There are widely quoted and respected theories of delinquency which encompass almost every possible kind of connection between values and delinquency. There are theories which explain delinquency by delinquent prescriptive values (Miller, Cohen), by conventional prescriptive values (Schur, Barron), by reaction against conventional prescriptive values (Cohen), by the blockage of access to conventional prescriptive values (Merton), and by 'dissociation,' 'anomie,' and 'drift' from conventional proscriptive values (Downes, Hirschi, Matza). Empirical evidence indicates that while there is a difference in commitment to certain values between delinquents and nondelinquents, there is no evidence to suggest that this difference is related to social class. Beyond the statement that delinquents have attitudes somewhat more tolerant of delinquency than nondelinquents, there is little that the evidence supports about the relationship between values and delinquency. A general theory that fits the evidence, although it is not proven by it, is that failure in a status system produces a high risk of delinquency. Failure within a status system, such as an educational system or a socioeconomic system, can lead to rejection of the system and an adoption of a deviant value system whose emotional and financial benefits appear to be more easily attainable than under the normative value and status system. Whether or not those who experience failure in the normative status system become delinquent depends to some extent on whether failure is attributed to injustices in the system or to oneself. Failure attributed to oneself can often produce efforts to improve performance and attain satisfactory achievement. The impact of the experiences of failure in the normative educational and socioeconomic system can be controlled by economic and educational policy. A total of 77 references are listed.