juvenile delinquency treatment essay

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Five Things About Juvenile Delinquency Intervention and Treatment

Juvenile delinquency intervention and treatment programs have the broad goals of preventing crime and reducing recidivism by providing treatment and services to youth who have committed crimes.

The five statements below are based on practices and programs rated by CrimeSolutions. [1]

1. Juvenile awareness programs may be ineffective and potentially harmful.

Juvenile awareness programs — like Scared Straight — involve organized visits to adult prison facilities for adjudicated youth and youth at risk of adjudication. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of two meta-analyses of existing research , youth participating in these types of programs were more likely to commit offenses in the future than adjudicated youth and youth at risk of adjudication who did not. Consequently, recidivism rates were, on average, higher for participants compared to juveniles who went through regular case processing.

The results suggest that not only are juvenile awareness programs ineffective at deterring youth from committing crimes, but youth exposed to them are more likely to commit offenses in the future.

Read the practice profile Juvenile Awareness Programs (Scared Straight) to learn more.

2. Cognitive behavioral therapy can effectively reduce aggression in children and adolescents.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a problem-focused, therapeutic approach that attempts to help people identify and change the dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and patterns that contribute to their problem behaviors. CBT programs are delivered in various settings, including juvenile detention facilities. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of two meta-analyses of existing research , a variant of CBT focused specifically on children and adolescents who have anger-related problems is effective for reducing aggression and anger expression, and for improving self-control, problem-solving, and social competencies.

Read the practice profile Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anger-Related Problems in Children and Adolescents to learn more.

3. Multisystemic therapy for juveniles reduces recidivism, rearrests, and the total number of days incarcerated.

Multisystemic therapy is a family- and community-based treatment program for adolescents with criminal offense histories and serious antisocial, delinquent, and other problem behaviors. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of three randomized controlled trials (each evaluating a program in a different state), the program effectively reduced rearrests and number of days incarcerated.

Read the program profile Multisystemic Therapy to learn more.

4. Intensive supervision of juveniles — the conditions of which may vary — has not been found to reduce recidivism.

This practice consists of increased supervision and control of youth on probation in the community, compared with those on traditional community supervision. Intensive supervision programs have three primary features: 1) smaller caseloads for juvenile probation officers, 2) more frequent face-to-face contacts, and 3) strict conditions of compliance with stiffer penalties for violations. Other conditions may vary, but they can include electronic monitoring, drug/urinalysis testing, and participation in programming (such as tutoring, counseling, or job training). Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of three meta-analyses of existing research , the practice does not reduce recidivism.

Read the practice profile Juvenile Intensive Supervision Programs to learn more.

5. Incarceration-based therapeutic communities for juveniles with substance use disorders have not been found to reduce recidivism after release.

Incarceration-based therapeutic communities employ a comprehensive, residential drug-treatment program model for youth in a detention facility who have substance use disorders. Therapeutic communities are designed to foster changes in attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors related to substance use and to reduce subsequent criminal offending. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of two meta-analyses of existing research , incarceration-based therapeutic communities have not been found to reduce recidivism after release for those who participate.

Read the practice profile Incarceration-Based Therapeutic Communities for Juveniles to learn more.

[note 1] As defined by CrimeSolutions, a practice is a general category of programs, strategies, or procedures that share similar characteristics with regard to the issues they address and how they address them. Practice profiles tell us about the average results from multiple evaluations of similar programs, strategies, or procedures. A program is a specific set of activities carried out according to guidelines to achieve a defined purpose. Program profiles on CrimeSolutions tell us whether a specific program was found to achieve its goals when it was carefully evaluated.

Practice ratings do not take into account variations in implementation or other program-specific factors which may impact the effectiveness of a specific program. Practices may be rated differently on outcomes not included here.

CrimeSolutions helps practitioners and policymakers understand what works in justice-related programs and practices. CrimeSolutions is funded by the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Programs and practices profiles related to juveniles also appear on OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide .

Cite this Article

Read more about:, nij's "five things" series.

Find more titles in NIJ's "Five Things" series . 

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Risk and protective factors and interventions for reducing juvenile delinquency: a systematic review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. inclusion criteria, 2.2. exclusion criteria, 2.3. data sources and search strategy, 2.4. risk of bias assessment, 4. discussion, 5. limitations, 6. conclusions, author contributions, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Aksnes, Dag W., and Gunnar Sivertsen. 2019. A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Data and Information Science 4: 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amani, Bita, Norweeta G. Milburn, Susana Lopez, Angela Young-Brinn, Lourdes Castro, Alex Lee, and Eraka Bath. 2018. Families and the juvenile justice system: Considerations for family-based interventions. Family & Community Health 41: 55–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anderson, Valerie R., and Brinn M. Walerych. 2019. Contextualizing the nature of trauma in the juvenile justice trajectories of girls. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community 47: 138–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, Valerie R., Laura L. Rubino, and Nicole C. McKenna. 2021. Family-based Intervention for Legal System-involved Girls: A Mixed Methods Evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology 67: 35–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arias-Pujol, Eulàlia, and M. Teresa Anguera. 2017. Observation of interactions in adolescent group therapy: A mixed methods study. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barnert, Elizabeth S., Rebecca Dudovitz, Bergen B. Nelson, Tumaini R. Coker, Christopher Biely, Ning Li, and Paul J. Chung. 2017. How does incarcerating young people affect their adult health outcomes? Pediatrics 139: e20162624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barrett, James G., and Elizabeth Janopaul-Naylor. 2016. Description of a collaborative community approach to impacting juvenile arrests. Psychological Services 13: 133–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borduin, Charles M., Lauren B. Quetsch, Benjamin D. Johnides, and Alex R. Dopp. 2021. Long-term effects of multisystemic therapy for problem sexual behaviors: A 24.9-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 89: 393–405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bright, Charlotte Lyn, Sarah Hurley, and Richard P. Barth. 2014. Gender differences in outcomes of juvenile court-involved youth following intensive in-home services. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 5: 23–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buchanan, Molly, Erin D. Castro, Mackenzie Kushner, and Marvin D. Krohn. 2020. It’s F** ing Chaos: COVID-19’s impact on juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. American Journal of Criminal Justice 45: 578–600. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Campbell, Mhairi, Joanne E. McKenzie, Amanda Sowden, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Sue E. Brennan, Simon Ellis, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Rebecca Ryan, Sasha Shepperd, and James Thomas. 2020. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline. BMJ 368: l6890. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cavanagh, Caitlin, and Elizabeth Cauffman. 2017. The longitudinal association of relationship quality and reoffending among first-time juvenile offenders and their mothers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46: 1533–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Costello, Barbara J., and John H. Laub. 2020. Social Control Theory: The Legacy of Travis Hirschi’s Causes of Delinquency . Annual Review of Criminology 3: 21–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D.C. Department of Human Services. n.d. Functional Family Therapy (FFT). Available online: https://dhs.dc.gov/page/functional-family-therapy-fft#:~:text=Functional%20Family%20Therapy%20(FFT)%20is,relational%2C%20family-based%20perspective (accessed on 23 June 2023).
• D’Agostino, Emily, Stacy L. Frazier, Eric Hansen, Maria I. Nardi, and Sarah E. Messiah. 2020. Association of a park-based violence prevention and mental health promotion after-school program with youth arrest rates. JAMA Network Open 3: e1919996. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dakof, Gayle A., Craig E. Henderson, Cynthia L. Rowe, Maya Boustani, Paul E. Greenbaum, Wei Wang, Samuel Hawes, Clarisa Linares, and Howard A. Liddle. 2015. A randomized clinical trial of family therapy in juvenile drug court. Journal of Family Psychology 29: 232–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dodson, Lisa. 2013. Stereotyping low-wage mothers who have work and family conflicts. Journal of Social Issues 69: 257–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ezell, Jerel M., Margaret Richardson, Samira Salari, and James A. Henry. 2018. Implementing trauma-informed practice in juvenile justice systems: What can courts learn from child welfare interventions? Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 11: 507–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gan, Daniel Z. Q., Yiwei Zhou, Eric Hoo, Dominic Chong, and Chi Meng Chu. 2019. The Implementation of Functional Family Therapy (FFT) as an Intervention for Youth Probationers in Singapore. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 45: 684–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garduno, L. Sergio. 2022. How Influential are Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) on Youths?: Analyzing the Immediate and Lagged Effect of ACEs on Deviant Behaviors. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 15: 683–700. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gearhart, Michael C., and Riley Tucker. 2020. Criminogenic risk, criminogenic need, collective efficacy, and juvenile delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior 47: 1116–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halgunseth, Linda C., Daniel F. Perkins, Melissa A. Lippold, and Robert L. Nix. 2013. Delinquent-oriented attitudes mediate the relation between parental inconsistent discipline and early adolescent behavior. Journal of Family Psychology 27: 293–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Henggeler, Scott W., Michael R. McCart, Phillippe B. Cunningham, and Jason E. Chapman. 2012. Enhancing the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts by integrating evidence-based practices. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 80: 264–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Higgins, Julian, James Thomas, Jacqueline Chandler, Miranda Cumpston, Tianjing Li, Matthew Page, and Vivian Welch, eds. 2022. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions . Version 6.4. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoeve, Machteld, Geert Jan J. M. Stams, Claudia E. Van der Put, Judith Semon Dubas, Peter H. Van der Laan, and Jan R. M. Gerris. 2012. A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 40: 771–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hogue, Aaron, Sarah Dauber, Jessica Samuolis, and Howard A. Liddle. 2006. Treatment techniques and outcomes in multidimensional family therapy for adolescent behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology 20: 535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karam, Eli A., Emma M. Sterrett, and Lynn Kiaer. 2017. The integration of family and group therapy as an alternative to juvenile incarceration: A quasi-experimental evaluation using Parenting with Love and Limits. Family Process 56: 331–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lantos, Hannah, Andra Wilkinson, Hannah Winslow, and Tyler McDaniel. 2019. Describing associations between child maltreatment frequency and the frequency and timing of subsequent delinquent or criminal behaviors across development: Variation by sex, sexual orientation, and race. BMC Public Health 19: 1306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Leve, Leslie D., Patricia Chamberlain, and Hyoun K. Kim. 2015. Risks, outcomes, and evidence-based interventions for girls in the US juvenile justice system. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 18: 252–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lippold, Melissa A., Andrea Hussong, Gregory M. Fosco, and Nilam Ram. 2018. Lability in the parent’s hostility and warmth toward their adolescent: Linkages to youth delinquency and substance use. Developmental Psychology 54: 348–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Logan-Greene, Patricia, and Annette Semanchin Jones. 2015. Chronic neglect and aggression/delinquency: A longitudinal examination. Child Abuse & Neglect 45: 9–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Logan-Greene, Patricia, B. K. Elizabeth Kim, and Paula S. Nurius. 2020. Adversity profiles among court-involved youth: Translating system data into trauma-responsive programming. Child Abuse & Neglect 104: 104465. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• May, Jessica, Kristina Osmond, and Stephen Billick. 2014. Juvenile delinquency treatment and prevention: A literature review. Psychiatric Quarterly 85: 295–301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moher, David, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G. Altman, and PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151: 264–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mowen, Thomas J., and John H. Boman. 2018. A developmental perspective on reentry: Understanding the causes and consequences of family conflict and peer delinquency during adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 47: 275–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 2020. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Updated 8 July. Available online: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05101.asp (accessed on 24 May 2023).
• Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, and Sue E. Brennan. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery 88: 105906. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Perron, Susannah. 2013. Family Attachment, Family Conflict, and Delinquency in a Sample of Rural Youth. Doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petry, Nancy M., Sheila M. Alessi, Todd A. Olmstead, Carla J. Rash, and Kristyn Zajac. 2017. Contingency management treatment for substance use disorders: How far has it come, and where does it need to go? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 31: 897. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Puzzanchera, Charles. 2022. Trends in Youth Arrests for Violent Crimes. In Juvenile Justice Statistics: National Report Series Fact Sheet . Available online: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/trends-in-youth-arrests.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2023).
• Robst, John, Mary Armstrong, and Norin Dollard. 2017. The association between type of out-of-home mental health treatment and juvenile justice recidivism for youth with trauma exposure. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 27: 501–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruch, Donna A., and Jamie R. Yoder. 2018. The effects of family contact on community reentry plans among incarcerated youths. Victims & Offenders 13: 609–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, Joseph P. 2012. Substitute care in child welfare and the risk of arrest: Does the reason for placement matter? Child Maltreatment 17: 164–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ryan, Joseph P., Abigail B. Williams, and Mark E. Courtney. 2013. Adolescent neglect, juvenile delinquency and the risk of recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42: 454–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanders, Courtney. 2021. State Juvenile Justice Reforms Can Boost Opportunity, Particularly for Communities of Color. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Available online: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-juvenile-justice-reforms-can-boost-opportunity-particularly-for (accessed on 24 May 2023).
• Sitnick, Stephanie L., Daniel S. Shaw, Chelsea M. Weaver, Elizabeth C. Shelleby, Daniel E. Choe, Julia D. Reuben, Mary Gilliam, Emily B. Winslow, and Lindsay Taraban. 2017. Early childhood predictors of severe youth violence in low-income male adolescents. Child Development 88: 27–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strathearn, Lane, Michele Giannotti, Ryan Mills, Steve Kisely, Jake Najman, and Amanuel Abajobir. 2020. Long-term cognitive, psychological, and health outcomes associated with child abuse and neglect. Pediatrics 146: e20200438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• The PEW Charitable Trusts. 2014. Public Opinion on Juvenile Justice in America. Available online: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2015/08/pspp_juvenile_poll_web.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2023).
• Trinkner, Rick, Ellen S. Cohn, Cesar J. Rebellon, and Karen Van Gundy. 2012. Don’t trust anyone over 30: Parental legitimacy as a mediator between parenting style and changes in delinquent behavior over time. Journal of Adolescence 35: 119–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Triplett, Ruth. 2007. Social learning theory of crime. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology . Malden: Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. 2012. Program Profile: Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT). Updated 6 May. Available online: https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/267#:~:text=Multidimensional%20Family%20Therapy%20(MDFT)%20is,%2C%20and%20other%20mental%20comorbidities (accessed on 23 June 2023).
• Underwood, Lee A., and Aryssa Washington. 2016. Mental illness and juvenile offenders. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13: 228–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vidal, Sarah, Christine M. Steeger, Colleen Caron, Leanne Lasher, and Christian M. Connell. 2017. Placement and delinquency outcomes among system-involved youth referred to multisystemic therapy: A propensity score matching analysis. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 44: 853–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Walker, Sarah C., Mylien Duong, Christopher Hayes, Lucy Berliner, Leslie D. Leve, David C. Atkins, Jerald R. Herting, Asia S. Bishop, and Esteban Valencia. 2019. A tailored cognitive behavioral program for juvenile justice-referred females at risk of substance use and delinquency: A pilot quasi-experimental trial. PLoS ONE 14: e0224363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• White, Stuart F., Paul J. Frick, Kathryn Lawing, and Daliah Bauer. 2013. Callous–unemotional traits and response to Functional Family Therapy in adolescent offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31: 271–85. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiatrowski, Michael D., and Mary K. Swatko. 1979. Social Control Theory and Delinquency—A Multivariate Test. Available online: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/social-control-theory-and-delinquency-multivariate-test#:~:text=Hirschi’s%20social%20control%20theory%20suggests,in%20social%20rules%20and%20convention (accessed on 24 May 2023).
• Wilkinson, Andra, Hannah Lantos, Tyler McDaniel, and Hannah Winslow. 2019. Disrupting the link between maltreatment and delinquency: How school, family, and community factors can be protective. BMC Public Health 19: 588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Young, Joanna Cahall, and Cathy Spatz Widom. 2014. Long-term effects of child abuse and neglect on emotion processing in adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect 38: 1369–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zajac, Kristyn, Jeff Randall, and Cynthia Cupit Swenson. 2015. Multisystemic therapy for externalizing youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics 24: 601–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Aazami, A.; Valek, R.; Ponce, A.N.; Zare, H. Risk and Protective Factors and Interventions for Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review. Soc. Sci. 2023 , 12 , 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090474

Aazami A, Valek R, Ponce AN, Zare H. Risk and Protective Factors and Interventions for Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review. Social Sciences . 2023; 12(9):474. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090474

Aazami, Aida, Rebecca Valek, Andrea N. Ponce, and Hossein Zare. 2023. "Risk and Protective Factors and Interventions for Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review" Social Sciences 12, no. 9: 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090474

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Juvenile Delinquency

Theory, Research, and the Juvenile Justice Process

• © 2020
• Latest edition
• Peter C. Kratcoski 0 ,
• Lucille Dunn Kratcoski 1 ,
• Peter Christopher Kratcoski 2

Sociology/Justice Studies, Kent State University, Tallmadge, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Tallmadge, USA

Williams, Welser & Kratcoski LLC, Kent, USA

• Provides an overview of major topics related to Juvenile Delinquency for advanced undergraduate and graduate-level students
• Includes quantitative and qualitative research findings, with new interviews and discussions of the experiences of child care professionals and juvenile justice practitioners
• Provides an interpretation of theory to practice in the criminal justice system
• Explores recent discussion of children as victims, such as non-fault children who are victims of abuse, neglect, and at-risk situations such as violence and bullying
• Incorporates international perspectives on juvenile justice and delinquency, in addition to addressing changes in the characteristics of delinquents, changes in laws, and the influence of social media and electronic communications devices on juvenile delinquency

51k Accesses

18 Citations

3 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

Similar content being viewed by others.

How Young Offenders’ Perceive Their Life Courses and the Juvenile Justice System: A Systematic Review of Recent Qualitative Research

Examining the Presenting Characteristics, Short-Term Effects, and Long-Term Outcomes Associated with System-Involved Youths

It’s F**ing Chaos: COVID-19’s Impact on Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice

• juvenile delinquency
• juvenile justice
• at-risk children
• at-risk youth
• status offenders
• juvenile court
• family court
• juvenile corrections
• developmental and life-course criminology
• age-crime curve

Table of contents (16 chapters)

Front matter, the transition of child to adult.

• Peter C. Kratcoski, Lucille Dunn Kratcoski, Peter Christopher Kratcoski

Past and Current Bio-Social Perspectives on Delinquency Causation

Social-psychological theories of delinquency, social organization perspectives on delinquency causation, perspectives on interpersonal relationships in the family, perspectives on gangs and peer group influences pertaining to delinquency causation, perspectives on delinquency and violence in the schools, laws and court cases pertaining to children: offenders and victims, perspectives on children as victims of abuse and neglect, the police role in delinquency prevention and control, processing the juvenile offender: diversion, informal handling, and special dockets, the juvenile court process, probation and community-based programs, perspectives on juveniles incarcerated in secure facilities, parole and community supervision, counseling and treatment of juvenile offenders, back matter, authors and affiliations.

Peter C. Kratcoski

Lucille Dunn Kratcoski

Williams, Welser & Kratcoski LLC, Kent, USA

Peter Christopher Kratcoski

About the authors

Peter Charles Kratcoski earned a PhD in sociology from the Pennsylvania State university, a MA in sociology from the University of Notre Dame and a BA in sociology from King’s College. He taught at St. Thomas College and Pennsylvania State University before assuming the position of assistant professor of sociology at Kent State University. He retired as professor  of  sociology/criminal justice studies and Chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice Studies at Kent State University. He is currently a professor emeritus and adjunct professor at Kent State. He has published many books, book chapters and journal articles in juvenile delinquency, juvenile justice, juvenile victimization and crime prevention as well as completing numerous research  projects   relating to policing, crime prevention, juvenile delinquency prevention and victimization. His most recent publications include author of Correctional Counseling and Treatment (6 th edition) 2017, co-editor of Corruption, Fraud, Organized Crime, and the Shadow Economy, 2016 and co-editor of Perspectives on Elderly Crime and Victimization, 2018.

Lucille Dunn Kratcoski was awarded a  Bachelor of Arts degree  from Marywood College and a Master degree in music from Pennsylvania State University. She has numerous years teaching experience at the elementary, high school and university levels as well as providing private instruction. She co-authored Juvenile Delinquency and a number of book chapters and journal articles on the subject of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. In addition to her private practice, she serves as a  Kratcoski Research Associate.

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Juvenile Delinquency

Book Subtitle : Theory, Research, and the Juvenile Justice Process

Authors : Peter C. Kratcoski, Lucille Dunn Kratcoski, Peter Christopher Kratcoski

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31452-1

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology , Law and Criminology (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Hardcover ISBN : 978-3-030-31451-4 Published: 16 December 2019

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-030-31454-5 Published: 06 January 2021

eBook ISBN : 978-3-030-31452-1 Published: 03 December 2019

Edition Number : 6

Number of Pages : XXVI, 442

Number of Illustrations : 6 b/w illustrations

Additional Information : Originally published by Pearson Education, Inc., Old Tappan, New Jersey, 2003

Topics : Youth Offending and Juvenile Justice , Criminological Theory

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Community Med
• v.47(4); Oct-Dec 2022

Juvenile’s Delinquent Behavior, Risk Factors, and Quantitative Assessment Approach: A Systematic Review

Madhu kumari gupta.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Subrajeet Mohapatra

Prakash kumar mahanta.

1 Department of Clinical Psychology, Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry and Allied Science, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Background:

Not only in India but also worldwide, criminal activity has dramatically increasing day by day among youth, and it must be addressed properly to maintain a healthy society. This review is focused on risk factors and quantitative approach to determine delinquent behaviors of juveniles.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 15 research articles were identified through Google search as per inclusion and exclusion criteria, which were based on machine learning (ML) and statistical models to assess the delinquent behavior and risk factors of juveniles.

The result found ML is a new route for detecting delinquent behavioral patterns. However, statistical methods have used commonly as the quantitative approach for assessing delinquent behaviors and risk factors among juveniles.

Conclusions:

In the current scenario, ML is a new approach of computer-assisted techniques have potentiality to predict values of behavioral, psychological/mental, and associated risk factors for early diagnosis in teenagers in short of times, to prevent unwanted, maladaptive behaviors, and to provide appropriate intervention and build a safe peaceful society.

I NTRODUCTION

Juvenile delinquency is a habit of committing criminal offenses by an adolescent or young person who has not attained 18 years of age and can be held liable for his/her criminal acts. Clinically, it is described as persistent manners of antisocial behavior or conduct by a child/adolescent repeatedly denies following social rules and commits violent aggressive acts against the law and socially unacceptable. The word delinquency is derived from the Latin word “delinquere” which described as “de” means “away” and “linquere” as “to leaveor to abandon.” Minors who are involved in any kind of offense such as violence, gambling, sexual offenses, rape, bullying, stealing, burglary, murder, and other kinds of anti-social behaviors are known as juvenile delinquents. Santrock (2002) defined “an adolescent who breaks the law or engages in any criminal behavior which is considered as illegal is called juvenile delinquent.”[ 1 ] In India, Juvenile Justice (J. J.-Care and protection of Children) Act of 2000 stated that “an individual whether a boy/girl, who is under 18 years of age and has committed an offense, referred or convicted by the juvenile court have considered a juvenile delinquent.”

P REVALENCE R ATE : J UVENILE D ELINQUENCY IN I NDIA

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (India, 2019), statistical data of crimes in India show that overall, 38,685 juveniles were placed under arrest in 32,235 cases, among 35,214 juveniles were taken into custody under cases of IPC and 3471 juveniles were arrested under cases of special and local laws (SLL) during 2019. About 75.2% of the total convicted juveniles (29,084 out of 38,685) were apprehended under both IPC and SLL belonging to the age group 16–18 years. In 2019, 32,235 juvenile cases involving and recorded, indicating a slight increment of 2.0% over 2018 (31,591 cases). The rate of crime also indicates a slight increase from 7.1 (2018) to 7.2 (2019).[ 2 ] The total registered cases against juvenile delinquents are calculated as crime incidence rate per one Lakh population as shown in Figure 1 .

The graphical view of registered cases against Juveniles in conflict with law under Indian penal code and special and local laws crimes during 2014–2019 of all the State (s) and union territories of India Sources: Crime in India National (2014-2019), National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Ministry of Home Affairs, 2019

R ISK -F ACTORS A FFECTING D ELINQUENT B EHAVIOR

Studies identify that multiple risk factors are responsible for delinquent behavior categorized as individual, parental, family, community, society, schools/educational, financial, mental as well as psychological factors of the individual and the family shown in Table 1 . Adolescents involve themselves in various anti-social activities to fulfill their basic needs. Basically, “delinquency” is just a recreational activity for earning money. These risk factors differ from person to person during the early childhood period and very crucial because children, who are involved in any kind of deviant activity at an early stage, have a higher chance to adopt delinquent tendencies chronically.[ 33 ]

Developmental phases, risk-factors and developing delinquent behaviours of the child

Juvenile delinquency is caused by a wide range of factors, such as conflicts in the family, lack of proper family control, residential environmental effects, and movie influence, along with other factors are responsible for delinquent behavior.[ 3 ] Family and environmental factors, namely restrictive behaviors, improper supervision, negligence, criminal activities of parents, improper motivation by peers, fear of peer rejection, poverty, illiteracy, poor educational performance at school, lack of moral education may turn the individual personality into delinquents. Moreover, in the environment, deteriorated neighborhood, direct exposure to violence/fighting (or exposure to violence through media), violence-based movies are considered major risk factors.[ 4 ] In India, a higher level of permissive parenting in low-income families had so many family members and due to economic conditions, the adolescents had pressure to search various income sources to sustain the family, and it has affected parental behavior toward adolescents.[ 5 ] The children who belong to the lower middle-socio-economical class and are rejected by society showed more aggressive behavior.[ 6 ]

Juvenile gang members exhibit significantly higher rates of mental health issues such as conduct disorders, attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorders, antisocial personality disorder, posttraumatic-stress-disorders, and anxiety disorders.[ 7 ] As well as the intellectual level of young offenders is significantly different from nonoffenders. Emotional problems on adolescents are related to delinquent behavior and impulsivity directly associated with antisocial behavior among adolescents.[ 8 ] Poor self-control of adolescents involved them in substance use, affected harmfully, and increased involvements in anti-social activities.[ 9 ] Nonviolent people, who not involved in any gang, are less likely to utilize mental-health services, having lower levels of psychiatric morbidity, namely antisocial personality disorders, psychosis, and anxiety disorders, when compared with the group of violent offenders.[ 10 ]

M ACHINE L EARNING : A N EW Q UANTITATIVE E VALUATION A PPROACH

Machine learning (ML) is belonging to the multidisciplinary field that includes programming, math, and statistics, and as a new and dynamic field that necessitates more study. It is a branch of computer science that emerged through pattern recognition and computational learning theory of artificial intelligence. ML is exploring researches and development of algorithms that can learn and genera tea prediction besides a given set of data through the computer. It is a scope for the study that gives computers the capability to learn without being principally programmed.[ 11 ] Tom M. Mitchell explained ML as “a computer-based program to learn from action of “E” concerning any task of ‘T’s, and some performance evaluates “P,” if its performance on “T,” as assessed by “P,” improves with action of E.”[ 12 ] The goal of ML is to mimic human learning in computers.[ 13 ] Humans learn from their experiences and ML methods learn from data. The user provides a portion of a dataset designated to train by the algorithm. The algorithm creates a model based on the relationships among variables in the dataset, and the remaining dataset is used to validate the ML model. In simple words, ML approach is for risk indicator is meant to magnify the potential of current knowledge.[ 15 ] ML sits at the common frontier of many academic fields, including statistics, mathematics, computer science, and engineering.[ 14 , 17 ] ML models principally categorized into three categories, namely supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement based on their task which they are attempting to accomplish. Supervised learning is relying on a training set where some characteristics of data are known, typically labels or classes, and target to find out the universal rule that maps inputs to outputs. Unsupervised learning has no design to give to the learning algorithm, balance itself to find out the patterns through inputs. In reinforcement, interaction with a dynamic environment happens during which a particular target such as driving a vehicle is performed without a driver principally involved in any activities, namely comparison. In numerous studies, pattern classification approaches based on ML algorithms are used to forecast human beings into various categories by maximizing the distance among data groups. ML generally refers to all actions that train a computer algorithm to determine a complicated pattern of data that is conceivable used for forecast category of membership into a new theme (e.g., individual vs. controls).[ 32 ]

R ATIONAL OF THE S TUDY

In the last decade, various researchers have been attracted to the use of quantitative computer-based techniques for analyzing various psychological and clinical aspects, which have greatly contributed to the area of modern psychology. In this analysis, most of the works are devoted to the use of various quantitative analysis techniques, namely ML and statistical methods which has utilized by the researchers for evaluating various risk and protective factors of juveniles. Henceforth, studies on the application of the ML model for risk-assessment of delinquent behavior on juveniles are limited as compared to other techniques, namely logistic regression. Hence, this review paper may explore the utilization of ML to get an easy and quick assessment on juveniles and helpful for future studies. It may help to determine the most significant risk factors and establishment of a successful treatment program that prevents juveniles from delinquent activities and stops them from recidivism.

