Understanding the Victimization-Delinquency Overlap Among Latino Adolescents: The Role of Cultural and Mental Health Factors

Abstract

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate whether cultural factors and mental health variables distinguish Latino youth who are delinquent-victims, primarily victims, or primarily delinquent. This study used data from the Dating Violence among Latino Adolescents (DAVILA) Study, which surveyed 1,525 Latino youth and queried participants about past year victimization, delinquency, psychological distress, and cultural factors. Using multinomial logistic regression, we evaluated whether these variables differentiated youth who were delinquent-victims, primarily victims, primarily delinquent, or neither delinquent nor victims. Results suggest that delinquent-victim Latino youth are differentiated from other groups primarily by the degree of familial support and anger/hostility. Other cultural and mental health variables do not appear to differentiate the groups, suggesting a greater degree of similarity among them based on the variables used in the analysis. The results indicate that Latino youth that are victimized and engage in delinquent behavior are primarily differentiated by the degree of anger/hostility they experience. Familial support, as has been seen with non-Latino groups, appears to present a significant protective quality and likely can serve as a prevention strategy, particularly for delinquent-victim youth. Study limitations include challenges with retrospective self-report and sampling using RDD methodologies.

Keywords

youth violence cultural contexts mental health and violence

Public perceptions and early criminological perspectives assumed that criminals and victims were distinct groups (Fagan et al., 1987) and thus studies tended to focus on predicting criminal behavior or predicting victimization. Increasingly, research has begun to highlight the complex relationship between victimization and delinquency, with the link between victimization and delinquency among children and adults supported in a substantial body of research (see Jennings et al., 2012; Malvaso et al., 2015 for review). Some studies have shown that victimization and delinquency can largely overlap, with many victims engaging in delinquency and many delinquents being victimized at some point in their lives. In fact, some researchers have even asserted that delinquents and victims are almost entirely overlapping groups (Lauritsen et al., 1991, 1992; Singer, 1986), while others have challenged this notion (Cuevas et al., 2007).

In the past few decades, research has begun to show that victims and delinquents share many characteristics and risk factors (Broidy et al., 2006; Cuevas et al., 2007; Gottfredson, 1981; Jennings et al., 2010; Lauritsen et al., 1991, 1992; Sabina & Cuevas, 2013). Although it is apparent that victims and delinquents are similar in many ways, the underlying mechanism linking these experiences is not entirely clear. Perspectives in criminology typically focus on how criminal involvement increases the risk of victimization (Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990) or how common underlying factors cause both victimization and delinquency (Beckley et al., 2018; Posick, 2013; Schreck, 1999). For instance, routine activities theory and subcultural theories emphasize how risky lifestyles and environmental conditions create opportunities for victimization and delinquency (Anderson, 1999; Schreck et al., 2008; Smith & Ecob, 2007; Taylor et al., 2008). In addition, researchers have argued that individuals who are low in self-control are at increased risk for crime victimization (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Schreck, 1999). A distinctive approach is to view victimization as a cause of subsequent delinquency (Agnew, 2006; Farrell & Zimmerman, 2018). For instance, general strain theory suggests that victimization produces negative emotions, which in turn invoke delinquent methods of coping (Agnew, 2006). These theoretical approaches provide support for the idea that some individuals engage in both victimization and delinquency. However, the coexistence of victimization and delinquency may be more nuanced than previously believed (Cuevas et al., 2007).

While there is certainly strong empirical support for existence of the victimization-delinquency overlap, research has established the existence of multiple complex potential relationships between victimization and delinquency. One overlooked group is comprised of children who are victimized for reasons unrelated to their involvement in delinquent behavior, with a substantial proportion being victims who have either low or no involvement in delinquent behavior (Cuevas et al., 2007). Another group consists of aggressors, often bullies, who avoid being victimized themselves. Taken together, the bullying and peer victimization literature specifies three distinct groups of children: those who are both victims and offenders (here called delinquent-victims), those who are primarily victims, and those who are primarily offenders (Cuevas et al., 2007, 2013).

Research shows that more youth can be categorized as either primarily delinquent or primarily victim than as delinquent-victims, challenging the notion that victims and delinquents are almost entirely overlapping groups (Cuevas et al., 2007). In addition, the relative proportions of delinquent-victims have been shown to shift with age, showing that there is a developmental component in the delinquency-victimization overlap (Maldonado-Molina et al., 2010; Menard, 2012; Schreck et al., 2017). For example, research has found that the overlap between delinquency and victimization account for a greater percentage of youth as they get older, primarily as a result of increasing delinquent behavior (Cuevas et al., 2007, 2013). Research suggests that victims who have more additional adversities, lower levels of social support, and higher rates of mental health symptoms may also be those at greatest risk of moving into delinquent activities (Cuevas et al., 2013).

Victimization and Delinquency Among Latino Youth

Although research has emerged examining characteristics that may help identify children who are at risk of becoming delinquent-victims, potential cultural influences have been largely ignored. Despite Latino youth accounting for over 24% of all children in the United States (Pew Research Center, 2011), there is little research on patterns of victimization and delinquency among this group (McGee et al., 2005). Most studies on race, ethnicity, and risk for violence have historically focused on comparisons between blacks and whites, disregarding Latinos and other racial and ethnic subgroups (Lauritsen & White, 2001). A notable exception is a 2010 longitudinal study of the relationship between victimization and offending among Puerto Rican youth (Maldonado-Molina et al., 2010). The authors found that there was a large group of youth who were not offending or being victimized. In addition, results showed the prevalence of victim-only youth was greater than the prevalence of offender-only youth.

