B u l l e t i n S e r i e s

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

J. Robert Flores, Administrator May 2003

Sparked by high-profile cases involvingchildren who commit violent crimes, pub-lic concerns regarding child delinquentshave escalated. Compared with juvenileswho first become involved in delinquencyin their teens, child delinquents (offendersyounger than age 13) face a much greaterrisk of becoming serious, violent, andchronic juvenile offenders. OJJDP formedthe Study Group on Very Young Offendersto explore what is known about the prev-alence and frequency of very youngoffending, investigate how very youngoffenders are handled by various systems(e.g., juvenile justice, mental health, andsocial services), and determine effectivemethods for preventing very young of-fending. The Study Group identified par-ticular risk and protective factors that arecrucial to developing early interventionand protection programs for very youngoffenders.

This Bulletin, the first in OJJDP’s ChildDelinquency Series, offers valuable infor-mation on the nature of child delinquencyand describes early intervention and pre-vention programs that effectively reducedelinquent behavior. Subsequent Bulletinswill present the latest information aboutchild delinquency, including analyses ofchild delinquency statistics, insights intothe early origins of very young offending,and descriptions of early intervention

programs and approaches that work toprevent the development of delinquentbehavior by focusing on risk and protec-tive factors.

Some Key FindingsThe number of child delinquents1 (ju-veniles between the ages of 7 and 12)handled in the nation’s juvenile courtshas increased 33 percent over the lastdecade (Snyder, 2001). This develop-ment is cause for concern not onlybecause offense patterns reflect moreserious crimes among these youngsters,but also because these very young of-fenders are more likely to continue theirinvolvement in crime. Child delinquentsare two to three times more likely tobecome serious, violent, and chronicoffenders2 than adolescents whosedelinquent behavior begins in their

Juvenile courts are being challengedby an increase in the number of childdelinquents coming before them. In1997 alone, juvenile courts handledmore than 180,000 juvenile offendersyounger than 13 years old. Thesechild delinquents account for 1 in 3juvenile arrests for arson, 1 in 5 juve-nile arrests for sex offenses, and 1 in12 juvenile arrests for violent crime.

Because youth referred to juvenilecourt before the age of 13 are farmore likely to become chronic juve-nile offenders than youth whoseinitial contact occurs at a later age,there is reason for concern about thegrowing number of child delinquents.

This Bulletin summarizes the finalreport of OJJDP’s Study Group onVery Young Offenders, Child Delin-quents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs. The report drawson hundreds of studies to describethe developmental course of childdelinquency and delineate key riskand protective factors. It also identi-fies effective and promising preven-tion and intervention programs thathelp reduce the incidence of delin-quency while offering significantcost savings to society.

The information provided by thefindings of the Study Group on VeryYoung Offenders demonstrates theneed to invest in effective early pre-vention and intervention efforts withsuch children.

Child Delinquency: EarlyIntervention and PreventionRolf Loeber, David P. Farrington, and David Petechuk

1 Child delinquents are not legally defined in thesame way across the United States (Snyder andSickmund, 1999; Wiig, 2001). For example, the mini-mum age of criminal responsibility varies from age 6in North Carolina to age 10 in Arkansas and Colorado.In addition, many states do not have a legally definedage of criminal responsibility. In this Bulletin, childdelinquents are defined as juveniles between theages of 7 and 12, inclusive, who have committed adelinquent act according to criminal law—an actthat would be a crime if committed by an adult.

2 Chronic offenders are defined here as those with atleast four referrals to juvenile court.

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.ncjrs.org

2

teens. Recent high-profile media cases ofviolence committed by children age 12or younger also have drawn attention tothe potential for child delinquents toinflict deadly harm. For these reasonsalone, child delinquents represent asignificant concern for both societyand the juvenile justice system.

The arrest rate of child delinquentschanged between 1988 and 1997: arrestsfor violent crimes increased by 45 per-cent (paralleling the increase in vio-lence for all juveniles) and drug abuseviolations increased by 156 percent. Incontrast, arrests for property crimesdecreased by 17 percent (Snyder, 2001).The Denver Youth Survey, which is afollowup study of more than 1,500 high-risk youth, showed that at ages 11–12,about 10 percent of boys and girls hada police contact because of delinquency(Espiritu et al., 2001).

The total volume of child delinquencycases handled in the juvenile courtsis large. In 1997, an estimated 181,300delinquents were less than 13 years oldat the time of court intake (Butts andSnyder, 1997; Snyder, 2001). Youth re-ferred to court for a delinquency of-fense for the first time before the ageof 13 were far more likely to becomechronic juvenile offenders than youthfirst referred to court at an older age(see figure 1). It is important to notethat because the upper age of juvenilecourt jurisdiction generally is 17, olderfirst-time delinquents have fewer yearsof opportunity to develop into chronicjuvenile offenders.

Figure 2 shows the overlap betweenjuvenile offenders and serious, violent,and chronic offenders for two groups:child delinquents and older onsetdelinquents. A larger proportion ofchild delinquents, compared with lateronset delinquents, become serious,violent, and chronic offenders. Also, ahigher proportion of the violent childdelinquents become chronic offenders.

Child delinquents have their own typi-cal offense profile. They account for

one-third of all juvenile arrests for arson,one-fifth of juvenile arrests for sexoffenses and vandalism, one-eighth ofjuvenile arrests for burglary and forc-ible rape, and one-twelfth of juvenilearrests for violent crime (Snyder, 2001).

This Bulletin summarizes the final re-port of the Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s)Study Group on Very Young Offenders(the Study Group). See the box onpage 3 for more information on the Study

Figure 1: Proportion of Delinquency Careers That Eventually Had Fouror More Delinquency Referrals, by Age at First Referral

0

10

20

30

40

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age at First Referral

Per

cent

age

of C

aree

rs W

ith

Fou

r or

Mor

e R

efer

rals

Note: The proportion of careers with four or more referrals is likely to be underestimated for thefirst bar in this graph. Coding errors in the birth dates of a small number of youth first referred atage 17 caused them to be misclassified with an onset age of 7.

Source: Snyder, 2001.

Child Delinquents

Serious

ChronicViolent

ChronicSerious

Violent

Older OnsetDelinquents

Figure 2: Very Young Offenders Have a Greater Percentage ofSerious, Violent, and Chronic Careers Than Older OnsetDelinquents

Source: Snyder, 2001.

3

Group. The report, Child Delinquents:Development, Intervention, and ServiceNeeds (Loeber and Farrington, 2001), isthe first volume published that pre-sents empirical information on childdelinquents from hundreds of studies,including data from several studiesthat were newly analyzed for the report.It summarizes knowledge concerning thenature of child delinquency, its develop-mental course, key risk and protectivefactors, and effective interventions.Child delinquency is an enduring andtroubling phenomenon that requires

more research and the efforts of abroader community to be fully under-stood and addressed. The work summa-rized in this Bulletin helps to advanceknowledge about child delinquents andabout fair and effective ways to dealwith them.

Defining the Scope ofVery Young OffendersThe Study Group was concerned withthree categories of children:

● Serious child delinquents who havecommitted one or more of the follow-ing acts: homicide, aggravated assault,robbery, rape, or serious arson.

● Other child delinquents (excludingserious delinquents).

● Children showing persistent disrup-tive behavior (including truancy andincorrigibility), who are at risk ofoffending.

Generations of studies in criminologyshow that the best predictor of future

Historically, delinquency studies havefocused on later adolescence, the timewhen delinquency usually peaks. Duringthe 1990s, numerous studies examinedchronic juvenile offenders, a groupresponsible for a disproportionatelylarge number of crimes (especially seri-ous crimes). However, OJJDP’s StudyGroup on Serious and Violent JuvenileOffenders—whose work was inspired byOJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy forSerious, Violent, and Chronic JuvenileOffenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993)—reported in 1998 that youth who arereferred to juvenile court for their firstdelinquency offense before age 13 are farmore likely to become chronic offendersthan youth first referred to court at a laterage. Specifically, this Study Group foundthat the onset of problem behaviors inmale children starts, on average, muchearlier than the average age of first courtcontact for Crime Index offenses.1 Thediscovery that minor problem behaviorleading to delinquency often begins at avery young age was a major impetus forOJJDP to develop a new initiative, theStudy Group on Very Young Offenders,which began its work in 1998. This coop-erative 2-year-long venture was under-taken to analyze existing data and toaddress key issues that had not previ-ously been studied in the literature.

Consisting of 16 primary study groupmembers and 23 coauthors who are ex-perts on criminology, child delinquency,psychopathology, and the law, the StudyGroup on Very Young Offenders re-viewed hundreds of studies, undertookmany special analyses, and receivedvaluable input from a survey of morethan 100 practitioners in the field. TheStudy Group concentrated on the delin-quent behavior of children ages 7 to 12and on children’s persistently disruptiveand precociously deviant behavior fromthe toddler years up to adolescence.

