date indi- cate that preventing delinquency requires accurate identification of the risk factors that increase the likelihood of delinquent behavior and the protective factors that enhance positive adolescent development.
This Bulletin examines the co-occurrence or overlap of serious delinquency with drug use, problems in school, and mental health problems. Many youth who are seri- ously delinquent also experience difficulty in other areas of life. However, with the exception of the co-occurrence of drug use and delinquency, little is known about the overlap of these problem behaviors in general populations. Do most youth who commit serious delinquent acts have school and mental health problems? Are most youth who have school or mental health problems also seriously delinquent?
2
Many youth are only intermittently in- volved in serious delinquency, violence, or gang membership, and involvement often lasts only a single year during ado- lescence.2 For this reason, of greater con- cern are youth who have a more sus- tained involvement in delinquency, whose involvement is often considered more problematic and serious. Thus, this Bulle- tin is based on research that focuses on persistent serious delinquency and per- sistent school and mental health prob- lems lasting 2 years or more.
One of the few current research projects that has adequate information to allow an examination of the co-occurrence of per- sistent problem behaviors in general popu- lations is OJJDP’s Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency. The data presented in this Bulletin come from the first 3 years of this project. The Program of Research involves the Denver Youth Survey, the Pittsburgh Youth Study, and the Rochester Youth Development Study. These studies use prospective longi- tudinal designs, which allow examination of developmental processes over the life course. The projects involved more than 4,000 inner-city children and youth who, at the beginning of the research (1987–88), ranged in age from 7 to 15 years. Research- ers interviewed these children and one parent of each child in private settings at regular intervals.
The selection of youth varied from study to study. The Denver Youth Survey sample con- sists of 1,527 youth (806 boys and 721 girls) who were ages 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 in 1987. These respondents came from the more than 20,000 households randomly drawn from high-risk neighborhoods in Denver, CO. The Pittsburgh Youth Study began by ran- domly sampling boys who were in the first, fourth, and seventh grades in public schools in Pittsburgh, PA, in 1987. Through inter- views with each boy, his parent, and his teacher, researchers selected the 30 percent of these boys who had the most disruptive behavior. The final Pittsburgh sample con- sists of 1,517 boys, including the 30 percent who were the most disruptive; the remain- der were randomly selected. The Rochester Youth Development Study sample consists of 1,000 randomly selected students who were in the seventh and eighth grades in public schools in Rochester, NY, in the spring semester of the 1988 school year.
Edelbrock, 1982). In all cases, persistent problems were problems that occurred in at least 2 of the 3 years examined.
Prevalence of Persistent Problem Behavior Most problem behaviors are intermittent or transitory. Most youth who exhibit prob- lem behaviors do so only during a single year, a pattern that holds true for all of the problems examined in this Bulletin. The next most common pattern is 2 years, and the third is 3 years (see table 1). This Bulletin focuses on persistent serious de- linquency and persistent problem behav- ior occurring for 2 years or more.
Across all three study sites, the prevalence of persistent problem behavior was gener- ally consistent (see figure 1). Twenty to thirty percent of males were serious de- linquents; 14–17 percent were drug users; 7–22 percent had school problems; and 7–14 percent had mental health problems. In Rochester, where a greater number of males dropped out of school than in the other sites, 22 percent of males had school problems. The dropout rate for boys in
Table 1: Number of Years of Involvement in Problem Behavior
Number Percentage of Males Percentage of Females
of Years Denver Pittsburgh Rochester Denver Rochester
Serious Delinquency
0 48.6 42.4 58.3 75.3 77.5 1 27.8 28.0 21.4 19.5 17.4 2 14.7 19.7 14.0 4.2 3.9 3 9.0 10.0 6.3 1.0 1.1
Drug Use
0 66.4 61.4 69.7 72.1 68.1 1 19.4 23.5 13.9 17.3 19.7 2 7.9 9.7 9.0 6.7 7.3 3 6.3 5.3 7.5 3.9 4.9
Poor Academic Grades in School
0 80.3 80.7 86.7 85.5 86.6 1 15.6 18.0 9.3 11.0 10.8 2 3.2 1.1 3.5 3.2 2.6 3 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0
Externalizing Behavioral Problems*
0 82.9 83.0 74.4 84.3 82.3 1 11.4 9.4 13.7 11.0 8.2 2 5.6 4.6 9.2 4.7 6.3 3 — 3.0 2.8 — 3.2
*Behavioral problems such as hyperactivity and aggression. This measure is available for only 2 years at the Denver site.
