a comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and … comprehensive strategy for serious, violent,...
Post on 03-Apr-2018
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
A C
omprehensive Strategy for
Serious, Violent, and C
hronic Juvenile O
ffenders
John J. Wilson, J.D
. A
cting Adm
inistrator
James C
. How
ell, Ph.D
. D
irector of Research
Office of Juvenile Justice and D
elinquency Prevention U
.S. D
epartment of Justice
July 1, 1993
mle
of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Statistics ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 V
iolent Delinquent B
ehavior ............................................................................................................................................ 1 ...................................................................................................................................................
Arrests and C
rime R
ates 1
Gang C
rime and D
rugs ................................................................................................................................................. 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................
Juvenile Court
2 .................................................................
.................................................................................................. C
onfinement
.i 2
Waivers and Im
prisonment ...............................................................................................................................................2
Research ................................................................................................................................................................................2
Serious. Violent. and C
hronicJuvenile Offenders .............................................................................................................2
..................................................................................................C
auses of Serious.Violent, and C
hronicJuvenileCrim
e 5
Program E
valuations .............................................................................................................................................................5
A C
omprehensive Strategyfor Serious.V
iolent, and Chronic Juvenile O
ffenders .............................................................7 .................................................................................................................................................................
General Principles
7 .................................................................................................................................................................
TargetPopulations
8 ......................................................................................................
..........................................................Program
Rationale
:
8 T
he Juvenile Justice System .......................................................................................................................................8
.....................................................................................................................................................D
elinquency Prevention 9
...............................................................................................................................................Individual C
haracteristics 10
...........................................................................................................................................................Fam
ily Influences 10
...............................................................................................................................................
SchoolExperiences
..... 1
1
....................................................................................................................................................Peer G
roup Influences 11
.......................................................................................................................................N
eighborhood and Com
munity
11 G
raduated Sanctions............................................................................................................................................................ 12 Intervention .................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Secure Corrections ......................................................................................................................................................... 14
..............................................................................................................................................................E
xpected Benefits
15
......................................................................................................................................................
Delinquency Prevention
15 G
raduated Sanctions ...........................................................................................................................................................15 C
rime R
eduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 15
.................................................................................................A
ppendix: Statistics. Research. and Program
Evaluations
19
Stat&tics .............................................................................................................................................................................. 19
...........................................................................................................................................D
elinquent BehaviorT
rends 19
Arrest T
rends ...........................................................................................................................................................19 .............................................................................................................
.....................................Juvenile C
ourt Trends
... 19
Confinem
entTrends .....................................................................................................................................................20
................................................................................................................................................C
riminal C
ollrtHandling
20 ......................................................................................................................................................
Imprisonm
entTrends
20 Fem
ale Delinquency ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
.............................................................................................................................................................................. R
esearch 21
Youth G
angs ................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Crim
inal (Adult) C
ourt Versus Juvenile C
ourt ............................................................................................................... 22
............................................................................................................................................ C
hronic Juvenile Offenders
22 C
auses of Serious, Violent, and C
hronic Juvenile Crim
e ................................................................................................ 23 .............................................................................................................................................
Conditions of C
onfinement
24 ...........................................................................................................................................................
Program E
valuations 25
Summ
ary ............................................................................................................................................................................. 26
............................................................................................................................................................................... Sources
27
Introduction
The serious and violent crim
e rate among juveniles has in-
creased sharply in the past few years. Juveniles account for an
increasing share of all violent crimes in the U
nited States. A
small portion of juvenile offenders account for the bulk of all
serious and violent juvenile crime. Sim
ultaneously, the num-
Statistics
Violent Delinquent B
ehavior ber of juveniles taken into custody
has increased,as hasthe
number of juveniles w
aived or transferred to the criminal
justice system. A
dmissions to
juvenile facilities are at their highest levels ever, and an increasing percentage of these facilitiesare operating over capacity. U
nfortunately, the already strainedjuvenile justice system
doesnot have ad-equatefiscal and program
matic resources to identify serious,
violent,and chronic offenders and to interveneeffectively w
ith them.
The O
ffice of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention
(OJJD
P) has developed a comprehensivestrategy for dealing
with serious, violent, and chronicjuvenile offenders.* T
his program
can be implem
ented at the State, county, or local levels. T
he program background,rationale, principles, and
componentsare set forth in this sm
egy
paper.
Prior to developing this new program
, OJJD
P reviewed rel-
evant statistics,research, and program evaluations. T
his review
was conducted to develop a clearer understanding of
serious,violent, and chronicjuvenile delinquency issues, trends, and effectivedelinquencyprevention, treatm
ent, and control approaches. D
etailed information on statistics,re-
search,and program evaluation inform
ation is set forth in the appendix. A
brief overview follow
s.
Violentjuvenile crim
e has been increasing. Nationw
ide self-reportedm
easures of delinquentbehavior indicate an increase in certain violent acts: aggravated assault and robbery (O
sgood et al., 1989).National victim
ization surveys show
that the rate of juvenile victimization for violent offenses has
also increased during the latter part of the 1980's (Bureau of
Justice Statistics,1993).
Arrests and C
rime R
ates Juvenile arrests are increasing, particularly for violent offenses. Juvenile arrests for violent crim
es increased 41 percent from
1982-1991. In 1991,the juvenile arrestrate for violent offenses reached its highest level in history. In the 10-year period betw
een 1982and 1991,the number of juvenile
arrests for murder increased by 93 percent and aggravated
assault arrests increased by 72 percent (Snyder, 1993).(See figure 1
for violent crime index arrest rates from
the FBI's U
niform C
rime R
eports for the period 1965 to 1991.)
Gang C
rime and D
rugs T
he national scope and seriousness of the youth gang problem
have increased sharply since the late 1970's and early 1980's. G
ang violencehas risen drastically in a number
*Which juveniles are determ
ined to be serious,violent, or chronic offendersis an im
portant matter. T
he consequencesof being placed in one of these categories are critical to the allocation of scarcetreatm
entresources. In somejurisdictions, identification of
ajuvenile as a serious,violent,or chronic offender determines
how a juvenile is "handled in the system
, for example, w
hether a juvenile is subject to established
minim
um periods of secure
confinement or subjectto crim
inalcourtjurisdiction. Generally,
such determinations are m
ade at the State and local levels.
OJJD
Phas developed the follow
ing definitionsof serious,violent, and chronicjuvenile offenders for purposes of this program
. D
efinitions used in various research and statistics-gathering efforts often vary.
Juvenile refers to a person under the age establishedby a S
tate to determ
ine when an individual is no longer subjectto original
juvenile courtjurisdiction for (any) criminal m
isconduct.While
this age is 18in a m
ajority of jurisdictions, it ranges from 16
to 19 years of age. SeriousJuvenile O
ffendersare those adjudicated delinquent for com
mitting any felony offense,including larceny
or theft, burglary or breaking and entering,extortion, arson, and drug trafficking or other controlled
dangerous substanceviola-tions. V
iolent Juvenile Offendersare those seriousjuvenile
offenders adjudicated delinquentfor one of the following felony
offenses-homicide,
rape or other felony sex offenses,mayhem
, kidnapping, robbery, or aggravated assault. C
hronic Juvenile O
ffenders are juveniles adjudicated delinquentfor comm
itting three or m
ore delinquentoffenses. Thesedefinitionsinclude
juveniles convicted in criminal court for particular offense types.
An inform
ative discussion of the research and issues involved in form
ulating a working definition of these and related term
s is found in M
athias, 1984, chapter two, "Strategic Planning in
Juvenile Justi-Defining
the Toughest K
ids."
Figure 1 V
iolent Crim
e Index Arrest R
ates A
rrest Rate
500 ----------------------------------------------------------------,
of large cities. Moreover, gangs have em
erged in many
(See figures 2,3, and 4 for published statistics on juvenile m
iddle-sized and smallercities and suburban com
munities
confinement in public facilitiesand figure 5 for detained
acrossthe country. Youth gangs are becom
ing more violent,
delinquency case trends by race and offense for 1985and and gangs increasingly
serve as a way for m
embers to engage
1989.) in illegalm
oney-making
activity,including street-leveldrug trafficking (M
iller, 1982;Spergel et al., 1991).
100
Juvenile Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------.
Juvenile court caseloadsare increasing, largely as a result of increasing violent delinquency.From
1986through 1990, the num
ber of delinquency cases actually disposed by juvenile courts increased 10
percent. During the sam
eperiod,juvenile courts disposed of 31 percent m
ore violent cases,including 64 percent m
ore homicide and 48 percent m
ore aggravated assault cases (Snyder et al., 1993a).
0-
':
::
!:
':
::
::
::
:!
:!
I!
I:
::
! I
1965 1967
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991
Arrest R
ate =Arrests per 100.000 youth ages 10-17
Source: FBI U
niform C
rime R
eports
Confinem
ent A
dmissions to juvenile detention and correctionsfacilities
are increasing, resultingin crowded facilities w
ith atten-dant problem
s such as institutional violence and suicidal behavior. A
dmissionsto juvenile facilitiesrose after 1984,
reaching an all-timehigh in 1990
with the largest increasein
detention (Krisberg et al., 1992).Forty-seven
percent of confined
juveniles are in detention and correctionalfacilities in w
hich the populationexceeds the facility design capacity.
More than half of the detained and incarcerated population in
1991w
ere held for nonviolent offenses (Parentet al., 1993).
Waivers and Im
prisonment
Juvenile cases handled in criminal courts have increased,
resultingin increased numbersof juveniles placed in
crowded adultprisons. T
he number of juvenile cases handled
in criminal courts is unknow
n, but it is estimated to be as
many as 200,000 cases in 1990
(Snyder, 1993b).Judicial w
aivers to criminal court increased
78 percent between 1985
and 1989(Snyder et al., 1993a). B
etween 1984
and 1990,the num
ber of annualadmissions of juveniles to adult prisons
increased 30 percent, from 9,078 to 11,782
(OJJD
P, 1991, 1993).
Research
Serious, Violent, and Chronic
Juvenile Offenders
Evidence continuesto m
ount that a small proportion of
-offenderscom
mit m
ost of the seriousand violent juvenile crim
es. ThePhiladelphiabirth cohort study (W
olfgang,
Figure 2 U
.S. Juveniles in
Custody in
Public Juvenile F
acilities %
Day C
ounts by Reason for C
ustody and Sex
1991 P
ublic Facilities
TOTA
L M
ALE
S
FEM
ALE
S
(N=57,661)
(N=51,282)
(N=6,379)
Delinquent O
ffenses 95%
97.3%
80.7%
1. V
iolent 19
20.5 10.3
2. Other P
ersonal 12
12.1 9.4
3. Serious P
roperty 24
24.4 17.1
4. O
ther Property
12 12.5
12.9 5. A
lcohol Offenses
1 1.O
1.O 6.
Drug-R
elatedO
ffenses 10
10.4 5.3
7. Public O
rder Offenses
4 4.4
5.4 8. P
robationIParole
Violations
8 7.2
12.9 9.
Other
5 4.8
6.4
Status O
ffenses 3
1.8 12.9
Nonoffenders
1 0.7
4.2 V
oluntary Com
mitm
ents 1
0.2 2.2
Offense categories include
the following offenses:
Violent: m
urder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravatedassault.
Other P
ersonal: negligent manslaughter, assault, sexual assault.
Serious P
roperty: burglary, arson, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft.
Other P
roperty:vandalism, forgery, counterfeiting, fraud, stolen
property, unauthorizedvehicle use. P
ublic Order: alcohol offenses, drug-related
offenses, public order offenses. S
tatus: offenses not consideredcrim
es if comm
ittedby adults.
Nonoffenders: dependency, neglect, abuse, em
otionaldisturbance, retardation, other.
Source: 1991 C
ensus of Public and P
rivate Juvenile Detention, C
orrectionaland Shelter F
acilities: Census day a15/91.
Figure 3 U
.S. P
ublic Detention C
enters C
apacity and Average D
ally Population
1982-1 990 P
op
ulatio
n an
d C
apacity
22,000 -
14,000 ---------------
------------------------------.
12
,00
0-.-------------------------------------------------------.
10,000 -. I
I I
I I
'82 '84
'86 '88
'90 P
opulation 13,354
13,031 15.628
17.042 18,928
Capacity
16,806 17,422
18,638 18.840
19.863
Year
-Cap
acity -
Population
Source: 1983-1991 C
ensus of Publtc Juvenile D
etentton. Correcttonal and S
heller Facilittes.
Figure 4 U
.S. Public Training S
chools C
apacity and Average D
aily Population
1982-1 990 P
opulation and Capacity
30,000 -
------- ----------------a
24
,00
0-------
Figure 5 D
etained Delinquency C
ase Trends by Race and
Offense,1985
and 1 989 P
ercentChange
----------
------
Total P
erson P
roperty D
rugs P
ubllc Order
EZ
l Total W
hlte l%
El N
onwhlte
Source: N
ational Center of Juvenlle Justice, a spedal analysis of 1989 data from
the National Juveniie C
ourt D
ata Archive.
20,000
Population
-Pacity
Year
-Capacity
-P
opulation
Source: 1983-1991
Census of Public Juvenile D
etention, Correctionaland S
helter Facilities.
22
,00
0---------------------------------------------------------.
