Last updated: January 2018 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg 

Interactions between Youth and Law Enforcement 

Police–youth contact consists of any face-to-face interaction between a youth and one or more law 

enforcement officers1, including sworn officers serving in municipal police departments; sheriff’s

departments; state police; and special jurisdiction agencies such as transit, park, and university police 

(Hyland, Langton, and Davis 2015). Contact can be youth-initiated or police-initiated and may occur in 

programmatic settings, such as police-led programs (e.g., police athletic leagues), or through day-today interactions in community and school settings (Hurst 2007; Goodrich, Anderson, and LaMotte 

2014). Some interactions also occur when youths are victims of crime. As gatekeepers to the justice 

system, police–youth contact can result in informal solutions such as programs and services that divert 

youth away from system involvement, or arrest and further entry into the criminal and juvenile justice 

systems (Worden and Myers 2000; Brown, Novak, and Frank 2009; Goodrich, Anderson, and LaMotte 

2014). Such decisions during contact with youth can shape the options available to other juvenile justice 

decision makers in the system (Liederbach 2007). 

Police–youth contact occurs often and is most frequent for youths between the ages of 18 and 24 (Eith 

and Durose 2011). Despite the importance and prevalence of such interactions, limited research has 

been dedicated to understanding the dynamics of encounters between police and youth (Brown and 

Benedict 2002; Thurau 2009). Though official police data provides useful context for understanding the 

prevalence of police–youth contact, the data does not provide information on police–youth interactions 

in terms of the nature of the incidents or how youth behaviors affect the actions of police officers, and 

vice versa (Skogan and Frydl 2004; Mastrofski, Snipes, and Supina 1996). Most research focuses on 

factors that influence the decisions made after juveniles have been arrested (Allen 2005) or youth 

attitudes toward police (Brick, Taylor, and Esbensen 2009; Flexon et al. 2016; Hagan, Shedd, and Payne 

2005; Hardin 2004; Brunson and Weitzer 2009; Wu, Lake, and Cao 2015). While most researchers agree 

that age and race are factors that consistently influence youth attitudes toward police, there is also no 

consensus on other factors (e.g., gender, social class) that influence youth attitudes toward the police or 

when such factors begin to influence police–youth interactions (Brown and Benedict 2002). 

1 Throughout this literature review, the terms “police officer” or “law enforcement” will be used interchangeably.

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2018. “Interactions between Youth and Law Enforcement.”

Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Interactions-Youth-Law-Enforcement.pdf 

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There has also been little research on how youth behaviors and decision-making influence police–youth 

contact (Brunson and Weitzer 2011), or on how officers’ concerns for community safety and their own

safety influence these interactions. 

This literature review will discuss the research relevant to interactions between police and youth. 

Topics in this review include the prevalence of police–youth interactions, factors that influence such 

interactions, the role of law enforcement in the juvenile justice system, and the outcome evidence of 

programs developed to help improve police–youth encounters. 

Prevalence of Police–Youth Interactions 

For this literature review, “youth” is defined as individuals between the ages of 10 and 24 (Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention 2017), although this age range does vary across different datasets. For 

example, the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provides 

arrest rates for each age starting at 10 years. However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collects data 

on police–public contact for youths between the ages of 16 and 24, but does not have data on youths 

under 16 years. 

The information from BJS on contacts between police and the public does show that youths 16 to 24 

years are more likely to experience contact with the police than members of any other age group. The 

data shows that roughly 40 million U.S. residents had face-to-face contact with police in 2008 (the last 

year for which data is available). Of this group, youths between the ages of 16 and 24 accounted for 

over one third of interactions (38.1 percent). This group was also more likely to experience multiple 

contacts with the police and more likely to experience involuntary or police-initiated contact than any 

other age group (Eith and Durose 2011). 

The information below provides an overview of data available on police–youth interactions when the 

contact 1) is youth-initiated, 2) is police-initiated, 3) results in arrest of youths, and 4) is due to youths 

being victims. 

Youth-Initiated Contact 

Contact that is initiated by a youth is considered voluntary and usually involves a youth reporting a 

crime or requesting police assistance for a non-criminal matter or for information such as directions 

(Hurst 2007; Goodrich, Anderson, and LaMotte 2014). In 2011, BJS estimated that 31.4 million residents 

ages 16 and older requested assistance from police at least once (Durose and Langston 2013). Of the 

total number of police requests for assistance, 18.2 percent were residents ages 16 to 24. Young people 

were less likely than older adults to request such police assistance. The most common reason youths 

ages 16 to 24 contacted police for assistance was to report a crime/disturbance/suspicious activity, 

followed by reporting a non-crime emergency or for other reasons. 

Police-Initiated Contact 

Contact that is initiated by the police is usually involuntary and involves a police officer stopping a 

youth on the street or a youth who is driving or riding in a car (Hurst 2007; Goodrich, Anderson, and 

LaMotte 2014). BJS estimated that 21 percent of police–youth contact occurs during traffic stops (Eith 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and Durose 2011). Drivers ages 16 to 24 were the most likely to be involved in a traffic stop and most 

likely to be ticketed by law enforcement, warned by law enforcement, or allowed to proceed with no 

enforcement action (Langton and Durose 2013). With regard to stops on the street, 3.1 percent of young 

people ages 16 to 24 were involved in street stops during 2011, compared with less than 1 percent for 

all other age groups (Langton and Durose 2013). 

However, not all police-initiated contact is for a stop or arrest; such contact can be due to youth and 

police involvement in school- or community-based prevention programs or diversion programs. For 

more information on prevention or diversion programs, please see the Outcome Evidence section 

below. 

Contact Resulting in Arrest 

Interactions that result in youths’ arrest are only a small portion of the interactions that occur between 

police and youth (Liederbach 2007; Goodrich, Anderson, and LaMotte 2014). Of the contact that results 

in arrest, data varies on youths under the age of 18 and those between the ages of 18 to 24. After arrest, 

some youths are referred to court and become formally involved in the justice system, while others may 

be diverted to programs and services in the community. 

Youths Under Age 18. In 2015, there were nearly 1 million arrests of individuals under age 18 [Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 2017]. These youths make up a disproportionate 

percent of arrests in several crime categories, including index property crimes such as arson, burglary, 

larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft; violent index crimes such as robbery; and offenses such as 

vandalism and disorderly conduct. Since the early 2000s, overall juvenile arrest rates have decreased 

over time, for both boys and girls, and for each of the major racial and ethnic groups. The number of 

juvenile arrests has dropped 56 percent between 2006 and 2015 (OJJDP 2017). Law enforcement agencies 

processed one third of arrested youths within their own agency and referred approximately two thirds 

of all arrested youths to court for further processing (Sickmund and Puzzanchera 2014). Over 80 percent 

of delinquency referrals to juvenile courts were made by law enforcement (Hockenberry and 

Puzzanchera 2017). 

