Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Exploring Long-Term and Short-

Term Risk Factors for Serious
Delinquency
Martine Blom
European Journal of Criminology

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

T he efficacy of st rat egies t o reduce juvenile offending

Troy Allard

Ident ificat ion of pot ent ial juvenile offenders

Marc Le Blanc

Int egrat ing Criminal Careers and Ecological Research T he Import ance of Geographic Locat ion for Tar…
Troy Allard
European Journal of Criminology
http://euc.sagepub.com

Exploring Long-Term and Short-Term Risk Factors for Serious

Delinquency
André M. van der Laan, Martine Blom and Edward R. Kleemans
European Journal of Criminology 2009; 6; 419
DOI: 10.1177/1477370809337882

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://euc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/5/419

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

European Society of Criminology

Additional services and information for European Journal of Criminology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://euc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://euc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://euc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/6/5/419

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

 Volume 6 (5): 419–438: 1477-3708
DOI: 10.1177/1477370809337882
© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and Permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/JournalsPermissions.nav
www.sagepublications.com

Exploring Long-Term and Short-Term

Risk Factors for Serious Delinquency
André M. van der Laan
Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), The Netherlands
Martine Blom
Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), The Netherlands
Edward R. Kleemans
Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), The Netherlands
VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

Scholars in the field of developmental criminology traditionally assign a major

role to long-term risk factors such as inadequate parental supervision or poor
school performance. Only recently has attention been paid to the effects of situ-
ational risk factors such as the presence of co-offenders and being drunk. Hardly
any empirical research, however, integrates both long-term and short-term
risk factors. We formulated hypotheses derived from the Integrated Cognitive
Antisocial Potential theory (Farrington 2005) with regard to long-term and short-
term risk factors for serious delinquency, and tested these hypotheses using data
from the WODC Youth Delinquency Survey (data sweep 2005) of 292 juvenile
delinquents. The findings indicate that serious delinquency is related not only to
(an accumulation of) long-term risk factors, but also to situational factors, such
as lack of tangible guardians and having used substances (alcohol or drugs) prior
to the offence.

KEY WORDS

Long-Term Risk Factors / Opportunity Theory / Self-Reported Delinquency /

Short-Term Risk Factors.

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

420 European Journal of Criminology 6(5)

Introduction

The risk factor approach is one of the dominant paradigms for explaining
serious juvenile delinquency (e.g. Farrington 2005). This approach empha-
sizes long-term risk factors such as impulsivity, lack of social skills,
inadequate parental supervision and poor school performance. Serious and
persistent delinquency is primarily explained by the presence of an accu-
mulation of long-term risk factors and a lack of protective factors (see e.g.
Farrington 2005; Loeber et al. 2006). Individuals who display frequent
and/or serious delinquent behaviour – we will refer to these individuals as
serious delinquents – differ from other types of delinquents, because they
are usually influenced by an accumulation of long-term risk factors.
Conversely, the situational approach emphasizes situations in which
potential offenders find themselves when they commit offences (see e.g.
Clarke and Felson 1993; Osgood et al. 1996; Felson 1998). Several studies
show that some situations are more conducive to offending than others, in
terms of suitable targets or the absence of tangible guardians. Offending
may also be facilitated by the company of potential co-offenders or by using
alcohol or drugs. According to the situational approach, everybody is a
potential offender. Whether or not an individual commits an offence depends
primarily on the situation (e.g. Cohen and Felson 1979; Clarke and Felson
1993; Felson 1998). Farrington (2005) refers to factors that determine a
person’s behaviour in actual situations as short-term risk factors.
For many years, these different theoretical and empirical research
traditions seemed to be mutually exclusive. Hardly any empirical research
integrates both long-term and short-term risk factors. Recently, however,
theoretical attempts have been made to integrate both approaches.
Farrington in his Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential (ICAP) theory
(2005), for example, combines both long-term and short-term risk factors
in one theoretical model. The aim of this article is to fill the empirical gap in
the literature by examining both long-term and short-term risk factors for
serious delinquency, testing hypotheses from the ICAP theory and using data
from the WODC Youth Delinquency Survey. The following sections of this
article describe in more detail the empirical and theoretical background of
this study, the data and method, and empirical results. In the last section, we
discuss the relevance of these empirical findings for theory and research.

