Bulletin Series

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator May 2003

Sparked by high-profile cases involving

children who commit violent crimes, public concerns regarding child delinquents

have escalated. Compared with juveniles

who first become involved in delinquency

in their teens, child delinquents (offenders

younger than age 13) face a much greater

risk of becoming serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders. OJJDP formed

the Study Group on Very Young Offenders

to explore what is known about the prevalence and frequency of very young

offending, investigate how very young

offenders are handled by various systems

(e.g., juvenile justice, mental health, and

social services), and determine effective

methods for preventing very young offending. The Study Group identified particular risk and protective factors that are

crucial to developing early intervention

and protection programs for very young

offenders. 

This Bulletin, the first in OJJDP’s Child

Delinquency Series, offers valuable information on the nature of child delinquency

and describes early intervention and prevention programs that effectively reduce

delinquent behavior. Subsequent Bulletins

will present the latest information about

child delinquency, including analyses of

child delinquency statistics, insights into

the early origins of very young offending,

and descriptions of early intervention

programs and approaches that work to

prevent the development of delinquent

behavior by focusing on risk and protective factors.

Some Key Findings

The number of child delinquents1 (juveniles between the ages of 7 and 12)

handled in the nation’s juvenile courts

has increased 33 percent over the last

decade (Snyder, 2001). This development is cause for concern not only

because offense patterns reflect more

serious crimes among these youngsters,

but also because these very young offenders are more likely to continue their

involvement in crime. Child delinquents

are two to three times more likely to

become serious, violent, and chronic

offenders2 than adolescents whose

delinquent behavior begins in their

Juvenile courts are being challenged

by an increase in the number of child

delinquents coming before them. In

1997 alone, juvenile courts handled

more than 180,000 juvenile offenders

younger than 13 years old. These

child delinquents account for 1 in 3

juvenile arrests for arson, 1 in 5 juvenile arrests for sex offenses, and 1 in

12 juvenile arrests for violent crime. 

Because youth referred to juvenile

court before the age of 13 are far

more likely to become chronic juvenile offenders than youth whose

initial contact occurs at a later age,

there is reason for concern about the

growing number of child delinquents.

This Bulletin summarizes the final

report of OJJDP’s Study Group on

Very Young Offenders, Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention,

and Service Needs. The report draws

on hundreds of studies to describe

the developmental course of child

delinquency and delineate key risk

and protective factors. It also identifies effective and promising prevention and intervention programs that

help reduce the incidence of delinquency while offering significant

cost savings to society.

The information provided by the

findings of the Study Group on Very

Young Offenders demonstrates the

need to invest in effective early prevention and intervention efforts with

such children. 

Child Delinquency: Early

Intervention and Prevention

Rolf Loeber, David P. Farrington, and David Petechuk 

1 Child delinquents are not legally defined in the

same way across the United States (Snyder and

Sickmund, 1999; Wiig, 2001). For example, the minimum age of criminal responsibility varies from age 6

in North Carolina to age 10 in Arkansas and Colorado.

In addition, many states do not have a legally defined

age of criminal responsibility. In this Bulletin, child

delinquents are defined as juveniles between the

ages of 7 and 12, inclusive, who have committed a

delinquent act according to criminal law—an act

that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

2 Chronic offenders are defined here as those with at

least four referrals to juvenile court.

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.ncjrs.org
2

teens. Recent high-profile media cases of

violence committed by children age 12

or younger also have drawn attention to

the potential for child delinquents to

inflict deadly harm. For these reasons

alone, child delinquents represent a

significant concern for both society

and the juvenile justice system.

The arrest rate of child delinquents

changed between 1988 and 1997: arrests

for violent crimes increased by 45 percent (paralleling the increase in violence for all juveniles) and drug abuse

violations increased by 156 percent. In

contrast, arrests for property crimes

decreased by 17 percent (Snyder, 2001).

The Denver Youth Survey, which is a

followup study of more than 1,500 highrisk youth, showed that at ages 11–12,

about 10 percent of boys and girls had

a police contact because of delinquency

(Espiritu et al., 2001). 

The total volume of child delinquency

cases handled in the juvenile courts

is large. In 1997, an estimated 181,300

delinquents were less than 13 years old

at the time of court intake (Butts and

Snyder, 1997; Snyder, 2001). Youth referred to court for a delinquency offense for the first time before the age

of 13 were far more likely to become

chronic juvenile offenders than youth

first referred to court at an older age

(see figure 1). It is important to note

that because the upper age of juvenile

court jurisdiction generally is 17, older

first-time delinquents have fewer years

of opportunity to develop into chronic

juvenile offenders. 

Figure 2 shows the overlap between

juvenile offenders and serious, violent,

and chronic offenders for two groups:

child delinquents and older onset

delinquents. A larger proportion of

child delinquents, compared with later

onset delinquents, become serious,

violent, and chronic offenders. Also, a

higher proportion of the violent child

delinquents become chronic offenders. 

Child delinquents have their own typical offense profile. They account for

one-third of all juvenile arrests for arson,

one-fifth of juvenile arrests for sex

offenses and vandalism, one-eighth of

juvenile arrests for burglary and forcible rape, and one-twelfth of juvenile

arrests for violent crime (Snyder, 2001).

This Bulletin summarizes the final report of the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s)

Study Group on Very Young Offenders

(the Study Group). See the box on

page 3 for more information on the Study

Figure 1: Proportion of Delinquency Careers That Eventually Had Four

or More Delinquency Referrals, by Age at First Referral

0

10

20

30

40

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age at First Referral

Percentage of Careers With 

Four or More Referrals

Note: The proportion of careers with four or more referrals is likely to be underestimated for the

first bar in this graph. Coding errors in the birth dates of a small number of youth first referred at

age 17 caused them to be misclassified with an onset age of 7.

Source: Snyder, 2001.

Child Delinquents

Serious

Chronic

Violent

Chronic

Serious

Violent

Older Onset

Delinquents

Figure 2: Very Young Offenders Have a Greater Percentage of

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Careers Than Older Onset

Delinquents

Source: Snyder, 2001.
3

Group. The report, Child Delinquents:

Development, Intervention, and Service

Needs (Loeber and Farrington, 2001), is

the first volume published that presents empirical information on child

delinquents from hundreds of studies,

including data from several studies

that were newly analyzed for the report.

It summarizes knowledge concerning the

nature of child delinquency, its developmental course, key risk and protective

factors, and effective interventions.

Child delinquency is an enduring and

troubling phenomenon that requires

more research and the efforts of a

broader community to be fully understood and addressed. The work summarized in this Bulletin helps to advance

knowledge about child delinquents and

about fair and effective ways to deal

with them.

Defining the Scope of

Very Young Offenders

The Study Group was concerned with

three categories of children:

● Serious child delinquents who have

committed one or more of the following acts: homicide, aggravated assault,

robbery, rape, or serious arson.

● Other child delinquents (excluding

serious delinquents).

● Children showing persistent disruptive behavior (including truancy and

incorrigibility), who are at risk of

offending.

Generations of studies in criminology

show that the best predictor of future

Historically, delinquency studies have

focused on later adolescence, the time

when delinquency usually peaks. During

the 1990s, numerous studies examined

chronic juvenile offenders, a group

responsible for a disproportionately

large number of crimes (especially serious crimes). However, OJJDP’s Study

Group on Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offenders—whose work was inspired by

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993)—

reported in 1998 that youth who are

referred to juvenile court for their first

delinquency offense before age 13 are far

more likely to become chronic offenders

than youth first referred to court at a later

age. Specifically, this Study Group found

that the onset of problem behaviors in

male children starts, on average, much

earlier than the average age of first court

contact for Crime Index offenses.1 The

discovery that minor problem behavior

leading to delinquency often begins at a

very young age was a major impetus for

OJJDP to develop a new initiative, the

Study Group on Very Young Offenders,

which began its work in 1998. This cooperative 2-year-long venture was undertaken to analyze existing data and to

address key issues that had not previously been studied in the literature.

Consisting of 16 primary study group

members and 23 coauthors who are experts on criminology, child delinquency,

psychopathology, and the law, the Study

Group on Very Young Offenders reviewed hundreds of studies, undertook

many special analyses, and received

valuable input from a survey of more

than 100 practitioners in the field. The

Study Group concentrated on the delinquent behavior of children ages 7 to 12

and on children’s persistently disruptive

and precociously deviant behavior from

the toddler years up to adolescence.

