COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS IN

COURT RECORDS AND SELF-REPORTS*

DAVID P. FARRINGTON
DARRICK JOLLIFFE
University of Cambridge

J. DAVID HAWKINS
RICHARD F. CATALAN0
KARL G. HILL
RICK KOSTERMAN
University of Washington

Most knowledge about delinquency careers is derived f r o m official

records. The main aim of this paper is to compare conclusions about
delinquency careers derived ,from court referrals with conclusions
derived from self-reports. Data are analyzed from the Seattle Social
Development Project, which is a prospective longitudinal survey of 808
youths. Annual court and self-report data were available from age 11
to age 17 for eight offenses. The prevalence of offending increased with
age, in both court referrals and self-reports. There was a sharp increase
in the prevalence of court referrals between ages 12 and 13, probably
because of the reluctance of the juvenile justice system to deal with very
young offenders. The individual offending frequency increased with
age in self-reports, but it stayed constant in court referrals, probably
because of limitations on the annual number of referrals per offender.
There was significant continuity in offending in both court referrals and
self-reports, but continuity was greater in court referrals. The concen-
tration of offending (and the importance of chronic offenders) was
greater in self-reports. A n early age of onset predicted a large number
of offenses in both self-reports and court referrals. However, an early
onset predicted a high rate of offending in court referrals but not in
self-reports, possibly because very young offenders who were referred
to court were an extreme group. About 37% of offenders and 3 % of
offenses led to a court referral. The more frequent offenders were less
likely to be referred to court after each offense, but most of them were
referred to court sooner or later. There was a sharp increase between
ages 12 and I 3 in the probability of an offender and an offense leading
to a court referral. It is concluded that criminal career research based
~~ ~

* For helpful comments, we are very grateful to Alfred Blumstein, Delbert Elliott,
Marc LeBlanc, Alex Piquero and Terence Thornberry, as well as to the editor and the
referees.

CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME
41 NUMBER3 2003 933
 FARRINGTON ET AL.

on self-reports sometimes yields different conclusions compared with

research bused on official records.

KEY WORDS: Delinquency careers, court referrals, self-reports.

The criminal career approach has proved to be extremely influential in
criminology (Blumstein et al., 1986; Piquero et al., 2003). It emphasizes
the need to investigate such questions as what fraction of the population
commits offenses (prevalence) and the frequency of offending per year by
active offenders; when criminal careers begin and end, and the duration of
careers between onset and desistance; and the extent to which a small frac-
tion of the population (the chronic offenders) account for a large fraction
of all offenses. It argues that criminological theories should seek to
explain not only prevalence but also frequency, onset, duration, desis-
tance, and other criminal career parameters.
Because of the perceived need for criminal career information to be
based on exact dates of offenses, which are available in official records but
not in self-reports, most knowledge about criminal careers is derived from
official records of arrests, court referrals, or convictions (Farrington,
1997). However, official records only capture a small fraction of the true
number of offenses committed. Therefore, conclusions about criminal
career features based only on official records may be inaccurate or even
misleading. Self-reports of offending capture a larger fraction of the true
number of offenses committed, and they may therefore yield more accu-
rate information about criminal career features. However, official records
may include more of the worst offenders and the worst offenses, and self-
reports may be affected by memory and concealment problems. There-
fore, official records and self-reports have different strengths and weak-
nesses and provide two alternative windows on offending behavior.
The main aim of this paper is to carry out a systematic comparison of
criminal career findings based on official records with findings based on
self-reports, to see how far they are similar or different. To the extent that
findings are similar, we can be more confident that they reflect offending
behavior rather than biases that are specific to a particular method of mea-
surement (official records or self-reports). To the extent that findings are
different, it is important to explain why and to draw conclusions about
offending behavior. The focus is on criminal careers of community sam-
ples; thus, self-report studies of prisoner samples are not discussed (e.g.,
Horney and Marshall, 1991).
This paper focuses on offending in the juvenile years (ages 11-17). Both
official records and self-reports suggest that the prevalence of offending
increases to a peak in the teenage years, at about ages 15-17, and then
declines in the 20s (Elliott et al., 1989; Farrington, 1986; Wolfgang et al.,
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 935

1987). However, the peak age of offending varies with different types of
crimes, being relatively early for shoplifting and relatively later for drug
offenses (Tarling, 1993:18). This paper compares how the prevalence of
delinquency varies with age according to self-reports and court referrals.
Although the variation in the prevalence of offending with age is well
established, this is not true of the variation in the frequency of offending
with age. The total number of offenses committed at any age can be disag-
gregated into the number of different offenders (prevalence) and the aver-
age number of offenses committed per offender (the individual offending
frequency, termed lambda by Blumstein et al., 1986). The individual
offending frequency is a crucial criminal career parameter with important
theoretical and policy implications (e.g., for estimating the incapacitative
effects of incarceration).
The British and American studies reviewed by Farrington (1986) sug-
gested that the individual offending frequency did not vary systematically
with age, in official records or self-reports. However, based on a large
sample of juvenile court careers in Arizona, Loeber and Snyder (1990:106)
found that it increased steadily from age 9 to age 16. It also increased
between ages 10 and 14 according to self-reports in the Denver, Pitts-
burgh, and Rochester longitudinal surveys (Kelley et al., 1997). Also, in a
systematic comparison of official records in London and Stockholm, Far-
rington and Wikstrom (1994:76) concluded that the individual offending
frequency stayed constant with age in London but increased to a peak at
age 15 (and then decreased) in Stockholm. This paper compares how the
individual offending frequency varies with age in self-reports and court
referrals.
Changes in the individual offending frequency with age have theoretical
significance in criminology. Hirschi and Gottfredson (1983) argued that
prevalence and individual offending frequency both reflected the same
underlying construct of criminal propensity and, hence, that both should
vary similarly with age. On the other hand, Blumstein et al. (1988) con-
tended that prevalence and individual offending frequency were concep-
tually distinct, could have different predictors, and hence could vary
differently with age. It was ironic that the age-crime relationship termed
invariant by Hirschi and Gottfredson (1983) was the source of the most
important difference in criminal careers between the London and Stock-
holm cohorts.
Generally, there is significant continuity between offending in one age
range and offending in another. What this means is that there is relative
stability in offending, so that people who commit relatively many offenses
during one age range tend also to commit relatively many offenses during
a later age range. Establishing the degree of continuity is important in
predicting future criminal careers. In a longitudinal survey of over 400
936 FARRINGTON ET AL.