This concerted effort produced valuableinsights into the nature of child delin-quency. The Study Group found evi-dence that some young children engagein very serious antisocial behavior andthat, in some cases, this behavior fore-shadows early delinquency. The StudyGroup also identified several importantrisk factors that, when combined, maybe related to the onset of early offend-ing. To better understand the early ori-gins of child delinquency, the StudyGroup emphasizes that research shouldfocus on the preschool and elementaryyears, a time during which early inter-ventions can be implemented, before theaccumulation of multiple offenses andthe commission of serious offenses. TheStudy Group report concluded with a

review of preventive and remedial inter-ventions relevant to child delinquency.

The Child Delinquency Bulletin Seriesdraws from the Study Group’s finalreport, which was completed in 2001under grant number 95–JD–FX–0018and subsequently published by SagePublications as Child Delinquents:Development, Intervention, and Serv-ice Needs (edited by Rolf Loeber andDavid P. Farrington). OJJDP encouragesparents, educators, and the juvenile jus-tice community to use this informationto address the needs of young offendersby planning and implementing moreeffective interventions.

Study Group Members

The Study Group on Very Young Offend-ers was chaired by Rolf Loeber andDavid P. Farrington. The initial membersof the Study Group were Barbara J.Burns, John D. Coie, Darnell F. Hawkins,J. David Hawkins, James C. Howell,David Huizinga, Kate Keenan, David R.Offord, Howard N. Snyder, Terence P.Thornberry, and Gail A. Wasserman.Leena K. Augimeri, Brandon C. Welsh,and Janet K. Wiig later joined thesemembers. Over the years, many addi-tional practitioners from the field havecontributed to this effort.

OJJDP’s Study Group on Very Young Offenders

1 Index offenses include murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson.

Table 1: Average Age of Onset of Problem Behaviors and Delinquency inMale Juveniles

Moderately First Court Minor Problem Serious Serious Contact for

Behavior Problem Behavior Delinquency Index Offenses*

Age 7.0 9.5 11.9 14.5

Note: The table shows the average age of onset of problem behaviors and delinquency for maleswho had their first contact with the juvenile court for an Index offense. Data are based on the state-ments of the oldest sample in the Pittsburgh Youth Study and on statements made by their mothers.

*Index offenses include murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft,and arson.

Source: Loeber and Farrington, 1998b.

4

behavior is past behavior. Childrenshowing persistent disruptive behaviorare likely to become child delinquentsand, in turn, child delinquents are likelyto become serious, violent, or chronicjuvenile offenders. Figure 3 summarizesthe relationship between the three cate-gories of youth behavior that are ofgreatest concern.

In more than 20 studies they reviewed,the Study Group found a significantrelationship between an early onset ofdelinquency and later crime and delin-quency. Child delinquents, comparedwith juveniles with a later onset ofdelinquency, are at greater risk of be-coming serious, violent, and chronicoffenders and have longer delinquencycareers (Espiritu et al., 2001; Farrington,Lambert, and West, 1998; Krohn et al.,2001; Loeber, 1982, 1988; Loeber andFarrington, 1998b; Moffitt, 1993).

Not all disruptive children will becomechild delinquents, and not all child delin-quents will become serious, violent, orchronic juvenile offenders. However, themajority of the eventual serious, violent,and chronic juvenile offenders have ahistory of problem behaviors that goesback to the childhood years. Researchshows that the antisocial careers of malejuvenile offenders start, on average, atage 7, much earlier than the averageage of first court contact for CrimeIndex offenses, which is age 14.5 (seetable 1). Because it is not yet possibleto accurately predict which childrenwill progress from serious problembehaviors to delinquency, it is better totackle problem behaviors before theybecome more serious and ingrained.

Early DisruptiveBehaviorThe preschool period is critical in settinga foundation for preventing the develop-ment of disruptive behavior and, eventu-ally, child delinquency. There are fourprimary reasons why the preschool

period may have important implicationsfor understanding and preventing veryyoung offending:

● Disruptive problem behavior, includ-ing serious aggression and chronicviolation of the rights and propertyof others, is the most commonsource of referral to mental healthservices for preschool children(Keenan and Wakschlag, 2000).

● Studies have documented a predic-tive relationship between problembehaviors in preschool and later con-duct disorder and child delinquency(Silva, 1990).

● Many important developmental skills(such as language development) be-gin during this period, and difficul-ties in developing these skills mayweaken the foundation of learningand contribute to later disruptivebehavior and child delinquency(Keenan, 2001).

● Understanding the early emergenceof problem behaviors may help in thecreation of earlier, effective interven-tions for the prevention of child delin-quency (Kazdin and Kendall, 1998).

Behaviors that place a child at risk foran early career of disruptive behavior

Figure 3: Relationship Between Risk/Protective Factors, Developmentof Child Problem Behavior, and Interventions

Source: Loeber and Farrington, 2001.

Persistentdisruptivebehavior

Childdelinquency

Serious andviolent juvenile

offending

Prevention Prevention Prevention

Remediation Remediation Remediation

Risk/protective factors in the individual, family, peer group, school, neighborhood, and media

5

and child delinquency may be presentas young as 2 years of age (Keenan,2001). Although the majority of childdelinquents have a history of disruptivebehavior—such as aggressive, inatten-tive, or sensation-seeking behavior inthe preschool period—the majority ofpreschoolers with such behavior prob-lems do not go on to become youngoffenders. The following factors mayaffect the development of pro- and anti-social behavior during preschool andbeyond:

● Language is the primary means bywhich parents and others affect chil-dren’s behavior. Delayed languagedevelopment may increase a child’sstress level, impede normal social-ization, and be associated with latercriminality up to age 30 (Stattin andKlackenberg-Larsson, 1993).

● Temperamental characteristics areindividual predispositions for certainbehavior characteristics that can bemodified by environmental influ-ences (Goldsmith et al., 1987). Diffi-cult temperament (predominance ofnegative moods such as anger anddifficulty in controlling behaviorsand emotions) early in life may be amarker for the early antecedents ofantisocial behavior and behaviorproblems (Earls and Jung, 1987;Prior et al., 1993; Guerin, Gottfried,and Thomas, 1997).

● Low attachment to caregivers, as inthe early mother-infant bond, playsan important role in later behaviorand delinquency problems (Egelandand Farber, 1984; Adams, Hillman, andGaydos, 1994). The closer a child isto the mother, the less likely a childis to be at risk for delinquency.

Understandably, one of the difficultiesin dealing with preschool children isthe use of inappropriate labels such as“disruptive” for behaviors that may bedevelopmentally normal. For example,aggression, noncompliance, and lyingare common behaviors in the secondyear of life and are part of the develop-ment of self-identity, self-control, and

understanding the nature of social rela-tions (Landy and Peters, 1992; Kuczynskiand Kochanska, 1990; Achenbach andEdelbrock, 1981). Another issue iswhether young children are able to com-mit willful acts of aggression. A numberof developmental researchers havedemonstrated that preschool childrendo have a basic understanding of theimpact of their behavior on others andcan control their behavior based oninternalized social norms (Kochanska,Murray, and Coy, 1997). Overall, theStudy Group found sufficient evidenceto conclude that some preschool chil-dren can engage in very serious antiso-cial behavior and that, in some but notall cases, preschool behavior problemsforeshadow early delinquency.

Child Delinquency—Official RecordsAccording to the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform CrimeReports, in 1997 law enforcement agen-cies made an estimated 253,000 arrestsof children age 12 or younger, and thesemade up 9 percent of all juvenile arrests(i.e., arrests of persons under age 18).Of these arrests of children, 17 percent(about 43,000) involved persons underthe age of 10. Only 10 percent of thesearrests were for status offenses (e.g.,running away from home, curfew viola-tions, and liquor law violations).

Interestingly, between 1988 and 1997, thetotal number of child arrests increasedby only 6 percent, as compared with a35-percent increase for all juveniles,and child arrests for property crimesdropped by 17 percent. However, duringthis same period, child arrests for vio-lent crimes increased by 45 percent.Overall, child delinquents arrested in1997 were relatively more likely to becharged with a violent crime, a weaponsoffense, or a drug law violation than aproperty offense (Snyder, 2001).

From 1988 to 1997, the number of casesdisposed by juvenile courts involvingchild delinquents (age 12 or younger)

increased by 33 percent to a total of181,300 cases in 1997, far more than thecorresponding increase in child arrests(Snyder, 2001). These data indicate thatlaw enforcement agencies referred alarger percentage of the child delin-quents they arrested to juvenile courtin 1997 than they had in 1988, probablybecause the offenses committed be-came relatively more violent. The racialbreakdown of juvenile court referralsalso changed during this 10-year period,with court cases of child delinquentsincreasing by 41 percent for nonwhiteyouth and 28 percent for white youth.In addition, a greater proportion ofthe 1997 nonwhite cases (45 percentnonwhite cases versus 37 percentwhite cases) were placed on the courtdocket for an adjudicatory hearing(Snyder, 2001).

Overall, from 1988 to 1997, the juvenilecourts experienced a substantial changein both the number and types of childdelinquents sent to them for processing:child delinquents in 1997 were signifi-cantly more likely than their predeces-sors from a decade earlier to have beencharged with a violent offense. In turn,juvenile courts significantly intervenedin the lives of a growing number of childdelinquents; the number of cases that

6

resulted in formal court-ordered proba-tion increased 73 percent and place-ments to residential facilities increased49 percent. Based on data from the1997 Census of Juveniles in ResidentialPlacement—which consisted of a rosterof all juveniles in all residential facilitieson 1 day—about 19 of every 100,000youth ages 10–12 were being held in ajuvenile facility on a typical day in theUnited States (Snyder, 2001).