This concerted effort produced valuable

insights into the nature of child delinquency. The Study Group found evidence that some young children engage

in very serious antisocial behavior and

that, in some cases, this behavior foreshadows early delinquency. The Study

Group also identified several important

risk factors that, when combined, may

be related to the onset of early offending. To better understand the early origins of child delinquency, the Study

Group emphasizes that research should

focus on the preschool and elementary

years, a time during which early interventions can be implemented, before the

accumulation of multiple offenses and

the commission of serious offenses. The

Study Group report concluded with a

review of preventive and remedial interventions relevant to child delinquency. 

The Child Delinquency Bulletin Series

draws from the Study Group’s final

report, which was completed in 2001

under grant number 95–JD–FX–0018

and subsequently published by Sage

Publications as Child Delinquents:

Development, Intervention, and Service Needs (edited by Rolf Loeber and

David P. Farrington). OJJDP encourages

parents, educators, and the juvenile justice community to use this information

to address the needs of young offenders

by planning and implementing more

effective interventions.

Study Group Members

The Study Group on Very Young Offenders was chaired by Rolf Loeber and

David P. Farrington. The initial members

of the Study Group were Barbara J.

Burns, John D. Coie, Darnell F. Hawkins,

J. David Hawkins, James C. Howell,

David Huizinga, Kate Keenan, David R.

Offord, Howard N. Snyder, Terence P.

Thornberry, and Gail A. Wasserman.

Leena K. Augimeri, Brandon C. Welsh,

and Janet K. Wiig later joined these

members. Over the years, many additional practitioners from the field have

contributed to this effort.

OJJDP’s Study Group on Very Young Offenders

1 Index offenses include murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson.
Table 1: Average Age of Onset of Problem Behaviors and Delinquency in

Male Juveniles

Moderately First Court 

Minor Problem Serious Serious Contact for 

Behavior Problem Behavior Delinquency Index Offenses*

Age 7.0 9.5 11.9 14.5

Note: The table shows the average age of onset of problem behaviors and delinquency for males

who had their first contact with the juvenile court for an Index offense. Data are based on the statements of the oldest sample in the Pittsburgh Youth Study and on statements made by their mothers.

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

and arson.

Source: Loeber and Farrington, 1998b.

4

behavior is past behavior. Children

showing persistent disruptive behavior

are likely to become child delinquents

and, in turn, child delinquents are likely

to become serious, violent, or chronic

juvenile offenders. Figure 3 summarizes

the relationship between the three categories of youth behavior that are of

greatest concern.

In more than 20 studies they reviewed,

the Study Group found a significant

relationship between an early onset of

delinquency and later crime and delinquency. Child delinquents, compared

with juveniles with a later onset of

delinquency, are at greater risk of becoming serious, violent, and chronic

offenders and have longer delinquency

careers (Espiritu et al., 2001; Farrington,

Lambert, and West, 1998; Krohn et al.,

2001; Loeber, 1982, 1988; Loeber and

Farrington, 1998b; Moffitt, 1993). 

Not all disruptive children will become

child delinquents, and not all child delinquents will become serious, violent, or

chronic juvenile offenders. However, the

majority of the eventual serious, violent,

and chronic juvenile offenders have a

history of problem behaviors that goes

back to the childhood years. Research

shows that the antisocial careers of male

juvenile offenders start, on average, at

age 7, much earlier than the average

age of first court contact for Crime

Index offenses, which is age 14.5 (see

table 1). Because it is not yet possible

to accurately predict which children

will progress from serious problem

behaviors to delinquency, it is better to

tackle problem behaviors before they

become more serious and ingrained.

Early Disruptive

Behavior

The preschool period is critical in setting

a foundation for preventing the development of disruptive behavior and, eventually, child delinquency. There are four

primary reasons why the preschool

period may have important implications

for understanding and preventing very

young offending:

● Disruptive problem behavior, including serious aggression and chronic

violation of the rights and property

of others, is the most common

source of referral to mental health

services for preschool children

(Keenan and Wakschlag, 2000).

● Studies have documented a predictive relationship between problem

behaviors in preschool and later conduct disorder and child delinquency

(Silva, 1990).

● Many important developmental skills

(such as language development) begin during this period, and difficulties in developing these skills may

weaken the foundation of learning

and contribute to later disruptive

behavior and child delinquency

(Keenan, 2001).

● Understanding the early emergence

of problem behaviors may help in the

creation of earlier, effective interventions for the prevention of child delinquency (Kazdin and Kendall, 1998).

Behaviors that place a child at risk for

an early career of disruptive behavior

Figure 3: Relationship Between Risk/Protective Factors, Development

of Child Problem Behavior, and Interventions

Source: Loeber and Farrington, 2001.

Persistent

disruptive

behavior

Child

delinquency

Serious and

violent juvenile

offending

Prevention Prevention Prevention

Remediation Remediation Remediation

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

neighborhood, and media
5

and child delinquency may be present

as young as 2 years of age (Keenan,

2001). Although the majority of child

delinquents have a history of disruptive

behavior—such as aggressive, inattentive, or sensation-seeking behavior in

the preschool period—the majority of

preschoolers with such behavior problems do not go on to become young

offenders. The following factors may

affect the development of pro- and antisocial behavior during preschool and

beyond:

● Language is the primary means by

which parents and others affect children’s behavior. Delayed language

development may increase a child’s

stress level, impede normal socialization, and be associated with later

criminality up to age 30 (Stattin and

Klackenberg-Larsson, 1993).

● Temperamental characteristics are

individual predispositions for certain

behavior characteristics that can be

modified by environmental influences (Goldsmith et al., 1987). Difficult temperament (predominance of

negative moods such as anger and

difficulty in controlling behaviors

and emotions) early in life may be a

marker for the early antecedents of

antisocial behavior and behavior

problems (Earls and Jung, 1987;

Prior et al., 1993; Guerin, Gottfried,

and Thomas, 1997).

● Low attachment to caregivers, as in

the early mother-infant bond, plays

an important role in later behavior

and delinquency problems (Egeland

and Farber, 1984; Adams, Hillman, and

Gaydos, 1994). The closer a child is

to the mother, the less likely a child

is to be at risk for delinquency.

Understandably, one of the difficulties

in dealing with preschool children is

the use of inappropriate labels such as

“disruptive” for behaviors that may be

developmentally normal. For example,

aggression, noncompliance, and lying

are common behaviors in the second

year of life and are part of the development of self-identity, self-control, and

understanding the nature of social relations (Landy and Peters, 1992; Kuczynski

and Kochanska, 1990; Achenbach and

Edelbrock, 1981). Another issue is

whether young children are able to commit willful acts of aggression. A number

of developmental researchers have

demonstrated that preschool children

do have a basic understanding of the

impact of their behavior on others and

can control their behavior based on

internalized social norms (Kochanska,

Murray, and Coy, 1997). Overall, the

Study Group found sufficient evidence

to conclude that some preschool children can engage in very serious antisocial behavior and that, in some but not

all cases, preschool behavior problems

foreshadow early delinquency.

Child Delinquency—

Official Records

According to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime

Reports, in 1997 law enforcement agencies made an estimated 253,000 arrests

of children age 12 or younger, and these

made up 9 percent of all juvenile arrests

(i.e., arrests of persons under age 18).

Of these arrests of children, 17 percent

(about 43,000) involved persons under

the age of 10. Only 10 percent of these

arrests were for status offenses (e.g.,

running away from home, curfew violations, and liquor law violations).

Interestingly, between 1988 and 1997, the

total number of child arrests increased

by only 6 percent, as compared with a

35-percent increase for all juveniles,

and child arrests for property crimes

dropped by 17 percent. However, during

this same period, child arrests for violent crimes increased by 45 percent.

Overall, child delinquents arrested in

1997 were relatively more likely to be

charged with a violent crime, a weapons

offense, or a drug law violation than a

property offense (Snyder, 2001).

From 1988 to 1997, the number of cases

disposed by juvenile courts involving

child delinquents (age 12 or younger)

increased by 33 percent to a total of

181,300 cases in 1997, far more than the

corresponding increase in child arrests

(Snyder, 2001). These data indicate that

law enforcement agencies referred a

larger percentage of the child delinquents they arrested to juvenile court

in 1997 than they had in 1988, probably

because the offenses committed became relatively more violent. The racial

breakdown of juvenile court referrals

also changed during this 10-year period,

with court cases of child delinquents

increasing by 41 percent for nonwhite

youth and 28 percent for white youth.

In addition, a greater proportion of

the 1997 nonwhite cases (45 percent

nonwhite cases versus 37 percent

white cases) were placed on the court

docket for an adjudicatory hearing

(Snyder, 2001).

