Resilience and crime prevention examines the psychological and social processes through which individuals navigate significant adversity — poverty, family dysfunction, neighborhood violence, traumatic experiences — without developing the criminal behavior that their risk profiles statistically predict, and how understanding these processes can inform the prevention and intervention programs that reduce criminal behavior by building the protective capacities that resilient individuals naturally deploy. Resilience is not the absence of risk but the navigation of it: resilient individuals often face equal or greater objective adversity than those who develop criminal careers, and their better outcomes reflect not the fortunate absence of risk but the specific psychological capacities, social resources, and environmental conditions that enable positive adaptation despite risk rather than despite adversity’s absence.
Psychology and Criminology approaches resilience as a dynamic, interactional process rather than a fixed individual trait — one that is produced through the ongoing transaction between individual characteristics, social relationships, and environmental conditions, and that can be strengthened through deliberate investment in the protective factors that research has identified as primary drivers of resilient outcomes. This process-focused account distinguishes contemporary resilience research from the earlier trait-focused approach that treated resilience as a fixed property of exceptional individuals, and it has direct practical implications: if resilience is a dynamic process rather than a trait, then it can be cultivated through programs and policies that strengthen the specific processes through which it operates.
Introduction
Research on resilience began with the discovery that many high-risk children — those facing poverty, parental mental illness, family violence, and community adversity — grew up to be competent, caring adults despite their early risk profiles. Research by Emmy Werner and Ruth Smith in their landmark Kauai Longitudinal Study — following a birth cohort of Hawaiian children from birth through middle adulthood — documented that approximately one-third of high-risk children developed into competent, autonomous adults without behavioral problems, despite facing childhood adversity that predicted poor outcomes for the majority. Werner and Smith’s identification of the protective factors that distinguished resilient from non-resilient high-risk children — individual temperament characteristics, close bonds with at least one competent adult, and community support structures — established the empirical foundation for resilience research that subsequent decades of investigation have substantially refined and extended.
For criminological purposes, resilience research provides both a complement and a corrective to risk-focused criminology: it complements risk research by identifying the protective factors that reduce criminal behavior among high-risk individuals, and it corrects the risk-only focus that can produce either pessimism (assuming that high-risk individuals will inevitably offend) or determinism (assuming that risk factors are the primary drivers of outcomes rather than one side of a risk-protection equation that protective factors substantially influence). Understanding what distinguishes the one-third of high-risk children who do not develop criminal careers from the two-thirds who do provides the most direct possible evidence for crime prevention — it identifies the factors that, if strengthened through deliberate intervention, should reduce criminal behavior among those at highest risk.
Individual-Level Protective Factors
Cognitive Ability and Academic Achievement
Research has consistently identified above-average cognitive ability — particularly verbal intelligence and executive function — as among the most robust individual-level protective factors against criminal behavior in high-risk populations. Research by Masten and colleagues in the Project Competence Longitudinal Study found that intellectual ability was one of the strongest predictors of competent outcomes in adversity, with cognitively able children showing substantially better adaptation than their lower-ability peers despite comparable levels of adversity exposure. The mechanisms through which cognitive ability protects against criminal behavior are multiple: it enables the problem-solving that identifies non-criminal solutions to frustrating situations, supports the academic achievement that maintains school engagement and conventional social bonds, facilitates the perspective-taking and moral reasoning that constrain antisocial behavior, and enables the construction of effective coping strategies for managing stress.
Research on the crime prevention potential of academic achievement — examined as a potential mediator of the cognitive ability-resilience relationship — has found that the specific effects of school achievement on criminal behavior extend beyond what cognitive ability alone would predict, establishing that academic success has independent crime prevention value beyond the cognitive ability that enables it. Research exploiting natural experiments in educational attainment — using changes in compulsory schooling laws, school construction, and enrollment subsidies to identify causal effects of schooling on crime — has found consistent evidence that additional educational attainment reduces criminal behavior and incarceration, with effect sizes that make educational investment among the most cost-effective crime prevention strategies available.