3 These terms represent broad groupings of behavioral problems—internalizing refers to personality or emo- tional problems and externalizing refers to behavioral problems such as hyperactivity and aggression.
This Bulletin summarizes the findings of these studies to give a picture of the co- occurrence of persistent serious delin- quency with persistent drug use, problems in school, mental health problems, and combinations of these problems. For the purposes of this Bulletin, persistent seri- ous delinquency is defined as involvement as an offender in serious assault or serious property offenses in at least 2 of the 3 years examined. To avoid repetition, the use of the term “persistent” is often omit- ted, but it applies to all the behaviors dis- cussed. Drug problems include the use of marijuana, inhalants, cocaine or crack, heroin, angel dust (PCP), psychedelics, amphetamines, tranquilizers, or barbitu- rates. School problems were defined as having below-average grades (D or F) or having dropped out of school. Mental health problems were indicated if the per- son was in the top 10 percent of the distri- bution of internalizing or externalizing symptoms3 of a subset of items from the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach and
2 Elliott, Huizinga, and Morse, 1986; Huizinga, Esbensen, and Weiher, 1994; Thornberry et al., 1993; Esbensen and Huizinga, 1993.
3
Rochester was 18.5 percent, as compared with 3.1 percent in Denver and 6.2 percent in Pittsburgh. Combining the overall fig- ures and ignoring the high dropout rate in Rochester, roughly 25 percent of males were serious delinquents, 15 percent were drug users, 7 percent had school problems, and 10 percent had mental health problems.
Females were studied in Denver and Roch- ester, but not in Pittsburgh. Among females, the overall figures indicated that 5 percent were serious delinquents, 11–12 percent were drug users, 10–21 percent had school problems, and 6–11 percent had mental health problems (see figure 2). A greater proportion of males than females were persistent serious delinquents. Gender differences are small, however, when com- paring drug use, problems in school, and mental health problems at each site.
Drug Use The results of the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency support the robust relationship between drug use and serious delinquent behavior established by other researchers over the past 25 years, although previous findings vary in the extent of overlap and strength of the relationship by age, drug, and tem- poral period or decade examined. (Rele- vant references can be found in Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry, 1997, and changes in the drugs-delinquency relationship over time are described in Huizinga, 1997.)
The Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester studies all found a statistically significant relationship between persistent delin- quency and persistent drug use for both males and females (across all three sites for males and at the two sites where fe- males were studied) (see table 2). However, a majority of persistent serious delinquents were not persistent drug users, and more than 50 percent of drug-using males and about 20 percent of drug-using females were persistent serious delinquents.
The data from the three studies indicat- ed that 38 percent of serious male delin- quents were also drug users. In Denver and Rochester, slightly more than half of drug users were serious delinquents, and in Pittsburgh, 70 percent of drug users were serious delinquents. Thus, for males, the majority of persistent serious delin- quents were not drug users, but the major- ity of drug users were serious delinquents.
For females, the opposite was true. Slightly less than half of serious delinquents in
Figure 1: Prevalence of Persistent Problem Behaviors Among Males
Figure 2: Prevalence of Persistent Problem Behaviors Among Females
Rochester and Denver were drug users, while only 20 percent of drug users were serious delinquents. Among females, there- fore, delinquency is a stronger indicator of drug use than drug use is an indicator of delinquency.