I '90
27,688 28,077
I '88
27,292 27,067
i '86
25,695 27,711
I '82
24,486 27,182
I '84
24,151 26,811
Figlio, and Sellin, 1972), found that "chronic offenders" (five " '
or more police contacts) constituted 6 percent of the cohort
and 18 percent of the delinquents. They were responsible for
62 percent of all offenses and about two-thirds of all violent
offenses. Other studies have found sim
ilar results (Strasburg, 1978; H
amparian et al., 1978; Shannon, 1988; H
uizinga, L
oeber, and Thornberry, 1992).
Analysis of self-reported m
easures of violent offending em-
ployed in the National Y
outh Survey (NY
S) for the period 1976 to 1980 indicates that from ages 12 to 17, about 5 per- cent of juveniles at each age w
ere classified as "serious vio- lent"
combination of both serious and violent offense
A link has also been found to exist betw
een childhood victim-
ization and delinquent behavior. Greater risk exists for violent
offending when a child is physically abused or neglected early
in life. Such a child is more Likely to begin violent offending
earlier and to be more involved in such offending than chil-
dren who have not been abused or neglected (W
idom, 1989;
Smith and T
hornberry, 1993).
Program E
valuations (a
categories) offenders. "Serious violent" offenders, on average, com
mit 132 delinquent offenses annually w
ith 8 of them being
"serious violent" offenses. Most serious and violent juvenile
careers last about 1 year, and nearly 10 percent of "serious violent" offenders have a career length of 5 years or m
ore (E
lliott et al., 1986).
Causes of Serious, Violent, and C
hronic Juvenile C
rime
Recent research has docum
ented the behavioral pathways
and factors that contribute to serious, violent, and chronic juvenile crim
e. OJJD
P's Program of R
esearch on the Causes
and Correlates of D
elinquency conducted a longitudinal study in three sites using com
mon m
easures and oversampling of
high-risk youth. The m
ajor factors influencing delinquency w
ere identified as delinquent peer groups, poor school perfor- m
ance, high-crime neighborhoods, w
eak family attachm
ents, and lack of consistent discipline and behavioral m
onitoring. T
he study identified three developmental pathw
ays to chronic delinquency-overt pathw
ay (from aggression, to fighting, to
violence), covert pathway (from m
inor covert behavior, to property dam
age, to serious delinquency), and authority conflict pathw
ay (from stubborn behavior, to defiance, to
authority avoidance) (Huizinga, L
oeber, and Thornberry,
1992). This research provides the basis for designing preven-
tion programs and intervention strategies.
Effective intervention strategies and program
s for serious, violent, and chronic delinquents have been docum
ented. A
comprehensive delinquency prevention program
model, called
the "social development m
odel," has been demonstrated to be
effective in preventing serious and violent juvenile delin- quency (H
awkins and C
atalano, 1992). This m
odel specifies program
s that enhance protective factors, or buffers, against delinquent behavior for im
plementation at key points in the
chronological or social development of the child. Interventions
must begin early in fam
ily life.
A w
ide array of intervention models for delinquent juveniles
has been found to be effective in treating and rehabilitating offenders. Intensive Supervision Program
s have been found to be effective for m
any serious and violent juvenile offenders, obviating the need for secure incarceration (K
risberg et al., 1989a). O
JJDP has also developed an intensive aftercare
model designed to successfully reintegrate high-risk juvenile
parolees back into the comm
unity (Altschuler and A
rmstrong,
1992). <
Evaluations dem
onstrate that innovative programs, including
secure and nonsecure comm
unity-based programs, can be used
effectively as alternatives to incarceration for many serious
and violent juvenile offenders. Exam
ples of these types of program
s include a day treatment and education program
operated by A
ssociated Marine Institutes (A
MI); the Florida
Environm
ental Institute's (FEI) w
ilderness camp for juveniles
who w
ould otherwise be sent to adult prisons; and intensive
family-based, m
ultisystemic therapy (M
ST) programs, w
hich have been effective w
ith serious juvenile offenders in several localities (K
risberg, 1992). OJJD
P's Violent Juvenile O
f- fender Program
demonstrated that m
ost violent juvenile offenders could be successfully rehabilitated through intensive treatm
ent in small secure facilities (Fagan et al., 1984,1984a). O
ther effective comm
unity-based programs include the
Brow
ard County, Florida, H
ome D
etention Program; the
Juvenile Alternative W
ork Service programs in O
range C
ounty and Los A
ngeles, California; the Seattle, W
ashington- based H
omebuilders program
; and the KEY
Outreach and
Tracking program
in Massachusetts (N
ational Coalition of
State Juvenile Justice Advisory G
roups, 1993).
Many States are successfully closing their large congregate
care training schools and replacing them w
ith secure and nonsecure com
munity-based residential program
s and nonresi- dential alternatives. M
assachusetts was the first State to close
its training schools in the 1970's and replace them w
ith a netw
ork of decentralized comm
unity services and a few sm
all secure-care units for violent juvenile offenders. A
s a conse- quence, M
assachusetts has saved about $1 1 million per year
@isberg et al., 1989). U
tah, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Florida have also closed training schools and begun to imple-
ment com
munity-based system
s (Lem
er, 1990).
A C
omprehensive Strategy for
Serious, Violent, and C
hronic Juvenile O
ffenders
General P
rinciples sively com
mitting m
ore serious and violent crimes. Initial
intervention efforts, under an umbrella of system
authori- ties (police, intake, and probation), should be centered in
The follow
ing general principles provide a framew
ork to guide our efforts in the battle to prevent delinquent conduct and reduce juvenile involvem
ent in serious, violent, and chronic delinquency:
Strengthen the family in its prim
ary responsibility to instill m
oral values and provide guidance and support to children. W
here there is no functional family unit, a
family surrogate should be established and assisted to
guide and nurture the child.
E
Support core social institutions-schools,
religious institutions, and com
munity organizations-in
their roles of developing capable, m
ature, and responsible youth. A
goal of each of these societal institutions should be to ensure that children have the opportunity and support to m
ature into productive law-abiding citizens. A
nurtur- ing com
munity environm
ent requires that core social institutions be actively involved in the lives of youth. C
omm
unity organizations include public and private youth-serving agencies; neighborhood groups; and busi- ness and com
mercial organizations providing em
ploy- m
ent, training, and other meaningful econom
ic opportunities for youth.
B
Promote delinquency prevention as the m
ost cost- effective approach to dealing w
ith juvenile delinquency. Fam
ilies, schools, religious institutions, and comm
unity organizations, including citizen volunteers and the private sector, m
ust be enlisted in the Nation's delinquency
prevention efforts. These core socializing institutions
must be strengthened and assisted in their efforts to
ensure that children have the opportunity to become
capable and responsible citizens. When children engage in
"acting out" behavior, such as status offenses, the family
and comm
unity, in concert with child w
elfare agencies, m
ust take primary responsibility for responding w
ith appropriate trem
ent and support services. C
omm
unities m
ust take the lead in designing and building comprehen-
sive prevention approaches that address known risk
the family and other core sociem
l institutions. Juvenile justice system
authorities should ensure that an appropri- ate response occurs and act quickly and firm
ly if the need for form
al system adjudication and sanctions has been
demonstrated.
Identify and control the small group of serious, vio-
lent, and chronic juvenile offenders who have com
- m
itted felony offenses or have failed to respond to intervention and nonsecure com
munity-based treatm
ent and rehabilitation services offered by the juvenile justice system
. Measures to address delinquent offenders w
ho are a threat to com
munity safety m
ay include placements in
secure comm
unity-based facilities or, when necessary,
training schools and other secure juvenile facilities.
Under O
JJDP's com
prehensive strategy, it is the family and
comm
unity, supported by our core social institutions, that has prim
ary responsibility for meeting the basic socializing needs
of our Nation's children. Socially harm
ful conduct, acting-out behavior, and delinquency m
ay be signs of the family being
unable to meet its responsibility. It is at these tim
es that the com
munity m
ust support and assist the family in the socializa-
tion process, particularly for youth at the greatest risk of delinauencv.
fact& and target other youth at risk of delinquency.
The proposed sm
tegy incorporates two principal com
ponents: @
Intervene im
mediately and effectively w
hen delii- (1) preventing youth from
becoming delinquent by focusing
quent behavior occurs to successfully prevent delinquent prevention program
s on at-risk youth; and (2) improving the
offenders from becom
ing chronic offenders or progres- juvenile justice system
response to delinquent offenders
-
through a system of graduated sanctions and a continuum
of treatm
ent alternatives that include imm
ediate intervention, interm
ediate sanctions, and comm
unity-based corrections sanctions, incorporating restitution and com
munity service
when appropriate.
Target P
opulations T
he initial target population for prevention programs is
juveniles at risk of involvement in delinquent activity. W
hile
and characteristics of juveniles themselves. T
he more risk
factors present in a comm
unity, the greater the likelihood of youth problem
s in that comm
unity as children are exposed to those risk factors. Prevention strategies w
ill need to be com-
prehensive, addressing each of the risk factors as they relate to the chronological developm
ent of children being served.
Research and experience in intervention and treatm
ent pro- gram
ming suggest that a highly structured system
of graduated sanctions holds significant prom
ise. The goal of graduated
sanctions is to increase the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system
in responding to juveniles who have com
mitted crirni-
primary delinquency prevention program
s provide services to all youth w
ishing to participate, maxim
um im
pact on future delinquent conduct can be achieved by seeking to identify and involve in prevention program
s youth at greatest risk of involvem
ent in delinquent activity. This includes youth w
ho exhibit know
n risk factors for future delinquency; drug and alcohol abuse; and youth w
ho have had contact with the
juvenile justice system as nonoffenders (neglected, abused,
.and dependent), status offenders (runaways, truants, alcohol
offenders, and inconigibles), or minor delinquent offenders.
The next target population is youth, both m
ale and female,
who have com
mitted delinquent (crim
inal) acts, including juvenile offenders w
ho evidence a high likelihood of becom-
ing, or who already are, serious, violent, or chronic offenders.
Program R
ationale W
hat can comm
unities and the juvenile justice system do
to prevent the development of and interrupt the progres-
sion of delinquent and criminal careers? Juvenile justice
agencies and programs are one part of a larger picture that
involves many other local agencies and program
s that are responsible for w
orking with at-risk youth and their fam
ilies. It is im
portant that juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention program
s are integrated with local police, social
service, child welfare, school, and fam
ily preservation pro- gram
s and that these programs reflect local com
munity deter-
minations of the m
ost pressing problems and program
priorities. E
stablishing comm
unity planning teams that
include a broad base of participants drawn fiom
local govem-
ment and the com
munity (e.g., com
munity-based youth devel-
opment organizations, schools, law
enforcement, social
service agencies, civic organizations, religious groups, par- ents, and teens) w
ill help create consensus on priorities and services to be provided as w
ell as build support for a compre-
hensive program approach that draw
s on all sectors of the com
munity for participation.
Evidence suggests that a risk reduction and protective factor
enhancement approach to prevention is effective. R
isk factors include the fam
ily, the school, the peer group, the comm
unity,
nal acts. The system
's limited resources have dim
inished its ability to respond effectively to serious, violent, and chronic juvenile crim
e. This trend m
ust be reversed by empow
ering the juvenile justice system
to provide accountability and treatm
ent resources to juveniles. This includes gender-specific
programs for fem
ale offenders, whose rates of delinquency
have generally been increasing faster than males in recent
years, and who now
account for 23 percent of juvenile arrests. It w
ill also require programs for special needs populations
such as sex offenders, mentally retarded, em
otionally dis- turbed, and learning disabled delinquents.
The graduated sanctions approach is designed to provide
imm
ediate intervention at the fmt offense to ensure that the
juvenile's misbehavior is addressed by the fam
ily and comm
u- nity or through form
al adjudication and sanctions by the juvenile justice system
, as appropriate. Graduated sanctions
include a range of intermediate sanctions and secure correc-
tions options to provide intensive treatment that serves the
juvenile's needs, provides accountability, and protects the public. T
hey offer an array of referral and dispositional re- sources for law
enforcement, juvenile courts, and juvenile
corrections officials. The graduated sanctions component
requires that the juvenile justice system's capacity to identify,
process, evaluate, refer, and track delinquent offenders be enhanced.
The Juvenile Justice System
The juvenile justice system
plays a key role in protecting and guiding juveniles, including responding to juvenile delin- quency. L
aw enforcem
ent plays a key role by conducting investigations, m
aking custody and arrest determinations, or
exercising discretionary release authority. Police should be trained in com
munity-based policing techniques and provided
with program
resources that focus on comm
unity youth, such as Police A
thletic Leagues and the D
rug Abuse R
esistance E
ducation (DA
RE
) Program.
The traditional role of the juvenile and fam
ily court is to treat and rehabilitate the dependent or w
ayward m
inor, using an individualized approach and tailoring its response to the particular needs of the child and fam
ily, with goals of: (1)
responding to the needs of troubled youth and their families;
(2) providing due process while recognizing the rights of the
victim; (3) rehabilitating the juvenile offender; and (4) protect-
ing both the juvenile and the public. While juvenile and fam
ily courts have been successful in responding to the bulk of youth problem
s to meet these goals, new
ways of organizing and
focusing the resources of the juvenile justice system are
requ
id to effectively address serious, violent, and chronic
juvenile crime. T
hese methods m
ight include the establish- m
ent of unified family courts w
ith jurisdiction over all civil and crim
inal maaers affecting the fam
ily.