Self-Regulation and Executive Function
Self-regulation — the capacity to modulate impulses, defer immediate gratification, maintain goal-directed behavior in the face of distraction, and manage emotional states — is among the most consistently identified individual-level protective factors against criminal behavior across diverse measurement approaches, developmental periods, and research designs. Research using the Marshmallow Test paradigm — assessing children’s ability to delay gratification for a preferred reward — has found that early childhood self-regulation predicts academic, social, and behavioral outcomes into adulthood, with implications for lifetime criminal behavior through the multiple pathways that self-regulatory capacity influences.
Research on the neurobiological basis of self-regulation — implicating the prefrontal cortical systems whose development continues through early adulthood — has established that self-regulatory capacity is not only a psychological construct but a neurobiological reality whose development can be facilitated through specific environmental conditions and deliberately designed interventions. Research on self-regulation training programs — including Tools of the Mind, dialectical behavior therapy skills training, and executive function training programs — has found consistent positive effects on self-regulatory capacity, with downstream improvements in behavioral outcomes including aggression, substance use, and some evidence for delinquency reduction.
Positive Temperament and Emotional Regulation
Research on temperament — the biologically based individual differences in emotional reactivity, activity level, and sociability that are present from early infancy and that shape the social interactions through which development proceeds — has documented that positive temperament characteristics are protective against criminal behavior through multiple mechanisms. Easy temperament — characterized by positive mood, adaptability to change, regular biological rhythms, and low-intensity emotional responses — facilitates the positive social relationships with parents, teachers, and peers that build the conventional social bonds protecting against criminal behavior. Research by Werner and Smith on the Kauai cohort found that resilient children in their high-risk sample were disproportionately likely to have been rated as having easy temperament in infancy, establishing temperament as a biological contributor to resilience that operates through the relationship pathway.
Research connecting early emotional regulation capacity — the ability to modulate emotional states without dysregulation — to long-term criminal behavior outcomes has found that children who are better able to regulate distress and anger in early childhood show substantially lower rates of delinquency and criminal behavior in adolescence and adulthood. Research by Eisenberg and colleagues on emotional regulation development has documented that parenting quality substantially shapes the development of emotional regulation capacity — that parents who are emotionally responsive, who scaffold children’s regulation of distress, and who model effective emotional regulation produce children with better regulatory capacity — establishing that the biological predispositions toward emotional regulation can be substantially modified by the relational environment.
Table 1. Protective Factors for Resilience Against Criminal Behavior
| Domain | Protective Factor | Crime Prevention Mechanism | Evidence Quality | Intervention Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Individual/cognitive | Above-average intelligence | Problem-solving; school success; moral reasoning | Strong — longitudinal studies | Early childhood cognitive stimulation; quality schooling |
| Individual/regulatory | High self-control/self-regulation | Impulse inhibition; future orientation; goal pursuit | Strong — longitudinal; experimental | Self-regulation training; executive function programs |
| Individual/temperament | Easy temperament; positive emotionality | Facilitates positive relationships; social bond formation | Moderate — longitudinal | Parenting support; responsive caregiving |
| Individual/psychological | Self-efficacy; internal locus of control | Agency; prosocial problem-solving; perseverance | Moderate — longitudinal | Skills mastery; success experiences; mentoring |
| Family | Warm, consistent parenting; close attachment | Social bond formation; moral socialization; supervision | Strong — longitudinal; intervention trials | Parenting programs; home visiting; family therapy |
| Family | At least one stable, supportive adult | Social bond; role model; practical and emotional support | Strong — longitudinal | Mentoring; family support services |
| Peer | Prosocial peer associations | Conventional norm exposure; delinquent peer avoidance | Strong — longitudinal | Structured activities; skills programs avoiding deviancy training |
| School | School bonding; academic engagement | Conventional commitment; institutional supervision | Strong — longitudinal | School quality improvement; engagement programs |
| Community | Collective efficacy; institutional resources | Informal social control; legitimate opportunity | Moderate-strong — multilevel studies | Community investment; anchor institution development |
| Community | Mentoring relationships | Role modeling; social capital; identity support | Moderate — randomized trials | Mentoring program expansion |
Family-Level Protective Factors
Parenting Quality and Attachment Security
Research on parenting as a protective factor has documented that warm, consistent, and monitoring parenting provides protection against criminal behavior even in the context of high environmental risk — that children facing neighborhood danger, poverty, and peer exposure to delinquency show substantially lower criminal behavior when their family environment provides the supervision, warmth, and consistent discipline that high-quality parenting entails. Research by Gorman-Smith and colleagues on Chicago youth found that the combination of high neighborhood risk and low family quality predicted the highest rates of violence, while high neighborhood risk combined with high family quality predicted outcomes comparable to low-risk neighborhood youth — establishing that parenting quality is a genuine buffer against environmental risk rather than merely a correlate of advantaged environments.