London boys, 73% of those convicted as juveniles at age 10-16 were

reconvicted as young adults at age 17-24, in comparison with only 16% of
those not convicted as juveniles, giving an enormous odds ratio of 14.6
(Farrington, 1992). Also, for ten specified offenses, the significant con-
tinuity between offending in one age range and offending in a later age
range held for self-reports as well as for official convictions (Farrington,
1989). The similarity between continuity in official records and continuity
in self-reports has not previously been studied in an American sample.
Relative stability is compatible with absolute change. For example, the
prevalence of self-reported offending declined significantly between ages
18 and 32, but there was a significant tendency for the worst offenders at
18 also to be the worst offenders at 32 (Farrington, 1990). This paper com-
pares the continuity of offending in self-reports and court referrals in an
American sample.
One of the most-cited results from the Philadelphia cohort study of
Wolfgang et al. (1972) was that 6% of the males (the chronic offenders)
accounted for about half (52%) of the juvenile arrests. Similar results
were obtained in London (Farrington and West, 1993). In Stockholm, the
concentration of offending was greater; only 2% of the males accounted
for just about half of all the offenses (Farrington and Wikstrom, 1994).
Whether the concentration of offending is greater or less in self-reports
than in official records has not previously been investigated, and neither
has the question of how far self-reports and official records identify the
same people as chronics. This paper compares chronic offenders in self-
reports and court referrals.
Both in official records and self-reports, it is clear that an early age of
onset predicts a relatively large number of offenses in total (LeBlanc and
Frechette, 1989). Nagin and Farrington (1992) concluded that this was
because of the persistence of a previously existing criminal potential rather
than because of any causal impact of early onset on later offending. Some
researchers (e.g., Moffitt, 1993) have suggested that early-onset offenders
are qualitatively different from later-onset offenders. Whether an early
onset also predicts a relatively high frequency of offending per year is less
clear. Using official records, several studies show that the individual
offending frequency is approximately constant after onset (Farrington et
al., 1998:lOl: Hamparian et al., 1978:60; Tarling, 199357). It is suggested,
therefore, that early-onset offenders commit more offenses during their
juvenile years largely because they have more time at risk (between onset
and age 18). However, in self-reports, Tolan and Thomas (1Y9.5) and
Krohn et al. (2001) showed that the frequency of offending was greatest
for those with the earliest ages of onset. This paper investigates how
strongly an early age of onset predicts a large number of offenses (in total
and per year) in self-reports compared with court referrals.
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 937

The probability of an official record following an offense is a crucial but

relatively under-researched criminal career feature that is important in
research on deterrence and incapacitation. The probability of a crime
being followed by an arrest was termed q by Blumstein et al. (1986).
This has rarely been calculated in American surveys of community sam-
ples. Comparisons of self-reports and official records (e.g., Hindelang et
al., 1981) typically report only a summary index of association between the
two measures, not the probability of an official record after an offense.
However, Elliott and Voss (1974236) calculated that there were 4.4 police
contacts per 100 self-reported felonies (robberies, grand thefts, auto thefts,
drug use, and gang fights), and Elliott (1995) estimated that there were 2
arrests per 100 self-reported violent offenses (robberies, rapes, and aggra-
vated assaults).
In the U.S. National Youth Survey, Dunford and Elliott (1984) found
that only 1 % of youth who admitted between 1 and 10 offenses were
arrested, compared with 19% of youth who admitted over 200 offenses.
Based on their results, Blumstein et al. (1986:337-338) estimated q on the
assumption that the probability of arrest after one offense was indepen-
dent of the probability of arrest after each other offense. They estimated
that the probability of arrest per offense decreased from 0.004 for youth
admitting 1-2 offenses to 0.0008 for youth admitting over 200 offenses. It
is important to estimate scaling-up factors from officially recorded
offenses to the true number of offenses committed. For example, the
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions is typically measured
using official recidivism figures, but these need to be scaled up to the true
number of offenses committed. It is also important to know how often the
most frequent offenders are ever referred to court.
There is little American data on the probability of an official record
after specific types of offenses. In the London survey, West and Farring-
ton (1977:27-29) showed that, between ages 15 and 18, 13% of self-
reported burglaries led to convictions and 62 % of self-reported burglars
were convicted of at least one burglary. Similarly, 6% of vehicle thefts led
to convictions and 38% of vehicle thieves were convicted of vehicle theft.
The more persistent offenders were more likely to be convicted sooner or
later but less likely to be convicted per offense committed. Farrington
(1 989) reported the probability of an offender being convicted for specific
offenses in different age ranges from 10 to 32. Over the whole age range,
this probability was high for burglary (54%) and vehicle theft (53%) but
low for vandalism (6%) and drug use (3%). This paper investigates how
the probability of an offender and an offense being officially recorded var-
ies with age, with offense type, and with the number of offenses commit-
ted, in an American sample.
938 FARRINGTON ET AL.

THE SEATTLE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

This paper analyzes data collected in the Seattle Social Development
Project (SSDP). This is a prospective longitudinal survey of 808 children
who consented to participate in the study, drawn from the complete popu-
lation of 1,053 fifth-grade students attending 18 elementary schools' serv-
ing high-crime neighborhoods of Seattle in the fall of 1985 (Hawkins et al.,
2003). The sample included nearly equal numbers of males (412) and
females (396). The most common ethnic groups were European-Ameri-
cans (46%), African-Americans (24%), and Asian-Americans (21 YO).
Over half of the sample (52%) participated in the free lunch program for
low-income families at some time between the fifth and seventh grades,
and over two-fifths (42%) lived in single-parent families in the fall of 1985.
Information was collected from multiple sources, including the youths,
their parents, teachers, school records, and King County (the greater Seat-
tle area) court records. School survey data were collected in the fall of
1985, when the youths had a mean age of 10.8, then in the spring of each
year until 1991, and then again in spring 1993. Initially, the youths com-
pleted group-administered questionnaires in their classrooms. Beginning
in spring 1988, they were interviewed in person and asked for their confi-
dential responses to a wide range of questions on family, peer, school, and
community topics, as well as providing self-report data on delinquency,
violence, and drug and alcohol use.
Table 1 shows the self-report and court referral data used in this paper.
The age range shown is that covered by the self-report and court data (on
average). Thus, at the time of the interviews in spring 1988, the youths
were aged 13.3 on average.* Since they self-reported about delinquency in
the previous year, these self-reports covered the age' range 12.3-13.3 on
average. Court referrals were obtained for exactly the same 12-month
period. For ease of exposition, the spring 1988 assessment is referred to as
the age 13 assessment (see Table 1).
In order to compare self-reports with court referrals, it was essential to
maximize the number of youths known at each age on both. Unfortu-
nately, the numbers of youths interviewed were relatively low at ages 12
( N = 548) and 13 ( N = 644). Therefore, for youths missing at age 12, their