A recent statem
ent by the National C
ouncil of Juvenile and
Delinquency P
revention M
ost juvenile delinquency efforts have been unsuccessful because of their negative approach-attem
pting to keep juveniles from
misbehaving. Positive approaches that em
pha- size opportunities for healthy social, physical, and m
ental developm
ent have a much greater likelihood of success.
Another w
eakness of past delinquency prevention efforts is their narrow
scope, focusing on only one or two of society's
institutions that have responsibility for the social development
of children. Most program
s have targeted either the school Fam
ily CourtJudges (N
CIFC
J) succinctly describes the criticalrole of the court
The C
ourts must protect children and fam
ilies when
private and other public institutions are unable or fail to m
eet their obligations. The protection of society
by correcting children w
ho break the law, the preservation and
reformation of fam
ilies,and the protection of children from
abuse and neglect are missions of the C
ourt. When the
family falters, w
hen the basic needs of children go unrnet, w
hen the behavior of children is destructiveand goes unchecked,juvenile and fam
ily courts must respond.
The C
ourt is society's official means of holding itself
accountablefor the well-being of its children and fam
ily unit. (N
CJFC
T, "Children and Fam
ilies First, A M
andate for C
hange," 1993)
Earlier, N
CJFC
J developed 38 recomm
endationsregarding seriousjuvenile offendersand related issues facing thejuve-nile court system
. These issues included confidentiality of the
juvenile offender and his or her family, transfer of ajuvenile
offender to adult court, and effective treatment of the serious
juvenile offender (NC
JFCJ, 1984).
Finally, juvenile corrections has the responsibility to provide treatm
ent services thatw
ill rehabilitate thejuvenile and mini-
mize his or her chances of reoffending. Juvenile courts and
corrections will benefit from
a system that
makes a continuum
of services available that
respond to each juvenile's needs.
Thejuvenile justice system
, armed w
ith resources and knowl-
edge that permit m
atchingjuveniles w
ith appropriate treatment
programs w
hile holding them accountable, can have a positive
and lasting impact on the reduction of delinquency.D
evelop-ing effective case m
anagement and m
anagement inform
ation system
s (MIS) w
ill be integral to this effort. OJJD
P will
provide leadershipin building system
capacity at the Stateand local levels to take m
aximum
advantageof availableknowl-
edge and resources.
arenaor the fam
ily. Com
munities are an often neglected area
Successfuldelinquencyprevention strategiesm
ust be positive in their orientation and com
prehensive in their scope.
The prevention com
ponentof OJJD
P's comprehensivestrat-
egy is based on a risk-focused delinquency prevention ap-proach (H
awkins and C
atalano, 1992).This approach states
that to prevent a problem from
occ~~rring,the factorsconhib-
uting to the developmentof that problem
must be identified
and then ways m
ust be found (protective factors) to address and am
elioratethose factors.
Research conducted over the past half century has clearly
documented five categoriesof causes and correlatesof juve-
nile delinquency: (1) individual characteristicssuch as alien-ation, rebelliousness, and lack of bonding to society; (2) fam
ily influences such asparental conflict, child abuse, and
family history of problem
behavior (substance abuse, crimi-
nality, teen pregnancy, and school dropouts); (3) school experiences such as
early academic failure and lack of com
-m
itment to school; (4) peer group influences such as friends
who engage in problem
behavior (minor crim
inality,gangs, and violence); and (5) neighborhood and com
munity factors
such as economic deprivation, high rates of substanceabuse
and crime, and low
neighborhood attachment. T
hese catego-ries can also be thought of as risk factors.
To counter these causes and risk factors,protectivefactors m
ust be introduced.Protectivefac
m are qualities or condi-
tions that moderate a juvenile's exposure to risk. R
esearch indicates that protective factorsfall into three basic categories: (1) individual characteristicssuch as a resilient tem
perament
and a positive social orientation; (2) bonding with prosocial
family m
embers, teachers, and friends; and (3) healthy beliefs
and clear standards for behavior. While individual characteris-
tics are inherent and difficult to change,bonding and clear standards for behavior w
ork together and can be changed. To
increase bonding, children must be provided w
ith opportuni-ties to contribute to their fam
ilies, schools, peer groups, and com
munities; skills to take advantage of opportunities; and
recognition for their efforts to contribute. Simultaneously,
parents, teachers, and comm
unities need to set clear standards that endorse prosocial behavior.
The risk-focused delinquency prevention approach calls on com
munities to identify and understand w
hat risk factors their children are exposed to and to im
plement program
s that counter these risk factors. C
omm
unities must enhance protec-
tive factors that promote positive behavior, health, w
ell-being, and personal success. E
ffective delinquency prevention efforts m
ust be comprehensive, covering the five causes or risk
factors described below, and correspond to the social develop
ment process.
Literacy and L
earning Disability.
3
Law
-Related E
ducation.
A variety of prevention program
s address individual growth
and development, including:
I
Headstart
i B
oys and Girls C
lubs.
3
Scouting.
I
4-HC
lubs.
Individual Characteristics
Our children m
ust be taught moral, spiritual, and civic values.
The decline in inculcating these values has contributed signifi-
cantly to increases in delinquent behavior. Therefore, oppom
- nities for teaching positive values m
ust be increased.
Youth L
eadership and Service Programs can provide such
opportunities and can reinforce and help internalize in children such positive individual traits as discipline, character, self- respect, responsibility, team
work, healthy lifestyles, and good
citizenship. They can also provide opportunities for personal
growth, active involvem
ent in education and vocational training, and life skills developm
ent.
A Y
outh Leadership and Service Program
could consist of a variety of com
ponents targeted to the needs of grade school, junior high, and high school youth. E
lementary and junior
high school children could be assisted in achieving healthy social developm
ent through instillation in them of basic
values. High school-aged youth could be supported in the
development of leadership skills and com
munity service in
preparation for adulthood. The com
ponents of a Youth L
ead- ership and Service Program
may include the follow
ing types of program
activities:
II Y
outh Service Corps.
!M
Adventure T
raining (leadership, endurance, and team
-building).
II M
entoring.
t
Recreational.
I[ Sum
mer C
amp.
Recreational A
ctivities.
I
Leadership and Personal D
evelopment.
i H
ealth and Mental H
ealth.
S
Career Y
outh Developm
ent.
Family Influences
The family is the m
ost important influence in the lives of
children and the first line of defense against delinquency. Program
s that strengthen the family and foster healthy grow
th and developm
ent of children from prenatal care through
adolescence should be widely available. T
hese programs
should encourage the maintenance of a viable fam
ily unit and bonding betw
een parent and child, and they should provide suppoit for fam
ilies in crisis. Such programs should involve
other major spheres of influence such as religious institutions,
schools, and comm
unity-based organizations. By w
orking together, these organizations w
ill have a pronounced impact
on preserving the family and preventing delinquency.
To have the greatest impact, assistance m
ust reach families
before significant problems develop. T
herefore, the concept of earliest point of im
pact should guide the development and
implem
entation of prevention programs involving the fam
ily. R
esearchers in the area of juvenile delinquency and the family
have found that the following negative fam
ily involvement
factors are predictors of delinquency:
3
Inadequate prenatal we
.
B
Parental rejection.
Inadequate supervision and inconsistent discipline by parents.
ilsl Fam
ily conflict, marital discord, and physical violence.
MI
Childabuse.
The follow
ing programs directly address negative fam
ily involvem
ent fac'tors and how to establish protective factors:
S
Teen Abstinence and Pregnancy Prevention.
B
Parent Effectiveness and Fam
ily Skills Training.
R
Parent Support Groups.
II[ H
ome Instruction Program
for Preschool Youngsters.
I[ Fam
ily Crisis Intervention Services.
R
Co
w A
ppointed Special Advocates.
I Surrogate Fam
ilies and Respite C
are for Families in
crisis.
R
Permanency Planning for Foster C
hildren.
I
Family L
ife Education for T
eens and Parents.
I
and Hom
eless Youth Services.
Peer Group Influences
Research on the C
auses and Correlates of D
elinquency con- fm
s that associating w
ith delinquent drug-using peers is strongly correlated w
ith delinquency and drug use. These relationships are m
utually reinforcing. Mem
bership in a gang is strongly related to delinquency and drug use. T
hose who
remain in gangs over long periods of tim
e have high rates of delinquency, particularly during active gang m
embership.
Peer leadership groups offer an effective means of encourag-
.
ing leaders of delinquency-prone groups to establish friend- ships w
ith more conventional peers. T
hese groups have been R
unaway
School Experiences O
utside the family, the school has the greatest influence in the
lives of children and adolescents. Through the school, the
hopes and dreams of youth are profoundly influenced.
Many of A
merica's children bring one or m
ore of the afore-m
entioned riskfactors to school w
ith them, and these factors
may hinder the developm
ent of their academic and social
potential. School prevention programs, including traditional
delinquencyprevention program
s not related to the school's educational m
ission, can assist the family and the com
munity
by identifying at-risk youth, monitoring their progress, and
intervening with effectiveprogram
s at critical times during a
youth's development.
School-basedprevention program
s may include:
ID
rug and Alcohol Prevention and E
ducation.
IP B
ullying Prevention.
I
ViolencePrevention.
IA
lternative Schools.
&! T
ruancy Reduction.
ISchool D
isciplineand Safety Improvem
ent.
IT
argeted-Literacy Program
s in the Primary G
rades.
I
Law
-Related E
ducation.
IA
fterschool Programs for L
atchkey Children.
IPB Teen A
bstinence and Pregnancy Prevention.
I
Values D
evelopment.
R# V
ocational Training.
Providing youth with structured opportunities to develop skills
and contribute to the comm
unity in nonschool hours is particu-larly im
portant for at-risk youth who have low
er levels of personal and social support. C
omm
unitiesneed to develop strategiesand program
s, such as those recomm
ended by the C
arnegie Council on A
dolescent Developm
ent, to address this need.
established in schools,at all levels, across the counhy. As noted above, school-based
afterschool programs for latchkey
children also provide the samefunction for children at high
risk for negative influences. Crim
e prevention programs that
educate youth on how to preventjuvenile violence and crim
e and
provide opportunities for youth to actually work on
solving specific comm
unity delinquencyproblem
s are another effective w
ay of encouragingpeer leadership.
Promising approaches have been identified for com
bating juvenile gangs. "C
omm
unity mobilizationnappears to be
effective in cities with chronic gang problem
s and in cities w
here the gang problem is just beginning. O
ther promising
preventiveoptionsincludeefforts to dissolveassociationswith
delinquentpeers and develop alternativebehaviors that pro-m
ote moral developm
ent andreject violence as a m
eans of resolving interpersonal disputes. O
pportunities to achieve successin conventional, nondelinquentactivities are also im
perative.
The following
programs reflect these principles:
a
Gang Prevention and Intervention.
ill C
onflict Resolution-Peer
Mediation.
W
Peer Counseling and T
utoring.
a
Self-Help
Fellowship for Peer G
roups.
I
Individual Responsibility T
raining.
Ed C
omm
unity Volunteer Service.
ill C
ompetitiveA
thletic Team Participation.
I
Teens, C
rime, and the C
omm
unity.
Neighborhood and C
omm
unity C
hildren do not choose where they live. C
hildren who live in
fear of drug dealers, street violence, and gang shootings cannot enjoy childhood. C
hildren are dependent on parents, neighbors,and
police to provide a safe and secureenviron-m
ent in which to play, go to school,and w
ork. Com
munity
policing can play an important role in creating a safer environ-
ment. C
omm
unity police officers not only help to reduce
criminal activity but also becom
e positive role models and
establish caring relationships with the youth and fam
ilies in a com
munity. O
nsite neighborhood resource teams, com
posed of com
munity police officers, social w
orkers, health-care w
orkers, housing experts, and school personnel, can ensure that a w
ide range of problems are responded to in a tim
ely and coordinated m
anner.
Also required are innovative and com
mitted individuals,
groups, and comm
unity organizations to work together to
improve the quality of life in their com
munities and, if neces-
sary, to reclaim the com
munities from
gangs and other crimi-
Graduated Sanctions
An effective juvenile justice system
program m
odel for the treatm
ent and rehabilitation of delinquent offenders is one that com
bines accountability and sanctions with increasingly
intensive treatment and rehabilitation services. T
hese gradu- ated sanctions m
ust be wide-ranging to fit the offense and
include both intervention and secure corrections components.
The intervention com
ponent includes the use of imm
ediate intervention and intennediate sanctions, and the secure correc- tions com
ponent includes the use of comm
unity confinement
nal elements. Such groups include youth developm
ent organizations, churches, tenant organizations, and civic groups. T
he private-sector business comm
unity can make a
major contribution through Private Industry C
ouncils and other partnerships by providing job training, apprenticeships, and other m
eaningful economic opportunities for youth.
Neighborhood and com
munity program
s include:
B
Com
munity Policing.
II Safe H
avens for Youth.
I
Neighborhood M
obilization for Com
munity Safety.
B
Drug-Free School Z
ones.
I C
omm
unity Organization-Sponsored A
fterschool Pro- gram
s in Tutoring, R
ecreation. Mentoring, and C
ultural A
ctivities.
II C
omm
unity and Business Partnerships.
lls Foster G
randparents.
IP Job T
raining and Apprenticeships for Y
outh.
I N
eighborhood Watch.
A
Victim
Programs.