Self-Reports ofDelinquencyOfficial statistics reflect the delinquentbehavior of youth that is both knownto and recorded by authorities. Self-reports of delinquency are more com-prehensive in that they include thosebehaviors not reported, or not otherwiseknown, to the authorities. Research indi-cates that young people are willing toreport accurate information about theirminor and serious delinquent acts (Far-rington et al., 1996). Another advantageof self-report research (and researchusing parent and teacher reports) is thatit focuses on misbehaviors (e.g., disobe-dience, defiance, aggression, and con-duct disorder) that are not in themselvesdelinquent but may serve as precursorsto some children’s later involvement indelinquency. The Study Group’s reviewof previous and current self-reporteddelinquency studies revealed the follow-ing (Espiritu et al., 2001):

● Although the vast majority of youthage 12 or younger (85 percent ofboys, 77 percent of girls) reportedinvolvement in some form of aggres-sion or violence, only about 5 per-cent of children (9 percent of boys,3 percent of girls) were involved inserious violence, that is, violenceconsidered to be a delinquent/criminal offense. (Denver YouthSurvey and Pittsburgh Youth Studydata.)

● Roughly one-third of children age12 or younger reported propertyoffenses, one-quarter reportedproperty damage, one-fifth reported

status offenses, and less than one-tenth reported burglary or arson.(Denver Youth Survey and Pitts-burgh Youth Study data.)

● Self-report rates for major forms ofdelinquency were practically thesame in 1976 and 1998; for example,16–17 percent of children ages 11–12reported felony assault in 1976, com-pared with 14 percent in 1998. (Na-tional Youth Survey and NationalLongitudinal Survey of Youth data.)

Risk Factors andPredictorsMany of the risk factors and predictors(and possibly causes) of child delin-quency tend to be somewhat differentfrom those of offending by older juve-niles. Risk factors for offending at ayoung age are more likely to be biolog-ical, individual, and family factors.

The causal status of known risk factorsremains to be clarified, and no singlerisk factor can explain child delinquency.Rather, the greater the number of riskfactors (e.g., poor parental supervisioncoupled with poor academic perfor-mance) or the greater the number ofrisk factor domains (e.g., risk in thefamily and the school), the greater thelikelihood of early-onset offending(Loeber and Farrington, 1998b;Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002).

Early Risk Factors

During the preschool years, the mostimportant risk factors stem from theindividual and family. Particular pre-dictors, such as aggressiveness anda child’s level of impulsivity or sensa-tion seeking, result from numerousinfluences—from genetics to the child’senvironment—over a period of years.Aggression appears to be the best pre-dictor of delinquency up to age 12. Forexample, physical aggression rated bykindergarten teachers is the best pre-dictor of later self-reported violentdelinquency (Haapasalo and Tremblay,1994; Tremblay et al., 1994). On the

other hand, prosocial behavior ratedby kindergarten teachers is a protectivefactor against delinquency.

Six longitudinal studies conducted infive countries (Canada, England, NewZealand, Sweden, and the United States)on three continents confirmed thatchildhood antisocial behavior tendsto be the best predictor of early-onsetdelinquency for boys. For example, anOregon study found that antisocial be-havior (such as aggression), as ratedby parents, teachers, peers, and thechildren themselves, was the best pre-dictor of age at first arrest, comparedwith other factors such as family dis-advantage, parental monitoring, andparental discipline (Patterson, Crosby,and Vuchinich, 1992).

Research findings consistently haveshown that the onset of many conductproblems usually predates the onset ofserious delinquency by several years

Homicide

Recent instances of children commit-ting homicides have come to nationalattention and have attracted intensemedia scrutiny. Despite the nationwideoutrage in response to some of thesecases, the number of juveniles age 12or younger who are involved in mur-der is relatively small. Between 1980and 1997, about 2 percent (or 600cases) of murders involved such childoffenders, and the annual number ofthese murders was relatively stable,averaging about 30 per year. Accord-ing to the FBI’s Supplementary Homi-cide Reports (Snyder, 2001):

● The large majority (84 percent) ofchildren who murdered were male.

● Seventy percent of the murder vic-tims of child delinquents were maleand likely to be acquaintances orfamily members.

● More than one-half (54 percent) ofthe murder victims of child delin-quents were killed with a firearm.

7

(Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998)(see table 1, page 4). Loeber (1988) pos-tulated that juveniles who eventuallyengage in both property offenses andviolence show the following behaviors:

● Onset of conduct problems in the preschool years.

● Aggressive and covert problem be-haviors, such as lying and shoplifting.

● Hyperactive/impulsive behavior ata young age.

In addition to early antisocial behavior,family characteristics are important pre-dictors of early-onset offending. Thenumber of family risk factors to whicha child is exposed and the child’s lengthof exposure to these stressors also areimportant (Williams et al., 1990). Somefamily characteristics that may contri-bute to early-onset child delinquencyinclude the following:

● Antisocial parents.

● Substance-abusing parents.

● Parental psychopathology (e.g., Lahey et al., 1988).

● Poor parenting practices, such aslack of monitoring (Patterson,Crosby, and Vuchinich, 1992) and/or a lack of positive reinforcement(Bor et al., 1997).

● The prevalence of physical abuse.

● A history of family violence.

● Large family size.

Many of the family risk factors interactwith other social systems, such aspeers and the community environment.Nevertheless, a recent study found thatthe strongest predictors of early-onsetviolence included large family size, poor parenting skills, and antisocial parents(Derzon and Lipsey, 2000).

Peers

Although much more research is need-ed, the Study Group believes that anaccelerated path toward child delin-quency and subsequent more serious

offending may be the result of a com-bination of the following factors:

● Antisocial tendencies of childrenwith persistent early disruptivebehaviors.

● Associations with peers who alreadyshow deviant behavior.

● Negative consequences of peer rejection.

As children get older, attend school,and become integrated into their com-munity, the array of risk factors forchild delinquency expands (see table 2,page 9). Many studies show a relationbetween deviant peer associations andjuvenile offending (Elliott and Menard,1996). A major issue is whether “birds ofa feather flock together” or “bad compa-ny corrupts.” Most hypotheses suggestthat deviant peers can lead some youthwith no previous history of delinquentbehavior to initiate delinquent acts andmay influence already delinquent youthto increase their delinquency. Youthwho associate with deviant peers arelikely to be arrested earlier than youthwho do not associate with such peers(Coie et al., 1995). In addition, studiesemphasize that a delinquent sibling cangreatly encourage a child to becomedelinquent, especially when the siblingsare close in age and have a close rela-tionship (Reiss and Farrington, 1991;Rowe and Gulley, 1992).

A more recent issue is peer rejection asa risk factor for antisocial behavior. Inthe Oregon Youth Study, investigatorsfound, after controlling for earlier anti-social behavior, that peer rejection inthe fourth grade predicted antisocialbehavior 2 years later (Patterson andBank, 1989). Another study that followedchildren from first through fourth gradefound that aggressive behavior andrejection by peers in the first grade pre-dicted later self-reported delinquency.This indicates that first-grade rejectionmay be a useful marker for the earlystarter pathway to antisocial behavior(Miller-Johnson et al., 1997).

Peer rejection may also influence childand adolescent delinquency by inducingthe rejected child to associate withdeviant peer groups and gangs (Patter-son, Capaldi, and Bank, 1991). Gangmembership provides a ready source ofco-offenders for juvenile delinquencyand reflects the greatest degree ofdeviant peer influence on offending.Also, youth tend to join gangs at youngerages than in the past, which leads to anincreased number of youthful offenders(Howell, 1998). The importance of hav-ing accomplices cannot be overstressedin child delinquency. For example, arecent study found that less than 5 per-cent of offenders who committed theirfirst offense at age 12 or younger actedalone (McCord and Conway, 2002). Gangmembership has a strong relationship

8

to violent delinquency, even when asso-ciations with delinquent peers, familypoverty, poor parental supervision, lowcommitment to school, negative lifeevents, and prior involvement in vio-lence are controlled for (Battin et al.,2000; Battin-Pearson et al., 1998).

School and Community

Risk factors for child delinquency with-in the school and community havenot been as well documented as individ-ual, family, and peer risk factors (seetable 2). The Study Group hypothesizedthat children who developed strongbonds to school (high commitment)would conform to the norms and valuesthat schools promote, thereby reducingtheir probability of antisocial behavior.

Studies addressing school influenceson antisocial behavior have consistentlyshown that poor academic performanceis related to child behavior problemsand to the prevalence, onset, and seri-ousness of delinquency (Brewer et al.,1995; Maguin and Loeber, 1996). Weakbonds to school (low commitment), loweducational aspirations, and poor moti-vation place children at risk for offend-ing (Hawkins et al., 1987; Hawkins et al.,1998).