1. Of the complete population of 1.053 fifth-grade students. 919 were surveyed in

the fall of 1985, 808 actively consented to participate in the longitudinal study in spring
1986. The 808 participating were not significantly different from the other 111 on gen-
der, race, or receiving free lunches.
2. The spring interviews were completed in June. The average child was born
early in March 1975, so the child was aged 13.3 at the end of June 1988. The court data
were obtained for each July-June time period (e.g.. July 1987 to June 1988). The two
fifth-grade assessments (fall 1985 and spring 1986) were combined to provide informa-
tion at age 11.
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 939

Table 1. Self-Report and Court Referral Data

Age Range Self- Court Known on
Report Referral both
N N
1986 11 10.3-11.3 795 808 795
1987 12 11.3-12.3 804 765 762
1988 13 12.3-13.3 788 735 723
1989 14 13.3-14.3 778 725 705
1990 15 14.3-15.3 782 718 697
1991 16 15.3-16.3 770 704 672
1992 17 16.3-17.3 761 701 663

age 11 data were substituted, and for youths missing at age 13, their age 14
data were substituted.3 This increased the numbers known on self-reports
to 804 at age 12 and 788 at age 13. The numbers known on court referrals
were those known from the survey data to be resident in King County
during the time period. These numbers were increased slightly by assum-
ing that those who were not interviewed at one age (e.g., 15) but were
known to be resident at the next age (e.g., 16) were in fact resident at the
first age (e.g., 15). After these adjustments, information was available for
over 760 youths on self-reports at each age, and for over 700 youths on
court referrals at each age. The number of youths known on both varied
from 795 at age 11 to 663 at age 17 (Table 1).
Self-report information was available for eight types of offenses:
1. Burglary (Broken into a house, store, school, or other building
without the owners permission): available at all ages.
2. Vehicle theft (Taken a motor vehicle, such as a car or motorcycle,
for a ride without the owners permission): available from age 13.
3. Larceny (Taken things worth (a) $5 or less, (b) more than $5 but
less than $50, or (c) more than $50): available at all ages.
4. Robbery (Used a weapon or force to get money or things from
people): available from age 13.

3. The youths missing were not significantly different from those known on self-
reported delinquency. For example, exactly the same fraction of youths missing or
known at age 12 admitted at least one offense at age 11 (30.3% of those missing at age
12; 30.3% of those known at age 12). At age 14, 43.0% of those missing at age 13
admitted at least one offense, compared with 47.2% of those known at age 13 (chi-
squared = 0.41, ns.). Because of a gap in funding, the youths were not interviewed at
age 17. For ease of exposition, the age 18 self-reports in spring 1993 are treated as
though they were age 17 self-reports.
940 FARRINGTON ET AL.

5. Assault (Hit someone with the idea of seriously hurting them):

available from age 13.
6. Vandalism (Purposely damaged or destroyed property or things
that did not belong to you): available at all ages.
7. Marijuana use (Smoked marijuana): available at all ages.
8. Drug selling (Sold illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, LSD,
or heroin): available from age 13.
The juvenile court data specified the number of referrals to the court for
particular charges during each 12-month time period. Referrals came
originally from the police to the prosecutor. All of the cases counted here
had been referred by the prosecutor to the juvenile court and, hence, had
met the prosecutors criteria (e.g., on strength of evidence). Court refer-
rals were counted for the above eight types of offenses. Because the anal-
yses are based on court referrals, plea bargaining is not a problem in
distorting the nature of officially recorded offenses.

RESULTS
PREVALENCE OF OFFENDING
Table 2 shows the annual prevalence of offending at each age from 11 to
17, according to both court referrals and self-reports.4 The offenses cov-
ered at each age were the same in both; for example, because only bur-
glary, larceny, vandalism, and marijuana use were known in self-reports at
age 11, only court referrals for these four offenses were included at age 11.
All eight offenses were known in both court referrals and self-reports from
age 13 onward. As expected, the prevalence of offending was much higher
in self-reports at all ages. In total, 85.9% of youths admitted committing
at least one of these eight offenses, and 34.0% were referred to court for at
least one offense.
The prevalence of offending increased with age in both the court and
self-report data. Part of the increase between ages 12 and 13 was attribu-
table to the increased number of offenses covered (from four at age 12 to
eight at age 13). This had very little effect on the court data; the preva-
lence of court referrals at age 12 was 2.5% based on all eight offenses,
compared with 2.1% based on four offenses. It had more effect on the
self-report data; the prevalence of self-reported offending at age 13 was
29.1% based on four offenses, compared with 41.5% based on all eight
offenses.
It is plausible to conclude that there was a steady increase in the preva-
lence of self-reported offending with age; the relatively high prevalence at

4. In general, the self-reports covered offending ever and in the last year at
each assessment. Both sources of data were used in estimating prevalence.
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 941

Table 2. Prevalence and Frequency of Offending

Prevalence Frequency
Court Self-Report Court Self-Report
Age
11 1.7 28.4 1.1 2.9
12 2.1 27.9 2.1 , 4.6
13 8.0 41.5 2.8 11.6
14 10.6 46.4 2.8 13.5
15 13.1 47.6 3.1 16.8
16 13.6 51.3 2.2 18.3
17 12.7 61.1 2.4 21.8
Total 34.0 85.9 4.6 49.2
Offense Type
Burglary 4.7 22.3 1.6 3.2
Vehicle theft 23.8 33.1 1.8 5.9
Larceny 25.6 66.1 2.0 11.6
Robbery 3.3 8.6 1.2 5.6
Assault 12.7 61.3 2.4 11.4
Vandalism 8.4 47.9 1.9 8.2
Marijuana use 1.8 49.1 1.2 29.9
Drug selling 3.9 21.7 1.6 28.8
Property 27.5 71.8 3.6 14.3
Aggressive 17.4 70.4 2.9 16.1
Drug 4.5 50.8 1.8 41.1
Notes: Prevalence = % offending.
Frequency = Average offenses per offender.

age 11 was inflated slightly by the inclusion of ever data. There was a
sharp increase in the prevalence of court referrals between grades 6 and 7,
ages 12 and 13 (for all 8 offenses, from 2.5% to 8.0%; chi-squared = 22.3, p
< .0001). This probably reflects the fact that juveniles aged up to 12 are
handled differently from older juveniles at all stages of juvenile justice,
including detention, referrals, adjudication, and placement (Snyder, 2001).
For example, Washington State law specifies that, up to age 12, the court
has to prove that children knew that they were doing wrong before they
can be charged.
Table 2 also shows the prevalence of offenses of different types accord-
ing to court referrals and self-reports. As expected, the prevalence of
offending was higher in self-reports for all eight types of offenses. The two
942 FARRINGTON ET AL.