Youths Ages 18 to 24. In all states, young people between the ages of 18 and 24 are considered adults, 

and this data is often analyzed separately from juvenile data. In 2014, there were over 3 million arrests 

of individuals in this age group (Snyder, Cooper, and Mulako-Wangota 2017). This age group has the 

highest arrest rates in many of the crime categories. According to the OJJDP Statistical Brief Book, in 2012 

this age group had the highest rates of arrest for drug law violations and violent crime. For example, 

youths between 18 and 24 experienced an arrest rate for violent index crimes of over 400 per 100,000 

persons in this age group (OJJDP 2014). 

Contact Due to Victimization 

This type of contact can be either youth-initiated or police-initiated. Many youths come to the attention 

of law enforcement because of being victims: of child abuse or neglect, of violence in school or in the 

community, or of a property crime. For example, nearly one in four victims of serious violent crimes 

known to law enforcement are juveniles (Sickmund and Puzzanchera 2014). Juveniles have been the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

victims in 64 percent of sexual assaults, 10 percent of robberies, and 15 percent of aggravated assaults 

reported to law enforcement, according to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). 

Although youth victimization rates have been decreasing over the past few decades, juveniles are still 

more likely than adults to be victims (Sickmund and Puzzanchera 2014). 

Youths may also come to the attention of law enforcement because they have witnessed or been exposed 

to another person’s victimization such as in situations of domestic/family violence or community

violence. For example, the National Survey of Children Exposed to Violence (NatSCEV III), conducted 

most recently in 2014, found that about 24.5 percent of youths under age 18 reported witnessing 

violence, including 18.4 percent who witnessed assaults in the community and 8.4 percent who 

witnessed assaults in the family. Overall, the NatSCEV III found that 60 percent of youths were exposed 

to some form of violence in the past year (Finkelhor et al. 2015). Therefore, police officers are more than 

likely to encounter traumatized youths and children exposed to violence (CEV) in their work. Although 

police may interact with CEV and traumatized youths, they are not often seen as a resource to connect 

youths to needed mental health/behavioral health services. The Child Development Community 

Policing Program, developed by the Yale Child Study Center and New Haven Department of Police 

Services, is an example of an intervention that was designed to enhance police officers’ roles in referrals

to services for this youth population (Murphy et al. 2005). In 2017, the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police (IACP) released a toolkit for law enforcement agencies that focuses on police responses 

to CEV and emphasizes the importance of police officers’ interactions with youths in situations

involving CEV (IACP 2017). For more information on this toolkit, please see the Outcome Evidence 

section. 

Officer Safety 

Law enforcement officers have higher rates of work-related injuries or illnesses, compared with other 

occupations [Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 2016]. According to the Law Enforcement Officers Killed 

and Assaulted (LEOKA) dataset available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), between 

2011–2015, there were 468 incidents where law enforcement officers were assaulted and injured with 

firearms, knives, or other cutting instruments in the line of duty and where the age of the known 

offender was provided. Of those 468 incidents, approximately 4.5 percent (21 incidents) were 

committed by youths under 18, while almost one quarter (112 incidents) were committed by individuals 

ages 18 to 24. For those under 18, the majority were white and male. For individuals ages 18 to 24, a 

little over half (53 percent) were black, and the majority were male (FBI 2016). Although this 

information only reports on a small subset of the total number of officers assaulted and injured with 

firearms and knives per year, the data suggests that youths under 18 only commit a small number of 

assaults against police every year, while 18- to 24-year-olds commit a significant number. 

With regard to police officers feloniously killed in the line of duty, the LEOKA data from the FBI 

between 2006–2015 shows that there were 543 incidents in which information on the offender was 

known. Of those incidents, less than 5 percent (26 incidents) were committed by individuals younger 

than 18, while about one third (159 incidents) were committed by individuals 18 to 24 years (the race 

and age breakdown of known offenders was only available for a small fraction of the incidents). The 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

data shows youths under 18 only committed a small number of police killings every year, while 18- to 

24-year-olds committed a large proportion (FBI 2016). 

Theoretical Foundation 

This section briefly focuses on theories that underlie the research on police–youth interactions. 

Procedural Justice and Legitimacy. Part of the research examining youth contact with law enforcement 

explores perceived procedural justice and beliefs about police legitimacy. The four elements people use 

when judging fairness of police procedures include 1) the opportunity to express opinions about the 

situation prior to formal police decision-making, 2) consistent and neutral decision-making and rules, 

3) trust in the motives behind police actions, and 4) being treated with dignity and respect (Tyler 1990; 

Tyler and Huo 2002; Blader and Tyler 2003). Police use of these four elements in encounters with youth 

can improve attitudes and behaviors during police–youth interactions and create an opportunity to 

enhance police legitimacy (Hinds 2007; Lee, Steinberg, and Piquero 2010). 

Wilson’s Policing Style Typology. To carry out their efforts to deter and prevent youth crime, police 

officers often adopt a variety of policing styles, depending on the norms and values of the communities 

they serve (Hawdon 2008). In his study of eight communities, James Q. Wilson (1968) identified three 

ideal types of policing styles: 1) watchman, 2) legalistic, and 3) service, which are aligned with order 

maintenance, law enforcement, or a combination, respectively. This typology suggests that an 

understanding of policing styles can help to explain why some officers rarely make arrests and only do 

so when the violation disturbs public order and why some officers make many arrests even when public 

order has not been breached. Even though the Wilson’s typology is outdated, it still provides a

theoretical foundation for understanding law enforcement behaviors and practices today (Wilson 1968; 

Hawdon 2008). 

Deterrence versus Labeling. An ongoing theoretical debate has been looking at the effects of deterrence 

versus labeling (Wiley and Esbensen 2016). Deterrence theory suggests that crime can be prevented 

through proactive policing strategies, which strengthen individuals’ (and youths’) perceptions that 

they will be caught for delinquent/criminal behavior (Nagin 2013). Conversely, labeling theory 

suggests proactive policing strategies may increase youths’ involvement in delinquent/criminal

behavior because of the negative label placed on youths (Schur 1973). This debate is relevant to the 

discussion of police–youth interactions, because contact with law enforcement (including just being 

stopped by police) could have long-term negative impacts on youths (Wiley and Esbensen 2016). 