School organization and process alsomay play a role as risk factors. Schoolswith fewer teachers and higher studentenrollment had higher levels of teachervictimization, and poor rule enforce-ment within schools was associatedwith higher levels of student victimi-zation (Gottfredson and Gottfredson,1985). Although research on the rela-tionship between school processes andoffending is sparse, evidence suggeststhat many school characteristics, in-cluding the following, may be linked toantisocial behavior in children (Herren-kohl et al., 2001):

● Low levels of teacher satisfaction.

● Little cooperation among teachers.

● Poor student-teacher relations.

● The prevalence of norms and valuesthat support antisocial behavior.

● Poorly defined rules and expecta-tions for conduct.

● Inadequate rule enforcement.

Several community factors, such as ahigh level of poverty in the neighbor-hood, are important in the developmentof child antisocial behavior (Catalano

and Hawkins, 1996). In addition, disor-ganized neighborhoods with weak socialcontrols (i.e., attempts by adults to con-trol the behavior of youth) allow delin-quent activity to go unmonitored andeven unnoticed (Sampson, Raudenbush,and Earls, 1997). At the extreme end ofthe spectrum, some neighborhoods mayeven provide opportunities for anti-social behavior. For example, youthliving in high-crime neighborhoods maybe at high risk for offending becausethey are exposed to more norms favor-able to crime (Developmental Researchand Programs, 1996).

Race and Gender

The intersection of race, gender, andearly childhood offending is a largelyunexplored terrain. Too often, policy-makers, law enforcement agents, andsocial services agencies rely on stereo-types and assumptions concerning raceand gender when dealing with juveniles.

Youth of color—particularly AfricanAmerican males—are overrepresentedin arrest rates (especially arrests forserious or violent offenses) in relationto their proportion in the population(Kempf-Leonard, Chesney-Lind, andHawkins, 2001). Conversely, in relationto their proportion in the population,females are underrepresented in arrestsfor serious or violent offenses but over-represented in arrests for status offens-es and child welfare cases. However,rates of court referrals are rising fasterfor females than for males. When self-report data are considered, the raceand gender gaps apparent in officialrecords are less pronounced.

The Study Group recommends that raceand gender comparisons be routinelyconducted in research on child delin-quency. For example, in the PittsburghYouth Study, researchers found no racedifferences in offending once adequatecontrols were included for “underclass”status of neighborhoods (Peeples andLoeber, 1994). The Study Group alsoreanalyzed the 1958 Philadelphia birth

How Early Can We Tell?

A critical question from a scientific and policy standpoint concerning child delin-quency is, “How early can we tell?” It is difficult, however, to obtain a clear answerto this question. For example, many children engage in problem behaviors of a rela-tively minor nature, but only for a short period. Few tools are available to distinguishthose youth who will continue with behaviors that may lead them to become childdelinquents. Although the foundations for both prosocial and disruptive behaviorsare laid in the first 5 years of life (Keenan, 2001), it is important to point out thatthe majority of preschoolers with behavior problems do not go on to become childdelinquents.

The Study Group has identified several important warning signs of later problems:

● Disruptive behavior that is either much more frequent or more severe than whatother children in the same age group display.

● Disruptive behavior, such as temper tantrums and aggression, that persistsbeyond the “terrible twos and threes.”

● A history of aggressive, inattentive, or sensation-seeking behavior in the preschool years.

9

cohort data to investigate race and gen-der associations with child delinquency(Kempf-Leonard, Chesney-Lind, andHawkins, 2001). The analyses showedthat, regardless of race and gender, seri-ous and chronic delinquency were moreprevalent among early-onset offenders.More of this type of information is need-ed to identify and understand race andgender differences in developmentalpathways leading to child delinquency.

InterventionsMost juvenile justice, child welfare, andschool resources currently focus onadolescent juvenile offenders and prob-lem children whose behaviors are al-ready persistent or on education andbehavior management programs foryouth in middle and high schools ratherthan on children in elementary schoolsor preschools. Interventions usuallyseek to remediate disruptive behavior,child delinquency, and serious and vio-lent offending after these behaviorshave emerged.

The Study Group concluded that pre-vention is a better approach. Of allknown interventions to reduce juveniledelinquency, preventive interventionsthat focus on child delinquency willprobably take the largest “bite” out ofcrime. Specifically, these efforts shouldbe directed first at the prevention ofpersistent disruptive behavior in chil-dren in general; second, at the preven-tion of child delinquency, particularlyamong disruptive children; and third, atthe prevention of serious and violentjuvenile offending, particularly amongchild delinquents. “The earlier the bet-ter” is a key theme in establishing inter-ventions to prevent child delinquency,whether these interventions focus onthe individual child, the home and fami-ly, or the school and community.

Support for prevention and early inter-vention was generally endorsed bypractitioners. An opinion survey ofpractitioners conducted by the StudyGroup found that nearly three-quarters(71 percent) thought that effective

Table 2: Approximate Developmental Ordering of Risk Factors Associated With Disruptive and Delinquent Behavior

Risk Factors Emerging During Pregnancy and From Infancy Onward

Child Pregnancy and delivery complicationsNeurological insultExposure to neurotoxins after birthDifficult temperamentHyperactivity/impulsivity/attention problemsLow intelligenceMale gender

Family Maternal smoking/alcohol consumption/drug use during pregnancyTeenage motherHigh turnover of caretakersPoorly educated parentMaternal depressionParental substance abuse/antisocial or criminal behaviorPoor parent-child communicationPoverty/low socioeconomic statusSerious marital discordLarge family size

Risk Factors Emerging From the Toddler Years Onward

Child Aggressive/disruptive behaviorPersistent lyingRisk taking and sensation seekingLack of guilt, lack of empathy

Family Harsh and/or erratic discipline practicesMaltreatment or neglect

Community Television violence

Risk Factors Emerging From Midchildhood Onward

Child Stealing and general delinquencyEarly onset of other disruptive behaviorsEarly onset of substance use and sexual activityDepressed moodWithdrawn behaviorPositive attitude toward problem behaviorVictimization and exposure to violence

Family Poor parental supervisionSchool Poor academic achievement

Repeating grade(s)TruancyNegative attitude toward schoolPoorly organized and functioning schools

Peer Peer rejectionAssociation with deviant peers/siblings

Community Residence in a disadvantaged neighborhoodResidence in a disorganized neighborhoodAvailability of weapons

Risk Factors Emerging From Midadolescence Onward

Child Weapon carryingDrug dealingUnemployment

School School dropoutPeer Gang membership

Source: Adapted from Loeber and Farrington, 1998a.

10

methods were available to deal withchild delinquents to reduce their riskof future offending. On the other hand,only 3–6 percent of the practitionersthought that current juvenile justice,mental health, or child welfare programswere effective in achieving this goal(Farrington, Loeber, and Kalb, 2001).

Following a public health approach tointervention, the Study Group recom-mended preventive and remedial inter-ventions that focus on known riskfactors and on knowledge of the behav-ior development of juveniles (see figure3, page 4). However, the Study Groupcautions that there is no single magicbullet for preventing or correctingchild delinquency. Investigation of inter-ventions for child delinquency clearlydemonstrates that multiple risk factors,their relationships with one another,and their complexity pose importantchallenges for implementing interven-tions. Comprehensive public healthinterventions should focus on changingboth the conditions and institutionsthat influence offending in the commu-nity (Farrington, 1994, 2000).

In addition, mental health, welfare, andjuvenile justice interventions for childdelinquency must deal with the multipleproblems stemming from dysfunctionalfamilies.

Promising Interventions

The most promising school and com-munity prevention programs for childdelinquency focus on several risk do-mains (Herrenkohl et al., 2001). TheStudy Group recommends integratingthe following types of school and com-munity prevention programs:

● Classroom and behavior manage-ment programs.

● Multicomponent classroom-based programs.

● Social competence promotion curriculums.

● Conflict resolution and violence prevention curriculums.

● Bullying prevention.

● Afterschool recreation programs.

● Mentoring programs.

● School organization programs.

● Comprehensive community interventions.

Several unique programs have demon-strated that interventions with youngchildren can reduce later delinquency.The High/Scope Perry Preschool Projectfocuses on 3- and 4-year-olds at risk forschool failure. In this program, treat-ment group participants, when com-pared with control group participants,showed a number of benefits across arange of prosocial functioning indica-tors, including fewer than half the life-time arrests (Schweinhart, Barnes, andWeikart, 1993). The Elmira Prenatal/Early Infancy Project sent nurses to thehomes of pregnant, unmarried womenin households with low socioeconomicstatus. These visits began during preg-nancy and continued to the end of thesecond year after the child’s birth. Bythe time the children were 15 years old,the positive impact of the visits wasreflected in a decrease in children’sreports of arrests, convictions, violationof probation, consumption of alcohol,sexual activity, and running away fromhome (Olds et al., 1998). As anotherexample, Webster-Stratton (1998) has

developed a comprehensive and success-ful training program for parents of HeadStart children that includes a focus onsocial skills and prosocial behavior.