prevalence estimates were most similar for vehicle theft (court 23.8%, self-
report 33.1%) and most dissimilar for marijuana use (court l.8%, self-
report 49.1 Yo). In general, the most prevalent offenses according to court
referrals were also the most prevalent according to self-reports. The main
exceptions were vehicle theft (relatively more prevalent in court referrals)
and marijuana use (relatively more prevalent in self-reports).
The eight types of offenses were grouped into three categories: property
(burglary, vehicle theft, and larceny), aggressive (robbery, assault, and
vandalism), and drug offenses (marijuana use and drug selling).S Table 2
shows that self-report prevalences were higher than court referral
prevalences, especially for drug offenses (4.5% and 50.8%, respectively).
Table 3 shows changes with age for categories of offenses for the compara-
ble age ranges 12-13,14-15, and 16-17. The prevalence of court referrals
increased significantly for all categories of offenses between ages 12-13
and 14-15, and then did not change significantly up to age 16-17. The
prevalence of self-reported offenses generally increased both between
ages 12-13 and 14-15 and between ages 14-15 and 16-17.

INDIVIDUAL OFFENDING FREQUENCY

Table 2 also shows the individual offending frequency (the average num-
ber of offenses per offender). This was much higher in self-reports (49.2
per offender on average) than in court records (4.6 per offender on aver-
age). For all eight offenses, there was no significant tendency in court
records for the individual offending frequency to vary with age; for each
offense at each age, the individual offending frequency varied only
between 1.0 and 1.8. It was rare to be referred to court more than once for
any given type of offense at any given age.
The self-report data in Table 2 show a steady increase in individual
offending frequency from age 11 to age 17. There appears to be a sharp
increase between ages 12 and 13, but this is attributable to two measure-
ment changes. The first was the increasing number of offenses covered
(from four at age 12 to eight at age 13); the frequency at age 13 was 9.7
based on four offenses and 11.6 based on eight offenses. Second, there
was a change in the scoring of frequency data. At ages 11 and 12, fre-
quency data for each offense were recorded only in four categories: never
(coded 0), once or twice (coded l), three or four times (coded 3 ) , and five
or more times (coded 6). From age 13 onward, exact numbers of times per
year were recorded, although a maximum number of 50 offenses of each

5. Vandalism was included in the aggressive category because i t involves aggres-

sion against property and because, according to odds ratios, vandalism was most closely
associated with assault in court referrals and with robbery in self-reports (out of the
other seven offenses).
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 943

Table 3. Prevalence and Frequency at Different Ages

Age 12-13 Age 14-15 Age 16-17
PREVALENCE
Court
Property 8.3 15.0" 14.6
Aggressive 2.4 10.4" 10.4
Drug 0.1 2.0* 3.1
Total 8.8 19.2" 21.8
Self-Report
Property 35.3 37.2 47.2""
Aggressive 38.0 46.9* 47.3
Drug 10.6 22.3" 46.1**
Total 53.5 61.6* 70.5**
FREQUENCY
Court
Property 2.6 2.8 2.4
Aggressive 2.3 2.3 1.9
Drug 1.o 1.8 1.5
Total 3.1 3.6 2.7**
Self-Report
Property 5.8 9.3* 9.5
Aggressive 5.7 10.4* 8.6
Drug 17.7 25.5* 29.5
Total 11.3 22.7* 31.3""
* Age 14-15 significantly (JI < .05) different from age 12-13
** Age 16-17 significantly (p < .05) different from age 14-15
type in each year was counted (because of the likelihood of measurement
error with high reported frequencies of offending). The change in the
method of recording frequency data would have caused some increase in
recorded frequency between ages 12 and 13; based on four offenses, the
frequency was 4.6 at age 12 and 9.7 at age 13. How much of this increase is
real and how much is attributable to the measurement change is
unknown.
Court referrals and self-reports clearly differed in their conclusions
about whether the individual offending frequency stayed constant or
increased with age. It is plausible to suggest that this frequency truly
944 FARRINGTON ET AL.

increased with age, but that this increase was not seen in court referrals
because of limitations on the number of court referrals per offender per
year. The maximum number of court referrals in one year was 14, and
there were only 8 cases (out of a possible 5,156) when a youth had 10 or
more referrals in one year. This is partly because frequent offenders are
detained (and hence are not at risk of committing more offenses) and
partly because prosecutors tend to refer only the more serious offenses of
frequent offenders.
Table 2 also shows individual offending frequencies for the eight differ-
ent types and three categories of offenses. As expected, frequencies were
always higher in self-reports. The difference between court and self-report
data was least for burglary (court 1.6, self-report 3.2) and greatest for drug
offenses (court 1.8, self-report 41.1). Table 3 shows that the frequency of
court referrals did not change significantly among ages 12-13, 14-15, and
16-17 for any of the three categories of offenses. However, for total
offenses, the frequency of court referrals decreased significantly between
ages 14-15 and 16-17. For all categories of offenses, the frequency of self-
reported offending increased between ages 12-13 and 14-15 but then did
not change significantly. However, the frequency for total offenses
increased both between ages 12-13 and 14-15 and between ages 14-15
and 16-17.

CONTINUITY
Continuity in the prevalence of offending between ages 12-13 and
14-15, and between ages 14-15 and 16-17, was investigated separately for
court referrals and self-reports. The odds ratio was used to measure the
strength of each relationship. For example, Table 4 shows that 50% of
youths with a court referral for a property offense at age 12-13 also had a
court referral for a property offense at age 14-15, compared with only
11.7% of youths with no court referral for a property offense at age 12-13
(odds ratio = 7.5, 95% confidence interval 4.3-13.2, p < .05); 59.9% of
youths who self-reported a property offense at age 12-13 also self-
reported a property offense at age 14-15, compared with only 25% of
youths who did not self-report a property offense at age 12-13 (odds ratio
= 4.5, 95% confidence interval 3.3-6.1, p < .05).
The results were very consistent. There was significant continuity for all
types and categories of offenses between all age ranges. Table 4 shows the
results for categories of offenses. Based on odds ratios, continuity was
generally higher for court referrals than for self-reports. This may possibly
reflect bias in official processing (e.g., picking up known offenders), or
alternatively the fact that those who are referred to court are a more
extreme group who are more likely to persist. Continuity was generally
highest for drug offenses and lowest for property offenses.
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 945