Adolescent Development. There are developmental differences between juveniles and adults, which 

may also impact interactions between police officers and youths. According to the National Academy 

of Sciences’ Reforming Juvenile Justice report, adolescents are developmentally distinct from adults in the 

following three ways: 1) they demonstrate a lack of emotional self-regulation relative to adults; 2) they 

have increased susceptibility to external social influence, such as peer pressure, relative to adults; and 

3) they are less able to properly assess long-term consequences (Bonnie et al. 2013). Although youths 

may act out in certain ways because they are still developing important emotional, psychological, and 

cognitive functions, research has found that most youths eventually age out of crime and do not 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

continue delinquent or criminal behavior into adulthood (Moffitt 1993). Law enforcement could benefit 

from having an understanding of the stages of adolescent development, as this knowledge could impact 

how they interact with most youths in the community and schools (IACP n.d.). 

Law Enforcement’s Role in the Juvenile Justice System

The main purpose of law enforcement is to prevent, control, and deter crime and disorder (Lum and 

Nagin 2017) to improve community safety. Police officers are the first juvenile justice decision-makers 

to encounter youth, as they are the first and most frequent legal authorities to respond to crime on the 

streets, in malls, in schools, in homes, and other settings (Thurau 2009; Tyler and Huo 2002; Tyler, 

Fagan, and Geller 2014). 

Given the environment within which youth crime occurs, usually two types of police officers interact 

with youths: patrol officers and school resource officers2 (SROs). Patrol or street-level officers are sworn 

officers assigned to patrol duties within the community. In 2013, per the Law Enforcement Management 

and Administrative Statistics, local police departments employed about 477,000 full-time sworn 

personnel (Reaves 2015). About 68 percent of all sworn officers in a police department are assigned to 

patrol duty and account for most police–public encounters. These officers’ responsibilities include

observing and monitoring public spaces, controlling traffic or making traffic stops, responding to 

citizen calls for service, and conducting random preventative patrols of buildings and neighborhoods 

within their assigned beats or jurisdictions (Skogan and Frydl 2004). Police can use their authority to 

issue citations, make arrests, and use force. Thus, patrol officers interact with youths for a variety of 

reasons, including traffic stops, accidents, or responding to calls for service. 

In addition, due to growing concerns over juvenile delinquency and school violence (Brady, Balmer, 

and Phenix 2007), law enforcement officers also work in schools. Overall, SROs may be responsible for 

patrolling the school, investigating criminal complaints, handling student rule/law violators, and 

minimizing disruptions during school or afterschool activities (Theriot 2009; Na and Gottfredson 2013). 

SROs are meant to be safety experts and law enforcers, problem solvers, liaisons to community 

resources, and educators (Raymond 2010). According to the 2015–2016 School Survey on Crime and 

Safety (SSOCS), 42 percent of all public schools reported having one or more SRO present once a week, 

and 11 percent reported having sworn law enforcement officers present (who are not considered SROs). 

Most middle schools (59 percent) and high schools (68 percent) reported having SROs, compared with 

only about one third (30 percent) of primary/elementary schools (Diliberti et al. 2017). 

Discretion and Decision-Making 

An officer’s use of authority and discretion when responding to offenses committed by youths plays

an integral part in determining which youths formally become a part of the juvenile justice system. Of 

the nine juvenile justice contact points defined by OJJDP (Feyerherm, Snyder, and Villaruel 2009), there 

are three (arrest, referral to court, and diversion) where police have the most influence. When faced 

2 The terms police officer or law enforcement are used interchangeably to represent both patrol officers and SROs due to the 

similarities in how they carry out their roles and use discretion (Wolf 2014). However, when there is specific research about 

SROs, they are noted as such. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

with an occurrence of law violation by youths, officers may 1) warn youths about the future 

consequences of continued antisocial and delinquent behavior and release them, 2) divert3 youths away 

from system involvement and refer them to community-based services, or 3) arrest youths and refer 

them to court (Wilson and Hoge 2013; Potter and Kakar 2002). While there are certainly organizational 

determinants of police discretion, street-level police officers and SROs have a substantial amount of 

latitude in selecting how to carry out their work (Mastrofski 2004; Wolf 2014). As laws, statutes, and 

ordinances can be vague, officers use their discretion to make on-the- spot decisions (Skogan and Frydl 

2004). Many officers view policing as a “craft” and rely on the knowledge, skills, and judgment they 

have acquired through their daily experiences patrolling to make decisions on how to respond to youth 

crime and delinquency (Willis 2013; Willis and Mastrofski 2016). Such decisions are shaped and guided 

not only by officer experience, but also by legal and extralegal factors. For more information, please see 

the Factors that Influence Police–Youth Interactions section. 

Investigative Tactics 

To aid them in their ability to solve crimes, law enforcement officers are trained in various investigative 

and interrogation techniques, such as the Reid Technique, which trains them to evaluate verbal and 

nonverbal cues regarding a suspect’s guilt (Inbau et al. 2013). 

There is a limited research base on how police use such tactics with juveniles (Feld 2006; Feld 2013). 

Given that youths are psychosocially different from adults, several researchers have sought to 

determine whether police are aware of adolescent development theory and have applied that 

knowledge during their interrogations with youths (Kostelnik and Reppucci 2009; Meyer and Reppucci 

2007). Cleary and Warner (2016) found that police officers interview and interrogate youths in the same 

way as adults, which highlights a need for more research on such training methods, whether they 

should be used universally, and if the application of such techniques has any impact on the outcomes 

of youth and police contact. Future research on this topic area may investigate whether intellectual and 

emotional immaturity of youths increases their risk for poor comprehension and false confessions 

(Goldstein et al. 2003). 

Factors that Influence Police–Youth Interactions 

A substantial body of criminological research suggests that interactions between police and youths are 

often influenced by a convergence of factors and that these factors, including legal and extralegal factors 

as well as the attitudes and perceptions of law enforcement and youth, can influence police–youth 

contact (Brown and Benedict 2002, Pope and Snyder 2003; Skogan and Frydl 2004; Brown 2005; Wolf 

2014). 