In this review, all these studies carried out which has used various quantitative techniques to detected juvenile delinquency with specially emphasis on ML and statistical approaches. The review is organized into four sections follows as: Section-I gives an overview of juvenile delinquency, prevalence rates in India, and various behavioral risk factors during the developmental period. It also provides general information about ML as a new approach and their application. Section-II included information about the methodology of the present review. Section-III explores the results and discusses which explore the ML and statistical methods for detecting juvenile behaviors and Section-IV concludes the extant research of the present review and the implications for future work.

M ETHODOLOGY

This review paper aim is to find the various quantitative techniques (computer-assisted techniques) ML and statistical approaches which have been used for assessing/predicting delinquent behaviors, traits, and risk factors among juveniles.

Sources of information

For this review article, a total of 15 research articles were identified and selected through Google-scholar, Web of Science, Academia, PubMed, and Research-Gate, using the keywords, namely juvenile-delinquency, ML, Risk-factors, and delinquent-behavior. All relevant studies were selected for review of the quantitative approaches for identifying delinquent behavior and risk factors of adolescents and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram for articles search process as shown in Figure 2 .[ 34 ]

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flow diagram for search outcomes of quantitative assessment of juvenile delinquent behaviors

Inclusion criteria

Research studies published since 2011–2019, case studies, empirical, quantitative, qualitative, and cross-sectional studies published in English were included, which used ML and statistical models to analyze behaviors, risk and associated factors among juveniles.

Exclusion criteria

Protocol, dissertations, prototype studies, and studies which published in other languages were excluded.

Studies on machine learning and statistical methods among juvenile delinquency

In this review, we performed a rigorous search of the literature to provide a narrative description of the various quantitative computer-based approaches which are applicable to assess and identify the delinquent behaviors and risk factors on juveniles. Initially, the search identified 150 articles through various databases, search outcomes show in the PRISMA flow diagram [ Figure 2 ]. One hundred and thirty-five articles were removed by screening through the title, text, removal of duplicate articles and based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified 15 research articles in full text and these selected articles comprising through expert opinions. The findings of these articles tabulated the diverse approaches on the current state of knowledge about assessment of early diagnosis of delinquent behaviors and risk factors and tried to provide a summary which based on computer-based quantitative analysis [ Table 2 ].

Summary table of relevant studies which used quantitative approach to detect delinquent behaviors and risk factors among juvenile behaviors

GLM: Generalized linear model, ML: Machine learning, PEH: Probabilistic estimation hypothesis, CAPM: Categorization of anxiety predictor model, SES: Socioeconomic status, SEM: Structural equation model

D ISCUSSION

In this systematic review, we performed a rigorous search of the literature to provide a narrative picture of various methods used to identify juveniles’ behaviors. We identified 15 articles, with the objective to analyze the application of ML and other quantitative approaches to assess various delinquent behaviors and risk factors of juveniles. The studies revealed ML is a new quantitative method to identify the risk factors and delinquent behavior henceforth; there very few studies are conducted. In this study, we tried to provide a summary of selected articles on the current state of knowledge about quantitative analysis for assessment of delinquent behaviors of juveniles and there only few articles have used ML as quantitative analysis. The City Social Welfare Development Office of Butuan, Philippines, used a dataset to create predictive models for analyzing the minors at risk and children in conflict with poor financial status. And found children with age range 12–17 years are victims of maltreatment, and adolescents between the ages of 15–17 years commit severe crimes.[ 16 ] Kim et al .[ 18 ] used traditional regression, ML method and certified the predictive validity of the models in numerous ways, along with traditional hold-out validation k-fold cross-validation, and bootstrapping to examine the present practice and policy for assessment, treatment, and management of delinquents who have a history of sexual conviction in multiple jurisdictions from New York, Florida, Oregon, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Results revealed that important risk factors among juveniles had some criminal history, sexual offending experiences, and delinquent peers. Some dynamic factors viz. performance in school, peer connection, sorrowful feelings, impulsiveness, mental health, and substance abuse are important anticipating factors among sexual offenders for recidivism.

Rokven et al .[ 19 ] used multinomial logistic regression technique to compare four types of delinquent groups: online delinquents, offline delinquents, nondelinquents, and delinquents who belong to both online and offline categories and found juveniles who having both online and offline criminal records are more likely to commit crimes. Delinquency is indirectly linked with sleep deprivation, with poor self-control acting as a catalyst proved by regression models with latent factors.[ 20 ] Violent video games directly associated with anti-social behavior, even though several correlates, such as psychopathologies has present in youth analyzed by negative binomial regression (extended version of Poisson regression).[ 22 ]

Fernández et al . analyzed through multivariate logistic regression and found, school dropouts’ teenagers had a higher level of irresponsibility, substance, and illicit drug abuse compare then nondropouts.[ 23 ] In addition, lack of parental supervision plays a significant role in the prediction of deviant behaviors on school dropouts. School dropout teenagers have multi-dimensional problem that requires proper parental supervision and proactive school policies to reducing drug and alcohol abuse.[ 23 ] Fifty-two percent of juvenile offenders had issues with academic performance, 34% had family history of psychiatric disorders, 60% of juveniles involved in property crime and 54% of offenders involved in drugs and alcohol use-related offenses had some deficiency in academic achievement evaluated by multiple regression techniques.[ 24 ] Wu (2015) created a multidimensional scaling model and found students used a complex cognitive-mechanism measured and compared their position to friends and others.[ 25 ]

Sexually assaulted history has strongly associated and one of the most powerful variables associated with the intensity of psychoactive substances using by juveniles.[ 26 ] Parks[ 28 ] has used binary logistic regression and multivariate models revealed that no major variations in violent juveniles belong to cohabiting families and other families. However, teenagers of cohabiting families have marginally higher risk to involving in nonviolent forms of crime.[ 28 ] Economic conditions of the family has strongly linked to the influences of parents, siblings, and peers at risk and delinquency. Economic stress, having an active sibling aggression, harmful, and more destructive events affected seriously on adolescent delinquent behaviors who belongs to economically poor families.[ 29 ] Coercive parents are directly associated with violent delinquency of adolescents on both ways as explicitly and indirectly and transformed shame on adolescents. As opposed to articulated guilt, shame conversion is the major cause for more violence.[ 30 ]

It is very difficult to evaluate all possible outcomes and explain a single quantitative approach as ML to early identification of delinquent behaviors and risk-factors of juveniles for intervene in the affected factors. Our study has several limitations. First, other studies rather than the English language were we not included in the study. Second, counties like India have very less evidence-based studies in the field of early detection of juveniles and computer-based assessment approaches as ML for quantitative analysis. Third, only 15 articles were considered which fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

I MPLICATION

The modern world is fully based on computers and technology for making works easy and faster. ML model is an emerging future technology in the field of health and mental health. It has the potential to predictive ability to detect health/mental health-related problems as well as for early diagnosis of problems behaviors. This review is acknowledging the use of quantitative analysis focused on ML algorithm as a new research area for early identification of delinquent behaviors of children, to prevent the deviant behaviors and related risk-factors and may be beneficial for future studies and contribute to make a peaceful society and worthful young generation for the nation.

C ONCLUSION

This review showed that available literature based on ML and other quantitative methods to identify the risk factors and delinquent behaviors of juveniles. Young peoples are at a higher risk to learn maladaptive/deviant behaviors as violent, aggressive, hyperactive, and easily involved in criminal activities. According to studies, individual factors, family environment, family structure, size/type of the family, parental status (single/separate/divorces) are highly affected adolescent’s behaviors. In addition, social, environmental, and economic conditions are lead to adapt conductive and delinquent behaviors. There highly need to identify delinquent behaviors in the initial stage to prevent with affected risk factors. It is very crucial for early screening and intervention.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

Authors acknowledge to Department of Science and Technology- Cognitive Science Research Initiative (DST-CSRI) for sponsored the project in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, India, which explores the technology-based approach in multidisciplinary works. The authors also would like to thank Mr. Abhinash Jenasamanta and Mr. Devesh Upadhyay, Research Scholars, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, BIT, Mesra, Ranchi, for technical and motivational support.

R EFERENCES

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency: A review of the research

1993, Clinical Psychology Review

Related Papers

Andrea Müller-Fabian

Sa'odah Ahmad

This paper presents an overview of the juvenile delinquency concept, trends in the delinquency problem, factors that have been linked to delinquency, governmental efforts to reduce and/or prevent the problem. Some suggestions are made to improve prevention and rehabilitation efforts to curb juvenile delinquency.

Family Court Review

Matthew Ream

David Petechuk

Criminal Justice Review

Crystal Huggard

Journal of Exploratory Studies in Law and Management

World of Researches Publication WRP

The American juvenile justice system has undergone many changes since its inception. U.S. juvenile courts initially followed the correctional model. With the increasing rate of recidivism and also the increase in the commission of violent crimes by children, especially in the 9s and 8s of the twentieth century, the juvenile justice system moved away from the model of correction and education. It tended to the "constructive justice model" after the model Correctional Education and the Punitive Justice Model. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the juvenile justice system in the United States has shifted to the restorative justice model.

Troy Allard

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Lyceum of the Philippines University Batangas

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis

Romelyn Gonzales

Edward Mulvey

Shayne Issurdatt

American Psychologist

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Jonathan Tubman

Leena Augimeri

Behavioral Sciences & the Law

William Davidson

isara solutions

International Research Journal Commerce arts science

Tolera Negassa

Dr. Ivan D Mclaughlin

Sociological Inquiry

Dr S M R I T I K A N A GHOSH

Alex Piquero

Russell Eisenman

Clinical Psychology Review

Ian Lambie , Isabel Randell

paschal ikechukwu

Criminology & Public Policy

Gabrielle Chapman

Social Policy and Administration

Cathryn Potter

Rachele Espiritu

Journal of Experimental Criminology

John Lochman

Siniša Franjić

Luz Victoria Araujo Morales

Gabrielle Chapman , Walter Gove

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice (2001)

Chapter: the development of delinquency, the development of delinquency.

Research over the past few decades on normal child development and on development of delinquent behavior has shown that individual, social, and community conditions as well as their interactions influence behavior. There is general agreement that behavior, including antisocial and delinquent behavior, is the result of a complex interplay of individual biological and genetic factors and environmental factors, starting during fetal development and continuing throughout life (Bock and Goode, 1996). Clearly, genes affect biological development, but there is no biological development without environmental input. Thus, both biology and environment influence behavior.

Many children reach adulthood without involvement in serious delinquent behavior, even in the face of multiple risks. Although risk factors may help identify which children are most in need of preventive interventions, they cannot identify which particular children will become serious or chronic offenders. It has long been known that most adult criminals were involved in delinquent behavior as children and adolescents; most delinquent children and adolescents, however, do not grow up to be adult criminals (Robins, 1978). Similarly, most serious, chronically delinquent children and adolescents experience a number of risk factors at various levels, but most children and adolescents with risk factors do not become serious, chronic delinquents. Furthermore, any individual factor contributes only a small part to the increase in risk. It is, however, widely recognized that the more risk factors a child or adolescent experiences, the higher their risk for delinquent behavior.

A difficulty with the literature on risk factors is the diversity of the outcome behaviors studied. Some studies focus on behavior that meets diagnostic criteria for conduct disorder or other antisocial behavior disorders; others look at aggressive behavior, or lying, or shoplifting; still others rely on juvenile court referral or arrest as the outcome of interest. Furthermore, different risk factors and different outcomes may be more salient at some stages of child and adolescent development than at others.

Much of the literature that has examined risk factors for delinquency is based on longitudinal studies, primarily of white males. Some of the samples were specifically chosen from high-risk environments. Care must be taken in generalizing this literature to girls and minorities and to general populations. Nevertheless, over the past 20 years, much has been learned about risks for antisocial and delinquent behavior.

This chapter is not meant to be a comprehensive overview of all the literature on risk factors. Rather it focuses on factors that are most relevant to prevention efforts. (For reviews of risk factor literature, see, for example, Hawkins et al., 1998; Lipsey and Derzon, 1998; Rutter et al., 1998.) The chapter discusses risk factors for offending, beginning with risks at the individual level, including biological, psychological, behavioral, and cognitive factors. Social-level risk factors are discussed next; these include family and peer relationships. Finally, community-level risk factors, including school and neighborhood attributes, are examined. Although individual, social, and community-level factors interact, each level is discussed separately for clarity.

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL RISK FACTORS

A large number of individual factors and characteristics has been associated with the development of juvenile delinquency. These individual factors include age, gender, complications during pregnancy and delivery, impulsivity, aggressiveness, and substance use. Some factors operate before birth (prenatal) or close to, during, and shortly after birth (perinatal); some can be identified in early childhood; and other factors may not be evident until late childhood or during adolescence. To fully appreciate the development of these individual characteristics and their relations to delinquency, one needs to study the development of the individual in interaction with the environment. In order to simplify presentation of the research, however, this section deals only with individual factors.

Studies of criminal activity by age consistently find that rates of offending begin to rise in preadolescence or early adolescence, reach a peak in

late adolescence, and fall through young adulthood (see, e.g., Farrington, 1986a; National Research Council, 1986). Some lawbreaking experience at some time during adolescence is nearly universal in American children, although much of this behavior is reasonably mild and temporary. Although the exact age of onset, peak, and age of desistance varies by offense, the general pattern has been remarkably consistent over time, in different countries, and for official and self-reported data. For example, Farrington (1983, 1986a), in a longitudinal study of a sample of boys in London (the Cambridge Longitudinal Study), found an eightfold increase in the number of different boys convicted of delinquent behavior from age 10 to age 17, followed by a decrease to a quarter of the maximum level by age 24. The number of self-reported offenses in the same sample also peaked between ages 15 and 18, then dropped sharply by age 24. In a longitudinal study of boys in inner-city Pittsburgh (just over half the sample was black and just under half was white), the percentage of boys who self-reported serious delinquent behavior rose from 5 percent at age 6 to about 18 percent for whites and 27 percent for blacks at age 16 (Loeber et al., 1998). A longitudinal study of a representative sample from high-risk neighborhoods in Denver also found a growth in the self-reported prevalence of serious violence from age 10 through late adolescence (Kelley et al., 1997). Females in the Denver sample exhibited a peak in serious violence in midadolescence, but prevalence continued to increase through age 19 for the boys. The study is continuing to follow these boys to see if their prevalence drops in early adulthood. Laub et al. (1998), using the Gluecks' data on 500 juvenile offenders from the 1940s, found that only 25 percent of them were still offending by age 32.

Much research has concentrated on the onset of delinquency, examining risk factors for onset, and differences between those who begin offending early (prior to adolescence) versus those who begin offending in midadolescence. There have been suggestions that early-onset delinquents are more likely than later-onset delinquents to be more serious and persistent offenders (e.g., Moffitt, 1993). There is evidence, however, that predictors associated with onset do not predict persistence particularly well (Farrington and Hawkins, 1991). There are also important problems with the choice of statistical models to create categories of developmental trajectories (Nagin and Tremblay, 1999).

Research by Nagin and Tremblay (1999) found no evidence of late-onset physical aggression. Physical aggression was highest at age 6 (the earliest age for which data were collected for this study) and declined into adolescence. The available data on very young children indicates that frequency of physical aggression reaches a peak around age 2 and then slowly declines up to adolescence (Restoin et al., 1985; Tremblay et al., 1996a).

Those who persist in offending into adulthood may differ from those who desist in a number of ways, including attachment to school, military service (Elder, 1986; Sampson and Laub, 1996), sex, age of onset of offending, incarceration, and adult social bonds (e.g., marriage, quality of marriage, job stability) (Farrington and West, 1995; Quinton et al., 1993; Quinton and Rutter, 1988; Sampson and Laub, 1990). Sampson and Laub (1993) found that marital attachment and job stability significantly reduced deviant behavior in adulthood. Farrington and West (1995) found that offenders and nonoffenders were equally likely to get married, but those who got married and lived with their spouse decreased their offending more than those who remained single or who did not live with their spouse. They also found that offending increased after separation from a spouse. Similarly, Horney et al. (1995) found that married male offenders decreased their offending when living with their spouses and resumed it when not living with them. Within marriages, only good marriages predicted reduction in crime, and these had an increasing effect over time (Laub et al., 1998). Warr (1998) also found that offending decreased after marriage but attributed the decrease to a reduction in the time spent with peers and a reduction in the number of deviant peers following marriage rather than to increased attachment to conventional society through marriage.

Laub et al. (1998) found no difference between persisters and desisters in most family characteristics during childhood (e.g., poverty, parental alcohol abuse or crime, discipline, supervision) or in most individual differences in childhood (e.g., aggression, tantrums, difficult child, verbal IQ). Brannigan (1997) points out that crime is highest when males have the fewest resources, and it lasts longest in those with the fewest investments in society (job, wife, children). Crime is not an effective strategy for getting resources. There is evidence that chronic offenders gain fewer resources than nonoffenders, after the adolescent period (Moffitt, 1993).

The evidence for desistance in girls is not clear. One review of the literature suggests that 25 to 50 percent of antisocial girls commit crimes as adults (Pajer, 1998). There is also some evidence that women are less likely to be recidivists, and that they end their criminal careers earlier than men (Kelley et al., 1997). However, the sexes appear to become more similar with time in rates of all but violent crimes. There is a suggestion that women who persist in crime past adolescence may be more disturbed than men who persist (Jordan et al., 1996; Pajer, 1998).

Prenatal and Perinatal Factors

Several studies have found an association between prenatal and perinatal complications and later delinquent or criminal behavior (Kandel et

al., 1989; Kandel and Mednick, 1991; Raine et al., 1994). Prenatal and perinatal risk factors represent a host of latent and manifest conditions that influence subsequent development.

Many studies use the terms “prenatal or perinatal complications” to describe what is a very heterogeneous set of latent and clinical conditions. Under the heading of prenatal factors, one finds a broad variety of conditions that occurs before birth through the seventh month of gestation (Kopp and Krakow, 1983). Similarly, perinatal factors include conditions as varied as apnea of prematurity (poor breathing) to severe respiratory distress syndrome. The former condition is relatively benign, while the latter is often life-threatening. Although they are risk factors, low birthweight and premature birth do not necessarily presage problems in development.

Prenatal and perinatal risk factors may compromise the nervous system, creating vulnerabilities in the child that can lead to abnormal behavior. Children with prenatal and perinatal complications who live in impoverished, deviant, or abusive environments face added difficulties. According to three major large-scale, long-term studies: (1) developmental risks have additive negative effects on child outcomes, (2) most infants with perinatal complications develop into normally functioning children, and (3) children with long-term negative outcomes who suffered perinatal complications more often than not came from socially disadvantaged backgrounds (Brennan and Mednick, 1997; Broman et al., 1975; Drillien et al., 1980; Werner et al., 1971).

Mednick and colleagues (Brennan and Mednick, 1997; Kandel and Mednick, 1991; Raine et al., 1994) have conducted several investigations in an attempt to elucidate the relationship between criminal behavior and perinatal risk. These and other studies have been unable to identify specific mechanisms to account for the fact that the number of prenatal and perinatal abnormalities tend to correlate with the probability that a child will become a criminal. In addition to the lack of specificity regarding the predictors and the mechanisms of risk, similar measures predict learning disabilities, mental retardation, minimal brain dysfunction, and others (Towbin, 1978). An association between perinatal risk factors and violent offending is particularly strong among offenders whose parents are mentally ill or very poor (Raine et al., 1994, 1997).

Most measures indicate that males are more likely to commit crimes. They are also more vulnerable to prenatal and perinatal stress, as is shown through studies of negative outcomes, including death (Davis and Emory, 1995; Emory et al., 1996).

Hyperactivity, attention problems, and impulsiveness in children have been found to be associated with delinquency. These behaviors can be assessed very early in life and are associated with certain prenatal and perinatal histories (DiPietro et al., 1996; Emory and Noonan, 1984; Lester

et al., 1976; Sameroff and Chandler, 1975). For example, exposure to environmental toxins, such as prenatal lead exposure at very low levels, tends to adversely affect neonatal motor and attentional performance (Emory et al., 1999). Hyperactivity and aggression are associated with prenatal alcohol exposure (Brown et al., 1991; Institute of Medicine, 1996). Prenatal exposure to alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and nicotine appear to have similar effects. Each tends to be associated with hyperactivity, attention deficit, and impulsiveness (Karr-Morse and Wiley, 1997).

Individual Capabilities, Competencies, and Characteristics

In recent investigations, observable behaviors, such as duration of attention to a toy and compliance with mother's instructions not to touch an object, that are particularly relevant to later misbehavior are observable in the first year of life (Kochanska et al., 1998). However, the ability to predict behavior at later ages (in adolescence and adulthood) from such traits early in life is not yet known. Aggressive behavior is nevertheless one of the more stable dimensions, and significant stability may be seen from toddlerhood to adulthood (Tremblay, 2000).

The social behaviors that developmentalists study during childhood can be divided into two broad categories: prosocial and antisocial. Prosocial behaviors include helping, sharing, and cooperation, while antisocial behaviors include different forms of oppositional and aggressive behavior. The development of empathy, guilt feelings, social cognition, and moral reasoning are generally considered important emotional and cognitive correlates of social development.

Impulsivity and hyperactivity have both been associated with later antisocial behavior (Rutter et al., 1998). The social behavior characteristics that best predict delinquent behavior, however, are physical aggression and oppositionality (Lahey et al., 1999; Nagin and Tremblay, 1999). Most children start manifesting these behaviors between the end of the first and second years. The peak level in frequency of physical aggression is generally reached between 24 and 36 months, an age at which the consequences of the aggression are generally relatively minor (Goodenough, 1931; Sand, 1966; Tremblay et al., 1996a, 1999a). By entry into kindergarten, the majority of children have learned to use other means than physical aggression to get what they want and to solve conflicts. Those who have not learned, who are oppositional and show few prosocial behaviors toward peers, are at high risk of being rejected by their peers, of failing in school, and eventually of getting involved in serious delinquency (Farrington and Wikstrom, 1994; Huesmann et al., 1984; Miller and Eisenberg, 1988; Nagin and Tremblay, 1999; Tremblay et al., 1992a, 1994; White et al., 1990).

The differentiation of emotions and emotional regulation occurs during the 2-year period, from 12 months to 36 months, when the frequency of physical aggression increases sharply and then decreases almost as sharply (Tremblay, 2000; Tremblay et al., 1996a, 1999a). A number of longitudinal studies have shown that children who are behaviorally inhibited (shy, anxious) are less at risk of juvenile delinquency, while children who tend to be fearless, those who are impulsive, and those who have difficulty delaying gratification are more at risk of delinquent behavior (Blumstein et al., 1984; Ensminger et al., 1983; Kerr et al., 1997; Mischel et al., 1989; Tremblay et al., 1994).

A large number of studies report that delinquents have a lower verbal IQ compared with nondelinquents, as well as lower school achievement (Fergusson and Horwood, 1995; Maguin and Loeber, 1996; Moffitt, 1997). Antisocial youth also tend to show cognitive deficits in the areas of executive functions 1 (Moffitt et al., 1994; Seguin et al., 1995), perception of social cues, and problem-solving processing patterns (Dodge et al., 1997; Huesmann, 1988). The association between cognitive deficits and delinquency remains after controlling for social class and race (Moffitt, 1990; Lynam et al., 1993). Few studies, however, have assessed cognitive functioning during the preschool years or followed the children into adolescence to understand the long-term link between early cognitive deficits and juvenile delinquency. The studies that did look at children 's early cognitive development have shown that poor language performance by the second year after birth, poor fine motor skills by the third year, and low IQ by kindergarten were all associated with later antisocial behavior (Kopp and Krakow, 1983; Stattin and Klackenberg-Larsson, 1993; White et al., 1990). Stattin and Klackenberg-Larsson (1993) found that the association between poor early language performance and later criminal behavior remained significant even after controlling for socioeconomic status.

Epidemiological studies have found a correlation between language delay and aggressive behavior (Richman et al., 1982). Language delays may contribute to poor peer relations that, in turn, result in aggression (Campbell, 1990a). The long-term impact of cognitively oriented preschool programs on the reduction of antisocial behavior is a more direct indication that fostering early cognitive development can play an important role in the prevention of juvenile delinquency (Schweinhart et al., 1993; Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997). It is important to note that since poor cognitive abilities and problem behaviors in the preschool years also

lead to poor school performance, they probably explain a large part of the association observed during adolescence between school failure and delinquency (Fergusson and Horwood, 1995; Maguin and Loeber, 1996; Tremblay et al., 1992).

Several mental health disorders of childhood have been found to put children at risk for future delinquent behavior. Conduct disorder is often diagnosed when a child is troublesome and breaking rules or norms but not necessarily doing illegal behavior, especially at younger ages. This behavior may include lying, bullying, cruelty to animals, fighting, and truancy. Most adolescents in U.S. society at some time engage in illegal behaviors, whether some kind of theft, aggression, or status offense. Many adolescents, in the period during which they engage in these behaviors, are likely to meet formal criteria for conduct disorder. Behavior characterized by willful disobedience and defiance is considered a different disorder (oppositional defiant disorder), but often occurs in conjunction with conduct disorder and may precede it.