Table 4. Continuity in the Prevalence of Offending

Offense Type and Age % Offender (Next Age)
Court Self-Report
Property 12-13
Nonoffender 11.7 25.0
Offender 50.0 59.9
(Odds Ratio) (7.5*) (4.5")
Property 14-15
Nonoffender 10.4 35.7
Offender 39.0 66.4
(Odds Ratio) (5.5") (3.6*)
Aggressive 12-13
Nonoffender 9.0 30.5
Offender 66.7 74.2
(Odds Ratio) (20.2") (6.5*)
Aggressive 14-15
Nonoffender 7.3 29.2
Offender 35.5 67.7
(Odds Ratio) (7.0") (5.1")
Drug 12-13
Nonoffender 15.9
Offender 76.8
(Odds Ratio) (17.5*)
Drug 14-15
Nonoffender 2.5 34.3
Offender 33.3 86.1
(Odds Ratio) (19.8") (11.9")
Total 12-13
Nonoffender 14.7 40.3
Offender 65.6 80.5
(Odds Ratio) (11.1*) (6.1")
Total 14-15
Nonoffender 15.3 45.2
Offender 49.3 86.5
(Odds Ratio) (5.4*) (7.8*)
* p < .05 - Numbers too small (only 1 official drug offender at age 12-13)
946 FARRINGTON ET AL.

CHRONIC OFFENDERS

Following Wolfgang et al. (1972), the chronic offenders were opera-

tionally defined as the small number who commit half of all offenses. For
court referrals, 43 youths (5.9%0 of the sample and 17.3% of offenders)
accounted for half of all offenses (590 out of 1142). For self-reported
offenses, 56 youths (7.2% of the sample and 8.1% of offenders) accounted
for half of all offenses (16,988 out of 34,004). Table 5 shows the percent-
ages who were chronic offenders for property, aggressive, and drug
offenses separately.
Is offending more concentrated in court referrals or in self-reports? The
answer to this question depends on whether the fraction of the sample or
the fraction of the offenders committing half of all offenses is studied.
Based on the fraction of the sample, there was no consistent tendency for
offending to be more concentrated in either. Based on the fraction of the
offenders, offending was clearly more concentrated in self-reports, proba-
bly because of the greater number of high-frequency offenders in self-
reports. It seems likely that limitations on the number of court referrals
per offender per year limit the concentration of offenses among official
offenders.
It might be objected that the Wolfgang et al. (1972) definition of chronic
offenders is rather arbitrary, and that the results might differ according to
the cutoff point used to define chronics. Based on the Lorenz curve and
the Gini coefficient, Fox and Tracy (1988) proposed a measure of skewness
(concentration) in offending: coefficient alpha. This varied from 0
(when all cohort members commit the same number of offenses) to 1
(when one cohort member commits all offenses). This coefficient has the
advantage of taking account of the complete frequency distribution of
offenses committed by offenders. It was used by Piquero (2000) to com-
pare the skewness (concentration) of offending by males and females.
Table 6 shows Fox-Tracy alpha coefficients for court referrals versus
self-reported offenses. These can be calculated either for the full sample
(including nonoffenders) or for the offenders only. Alpha coefficients for
the full sample are less useful, because they reflect not only the concentra-
tion of offending among offenders but also the prevalence of offending. In
the full sample, alpha coefficients for court referrals were higher than for
self-reports because the prevalence of court referrals was much lower. For
the offenders, alpha coefficients were higher for self-reports, which con-
firms that offending was more concentrated in self-reports.
There was a significant overlap between official and self-reported
chronic offenders. Nearly half (21 out of 43, or 48.8%) of the official
chronics were also among the 53 self-reported chronics, compared with
only 4.7% of official nonchronics (odds ratio = 19.4, p < .05). Similar
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 947

Table 5. Percentage who were Chronic Offenders

Yo of Sample YOof Offenders
Court
Property 6.2 22.4
Aggressive 3.2 18.4
Drug 1.1 24.2
Total 5.9 17.3
Self-Report
Property 4.2 5.9
Aggressive 5.8 8.2
Drug 6.0 11.8
Total 7.2 8.1
Note: Chronic offenders = percentage committing half of all offenses.

Table 6. Fox-Tracy Alpha Coefficients

Sample Offenders
Court
Property .834 .398
Aggressive .908 .473
Drug .970 .346
Total 2328 .495
Self-Report
Property .786 .702
Aggressive .785 .694
Drug 329 .663
Total .756 .720

results were obtained for property and aggressive offenses separately. For
property offenses, 22.2% of official chronics (10 out of 45) were among the
32 self-reported chronics, compared with 3.2% of official nonchronics,
odds ratio = 8.6; for aggressive offenses, 39.1% of official chronics (9 out
of 23) were among the 43 self-reported chronics, compared with 4.9% of
official nonchronics, odds ratio = 12.4, p < .05. The numbers of official
chronics in drug offenses were too small to repeat this analysis.
948 FARRINGTON ET AL.

AGE OF ONSET
Table 7 shows that, as expected, an early age of onset predicted a large
number of offenses in both self-reports and court referrals. Youths with a
first court referral at age 11-12 had 11.4 referrals on average, compared
with 5.4 for those with a first court referral at age 13-14 ( t = 2.9, p < .Ol).
Similarly, those with a first self-reported offense at age 11-12 had 65.7
self-reported offenses on average, compared with 47.2 for those with a first

Table 7. Age of Onset Versus Average Number of

Offenses
Average Number
Mean
Onset Age Age Age
age 11-12 13-14 15-16
TOTAL OFFENSES
Court
Property 14.9 7.5 3.6" 2.9
Aggressive 15.3 10.2 3.6 1.9**
Drug 16.1 - 3.1 1.4**
Total 15.1 11.4 5.4* 3.1**
Self-Report
Property 13.0 19.9 15.6 6.7**
Aggressive 13.2 23.3 16.6 8.4**
Drug 15.1 57.0 81.4 34.1**
Total 12.7 65.7 47.2" 22.6**
OFFENSES PER YEAR AFTER ONSET
Court
Property 1.2 0.4* 0.4
Aggressive 1.6 0.7 0.3**
Drug - 0.6 0.2
Total 1.9 0.9* 0.5""
Self-Report
Property 3.2 3.3 1.6**
Aggressive 3.8 3.4 2.2
Drug 9.0 18.6" 14.4
Total 10.9 10.9 9.3
Notes: * Age 13-14 significantly different 0, < .OS) from age 11-12.
** Age 15-16 significantly different (p < .05) from age 13-14.
- = No youths had a court referral for a drug offense at age 11-12
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 949

