-
B u l l e t i n S e r i e s
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Sparked by high-profile cases involvingchildren who commit
violent crimes, pub-lic concerns regarding child delinquentshave
escalated. Compared with juvenileswhose delinquent behavior begins
later inadolescence, child delinquents (offendersyounger than age
13) face a greater riskof becoming serious, violent, and
chronicjuvenile offenders. OJJDP formed theStudy Group on Very
Young Offenders toexamine the prevalence and frequency of offending
by children younger than 13.This Study Group identified particular
riskand protective factors that are crucial todeveloping effective
early interventionand protection programs for very
youngoffenders.
This Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s ChildDelinquency Series, which
presents thefindings of the Study Group on Very YoungOffenders.
This series offers the latestinformation about child delinquency,
in-cluding analyses of child delinquency sta-tistics, insights into
the origins of veryyoung offending, and descriptions of
earlyintervention programs and approachesthat work to prevent the
development ofdelinquent behavior by focusing on riskand protective
factors.
Compared with juveniles who startoffending in adolescence, child
delin-quents (age 12 and younger) are two to three times more
likely to becometomorrow’s serious and violent offend-ers. This
propensity, however, can beminimized. These children are
poten-tially identifiable either before theybegin committing crimes
or at the veryearly stages of criminality—times wheninterventions
are most likely to suc-ceed. Therefore, treatment, services,and
intervention programs that targetthese very young offenders offer
anexceptional opportunity to reduce theoverall level of crime in a
community.
Although much can be done to preventchild delinquency from
escalating intochronic criminality, the most
successfulinterventions to date have been isolat-ed and
unintegrated with other ongoinginterventions. In fact, only a few
well-organized, integrated programs designedto reduce child
delinquency exist inNorth America today.
The Study Group on Very Young Offend-ers (the Study Group), a
group of 39experts on child delinquency and child
Youth who start offending early inchildhood—age 12 or
younger—arefar more likely to become serious, vi-olent, and chronic
offenders later inlife than are teenagers who begin tooffend during
adolescence. We havean opportunity to direct these youngoffenders
to a better path because re-search indicates that they are at anage
when interventions are most like-ly to succeed in diverting them
fromchronic delinquency.
Part of OJJDP’s Child Delinquency Se-ries, this Bulletin draws
on findingsfrom OJJDP’s Study Group on VeryYoung Offenders to
assess treatment,services, and intervention programsdesigned for
juvenile offenders underthe age of 13. The Bulletin
reviewstreatment and services available tosuch child delinquents
and their fami-lies and examines their efficacy. At atime of
limited budgets, it is impera-tive that we consider the cost
effec-tiveness of specific programs becausechildren who are not
diverted fromcriminal careers will require signifi-cant resources
in the future.
The timely provision of the kindsof treatment, services, and
interven-tion programs described in thisBulletin while child
delinquents arestill young and impressionable mayprevent their
progression to chroniccriminality, saving the expense oflater
interventions.
Treatment, Services, andIntervention Programs forChild
Delinquents Barbara J. Burns, James C. Howell, Janet K. Wiig, Leena
K. Augimeri,Brendan C. Welsh, Rolf Loeber, and David Petechuk
Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.ncjrs.org
J. Robert Flores, Administrator March 2003
-
2
psychopathology convened by the Of-fice of Juvenile Justice and
DelinquencyPrevention (OJJDP), has concluded thatjuveniles who
commit serious and vio-lent offenses most often have
shownpersistent disruptive behavior in earlychildhood and committed
minor delin-quent acts when quite young. There-fore, comprehensive
interventionprograms should encompass childrenwho persistently
behave in disruptiveways and child delinquents, in additionto young
juvenile offenders who havecommitted serious and violent
crimes.Focusing on children who persistentlybehave disruptively and
child delin-quents has the following advantages:
● If early interventions are success-ful, both groups are less
likely to be-come chronically delinquent if theyare exposed to
additional risk fac-tors that typically emerge
duringadolescence.
● If early interventions are successful,both groups are less
likely to sufferfrom the many negative social andpersonal
consequences of persistentmisbehavior.
● Both persistent disruptive behaviorand delinquency can be
reducedat an early age through effectiveinterventions.
Child delinquents who become seriousand violent offenders
consume signifi-cant funds and resources from the ju-venile justice
system, schools, mentalhealth agencies, and other child welfareand
child protection agencies. Never-theless, many children, especially
thosewho behave disruptively, are not receiv-ing the services they
need to avoid livesmarked by serious delinquency andcriminal
offending. More interventionprograms fostering cooperation
amongfamilies, schools, and communitiesneed to be devised,
implemented, andevaluated.
This Bulletin explores the services avail-able to children and
their families andthe efficacy and cost effectiveness of
particular interventions. (The StudyGroup’s findings concerning
risk factorsfor child delinquency will be discussedmore fully in
another Bulletin.) TheStudy Group reviewed how the mentalhealth,
education, child welfare, andjuvenile justice sectors meet the
serviceneeds of children with conduct disorderor who exhibit
conduct disorder symp-toms.1 Although not all children withconduct
disorder are technically childdelinquents, the behavior and
problemsof acting out associated with the disor-der are often
delinquent in nature.
Focusing on children with conduct dis-order or who exhibit
conduct disordersymptoms helps researchers targetboth children who
commit delinquentacts but have not been detected andchildren at
risk of committing such acts.
This Bulletin also discusses juvenile jus-tice system programs
and strategies forvery young offenders. Four promisingprograms—the
Michigan Early OffenderProgram, the Minnesota DelinquentsUnder 10
Program, the SacramentoCounty Community Intervention Pro-gram, and
the Toronto Under 12 Out-reach Project—that organize inter-ventions
for child delinquents arereviewed. In addition, the Bulletin
out-lines a model for comprehensive inter-ventions and examines the
Canadianapproach to child delinquency, whichmay serve as a guide
for preventionefforts in the United States and Europe.
Child Delinquency Research: An Overview
Historically, delinquency studies have focused on later
adolescence, the time whendelinquency usually peaks. This was
particularly true in the 1990s, when most re-searchers studied
chronic juvenile offenders because they committed a
dispropor-tionately large amount of crime. Research conducted
during this period by OJJDP’sStudy Group on Serious and Violent
Juvenile Offenders concluded that youthreferred to juvenile court
for their first delinquent offense before age 13 are farmore likely
to become chronic offenders than youth first referred to court at a
laterage. To better understand the implications of this finding,
OJJDP convened theStudy Group on Very Young Offenders in 1998. Its
charge was to analyze existingdata and to address key issues that
had not previously been studied in the liter-ature. Consisting of
16 primary study group members and 23 coauthors who areexperts on
child delinquency and psychopathology, the Study Group found
evi-dence that some young children engage in very serious
antisocial behavior andthat, in some cases, this behavior
foreshadows early delinquency. The Study Groupalso identified
several important risk factors that, when combined, may be
relatedto the onset of early offending. The Study Group report
concluded with a review ofpreventive and remedial interventions
relevant to child delinquency.
The Child Delinquency Bulletin Series is drawn from the Study
Group’s final report,which was completed in 2001 under grant number
95–JD–FX–0018 and subsequent-ly published by Sage Publications as
Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs
(edited by Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington). OJJDP encour-ages
parents, educators, and the juvenile justice community to use this
informationto address the needs of young offenders by planning and
implementing moreeffective interventions.
1 According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental
Disorders–IV (DSM–IV) (American PsychiatricAssociation, 1994),
conduct disorder symptoms in-clude aggression toward people and
animals, destruc-tion of property, deceitfulness or theft, and
seriousviolations of rules. Juveniles who exhibit conductdisorder
symptoms are also prone to certain otherconditions, such as
attention deficit/hyperactivitydisorder (ADHD), internalizing
disorders (anxiety anddepression), and substance abuse (Angold,
Costello,and Erkanli, 1999).
-
3
Treatment ApproachesA growing body of research has focusedon the
treatment of juvenile offendersand juveniles with conduct disorder.