Although the relationship between serious delinquency and drug use is statistically significant for females (at the two sites where females were studied) and for males across all three sites, a number of caveats about this relationship are necessary. First, the level of the relationship varies by site and gender. Second, even though the rela- tionship is robust, it cannot be assumed that most delinquents are serious drug us- ers. In fact, for both genders, the majority of serious delinquents were not drug users. Neither can it be assumed that most drug users are serious delinquents. This relation-
ship varies by gender. Among females, for example, most drug users were not serious delinquents. However, among males, a ma- jority of drug users were serious delin- quents (70 percent in Pittsburgh). Third, the causal nature of the relationship is not clear. It has been argued that drugs cause crime, that crime leads to drug use, that the relationship is spurious (that is, crime and drug use are related only because they are both dependent on other factors), and that it is reciprocal (that is, crime leads to drug use and drug use also leads to crime). How- ever, it is possible that each of these can be true, depending on the population, sub- group, or individual examined.
School Problems A long history of research has demonstrat- ed a relationship between school problems
Percentage
Serious Delinquency
Drug Use
School Problems
Mental Health Problems
PittsburghDenver Rochester
24 30
20
14 15
17
7 8
22
7 8
14
0 10 20 30 40
Percentage
Serious Delinquency
Drug Use
School Problems
Mental Health Problems
Denver Rochester
0 10 20 30
5 5
11 12
10 21
6 11
4
(poor academic performance, truancy, and dropping out) and delinquency.4 However, the meaning of the relationship is not fully understood. The three sites examined here differed substantially in the evidence each yielded about the prevalence of school problems.
The sites also differed in terms of the ex- tent of co-occurrence of persistent school problems and persistent delinquency. For example, although not significant in Pittsburgh, there is a statistically signifi- cant relationship between school prob- lems and delinquency for males in Den- ver and Rochester. However, at these two sites, less than half of the delinquents had school problems and less than half of those with school problems were de- linquent (see table 3).
In Rochester, where the relationship is strongest, 41 percent of male serious delin- quents had school problems, while 35 per- cent of those with school problems were delinquent. These figures differed in Den- ver, where approximately 14 percent of de- linquent males had school problems, and slightly less than half of those with school problems were delinquent. In general, the overlap is significant for males, but the ma- jority of persistent serious delinquents did not have school problems, and the majority of those with persistent school problems were not persistent serious delinquents.
The relationship is different for females. In Rochester, where slightly more than half of female serious delinquents also had school problems, the relationship is statistically significant. In Denver, only 11 percent of female serious delinquents had school problems. Among females with school problems, approximately 13 per- cent in Rochester and 6 percent in Denver were also serious delinquents.
An examination of academic failure and dropping out of school (each examined separately) revealed that academic failure (grades D and F) and delinquency were sig- nificantly related only for boys in Denver. Dropping out was significantly related to delinquency only in Rochester, and this re- lationship was significant for both genders.
These findings again indicate that broad generalizations about the relationship be-
Table 2: Co-occurrence of Persistent Serious Delinquency and Persistent Drug Use
Denver Pittsburgh Rochester
Males Delinquents who are drug users (%) 33.6% 35.7% 43.6% Drug users who are delinquents (%) 55.8 70.4 53.6
p=0.000 p=0.000 p=0.000 Females Delinquents who are drug users (%) 45.6% NA* 48.1% Drug users who are delinquents (%) 22.6 NA 20.0
p=0.000 p=0.000
*NA, not available.
tween persistent delinquency and other persistent problems are unwarranted. Even taking site differences into consider- ation, it appears that—given the large number of serious delinquents who were not having school problems—serious de- linquents should not be characterized as having school problems, nor should those with school problems be characterized as persistent delinquents.
Mental Health Problems Mental health problems among offenders are a growing concern in light of the pub- lic fascination with violent crimes com- mitted by mentally ill offenders (Howells et al., 1983; Marzuk, 1996). On the other hand, mental illness is sometimes seen as an excuse for criminal behavior (Szasz and Alexander, 1968). Many juvenile of- fenders who need screening and treatment
4 Brier, 1995; Elliott, Huizinga, and Menard, 1989; Elliott and Voss, 1974; Fagan and Pabon, 1990; Gold and Mann, 1984; Gottfredson, 1981; Maguin and Loeber, 1996; O’Donnell et al., 1995; Thornberry, Esbensen, and Van Kammen, 1991; Thornberry, Moore, and Christenson, 1985.
for mental health problems fail to receive either (Woolard et al., 1992).