Empirical and theoretical background

Empirical studies in the field of developmental criminology have focused

on risk factors in a number of domains, such as the individual domain,

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

 van der Laan et al. Long-term and short-term risk factors 421

the family and the school (see e.g. Farrington 2005; Loeber et al. 2001,
2006). Examples of individual risk factors are impulsiveness and a lack of
social skills. Risk factors in the family domain include weak attachment
or inadequate parental supervision. Poor school performance and weak
attachment to school are risk factors in the school domain.
If we take several risk factors into account, the effect of one single
factor on serious delinquency is generally weak. A robust finding is that the
probability of serious problem behaviour increases if risk factors accumulate
across several domains (Bronfenbrenner 1979; Stouthamer-Loeber et al.
1993, 2002; Pollard et al. 1999; Loeber et al. 2001). According to the risk
factor approach, serious offenders differ from other offenders (and from
non-offenders) in that they are exposed to an accumulation of risk factors
and a lack of protective factors (see e.g. Farrington 2005; Rutter et al. 1998).
These include factors in the individual, family, neighbourhood and school
domains, which, regardless of the features of the actual situation, may influ-
ence an individual’s behaviour over a relatively long period: so-called long-
term risk factors (Farrington 2005; Wikström and Sampson 2003).
Critics, however, state that the empirical risk factor approach does
not explain why some individuals do in fact offend (or persistently offend),
since other individuals who are subject to similar long-term risks do not con-
tinue their criminal career or might even not commit any offences (Fattah
1993; Osgood et al. 1996). The focus on long-term risk factors means that
no account is taken of the situational characteristics in which offences are
committed. Some situations are more provocative or tempting, or are less
likely to deter individuals from offending than others, regardless of indi-
vidual characteristics (Wikström and Sampson 2003).
Situational theories assume that whether or not an individual will
commit an offence is primarily determined by specific features of the situ-
ation, also referred to as short-term risk factors (Wikström and Sampson
2003; Farrington 2005). The central hypothesis is that the motivation
to commit an offence lies in the situation. This means that, in principle,
anyone can be motivated to commit an offence (Briar and Piliavin 1965;
Cohen and Felson 1979; Clarke and Felson 1993; Fattah 1993; Osgood
et al. 1996; Felson 1998). Routine activities theory, for example, argues that
the presence of a motivated offender and a suitable target and the absence
of tangible guardians are sufficient conditions to commit an offence (Felson
1998). In other situational theories, the presence of co-offenders and being
drunk are regarded as situational factors facilitating the commission of
offences (Felson 1998; Warr 2002; Farrington 2005). A consistent finding
is that adolescents who commit offences often do so in groups (Warr 2002).
Within groups, friends encourage each other to commit offences: friends
may be keen to avoid losing face, want to gain respect or wish to be loyal

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

422 European Journal of Criminology 6(5)

to the group (Warr 2002). Another precipitating factor is being under the
influence of alcohol or drugs, which may cause a loss of inhibitions and thus
increase the probability of offending (Warr 2002).
In addition to long-term risk factors, short-term risk factors can there-
fore also play a significant role in the committal of offences. It is striking
that it was not until recently that a number of theoretical attempts have been
made to integrate both approaches in order to gain a better understanding
of serious delinquency during adolescence (Wikström and Sampson 2003;
Farrington 2005; Wikström 2005). In his ICAP theory, Farrington (2003,
2005) combines the risk factor approach with the situational approach.
According to this theory, long-term risk factors increase an individual’s
predisposition towards antisocial behaviour in the long term. Long-term
risk factors, however, do not explain why individuals offend in specific situ-
ations. Short-term risk factors, such as lack of tangible guardianship, the
presence of co-offenders or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs,
may reduce constraints and increase the likelihood of offending. These im-
mediate situational factors decrease the subjective costs of offending, but
according to ICAP theory only those individuals with a predisposition
towards antisocial behaviour will be seduced by these factors to commit an
offence.
ICAP theory was developed very recently and empirical research
in this area is limited.1 In this article we examine both short-term and
long-term risk factors for serious delinquency. We derive hypotheses from
ICAP theory. More specifically, we study the extent to which, in addition
to long-term risk factors, short-term factors contribute toward explaining
serious delinquency, as compared with moderate delinquency, during adoles-
cence. We use the term ‘serious juvenile delinquents’ to refer to adolescents
who offend frequently and who commit serious offences.
The central question of our study is: ‘What is the relationship between
short-term risk factors and serious versus moderate delinquency during
adolescence, taking into account (an accumulation of) long-term risk factors?’
Based on the risk factor approach, we hypothesize that, as more long-term
risk factors accumulate, the probability of serious delinquency will increase,
compared with moderate delinquency. From this perspective, we also ex-
pect that situational factors will not provide any additional explanation
for serious delinquency. Following a situational approach, however, we
expect that, regardless of long-term risk factors, the circumstances in which

1 Some research has been done on the effects on delinquency of situational features related
to social control concepts or lifestyle (see e.g. Bernburg and Thorlindsson 2001; Osgood and
Anderson 2004). However, we are not aware of any empirical study that combines the effects
of long-term and short-term risk factors on delinquency.

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

 van der Laan et al. Long-term and short-term risk factors 423

serious delinquents commit offences will differ from those that apply to
moderate delinquents. According to Farrington’s ICAP theory, we expect
that both an accumulation of long-term risk factors and the existence of
short-term risk factors will be directly associated with a higher probability
of serious delinquency. In other words, we also hypothesize that, in addition
to differences in long-term risk factors, the circumstances in which serious
offenders commit offences will differ from those in which offences are
committed by moderate offenders. Finally, ICAP theory would also expect
that a combination of long- and short-term risk factors will be associated
with an even greater likelihood of serious delinquency.

Method

We used information from the WODC Youth Delinquency Survey 2005

(Van der Laan and Blom, 2006), a cross-sectional survey carried out
amongst adolescents between the ages of 10 and 17. A stratified random
sampling method was used. After randomly selecting 42 out of 443 Dutch
municipalities, a random selection was made of home addresses of adoles-
cents from the Municipal Base Registry (GBA). Between January and
April 2005, 2161 adolescents were approached, resulting in 1460 in-home
interviews. Information on long-term risk factors was obtained in a face-
to-face situation, using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI).
Self-reported delinquency and information on short-term risk factors were
measured by means of Computer Assisted Self Interviewing (CASI). For
31 offences, the adolescents were asked how often they had committed
these offences over the previous 12 months: 40 percent of the total sample
(N = 584) reported at least one offence during the previous 12 months. For
15 offences,2 questions were asked regarding the actual situation in which
the offence was committed on the most recent occasion. Short-term risk
factors are thus known for only a limited number of delinquents. For this
study, only those delinquents who gave information on the actual situational
features of the offences were selected. The total sample consisted of 292
adolescents. Their average age was 14.2 years (SD = 2.0), 63.0 percent of
the study group were male, 23.6 percent were persons of foreign heritage,
67.9 percent were in junior secondary education (individual preparatory
vocational education [IVBO] or lower secondary professional education

2 These offences were ‘forced sex’, ‘inflicting injury’, ‘intimidation’, ‘use of violence in order to
commit theft’, ‘the use of intimidation in order to commit theft’, ‘pick pocketing’, ‘burglary’,
‘theft of property from a vehicle’, ‘theft of a bicycle or scooter’, ‘shoplifting of goods to the
value of less than €10’, ‘shoplifting of goods to the value of more than €10’, ‘vehicle vandalism’,
‘house vandalism’, ‘vandalism in a bus/tram/metro’ and ‘other vandalism’.