Given the dearth of research examining the victimization-delinquency overlap among Latino youth, cultural influences that may play a role in distinguishing between categories of delinquent-victims in this population have largely been overlooked. Of particular interest for Latino youth are the concepts of acculturation, immigrant status, and familism.

The Role of Cultural Factors

Research on Latino acculturation has been increasing since the 1970s as the United States Latino population increases (Brown, 2009; Coatsworth et al., 2005). Acculturation has been defined as the changes one experiences when they enter a new cultural context (Cabassa, 2003). Research has shown higher levels of acculturation in immigrant Latino youth to be related to increased delinquency, higher rates of adolescent substance use, depression, feelings of loneliness and alienation, increased stress, adjustment problems, and other mental health problems (Buriel et al., 1982; Coatsworth et al., 2005; Griffith, 1983; Samaniego & Gonzales, 1999; Vega et al., 1995).

Immigrant status has been found to be associated with victimization and delinquency in Latino youth. It is believed that being an immigrant is a protective factor and related to decreased levels of violent delinquency among Latino teens (Vaughn et al., 2014). Immigrant status has demonstrated to be a protective factor against prior sexual victimization among Latino girls; however, when examining recurring sexual victimization, immigrant girls were approximately twice as likely to experience sexual re-victimization than native-born girls (Decker et al., 2007). Another study used data from Waves I and II of the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions to examine the relationship between immigration and antisocial behaviors among immigrants from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and Europe. After controlling for a number of confounding factors, results showed that immigrants from all regions were significantly less likely to engage in violent and nonviolent antisocial behavior than native-born Americans. In addition, native-born Americans were three times more likely to report violent behavior than immigrants from Latin America (Vaughn et al., 2014). Although the exact mechanism of this protective effect of immigration is not entirely clear, the role of immigration may be intertwined with the process of assimilation into American culture. Research also shows that resilience is highest among recent Latino immigrants and diminishes in later generations (Vera, 2013).

One of the most important cultural factors for Latinos is the emphasis placed on family, or familism (Huck et al., 2012; Marin, 1993). Familism refers to values, behaviors, and family structures that emphasize the importance of maintaining a strong extended family network (Coohey, 2001). The significance of familism in Latino culture has been well documented in the literature (Rodriguez et al., 2007). When compared to Caucasians, Latinos tend to place more emphasis on family and they often have close-knit familial networks providing social support (Huck et al., 2012; Marin, 1993). Familial influence has been linked to positive outcomes for Latino youth, such that family connectedness can act as a protective factor against violent behavior among Latino boys living in high-risk neighborhoods (Walker et al., 2007). Parental attachment also acts as a protective factor against violent behavior for Latino youth. Several field studies have demonstrated that family plays an important role in alleviating personal distress in Mexican Americans (Griffith, 1983). In addition, parental involvement and monitoring have been shown to reduce problem behaviors such as delinquency and drug use (Walker et al., 2007). Of particular importance for the current study, family support may help to distinguish between primarily victims and delinquents-victims (Perren & Hornung, 2005). Although family support is a protective factor across cultural groups, the importance placed on family connection in the Latino community may indicate that this protective factor is particularly important for distinguishing between delinquency-victimization groups among Latino youth.

The Role of Mental Health

Mental health variables are key factors that should be taken into account when evaluating the victim-delinquency overlap. There is substantial research suggesting that youth who experience victimization and engage in delinquency may be the most vulnerable when it comes to elevated mental health symptoms (Cuevas et al., 2007, 2013; Haynie et al., 2001; Schwartz et al., 2001). While various theories have been presented to explain these results (see Cuevas et al., 2007 for a review), the consistent evidence merits the inclusion of psychological distress when examining the victimization/delinquency overlap. Furthermore, previous work that has presented the victim/delinquent conceptualization used in our analysis (Cuevas et al., 2007, 2013) has also found that delinquent-victim youth tend to show the highest levels of psychological distress, particularly feelings of anger. This evidence suggests that mental health factors may be most salient for delinquent-victims or perhaps exacerbate the relationship between victimization and delinquency. As such, these variables are accounted for in our models.

The Present Study

A large body of literature has supported the overlap between victimization and delinquency and numerous theoretical approaches have attempted to elucidate the mechanisms underlying this relationship. This study attempts to add to this literature by focusing on two additional understudied groups: those who are primarily victims and those who are primarily delinquents. Studies have found that youth who experience both delinquency and victimization (compared to primarily delinquency or primarily victimization) showed greater levels of mental health problems (Cuevas et al., 2007). Establishing and elucidating potential subgroups of victims and delinquents is important because certain categories of individuals may be more vulnerable and at-risk to be within these groups. Therefore, the current analysis examines whether cultural factors may be key to distinguishing between categories of delinquents-victims in Latino youth. Specifically, the cultural variables tested included immigrant status, acculturation (Anglo orientation), enculturation (Latino orientation), familism, and measures of psychological distress (i.e., anxiety, depression, and hostility).

Methods

Participants

Data for the Dating Violence among Latino Adolescents (DAVILA) Study were collected from a national sample of 1,525 Latino adolescents living across the United States. Trained professionals from an experienced survey-research firm completed phone interviews between September 2011 and February 2012. Eligible households included those with Latino adolescents between 12 and 18 years of age. A complete description of the study methodology can be found in the final National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report for the study (Sabina & Cuevas, 2013).