Data from the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency in- dicated that the relationship between per- sistent mental health problems and per- sistent serious delinquency is statistically significant for males at all three sites (see table 4). For males, the presence of mental health problems, as measured in the stud- ies, is a better indicator of serious delin- quency than serious delinquency is an indicator of mental health problems. That is, less than 25 percent of male delinquents displayed mental health problems. On the other hand, of those with mental health problems, almost one-third in Rochester and almost one-half at each of the other two sites were serious delinquents.
The relationship is statistically signifi- cant for females only in Rochester, where
Table 3: Co-occurrence of Persistent Serious Delinquency and Persistent School Problems
Denver Pittsburgh Rochester
Males Delinquents who have
school problems (%) 13.9% 9.2% 40.8% Those with school problems
who are delinquents (%) 48.9 35.3 34.7 p=0.002 p=0.374 p=0.000
Females Delinquents who have
school problems (%) 11.3% NA* 55.3% Those with school problems
who are delinquents (%) 5.8 NA 13.1 p=0.999 p=0.000
Note: School problems defined as poor academic grades and dropping out combined. *NA, not available.
5
more than half of the female serious delin- quents in Denver display no other prob- lems; in Rochester, the figure is roughly 40 percent for both genders. Second, drug use, alone or in combination with other problems, is the most common problem for both male and female delin- quents and provides a moderate risk of serious delinquency.
Another way to examine combinations of problems is by a count of problems. The largest proportion of male serious delin- quents (39–56 percent across all sites) had none of the persistent problems ex- amined in this Bulletin, followed in de- creasing order by those having one prob- lem (30–32 percent) and those with two or more problems (11–31 percent) (see table 7). However, among those with problems, as the number of problems increases, so does the chance of being a serious delin- quent. More than half (55–73 percent) of those with two or more problems were also serious delinquents.
For females, the relationship was different and varied by site (see table 8). In Roches- ter, more than half of female delinquents were involved in two or more problem behaviors; in Denver, this figure was about 11 percent. In Rochester, approximately one-third of females with multiple problem behaviors were serious delinquents; in Den- ver, 15 percent were serious delinquents. The findings about girls are thus site spe- cific, and generalizations are unwarranted.
Summary Serious delinquency, drug use, school problems, and mental health problems are most likely to be intermittent in na- ture. For all sites, the most common tem- poral pattern of each problem behavior was that it occurred for only 1 year. The next most common pattern was occur- rence for 2 years, and then occurrence for 3 years. This Bulletin examines only per- sistent problem behavior lasting 2 years or more. There are some consistent find- ings about the co-occurrence of persis- tent serious delinquency and other per- sistent problem behaviors across all three sites of the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency.
First, a large proportion of persistent seri- ous delinquents are not involved in persis- tent drug use, nor do they have persistent school or mental health problems. Although a significant number of offenders have other problems and are in need of help,
Table 5: The Overlap of Persistent Serious Offending and Combinations of Other Persistent Problems Among Males
Those With Persistent Serious Persistent Problems
Delinquents Who Have Who Are Persistent Persistent Problems Serious Delinquents*
Problem Denver Pittsburgh Rochester Denver Pittsburgh Rochester
None 55.2% 56.4% 38.8% 16.8% 22.3% 12.1% Drug use only 21.4 24.3 17.7 49.1 65.4 45.7 School only 4.9 2.9 7.2 30.7 19.0 15.1 Mental health
only 4.6 5.0 5.6 30.3 30.4 18.3 Drug use and
school 6.4 4.3 17.2 (78.5) (75.0) 64.3 Drug use and
mental health 4.9 5.7 3.2 (73.6) (88.9) (65.2) School and
mental health 1.8 0.0 4.7 (66.7) (0.0) (33.2) Drug use, school,
and mental health 0.9 1.4 5.6 (50.0) (100.0) (50.4)
*Figures in parentheses are based on sample sizes too small to be considered reliable. They are presented to show consistent effects of multiple problems.
one-third of females who were serious delinquents also had mental health prob- lems. At the same time, only 17 percent of those with mental health problems were serious delinquents. This relationship is the reverse of that seen in males. Thus, at least in the case of Rochester, the pres- ence of delinquency among females is a better indicator of mental health prob- lems than mental health problems are an indicator of delinquency.
