A Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and … Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,...

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 percent of juveniles at each age w

ere classified as "serious violent"

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 delinquency (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 nonresidential 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

authorities (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 business 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 appropriate 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 program

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 program

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, parents, 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 resources 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 delinquency. 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

eadership 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 graduated 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 corrections 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 alternative 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 protection 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

Appendix

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 aggravated 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 proportion 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

orrections 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 organized 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 characterized 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

ouncil 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.


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

ashington, D

.C.: U

.S. Departm

ent of Justice. September 1991.


elinquency Prevention. Na-

tional Juvenile Custody Trends: 19784989. W

ashington, D

.C.:

U.S. D

epartment of Justice. M

arch 1992.


elinquency Prevention. Juve- niles Taken Into C

ustody: Fiscal Y

ear I992 Report. W

ashington, 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


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


A Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and … Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,...

Documents

Transcript of A Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and … Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,...