Overall, from 1988 to 1997, the juvenile

courts experienced a substantial change

in both the number and types of child

delinquents sent to them for processing:

child delinquents in 1997 were significantly more likely than their predecessors from a decade earlier to have been

charged with a violent offense. In turn,

juvenile courts significantly intervened

in the lives of a growing number of child

delinquents; the number of cases that
6

resulted in formal court-ordered probation increased 73 percent and placements to residential facilities increased

49 percent. Based on data from the

1997 Census of Juveniles in Residential

Placement—which consisted of a roster

of all juveniles in all residential facilities

on 1 day—about 19 of every 100,000

youth ages 10–12 were being held in a

juvenile facility on a typical day in the

United States (Snyder, 2001).

Self-Reports of

Delinquency

Official statistics reflect the delinquent

behavior of youth that is both known

to and recorded by authorities. Selfreports of delinquency are more comprehensive in that they include those

behaviors not reported, or not otherwise

known, to the authorities. Research indicates that young people are willing to

report accurate information about their

minor and serious delinquent acts (Farrington et al., 1996). Another advantage

of self-report research (and research

using parent and teacher reports) is that

it focuses on misbehaviors (e.g., disobedience, defiance, aggression, and conduct disorder) that are not in themselves

delinquent but may serve as precursors

to some children’s later involvement in

delinquency. The Study Group’s review

of previous and current self-reported

delinquency studies revealed the following (Espiritu et al., 2001):

● Although the vast majority of youth

age 12 or younger (85 percent of

boys, 77 percent of girls) reported

involvement in some form of aggression or violence, only about 5 percent of children (9 percent of boys,

3 percent of girls) were involved in

serious violence, that is, violence

considered to be a delinquent/

criminal offense. (Denver Youth

Survey and Pittsburgh Youth Study

data.)

● Roughly one-third of children age

12 or younger reported property

offenses, one-quarter reported

property damage, one-fifth reported

status offenses, and less than onetenth reported burglary or arson.

(Denver Youth Survey and Pittsburgh Youth Study data.)

● Self-report rates for major forms of

delinquency were practically the

same in 1976 and 1998; for example,

16–17 percent of children ages 11–12

reported felony assault in 1976, compared with 14 percent in 1998. (National Youth Survey and National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth data.)

Risk Factors and

Predictors

Many of the risk factors and predictors

(and possibly causes) of child delinquency tend to be somewhat different

from those of offending by older juveniles. Risk factors for offending at a

young age are more likely to be biological, individual, and family factors.

The causal status of known risk factors

remains to be clarified, and no single

risk factor can explain child delinquency.

Rather, the greater the number of risk

factors (e.g., poor parental supervision

coupled with poor academic performance) or the greater the number of

risk factor domains (e.g., risk in the

family and the school), the greater the

likelihood of early-onset offending

(Loeber and Farrington, 1998b;

Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002). 

Early Risk Factors

During the preschool years, the most

important risk factors stem from the

individual and family. Particular predictors, such as aggressiveness and

a child’s level of impulsivity or sensation seeking, result from numerous

influences—from genetics to the child’s

environment—over a period of years.

Aggression appears to be the best predictor of delinquency up to age 12. For

example, physical aggression rated by

kindergarten teachers is the best predictor of later self-reported violent

delinquency (Haapasalo and Tremblay,

1994; Tremblay et al., 1994). On the

other hand, prosocial behavior rated

by kindergarten teachers is a protective

factor against delinquency. 

Six longitudinal studies conducted in

five countries (Canada, England, New

Zealand, Sweden, and the United States)

on three continents confirmed that

childhood antisocial behavior tends

to be the best predictor of early-onset

delinquency for boys. For example, an

Oregon study found that antisocial behavior (such as aggression), as rated

by parents, teachers, peers, and the

children themselves, was the best predictor of age at first arrest, compared

with other factors such as family disadvantage, parental monitoring, and

parental discipline (Patterson, Crosby,

and Vuchinich, 1992).

Research findings consistently have

shown that the onset of many conduct

problems usually predates the onset of

serious delinquency by several years

Homicide

Recent instances of children committing homicides have come to national

attention and have attracted intense

media scrutiny. Despite the nationwide

outrage in response to some of these

cases, the number of juveniles age 12

or younger who are involved in murder is relatively small. Between 1980

and 1997, about 2 percent (or 600

cases) of murders involved such child

offenders, and the annual number of

these murders was relatively stable,

averaging about 30 per year. According to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (Snyder, 2001):

● The large majority (84 percent) of

children who murdered were male.

● Seventy percent of the murder victims of child delinquents were male

and likely to be acquaintances or

family members. 

● More than one-half (54 percent) of

the murder victims of child delinquents were killed with a firearm.
7

(Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998)

(see table 1, page 4). Loeber (1988) postulated that juveniles who eventually

engage in both property offenses and

violence show the following behaviors:

● Onset of conduct problems in the 

preschool years.

● Aggressive and covert problem behaviors, such as lying and shoplifting.

● Hyperactive/impulsive behavior at

a young age.

In addition to early antisocial behavior,

family characteristics are important predictors of early-onset offending. The

number of family risk factors to which

a child is exposed and the child’s length

of exposure to these stressors also are

important (Williams et al., 1990). Some

family characteristics that may contribute to early-onset child delinquency

include the following:

● Antisocial parents.

● Substance-abusing parents.

● Parental psychopathology 

(e.g., Lahey et al., 1988).

● Poor parenting practices, such as

lack of monitoring (Patterson,

Crosby, and Vuchinich, 1992) and/

or a lack of positive reinforcement

(Bor et al., 1997).

● The prevalence of physical abuse.

● A history of family violence.

● Large family size.

Many of the family risk factors interact

with other social systems, such as

peers and the community environment.

Nevertheless, a recent study found that

the strongest predictors of early-onset

violence included large family size, poor 

parenting skills, and antisocial parents

(Derzon and Lipsey, 2000). 

Peers

Although much more research is needed, the Study Group believes that an

accelerated path toward child delinquency and subsequent more serious

offending may be the result of a combination of the following factors:

● Antisocial tendencies of children

with persistent early disruptive

behaviors.

● Associations with peers who already

show deviant behavior.

● Negative consequences of peer 

rejection.

As children get older, attend school,

and become integrated into their community, the array of risk factors for

child delinquency expands (see table 2,

page 9). Many studies show a relation

between deviant peer associations and

juvenile offending (Elliott and Menard,

1996). A major issue is whether “birds of

a feather flock together” or “bad company corrupts.” Most hypotheses suggest

that deviant peers can lead some youth

with no previous history of delinquent

behavior to initiate delinquent acts and

may influence already delinquent youth

to increase their delinquency. Youth

who associate with deviant peers are

likely to be arrested earlier than youth

who do not associate with such peers

(Coie et al., 1995). In addition, studies

emphasize that a delinquent sibling can

greatly encourage a child to become

delinquent, especially when the siblings

are close in age and have a close relationship (Reiss and Farrington, 1991;

Rowe and Gulley, 1992).

A more recent issue is peer rejection as

a risk factor for antisocial behavior. In

the Oregon Youth Study, investigators

found, after controlling for earlier antisocial behavior, that peer rejection in

the fourth grade predicted antisocial

behavior 2 years later (Patterson and

Bank, 1989). Another study that followed

children from first through fourth grade

found that aggressive behavior and

rejection by peers in the first grade predicted later self-reported delinquency.

This indicates that first-grade rejection

may be a useful marker for the early

starter pathway to antisocial behavior

(Miller-Johnson et al., 1997).

Peer rejection may also influence child

and adolescent delinquency by inducing

the rejected child to associate with

deviant peer groups and gangs (Patterson, Capaldi, and Bank, 1991). Gang

membership provides a ready source of

co-offenders for juvenile delinquency

and reflects the greatest degree of

deviant peer influence on offending.

Also, youth tend to join gangs at younger

ages than in the past, which leads to an

increased number of youthful offenders

(Howell, 1998). The importance of having accomplices cannot be overstressed

in child delinquency. For example, a

recent study found that less than 5 percent of offenders who committed their

first offense at age 12 or younger acted

alone (McCord and Conway, 2002). Gang

membership has a strong relationship
8

to violent delinquency, even when associations with delinquent peers, family

poverty, poor parental supervision, low

commitment to school, negative life

events, and prior involvement in violence are controlled for (Battin et al.,

2000; Battin-Pearson et al., 1998).

School and Community

Risk factors for child delinquency within the school and community have

not been as well documented as individual, family, and peer risk factors (see

table 2). The Study Group hypothesized

that children who developed strong

bonds to school (high commitment)

would conform to the norms and values

that schools promote, thereby reducing

their probability of antisocial behavior. 