Females and males were evenly split in the sample (50.7% and 49.3%, respectively). The average age was 14.85 years (SD = 1.88). Approximately three quarters of the adolescents were born in the United States, with most of the adolescent participant interviews being conducted in English (70.3%). More than half of the caregivers interviewed were married (69.2%) and the modal educational attainment for caregivers was less than high school (35.2%). Although household incomes ranged from under $9,999 to over $80,000, 61% of caregivers reported a household income less than $29,999. Table 1 provides detailed demographic data.

Table 1.

Sample Descriptives (N = 1,525).

Variables	M/n	SD/%	Range
Adolescent demographics
Gender
Female	773	50.7
Male	752	49.3
Age	14.9	1.88	12–18
Grade
5–8	496	33.2
9–12	920	61.5
H.S. Graduate	65	4.3
Home Schooled	4	0.3
Not in School	8	0.5
Other	2	0.1
Birth Country
U.S. born citizen	1,139	76.1
Mexico	268	17.9
Other	90	6.0
Interview Language
English	1,142	74.9
Spanish	383	25.1
Household/Parent Demographics
Interview Language
English	337	22.1
Spanish	1,187	77.9
Household Income^a
Under $9,999	156	12.3
$10,000–$19,999	340	26.8
$20,000–$29,999	277	21.8
$30,000–$39,999	174	13.7
$40,000–$49,999	111	8.7
$50,000–$59,999	71	5.6
$60,000–$69,999	33	2.6
$70,000–$79,999	26	2.1
$80,000 or more	83	6.5
Parental Education Level^a
Less than high school	534	35.2
High school graduate	520	34.3
Some college/trade school	187	12.3
Two-year college graduate	88	5.8
Four-year college graduate	109	7.2
Some graduate school	17	1.1
Graduate degree	60	4.0
Parent Relationship Status
Single (never married)	181	12.1
Married	1,038	69.2
Cohabitating/committed rel.	126	8.4
Divorced	63	4.2
Separated	63	4.2
Widowed	25	1.7
Other	3	0.2

Household income and parent education obtained from parent interview.

Measures

Demographic information

Basic demographic information (i.e., child’s age, country of origin and/or descendance, immigration status, preferred language, parent’s educational level, employment status, household income, household makeup, and parental relationship status) was initially collected by a parent/caregiver prior to interviewing the child.

Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ)

The JVQ is an instrument developed to comprehensively evaluate childhood victimization experiences (Hamby et al., 2005). The instrument contains 34 screener questions covering 5 areas of victimization: conventional crime, child maltreatment, peer and sibling victimization, sexual assault, and witnessing and indirect victimization. Due to time constraints of the survey, the JVQ was modified for the DAVILA study by only asking 16 of the 34 screener questions and adding a question about stalking victimization (which is not part of the original JVQ) resulting in a total of 17 questions, which still cover all the primary domains. A detailed list of the questions used are available in the final grant report (Sabina & Cuevas, 2013). The JVQ has shown strong psychometric properties including high test–retest reliability (between 79% and 100% agreement across two administrations), high internal consistency (alpha of .80; Finkelhor et al., 2005), and adequate internal consistency for the DAVILA sample (α of .73). Before administering the JVQ, “time bounding” was introduced to help participants define the past year and avoid inappropriately including or excluding events within the 1-year time frame (Hamby et al., 2005). The screener questions asked whether a particular victimization event occurred within the previous year. If the victimization was endorsed, follow-up questions were asked to obtain more detailed information.

Frequency of Delinquent Behavior (FDB)

The FDB is a measure of self-reported delinquent behavior in the previous year (Loeber & Dishion, 1983) and adapted for the DAVILA study from its most recently published format (Dahlberg et al., 1998). The DAVILA Study utilized a shortened version of the FDB instrument by removing certain questions and combining others to diminish the burden on participants and exclude very infrequent behaviors. This format included 13 questions asking participants to indicate how many times in the past year they committed each delinquent act. Delinquent acts included personal crimes, property crimes, and substance use. The original FDB has shown adequate test–retest reliability of .71 (1 year interval) and moderate correlations with peer-nominated aggression (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1987). Alpha on the FDB for our sample was .58.

Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)

The BSI is a 53-item self-report instrument that assesses psychiatric symptoms in adolescents and adults (Derogatis, 1992). The BSI consists of nine primary symptom clusters and three global indices of distress. In the current study, only the depression, anxiety, and hostility scales were utilized, as these are the primary symptom clusters expected to be related to victimization. Each item on the BSI asked the participant to indicate how much they had been bothered by each symptom in the “past seven days including today.” The item responses were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale from “not at all” (0) to “extremely” (4). The depression, anxiety, and hostility scales of the original BSI have shown reliability coefficients of 0.85, 0.81, and 0.78, respectively (Derogatis, 1993). Adequate reliability has also been demonstrated across several populations. In our sample, the overall reliabilities were 0.81, 0.73, and 0.75 for the depression, anxiety, and hostility scales, respectively, and were consistent across both the English and Spanish version of the instrument. Given that our sample included 12-year-olds, and the BSI scales have been normed on samples aged 13 and older, we also ran separate reliabilities for the 12-year-olds. For the depression, anxiety, and hostility scales, these alphas were 0.71, 0.71, and 0.73, respectively.

Brief Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican-Americans-II (Brief-ARSMA-II)

Anglo (acculturation) and Latino (enculturation) orientation were measured using the Brief-ARSMA-II, which consists of questions intended to measure one’s minority and majority cultural identity (Bauman, 2005). These questions assess an individual’s Anglo orientation and Mexican orientation, although none of the questions specifically refer to Mexican culture. Given the use of the instrument with the Latino population in general (Cuéllar et al., 1995), we referred to the Mexican orientation scale as Latino orientation. The Brief-ARSMA-II includes 12 items that assess one’s linguistic ability, linguistic preference, and personal associations. Both the Anglo and Latino orientation scales are composed of six non-overlapping items. Respondents reported the degree to which each statement accurately described them on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (almost always) with higher scores being associated with greater Anglo or Latino orientation. A reported alpha coefficient for the Latino orientation scale was .91 and .73 for the Anglo oriented scale on a sample of middle school and elementary school students (Bauman, 2005). The DAVILA sample enculturation alpha was .87 while the acculturation alpha was .62.