Several prospective longitudinal studies have found that children with attention and hyperactivity problems, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, show high levels of antisocial and aggressive behavior (Campbell, 1990b; Hechtman et al., 1984; Loney et al., 1982; Sanson et al., 1993; Satterfield et al., 1982). Early hyperactivity and attention problems without concurrent aggression, however, appear not to be related to later aggressive behavior (Loeber, 1988; Magnusson and Bergman, 1990; Nagin and Tremblay, 1999), although a few studies do report such relationships (Gittelman et al., 1985; Mannuzza et al., 1993, 1991).

Another disorder that is often associated with antisocial behavior and conduct disorder is major depressive disorder, particularly in girls (Kovacs, 1996; Offord et al., 1986; Renouf and Harter, 1990). It is hypothesized that depression during adolescence may be “a central pathway through which girls' serious antisocial behavior develops ” (Obeidallah and Earls, 1999:1). In girls, conduct disorder may be a kind of manifestation of the hopelessness, frustration, and low self-esteem that often characterizes major depression.

For juveniles as well as adults, the use of drugs and alcohol is common among offenders. In 1998, about half of juvenile arrestees in the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program tested positive for at least one drug. In these same cities, 2 about two-thirds of adult arrestees tested

positive for at least one drug (National Institute of Justice, 1999). Of course, drug use is a criminal offense on its own, and for juveniles, alcohol use is also a status delinquent offense. A number of studies have consistently found that as the seriousness of offending goes up, so does the seriousness of drug use as measured both by frequency of use and type of drug (see Huizinga and Jakob-Chien, 1998). In the longitudinal studies of causes and correlates of delinquency in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester (see Thornberry et al., 1995), serious offenders had a higher prevalence of drug and alcohol use than did minor offenders or nonoffenders. In addition, about three-quarters of drug users in each sample were also involved in serious delinquency (Huizinga and Jakob-Chien, 1998). Similarly, in the Denver Youth Survey, serious offenders had the highest prevalence and frequency of use of alcohol and marijuana of all youth in the study. Nevertheless, only about one-third of serious delinquents were problem drug users (Huizinga and Jakob-Chien, 1998).

Although there appears to be a relationship between alcohol and drug use and criminal delinquency, not all delinquents use alcohol or drugs, nor do all alcohol and drug users commit delinquent acts (other than the alcohol or drug use itself). Those who are both serious delinquents and serious drug users may be involved in a great deal of crime, however. Johnson et al. (1991) found that the small group (less than 5 percent of a national sample) who were both serious delinquents and serious drug users accounted for over half of all serious crimes. Neverthless, it would be premature to conclude that serious drug use causes serious crime (McCord, 2001).

Whatever characteristics individuals have, resulting personalities and behavior are influenced by the social environments in which they are raised. Characteristics of individuals always develop in social contexts.

SOCIAL FACTORS

Children's and adolescents' interactions and relationships with family and peers influence the development of antisocial behavior and delinquency. Family interactions are most important during early childhood, but they can have long-lasting effects. In early adolescence, relationships with peers take on greater importance. This section will first consider factors within the family that have been found to be associated with the development of delinquency and then consider peer influences on delinquent behavior. Note that issues concerning poverty and race are dealt with under the community factors section of this chapter. Chapter 7 deals specifically with issues concerning race.

Family Influences

In assigning responsibility for childrearing to parents, most Western cultures place a heavy charge on families. Such cultures assign parents the task of raising children to follow society's rules for acceptable behavior. It should be no surprise, therefore, when families have difficulties with the task laid on them, that the product often is juvenile delinquency (Kazdin, 1997). Family structure (who lives in a household) and family functioning (how the family members treat one another) are two general categories under which family effects on delinquency have been examined.

Family Structure

Before embarking on a review of the effects of family structure, it is important to raise the question of mechanisms (Rutter et al., 1998). It may not be the family structure itself that increases the risk of delinquency, but rather some other factor that explains why that structure is present. Alternatively, a certain family structure may increase the risk of delinquency, but only as one more stressor in a series; it may be the number rather than specific nature of the stressors that is harmful.

Historically, one aspect of family structure that has received a great deal of attention as a risk factor for delinquency is growing up in a family that has experienced separation or divorce. 3 Although many studies have found an association between broken homes and delinquency (Farrington and Loeber, 1999; Rutter and Giller, 1983; Wells and Rankin, 1991; Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985), there is considerable debate about the meaning of the association. For example, longitudinal studies have found an increased level of conduct disorder and behavioral disturbance in children of divorcing parents before the divorce took place (Block et al., 1986; Cherlin et al., 1991). Capaldi and Patterson (1991) showed that disruptive parenting practices and antisocial personality of the parent(s) accounted for apparent effects of divorce and remarriage. Thus, it is likely that the increased risk of delinquency experienced among children of broken homes is related to the family conflict prior to the divorce or separation, rather than to family breakup itself (Rutter et al., 1998). In their longitudinal study of family disruption, Juby and Farrington (2001) found that boys who stayed with their mothers following disruption had delinquency rates that were almost identical to those reared in intact families.

Being born and raised in a single-parent family has also been associated with increased risk of delinquency and antisocial behavior. Research that takes into account the socioeconomic conditions of single-parent households and other risks, including disciplinary styles and problems in supervising and monitoring children, show that these other factors account for the differential outcomes in these families. The important role of socioeconomic conditions is shown by the absence of differences in delinquency between children in single-parent and two-parent homes within homogeneous socioeconomic classes (Austin, 1978). Careful analyses of juvenile court cases in the United States shows that economic conditions rather than family composition influenced children 's delinquency (Chilton and Markle, 1972). Statistical controls for the mothers' age and poverty have been found to remove effects attributed to single-parent families (Crockett et al., 1993). Furthermore, the significance of being born to a single mother has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. In 1970, 10.7 percent of all births in the United States were to unmarried women (U.S. Census Bureau, 1977). By 1997, births to unmarried women accounted for 32.4 percent of U.S. births (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). As Rutter and colleagues (1998:185) noted about similar statistics in the United Kingdom: “It cannot be assumed that the risks for antisocial behavior (from being born to a single parent) evident in studies of children born several decades ago will apply to the present generation of births. ” Recent work seems to bear out this conclusion. Gorman-Smith and colleagues found no association between single parenthood and delinquency in a poor, urban U.S. community (Gorman-Smith et al., 1999).

Nevertheless, children in single-parent families are more likely to be exposed to other criminogenic influences, such as frequent changes in the resident father figure (Johnson, 1987; Stern et al., 1984). Single parents often find it hard to get assistance (Ensminger et al., 1983; Spicer and Hampe, 1975). If they must work to support themselves and their families, they are likely to have difficulty providing supervision for their children. Poor supervision is associated with the development of delinquency (Dornbusch et al., 1985; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Hirschi, 1969; Jensen, 1972; Maccoby, 1958; McCord, 1979, 1982). Summarizing their work on race, family structure, and delinquency in white and black families, Matsueda and Heimer (1987:836) noted: “Yet in both racial groups non-intact homes influence delinquency through a similar process—by attenuating parental supervision, which in turn increases delinquent companions, prodelinquent definitions, and, ultimately, delinquent behavior.” It looks as if the effects of living with a single parent vary with the amount of supervision, as well as the emotional and economic resources that the parent is able to bring to the situation.

A number of studies have found that children born to teenage mothers

are more likely to be not only delinquent, but also chronic juvenile offenders (Farrington and Loeber, 1999; Furstenberg et al., 1987; Kolvin et al., 1990; Maynard, 1997; Nagin et al., 1997). An analysis of children born in 1974 and 1975 in Washington state found that being born to a mother under age 18 tripled the risk of being chronic offender. Males born to unmarried mothers under age 18 were 11 times more likely to become chronic juvenile offenders than were males born to married mothers over the age of 20 (Conseur et al., 1997).

What accounts for the increase in risk from having a young mother? Characteristics of women who become teenage parents appear to account for some of the risk. Longitudinal studies in both Britain and the United States have found that girls who exhibit antisocial behavior are at increased risk of teenage motherhood, of having impulsive liaisons with antisocial men, and of having parenting difficulties (Maughan and Lindelow, 1997; Quinton et al., 1993; Quinton and Rutter, 1988). In Grogger's analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Study of youth, both within-family comparisons and multivariate analysis showed that the characteristics and backgrounds of the women who became teenage mothers accounted for a large part of the risk of their offsprings' delinquency (Grogger, 1997), but the age at which the mother gave birth also contributed to the risk. A teenager who becomes pregnant is also more likely than older mothers to be poor, to be on welfare, to have curtailed her education, and to deliver a baby with low birthweight. Separately or together, these correlates of teenage parenthood have been found to increase risk for delinquency (Rutter et al., 1998). Nagin et al. (1997), in an analysis of data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, found that the risk of criminality was increased for children in large families born to women who began childbearing as a teenager. They concluded that “the onset of early childbearing is not a cause of children's subsequent problem behavior, but rather is a marker for a set of behaviors and social forces that give rise to adverse consequences for the life chances of children” (Nagin et al., 1997:423).

Children raised in families of four or more children have an increased risk of delinquency (Farrington and Loeber, 1999; Rutter and Giller, 1983). It has been suggested that large family size is associated with less adequate discipline and supervision of children, and that it is the parenting difficulties that account for much of the association with delinquency (Farrington and Loeber, 1999). Work by Offord (1982) points to the influence of delinquent siblings rather than to parenting qualities. Rowe and Farrington (1997), in an analysis of a London longitudinal study, found that there was a tendency for antisocial individuals to have large families. The effect of family size on delinquency was reduced when parents' criminality was taken into account.

Family Interaction

Even in intact, two-parent families, children may not receive the supervision, training, and advocacy needed to ensure a positive developmental course. A number of studies have found that poor parental management and disciplinary practices are associated with the development of delinquent behavior. Failure to set clear expectations for children 's behavior, inconsistent discipline, excessively severe or aggressive discipline, and poor monitoring and supervision of children predict later delinquency (Capaldi and Patterson, 1996; Farrington, 1989; Hawkins et al., 1995b; McCord, 1979). As Patterson (1976, 1995) indicates through his research, parents who nag or use idle threats are likely to generate coercive systems in which children gain control through misbehaving. Several longitudinal studies investigating the effects of punishment on aggressive behavior have shown that physical punishments are more likely to result in defiance than compliance (McCord, 1997b; Power and Chapieski, 1986; Strassberg et al., 1994). Perhaps the best grounds for believing that family interaction influences delinquency are programs that alter parental management techniques and thereby benefit siblings as well as reduce delinquent behavior by the child whose conduct brought the parents into the program (Arnold et al., 1975; Kazdin, 1997; Klein et al., 1977; Tremblay et al., 1995).

Consistent discipline, supervision, and affection help to create well-socialized adolescents (Austin, 1978; Bender, 1947; Bowlby, 1940; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Goldfarb, 1945; Hirschi, 1969; Laub and Sampson, 1988; McCord, 1991; Sampson and Laub, 1993). Furthermore, reductions in delinquency between the ages of 15 and 17 years appear to be related to friendly interaction between teenagers and their parents, a situation that seems to promote school attachment and stronger family ties (Liska and Reed, 1985). In contrast, children who have suffered parental neglect have an increased risk of delinquency. Widom (1989) and McCord (1983) both found that children who had been neglected were as likely as those who had been physically abused to commit violent crimes later in life. In their review of many studies investigating relationships between socialization in families and juvenile delinquency, Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986) concluded that parental neglect had the largest impact.

Child abuse, as well as neglect, has been implicated in the development of delinquent behavior. In three quite different prospective studies from different parts of the country, childhood abuse and neglect have been found to increase a child's risk of delinquency (Maxfield and Widom, 1996; Smith and Thornberry, 1995; Widom, 1989; Zingraff et al., 1993). These studies examined children of different ages, cases of childhood abuse and neglect from different time periods, different definitions of

child abuse and neglect, and both official and self-reports of offending, but came to the same conclusions. The findings are true for girls as well as boys, and for black as well as for white children. In addition, abused and neglected children start offending earlier than children who are not abused or neglected, and they are more likely to become chronic offenders (Maxfield and Widom, 1996). Victims of childhood abuse and neglect are also at higher risk than other children of being arrested for a violent crime as a juvenile (Maxfield and Widom, 1996).

There are problems in carrying out scientific investigations of each of these components as predictors of juvenile delinquency. First, these behaviors are not empirically independent of one another. Parents who do not watch their young children consistently are less likely to prevent destructive or other unwanted behaviors and therefore more likely to punish. Parents who are themselves unclear about what they expect of their children are likely to be inconsistent and to be unclear in communications with their children. Parenting that involves few positive shared parent-child activities will often also involve less monitoring and more punishing. Parents who reject their children or who express hostility toward them are more likely to punish them. Parents who punish are more likely to punish too much (abuse).

Another problem is the lack of specificity of effects of problems in childrearing practices. In general, problems in each of these areas are likely to be associated with problems of a variety of types —performance and behavior in school, with peers, with authorities, and eventually with partners and offspring. There are also some children who appear to elicit punishing behavior from parents, and this may predate such parenting. Therefore, it is necessary to take account of children's behavior as a potential confounder of the relationship between early parenting and later child problems, because harsh parenting may be a response to a particular child's behavior (Tremblay, 1995). It is also possible that unnecessarily harsh punishment is more frequently and intensely used by parents who are themselves more aggressive and antisocial. Children of antisocial parents are at heightened risk for aggressive, antisocial, and delinquent behavior (e.g., McCord, 1991; Serbin et al., 1998).

Social Setting

Where a family lives affects the nature of opportunities that will be available to its members. In some communities, public transportation permits easy travel for those who do not own automobiles. Opportunities for employment and entertainment extend beyond the local boundaries. In other communities, street-corner gatherings open possibilities for illegal activities. Lack of socially acceptable opportunities leads to frustra-

tion and a search for alternative means to success. Community-based statistics show high correlations among joblessness, household disruption, housing density, infant deaths, poverty, and crime (Sampson, 1987, 1992).

Community variations may account for the fact that some varieties of family life have different effects on delinquency in different communities (Larzelere and Patterson, 1990; Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz, 1986). In general, consistent friendly parental guidance seems to protect children from delinquency regardless of neighborhoods. But poor socialization practices seem to be more potent in disrupted neighborhoods (McCord, 2000).

Neighborhoods influence children's behavior by providing examples of the values that people hold, and these examples influence children's perception of what is acceptable behavior. Communities in which criminal activities are common tend to establish criminal behavior as acceptable. Tolerance for gang activities varies by community (Curry and Spergel, 1988; Horowitz, 1987).

In sum, family life influences delinquency in a variety of ways. Children reared by affectionate, consistent parents are unlikely to commit serious crimes either as juveniles or as adults. Children reared by parents who neglect or reject them are likely to be greatly influenced by their community environments. When communities offer opportunities for and examples of criminal behavior, children reared by neglecting or rejecting parents are more likely to become delinquents. And delinquents are likely to become inadequate parents.

Peer Influences

A very robust finding in the delinquency literature is that antisocial behavior is strongly related to involvement with deviant peers. One longitudinal study reported that involvement with antisocial peers was the only variable that had a direct effect on subsequent delinquency other than prior delinquency (Elliott et al., 1985). Factors such as peer delinquent behavior, peer approval of deviant behavior, attachment or allegiance to peers, time spent with peers, and peer pressure for deviance have all been associated with adolescent antisocial behavior (Hoge et al., 1994; Thornberry et al., 1994). In other words, the effects of deviant peers on delinquency are heightened if adolescents believe that their peers approve of delinquency, if they are attached to those peers, if they spend much time with them, and if they perceive pressure from those peers to engage in delinquent acts.

There is a dramatic increase during adolescence in the amount of time adolescents spend with their friends, and peers become increasingly

important during this developmental period. Moreover, peers appear to be most important during late adolescence, with their importance peaking at about age 17 and declining thereafter (Warr, 1993). Thus the decline in delinquency after about age 18 parallels the decline in the importance of peers, including those with deviant influences. Consistent with this view, in the longitudinal research of antisocial British youth by West and Farrington (1977), deviant youth reported that withdrawal from delinquent peer affiliations was an important factor in desistance from offending.

Peer influences appear to have a particularly strong relationship to delinquency in the context of family conflict. For example, adolescents ' lack of respect for their parents influenced their antisocial behavior only because it led to increases in antisocial peer affiliations (Simmons et al., 1991). Patterson et al. (1991) showed that association with deviant peers in 6th grade could be predicted from poor parental monitoring and antisocial activity in 4th grade. And 6th grade association with deviant peers, in turn, predicted delinquency in 8th grade. In adolescence, susceptibility to peer influence is inversely related to interaction with parents (Kandel, 1980; Kandel and Andrews, 1987; Steinberg, 1987).

Other research suggests that adolescents usually become involved with delinquent peers before they become delinquent themselves (Elliott, 1994b; Elliott et al., 1985; Simons et al., 1994). In those cases in which an adolescent was delinquent prior to having delinquent friends, the delinquency was exacerbated by association with deviant peers (Elliott, 1994b; Elliott and Menard, 1996; Thornberry et al., 1993).

The influence of peers varies depending on the influence of parents. In general, peer influence is greater among children and adolescents who have little interaction with their parents (Kandel et al., 1978; Steinberg, 1987). Parents seem to have more influence on the use of drugs among working-class than among middle-class families, and among blacks more than whites (Biddle et al., 1980). Parents also appear to be more influential for the initial decision whether to use any drugs than for ongoing decisions about how and when to use them (Kandel and Andrews, 1987). Patterson and his coworkers emphasize both family socialization practices and association with deviant peers as having strong influences on the onset of delinquency. He hypothesized that “the more antisocial the child, the earlier he or she will become a member of a deviant peer group” (Patterson and Yoerger, 1997:152).

Adolescents report an increasing admiration of defiant and antisocial behavior and less admiration of conventional virtues and talents from age 10 to age 18. They also consistently report that their peers are more antisocial and less admiring of conventional virtues than they are. At age 11, boys report peer admiration of antisocial behavior at a level that is equivalent to what peers actually report at age 17 (Cohen and Cohen,

1996). Adolescents may be more influenced by what they think their peers are doing than by what they actually are doing (Radecki and Jaccard, 1995).

Not only may association with delinquent peers influence delinquent behavior, but also committing a crime with others—co-offending—is a common phenomenon among adolescents (Cohen, 1955; Reiss and Farrington, 1991; Reiss, 1988; Sarnecki, 1986). Much of this behavior occurs in relatively unstable pairings or small groups, not in organized gangs (Klein, 1971; Reiss, 1988). The fact that teenagers commit most of their crimes in pairs or groups does not, of course, prove that peers influence delinquency. Such an influence may be inferred, however, from the increase in crime that followed successful organization of gangs in Los Angeles (Klein, 1971). More direct evidence comes from a study by Dishion and his colleagues. Their research points to reinforcement processes as a reason why deviance increases when misbehaving youngsters get together. Delinquent and nondelinquent boys brought a friend to the laboratory. Conversations were videotaped and coded to show positive and neutral responses by the partner. Among the delinquent pairs, misbehavior received approving responses—in contrast with the nondelinquent dyads, who ignored talk about deviance (Dishion et al., 1996). In addition, reinforcement of deviant talk was associated with violent behavior, even after statistically controlling the boys ' histories of antisocial behavior and parental use of harsh, inconsistent, and coercive discipline (Dishion et al., 1997).

The powerful influence of peers has probably not been adequately acknowledged in interventions designed to reduce delinquency and antisocial behavior. Regarding school-based interventions, among the least effective, and at times harmful, are those that aggregate deviant youth without adult supervision, such as in peer counseling and peer mediation (Gottfredson et al., 1998). Furthermore, high-risk youth are particularly likely to support and reinforce one another 's deviant behavior (e.g., in discussions of rule breaking) when they are grouped together for intervention. Dishion and his colleagues have labeled this process “deviancy training,” which was shown to be associated with later increases in substance use, delinquency, and violence (see the review in Dishion et al., 1999). They argued that youth who are reinforced for deviancy through laughter or attention, for example, are more likely to actually engage in deviant behavior. It is evident that intervenors need to give serious attention to the composition of treatment groups, especially in school settings. It may be more fruitful to construct intervention groups so that low- and moderate-risk youth are included with their high-risk counterparts to minimize the possibility of deviancy training and harmful intervention effects.

Studies of gang participants suggest that, compared with offenders who are not gang members, gang offenders tend to be younger when they begin their criminal careers, are more likely to be violent in public places, and are more likely to use guns (Maxson et al., 1985). Several studies have shown that gang membership is associated with high rates of criminal activities (e.g., Battin et al., 1998; Esbensen et al., 1993; Huff, 1998; Thornberry, 1998; Thornberry et al., 1993). These and other studies (e.g., Pfeiffer, 1998) also suggest that gangs facilitate violence. The heightened criminality and violence of gang members seem not to be reducible to selection. That is, gang members do tend to be more active criminals prior to joining a gang than are their nonjoining, even delinquent peers. During periods of gang participation, however, gang members are more criminally active and more frequently violent than they were either before joining or after leaving gangs. Furthermore, some evidence suggests that gang membership had the greatest effects on those who had not previously committed crimes (Zhang et al., 1999). The literature on gang participation, however, does not go much beyond suggesting that there is a process that facilitates antisocial, often violent, behavior. Norms and pressure to conform to deviant values have been suggested as mechanisms. How and why these are effective has received little attention.

COMMUNITY FACTORS

School policies that affect juvenile delinquency.

Delinquency is associated with poor school performance, truancy, and leaving school at a young age (Elliott et al., 1978; Elliott and Voss, 1974; Farrington, 1986b; Hagan and McCarthy, 1997; Hawkins et al., 1998; Huizinga and Jakob-Chien, 1998; Kelly, 1971; Maguin and Loeber, 1996; Polk, 1975; Rhodes and Reiss, 1969; Thornberry and Christenson, 1984). To what extent do school policies contribute to these outcomes for high-risk youngsters? This section outlines what is known about the effects of some of the major school policies that have a particular impact on adolescent delinquents and those at risk for delinquency. The topics covered are grade retention, suspension, and expulsion as disciplinary techniques and academic tracking. These are complex topics about which there is a large literature. This section does not attempt to summarize that literature, but rather to highlight issues that appear to affect juvenile criminality.

Grade Retention

Grade retention refers to the practice of not promoting students to the next grade level upon completion of the current grade at the end of the

school year. Low academic achievement is the most frequent reason given by teachers who recommend retention for their students (Jimerson et al., 1997).

There is no precise national estimate of the number of youths who experience grade retention, but the practice was widespread in the 1990s. Contrary to the public perception that few students fail a grade (Westbury, 1994), it is estimated that approximately 15 to 19 percent of students experience grade retention.

Despite the intuitive appeal of retention as a mechanism for improving student performance, the retention literature overwhelmingly concludes that it is not as effective as promotion. Smith and Shepard (1987:130) summarize the effects of grade retention as follows:

The consistent conclusion of reviews is that children make progress during the year in which they repeat a grade, but not as much progress as similar children who were promoted. In controlled studies of the effect of nonpromotion on both achievement and personal adjustment, children who repeat a grade are worse off than comparable children who are promoted with their age-mates. Contrary to popular belief, the average negative effect of retention on achievement is even greater than the negative effect on emotional adjustment and self-concept.

Aside from the effectiveness issue, there are other negative consequences of retention. Retention increases the cost of educating a pupil (Smith and Shepard, 1987). According to Smith and Shepard (1987), alternatives to retention, such as tutoring and summer school, are both more effective and less costly. Retention has negative effects on the emotional adjustment of retainees. For example, Yamamoto and Byrnes (1984) reported that next to blindness and the death of a parent, children rated the prospect of retention as the most stressful event they could suffer. Retained students have more negative attitudes about school and develop characteristics of “learned helplessness,” whereby they blame themselves for their failure and show low levels of persistence. There is a consistent relationship between retention and school dropout (Roderick, 1994; Shepard and Smith, 1990). Dropouts are five times more likely to have repeated a grade than nondropouts, and students who repeat two grades have nearly a 100 percent probability of dropping out. Finally, there are issues of fairness and equity, in that males and ethnic minority children are more likely to be retained (Jimerson et al., 1997).

School Suspension and Expulsion

Unlike grade retention, which is a school policy primarily for young children in the early elementary grades who display academic problems,

suspension and expulsion are mainly directed toward older (secondary school) students whose school difficulties manifest themselves as behavioral problems. Both suspension and expulsion are forms of school exclusion, with the latter being presumably reserved for the most serious offenses.

Supporters of suspension argue that, like any other disciplinary action, suspension reduces the likelihood of misbehavior for the period immediately after suspension and that it can serve as a deterrent to other potentially misbehaving students. Opponents of suspension view the consequences of this disciplinary action as far outweighing any potential benefits. Some of the consequences cited include loss of self-respect, increased chances of coming into contact with a delinquent subculture, the vicious cyclical effects of being unable to catch up with schoolwork, and the stigma associated with suspension once the target child returns to school (Williams, 1989). Furthermore, most investigations of school suspensions have found that serious disciplinary problems are quite rarely the cause of suspension (Cottle, 1975; Kaeser, 1979; McFadden et al., 1992). The majority of suspensions in districts with high suspension rates are for behavior that is not threatening or serious.

The probability of being suspended is unequal among students. Urban students have the highest suspension rates, suburban students have the second highest rates, and rural school students have the lowest rates (Wu et al., 1982). Suspension rates also vary according to sex, race, socioeconomic background, and family characteristics. Male students in every kind of school and education level are about three times more likely to be suspended as females. Suspension rates also vary by race. Statistics indicate that minority students are suspended disproportionately compared with their share in the population and their share of misbehavior, and these racial disparities have the greatest impact on black students; their rate of suspension is over twice that of other ethnic groups, including whites, Hispanics, and Asians (Williams, 1989). Furthermore, black students are likely to receive more severe forms of suspension than other students, even for similar behaviors requiring disciplinary action. In one study, for example, white students were more likely to receive in-school suspension than out-of-school suspension, whereas the reverse pattern was true for black students who had violated school rules (McFadden et al., 1992). This inequality in treatment exists even when factors such as poverty, behavior and attitudes, academic performance, parental attention, and school governance are considered. Students at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum tend to be more frequently suspended. Many suspended students come from single-parent families in which the parent had less than a 10th grade education.

Suspended students frequently have learning disabilities or inad-

equate academic skills. Wu et al. (1982) noted a positive relationship between the student suspension rate in a school and the average percentage of students of low ability reported by all teachers in a school. Low-ability students are suspended more than expected, given the number of incidents of misbehavior attributed to them. According to Wu et al. (1982), this phenomenon appears to work in either of two ways. If a student's academic performance is below average, the probability of being suspended increases. And if a school places considerable emphasis on the academic ability of its students, the probability of suspension increases.

