While We Are Waiting

Risk and protection in adolescent health, mental

health and behavior

J. David Hawkins, Ph.D.SWL 579Session 2

School of Social WorkUniversity of Washington

October, 2009

While We Are Waiting

Name 3 types of prevention.Think of an example of each type

as relevant to your chosen problem area.

Be prepared to share your examples with the class.

O’ Connell, Boat & Warner (2009) mention two major risk factors in families. What are they?

Can you think of other family risk factors shown by research to predict increased mental, emotional or behavioral disorders in youth?

EPIDEMIOLOGY ETIOLOGY EFFICACY EFFECTIVENESS DISSEMINATION

1. Identify problem or disorder(s) and review information to determine its extent

2. With an emphasis on risk and protective factors, review relevant information-both from fields outside prevention and from existing preventive intervention research programs

3. Design, conduct, and analyze pilot studies and confirmatory and replication trials of the preventive intervention program

4. Design, conduct, and analyze large-scale field trials of the preventive intervention program

5. Facilitate large-scale implementation and ongoing evaluation of the preventive intervention program in the community.

The preventive intervention research cycle. Preventive intervention research is represented in boxes three and four. Note that although information from many different fields in health research, represented in the first and second boxes, is necessary to the cycle depicted here, it is the review of the information, rather than the original studies, that is considered to be part of the preventive intervention research cycle. Likewise, for the fifth box, it is the facilitation by the investigator of the shift from research project to community service program with ongoing evaluation, rather than the service program itself, that is part of the preventive intervention research cycle. Although only one feedback loop is represented here, the exchange of knowledge among researchers and between researchers and community practitioners occurs throughout the cycle.

Research Advances in Prevention Science and Positive

Youth Development

Longitudinal studies have identified factors that predict substance abuse, violence, and other problem behaviors as well as positive outcomes like success in school.

Concepts

Promotive factors: factors shown to promote positive

functioning/health or absence of problem regardless of risk.

Risk factors: factors shown to increase probability of

problem in longitudinal or epidemiologic studies.

Protective factors: factors shown to decrease probability of

problem behavior in presence of risk.

Risk Factors and OutcomesRisk Factors and Outcomes

Example: Family Example: Family management practices and management practices and onset of daily smoking. onset of daily smoking. (Hill et (Hill et al., 2005)al., 2005)

Family Management at Family Management at Each Age from 11-18Each Age from 11-18

When you are away from home, do your parents When you are away from home, do your parents know where you are and who you are with?know where you are and who you are with?

The rules in my family are clear.The rules in my family are clear. When you misbehave do your parents take time to When you misbehave do your parents take time to

calmly discuss what you have done wrong?calmly discuss what you have done wrong? My parents praise me for my school achievements.My parents praise me for my school achievements. My parents notice when I am doing a good job and My parents notice when I am doing a good job and

let me know about it.let me know about it. My parents put me down (reversed).My parents put me down (reversed).

Family management Family management trajectories in the transition trajectories in the transition to adolescenceto adolescence

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

11 12 13 14Age

Fam

ily M

anag

emen

t

High Management (42.7%)Management Increaser (14.0%)Low Management (43.3%)

86%

Onset of Daily Smoking by Levels Onset of Daily Smoking by Levels of Family Managementof Family Management

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Age

Pro

babilit

y o

f In

itia

tion o

f D

aily S

mokin

g

Good Family Management

Poor Family Mangagement

19%

11%

Risk Factors for Adolescent Problem Behaviors

Extreme Economic Deprivation

Low Neighborhood Attachment and Community Disorganization

Transitions and Mobility

Media Portrayals of Violence

Community Laws and Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms, and Crime