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

424 European Journal of Criminology 6(5)

[VMBO]) and 47.9 percent lived in urban areas.3 Below we will describe the
operationalization of self-reported delinquency and the long- and short-term
risk factors. A more detailed description of the psychometric characteristics
of the scales is provided in Appendix A.

Delinquency
Delinquency was measured using 31 self-reported offences, varying from
frequently occurring and minor offences to rare and serious offences. The
adolescents were asked how many times they had committed each offence
during the previous 12 months. On the basis of the total sample, a delinqu-
ency scale was constructed in order to distinguish between moderate juvenile
delinquents and serious juvenile delinquents, taking account of the serious-
ness, frequency and variety of offences. First, the offences were classified
according to seriousness – based on the applicable legal penalty – as a
minor offence (maximum custodial sentence of 48 months, e.g. vandalism;
score 1) or a serious offence (minimum custodial sentence of 48 months,
e.g. breaking and entering; score 2). Second, the offences were categorized
according to frequency. Minor offences were assigned code 0 (committed
0 times during the past 12 months), 1 (1–4 times) or 2 (5 times or more);
serious offences were coded 0 (0 times), 1 (once), 2 (2–4 times), 3 (5–10
times) or 4 (11 times or more). Third, for each offence the severity was multi-
plied by the frequency.4 Finally, the delinquency scale was the sum of these
multiplicative scores (31 items; range 0–55; M = 4.4; SD = 5.6; α = .74).
We found a clear distinction between two groups of adolescents
on the delinquency scale: a group of relatively moderate and a group of
relatively serious (45.3 percent) juvenile delinquents (the ‘cut-off point’ for
serious delinquents was ≥ 5).5 The majority (84 percent) of the delinquents
who had committed only minor offences and no serious offences were
classified as moderate delinquents. The majority (87 percent) of the

3 For five background characteristics (sex, age, origin, educational level and proximity to
urban centres), we examined to what extent the selection of 292 delinquents differed from the
remaining delinquents (who were all adolescents who reported only minor offences) within
the total sample. Significant differences were found for age (χ2 = 4,504, p = .034) and level of
education (χ2 = 7.202, p = .027).
4 Our choice for doing so is partly theoretically driven and partly based on empirical research

done in the Netherlands by Nijboer (1997), who used Mokken analysis to find out which
aspects of the offence should be weighted in which way. For example, if we had coded only
by seriousness (e.g. non-serious = 1; serious = 2) and not by frequency, youngsters who had
committed four non-serious offences such as shoplifting something worth less than €5 would
have had the same score on the delinquency scale as youngsters who had committed two
serious offences such as robbery.
5 The percentage of serious delinquents is high owing to the selection of the sample, which is

based on information on situational aspects of the offences.

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

 van der Laan et al. Long-term and short-term risk factors 425

adolescents who had committed at least one serious offence (possibly in

combination with one or more minor offences) were classified as serious
delinquents. There were significant differences between both groups with
regard to the variety of self-reported offences (Mmd = 2.2 versus Msd = 6.3;
F-value (1290) = 315.0; p < .001), the average number of serious offences
(Mmd = 0.1 versus Msd = 0.6; F-value (1290) = 58.8; p < .001) and the
frequency of offences committed (Mmd = 4.0 versus Msd = 22.3; F-value
(1290) = 231.9; p < .001).

Long-term risk factors

Long-term risk factors refer to factors in different domains that can deter-
mine a person’s behaviour over a relatively long period of time (Farrington
2005). Long-term risk factors were measured in three domains: individual,
family and school.
The individual domain covers three scales adapted from the Dutch
version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Each scale
consists of five items with response categories on a three-point Likert scale
(Goodman 1999; Van Widenfelt et al. 2003). The scales relate to prosocial
behaviour (5 items; α = .61), hyperactivity and attention disorders (5 items;
α = .69) and emotional problems (5 items; α = .63).
Within the family domain, the adolescent’s relationship with parents
and parenting styles were measured with four scales. The first scale, ‘emo-
tional support’, measures the emotional relationship with parents (4 items;
α = .74). This scale is based on the Dutch version of the EMBU-C (Markus
et al. 2003; Veenstra et al. 2006). The second scale, ‘openness towards
parents’, measures the extent to which someone informs his or her parents,
unprompted, about leisure-time activities (5 items; α = .62) (Stattin and
Kerr 2000). The third scale, ‘parental solicitation’, measures the extent to
which parents ask, of their own accord, about their children’s leisure activ-
ities (5 items; α = .66) (Stattin and Kerr 2000). The fourth scale, ‘parental
supervision’, measures parents’ knowledge of their children’s activities
(5 items; α = .68) (Fletcher et al. 2004). The first three scales had response
categories on a five-point Likert scale, the last one had response categories
on a three-point Likert scale. The items on the four scales were asked for
mother and father separately. For the purpose of this study, the average
score for father and mother was used for each scale. If data were available
regarding only one of the parents (20.6 percent of the adolescents lived with
just their father or their mother), only the data relating to the known parent
were used.
Finally, two variables were measured within the school domain. The
first relates to ‘performance at school’ and measures the young person’s