Family support

The DAVILA Study used the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS; Zimet et al., 1988), a 12-item tool assessing social support from significant others, family, and friends, to measure social support. Given the importance of familism among Latinos, the family support scale was used to evaluate this concept. Participants responded to questions on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree; Zimet et al., 1988). The MSPSS has been shown to have an overall reliability (alpha) of .88, with a reliability of 0.87 for the family sub-scales. In our sample, the overall reliability coefficient was 0.90, with a reliability of 0.85 for the family sub-scales.

Immigration status

Immigration status was determined by asking the parent/caregiver in which country the adolescent participant was born. This variable was then converted into a dichotomous measure of whether or not the adolescent is an immigrant.

Procedures

Telephone numbers were drawn from two sampling frames to represent a national sample of families with Latino children. Initially, probability samples of households with telephones were generated from a national RDD sample of high density (80% or higher) “Hispanic blocks” to draw a random sample of numbers using Census-based hundred-blocks. In the second sampling frame, telephone numbers were selected at random from a list of Latino surnames to represent a national sample. The sampling frame was modified from the original due to the difficulty in obtaining participants with the high density RDD, which accounts for 7.2% of the study participants.

When a residence was reached, the interviewer asked about the total number of age-eligible Latinos currently living in the household. If there was more than one eligible adolescent, the next/more recent birthday method was used to select the participant (Salmon & Nichols, 1983). When an age-eligible adolescent was identified and agreed to participate, they were assessed in their preferred language (either Spanish or English) using the various study instruments. The interview lasted on average approximately 12 minutes for caregivers and 33 minutes for adolescent respondents.

Analytic Strategy

The current analysis focused on examining which factors distinguished between categories of victimization and delinquency. Using participant responses to the JVQ and the FDB scales, four groups of adolescents were created: youth who were primarily delinquents and not victims (primarily delinquents), those who were primarily victims and not delinquents (primarily victims), those who were both delinquents and victims (delinquent-victims), and those who were neither victims nor delinquents or had low levels of both victimization and delinquency (low-victim/low-delinquent). The criteria used to create the typology groups is based on previous work and detailed in Table 2 (Cuevas et al., 2007, 2013). As an example, a delinquent-victim was someone who had engaged in two or more acts of delinquency (as measured by the FDB) and experienced two or more victimizations (as measured by the JVQ). After the typology groups were created, multinomial logistic regression was conducted to determine which cultural and demographic variables distinguished between the four groups. Independent variables included immigrant status, acculturation, enculturation, family support, and three measures of psychological distress (i.e., hostility, depression, and anxiety). Regression analysis also controlled for age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Multinomial logistic regression analysis presents relative risk ratios (RRR) for ease of interpretability.

Table 2.

Delinquency and Victimization Criteria for Typology Groups.

Victim-Delinquent Category	Delinquency Criteria	Victimization Criteria
Victim-Delinquent Category	# of Events	# of Events
Primarily delinquent	≥2	<2
Primarily victim	<2	≥2
Delinquent-victim	≥2	≥2
Non-victim/Non-delinquent	<2	<2

The current analysis included weights to correct for probability of being selected based on Latino density, number of phone lines, and number of eligible children, as well as, adjust for age and gender to match national numbers for Latino children age 12–18 based on the American Community Survey. All analyses presented here apply weights and the adjusted sample included 1,408 participants.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for all variables in the multinomial regression models using weighted data. More than half the adolescents (57.6%) fell into the non-delinquent/non-victim group with the remaining youth split approximately evenly between the other three categories. Almost one fifth (19.8%) of those sampled were immigrants. In terms of the cultural variables, the mean score for acculturation was 4.00 (SD = 0.03), enculturation was 3.32 (SD = 0.04), and family support was 6.03 (SD = 0.06). The BSI t-score mean for the full sample was 45.24 (SD = 0.44) for depression, 43.47 (SD = 0.42) for anxiety, and 44.53 (SD = 0.44) for anger.

Table 3.

Variable Descriptives (N = 1,525).

Variable	Unweighted	Weighted	N
Variable	%	%	N
Non-delinquent/Non-victim	58.4	55.2	890
Primarily delinquent	13.6	14.0	208
Primarily victim	13.6	13.9	208
Delinquent-victim	14.4	16.8	219
Immigrant	24.0	24.9	359
Variable	M (SD)	M (SD)	Range
Acculturation	4.06 (0.64)	4.00 (0.03)	1–5
Enculturation	3.36 (0.99)	3.32 (0.04)	1–5
Family Support	6.14 (1.19)	6.03 (0.06)	1–7
Depression	44.63 (9.19)	45.24 (0.44)	36–80
Anxiety	43.51 (9.37)	43.47 (0.42)	35–80
Hostility	44.27 (8.84)	44.53 (0.44)	34–79

Prior to running the regression model, bivariate correlations were conducted to evaluate the relationships among the variables included in the regression and screen for multicollinearity. As expected, the dependent variable (delinquent-victim category) was significantly associated with most of the cultural and mental health variables. There was a significant negative correlation between delinquent-victim category and immigrant status (r = -0.06, p = .03), delinquent-victim category and enculturation (r = -0.14, p < .001), and delinquent-victim category and family support (r = -0.35, p < .001). Delinquent-victim category was significantly and positively correlated with depression (r = 0.33, p <.001), anxiety (r = 0.33, p <.001), and anger (r = 0.41, p <.001). There were no concerns with multicollinearity among the independent variables.