Combinations of Persistent Problems Allowing for the higher rate of school problems in Rochester, the relationship between persistent serious delinquency and combinations of other persistent prob- lem behaviors is fairly consistent across the sites studied (see tables 5 and 6). First, more than half of the male serious delinquents in Denver and Pittsburgh and
Table 4: Co-occurrence of Persistent Serious Delinquency and Mental Health Problems
Denver Pittsburgh Rochester
Males Delinquents who have
mental health problems (%) 13.0% 13.5% 21.1%
Those with mental health problems who are delinquents (%) 46.2 45.9 31.4
p=0.005 p=0.015 p=0.019
Females Delinquents who have
mental health problems (%) 0.0% NA* 33.7%
Those with mental health problems who are delinquents (%) 0.0 NA 16.7
p=0.240 p=0.000
*NA, not available.
6
Table 6: The Overlap of Persistent Serious Offending and Combinations of Other Persistent Problems Among Females
Those With Persistent Serious Persistent Problems
Delinquents Who Have Who Are Persistent Persistent Problems Serious Delinquents
Problem Denver Rochester Denver Rochester
None 54.4% 39.9% 3.7% 3.0% Drug use only 34.4 3.6 22.4 3.1 School only 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.6 Mental health only 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Drug use and school 11.3 21.7 ␣ (—)* 24.2 Drug use and
mental health 0.0 7.8 (—) (—) School and mental
health 0.0 8.3 (—) (—) Drug use, school,
and mental health 0.0 15.1 (—) (—)
*Represent estimates based on sample sizes too small to be considered reliable.
Table 7: Number of Persistent Problems and Persistent Serious Delinquency Among Males
Those With Persistent Serious Persistent Problems
Delinquents Who Have Who Are Persistent
Number of Persistent Problems Serious Delinquents
Problems Denver Pittsburgh Rochester Denver Pittsburgh Rochester
0 55.2% 56.4% 38.8% 16.8% 22.3% 12.1% 1 30.9 32.1 30.5 41.4 46.9 26.1
2 or more 13.9 11.4 30.7 70.0 72.7 54.7
Table 8: Number of Persistent Problems and Persistent Serious Delinquency Among Females
Those With Persistent Serious Persistent Problems
Delinquents Who Have Who Are Persistent
Number of Persistent Problems Serious Delinquents
Problems Denver Rochester Denver Rochester
0 54.4% 39.9% 3.7% 3.0% 1 34.4 7.3 9.6 1.6
2 or more 11.3 52.9 15.4 36.1
Fourth, while the co-occurrence of per- sistent problems and persistent serious delinquency is an important issue, the findings cited above show that serious de- linquency does not always co-occur with other problems. For some youth, involve- ment in serious delinquency and other problems go together. For others, however, involvement in serious delinquency does not indicate the presence of other prob- lems; conversely, a youth experiencing other persistent problems is not neces- sarily a persistent serious delinquent.
Fifth, the degree of co-occurrence between persistent serious delinquency and other persistent problems is not overwhelming, but the size of the overlap suggests that a large number of persistent serious delin- quents face additional problems that need to be addressed. Careful identifica- tion of the configuration of problems fac- ing individual youth is needed. This is necessary so that delinquent youth with serious persistent problems are treated for those problems, and youth who do not warrant intervention are not treated, since such treatment may be unnecessary or may have criminogenic effects. The magnitude of the overlap of delinquency and other persistent problems suggests that not all delinquent youth require in- terventions such as mental health ser- vices or remedial education. Rather, at- tention to the unique needs of individual youth is necessary.
For Further Information For more information on OJJDP’s Causes and Correlates studies or to obtain copies of other OJJDP publications, contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC) at 800–638–8736 (phone), 301–519–5600 (fax), or www.ncjrs.org/puborder (Internet). JJC also maintains a Causes and Correlates of Delinquency Web page (www.ojjdp. ncjrs.org/ccd/index.html).
References Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. 1982. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Re- vised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: Uni- versity of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Brier, N. 1995. Predicting anti-social behavior in youngsters displaying poor academic achievement: A review of risk factors. Develop- mental and Behavioral Pediatrics 16:271–276.
Elliott, D.S., and Huizinga, D. 1989. The relation- ship between delinquent behavior and ADM problems. In Juvenile Offenders With Serious Drug, Alcohol and Mental Health Problems,
users; 46–48 percent of female serious delinquents were also drug users.
Third, for males, as the number of persis- tent problems other than delinquency increases, so does the likelihood that an individual will be a persistent serious de- linquent. A combination of persistent drug, school, and mental health problems is a reasonably strong risk factor for per- sistent serious delinquency.
persistent offenders as a group cannot be characterized as having other problems.
Second, although less than half of persis- tent offenders are persistent drug users, the problem that co-occurs most frequently with persistent serious delinquency (for males and females) is persistent drug use. Among males who were serious de- linquents, 34–44 percent were also drug
7
edited by C. Hampton. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Elliott, D.S., Huizinga, D., and Menard, S. 1989. Multiple Problem Youth: Delinquency, Substance Use and Mental Health Problems. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Elliott, D.S., Huizinga, D., and Morse, B. 1986. Self-reported violent offending: A descriptive analysis of juvenile violent offenders and their offending careers. Journal of Interpersonal Vio- lence 1(4):472–514.
Elliott, D.S., and Voss, H. 1974. Delinquency and Dropout. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Esbensen, F., and Huizinga, D. 1993. Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31(4):565–587.
Fagan, J., and Pabon, E. 1990. Contributions of delinquency and substance use to school drop- out among inner-city youths. Youth and Society 21(3):306–354.
Gold, M., and Mann, D.W. 1984. Expelled to a Friendlier Place: A Study of Alternative Schools. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gottfredson, G.D. 1981. Schooling and delin- quency. In New Directions in the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders, edited by S.W. Martin, L.B. Sechrest, and R. Rednez. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 424–469.
behavior: A report of the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency. Un- published report submitted to the Office of Juve- nile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1997.
Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. 1996. Academic per- formance and delinquency. In Crime and Jus- tice: A Review of Research, vol. 2, edited by M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Marzuk, P.M. 1996. Violence, crime and mental illness: How strong a link? Archives of General Psychiatry 53:481–488.
O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., Abbott, R.D., and Day, L.E. 1995. Preventing school failure, drug use, and delinquency among low-income children: Long-term inter- vention in elementary schools. American Jour- nal of Orthopsychiatry 65(1):87–100.
Szasz, T.S., and Alexander, G.J. 1968. Mental illness as an excuse for civil wrongs. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 147:113–123.
Thornberry, T.P., Esbensen, F., and Van Kammen, W. 1991. Commitment to school and delinquency. In Urban Delinquency and Drug Use, edited by D. Huizinga, T.P. Thornberry, and R. Loeber. Unpublished report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention, 1991.
Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J., and Chard-Wierschem, D. 1993. The role of juvenile
Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency
Howells, K., McEwan, M., Jones, B., and Mathews, C. 1983. Social evaluations of mental illness in relation to criminal behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology 22:165–166.
Huizinga, D. 1997. Over-time changes in delin- quency and drug use: The 1970’s to the 1990’s. Unpublished report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, September 1997.
Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F., and Weiher, A.W. 1994. Examining developmental trajectories in delinquency using accelerated longitudinal designs. In Cross-National Longitudinal Research on Human Development and Criminal Behavior, edited by E.G.M. Weitekamp and H. Kerner. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huizinga, D., and Jakob-Chien, C. 1998. The con- temporaneous co-occurrence of serious and vio- lent juvenile offending and other problem behav- iors. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 47–67.
Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., and Thornberry, T.P. 1993. Delinquency, drug use, sex, and pregnancy among urban youth. Public Health Reports 108(supplement):90–96.
Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., and Thornberry, T.P. 1997. The co-occurrence of persistent problem
The Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency is an example of OJJDP’s support of long-term research in a variety of fields. Initiated in 1986, the Causes and Cor- relates program includes three closely coordinated longitudinal projects: the Pittsburgh Youth Study, directed by Dr. Rolf Loeber at the University of Pittsburgh; the Rochester Youth Devel- opment Study, directed by Dr. Terence P. Thornberry at the University at Albany, State University of New York; and the Denver Youth Survey, directed by Dr. David Huizinga at the University of Colorado. The Causes and Correlates program represents a milestone in cri- minological research because it consti- tutes the largest shared-measurement approach ever achieved in delinquency research. From the beginning, the three research teams have worked together with similar measurement techniques, thus enhancing their ability to general- ize their findings.
Although each of the three projects has unique features, they share several key elements:
◆ All three are longitudinal investigations that involve repeated contacts with the same juveniles over a substantial por- tion of their developmental years.
◆ In each study, researchers have con- ducted face-to-face interviews with ado- lescents in a private setting. By using self-report data rather than juvenile jus- tice records, researchers have been able to come much closer to measuring actual delinquent behaviors and ascer- taining the age at onset of delinquent careers.
◆ Multiple perspectives on each child’s development and behavior are obtained through interviews with the child’s pri- mary caretaker and teachers and from official school, police, and court records.
◆ Participants are interviewed at regular and frequent intervals (6 or 12 months).
◆ Sample retention has been excellent. As of 1997, at least 84 percent of the
participants had been retained at each site, and the average retention rate across all interview periods was 90 percent.
◆ The three sites have collaborated to use a common measurement package, collecting data on a wide range of variables that make possible cross-site comparisons of similarities and differences.
Each project has disseminated the re- sults of its research through a broad range of publications, reports, and pres- entations. In 1997, OJJDP initiated the Youth Development Series of Bulletins to present findings from the Causes and Correlates program. In addition to the present Bulletin, six other Bulletins have been published in the Youth Develop- ment Series: Epidemiology of Serious Violence, Gang Members and Delin- quent Behavior, In the Wake of Child- hood Maltreatment, Developmental Pathways in Boys’ Disruptive and Delin- quent Behavior, Family Disruption and Delinquency, and Teenage Fatherhood and Delinquent Behavior.
PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/OJJDP PERMIT NO. G–91
NCJ 182211Bulletin
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
gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30(1):55–87.
Thornberry, T.P., Moore, M., and Christenson, R.L. 1985. The effect of dropping out of high school on subsequent criminal behavior. Crimi- nology 23(1):3–18.
Woolard, J.L., Gross, S.L., Mulvey, E.P., and Repucci, N.D. 1992. Legal issues affecting men- tally disordered youth in the juvenile justice system. In Responding to the Mental Health Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, edited by J.J. Cocozza. Seattle, WA: National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System.
Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
The Of fice of Juvenile Justice and Delin- quency Prevention is a component of the Of- fice 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.
Acknowledgments
This Bulletin is based on “The Co-Occurrence of Persistent Problem Behavior: A Report of the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency” by David Huizinga, Rolf Loeber, and Terence P. Thornberry (unpublished report submitted to OJJDP, October 1997).
David Huizinga, Ph.D., is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute of Behav- ioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, and Director of the Denver Youth Survey. Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Epidemiol- ogy at the University of Pittsburgh, PA, and Director of the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Terence P. Thornberry, Ph.D., is Professor and former Dean at the School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State University of New York, and Director of the Rochester Youth Development Study. Lynn Cothern, Ph.D., is a Senior Writer-Editor for the Juvenile Justice Resource Center, Rockville, MD.
The authors would like to thank the data collection and research staff of the three projects and all respondents of the three studies, without whom this research would not be possible.
Research for the Denver Youth Survey, the Pittsburgh Youth Study, and the Roch- ester Youth Development Study is supported by OJJDP under grants 96–MU–FX– 0017, 96–MU–FX–0012, and 96–MU–FX–0014, respectively. The Denver Youth Survey is also supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The Pittsburgh Youth Study is also supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. The Rochester Youth Development Study is also supported by grants from NIDA and the National Science Foundation.