Anexamination of 200 studies publishedbetween 1950 and 1995 found
that themost effective interventions for seriousand violent
juvenile offenders wereinterpersonal skills training,
individualcounseling, and behavioral programs(Lipsey and Wilson,
1998). Anotherreview of 82 studies of interventions forchildren and
adolescents with conductproblems found strong evidence forseveral
effective treatments, includingdelinquency prevention and
parent-child treatment programs for preschool-age children and
problem-solving skillstraining and anger-coping therapy
forschool-age children (see, e.g., Brestanand Eyberg, 1998).
Examples of effective interventionsinclude the parent training
programsbased on Patterson and Gullion’s LivingWith Children
(1968), which are designedto teach adults how to monitor
childproblem and prosocial behaviors, rewardbehavior incompatible
with problembehavior, and ignore or apply negativeconsequences to
problem behavior.Another example of effective interven-tions is the
parent-training programdeveloped by Webster-Stratton andHammond
(1997), which involves groupsof parents in therapist-led
discussions ofvideotaped lessons.
Far less evidence of efficacy is availablefor psychopharmacology
than psycho-social treatments; the results of studiesare often
conflicting. For example, onestudy found that lithium
effectivelyreduced aggressiveness in juveniles(Campbell and Cueva,
1995), whereastwo other studies did not produce thisresult (Klein,
1991; Rifkin et al., 1997)and one found only limited benefitsfrom
lithium treatment (Burns, Hoag-wood, and Mrazek, 1999). Other
med-ications for children with conduct dis-order are also being
studied, includingmethylphenidate, dextroamphetamine,carbamazepine,
and clonidine.
Controlled research on institutionalcare (e.g., psychiatric
hospitalization,residential treatment centers, and grouphomes) for
children with conduct disor-der is limited, and the findings are
lessthan encouraging. To some extent, thisresult may be linked to
the finding thatinteractions among delinquent juvenilesare prone to
promote friendships andalliances among them and intensifydelinquent
behavior rather than reduceit (Dishion, McCord, and Poulin,
1999).Several older clinical trials demonstrat-ed that community
care was at leastas effective as inpatient treatment. Arecent study
that compared inpatienttreatment with multisystemic therapy(MST)
found that this community-basedalternative treatment was more
effectiveat the 4-month followup (Schoenwald etal., 2000). A series
of controlled studies(Burns et al., 2000) with older delin-quents
involved in MST found multiplepositive outcomes (e.g., fewer
arrests,less time in incarceration).
Service SectorsIn its effort to document informationabout
services for child delinquents age12 and younger, the Study Group
wasconcerned with two primary issues:access to services and
patterns of
service use among juveniles who seekhelp. As opposed to focusing
only onjuveniles who have committed offenses,the Study Group
focused on juvenileswith conduct disorder or who exhibitedconduct
disorder symptoms. This ap-proach stemmed partly from the factthat
mental health services and treat-ment programs typically describe
juve-niles by diagnosis and do not identifydelinquent status.
Symptoms or a diag-nosis of conduct disorder functions as aproxy
for early-onset offending.
Although conduct problems usually areapparent and children (in
most circum-stances) are identified for some type ofservice, it is
not known exactly whichservice sectors are most used and, per-haps
more important, whether effectivetreatment is provided. Although
muchresearch has focused on the onset, prog-nosis, course, and
outcome of conductdisorder in children, seldom has re-search
explored the link between con-duct disorder and offending and
theservices and interventions used toaddress them. It is apparent,
however,that the most effective interventions foryounger children
focus on parents andare home- or school-based. This sectionoffers a
brief overview of the four serv-ice sectors most commonly used
to
-
4
help juveniles with conduct disordersymptoms or a conduct
disorder diag-nosis: mental health, education, childwelfare, and
juvenile justice.
Mental HealthEarly-onset offenders have frequentlydeveloped
multiple mental healthproblems early in life. These
juveniles,however, often are not identified untilthey have had some
contact with thepolice or the court. In general, a largeproportion
of juveniles with any typeof psychiatric disorder do not
receivespecialized mental health services. It isunclear whether the
same is true specif-ically for juveniles with conduct prob-lems.
Considerable evidence suggests,however, that conduct disorder is
high-ly prevalent among juveniles referred tomental health services
(Kazdin, 1985;Lock and Strauss, 1994). Conduct disor-der accounts
for 30 to 50 percent ofpsychiatric referrals among juveniles,making
it the most frequent reason forreferral in this age group. Although
thejuvenile justice system can serve as agateway into professional
mental healthservices, this is not always the case. Forexample, one
study found that juvenileswith a court contact and those
withdelinquent behavior but no court con-tact were about equally
likely to havesought help for their behavioral prob-lems and to
have received professionalmental health treatment
(Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, and Thomas, 1992).
In some juveniles, the early onset ofdelinquency is associated
with atten-tion deficit/hyperactivity disorder(ADHD). The
Multimodal TreatmentStudy of Children With Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (MTA Cooper-ative Group, 1999a)
compared combina-tions of medication and behavioraltreatments
(including parent manage-ment training, use of a behavioral aidein
the classroom, and child behavioraltreatment in a summer program)
witha standard community treatment (e.g.,a pediatrician prescribing
stimulantmedication for children with ADHD).
For ADHD, medication worked betterthan the combined behavioral
treat-ments. Children receiving both be-havioral treatment and
medicationresponded better than those receivingbehavioral
treatments alone, whereasbehavioral treatments combined
withmedication worked no better than med-ication alone. Families
whose childrenreceived behavioral treatment, with orwithout
medication, were more satisfiedwith their children's treatment
thanfamilies whose children received onlymedical treatment;
behavioral treatmentimproved juveniles’ acceptance of andcompliance
with medical treatment; andcombined treatment was associatedwith a
lower dose of medication (MTACooperative Group, 1999b). In
otherwords, one type of treatment (e.g.,behavioral) appears to
enhance familycompliance with other treatment com-ponents (e.g.,
medication). Althoughthe evidence base for
pharmacologicalinterventions with children and adoles-cents is less
developed for juvenileswith conduct disorder than for thosewith
ADHD, the results highlight theimportance of combining multiple
com-ponents into clinically successful treat-ment programs that
involve both chil-dren and their families.
EducationThe Study Group found that school sys-tems can play an
important role in iden-tifying a child’s need for mental
healthservices and providing such services.For example, juveniles
and parents mostoften contact teachers about emotionaland
behavioral problems. In a NorthCarolina study, 71.5 percent of
juvenileswith serious emotional disturbancesreceived services from
schools, com-pared with much smaller proportionsof help from other
service sectors(Burns et al., 1995). However, the ade-quacy of
school-based mental healthservices has been questioned,
largelybecause school personnel, such as guid-ance counselors, have
limited mentalhealth training. A discussion of schoolinterventions
that seek to change the
social context of schools and improveacademic and social skills
of studentsis provided on page 6 of this Bulletin.
Child WelfareChild welfare services, especially thefoster care
segment, may also serve asa major gateway into the mental
health-care system. The child welfare systemprovides children and
adolescents withfinancial coverage for mental healthcare through
Medicaid. In addition,children and adolescents enter thechild
welfare system primarily becauseof maltreatment such as child
abuseand neglect, conditions associated witha higher risk of
psychiatric problemsand delinquency. For example, recentreviews of
child welfare studies suggestthat between one-half and two-thirds
ofchildren entering foster care have be-havior problems warranting
mentalhealth services (Landsverk and Garland,1999). Two studies of
computerizedMedicaid program claims found sub-stantially greater
use of mental healthservices by children in foster care thanby
children in the overall Medicaidpopulation (Takayama, Bergman,
andConnell, 1994). Nevertheless, little isknown about how the child
welfare sys-tem identifies child delinquents andpotential child
delinquents and refersthem to mental health services. Thesechildren
are a critical population forearly intervention because of
theirexposure to trauma and other risk fac-tors and their
consequent externalizing(or acting out) behavior. By using
theresults of additional research, the childwelfare system could
serve as an earlywarning system for identifying childrenwho
demonstrate conduct problemsand are at an increased risk of
enteringthe juvenile justice system during theiradolescence.