Availability of Firearms

Availability of Drugs

Community

Depre

ssion &

A

nxie

ty

Vio

lence

Sch

ool D

rop

-Out

Teen P

regnancy

Delin

quency

Su

bsta

nce

Abuse

Risk Factors

Used by permission of Channing Bete Company



Favorable Parental Attitudes and Involvement in the Problem Behavior

Family Conflict

Family Management Problems

Family History of the Problem Behavior

Family

Depre

ssion &

A

nxie

ty

Vio

lence

Sch

ool D

rop

-O

ut

Teen

Pre

gnancy

Delin

quency

Su

bsta

nce

A

buse

Risk Factors


Lack of Commitment to School

Academic Failure Beginning in Late Elementary School

School

Depre

ssion &

A

nxie

ty

Vio

lence

Sch

ool D

rop

-Out

Teen P

regnancy

Delin

quency

Su

bsta

nce

Abuse

Risk Factors



Constitutional Factors

Early Initiation of the Problem Behavior

Favorable Attitudes Toward the Problem Behavior

Friends Who Engage in the Problem Behavior

Rebelliousness

Early and Persistent Antisocial Behavior

Individual/Peer

Depre

ssion &

A

nxie

ty

Vio

lence

Sch

ool D

rop

-Out

Teen P

regnancy

Delin

quency

Su

bsta

nce

Abuse

Risk Factors


Want to learn more about “constitutional factors”, read Chapter 5 “Perspectives from Developmental Neuroscience in O’Connell, Boat & Warner.

How can we distinguish between risk and promotive or protective factors?

Promotive and Protective Factors

Individual Characteristics High Intelligence Resilient Temperament Competencies and Skills

In each social domain (family, school, peer group and neighborhood) Prosocial Opportunities Reinforcement for Prosocial Involvement Social Bonding or Connectedness Healthy Beliefs and Clear Standards for

Behavior

Prevalence of 30 Day Marijuana UseBy Number of Risk and Protective

Factors

Six State Student Survey of 6th-12th Graders,Public School Students

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 7 8 to 9 10+

Number of Risk Factors

Pre

vale

nce

0 to 12 to 34 to 56 to 78 to 9

Number of Protective Factors

Prevalence of Any Other Illicit Drug Use

(Past 30 Days)By Number of Risk and Protective Factors

Six State Student Survey of 6th - 12th Graders,Public School Students

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 8 9 or More


Pre

vale

nce

0 to 1

2 to 3

4 to 5

6 to 8


Prevalence of “Attacked to Hurt”By Risk and Protection

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Risk, Level0

Risk, Level1

Risk, Level2

Risk, Level3

Risk, Level4

Pre

vale

nce

Protection, Level 0

Protection, Level 1Protection, Level 2

Protection, Level 3Protection, Level 4

Prevalence of Academic SuccessBy Number of Risk and Protective Factors

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 to 1 2 to 3 4 to 5 6 to 7 8 to 9 10+


Pre

vale

nce 0 to 1

2 to 34 to 56 to 78 to 9


Six State Student Survey of 6th-12th Graders,Public School Students

Generalizations AboutRisk and Protective Factors Risk & protective factors are found in many

domains

The more risk factors present, the greater likelihood of problem behaviors, and the less likelihood of successful outcomes

Protective factors reduce effects of exposure to risk -- the greater the level of protection, the less likelihood of problem behaviors

Common risk & protective factors predict diverse behavior outcomes

Risk & protective factors show much consistency in effects across different races & cultures

MediationMediation

Example from Seattle Social Example from Seattle Social Development Project.Development Project.

Does age of initiation of alcohol Does age of initiation of alcohol use mediate the effect of use mediate the effect of exposure to earlier risk factors in exposure to earlier risk factors in predicting alcohol misuse at age predicting alcohol misuse at age 18?18?

ModerationModeration

Example from Seattle Social Example from Seattle Social Development Project.Development Project.

Does good family management in Does good family management in adolescence moderate the effects adolescence moderate the effects of individual characteristics in of individual characteristics in predicting symptoms of alcohol predicting symptoms of alcohol dependence in adulthood?dependence in adulthood?

SSDP Measures of BAS SSDP Measures of BAS - - behavioral activation behavioral activation systemsystem

Done crazy things even if they are a little Done crazy things even if they are a little dangerous ?dangerous ?

Done something dangerous because someone Done something dangerous because someone dared you to do it?dared you to do it?