Research on attachment security — the quality of the early mother-child bond that shapes the child’s expectations of social relationships and their capacity to use relationships for emotional regulation — has documented consistent protective effects against delinquency and criminal behavior. Research by Fearon and colleagues synthesizing longitudinal attachment studies found that early insecure attachment predicted elevated externalizing behavior across childhood and adolescence, while secure attachment predicted better behavioral outcomes through the relational competencies and internal working models of relationships that secure early experience installs.
Single-Parent Families and Extended Support Networks
Research on family structure as a risk factor for criminal behavior has found that children raised in single-parent families show elevated rates of delinquency — but that this elevation is substantially explained by the economic stress, reduced supervision, and social support deficits that single parenthood often (though not invariably) produces rather than by the absence of a second biological parent per se. Research documenting that extended family involvement — grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives who provide supplemental supervision, emotional support, and economic resources — substantially buffers the risk effects of single parenthood has established the extended family network as a protective mechanism that family structure research must examine alongside the nuclear family relationships that most research emphasizes.
Research on the crime prevention consequences of programs that specifically strengthen extended family support networks — including kin foster care programs, grandparent caregiving support, and community family support interventions — has found positive outcomes on child behavioral development and delinquency prevention, establishing the extended family network as both a naturally occurring protective resource and a programmatically strengthened one.
Economic and Neighborhood Resilience
Research on the conditions that enable resilience in high-poverty, high-crime neighborhoods — rather than only in high-risk individuals — has documented the specific structural resources that function as community-level protective factors, enabling some low-income communities to maintain lower crime rates than their poverty levels alone would predict. Research by Jencks and Mayer on neighborhood effects documented that the institutional resources available in a community — quality schools, health services, recreational facilities, employment centers — substantially moderate the behavioral consequences of neighborhood poverty, consistent with the ecological account that Bronfenbrenner’s developmental framework specifies.
Research on concentrated disadvantage and its crime consequences has found consistent evidence that the clustering of poverty, unemployment, racial segregation, and family disruption in specific neighborhoods produces crime rates substantially higher than the sum of individual poverty effects would predict — establishing that neighborhood disadvantage is not merely individual poverty writ large but a distinct ecological condition with emergent properties that require community-level rather than only individual-level responses. Research by Sampson on concentrated affluence as a structural buffer against crime documented that the presence of economically stable, long-term residents — who provide the social cohesion and community investment that collective efficacy requires — substantially reduces crime rates in otherwise disadvantaged neighborhoods, suggesting that housing and economic policies that preserve socioeconomic diversity can produce crime prevention consequences through the collective efficacy mechanism.
The practical implications of neighborhood resilience research for crime prevention policy include: investments in the anchor institutions — schools, libraries, community health centers, faith communities — that provide the stable organizational infrastructure around which collective efficacy can develop; housing policies that prevent the hyper-concentration of poverty and disadvantage that undermines community resilience regardless of the individual qualities of community members; and economic development strategies that generate legitimate employment opportunities within high-crime communities rather than at the metropolitan periphery where transportation barriers limit access.