Although there is not very much recent empirical research on the effects of school suspension, it appears to be especially detrimental to low-achieving students who may misbehave because they are doing poorly in school. Nor does suspension appear to reduce the behavior it is designed to punish. For example, McFadden et al. (1992) reported that the rate of recidivism remained extremely high across all groups of suspended students in their large study of a Florida school district. Less than 1 percent of disciplined youngsters were one-time offenders, 75 percent were cited for one to five subsequent events during the school year, and 25 percent engaged in more than five serious misbehaviors.

There appear to be clear biases in the use of suspension as a disciplinary action, with black students more likely to be the target of this bias. In the McFadden et al. (1992) study, white students were more likely than their black counterparts to be referred for such misbehaviors as truancy, defiance of authority, and fighting. However, it was the black students who were disproportionately more likely to receive the most severe sanctions, including corporal punishment and out-of-school suspension. As these authors state: “Even though black pupils accounted for only 36.7% of the disciplinary referrals, they received 54.1% of the corporal punishment and 43.9% of the school suspensions, but only 23.1% of the internal suspensions. Additionally, 44.6% of all black pupils referred received corporal punishment, compared to only 21.7% of white pupils and 22.7% of Hispanic pupils” (p. 144).

In sum, the literature reveals that school suspension is academically detrimental, does not contribute to a modification of misbehavior, and is disproportionately experienced by black males, among students who misbehave.

In recent years, expulsion has become a part of the debate on school discipline that has accompanied the rising concern about school violence, particularly that related to weapons possession and increasingly defiant, aggressive behavior by students in school. One result of this debate has been what Morrison et al. (1997) refer to as “zero-tolerance ” disciplinary policies. In California, for example, principals and superintendents are legally obligated to recommend expulsion from the school district for any

student who commits certain offenses, such as bringing weapons to school, brandishing a knife at another person, or unlawfully selling illegal drugs (California Department of Education, 1996-Education Code Section 48900). Such a policy may be expected to increase expulsion given that school officials are required to recommend it in these cases.

Characteristics of children who are expelled parallel those of children who are suspended from school. Students who are expelled tend to be in grades 8 through 12 (Bain and MacPherson, 1990; Hayden and Ward, 1996). There is a fairly substantial group of younger schoolchildren expelled from school; most of them come from the higher age range of students in elementary school. Expulsion is, however, primarily a secondary school phenomenon. About 80 to 90 percent of expelled students are boys, urban students are expelled at a higher rate that students from suburban and rural areas, and minority students are more likely to be expelled than white students.

Morrison and D'Incau (1997) specified four factors related to school adjustment that predicted behavior resulting in recommendation for expulsion. The first is academic performance; poor grade point average, particularly in English and math, and low achievement scores appear to be related to behavior that leads to expulsion. The second is attendance; many expelled students were habitual truants. The third is discipline; many students who experienced expulsion had records of previous suspension. The last factor is special education history; approximately 25 percent of expelled students were either currently, in the past, or in the process of being determined as eligible for special education services.

When children are suspended or expelled from school, their risk for delinquency increases. Exclusion from school makes it more difficult for a child to keep up with academic subjects. Furthermore, with extra time out of school, children are likely to have more time without supervision, and therefore be in a situation known to encourage crime. Effects of school suspension seem to extend beyond childhood. Even after accounting for juvenile criminality, in a national sample of male high school graduates, those who had been suspended were more likely to be incarcerated by the age of 30 (Arum and Beattie, 1999).

School Tracking

Academic tracking, also known as “ability grouping” or “streaming,” describes teaching practices whereby students who seem to be similar in ability are grouped together for instruction. The idea is to reduce the range of individual differences in class groups in order to simplify the task of teaching. Informal tracking is common in elementary schools. For example, teachers may divide children into reading groups based on their

reading skills. Some schools divide students into classrooms based on their assumed ability to learn. These groupings typically also set off upper- and middle-class white children from all others. Because of the fluidity of learning, the particular group into which a child is placed reflects the opinions of the person making the placement at least as much as the ability of the child (see Ball et al., 1984).

Unlike retention, which has been employed mostly in elementary school, and suspension and expulsion, which are largely secondary school phenomena, tracking has proliferated at all levels of schooling in American education. According to Slavin (1987), the practice is nearly universal in some form in secondary schools and very common in elementary schools. A good deal of informal evidence shows that when children considered to be slow learners are grouped together, they come to see themselves in an unfavorable light. Such self-denigration contributes to dislike for school, to truancy, and even to delinquency (Berends, 1995; Gold and Mann, 1972; Kaplan and Johnson, 1991).

Reviews of the effects of tracking in secondary school reach four general conclusions, all suggesting that the impact is largely negative for students in low tracks (see Oakes, 1987). Students in the low-track classes show poorer achievement than their nontracked counterparts. Slavin (1990) found no achievement advantage among secondary school students in high- or average-track classes over their peers of comparable ability in nontracked classes. Rosenbaum (1976) studied the effects of tracking on IQ longitudinally and found that test scores of students in low tracks became homogenized, with a lower mean score over time. Furthermore, he found that students in low tracks tend to be less employable and earn lower wages than other high school graduates; they also often suffer diminished self-esteem and lowered aspirations, and they come to hold more negative attitudes about school. These emotional consequences greatly increase the likelihood of dropping out of school and engaging in delinquent behavior (both in and out of school). One of the clearest findings in research on academic tracking in secondary school is that disproportionate numbers of poor and ethnic minority youngsters (particularly black and Hispanic) are placed in low-ability or noncollege prep tracks (Oakes, 1987). Even within the low-ability (e.g., vocational) tracks, minority students are frequently trained for the lowest-level jobs. At the same time, minority youngsters are consistently underrepresented in programs for the talented and gifted. These disparities occur whether placements are based on standardized test scores or on counselor and teacher recommendations. Oakes and other sociologists of education (e.g., Gamoran, 1992; Kilgore, 1991; Rosenbaum, 1976) have argued that academic tracking frequently operates to perpetuate racial inequality and social stratification in American society.

It is quite evident that all of the policies reviewed here are associated with more negative than positive effects on children at risk for delinquency. As policies to deal with low academic achievement or low ability, neither retention nor tracking leads to positive benefits for students who are experiencing academic difficulty and may reinforce ethnic stereotypes among students who do well. As policies to deal with school misbehavior, neither suspension nor expulsion appears to reduce undesired behavior, and both place excluded children at greater risk for delinquency. Furthermore, every policy covered in this overview has been found to impact ethnic minority youngsters disproportionately.

Neighborhood

Growing up in an adverse environment increases the likelihood that a young person will become involved in serious criminal activity during adolescence. Existing research points strongly to the relationship between certain kinds of residential neighborhoods and high levels of crime among young people. Research also points to a number of mechanisms that may account for this association between neighborhood and youth crime. While more research is needed to improve understanding of the mechanisms involved, the link between neighborhood environment and serious youth crime is sufficiently clear to indicate a need for close attention to neighborhood factors in the design of prevention and control efforts.

Two different kinds of research point to the importance of social environment in the generation of antisocial behavior and crime. First, research on the characteristics of communities reveals the extremely unequal geographic distribution of criminal activity. Second, research on human development points consistently to the importance of environment in the emergence of antisocial and criminal behavior. While researchers differ on their interpretation of the exact ways in which personal factors and environment interact in the process of human development, most agree on the continuous interaction of person and environment over time as a fundamental characteristic of developmental processes. Although certain persons and families may be strongly at risk for criminal behavior in any environment, living in a neighborhood where there are high levels of poverty and crime increases the risk of involvement in serious crime for all children growing up there.

This section reviews various strands of research on neighborhoods and crime and on the effects of environment on human development for the purpose of evaluating the contributions of neighborhood environment to patterns of youth crime and prospects for its prevention and control.

Neighborhood Concentrations of Serious Youth Crime

Crime and delinquency are very unequally distributed in space. The geographic concentration of crime occurs at various levels of aggregation, in certain cities and counties and also in certain neighborhoods within a given city or county. For example, cities with higher levels of poverty, larger and more densely settled populations, and higher proportions of unmarried men consistently experience higher homicide rates than those that do not share these characteristics (Land et al., 1990). Serious youth crime in recent years has also been concentrated in certain urban areas. At the peak of the recent epidemic of juvenile homicide, a quarter of all apprehended offenders in the entire United States were arrested in just five counties, containing the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, and New York. In contrast, during that same year, 84 percent of counties in the United States reported no juvenile homicides (Sickmund et al., 1997).

The concentration of serious crime, especially juvenile crime, in certain neighborhoods within a given city is just as pronounced as the concentration in certain cities. A great deal of research over a period of many decades employing a wide range of methods has documented the geographic concentration of high rates of crime in poor, urban neighborhoods. Classic studies established the concentration of arrests (Shaw and McKay, 1942) and youth gang activity (Thrasher, 1927) in poor neighborhoods located in inner cities. This relationship has been confirmed in replication studies over the years (Bordua, 1958; Chilton, 1964; Lander, 1954; Sampson and Groves, 1989).

In addition to this correlation of neighborhood poverty levels and high crime rates at any given time, research has also found that change in neighborhood poverty levels for the worse is associated with increasing rates of crime and delinquency (Schuerman and Kobrin, 1986; Shannon, 1986). The causal relationship between increases in neighborhood poverty and increases in crime can move in either direction. In the earlier stages of the process of neighborhood deterioration, increases in poverty may cause increases in crime, while, in later stages, crime reaches such a level that those who can afford to move out do so, thereby increasing the poverty rate even further.

Other social characteristics of poor urban neighborhoods change over time and between nations. In the early part of the 20th century in the United States, poor urban neighborhoods tended to be quite mixed in ethnicity (e.g., Italian, Irish, Polish, Jewish), reflecting an era of immigration, and were often located in the older, central parts of cities that were expanding rapidly in outward, concentric waves (Shaw and McKay, 1942). Since the 1950s, poor, urban neighborhoods in the United States have

been much more likely to be dominated by a single cultural group. Blacks and Hispanics, in particular, have experienced an extraordinary degree of residential segregation and concentration in the poorest areas of large cities as a result of racial discrimination in labor and housing markets (Massey and Denton, 1993). In their reanalysis of the Chicago data collected by Shaw and McKay (1942), Bursik and Webb (1982) found that after 1950, changing rates of community racial composition provided a better predictor of juvenile delinquency rates than did the ecological variables.

Poverty and residential segregation are not always urban phenomena. American Indians also experience a great degree of residential segregation and poverty, but rather than in cities, they are segregated on poor, rural reservations. Elsewhere in the developed world, residential concentrations of poor people occur on the periphery of large urban areas, rather than in the center. The construction of large public housing estates in England following World War II produced this kind of urban configuration (Bottoms and Wiles, 1986), in contrast to the concentration on inner-city public housing projects in the United States.

Two important qualifications must be noted with respect to the well-documented patterns of local concentrations of crime and delinquency. First, these patterns do not hold true for minor forms of delinquency. Since a large majority of all adolescent males break the law at some point, such factors as neighborhood, race, and social class do not differentiate very well between those who do or do not commit occasional minor offenses (Elliott and Ageton, 1980).

Second, although some areas have particularly high rates of deviance, in no area do all or most children commit seroius crimes (Elliott et al., 1996; Furstenburg et al., 1999). Still, the concentration of serious juvenile crime in a relatively few residential neighborhoods is well documented and a legitimate cause for concern, both to those living in these high-risk neighborhoods and to the wider society.

Neighborhoods as Mediators of Race and Social Class Disparities in Offending

While studies using differing methods and sources of data are not in agreement on the magnitude of differences in rates of involvement in youth crime across racial, ethnic, and social class categories, most research shows that race, poverty, and residential segregation interact to predict delinquency rates. For example, the three most common approaches to measurement—self-report surveys, victimization surveys, and official arrest and conviction statistics—all indicate high rates of serious offending among young black Americans. There is substantial reason to believe

that these disparate offending rates are directly related to the community conditions under which black children grow up. There is no other racial or ethnic group in the United States of comparable size whose members are nearly as likely to grow up in neighborhoods of concentrated urban poverty (Wilson, 1987). Summarizing this situation, Sampson (1987:353-354) wrote: “the worst urban contexts in which whites reside with respect to poverty and family disruption are considerably better off than the mean levels for black communities.” Although there are more poor white than black families in absolute number, poor white families are far less likely to live in areas where most of their neighbors are also poor. Studies that show stronger effects of race than of class on delinquency must be interpreted in light of the additional stresses suffered by poor blacks as a result of residential segregation.

In comprehensive reviews, scholars have found that adding controls for concentrated neighborhood poverty can entirely eliminate neighborhood-level associations between the proportion of blacks and crime rates. Without controls for concentrated poverty, this relationship is quite strong (Sampson, 1997; Short, 1997). Such research strongly indicates that the unique combination of poverty and residential segregation suffered by black Americans is associated with high rates of crime through the mediating pathway of neighborhood effects on families and children.

These deleterious neighborhood effects have been studied mostly with respect to blacks, but, as the United States has experienced renewed immigration, evidence has also begun to point to similar problems among newer groups of immigrants from Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Much of the evidence at this point is contained in ethnographic studies of youthful gang members and drug dealers (Bourgois, 1995; Chin, 1996; Moore, 1978, 1991; Padilla, 1992; Pinderhughes, 1997; Sullivan, 1989; Vigil, 1988; Vigil and Yun, 1990).

Neighborhood-Level Characteristics Associated with High Rates of Crime and Delinquency

Although the relationship between neighborhood poverty and crime is robust over time and space, a number of other social characteristics of neighborhoods are also associated with elevated levels of crime and delinquency. Factors such as concentrations of multifamily and public housing, unemployed and underemployed men, younger people, and single-parent households tend to be linked to higher crime rates (Sampson, 1987; Wilson, 1985). These social characteristics frequently go along with overall high levels of poverty, but they also vary among both poor and nonpoor neighborhoods and help to explain why neighborhoods with similar average income levels can have different rates of crime.

Recent research has also begun to examine the social atmosphere of neighborhoods and has found significant relationships with crime rates. Neighborhoods in which people tell interviewers that they have a greater sense of collective efficacy—the sense that they can solve problems in cooperation with their neighbors if they have to —have lower crime rates, even when controlling for poverty levels and other neighborhood characteristics (Sampson et al., 1997).

The number and type of local institutions have often been thought to have an effect on neighborhood safety, and some research seems to confirm this. High concentrations of barrooms are clearly associated with crime (Roncek and Maier, 1991). One recent study has also found a crime-averting effect of youth recreation facilities when comparing neighborhoods with otherwise very high rates of crime and criminogenic characteristics to one another (Peterson et al., 2000). Since assessing the number, characteristics, and quality of neighborhood institutions is quite difficult, this remains an understudied area of great importance, given its considerable theoretical and practical interest.

One type of pernicious neighborhood institution, the youth gang, has been studied extensively and is clearly associated with, though by no means synonymous with, delinquency and crime. Although it is true that an adolescent's involvement with youth gangs is associated with a greatly increased risk of criminal behavior, that risk also accompanies association with delinquent peer groups more generally. A very high proportion of youth crime, much higher than for adults, is committed by groups of co-offenders (Elliott and Menard, 1996; Miller, 1982). Most of these delinquent peer groups do not fit the popular stereotypes of youth gangs, with the attendant ritual trappings of distinctive group names, costumes, hand signs, and initiation ceremonies (Sullivan, 1983, 1996). The broader category of delinquent peer groups, most of which are not ritualized youth gangs, drives up neighborhood delinquency rates.

Comparative neighborhood studies, examining the presence of delinquent and unsupervised adolescent peer groups, have found that these groups are more likely to be found in poor neighborhoods. The strength of this finding is such that the presence of these groups appears to be one of the major factors connecting neighborhood poverty and delinquency (Elliott and Menard, 1996; Sampson and Groves, 1989).

Although most adolescent co-offending is committed in the context of delinquent peer groups that are not ritualized youth gangs, the emergence of ritualized gangs in a neighborhood appears to be associated with even higher levels of offending than occur when ritualized gangs are not present (Spergel, 1995; Thornberry, 1998). For this reason, the recent spread of youth gangs across the United States is cause for serious concern. In the decade from the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s, youth

gangs emerged in a growing number of cities in the United States, not only in large cities, but also in smaller cities and towns (Klein, 1995; National Youth Gang Center, 1997).

Despite widespread rumors and mass media allegations, this spread of youth gangs does not appear to be the result of systematic outreach, recruitment, and organization from one city to another. The fact that groups calling themselves by similar names, such as Bloods and Crips, have been spreading from city to city may have very little to do with conscious efforts by members of those groups in Los Angeles to build criminal organizations in other cities. Movies and popular music, rather than direct connections between cities, seem to be at least partly responsible for this copying of gang terminology between cities (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996).

Ethnographic Perspectives on Neighborhoods and Development

A second stream of research that examines adolescent development from the perspective of neighborhood environment consists of ethnographic field studies of delinquent individuals and groups growing up in high-crime neighborhoods. These studies range from classic studies conducted in the 1920s and 1930s (Shaw, 1930; Whyte, 1943), through a second wave in the 1960s (Short and Strodtbeck, 1965; Suttles, 1968) and a more recent wave since the late 1980s (Bourgois, 1995; Chin, 1996; Moore, 1978, 1991; Padilla, 1992; Pinderhughes, 1997; Sullivan, 1989; Vigil, 1988; Vigil and Yun, 1990).

Drawing conclusions from these studies about neighborhood effects on child and adolescent development must be approached carefully, because these studies were primarily designed to describe systems of activity and interaction rather than processes of personal development. As a result, there are many limitations on using this body of research for the purpose of examining neighborhood effects on development, chief among them the predominant focus on single, high-crime areas and the focus within those areas on those engaged in delinquent and criminal activity. Because of this double selection on the dependent variables of both area and individual criminal behavior, these studies generally do not allow systematic comparison between high-crime and low-crime areas or between nondelinquent and delinquent youth within areas.

Despite these limitations, the authors of the studies virtually always end up attributing the ongoing nature of delinquent activity in the areas studied to the influences of the local area on development, particularly among males. In other words, studies not designed primarily to examine development appeal to neighborhood-level influences on development in order to explain their findings. These conclusions about neighborhood

influence on development generally emerge from a much closer scrutiny of the social contexts of development made possible by the in-depth approach of case study and qualitative methods (Sullivan, 1998; Yin, 1989).

One exception to the general lack of comparisons across neighborhoods in the ethnographic studies of development is Sullivan's systematic comparison of three groups of criminally active youths in different neighborhoods of New York City. Using this comparative approach, he demonstrated close links between the array of legitimate and illegitimate opportunities in each place and the developmental trajectories of boys who became involved in delinquency and crime. Even though the early stages of involvement were similar in all three areas, youths from the white, working-class area aged out of crime much faster than their black and Hispanic peers living in neighborhoods characterized by racial and ethnic segregation, concentrated poverty, adult joblessness, and single-parent households. The youths from the more disadvantaged areas had less access to employment and more freedom to experiment with illegal activity as a result of lower levels of informal social control in their immediate neighborhoods (Sullivan, 1989).

Neighborhood-Level Concentrations of Developmental Risk Factors

If neighborhood effects are defined as the influence of neighborhood environment on individual development net of personal and family characteristics, then the amount of variation left over to be attributed to neighborhood in a given study can vary a great deal according to the data and methods used. As many researchers note, neighborhood effects may be mediated by personal and family factors (see, e.g., Farrington and Loeber, 1999); however, it is also necessary to examine whether personal and family characteristics are themselves affected by neighborhood environment. To the extent that this is the case, then neighborhoods affect individual development through their effects on such things as the formation of enduring personal characteristics during early childhood and the family environments in which children grow up. From this perspective, efforts such as those described earlier to measure neighborhood effects net of personal and family characteristics may substantially underestimate neighborhood effects as a result of artificially separating personal and family characteristics from those neighborhood environments. Similarly, if the subsets are not separately analyzed, neighborhood effects will be artificially minimized if some, but not all, types of family constellations increase the impact of neighborhood conditions (McCord, 2000).

A number of studies demonstrate neighborhood concentrations of risk factors for impaired physical and mental health and for the development of antisocial behavior patterns. To date, little research has been able

to trace direct pathways from these neighborhood risk factors through child and adolescent development, although some of the larger ongoing studies, such as the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, are collecting the kind of comprehensive data on biological and social aspects of individual development as well as on the characteristics of a large number of ecological areas that could make this kind of analysis possible (Tonry et al., 1991). Nonetheless, existing research does indicate a number of ways in which deleterious conditions for individual development are concentrated at the neighborhood level. Furthermore, the neighborhoods in which they are concentrated are the same ones that have concentrations of serious youth crime. The risks involved begin for individuals in these areas before birth and continue into adulthood. They include child health problems, parental stress, child abuse, and exposure to community violence.

Neighborhoods with high rates of poverty and crime are often also neighborhoods with concentrations of health problems among children. In New York City, for example, there is a high degree of correlation at the neighborhood level of low birthweight and infant mortality with rates of violent death (Wallace and Wallace, 1990). Moffitt (1997) has pointed to a number of conditions prevalent in inner-city neighborhoods that are capable of inflicting neuropsychological damage, including fetal exposure to toxic chemicals, which are disproportionately stored in such areas, and child malnutrition. Thus, even to the extent that some neighborhoods have larger proportions of persons with clinically identifiable physical and psychological problems, these problems may themselves be due to neighborhood conditions. Thus it can be difficult to disentangle individual developmental risk factors from neighborhood risk factors.

Similarly, some parenting practices that contribute to the development of antisocial and criminal behavior are themselves concentrated in certain areas. McLloyd (1990) has reviewed a wide range of studies documenting the high levels of parental stress experienced by low-income black mothers who, as we have already seen, experience an extremely high degree of residential segregation (Massey and Denton, 1993). This parental stress may in turn lead, in some cases, to child abuse, which contributes to subsequent delinquent and criminal behavior (Widom, 1989). Child abuse is also disproportionately concentrated in certain neighborhoods. Korbin and Coulton's studies of the distribution of child maltreatment in Cleveland neighborhoods have shown both higher rates in poorer neighborhoods and a moderating effect of age structure. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, they showed that neighborhoods with a younger age structure experienced higher rates of child maltreatment, as measured by reported child abuse cases and inter-

views in a subset of the neighborhoods, than other neighborhoods with similar average family income levels (Korbin and Coulton, 1997).

Recent research has begun to demonstrate high levels of exposure to community violence across a wide range of American communities (Singer et al., 1995), but the degree of exposure also varies by community and reaches extraordinary levels in some neighborhoods. Studies in inner-city neighborhoods have found that one-quarter or more of young people have directly witnessed confrontations involving serious, life-threatening acts of violence, while even larger proportions have witnessed attacks with weapons (Bell and Jenkins, 1993; Osofsky et al., 1993; Richters and Martinez, 1993; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998). Various outcomes of this kind of exposure to community violence have been identified. The most commonly cited of these include depressive disorders and posttraumatic stress syndrome, but some links have also been found to increases in aggressive and antisocial behavior (Farrell and Bruce, 1997). Experimental research has shown a pathway from exposure to violence to states of mind conducive to and associated with aggressive behavior, particularly a pattern of social cognition characterized as hostile attribution bias, in which people erroneously perceive others' behavior as threatening (Dodge et al., 1990).

Taken together, these studies point to a multitude of physical, psychological, and social stressors concentrated in the same, relatively few, highly disadvantaged neighborhood environments. Besides affecting people individually, these stressors may combine with and amplify one another, as highly stressed individuals encounter each other in crowded streets, apartment buildings, and public facilities, leading to an exponential increase in triggers for violence (Bernard, 1990). Agnew (1999), having demonstrated the effects of general psychological strain on criminal behavior in previous research, has recently reviewed a wide range of studies that point to just such an amplification effect at the community level.

Environmental and Situational Influences

Other aspects of the environment that have been examined as factors that may influence the risk of offending include drug markets, availability of guns, and the impact of violence in the media.

The presence of illegal drug markets increases the likelihood for violence at the points where drugs are exchanged for money (Haller, 1989). The rise in violent juvenile crime during the 1980s has been attributed to the increase in drug markets, particularly open-air markets for crack cocaine (Blumstein, 1995; National Research Council, 1993). Blumstein (1995) points out the coincidence in timing of the rise in drug arrests of

nonwhite juveniles, particularly blacks, beginning in 1985, and the rise in juvenile, gun-related homicide rates, particularly among blacks. As mentioned earlier, Blumstein argues that the introduction of open-air crack cocaine markets in about 1985 may explain both trends. The low price of crack brought many low-income people, who could afford to buy only one hit at a time, into the cocaine market. These factors led to an increase in the number of drug transactions and a need for more sellers. Juveniles provided a ready labor force and were recruited into crack markets. Blumstein (1995:30) explains how this led to an increase in handgun carrying by juveniles:

These juveniles, like many other participants in the illicit-drug industry, are likely to carry guns for self-protection, largely because that industry uses guns as an important instrument for dispute resolution. Also, the participants in the industry are likely to be carrying a considerable amount of valuable product—drugs or money derived from selling drugs—and are not likely to be able to call on the police if someone tries to rob them. Thus, they are forced to provide for their own defense; a gun is a natural instrument.

Since the drug markets are pervasive in many inner-city neighborhoods, and the young people recruited into them are fairly tightly networked with other young people in their neighborhoods, it became easy for the guns to be diffused to other teenagers who go to the same school or who walk the same streets. These other young people are also likely to arm themselves, primarily for their own protection, but also because possession of a weapon may become a means of status-seeking in the community. This initiates an escalating process: as more guns appear in the community, the incentive for any single individual to arm himself increases.

Other researchers concur that juveniles responded to the increased threat of violence in their neighborhoods by arming themselves or joining gangs for self-protection and adopting a more aggressive interpersonal style (Anderson, 1990, 1994; Fagan and Wilkinson, 1998; Hemenway et al., 1996; Wilkinson and Fagan, 1996). The number of juveniles who report carrying guns has increased. In 1990, approximately 6 percent of teenage boys reported carrying a firearm in the 30 days preceding the survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1991). By 1993, 13.7 percent reported carrying guns (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1995). Hemenway et al. (1996) surveyed a sample of 7th and 10th graders in schools in high-risk neighborhoods in a Northeastern and a Midwestern city. Of these, 29 percent of 10th grade males and 23 percent of 7th grade males reported having carried a concealed gun, as did 12 percent of 10th grade females and 8 percent of 7th grade females. The overwhelm-

ing majority gave self-defense or protection as their primary reason for carrying weapons. Moreover, juveniles who reported living in a neighborhood with a lot of shootings or having a family member who had been shot were significantly more likely to carry a gun than other students. Additional student surveys also have found that protection is the most common reason given for carrying a gun (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993; Sheley and Wright, 1998).

By studying trends in homicide rates, several researchers have concluded that the increase in juvenile homicides during the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted from the increase in the availability of guns, in particular handguns, rather than from an increase in violent propensities of youth (Blumstein and Cork, 1996; Cook and Laub, 1998; Zimring, 1996). Certainly, assaults in which guns are involved are more likely to turn deadly than when other weapons or just fists are involved. The increase in gun use occurred for all types of youth homicides (e.g., family killings, gang-related killings, brawls and arguments). Furthermore, the rates of nonhandgun homicides remained stable; only handgun-related homicides increased.