Done what feels good, no matter what?Done what feels good, no matter what? Gone to a wild, out-of-control party?Gone to a wild, out-of-control party? Upset or annoyed adults just for the fun of it?Upset or annoyed adults just for the fun of it?

alpha = .80

Carver & White, 1994: BAS associated with strong pursuit of appetitive goals, responsiveness to reward, sensation seeking, impulsiveness.How many times have you done the following things?

SSDP Measures of BIS SSDP Measures of BIS - - behavioral inhibition behavioral inhibition systemsystem

I worry a lot.I worry a lot. I am nervous or tense.I am nervous or tense. I am too fearful or anxious. I am too fearful or anxious. I am self-conscious or easily embarrassed.I am self-conscious or easily embarrassed. I feel that I am overly anxious to please I feel that I am overly anxious to please

others.others. I am afraid of making mistakes.I am afraid of making mistakes.

alpha = .77

Carver & White, 1994: BIS inhibits behavior that may lead to negative or painful outcomes. Thus, BIS activation causes inhibition of movement toward goals. Fear, frustration, anxiety.

Alcohol Dependence Symptoms Age 27

Do BAS and BIS predict Alcohol Do BAS and BIS predict Alcohol Dependence Symptoms in Dependence Symptoms in Adulthood?Adulthood?

BAS

BIS8th and 9th Grades (ages 14-15)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1 2 3 4 5 6BAS

Alc

oh

ol

De

pe

nd

en

ce

Sy

mp

tom

s A

ge

27

BAS is predictive of Alcohol BAS is predictive of Alcohol Dependence Symptoms at age Dependence Symptoms at age 2727

= .11, p < .008

controlling for ethnicity, poverty and gender

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1 2 3 4 5BIS

Alc

oh

ol D

epen

den

ce S

ymp

tom

s A

ge

27


BIS is NOT predictive of BIS is NOT predictive of Alcohol Dependence Alcohol Dependence Symptoms at age 27Symptoms at age 27

= .01, ns

Does Consistent Good Family Does Consistent Good Family Management Moderate this Effect?Management Moderate this Effect?

BAS

BIS

Alcohol Dependence Symptoms Age 27

Consistent+ Family

Management

?

?

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1 2 3 4 5 6BAS

Alc

oh

ol

De

pe

nd

en

ce

Sy

mp

tom

s A

ge

27


Does the Effect of BAS on Age Does the Effect of BAS on Age 27 Alcohol Dependence 27 Alcohol Dependence Depend on Good/Poor Family Depend on Good/Poor Family Management?Management?

= .11, p < .008

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1 2 3 4 5 6

BAS

Alc

oh

ol

De

pe

nd

en

ce

Sy

mp

tom

s A

ge

27

Consistently Poor Family Management

Consistently Good Family Management


Family management practices Family management practices moderate the effect of BAS on moderate the effect of BAS on Age 27 Alcohol Dependence Age 27 Alcohol Dependence SymptomsSymptoms

Interaction, = -.28, p < .003

= .15, p < .01

= -.010, ns

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1 2 3 4 5BIS

Alc

oh

ol D

epen

den

ce S

ymp

tom

s A

ge

27


Does the Effect of BIS on Age Does the Effect of BIS on Age 27 Alcohol Dependence 27 Alcohol Dependence Depend on Good/Poor Family Depend on Good/Poor Family Management?Management?

= .01, ns

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1 2 3 4 5BIS

Alc

oh

ol

De

pe

nd

en

ce

Sy

mp

tom

s A

ge

27 Consistently Poor Family Management

Consistently Good Family Management


Family management practices Family management practices do not moderate the effect of do not moderate the effect of BIS on Age 27 Alcohol BIS on Age 27 Alcohol Dependence SymptomsDependence Symptoms

Interaction, = .02, ns

= -.02, ns

= .006, ns

Example of Theory:Example of Theory:The Social Development The Social Development ModelModel

( + ) ( - ) ( +, -

PROSOCIAL PATH

ANTISOCIAL PATH

Individual constitutional

factors

Prosocial opportunities

Prosocial involvement

Prosocial rewards

Bonding to prosocial

others

Belief in the moral order

Belief in antisocial

values

Bonding to antisocial

others

Antisocial rewards

Antisocial involvement

Antisocial opportunities

Substance Use, Abuse and Addiction

Position in the social structure: race, SES, age,

gender

External constraints:Laws, norms,

family & classroom standards

Skills for interaction

Risk and Protection at Higher Levels of

AggregationCommunities vary significantly in levels

of risk and protective factors and substance use outcomes.