Mentoring as a Resilience-Building Intervention
Research on mentoring — the structured provision of a caring, consistent relationship between a non-parental adult and a young person facing developmental risk — has accumulated a substantial evidence base documenting positive effects on delinquency, academic achievement, and psychosocial development across diverse population groups and program models. The Big Brothers Big Sisters program — the most extensively evaluated youth mentoring program — has been evaluated through a randomized trial by Tierney, Grossman, and Resch finding significant reductions in drug and alcohol use, improvements in peer relationships and academic achievement, and some evidence for reduced violent behavior among program participants relative to waitlist controls.
Research on the mechanisms through which mentoring produces resilience has found that relationship quality — the degree to which youth report their mentor as genuinely caring, reliable, and engaged — is the primary predictor of program impact, with relationship quality accounting for more variance in outcomes than program structure, frequency of contact, or demographic similarity between mentor and youth. Research by Herrera, Grossman, and colleagues on match quality and outcomes found that relationships rated as close and trusting by youth produced the largest improvements across multiple outcome domains, while more superficial or unreliable relationships produced minimal benefits and in some cases negative outcomes — establishing the relational quality of mentoring as the active ingredient rather than the formal program structure.
Cultural and Racial Dimensions of Resilience
Research on resilience in communities of color has documented that culturally specific protective factors — resources embedded in the specific cultural traditions, community institutions, and collective history of racial and ethnic minority communities — provide protection against criminal behavior that mainstream resilience research, developed primarily through research on predominantly white populations, has underemphasized. Research on the protective role of African American community institutions — particularly churches, historically Black colleges and universities, civil rights organizations, and extended kinship networks — has documented that these institutions provide the social capital, collective identity, and practical resources that function as community-level protective factors against the criminal behavior that structural disadvantage otherwise predicts.
Research on racial socialization — the parenting practices through which African American parents teach children about race, racism, and strategies for navigating a racially stratified society — has found that children who receive explicit messages about racial pride, the reality of discrimination, and strategies for coping with discrimination show better psychological functioning and some evidence for better behavioral outcomes than those who do not receive explicit racial socialization. Research by Neblett and colleagues found that racial socialization messages emphasizing cultural pride and positive racial identity were inversely associated with delinquency in African American youth — consistent with the theoretical account that positive racial identity functions as a protective factor against the legal cynicism and alienation that racial inequality otherwise produces.
Research on resilience in immigrant communities — particularly the “immigrant paradox” of lower crime rates among first-generation immigrants than native-born Americans of comparable socioeconomic status — has identified the specific cultural protective factors that immigrant communities deploy: strong family cohesion, work ethic, educational aspiration, and the tight-knit ethnic community institutions that provide social control and social capital simultaneously. Research on the conditions that sustain or erode these immigrant resilience resources across generations has documented that the structural assimilation pressures of the American context — exposure to mainstream risk environments, disruption of ethnic community networks, and the adoption of American cultural scripts that emphasize individual rather than collective responsibility — progressively erode the immigrant cultural protective factors that first-generation resilience depends on.
Community-Level Resilience and Collective Efficacy
Research on community-level resilience — the capacity of neighborhoods and communities to maintain social organization, informal social control, and collective problem-solving under conditions of structural adversity — has identified collective efficacy as the primary community-level protective factor against crime. Research by Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls documenting that collective efficacy — the combination of social cohesion and willingness to intervene — predicts violent crime rates independently of concentrated disadvantage has established the community-level protective mechanism that complements the individual and family-level factors that individual resilience research identifies.
Research on programs that build community-level resilience — through community organizing, anchor institution development, and the deliberate cultivation of collective efficacy — has found positive effects on crime rates in communities where these programs were implemented with adequate investment and fidelity. Research by Sharkey, Torrats-Espinosa, and Takyar on the causal effects of nonprofit organizations on community violent crime found that the density of community nonprofits — which build the social capital, institutional resources, and collective efficacy that community resilience requires — significantly predicts violent crime rates, with increases in nonprofit density producing measurable crime reductions through the community capacity mechanisms that collective efficacy theory specifies.