Public concern about the role of media in producing misbehavior is as old as concern regarding the socialization of children. Although few believe that the media operate in isolation to influence crime, scientific studies show that children may imitate behavior, whether it is shown in pictures of real people or in cartoons or merely described in stories (Bandura, 1962, 1965, 1986; Maccoby, 1964, 1980). Prosocial as well as aggressive antisocial behavior has been inspired through the use of examples (Anderson, 1998; Eisenberg and Mussen, 1989; Eron and Huesmann, 1986; Huston and Wright, 1998; Staub, 1979). Thus media models can be seen as potentially influencing either risk or protectiveness of environments.

In addition to modeling behavior, exposure to media violence has been shown to increase fear of victimization and to desensitize witnesses to effects of violence (Slaby, 1997; Wilson et al., 1998). Children seem particularly susceptible to such effects, although not all children are equally susceptible. Violent video games, movies, and music lyrics have also been criticized as inciting violence among young people. Cooper and Mackie (1986) found that after playing a violent video game, 4th and 5th graders exhibited more aggression in play than did their classmates who had been randomly assigned to play with a nonviolent video game or to no video game. Anderson and Dill (2000) randomly assigned college students to play either a violent or a nonviolent video game that had been matched for interest, frustration, and difficulty. Students played the same game three times, for a total of 45 minutes, after which they played a competitive game that involved using unpleasant sound blasts against

the rival player. After the second time, measures of the accessibility of aggressive concepts showed a cognitive effect of playing violent video games. After the third time, those who had played the violent video game gave longer blasts of the unpleasant sound, a result mediated by accessibility of aggression as a cognitive factor. The authors concluded that violent video games have adverse behavioral effects and that these occur through increasing the aggressive outlooks of participants.

None of these studies, however, finds direct connections between media exposure to violence and subsequent serious violent behavior. Steinberg (2000:37) summarized the literature on media and juvenile violence by noting: “exposure to violence in the media plays a significant, but very small, role in adolescents' actual involvement in violent activity. The images young people are exposed to may provide the material for violent fantasies and may, under rare circumstances, give young people concrete ideas about how to act out these impulses. But the violent impulses themselves, and the motivation to follow through on them, rarely come from watching violent films or violent television or from listening to violent music . . . . I know of no research that links the sort of serious violence this working group is concerned about with exposure to violent entertainment.”

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DELINQUENCY IN GIRLS

Research on the development of conduct disorder, aggression, and delinquency has often been confined to studies of boys. Many of the individual factors found to be related to delinquency have not been well studied in girls. For example, impulsivity, which has been linked to the development of conduct problems in boys (Caspi et al., 1994; White et al., 1994), has scarcely been studied in girls (Keenan et al., in press).

Behavioral differences between boys and girls have been documented from infancy. Weinberg and Tronick (1997) report that infant girls exhibit better emotional regulation than infant boys, and that infant boys are more likely to show anger than infant girls. This may have implications for the development of conduct problems and delinquency. Although peer-directed aggressive behavior appears to be similar in both girls and boys during toddlerhood (Loeber and Hay, 1997), between the ages of 3 and 6, boys begin to display higher rates of physical aggression than do girls (Coie and Dodge, 1998). Girls tend to use verbal and indirect aggression, such as peer exclusion, ostracism, and character defamation (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992; Crick and Grotpeter, 1995), rather than physical aggression. Research by Pepler and Craig (1995), however, found that girls do use physical aggression against peers, but tend to hide it from adults. Through remote audiovisual recordings of children on a play-

ground, they found the rates of bullying by girls and boys to be the same, although girls were less likely than boys to admit to the behavior in interviews.

Internalizing disorders, such as anxiety and depression, are more frequent in girls and may well overlap with their conduct problems (Loeber and Keenan, 1994; McCord and Ensminger, 1997). Theoreticians have suggested that adolescent females may direct rage and hurt inward as a reaction to abuse and maltreatment. These inward-directed feelings may manifest themselves in conduct problems, such as drug abuse, prostitution, and other self-destructive behaviors (Belknap, 1996).

Whether or not the rate of conduct problems and conduct disorder in girls is lower than that in boys remains to be definitively proven. Girls who do exhibit aggressive behavior or conduct disorder exhibit as much stability in that behavior and are as much at risk for later problems as are boys. Tremblay et al. (1992) found equally high correlations between aggression in early elementary school and later delinquency in boys and girls. Boys and girls with conduct disorder are also equally likely to qualify for later antisocial personality disorder (Zoccolillo et al., 1992).

Delinquency in girls, as well as boys, is often preceded by some form of childhood victimization (Maxfield and Widom, 1996; Smith and Thornberry, 1995; Widom, 1989). Some have speculated that one of the first steps in female delinquency is status offending (truancy, running away from home, being incorrigible), frequently in response to abusive situations in the home (Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 1998). Indeed, Chesney-Lind (1997) has written that status offenses, including running away, may play an important role in female delinquency. In what she refers to as the “criminalization of girls' survival strategies,” Chesney-Lind (1989:11) suggests that young females run away from the violence and abuse in their homes and become vulnerable to further involvement in crime as a means of survival. In one community-based longitudinal study, however, a larger proportion of boys than of girls had left home prior to their sixteenth birthday (McCord and Ensminger, 1997). In a long-term follow-up of a sample of documented cases of childhood abuse and neglect, Kaufman and Widom (1999) reported preliminary results indicating that males and females are equally likely to run away from home, and that childhood sexual abuse was not more often associated with running away than other forms of abuse or neglect. However, the motivation for running away may differ for males and females. For example, females may be running away to escape physical or sexual abuse or neglect in their homes. For boys, running away may be an indirect consequence of childhood victimization or may be part of a larger constellation of antisocial and problem behaviors (Luntz and Widom, 1994).

From the small amount of research that has been done on girls, it appears that they share many risk factors for delinquency with boys. These risk factors include early drug use (Covington, 1998), association with delinquent peers (Acoca and Dedel, 1998), and problems in school (Bergsmann, 1994). McCord and Ensminger (1997) found, however, that, on average, girls were exposed to fewer risk factors (e.g., aggressiveness, frequent spanking, low I.Q., first-grade truancy, early leaving home, and racial discrimination) than were boys.

Delinquent girls report experiencing serious mental health problems, including depression and anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. In a study of delinquent girls conducted by Bergsmann (1994), fully half said that they had considered suicide, and some 64 percent of these had thought about it more than once.

In a survey of mental disorders in juvenile justice facilities, Timmons-Mitchell and colleagues (1997) compared the prevalence of disorders among a sample of males and females and found that the estimated prevalence of mental disorders among females was over three times that among males (84 versus 27 percent). The females in the sample scored significantly higher than males on scales of the Milton Adolescent Clinical Inventory, which measure suicidal tendency, substance abuse proneness, impulsivity, family dysfunction, childhood abuse, and delinquent predisposition. Timmons-Mitchell et al. (1997) concluded from these data that incarcerated female juveniles had significantly more mental health problems and treatment needs than their male counterparts.

Teen motherhood and pregnancy are also concerns among female juvenile offenders. Female delinquents become sexually active at an earlier age than females who are not delinquent (Greene, Peters and Associates, 1998). Sexual activity at an early age sets girls up for a host of problems, including disease and teenage pregnancy, that have far-reaching impacts on their lives and health. Teen mothers face nearly insurmountable challenges that undermine their ability to take adequate care of themselves and their families. Dropping out of school, welfare dependence, and living in poor communities are only a few of the consequences of teen motherhood. And the effects are not limited to one generation. Teen mothers are more likely than women who have children in their early 20s to have children who are incarcerated as adults (Grogger, 1997; Nagin et al., 1997; Robin Hood Foundation, 1996).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a large proportion of adolescents gets arrested and an even larger proportion commits illegal acts, only a small proportion commits

serious crimes. Furthermore, most of those who engage in illegal behavior as adolescents do not become adult criminals.

Risk factors at the individual, social, and community level most likely interact in complex ways to promote antisocial and delinquent behavior in juveniles. Although there is some research evidence that different risk factors are more salient at different stages of child and adolescent development, it remains unclear which particular risk factors alone, or in combination, are most important to delinquency. It appears, however, that the more risk factors that are present, the higher the likelihood of delinquency. Particular risk factors considered by the panel are poor parenting practices, school practices that may contribute to school failure, and community-wide settings.

Poor parenting practices are important risk factors for delinquency. Several aspects of parenting have been found to be related to delinquency:

neglect or the absence of supervision throughout childhood and adolescence;

the presence of overt conflict or abuse;

discipline that is inconsistent or inappropriate to the behavior; and

a lack of emotional warmth in the family.

School failure is related to delinquency, and some widely used school practices are associated with school failure in high-risk children. These practices include tracking and grade retention, as well as suspension and expulsion. Minorities are disproportionately affected by these educational and social practices in schools.

Both serious crime and developmental risk factors for children and adolescents are highly concentrated in some communities. These communities are characterized by concentrated poverty. Residents of these communities often do not have access to the level of public resources available in the wider society, including good schools, supervised activities, and health services. Individual-level risk factors are also concentrated in these communities, including health problems, parental stress, and exposure to family and community violence. The combination of concentrated poverty and residential segregation suffered by ethnic minorities in some places contributes to high rates of crime.

Although risk factors can identify groups of adolescents whose probabilities for committing serious crimes are greater than average, they are not capable of identifying the particular individuals who will become criminals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Delinquency is associated with poor school performance, truancy, and leaving school at a young age. Some pedagogical practices may exacerbate these problems. The available research on grade retention and tracking and the disciplinary practices of suspension and expulsion reveal that such policies have more negative than positive effects. For students already experiencing academic difficulty, tracking and grade retention have been found to further impair their academic performance. Furthermore, tracking does not appear to improve the academic performance of students in high tracks compared with similar students in schools that do not use tracking. Suspension and expulsion deny education in the name of discipline, yet these practices have not been shown to be effective in reducing school misbehavior. Little is known about the effects of these policies on other students in the school. Given the fact that the policies disproportionately affect minorities, such policies may unintentionally reinforce negative stereotypes.

Recommendation: Federal programs should be developed to promote alternatives to grade retention and tracking in schools.

Given that school failure has been found to be a precursor to delinquency, not enough research to date has specifically examined school policies, such as tracking, grade retention, suspension, and expulsion in terms of their effects on delinquent behavior in general. It is important that evaluations of school practices and policies consider their effects on aggressive and antisocial behavior, incuding delinquency. This type of research is particularly salient given the concern over school violence. Research on tracking should examine the effects on children and adolescents in all tracks, not only on those in low tracks.

Recommendation: A thorough review of the effects of school policies and pedagogical practices, such as grade retention, tracking, suspension, and expulsion, should be undertaken. This review should include the effects of such policies on delinquency, as well as the effects on educational attainment and school atmosphere and environment.

Prenatal exposure to alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and nicotine is associated with hyperactivity, attention deficit, and impulsiveness, which are risk factors for later antisocial behavior and delinquency. Biological insults suffered during the prenatal period may have some devastating effects on development. Consequently, preventive efforts during the pre-

natal period, such as preventing fetal exposure to alcohol and drugs, may have great benefits. Reducing alcohol and drug abuse among expectant parents may also improve their ability to parent, thus reducing family-related risk factors for delinquency.

Recommendation: Federal, state, and local governments should act to provide treatment for drug abuse (including alcohol and tobacco use) among pregnant women, particularly, adolescents.

Most longitudinal studies of delinquent behavior have begun after children enter school. Yet earlier development appears to contribute to problems that become apparent during the early school years. Much remains to be known about the extent to which potential problems can be identified at an early age.

Recommendation: Prospective longitudinal studies should be used to increase the understanding of the role of factors in prenatal, perinatal, and early infant development on mechanisms that increase the likelihood of healthy development, as well as the development of antisocial behavior.

Research has shown that the greater the number of risk factors that are present, the higher the likelihood of delinquency. It is not clear, however, whether some risk factors or combinations of risk factors are more important than other risk factors or combinations in the development of delinquency. Furthermore, the timing, severity, and duration of risk factors, in interaction with the age, gender, and the environment in which the individual lives undoubtedly affect the behavioral outcomes. A better understanding of how risk factors interact is important for the development of prevention efforts, especially efforts in communities in which risk factors are concentrated.

Recommendation: Research on risk factors for delinquency needs to focus on effects of interactions among various risk factors. In particular, research on effects of differences in neighborhoods and their interactions with individual and family conditions should be expanded.

The panel recommends the following areas as needing particular research attention to increase understanding of the development of delinquency:

Research on the development of language skills and the impact of delayed or poor language skills on the development of aggressive and antisocial behavior, including delinquency;

Research on children's and adolescents' access to guns, in particular handguns, and whether that access influences attitudes toward or fear of crime;

Research on ways to increase children's and adolescents' protective factors; and

Research on the development of physical aggression regulation in early childhood.

Research on delinquency has traditionally focused on boys. Although boys are more likely to be arrested than girls, the rate of increase in arrest and incarceration has been much larger in recent years for girls than boys, and the seriousness of the crimes committed by girls has increased.

Recommendation: The Department of Justice should develop and fund a systematic research program on female juvenile offending. At a minimum, this program should include:

Research on etiology, life course, and societal consequences of female juvenile offending;

Research on the role of childhood experiences, neighborhoods and communities, and family and individual characteristics that lead young females into crime; and

Research on the role of psychiatric disorders in the etiology of female juvenile crime, as well as its role as a consequence of crime or the justice system's response.

Even though youth crime rates have fallen since the mid-1990s, public fear and political rhetoric over the issue have heightened. The Columbine shootings and other sensational incidents add to the furor. Often overlooked are the underlying problems of child poverty, social disadvantage, and the pitfalls inherent to adolescent decisionmaking that contribute to youth crime. From a policy standpoint, adolescent offenders are caught in the crossfire between nurturance of youth and punishment of criminals, between rehabilitation and "get tough" pronouncements. In the midst of this emotional debate, the National Research Council's Panel on Juvenile Crime steps forward with an authoritative review of the best available data and analysis. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice presents recommendations for addressing the many aspects of America's youth crime problem.

This timely release discusses patterns and trends in crimes by children and adolescents—trends revealed by arrest data, victim reports, and other sources; youth crime within general crime; and race and sex disparities. The book explores desistance—the probability that delinquency or criminal activities decrease with age—and evaluates different approaches to predicting future crime rates.

Why do young people turn to delinquency? Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice presents what we know and what we urgently need to find out about contributing factors, ranging from prenatal care, differences in temperament, and family influences to the role of peer relationships, the impact of the school policies toward delinquency, and the broader influences of the neighborhood and community. Equally important, this book examines a range of solutions:

• Prevention and intervention efforts directed to individuals, peer groups, and families, as well as day care-, school- and community-based initiatives.
• Intervention within the juvenile justice system.
• Role of the police.
• Processing and detention of youth offenders.
• Transferring youths to the adult judicial system.
• Residential placement of juveniles.

The book includes background on the American juvenile court system, useful comparisons with the juvenile justice systems of other nations, and other important information for assessing this problem.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Juvenile Delinquency: Its Prevention and Treatment, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 616

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

Only a very brief overview of the entire subject of juvenile crime can be achieved here. My purpose is to give the reader a quick summary of its most basic issues, the first of which must be the demographical factors subject to statistical measurement, i.e., of those youthful offenders who have been arrested and who now have a record: category of crime, age, gender, socio-economic status, race, and geographic (broadly, rural vs. urban) location.  Second would obviously be the outcome of each case: release without charge, bail, trial, verdict, imprisonment, and (if applicable) parole or duration of sentence. We can see that at this level of investigation, juvenile crime uses the same parameters that measure adult crime, the sole difference being, by definition, the age of the involved individuals. Yet each of these factors necessarily reflect both the local historical success of juvenile-crime prevention, and help construct strategies offering the highest chances for successful treatment, if any, of juveniles at risk – a subject less open to statistical measurement.

Probably one of the greatest distinctions separating juvenile and adult criminals is that in the former case, programs designed to prevent crime also treat its perpetrators at the same time. The late urbanologist Jane Jacobs makes this clear in her seminal book The Death and Life of Great American Cities , where she cites examples of how housing projects and parks serve as both incubators and theaters of juvenile crime. Fix them, and you have both prevented further crime and treated their young inhabitants, who, unlike their adult counterparts, are not free to leave such venues, either to practice their crimes outside their immediate crime-friendly environments or to simply escape them. From this, we may fairly infer without recourse to sources that children can become like adult prisoners, who, without freedom of movement, are forced to either join the culture of crime or face brutal reprisal.

There are now and have long been many programs, public and private, focused on preventing juvenile crime and treating its actors.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have many such programs and offer links to many others that address related prevention and treatment strategies involving drugs, divorce, schools, smoking, and alcohol use. These programs hew to corrective approaches deemed suitable for taxpayer funding and support by the academic community. By contrast, churches, due to their independence (real and perceived) from government, are free to offer their own socially comprehensive ideologies regarding the subjects of prevention and treatment of youthful offenders. The subject, like all important social problems, is an ideological arena.

Juvenile crime, like its adult counterpart, reflects our society and its times. New venues for crime, such as the World Wide Web, open up new problems and opportunities, and challenge assumptions aligning delinquency primarily to poverty. Obviously juvenile crime at the individual level solves itself: the young grow older. It would seem equally self-evident that preventing juvenile crime is a question of either preventing juveniles themselves, or treating the conditions that turn them into delinquents. In conclusion, one cannot study juvenile delinquency without studying nearly everything else, from alienation to zip guns. Thus will specialists always abound and contend — with each other, the public, and the public’s children.

CDC. Youth Violence , Retrieved August 28, 2011 from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/youthviolence/index.html.

Gair, Christopher. (2007). The American Counterculture , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hess, Albert. (1993). History of juvenile delinquency . Chatsworth: Scientia.

Jacobs, Jane. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Levitt, Steven. (2005).  Freakanomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: William Morrow,

Mathison, Sandra. (2007). Battleground: Schools . Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Mirabello, Mark. (2009). Handbook for Rebels and Outlaws . Author.

United Methodist Church. Retrieved August 28, 2011 from Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention , http://www.umc- gbcs.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=frLJK2PKLqF&b=2954109&ct=4206939&notoc=1

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Lombard Street in San Francisco, Essay Example

Researching in Criminal Justice, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Treatment: A Comparative Analysis

Introduction.

Juvenile delinquency, characterized by illegal or antisocial conduct among youth, poses a significant societal challenge. Addressing this issue necessitates strategies falling broadly into two primary spheres: prevention and treatment. Prevention strategies are anticipatory, designed to discourage the inception of delinquent behaviors by addressing risk factors linked to such actions. Conversely, treatment strategies are reactionary, targeting young individuals who have already exhibited such behaviors to rehabilitate and prevent recurrence. This discourse delves deeper into these categories, exploring their individual principles, efficacy, and exemplary instances. Further, it sheds light on the similarities and disparities between these approaches while elucidating their collective criticality within the juvenile justice system.

Juvenile Delinquency Prevention

Description and fundamental principles.

Delinquency prevention forms the cornerstone of proactive strategies aimed at curtailing the emergence of deviant behaviors among young individuals. The philosophy underpinning this approach is fundamentally anticipatory, focusing primarily on mitigating risks associated with juvenile delinquency before they escalate into tangible actions. This prevention paradigm targets myriad potential influencers of delinquency, encompassing environmental and personal factors that may predispose young people to engage in unlawful or socially unacceptable behaviors. Environmental factors often include socioeconomic conditions, educational opportunities, and familial relations that a child is exposed to, which can play a significant role in their behavioral development. For example, a child growing up in an economically disadvantaged environment with limited access to quality education may be at higher risk for engaging in delinquent behaviors as they might view these actions as survival or coping mechanisms (Pelham et al., 2020).

In addition to concentrating on environmental variables, preventive measures also target individual traits and characteristics of adolescents. These may include the person’s attitude, cognitive abilities, and behavioral problems. By recognizing these traits early on, suitable strategies can be aimed at helping children in controlling them in a way that decreases their probability of participating in delinquent behavior. The proactive approach to preventing delinquency is, consequently, its guiding principle. Instead of waiting to deal with delinquency after it happens, this strategy stresses preventative measures that avoid the emergence of such behaviors. This focus on prevention promotes prompt action and emphasizes the significance of resolving potential delinquency causes, intending to decrease the general rate of adolescent delinquency (Pelham et al., 2020).

Examples and Effectiveness

Diverse preventative strategies, including educational assistance programs, family-based measures, and community monitoring, have been adopted to prevent the onset of juvenile criminal behavior. One salient exemplification of this approach is the Nurse-Family Partnership program. This initiative provides home visitations by professional nurses during the prenatal and infancy stages to mothers identified as high-risk, equipping them with the necessary knowledge and skills to provide a nurturing environment for their children (Tung et al., 2019). This proactive program has achieved marked success in diminishing instances of child maltreatment, a recognized precursor to juvenile delinquency. However, the effectiveness of prevention programs is not a guarantee. Various factors may impact their success, including the quality of implementation, the accuracy in addressing specific risk factors, and the socio-cultural context in which the program operates. The varied efficacy underscores the necessity for ongoing evaluation and modification of prevention strategies to ensure their appropriateness and effectiveness within specific contexts.

Juvenile Delinquency Treatment

Delinquency treatment represents a set of interventions designed for juveniles who have already exhibited delinquent behavior, marking its key distinction from preventative measures. The central objective of treatment is two-pronged: to promote behavioral reformation in the juvenile offender and deter them from reoffending. This reactive approach hinges upon several fundamental principles. Firstly, accountability encourages offenders to acknowledge and take responsibility for their actions, fostering an understanding of the consequences their behaviors may have on themselves and others. Skill development is another pivotal principle. This includes providing adolescents with the required life skills, capacity for decision-making, and ways to cope effectively and deal with social norms and expectations. Lastly, altering behavior is essential to treatment, as it permits adolescents to substitute their harmful conduct patterns with more positive and acceptable options. Collectively, these concepts form the basis of delinquency therapy, with the end goal of recovery and social integration for juvenile offenders (Tsutomu et al., n.d.).

Treatments for juvenile delinquency involve therapy, family therapy, restitution, probation, and residential applications. The Multisystem Therapy (MST) program, a substantial, home-based intervention that addresses the surroundings with which an adolescent interacts, is an especially successful treatment strategy. MST has shown a high achievement rate in decreasing recidivism by focusing on various facets of a juvenile’s life that could lead to delinquent behavior (Buderer et al., 2020). However, it is crucial to acknowledge that medical strategies, like their preventative counterparts, are only sometimes successful. The effectiveness of these treatments can differ greatly depending on various variables. The particular characteristics of the delinquent behavior, the significance and practicality of the treatment strategy for the individual case, and the young person’s level of involvement and readiness to alter their conduct are instances of these factors.

Comparing Prevention and Treatment

Similarities and differences.

Despite their different intervention points, both the prevention and the treatment of juvenile delinquency hold a common goal of minimizing such actions and mitigating their adverse societal impacts. Both approaches recognize the importance of bespoke interventions specifically tailored to suit the individual’s unique circumstances and needs. Additionally, they acknowledge the profound influence of the juvenile’s environment and consider this context when designing and implementing interventions. This mutual focus on individual and environmental factors illustrates the comprehensive nature of strategies for tackling juvenile delinquency.

While prevention and treatment strategies share commonalities, they diverge considerably in their specific focus areas and implementation timing. Prevention targets individuals at risk of engaging in delinquent behaviors, intervening proactively to curb potential offending before it occurs. On the other hand, treatment is reactionary, targeting individuals who have already committed offenses to rehabilitate them and prevent recidivism. In terms of scope, prevention often involves broader social initiatives to enhance socioeconomic conditions or education systems that may predispose juveniles to delinquency. Conversely, treatment typically adopts a more individualistic focus, centering its efforts on personal reform and behavioral modification.

Importance of Prevention and Treatment

Prevention and treatment strategies are critically vital components of the juvenile justice system, albeit serving different but complementary purposes. Prevention plays a crucial role in deterring the inception of delinquent behaviors, potentially minimizing the influx of juveniles into the justice system. By addressing risk factors before they manifest into delinquent actions, prevention contributes to a healthier society. On the other hand, treatment is essential for juveniles who have already entered the system due to their actions. It focuses on reducing the likelihood of reoffending and fostering social reintegration, thereby aiding these individuals to regain a constructive role in society. Together, these strategies form the dual pillars upon which the juvenile justice system seeks to combat delinquency.

Prevention and treatment strategies in addressing juvenile delinquency are not mutually exclusive but interrelated components of a comprehensive approach. Effective prevention can lessen the demand for treatment by reducing the incidence of first-time offenders. Conversely, successful treatment can act as a form of secondary prevention, breaking the cycle of reoffending by equipping juveniles with the tools to make more positive choices. Ultimately, an integrated strategy that effectively harnesses preventive and treatment measures offers the greatest promise for long-term success in tackling juvenile delinquency (Song et al., 2022).

In conclusion, while prevention and treatment represent distinct methodologies in tackling juvenile delinquency, each is indispensable within the juvenile justice system. Prevention, with its proactive stance, endeavors to forestall the initiation of delinquent behaviors, whereas treatment, as a reactive approach, seeks to rehabilitate those who have already engaged in such actions. The symbiosis of these strategies, each addressing a different facet of the issue, provides a comprehensive framework for managing this complex societal concern. By integrating these approaches, we can foster a more holistic, effective solution that responds to juvenile delinquency and strives to reduce its occurrence, thereby promoting a healthier society for all individuals.

Buderer, C., Hefti, S., Fux, E., Pérez, T., Swenson, C. C., Fürstenau, U., … & Schmid, M. (2020). Effects of Multisystemic Therapy for Child Abuse and Neglect on the Severity of Neglect, behavioral and emotional problems, and attachment disorder symptoms in Children.  Children and Youth Services Review ,  119 , 105626.

Pelham, W. E., Petras, H., & Pardini, D. A. (2020). Can machine learning improve screening for targeted delinquency prevention programs?  Prevention Science ,  21 , 158-170.

Song, F., Li, R., Wang, W., & Zhang, S. (2022). Psychological characteristics and health behavior for juvenile delinquency groups.  Occupational therapy is international ,  2022 .

Tsutomi, M., Kakihara, J., Kwallah, J., & Muhoro, M. (n.d.).  Session Four: Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents . https://www.unafei.or.jp/activities/pdf/joint_kenya/session4.pdf

Tung, G. J., Williams, V. N., Ayele, R., Shimasaki, S., & Olds, D. (2019). Characteristics of effective collaboration: A study of Nurse-Family Partnership and child welfare.  Child abuse & neglect , p.  95 , 104028.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Parent and staff training- mediator training plan, the right to treatment – the constitution holds that an individual confined or in custody is entitled to more than custodial care., early childhood pedagogical and curricula methodology: a comparison of the english foundation stage curriculum, te wha”riki and reggio emilia, primary source analysis, understanding the u.s. corrections system, challenges and triumphs: civil liberties and rights of the muslim americans, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Psychology Discussion

• Essay on Juvenile Delinquency

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In this essay we will discuss about Juvenile Delinquency. After reading this essay you will learn about: 1. Introduction to Juvenile Delinquency 2. Meaning of Juvenile Delinquency 3. Incidence 4. Causes 5. Variables 6.  Treatment.

• Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency

Essay # 1. Introduction to Juvenile Delinquency:

Delinquency has always been considered as a social problem over and above the fact that it is a legal problem. It is also a psychological problem. Hence to avoid this social evil one has to tackle the complex problem of delinquency from the social psychological and to familial angles.

Although laws regarding Juvenile delinquencies have been formed long since, they are also being changed from time to time. Currently, in all the progressive and civilized countries of the world the laws with regard to the Juvenile delinquents have been changed.

Special courts are established with specially trained Magistrates for the trial of the delinquents. Today delinquency is being considered as a misbehaviour, a social nuisense than a crime. So, in every state the children’s Act (1944) required custody, control and punishment of young offenders.

It also provides for the establishment of reformatory schools for them. But the revised Bombay children’s Act of 1948 provided not only for custody and control but also for treatment and rehabilitation of young offenders.

Essay # 2. Meaning of Juvenile Delinquency:

Crime committed by children and adolescents under the age of 18 years, is called delinquency. The maximum age limit and also the meaning of delinquency varies from country to country. But it is always below 18 years of age which is the statutory age for delinquency.

In India any person between the age of 7 and 18 years, who violates the provisions of the children’s Acts, the IPC and the CPO will be considered as delinquent. Persons above this age are considered as criminals.

Juvenile delinquency is defined by the Pensylvania Juvenile Court Act as “A delinquent child is one who violated any laws of the common wealth ordinance of the city, a child who by reasons of being way ward or habitually disobedient is uncontrolled by his parents, guardian, custodian or legal representative, a child who is habitually trunt from school or home or child who habitually so deports himself is to injury or endanger the moral or health of himself or others”.

Delinquency in the view of the Coleman (1981) refers to “behaviour of youths under 18 years of age which is not acceptable to society and is generally regarded as calling for some kind of admonishment punishment or corrective actions”.

Delinquency includes all sorts of crimes committed by children. Starting from the business and use of illegal drugs and homicide murder, it may include various types of dangerous criminal offences.

Delinquency undoubtedly is a social evil. It is a socially unacceptable behaviour committed by boys and girls below the age of 18 years. Instead of giving these delinquents punishment, they are kept in Juvenile jail and correction homes where various corrective measures are taken to change their behaviour in the positive direction.

It is observed that crime and delinquency are increasing day by day with the increase in population and complexity of culture. As population increases the small societies become bigger ones and are found in the form of mass society.

In mass societies there is less scope for mutual interaction and face to face contact. The family bonds and community bonds thus become weak to weaker. Now a days no one knows or cares to know who is staying next door. Parents and children do not meet.

While motivation is derived from the Latin word “Movere” which means move, social motivation refers to those social factors and situations which influence the person to behave in a particular style in a society. To eat is a biogenic need, but what to eat and how to eat is influenced by social forces and social interaction.

One feels hungry, it is a biogenic need but how to satisfy these hunger need and where to ask for food is determined by socialization process.

A child who has gone to a neighbour’s house to play, feels hungry, but he has been taught not to ask for food from outsiders. He is taught only to ask for food at his own house. This is a case of biological motive being influenced by socialization process.

Most of our needs and motives, attitudes and aspirations regarding food, dress, style of living are determined by our cultural values and norms of the society. The process of socialization puts a strong stamp mark on the behaviour of an individual in the society.

Essay # 3 . Incidence of Juvenile Delinquency :

Coleman’s Study (1981) indicates that the rate of delinquency increased by 100 per cent within seven years i.e., between 1968-1975. Though, mainly boys are involved in delinquency, now a days it is found that girls are also actively engaged in this antisocial work.

During these 20 years delinquency has further increased. One may not believe, but it is true that almost half of the serious crimes in U.S.A. are committed by juveniles.

Common delinquent acts in females are sexual offences, small thefts, drug usage, running away from home etc. Among the males delinquents are more engaged in stealing, drug usage, robbery, aggravated assaults, sexual abuses etc. Particularly, now a days, the incidence of delinquency is increasing alarmingly in large metropolitan cities and this has become a matter of great concern for the public and country.

While evidences from some studies show that children from lower class families and those residing in slum areas are more engaged in delinquency, other studies do not support this view. In an important study, Heary and Gold (1973) found significant relationship between social status and delinquent behaviour.

In another significant study, it was noticed that the rate of delinquency in case of socially disadvantaged youths appears about equal for whites and non-whites.

Like any other country, as reports of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt, of India, shows, there is a steady rise in the percentage of delinquency in India. While it was 16,160 in 1961, it was, 40,666 in 1974. Thus, in 13 years the increase in the incidence of delinquency, as reports show, has the highest percentage of Juvenile crimes (24.8%).

Second place goes to M.P. (20.5%) and third place to Gujarat (10.9%). Kerala has an incidence rate of only 0.2%.

Essay # 4 . Causes of Delinquency :

In many under-developed and developing countries including many parts of india, criminal tendency of a person is looked upon as the results of evil deeds in the past life of the parents. this is undoubtedly a misconception and prejudice., in the other extreme of the case, when a child develops delinquency many believe that it is due to the fault actions, omissions and commissions of his parents during his childhood..

Delinquents lack ethical standards and emotional ties. They are very impulsive and indulge in acts at the spur of the moment. They are socially insensitive and lack guilt feeling. Delinquents, inspite of their socially unacceptable behaviours, created difficulties for the self as well as for others.

Considered as a learned behaviour, delinquency was found to be highly correlated with low life styles with lack of recreational facilities and lack of permanent residence.

Essay # 5. Variables of Juvenile Delinquency:

The variables of delinquency may broadly be divided into:

(A) Personality characteristics of individual factors

(B) General socio-cultural factors indulging family pattern and interaction, delinquent gang and subculture.

(A) Personality Characteristics/ Individual Factors:

No social factors alone-can contribute to the causation of delinquency though social and cultural factors contribute their share to delinquency. Personality characteristics and individual factors also contribute a lot to the causation of delinquency.

(i) Brain Damage:

As per the reports of Caputo and Mandell (1970), Kiestor (1974) in about one per cent of the delinquents brain damage leads to lower inhibitory controls and a tendency to show violent behaviour. The genetic theorists argue the presence of an extra ‘Y’ chromosome in delinquents.

(ii) Psychopathic Personality :

Large number of persistent delinquents have been found to possess the traits and characteristics of antisocial and psychopathic personalities. A number of studies conducted in UK and India using Eysenck’s personality inventory show delinquents to be more extroverts, more neurotic, more psychotic and to have more criminal tendencies than the control group.

They seem to be quite impulsive, callus, and socially insensitive, they do not have the feelings of sorrow, guilt and repentance. They are not able to establish suitable interpersonal relationship and they do not learn anything from experience in a constructive way.

The persistent delinquents also do not seem to have any reality control or inner conscience or morality. So, they indulge in whatever they wish, which give them pleasure and satisfy their ego with assessing its impact upon the society and their final consequence.

For example, they may steal a very little money actually they do not need or they may steal a scooter, a car or snatch a golden chain without any need or necessity.

Just to fulfil their aggressive and sadistic tendency they may drive their car to a small distance, break some parts of the car and leave it there. They just want to satisfy their destructive tendency, which gives them pleasure. Many psychopathic delinquents are found to cut the brand new cushions in theaters and movie halls.

This author has also observed many delinquents of 10-12 years age who are in the habit of breaking the electric bulb in every lamp post on the road without any reason, in the presence of other people in broad day light. They just did not care, use abusive language and again repeat their aggressive behaviour with more vigour.

Actually, the delinquents do not involve themselves in such nuisance for personal gain, but it really reflects their underlying resentment and hostility towards the outer world, the world for which they have no feeling of involvement or belongingness.

There are others who just move around in a gang aimlessly and get pleasure in eve teasing, in passing filthy remarks whenever a member of the fair sex passes by. Such people are really at the mercy of their uncontrolled, uninhibited impulses.

It would be interesting to note that currently the incidence of psychopathic personality in female delinquents has increased quite rapidly as reports suggest. Fine and Fishman (1968) conducted a study on 155 girls in a State Correctional Institution in Kentuky to know their general personality characteristics.

They found rebelliousness, inadequacy, impulsiveness, instability and immature characteristics commonly found in the psychopathic personality.

It was also found by Ganzer and Sarason (1973) that females more frequently come from personally and socially disorganised families than did males. The theories of both sheldon and Eysenck stress genetic aspects along with environmental aspects to explain delinquent behaviour.

(iii) Drug Abuse :

Quite a large number of delinquents particularly those who are engaged in theft, prostitution and physical assault are found to be addicted to drugs, like heroin, secobarbital and alcohol. Drug addicted females are usually engaged in stealing and prostitution.

(iv) Mental Retardation/Mental Deficiency :

Various studies have been conducted to find out the relationship between intelligence and delinquent behaviour to solve the controversy whether delinquency is environmental or genetic. Long ago, an Italian Scientist Lumbroso made certain empirical studies on crime, and held that criminals have defective physical structure and defective intelligence.

Therefore, various steps have been taken to measure the I.Q. of Juvenile delinquents to verify this view. The study conducted by Healy, Burt and others have demonstrated clearly that delinquents are not mental defectives.

But, nevertheless, the average intelligence of the delinquent group is lower than the average intelligence of the normal group. It is also found that compared to the normal children a larger proportion of mental defectives are found in the Juvenile group.

Various investigators have reported different percentage of average I.Q. for the delinquents, compared to the average I.Q. of the normal as 100. Healy and Bronner (1926) found it to be 90, Burt (1925) found it to be 85, Merril (1947) found it to be 92.5.

The above data of different investigators reveal that the average intelligence of delinquents happen to be lower than the average I.Q. of normals. These data also give clear signal that the Juvenile delinquents as a group, at large, are not mentally defective though they are below average.

However, a low intelligence and mental retardation among 5% of the delinquents may be accounted to delinquent behaviour. Such people have no foresight to the consequences and significance of their action.

That is why, they commit various impulsive behaviour, like small aggressive acts, petty stealing and various other sexual offences. Even more intelligent psychopaths and gangs exploit them and include them in their group. In some cases, mental retardation is associated with serious brain damage and leads to a combination of features of both the organic and the mentally retarded delinquents.

The above facts lead one to conclude that Juvenile delinquents differ from normal persons in degree and not in kind so far, as their I.Q. is concerned. Hence, Juvenile delinquents cannot be looked upon as a group of mental defectives.

Some other studies also show that below 70 I.Q. there are only about 3% of the children who are mental defectives in an unselected population of children. But in the delinquent groups there are 12 to 15 per cent mental defectives.

Thus, the number of mentally defective children among the delinquents is about 4-5 times larger than in a normal population says Kupuswamy. Uday Sankar (1958) conducted a study 011 the mental ability of the delinquents and found that the proportions of mentally defective children is very high among the 140 Juvenile delinquents he has studied. 27.4% of them are below 70 I.Q.

Merril made a comparative study of the average intelligence of the delinquents and non-delinquents. It was found that the average intelligence of juvenile delinquents from socially and economically handicapped group is low.

While those coming from higher socio economic groups was higher. The average intelligence of children from the non- delinquent, but lower groups is also low. Merril took a controlled group and an experimental group, each group with 300 boys and girls.

In the experimental group, the 300 boys and girls were delinquents while in the control group they were non-delinquents. The socio-economic status of both the groups were kept constant. Results showed that while the average I.Q. of the 300 delinquents children was 86.7, the average I.Q. of the 300 non-delinquent children was 89.3.

The results, thus, did not show any significant difference between the I.Q. of the controlled and the experimental group though there was some obtained difference. So, Merril held that it is not justified to assume that larger proportion of the delinquents have lower I.Q. However, it is possible that the higher I.Q. delinquents and criminal may utilize the lower I.Q. children for their criminal purpose and gang work.

In case, they are caught by the police, the intelligent juveniles escape while the less intelligent juveniles arc trapped. Such incidents are not rare in our society. The innocent ones are caught easily because of their lack of understanding and lack of capacity to solve the immediate problems facing them.

(v) Neurosis :

About 3 to 5 per cent of delinquent behaviour, seems to be directly associated with psychoneurotic disorders. Here, the delinquent act is mainly tinged with compulsive behaviour, such as stealing things which one actually does not need, or compelled to do.

He will not be stable and remain at peace unless he does these acts. This type of compulsive acts also lead to sexual deviant behaviour because of the sexual restrictions and beliefs that masturbation and other forms of overt sexual behaviour are very much undesirable and a sin.

(vi) Psychosis :

In a limited number of cases, i.e. about 3 to 5%, delinquent, behaviour is associated with psychotic disorders. In Bandurar’s opinion (1973) often this involves prolonged emotional and social withdrawal arising out of long standing frustration.

Then, there is an explosive outburst of violent behaviour like volcanic eruption. Here, the delinquent act is the function of terrible personality, maladjustment and disturbances rather than a consistent antisocial orientation.

(vii) Emotional Problems :

Delinquency as an antisocial personality is the function of certain pathological and ill developed social environment. Wrong handling and faulty upbringing of the child lead to several emotional problems in the child. Various observations, case histories and interviews have indicated that quite a high percentage of the delinquents displayed emotional disturbances.

Heally and Bronner found that 92% of the delinquents showed emotional disturbances. Feeling of inadequacy, inferiority etc. were frequently found in them. In about 50% of the group, they were persistently present.

The feeling of insecurity, rejection of the parents and other members of the family were next important factors causing delinquent behaviour. About 33% of the group experienced strong feeling of being thwarted. Disharmony and problems of discipline were found in one third of the delinquents.

Quite a number of them also expressed sibling rivalry and jealousy. All these data lead to show that various emotional problems like insecurity, inferiority, jealousy, feeling of being neglected and let down were very common among the delinquent children.

The need for recognition and resentment against the sense of insecurity provides enough scope for a person to be delinquent. Rebellious feeling in oneself makes one antisocial and delinquent.

Because of these emotional problems which are created by dehumanised social conditions the person becomes a delinquent and tries to take action, against others. It is a fact that by their antisocial, sadistic and aggressive action they try to get pleasure and mental satisfaction.

Because of their emotional problems, they should be considered as maladjusted personalities and not as peculiar human beings, who differ from other human beings not in degree but in kind. They should not be considered as abnormal human beings.

Their needs and desires are very much normal, but they have become so because of faulty family upbringing. They become hostile and aggressive because they feel threatened and insecured.

According to Friedlander, delinquent character is the result of three factors:

(i) The strength of the unmodified instinctive urges,

(ii) The weaknesses of the ego and

(iii) The lack of independence and strength of the super ego. He is not able to control his impulsive needs. In his case neither realistic considerations, nor moral considerations operate to check his impulsive actions. Stott (1950) holds that delinquent breaks down is an escape from emotional situation which for the particular individual with the various conditioning of his background becomes almost temporarily invariable.

(viii) Faulty Discipline and Child Rearing Practice :

When the parents or one of them use rigid discipline, it increases hostility in the child. Why? Because of rigid discipline all his wishes and desires are suppressed and restrained. This leads to the development of an antisocial, rebellious and hostile personality in the growing child.

By constant suppression of desires the child never feels free and clear. Conflicting views of parents and teachers regarding discipline also contribute.

If the child rearing practices are faulty and are based on rigid, dictatorial principles, if the child is always left to cry and cry, if the child is not handled with due love and affection, if the discipline is harsh, inconsistent and irrational, his suppressed and repressed aggression is vented through anti-social and delinquent behaviour.

Prolonged parental deprivation particularly at the early age of life, between 1-5 years is extremely adverse for the normal personality development of the child. The affectionless and loveless life due to proper parenting and judicious child rearing practices lead to several maladjustments and in some cases juvenile delinquency.

Bowlby (1946) compared 44 children who committed various thefts and hence were kept in the London child Guidance Clinic for treatment with 44 normal children of the same age and Socio-economic status, who came to the clinic for treatment but who did not steal.

Results showed that 17 of the 44 thief’s had suffered from prolonged separation from their mothers. But in the control group only 02 were separated from their mothers.

Of course, the question why the remaining 27 thief’s of the experimental group inspite of being with their mother took recourse to thefts has not been explained by this factor. But there are other factors besides parental deprivation which influence the development of delinquency.

Stott is of opinion that security, affection, love and proper attention from the parents are basically required for the proper growth of personality of the child. Those children who do not get this from their parents become susceptible to delinquency.

By becoming delinquents they try to get attention from their parents. Further they with an attitude of revolt try to teach their parents a lesson. Some also become vindictive and develop antisocial, reactionary, negative behaviour. They get sadistic satisfaction by giving pain to their parents and causing them worry. They get pleasure by seeing them suffering.

Lower socio-economic status parents usually remain absent from home for earning their bread. Both the father and mother work from morning to evening outside. So the child is deprived from parental care and is neglected.

They also cannot provide a baby sister to take care of the baby because of their poverty. Since the parents of low S.E.S. are not properly educated and properly trained, they cannot take proper care of their children. To add to this the school going children do not get scope for going to good school for their educational and social development. All these factors either separately or in combination pave the way for delinquency.

(ix) Broken Homes :

Studies show that children coming from broken homes, where parents are separated or divorced, lead to delinquent behaviour, than those children coining from broken homes where the home is broken by the death of the parents or one of the parents. In Western countries, where separation and divorce of parents are more common, this is a major cause of delinquency.

But in India, though currently separation and divorce cases are increasing day by day, they are not so rampant like their Western counterparts and hence, is not a major cause of delinquency.

In a study of institutionalized delinquents in the State of Colorado, Barker and Adams (1962) found that only about one-third of the boys and girls come from complete home setting, i.e. where they live with both their original parents. British and American Investigations reveal that nearly 50 per cent of the delinquents come from broken homes.

(x) Socio-pathic Parental Models :

Glueck and Glueck (1969), Ulmar (1971) and Bandura (1973) have found high presence of socio- pathic traits in the parents of the delinquents. Socio-pathic traits include alcoholism, brutality, anti­social attitudes, failure to provide unnecessary frequent absences from home, lack of communication with the child etc. All these traits make the father an inadequate and unacceptable model for the child.

According to Scharfman and Clark (1967) the chief variables of the delinquent behaviour of girls were:

(a) Broken homes combined with emotional deprivation,

(b) Irrational, harsh and inconsistent parental discipline,

(c) Patterns of only aggressive and sexual behaviour modelled by psychopathic parents.

(xi) Parental Absenteeism :

In studies on juvenile delinquency, Martin (1961) and others have emphasized the feeling of unrelatedness and detachment from the family and society as a key cause of delinquency. Communication gap with one or both parents leads to the failure to learn appropriate social values. This finally leads to a tendency to act out inner tension in hostile and destructive manner.

The question is why this feeling of unrelatedness or insecurity arises in young people who differ vastly in age I.Q., personality make up and socio-economic standard. A key source of this feeling appears to be parental absenteeism.

When parents are too much absorbed in their own occupations and activities and do not provide the youth optimum attention, necessary support and encouragement during the crisis period of the growing age, they turn to peers and others as models who might be lacking the qualities of ideal models for the child.

(xii) Mother Dominance :

When the father is mostly busy with his own work and commitments or in other works, and if he plays a submissive role in the family, the mother takes over the function of providing affection and discipline of the boy.

In certain cases, it is found that by nature the mother because of her aggressive personality pattern or earning capacity plays a dominant role compared to the father. When the child grows up with a mother dominance atmosphere in the family, he starts identifying with the mother and greatly depends upon him as a role model.

With this type of attitude when he reaches adolscence, it becomes difficult for the boy to develop a masculine self concept. Thus, now he tries to express his masculanity, independence courage and finally the so called male ego in rebellious and proving offences. By being engaged in such anti-social acts, he gets the satisfaction that he is really masculine.

(xiii) Father Rejection :

Andry, on the basis of the findings of his studies, concluded that the delinquent boys felt rejected by their fathers but loved by their mothers. Non-delinquent boys on the other hand felt to be equally loved and cared by both the parents. A child who is rejected by his parents day in and day out, develops, naturally, an inner feeling of hostility towards him.

The gap in communication and lack of understanding between the father and the child paves the way for anti-social behaviour in the form of anguish, aggression and hostility. When he finds that a large part of his world is unable to deal with him properly, he in turn does not like to understand the world either.

This hostility is transformed in the form of anti-social and delinquent behaviour. He, infact, lacks normal inner controls. He does not have the basic values of life. So, he tends to act out his aggressive impulses.

(xiv) Undesirable Peer Relationship :

Delinquency is said to be a gang experience. In support of this view, Haney and Gold (1973) found that about 66 per cent of the delinquent behaviours are committed in association with other persons. Usually it is a homogenious group so far, as sex is concerned. But in selected cases, as found now a days girls and boys also form gangs and delinquent groups.

(B) General Socio-Cultural Factors:

(i) Alienation and Rebellion :

Many ego psychologists view that the modern youth is only a bundle of confusions as far as his values of life is concerned. Most surprisingly, it is common in youths coming from all socio-economic levels. There is a communication gap and a generation gap.

They do not accept the values of their parents or grandparents and they are even confused of their so called own values and sense of identity. There is also identity crisis in many of them. Thus, in short, they are all in a mess.

They do not know what to accept and what to reject. They always experience a feeling of alienation from family as well as society. This lack of identification and development of clear values turn them to the outer world to peers gangs and friends for guidance and approval. They may take drugs and engage in illegal anti­social activities like thefts, pick pockets, violences etc.

There are innumerable instances where many modern youths who run away from home as a sort of reaction to their rebellious feeling, tend to join gangs indulged in delinquent behaviour, prostitution etc. In the same manner, socially disadvantaged youths, such as belonging to lower income groups, lower caste groups and having very little education, having lower status in the society may turn to delinquency also.

(ii) The Social Rejects :

With the increase in urbanization and industrialization, family ties grow weaker. Joint family systems are gradually disintegrating. People prefer to have their own family of husband and wife and children.

With the formation of mass society, influence of technology on society and erosion of values, social disintegration is increasing day by day. Joint family system has now become a dream. Tolerance and sense of sacrifice and feeling of cooperation is decreasing day by day.

Divorce and remarriage are quite common in the Western countries and urban areas. Though some decades back in India the public opinion was very strong against divorce and remarriage, now it has changed to some extent with the increase in industrialization and urbanization.

The effect of social disintegration, erosion of values, lack of sense of social sacrifice and commitment for the society may make many children social rejects. Young boys and girls who lack the motivation to do well in school because of various familial and social factors and become drop outs who are social isolates as soon as they can.

Normally, they do not qualify for any job. Irrespective of class, sex social status and wealth, they generally feel useless and unneeded by the society. This lack of hope, feeling of uselessness and that they are rejected by the society, lead them to show undesirable anti-social behaviour.

Many of them remain unemployed. Those who somehow get some employment are funnily unable to hold the job, and so, they shift from job to job, engage in delinquent behaviour, partly as a result of frustration and partly due to confusion and hopelessness.

(iii) Delinquent Gang Subculture :

This includes the rebellion with the norms of the society. If a person is rejected by the society, his inner tension is often revealed in serious delinquent acts beating and fighting leading to serious physical injury.

As Jenkins has put it, the socialized delinquents represent not a failure of socialization but a limitation of loyalty to a more or less pedatory peer group. The basic capacities for social relationship has been achieved. What is lacking in an effective integration with the larger society as a contributing member.

(iv) Gangs and Companions :

In addition to other important causes of delinquency, those who feel inadequate and rejected by the group and society join gangs, peer groups and companions and indulge in anti-social activities. As a child grows, he mixes with the members of the neighbourhood and always becomes an important member of their play group. The norms set up for the child at home may not be similar to the norms set up by the play groups.

Because of such differences there may be conflict of values, ideas and norms. Even in the school these norms may be different. He has to conform and adjust with one set of norms at home and another set of norms in the play group and another in the school.

Various studies indicate that secondary groups, like neighbourhood, playmates, peers and school, and others in the society which the child comes in contact more often than not all have tremendous effects on the personality of the child. All these agents of socialization play important role in the process of socialization of the growing child.

Overcrowding of cities, lack of space at home, residence at slum areas, location of various shops and business centres in various residential areas of the city, environmental pollution create a lot of social problems. Such problems have an adverse effect on the social development of the child. Children of such areas do not have a park to play, do not have many recreational facilities.

Some of these children of the slum areas invade the industrial belts nearby for some occasional job and are sometimes thrown out because of their inefficiency. Being frustrated and finding no way out, they mix with other children of the similar category and form gangs. Street corner gangs have tremendous contribution to Juvenile delinquency.

Initially, the gang starts as a play group. In the absence of play ground facility, the children start playing in the streets and eventually organise themselves in to gangs. Various groups of the same or nearby area then start fighting.

Very recently one incident occurred in my residential colony. There is one ‘paan’ (bettle) shop in front of my house. Two days before the last Ganesh Puja when I reached home from market, I found that the two boys of the paan shop along with some outside teenagers are constructing a pendal adjacent to the paan shop.

On enquiry, my orderly peon told me that these boys belong to another nearby colony and they are going to celebrate Ganesh Puja here. They decorated the pendal and also started playing film songs using a mike two days before the Puja.

We were very much disturbed by these unnecessary loud sounds. But nobody dared to object with the apprehension of being misbehaved and malhandled by them. On the night prior to the Puja day this gang of 10 to 12 boys prepared a feast near the pendal and ate to their heart’s content.

At about 2 A.M. we heard loud noise of fighting and shouting in front of our house. We got up from sleep and saw that two gangs are fighting with each other. Some of them broke the image of Ganesh and broke the mike.

Consequently one members of a gang fell down on the ground with severe blows and head injury. After this incident immediately the culprits lied from the spot leaving the injured boy there. After ten minutes two persons came and took away the injured boy in a rickshaw.

After 3-4 minutes Police came to the spot and after necessary enquiry booked the culprits. Members of both the gangs were kept under the custody of the Police for the whole day.

Alas! the Puja could not be performed in time. Why the two gangs fought? Gang No. 1 did not want gang No.2 to celebrate a separate Ganesh Puja. Gang No. 1 wanted Gang No. 2 to contribute to their Puja. So there was conflict and quarrel between the two gangs.

Numerous such quarrels, violence’s and conflicts occur every day between the street corner and Zhopodi gangs. Some members of these gangs are involved in petty theft and anti-social behaviour. They are famous for creating social nuisense.

Why a person becomes a member of a gang? Gang membership provides them a sense of status and approval and a sense of belongingness which they did not get from their family and other social agents. In a gang, the responsibility or blame of threat is not shouldered by any individual member, but by the gang as a whole just like in a mob.

Thus, some prefer to steal or booze and do other illegal acts in the name of gang. Studies have indicated that the groups outside the home have a tremendous impact on the personality of the adolescent. The gang starts as a play group.