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

426 European Journal of Criminology 6(5)

average performance over the previous year on the basis of one item (five-
point Likert scale). The second scale relates to his or her ‘attachment to
school’ (5 items; α = .76). The scale was taken from the NSCR school
project (Weerman et al. 2003).
All scales were recoded to dichotomous variables with values 0 (‘no
risk’) and 1 (‘risk’). In this context, a ‘cut-off point’ of below the 25th or
above the 75th percentile was used, depending on the meaning of the pole of
the scale (see Farrington and Loeber 2000). Although dichotomization may
lead to loss of variation, it has some important advantages. By dichotom-
izing the variables the interpretation is made easier because the scales of
all variables are equal. Next, dichotomization accommodates skewness
of variables (such as the delinquency scale) without the necessary trans-
formations that are complex to interpret. Furthermore, research has shown
that dichotomization does not necessarily lead to different interpretation of
the results (Farrington and Loeber 2000).

Short-term risk factors

The term ‘short-term risk factors’ refers to situational factors that increase
the likelihood that an individual will commit an offence (Farrington 2005).
For 15 types of offence, the respondents were asked about the situational
features of the most recent offence (where those respondents who reported
more than one type of offence also reported multiple situational features).
For this study, these situational factors were the presence of co-offenders,
a limited risk of being caught, the absence of guardians and being under
the influence of alcohol or drugs prior to committing the offence. These
variables were recoded into dichotomous variables with values 0 (‘no’) and 1
(‘yes’). The presence of co-offenders was measured by asking the adolescent
whether he or she had been alone or with others at the time of the last offence
(65.9 percent ‘with co-offenders’). The risk of being caught was measured
by asking the adolescent to assess the risk of being caught (90.3 percent
reported ‘not a great risk’ or ‘no risk’). The presence or absence of tangible
guardians was measured by asking whether the adolescent considered that
there was supervision at the place of the offence (77.7 percent ‘no’). Finally,
whether or not the young person had used substances was measured by
asking whether he or she had used alcohol and/or drugs prior to committing
the offence (14.3 percent ‘yes’). When an adolescent had committed several
different types of offence, it is possible that in one situation a short-term
risk factor was present and in another situation the risk factor was absent.
In this study, an adolescent was given a short-term risk score if a short-
term risk factor applied in at least half of the situations in which he or

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

 van der Laan et al. Long-term and short-term risk factors 427

she committed an offence (≥ P50). This means that the individual variation
regarding situational features was incorporated into one score.

Control variables
Research has shown that young males are more likely to commit an offence
than young females. Furthermore, older adolescents are more likely to
offend than younger adolescents. Gender and age were therefore taken into
account in the analyses. Finally, research has shown that adolescents of
foreign heritage are more likely to be exposed to long-term risk factors than
adolescents of native Dutch heritage (Dekoviç et al. 2006). The analyses
therefore also controlled for heritage (0 for ‘persons of native Dutch
heritage’ and 1 for ‘persons of foreign heritage’).
In order to investigate the relationship between long- and short-term
risk factors and the degree of delinquency, we first produced bivariate logit
analyses using STATA (version 7.0). The association was examined on the
basis of the overall χ2 (significance level p < .05). Marginal effects were
calculated in order to establish the risk effect of a variable on delinquency
(Borooah 2002; Liao 1994). This is a relatively new method within the
field of criminology. A major advantage of marginal effects is that they are
easier to interpret than, for instance, odds ratios or regression coefficients,
because they are represented in terms of percentages. In our study, the
moderate delinquents are the reference category. For example, a marginal
effect of 0.34 means that the presence of a specific risk variable such as
having used substances is linked to a 34 percent increased probability of
belonging to the group of serious juvenile delinquents. Next, we carried
out stepwise multivariate logistical regression analyses in order to examine
the effects of short-term risk factors, taking into account control variables
and long-term risk factors.6 Only those variables that were significant at the
univariate level were included in the models.7 In order to determine whether
the extension of a model leads to a significant improvement, the difference
in (–2) log likelihood (LL) of the various models was examined.8

6 Analyses using continuous (dependent and independent) variables lead to the same conclusions

as those drawn from the analyses used here.

7 We also conducted stepwise backwards regression models in which we included the non-
significant variables. These analyses did not change the interpretation of the results.
8 In order to investigate the effect of short-term risk factors (measured at offence level) on

the likelihood that an individual will commit an offence, taking into account long-term
risk factors (measured at the level of the individual offender), a multilevel model might be
adequate. However, we try to answer questions regarding differences between individuals
and not between offences. Because the question is to what extent short-term risk factors help
to explain serious delinquency of individuals, we think a logistical regression model is more
appropriate.