The Study Group’s analyses of three re-cent service delivery studies—the GreatSmoky Mountains Study of youth inNorth Carolina, the Patterns of Careprogram in San Diego, CA, and thesouthwestern Pennsylvania Costs ofServices in Medicaid Study (Burns et al.,2001)—strongly indicate that the firststep toward obtaining effective treat-ment is to provide families with accessto mental health and other services.While the very early detection of emo-tional and behavior problems is a pub-lic health goal, results have not beenencouraging. The delay between symp-tom onset and help seeking is apparent,and the rates of mental health interven-tions in juvenile justice are extremelylow. Clearly, a mechanism for obtainingtimely, specialized help is imperative.Such help could also alleviate the highcost of care—both psychiatric and gen-eral medical—for youth with the diag-nosis of conduct disorder.

It is extremely important to communi-cate to mental health and other serv-ices what treatments are effective. Forexample, many juvenile offender inter-vention programs, such as Multisys-temic Therapy (MST) (Henggeler,Pickrel, and Brondino, 1999), have had

11

a significant impact on reducing therates of felonies. Currently, OJJDP istesting the ability to disseminate MSTin a large, three-city study, with thegoals of identifying effective methodsfor dissemination, retraining clinicians,and developing approaches to ensurequality implementation.

Juvenile Justice Programs

Because children are malleable, adoles-cence has generally been recognizedas “a stage of developmental immaturitythat rendered youths’ transgressionsless blameworthy than those of adultsand required a special legal response”(Grisso, 1996). Traditionally, juvenilecourts do not adjudicate very young,first-time offenders and step in onlywhen such institutions as families,social and child protective services,and schools fail in their efforts withchildren.

Unfortunately, the juvenile court haslong served as a dumping ground for awide variety of problem behaviors ofchildren that other institutions (e.g.,social, mental health, and child protec-tive services) fail to serve adequately(Kupperstein, 1971; Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention,1995). Although collaboration betweenjuvenile justice and child and adoles-cent social services was once consid-ered the cornerstone of a comprehensivechildcare system, the two systems areseverely fragmented. The deinstitutional-ization and diversion policies of the past25 years have turned child delinquentsaway from juvenile courts, resulting insparse program development for thesechildren.

Although few programs in the juvenilejustice system are explicitly designed forchild delinquents, new models are beingdeveloped. Currently, only a few well-organized, integrated programs for childdelinquents exist in North America(Howell, 2001). Most of them involvecoordinated efforts among police, thepublic, prosecutors, judges, schools, and

mental health services. These programshave yet to be evaluated, and their long-term success may depend on receivingconsistent funding from year to year.Several of the most promising programsare listed below:

● Michigan Early Offender Program.This program provides specialized,intensive, in-home interventions toyouth who are age 13 or younger atthe time of first adjudication andwho have two or more prior policecontacts (Howitt and Moore, 1991).

● Minnesota Delinquents Under 10Program. This program includesinterventions such as sending par-ents an admonishment letter fromthe county attorney, referring delin-quents to child protective servicesand other agencies, identifying diver-sion programs, identifying childrenin need of protection or servicespetitions, and targeting early inter-vention for high-risk children (see,e.g., Stevens, Owen, and Lahti-Johnson, 1999).

● Toronto Under 12 Outreach Project.This fully developed Canadian pro-gram emphasizes a multisystemicapproach combining interventionsthat target children, parents, schools,and communities. It includes a cen-tralized police protocol to expediteservices for children who engagein delinquent activity (Hrynkiw-Augimeri, Pepler, and Goldberg, 1993).

● Sacramento County CommunityIntervention Program. This programprovides services coordinated by acommunity intervention specialistwho conducts an indepth, strength-based family assessment, includingphysical and mental health, sub-stance abuse, economic strengths/needs, vocational strengths/needs,family functioning, and social func-tioning (Brooks and Pettit, 1997).

All multisystemic programs designedto deal with child delinquency rely onparticular approaches and programstargeting the child, the family, peers,the school, and the community. Manyprograms either have proven to be ef-fective or hold promise within thesedomains, such as Parent ManagementTraining (Patterson, Reid, and Dishion,1992), Functional Family Therapy(Sexton and Alexander, 2000), and MST(Henggeler, Pickrel, and Brondino,1999). In terms of peer interventions,care must be taken when delinquent orhighly disruptive children are broughttogether for group therapy because ofthe potential contaminating effects(Dishion, McCord, and Poulin, 1999).Peer interventions are best undertakenin conjunction with other programs(Coie and Miller-Johnson, 2001). Schoolprograms (e.g., the Good Behavior Gameand the FastTrack Program [Herrenkohlet al., 2001]) and community programs(e.g., Communities That Care [Hawkinsand Catalano, 1992]) may help alleviaterisk factors for child delinquency.

Child Delinquents, Incarceration, and Legal Sanctions

The Study Group found no studies showing that incarceration of serious child delin-quents results in a substantial reduction in recidivism or the prevention of later seri-ous and violent offending. In addition, victimization by older, serious delinquentoffenders in correctional facilities may fuel criminal propensities in child delin-quents. Likewise, the Study Group does not advocate increased legal sanctions fornonserious child delinquents. Instead, more programs that specifically target childdelinquents are needed, including specific procedures on how to deal with childdelinquents when there is an absolute need for their detention. Nonserious childdelinquents can best be dealt with in the mental health and the child welfare sys-tems, with a focus on interventions involving the children’s parents.

12

A community policing program hasalso demonstrated some success inworking with child delinquents. TheOJJDP-funded New Haven ChildDevelopment–Community PolicingProgram (Marans and Berkman, 1997)brings police officers and mental healthprofessionals together to provide eachother with training, consultation, andsupport and to provide direct inter-disciplinary intervention to childrenwho are victims of, witnesses to, orperpetrators of violent crimes.

Interagency MechanismBecause child delinquents often havemany concurrent problems, includingantisocial behavior, learning difficulties,mood problems, and exposure to childabuse and neglect, a number of agen-cies have typically provided servicesto this group. Practitioners almostunanimously agree that more coordi-nation among the juvenile justice sys-tem, schools, child welfare agencies,and mental health agencies is neededto deal with very young offenders(Farrington, Loeber, and Kalb, 2001).However, such integrated programs areextremely rare, and their effectivenessremains to be evaluated. The StudyGroup suggests that one of the follow-ing three mechanisms may be neededto coordinate and fully integrate a con-tinuum of care and sanctions for childdelinquents:

● A governing body or interagencycouncil that, at minimum, includesrepresentatives from all juvenilejustice-related human services orga-nizations and agencies and has theauthority to convene these agenciesto develop a comprehensive strategyfor dealing with child delinquents.

● A front-end mechanism within thejuvenile justice system that can makecomprehensive assessments of re-ferred child delinquents, such asCommunity Assessment Centersthat provide a single point of entry(Dembo and Brown, 1994; Oldenetteland Wordes, 1999).

● A mechanism to ensure interagencycoordination and collaboration in thedelivery of services in the postadjudi-cation phase, such as wraparoundservices that can be applied to chil-dren and families in a flexible andindividualized manner (Duchnowskiand Kutash, 1996).

Legal IssuesIn addition to overall policy and re-search issues, many important legalissues concerning child delinquentsmust be resolved, including the follow-ing (Wiig, 2001):

● Jurisdiction. States differ greatly intheir minimum age for delinquencyjurisdiction and their enactment ofalternative grounds for court jurisdic-tion (such as dependency and chil-dren in need of protective services).

● Competency. The competency ofmost child delinquents is debatablein terms of their ability to under-stand the severity of charges, courtproceedings, and the implications ofsentences.

● Counsel. The right to counsel andother constitutional rights are ofimportance to all juvenile delin-quents but are complicated forchildren because of their inabilityto understand rights (e.g., theMiranda warning or the privilegeagainst self-incrimination).

● Parental responsibility. The valueboth of making parents more legallyresponsible for their children’s delin-quency and of followup sanctions forparents needs to be investigated.

● Alternatives to court jurisdiction.Alternatives for handling childdelinquents outside the courts(e.g., either informally by the policeor through a voluntary referral to achild-serving agency) may representan important and promising approachto deflecting children from futuredelinquency.

Key Research PrioritiesThere are many gaps in current knowl-edge about the development of childdelinquency, the risk and protective fac-tors associated with it, and appropriateprevention/intervention methods. Inaddition to reanalysis of existing dataand collection of additional data inongoing studies, new research projectsthat focus specifically on child delin-quents are needed. This is especiallytrue for very serious young offenders,who represent a small group aboutwhich little systematic knowledge hasbeen gathered. The Study Group recom-mends that additional research shouldfocus on the following areas:

● Child delinquent development andepidemiology, based on self-reportsand official records of offending.

● The relation between child delin-quency and co-occurring problembehaviors.

● Escalation from child delinquencyto serious and violent offending.

● Risk and protective factors that influ-ence continuity and escalation inthe severity of delinquency after itschildhood onset.

● Longitudinal studies to investigatequestions about development, riskand protective factors, and riskassessment.

● The major service agencies’ methodsfor dealing with child delinquents.

● Cost-benefit analyses of prevention/intervention programs.

● Studies with experimental and con-trol groups and random assignmentof participants to investigateprevention/intervention strategies.