Studies addressing school influences

on antisocial behavior have consistently

shown that poor academic performance

is related to child behavior problems

and to the prevalence, onset, and seriousness of delinquency (Brewer et al.,

1995; Maguin and Loeber, 1996). Weak

bonds to school (low commitment), low

educational aspirations, and poor motivation place children at risk for offending (Hawkins et al., 1987; Hawkins et al.,

1998). 

School organization and process also

may play a role as risk factors. Schools

with fewer teachers and higher student

enrollment had higher levels of teacher

victimization, and poor rule enforcement within schools was associated

with higher levels of student victimization (Gottfredson and Gottfredson,

1985). Although research on the relationship between school processes and

offending is sparse, evidence suggests

that many school characteristics, including the following, may be linked to

antisocial behavior in children (Herrenkohl et al., 2001):

● Low levels of teacher satisfaction.

● Little cooperation among teachers.

● Poor student-teacher relations.

● The prevalence of norms and values

that support antisocial behavior.

● Poorly defined rules and expectations for conduct.

● Inadequate rule enforcement.

Several community factors, such as a

high level of poverty in the neighborhood, are important in the development

of child antisocial behavior (Catalano

and Hawkins, 1996). In addition, disorganized neighborhoods with weak social

controls (i.e., attempts by adults to control the behavior of youth) allow delinquent activity to go unmonitored and

even unnoticed (Sampson, Raudenbush,

and Earls, 1997). At the extreme end of

the spectrum, some neighborhoods may

even provide opportunities for antisocial behavior. For example, youth

living in high-crime neighborhoods may

be at high risk for offending because

they are exposed to more norms favorable to crime (Developmental Research

and Programs, 1996). 

Race and Gender

The intersection of race, gender, and

early childhood offending is a largely

unexplored terrain. Too often, policymakers, law enforcement agents, and

social services agencies rely on stereotypes and assumptions concerning race

and gender when dealing with juveniles. 

Youth of color—particularly African

American males—are overrepresented

in arrest rates (especially arrests for

serious or violent offenses) in relation

to their proportion in the population

(Kempf-Leonard, Chesney-Lind, and

Hawkins, 2001). Conversely, in relation

to their proportion in the population,

females are underrepresented in arrests

for serious or violent offenses but overrepresented in arrests for status offenses and child welfare cases. However,

rates of court referrals are rising faster

for females than for males. When selfreport data are considered, the race

and gender gaps apparent in official

records are less pronounced.

The Study Group recommends that race

and gender comparisons be routinely

conducted in research on child delinquency. For example, in the Pittsburgh

Youth Study, researchers found no race

differences in offending once adequate

controls were included for “underclass”

status of neighborhoods (Peeples and

Loeber, 1994). The Study Group also

reanalyzed the 1958 Philadelphia birth

How Early Can We Tell?

A critical question from a scientific and policy standpoint concerning child delinquency is, “How early can we tell?” It is difficult, however, to obtain a clear answer

to this question. For example, many children engage in problem behaviors of a relatively minor nature, but only for a short period. Few tools are available to distinguish

those youth who will continue with behaviors that may lead them to become child

delinquents. Although the foundations for both prosocial and disruptive behaviors

are laid in the first 5 years of life (Keenan, 2001), it is important to point out that

the majority of preschoolers with behavior problems do not go on to become child

delinquents.

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

● Disruptive behavior that is either much more frequent or more severe than what

other children in the same age group display.

● Disruptive behavior, such as temper tantrums and aggression, that persists

beyond the “terrible twos and threes.”

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

preschool years.
9

cohort data to investigate race and gender associations with child delinquency

(Kempf-Leonard, Chesney-Lind, and

Hawkins, 2001). The analyses showed

that, regardless of race and gender, serious and chronic delinquency were more

prevalent among early-onset offenders.

More of this type of information is needed to identify and understand race and

gender differences in developmental

pathways leading to child delinquency.

Interventions

Most juvenile justice, child welfare, and

school resources currently focus on

adolescent juvenile offenders and problem children whose behaviors are already persistent or on education and

behavior management programs for

youth in middle and high schools rather

than on children in elementary schools

or preschools. Interventions usually

seek to remediate disruptive behavior,

child delinquency, and serious and violent offending after these behaviors

have emerged. 

The Study Group concluded that prevention is a better approach. Of all

known interventions to reduce juvenile

delinquency, preventive interventions

that focus on child delinquency will

probably take the largest “bite” out of

crime. Specifically, these efforts should

be directed first at the prevention of

persistent disruptive behavior in children in general; second, at the prevention of child delinquency, particularly

among disruptive children; and third, at

the prevention of serious and violent

juvenile offending, particularly among

child delinquents. “The earlier the better” is a key theme in establishing interventions to prevent child delinquency,

whether these interventions focus on

the individual child, the home and family, or the school and community.

Support for prevention and early intervention was generally endorsed by

practitioners. An opinion survey of

practitioners conducted by the Study

Group found that nearly three-quarters

(71 percent) thought that effective

Table 2: Approximate Developmental Ordering of Risk Factors Associated 

With Disruptive and Delinquent Behavior

Risk Factors Emerging During Pregnancy and From Infancy Onward

Child Pregnancy and delivery complications

Neurological insult

Exposure to neurotoxins after birth

Difficult temperament

Hyperactivity/impulsivity/attention problems

Low intelligence

Male gender

Family Maternal smoking/alcohol consumption/drug use during pregnancy

Teenage mother

High turnover of caretakers

Poorly educated parent

Maternal depression

Parental substance abuse/antisocial or criminal behavior

Poor parent-child communication

Poverty/low socioeconomic status

Serious marital discord

Large family size

Risk Factors Emerging From the Toddler Years Onward

Child Aggressive/disruptive behavior

Persistent lying

Risk taking and sensation seeking

Lack of guilt, lack of empathy

Family Harsh and/or erratic discipline practices

Maltreatment or neglect

Community Television violence

Risk Factors Emerging From Midchildhood Onward

Child Stealing and general delinquency

Early onset of other disruptive behaviors

Early onset of substance use and sexual activity

Depressed mood

Withdrawn behavior

Positive attitude toward problem behavior

Victimization and exposure to violence

Family Poor parental supervision

School Poor academic achievement

Repeating grade(s)

Truancy

Negative attitude toward school

Poorly organized and functioning schools

Peer Peer rejection

Association with deviant peers/siblings

Community Residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood

Residence in a disorganized neighborhood

Availability of weapons

Risk Factors Emerging From Midadolescence Onward

Child Weapon carrying

Drug dealing

Unemployment

School School dropout

Peer Gang membership

Source: Adapted from Loeber and Farrington, 1998a.
10

methods were available to deal with

child delinquents to reduce their risk

of future offending. On the other hand,

only 3–6 percent of the practitioners

thought that current juvenile justice,

mental health, or child welfare programs

were effective in achieving this goal

(Farrington, Loeber, and Kalb, 2001).

Following a public health approach to

intervention, the Study Group recommended preventive and remedial interventions that focus on known risk

factors and on knowledge of the behavior development of juveniles (see figure

3, page 4). However, the Study Group

cautions that there is no single magic

bullet for preventing or correcting

child delinquency. Investigation of interventions for child delinquency clearly

demonstrates that multiple risk factors,

their relationships with one another,

and their complexity pose important

challenges for implementing interventions. Comprehensive public health

interventions should focus on changing

both the conditions and institutions

that influence offending in the community (Farrington, 1994, 2000). 

In addition, mental health, welfare, and

juvenile justice interventions for child

delinquency must deal with the multiple

problems stemming from dysfunctional

families.

Promising Interventions

The most promising school and community prevention programs for child

delinquency focus on several risk domains (Herrenkohl et al., 2001). The

Study Group recommends integrating

the following types of school and community prevention programs: 

● Classroom and behavior management programs.

● Multicomponent classroom-based 

programs.

● Social competence promotion 

curriculums.

● Conflict resolution and violence 

prevention curriculums.

● Bullying prevention.

● Afterschool recreation programs.

● Mentoring programs.

● School organization programs.

● Comprehensive community 

interventions.

Several unique programs have demonstrated that interventions with young

children can reduce later delinquency.

The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project

focuses on 3- and 4-year-olds at risk for

school failure. In this program, treatment group participants, when compared with control group participants,

showed a number of benefits across a

range of prosocial functioning indicators, including fewer than half the lifetime arrests (Schweinhart, Barnes, and

Weikart, 1993). The Elmira Prenatal/

Early Infancy Project sent nurses to the

homes of pregnant, unmarried women

in households with low socioeconomic

status. These visits began during pregnancy and continued to the end of the

second year after the child’s birth. By

the time the children were 15 years old,

the positive impact of the visits was

reflected in a decrease in children’s

reports of arrests, convictions, violation

of probation, consumption of alcohol,

sexual activity, and running away from

home (Olds et al., 1998). As another

example, Webster-Stratton (1998) has

developed a comprehensive and successful training program for parents of Head

Start children that includes a focus on

social skills and prosocial behavior.