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

428 European Journal of Criminology 6(5)

Results

First we examined the bivariate correlations between the variables and the
type of delinquent. Table 1 shows that all long-term risk factors have a
significant correlation with serious delinquency, with the exception of high
hyperactivity, emotional problems and openness towards parents. The table
also shows that serious delinquency displays a significant correlation with
short-term risk factors. Only the perceived risk of being caught is unrelated
to serious delinquency. Variables that do not display a significant (p < .05)
bivariate correlation with serious delinquency were not included in the
follow-up analysis.
Table 1 shows the bivariate marginal effects of the variables on the
group of serious delinquents. In the individual domain, only low prosocial
behaviour appears to be a risk factor in relation to serious delinquency.
Low prosocial behaviour increases the probability of serious delinquency

Table 1 Bivariate relations between long-term and short-term risk factors and type of
delinquent (N = 292)

Overall χ2 p R2 Marginal S.E.

effect

Long-term risk factors

Individual domain
Limited prosocial behaviour 6.33 < .05 .02 0.16 (0.06) *
High hyperactivity and attention 3.63 .06 .01 0.11 (0.06)
problems
High emotional problems 0.00 1.00 .00 0.00 (0.06)
Family domain
Limited emotional support 5.74 < .05 .01 0.15 (0.06) *
Less openness 0.02 .90 .00 0.01 (0.06)
Less parental solicitation 5.72 < .05 .01 0.17 (0.07) *
Inadequate parental supervision 8.05 < .01 .02 0.18 (0.06) **
School domain
Poor performance at school 8.92 < .01 .02 0.26 (0.08) **
Weak school attachment 23.62 < .001 .06 0.29 (0.06) ***
Short-term risk factors
Little/no risk of being caught 0.08 .77 .00 –0.03 (0.10)
No tangible guardians 6.66 < .01 .02 0.18 (0.66) **
Co-offenders 9.15 < .01 .02 0.18 (0.06) ***
Having used substances prior to offence 13.67 < .001 .03 0.31 (0.08) ***

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

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

 van der Laan et al. Long-term and short-term risk factors 429

by 16 percent (p < .05), on top of the basic level of 45.3 percent. In the
family domain, risk effects are identified for low emotional support from
parents, low parental solicitation and inadequate parental supervision. In
the school domain, risk effects are found for poor performance at school
and weak attachment to school. Finally, the short-term risk factors of no
tangible guardians, the presence of co-offenders and having used alcohol
and/or drugs prior to committing the offence also increase the probability
that an individual will belong to the group ‘serious delinquents’.

Multivariate relationships
Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analyses were carried out in order
to examine what effect individual long-term risk factors have on serious
delinquency and whether or not short-term risk factors also play a role in
this regard. Table 2 presents the results. Model 1 includes only the control
variables. Gender and age show a significant relationship with serious
delinquency (young males are 15 percent more likely than young females
to belong to the group ‘serious delinquents’, and adolescents aged 14–17
are 22 percent more likely to belong to this group than those aged 10–13).
Entering Model 2, which includes long-term risk factors in addition to the
control variables, leads to a significant improvement (∆ –2LL(6) = 40.48,
p < .001). Low prosocial behaviour and inadequate parental supervision
both increase the likelihood of serious delinquency by 16 percent, and poor
performance at school increases the probability by 21 percent and weak
school attachment increases the probability by 24 percent.
The last step (Model 3) adds short-term risk factors to the model. This
also improves the model significantly (∆ –2LL(3) = 15.27, p < .01). The
absence of tangible guardians and having used substances both increase the
likelihood of serious delinquency, regardless of the long-term risk factors.

Accumulation of risk factors

Next, stepwise logistic regression analyses were carried out in order to
examine the extent to which the effects of the short-term risk factors con-
tinue to exist if we take into account an accumulation of long-term risk
factors. In Model 4 (Table 3) we demonstrate that the greater the number
of long-term risk factors, the greater the likelihood of serious delinquency.
Taking into account the control variables, it appears that the presence of
one risk factor increases the likelihood of delinquency by 27 percent; two
risk factors increase the probability of serious delinquency by 32 percent;
etc. The addition of short-term risk factors in Model 5 brings about a
further significant improvement of the model (∆ –2LL(3) = 14.48, p < .01).

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

430 European Journal of Criminology 6(5)

Table 2 Multivariate relations between long-term and short-term risk factors and type of
delinquent (N = 292)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Marginal S.E. Marginal S.E. Marginal S.E.

effect effect effect

Long-term risk factors

Individual domain
Limited prosocial 0.16 (0.07)* 0.16 (0.08)*
behaviour
Family domain
Limited emotional –0.01 (0.07) –0.07 (0.08)
support
Less parental solicitation 0.16 (0.08) 0.16 (0.09)
Inadequate parental 0.16 (0.08)* 0.19 (0.08)*
supervision
School domain
Poor performance at 0.21 (0.10)* 0.17 (0.10)
school
Weak school attachment 0.24 (0.06)*** 0.24 (0.07)***
Short-term risk factors
No tangible guardians 0.21 (0.08)**
Co-offenders 0.08 (0.07)
Having used substances 0.24 (0.10)*
prior to offence
Controls
Male 0.15 (0.06)* 0.15 (0.07)* 0.14 (0.07)*
Foreign heritage –0.02 (0.07) –0.08 (0.08) –0.07 (0.08)
14–17 years 0.22 (0.06)*** 0.23 (0.07)** 0.19 (0.07)**

Pseudo-R2 .042 .143 .181

(df) Δ –2LL (6) 40.48*** (3) 15.27**

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

In this model, too, the short-term risk factors of an absence of guardians

and having used substances appear to have unique direct effects on serious
delinquency.
Finally, we examined the extent to which interaction effects could be
distinguished between an accumulation of long-term risk factors and short-
term risk factors. The addition of these interaction effects did not lead to
any significant improvement in the result (∆ –2LL(3) = 3.51, p = .319). This
model has therefore been omitted.

