OJJDP Bulletin -- December 2002 -- Violent Victimization as a Risk Factor for Violent Offending Among Juveniles

Some groups are at higher risk than others for violent victimization. The percentage of juveniles who were victims of violent crime in this sample was high: 26 percent were victimized at least once during the 2-year study period and 9 percent were victimized at least twice. Significantly higher rates of violent victimization were found among juveniles with certain characteristics—those who used drugs consistently or began to use drugs, those who were depressed, members of racial minority groups, and older juveniles who committed violent offenses. These findings suggest that victimization prevention programs may be most effective if they are focused on these groups. Because of the strong association between drug use and victimization, drug use prevention and treatment programs might be promising strategies for decreasing juveniles’ risk of violent victimization.

Violent victimization is a warning signal for future violent victimization. About one-half of the juveniles who reported being victims of violence during year 1 also reported being victimized during year 2. These repeat victims might be especially suitable for interventions to prevent future victimization. Other research has shown that crime victims are more likely than nonvictims to experience depression, anxiety, and physical health problems (Kilpatrick et al., 1985). Studies have also shown that the greater the severity of the victimization (e.g., a higher level of violence), the more severe the symptoms (Bard and Sangrey, 1985; Riggs, Rothbaum, and Foa, 1995). The current study found that the higher the level of juveniles’ depression, the greater their likelihood of becoming victims of violence. This finding suggests that focusing counseling and other victim services on juvenile victims of violent crime—especially repeat victims— may be particularly important.

Violent victimization is a warning signal for future violent offending. The finding that being a victim of a violent crime predicted violent offending suggests that victimization is itself a risk factor for offending or is correlated with some factor or process that is a risk factor. This implication, in turn, suggests that protecting juveniles against violent victimization may reduce overall levels of juvenile violence. Because juveniles are probably more likely to admit victimization than offending, interventions focused on victims might be easier to accomplish than interventions focused on offenders. The finding that the effect of violent victimization on offending appears to be stronger within years than across years (see tables 2 and 3) suggests that interventions may be most successful in preventing future offending if they are applied relatively soon after the victimization.

Many of the risk factors associated with juvenile violence suggest opportunities for intervention. A number of the risk factors presented in tables 8 and 9 involve the behavior of juveniles and people who are important in their lives; as such, these factors are appropriate points for intervention. Because the majority of risk factors predicted both violent offending and violent victimization, it may be possible for interventions to simultaneously reduce juveniles’ risk of both.

Methodology for Analyses of Risk and Protective Factors

The multivariate analyses of risk and protective factors used cross-lag logistic regression techniques. For each outcome variable at year 2, the statistical model included a term controlling for the effect of that variable at year 1. For example, the model predicting the log odds of being a violent offender in year 2 included a control for status as a violent offender in year 1. For reasons similar to those explained in endnote 10, the results of multivariate analyses presented in tables 8 and 9 are based on models that excluded all interaction terms for age, gender, and race.

The multivariate analyses of victimization and offending in year 2 included the following independent variables: time spent hanging out with friends; drug use; alcohol use; tobacco use; race; depression (a standardized, composite index reflecting juveniles’ mean score on 14 psychosomatic symptoms and 5 emotional symptoms commonly associated with depression); support from others (a standardized, composite index of 7 items reflecting juveniles’ perceptions of how much adults, friends, and teachers care about them); age (in years); age squared; easy access to a firearm in the home; whether the juvenile lived in a home with two parental figures during both years; and household socioeconomic status (a standardized mean of parental occupational prestige and parental education). Variables that were not significant predictors are excluded from tables 8 and 9.

The models predicting victimization in year 2 included controls for juveniles’ property offending and minor deviance and delinquency. This was done to ensure that the observed effects of violent offending on violent victimization reflected only the effect of violence and not the tendency of juveniles who commit violent crimes to also commit property crimes and to be involved in other delinquent and deviant activities. The measure of property offending was a dichotomous variable based on six activities reflecting involvement in property offending. The measure of minor deviance and delinquency was also a dichotomous variable and was based on five activities reflecting involvement in minor crimes (e.g., disorderly conduct) and status offenses (e.g., running away from home).