Costs and BenefitsAlthough literature reviews of earlyinterventions to prevent the develop-ment of criminal potential demonstratethat this approach is promising for

13

reducing delinquency and later offend-ing (see Zigler, Taussig, and Black, 1992;Farrington and Welsh, 1999), there hasbeen little discussion of economic costsand benefits. The potential benefits ofprevention programs targeting delin-quents or high-risk youth are indicatedby estimates that a typical, single crimi-nal career encompassing the juvenileand adult years costs society between$1.7 and $2.3 million in 1997 dollars(Cohen, 1998).

Although cost-benefit studies are rela-tively rare, a few studies have providedimportant evidence on the economicefficiency of early developmental delin-quency prevention programs. For exam-ple, the High/Scope Perry PreschoolProject—founded in 1962 in Michigan—focused on preschool programs to helpchildren (ages 3–4) in poverty makea better start in their transition fromhome to school and community, includ-ing setting them on paths to becomingeconomically self-sufficient and sociallyresponsible adults (Schweinhart, Barnes,and Weikart, 1993; Parks, 2000). Themost recent followup data, collectedwhen these children were 27, revealedseveral differences in outcomes betweenthe children who received treatment andthose who did not (the controls). Amongchildren who received treatment, therewas less delinquency, a lower rate ofabsenteeism from school, less need forremedial and supportive school services,and less likelihood of aggressive, pre-delinquent behavior. A cost-benefitanalysis of the High/Scope Perry Pre-school Project (Barnett, 1993) foundthat for every dollar spent on the proj-ect, taxpayers and crime victims weresaved more than $7. The total costs ofthe program were estimated at $12,356per participant; total benefits, whenadjusted for inflation and a 3-percentdiscount rate, were estimated at $88,433per participant (Welsh, 2001).

In addition to showing promise as eco-nomically efficient approaches to reduc-ing delinquency, several interventionprograms have revealed other impor-tant spinoff benefits, such as improved

outcomes in educational achievement,health, and parent-child relationships.A cost-benefit analysis of the ElmiraPrenatal/Early Infancy Project in NewYork, NY, for example, showed a reduc-tion in welfare and health costs and ahigher tax base because of increasedemployment (Karoly et al., 1998).

Although many programs claim costsavings based on overall effectiveness,more economic evaluation is needed toassess the monetary value of programsand to help answer important questionsfacing policymakers.

Conclusions and PolicyRecommendationsChild delinquents constitute a popula-tion not usually recognized as needingservices to prevent them from becom-ing tomorrow’s serious, violent, andchronic juvenile offenders. The StudyGroup’s work has clear implicationsfor policymakers at the federal, state,county, and municipal levels who caninfluence the day-to-day and long-termoperation of agencies and/or their fund-ing to maintain, improve, or create newprograms. Indirectly, the Study Groupalso addresses the frontline workerswho deal every day with child delin-quents and children with persistentdisruptive behavior, whose voicesand concerns should be heard bypolicymakers.

Policymakers should be concernedabout child delinquents and childrenwith persistent disruptive behavior forthe key reasons discussed below(Farrington, Loeber, and Kalb, 2001).

Child delinquents constitute a signifi-cant problem for society. Child delin-quents, compared with later onsetoffenders, are two to three times morelikely to become tomorrow’s seriousoffenders. Part of this likelihood de-pends on the presence of risk andprotective factors. Stouthamer-Loeberand colleagues (2002) examined thedegree to which protective domains

buffered the effect of risk domains inthe Pittsburgh Youth Study. Using atotal score of protective and risk do-mains for each participant, the studyfound that children whose balancebetween protective and risk domainsfavored one or more risk domains hadan elevenfold increase in the likelihoodof becoming persistent serious delin-quents in adolescence, compared withchildren who had an overall balance offewer risk domains and more protectivedomains.

There is a real risk that some childrenwill become serious offenders. However,this danger is not general public knowl-edge and, consequently, is rarely ad-dressed to prevent the development ofserious, violent, and chronic juvenileoffending.

Information about child delinquencyis inadequate. Society does not havethe information about child delinquentsthat is necessary to reduce this perva-sive social problem. Such knowledge iscrucial for planning services for childoffenders at an early stage in their delin-quency careers. Child delinquents needto be included in national, regional, andcitywide surveys of offenders and vic-tims to address important questionssuch as how common serious childdelinquency is and whether seriouschild delinquents are qualitatively orquantitatively different from otherchild delinquents.

The Study Group noted the absence ofannual surveys focusing on the prev-alence of persistent disruptive childrenin elementary schools. In addition, thereappears to be no consistent tracking ofthe number of referrals child welfareoffices receive from police for childrenage 12 or younger who have committeddelinquent acts. Annual police reportsof juvenile delinquency are available.However, jurisdictional differences inthe minimum age of criminal responsi-bility and possible differences in policepractices for recording delinquent actscommitted by children call into question

14

the accuracy and comprehensiveness ofthe information collected on child delin-quents. Policymakers need to step for-ward and insist on informing society, ina timely fashion, about the prevalenceof child delinquents and their persistentdisruptive behaviors; the proportion ofsuch children who do or do not receiveservices for their problem behaviors;the number of risk factors for thesechildren, who are routinely targeted forintervention; and the dissemination ofeffective and replicated interventions.

Child delinquents are expensive to tax-payers and society. Child delinquentstend to be expensive to society becauseof the numerous interventions they re-ceive from different agencies, includingspecial school services, child welfareand social services, mental health agen-cies, and family counseling services.Child delinquents are likely to receiveservices from the majority of agenciesdealing with children. Although not allof these children are engaged by all ofthese services simultaneously, many ofthe young problematic children requirethe attention and intervention of a suc-cession of several agencies.

Given the barriers that often exist be-tween different agencies and their poordata sharing, it is highly likely that as-sessments are duplicated. Also, manypractitioners complain about the lackof an integrated and coordinated ap-proach among the agencies trying todeal with the multiple problems of childdelinquents. Unintegrated services maybe less effective than integrated servic-es, especially when integrated servicesare well planned and evaluated.

Many child delinquents become chronicoffenders (Blumstein, Farrington, andMoitra, 1985). As previously mentioned,the cost to society of a single criminalcareer ranges from $1.7 to $2.3 millionin 1997 dollars (Cohen, 1998). Given thatmany of these high-rate offenders starttheir delinquent careers early in life, it issafe to assume that the cost to societyof child delinquents is considerable.

Early intervention with child delin-quents is essential. Currently, a wholearray of effective interventions is avail-able to reduce persistent disruptivechild behavior and early-onset delin-quency. Also, well-tested interventionsexist to prevent delinquent juvenilesfrom escalating to serious, violent, andchronic juvenile offending. However, forchild delinquents known to the juvenilejustice system, special programs, suchas the previously mentioned ones inToronto and Minneapolis (Howell, 2001),need to be further evaluated and testedin other jurisdictions.

Rather than intervening to prevent high-risk children from becoming tomorrow’sincarcerated offenders, policymakerstend to fund the more plentiful pro-grams for older adolescent delinquentsand programs that confine serious ado-lescent offenders in costly institutions.This is not to suggest that all the atten-tion and funds should be given to childdelinquents and that adolescent delin-quents should be ignored. However, amore effective balance of resourcesshould be developed so that the rootsof serious adolescent delinquency canbe better addressed in childhood.

Unfortunately, many policymakersare unaware of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of alternative interven-tions and often choose not to fund earlyprevention methods that can benefitjuveniles in general and taxpayers andcitizens in particular. Yet no policymakerwould argue that the optimal publichealth strategy to deal with nicotineaddiction is the removal of cancerouslungs in large numbers of affected smok-ers. Instead, risk-based smoking preven-tion strategies have been developedand are now widely endorsed and im-plemented. The same rationale used forpublic health risks should be applied topreventing serious and violent juveniledelinquency. The focus should be ontargeting early risk factors associatedwith child delinquency and persistentdisruptive child behavior. In more and

more communities, system profession-als and policymakers realize that theincrease in the number of child delin-quents (and disruptive youth) is toolarge a problem to be ignored and thatspecial programs are needed.

SummaryOften, neither parents nor the variousprofessionals who work with childrenknow which problematic children willcease their disruptive or delinquentbehaviors and which ones will continueor worsen their behavior over time.Nevertheless, because most of the nec-essary conditions for later serious andviolent juvenile offending begin in child-hood, the Study Group on Very YoungOffenders strongly urges that efforts toreduce serious forms of delinquencyshould shift from a focus on adolescentdelinquents and more serious chronicjuvenile offenders to a focus on childdelinquents. To help with this task,the Study Group has presented someimportant new information on childdelinquency, including analyses ofepidemiological data, risk and protec-tive factors, early prediction, interven-tions for disruptive and delinquentchildren, and juvenile justice systemissues. This information will benefitfuture studies and interventions thatattempt to prevent offending among thevery young and to change the behaviorof those children who are alreadyinvolved in offending.

ReferencesAchenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S.1981. Behavioral problems and compe-tencies reported by parents of normaland disturbed children aged 4 through16. Monographs of the Society for Re-search in Child Development 46(1):1–78.