Legal Factors 

Probable cause is usually required by police to meet the legal grounds for stopping youths, taking them 

into custody, and making an arrest (Brown 2005). There are certain legal factors that influence police 

decisions, including seriousness of the alleged offense, the strength of the evidence, presence of a 

3 For more information on diversion, refer to the Model Programs Guide literature review on Diversion from Formal Juvenile 

Court Processing. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

weapon, characteristics of the victim or the willingness of the victim or complainant to press charges, 

prior police contact with the youth, and prior arrest and criminal record (Alpert et al. 2004). Studies 

have indicated that when the offense is serious (e.g., a felony) and the available evidence is strong, 

police are more likely to arrest a youth (Piliavin and Briar 1964; Sealock and Simpson 1998; Myers 2003). 

When police encounter youths who have had previous police contact, have a conviction for a status 

offense, or are on probation or parole, they are also more likely to make an arrest (Piliavin and Briar 

1964; Pope and Snyder 2003; Myers 2004; Carrington and Schulenberg 2004). 

Some analyses have examined the effect of victim characteristics on youth arrest. Pope and Snyder 

(2003) found that the following characteristics predicted whether an arrest was made: 1) number of 

victims; 2) victim age, sex, and race; 3) whether the victim was injured; and 4) whether the victim was 

a family member or acquaintance. If the offense was serious, but the victim requested that no arrest be 

made, then the police officers may have used their discretion on whether to arrest a youth (Worden and 

Myer 2000). SROs consider the same legal factors when making arrest decisions, but are more likely to 

make arrests to maintain order in the school over making arrests due to a violation of the law (Wolf 

2014). However, there is a limited body of research that fully explores how such legal factors influence 

police–youth interactions. 

Extralegal Factors 

Police officer decision-making is not only influenced by the law (Brown 2005). There are also extralegal 

factors that influence police decisions to arrest youth, such as 1) the characteristics of the environment 

in which police–youth contact occurs, 2) the characteristics of the officers and the youths involved in 

the contact, and 3) the characteristics of the police organization (Black and Reiss 1970; Engel and Calnon 

2004; Skogan and Frydl 2004). 

Environmental Factors. The characteristics of the environment (e.g., crime level, police patrol presence, 

socioeconomic level, neighborhood disorganization) influence police behaviors and decisions to arrest 

(Sanborn and Salerno 2005). In general, research suggests that in areas with high crime and 

neighborhood disorder, police officers anticipate more danger and threats to community safety; 

therefore, they are more likely to use physical restraint, authority, and arrests (Skogan and Frydl 2004). 

In terms of police–youth interactions, Stoudt, Fine, and Fox (2011) found that 73 percent of stops 

involving youths included at least one environmental factor such as the crime being committed in a 

high-crime area and the time of day or month. However, factors such as neighborhood disorganization 

are considered ineffective at predicting police behaviors with youth (Pope and Snyder 2003). 

Environmental factors also play a part in the role of SROs, who help with problem-solving in schools. 

SROs also have more opportunities to have informal conversations with students and help refer them 

to perform community service (Finn and McDeVitt 2005). 

Though balancing public safety and law enforcement safety while on patrol are important to consider 

when discussing interactions that result in police use of force (Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services 2012), there is limited research on how working in stressful and dangerous environments 

influences police interactions (Anshel 2000), especially with youth. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Individual Officer Factors. An officer’s age, race, gender, social class, academy and department

training, workload, and views of the juvenile justice system are all examples of individual factors that 

can influence police–youth encounters (Sanborn and Salerno 2005). Younger officers, 34 years of age or 

less, are more likely to arrest youths than older, more experienced officers (Allen 2005). While neither 

social class nor gender have a direct influence on the outcomes of most police–youth interactions 

(Skogan and Frydl 2004), Brown, Novak and Frank (2009) found that the race of an officer can predict 

use of authority and arrest decisions. Also, in their study of rural officers in Kentucky, Skaggs and Sun 

(2017) found that the officer’s background characteristics, including race, sex, education, having 

children, and occupational attitudes (such as rehabilitation and dispositional beliefs) were significantly 

related to authoritative and supportive police behaviors and decisions to arrest. 

Officers’ workloads can influence their likelihood to enforce certain laws (Sanborn and Salerno 2005), 

such as juvenile curfew laws4, especially given that most juvenile crimes occur during the day and the 

small effect that such curfew laws have on crime (Wilson et al. 2016). Also, Haarr (2001) suggested that 

the influence of academy training on decision-making in the field depends on how much the training 

is reinforced by police departments. Many law enforcement officers lack up-to-date training on 

adolescent brain development and best practices for interacting with youths (Thurau et al. 2013). 

Overall, there is limited research on the impact of these factors on police–youth interactions (Skogan 

and Frydl 2004). 

Individual Youth Factors. Individual factors related to the youth (e.g., age, race, gender, social class, 

demeanor) are predictors of police decisions to arrest (Sanborn and Salerno 2005). Youths and males 

are more likely to be arrested than adults and girls (Mastrofski, Worden, and Snipes 1995; Pope and 

Snyder 2003, Allen 2005). Black and minority youths are more likely to be stopped, questioned, and 

arrested than whites (Brown 2005; Conley 1994). But it is unknown if the disproportionate contacts with 

police are due to racial bias, the perception that more frequent and serious offenses are committed by 

minority youths than white youths, or some other factor. Also, Piliavin and Briar (1964) suggested that 

other than having a prior record, a youth’s demeanor or “contriteness” was the most crucial factor in

police decisions to arrest. A youth who is respectful is more likely to receive a warning, whereas a youth 

with a negative attitude or who disrespects police officers is four times more likely to be taken into 

custody or arrested (Lundman, Sykes, and Clark 1978; Allen 2005; Brown, Novak, and Frank 2009). 

However, the influence of these factors on police–youth interactions has not been fully studied. 

Organizational Factors. A police department’s culture and beliefs are reflected in their practices, 

policies, and procedures, and thereby in their officers’ decisions and actions (Skogan and Frydl 2004; 

Chappell, MacDonald, and Manz 2006). There are a host of practices and strategies that police officers 

employ to prevent or reduce youth violence in communities, which have the potential to influence 

police–youth interactions. Proactive policing practices such as order-maintenance/zero-tolerance 

policing, hot spots policing, or community- and problem-oriented policing5, are law enforcement efforts 

4 For more information, refer to the CrimeSolutions.gov practice profile for Juvenile Curfew Laws, which can be found at: 

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/PracticeDetails.aspx?ID=58 

5 For more information on community/problem-oriented policing, refer to the Model Programs Guide literature review on 

Community- and Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

designed to prevent crime from occurring (Eck and Maguire 2000; Skogan 2006; Sherman and Weisburd 

1995; Braga et al. 2001). Though criminological evaluations of these practices primarily focus on adult 

crime, some studies suggest that 1) an analysis of the pattern and geographical location of youth crime 

is essential to crime reduction efforts; 2) youth crime is strongly concentrated in places likely to attract 

juvenile activity, such as schools and/or youth centers, shops/malls, and restaurants; and 3) these hot 

spots are important opportunities for violence prevention (Baumer et al. 1998; Sickmund, Snyder, and 

Poe-Yamagata 1997; Weisburd, Morris, and Groff 2009). Though such strategies do not necessarily lead 

to disproportionate application of police practices, they do contribute to a substantial number of 

interactions between police and youth and lead to more juvenile arrests. 