The C
arnegie Council (1992), follow
ing an extensive study of adolescent developm
ent, concluded that comm
unity-based youth program
s, offered by more than 17,000 organizations
nationwide, can provide the critical com
munity support neces-
sary to prevent delinquency. This can be done, the C
ouncil concluded, through com
munity organizations' contributions to
youth development in conjunction w
ith family- and school-
focused efforts. Com
munities m
ust be created that support fam
ilies, educate adolescents for a global economy, and
provide opportunities to develop skills during nonschool hours. T
he Council found that m
any adolescents are adrift during nonschool hours and can be actively involved in com
munity-based program
s that provide opportunities to develop a sense of im
portance, well being, belonging, and
active comm
unity participation. Through such program
s, risks can be transform
ed into opportunities.
and incarceration in training schools, camps, and ranches.
Each of these graduated sanctions components should consist
of sublevels, or gradations, that together with appropriate
services constitute an integrated approach. The purpose of this
approach is to stop the juvenile's further penetration into the system
by inducing law-abiding behavior ai early as possible
through the combination of appropriate intervention and
treatment sanctions. The juvenile justice system
must w
ork w
ith law enforcem
ent, courts, and corrections to develop reasonable, fair, and hum
ane sanctions.
At each level in the continuum
, the family m
ust continue to be integrally involved in treatm
ent and rehabilitation efforts. A
ftercare must be a fonnal com
ponent of all residential placem
ents, actively involving the family and the com
mu-
nity in supporting and reintegrating the juvenile into the com
munity.
Programs w
ill need to use Risk and Needs A
ssessments to
determine the appropriate placem
ent for the offender. Risk assessm
ents should be based on clearly defined objective criteria that focus on (1) the seriousness of the delinquent act; (2) the potential risk for reoffending, based on the presence of risk factors; and (3) the risk to the public safety. E
ffective risk assessm
ent at intake, for example, can be used to identify
those juveniles who require the use of detention as w
ell as those w
ho can be released to parental custody or diverted to nonsecure com
munity-based program
s. Needs assessm
ents w
ill help ensure that (1) different types of problems are taken
into account when form
ulating a case plan; (2) a baseline for
monitoring a juvenile's progress is established; (3) periodic
reassessments of treatm
ent effectiveness are conducted, and (4) a system
wide data base of treatm
ent needs can be used for the planning and evaluation of program
s, policies, and proce- dures. T
ogether, risk and needs assessments w
ill help to allocate scarce resources m
ore efficiently and effectively.
A system
of graduated sanctions requires a broad continuum
of options.
Intervention For intervention efforts to be m
ost m
ust be
Neighborhood R
esource Team
s, can help monitor the
juvenile's progress. Other offenders m
ay require sanctions tailored to their offense(s) and their needs to deter them
from
comm
itting additional crimes. T
he following program
s apply to these offenders:
B
Neighborhood R
esource Team
s.
Diversion.
I
Informal Probation.
Si School C
ounselors Serving as Probation Officers.
]PO H
ome on Probation.
effective,they sw
ift, certain, consistent, and incorporate increasing sanctions, including the possible loss of freedom
. As the severity of
sanctions increases, so must the intensity of treatm
ent. At each
level, offenders must be aw
are that,should they continue to violate the law
, they will be subjectto m
ore severe sanctions and could ultim
ately be confined in a securesetting, ranging from
a securecomm
unity-basedjuvenile facility to a training school,cam
p, or ranch.
Thejuvenile courtplays an im
portant role in the provision of treatm
ent and sanctions. Probation has traditionally been view
ed as the court's mainvehicle for delivery of treatm
ent services and com
munity
super-vision.How
ever, traditional probation servicesand sanctions have not had the resources to effectivelytarget delinquent offenders, particularly serious, violent, and chronic offenders.
The B
alanced Approach to juvenile probation is a prom
ising approach that specifies a clear and coherentfram
ework.T
he B
alanced Approach consistsof three practical objectives: (1)
Accountability; (2) C
ompetency D
evelopment;and (3) C
om-
munity Protection. A
ccountabilityrefers to the requirement
that offenders make am
ends to the victims and the com
munity
for harm caused. C
ompetency
Developm
entrequires that youth w
ho enter the juvenile justice system should exit the
system m
ore capable of being productive and responsible citizens. C
omm
unity Protection requires that thejuvenile justice system
ensurepublic safety.
The follow
ing graduated sanctions are proposed within the
Interventioncom
ponent:
Imm
ediateintervention.First-timedelinquent offenders
(misdem
eanorsand nonviolent felonies)and nonseriousrepeat offenders (generally
misdem
eanorrepeat offenses) must be
targeted for system intervention based on their probability of
becoming m
ore serious or chronic in their delinquentactivi-ties. N
onresidential comm
unity-basedprograms, including
prevention programs for at-risk youth, m
ay be appropriate for m
any of these offenders. Such programs are sm
all and open, located in or near the juvenile's hom
e, and maintain com
-m
unity participation in program planning, operation, and
evaluation. Com
munity police officers, w
orking as part of
I
Mediation (V
ictims).
W
Com
munity
Service.
IBI R
estitution.
Si D
ay-Treatm
entPrograms.
1 A
lcohol and Drug A
buse Treatm
ent (Outpatient).
I
Peer Juries.
Intermediatesanctions.O
ffenders who areinappropriate for
imm
ediateintervention (first-time seriousor violent offenders)
or who fail to respond successfully to im
mediate intervention
as evidenced by reoffending (such as repeat property offenders or drug-involvedjuveniles) w
ould begin with or be subject to
intermediatesanctions. T
hese sanctions may be nonresidential
or residential.
Many of the serious and violent offenders at this stage m
ay be appropriate for placem
ent in an IntensiveSupervisionProgram
as an alternativeto secure incarceration. OJJD
P's Intensive Supervisionof ProbationersProgram
Model is a highly struc-
tured, continuouslym
onitored individualizedplan that consists
of five phases with decreasing
levels of restrictiveness: (1) Short-T
erm Placem
ent in Com
munity
Confinem
ent;(2) Day
Treatm
ent; (3) Outreach
and Tracking; (4) R
outine Supervi-sion; and (5) D
ischarge and Followup. O
ther appropriate program
s include:
1
Drug T
esting.
I
WeekendD
etention.
1
Alcohol and D
rug Abuse T
reatment (Inpatient).
W
Challenge O
utdoor Programs.
I
Com
munity-B
asedResidential Program
s.
W
Electronic M
onitoring.
W
Boot C
amp Facilities and Program
s.
Secure Corrections
The crim
inal behavior of many serious, violent, and chronic
juvenile offenders requires the application of secure sanctions to hold these offenders accountable for their delinquent acts and to provide a structured treatm
ent environment. L
arge congregate-care juvenile facilities (training schools, cam
ps, and ranches) have not proven to be particularly effective in rehabilitating juvenile offenders. A
lthough some continued
use of these types of facilities will rem
ain a necessary alterna- tive for those juveniles w
ho require enhanced security to protect the public, the establishm
ent of small com
munity-
based facilities to intensive services in a secure envi-
The follow
ing graduated sanctions strategies are proposed w
ithin the Secure Corrections com
ponent:
Com
munity confinem
ent. Offenders w
hose presenting offense is sufficiently serious (such as a violent felony) or w
ho fail to respond to interm
ediate sanctions as evidenced by continued reoffending m
ay be appropriate for comm
unity confinem
ent. Offenders at this level represent the m
ore serious (such as repeat felony drug trafficking or property offenders) and violent offenders am
ong the juvenile justice system
correctional population.
The concept of com
munity confinem
ent provides secure provide
ronment offers the best hope for successful treatm
ent of those juveniles w
ho require a shuctured setting.Secure sanctionsare m
ost effectivein changing future conduct when they are
coupled with com
prehensivetreatmentand rehabilitation
se~
ce
s.
Standardparole practices, particularly those that have a pri-
Imary focus on social control,have not been effective in
normalizing the behavior of high-risk juvenile parolees over
the long term, and consequently, grow
ing interest hasdevel-
oped in intensiveaftercareprograms that providehigh levels
of socialcontroland treatment services. O
JJDP's Intensive
Com
munity-B
ased Aftercare for H
igh-Risk
JuvenileParolees Program
provides an effectiveaftercaremodel:
The Intensive A
ftercare Program incorporatesfive pro-
gramm
atic principles: (1)preparing youth for progressive responsibility and freedom
in the comm
unity; (2) facilitat-ing youth-com
munity interactionand involvem
ent; (3) w
orking with both the offenderand targeted com
munity
supportsystems(e.g., fam
ilies,peers, schools,and employ-
ers) to facilitateconstructive interactionand gradual com-
munity adjustm
ent, (4) developingneeded resourcesand com
munity support;and (5) m
onitoring and ensuring the youth's successfulreintegration into the com
munity.
confinement in sm
all comm
unity-based facilities that offer intensivetreatm
entand rehabilitation services.These services
include individual and group counseling,educationalpro-gram
s,medical services,and intensive staff supervision.
Proximity to the com
munity enables direct and regular fam
ily involvem
ent with the treatm
ent process as well as a phased
reentry into the comm
unity that draws upon com
munity
resourcesand services.
Incarcerationin training schools, cam
ps, and ranches. Juvenilesw
hose confinement in the com
munity w
ould consti-tute an ongoing threat to com
munity safety or w
ho have failed to respond to com
munity-based
correctionsmay require an
extended correctional placement in training schools,cam
ps, ranches,or other secureoptionsthat are not com
munity-based.
These facilitiesshould offer com
prehensive treatment pro-
grams for these youth w
ith a focus on education,skills devel-opm
ent, and vocational or employm
ent training and experience.T
hesejuveniles may include those convicted
in the crim
inaljustice system prior to their reaching the age at
which they are
no longer subject to the original or extended jurisdiction of thejuvenile justice system
.
Expected Benefits
The proposed strategy provides for a com
prehensive approach in responding to delinquent conduct and serious, violent, and chronic crim
inal behavior, consisting of (1) comm
unity pro- tection and public safety, (2) accountability, (3) com
petency developm
ent, (4) individualization, and (5) balanced represen- tation of the interests of the
victim, and
juvenile justice system w
ill be held accountable for controlling chronic and serious delinquency w
hile also protecting society. C
omm
unities will be held accountable
for providing comm
unity-based prevention and treatment
resources for juveniles. com
munity,
juvenile. B
y taking these factors into account in each program com
po-nent, a new
directionin the adm
inistration of juvenile justice is fostered.
Delinquency Prevention
This m
ajor component of the com
prehensivestrategy involves im
plementation of delinquencyprevention technology thathas
been demonstrated
to be effective. Prevention strategieswithin
the major areas that influencethe behavior of youth (indi-
vidual development,fam
ily, school, peer group,and comm
u-nity) parallel the chronological developm
entof children. B
ecause addressing these fiveareas has been found to be effectivein reducing futuredelinquencyam
ong high-risk youth, it should
result in fewer children entering the juvenile
justice system in dem
onstrationsites. T
his would, in turn,
permit concentration of system
resources on fewer delin-
quents, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the graduated sanctionscom
ponentand improving the operation of the
juvenilejustice system.
Graduated Sanctions
This m
ajor componentof the com
prehensivestrategy is prem
ised on a fm
belief thatthe juvenile justice system can
effectively handle delinquentjuvenile behavior through the judicious application of a range of graduated sanctions and a full continuum
of treatment and rehabilitation services. E
x-pected benefits of this approach
include:
B
Increasedjuvenilejustice system responsiveness.T
his program
will provide additionalreferral and dispositional
resources for law enforcem
ent,juvenile courts, and juvenile corrections. It w
ill also require these system
componentsto increase their ability to identify,process,
evaluate, refer, and track juvenile offenders.
#ID
ecreased costs of juvenile corrections.Applying the
appropriategraduated sanctions and developingthe
required comm
unity-based resourcesshouldreduce
significantlythe need for high-cost beds in training
schools. Savingsfrom the high costs of operating
these facilities couldbe used to provide treatm
ent in com
munity-based
programs and
facilities.
1DI Increased responsibilityof the juvenile justice system
. M
any juvenile offenders currently waived or transferred
to the criminal justice system
could be provided opportu-nities for intensive services in secure com
munity-based
settings or in long-term treatm
ent in juvenile training schools, cam
ps, and ranches.
Increased program effectiveness.A
s the statistical inform
ationpresented herein indicates,credibleknowl-
edge exists about who the chronic, serious, and violent
offendersare, that is, their characteristics. Someknow
l-edge also exists about w
hat can effectivelybe done
regarding their treatment and rehabilitation. H
owever,
more m
ust be learned about what w
orks best for whom
under w
hat circumstances to intervene successfully
in the potential crim
inal careers of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Follow
upresearch and rigorous evaluation of program
s implem
ented as part of this strategy should produce valuable inform
ation.
Crim
e Reduction
The com
bined effects of delinquency prevention and increased juvenile justice system
effectivenessin intervening imm
edi-ately and effectively in the lives of delinquent offenders should result in m
easurable decreases in delinquencyin sites
where the above concepts are dem
onstrated. In addition,long-term
reduction in crime should result from
fewer serious,
violent,and chronic delinquentsbecoming adult crim
inal offenders.
