The purpose of this study was to ascertain whether age of crime and substance use onset and prior crime and substance versatility (variety of crimes committed or drugs used) could help define the “worst of both worlds” effect. Analyses were conducted on 2,539 children and young adults from a nationally representative sample of private households in England and Wales. As predicted, the early onset crime/substance group achieved the worst future crime and substance outcomes, the late onset crime/substance group achieved the second worst outcomes, the crime or substance alone group achieved the third worst outcomes, and the no crime and substance group achieved the best outcomes. Likewise, the high crime/drug versatility group achieved the worst outcomes, the low crime/drug versatility group achieved the second worst outcomes, the crime or drug alone group achieved the third worst outcomes, and the no crime and drug group achieved the best outcomes.
AnglinM. G.BrechtM.-L.WoodwardJ. A.BonettD. G. (1986). An empirical study of maturing out: Conditional factors. International Journal of the Addictions, 21, 233-246.
2.
BarnesC.TaylorB. G. (2000). Prevalence of intimate partner violence in a sample of arrestees in Sacramento, California, 1999 [Computer file]. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
3.
BennettT.HollowayK. (2009). The causal connection between drug misuse and crime. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 513-531. doi:10.1093/bjc/azp014
4.
ChappleC. L.HopeT. L. (2003). An analysis of the self-control and criminal versatility of gang and dating violence offenders. Violence and Victims, 18, 671-690. doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.6.671
5.
FazelS.BainsP.DollH. (2006). Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: A systematic review. Addiction, 101, 181-191. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01316.x
6.
HamlynB.MaxwellC.HalesJ.TaitC. (2003). The 2003 crime and justice survey (England and Wales) (Technical report). London, England: National Centre for Social Research.
7.
HammersleyR. (2008). Drugs and crime. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
8.
KarbergJ. C.JamesD. J. (2005). Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates, 2002 (BJS Special Report, NCJ 209588). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
9.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders (Topics in Community Corrections). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.
10.
MeehlP. E. (1995). Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50, 266-275. doi:10.1177/1541204013478973
11.
MeehlP. E. (2004). What’s in a taxon?Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 39-43. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.39
12.
MumolaC. J.KarbergJ. C. (2006). Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004 (BJS Special Report, NCJ 213530). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
13.
ParkerR. N.AuerhahnK. (1998). Alcohol, drugs, and violence. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 291-311. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.291
14.
RuizM. A.PincusA. L.SchinkaJ. A. (2008). Externalizing pathology and the five-factor model: A meta-analysis of personality traits associated with antisocial personality disorder, substance use disorder, and their co-occurrence. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 365-388. doi:10.1521/pcdi2008.22.4.365
15.
SteigerJ. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-251. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.2.245
16.
SwoggerM. T.KossonD. S. (2007). Identifying subtypes of criminal psychopaths: A replication and extension. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 953-970. doi:10.1177/0093854807300758
17.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012). Bureau of prisons: Growing inmate crowding negatively affects inmates, staff, and infrastructure. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
VaughnM. G.DeLisiM.GunterT.FuQ.BeaverK. M.PerronB. E.HowardM. O. (2011). The severe 5%: A latent class analysis of the externalizing spectrum in the United States. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 75-80. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.12.001
19.
VaughnM. G.Salas-WrightC. P.DeLisiM.MaynardB. R. (2014). Violence and externalizing behavior among youth in the United States: Is there a severe 5%?Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12, 3-21. doi:10.1177/1541204013478973
20.
WalmseyR. (2005). World prison population list. London, England: Kings College London.
21.
WaltersG. D. (2014a). Crime and substance misuse in adjudicated delinquent youth: The worst of both worlds. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 139-150. doi:10.1037/lhb0000050
22.
WaltersG. D. (2014b). Criminal and substance involvement from adolescence to adulthood: Precursors, mediators, and long-term effects. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/07418825.2014.890736
23.
WaltersG. D. (2014c). Does substance abuse fall exclusively along the externalizing spectrum?Substance Use & Misuse, 49, 724-734. doi:10.3109/10826084.2013.863348
24.
WaltersG. D. (2014d). Drugs, crime, and their relationships: Theory, research, practice, and policy. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
25.
WaltersG. D. (2015). Recidivism and the “worst of both worlds” hypothesis: Do substance misuse and crime interact or accumulate?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 435-451. doi:10.1177/0093854814551018
26.
WaltersG. D.MagalettaP. R. (2015). Comorbid antisocial and substance misuse proclivity and mental health service utilization by female inmates: Testing the “worst of both worlds” hypothesis with the PAI. Psychological Services, 12, 28-36. doi:10.1037/ser0000012
27.
WelteJ. W.BarnesG. M.HoffmanJ. H.WieczorekW. F.ZhangL. (2005). Substance involvement and the trajectory of criminal offending in young males. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 31, 267-284. doi:10.1081/ADA-200047934