Juvenile JusticeConduct disorder is characterized
byexternalizing behaviors as opposed tointernalizing behaviors. It
is not surpris-ing, then, that this disorder is found
-
Researchers have estimated that atypical criminal career
spanning thejuvenile and adult years costs societybetween $1.3
million and $1.5 million(Cohen, 1998). Several cost-benefit
anal-yses have shown that early preventionprograms designed to halt
the develop-ment of criminal potential in individualsshow promise
as being both effectiveand economical in reducing delinquency(e.g.,
Aos et al., 2001; Wasserman andMiller, 1998; Welsh and Farrington,
2000).For example, in the Yale Child WelfareResearch Program, a
cost-benefits anal-ysis found that in the course of 1 year,the
control group of 15 families whoreceived no special services
consumed$40,000 more in public resources thanthe treatment group of
families whoparticipated in programs to help disad-vantaged young
parents support theirchildren’s development and improve thequality
of family life (Seitz, Rosenbaum,and Apfel, 1985). Aos and
colleagues(2001) showed that, based on ability toreduce felonies
and total costs to tax-payers and crime victims,
multisystemictherapy, a community-based model ofservice delivery,
is currently the mostcost-effective treatment program forreducing
delinquency and incarceration,saving an estimated $31,661 to
$131,918per participant in costs to taxpayers andvictims. Other
cost-effective programsinclude treatment foster care (which
hasreduced felonies by 37 percent amongparticipants and saved
taxpayers andcrime victims $21,836 to $87,622 perparticipant) (Aos
et al., 2001) and func-tional family therapy (which has re-duced
felonies by 27 percent amongparticipants and saved taxpayers
andcrime victims $14,149 to $59,067 perparticipant) (Sexton and
Alexander,2000).1
Nevertheless, more research focusingon cost-benefit analysis is
needed be-cause benefits tend to be estimated
conservatively, whereas costs are oftentaken into full account.
More researchwill also help to determine specificmonetary benefits
of prevention pro-grams (see Welsh, Farrington, andSherman,
2001).
As shown in the table above, cost-bene-fit analyses of early
prevention revealmany important economic benefits ofprevention
programs. For example, inaddition to preventing delinquency,many
programs affect other life factors,
such as educational achievement,health, and parent-child
relationships,all of which have economic benefits. Ananalysis of
one program, conducted 13years after the intervention, found
thatthe greatest share of total benefits (57percent) resulted from
reduced welfarecosts, whereas increased revenues
fromemployment-related taxes accounted for23 percent of total
benefits, and savingsto the criminal justice system accountedfor 20
percent (Karoly et al., 1998).
5
Cost Effectiveness of Intervention
1 The cost to taxpayers is defined by criminal justice system
costs, and the cost to crime victims is equal to the costs of
personal and property losses.These figures represent net benefits
per participant after subtracting the program costs per
participant. The lower figures include taxpayer benefits only;the
higher figures include both taxpayer and crime victim benefits.
Summary of Early Prevention Program Benefits
Outcome Variable Benefits
Delinquency/crime ● Offers savings to the criminal justice
system(e.g., police, courts, probation, corrections).
● Avoids tangible and intangible costs incurred bycrime victims
(e.g., medical care, damaged andlost property, lost wages, lost
quality of life, painand suffering).
● Avoids tangible and intangible costs incurred byfamily members
of crime victims (e.g., funeralexpenses, lost wages, lost quality
of life).
Substance abuse ● Offers savings to the criminal justice
system.● Improves health.
Education ● Improves educational output (e.g., high
schoolcompletion, enrollment in higher education).
● Reduces schooling costs (e.g., remedial classes,support
services).
Employment ● Increases wages (tax revenue for government).●
Decreases use of welfare services.
Health ● Decreases use of public health care (e.g., fewervisits
to hospitals and clinics).
● Improves mental health.
Family factors ● Reduces childbirths by women of low
socioeco-nomic status.
● Offers parents more time to spend with theirchildren.
● Reduces divorces and separations.
Source: Welsh, B.C. 1998. Economic costs and benefits of early
developmental prevention. InSerious and Violent Juvenile Offenders:
Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited byR. Loeber and
D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.
339–355.
-
6
more often among juveniles referredto the juvenile justice
system than inthe general population (Otto et al.,1992). In one
review of nine studies, theprevalence rates of conduct disorder
forjuveniles in the juvenile justice systemranged from 10 to 90
percent, and rateswere higher for incarcerated juvenilesthan for
those residing in the communi-ty (Cocozza, 1992). Mental health
andsubstance use disorders are pervasiveamong incarcerated
juveniles. For exam-ple, among 697 juveniles in detention inCook
County, IL, 80 percent had at leastone mental health or substance
use dis-order; 20 percent had an affective disor-der, 24 percent an
anxiety disorder, 44percent a substance use disorder, and44 percent
a disruptive behavior disor-der (Teplin, Northwestern
UniversityMedical School, personal communica-tion, 1997). The
limited attention givento providing mental health services
toincarcerated juveniles raises questionsabout whether the lack of
studies in thisarea is also associated with a failure toprovide
needed services.
Service Use PatternsDespite the need for more research,
theoutlook for the treatment of juvenileoffenders in general is
more encour-aging now than it was 10 years ago.Several strategies
for a comprehensiveapproach involving community actionshave shown
promise for juveniles whoexhibit conduct disorder symptoms.
Inaddition, three recent studies have shedlight on patterns of
service use and mayhave implications for future interven-tion
programs. The Great Smoky Moun-tains Study (GSMS), conducted in
11counties of western North Carolina,examined access to services.
The Pat-terns of Care (POC) Study in San DiegoCounty, CA, provided
information onservice use patterns for juveniles andfamilies
seeking treatment. (The POCstudy consists of an annual count
ofyouth involved in service delivery sys-tems and a longitudinal
survey of youthwho received services.) The Cost ofServices in
Medicaid Study in south-western Pennsylvania examined service
use and costs for juveniles with conductdisorder and juveniles
with oppositionaldefiant disorder.
As expected, the studies found thateducation was the service
sector mostlikely to intervene and that the mentalhealth sector
provided services to asignificant proportion of juveniles
whoexhibited conduct disorder symptoms.Institutional placement (in
a psychiatrichospital or detention center) remaineda significant
form of treatment for chil-dren who exhibited conduct
disordersymptoms. Unexpectedly, the juvenilejustice system had
limited contact withjuveniles who exhibited severe antiso-cial
behavior, and when there was con-tact, the rate of mental health
servicesintervention was extremely low. In theGSMS, the major
finding was that youthwith a significant history of serious
anti-social behavior were not identified bythe justice system,
suggesting an impor-tant potential role of police in detectionand
referral.
If appropriate services are not availablethrough the police or
courts, a well-defined mechanism for obtaining timelyhelp is
needed. The first step towardobtaining effective treatment is
gainingaccess to services. However, althoughthe early detection of
emotional andbehavioral problems has long been apublic health goal,
the common de-lay between symptom onset and help-seeking is
apparent. For example, in thechild welfare sector, it appears that
achild’s first access to mental health ser-vices is often triggered
by foster careplacement. A further issue is how widelyavailable
effective interventions are tosuch youth once they gain access
totreatment in typical mental healthsettings.
School InterventionsResearch shows that school interven-tions
that change the social context ofschools and the school experiences
ofchildren can reduce and prevent thedelinquent behavior of
children youngerthan 13. Several approaches to school
interventions have yielded positiveresults. These approaches
includeclassroom- and schoolwide behaviormanagement programs;
social compe-tence promotion curriculums; conflictresolution and
violence prevention cur-riculums; bullying prevention efforts;and
multicomponent classroom-basedprograms that help teachers and
par-ents manage, socialize, and educatestudents and improve their
cognitive,social, and emotional competencies.Research also shows
that community-based activities such as afterschoolrecreation and
mentoring programs canreduce child delinquency (Jones andOfford,
1989).