The Study Group’s analyses of three recent service delivery studies—the Great

Smoky Mountains Study of youth in

North Carolina, the Patterns of Care

program in San Diego, CA, and the

southwestern Pennsylvania Costs of

Services in Medicaid Study (Burns et al.,

2001)—strongly indicate that the first

step toward obtaining effective treatment is to provide families with access

to mental health and other services.

While the very early detection of emotional and behavior problems is a public health goal, results have not been

encouraging. The delay between symptom onset and help seeking is apparent,

and the rates of mental health interventions in juvenile justice are extremely

low. Clearly, a mechanism for obtaining

timely, specialized help is imperative.

Such help could also alleviate the high

cost of care—both psychiatric and general medical—for youth with the diagnosis of conduct disorder.

It is extremely important to communicate to mental health and other services what treatments are effective. For

example, many juvenile offender intervention programs, such as Multisystemic Therapy (MST) (Henggeler,

Pickrel, and Brondino, 1999), have had
11

a significant impact on reducing the

rates of felonies. Currently, OJJDP is

testing the ability to disseminate MST

in a large, three-city study, with the

goals of identifying effective methods

for dissemination, retraining clinicians,

and developing approaches to ensure

quality implementation.

Juvenile Justice Programs

Because children are malleable, adolescence has generally been recognized

as “a stage of developmental immaturity

that rendered youths’ transgressions

less blameworthy than those of adults

and required a special legal response”

(Grisso, 1996). Traditionally, juvenile

courts do not adjudicate very young,

first-time offenders and step in only

when such institutions as families,

social and child protective services,

and schools fail in their efforts with

children. 

Unfortunately, the juvenile court has

long served as a dumping ground for a

wide variety of problem behaviors of

children that other institutions (e.g.,

social, mental health, and child protective services) fail to serve adequately

(Kupperstein, 1971; Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

1995). Although collaboration between

juvenile justice and child and adolescent social services was once considered the cornerstone of a comprehensive

childcare system, the two systems are

severely fragmented. The deinstitutionalization and diversion policies of the past

25 years have turned child delinquents

away from juvenile courts, resulting in

sparse program development for these

children. 

Although few programs in the juvenile

justice system are explicitly designed for

child delinquents, new models are being

developed. Currently, only a few wellorganized, integrated programs for child

delinquents exist in North America

(Howell, 2001). Most of them involve

coordinated efforts among police, the

public, prosecutors, judges, schools, and

mental health services. These programs

have yet to be evaluated, and their longterm success may depend on receiving

consistent funding from year to year.

Several of the most promising programs

are listed below:

● Michigan Early Offender Program.

This program provides specialized,

intensive, in-home interventions to

youth who are age 13 or younger at

the time of first adjudication and

who have two or more prior police

contacts (Howitt and Moore, 1991).

● Minnesota Delinquents Under 10

Program. This program includes

interventions such as sending parents an admonishment letter from

the county attorney, referring delinquents to child protective services

and other agencies, identifying diversion programs, identifying children

in need of protection or services

petitions, and targeting early intervention for high-risk children (see,

e.g., Stevens, Owen, and LahtiJohnson, 1999).

● Toronto Under 12 Outreach Project.

This fully developed Canadian program emphasizes a multisystemic

approach combining interventions

that target children, parents, schools,

and communities. It includes a centralized police protocol to expedite

services for children who engage

in delinquent activity (HrynkiwAugimeri, Pepler, and Goldberg, 1993).

● Sacramento County Community

Intervention Program. This program

provides services coordinated by a

community intervention specialist

who conducts an indepth, strengthbased family assessment, including

physical and mental health, substance abuse, economic strengths/

needs, vocational strengths/needs,

family functioning, and social functioning (Brooks and Pettit, 1997).

All multisystemic programs designed

to deal with child delinquency rely on

particular approaches and programs

targeting the child, the family, peers,

the school, and the community. Many

programs either have proven to be effective or hold promise within these

domains, such as Parent Management

Training (Patterson, Reid, and Dishion,

1992), Functional Family Therapy

(Sexton and Alexander, 2000), and MST

(Henggeler, Pickrel, and Brondino,

1999). In terms of peer interventions,

care must be taken when delinquent or

highly disruptive children are brought

together for group therapy because of

the potential contaminating effects

(Dishion, McCord, and Poulin, 1999).

Peer interventions are best undertaken

in conjunction with other programs

(Coie and Miller-Johnson, 2001). School

programs (e.g., the Good Behavior Game

and the FastTrack Program [Herrenkohl

et al., 2001]) and community programs

(e.g., Communities That Care [Hawkins

and Catalano, 1992]) may help alleviate

risk factors for child delinquency. 

Child Delinquents, Incarceration, and Legal Sanctions

The Study Group found no studies showing that incarceration of serious child delinquents results in a substantial reduction in recidivism or the prevention of later serious and violent offending. In addition, victimization by older, serious delinquent

offenders in correctional facilities may fuel criminal propensities in child delinquents. Likewise, the Study Group does not advocate increased legal sanctions for

nonserious child delinquents. Instead, more programs that specifically target child

delinquents are needed, including specific procedures on how to deal with child

delinquents when there is an absolute need for their detention. Nonserious child

delinquents can best be dealt with in the mental health and the child welfare systems, with a focus on interventions involving the children’s parents.
12

A community policing program has

also demonstrated some success in

working with child delinquents. The

OJJDP-funded New Haven Child

Development–Community Policing

Program (Marans and Berkman, 1997)

brings police officers and mental health

professionals together to provide each

other with training, consultation, and

support and to provide direct interdisciplinary intervention to children

who are victims of, witnesses to, or

perpetrators of violent crimes.

Interagency Mechanism

Because child delinquents often have

many concurrent problems, including

antisocial behavior, learning difficulties,

mood problems, and exposure to child

abuse and neglect, a number of agencies have typically provided services

to this group. Practitioners almost

unanimously agree that more coordination among the juvenile justice system, schools, child welfare agencies,

and mental health agencies is needed

to deal with very young offenders

(Farrington, Loeber, and Kalb, 2001).

However, such integrated programs are

extremely rare, and their effectiveness

remains to be evaluated. The Study

Group suggests that one of the following three mechanisms may be needed

to coordinate and fully integrate a continuum of care and sanctions for child

delinquents:

● A governing body or interagency

council that, at minimum, includes

representatives from all juvenile

justice-related human services organizations and agencies and has the

authority to convene these agencies

to develop a comprehensive strategy

for dealing with child delinquents.

● A front-end mechanism within the

juvenile justice system that can make

comprehensive assessments of referred child delinquents, such as

Community Assessment Centers

that provide a single point of entry

(Dembo and Brown, 1994; Oldenettel

and Wordes, 1999).

● A mechanism to ensure interagency

coordination and collaboration in the

delivery of services in the postadjudication phase, such as wraparound

services that can be applied to children and families in a flexible and

individualized manner (Duchnowski

and Kutash, 1996).

Legal Issues

In addition to overall policy and research issues, many important legal

issues concerning child delinquents

must be resolved, including the following (Wiig, 2001):

● Jurisdiction. States differ greatly in

their minimum age for delinquency

jurisdiction and their enactment of

alternative grounds for court jurisdiction (such as dependency and children in need of protective services).

● Competency. The competency of

most child delinquents is debatable

in terms of their ability to understand the severity of charges, court

proceedings, and the implications of

sentences.

● Counsel. The right to counsel and

other constitutional rights are of

importance to all juvenile delinquents but are complicated for

children because of their inability

to understand rights (e.g., the

Miranda warning or the privilege

against self-incrimination).

● Parental responsibility. The value

both of making parents more legally

responsible for their children’s delinquency and of followup sanctions for

parents needs to be investigated.

● Alternatives to court jurisdiction.

Alternatives for handling child

delinquents outside the courts

(e.g., either informally by the police

or through a voluntary referral to a

child-serving agency) may represent

an important and promising approach

to deflecting children from future

delinquency.

Key Research Priorities

There are many gaps in current knowledge about the development of child

delinquency, the risk and protective factors associated with it, and appropriate

prevention/intervention methods. In

addition to reanalysis of existing data

and collection of additional data in

ongoing studies, new research projects

that focus specifically on child delinquents are needed. This is especially

true for very serious young offenders,

who represent a small group about

which little systematic knowledge has

been gathered. The Study Group recommends that additional research should

focus on the following areas:

● Child delinquent development and

epidemiology, based on self-reports

and official records of offending.