In the absence of play ground facility, the children start playing in the streets and eventually form a gang and the behaviour of the person is mostly influenced by the gang and so he develops delinquent tendencies.

Though the gang has all the qualities of an in group like cooperation, unity, fellow feeling and belongingness, it is also associated with crimes, like stealing, eveteasing, rioting, homicide, rape, murder, boozing, taking various drugs and abusing them, dacoity, assault and murders etc.

Thus, they form a racket and in an organised way they create terror in the area. Studies have indicated that these children are roughly between 10-16 years age. They also come from poor families with constant friction between parents and family members. Those children who usually become the members of the gang have often little or no parental guidance.

Studies also indicate that delinquency is committed in groups and in companies. Shaw analysed 6,000 cases of crime and observed that in 72 per cent of the cases two or more companions were involved.

Healy reported that companionship was a single factor causing delinquency in 34 per cent of the cases while Burt gives the figure at 18 per cent. Uday Sankar gives the figure at 23 per cent. Sometimes parents are seen complaining that their child became a delinquent by mixing in bad company.

But bad companionship is not the only cause of delinquency unless there are some defects in the character formation of the individual. However, bad companionship is never the less an important factor which lead to delinquency, since delinquency is also a learnt behaviour.

In a gang or a restricted group the influence of social norm is there, sense of responsibility is divided and a boy feels that cinema and various electronic medias, like TV, Video films of violent and sexual nature lead children to delinquency by being helped through various techniques of delinquency shown in the screen.

However, it is quite reasonable to assume that early childhood training and parental attitude, how the child is reared up, all these have tremendous impact in deciding delinquent behaviour. These predisposing characters are precipitated in a gang thus leading to delinquency.

Recently female delinquents have also formed their gangs with a purpose to protect and defy themselves. They find a sense of acceptance, belongingness and give and take, sympathy, understanding, companionships, loyalty, power and authority which they do not find in a socialized world which they consider to be an out group.

(v) Poverty :

Ample evidences are there to hold that a large percentage of the delinquent children come from poor homes. It is found that even 50 per cent of the delinquents come from lower strata of the society with very poor economic background and hand to mouth living standard. Glueck’s (1934) study revealed that only 28.8% of the children came from comfortable homes with good economic status of parents.

Those who are disadvantaged and under privileged due to their poverty had to take recourse to some anti-social action for their living also.

Hence, keeping all other factors constant, a child coming from a comfortable home has relatively less chance for becoming a delinquent than a child coming from a poor under privileged family, Glueck’s study also showed that 37% of the fathers of delinquent children were skilled labourers while 23% were semi-skilled labourers and 40% were unskilled labourers.

Findings of his study showed that not a single parent of the delinquent children came from the clerical services. Glueck’s study, thus, brings the fact to light that the nature of job of parents is also an important determinant of delinquency.

Of course, Glueck’s study was conducted about sixty four years back and much changes have taken place during these six to seven decades. Children of some well to do highly educated parents doing very good jobs in government and non-govt.

Offices also, now a days, are engaged in delinquency and the percentage is growing up day by day. But compared to their lower SES counterparts the percentage is very low. According to Uday Sankar’s Study 83% of the Juvenile delinquents came from poor homes, 13% from border line (neither poor nor rich) homes and only 4% came from comfortable homes.

But poverty cannot be the role cause of delinquency. Had it been so, in India where poverty is found in most homes, the number of delinquents would have been more than the rich and better off countries which is not a fact. In India the percentage of Juvenile delinquency is very low and most people are peace loving and disciplined unlike other developed and developing countries.

A study conducted by the Ministry of Education (1952) Govt, of India indicates that 32,400 children were awarded sentences for delinquency in 1949. But in 1950 it was noticed that 40,119 children of all the states of India except U.P. were put up for trial in the Juvenile courts. But besides these recorded cases, there might have been some unrecorded cases also.

Poor parents have to leave their children and go for work. Thus, the mother is not available to take proper care of the child. They are neglected and the child becomes wayward. Children from poor homes also do not get scope for education as they have to supplement the earning of their parents. Poverty is, therefore, a contributing cause of delinquency, although it is not the sole cause.

(vi) Stress :

Serious traumatic experiences may lead one to become a delinquent. Clark (1961) found that one- third of the cases studied by him were found to be suffering from trauma. These traumatic experiences may range from death of parents, children husband or wife, broken homes, disorganised families etc.

Burks and Harrison (1962) have also stressed the function of stresses which directly threaten the adolescent feeling of inadequacy and worth as precipitating events in some cases of aggressive antisocial behaviour. Finkelstein (1968) holds that accumulation of emotional tensions also lead to a final outbreak the form of delinquency.

(vii) Delinquent Areas :

Studies of Burt in England indicates that there are certain localities from which majority of delinquent children come. In these areas, there are poor housing overcrowding and lack of recreational facilities. Most delinquents also come from the areas where cinema houses and hotels are located.

Burt found a high correlation of 77 between delinquency and density of population. Shaw in a similar study found that the majority of the Juvenile delinquents came from the centres of Chicago and the number of juveniles decreased from centre to periphery. But this is not applicable to all children staying in the crowded localities.

Essay # 6 . Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency :

What is a crime after all? An act which is a crime in one society may not be a crime in another society as crimes are acts which violate the rights of a person or property as envisaged by law or tradition. But never the less certain acts are considered as criminal in every society like murders, theft etc.

Inspite of the cultural variations in different parts of the world, criminals are always punished by the society or law, although the degree of punishment may vary from society to society. Many in the society believe that punishment should be exemplary so that others will not dare to commit it.

This purpose of giving punishment to the culprit in a major way is to prevent criminal acts. But the question arises whether Juvenile delinquents who are below 18 years of age should be punished like the convicts and criminals or not.

Rehabilitation of delinquents has been a great social issue. Delinquency is an anti-social behaviour and it creates unrest and indiscipline in the society. It makes social life hazardous and dangerous. It also affects the peace and prosperity of the nation. It is, therefore, imperative that the readjustment problem of delinquents should be dealt very sincerely and effectively.

Many people in the society feel that Juvenile delinquents should be given severe punishment so that not only they, but others will not dare to repeat such illegal, anti-social action in future. But sociologists and psychologists strongly hold that since Juvenile delinquency refers to the cases of young minds and children at their tender age, one has to deal with such cases very cautiously and carefully.

Juvenile delinquency being a social disease the child or the adolscent has to be treated in such a manner, so that he can readjust with the society. His maladjustment with the society has to be changed.

Since delinquency is mainly caused in the society under social conditions mostly because his basic needs are not fulfilled, efforts should be made first to fulfil the basic needs of every child in a socially approved manner whether delinquent or non-delinquent and extra care should be taken of the delinquent child.

Each delinquent child tries to fulfil his needs in an anti-social manner. But it would be the job of the social reformers and psychologists dealing with the care of the delinquents, to fulfil their needs in a socially accepted manner according to the norms of the society and legal sanctions.

Further, each delinquent has to be considered individually focussing attention on the fulfillment of his needs for power, prestige and recognition. Each individual case of delinquency has to be studied separately keeping in view his specific problems. Then only, it will be possible to rehabilitate, recondition and readjust the individual in the society.

In recent years there has not only been any transformation in the past attitude of the society and social thinkers towards delinquency there has also been change in law with regard to Juvenile delinquency. The outlook is now more progressive and dynamic. Special courts have been established with specially trained Magistrates to handle the cases of delinquents.

They are also sheltered in special homes instead of jails and special care is taken so that they can be rehabilitated in the society. Remand homes are established by law to which the young offenders are sent. Trained social workers are also engaged to study each case. For each case a separate file is built up with the detailed case history, type of crime committed and further improvement in behaviour.

Clinical psychologists and psychiatrists are also engaged in many remand homes to reform these anti-socials. Instead of giving physical punishment to the offenders, constant efforts are made to bring change in their outlook and attitude towards society, towards themselves. In short, the aim of everyone involved is to rehabilitate the individual in the society as a normal individual.

Special schools are also established otherwise known as ‘Reformatory Schools’ with specially trained teachers to help the delinquents to overcome the deficiencies in their socialization and develop the right kind of attitude towards themselves. The teachers of such schools gradually try to become substituted parents and help the children in generating a sense of security, self confidence, right attitude towards society.

They are given various craft and other vocational training to earn their livelihood, once they are rehabilitated in the society. The schools also develop a number of group activities to change the ego and super ego of these children.

In Western countries delinquents in small groups are brought up in residential areas and given individual treatment, to have in them a feeling that they are part and parcel of the society. Thus, they are removed from the aversive environment and allowed to learn about the world of which they are a member.

If required, they are given individual therapy, group therapy and psychological counselling. Here, their behaviour is resocialized by the help of group pressure. Counselling with the parents in the rehabilitation centre is also of great help for the rehabilitation of the Juvenile delinquents.

Institutionalization may not be quite successful in case of Juvenile offenders, i.e. youths whose offenses have involved acts that world not be considered criminal, if committed by an adult such as running away from home or engaging in sexual relations. If such types of delinquents are kept with those who have committed serious crimes, they would in turn learn these from them.

It may, therefore, aggravate their behavioural problems instead of correcting them. The teachers of reformatory schools should also keep in mind to act as substitutes of good, warm and understanding parents and help the children to generate a sense of security and involvement. They should give up the idea that their life is meaningless and their birth is useless.

The school also should make efforts to develop a number of group activities in debate, sports, various social functions, picnics, exhibitions and study tours to change the ego of the delinquent child, to create a feeling of togetherness, belongingness, we feeling, sense of sacrifice and cooperation along with healthy competition.

Positive human values like honesty, sociability, amiability, truthfulness etc. are to be developed through teaching and action. One has to remember that changes are to be made from negative to positive outlooks and values of life.

Parents have also tremendous role to play in the rehabilitation of their delinquent children. They, therefore, must be helped to develop insight to their own behaviour and analyse their own behaviour which might have led to the maladjustment in the child.

They should, therefore, try to rectify their own behaviour so that in future there is no problem from the side of parents when the child returns from the reformatory home to be rehabilitated in the society. Since a lot depends upon parental behaviour and attitude, they should be very cautious.

Finally, the society and public should also change their outlook and attitude towards delinquency in general. They should not hate or distrust the delinquents. The delinquents must be dealt with sympathy, understanding and good behaviour.

They should not be hurt emotionally. Society as a whole should give up its fear and hostility towards the delinquents and anti-socials. It should develop a flexible attitude so that proper analysis of the causes of delinquency is made and adequate steps are taken both with respect to the prevention and treatment of delinquency.

Mentally retarded children should be specially and cautiously, dealt with parents and teachers. Otherwise, they may become susceptible to delinquency. They should be handled with proper care and should be taught in such a way so that their attention can be sustained.

The psychopathic and neurotic children should be given the opportunities of necessary therapeutic measures and prevent the development of delinquent behaviour.

All kinds of delinquents should not be treated identically, in a group or and should not be given similar rehabilitation facilities. For this purpose, differential diagnosis of the delinquents is essentially required. This can be possible by the, services of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

Increase of population without proportionate increase of space and other living conditions is one of the major causes of rise in delinquency. Particularly people migrate to cities from villages and the cities, semi-urban and urban areas for earning their livelihood.

So they are overcrowded. Various difficulties crop up and so problems of socialization are also experienced. Slum areas in cities create more problems leading to the growth of anti-social feelings in children.

Therefore, vast programmes are now being undertaken to clear the slum areas and for providing educational and recreational facilities for the slum children like parks, gardens, play grounds, doll house. As a result, the children need not play in street corners and constitute consciously or unconsciously street corner gangs.

Large amount of money are being spent in Western countries to rehabilitate the delinquents through various remedial measures. Various steps are also being taken at different quarters to prevent the rise of delinquents. But since delinquency is a very complex problem being caused by multifarious factors, it is difficult, though not impossible, to control it and prevent it.

Inspite of the various rehabilitation programmes developed by different countries of the world, they do not appear to be sufficient to reduce the percentage of delinquency from the society or prevent it significantly.

The inadequacies of the correctional system are being changed as and when necessary. Effective rehabilitation programmes, long range programmes to prevent delinquency should also be prepared to combat the rise of delinquency in the society.

This can be made possible by improving the conditions of the slum areas, providing suitable educational facilities for children staying in slum areas, near railway station, bus stand, market etc.

Along with this minimum education, vocational training and training in different trades should also be provided. By being engaged in work and earning some money during the training period, they can be normalized and can also adjust with the main stream.

The manual training will not only encourage their creative abilities, but also would give them satisfaction. When a child or an adolscent produces a bag or a basket, a toy in mud or a painting he gets immense satisfaction. This sense of achievement produces in him a sense of security and confidence, a sense of adequateness.

Orphanage and destitute homes are not sufficient to rehabilitate the juvenile delinquents in view of their increasing numbers during the recent years. Hence, these along with recreational centres should be increased.

In the school the teacher should show sympathetic treatment to the Juveniles. They should not hate them. Their approach should be different from what they show to the normal children and each Juvenile delinquent should be given individual attention. Mentally handicapped and retarded children should not be ridiculed by class mates and peers. The teacher should give special attention to this.

The rehabilitation programmes are not enough keeping in view the rapid growth of Juvenile delinquency in the entire world. The inadequacies of the correctional system are being changed. Besides effective rehabilitation programmes, long range programmes to prevent delinquency should be prepared.

This can be made possible by improving the conditions of the slum areas, provision for suitable educational and recreational facilities, education of parents disciplined and organised society with role relationship defined, development of proper ego identity and etc.

Odell (1974) has developed a programme that combined educational development and job placement facilitating entry in to the opportunity structure more effective than traditional case work methods in preventing Juvenile recidivision. Finally, it can be said that the emphasis should be more on rehabilitation than punishment.

Juvenile delinquency cannot be curbed fully from the society. No society can ever completely prevent or eliminate crime, practically speaking. However, delinquency and crime can be reduced social scientists and psychologists can plan to reduce delinquency and crime.

Related Articles:

• Social Development in Children: 6 Factors | Psychology
• Essay on Delinquency | Psychology
• Essay on Cooperation

Contributors

The court’s obligation to determine disposition in a delinquency matter.

Is the court bound to order a certain disposition in a delinquency matter when the juvenile and the prosecutor agree to that disposition as part of an agreement? The short answer is no. The Juvenile Code requires the court to engage in certain procedures, to consider certain factors, and to order disposition in accord with certain parameters when developing and ordering a delinquency disposition. The mandates on the court cannot be delegated to the parties and they are not optional. This post describes these mandates and explores the implications for dispositional outcomes that are agreed upon by the juvenile and the prosecutor.

Statutory Mandates Requiring the Court to Develop the Disposition

Article 25 of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes governs disposition in delinquency matters. The purpose of the disposition “is to design an appropriate plan to meet the needs of the juvenile and to achieve the objective of the State in exercising jurisdiction, including the protection of the public. “ G.S. 7B-2500 .  The statute goes on to direct that “The court should develop a disposition in each case” that promotes public safety, emphasizes accountability of the juvenile and their parent, and provides appropriate consequences, treatment, training, and rehabilitation to help the juvenile become a nonoffending, responsible, and productive community member. G.S. 7B-2500 (emphasis added).

The Juvenile Code also includes specific guidance on how a disposition should be selected. The statute clearly requires the court to “select the most appropriate disposition both in terms of kind and duration for the delinquent juvenile.” G.S. 7B-2501(c) . The court is also mandated to select a disposition within the statutorily permissible options “that is designed to protect the public and to meet the needs and best interests of the juvenile, based upon: (1) The seriousness of the offense; (2) The need to hold the juvenile accountable; (3) The importance of protecting the public safety; (4) The degree of culpability indicated by the circumstances of the particular case; and (5) The rehabilitative and treatment needs of the juvenile indicated by a risk and needs assessment.” The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the trial court must consider each of these five factors when entering a dispositional order. In the Matter of I.W.P. , 259 N.C. App. 254, 264 (2018) .

This overarching statutory structure places the burden on the court to develop an individualized disposition in each case, taking the five factors contained in G.S. 7B-2501(c) into consideration. The statute does not provide flexibility for the court to delegate that responsibility to any other party or to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ).

Statutory Mandates Regarding Assessments After Adjudication

The Juvenile Code also requires the court to order assessments under certain circumstances after adjudication and prior to disposition.

• If the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent for committing an offense that involved the possession, use, sale, or delivery of alcohol or a controlled substance, the court must require the juvenile to be tested for the use of controlled substances or alcohol within 30 days of adjudication. G.S. 7B-2502(a1) .
• The court must order DJJ to make a referral for a comprehensive clinical assessment (CCA) or equivalent mental health assessment after adjudication if the juvenile has been identified as having a suspected mental illness, developmental disability, or intellectual disability and no CCA or equivalent mental health assessment has been conducted within 90 days before the dispositional hearing. G.S. 7B-2502(a2) .

The court is also required to review any existing CCA or equivalent mental health assessment before ordering disposition in the matter. G.S. 7B-2502(a3) . If the court determines that 1) the juvenile has a severe emotional disturbance, a developmental disability, or an intellectual disability, and 2) that condition substantially contributed to the juvenile’s delinquent behavior, and 3) the juvenile is eligible for a Juvenile Justice Level 3 disposition and/or is recommended for a Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility placement, the court must order a care review team to be convened by the DJJ. G.S. 7B-2502(a3) .

An additional mandate applies to the court after the convening of a care review team is ordered. The court must review the recommendation plan developed by the care review team when determining disposition according to the factors described above in G.S. 7B-2501(c). G.S. 7B-2502(a4) .

Here again, the statute does not offer any ability for the court to delegate these tasks or to circumvent them when the juvenile and the prosecutor agree regarding the appropriate disposition.

Dispositional Limits Based on Disposition Chart

The Juvenile Code also provides a specific structure for determining allowable dispositional alternatives in each case. A disposition chart is included in G.S. 7B-2508(f) . It uses offense severity along the left side and delinquency history level across the top to create a matrix that defines which of three potential dispositional Levels can be used in the matter. Both offense severity and the method to be used to calculate delinquency history points are defined by statute. G.S. 7B-2508(a) , G.S. 7B-2507 . In some instances, the chart mandates only one dispositional Level. In other instances, discretion is allowed to choose between two Levels prescribed by the chart. More detailed information on the statutory requirements that govern the determination of the disposition Level can be found in this previous blog .

The potential dispositional alternatives available for each Level are limited to the options authorized in G.S. 7B-2508 . The statutes are clear that it is the court that selects the dispositional alternatives to be used in each case. In describing Level 1 and Level 2 dispositions, the statutes state that the court may provide for evaluation and treatment or any of certain identified dispositional alternatives. The statutes also mandate that the court must “consider the needs of the juvenile as indicated by the risk and needs assessment contained in the predisposition report, the appropriate community resources available to meet those needs, and the protection of the public” when determining which dispositional alternative is appropriate. G.S. 7B-2508(c) , G.S. 7B-2508(d) .

When a Level 3 disposition is statutorily required, the court must commit the juvenile to DJJ for placement in a youth development center. G.S. 7B-2508(e) . The statute allows the court to impose a Level 2 disposition in a Level 3 case when the court submits written findings on the record that substantiate the juvenile’s extraordinary needs.

Implications for Disposition Negotiations

The statutory structure described above clearly requires the court to consider the factors in G.S. 7B-2501(c) in relation to each juvenile, to order and consider assessments in some cases, and to follow the statutory mandates for identifying and selecting the appropriate dispositional alternative(s). These requirements are all statutory mandates framed as things that the court shall do. The appellate courts have been clear that the failure of the court to comply with a statutory mandate is reversible error. See, e.g., In re J.V., 212 N.C.App. 205, 208 (2011) (finding error when the trial court failed to advise the juvenile of their privilege against self-incrimination before testifying) and In re E.M. , 263 N.C.App. 476, 478 (2019) (finding error when the trial court failed to refer the juvenile to the area mental health services director as required by the statute at that time). The court therefore cannot order a disposition without engaging in the procedure mandated by statute­­—even when that disposition is agreed to by the parties.

There may be strategies that parties can employ to work within the statutory mandates and with the court to make an agreed upon disposition more likely to become the court order.

• Identify the full range of dispositional alternatives.

The statutory structure to determine disposition Level requires that the court identify one adjudicated offense as the basis for the disposition. In most cases, the statutes prescribe the offense for which disposition must be entered. When there is only one adjudicated offense, disposition clearly must be ordered based on that offense. When disposition is being entered for multiple adjudications that occurred during the same session of court, the offenses must be consolidated for disposition and disposition must be entered based on the most serious offense. G.S. 7B-2508(h) .

There is no statute that prescribes which offense must form the basis of the disposition when a dispositional hearing is addressing multiple adjudications that occurred during different sessions of court. Because delinquency history points are accumulated based on adjudications that occurred before adjudication for the offense that is forming the basis of the disposition ( G.S. 7B-2507(a) ), the number of delinquency history points the juvenile has may vary depending on which offense is used to form the basis of the disposition. Therefore, in cases in which disposition is being entered for adjudications that occurred during different sessions of court, the dispositional Level dictated by the chart should be calculated for each offense that could form the basis of the disposition. This will result in the full spectrum of dispositional alternatives in the matter. An agreed upon disposition may become a clear possibility once the full spectrum of alternatives is identified.

• For matters in which the chart allows for selection between Levels, identify how the factors in G.S. 7B-2501(c) support the agreed upon Level.

Four of the nine boxes in the disposition chart allow the court to choose between two dispositional Levels. If the case falls into one of those discretionary boxes and the prosecutor and the juvenile agree that one of the allowable Levels is appropriate in the matter, the parties can identify how the factors that the court must consider support that agreement. Sharing that information with the court and offering to draft the dispositional order to include those findings may make the court more comfortable with ordering the agreed upon disposition.

• For Level 3 dispositions, stipulate to the absence of extraordinary needs that justify a departure to a Level 2 disposition.

Sometimes the parties agree that the case should be resolved through a Level 3 disposition. If the chart dictates that a Level 3 disposition must be ordered in the matter, the parties could agree to stipulate to an absence of extraordinary needs on the part of the juvenile that would justify a departure down to a Level 2 disposition. This kind of stipulation does not necessarily mean that the court could not make findings of extraordinary needs on its own based on previous evidence in the case. Any such written findings would justify entry of a Level 2 disposition. However, this kind of stipulation may be meaningful to the court in ordering a Level 3 disposition.

There is no strategy that guarantees that the court will order the agreed upon disposition. The law clearly places the burden of selecting an allowable disposition on the court. The statutes that govern what is an allowable disposition and the factors the court must consider when ordering disposition may provide a framework for structuring agreements about disposition in a way that will make those agreements more likely to become the dispositional order of the court. I would love to hear from you if you have additional ideas on this topic. You can always reach me at [email protected] .

(Please make sure to check spam/junk folder!)

• Child Welfare Law
• Civil Practice
• Civil Procedure-General
• Clerks of Superior Court
• Constitutional Issues
• Court Costs and Fees
• Dispute Resolution
• Domestic Violence
• Foreclosures
• Guardianship
• Incompetency
• Judicial Authority
• Jurisdiction
• Juvenile Justice
• Juvenile Law
• Power of Attorney
• Small Claims Law
• Social Services
• Uncategorized
• Ann Anderson
• Melanie Crenshaw
• Shea Denning
• Sara DePasquale
• Jacquelyn Greene
• Timothy Heinle
• Cheryl Howell
• Dona Lewandowski
• Austine Long
• Kristi Nickodem
• LaToya Powell
• Meredith Smith
• Emily Turner

Recent Comments

• Cheryl Howell on New Child Support Guidelines for 2019
• Dana Bellingrath on New Child Support Guidelines for 2019
• Jason Thomas on New Child Support Guidelines for 2019
• Cheri Patrick on New Child Support Guidelines for 2019

132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best juvenile delinquency topic ideas & essay examples, 💡 interesting topics to write about juvenile delinquency, 📌 simple & easy juvenile delinquency essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on juvenile delinquency, ❓ research questions on juvenile delinquency.