IBB[ Increased
juvenile accountability. Juvenile offenders w
ill be held accountablefor their behavior, decreasing the likelihood of their developm
ent into serious,violent,or chronic offenders and tom
orrow's adult crim
inals. The
Statistics, Research, and
Program Evaluations
his appendix review
s statistics, research, and program infor-
Arrest Trends
mation regarding chronic, serious, and violent juvenile crim
e. T
he purpose of this review w
as to assist the development of a
I" 1991 there Were an estim
ated 2.3 Illillion arrests of JU
V~
-
major Federal initiative that targets the subject group.
niles. More than 100,000 of these arrests w
ere for violent crim
es, and more than 700,000 w
ere for serious property crim
es. These arrests represented 16 percent of all arrests, 33
percent of allburglary arrests, 26 percent of all robbery ar-
Statistics
rests, 16 percent of allrape arrests, 14 percent of all aggra-vated assault arrests, and 14 percent of all m
urder arrests (Snyderet al., 1993).
Delinquent B
ehavior Trends Juvenilearrests for violent crim
es increased 41 percent from
National C
rime Survey data indicatethat betw
een 1988 and 1982-199 1. V
iolent crimes w
ith the greatest proportionate 1990 victim
izationsof youth ages 12-18 for rape, robbery, increase w
ere murder (93 percent) and aggravated assault (72
and assault increased 7.5 percent, from 1,391,791 victim
iza-percent). A
rrests of juveniles for forciblerape increased 24 tions in 1988 to 1,496,416offenses in 1990 (B
ureau of Justice percent and robbery increased 12 percent during the lo-year
Statistics, 1993). period (Snyder, 1993).
The only source of national self-reported delinquency is the
"Monitoring the Fuhlre" study,an annual survey of H
igh School Seniors. T
his survey of 17-year-oldsbetween 1975 and
1985 indicated a noticeableincrease in assault rates and a sharp increase in robbery rates from
1981 to 1985. Measures
of other fo
m of delinquency show
ed a stableor erratic trend during the study period (O
sgoodet al., 1989).
Analysis of self-reportedm
easures of violent offending em-
ployed in the NY
S, covering the period 1976 to 1980,'indi-cates that (E
lliott, 1986:483-503):
P
From ages 12 to 17, approxim
ately 5 percent of juveniles at each age w
ere classifiedas serious violent offenders.
IA
pproximately 35 percent of m
ales were classified
as seriousviolent offenders for at least 1 year by the age of 21, com
pared with 11percent of fem
ales.
IBBI[ O
n the average, serious violent offenders comm
it eight serious violent offenses annually.
I
On the average, each of these individuals com
mit 132
delinquent offenses annually, compared w
ith 54 for serious nonviolent offenders.
P
The m
ean length of serious violent careers is about 1 year.
I
Nearly 10 percent of serious violent offenders have a
career length of 5 years or more.
I
Eighty-four percent of the m
ost serious offenders had no officialrecord.
Evidence exists thatjuveniles account for an increasingly
larger shareof violent crimes. T
he number of V
iolent Crim
e Index arrests of youth under age 18 increased 50 percent betw
een 1987 and 1991 compared
with a 25 percent increase
for persons age 18 and older. Youth arrests form
urder in-creased 85 percent com
pared with 21 percent for adults; youth
rape arrestsrose 16 percent compared w
ith 7 percent for adults; youth robbery arrests rose 52 percent com
pared with
20 percent for adults; and youth aggravated assaults increased 52 percent com
pared with 29 percent for adults. A
s a result of this grow
th in recent years, youth shareof arrestsfor Violent
Crim
e Index offenses has increased. In 1987 youth arrests accounted for less than 10 percent of all m
urder arrests but by 1991 youth arrests w
ere 14percent of the murder arrests.
While the youth share of rape arrests rem
ained constant betw
een 1987 and 1991, the youth shareof robbery arrests rose from
22 percent to 26 percent, and their share of aggra-vated assault arrests w
ent from 13 percent to 14 percent. In
1991 the youth arrestrate for Violent C
rimeIndex offenses
reached its highest level in history (459 youth arrests per 100,000 youth ages 10-17) (Snyder, 1993).
Juvenile CourtTrends
The num
ber of delinquency cases processed by juvenile courts increased 10 percent from
1986 through 1990. This translates
into 50 cases for every 1,000juveniles in the population. The
delinquencycase rate increased steadily from
1986 through 1990, so that by 1990 the rate w
as 13 percent greater. The
number of cases involving V
iolent Crim
e Index offenses increased 31 percent betw
een 1986 and 1990, including 64
percent more crim
inal homicide cases, 48 percent m
ore aggra- vated assault cases, and 9 percent m
ore robbery cases. In 16,900 delinquency cases handled in 1990, the juvenile court w
aived its jurisdiction, transferring the cases to criminal
court-an increase of 65 percent in the num
ber of cases w
aived. This does not include juveniles' cases filed directly in
criminal court as a result of prosecutorial discretion or legisla-
tive exclusion. Am
ong cases waived to crim
inal court in 1990, 46 percent w
ere property cases, 35 percent were person of-
fense cases, 14 percent were drug cases, and the rem
aining 6 percent w
ere public order cases. Although drug cases did not
account for a large portion of waived cases, the num
ber of
legislation that gives the prosecutor authority to file certain types of cases directly in crim
inal court. None has low
ered its upper age lim
it for juvenile court jurisdiction.** The N
ational C
enter for Juvenile Justice has estimated that approxim
ately 176,000 youth ages 16 and 17 w
ere referred to criminal courts
in 1990 due to lower ages of crim
inal court jurisdiction (Snyder, 1993b). In 1990 an estim
ated 17,000 juveniles were
transferred to criminal court through judicial w
aiver or under concurrent jurisdiction provisions (Snyder et al., 1993a). If the estim
ated 17,000 transfers are combined w
ith the 1990 esti- m
ated 176,000 cases of 16- and 17-year-olds handled in crim
inal courts due to age-related exclusions and a few thou-
drug cases waived to crim
inal court increased 282 percent (from
600 to 2,300 cases) between 1986and 1990,a greater
percent change than any other offense category (Snyder et al., 1993a).
Confinem
ent Trends T
he number of adm
issions intopublic and privatejuvenile
custody facilities hasincreased 19
percent over the past decade-from
638,309
to 760,644 facility admissions
(Krisberg et al., 1992).In 1978
there were 2,220
juvenile facility adm
issions for every 100,000juveniles in the popula-tion; by 1988
the admission rate had increased 34 percent to
2,974. The vast m
ajority of admissions in 1988w
ere public facility adm
issions(81percent), althoughprivate facilities experienced a greater increasefrom
1978through 1988
in the num
ber of admissions(104 percent com
pared with a 9-percent
increasefor public facilities). Detention centeradm
issions accounted for 81 percent of public facility adm
issions in 1988 and, although the detention centerproportion of adm
issions w
as relatively stable, there was an 11percent increase from
1978
through 1988in the number of adm
issionsto detention centers.T
here was also a substantialincrease in private deten-
tion center admissions (373 percent, from
just under 2,000 to m
ore than9,000).
Crim
inal Court H
andling N
ationwide data arenot available to m
ake a reliable estimate
of the number of juveniles handled in crim
inal courtsannu-ally.* T
he only national study in this area was conducted by
White (1978)and his colleagues, w
ho estimated that during
1978m
ore than9,000
juveniles werejudicially w
aived to crim
inal court; 2,000 were referred to crim
inal court under concurrentjurisdiction provisions;and an additional 1,300 w
ere criminally charged under excluded offenseprovisions.
An additional250,000 youth under the age of 18
faced crimi-
nal court charges due to lower ages of crim
inal court jurisdic-tion in 11
States.
Since 1978,at least three Stateshave enacted new statutory
provisions to exclude seriousoffensesfrom juvenile court
jurisdiction. Five Stateshave enacted concurrentjurisdiction
sand excluded offense cases, then about 200,000 cases involv-ing youth below
the age of 18m
ay have been handled by crim
inal courts in 1990.
Imprisonm
entTrends B
etween 1984and 1990,the num
ber of annual admissions of
juveniles to adult prisonsincreased 30 percent, from 9,078 to
11,782.Data from
the 1987National C
orrectional Reporting
Program,w
hich provided information on juvenile prison
admissions for a sam
ple of States, indicated that about 8 percent w
ere convicted of murder or m
anslaughter;40 percent w
ere convicted of a personal offense(typicallya robbery-18
percent);48 percent were convicted for a property offense
(more than
half of those convicted for a property offensehad burglary as their m
ost serious comm
itment offense);and about
5 percent were sentenced to prison for a drug crim
e (OJJD
P, 1991,1993).
Female D
elinquency O
ver the 27-year period .from 1965 to 1991arrest rates for
females ages 10-17 have rem
ained substantially lower than
the rates for males (Snyder, 1993).B
etween 1987
and 1991 the increasein the num
ber of robbery arrests involving fe-m
ales under age 18 was greater thanthe increase for m
ale youth (88-percentincrease for fem
ales compared w
ith a 49-percent increasefor m
ales). Female arrests for Property C
rime
Index offensesincreased more than m
ale arrests for all of-
fensesexcept arson. Overall, Property C
rime Index arrests
increased 14percent for fem
ales compared w
ith 7 percent for
* The G
eneral Accounting O
ffice is currently conducting a study of juvenile w
aivers to criminal courts as required by the 1992
Am
endments to the JJD
P Act.
** Eighteen States now
have excluded offenseprovisions for serious or violent crim
es; 12 have concurrentjurisdiction legislation. F
ifteen is the upper age of juvenile courtjurisdiction in 3 States, 16 in 8 States, 17 in 39 States and the D
istrict of C
olumbia, and 18 in 1 State (W
yoming) (N
ational Center for
Juvenile Justice, 1993).
males. In 1991 fem
ales accounted for 23 percent of all youth arrests, 12 percent of V
iolent Crim
e Index arrests, and 22 percent of Property C
rime Index arrests. For both m
ales and fem
ales the volume of juvenile court cases increased 10
percent between 1986 and 1990 (Snyder et al., 1993a). T
he grow
th in person offense cases was com
parable for males and
females (29 percent and 32 percent respectively). For property
cases, however, the grow
th in case volume am
ong females
was nearly double the increase am
ong males (13 percent
compared w
ith 7 percent). In 1990 females accounted for 19
percent of delinquency cases processed and about the same
proportion of person offense and property offense cases.
Research designed to estim
ate the numbers and characteristics
of youth gangs in the United States has not been conducted
since Miller's study. H
owever, Spergel and his colleagues
(Spergel et a,., 1990,1991) completed a nationw
ide assess- m
ent of promising approaches to preventing and intervening
in youth gangs. In the course of this research Spergel made the
following observations:
#i T
he scope and seriousness of the youth gang problem
nationally is not clearly or reliably known. Police officials
in 35 emerging and chronic gang-problem
cities estimated
the presence of 1,439 gangs and 120,636 gang mem
bers. Fem
ales, however, accounted for a som
ewhat sm
aller propor- tion of drug cases (13 percent). Fem
ale delinquency cases w
ere less likely to involve detention during court processing than w
ere cases involving males (17 percent com
pared with 24
percent in 1990). Betw
een 1978 and 1988 the number of
female adm
issions to public and private juvenile custody facilities increased 18 percent, about the sam
e as for males
(k3sberg et al., 1992).
Research
Youth Gangs
In the late 19707s, Walter M
iller conducted the first nation- w
ide study of youth gangs (Miller, 1975,1982). T
he study found youth gang problem
s in half of the Nation's large (m
ore than 1 m
illion population) metropolitan areas. T
he 10 largest gang-problem
cities contained about half the gangs. Miller
estimated that 300 U
.S. cities and towns contained about 2,300
youth gangs, with nearly 100,000 m
embers. A
bout 3,400 youth gang-related kiU
ings were reported for about 60 cities
during a 13-year period ending in 1980. Miller's m
ajor con- clusions w
ere:
R
By 1980 there w
ere more gang m
embers in the U
nited States than at any tim
e in the past.
R
Youth gangs w
ere active in more cities than at any other
time.
M G
ang crime w
as more lethal than any tim
e in history; m
ore people were shot, stabbed, and beaten to death in
gang-related incidents than during any previous decade.
I M
embers of gangs and other groups w
ere more heavily
armed than any tim
e in the past. Such groups have always
used weapons, but the prevalence and sophistication of
fuearrns used in the 1970's was unprecedented.
!# T
he amount of property destruction by gangs through
vandalism and arson of schools, residential and com
rner- cia1 buildings, and autom
obiles was m
ore extensive and costly than in any previous decade.
I
Based on law
enforcement and m
edia reports, criminal
youth gangs or gang mem
bers are to be found in nearly all SO States.
#i E
vidence exists of a general increase in gang-related violence in several cities, particularly on the w
est coast.
I
Gang m
embers w
ith arrest records are responsible for a disproportionate am
ount of violent crime. A
t the same
time, the proportion of total violent crim
e comm
itted by gang m
embers is very low
.
W
Gang violence is concentrated in certain categories of
violent crime, such as hom
icide and aggravated assault, and is concentrated in certain neighborhoods.
I
Historically, youth gangs have rarely engaged in drug
dealing, especially hard drugs. Recently, som
e youth gangs have becom
e involved in street sale of drugs.
I
The age range of gang m
embers has expanded in recent
decades. Mem
bers remain in gangs longer. E
xtreme gang
violence is concentrated in the older teen and young adult range. T
he average age of the arrested gang offender is 17-18. T
he average age of the gang homicide offender is
19-20.
I
Several observers suggest a close relationship between
youth gangs and organized crime. Y
outh gang struchlres, or cliques w
ithin gangs, are sometim
es seen as subunits of organized crim
e and are employed for purposes of drug
distribution, auto theft, extortion, and burglary.