● The relation between child delinquency and co-occurring problem

behaviors.

● Escalation from child delinquency

to serious and violent offending.

● Risk and protective factors that influence continuity and escalation in

the severity of delinquency after its

childhood onset.

● Longitudinal studies to investigate

questions about development, risk

and protective factors, and risk

assessment.

● The major service agencies’ methods

for dealing with child delinquents.

● Cost-benefit analyses of prevention/

intervention programs.

● Studies with experimental and control groups and random assignment

of participants to investigate

prevention/intervention strategies.

Costs and Benefits

Although literature reviews of early

interventions to prevent the development of criminal potential demonstrate

that this approach is promising for
13

reducing delinquency and later offending (see Zigler, Taussig, and Black, 1992;

Farrington and Welsh, 1999), there has

been little discussion of economic costs

and benefits. The potential benefits of

prevention programs targeting delinquents or high-risk youth are indicated

by estimates that a typical, single criminal career encompassing the juvenile

and adult years costs society between

$1.7 and $2.3 million in 1997 dollars

(Cohen, 1998).

Although cost-benefit studies are relatively rare, a few studies have provided

important evidence on the economic

efficiency of early developmental delinquency prevention programs. For example, the High/Scope Perry Preschool

Project—founded in 1962 in Michigan—

focused on preschool programs to help

children (ages 3–4) in poverty make

a better start in their transition from

home to school and community, including setting them on paths to becoming

economically self-sufficient and socially

responsible adults (Schweinhart, Barnes,

and Weikart, 1993; Parks, 2000). The

most recent followup data, collected

when these children were 27, revealed

several differences in outcomes between

the children who received treatment and

those who did not (the controls). Among

children who received treatment, there

was less delinquency, a lower rate of

absenteeism from school, less need for

remedial and supportive school services,

and less likelihood of aggressive, predelinquent behavior. A cost-benefit

analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project (Barnett, 1993) found

that for every dollar spent on the project, taxpayers and crime victims were

saved more than $7. The total costs of

the program were estimated at $12,356

per participant; total benefits, when

adjusted for inflation and a 3-percent

discount rate, were estimated at $88,433

per participant (Welsh, 2001).

In addition to showing promise as economically efficient approaches to reducing delinquency, several intervention

programs have revealed other important spinoff benefits, such as improved

outcomes in educational achievement,

health, and parent-child relationships.

A cost-benefit analysis of the Elmira

Prenatal/Early Infancy Project in New

York, NY, for example, showed a reduction in welfare and health costs and a

higher tax base because of increased

employment (Karoly et al., 1998).

Although many programs claim cost

savings based on overall effectiveness,

more economic evaluation is needed to

assess the monetary value of programs

and to help answer important questions

facing policymakers. 

Conclusions and Policy

Recommendations

Child delinquents constitute a population not usually recognized as needing

services to prevent them from becoming tomorrow’s serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders. The Study

Group’s work has clear implications

for policymakers at the federal, state,

county, and municipal levels who can

influence the day-to-day and long-term

operation of agencies and/or their funding to maintain, improve, or create new

programs. Indirectly, the Study Group

also addresses the frontline workers

who deal every day with child delinquents and children with persistent

disruptive behavior, whose voices

and concerns should be heard by

policymakers.

Policymakers should be concerned

about child delinquents and children

with persistent disruptive behavior for

the key reasons discussed below

(Farrington, Loeber, and Kalb, 2001). 

Child delinquents constitute a significant problem for society. Child delinquents, compared with later onset

offenders, are two to three times more

likely to become tomorrow’s serious

offenders. Part of this likelihood depends on the presence of risk and

protective factors. Stouthamer-Loeber

and colleagues (2002) examined the

degree to which protective domains

buffered the effect of risk domains in

the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Using a

total score of protective and risk domains for each participant, the study

found that children whose balance

between protective and risk domains

favored one or more risk domains had

an elevenfold increase in the likelihood

of becoming persistent serious delinquents in adolescence, compared with

children who had an overall balance of

fewer risk domains and more protective

domains.

There is a real risk that some children

will become serious offenders. However,

this danger is not general public knowledge and, consequently, is rarely addressed to prevent the development of

serious, violent, and chronic juvenile

offending.

Information about child delinquency

is inadequate. Society does not have

the information about child delinquents

that is necessary to reduce this pervasive social problem. Such knowledge is

crucial for planning services for child

offenders at an early stage in their delinquency careers. Child delinquents need

to be included in national, regional, and

citywide surveys of offenders and victims to address important questions

such as how common serious child

delinquency is and whether serious

child delinquents are qualitatively or

quantitatively different from other

child delinquents. 

The Study Group noted the absence of

annual surveys focusing on the prevalence of persistent disruptive children

in elementary schools. In addition, there

appears to be no consistent tracking of

the number of referrals child welfare

offices receive from police for children

age 12 or younger who have committed

delinquent acts. Annual police reports

of juvenile delinquency are available.

However, jurisdictional differences in

the minimum age of criminal responsibility and possible differences in police

practices for recording delinquent acts

committed by children call into question
14

the accuracy and comprehensiveness of

the information collected on child delinquents. Policymakers need to step forward and insist on informing society, in

a timely fashion, about the prevalence

of child delinquents and their persistent

disruptive behaviors; the proportion of

such children who do or do not receive

services for their problem behaviors;

the number of risk factors for these

children, who are routinely targeted for

intervention; and the dissemination of

effective and replicated interventions.

Child delinquents are expensive to taxpayers and society. Child delinquents

tend to be expensive to society because

of the numerous interventions they receive from different agencies, including

special school services, child welfare

and social services, mental health agencies, and family counseling services.

Child delinquents are likely to receive

services from the majority of agencies

dealing with children. Although not all

of these children are engaged by all of

these services simultaneously, many of

the young problematic children require

the attention and intervention of a succession of several agencies.

Given the barriers that often exist between different agencies and their poor

data sharing, it is highly likely that assessments are duplicated. Also, many

practitioners complain about the lack

of an integrated and coordinated approach among the agencies trying to

deal with the multiple problems of child

delinquents. Unintegrated services may

be less effective than integrated services, especially when integrated services

are well planned and evaluated.

Many child delinquents become chronic

offenders (Blumstein, Farrington, and

Moitra, 1985). As previously mentioned,

the cost to society of a single criminal

career ranges from $1.7 to $2.3 million

in 1997 dollars (Cohen, 1998). Given that

many of these high-rate offenders start

their delinquent careers early in life, it is

safe to assume that the cost to society

of child delinquents is considerable.

Early intervention with child delinquents is essential. Currently, a whole

array of effective interventions is available to reduce persistent disruptive

child behavior and early-onset delinquency. Also, well-tested interventions

exist to prevent delinquent juveniles

from escalating to serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offending. However, for

child delinquents known to the juvenile

justice system, special programs, such

as the previously mentioned ones in

Toronto and Minneapolis (Howell, 2001),

need to be further evaluated and tested

in other jurisdictions.

Rather than intervening to prevent highrisk children from becoming tomorrow’s

incarcerated offenders, policymakers

tend to fund the more plentiful programs for older adolescent delinquents

and programs that confine serious adolescent offenders in costly institutions.

This is not to suggest that all the attention and funds should be given to child

delinquents and that adolescent delinquents should be ignored. However, a

more effective balance of resources

should be developed so that the roots

of serious adolescent delinquency can

be better addressed in childhood.

Unfortunately, many policymakers

are unaware of the efficacy and costeffectiveness of alternative interventions and often choose not to fund early

prevention methods that can benefit

juveniles in general and taxpayers and

citizens in particular. Yet no policymaker

would argue that the optimal public

health strategy to deal with nicotine

addiction is the removal of cancerous

lungs in large numbers of affected smokers. Instead, risk-based smoking prevention strategies have been developed

and are now widely endorsed and implemented. The same rationale used for

public health risks should be applied to

preventing serious and violent juvenile

delinquency. The focus should be on

targeting early risk factors associated

with child delinquency and persistent

disruptive child behavior. In more and

more communities, system professionals and policymakers realize that the

increase in the number of child delinquents (and disruptive youth) is too

large a problem to be ignored and that

special programs are needed.

Summary

Often, neither parents nor the various

professionals who work with children

know which problematic children will

cease their disruptive or delinquent

behaviors and which ones will continue

or worsen their behavior over time.