Consequently, police and youth often hold vastly different views of law enforcement practices (Gau 

and Brunson 2010). Though law enforcement rationale behind these practices is intended to reduce 

instances of youth violence or crime and improve youth and community safety, youths may interpret 

such strategies as additional police presence or “surveillance” in their schools and communities as an

indication that they are viewed as untrustworthy, suspicious, and potential criminals (Fine and Smith 

2001; Michie 2001; Fine et al. 2003; Brunson and Weitzer 2009; Nordberg et al. 2016). This is discussed 

further in the Youth Attitudes and Perceptions section below. 

Law Enforcement Attitudes 

There is relatively little research on attitudes of law enforcement toward youth. Some research suggests 

that the individual officer factors and organizational factors (noted above) may influence their attitudes. 

In addition, other factors, such as punitive attitudes toward offenders and proactive personality types, 

may also influence their attitudes (Furnham and Alison 1994; Mohr and Luscri 1995). 

Furthermore, officers may perceive criminal conduct by a youth as being different than similar behavior 

from an adult and may use different responses (Brown, Novak, and Frank 2009). For example, when a 

juvenile is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, police are more likely to release the youth than to 

make an arrest; in the case of underage drinking, police are also more likely to offer assistance (Worden 

and Myer 2000). Parker, Mohr, and Wilson (2004) examined Australian police officers’ punitive

attitudes toward offenders and their likelihood to divert adults and youths. The likelihood to divert 

adults was predictive of officers’ likelihood to divert youths; however, the officers diverted adults and

youths for different reasons. The study found that police officers’ attitudes toward youth and education 

level were significantly correlated to their likelihood to divert youths, whereas officers’ ages were the

strongest predictor of their likelihood to divert adults (i.e., older officers were less likely to divert). 

However, this study was based on scenarios, not actual police-youth interactions, with police officers 

in another country. Therefore, additional research is needed with regard to law enforcement attitudes 

toward youths, and how these attitudes may impact police-youth interactions. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Youth Attitudes and Perceptions 

The relevance of examining youth attitudes toward police has been established in the literature 

(Stewart, Morris, and Weir 2014), and studies that have explored youth–police relations have found 

that youths’ attitudes toward law enforcement directly influence their willingness to engage with the 

police (Forman 2004; Solis et al. 2009; Murphy 2015). Compared with the research on the attitudes of 

law enforcement toward youth, there has been considerable attention dedicated to examining 

predictors of youth attitudes toward law enforcement (Brown and Benedict 2002; Flexon, Greenleaf, 

Dariano, and Gibson 2016; Hagan, Shedd, and Payne 2005; Hardin 2004; Leiber, Nalla, and Farnworth 

1998; Taylor et. al. 2001; Wu, Lake, and Cao 2015). In general, research has found that demographic 

factors, community factors, and perceptions of procedural justice impact youths’ perceptions of and

attitudes toward law enforcement. 

Demographic Factors. Numerous studies have found a relationship between a youth’s demographic

factors (including age, race, and gender) and their attitudes toward law enforcement. For instance, age 

has been examined in studies comparing youths with adults and in studies comparing older youths 

with younger youths. These studies have generally found that youths hold a less favorable opinion of 

police than adults (Taylor et al. 2001; Brown and Benedict)6 and that younger youths have more 

favorable attitudes toward police than older youths (Brick, Taylor, and Esbensen 2009; Hagan, Shedd, 

and Payne 2005; Redner-Vera and Galeste 2015). For example, in their study of students in Chicago, 

Hagan, Shedd, and Payne (2005) found that ninth graders perceived less criminal injustice (i.e., racial 

disproportionalities in American rates of arrest, imprisonment, and capital punishment), compared 

with tenth graders. However, not all studies found age to be a significant influence (e.g., Wu, Lake, and 

Cao 2013). 

Race appears to be the most examined of the demographic variables. Various studies have found that 

race influences youth attitudes toward police (e.g., Brick, Taylor, and Esbensen 2009; Flexon, Greenleaf, 

Dariano, and Gibson 2016; Hardin 2004; Brunson and Weitzer 2009; Hurst, Frank, and Browning 2000), 

and some of these studies have found that race is one of the most robust factors in determining such 

attitudes (Nordberg et al. 2016; Taylor et. al. 2001; Wu, Lake, and Cao 2015; Leiber, Nalla, and 

Farnworth 1998). For example, in their study of male youths either accused of delinquency or 

adjudicated as delinquent in one of four Iowa counties, Leiber, Nalla, and Farnworth (1998) found that 

minority youths consistently expressed more negative views of the police than did white youths, and 

that race/ethnicity was the strongest predictor of perceptions of police fairness and police 

discrimination. When studying 13- to 18-year-old students across multiple U.S. cities, Wu, Lake, and 

Cao (2015) found that both black and Latino students were significantly less satisfied with police than 

white students. Nevertheless, some studies did not find race to be significant. Hurst (2007) found that 

race was not a significant predictor of attitudes toward police, in his examination of rural high school 

students in Southern Illinois. 

6 Some researchers have argued that youths’ less favorable opinions of police result from defining “the police” globally rather

than more explicitly (Watkins and Maume 2012). Schuck and Rosenbaum (2005) found, in their research on residents’ attitudes

toward police, that there is strong support for the need to differentiate between global and neighborhood (i.e., explicit) 

perceptions of law enforcement. However, this topic area is not discussed in this literature review. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other studies have gone further to examine ethnic identity. For example, Redner-Vera and Galeste (2015) 

found that Native American youths who identify closely with their ethnic group indicated negative 

attitudes toward law enforcement. Studies also suggested that Latinos have negative attitudes toward 

the police (Rengifo and McCallin 2017; Rengifo and Fratello 2015). When examining self-report data 

from African American juveniles who committed offenses, Lee, Steinberg, and Piquero (2011) found 

that those with a stronger sense of ethnic identity perceived more police discrimination, but also 

reported more positive beliefs about police legitimacy. But few, if any, studies have examined how the 

attitudes of African American parents and elders toward police, passed down via racial socialization, 

have influenced youth–police contact (Brunson and Weitzer 2011). 