Spergel's research revealed that five basic strategies have evolved in dealing w
ith youth gangs: (1) suppression, (2) social intervention, (3) social opportunities, (4) com
munity
mobilization, and (5) organizational developm
ent or change. C
omm
unity mobilization, including im
proved com
munication and joint policy and program
development
among justice, com
munity-based, and grassroots organiza-
tions, appears to be an effective primary strategy in both
emerging gang problem
cities and in those with chronic gang
problems.
Crim
inal (Adult) C
ourt Versus Juvenile C
ourt Four notew
orthy studies of juveniles handled by the criminal
justice system have been conducted.
Ham
parian and White's (et al., 1982) study w
as conducted nationw
ide. They found:
I
Most juveniles referred to adult courts for trial w
ere not charged w
ith personal offenses. ,
E
Most youth m
ed in adult courts were convicted or pled
Snyder and Hutzler (1981) analyzed the handling of 360,000
juvenile cases in 10 States in 1979 and compared the flow
of 1,000 adult felony cases through the adult crim
inal system and
1,000 serious (UCR Part I) offenders over 15 years of age through the juvenile court system
. They found:
I M
ost violent, serious, and repeat juvenile offenders are handled by the juvenile justice, rather than crim
inal justice, system
.
I
The m
ore serious his present offense is and the more prior
delinquency referrals a juvenile has, the more likely it is
that he or she will be w
aived to criminal court, or, if
guilty.
I
Youth tried in adult courts w
ere more likely to receive
comm
unity sentences(probation or fine) thanincarcera-tion, except for the excluded offense category.
IY
outh convicted as adultsand sentenced to adult correc-tions facilities could probably expect to do m
ore time than
they would underjuvenile dispositions.
The research team
concluded that:
"Our research to date revealed that adult courts in 1978or-
dered fines and probation in half of the cases initiated against juveniles through
judicial waiver or prosecutorial m
echanisms.
Further, where confinem
ents were ordered, m
aximum
sen-tences did not exceed 1 year in over40 percent of the cases. A
ll of these sanctions arenormally w
ithinjuvenile court
dispositional powers (H
amparian
et al., 1982:228)."
OJJD
P funded a subsequentstudy (White et al., 1985)com
-paring the outcom
es of cases involvingjuveniles charged with
"dangerous" offenses (murder, rape, aggravated assault,
robbery, and burglary) in thejuvenile justice system w
ith sim
ilar cases against young defendants in the criminaljustice
system. C
omparisons w
ere made in nine selected sites during
1980-81. Major findings:
I
Juvenile courts waived about 5 percent of the dangerous
cases filed with them
.
I
Adult courts w
ere slightly more likely to find offenders
guilty (77 percent versus 70 percent).
E
Adult courts w
ere more than tw
ice as likely to incarcerate the young adults as w
erejuvenile courts to incarcerate juveniles.
B4 C
onfmed young adults served considerably m
ore time in
adult prisons than did juveniles in reformatories.
IY
oung adults recidivated 1 112times m
ore often thandid juveniles.
IT
he best mechanism
for discriminatingbetw
een those juveniles w
ho should be med as adultsand those w
ho should be tried asjuveniles appears to be judicial w
aiver.
adjudicateddelinquent,institutionalized.
I
Thejuvenile court deals m
ost severely with violent,
repeat offenders.
)88 A
lthough thejuvenile court is less likely to incarcerate,it is m
uch more likely to im
pose some sanction or supervi-
sion upon persons over 15referred for serious offenses
than is the criminaljustice system
upon adults referred for felonies.
Fagan (1991) compared the severity and effectiveness of
juvenile and criminalcourt sanctions for 1,200adolescent
felony offenders,ages 15-16, arrested for robbery and bur-glary during 1981-82 and 1986-87, in m
atched counties in adjacent Statesw
here they were handled in thejuvenile justice
and adult systems,respectively, because of different legisla-
tiverequirements.
The results show
ed that sanctions were m
ore certainand about
as severe in the juvenile court as in the criminal court.R
ecidi-vism
rates were low
er for adolescents sanctioned in the juve-nile court. T
hey were rearrested less often,at a low
er rate, and after a longer crim
e-freeinterval. Adolescents sanctioned in
the criminal court had higher crim
e rates.
Chronic Juvenile O
ffenders T
he Philadelphia birth cohort study (Wolfgang,Figlio, and
Sellin, 1972)foundthat "chronic offenders" (five or m
ore police contacts) constituted 6
percent of the cohort and 18 percent of the delinquents. T
hey were responsible for:
#! 62 percent of all offenses.
68 percent of the UCR
Index offenses.
About tw
o-thirds of all violent offenses: -
61
percent of homicides.
-75 percent of rapes.
-73 percent of robberies.
-6
5 percent of aggravated assaults.
-66
percent of the offensesthat involved injuries.
A 15-year follow
up of a 10-percent sample of the original
Philadelphia birth cohort (Wolfgang, T
hornberry, and Figlio, 1987) exam
ined the cohort's police records through age 30. ,
This study provided im
portant information on the extent to
which chronic juvenile offenders m
aintained their deviant careers through their early adult years. T
he study found that offenses increased in seriousness into adulthood, arrests declined steadily after age 18 (providing initial docum
entation of the "m
aturation process7'), and about one-quarter of the adults had no records as juveniles.
The replication study focused on the cohort of som
e 28,000 children born in Philadelphia in 1958 w
ho attended school
I
The first adult arrest w
as very likely to be prior to age 20.
I
Youths w
ho were subsequently arrested as adults tended
to have more arrests as juveniles, to have begun their
delinquent acts earlier, to have continued them late into
their juvenile years, and to have been involved in the m
ore serious type of violent offenses as juveniles. They
tended to have been comm
itted at least once to a State juvenile correctional facility.
llsl A
clear continuity exists between juvenile and adult
criminal careers (H
amparian et al., 1985: 3-4).
Snyder (1988) found that juveniles with four or m
ore referrals there betw
een the ages of 10and 17. C
ohort 11males w
ere m
uch more likely than C
ohort I to comm
it a violent index offense and show
ed a much higher probability of com
mitting
additional violent offenses. The offense rate of C
ohort I1 m
embers w
as higher and their delinquencies were m
ore serious than
those of the earlier cohort. The fem
ales studied in C
ohort 11showed less significant chronicity than
did males
(Tracy,W
olfgang, and Figlio, 1985).
The greatest im
mediate contributions of this research w
ere its substantiation of the C
ohort I findingsregarding chronicity am
ong males and its docum
entationof the increasing severity of delinquency
among Philadelphia youths.
Shannon(1988,1991,forthcom
ing)studied three youth cohorts born in 1942,1949,and 1955in R
acine, Wisconsin.
His research w
as designed, in part, to serve as a comparison to
Wolfgang's and his colleagues' Philadelphia study. C
entral to Shannon'sresearch w
as the question whether sim
ilarpatterns of chronicity
might be found in sm
aller metropolitan areas.
Although he found slightly less concentration of crim
e among
chronic offenders,the findings regarding criminalpatterns
were very sim
ilar to those of the Philadelphiaresearch: from 8
percent to 14percent of each cohort was responsible for 75
percent of all felonies.He also found that R
acine youths' police contactsfor serious crim
es peaked earlier thanw
as the case am
ong Philadelphiajuveniles.
Harnparian and her colleagues conducted a cohort analysis of
1,200youth born in C
olumbus,O
hio, in 1956-60 who had at
least one violent arrest. This study found that violentjuvenile
offenders were a very sm
all proportion (2 percent) of the total cohort;juvenile offenders did not typically progress from
less to m
ore serious crime,m
aking it difficult to predict violent behavior; few
er than 10percent of the cohort delinquents began their careers w
ith a status offense; and recidivism
increasedfollow
inginstitutional confinement (H
amparianet
al., 1978).
Ham
parian conducted a followup study of the violent sub-
group of the cohort into their mid-20's. It show
ed thac
IA
lmost 60 percent of these individuals w
ere arrested at least once as a young adult for a felony offense.
made up 16
percent of offenders but were responsible for 51
percent of alljuvenile court cases--61 percent of murder, 64
percent of rape, 67 percent of robbery, 61 percent of aggra-vated assault,and 66 percent of burglary cases.
These studies docum
ented the size of the chronic and violent offender subset,the severity of their offenses, and the relation-ship of juvenile to adult crim
inal careers, providing the basis for targeting these offenders for delinquencyprevention efforts and specializedjuvenile justice system
intervention.
Causes of Serious, Violent, and C
hronic Juvenile C
rime
A num
ber of studies have documented the fact that chronic
juvenile offenders tend to start their careersearly and often continue them
into adulthood (Wolfgang,Figlio, and Sellin,
1972;Ham
parian et al., 1978;Farrington, 1983;Gottfredson
and Hirschi, 1986;W
olfgang, Thornberry, and Figlio, 1987;
Shannon, 1988). More recently, several scholars have concen-
trated their attention on factorsrelated to early onset of delin-quent careers (W
ilson and Hem
stein, 1985;Farrington and W
est, 1990;Farrington et al., 1990;Gottfredson and H
irschi, 1990;Farrington and H
awkins, 1991; N
agin and Farrington, 1992).
How
ever, the most significant theoretical contribution
to understanding the onset and m
aintenance of delinquentca-reers, and m
ore important, delinquencyprevention generally,
has been made by the "social developm
ent" theory, pioneered by H
awkins (1981). T
histheoretical approachhas
been ex-tended and elaborated recently by E
lliott and Menard, 1988;
Loeber and L
eBlanc, 1990; L
oeber et al., 1991;Haw
kins et al., 1986;and H
uizinga et al., 1991. ,
c--
OJJD
P's Program of R
esearch on the Causes and C
orrelates of D
elinquency,conductedby H
uizinga (Denver),L
oeber (Pitts-burgh), and T
hornberry (Rochester)has exam
ined a broad array of correlates and causal factors. T
hiscomprehensive
study employed com
mon m
easures in the three sites and oversam
pledhigh-risk youth. Findings from
this landmark
research (Huizinga, L
oeber,and Thornberry, 1992)include the
following.
I& M
ost chronic juvenile offenders start their criminal career
prior to age 12.
B
Early onset offenders tend to com
e form poorer, inner-
city disadvantaged neighborhoods.
I C
oordination is often lacking among different agencies in
their efforts to curtail the emerging delinquent career of
early-onset offenders.
E4 T
hree pathways to chronic delinquency can be
distinguished:
Overt pathw
ay-From
aggression, to fighting, to
The study directors offered the follow
ing objectives for treat- m
ent programs:
A clear need exists for integrated and holistic treatm
ent program
s.
I
Treatm
ent programs need to be tailored to the unique set
of risk and causal factors associated with each youth.
Service delivery systems need to be tightly integrated
because of the co-occurrence and "stacking" of problem
behaviors.
Treatm
ent programs, it appears, often need to start early.
violence.
Covert pathw
ay-From
minor covert behavior, to
property damage, to seriousdelinquency.
Authority conflict pathw
ay-From
stubborn behavior, to defm
ce, to authority avoidance.
B
Whilerelatively few
in number (15 percent of the R
och-estersam
ple), chronic violent delinquents self-reported com
mitting 75 percent of all violent offenses.
B4 A
ny successfuleffort to reduce youth violence and juve-nile delinquencyclearly m
ust deal with hard-core, chronic
offenders.
P
No current ability enablesus to accurately predict w
ho w
ill be chronic offenders. The m
ost promising approach
is to use our knowledge of developm
entalpathways to
identify youth already moving tow
ards chronic offending.
IC
haracteristicsof chronic violent offenders:
Family-The
offenders are less attached to and less m
onitored by their parents.
School-The offenders have less com
mitm
entto school and attachm
ent to teachers.
Peers-They have m
ore delinquent peers and are more
apt to be gang mem
bers.
Neighborhood-T
hey are m
ore likely to reside in poor, high-crim
e-rateareas.
The authors drew
the followinginferences:
B
Because there is no single cause of youth violence, inter-
vention programsneed to be com
prehensive,dealing with
the above multiple causes of delinquency.
R
Particular attention needs to be focused on peer networks.
ID
elinquent behavior should not be left unattended be-cause it leads to the deterioration of prosocial skills and to the acquisition
of other problem behaviors.
IB
ecause of the co-occurrence of problem behaviors and
their interlockingrelationships,the transition to adulthood
for chronicoffendersis questionable.
&
Interventionand treatment are im
perative.
Conditions of C
onfinement
In a 1991national study of conditions of confinement in
juvenile detention and correctional facilities (Parent et al., 1993),institutional crow
ding was found to be a pervasive
problem. T
housandsof juvenile offenders,more than 75
percent of the confined population, were housed in facilities
that violated one or more standardsrelated to living space
(facility design capacity,sleeping areas, and living unit size). B
etween 1987
and 1991,the percentage of confinedjuveniles living in facilitiesin w
hich the daily populationexceeded
design capacity increased from 36 percent to 47 percent.
Crow
ding was found to be associated w
ith higher rates of institutional violence, suicidalbehavior, and greater reliance on the use of short-term
isolation. Sixty-fivepercent of all juvenile correctional adm
inistrators interviewed said their
facilities had crowding problem
s.
The study found that the percentage of m
inorityjuveniles in
detention and correctionalfacilitiesis increasing. Betw
een 1987
and 1991,the minority population in detention and
correctionalfacilitiesgrew from
53 percent to 63 percent of the confined
population.