Faith Communities and Resilience
Research on the protective role of religious participation in criminal behavior prevention has documented consistent inverse associations between religious involvement and delinquency across diverse samples and research designs — associations that appear to reflect genuine causal effects of religious participation rather than merely the selection of prosocially oriented individuals into religious communities. Research by Johnson on the religion-crime relationship found that the strongest protective effects of religion were observed in the highest-risk communities — those with the most concentrated disadvantage — consistent with the theoretical account that religion’s protective benefits are most consequential where alternative prosocial institutions are most depleted.
The specific mechanisms through which religious participation builds resilience against criminal behavior include the social capital of religious community membership (providing prosocial network ties, practical support, and informal social control), the moral framework that religious teachings provide (instilling the moral prohibitions and prosocial values that criminal behavior violates), the identity resources of religious community (providing a positive, morally grounded identity that criminal behavior would threaten), and the specific programs — youth ministries, mentoring programs, social services — that religious institutions provide in communities where secular institutional resources are inadequate. Research by Regnerus on the religion-delinquency relationship found that each of these mechanisms contributed independently to the protective effect, establishing religion as a multi-mechanism protective factor rather than a simple cultural correlate of prosocial behavior.
Research on faith-based reentry programs — which provide religiously grounded community support alongside the practical reentry services (housing, employment, substance use treatment) that returning citizens require — has found positive outcomes on recidivism and social reintegration in controlled evaluations, with the social support and identity transformation dimensions of faith community participation identified as the specific mechanisms through which these programs produce their crime prevention effects. Research by Johnson and colleagues synthesizing faith-based program evaluations found consistent positive effects on substance use, employment, and recidivism, with the effects strongest in programs that combined genuine faith community integration with evidence-based practical services.
School-Based Resilience Programs
Research on school-based programs specifically designed to build resilience-related capacities — including social-emotional learning programs, mindfulness-based interventions, and character education programs — has found consistent positive effects on the regulatory, relational, and motivational capacities that resilience research identifies as primary protective factors. The CASEL meta-analysis of school-based social-emotional learning programs found average improvements of 11 percentile points in academic achievement alongside reductions in problem behavior and improvements in social skills, establishing the broad effectiveness of SEL programs across diverse populations and implementation contexts.
Research on specific resilience-enhancing program models — including the Penn Resiliency Program, Problem-Solving Skills Training, and cognitive-behavioral approaches specifically targeting resilience — has found positive effects on depression, anxiety, and behavioral problems in school-age children, with some evidence for sustained effects at follow-up periods extending through adolescence. Research on the implementation requirements for effective school-based resilience programs has found that program quality, teacher training and support, and integration into the broader school climate rather than delivery as add-on curricula are primary moderators of effectiveness, consistent with the implementation science literature on the primacy of implementation fidelity in determining whether evidence-based programs achieve their evidence-based outcomes in real-world settings.
Positive Youth Development and Resilience
Research on positive youth development (PYD) — the intentional effort to build the strengths, competencies, and connections that enable young people to thrive rather than merely to avoid problem behaviors — represents the most comprehensive programmatic translation of resilience research into prevention practice. PYD programs, rather than targeting specific risk factors for delinquency, focus on building the positive capacities — the five Cs of competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring — that research identifies as the markers of thriving youth development and the predictors of positive long-term outcomes including reduced criminal behavior.
Research on the crime prevention consequences of PYD programs has found consistent positive effects on delinquency and substance use alongside improvements in the positive development outcomes that these programs specifically target. Research by Catalano and colleagues synthesizing PYD program evaluations found that programs following a comprehensive developmental model — building multiple competencies rather than targeting a single risk factor, engaging multiple developmental contexts (family, peers, school, community), and sustaining engagement over multiple years rather than brief contact periods — produced the largest and most durable behavioral improvements. Research by Eccles and Gootman on community programs for youth reviewed the PYD evidence base and identified the features of effective programs: physical and psychological safety, appropriate structure, supportive relationships, opportunities to belong, positive social norms, support for efficacy and mattering, opportunities for skill building, and integration of family, school, and community efforts.