Multinomial Logistic Regression Results

Table 4 reports multinomial logistic regression results that compare the four delinquency-victimization profiles. Predictors that distinguished among groups were age, acculturation, family support, anxiety, and hostility.

Table 4.

Multinomial Logistic Regression of Delinquent-Victim Category (N = 1,408).

Variable	Delinquent-Victim v. Non-Delinquent/Non-VictimRRR[95% CI]	Delinquent v. Non-Delinquent/Non-VictimRRR[95% CI]	Victim v. Non-Delinquent/Non-VictimRRR[95% CI]	Delinquent-Victim v. VictimRRR[95% CI]	Delinquent-Victim v. DelinquentRRR[95% CI]	Victim v. DelinquentRRR[95% CI]
Age	1.24**[1.04, 1.47]	1.16[0.99, 1.35]	1.00[0.86, 1.17]	1.24*[1.03, 1.50]	1.08[0.89, 1.29]	0.86[0.71, 1.03]
SES	1.20[0.92, 1.57]	0.96[0.64, 1.16]	1.26[0.97, 1.63]	0.96[0.72, 1.17]	1.39[1.00, 1.92]	1.45*[1.06, 2.00]
Female	0.71[0.38, 1.34]	1.01[0.58, 1.76]	1.05[0.60, 1.83]	0.68[0.33, 1.42]	0.71[0.35, 1.42]	1.04[0.51, 2.10]
Immigrant	0.79[0.36, 1.72]	1.01[0.50, 2.01]	1.00[0.57, 1.97]	0.78[0.31, 1.99]	0.78[0.31, 1.98]	1.00[0.41, 2.40]
Acculturation	0.90[0.57, 1.45]	1.01[0.68, 1.49]	0.60*[0.37, 0.90]	1.56[0.87, 2.74]	0.90[0.53, 1.53]	0.90[0.53, 1.53]
Enculturation	0.87[0.61, 1.23]	0.93[0.70, 1.24]	0.80[0.60, 1.07]	1.08[0.73, 1.61]	0.93[0.63, 1.37]	0.93[0.63, 1.37]
Family Support	0.49***[0.39, 0.62]	0.68**[0.54, 0.85]	0.66*[0.49, 0.88]	0.75[0.55, 1.02]	0.73*[0.58, 0.92]	0.97[0.71, 1.33]
Depression	1.02[0.98, 1.06]	0.98[0.94, 1.02]	0.97[0.94, 1.02]	1.04[1.00, 1.09]	1.04[1.00, 1.09]	1.00[0.95, 1.05]
Anxiety	1.03[0.99, 1.07]	1.05*[1.01, 1.10]	1.02[0.97, 1.07]	1.01[0.96, 1.06]	0.98[0.93, 1.02]	0.97[0.92, 1.02]
Hostility	1.08***[1.03, 1.13]	1.06**[1.02, 1.10]	1.05[1.01, 1.10]	1.03[0.97, 1.09]	1.02[0.97, 1.07]	0.97[0.94, 1.04]

Note. All reference groups are listed second, so that delinquent-victim v. non-delinquent/non-victim shows the results for delinquent-victims (1) in comparison to non-delinquent/non-victim (0). RRR = relative risk ratios; CI = confidence interval; SES = socio-economic status.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In looking at the delinquent-victim group, those with higher levels of family support were significantly less likely to be in the delinquent-victim group compared to the non-delinquent/non-victim group (RRR = .49, p < .001). Conversely, individuals with higher levels of hostility were significantly more likely to be in the delinquent-victim group compared to the non-delinquent/non-victim group (RRR = 1.08, p < .001). Finally, age was significantly associated with being in the delinquent-victim with older youth being more likely to be delinquent-victims (RRR = 1.24, p = .009) compared to non-delinquent/non-victims.

Results focused on the delinquent group showed that individuals with higher levels of family support were significantly less likely to be in the delinquent group compared to the non-delinquent/non-victim group (RRR = 0.68, p = .003). Those with higher levels of anxiety (RRR = 1.05, p = .01) and hostility (RRR = 1.06, p = .008) were significantly more likely to be in the delinquent category compared to the non-delinquent/non-victim category. None of the control variables distinguished between delinquents and non-delinquent/non-victims.

When comparing those in the victim category to those in the non-delinquent/non-victim category, those with higher levels of acculturation were significantly less likely to be in the victim group (RRR = 0.60, p = .03). Youth with higher levels of family support were significantly less likely to be in the victim group compared to the non-delinquent/non-victim group (RRR = 0.66, p = .003).

The only variable that distinguished between delinquent-victims and primarily victims was age. Results showed that older youth were significantly more likely to be in the delinquent-victim group (RRR = 1.24, p = .04). With regard to the comparison between delinquent-victims and primarily delinquents, the only variable that distinguished between the groups was family support. Findings showed that youth with higher levels of family support were significantly less likely to be in the delinquent-victim category when compared to the primarily delinquent category (RRR = 0.73, p = .03). Finally, none of the predictors in the model distinguished between being primarily victim and primarily delinquent.