Nevertheless, because most of the necessary conditions for later serious and

violent juvenile offending begin in childhood, the Study Group on Very Young

Offenders strongly urges that efforts to

reduce serious forms of delinquency

should shift from a focus on adolescent

delinquents and more serious chronic

juvenile offenders to a focus on child

delinquents. To help with this task,

the Study Group has presented some

important new information on child

delinquency, including analyses of

epidemiological data, risk and protective factors, early prediction, interventions for disruptive and delinquent

children, and juvenile justice system

issues. This information will benefit

future studies and interventions that

attempt to prevent offending among the

very young and to change the behavior

of those children who are already

involved in offending.

References

Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S.

1981. Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal

and disturbed children aged 4 through

16. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 46(1):1–78.

Adams, C.D., Hillman, N., and Gaydos,

G.R. 1994. Behavioral difficulties in toddlers: Impact of sociocultural and biological risk factors. Journal of Clinical

Child Psychology 23:373–381.
15

Barnett, W.S. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis.

In Significant Benefits: The High/Scope

Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27,

edited by L.J. Schweinhart, H.V. Barnes,

and D.P. Weikart. Ypsilanti, MI: High/

Scope Press, pp. 142–173.

Battin, S.R., Hawkins, J.D., Thornberry,

T.P., and Krohn, M.D. 2000. Contribution

of Gang Membership to Delinquency Beyond the Influence of Delinquent Peers.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Battin-Pearson, S.R., Thornberry, T.P.,

Hawkins, J.D., and Krohn, M.D. 1998. 

Gang Membership, Delinquent Peers, and

Delinquent Behavior. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Blumstein, A., Farrington, D.P., and

Moitra, S. 1985. Delinquency careers:

Innocents, desisters, and persisters.

In Crime and Justice, vol. 6, edited by

M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press, pp. 187–

222.

Bor, W., Najman, J.M., Andersen, J.,

O’Callaghan, M., Williams, G.M., and

Behrens, B.C. 1997. The relationship

between low family income and psychological disturbance in young children:

An Australian longitudinal study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of

Psychiatry 31(5):664–675.

Brewer, D.D., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano,

R.F., and Neckerman, H.J. 1995. Preventing serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offending: A review of evaluations

of selected strategies in childhood,

adolescence, and the community. In

Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders, edited by

J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins,

and J.J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 61–141.

Brooks, T.R., and Pettit, M. 1997. Early

Intervention: Crafting a Community

Response to Child Abuse and Violence.

Washington, DC: Child Welfare League

of America.

Burns, B.J., Landsverk, J., Kelleher, K.,

Faw, L., Hazen, A., and Keeler, G. 2001.

Mental health, education, child welfare,

and juvenile justice service use. In Child

Delinquents: Development, Intervention,

and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber

and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 273–303.

Butts, J.A., and Snyder, H.N. 1997. The

Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under 

Age 15. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1996.

The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In Delinquency

and Crime: Current Theories, edited by

J.D. Hawkins. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press, pp. 149–197.

Cohen, M.A. 1998. The monetary value

of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 14(1):5–33.

Coie, J.D., and Miller-Johnson, S. 2001.

Peer factors and interventions. In Child

Delinquents: Development, Intervention,

and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber

and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 191–209.

Coie, J.D., Miller-Johnson, S., Terry, R.,

Lochman, J.E., Maumary-Gremaud, A.,

and Hyman, C. 1995. The influence of

deviant peer associations on juvenile

offending among African-American adolescents. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Society of

Criminology, Boston, MA.

Dembo, R., and Brown, R. 1994. The

Hillsborough County Juvenile Assessment Center. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse 3(2):25–43.

Derzon, J.H., and Lipsey, M.W. 2000. The

correspondence of family features with

problem, aggressive, criminal and violent behavior. Unpublished manuscript.

Nashville, TN: Institute for Public Policy

Studies, Vanderbilt University.

Developmental Research and Programs.

1996. Promising Approaches To Prevent

Adolescent Problem Behaviors. Seattle,

WA: Developmental Research and

Programs.

Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., and Poulin, F.

1999. When interventions harm: Peer

groups and problem behavior. American

Psychologist 54(9):755–764.

Duchnowski, A.J., and Kutash, K. 1996.

A mental health perspective. In Comprehensive and Collaborative Systems That

Work for Troubled Youth: A National

Agenda, edited by C.M. Nelson, R.B.

Rutherford, and B.I. Wolford. Richmond,

KY: Eastern Kentucky University, pp.

90–110.

Earls, F., and Jung, K.G. 1987. Temperament and home environment characteristics as causal factors in the early

development of childhood psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

26(4):491–498.

Egeland, B., and Farber, E.A. 1984. Infantmother attachment: Factors related to its

development and changes over time.

Child Development 55:753–771.

Elliott, D.S., and Menard, S. 1996. Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior:

Temporal and developmental patterns.

In Delinquency and Crime: Current

Theories, edited by J.D. Hawkins. New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press,

pp. 28–67.

Espiritu, R.C., Huizinga, D., Crawford, A.,

and Loeber, R. 2001. Epidemiology of

self-reported delinquency. In Child

Delinquents: Development, Intervention,

and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber

and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 47–66.
16

Farrington, D.P. 1994. Early developmental prevention of juvenile delinquency.

Criminal Behavior and Mental Health

4(3):209–227.

Farrington, D.P. 2000. Explaining and 

preventing crime—the globalization of

knowledge: The American Society of

Criminology 1999 Presidential Address.

Criminology 38:1–24. 

Farrington, D.P., Lambert, S., and West, J.

1998. Criminal careers of two generations

of family members in the Cambridge

Study in Delinquent Development.

Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention

7:85–106.

Farrington, D.P., Loeber, R., and Kalb,

L.M. 2001. Key research and policy

issues. In Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and Service Needs,

edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc., pp. 385–394.

Farrington, D.P., Loeber, R., StouthamerLoeber, M., Van Kammen, W.B., and

Schmidt, L. 1996. Self-reported delinquency and a combined delinquency

scale based on boys, mothers, and

teachers: Concurrent and predictive

validity for African Americans and

Caucasians. Criminology 34:493–517.

Farrington, D.P., and Welsh, B.C. 1999.

Delinquency prevention using familybased interventions. Children and

Society 13(4):287–303.

Goldsmith, H.H., Buss, A.H., Plomin, R.,

Rothbart, M.K., Thomas, A., Chess, S.,

Hinde, R.A., and McCall, R.B. 1987.

Roundtable: What is temperament?

Four approaches. Child Development

58(2):505–529.

Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, D.C.

1985. Victimization in Schools. New York,

NY: Plenum Press.

Grisso, T. 1996. Society’s retributive response to juvenile violence: A developmental perspective. Law and Human

Behavior 20(3):229–247.

Guerin, D.W., Gottfried, A.W., and

Thomas, C.W. 1997. Difficult temperament and behavior problems: A longitudinal study from 1.5 to 12 years.

International Journal of Behavioral

Development 21(1):71–90.

Haapasalo, J., and Tremblay, R.E. 1994.

Physically aggressive boys from ages 6

to 12: Family background, parenting

behavior, and prediction of delinquency.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62(5):1044–1052.

Hawkins, J.D., and Catalano, R.F. 1992.

Communities That Care. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hawkins, J.D., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D.P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.F., and

Harachi, T.W. 1998. A review of predictors of youth violence. In Serious and

Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors

and Successful Interventions, edited by

R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.

106–146.

Hawkins, J.D., Lishner, D.M., Jenson,

J.M., and Catalano, R.F. 1987. Delinquents and drugs: What the evidence

suggests about prevention and treatment programming. In Youth at High

Risk for Substance Abuse (DHHS Publication No. ADM 87–1537), edited

by B.S. Brown and A.R. Mills. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, pp. 81–131.

Henggeler, S., Pickrel, S., and Brondino,

M. 1999. Multisystemic treatment of

substance-abusing and dependent

delinquents: Outcomes, treatment fidelity, and transportability. Mental Health

Services Research 1:171–184.

Herrenkohl, T.I., Hawkins, J.D., Chung,

I.J., Hill, K.G., and Battin-Pearson, S.

2001. School and community risk factors and interventions. In Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and

Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber and

D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 211–246.

Howell, J.C. 1998. Youth Gangs: An Overview. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, J.C. 2001. Juvenile justice programs and strategies. In Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and

Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber and

D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 305–321.

Howitt, P.S., and Moore, E.A. 1991. The

efficacy of intensive early intervention:

An evaluation of the Oakland County

Probate Court Early Offender Program.

Juvenile and Family Court Journal

42:25–36.

Hrynkiw-Augimeri, L., Pepler, D., and

Goldberg, K. 1993. An outreach program

for children having police contact.

Canada’s Mental Health 41:7–12.

Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham, S.S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M.R.,

Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M., and Chiesa, J.