Several classroom and school behaviormanagement programs have
positivelyinfluenced children’s behavior. For ex-ample, evaluations
of the Good BehaviorGame showed that proactive behavior
Juvenile Justice Facilitiesand Programming
The ability of the juvenile correctionssystem to provide
appropriate facili-ties and programming for child delin-quents is a
major concern. Becausethe juvenile justice system is notgeared to
handle child delinquents,they are sometimes housed with
olderoffenders in detention centers andjuvenile correctional
facilities. Little isknown about the detrimental effectsof secure
confinement on these chil-dren’s emotional and cognitive
devel-opment, and much less is knownabout the impact confinement
has onchildren. One study found that exces-sive detention (more
than a 30-dayperiod) negated the positive effectsthat community
treatment had onrecidivism rates among juveniles(Wooldredge, 1988).
For young chil-dren who have committed violentoffenses, short-term
facilities andcomprehensive community-based pro-grams may offer a
good alternative tothe many disadvantages of
long-termconfinement.
-
7
management in the classroom canreduce aggressive behavior and
pro-mote positive long-term effects on themost aggressive
elementary school chil-dren (Kellam and Rebok, 1992; Kellamet al.,
1994). Murphy and colleagues(1983) found that programs that
effec-tively manage behavior on the play-ground can reduce
aggressive behavior.By providing structured activities andtimeout
procedures for elementaryschool children, teacher’s aides wereable
to reduce disruptive and aggressivebehavior during recreational
periods.Mayer and Butterworth (1979) haveshown that schoolwide
behavior man-agement and consultation programs inurban elementary
schools can increasethe safety of students and enhancelearning and
healthy social interactions.
Curriculums that seek to promote socialcompetence teach
prosocial norms andenhance children’s problem-solving andsocial
interaction skills. Several of thesecurriculums have been
successfullyused to reduce aggressive behavior and,in some cases,
child delinquency. Ex-amples include PATHS (Greenberg andKusche,
1993), the Social Relations In-tervention (Lochman et al., 1993),
theMetropolitan Area Child Study (Eron etal., forthcoming), the
Social Competence
Promotion Program for Young Adoles-cents (Weissberg, Barton, and
Shriver,1997), and the Montreal LongitudinalExperiment Study
(Tremblay et al.,1990). Although variations exist regard-ing the
specific content, number ofsessions, and ages targeted by
theseprograms, social competence promo-tion programs with
sufficient intensityand duration consistently have beenfound to
reduce aggressive and otherantisocial behaviors of children
youngerthan 13.
Conflict resolution, violence preventioncurriculums, and
antibullying programsalso focus on problem-solving andsocial
interaction skills. In addition,they seek to educate children about
thecauses and destructive consequencesof violence and bullying
(Olweus, 1991).The Second Step curriculum for ele-mentary school
students and the Re-sponding in Peaceful and Positive
Wayscurriculum for middle school studentshave successfully reduced
aggressivebehavior in children (Grossman et al.,1997). Social
competence and violenceprevention curriculums can be com-bined with
other intervention compo-nents into multicomponent approaches,as
illustrated by Fast Track (ConductProblems Prevention Research
Group,
1999a, 1999b), the Child DevelopmentProject, and the Seattle
Social Devel-opment Project (SSDP).
Multicomponent classroom-based pro-grams seek to reduce
misbehaving(both inside and outside the classroom)and strengthen
academic achievement.Fast Track, the Child Development Pro-gram,
and SSDP have shown positiveeffects in reducing early behavior
prob-lems (Battistich et al., 1997; ConductProblems Prevention
Research Group,1999a, 1999b; Hawkins et al., 1999). Eachof these
programs included classroom-and family-focused components.
Pos-itive effects of the Fast Track interven-tion on the
disruptive-oppositionalbehavior of first-graders were
evidentimmediately after the program conclud-ed. Today, those
children are beingtracked to determine whether the on-going
intervention will continue toinfluence their behavior. The
ChildDevelopment Program used proactivebehavior management and
cooperativelearning strategies with elementaryschool students. The
program success-fully reduced antisocial behavior (in-cluding
interpersonal aggression andweapon carrying) among children in
ahigh-implementation subgroup. In theclassroom, SSDP combined
proactivebehavior management strategies withinteractive
instructional methods, coop-erative learning, and cognitive
andsocial skills instruction for students.Effects of the program on
children’santisocial behavior were shown duringthe intervention,
immediately after itscompletion (at the end of elementaryschool),
and when the students turned18 (6 years after the
interventionended) (Hawkins et al., 1999).
These results clearly document theimportant role that schools
can playin the prevention of child delinquency.This role is
particularly important inlight of research findings that
indicatethat children whose academic perform-ance is poor face a
greater risk of be-coming involved in child delinquencythan other
children (Herrenkohl et al.,
-
8
2001). Through the school and class-room management policies and
prac-tices that they adopt, and through theinstructional methods
and curriculumsthat teachers choose to use in the class-room,
schools can promote or inhibitoffending behavior among
students.Good schools are a fundamental com-ponent in preventing
delinquency.
From the perspective of preventingchild delinquency, good
schools areschools with explicit, consistent, andcontingent (and
fairly applied) expecta-tions for behavior. Good schools
useinteractive and cooperative methodsof instruction that actively
involvestudents in their own learning. Goodschools empower parents
to supportthe learning process and to practicemore effective child
management skills.Good schools offer elementary and mid-dle school
children curriculums thatpromote the development of social
andemotional competencies and the devel-opment of norms against
violence,aggression, and offending.
Schools that do these things promoteacademic attainment and
reduce therisk for antisocial behavior amongtheir students.
Federal, State, and localefforts should focus on encouragingschools
to assess their current prac-tices in these areas and to adopt
prac-tices, programs, and approaches shownto reduce offending
behavior. Currently,94 percent of the resources intended tocombat
violent offending are used afterviolent offenses have occurred. To
ade-quately prevent youthful offending,more resources should be
made avail-able to ensure that schools use methodsand programs that
will help them effec-tively educate and socialize children.
Juvenile JusticeProgramsMost children with a conduct
disorderdiagnosis or who exhibit conduct disor-der symptoms do not
enter the juvenilejustice system before age 12. Neverthe-less, the
likelihood that many of these
juveniles will eventually come in con-tact with the system
during their ado-lescence is a clear incentive for earlierjustice
system involvement. This sec-tion summarizes the status of the
juve-nile justice system’s involvement withchild delinquency and
describes severalpromising programs.
The juvenile court system typically giveschild delinquents more
opportunities toreform than it gives to older offenders,which
explains why juvenile courts donot normally adjudicate very
young,first-time offenders. When confrontedwith child delinquents
(even if theyare repeat or serious offenders), juven-ile courts
must deal with legal issuessurrounding the handling of these
chil-dren in a system that does not reallyanticipate their
presence. Traditional-ly, the courts have been expected tointervene
only when families, serviceagencies, and schools fail to give
chil-dren the help they need. Childrenexhibiting problem behaviors
oftenhave not been served adequately bychild welfare, social
services, child pro-tective services, mental health agencies,and
public schools (Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency
Prevention,1995). Because their needs have notbeen met elsewhere,
the juvenile courthas long been a “dumping ground” forchildren with
a wide variety of problembehaviors (Kupperstein, 1971).2
The juvenile court’s intervention inchild delinquency has been
affected bypolicy changes during the 1970s and1980s—e.g., the
Federal Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention (JJDP)Act of
1974—which have increasedthe diversion of status offenders,
non-offenders, and child delinquents fromjuvenile court processing.
In the viewof many judges, this diversion hasmeant a lost
opportunity to help
children (Holden and Kapler, 1995).Despite policy changes,
however, thejuvenile courts continue to handle manystatus
offenders, nonoffenders, andchild delinquents. Yet the policies of
thepast 25 years have restricted the devel-opment of programs for
these children.A fairly strong principle seems to becommonly
held—that very young chil-dren should not be subject to
disposi-tions normally reserved for older ormore serious offenders.
However, dispo-sitions specifically tailored to addressthe unique
circumstances of child delin-quents are scant. The juvenile
justicesystem has no special facilities for theseyoung offenders,
and few programs aredesigned specifically for them. Never-theless,
among these few programs, theStudy Group has identified some
promis-ing interventions for child delinquents.