Discussion

This study expands on work focusing on the overlap between delinquency and victimization. As it has been argued before (e.g., Lauritsen et al., 1992; Singer, 1986), our analysis did not assume that delinquents and victims were largely overlapping groups (Cuevas et al., 2007), but rather allowed for a more nuanced evaluation of the coexistence of delinquency and victimization. Furthermore, the focus on Latino youth, a generally understudied group, and the inclusion of cultural variables in our analysis, expands our knowledge of the delinquency-victimization overlap. The emphasis on how these issues may function differently among youth of color is crucial given the continued diversification within the United States.

Surprisingly, in regard to cultural variables, immigrant status and enculturation did not play a significant role in differentiating between victims and delinquents, contrary to the hypothesis and previous research which indicated that immigrant status would be a protective factor for delinquency (e.g., Vaughn et al., 2014). Acculturation was only significantly different between the victim group and the non-delinquent/non-victim group, indicating that less acculturation was more strongly related to victimization. As family support increased, the likelihood of being in the delinquent-victim group decreased and generally family support was a key protective factor for victimization, delinquency, and delinquent-victims. Enculturation did not significantly differentiate the victim group from the delinquency group. These findings are unexpected given the known role of enculturation being protective against delinquency but a risk factor for victimization, and the known role of acculturation being associated with delinquency (e.g., Samaniego & Gonzales, 1999; Vega et al., 1995).

Hostility and anxiety are associated with a greater risk of being delinquent compared to the non-victim/non-violent group. However, when comparing the victim group to the delinquent group, no significant differences were found. This finding supports our hypothesis and is congruent with previous research (e.g., Lauritsen et al., 1992; Singer, 1986), which stated that these two groups are in many ways similar. To some degree, these results also speak to the uniqueness of delinquent-victims, suggesting the possibility of these youth requiring additional attention from a prevention and intervention standpoint. Overall, these findings demonstrate that except for family support, other covariates did not consistently demonstrate relationships with group memberships. This pattern suggests that family support is an important protective factor; however, cultural variables and psychological distress variables may not be as relevant when considering risk for victimization or delinquency.

Consistent with prior research using similar definitions (Cuevas et al., 2007, 2013), the majority of our sample (55.2%) did not experience elevated levels of delinquency or victimization in the past year. In contrast, delinquent-victims among our Latino youth accounted for about 17% of the sample in contrast to research with national samples where percentages have ranged from the mid-teens to the mid-20s (Cuevas et al., 2007, 2013). Primarily victims and primarily delinquents also appear at lower levels in our sample than results from these cited studies. Given the similar procedures for creating the groups, the discrepancies seem to be a result of a larger proportion of non-delinquent/non-victims within our sample of Latino youth.

With the exception of age, which is associated with a greater risk of being in the delinquent-victim group relative to non-delinquent/non-victims and primarily victims, demographic variables were not significant in differentiating among the groups. While the age effect is not surprising given what we know about the relationship between delinquency and age (Farrington, 1986), the fact that neither gender nor socioeconomic status are significant for Latino youth indicates that within this community the experience of violence is unlikely to be differentiated by these factors.

These findings indicate that while cultural factors, such as acculturation, may play a role in victimization and delinquency, these groups are not distinguished by the variables in our models and may have more similarities than differences. The implications of this research are important as they challenge the idea that victims and offenders need different treatment and different targets. While differences may exist and treatment should also concentrate on any imminent concerns, the separation of these two groups may not be imperative. Approaching both groups with similar intervention strategies may increase accessibility and availability. For example, prevention programs may more generally target risk factors while taking into consideration cultural variables, but may need little adaptation to focus on delinquency or victimization. Similarly, intervention strategies could have significant overlap, with adaptations for delinquency or victimization emphasis, while incorporating cultural factors and a family support or family systems component. It is worth noting that given the limited variation among some variables, including acculturation, enculturation, family support, depression, hostility, and anxiety, the non-significant findings may reflect a homogeneous, low-risk sample, rather than a lack of differentiation between groups.

Limitations of this study included its reliance on self-reported, retrospective events. Given the issue of memory deterioration, self-report data may not be entirely accurate and may be a misrepresentation of the actual number of events that have occurred. In addition, relying on landlines may potentially have missed certain types of Latino households, such as those households without a landline, which could result in an underrepresentation of younger parents. The landline requirement poses the risk of an adolescent speaking with researchers while parents or other adults are nearby, and could cause the adolescent to not report all incidents of delinquency or victimization. However, this is tempered by the youth being asked if they were in a safe place to respond prior to being asked the study questions. Moreover, delinquency and victimization within the last year were assessed, and therefore these results may better represent recent victimization and delinquency overlap. Limitations of this study also include potential confounding variables when considering degrees of acculturation, including discrimination and migration stress often experienced by newly immigrated minority groups, particularly those cohabiting in more ethnically diverse areas. Finally, the acculturation patterns describe may be unique to the American culture and specific Latino cultures. Findings may differ in other countries.

Future studies should examine if those with a victimization history are more likely to commit delinquent offenses as they age, compared to those without a victimization history to assess if this pattern found in previous studies is also relevant to the Latino community. Similarly, a longitudinal study would be able to ascertain the time-ordering of events—that is, if those with victimization were more likely to commit delinquent offenses versus those with delinquent offenses becoming more vulnerable for victimizations.