Community levels of risk and protective factors are significantly correlated with levels of adolescent substance use.

(Hawkins et al. 2005. Prevention Science)

Study of Risk/Protective Factors and Academic

Achievement in Washington Schools

Objective:Objective:

To examine the strength of To examine the strength of relationships between the levels of relationships between the levels of risk and protection in schools and risk and protection in schools and students’ standardized test scores students’ standardized test scores in those schools.in those schools.

Washington State Data

Data from the Communities that Care Youth Survey Data from the Communities that Care Youth Survey on schools' prevalence of risk and protective on schools' prevalence of risk and protective factors, drug use and other problem behaviors in factors, drug use and other problem behaviors in middle and high schools from 8middle and high schools from 8th th and 10 and 10thth graders graders

Data from the Washington Assessment of Student Data from the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) on individual students’ Learning (WASL) on individual students’ academic test scores and demographic academic test scores and demographic characteristics from 7characteristics from 7thth and 10 and 10thth graders graders

Data from 82,030 students in 423 schools and 156 Data from 82,030 students in 423 schools and 156 school districts collected in 2002-03 were school districts collected in 2002-03 were matched at the school building levelmatched at the school building level

School Building Risk and School Building Risk and Protective Factor EffectsProtective Factor Effects

10th GradeATOD Use &

Risk/Protective Factors

10th Grade WASL Scores

Fall 2002 Survey Spring 2003 WASL

Analysis Plan

Test these relationships after controlling Test these relationships after controlling for other possible influences:for other possible influences:

– individual students’ gender, race, and individual students’ gender, race, and special education status, special education status,

– school building free and reduced lunch school building free and reduced lunch eligibility, eligibility,

– district level size and per pupil expendituresdistrict level size and per pupil expenditures

FindingsFindingsIn schools where students reported

experiencing fewer risk factors, 10th graders were more likely to pass each of three WASL tests.

Greaterlikelihoodof passingthe WASL

FewerRisk

Factors

FindingsFindingsIn schools where students reported

experiencing more protective factors, students were more likely to pass each of three WASL tests.

More Protective

Factors

Greaterlikelihoodof passingthe WASL

Relationship Between Number of School Building Risk Factors and Probability of Meeting WASL Standard

(10th-Graders)

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16


Pro

babi

lity

of M

eeting

Sta

ndar

d

Math Reading Writing

Relationship Between Number of School Building Protective Factors and Probability of Meeting WASL

Standard (10th-Graders)