Finally, some studies have found that gender influences attitudes, with female youths showing more 

favorable attitudes than male youths (Hagan, Shedd, and Payne 2005; Hardin 2004; Redner-Vera and 

Galeste 2015). However, not all studies have found gender to be a significant influence (e.g., Brick, 

Taylor, and Esbensen 2009; Wu, Lake, and Cao 2015). For example, Brick, Taylor, and Esbensen (2009) 

found that after accounting for theoretical factors such as levels of delinquency, victimization, police 

contact, and community factors, gender was not a significant factor in predicting attitudes toward 

police. 

Delinquency versus Prosocial Attitudes and Behaviors. Participation in delinquent activities, attitudes 

favorable to delinquent involvement, or commitment to delinquent peers or delinquent norms predict 

attitudes toward police (Brick, Taylor, and Esbensen 2009; Leiber, Nalla, and Farnworth 1998; RednerVera and Galeste 2015). In their study of juveniles in Iowa, Leiber and colleagues (1998) found that 

youths with delinquent attitudes were more likely than others to believe that the police discriminate 

against minorities; this belief was not affected by their actual contacts with the police. Redner-Vera and 

Galeste (2015) found that Native American youths who reported higher levels of delinquency and 

delinquent peers indicated more negative attitudes toward police. 

However, involvement in conventional activities, such as religious activities, athletics, school activities, 

and employment, has been shown to have a positive effect on attitudes toward police. Wu, Lake, and 

Cao (2015) found that social bonds, particularly commitment to school and attachment to their fathers, 

were significant predictors of juveniles’ perceptions of the police; with many youth respondents 

believing that police officers were hard-working, friendly, and respectful toward people like them. 

Community Context. Much research has focused on exploring how contextual factors (e.g., where 

people live and community conditions) affect how youths view law enforcement. For example, 

researchers who have investigated more than one community have found significant differences in 

youth attitudes toward police by city of residence or type of neighborhood (Taylor et al. 2001; Brunson 

and Weitzer 2009). In their analysis of youths in six cities, Wu, Lake, and Cao (2015) found that youths 

from some cities had significantly more positive views of police than their counterparts in other cities. 

Differences have also been found between youths living in rural and urban communities. In his analysis 

of youths participating in the GREAT program (discussed in the Outcome Evidence section below), 

Hardin (2004) found that juveniles living in small rural/suburban areas held more favorable attitudes 

than those living in large urban areas. Similarly, Hurst and Frank (2000) found that youths living in 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

urban areas held less favorable attitudes than those living in suburban areas. 

Perceptions of crime and disorder also predict youths’ attitudes toward police (Maxson, Hennigan, and 

Sloane 2003; Reisig and Parks 2000; Cao et al. 1996; Jesilow and Meyer 1995). Redner-Vera and Galeste 

(2015) found that the safer youths reported feeling in their neighborhood, the more likely they were to 

report positive attitudes toward police. Brick, Taylor, and Esbensen (2009) found that lower levels of 

strain (e.g., poverty, unemployment) in the community were associated with more favorable attitudes 

toward police among a diverse group of youths across the United States. Hurst (2007) found that 

juveniles who believed that crime had increased within their neighborhood expressed less satisfaction 

with the police. 

Contact with Police and Perceived Procedural Justice 

Police contact has consistently been found to influence youth attitudes and perceptions toward law 

enforcement, with much of the research showing that youths who have more contact with police hold 

less favorable attitudes (Brick, Taylor, and Esbensen 2009; Hagan, Shedd, and Payne 2005). In their 

examination of youths living in three high-crime Philadelphia neighborhoods, Carr, Napolitano, and 

Keating (2007) found that most of the youths were “negatively disposed toward police,” which was 

based on their negative encounters with law enforcement (p. 446). Leiber, Nalla, and Farnworth (1998) 

found that although delinquent youths’ attitudes toward police did not develop solely as a function of 

police contact, these contacts did have an effect: whether youths were warned and released, brought to 

the police station, or wrongly accused predicted a juvenile’s respect for police, perceptions of police

fairness, and perceptions of police discrimination toward minorities. 

As mentioned above, proactive law enforcement policies often result in an increase in interactions 

between police and youths. Fine and colleagues (2003) found that even though youths recognized the 

benefit of reduced crime, increased police presence also led them to 1) mistrust the police and other 

adults in authority, 2) feel alienated and unsafe in their communities, and 3) feel unwelcomed in public 

spaces. Similarly, Hurst (2007) found that youths who reported seeing the police outside their 

neighborhoods, on a regular basis, were less positive toward police in general and were more likely to 

negatively assess police job performance. Such attitudes are more prevalent in poor and minority 

communities because of concerns with how these practices have led to disproportionate minority 

contact or the disproportionate representation of minority youths in the juvenile justice system (Conley 

1994). For example, Brunson and Miller (2006) found that urban minority young men are primary 

recipients of proactive policing efforts and are likely to have accumulated negative experiences in their 

interactions with law enforcement. 

Part of the research examining youth contact with law enforcement explores perceived procedural 

justice and beliefs about police legitimacy. Researchers have found that the citizens’ feelings about 

police legitimacy depend more on their perceptions of how police treat them than their success in 

reducing crime; thus, support for and confidence in police depends on perceptions of police officers’

motives more than whether the outcome was favorable (Gallagher et al. 2001). The link between police 

legitimacy and procedural justice has also been found in studies of youths, but these studies have been 

conducted primarily outside the United States (Hinds 2007; Murphy and Gaylor 2010). This link is 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

important because cooperation with police is most effectively harnessed when youths view police as 

legitimate (Hinds 2009; Lee et al. 2011; Murphy and Gaylor 2010). 