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

 van der Laan et al. Long-term and short-term risk factors 431

Table 3 Multivariate relations between an accumulation of long-term and short-term risk

factors and type of delinquent (N = 292)

Model 4 Model 5

Marginal effect S.E. Marginal effect S.E.

Long-term risk factors

1 scale risk 0.27 (0.09)** 0.24 (0.09) **
2 scales risk 0.32 (0.08)*** 0.29 (0.09) **
3 scales risk 0.41 (0.08)*** 0.38 (0.08) ***
4–6 scales risk 0.45 (0.08)*** 0.47 (0.08) ***
Short-term risk factors
No tangible guardians 0.20 (0.08) *
Co-offenders 0.09 (0.07)
Having used substances prior to offence 0.21 (0.07) *
Controls
Male 0.15 (0.06)* 0.15 (0.07) *
Foreign heritage –0.08 (0.08) –0.06 (0.08)
14–17 years 0.23 (0.06)*** 0.18 (0.07) **

Pseudo-R2 .112 .148

(df) Δ –2LL (4) 28.07*** (3) 14.48**

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

Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine both short-term and long-term
risk factors for serious juvenile delinquency. The findings indicate that,
controlling for long-term risk factors, short-term risk factors do play a
role in explaining serious juvenile delinquency. The circumstances in which
serious delinquents commit offences differ substantially from those in which
relatively moderate delinquents offend.
Short-term risk factors have been largely ignored in the field of
developmental criminology. Serious delinquency is mainly explained by the
presence of long-term risk factors. In our study, long-term risk factors are
also important. If a variety of long-term risk factors is taken into account,
the correlation between serious delinquency and the presence of a sole long-
term risk factor is only weak. This confirms the findings of previous studies.
If we examine several risk factors simultaneously, long-term risk factors
such as limited prosocial behaviour, inadequate parental supervision and
weak school attachment appear to be particularly relevant. In accordance
with the literature, we also conclude that the accumulation of risk factors

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

432 European Journal of Criminology 6(5)

is important. The likelihood of serious delinquency increases as the number

of long-term risk factors increases (see also Loeber et al. 2001; Stouthamer-
Loeber et al. 1993, 2002).
Furthermore, adding short-term risk factors provides an additional
explanation for serious delinquency. The absence of tangible guardians and
having used alcohol or drugs prior to the offence are important short-term
risk factors, regardless of long-term risk factors (e.g. Felson 1998; Osgood
et al. 1996). In multivariate analyses the strength of the short-term risk fac-
tors seems greater than that of single long-term risk factors, indicating that,
retrospectively, short-term risks are more important in distinguishing both
groups of delinquents. However, our results do show that an accumulation
of long-term risks factors still has stronger associations with serious delinqu-
ency than the short-term risks have. These findings fit into the cumulative
risks hypotheses (Loeber et al. 2001).
The findings of this study partly support Farrington’s integrated ICAP
theory (2003, 2005), which takes into account both long-term and short-
term risk factors. According to Farrington, an individual’s potential for
committing an offence is mainly determined by long-term risk factors. The
greater the number of long-term risk factors, the greater the propensity to
commit an offence (‘long-term antisocial potential’). Farrington states that
individuals differ in terms of long-term antisocial potential. For example,
antisocial potential will be low if someone has strong bonds with conventional
others, whereas it will be high if someone is exposed to antisocial role
models for a longer period of time. The presence of high antisocial potential
alone, however, does not cause offending. Offending in a specific situation
depends on a cognitive process in which short-term risk factors are also
relevant. Serious delinquency is the result of (an accumulation of) long-
term risk factors in a number of domains, the presence of short-term risk
factors, and their interaction. According to Farrington’s ICAP theory, the
interaction between potential and the actual situation determines whether
or not an individual will commit an offence in a specific situation.
The findings of our study support this theory in two respects. First,
an accumulation of risk factors in several domains increases the likelihood
of serious delinquency. Second, situational factors such as an absence of
guardians and having used alcohol or drugs also have a unique, additional
effect on serious delinquency. The circumstances in which serious delinquents
commit offences differ substantially from those in which relatively moderate
delinquents offend. We have, however, found no evidence to support an
interaction between long-term and short-term risk factors.9
9 Perhaps this might be owing to a lack of information regarding adolescents in similar
situations who did not commit an offence. Our study was limited to the investigation of the
difference between relatively moderate and serious delinquents.

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

 van der Laan et al. Long-term and short-term risk factors 433

Methodological limitations
This research has several methodological limitations. The cross-sectional
character of the study implies that we do not pretend to make any statements
regarding causality, which is similar to much empirical research in the long-
term risk factor tradition. We do claim that the circumstances in which
serious delinquents commit offences differ substantially from those in which
relatively moderate delinquents offend, yet this does not necessarily imply
that these circumstances actually cause serious delinquency. Furthermore,
we relied on self-reported offences with a reference period of 12 months.
This could have caused a retrospective recall bias. However, research has
shown that a reference period of 12 months is still valid with regard to self-
reported delinquency (see e.g. Huizinga and Elliot 1986). Another limitation
is that we have examined only those situations in which actual offences
were committed; we have no information on similar situations in which no
offences were perpetrated. These limitations, however, are inherent aspects
of our research method and are quite similar to the limitations of other
studies. One way to move forward in this field of research would be to
design a longitudinal study that incorporates observations of ‘hotspots’.
This type of study is extremely rare, with the exception of the study by
Wikström and Butterworth (2006).
Wikström and Butterworth (2006) distinguish between three different
groups of adolescents. The first, the non-delinquent group, generally does
not regard delinquency as an option and therefore rarely or never commits
offences, regardless of the situation. The second group commits offences ‘as
a habit’ and is therefore not influenced to a large extent by the situation:
these individuals in fact take advantage of any opportunity that arises.
The third group is most interesting: it does regard crime as an option, yet
situational factors explain whether or not these individuals choose to commit
an offence. The situations in which these adolescents find themselves are
therefore extremely relevant, and the lifestyles of individuals appear to be
a particularly significant factor in this regard (see e.g. Osgood et al. 1996;
Haynie et al. 2006; Pauwels 2007). For this last group, preventive measures
(e.g. by limiting alcohol consumption) could have an impact, whereas such
measures would have little effect on the ‘habitual’ group.
It is interesting to note that our findings indicate that, for the most
serious group of juvenile delinquents, short-term risk factors might play
a role as well. Such factors, most notably having used substances prior to
the offence and the absence of tangible guardians, could be interpreted as
causal factors or as indicators of a different lifestyle that systematically puts
these offenders in risky situations more frequently than others. However,
even if these factors are supposed to be indicators of long-term risks, they