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Prob

abili

ty o

f Mee

ting

Stan

dard

Math Reading Writing

Nova High School Substance Use & Antisocial Behavior

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Per

centa

ge

School 2002 MTF 2001

Ever Used 30-Day Use

Survey Participation Rate 2002: 79.7%

10th Grade: 2002HeavyUse

Past Year Antisocial Behavior

Nova High School Protective Profile 10th Grade

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Communityopportunities for

prosocialinvolvement

Communityrecognition for


FamilyAttachment

Familyopportunities for


Familyrecognition for


Schoolopportunities for


Schoolrecognition for


Social skills Belief in themoral order

OverallProtection

Per

cent P

rote

cted

School 2002 District 2002

Community Family School

Estimated National Value

2002


Peer-Individual Overall

Nova High School Risk Profile 10th Grade

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

At

Ris

k




2002

Peer-Individual


Peer-Individual

Madison Middle School Risk Profi le 8th Grade

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

At

Ris

k




2002


Peer-Individual

Madison Middle School Risk Profile 8th Grade

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

At

Ris

k




2002


Peer-Individual

Community Risk Factor Effects

Key Leader Ratings of Community Risk and

Protective Factors

Student Perceptions of

Community Factors

Student Health

Outcomes

Example – Lax Law Enforcement and Youth Substance Abuse

Model 1/Effect Estimate

SE DF P

Model 1 T = 0.200

Random Level 1 Intercept 0.371 0.0030


Intercept 0.045 0.1396 129147 0.748

Leader-Rated Enforcement 0.236 0.0695 40 0.001Model 2 T = 0.583



Intercept 0.020 0.0948 57670 0.835

Student-Rated Enforcement

0.464 0.0050 756 0.000

Leader-Rated Enforcement

0.236 0.0472 40 0.005

Table: Models Predicting Levels of Current Youth Substance Abuse from Community Leader Ratings of Community Law

Enforcement

Sex similarities and differences in the association between risk and protective factors and self-reported

serious delinquency

Abigail A. FaganM. Lee Van Horn J. David HawkinsMichael Arthur

Social Development Research GroupUniversity of Washington

Background

• We know that serious delinquency is much more prevalent among males than females, but we don’t know why

• We know much about the causes of serious delinquency for males, but much less for females

• Few studies assess gender differences in risk and protective factors, have the power to detect differences if present, or examine a range of predictors in their analyses

Research Questions

1. Are the same risk and protective factors associated with delinquency for females and males?

2. Does the strength of the association vary by sex?

3. Do males and females report the same level of exposure to risk and protection?

4. Do sex differences in levels of risk and protection mediate the relationship between sex and serious delinquency?

Research Method

• Data collected using the Communities That Care Youth Survey– School-based, self-report survey administered in

40 towns in 7 states in 2002

• Sample: 7,829 students in 10th grade– Sex: 3,986 girls and 3,843 boys– Average Age: 15.6 years– Race/Ethnicity: 79% White, 8% Hispanic, 4%

African-American, 8% Other

Independent Variables

• Self-reported exposure to 22 risk and protective factors– Family: 4 protective, 4 risk factors– School: 2 protective, 2 risk factors– Peer: 3 risk factors– Individual: 2 protective, 5 risk factors

• Scales comprised of 2-8 questions each, typically answered on a four-point scale

• Each scale was measured as a single latent variable

Dependent Variable

• Self-reported serious delinquency

• 8 acts: prior arrest, carry a handgun, carry gun to school, violent assault, car theft, selling drugs, school expulsion, drunk/high at school

• Past year frequency of offending, with 8 response choices (never, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9…40+ times)

– Few respondents reported greater than 9 occurrences, so higher frequencies were collapsed into 6-9 category

Involvement in Serious Delinquency

Delinquent Act Females (N=3986) Males (N=3843)

Never 1+ Times Never 1+ Times

Prior Arrest 93.7% 6.3% 87.6% 12.4%

Attack Someone 88.8 11.2 78.8 21.2

Carry a Gun 98.3 1.7 89.6 10.4

Take Gun to School 99.2 0.8 95.1 4.9

Car Theft 96.2 3.8 91.6 8.4

Sell Drugs 94.1 5.9 83.9 16.1

School Suspension 93.1 6.9 84.2 15.8

Drunk/High at School 80.3 19.7 74.1 25.9

Data Analysis: Research Question 1

Item 1

Item 2

…

…

Risk/ProtectiveFactor

d

…

…

c

Suspended

Carried gun

Sold drugs

Stole vehicle

h

i

j

g

Arrested

Attack someone

High at school

Gun to school

l

m

n

kA Delinquency

Item 1

Item 2

…

…


d

…

…

c

Suspended

Carried gun

Sold drugs

Stole vehicle

h

i

j

g

Arrested

Attack someone

High at school

Gun to school

l

m

n

kB

Parameters constrained to be equal across groupsare labeled with lower case letters