offense at age 13-14 ( t = 2.1, p < .05). Also, youths with an onset of
offending at age 13-14 committed more offenses than those with an onset
at age 15-16.
In general, the first self-reported offense occurred before the first court
referral (average ages 12.7 and 15.1, respectively).6 This was investigated
more systematically in cases where a youth had both a self-report and a
court referral. For all offenses, the self-report came first in 84.9% of cases,
which had an average time interval of 2.9 years to the first court referral.
The figures were similar for property (78.9% and 2.7 years), aggressive
(81.0% and 2.8 years), and drug offenses (82.6% and 2.4 years).
The average number of offenses per year after onset decreased with
increasing age of onset for court referrals, from 1.9 per year for those with
a first referral at age 11-12 to 0.9 per year for those with a first referral at
age 13-14 and 0.5 per year for those with a first referral at age 15-16.
Similar decreases were seen for property, aggressive and drug offenses
separately.
The average number of self-reported offenses per year after onset
decreased only slightly (and nonsignificantly) with increasing age of onset,
from 10.9 per year for those with a first offense at ages 11-12 or 13-14 to
9.3 per year for those with a first offense at age 15-16. The average num-
ber of offenses per year after onset decreased with increasing age of onset
from age 13-14 to age 15-16 only for property offenses. Surprisingly, the
average number of offenses per year after onset did not decrease with
increasing age of onset from age 11-12 to age 13-14 for any category of
offenses; in fact, there was a significant (p < .005) increase for drug
offenses, with later starters being more frequent offenders.
An early age of onset (age 11-12) predicted a high rate of offending
after onset in court referrals, but not in self-reports. This may be a conse-
quence of the reluctance to refer youths aged 11-12 (in grades 5 and 6) to
court after offending. Those who were referred may have been a rela-
tively extreme group with a high frequency of offending.

PROBABILITY OF A COURT REFERRAL

By comparing self-reported offenses and court referrals, it is possible to
estimate 1) the probability of an offender being referred to court and 2)
the probability of an offense leading to a court referral. These estimates
can only be made when a youth is known on both self-reports and court
referrals at a given age. Table 8 shows these probabilities separately at

6. In calculating average ages of onset in self-reports, the average age covered by

each assessment was used (e.g.. 10.8 years in spring 1986; see Table 1). Integer ages of
onset in court referrals had 0.5 years added to them because, for example, a court refer-
ral at age 14 could occur at any time between 14.001 and 14.999 years.
950 FARRINGTON ET AL.

Table 8. Probability of Court Referral

~~

YO Per Offender
Age
11 2.2 0.8
12 3.8 0.8
13 11.5 2.3
14 15.3 2.7
15 22.3 4.2
16 21.0 2.4
17 15.3 1.7
Total 36.7 3.5
Offense Type
Burglary 17.7 6.9
Vehicle theft 36.6 9.9
Larceny 30.6 4.9
Robbery 12.5 2.4
Assault 18.0 3.6
Vandalism 14.3 3.3
Marijuana use 3.4 0.1
Drug selling 13.6 0.6
Property 31.7 7.2
Aggressive 22.5 3.9
Drug 8.2 0.4

each age. The probability of a court referral per offender and per offense
increased sharply between ages 12 and 13 (from 3.8% to 11.5% of offend-
ers, and from 0.8% to 2.3% of offenses). Both probabilities increased to a
peak at age 15 and then decreased. In total, 36.7% of self-reported
offenders were referred to court, but only 3.5% of self-reported offenses
led to a court referral.7
Table 9 shows that the probability of a court referral increased signifi-
cantly between ages 11-12 and 13-15. As mentioned earlier, there is a
reluctance to refer juveniles under age 13 to the court. Another possibility
is that younger children over-report trivial acts, but this would not explain
the sharp increase between ages 12 and 13. The probability of a court
referral per offender decreased between ages 13-15 and 16-17 for prop-
erty offenses but did not change significantly for aggressive, drug, or total

7. Only students with at least one self-reported offense were included in these
analyses.
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 95 1

Table 9. Probability of Court Referral at Different Ages

Age 11-12 Age 13-15 Age 16-17
YO Per Offender
Property 4.4 30.2" 20.7**
Aggressive 0.6 16.1* 16.3
Drug 0.0 7.2 6.3
Total 4.7 27.5* 26.0
% Per Offense
Property 1.6 7.1" 5.1**
Aggressive 0.2 3.3* 3.9
Drug 0.0 0.4 0.3
Total 1.o 3.9" 2.3**
* Age 13-15 significantly (p < .05) different from age 11-12
** Age 16-17 significantly (p c .05) different from age 13-15

offenses. The probability of a court referral per offense decreased

between ages 13-15 and 16-17 for property and total offenses but did not
change significantly for aggressive and drug offenses.
Table 8 shows that vehicle theft had the highest probability of a court
referral (36.6% of offenders and 9.9% of offenses), whereas marijuana
use had the lowest probability (3.4% of offenders and 0.1% of offenses).
Overall, the probability of a court referral was substantial for property
offenders (31.7%) but extremely small for drug offenses (0.4%).
The probability of a self-reported offender being referred to court
increased with the number of offenses committed (Table lo), from 13.5%
of those committing one or two offenses to 69.0% of those committing 80
or more offenses. Therefore, most of the frequent offenders were referred
to court sooner or later. However, the probability of a court referral after
an offense decreased with the number of offenses committed, which sug-
gests that the more frequent offenders might be more skilled at avoiding
court referrals. This was partly because they tended to commit drug
offenses, which had a very low probability of a court referral (Table 8).
However, this was not the only explanation, because the probability of an
offense leading to a court referral declined steadily with increasing num-
bers of offenses for all types of offenses; the figures for offenses other than
drug offenses are shown in the bottom half of Table 10. The varying per-
centages in Table 10 were significant at p = .0001 (in 7 x 2 chi-squared
tests).
952 FARRINGTON ET AL.