1998. Investing in Our Children: What

We Know and Don’t Know About the

Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood

Interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND

Corporation. 

Kazdin, A.E., and Kendall, P.C. 1998.

Current progress and future plans for

developing effective treatments: Comments and perspectives. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology 27(2):217–226.

Keenan, K. 2001. Uncovering preschool

precursors to problem behavior. In

Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and Service Needs, edited by

R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.

117–134.

Keenan, K., and Wakschlag, L.S. 2000.

More than the terrible twos: The nature

and severity of behavior problems in

clinic-referred preschool children.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

28(1):33–46.
17

Kempf-Leonard, K., Chesney-Lind, M.,

and Hawkins, D.F. 2001. Ethnicity and

gender issues. In Child Delinquents:

Development, Intervention, and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber and

D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 247–269.

Kochanska, G., Murray, K., and Coy, K.

1997. Inhibitory control as a contributor

to conscience in childhood: From toddler to early school age. Child Development 68(2):263–277. 

Krohn, M.D., Thornberry, T.P., Rivera, C.,

and Le Blanc, M. 2001. Later delinquency careers. In Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and Service

Needs, edited by R. Loeber and D.P.

Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc., pp. 67–93.

Kuczynski, L., and Kochanska, G. 1990.

Development of children’s noncompliance strategies from toddlerhood to

age 5. Developmental Psychology

26(3):398–408.

Kupperstein, L. 1971. Treatment and

rehabilitation of delinquent youth: Some

socio-cultural considerations. ActaCriminologica 4:11–111.

Lahey, B.B., Piacentini, J.C., McBurnett,

K., Stone, P., Hartdagen, S., and Hynd, G.

1988. Psychopathology in the parents

of children with conduct disorder and

hyperactivity. Journal of the American

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 27(2):163–170.

Landy, S., and Peters, R.D. 1992. Toward

an understanding of a developmental

paradigm for aggressive conduct problems during the preschool years. In

Aggression Throughout the Life Span,

edited by R.D. Peters, R.J. McMahon,

and V.L. Quinsey. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 1–30.

Loeber, R. 1982. The stability of antisocial and delinquent and child behavior: A review. Child Development 53(6):

1431–1446.

Loeber, R. 1988. The natural histories of

juvenile conduct problems, substance

use, and delinquency: Evidence for

developmental progressions. In Advances in Clinical Child Psychology,

vol. 11, edited by B.B. Lahey and A.E.

Kazdin. New York, NY: Plenum Press,

pp. 73–124.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P. 1998a.

Never too early, never too late: Risk factors and successful interventions for

serious and violent juvenile offenders.

Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention

7(1):7–30.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds.

1998b. Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful

Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds.

2001. Child Delinquents: Development,

Intervention, and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Loeber, R., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M.

1998. Development of juvenile aggression and violence: Some common

misconceptions and controversies.

American Psychologist 53(2):242–259.

Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. 1996. Academic performance and delinquency.

In Crime and Justice, vol. 20, edited by

M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press, pp. 145–264.

Marans, S., and Berkman, M. 1997. Child

Development–Community Policing: Partnership in a Climate of Violence. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

McCord, J., and Conway, K.P. 2002.

Patterns of juvenile delinquency and

co-offending. In Crime and Social Organization, vol. 10 of Advances in Criminological Theory, edited by E. Waring and

D. Weisburd. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, pp. 15–30. 

Miller-Johnson, S., Coie, J.D., MaumaryGremand, A., Bierman, K., and Conduct

Problems Prevention Research Group.

1997. Peer rejection and aggression and

early starter models of conduct disorder. Paper presented at the meeting of

the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN, April 1997.

Moffitt, T. 1993. Adolescence-limited and

life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100(4):674–701.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1995. Delinquency

Prevention Works. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Oldenettel, D., and Wordes, M. 1999.

Community Assessment Centers. Fact

Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Olds, D., Henderson, C.R., Cole, R.,

Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D.,

Pettitt, L., Sidora, K., Morris, P., and

Powers, J. 1998. Long-term effects of

nurse home visitation on children’s

criminal and antisocial behavior:

Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized

controlled trial. Journal of the American

Medical Association 280:1238–1244.

Parks, G. 2000. The High/Scope Perry

Preschool Project. Bulletin. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Patterson, G.R., and Bank, L. 1989. Some

amplifying mechanisms for pathologic

processes in families. In Systems and

Development: The Minnesota Symposia

on Child Psychology, edited by M.R.

Gunnar and E. Thelen. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum, pp. 167–209.
This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 95–JD–FX–0018 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention is a component of the Office of

Justice Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

18

Patterson, G.R., Capaldi, D.M., and Bank,

L. 1991. An early starter model for predicting delinquency. In The Development

and Treatment of Childhood Aggression,

edited by D.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 139–168. 

Patterson, G.R., Crosby, L., and Vuchinich, S. 1992. Predicting risk for

early police arrest. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 8(4):335–355.

Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., and Dishion,

T.J. 1992. Antisocial Boys. Eugene, OR:

Castalia.

Peeples, F., and Loeber, R. 1994. Do

individual factors and neighborhood

context explain ethnic differences in

juvenile delinquency? Journal of Quantitative Criminology 10(2):141–158.

Prior, M., Smart, M.A., Sanson, A., and

Oberklaid, F. 1993. Sex differences in

psychological adjustment from infancy

to 8 years. Journal of the American

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 32(2):291–304.

Reiss, A.J., and Farrington, D.P. 1991. Advancing knowledge about co-offending:

Results from a prospective longitudinal

survey of London males. Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology 82:360–

395.

Rowe, D.C., and Gulley, B. 1992. Sibling

effects on substance abuse and delinquency. Criminology 30:217–233.

Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., and

Earls, F. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277(5328):919–924.

Schweinhart, L.J., Barnes, H.V., and

Weikart, D.P. 1993. Significant Benefits:

The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study

Through Age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/

Scope Press.

Sexton, T.L., and Alexander, J.F. 2000.

Functional Family Therapy. Bulletin.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Silva, P.A. 1990. The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development

Project: A 15 year longitudinal study.

Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology

4:96–127.

Snyder, H.N. 2001. Epidemiology of official offending. In Child Delinquents:

Development, Intervention, and Service

Needs, edited by R. Loeber and D.P.

Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc., pp. 25–46.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999

National Report. Report. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Stattin, H., and Klackenberg-Larsson, I.

1993. Early language and intelligence

development and their relationship to

future criminal behavior. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology 102(3):369–378. 

Stevens, A.B., Owen, G., and LahtiJohnson, K. 1999. Delinquents Under

10: Target Early Intervention Phase I

Evaluation Report. St. Paul, MN: Wilder

Research Center, Amherst H. Wilder

Foundation.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R.,

Wei, E., Farrington, D.P., and Wikström,

P-O.H. 2002. Risk and promotive effects

in the explanation of persistent serious

delinquency in boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70:111–123.

Tremblay, R.E., Pihl, R.O., Vitaro, F., and

Dobkin, P.L. 1994. Predicting early onset

of male antisocial behavior from preschool behavior. Archives of General

Psychiatry 51(9):732–739.

Webster-Stratton, C. 1998. Preventing

conduct problems in Head Start children: Strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 66:715–730.

Welsh, B.C. 2001. Economic costs and

benefits of early developmental prevention. In Child Delinquents: Development,

Intervention, and Service Needs, edited

by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.,

pp. 339–355. 

Wiig, J.K. 2001. Legal issues. In Child

Delinquents: Development, Intervention,

and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber

and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 323–338. 

Williams, S., Andersen, J., McGee, R.,

and Silva, P.A. 1990. Risk factors for

behavioral and emotional disorder in

preadolescent children. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 29(3):413–419.

Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993. Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,

and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program

Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Zigler, E., Taussig, C., and Black, K. 1992.

Early childhood intervention: A promising preventative for juvenile delinquency.

American Psychologist 47(8): 997–1006.
19

Acknowledgments

Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Epidemiology,

University of Pittsburgh, PA; Professor

of Developmental Psychopathology,

Free University, Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Director of the Pittsburgh

Youth Study. David P. Farrington, Ph.D.,

is Professor of Psychological Criminology, Cambridge University, Cambridge,

England. David Petechuk is a freelance

health sciences writer. The authors

thank Magda Stouthamer-Loeber for

her contributions to this research. 

Photographs pages 5 and 10 copyright

© 2001 Corbis Corporation; photograph

page 7 copyright © 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc.

It’s Fast

Want to know more about the issues

in this Bulletin or related 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 search for publications

of interest.

It’s Easy

It’s Free

NCJ 186162
*NCJ~186162*