Delinquency

Females

Males

a

b

…

…

a

b

…

…

o

p

q

r

s

t

e f

o

p

q

r

s

t

e f

Females Males Protective and Risk Factor Beta SE r R² Beta SE r R²

FAMILY

Attachment (Mom) -0.086 (.010) -0.249 0.062 -0.111 (.010) -0.316 0.100

Attachment (Dad) -0.118 (.016) -0.183 0.033 -0.184 (.017) -0.280 0.078

Conflict 0.195 (.020) 0.302 0.091 0.216 (.019) 0.330 0.109

Poor Management 0.503 (.039) 0.393 0.154 0.542 (.038) 0.418 0.175

SCHOOL

Opportunities -0.582 (.056) -0.329 0.108 -0.798 (.062) -0.431 0.186

Failure 0.172 (.040) 0.415 0.172 0.193 (.045) 0.457 0.209

Low Commitment 0.418 (.030) 0.395 0.156 0.487 (.033) 0.447 0.200

PEER

Drug Use 0.385 (.023) 0.583 0.340 0.481 (.025) 0.667 0.445

Delinquency 0.659 (.039) 0.744 0.554 0.907 (.045) 0.838 0.702

INDIVIDUAL

Social Skills -0.769 (.047) -0.688 0.473 -1.127 (.063) -0.811 0.658

Delinquent Attitudes 0.456 (.031) 0.591 0.349 0.612 (.034) 0.701 0.491

Rebelliousness 0.686 (.041) 0.555 0.308 0.825 (.046) 0.626 0.392

Q1: Are the same factors related to delinquency for females and

males?

*Significant (p<.01) effects in BOLD

Q1: Are the same factors related to delinquency for females and

males?

• All 22 risk and protective factors were significantly related to serious delinquency, for both sexes

• Risk factors were associated with more delinquency, protective factors with less delinquency


Item 1

Item 2

…

…


d

…

…

c

Suspended

Carried gun

Sold drugs

Stole vehicle

h

i

j

g

Arrested

Attack someone

High at school

Gun to school

l

m

n

kA Delinquency

Item 1

Item 2

…

…


d

…

…

c

Suspended

Carried gun

Sold drugs

Stole vehicle

h

i

j

g

Arrested

Attack someone

High at school

Gun to school

l

m

n

kB

Parameters constrained to be equal across groupsare labeled with lower case letters

Delinquency

Females

Males

a

b

…

…

a

b

…

…

o

p

q

r

s

t

e f

o

p

q

r

s

t

e f

Females Males Sex Difference

Protective and Risk Factor Beta SE r R² Beta SE r R² x²

FAMILY Attachment (Mom) -0.086 (.010) -0.249 0.062 -0.111 (.010) -0.316 0.100 4.58 Attachment (Dad) -0.118 (.016) -0.183 0.033 -0.184 (.017) -0.280 0.078 9.39 Conflict 0.195 (.020) 0.302 0.091 0.216 (.019) 0.330 0.109 0.75 Poor Management 0.503 (.039) 0.393 0.154 0.542 (.038) 0.418 0.175 0.65

SCHOOL Opportunities -0.582 (.056) -0.329 0.108 -0.798 (.062) -0.431 0.186 8.52 Failure 0.172 (.040) 0.415 0.172 0.193 (.045) 0.457 0.209 2.30 Low Commitment 0.418 (.030) 0.395 0.156 0.487 (.033) 0.447 0.200 3.29

PEER Drug Use 0.385 (.023) 0.583 0.340 0.481 (.025) 0.667 0.445 12.29 Delinquency 0.659 (.039) 0.744 0.554 0.907 (.045) 0.838 0.702 24.01 INDIVIDUAL Social Skills -0.769 (.047) -0.688 0.473 -1.127 (.063) -0.811 0.658 32.11 Delinquent Attitudes 0.456 (.031) 0.591 0.349 0.612 (.034) 0.701 0.491 21.31 Rebelliousness 0.686 (.041) 0.555 0.308 0.825 (.046) 0.626 0.392 7.49

Q2: Does the strength of the association vary by sex?

Q2: Does the strength of the association vary by sex?