The study also found that m
any confinedjuveniles are held in public facilitiesthat are under court orders or consent decrees. T
wenty-threepercent of juveniles held in public facilities w
ere confined in a facility
under a court order or consent decree. Juveniles in public training schoolsand reception centers w
ere m
uch more likely to be confined in a facility under a court
order or consent decree (34 percent and 65 percent respec-tively), com
pared with public detention centers (8 percent).
More than 50 percent of detention centersreported they w
ere under court orders or consent decrees for crow
ding (Parent et al., 1993).
This study w
as required by Congress in the 1988am
endments
to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJD
P) A
ct. It is the first such nationwide investigationof conditions
in securejuvenile detention and correctionalfacilities.Using
nationally recognized correctionalstandards,the research team
assessed how juvenile offenders' basic needs are m
et, how
institutionalsecurity and resident safety are maintained, w
hat
treatment program
ming is provided, and how
juveniles' rights are protected.
Program E
valuations In 1971 M
assachusetts closed its training schools and replaced them
with a netw
ork of decentralized comm
unity-based services and a few
, small secure-care units for violent juvenile
offenders. This constituted the m
ost sweeping reform
in youth corrections in the U
nited States since the establishment of
crimes during a 12-m
onth followup period. M
ost of the felony crim
e was property oriented (K
risberg, 1992).
A national assessm
ent of comm
unity-based interventions for the serious juvenile offender w
as conducted in the early 1980's (A
ltschuler and Arm
strong, 1984). The study w
as designed to identify program
s which, in the view
of State and
local authorities, effectively provided services to the target group. It found that program
s perceived by authorities to be effective w
ere characterized by case managem
ent, extensive aftercare, active client program
involvement, control and
security, education, and counseling. Those program
s perceived
juvenile training schools and juvenile courts in the 19th century. M
assachusetts demonstrated
thatjuvenile corrections need not be centered around large training schools.
Several evaluations of Massachusetts' com
munity-based
programs have found them
to be effective. The initial study,
conductedby O
hlin and his colleagues (Coates,M
iller, and O
hlin, 1978)did not find dramatic differences. T
he National
Council on C
rime and D
elinquency conducteda 10-year
followup study in 1984-85. D
esigned to examinethe effec-
tiveness of current youth services for delinquentyouth, it com
paredthe M
assachusetts' juvenile correctionsprograms
with those of C
alifornia. It revealed that youth who spent 5
months in a M
assachusettsprogram follow
edby supervision
in the comm
unity had a rearrest rate of 51percent, w
hile youth w
ho spent 14 months in a C
alifornia institutionhad a
rearrest rate of 70 percent. Of those released from
Massachu-
setts correctionalprograms, only 23 percent w
ere reincar-cerated w
hile 62 percent were reincarcerated in C
alifornia T
his study also found that youth under comm
unity-based supervision in M
assachusetts accounted for a small fraction of
crimes in the State, and that there w
as a tendency over time for
these youth to comm
it less serious crimes (K
risberg,Austin,
and Steele, 1989).
Other Stateshave follow
ed Massachusetts' lead in closing
large training schools and replacing them w
ith comm
unity-based program
s. Pennsylvania has closed its training school and provided a com
binationof program
srunby the State and
private organizations. Utah has opted for com
munity-based
programs in lieu of training schools. M
aryland has closed one training schooland reduced the population of the rem
aining one. Florida has reduced its training schoolpopulation and developed a variety of com
munity-basedprogram
s (Lem
er, 1990).
In the early 1980's, Utah closed its singlelarge juvenile
institution in favor of a comm
unity-basedapproachto juvenile
corrections. Small secureunits w
ere built for chronic and violentjuvenile offenders, w
ho averaged 30 prior convictions. T
hese maxim
um security
treatment facilities housed 3
04
0
youth per facility. Three evaluations have found the small
securefacilities to be effective.One of these studies found that
only 6 percent of released offenders were charged w
ith violent
as effective for more seriousjuvenile offenders established
and maintained security through sm
allernumbers of clients,
adequate staff,and program content rather than through
dependenceon high levels of mechanical and physical con-
straints. All of the effectiveresidential program
s used gradu-ated system
s of conml and supervision
and placed greater degrees of responsibility on youth as they m
oved toward
completereintegration into the com
munity.
In 1985 the RA
ND
Corporation
examined the effectiveness of
private-sectorprograms for dealing w
ith seriousjuvenile offenders. O
ne of these, Ohio Paint C
reek Youth C
enter (PC
YC
),funded by OJJD
P as a private-sector alternative, provides residential services for up to 34 m
ale youth ages 15-18
who have been convicted of first-or second-degreefelo-
nies. PCY
C w
as found to effectively combine treatm
ent, education, em
ployment,life skills,and specialized counseling
and support servicesinto one coordinatedapproach, in addi-
tion to providing staff and residents with a secure setting
through intensive staff and peer supervisionand influence
(OJJD
P, 1988).
The U
nified Delinquency Intervention Services (U
DIS)
Program, a C
hicagoexperim
ent designed and funded by the Stateof Illinois, provided a system
of "graduated sanctions" for chronic inner-city juvenile offenders. L
evel I sanctions consisted of less drastic interventions, such as arrest and release, tem
porary detention, and informal supervision.L
evel 11com
prised the UD
IS program, consisting of com
munity-
based servicesprovided for those who recidivated at L
evel I. L
evel 111,for those who failed at the second level, consisted of
comm
itment to the IllinoisD
epartmentof C
orrections.
In 1979Murray and C
ox conducted a followup study of the
"suppression effects" of each level of sanctions. This research
sought to determinethe effectiveness of each type of sanction
in reducing recidivism and suppressing
additional crimes. It
reveals that:
B
Both the U
DIS program
and incarcerationthrough the D
epartment of C
orrections had a substantialimpact on
postprogram arrests, court appearances, and violent
offensesamong the chronic offenders.
I T
he effects of least drastic interventions, such as arrest and release, tem
porary detention, and supervision on chronic offenders w
ere minim
al.
I T
he costs of the UD
IS program and D
epartment of C
or- rections program
s were about the sam
e (Murray and C
ox, 1979).
This research added to the body of know
ledge that comm
u- nity-based program
s can be effective in treating high-risk offenders. A
t the same tim
e, it supported program develop-
ment for chronic, violent juveniles by dem
onstrating that program
s that incorporate a system of graduated sanctions
fls[ Sm
all residential treatment settings.
#4 A
multiphased approach to gradually m
oving serious offenders from
more secure settings back into the com
mu-
nity, with postprogram
reintegration services.
Another O
JJDP-funded program
, the Serious Habitual O
f- fender Program
, began in 1983. This program
was based
largely on the results of the studies by Wolfgang, Shannon,
and Harnparian. It focused on 20 cities in w
hich police, pros- ecutors, schools, w
elfare, and probation workers w
ere orga- nized to gather, m
aintain, and share information on their w
orst juvenile offenders-those
with three or m
ore serious (UC
R
have a higher likelihood of success.
OJJD
P's Violent Juvenile O
ffender Research and D
evelop-m
ent Program, Part 1, w
as established in 1981.It was designed
to test the capability of the juvenile justice system to deal w
ith the chronic, serious, violent offender in an innovative fashion as com
pared with traditional juvenile justice and adult court
intervention. A specific goal of the effort w
as to test an inter-vention m
odel for the treatment and reintegration of violent
juvenile offenders,designed to reduce violent crimes through
an individually-based case managem
ent strategy with strong
emphasison planned, integrated aftercare.
A total of 244 m
ales were assigned to treatm
ent or "control" groups. T
hoseprovided treatment had been charged w
ith an averageof nearly eight prior offenses,resulting in an average of m
ore thanthree prior adjudications each. O
ne-fourth had previously been incarcerated.
Evaluationresults (Fagan et al., 1984,1984a,1987)show
ed that:
&! T
he case managem
ent approachhelped identify appropri-
ate treatment and ensured a consistentrew
ard structure.
IBB C
ase managers felt that the violent offenders w
hose treatm
ent they managed m
ade progress in virtually all treatm
ent areas while still in the program
.
P
Treatm
ent youth showed the m
ost consistent progress in strengthened fam
ilyrelations.
Had the funded
jurisdictionsnot experienced implem
entation problem
s,there is every reason to believe that this program
would have been successful.T
he evaluation showed program
effectivenessw
here implem
entationprogressed smoothly,and
many of the program
elements have been found to be success-
ful in other studies. These include:
Case m
anagement system
sto ensure a consistent reward
structure and appropriatetreatment.
P
Com
prehensivediagnosticassessment and availability of
a variety of servicesto meet individual needs.
I
A correctionalsystem
of graduated sanctions.
Part I) offenses. These "serious habitual offenders" (SH
O's)
were given priority attention for arrest and prosecution. T
he strategy w
as to "throw the b
oo
k at them
and, through escalat-ing penalties, to lock them
up through their crime-prone years.
In the 20 cities, SHO
's included less than2 percent of all
arrestedjuveniles. Oxnard, C
alifornia, hasprobably had the
most success w
ith the strategy. Recent claim
s attribute to the program
a 38-percent drop in violent crimes (includinga 60-
percent drop in murders) and a 29-percent decreasein burglar-
ies (Methvin, 1991:4).
See Krisberg (1992) and G
reenwood and Z
imring (1985) for
other evaluationsof comm
unity-basedalternatives to large training schools.
Summ
ary T
his brief review of statistics,research, and program
evalua-tions highlights the scopeand m
agnitude of the serious, violent, and chronicjuvenile delinquency
problem. T
he statistics indicatethat juveniles responsible for seriousand violent delinquency are presenting a grow
ingproblem
for overloaded juvenile justice and crim
inal justice systems.T
his is all the m
ore troubling when considered in light of the fact
that the size of the juvenile-aged population will continue to
increase in the 1990's as a result of the "baby boom echo."
Consequently the volum
e of juvenile crime can be expected to
increase and, coupled with evidence thatjuvenile crim
e is becom
ing more violent, the public perception of a crisis in
juvenile crime can be expected to grow
.
The research dem
onstrates that a small proportion of juveniles
accounts for the bulk of serious and violentjuvenile delin-quency. R
ecent researchhas shed lighton factors that push
juveniles down pathw
ays to chronic delinquency. The link
between child abuse and neglect and later serious, violent, and
chronic delinquency offers an additionaltarget for delin-quency prevention
programs.
Our review
of the program evaluation literature focused
primarily on the alternativesto large congregate-carecorrec-
tional facilities, which have not proven to be effective. E
xami-
nation of the program evaluation literature indicates that
nonresidential comm
unity-based alternatives to incarceration and sm
all secure confinement options are the m
ost promising
alternatives. Programs that appear to w
ork best are also char- acterized by graduated system
s of control and supervision, use of m
ultidisciplinary case managem
ent techniques, risk-needs assessm
ents, and highly structured treatment delivery coupled
with intensive aftercare.
Fagan, Jeffrey, et. al. "Intervening with V
iolent Juvenile O
ffenders: A C
omm
unity Reintegration M
odel." In Robert A
. M
athias, Paul DeM
uro, and Richard S. A
Uinson (eds.). Juve-
nile Offenders-A
n A
nthology. San Francisco: National C
oun- cil on C
rime and D
elinquency. 1984a, 207-227.
Fagan, Jeffrey, et al. "Racial D
eterminants of the Judicial
Transfer D
ecision: Prosecuting Violent Y
outh in Crim
inal C
ourt." Crim
e and Delinquency 33:259-286,
1987.
Fagan, Jeffrey. "The Com
parative Impacts of Juvenile and
Crim
inal Court Sanctions on A
dolescent Felony Offenders."
Final report submitted to O
JJDP. June 1991.
Sources A
ltschuler, David, and Troy A
rmstrong. "Intervening w
ith SeriousJuvenile O
ffenders: A Sum
mary of a Study on
Com
munity-B
ased Programs." In R
obert Mathias et al. (eds.).
ViolentJuvenile O
ffenders: An A
nthology. San Francisco: N
ational Council on C
rime and D
elinquency. 1984,187-206.
Altschuler, D
avid, and Troy Arm
strong. "Intensive Aftercare
for High-R
isk Juvenile Parolees: A M
odel Program D
esign." T
he Johns Hopkins U
niversity Institutefor Policy Studies. June 1992.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Specialanalysis. A
pril 1993.
Bursik, R
obert. "Erickson Could N
ever Have Im
agined: R
ecent Extensions of Birth
Cohort Studies." Journal of Q
uan-titative C
riminology 5: 389-396,1989.
Carnegie C
ouncil on Adolescent D
evelopment. A
Matter of
Tim
e: Risk and O
pportunity in the Nonschool H
ours. New
Y
ork: Carnegie C
orporation of New
York. 1992.
Coates, R
obert, Alden M
iller, and Lloyd O
hlin. Diversity in a
Youth C
orrectional System: H
andling Delinquents in M
assa-chusetts. C
ambridge: B
allinger Publishing Com
pany. 1978.
Edw
ards, Leonard P. "The Juvenile C
ourt and the Role of the
Juvenile Court Judge." Juvenile and F
amily C
ourt Journal 43, 2,1992.
Elliott, D
elbert S., David H
uizinga, and Barbara M
orse. "Self-R
eported Violent O
ffending-A
Descriptive A
nalysis of Juvenile V
iolent Offenders and T
heir Offending C
areers." Journal of Interpersonal V
iolence 1:472-514,1986.