Adams, C.D., Hillman, N., and Gaydos,G.R. 1994. Behavioral difficulties in tod-dlers: Impact of sociocultural and bio-logical risk factors. Journal of ClinicalChild Psychology 23:373–381.

15

Barnett, W.S. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis.In Significant Benefits: The High/ScopePerry Preschool Study Through Age 27,edited by L.J. Schweinhart, H.V. Barnes,and D.P. Weikart. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, pp. 142–173.

Battin, S.R., Hawkins, J.D., Thornberry,T.P., and Krohn, M.D. 2000. Contributionof Gang Membership to Delinquency Be-yond the Influence of Delinquent Peers.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Battin-Pearson, S.R., Thornberry, T.P.,Hawkins, J.D., and Krohn, M.D. 1998. Gang Membership, Delinquent Peers, andDelinquent Behavior. Bulletin. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Blumstein, A., Farrington, D.P., andMoitra, S. 1985. Delinquency careers:Innocents, desisters, and persisters.In Crime and Justice, vol. 6, edited byM. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press, pp. 187–222.

Bor, W., Najman, J.M., Andersen, J.,O’Callaghan, M., Williams, G.M., andBehrens, B.C. 1997. The relationshipbetween low family income and psycho-logical disturbance in young children:An Australian longitudinal study. Aus-tralian and New Zealand Journal ofPsychiatry 31(5):664–675.

Brewer, D.D., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano,R.F., and Neckerman, H.J. 1995. Prevent-ing serious, violent, and chronic juve-nile offending: A review of evaluationsof selected strategies in childhood,adolescence, and the community. InSourcebook on Serious, Violent, andChronic Juvenile Offenders, edited byJ.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins,and J.J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 61–141.

Brooks, T.R., and Pettit, M. 1997. EarlyIntervention: Crafting a CommunityResponse to Child Abuse and Violence.Washington, DC: Child Welfare Leagueof America.

Burns, B.J., Landsverk, J., Kelleher, K.,Faw, L., Hazen, A., and Keeler, G. 2001.Mental health, education, child welfare,and juvenile justice service use. In ChildDelinquents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeberand D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 273–303.

Butts, J.A., and Snyder, H.N. 1997. TheYoungest Delinquents: Offenders Under Age 15. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1996.The social development model: A theo-ry of antisocial behavior. In Delinquencyand Crime: Current Theories, edited byJ.D. Hawkins. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 149–197.

Cohen, M.A. 1998. The monetary valueof saving a high-risk youth. Journal ofQuantitative Criminology 14(1):5–33.

Coie, J.D., and Miller-Johnson, S. 2001.Peer factors and interventions. In ChildDelinquents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeberand D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 191–209.

Coie, J.D., Miller-Johnson, S., Terry, R.,Lochman, J.E., Maumary-Gremaud, A.,and Hyman, C. 1995. The influence ofdeviant peer associations on juvenileoffending among African-American ado-lescents. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Society ofCriminology, Boston, MA.

Dembo, R., and Brown, R. 1994. TheHillsborough County Juvenile Assess-ment Center. Journal of Child & Ado-lescent Substance Abuse 3(2):25–43.

Derzon, J.H., and Lipsey, M.W. 2000. Thecorrespondence of family features withproblem, aggressive, criminal and vio-lent behavior. Unpublished manuscript.Nashville, TN: Institute for Public PolicyStudies, Vanderbilt University.

Developmental Research and Programs.1996. Promising Approaches To PreventAdolescent Problem Behaviors. Seattle,WA: Developmental Research andPrograms.

Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., and Poulin, F.1999. When interventions harm: Peergroups and problem behavior. AmericanPsychologist 54(9):755–764.

Duchnowski, A.J., and Kutash, K. 1996.A mental health perspective. In Compre-hensive and Collaborative Systems ThatWork for Troubled Youth: A NationalAgenda, edited by C.M. Nelson, R.B.Rutherford, and B.I. Wolford. Richmond,KY: Eastern Kentucky University, pp.90–110.

Earls, F., and Jung, K.G. 1987. Tempera-ment and home environment charac-teristics as causal factors in the earlydevelopment of childhood psychopa-thology. Journal of the American Acade-my of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry26(4):491–498.

Egeland, B., and Farber, E.A. 1984. Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to itsdevelopment and changes over time.Child Development 55:753–771.

Elliott, D.S., and Menard, S. 1996. Delin-quent friends and delinquent behavior:Temporal and developmental patterns.In Delinquency and Crime: CurrentTheories, edited by J.D. Hawkins. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press,pp. 28–67.

Espiritu, R.C., Huizinga, D., Crawford, A.,and Loeber, R. 2001. Epidemiology ofself-reported delinquency. In ChildDelinquents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeberand D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 47–66.

16

Farrington, D.P. 1994. Early developmen-tal prevention of juvenile delinquency.Criminal Behavior and Mental Health4(3):209–227.

Farrington, D.P. 2000. Explaining and preventing crime—the globalization ofknowledge: The American Society ofCriminology 1999 Presidential Address.Criminology 38:1–24.

Farrington, D.P., Lambert, S., and West, J.1998. Criminal careers of two generationsof family members in the CambridgeStudy in Delinquent Development.Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention7:85–106.

Farrington, D.P., Loeber, R., and Kalb,L.M. 2001. Key research and policyissues. In Child Delinquents: Develop-ment, Intervention, and Service Needs,edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,Inc., pp. 385–394.

Farrington, D.P., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W.B., andSchmidt, L. 1996. Self-reported delin-quency and a combined delinquencyscale based on boys, mothers, andteachers: Concurrent and predictivevalidity for African Americans andCaucasians. Criminology 34:493–517.

Farrington, D.P., and Welsh, B.C. 1999.Delinquency prevention using family-based interventions. Children andSociety 13(4):287–303.

Goldsmith, H.H., Buss, A.H., Plomin, R.,Rothbart, M.K., Thomas, A., Chess, S.,Hinde, R.A., and McCall, R.B. 1987.Roundtable: What is temperament?Four approaches. Child Development58(2):505–529.

Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, D.C.1985. Victimization in Schools. New York,NY: Plenum Press.

Grisso, T. 1996. Society’s retributive re-sponse to juvenile violence: A develop-mental perspective. Law and HumanBehavior 20(3):229–247.

Guerin, D.W., Gottfried, A.W., andThomas, C.W. 1997. Difficult tempera-ment and behavior problems: A longi-tudinal study from 1.5 to 12 years.International Journal of BehavioralDevelopment 21(1):71–90.

Haapasalo, J., and Tremblay, R.E. 1994.Physically aggressive boys from ages 6to 12: Family background, parentingbehavior, and prediction of delinquency.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-chology 62(5):1044–1052.

Hawkins, J.D., and Catalano, R.F. 1992.Communities That Care. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hawkins, J.D., Herrenkohl, T., Farring-ton, D.P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.F., andHarachi, T.W. 1998. A review of predic-tors of youth violence. In Serious andViolent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factorsand Successful Interventions, edited byR. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.106–146.

Hawkins, J.D., Lishner, D.M., Jenson,J.M., and Catalano, R.F. 1987. Delin-quents and drugs: What the evidencesuggests about prevention and treat-ment programming. In Youth at HighRisk for Substance Abuse (DHHS Pub-lication No. ADM 87–1537), editedby B.S. Brown and A.R. Mills. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, pp. 81–131.

Henggeler, S., Pickrel, S., and Brondino,M. 1999. Multisystemic treatment ofsubstance-abusing and dependentdelinquents: Outcomes, treatment fideli-ty, and transportability. Mental HealthServices Research 1:171–184.

Herrenkohl, T.I., Hawkins, J.D., Chung,I.J., Hill, K.G., and Battin-Pearson, S.2001. School and community risk fac-tors and interventions. In Child Delin-quents: Development, Intervention, andService Needs, edited by R. Loeber andD.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 211–246.

Howell, J.C. 1998. Youth Gangs: An Over-view. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C. 2001. Juvenile justice pro-grams and strategies. In Child Delin-quents: Development, Intervention, andService Needs, edited by R. Loeber andD.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 305–321.

Howitt, P.S., and Moore, E.A. 1991. Theefficacy of intensive early intervention:An evaluation of the Oakland CountyProbate Court Early Offender Program.Juvenile and Family Court Journal42:25–36.

Hrynkiw-Augimeri, L., Pepler, D., andGoldberg, K. 1993. An outreach programfor children having police contact.Canada’s Mental Health 41:7–12.

Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Evering-ham, S.S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M.R.,Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M., and Chiesa, J.1998. Investing in Our Children: WhatWe Know and Don’t Know About theCosts and Benefits of Early ChildhoodInterventions. Santa Monica, CA: RANDCorporation.

Kazdin, A.E., and Kendall, P.C. 1998.Current progress and future plans fordeveloping effective treatments: Com-ments and perspectives. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology 27(2):217–226.

Keenan, K. 2001. Uncovering preschoolprecursors to problem behavior. InChild Delinquents: Development, Inter-vention, and Service Needs, edited byR. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.117–134.

Keenan, K., and Wakschlag, L.S. 2000.More than the terrible twos: The natureand severity of behavior problems inclinic-referred preschool children.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology28(1):33–46.