For example, in their study of encounters between youths and police officers in Chicago, Friedman, 

Lurigio, Greenleaf, and Albertson (2004) found that youths, who felt that officers had disrespected them 

or others, were also less likely to trust and respect the police or to believe that officers are fair or care 

about the community, when compared with youths who felt respected by officers. Also, in their 

research on ethnic minority, San Francisco-based youth gang members, Novich and Hunt (2017) found 

that male and female gang members regularly experienced disrespectful police behavior in terms of 

physical and verbal abuse. Their findings indicated that these exchanges contribute to negative 

attitudes, fear, and distrust of police, while respectful interactions are meaningful and can contribute 

to positive attitudes toward officers. Perceptions of procedural justice can also be developed 

secondhand, in addition to direct contact (Rosenbaum et al. 2005). Hurst (2007) found that juveniles 

who had seen or heard of police misconduct toward a third party were consistently less positive in their 

attitudes toward law enforcement. 

In addition to affecting attitudes, some research has found that implementation of proper procedural 

justice components can diminish the link between police-initiated contact and increased delinquency. 

Slocum, Wiley, and Esbensen (2016) found that the negative consequences of being stopped or arrested 

are mitigated (but not eliminated) when contact is perceived favorably. Pickering and Klinger (2016) 

also suggested that enhancing police legitimacy can increase law enforcement safety and reduce the 

amount of force used during interactions. Thus, police use of procedural justice is important for 

improving youth attitudes toward police, encouraging cooperation with police, and decreasing the 

negative impacts of police–youth contact. 

Overall, each of the factors that influence police–youth interactions—police attitudes and perceptions, 

youth attitudes and perceptions, legal factors, and extralegal factors—can all influence and interact with 

each other for a different impact. For example, youth are the group most likely to engage in antisocial 

and delinquent behaviors leading to crime, and police target their strategies to prevent such crimes and 

ensure public safety. However, in treating youths as threats to order, police contribute to their negative 

attitudes toward law enforcement (Forman 2004). Such attitudes and perceived unfair treatment during 

an interaction can lead juveniles to mistrust the police and show less respect during interactions. This 

lack of respect can result in law enforcement officers changing their attitudes toward youths, leading 

to a level of hostility that results in a negative youth–police encounter (Hinds 2007). Even one negative 

contact with law enforcement can outweigh 10 positive contacts (Skogan 2006), reinforce and magnify 

previously held negative attitudes (Leiber et al. 1998), and thereby hinder the ability of police and youth 

to form positive relationships. Poor police–youth relationships impede the willingness of youths to 

cooperate with and support the police (Forman 2004), which negatively affects law enforcement’s

ability to be effective at violence prevention. Unfortunately, very limited research has been conducted 

on the impact of such factors on police–youth relationships or on the rapport between law enforcement 

and youth. However, research does suggest that such relationships are forged during each police–youth 

contact and that the nature of the contact impacts the relationship (Hinds 2007). 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outcome Evidence 

There have been several types of programs implemented in various jurisdictions across the country that 

were designed to improve interactions between police officers and youths. These include school- or 

community-based prevention programs; police-led diversion programs (or diversion programs in 

which police are involved); police training programs; and community-based policing programs. Some 

are designed specifically to improve police–youth relationships (such as police athletic leagues). Others 

incorporate elements that are designed to improve interactions between police and youth, but their 

primary goals may be different (such as substance use prevention for the DARE program). With other 

programs, such as those implemented by police in the community, the overall goal is to improve 

community safety and reduce crime rates; however, as these programs provide an opportunity to have 

police and youth interact with one another, the ultimate goal is to change behaviors related to crime 

and delinquency. 

The sections below provide an overview of 1) research on particular prevention programs, diversion 

programs, police trainings, and community-based policing interventions; and 2) a review of the 

outcome evidence currently available for such programs. There is a brief discussion at the end of the 

section about the limitations of available research on programs involving youth and law enforcement. 

Prevention Programs 

Prevention programs are designed with specific goals (such as the prevention of substance use or gang 

involvement) and target the general youth population. A few programs also have secondary goals of 

improving law enforcement and youth interactions, primarily by having police officers implement the 

programs. Below are examples of prevention programs that bring together law enforcement and youths 

in various settings. The research discussed for the programs below focuses primarily on studies that 

examined measures of police–youth interactions (such as attitudes, beliefs, or perceptions), when 

available. 

 The primary goal of the original Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)7 curriculum (which 

was provided in classrooms between 1983 and 2009) was to teach effective peer resistance and 

refusal skills so that adolescents could say “no” to drugs and to their friends who wanted them

to use drugs. The program was a partnership between schools and local police, as police officers 

implemented the program in the classroom. As Shuck (2013) explained, DARE had the potential 

to improve youths’ attitudes and perceptions toward police by “(a) opening lines of

communication between officers and youth; (b) by humanizing the police; and (c) by enabling 

adolescents to observe officers engaging with youth in a helpful manner rather than in an 

enforcement role” (p. 582). There have been several evaluations looking at the effectiveness of

the original DARE curriculum, although not many have specifically examined changes in 

students’ perceptions of police. In a 1994 evaluation of DARE, Rosenbaum and colleagues found

there was no statistically significant effect on students’ perceptions of police, although the

direction of the effect was in favor of DARE. Conversely, a meta-analysis by Ennett and 

7 The CrimeSolutions.gov program profile for DARE can be found at: 

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=99 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

colleagues (1994) found that DARE did have a statistically significant positive effect on 

perceptions of police (mean effect size=0.13). Shuck (2013) used data from a longitudinal 

randomized controlled study of DARE to examine the developmental trajectory regarding 

youths’ perceptions of police as they aged from adolescence to young adulthood. The results

showed that DARE was associated with a delay in the decline in adolescents’ positive attitudes

about the police when youths were in 5th or 6th grade, as well as a strong rebound effect when 

youths were in 11th or 12th grade, suggesting there may be long-term benefits of DARE 

participation on youths’ perceptions of police. 

 The Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT)8 program is a school-based, gang- and 

violence-prevention program with three primary goals: 1) to teach youths to avoid gang 

membership, 2) to prevent violence and criminal activity, and 3) to assist youths in developing 

positive relationships with law enforcement. The program uses a cognitive-based curriculum 

that teaches skills such as conflict resolution, responsibility, appreciating cultural diversity, and 

goal setting (Esbensen et al. 2001). Like DARE, the program primarily uses uniformed law 

enforcement personnel to teach students. Some GREAT programs use SROs to implement the 

program, while others rely on patrol officers (Esbensen et al. 2012). A quasi-experimental design 

by Ramsey, Rust, and Sobel (2003) found that while there was a significant improvement in the 

experimental group’s attitudes toward police officers from pretest to posttest, there were no

significant differences between experimental and control group students at posttest. However, 

a longitudinal quasi-experimental study by Esbensen and colleagues (2012) found that the 

program had a small, positive effect on prosocial attitudes toward the police. GREAT students 

reported a statistically significant and more positive opinion of police officers than students in 

the control group at the 1-year follow up. 