The Communities That Care (CTC) prevention planning system — which guides communities through a comprehensive data-driven process of identifying their specific risk and protective factor profiles, selecting evidence-based programs matched to those profiles, and implementing those programs with high fidelity — represents the most developed system for translating resilience and risk factor research into community-level crime prevention practice. Research on CTC by Hawkins, Catalano, and colleagues using randomized community-level assignment found that CTC communities showed significantly lower rates of drug use, delinquency, and violence than control communities at follow-up assessments — establishing the systems-level implementation of resilience science as a genuine crime prevention strategy with randomized trial support.
Conclusion
Resilience and crime prevention are connected through the specific protective factors — individual regulatory capacities, family relationship quality, prosocial peer associations, school engagement, community collective efficacy, and mentoring relationships — that enable positive adaptation to adversity and reduce criminal behavior among individuals whose risk profiles would otherwise predict it. Understanding these protective factors is essential for crime prevention because it identifies the specific targets for intervention that risk-focused criminology leaves underdeveloped: the cognitive, relational, and community resources that, if strengthened through deliberate investment, produce the resilience outcomes that reduce crime without requiring the elimination of the structural adversity that risk research documents.
The practical agenda of resilience-based crime prevention is ambitious but increasingly evidence-supported: early childhood investments in cognitive stimulation, attachment security, and self-regulation development; family support programs that build parenting quality and extended family networks; mentoring programs that provide the close caring relationships that resilience research identifies as essential; school-based social-emotional learning programs that build the regulatory and relational capacities that school environments can cultivate; and community investments that build the collective efficacy and institutional resources that community-level resilience requires. Each of these investments has an evidence base; together they constitute the comprehensive resilience-building agenda that crime prevention at scale requires, and that American social policy has historically provided only in fragments and at insufficient scale to match the magnitude of the risk environments that disadvantaged communities face.
References
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
- Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 98–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203260102
- Cicchetti, D., & Garmezy, N. (1993). Prospects and promises in the study of resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006118
- Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2023). What is SEL? https://casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/
- Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495–525. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
- Fearon, R. P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Lapsley, A.-M., & Roisman, G. I. (2010). The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children’s externalizing behavior. Child Development, 81(2), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01405.x
- Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764291034004003
- Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D. B., & Tolan, P. H. (2004). Exposure to community violence and violence perpetration: The protective effects of family functioning. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(3), 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_2
- Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Arthur, M. W., Egan, E., Brown, E. C., Abbott, R. D., & Murray, D. M. (2008). Testing Communities That Care. Prevention Science, 9(3), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0092-y
- Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., & McMaken, J. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01559.x
- Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 3. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., pp. 739–795). Wiley.
- Masten, A. S. (2014). Ordinary magic: Resilience in development. Guilford Press.
- Masten, A. S., & Barnes, A. J. (2018). Resilience in children: Developmental perspectives. Children, 5(7), 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/children5070098
- Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244(4907), 933–938. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2658056
- Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x
- Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918
- Sharkey, P., Torrats-Espinosa, G., & Takyar, D. (2017). Community and the crime decline: The causal effect of local nonprofits on violent crime. American Sociological Review, 82(6), 1214–1240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417736289
- Smith, C. A., Park, A., Ireland, T. O., Elwyn, L., & Thornberry, T. P. (2013). Long-term outcomes of an experimental intervention on the relationship between childhood maltreatment and delinquency. American Journal of Criminology, 41(1), 209–243.
- Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Public/Private Ventures.
- Toumbourou, J. W., & Gregg, M. E. (2002). Impact of an empowerment-based parent education program on the reduction of youth suicide risk factors. Journal of Adolescence, 25(4), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2002.0487
- Ungar, M. (2012). Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In M. Ungar (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience (pp. 13–31). Springer.
- Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Cornell University Press.
- Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and recovery. Cornell University Press.
- Zolkoski, S. M., & Bullock, L. M. (2012). Resilience in children and youth: A review. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(12), 2295–2303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.009