17

Kempf-Leonard, K., Chesney-Lind, M.,and Hawkins, D.F. 2001. Ethnicity andgender issues. In Child Delinquents:Development, Intervention, and Serv-ice Needs, edited by R. Loeber andD.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 247–269.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K., and Coy, K.1997. Inhibitory control as a contributorto conscience in childhood: From tod-dler to early school age. Child Develop-ment 68(2):263–277.

Krohn, M.D., Thornberry, T.P., Rivera, C.,and Le Blanc, M. 2001. Later delinquen-cy careers. In Child Delinquents: De-velopment, Intervention, and ServiceNeeds, edited by R. Loeber and D.P.Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc., pp. 67–93.

Kuczynski, L., and Kochanska, G. 1990.Development of children’s noncompli-ance strategies from toddlerhood toage 5. Developmental Psychology26(3):398–408.

Kupperstein, L. 1971. Treatment andrehabilitation of delinquent youth: Somesocio-cultural considerations. Acta-Criminologica 4:11–111.

Lahey, B.B., Piacentini, J.C., McBurnett,K., Stone, P., Hartdagen, S., and Hynd, G.1988. Psychopathology in the parentsof children with conduct disorder andhyperactivity. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psy-chiatry 27(2):163–170.

Landy, S., and Peters, R.D. 1992. Towardan understanding of a developmentalparadigm for aggressive conduct prob-lems during the preschool years. InAggression Throughout the Life Span,edited by R.D. Peters, R.J. McMahon,and V.L. Quinsey. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 1–30.

Loeber, R. 1982. The stability of anti-social and delinquent and child behav-ior: A review. Child Development 53(6):1431–1446.

Loeber, R. 1988. The natural histories ofjuvenile conduct problems, substanceuse, and delinquency: Evidence fordevelopmental progressions. In Ad-vances in Clinical Child Psychology,vol. 11, edited by B.B. Lahey and A.E.Kazdin. New York, NY: Plenum Press,pp. 73–124.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P. 1998a.Never too early, never too late: Risk fac-tors and successful interventions forserious and violent juvenile offenders.Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention7(1):7–30.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds.1998b. Serious and Violent JuvenileOffenders: Risk Factors and SuccessfulInterventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds.2001. Child Delinquents: Development,Intervention, and Service Needs. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Loeber, R., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M.1998. Development of juvenile aggres-sion and violence: Some commonmisconceptions and controversies.American Psychologist 53(2):242–259.

Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. 1996. Aca-demic performance and delinquency.In Crime and Justice, vol. 20, edited byM. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press, pp. 145–264.

Marans, S., and Berkman, M. 1997. ChildDevelopment–Community Policing: Part-nership in a Climate of Violence. Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus-tice, Office of Justice Programs, Officeof Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

McCord, J., and Conway, K.P. 2002.Patterns of juvenile delinquency andco-offending. In Crime and Social Organi-zation, vol. 10 of Advances in Crimino-logical Theory, edited by E. Waring andD. Weisburd. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans-action Publishers, pp. 15–30.

Miller-Johnson, S., Coie, J.D., Maumary-Gremand, A., Bierman, K., and ConductProblems Prevention Research Group.1997. Peer rejection and aggression andearly starter models of conduct disor-der. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe Society for Research in Child De-velopment, Indianapolis, IN, April 1997.

Moffitt, T. 1993. Adolescence-limited andlife-course-persistent antisocial behav-ior: A developmental taxonomy. Psy-chological Review 100(4):674–701.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention. 1995. DelinquencyPrevention Works. Summary. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, Office ofJuvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Oldenettel, D., and Wordes, M. 1999.Community Assessment Centers. FactSheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Olds, D., Henderson, C.R., Cole, R.,Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D.,Pettitt, L., Sidora, K., Morris, P., andPowers, J. 1998. Long-term effects ofnurse home visitation on children’scriminal and antisocial behavior:Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomizedcontrolled trial. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 280:1238–1244.

Parks, G. 2000. The High/Scope PerryPreschool Project. Bulletin. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Patterson, G.R., and Bank, L. 1989. Someamplifying mechanisms for pathologicprocesses in families. In Systems andDevelopment: The Minnesota Symposiaon Child Psychology, edited by M.R.Gunnar and E. Thelen. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum, pp. 167–209.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant num-ber 95–JD–FX–0018 from the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. De-partment of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention is a component of the Office ofJustice Programs, which also includes theBureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau ofJustice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

18

Patterson, G.R., Capaldi, D.M., and Bank,L. 1991. An early starter model for pre-dicting delinquency. In The Developmentand Treatment of Childhood Aggression,edited by D.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 139–168.

Patterson, G.R., Crosby, L., and Vuch-inich, S. 1992. Predicting risk forearly police arrest. Journal of Quanti-tative Criminology 8(4):335–355.

Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., and Dishion,T.J. 1992. Antisocial Boys. Eugene, OR:Castalia.

Peeples, F., and Loeber, R. 1994. Doindividual factors and neighborhoodcontext explain ethnic differences injuvenile delinquency? Journal of Quan-titative Criminology 10(2):141–158.

Prior, M., Smart, M.A., Sanson, A., andOberklaid, F. 1993. Sex differences inpsychological adjustment from infancyto 8 years. Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psy-chiatry 32(2):291–304.

Reiss, A.J., and Farrington, D.P. 1991. Ad-vancing knowledge about co-offending:Results from a prospective longitudinalsurvey of London males. Journal ofCriminal Law and Criminology 82:360–395.

Rowe, D.C., and Gulley, B. 1992. Siblingeffects on substance abuse and delin-quency. Criminology 30:217–233.

Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., andEarls, F. 1997. Neighborhoods and vio-lent crime: A multilevel study of collec-tive efficacy. Science 277(5328):919–924.

Schweinhart, L.J., Barnes, H.V., andWeikart, D.P. 1993. Significant Benefits:The High/Scope Perry Preschool StudyThrough Age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Sexton, T.L., and Alexander, J.F. 2000.Functional Family Therapy. Bulletin.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention.

Silva, P.A. 1990. The Dunedin Multidis-ciplinary Health and DevelopmentProject: A 15 year longitudinal study.Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology4:96–127.

Snyder, H.N. 2001. Epidemiology of offi-cial offending. In Child Delinquents:Development, Intervention, and ServiceNeeds, edited by R. Loeber and D.P.Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc., pp. 25–46.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999.Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999National Report. Report. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Stattin, H., and Klackenberg-Larsson, I.1993. Early language and intelligencedevelopment and their relationship tofuture criminal behavior. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology 102(3):369–378.

Stevens, A.B., Owen, G., and Lahti-Johnson, K. 1999. Delinquents Under10: Target Early Intervention Phase IEvaluation Report. St. Paul, MN: WilderResearch Center, Amherst H. WilderFoundation.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R.,Wei, E., Farrington, D.P., and Wikström,P-O.H. 2002. Risk and promotive effectsin the explanation of persistent seriousdelinquency in boys. Journal of Consult-ing and Clinical Psychology 70:111–123.

Tremblay, R.E., Pihl, R.O., Vitaro, F., andDobkin, P.L. 1994. Predicting early onsetof male antisocial behavior from pre-school behavior. Archives of GeneralPsychiatry 51(9):732–739.

Webster-Stratton, C. 1998. Preventingconduct problems in Head Start chil-dren: Strengthening parenting compe-tencies. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 66:715–730.

Welsh, B.C. 2001. Economic costs andbenefits of early developmental preven-tion. In Child Delinquents: Development,Intervention, and Service Needs, editedby R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.,pp. 339–355.

Wiig, J.K. 2001. Legal issues. In ChildDelinquents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeberand D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 323–338.

Williams, S., Andersen, J., McGee, R.,and Silva, P.A. 1990. Risk factors forbehavioral and emotional disorder inpreadolescent children. Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child and Adoles-cent Psychiatry 29(3):413–419.

Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993. Com-prehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. ProgramSummary. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Zigler, E., Taussig, C., and Black, K. 1992.Early childhood intervention: A promis-ing preventative for juvenile delinquency.American Psychologist 47(8): 997–1006.

19

Acknowledgments

Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., is Professor of Psy-chiatry, Psychology, and Epidemiology,University of Pittsburgh, PA; Professorof Developmental Psychopathology,Free University, Amsterdam, Nether-lands; and Director of the PittsburghYouth Study. David P. Farrington, Ph.D.,is Professor of Psychological Criminol-ogy, Cambridge University, Cambridge,England. David Petechuk is a freelancehealth sciences writer. The authorsthank Magda Stouthamer-Loeber forher contributions to this research.

Photographs pages 5 and 10 copyright© 2001 Corbis Corporation; photographpage 7 copyright © 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc.

It’s FastWant to know more about the issuesin this Bulletin or related information?Log on to ojjdp.ncjrs.org:

➤ Browse titles alphabetically orby topic.

➤ Discover the latest OJJDP releases.

➤ Subscribe to OJJDP’s listserv JUVJUST and the electronic newsletter JUSTINFO.

➤ Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Data-base to search for publicationsof interest.

It’s Easy

It’s Free

NCJ 186162

*NCJ~186162*