This study sought to examine the impact of cultural variables on the overlap of delinquency and victimization in understudied adolescents. Although prior research had indicated that acculturation may be a risk factor for delinquency and victimization, this pattern was not demonstrated in the study. Instead, cultural factors did not play a significant role in differentiating the two groups, but familial support did significantly distinguish the groups. These findings offer an important insight into prevention targets and avenues to support minority youth in avoiding perpetration or being victims of violence.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by Grant No. 2009-W9-BX-0001 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

ORCID iD

Carlos A. Cuevas

Author Biographies

Carlos A. Cuevas, PhD, is a professor and co-director of the Violence and Justice Research Laboratory at Northeastern University in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. He earned his PhD in clinical psychology from CSPP at Alliant International University. His research focuses on interpersonal violence, victimization, and trauma. His work also examines the overlap among various forms of victimization, psychological distress, and service utilization, particularly among Latinos and other people of color. His research also looks at factors that may impact the victimization-delinquency link. He is also a licensed psychologist providing clinical services to victims of violence.

Chiara Sabina, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Women & Gender Studies at the University of Delaware. Her research employs a contextual, strengths-based perspective with respect to interpersonal violence focusing on understudied groups, the influence of cultural variables, help-seeking responses, and examination of the service-delivery system. She has received grants from the Fulbright Program, National Institute of Justice, Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Vision of Hope, and National Sexual Violence Resource Center to conduct her work on Latino victimization, victim needs, violence prevention, domestic violence services, and culturally informed sexual assault services.

Rebecca Cudmore Kendall, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Criminal Justice & Sociology Department at Curry College in Massachusetts. She graduated in May of 2017 with her PhD in Criminology and Justice Studies from Northeastern University. Before that, she received her MA in Forensic and Counseling Psychology. Her primary policy and research interests are in the area of violence and victimization, with a specific focus on sexual offending, intimate partner violence, and human trafficking.

Emilie Picard, MS, is a clinical psychology doctoral student at Fordham University, concentrating in forensic psychology and neuropsychology. Her research focuses on issues related to sexual offending, suicide and violence risk assessment, malingering assessment, and forensic neuropsychology. She is particularly interested in cognitive dysfunction in men with pedophilia and the impact of various neuropsychological sequelae on behavior. She is also a licensed mental health counselor and conducts federal pre-sentencing sex offender risk assessments.

Kelly Goggin, MS, is a graduate of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University and served as a Research Assistant in the Violence and Justice Research Laboratory. Her research focuses on victimization of vulnerable or underrepresented populations, risk factors for commercial sexual exploitation, the victim-offender overlap, and parole board decision-making for “juvenile lifers,” or juveniles who received mandatory life-without-parole sentences.

References

Agnew

(2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Roxbury Press.

Anderson

(1999). Code of the streets: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W.W. Norton.

Bauman

(2005). The reliability and validity of the Brief Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans-II for children and adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986305281423

Beckley

A. L.

Caspi

Arseneault

Barnes

J. C.

Fisher

H. L.

Harrington

… Moffitt

T. E.

(2018). The developmental nature of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 4, 24–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0068-3

Broidy

L. M.

Daday

J. K.

Crandall

C. S.

Sklar

D. P.

Jost

P. F.

(2006). Exploring demographic, structural, and behavioral overlap among homicide offenders and victims. Homicide Studies, 10, 155–180.

Brown

(2009). Assessing the anomalous research on Hispanic victimization: A methodological critique of a victimological enigma. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1931–1963.

Buriel

Calzada

Vasquez

(1982). The relationship of traditional Mexican American culture to adjustment and delinquency among three generations of Mexican American male adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 4(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863820041003

Cabassa

L. J.

(2003). Measuring acculturation: Where we are and where we need to go. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25, 127–146.

Coatsworth

J. D.

Maldonado-Molina

Pantin

Szapocznik

(2005). A person-centered and ecological investigation of acculturation strategies in Hispanic immigrant youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20046

10.

Coohey

(2001). The relationship between familism and child maltreatment in Latino and Anglo families. Child Maltreatment, 6, 130–142.

11.

Cuéllar

Arnold

Maldonado

(1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA Scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863950173001

12.

Cuevas

C. A.

Finkelhor

Shattuck

Turner

Hamby

S. L.

(2013). Children’s exposure to violence and the intersection between delinquency and victimization (NCJ240555). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

13.

Cuevas

C. A.

Finkelhor

Turner

H. A.

Ormrod

R. K.

(2007). Juvenile victimization and delinquency: A theoretical typology. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1581–1602.

14.

Dahlberg

L. L.

Toal

S. B.

Behrens

C. B.

(1998). Measuring violence-related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors among youth: A compendium of assessment tools. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

15.

Decker

M. R.

Raj

Silverman

J. G.

(2007). Sexual violence against adolescent girls: Influences of immigration and acculturation. Violence Against Women, 13(5), 498–513.

16.

Derogatis

L. R.

(1992). The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring, and procedures manual II. Clinical Psychometric Research.

17.

Derogatis

L. R.

(1993). BSI Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual. Pearson.

18.

Fagan

Piper

E. S.

Cheng

Y.-T.

(1987). Contributions of victimization to delinquency in inner cities. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78(3), 586-609.

19.

Farrell

Zimmerman

G. M.

(2018). Is exposure to violence a persistent risk factor for offending across the life course? Examining the contemporaneous, acute, enduring, and long-term consequences of exposure to violence on property crime, violent offending, and substance use. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 55, 728–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818785207

20.

Farrington

D. P.

(1986). Age and crime. Crime and Justice, 7, 189–250.

21.

Finkelhor

Hamby

S. L.

Ormrod

R. K.

Turner

H. A.

(2005). The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire: Reliability, validity, and national norms. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 383–412.

22.

Gottfredson

M. R.

(1981). On the etiology of criminal victimization. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 714–726.

23.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). The nature of criminality: Low self-control. In Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(Eds.), A general theory of crime (pp. 85–120). Stanford University Press.