Table 10. Probability of Court Referral Versus Number of

Self-Reported Offenses
No. of Offenses % Per Offender % Per Offense
1-2 13.5 17.0
3-5 30.6 19.7
6-9 25.4 8.1
10-19 33.7 8.1
20-39 29.6 5.2
40-79 50.7 3.4
80+ 69.0 2.6
Total 36.7 3.5
Except Drug Offenses
1-2 19.4 19.2
3-5 27.4 14.6
6-9 28.6 9.0
10-19 32.6 7.6
20-39 58.1 10.7
40-79 56.7 6.8
80+ 78.3 3.3
Total 36.6 6.0

CONCLUSIONS
Like most research, this study is based on one particular sample in one
particular place at one particular time and, hence, it is unclear how far its
results can be generalized. The analyses are based only on eight types of
offenses, and they cover only the juvenile years from age 11 to age 17.
Nevertheless, the study is based on a large urban sample, uniquely con-
tains comparable annual data on court referrals and self-reports over the
juvenile age range, and provides the most extensive existing comparisons
of delinquency career findings according to court records versus self-
reports. There were important similarities and important differences
between results obtained from the two sources.
As expected, the prevalence of offending was greater in self-reports
than in court referrals, especially for drug offenses. In both court referrals
and self-reports, the prevalence of offending generally increased with age.
Whereas there was a steady increase in the prevalence of self-reported
offending, there was a sharp increase in the prevalence of court referrals
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 953

between ages 12 and 13 (grades 6 and 7), probably reflecting the reluc-
tance to refer very young offenders to the juvenile court. There was signif-
icant continuity in offending from one age range to the next in both self-
reports and court referrals, but the continuity in court referrals was
greater.
Court referrals and self-reports clearly differed in their conclusions
about whether the individual offending frequency varied or stayed con-
stant with age. This frequency stayed constant in court referrals but
increased in self-reports. In agreement with Hirschi and Gottfredsons
(1983) argument, prevalence and frequency varied similarly with age in
self-reports. It is possible that the frequency of offending truly increased,
but that this increase was not seen in court referrals because of limitations
on the number of referrals per offender per year. The individual offending
frequency was much greater in self-reports than in court referrals, espe-
cially for drug offenses.
In both court records and self-reports, a small fraction of the sample
(the chronic offenders) accounted for half of all the offenses. However,
the concentration of offending, and hence the importance of chronic
offenders, was greater in self-reports, again because of limitations on the
number of court referrals per offender per year. There was a significant
overlap between chronic offenders identified in court referrals and chronic
offenders identified in self-reports. Therefore, to a considerable extent,
self-reports and court referrals identified the same people as the worst
offenders. Further research is needed to investigate characteristics of self-
reported chronics who are not official chronics (possibly the most success-
ful offenders) and of official chronics who are not self-reported chronics
(possibly the least successful offenders).
As expected, an early age of onset predicted a large number of offenses
in total. However, in self-reports, this was largely because early onset
offenders had more time at risk after onset. An early age of onset (age
11-12) predicted a high rate of offending per year after onset only in court
referrals, not in self-reports. It is possible that the reluctance to refer
youths aged 11-12 (in grades 5 and 6) meant that those who were referred
were relatively extreme in their persisting criminal potential.
The first self-reported offense was, on average, 2.4 years before the first
court referral (Table 7). Given the average self-reported rate of offending
after early onset of about 11 offenses per year, it can be estimated that the
average offender committed about 26 offenses before the first court refer-
ral. Research is needed to investigate the characteristics of youth who
commit large numbers of offenses before their first court referral, and how
far in advance they can be predicted. Prevention efforts before the age of
first court referral have the potential to reduce crime significantly.
The criminal justice system was not very efficient in bringing offenders
 FARRINGTON ET AL.

(especially drug offenders) to court. Overall, only about one-third of all

offenders were referred to court, and the probability of an offender being
referred to court was greater than one in three for only one type of
offense-vehicle theft. However, the majority of the most frequent
offenders were referred to court sooner or later. The probability of an
offender being referred to court increased sharply between ages 11-12 and
13-15.
About 1 in 30 offenses led to a court referral; although this probability
was about 1 in 10 for vehicle theft, it was only about 1 in 1,000 for mari-
juana use. It was interesting that the probability of an offense leading to a
court referral decreased with increasing numbers of offenses committed,
which suggests that more prolific offenders were more skilled at evading
capture, or that the juvenile court was more concerned with processing
offenders than offenses. Research is needed to investigate the characteris-
tics of youth with low probabilities of being caught per offense. This may
be a function of types of offenses committed (e.g., marijuana use).
The present analyses indicate that criminal career research based on
self-reports would yield different theoretical implications from research
based on official records. In particular, the reluctance to refer very young
offenders (in grades 5 and 6 ) to court meant that those who were referred
at that age might have been qualitatively different from later-onset offend-
ers. Thus, the policies of the juvenile court created a dichotomy between
early-onset and later-onset offenders that was not apparent in self-reports.
These results also show that criminal career research based on self-
reports would yield different policy implications from research based on
official records. In particular, because the individual offending frequency
is so much higher in self-reports, methods of preventing and reducing
crime (from early childhood intervention to penal incapacitation) would
appear to be much more successful, and with a far greater chance of their
monetary benefits exceeding their monetary costs, using self-reports than
using official records. This would be especially true for methods targeting
chronic offenders. In order to draw valid conclusions from intervention
research using official measures of reoffending, a scaling-up factor is
needed to convert officially recorded offenses into self-reported offenses.
Based on the present research, the scaling-up factor for all offenses is
about 30. Similarly, the higher prevalence of offending in self-reports
means that false-positives would be much lower in risk assessment and
prediction research.
To summarize, in self-reports, prevalence and individual offending fre-
quency were higher, the age of onset was earlier, and the continuity and
concentration of offending were greater. Self-reports and court referrals
agreed in showing that the prevalence of offending increased during the
juvenile years and that an early onset predicted a large number of offenses
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 955

in total. The main differences in delinquency career results concerned the

sharp increases in the prevalence of court referrals, and in the probability
of an offender being referred to court, between ages 12 and 13; the fact
that early onset (age 11-12) predicted a high frequency of offending in
court referrals but not in self-reports; and the fact that the individual
offending frequency increased with age in self-reports but not in court
referrals.
Based on this paper, it is not difficult to recommend an ambitious
research agenda for the future. First, it is important to extend these analy-
ses from the juvenile years throughout life, to establish how prevalence,
frequency, onset, continuity and concentration in offending vary according
to self-reports versus official records. This requires prospective, longitudi-
nal surveys with repeated interviews from adolescence to adulthood, at
least up to age 50, in which self-reports and official records can be com-
pared. Second, it is important to compare other criminal career parame-
ters according to official records versus self-reports, notably desistance,
career duration, seriousness, and co-offending. Third, it is desirable to
study the sequencing of different types of offenses according to official
records versus self-reports, to investigate developmental pathways, and to
what extent one type of offense acts as a stepping stone toward another
type. All of these analyses should help in understanding and predicting
the time course of criminal careers, and eventually in recommending inter-
ventions that are effective in preventing, minimizing, and curtailing them.