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

434 European Journal of Criminology 6(5)

can be triggered only by the features of the actual situation in which the
individual finds himself or herself. Hence, in future research, risk factor
research should be combined more frequently with so-called ‘time budget’
questionnaires in which adolescents reconstruct situations, activities and
companions for a specific period and on an hour-by-hour basis (Wikström
and Butterworth 2006). This type of research could provide a greater insight
into which adolescents commit offences in which situations, thus providing
a starting point for the prevention of delinquency.
The findings of our study are relevant for both theory and empirical
research. The results show that situational factors play an important role in
explaining serious delinquency, if we take into account (an accumulation of)
long-term risk factors. The circumstances in which serious delinquents com-
mit offences differ substantially from those in which moderate delinquents
offend. Hence, the emerging interest in short-term risk factors in theory and
research should produce more integrated theory and more research into
both long-term and short-term risk factors.

Appendix A

Table 4 Descriptives of the variables

Range M (SD) Number Cronbach’s

of items alpha

Long-term risk factors

Individual domain
Prosocial behaviour 0–10 8.0 1.7 5 .61
Hyperactivity and attention problems 0–10 3.6 2.3 5 .69
Emotional problems 0–10 2.5 2.1 5 .63
Family domain
Emotional support 5–20 16.9 2.4 4 .74
Openness 5–25 19.6 3.4 5 .62
Parental solicitation 5–25 14.8 3.6 5 .66
Parental supervision 6–15 13.7 1.6 5 .68
School domain
Performance at school 1–5 2.2 0.8 1 –
School attachment 0–20 15.2 4.3 5 .76
Short-term risk factors
Risk of being caught 0–1 0.9 0.3 1 –
Tangible guardians 0–1 0.8 0.4 1 –
Co-offenders 0–1 0.7 0.5 1 –
Having used substances prior to offence 0–1 0.2 0.4 1 –

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

 van der Laan et al. Long-term and short-term risk factors 435

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this article was published in Dutch in Tijdschrift voor

Criminologie. We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments by René Veenstra, Gijs
Weijters and Leontien van der Knaap on this article.

References

Bernburg, J. G. and Thorlindsson, T. (2001). Routine activities in social context: A

closer look at the role of opportunity in deviant behavior. Justice Quarterly
18, 543–67.
Briar, S. and Piliavin, I. (1965). Delinquency, situational inducements, and commit-
ment to conformity. Social Problems 13, 35–45.
Borooah, V. K. (2002). Logit and probit. Ordered and multinomial models (Rep.
No. 138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Clarke, R. V. and Felson, M. (eds) (1993). Routine activity and rational choice.
Advances in criminological theory 5. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Cohen, L. E. and Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine
activity approach. American Sociological Review 44, 588–608.
Dekoviç, M., Pels, T. and Model, S. (2006). Child rearing in six ethnic families. The
multi-cultural Dutch experience. Lampeter, UK: Edwin Mellen Press.
Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical
and empirical issues. Criminology 41, 221–56;
Farrington, D. P. (2005). The integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory.
In D. P. Farrington (ed.) Integrated developmental and life-course theories of
offending, pp. 73–92. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Farrington, D. P. and Loeber, R. (2000). Some benefits of dichotomization in
psychiatric and criminological research. Criminal Behaviour and Mental
Health 10, 100–22.
Fattah, E. A. (1993). The rational choice/opportunity perspectives as a vehicle for
integrating criminological and victimological perspectives. In R. V. Clarke
and M. Felson (eds) Routine activity and rational choice, pp. 225–58. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Felson, M. (1998). Crime and everyday life, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Forge Press.
Fletcher, A. C., Steinberg, L. and Williams-Wheeler, M. (2004). Parental influences on
adolescent problem behavior: Revisiting Stattin and Kerr. Child Development
75, 781–96.
Goodman, R. (1999). The extended version of the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 40, 791–9.
Haynie, D. L, Silver, E. and Teasdale, B. (2006). Neighborhood characteristics, peer
networks, and adolescent violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 18,
99–134.