Michigan Early OffenderProgramEstablished in 1985 by a Michigan
pro-bate court, the Early Offender Program(EOP) provides
specialized, intensive,in-home interventions for children age13 or
younger at the time of their firstadjudication and who have had two
ormore prior police contacts. Interven-tions include individualized
treatmentplans, therapy groups, school prepara-tion assistance, and
short-term deten-tion of up to 10 days. Comparisons witha control
group showed that EOP partic-ipants had lower recidivism rates,
fewernew adjudications per recidivist, andfewer and briefer
out-of-home place-ments. In general, both parents andchildren
reported positive changes infamily situations, peer relations,
andschool performance and conduct afterparticipating in EOP (e.g.,
Howitt andMoore, 1991).
Minnesota DelinquentsUnder 10 ProgramThe Delinquents Under 10
Program inHennepin County, MN, involves severalcounty departments
(Children andFamily Services, Economic Assistance,
2 Most practitioners surveyed by the Study Group onVery Young
Offenders thought that effective methodswere available for reducing
child delinquents’ risk offuture offending. However, only 3 to 6
percent ofpractitioners thought that current juvenile
courtprocedures were effective in achieving this goal(Loeber and
Farrington, 2001).
-
9
approaches. The multisystemic ap-proach uses interventions that
targetchildren, parents, schools, and commu-nities, as required.
Interventions includeskills training, cognitive problem solv-ing,
self-control strategies, cognitive self-instruction, family
management skillstraining, and parent training. These
inter-ventions are organized in eight majorprogram components, such
as a 12-weekafterschool structured group session, a12-week parent
training group, in-homeacademic tutoring, school advocacy,teacher
consultations, and individualbefriending, which connects
juvenileswith volunteers who help them joinrecreational facilities
in their community.
A ComprehensiveModelBased on the initial experiences ofthese
community-based efforts and arecognition of the multiple causes
ofchild delinquency, the need for a com-prehensive model emerges to
guide
Community Health, and County Attor-ney’s Office). A screening
team reviewspolice reports and then determinesappropriate
dispositions for children.Interventions include an
admonishmentletter to parents from the county attor-ney, referrals
to child protective servicesand other agencies, diversion
programs,and targeted early interventions for chil-dren deemed to
be at the highest risk forfuture delinquency (Hennepin
CountyAttorney’s Office, 1995). For each target-ed child, a
specific wraparound networkis created. Networks include the
follow-ing elements:
● A community-based organizationto conduct indepth
assessments,improve behavior and school at-tendance, and provide
extracurric-ular activities.
● An integrated service delivery teammade up of county staff who
coordi-nate service delivery and help chil-dren and family members
accessservices.
● A critical support person or mentor.
● A corporate sponsor that fundsextracurricular activities.
Sacramento CountyCommunity InterventionProgramSacramento County,
CA, welfare authori-ties found that families of most young(ages 9
to 12) children arrested in thecounty had been investigated for
bothneglect and physical abuse. In addition,children who were
reported as abusedor neglected were six to seven timesmore likely
than other children to bearrested for delinquent behavior
(Brooksand Petit, 1997; Child Welfare League ofAmerica, 1997).
Based on this data, theCommunity Intervention Program (CIP)for
child delinquents was developed(Brooks and Petit, 1997). The
interven-tion begins when law enforcement offi-cers notify the
probation departmentthat a child between ages 9 and 12 hasbeen
arrested. The court intake screen-er then refers the children who
haveinstances of family abuse or neglect to
CIP. Next, a community interventionspecialist conducts a crisis
assessmentand provides initial crisis interventionservices to the
child and family. Theintervention specialist then conductsan
indepth assessment, which includesphysical and mental health,
substanceabuse, school functioning, economicstrengths/needs,
vocational strengths/needs, family functioning, and
socialfunctioning. The intervention specialistcoordinates all
services, which are com-munity based and family focused andmay vary
in intensity over time to matchthe needs of the child and family.
Inter-vention services include individual andfamily counseling and
abuse and neglectrisk monitoring.
Toronto Under 12 OutreachProjectThe Under 12 Outreach Project
inToronto, Canada, is a fully developedintervention program that
combinessocial learning and behavioral system
Policy Issues
A critical question for policymakers is how to transfer
effective treatments, such asin-home treatment, parent training,
and other approaches, to the appropriate servicesectors, especially
schools, where children and parents are most likely to use
andbenefit from such services. How to best combine interventions is
another importantquestion. For many children and families, a single
intervention may be sufficient, butfor others, a package of
interventions and support may be critical.
As a result of its research review, the Study Group recommends
that new researchfocus on issues such as the applicability and
effectiveness of interventions for childdelinquents.
The Study Group’s recommendations for policy development include
the following:
● Take steps within the juvenile justice system to assist
parents of child delinquentsin seeking help.
● Enhance police training in the screening and detection of
juveniles who are notnecessarily child delinquents but who have
encountered the police because ofpredelinquent behavior and who
could benefit from a referral for mental healthservices.
● Increase support for the training of mental health workers in
evidence-basedprevention and treatment for offending juveniles.
● Develop policies that promote multiagency collaborative
efforts.
● Ensure that policies and procedures monitor the provision of
interventions.
-
10
new efforts. Historically, interagencycoordination and
collaboration in serv-ice delivery to children have been lessthan
impressive (Knitzer, 1982; Nel-son, Rutherford, and Wolford,
1996).Undoubtedly, children with seriousbehavioral disturbances
need to receiveseveral different services simultaneous-ly in a
continuum of care that involvesmultiple human services agencies.
Acomprehensive wraparound model isneeded to integrate interventions
forchildren who have committed delin-quent acts or are at risk of
delinquency.The model should integrate prevention,early
intervention, graduated sanctions,and aftercare in a comprehensive
ap-proach that enables communities toaddress child delinquency more
effec-tively (Wilson and Howell, 1993).
Mechanisms for aComprehensive ApproachThe Study Group has
identified threecrucial mechanisms for coordinatingand fully
integrating a continuum of careand sanctions for child
delinquents:
Governing body. The Study Grouprecommends that communities
andgovernments create a governing body,or interagency council, that
includes(at a minimum) representatives fromall human services
organizations andagencies related to juvenile justice thatprovide
services to child delinquentsand their families. These agencies
in-clude child welfare, education, healthand human services,
housing and hu-man development, juvenile justice, andmental health.
The council must havethe authority to convene the agenciesand to
direct their work toward devel-oping a comprehensive strategy
fordealing with child delinquency.
Comprehensive assessment and casemanagement. The Study Group
believesthat an effort must be made for com-prehensive assessments
of referredchild delinquents at the front end of thejuvenile
justice system. One option is touse a single mechanism, such as a
com-munity assessment center, to perform
risk and needs assessments for a widerange of agencies, thus
providing a sin-gle point of entry and immediate andcomprehensive
assessments. These“one-stop shops” could help
integratemultidisciplinary perspectives, enhancecoordination of
efforts, and reduce serv-ice duplication. However, to ensure
thatchild delinquents have access to avail-able services and that
the services areeffectively delivered, it is also criticalto
implement integrated case manage-ment, tracking of children through
thesystem, periodic reassessment, and mon-itoring of service
provisions (Oldenetteland Wordes, 1999).
Interagency coordination and collabo-ration. Although juvenile
justice, mentalhealth, child welfare, and education serv-ices may
have the same clients, theseagencies often work at cross-purposesor
duplicate services. The Study Grouprecommends developing
wraparoundservices to target children and familiesin a flexible and
individualized mannertailored to their strengths and needs(Burns
and Goldman, 1999; Goldman,1999). Although promising and
effectivewraparound models have been devel-oped for children with
emotional dis-turbances and their families, the bestmethod of
addressing child delinquencywithin the juvenile justice system
hasnot been determined. One program,the 8% Early Intervention
Program inOrange County, CA, ensures coordinat-ed service delivery
by operating underthe authority of the probation depart-ment and
using contractual arrange-ments for services (Schumacher andKurz,
1999).