REFERENCES
Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, and David P. Farrington
1988 Criminal career research: Its value for criminology. Criminology 26:l-35.
Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, Jeffrey A. Roth, and Christy A. Visher (eds.)
1986 Criminal Careers and Career Criminals. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press.
Dunford, Franklyn W. and Delbert S. Elliott
1984 Identifying career offenders using self-reported data. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency 21:57-86.
Elliott, Delbert S.
1995 Lies, damned lies and arrest statistics. Sutherland Award presentation to
the American Society of Criminology. Boston.
Elliott, Delbert S. and Harwin L. Voss
1974 Delinquency and Dropout. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Scott Menard
1989 Multiple Problem Youth: Delinquency, Substance Use and Mental Health
Problems. New York: Springer-Verlag.
 FARRINGTON ET AL.

Farrington, David P.
1986 Age and crime. In Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (eds.), Crime and
Justice. Vol. 7. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1989 Self-reported and official offending from adolescence to adulthood. In
Malcolm W. Klein (ed.). Cross-National Research in Self-Reported Crime
and Delinquency. Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Kluwer.
1990 Age, period. cohort, and offending. In Don M. Gottfredson and Ronald
V. Clarke (eds.), Policy and Theory in Criminal Justice: Contributions in
Honor of Leslie T. Wilkins. Aldershot, England: Avebury.
1992 Criminal career research in the United Kingdom. British Journal of
Criminology 32521-536.
1997 Human development and criminal careers. In Mike Maguire. Rod
Morgan, and Robert Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminol-
ogy. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Farrington, David P. and Donald J. West
1993 Criminal, penal and life histories of chronic offenders: Risk and protective
factors and early identification. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health
31492-503.
Farrington, David P. and Per-Olof H. Wikstrijm
1994 Criminal careers in London and Stockholm: A cross-national comparative
study. In Elmar G. M. Weitekamp and Hans-Jurgen Kerner (eds.), Cross-
National Longitudinal Research on Human Development and Criminal
Behavior. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Farrington, David P., Sandra Lambert, and Donald J. West
1998 Criminal careers of two generations of family members in the Cambridge
Study in Delinquent Development. Studies on Crime and Crime
Prevention 7:85-106.
Fox, James A. and Paul E. Tracy
1988 A measure ol skewness in offense distributions. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology 4:259-274.
Hamparian, Donna M.. Richard Schuster, Simon Dinitz, and John P. Conrad
1978 The Violent Few. Lexington, Mass.: Heath.
Hawkins, J. David, Brian H. Smith, Karl G. Hill, Rick Kosterman. Richard F.
Catalano, and Robert D. Abbott
2003 Understanding and preventing crime and violence: Findings from the
Seattle Social Development Project. In Terence P. Thornberry and
Marvin D. Krohn (eds.), Taking Stock o f Delinquency: An Overview of
Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies. New York: Kluwer/
Plenum.
Hindelang, Michael J., Travis Hirschi. and Joseph G . Weis
1981 Measuring Delinquency. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Hirschi, Travis and Michael R. Gottfredson
1983 Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology
89552-584.
Homey. Julie and Ineke Haen Marshall
1991 Measuring lambda through self-reports. Criminology 29:471-495.
 COMPARING DELINQUENCY CAREERS 957

Kelley, Barbara T., David Huizinga, Terence P. Thornberry, and Rolf Loeber
1997 Epidemiology of serious violence. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Krohn, Marvin D., Terence P. Thornberry, Craig Rivera, and Marc LeBlanc
2001 Later delinquency careers. In Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington
(eds.), Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and Service Needs.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
LeBlanc, Marc and Marcel Frechette
1989 Male Criminal Activity from Childhood through Youth. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Loeber, Rolf and Howard N. Snyder
1990 Rate of offending in juvenile careers: Findings of constancy and change in
lambda. Criminology 28:97-109.
Moffitt, Terrie E.
1993 Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A
developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100:674-701.
Nagin, Daniel S. and David P. Farrington
1992 The onset and persistence of offending. Criminology 30:501-523.
Piquero, Alex R.
2000 Assessing the relationships between gender, chronicity, seriousness, and
offense skewness in criminal offending. Journal of Criminal Justice
28:103-1 15.
Piquero, Alex R., David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein
2003 The criminal career paradigm. In Michael Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice.
Vol. 30. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Snyder, Howard N.
2001 Epidemiology of official offending. In Rolf Loeber and David P.
Farrington (eds.), Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and
Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
Tarling, Roger
1993 Analyzing Offending: Data, Models and Interpretations. London: Her
Majestys Stationery Office.
Tolan, Patrick H. and Peter Thomas
1995 Implications of age of onset for delinquency risk. 11: Longitudinal data.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23:157-181.
West, Donald J. and David P. Farrington
1977 The Delinquent Way of Life. London: Heinemann.
Wolfgang, Marvin E.. Robert M. Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin
1972 Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wolfgang, Marvin E., Terence P. Thornberry, and Robert M. Figlio
1987 From Boy to Man, from Delinquency to Crime. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

David P. Farrington is Professor of Psychological Criminology at Cambridge Univer-

sity. His main research interest is in the development of offending and antisocial
 FARRINGTON ET AL.

behavior from childhood to adulthood, and he is Director of the Cambridge Study in

Delinquent Development, which is a prospective longitudinal survey of over 400
London males from age 8 to age 48.
Darrick Jolliffe is a doctoral student at the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge Uni-
versity, carrying out research on individual factors in offending.
J. David Hawkins is Kozmetsky Professor of Prevention, School of Social Work, and
Director of the Social Development Research Group at the University of Washington.
His research focuses on understanding and preventing child and adolescent health and
behavior problems, and he is Principal Investigator of the Seattle Social Development
Project.
Richard F. Catalan0 is Professor of Social Work and Associate Director of the Social
Development Research Group at the University of Washington. His research interests
focus on discovering risk and protective factors for prosocial and antisocial behavior
and on designing and evaluating programs to address these factors.
Karl G. Hill is Research Associate Professor, School of Social Work, and Project
Director of the Seattle Social Development Project. His research interests focus on
understanding factors that influence the development and consequences of antisocial
behaviors.
Rick Kosterman is a Project Director and Research Analyst in the Social Develop-
ment Research Group of the University of Washington. His current research is on
modifiable risk factors for youth violence, early adult consequences of adolescent sub-
stance use, and drug abuse prevention.