• Social Learning Theory and juvenile delinquency The empirical studies of the Social Learning Theory on juvenile delinquency helps to provide an insight on the past, present as well as the future of criminology i.e.the study sheds light on the future directions […]
• The Impact of Media on Juvenile Delinquency Besides, the media have been at the forefront of the fight against juvenile-related crimes. In this view, this document aims at critically evaluating the role of various forms of media in escalating juvenile delinquency, and […]
• The Broken Homes and Juvenile Delinquency The level of measurement in this study will be to assess the frequency of involvement in crime by the children from the broken homes as well as those from the two parent families.
• Problems of Juvenile Delinquency The main aim of writing this paper is to carry out an examination of a juvenile delinquent in order to understand what pushes them into doing the act and applicable solutions which can be applied […]
• Developing Solutions to the Juvenile Delinquency Problem These include the creation of a creative activity center, the mandatory introduction of art classes in schools, and the implementation of urban sports programs.
• The Relationship Between Parental Influence and Juvenile Delinquency Parents that do not allow their children to play with their neighbors, or discourage their children from associating with particular families lead to the children developing a negative attitude towards the families.
• Single Parenthood and Juvenile Delinquency in Modern Society The proposal seeks to establish the relationship between single parenthood and the increase in juvenile delinquency. I propose addressing child delinquency from the perspective of social and family background to understand the risks associated with […]
• Juvenile Delinquency in Ancient and Modern Times The only policy related to juvenile delinquency existing in ancient Greece was the law that prohibited the youth in ancient Greece from beating their parents.
• Theories of Juvenile Delinquency Research showed individuals’ attitudes toward crime may herald their criminal behavior, in agreement with criminological theories such as control theory, learning theory and psychological theories like the theory of reasoned action.
• Poverty Areas and Effects on Juvenile Delinquency The desire to live a better life contributes to the youths engaging in crimes, thus the increase in cases of juvenile delinquencies amid low-income families. The studies indicate that the fear of poverty is the […]
• Juvenile Delinquency: a Case Analysis The tracking of the juvenile from juvenile court to adult court and then through the system is shown in the outline below: Arrest.
• The Problem of Juvenile Delinquency The addition of family context to the existing perception of adolescent crimes could be used to explore the core reasons for the crimes and to define possible methods for the prevention of juvenile crimes. The […]
• Juvenile Delinquency The defenders of the system on the other hand appreciate the marked role of juvenile justice system in rehabilitating juvenile delinquents and are advocating for the conservation of the system and reforming critical structures that […]
• The Cognitive Theory in Juvenile Delinquency At this stage, a child can perform certain actions repeatedly and also be able to differentiate the means of doing actions.
• The Rise of Juvenile Delinquency and the Influence of Drugs Additionally, parents are the ones who know the strengths and weaknesses of the children since they spend most of their time together, their suggestions and views towards the crime committed should be handled with a […]
• Juvenile Delinquency: Social Disorganization Theory Hence, according to Lopez and Gillespie, tenets of the social disorganization theory have been resourceful in the present-day juvenile delinquency system.
• Juvenile Delinquency is a Product of Nurture These criminals have been exposed to unfavorable conditions in their lives such as violence and poverty and turn to criminal behavior as a coping mechanism.
• Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Intervention The role of the family and parents cannot be discounted in the causes of juvenile delinquency. The courts and the lawyers are involved in the trial and sentencing of juvenile offenders.
• Adolescent Diversion Project in Juvenile Delinquency Treatment in Michigan The focus of the program is to prevent future delinquency by creating social attachments to family and other prosocial youth by providing community resources and keeping individuals away from the juvenile justice system which can […]
• Juvenile Delinquency: Impact of Collective Efficacy and Mental Illnesses The perception of collective efficacy can be defined as the consideration that the people in a neighborhood are trustable and can do their part to partake in social control to benefit a specific community.
• Implementing an Arts Program to Help Curb Juvenile Delinquency and Reduce Recidivism Therefore, the pieces of art will be customized to rhyme with society needs of the targeted children and the adolescents. Some of the enrollees to this program will be delinquents.
• Juvenile Delinquency and Affecting Factors The information gathered, synthesized, and analyzed in the research with the help of the proposed question has future value as it identifies factors that can be impacted by the society representatives.
• Role of Family in Reducing Juvenile Delinquency Players in the criminal justice system recognize the contribution of family and familial factors to the development of criminal and delinquent tendencies and their potential to minimize minors’ engagement in illegal and socially unacceptable behaviors.
• Gangs and Juvenile Delinquency Hallsworth and Silverstone argues that although there have been a lot of violence, the main source is not quite clear and people live by speculations that the violence is linked to the emergence of a […]
• The Issue of Juvenile Delinquency At the onset of the industrial revolution, public awareness concerning the fair and ethical treatment of children in workplaces emerged. The role of supervising and guiding children is left to other children, grandparents, or hired […]
• Juvenile Delinquency: Three Levels of Prevention It is made up of programs and ideals which are effective in treatment of the offender, reintegrating them in the society and limiting them from committing similar offenses. In conclusion, though most prevention programs are […]
• Day Treatment Centers and Juvenile Delinquency One of the core aspects that should not be disregarded is that such programs may be used as a particular assessment tool that would help to identify needs of a juvenile, and this approach may […]
• Court Unification and Juvenile Delinquency Speaking about the given issue, it is important to give the clear definition of this category and determine who could be judged by the juvenile court.
• Prevent Juvenile Delinquency in the USA Due to this fact, it is possible to describe the existing problem as the increase in the number of crimes that children commit.
• Juvenile Delinquency: Risk Assessment The investigatory processes to know the individual’s character and personality involve the use of complex and simple approaches, and these serve to provide organizations or institutions dealing with child welfare with important information that would […]
• Life Without Parole and Juvenile Delinquency The United States is one of the few countries which recognize the necessity of sentencing juveniles to life without parole. This is the main and only advantage of this approach.
• Juvenile Delinquency and Reasons That Lead to It Irrespective of the cause of juvenile delinquency, juvenile drug abuse is certainly most commonly related directly to either an increase or a decrease in any form of juvenile delinquency. This correlates to the increase in […]
• The Concepts of Nature and Nurture in Modern Psychologist to Explain Juvenile Delinquency Hence any behavior exhibited by a juvenile that is in total contrast with the value demands of the larger society can be termed as Juvenile Delinquency. On the one hand, it is believed that Juvenile […]
• Criminology Theories and Juvenile Delinquency From the point of view of labeling theory, the initial drinking and the first fight at the party is John’s primary deviance.
• Juvenile Delinquency in the United States According to Pennsylvania laws, children at the age of 10 and above can be trialed as adults for first- and second-degree murders.
• Juvenile Delinquency and the Importance of Socialization At the time of the incident, according to the authors of the article, twenty students out of a total of thirty had arrived for the lecture.
• Theories and Suggestions on Juvenile Delinquency The other factor is that the norms that governed relationships in the different family and societal set-ups such as in the school and the workplace are being challenged.
• The Phenomenon of Juvenile Delinquency They are very important in the proceedings and even have additional authority to propose a waiver of the subject. The judges are the other officials in a juvenile court system.
• Juvenile Delinquency: The Columbine Shootings This paper seeks to discuss and analyze the casual theory of juvenile delinquency by describing an instance of juvenile delinquency as highlighted in the mass media, by describing the casual theory of juvenile delinquency with […]
• Juvenile Delinquency Theories in the United States School and family are extremely important to juveniles regarding their worldview, and the failure of those communities to guide them may result in turning to questionable ideals and morals.
• Crime Prevention and Juvenile Delinquency As a specific jurisdiction that will serve as the basis for assessing and implementing the provisions of the crime prevention program, the District of Florida will be considered.
• Adolescent Psychology and Juvenile Delinquency I will also promote the idea that when it comes to identifying the factors that contribute to the development of delinquency in youth, one must be willing to consider the effects of the combination of […]
• Juvenile Delinquency, Its Factors and Theories Under the individual risk factors, it is prudent to note that a lack of proper education coupled with lower intelligence might pose a serious risk to a minor in terms of engaging in criminal activities […]
• Factors Associated With Juvenile Delinquency Further, the authors propose that the family should be the main focus of prevention and clinical interventions and that establishment of social policy and programs should be directed to the family.
• Combating Juvenile Delinquency: Projects Management In order to prevent and reduce juvenile violence, the City of Hampton develops and implements various activities that were mentioned above, promoting the importance of moral standards.
• The Issue of Juvenile Delinquency: Recent Trends Violence and other criminal actions attract the attention of the government and the general public, as they affect the life of the society adversely.
• Juvenile Delinquency Investigation The social learning theory that is a part of it suggests that children observe the behavior of others and replicate it.
• Juvenile Delinquency’ Causes and Possible Treatments They investigated the issue in different perspectives but came up to the decision that the best way to treat young offenders is to utilize multisystemic therapy.
• Juvenile Delinquency: Criminological Theories These include the broken windows theory, the culture of the gang theory and the social disorganization theory. Cohen developed the culture of the gang theory to explain the origin of juvenile delinquency.
• Juvenile Delinquency and Criminal Gangs The proliferation of criminal gangs in my area of jurisdiction, as director of the county juvenile court, represents a nationwide problem. In the 1990s, the rate of crime rose in most parts of the world.
• Juvenile Delinquency, Treatment, and Interventions The performance of the child in school is one of the individual factors that are likely to cause the child to get involved in violent behaviors.
• Poverty and Juvenile Delinquency in the United States
• Roles of Family, School, and Church in Juvenile Delinquency
• Understanding Juvenile Delinquency and the Different Ways to Stop the Problem in Our Society
• Juvenile Delinquency and Crime as an Integral Part of the American Society
• Impact of Television Violence In Relation To Juvenile Delinquency
• The Vicious Circle of Child Abuse, Juvenile Delinquency, and Future Abuse
• Juvenile Delinquency, Domestic Violence, and the Effects of Substance Abuse
• The Explorers Program as a Preventative Measure in Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency, Youth Culture, and Renegade Kids, Suburban Outlaws by Wooden
• The Alarming Rate of Juvenile Delinquency and Cases of Teenage Suicides in the U.S
• The Line Between Juvenile Delinquency And Adult Penalties
• Home Social Environment and Juvenile Delinquency
• The Effects of Neighborhood Crime on the Level of Juvenile Delinquency
• Interpersonal Learning Theory Plus Juvenile Delinquency
• How to Prevent Juvenile Delinquency in the U.S
• Relationship Between Juvenile Delinquency and Learning Disabilities
• The Impact of Television Violence and Its Relation to Juvenile Delinquency
• The Lack of Strong Parental Figures Causes Juvenile Delinquency
• Theories of Juvenile Delinquency: Why Young Individuals Commit Crimes
• Using Drugs and Juvenile Delinquency
• Theory of Social Disorganization and Juvenile Delinquency
• What Is the Best Way to Combat Juvenile Delinquency?
• The Marxist Crime Perspective On Juvenile Delinquency Of African Americans
• The Failures of the Act of Juvenile Delinquency in the United States
• Juvenile Delinquency And Its Effects On The Adult Justice System
• Juvenile Delinquency Contributing Factors Current Research and Intervention
• Impact Of Single Parents On Juvenile Delinquency Rates
• Video Game Violence Leading to Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency: Exploring Factors of Gender and Family
• The Psychological Aspect of Juvenile Delinquency
• The Antisocial Behavior Leading to Juvenile Delinquency
• Lead and Juvenile Delinquency: New Evidence from Linked Birth, School and Juvenile Detention Records
• The Role of Family in Preventing Juvenile Delinquency and Behavioural Patterns of Children
• The Relationship Between Poverty and Juvenile Delinquency
• The Importance of Family in the Behavior of Children and in Preventing Juvenile Delinquency
• Preventing and Dealing with Juvenile Delinquency
• How Family Structures Can Play a Role in Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency and A Child’s Emotional Needs
• Family Structural Changes and Juvenile Delinquency
• The Causes of the Problem of Juvenile Delinquency in the United States
• Juvenile Delinquency And The Juvenile Justice System
• The Curfew: Issues On Juvenile Delinquency And Constitutional Rights
• The Socioeconomic Triggers of Juvenile Delinquency: Analysis of “The Outsiders”
• Exploring the Root Causes of the Problem of Juvenile Delinquency
• The Rise of Juvenile Delinquency and the Flaws of the Juvenile Justice System
• The Causes And Possible Solutions Of Juvenile Delinquency
• The History of the Juvenile Delinquency and the Process of the Juvenile Justice System in Malaysia
• The Issue of Juvenile Delinquency Among Girls in the United States
• What Is the Importance of Studying Juvenile Delinquency?
• Does Authoritative Parenting Impact Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Are the Factors of Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Are Juvenile Delinquency Causes and Solutions?
• What Type of Problem Is Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Can Family Structures Play a Role in Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Is the Concept of Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Do You Explain Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Does Poverty and the Environment Cause or Contribute to Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Are the Leading Causes of Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Does Family Contribute to Juvenile Delinquency?
• How the Juvenile Delinquency Impact Society?
• Why Is Juvenile Delinquency a Problem?
• What Factors Cause Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Is the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Are the Types of Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Is an Example of a Juvenile Delinquent?
• How Can We Prevent Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Does Juvenile Delinquency Affect the Community?
• How Does Juvenile Delinquency Affect Education?
• Why Is Juvenile Delinquency a Problem in Our Society?
• How Does Juvenile Delinquency Affect the Individual?
• What Is Another Name for Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Causes Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Does Birth Order Affect Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Is the Main Problem in Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Is the Difference Between Crime and Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Are Some Effects of Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Does Juvenile Delinquency Affect Social Life?
• What Is the Nature of Juvenile Delinquency?
• Hacking Essay Topics
• Child Development Research Ideas
• Parenting Research Topics
• Crime Prevention Research Topics
• Video Game Topics
• Cyber Bullying Essay Ideas
• Serial Killer Paper Topics
• Criminal Procedure Titles
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 9). 132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/juvenile-delinquency-essay-topics/

"132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/juvenile-delinquency-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/juvenile-delinquency-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/juvenile-delinquency-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/juvenile-delinquency-essay-topics/.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Remarks of Assistant Attorney General Amy L. Solomon at the Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC

Thank you, Liz [Ryan]. And thank you, Julie [Herr].

Good afternoon. It’s great to see everyone again. I’m excited for today’s meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. We’ve got a great conversation in store this afternoon. We’ll be talking about trauma-informed and healing-centered approaches, and I want to thank our federal colleagues who will take part in today’s panel.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the council for all the work you’ve been doing over the last two years. This, I am sad to say, will be my last council meeting. I’ve made the very difficult decision to step down from my post as Assistant Attorney General, effective July 19 th . This was not an easy decision, but it’s one that I feel is right for the moment. We’ve been able to generate some incredible momentum together in our work to support communities and secure better outcomes for justice-involved individuals, and this council has helped to lead the way.

You’ve put evidence-informed strategies at the center of your discussions. You’ve lifted up the voices of people with lived experience and of youth themselves. You’ve worked hard to identify a path toward a fair, effective and humane juvenile justice system. You’ve even taken your deliberations out to the field so that you could showcase promising programs that point to the future of juvenile justice in America.

These are impressive accomplishments that I know will open up opportunities for our young people and help justice-involved youth find their path, succeed in their communities and thrive. You should be very proud of the progress you are making, and I know that Liz and her team will continue to lean on your expertise to guide us into this new era of youth justice reform. You should also know that Department of Justice leadership deeply values your contributions – and you will hear directly from our Associate Attorney General, Ben Mizer, in just a moment.

And while I leave the Office of Justice Programs with no small sense of sadness, I go with absolutely no reservations about our leadership and its commitment to the mission of this body. Brent Cohen, who is the current Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, will be stepping forward as Acting Assistant Attorney General after my departure.

Brent has dedicated his career to supporting youth and young adults who come into contact with the system. He led groundbreaking efforts in New York to reduce the number of youth in secure care and connect young people on probation to community resources. He’s also an OJP veteran who knows how to keep our interests and priorities front and center at the Department.

And of course, it goes without saying that you are in the very best of hands with Liz and her amazing team. I cannot say enough how much Liz has meant to me as an advisor, leader and friend. She impresses me, every day, with her incredible knowledge and passion for the issues affecting youth, and I know she will continue to be the champion that we need.

So, while I leave with a host of conflicting emotions, I remain not just optimistic, but truly excited about the future of juvenile justice and the work of this council.

In the meantime, we’re forging ahead, getting closer to the finish line on the report to Congress – and we continue to explore evidence-informed strategies for supporting youth. And I’m really pleased that today, you’ll be talking about trauma-informed and healing-centered approaches to serving youth.

As I mentioned earlier, we’re working across OJP to bring trauma-informed services to people across the justice system, on both the youth and adult side. I know Liz plans to say a few words about the great work OJJDP is doing to bring this approach to scale in the juvenile system. I’d just like to take a couple of minutes to highlight how we’re applying it across the community safety spectrum – in our approach to victim services, in our work to reduce community violence and in our strategies to address behavioral health issues in the justice system.

First, we know that trauma affects many people. Research shows that over 60 percent of adults have experienced at least one traumatic event in their lifetime. Trauma can lead to numerous long-term effects, but there are also serious immediate consequences. Victims of violent crime suffer physical injuries, emotional distress, financial burdens and profound disruptions in social support systems, all of which pose significant barriers to services and healing. These obstacles are even more imposing in historically marginalized and underserved communities, where distrust of government and healthcare systems might prevent people from seeking help.

Our Office for Victims of Crime is taking a huge step toward helping communities build their capacity to support victims in the aftermath of trauma. They have just launched a solicitation for a Trauma Recovery Center Demonstration Project, to provide one-stop, individualized services for victims, from counseling and therapy, to peer support, to basic necessities like groceries and medication.

Another example of our focus on trauma-informed services is in our work to support community violence intervention. Over the last two years, our Community Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative has invested almost $200 million in community-driven strategies aimed at mitigating trauma and disrupting patterns of violence.

A critical element of our efforts in this space is addressing the vicarious trauma and healing and wellness needs of the people who do this important work. CVI professionals are regularly exposed to violence, but are too often left on their own to deal with the consequences.

We need to create an environment where these professionals get the support, care and healing that they need and deserve – not unlike the steps that many law enforcement agencies have taken to support the health and wellness of their officers. I’m really pleased that we’ll be making up to $2.5 million later this year to support trauma-informed services for CVI professionals.

And one final example focuses on bringing trauma-informed and healing-centered services to those with behavioral health issues in the justice system. Our Bureau of Justice Assistance has supported hundreds of cross-system collaborations that pair behavioral health specialists with law enforcement and other justice system professionals to better serve the treatment needs of people who come into contact with the system.

The Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program and the Connect and Protect initiative are two programs that help communities bring trained healthcare professionals to the scene of crises. Their involvement helps to de-escalate potentially volatile encounters, it averts unnecessary arrests, and – most important – it allows trained specialists to assess behavioral health needs and direct people to much-needed treatment and recovery services.

In all of these efforts, we are looking to community organizations, to health and behavioral health professionals, to educators and community leaders, and to people with lived experience, including young people. These stakeholders are key to sustainable community solutions and to the long-term success of those who come into contact with the system.

This is what we mean when we say in our mission statement that we’re strengthening the role of community as co-producer of safety and justice. Community partners are in a strong position to address the root causes and symptoms of trauma and victimization. They have credibility and trust – and unique expertise – that can help facilitate individual and community healing.

Needless to say, I am so pleased that you are dedicating this meeting to a discussion of these trauma informed and healing strategies – focusing on our youth – and I am so proud that we have visionary and compassionate leaders like Liz Ryan and our colleagues across the federal government, as well as distinguished partners across the country, to strengthen and expand our capacity to meet the needs of our youth.

It has been a privilege to be part of these deliberations and to work with all of you as we march toward our shared goal of safer communities and healthy, thriving youth. I wish you all the very best in your efforts, and I look forward to following the success that I know you will achieve and hearing about the difference I know you will make.

I’m now pleased to turn it back over to Liz. I’ve already said how much her guidance and support have meant to me and to the Office of Justice Programs. When Liz joined OJP a little more than two years ago, I knew we were getting one of the top minds in juvenile justice, but she has truly helped us and the field re-envision a juvenile justice system that puts the needs of our young people first.

Our nation’s youth, and the system that serves them, have been truly well served by Liz Ryan. I am so proud of the momentum she and her team have generated, and so excited about the great things that lie ahead for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and for youth across the country.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

OJJDP News @ a Glance June 2024

The jjdpa’s 50th anniversary is an opportunity to transform the juvenile justice system, ojjdp administrator says.

OJJDP Administrator Liz Ryan offered opening remarks at the 2024 Coalition for Juvenile Justice  annual conference in Washington, DC, on May 30, calling on attendees to view the 50th anniversary of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act  (JJDPA) as an opportunity to transform the juvenile justice system. This year also marks the Coalition’s 40th anniversary, she noted. 

“As we commemorate these milestones, together all of us need to continue to strive for more rights and opportunities for young people,” Administrator Ryan said.

When the JJDPA was enacted in 1974, it introduced significant changes to the treatment of youth in the juvenile justice system, Administrator Ryan noted. In particular, the law includes four core requirements: deinstitutionalizing youth charged with status offenses, removing youth from adult jails and lockups, separating youth from incarcerated adults, and reducing racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. 

Since then, the tide of reform has both receded and advanced, the Administrator continued. She referred to the 1990s, when states responded to a perceived surge in youth crime, and lawmakers’ subsequent recognition of the need to shift the juvenile justice system’s focus back to rehabilitation. She cited ongoing challenges, such as encouraging state systems to align with the latest research on adolescent brain development and emphasize prevention and offer alternatives to detention. 

To ensure states do not roll back critical reforms, “we must envision a better future,” Administrator Ryan said. To achieve that, juvenile justice practitioners must ask young people about their needs and create authentic partnerships with them. The field also needs to assess gaps in its youth policies and programs, and work together to invest in filling those gaps, she told conference attendees. 

Administrator Ryan underscored an OJJDP priority: developing a continuum of care  that supports youth well-being and positive community outcomes. “If we want to support young people in their communities, with their families, we need to ensure that communities have a broad array of youth justice programs and services to meet the needs of different populations,” she said. 

Since its inception in 1984, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice has been a close partner of OJJDP in striving to meet the JJDPA’s core requirements . The Coalition is the national association of state advisory groups, organizations, and other allies dedicated to preventing youth from becoming involved in the courts and upholding the highest standards of care for youth who enter the justice system. 

At the conference’s closing plenary, “JJDPA 50th Anniversary: Appreciating Our History and Looking Towards the Future,” Administrator Ryan discussed the impact of the JJDPA and OJJDP’s plans to celebrate the landmark law’s golden anniversary. The JJDPA led to a significant decline in youth arrests, youth detention and youth incarceration. The number of youth in adult jails has dropped 85 percent since the 1970s, she added. 

Last year, OJJDP awarded the Coalition and the  National Youth Justice Network a grant  to help the Office reach out to youth justice organizations, impacted youth and families, and local leaders during the JJDPA’s 50th anniversary . They will award up to 100 “mini-grants” to other organizations for public outreach events and other activities between August and November 2024, to celebrate the anniversary and highlight  Youth Justice Action Month  in October. The celebration will culminate with OJJDP’s National Conference on Youth Justice from November 19–21 in Washington, DC.

Anniversary events are designed to build relationships among stakeholders, promote creative and innovative solutions, and inspire practitioners to tackle the most intractable challenges facing youth justice, Administration Ryan said.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

Assistant Attorney General Amy L. Solomon Delivers Remark at the Meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice And Delinquency Prevention

Washington , DC United States

Thank you, Liz Ryan. And thank you, Julie Herr.

Good afternoon. It’s great to see everyone again. I’m excited for today’s meeting of the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. We’ve got a great conversation in store this afternoon. We’ll be talking about trauma-informed and healing-centered approaches, and I want to thank our federal colleagues who will take part in today’s panel.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the council for all the work you’ve been doing over the last two years. This, I am sad to say, will be my last council meeting. I’ve made the very difficult decision to step down from my post as Assistant Attorney General, effective July 19. This was not an easy decision, but it’s one that I feel is right for the moment. We’ve been able to generate some incredible momentum together in our work to support communities and secure better outcomes for justice-involved individuals, and this council has helped to lead the way.

You’ve put evidence-informed strategies at the center of your discussions. You’ve lifted up the voices of people with lived experience and of youth themselves. You’ve worked hard to identify a path toward a fair, effective and humane juvenile justice system. You’ve even taken your deliberations out to the field so that you could showcase promising programs that point to the future of juvenile justice in America.

These are impressive accomplishments that I know will open up opportunities for our young people and help justice-involved youth find their path, succeed in their communities and thrive. You should be very proud of the progress you are making, and I know that Liz and her team will continue to lean on your expertise to guide us into this new era of youth justice reform. You should also know that Department of Justice leadership deeply values your contributions — and you will hear directly from our Associate Attorney General, Ben Mizer, in just a moment.

And while I leave the Office of Justice Programs with no small sense of sadness, I go with absolutely no reservations about our leadership and its commitment to the mission of this body. Brent Cohen, who is the current Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, will be stepping forward as Acting Assistant Attorney General after my departure.

Brent has dedicated his career to supporting youth and young adults who come into contact with the system. He led groundbreaking efforts in New York to reduce the number of youth in secure care and connect young people on probation to community resources. He’s also an OJP veteran who knows how to keep our interests and priorities front and center at the department.

And of course, it goes without saying that you are in the very best of hands with Liz and her amazing team. I cannot say enough how much Liz has meant to me as an advisor, leader and friend. She impresses me, every day, with her incredible knowledge and passion for the issues affecting youth, and I know she will continue to be the champion that we need.

So, while I leave with a host of conflicting emotions, I remain not just optimistic, but truly excited about the future of juvenile justice and the work of this council.

In the meantime, we’re forging ahead, getting closer to the finish line on the report to Congress — and we continue to explore evidence-informed strategies for supporting youth. And I’m really pleased that today, you’ll be talking about trauma-informed and healing-centered approaches to serving youth.

As I mentioned earlier, we’re working across OJP to bring trauma-informed services to people across the justice system, on both the youth and adult side. I know Liz plans to say a few words about the great work OJJDP is doing to bring this approach to scale in the juvenile system. I’d just like to take a couple of minutes to highlight how we’re applying it across the community safety spectrum — in our approach to victim services, in our work to reduce community violence and in our strategies to address behavioral health issues in the justice system.

First, we know that trauma affects many people. Research shows that over 60 percent of adults have experienced at least one traumatic event in their lifetime. Trauma can lead to numerous long-term effects, but there are also serious immediate consequences. Victims of violent crime suffer physical injuries, emotional distress, financial burdens and profound disruptions in social support systems, all of which pose significant barriers to services and healing. These obstacles are even more imposing in historically marginalized and underserved communities, where distrust of government and healthcare systems might prevent people from seeking help.

Our Office for Victims of Crime is taking a huge step toward helping communities build their capacity to support victims in the aftermath of trauma. They have just launched a solicitation for a Trauma Recovery Center Demonstration Project, to provide one-stop, individualized services for victims, from counseling and therapy, to peer support, to basic necessities like groceries and medication.

Another example of our focus on trauma-informed services is in our work to support community violence intervention. Over the last two years, our Community Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative has invested almost $200 million in community-driven strategies aimed at mitigating trauma and disrupting patterns of violence.

A critical element of our efforts in this space is addressing the vicarious trauma and healing and wellness needs of the people who do this important work. CVI professionals are regularly exposed to violence, but are too often left on their own to deal with the consequences.

We need to create an environment where these professionals get the support, care and healing that they need and deserve — not unlike the steps that many law enforcement agencies have taken to support the health and wellness of their officers. I’m really pleased that we’ll be making up to $2.5 million later this year to support trauma-informed services for CVI professionals.

And one final example focuses on bringing trauma-informed and healing-centered services to those with behavioral health issues in the justice system. Our Bureau of Justice Assistance has supported hundreds of cross-system collaborations that pair behavioral health specialists with law enforcement and other justice system professionals to better serve the treatment needs of people who come into contact with the system.

The Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program and the Connect and Protect initiative are two programs that help communities bring trained healthcare professionals to the scene of crises. Their involvement helps to de-escalate potentially volatile encounters, it averts unnecessary arrests, and — most important — it allows trained specialists to assess behavioral health needs and direct people to much-needed treatment and recovery services.

In all of these efforts, we are looking to community organizations, to health and behavioral health professionals, to educators and community leaders, and to people with lived experience, including young people. These stakeholders are key to sustainable community solutions and to the long-term success of those who come into contact with the system.

This is what we mean when we say in our mission statement that we’re strengthening the role of community as co-producer of safety and justice. Community partners are in a strong position to address the root causes and symptoms of trauma and victimization. They have credibility and trust — and unique expertise — that can help facilitate individual and community healing.

Needless to say, I am so pleased that you are dedicating this meeting to a discussion of these trauma informed and healing strategies – focusing on our youth — and I am so proud that we have visionary and compassionate leaders like Liz Ryan and our colleagues across the federal government, as well as distinguished partners across the country, to strengthen and expand our capacity to meet the needs of our youth.

It has been a privilege to be part of these deliberations and to work with all of you as we march toward our shared goal of safer communities and healthy, thriving youth. I wish you all the very best in your efforts, and I look forward to following the success that I know you will achieve and hearing about the difference I know you will make.

I’m now pleased to turn it back over to Liz. I’ve already said how much her guidance and support have meant to me and to the Office of Justice Programs. When Liz joined OJP a little more than two years ago, I knew we were getting one of the top minds in juvenile justice, but she has truly helped us and the field re-envision a juvenile justice system that puts the needs of our young people first.

Our nation’s youth, and the system that serves them, have been truly well served by Liz Ryan. I am so proud of the momentum she and her team have generated, and so excited about the great things that lie ahead for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and for youth across the country.

Related Content

Thank you, Liz. It’s great to be here.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) recently marked its new mission statement with events and products that highlight OJP’s work to support community-centered public safety strategies.

Good afternoon. I am honored to be part of this conversation today. I want to thank the Columbia Justice Lab and the Square One Project for convening us – and...