24.

Griffith

(1983). Relationship between acculturation and psychological impairment in adult Mexican Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 5, 431–459.

25.

Hamby

S. L.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

R. K.

Turner

H. A.

(2005). The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ): Administration and scoring manual. Crimes against Children Research Center.

26.

Haynie

D. L.

Nansel

Eitel

Crump

A. D.

Saylor

Simons-Morton

(2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431601021001002

27.

Huck

J. L.

Lee

D. R.

Bowen

K. N.

Spraitz

J. D.

Bowers

J. H.

Jr. (2012). Specifying the dynamic relationships of general strain, coping, and young adult crime. Western Criminology Review, 13, 36–45.

28.

Jennings

W. G.

Higgins

G. E.

Tewksbury

Gover

A. R.

Piquero

A. R.

(2010). A longitudinal assessment of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(12), 2147–2174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354888

29.

Jennings

W. G.

Piquero

A. R.

Reingle

J. M.

(2012). On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 16–26.

30.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Laub

J. H.

Sampson

R. J.

(1992). Conventional and delinquent activities: Implications for the prevention of violent victimization among adolescents. Violence and Victims, 7, 91–108.

31.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–292.

32.

Lauritsen

J. L.

White

N. A.

(2001). Putting violence in its place: The influence of race, ethnicity, gender, and place on the risk for violence. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 37–59.

33.

Loeber

Dishion

T. J.

(1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68–94.

34.

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

(1987). The prediction of delinquency. In Quay

H. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of juvenile delinquency (pp. 325–382). Wiley.

35.

Maldonado-Molina

M. M.

Jennings

W. G.

Tobler

A. L.

Piquero

A. R.

Canino

(2010). Assessing the victim-offender overlap among Puerto Rican youth. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1191–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.008

36.

Malvaso

C. G.

Delfabbro

Day

(2015). The maltreatment–offending association: A systematic review of the methodological features of prospective and longitudinal studies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19, 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015620820

37.

Marin

(1993). Defining culturally appropriate community interventions: Hispanics as a case study. Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 149–161.

38.

McGee

Z. T.

Barber

Joseph

Dudley

Howell

(2005). Delinquent behavior, violent victimization, and coping strategies among Latino adolescents. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 42, 41–56.

39.

Menard

(2012). Age, criminal victimization and offending: Changing relationships from adolescence to middle adulthood. Victims & Offenders, 7, 227–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2012.685353

40.

Perren

Hornung

(2005). Bullying and delinquency in adolescence: Victims’ and perpetrators’ family and peer relations. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.64.4.51

41.

Pew Research Center. (2011). Census 2010: 50 million Latinos—Hispanics account for more than half of the nation’s growth in past decade.

42.

Posick

(2013). The overlap between offending and victimization among adolescents. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986212471250

43.

Rodriguez

Mira

C. B.

Paez

N. D.

Myers

H. F.

(2007). Exploring the complexities of familism and acculturation: Central constructs for people of Mexican origin. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 61–77.

44.

Sabina

Cuevas

C. A.

(2013). Final report: Dating Violence Among Latino Adolescents (DAVILA) study (Document No. 242775). National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

45.

Salmon

C. T.

Nichols

J. S.

(1983). The next-birthday method of respondent selection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 270–276. https://doi.org/10.1086/268785

46.

Samaniego

R. Y.

Gonzales

N. A.

(1999). Multiple mediators of the effects of acculturation status on delinquency for Mexican American adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 189–210.

47.

Sampson

R. J.

Lauritsen

J. L.

(1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the offender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 27, 110–139.

48.

Schreck

C. J.

(1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.

49.

Schreck

C. J.

Berg

M. T.

Ousey

G. C.

Stewart

E. A.

Miller

J. M.

(2017). Does the nature of the victimization–offending association fluctuate over the life course? An examination of adolescence and early adulthood. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 786–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715619736

50.

Schreck

C. J.

Stewart

E. A.

Osgood

D. W.

(2008). A reappraisal of the overlap of violent offenders and victims. Criminology, 46, 871–906.

51.

Schwartz

Proctor

L. J.

Chien

D. H.

(2001). The aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioral dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In Juvonen

Graham

(Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147–174). Guilford Press.

52.

Singer

S. I.

(1986). Victims of serious violence and their criminal behavior: Subcultural theory and beyond. Victims and Violence, 1, 61–70.

53.

Smith

D. J.

Ecob

(2007). An investigation into causal links between victimization and offending in adolescents. The British Journal of Sociology, 58, 633–659.

54.

Taylor

T. J.

Freng

Esbensen

F. A.

Peterson

(2008). Youth gang membership and serious violent victimization: The importance of lifestyles and routine activities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1441–1464.

55.

Vaughn

M. G.

Salas-Wright

C. P.

DeLisi

Maynard

B. R.

(2014). The immigrant paradox: Immigrants are less antisocial than native-born Americans. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49, 1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-013-0799-3

56.

Vega

W. A.

Khoury

E. L.

Zimmerman

R. S.

Gil

A. G.

Warheit

G. J.

(1995). Cultural conflicts and problem behaviors of Latino adolescents in home and school environments. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(199504)

57.

Vera

E. M.

(Ed.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of prevention in counseling psychology. Oxford University Press.

58.

Walker

S. C.

Maxson

Newcomb

M. N.

(2007). Parenting as a moderator of minority, adolescent victimization and violent behavior in high-risk neighborhoods. Violence and Victims, 22, 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007780842801

59.

Zimet

G. D.

Dahlem

N. W.

Zimet

S. G.

Farley

G. K.

(1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41.