PreventionAny program that targets children andchild delinquents
should include astrong prevention component with afocus on
discouraging gang involvement.Often, the most dysfunctional
adoles-cents in urban areas are recruited intogangs (Lancot and Le
Blanc, 1996). Priordelinquency and antisocial behavioralso predict
gang membership (e.g.,Hill et al., 1999). A successful program
in Montreal, Canada, combined parenttraining with individual
social skillstraining for aggressive-hyperactive boysages 7 to 9
and found that, when com-pared with a control group,
significantlyfewer boys in the treatment groupjoined a gang
(Tremblay et al., 1996).
Early intervention is paramount inpreventing delinquency and
ganginvolvement, especially for disruptivechildren. One approach
programs cantake is improving parenting skills to bet-ter manage
impulsive, oppositional, anddefiant children. Another approach
tar-gets parents at high risk for abusingand neglecting their
children. An ex-ample of this approach is the Children’sResearch
Center’s innovative methodfor identifying the relative degree of
riskfor continued abuse or neglect amongfamilies that have a
substantiated abuseor neglect referral (Children’s ResearchCenter,
1993). With this method, chil-dren are classified according to risk
lev-els, which are then used to determineservices. Community
policing shouldalso be part of early intervention. Forexample, a
program in New Haven, CT,brings police officers and mental
healthprofessionals together to provide eachwith training,
consultation, and supportand to offer interdisciplinary
interven-tions to child victims, witnesses, andperpetrators of
violent crime (Maransand Berkman, 1997).
Graduated SanctionsChild delinquency intervention ef-forts need
to be linked to a system ofgraduated sanctions—a continuum
oftreatment alternatives that includesimmediate intervention,
intermediatesanctions, community-based correc-tional sanctions, and
secure corrections(Howell, 1995). One such program, the8% Early
Intervention Program, focuseson juveniles younger than 15 who,
al-though they represent only 8 percentof the total probation
caseload, are ofgreatest concern to the communitybecause they
account for more than halfof all repeat offenders among
juvenileprobationers and because they are at
-
11
risk of becoming chronic, serious, andviolent juvenile offenders
(Schumacherand Kurz, 1999). The following problemsserve as criteria
for inclusion in the 8%Program:
● Significant family problems(e.g., abuse/neglect).
● Significant school problems (e.g., truancy, suspension).
● A pattern of individual problems(drug and/or alcohol use).
● Predelinquent behavior patterns(e.g., running away or
gangassociations).
The 8% Program targets these juvenilesupon court referral. Cases
are identifiedduring screening at probation intakeand verified
through a comprehensiverisks and needs assessment process. Ayouth
and family resource center pro-vides well-coordinated, intensive,
andmultisystemic intervention services thatfocus on strengthening
the family unit,improving school attendance and aca-demic
performance, teaching and mod-eling prosocial behavior and values,
andensuring easy access to interventionresources.
A Lesson Learned FromInnovations in CanadaLegislation and policy
developmentsthat focus on child delinquency do notalways work as
expected. Programs andpolicies sometimes lack coordination,proper
data collection, adequate moni-toring and feedback, and ongoing
analysis.Nonetheless, a review of such practicescan prompt
policymakers to developnew and improved approaches. Canada’snear
two-decade-old approach to childdelinquency is a case in point.
The Canadian Young Offenders Act of1984 effectively
decriminalized childrenyounger than 12 by making them exemptfrom
the juvenile justice system. Therationale was that these children
wouldbe better served through provincialand territorial child
welfare and mental
health services. However, several sur-veys3 of Canada’s 10
provinces and 3 ter-ritories revealed that the legislation didnot
lead to a systemic development ofmultifaceted interventions
tailored tochildren’s unique needs.
Nevertheless, the surveys influencedthe Earlscourt Child and
Family Centre(see footnote 3) to make several recom-mendations,
which the Study Groupbelieves may offer guidance to jurisdic-tions
in the United States and Europe.Canada has already taken the first
steptoward improving services by develop-ing early assessment and
centralizedservices protocols in Toronto.4 The fol-lowing
recommendations made to theCanadian government emphasize
earlyidentification and intervention.
Community Teams for Children Under12 Committing Offenses. In
this initia-tive, community teams of representa-tives from police
departments, childwelfare programs, schools, mentalhealth agencies,
and other organiza-tions would be mandated to provideservices for
children who commit offens-es and their families and for
teachers,children’s peers, and communities ingeneral. The teams
would conduct needsand risk assessments and would
assigninterventions according to offense sever-ity. Within this
framework, multifacetedinterventions would be tailored to
indi-vidual children and their families. Tem-porary placement
options would rangefrom secure mental health facilities totreatment
foster homes.
Children Committing Offenses Act(CCOA). To ensure accountability
andmeet community standards of publicsafety, the Canadian CCOA
would man-date that services to child delinquentsbe based on an
assessment of their riskfor further offending. The Act wouldprovide
clear direction to police regard-ing their responsibilities in
trackingchildren and would ensure servicesaccording to established
protocols.The Act would also provide for theplacement of specially
designatedpolice liaison officers who are trainedto intervene with
delinquent children,coordinate with community agencies,and
participate in community teams(Augimeri, Goldberg, and Koegl,
1999).This Act may inspire similar legislationin other
countries.
National Information Center on VeryYoung Offenders. This
proposed centerwould encourage, monitor, and evalu-ate
interventions for children youngerthan 12. It would track the
incidence ofoffending and act as a clearinghouse forinterventions.
To meet prevention goals,the center would facilitate a
nationallysustained parent education programto promote parenting
skills and wouldoffer technical assistance to communi-ties. It
would also focus on antibullyingand antistealing campaigns
targetingboth the entire school population andchildren most at risk
of offending.
Summary andConclusionBecause persistent disruptive behaviorand
child delinquency are predictors oflater serious and violent
offending, theStudy Group suggests that efforts toreduce serious
delinquency should fo-cus on children who exhibit
persistentdisruptive behavior in addition to childdelinquents and
serious juvenile offend-ers. Little evidence supports the ideathat
harsher sanctions in the juvenilejustice system reduce child
delinquency.Instead, effective interventions to reduceboth
persistent disruptive behavior andchild delinquency have been
developed.
3 Earlscourt Child and Family Centre (an accreditedchildren’s
mental health center specializing in pro-grams for children with
disruptive behavior prob-lems) developed and conducted the surveys,
whichwere administered to a variety of service providers,including
law enforcement, child welfare, and mentalhealth agencies and
school boards.
4 The Toronto Centralized Services Protocol forChildren Under 12
in Conflict With the Law was imple-mented in Toronto in 1999. Since
the implementationof the Protocol in Toronto, many other
communitiesacross Ontario and across Canada have indicated
aninterest in implementing a similar protocol in theirown
jurisdictions.
-
12
The Study Group found that the bestintervention and service
programs pro-vide a treatment-oriented, nonpunitiveframework that
emphasizes early identi-fication and intervention.
When considering intervention programdevelopment, it is
important to recog-nize the fact that no single system—juvenile
justice, education, mentalhealth, or child welfare—can reducechild
delinquency on its own. The StudyGroup’s survey of juvenile justice
practi-tioners found that they were unanimousabout the need for
integration amongagencies (Loeber and Farrington, 2001).However,
providing multiple services fortroubled children in a
comprehensive,integrated manner has proven difficult.Several
pioneering programs describedin this Bulletin provide models of
con-sistent coordination among agenciesconcerned with children.
Such integrat-ed efforts will give communities theopportunity to
identify children whoeither have committed delinquent actsor are at
risk of delinquency and thenhelp communities target
individualizedinterventions for these children andtheir families.
Should this effort occuron a large scale, the potential for
sig-nificantly reducing the overall level ofcrime in a community
will increase. Asa result, the future expenditure of asso-ciated
tax dollars will likely decrease.
ReferencesAmerican Psychiatric Association. 1994.Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC:
AmericanPsychiatric Association.
Angold, A., Costello, E.J., and Erkanli, A.1999. Comorbidity.
Journal of Child Psychol-ogy and Psychiatry 40(1):57–87.
Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., and Lieb, R.2001. The
Comparative Costs and Benefitsof Programs To Reduce Crime. Olympia,
WA:Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Augimeri, L.K., Goldberg, K., and Koegl, C.1999. Canadian
Children Under 12 CommittingOffenses: Police Protocols. Toronto,
ON:Earlscourt Child and Family Centre.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., andSchaps, E. 1997.
Caring school communities.Educational Psychologist 32:137–151.
Brestan, E.V., and Eyberg, S.M. 1998. Effec-tive psychosocial
treatments of conduct-disordered children and adolescents: 29years,
82 studies, and 5,272 kids. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology
27(2):180–189.
Brooks, T.R., and Petit, M. 1997. Early In-tervention: Crafting
a Community Response toChild Abuse and Violence. Washington,
DC:Child Welfare League of America.
Burns, B.J., Costello, E.J., Angold, A., Tweed,D., Stangl, D.,
Farmer, E.M.Z., and Erkanli, A.1995. Children’s mental health
service useacross service sectors. Health Affairs14(3):147–159.
Burns, B.J., and Goldman, S.K., eds. 1999.Promising practices in
wraparound for chil-dren with serious emotional disturbance
andtheir families. In Systems of Care: PromisingPractices in
Children’s Mental Health, 1998Series, Vol. 4. Washington, DC:
Center forEffective Collaboration and Practice, Amer-ican
Institutes for Research.
Burns, B.J., Hoagwood, K., and Mrazek, P.1999. Effective
treatment for mental disor-ders in children and adolescents.
ClinicalChild and Family Psychology Review2(4):199–254.
Burns, B.J., Schoenwald, S.K., Burchard, J.D.,Faw, L., and
Santos, A.B. 2000. Comprehen-sive community-based interventions
foryouth with severe emotional disorders:Multisystemic therapy and
the wraparoundprocess. Journal of Child and Youth
Studies9:283–314.
Campbell, M., and Cueva, J.E. 1995. Psycho-pharmacology in child
and adolescent psychi-atry: A review of the past seven
years—PartII. Journal of the American Academy of Childand
Adolescent Psychiatry 34(10):1262–1272.
Child Welfare League of America. 1997.Sacramento County
Community InterventionProgram. Washington, DC: Child WelfareLeague
of America.
Children’s Research Center. 1993. A NewApproach to Child
Protection: The CRC Model.Madison, WI: National Council on Crime
andDelinquency.
Cocozza, J.J. 1992. Responding to the MentalHealth Needs of
Youth in the Juvenile JusticeSystem. Seattle, WA: The National
Coalition
for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal JusticeSystem.
Cohen, M.A. 1998. The monetary valueof saving a high-risk youth.
Journal ofQuantitative Criminology 14(1):5–33.
Conduct Problems Prevention ResearchGroup. 1999a. Initial impact
of the Fast TrackPrevention Trial for Conduct Problems: I.The
high-risk sample. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology
65:631–647.
Conduct Problems Prevention ResearchGroup. 1999b. Initial impact
of the Fast TrackPrevention Trial for Conduct Problems:
II.Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology
67:648–657.
Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., and Poulin, F. 1999.When
interventions harm: Peer groups andproblem behavior. American
Psychologist54(9):755–764.
Eron, L.D., Guerra, N., Henry, D., Huesmann,R., Tolan, P., and
Van Acker, R. Forthcoming.A Cognitive-Ecological Approach to
Prevent-ing Aggression in Urban Inner-City Settings:Preliminary
Outcomes. Chicago, IL: Metro-politan Area Child Study Research
Group,University of Illinois.
Goldman, S.K. 1999. The conceptual frame-work for wraparound:
Definition, values,essential elements, and requirements
forpractice. In Promising Practices in Wraparoundfor Children With
Serious Emotional Disturb-ances and Their Families, edited by B.J.
Burnsand S.K. Goldman. Washington, DC: Center forEffective
Collaboration and Practice,American Institutes for Research.
Greenberg, M.T., and Kusche, C.A. 1993.Promoting Social and
Emotional Developmentin Deaf Children: The PATHS Project.
Seattle,WA: University of Washington Press.
Grossman, D.C., Neckerman, H.J., Koepsell,T., Asher, K., Liu,
P.Y., Beland, K., Frey, K., andRivara, F.P. 1997. Effectiveness of
a violenceprevention curriculum among children inelementary school.
Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 277:1605–1611.
Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., Kosterman, R.,Abbott, R., and
Hill, K.G. 1999. Preventingadolescent health-risk behaviors by
strength-ening protection during childhood. Archives
-
13
of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine153:226–234.
Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. 1995.Delinquents Under 10 in
Hennepin County:A Research Update and Program ProgressReport.
Minneapolis, MN: Hennepin CountyAttorney’s Office.
Herrenkohl, T.I., Hawkins, J.D., Chung, I., Hill,K.G., and
Battin-Pearson, S. 2001. School andcommunity risk factors and
interventions. InChild Delinquents: Development, Intervention,and
Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber andD.P. Farrington. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc., pp. 217–218.
Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D., andBattin, S.R. 1999.
Childhood risk factors foradolescent gang membership: Results
fromthe Seattle Social Development Project.Journal of Research on
Crime and Delin-quency 36(3):300–322.
Holden, G.A., and Kapler, R.A. 1995. De-institutionalizing
status offenders: A recordof progress. Juvenile Justice
2(2):3–10.
Howell, J.C. 1995. Guide for Implementing theComprehensive
Strategy for Serious, Violent,and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.
Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.
Howitt, P.S., and Moore, E.A. 1991. The effica-cy of intensive
early intervention: An evalua-tion of the Oakland County Probate
CourtEarly Offender Program. Juvenile and FamilyCourt Journal
42(3):25–36.
Jones, M.B., and Offord, D.R. 1989. Reductionof antisocial
behavior in poor children bynonschool skill-development. Journal of
ChildPsychology and Psychiatry and AlliedDisciplines
30:737–750.
Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham,S.S., Houbé, J.,
Kilburn, M.R., Rydell, C.P.,Sanders, M., and Chiesa, J. 1998.
Investing inOur Children: What We Know and Don’t KnowAbout the
Costs and Benefits of Early Child-hood Interventions. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND.
Kazdin, A.E. 1985. Treatment of AntisocialBehavior in Children
and Adolescents.Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Kellam, S.G., and Rebok, G.W. 1992. Build-ing developmental and
etiological theorythrough epidemiologically based
preventiveintervention trials. In Preventing Antisocial
Behavior: Interventions From Birth ThroughAdolescence, edited by
J. McCord and R.E.Tremblay. New York, NY: Guilford Press,
pp.162–195.
Kellam, S.G., Rebok, G.W., Ialongo, N., andMayer, L.S. 1994. The
course and malleabilityof aggressive behavior from early first
gradeinto middle school: Results of a developmen-tal
epidemiologically-based preventive trial.Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry35:259–281.
Klein, R. 1991. Preliminary results: Lithiumeffects in conduct
disorders. Paper present-ed at the 144th annual meeting of
theAmerican Psychiatric Association, NewOrleans, LA.
Knitzer, J. 1982. Unclaimed Children: TheFailure of Public
Responsibility to Childrenand Adolescents in Need of Mental
HealthServices. Washington, DC: The Children’sDefense Fund.
Kupperstein, L. 1971. Treatment and rehabili-tation of
delinquent youth: Some socio-cultural considerations. Acta
Criminologica4:11–111.
Lancot, N., and Le Blanc, M. 1996. The partic-ipation of boys in
a marginal gang: A phe-nomenon of selection and
opportunities.Canadian Journal of Criminology 38:375–400.
Landsverk, J., and Garland, A. 1999. Fostercare and pathways to
mental health serv-ices. In The Foster Care Crisis:
TranslatingResearch Into Practice and Policy, edited byP. Curtis
and G. Dale. Lincoln, NE: Universityof Nebraska Press, pp.
193–210.
Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D.B. 1998. Effectiveintervention for
serious juvenile offenders:A synthesis of research. In Serious
andViolent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors andSuccessful
Interventions, edited by R. Loeberand D.P. Farrington. Thousand
Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 313–345.
Lochman, J.E., Coie, J.D., Underwood, M.K.,and Terry, R. 1993.