Elliott, D
elbert S., and Scott Menard. "D
elinquent Behavior
and Delinquent Peers: T
emporal and D
evelopmental Patterns."
Unpublished
manuscript. U
niversity of Colorado, B
oulder. 1988.
Fagan, Jeffrey, et al. "System Processing of V
iolent Juvenile O
ffenders: An E
mpirical A
ssessment." In R
obert A. M
athias, Paul D
eMuro, and R
ichard S. Allinson (4s.). Juvenile O
ffend-ers--A
n Anthology. San Francisco: N
ational Council on C
rime
and Delinquency. 1984,117-136.
Farrington, David P. "O
ffending From 10
to 25 Years of
Age." In K
atherine T. Van D
uren and Samoff A
. Mednick
(eds.). Prospective Studies of C
rime and D
elinquency. Boston:
Kluw
er-Nijhoff. 1983.
Farrington, David P., and D
avid Haw
kins. "Predicting Partici-pation, E
arly Onset and L
ater Persistence in Officially
Re-
corded Offending." C
riminal B
ehavior and Mental H
ealth 1:l-33,1991.
Farrington, David P., and D
onald J. West. "T
he Cam
bridge Study in D
elinquent Developm
ent." In Hans-Jurgen K
emer
and Gunter K
aiser (eds.). Crim
inality: Personality, B
ehavior and Life H
istory. Berlin: Springer-V
erlag. 1990.
Farrington, David P., et al. "A
dvancing Know
ledge About the
Onset of D
elinquency and Crim
e." In B
enjamin B
. Lahey and
Alan E
. Kazdin (eds.). A
dvances .in Clinical C
hild Psychology,
Vol. 13. N
ew Y
ork: Plenum.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. N
ews release. O
ctober 25, 1992.
Feld, Barry.Neutralizing Inm
ate Violence:Juvenile O
ffenders in Institutions. C
ambridge, M
assachusetts:Ballinger Publish-
ing Co. 1978.
Gottfredson, M
ichael, and Travis H
irschi. "The True V
alue of L
ambda W
ould Appear to be Z
ero: An E
ssay on Career
Crim
inals, Crim
inal Careers, SelectiveIncapacitation,C
ohort Studies and R
elated Topics." Crim
inology 24:213-234.
Gottfredson, M
ichael, and Travis H
irschi. A G
eneral Theory of C
rime. Palo A
lto, California: Stanford
University Press.
1990.
Greenw
ood,Peter, and Franklin Zin
g. "O
ne More C
hance: T
he Pursuit of Promising Intervention Strategies for C
hronic Juvenile O
ffenders." Santa Monica: R
AN
D. 1985.
Ham
parian, Donna, et al. The V
iolentFew
: A Study of D
an-gerous Juvenile O
ffenders. Lexington, M
assachusetts: Lexing-
ton Books. 1978.
Ham
paxian, Donna, et al. Youth in A
dult Courts: B
etween Tw
o W
orlds. Colum
bus, Ohio: A
cademy for C
ontemporary R
ob- lem
s. 1982.
Haw
kins, David, and Joseph G
. Weis. "The Social D
evelop- m
ent Model: A
n Integrated Approach to D
elinquency Preven- tion." W
ashington, D.C
.: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. 1980.
Haw
kins, David, et al. "C
hildhood Predictors of Adolescent
Substance Abuse: T
oward an E
mpirically G
rounded Theory." Journal of C
hildren in Contem
porary Society 8:11-48,1986.
Loeber, R
olf, et al. "Initiation, Escalation and Persistence in
Juvenile Offending and T
heir Correlation." Journal of C
rimi-
nal Law and C
riminology 82:36-82.199 1.
Mathias, R
obert, et al. (eds.). Violent Juvenile O
ffenders: An A
nthology. San Francisco: National C
ouncil on Crim
e and D
elinquency. 1984.
McEw
en, Craig. D
esigning Correctional O
rganizations for Youths: D
ilemm
as of Subcultural Developm
ent. Cam
bridge, .
Massachusetts: B
allinger Publishing Co. 1978.
Miller, A
lden, L. Ohlin, and R
. Coates. A
Theory of Social H
awkins, D
avid, et al. 'The Seattle Social D
evelopment
Project: Effects of the First Four Y
ears on ProtectiveFactors and Problem
Behaviors." In J. M
cCord and R
. Trim
bley (eds.).The Prevention of A
ntisocial Behavior in C
hildren. N
ew Y
ork: Guilford. 1992.
Haw
kins, David, and R
ichard Catalano, Jr. C
omm
unities That C
are. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. 1992.
Huizinga, D
avid, Finn-Aage E
sbensen, and Anne W
. Weiher.
"Are T
here Multiple Paths to D
elinquency?"Journal of C
riminal Law
and Crim
inology 8283-118.1991.
Huizinga, D
avid,Rolf L
oeber, and Terence T
hornberry. "New
Findingson D
elinquency and SubstanceAbuse in U
rban A
reas." Congressionalbriefing. W
ashington,D.C
. May 15,
1992.
Krisberg, B
any, James A
ustin, and Pamcia Steele, ''U
nlock-ing Juvenile C
orrections:Evaluating
the MassachusettsD
e-partm
ent of Youth Services." San Francisco: N
ational Council
on Crim
e and Delinquency. 1989.
Krisberg, B
arry, et al. "Dem
onstration of Post-Adjudication
Non-R
esidential IntensiveSupervisionProgram
Assessm
ent R
epon" Final report submitted to O
JJDP. N
ovember 1989a
Krisberg, B
arry. "Juvenile Justice: Improving the Q
uality of C
are." San Francisco: National C
ouncil on Crim
e and Delin-
quency. 1992.
Krisberg, B
arry, et al. "Juvenile IntensiveSupervisionPro-gram
Model, O
perations Manual and G
uide," Special Report
submitted to O
JJDP. July 1991.
Krisberg, B
any, et al. National Juvenile C
ustody Trends 1978-1989. O
ffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. 1992.
Lerner, Steve. The G
ood New
s About Juvenile Justice.
Bolinas, C
alifornia: Com
mon K
nowledge Press. 1990.
Loeber,R
olf, and Marc L
eBlanc. 'T
oward a D
evelopmental
Crim
inology." In Michael T
onry and Norval M
orris (eds.). C
rime and Justice, V
ol. 12.C
hicago: University of C
hicago Press. 1990.
Reform
: Correctional C
hanges Processes in Two States.
Cam
bridge,Massachusetts: B
allinger Publishing Co. 1977.
Miller, W
alter. Crim
e by Youth Gangs and G
roups in the U
nited States. Washington, D
.C.: O
ffice of JuvenileJustice and D
elinquency Prevention. 1982.
Miller, W
alter. Violence by Youth G
angs and YouthG
roups as a C
rime Problem
in Major A
merican C
ities. Washington,
D.C
.: U.S. G
overnmentPrinting O
ffice. 1975.
Miller, W
alter. "Why the U
nited States Has Failed to Solve Its
Youth G
ang Problem." In C
.R. H
uff (ed.). Gangs in A
merica.
New
bury Park, California: Sage. 1990:263-287.
Nagin, D
aniel S., and David P. Farrington. "The Stability of
Crim
inalPotential from C
hildhood to Adulthood." C
riminol-
ogy 30:235-260.
Nagin, D
aniel S., and David P
. Farrington. "The Onset and
Persistence of Offending." C
riminology 30:501-523.
National C
enter for Juvenile Justice. Special analysis. April
1993.
National C
oalition of StateJuvenile Justice Advisory G
roups. M
yths and Realities: M
eeting the Challenge of Serious, V
io-lent and C
hronicJuvenile Offenders. 1992
AnnualR
eport. W
ashington, D.C
. 1993.
National C
omm
ission on Children. B
eyond Rhetoric: A
New A
merican A
gendafor Children and F
amilies. W
ashington, D
.C.: U
.S. Governm
ent Printing Office. 199
1.
National C
ouncil of Juvenile and Family C
ourt Judges. "Chil-
dren and Families First, A
Mandate for C
hange." R
eno: N
CJFC
J, 1993.
National C
ouncil of Juvenile and Family C
ourt Judges. "The
Juvenile Court and SeriousO
ffenders: 38R
ecomm
endations." Juvenile and F
amily C
ourt Journal. Summ
er 1984.
Office of Juvenile Justice and D
elinquencyPrevention. "A
Private Sector C
orrections Program for Juveniles: Paint C
reek Y
outh Center." O
JJDP U
pdate on Programs. June 1988.
Office of Juvenile Justice,and D
elinquency Prevention. Juve- niles Taken Into C
ustody: Fiscal Y
ear I990 Report. W
ashing- ton, D
.C.: U
.S. Departm
ent of Justice. September 1991.
Office of Juvenile Justice and D
elinquency Prevention. Na-
tional Juvenile Custody Trends: 19784989. W
ashington, D
.C.:
U.S. D
epartment of Justice. M
arch 1992.
Office of Juvenile Justice and D
elinquency Prevention. Juve- niles Taken Into C
ustody: Fiscal Y
ear I992 Report. W
ashing- ton, D
.C.: U
.S. Departm
ent of Justice 1993 (forthcoming).
Ohlin, L
loyd, Robert C
oates, and Alden M
iller, Reform
ing
Snyder, How
ard. Juvenile Court Statistics: 1990. W
ashington, D
.C.: O
ffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
1993a.
Snyder, How
ard. Special analysis for OJJD
P. April 1993b.
Spergel, Irving A., et al. "N
ational Youth G
ang Suppression and Intervention Program," O
JJDP Juvenile Justice B
ulletin (R
eprinted fiom N
IJ Reports, N
o. 222. June 1990).
Spergel, Irving, et al. Youth Gangs: Problem
and Response.
Final report submitted to O
JJDP. 1991. See "E
xecutive Sum-
mary," Stage I: Assessm
ent. Juvenile C
orrections: The Massachusetts E
xperience. Cam
-bridge, M
assachusetts: Ballinger Publishing
Co. 1978.
Osgood, D
. Wayne, et al. 'T
ime T
rends and Age T
rends in A
rrests and Self-Reported Illegal B
ehavior." Crim
inology, 27:389415.1989.
Parent, Dale, et al. C
onditions of Confinem
ent:A Study to
Evaluate C
onditions in Juvenile Detention and C
orrections F
acilities. Final report submitted to the O
ffice of Juvenile Justice and D
elinquency Prevention. April 1993.
Shannon,Lyle. C
riminal C
areer Continuity: Its Social C
on-text. N
ew Y
ork: Hum
an SciencesPress. 1988.
Shannon,Lyle. C
hanging Patterns in Delinquency and C
rime:
A Longitudinal Study in R
acine. Boulder, C
olorado: Westview
Press. 1991.
Shannon,Lyle. A
lcohol and Drugs, D
elinquency and Crim
e (forthcom
ing).
Smith,C
arolyn A., and T
erenceP. Thornberry. "The R
elation-ship B
etween C
hildhood Maltreatm
entand Adolescent In-
volvement in D
elinquency and Drug U
se." Paper presented at the m
eetings of the Society for Research on C
hild Develop-
ment. N
ew O
rleans. March 1993.
Snyder, How
ard, and John Hutzler. "The SeriousJuvenile
Offender: T
he Scope of the Problem and the R
esponse of Juvenile C
ourts." Pittsburgh: National C
enter for Juvenile Justice. Septem
ber 1981.
Snyder, How
ard. Cow
t Careers of Juvenile O
ffenders. Wash-
ington, D.C
.: Office of Juvenile Justice and D
elinquency Prevention. 1988.
Snyder,How
ard. Jzivenile Court Statistics: 1989. W
ashington, D
.C.: O
ffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
1992.
Strasburg,Paul. ViolentD
elinquents. Report to the Ford
Foundation from the V
era Instituteof Justice. New
York:
Monarch Press. 1978.
Szymanski,L
inda. "Upper A
ge of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction
StatutesAnalysis (1990 U
pdate). Pittsburgh: National C
enter for Juvenile Justice. 1991.
Tracy, Paul, M
arvin E. Wolfgang,and R
obert M. Figlio.
"Delinquency in Tw
o Birth C
ohorts." Executive Sum
mary.
Washington, D
.C.: O
ffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. 1985.
Weis, Joseph G
., and David H
awkins.Preventing D
elin-quency. W
ashington,D.C
.: Officeof Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. 1981.
Weis, Joseph G
., and John Sedersmm
. The Prevention of
Serious Delinquency: W
hat to Do?. W
ashington, D.C
.: Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1981.
White, Joseph. "T
he Com
parative DispositionsStudy." Final
report submitted to O
JJDP. February 1985.
Widom
, Cathy Spatz. "T
he Cycle of V
iolence." National
Institute of JusticeResearch in B
rief. October 1992.
Wilson, Jam
es Q., and R
ichard Hem
stein. Crim
e and Hum
an N
ature. New
York: Sim
on and Schuster. 1985.
Wolfgang, M
arvin, Robert M
. Figlio,and Thom
sten Sellin. D
elinquency in a Birth C
ohort. Chicago: U
niversity of Chi-
cago Press. 1972.
Wolfgang, M
arvin, Terence P. T
hornberry, and Robert M
. Figlio. F
rom B
oy to Man, F
rom D
elinquency to Crim
e. Chi-
cago: University of C
hicago Press. 1987.
Snyder, How
ard, et al. "Arrests of Y
outh 1991." Washington,
D.C
.: Office of Juvenile Justice and D
elinquency Prevention. 1993.
top related