• In 12 of 22 cases, the strength of the association was greater for males– Protection had a stronger negative association

with serious delinquency

– Risk had a stronger positive association

• In 10 cases, there were no sex differences • There were no cases in which the

strength of the association was greater for females than males


Item 1

Item 2

…

…


Suspended

Carried gun

Sold drugs

Stole vehicle

Arrested

Attack someone

High at school

Gun to school

Male

Delinquency

A B

C

Protective and Risk Factor

Beta SE ES

FAMILY Attachment (Mom) -0.226 (.025) -0.237 Attachment (Dad) 0.115 (.022) 0.131 Conflict -0.150 (.024) -0.171 Poor Management 0.198 (.017) 0.290 SCHOOL Opportunities -0.110 (.015) -0.198 Failure 0.273 (.025) 0.285 Low Commitment 0.193 (.019) 0.260 PEER Drug Use 0.030 (.021) 0.034 Delinquency 0.298 (.022) 0.379 INDIVIDUAL Social Skills -0.240 (.020) -0.344 Delinquent Attitudes 0.357 (.022) 0.438 Rebelliousness 0.144 (.018) 0.212

Q3: Do males and females report the same level of exposure to risk and

protection?

Q3: Do males and females report the same level of exposure to risk and

protection?

• In 18 of 22 cases, boys reported less protection and more risk than girls

• In 2 cases, boys reported more protection or less risk– Boys had a stronger attachment to fathers

– Boys reported lower levels of family conflict

• No differences were found for 2 peer risk factors


Item 1

Item 2

…

…


Suspended

Carried gun

Sold drugs

Stole vehicle

Arrested

Attack someone

High at school

Gun to school

Male

Mediated effect is the product of A and C

Delinquency

A B

C

Protective and Risk Factor

Beta SE ES

FAMILY Attachment (Mom) 0.053 (.007) 0.067 Attachment (Dad) -0.024 (.005) -0.031 Conflict -0.042 (.007) -0.053 Poor Management 0.091 (.009) 0.115 SCHOOL Opportunities 0.059 (.008) 0.074 Failure 0.099 (.010) 0.122 Low Commitment 0.083 (.009) 0.106 PEER Drug Use 0.017 (.012) 0.021 Delinquency 0.235 (.018) 0.292 INDIVIDUAL Social Skills 0.193 (.017) 0.245 Delinquent Attitudes 0.219 (.015) 0.283 Rebelliousness 0.096 (.012) 0.122

Q4: Are There Indirect Effects of Sexon Serious Delinquency?

Q4: Are There Indirect Effects of Sex on Serious Delinquency?

• The indirect effects of sex on delinquency was significant in 20 of the 22 relationships– In 18 cases, greater risk and lower protection

among males led to greater involvement in delinquency

– In 2 cases, lower risk and greater protection led to less involvement in delinquency for boys than girls

• In all cases, sex had a significant, direct effect on serious delinquency

• The relationship between sex and serious delinquency was partially mediated by sex differences in levels of risk and protection

Summary of Findings

• Males’ greater delinquency is likely due to the combination of the stronger influence of risk and protective factors, and greater exposure to these factors, compared to females

• While gender differences are evidenced, they are generally modest

• There are more similarities than differences in the relationships between risk and protective factors and serious delinquency– Somewhat unexpected findings, given some feminist literature

– But, similar to recent findings from the OJJDP Girls Study Group

Limitations of the Study

• We cannot explain why these gender differences

exist

• There may be risk or protective factors omitted for

which gender differences could be found

• Data is cross-sectional, so predictive relationships

cannot be assessed

• Risk and protective factors were examined

individually; their combined effect on delinquency

was not considered

Implications for Prevention

• The findings support the use of effective prevention programs, aimed at reducing risk and enhancing protection, for both females and males

– All 22 risk and protective factors were significantly related to serious delinquency for both sexes

– Both sexes reported serious delinquent acts in 10th grade

Society for Prevention Society for Prevention ResearchResearch

18th Annual Meeting: 18th Annual Meeting:

Denver, CO Denver, CO

June 1 -4, 2010June 1 -4, 2010

(Abstracts due October 26, 2009)(Abstracts due October 26, 2009)

Information:Information:

www.preventionresearch.orgwww.preventionresearch.org

Documents

While We Are Waiting