Effectiveness of a socialrelations intervention program for
aggressiveand nonaggressive rejected children. Journalof Consulting
and Clinical Psychology61:1053–1058.
Lock, J., and Strauss, G.D. 1994. Psychiatrichospitalization of
adolescents for conductdisorder. Hospital and Community
Psychiatry45:925–928.
Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 1998.Serious and Violent
Juvenile Offenders: RiskFactors and Successful Interventions.
ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 2001.Child Delinquents:
Development, Intervention,and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SagePublications, Inc.
Marans, S., and Berkman, M. 1997. ChildDevelopment-Community
Policing: Partnershipin a Climate of Violence. Bulletin.
Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.
Mayer, G.R., and Butterworth, T.W. 1979. Apreventive approach to
school violence andvandalism: An experimental study. Personneland
Guidance Journal 57:436–441.
MTA Cooperative Group. 1999a. A 14-monthrandomized clinical
trial of treatment strate-gies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disor-der. Archives of General Psychiatry 56(12):1073–1086.
MTA Cooperative Group. 1999b. Moderatorsand mediators of
treatment response forchildren with
attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder. Archives of General
Psychiatry56(12):1088–1096.
Murphy, H.A., Hutchinson, J.M., and Bailey,J.S. 1983. Behavioral
school psychology goesoutdoors: The effect of organized games
onplayground aggression. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Analysis
16:29–35.
Nelson, C.M., Rutherford, R.B., and Wolford,B.I. 1996.
Comprehensive and CollaborativeSystems That Work for Troubled
Youth: ANational Agenda. Richmond, KY: EasternKentucky
University.
Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. 1995.
Delinquency PreventionWorks. Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
De-partment of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of
Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.
Oldenettel, D., and Wordes, M. 1999. Com-munity Assessment
Centers. Fact Sheet. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Officeof Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand
Delinquency Prevention.
Olweus, D. 1991. Bully/victim problemsamong schoolchildren:
Basic facts andeffects of an intervention program. In The
-
14
This Bulletin was prepared under grant num-ber 95–JD–FX–0018
from the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.
De-partment of Justice.
Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those
of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official
position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention is a
component of the Office ofJustice Programs, which also includes
theBureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau ofJustice Statistics,
the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of
Crime.
Development and Treatment of ChildhoodAggression, edited by K.
Rubin and D. Pepler.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 411–448.
Otto, R.K., Greenstein, J.J., Johnson, M.K.,and Friedman, R.M.
1992. Prevalence of men-tal disorders among youth in the
juvenilejustice system. In Responding to the MentalHealth Needs of
Youth in the Juvenile JusticeSystem, edited by J.J. Cocozza.
Seattle, WA:The National Coalition for the Mentally Ill inthe
Criminal Justice System, pp. 7–28.
Patterson, G.R., and Gullion, M.E. 1968. LivingWith Children:
New Methods for Parents andTeachers. Champaign, IL: Research
Press.
Rifkin, A., Karajgi, B., Dicker, R., Perl, E.,Boppana, V.,
Hasan, N., and Pollack, S. 1997.Lithium treatment of conduct
disorders inadolescents. American Journal of
Psychiatry154(4):554–555.
Schoenwald, S., Ward, D., Henggeler, S.,Rowland, M., and
Brondino, M. 2000. Multi-systemic therapy versus hospitalization
forcrisis stabilization of youth: Placement out-comes 4 months
post-referral. Mental HealthServices Research 2(1):3–12.
Schumacher, M., and Kurz, G. 1999. The 8%Solution: Preventing
Serious, Repeat JuvenileCrime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications,Inc.
Seitz, V., Rosenbaum, L.K., and Apfel, H. 1985. Effects of
family support intervention:A ten-year follow-up. Child
Development56:376–391.
Sexton, T.L., and Alexander, J.F. 2000. Func-tional Family
Therapy. Bulletin. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand
Delinquency Prevention.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., andThomas, C. 1992.
Caretakers seeking help for
boys with disruptive and delinquent childbehavior. Comprehensive
Mental Health Care2:159–178.
Takayama, J., Bergman, A., and Connell, F.1994. Children in
foster care in the state ofWashington: Health care utilization
andexpenditures. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association
271:1850–1855.
Tremblay, R.E., Mâsse, L.C., Pagani, L., andVitaro, F. 1996.
From childhood physicalaggression to adolescent maladjustment:The
Montreal Prevention Experiment. InPreventing Childhood Disorders,
SubstanceAbuse and Delinquency, edited by R.D. Petersand R.J.
McMahon. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc., pp.
268–298.
Tremblay, R.E., McCord, J., Boileau, H., LeBlanc, M., Gagnon,
C., Charlebois, P., andLarivée, S. 1990. The Montreal
preventionexperiment: School adjustment and self-reported
delinquency after three years offollow-up. Paper presented at the
annualmeeting of the American Society of Crim-inology, Baltimore,
MD, November 1990.
Wasserman, G.A., and Miller, L.S. 1998. Theprevention of serious
and violent juvenileoffending. In Serious and Violent
JuvenileOffenders: Risk Factors and SuccessfulInterventions, edited
by R. Loeber and D.P.Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SagePublications, Inc., pp. 197–247.
Webster-Stratton, C., and Hammond, M.A.1997. Treating children
with early-onset con-duct problems: A comparison of child andparent
training interventions. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical
Psychology65(1):93–109.
Weissberg, R.P., Barton, H.A., and Shriver, T.P.1997. The
Social-Competence PromotionProgram for young adolescents. In
Primary
Prevention Works. Issues in Children’s andFamilies’ Lives, Vol.
6, edited by G.W. Albeeand T.P. Gullotta. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SagePublications, Inc., pp. 268–290.
Welsh, B.C., and Farrington, D.P. 2000.Monetary costs and
benefits of crime pre-vention programs. In Crime and Justice:
AReview of Research, Vol. 27, edited by M.Tonry. Chicago, IL:
University of ChicagoPress, pp. 305–361.
Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P., and Sher-man, L.W., eds. 2001.
Costs and Benefits ofPreventing Crime. Boulder, CO:
WestviewPress.
Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993. A Com-prehensive Strategy
for Serious, Violent, andChronic Juvenile Offenders. Report.
Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.
Wooldredge, J.D. 1988. Differentiating theeffects of juvenile
court sentences on elimi-nating recidivism. Journal of Research
inCrime and Delinquency 25:264–300.
-
15
Want to know more about the issues in this Bulletin orrelated
information? Log on to ojjdp.ncjrs.org:
➤ Browse titles alphabetically or by topic.
➤ Discover the latest OJJDP releases.
➤ Subscribe to OJJDP’s listserv JUVJUST and the electronic
newsletter JUSTINFO.
➤ Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Database to searchfor publications
of interest.
Take the Online Path to
OJJDP Information
It’s Fast ➤ It’s Easy ➤ It’s Free
Acknowledgments
Barbara J. Burns, Ph.D., is Professor ofMedical Psychology and
Director, Serv-ices Effectiveness Research Program,Department of
Psychiatry and Behav-ioral Sciences, Duke University Schoolof
Medicine. James C. Howell, Ph.D.,is Adjunct Researcher, National
YouthGang Center, Tallahassee, FL. Janet K.Wiig, J.D., M.S.W., is
Executive Dir-ector, Institute on Criminal Justice,University of
Minnesota Law School.Leena K. Augimeri, M.Ed., is
Manager,Earlscourt Under 12 Outreach Project,Toronto, Canada.
Brendan C. Welsh,Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Depart-ment of
Criminal Justice, Universityof Massachusetts—Lowell. Rolf
Loeber,Ph.D., is Professor of Psychiatry, Psy-chology, and
Epidemiology, Universityof Pittsburgh, PA; Professor of
Develop-mental Psychotherapy, Free University,Amsterdam,
Netherlands; and Directorof the Pittsburgh Youth Study.
DavidPetechuk is a freelance health scienceswriter.
Photograph page 3 copyright © 1995PhotoDisc, Inc.; photograph
page 7copyright © 1997 PhotoDisc, Inc.
NCJ 193410