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

436 European Journal of Criminology 6(5)

Huizinga, D. and Elliott, D. S. (1986). Reassessing the reliability and validity of

self-report delinquency measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2,
293–327.
Liao, T. F. (1994). Interpreting probability models. Logit, probit, and other
generalized linear models (Rep. No. 101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Loeber, R., Slot, W. and Sergeant, J. A. (2001). Ernstige en Gewelddadige
Jeugddelinquentie. Omvang, Oorzaken en Interventies [Serious and violent
juvenile delinquency. Scope, causes and interventions]. Houten: Bohn Stafleu
Van Loghum.
Loeber, R., Slot, W. and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2006). A three-dimensional,
cumulative developmental model of serious delinquency. In P.-O. H. Wikström
and R. J. Sampson (eds) The explanation of crime. Context, mechanisms and
development, pp. 153–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Markus, M. T., Lindhout, I. E., Boer, F., Hoogendijk, T. H. G. and Arrindell, W. A.
(2003). Factors of perceived parental rearing styles: The EMBU-C examined
in a sample of Dutch primary school children. Personality and Individual
Differences 34, 503–19.
Nijboer, J. A. (1997). Delinquentie en dwang. Ontwikkeling van delinquent gedrag
bij leerlingen van het voortgezet onderwijs [Delinquency and coercion.
Development of delinquent behaviour among students in secondary education].
Groningen: Strafrecht en Criminologie, RU Groningen.
Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G. and Johnston,
L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American
Sociological Review 61, 635–55.
Osgood, D. W. and Anderson, A. L. (2004). Unstructured socializing and rates of
delinquency. Criminology 42, 519–49.
Pauwels, L (2007). Buurtinvloeden en jeugddelinquentie. Een toets van de sociale
desorganisatietheorie [Neighbourhood influences and juvenile delinquency.
Testing the social disorganization theory]. The Hague: Boom Juridische
Uitgevers.
Pollard, J. A., Hawkins, J. D. and Arthur, M. W. (1999). Risk and protection: Are
both necessary to understand diverse behavioral outcomes in adolescence?
Social Work Research 23, 145–59.
Rutter, M., Giller, H. and Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial behavior by young people.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stattin, H. and Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child
Development 71, 1072–85.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Zhang, Q., Van Kammen,
W. B. and Maguin, E. (1993). The double edge of protective and risk factors
for delinquency: Interrelations and developmental patterns. Development and
Psychopathology 5, 683–701.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Wei, E. H., Farrington, D. P. and Wikström,
P.-O. H. (2002). Risk and promotive effects in the explanation of persistent
serious delinquency in boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
70, 111–23.
Van der Laan, A. M. and Blom, M. (2006). Jeugddelinquentie: Risico’s en bescherming.
Bevindingen uit de WODC Monitor Zelfgerapporteerde Jeugdcriminaliteit
2005 [Juvenile delinquency: Risks and protective measures. Findings of the

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

 van der Laan et al. Long-term and short-term risk factors 437

2005 WODC Youth Delinquency Survey]. The Hague: WODC [Research and
Documentation Centre].
Van Widenfelt, B., Goedhart, A., Treffers, P. D. A. and Goodman, R. (2003). Dutch
version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). European
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 12, 281–9.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F. and Ormel, J.
(2006). Temperament, environment, and antisocial behavior in a population
sample of preadolescent boys and girls. International Journal of Behavioral
Development 30, 422–32.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weerman, F. C., Smeenk, W., Slotboom, A., Harland, P., Den Dijker, L., Bijleveld,
C. et al. (2003). De survey van het NSCR-schoolproject. Documentatie en
tabellenboek van de eerste onderzoeksronde [Survey from the NISCALE
school project. Documentation and book of tables from the first study round]
(Rep. No. 2003-6). Leiden: NSCR [Netherlands Institute for the Study of
Crime and Law Enforcement].
Wikström, P.-O. H. (2005) The social origins of pathways in crime: Towards a
developmental ecological action theory of crime involvement and its changes.
In D. P. Farrington (ed.) Integrated developmental and life-course theories of
offending, pp. 211–46. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Wikström, P.-O. H. and Butterworth, D. A. (2006). Adolescent crime. Individual
differences and lifestyles. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Wikström, P.-O. H. and Sampson, R. J. (2003). Social mechanisms of community
influences on crime and pathways in criminality. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt
and A. Caspi (eds) Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency, pp.
118–48. New York: Guilford Press.

André M. van der Laan

André M. van der Laan is a Senior Researcher at the Research and Docu-
mentation Centre (WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. His research
interests are in developmental criminology, the effects of juvenile sanctions
and the adverse effects of sanctions. He coordinates the WODC Youth
Delinquency Survey, which has reported on a regular basis to the Ministry
of Justice on the trends in juvenile crime. He has published on juvenile
crime, risk and protective factors of delinquency, trends in crime, juveniles’
experiences of sanctioning, the effects of sanctions and defiance theory.
a.m.van.der.laan@minjus.nl

Martine Blom

Martine Blom is a Researcher at the Research and Documentation Centre

(WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. Her research interests are in juvenile

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

438 European Journal of Criminology 6(5)

crime and criminal recidivism. She has published on trends in juvenile crime,
recidivism of juvenile offenders and crime groups of different heritage.
m.blom1@minjus.nl

Edward R. Kleemans

Edward R. Kleemans is Professor at VU University, Amsterdam, and Acting

Head of the Crime, Law Enforcement and Sanctions Research Division of the
Research and Documentation Centre (WODC), Dutch Ministry of Justice.
He coordinates the Organised Crime Monitor, which published reports
to parliament in 1998, 2002, and 2007. He has published on organized
crime, drugs, drug trafficking, human smuggling and human trafficking,
frequent offenders, urban crime patterns, rational choice theories, theoretical
developments, criminal careers, developmental and life-course criminology,
and repeat victimization. He has been co-editor of the Dutch Journal of
Criminology since 2000.
e.r.kleemans@minjus.nl

Downloaded from http://euc.sagepub.com at University of Cambridge on December 16, 2009

View publication stats