 Police Athletic League (PAL) programs were developed to prevent juvenile crime and violence 

by providing civic, athletic, recreational, and educational opportunities for youths, including 

basketball, boxing, and mentoring. A study by Rabois and Haaga (2002) of a PAL basketball 

program in an urban area found that, while police officers’ attitudes toward youths significantly

improved from the pretest to posttest, youths’ attitudes toward police did not significantly

change. However, the study was limited by a small sample size and the lack of a comparison 

group. 

 The Teen and Police Services (TAPS) Academy is an 11-week police mentorship program in 

Houston, Texas. Police mentors are paired with youths who have been placed in juvenile 

detention, alternative schools, or other restrictive settings. Like DARE and GREAT, the program 

was designed to confront issues between police and youths. The goal of the TAPS Academy is 

to reduce the social distance between youths and police officers. Police–youth groups meet 

weekly to discuss topics such as drug prevention, bullying, and gang violence. An evaluation 

by Jones, Penn, and Davenport (2015), using a single-group, pretest–posttest design, found that 

youths who participated in the TAPS Academy showed significant improvement in measures 

of social distance, with certain subgroups (such as Hispanic/Latino and male youths) reporting 

8The CrimeSolutions.gov program profile for GREAT can be found at: 

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=249 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

more favorable perceptions of police. However, the study was also limited by a lack of 

comparison group, short follow-up period, and lack of behavioral measures. 

 Police Working with Youth in Non-Enforcement Roles was a program funded by the State of 

Connecticut that allowed local communities to develop programs to enhance positive police 

interactions with youths. Communities could offer different types of programs. Some 

communities offered police academies, which were law enforcement classes and seminars that 

included lectures, demonstrations, military drills like those conducted at adult police 

academics, and field trips to police facilities (Anderson, Sabatelli, and Trachtenberg 2007). Some 

communities offered police explorers/scouts programs, which involved youths participating in 

police operations that were designed to develop their interests in the law enforcement field. 

Youths learned about basic skills and procedures (such as traffic control, crime prevention, 

bomb threat response, and emergency first aid). A few communities also offered 

afterschool/mentoring programs, where police worked with youths in many ways, such as on field 

trips and in sports-related activities. A 2007 evaluation by Anderson, Sabatelli, and 

Trachtenberg looked at outcome measures, including youth personal adjustment, social 

competencies, positive adult–youth connections, and positive youth–community connections; 

overall, there were no statistically significant differences between youths who participated in 

the programs and those who did not participate. However, the study did not directly measure 

youths’ perceptions or attitudes toward police. The study also did not examine the independent

effects of the various types of funded programs. 

 The State of Connecticut also funded Police and Youth Interaction Programs, which were 

designed to promote positive youth development by engaging police and youths in community 

activities. Police officers interacted with youths in non-law enforcement roles and participated 

in activities such as ropes courses or bowling. Programs included team-building components, 

leadership opportunities for youths, and community service projects. Unlike the Police Working 

with Youth in Non-Enforcement Roles program, Police and Youth Interaction Programs were 

not allowed to use police-oriented curricula such as DARE, police academies, or police explorer 

activities. A pretest–posttest study by Goodrich, Anderson, and LaMotte (2014) found that there 

was a statistically significant improvement in youths’ attitudes toward police over time. For 

police, attitudes toward youths also improved over time, but the change did not reach statistical 

significance. Although the study did examine not only youths’ attitudes, but also police

attitudes, the study was limited by the absence of a comparison group. 

Diversion Programs 

There are various types of diversion programs that may involve interactions between law enforcement 

and youth. One approach is police-initiated diversion programs. Police-initiated or police-led diversion 

programs can include cautions, warn and release, and referrals to services. These programs provide an 

alternative to processing youths in the juvenile justice system and tend to target those suspected of 

minor offenses (such as misdemeanors or status offenses) or those with no prior records. Diversion 

typically occurs prior to referral to court (i.e., precharge) and at the discretion of the arresting officer 

(Tallon, Spadafore, and Labriola 2016). 

A survey of law enforcement agencies by Tallon, Spadafore, and Labriola (2016) found that 21 percent 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of respondents had a formal, agency-wide police diversion program (including programs for both 

adults and juveniles). Of those reporting a police diversion program, juvenile diversion programs were 

the most prevalent type (89 percent). 

With regard to research on police-led diversion programs, a meta-analysis by Wilson and Hoge (2013) 

on the effects of youth diversion programs (including police-led and court-based programs) found that 

caution programs had a statistically significant positive effect in reducing recidivism, compared with 

traditional justice system processing, especially for low-risk youths. Similarly, in a recent meta-analysis 

by Wilson, Brennan, and Olaghere (2017) of studies looking at the effects of police-initiated diversion 

programs to prevent delinquency, overall findings indicated that diversion was associated with lower 

rates of recidivism, and that this effect was statistically significant. 

Restorative justice programs also provide ways for law enforcement to proactively respond to juvenile 

offending and strengthen ties to the community, by having police officers play an active role in program 

services (Hipple and McGarrell 2008). For example, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, a Police-Based Family 

Group-Conferencing Program was implemented, based on the Wagga Wagga model from Australia 

(Baffour 2006). The program targeted juveniles who had committed their first offenses, which were not 

felonies, drug/alcohol, or sex offenses. Trained on-duty police officers served as facilitators among 

juveniles, their victims, and their family and friends, to discuss the harm caused by the juveniles’

offenses and appropriate reparation for the harm. A study by Baffour (2006) did not find statistically 

significant impacts of the program on youth participants. McCold (2003) examined the impact of the 

program on law enforcement’s attitudes toward their activities and roles as police. The study found

that the attitudes, organizational culture, and role perceptions of 18 police officers who participated in 

the Bethlehem study did not significantly change. However, the study also found that youth 

participants, victims, and parents reported high rates of satisfaction and perceptions of fairness with 

the police-based restorative justice response. 

Another example, the Indianapolis (Ind.) Family Group Conferencing9 diversion program, targeted 

young juveniles (no older than 14) who had committed their first offenses. The program was 

implemented with police officers and sheriff’s deputies serving as facilitators. The goal was to break 

the cycle of youths’ offending before it reached the stage of repeat offending (McGarrell et al. 2000). A 

2007 study by McGarrell and Hipple, however, showed overall mixed results in terms of recidivism 

rates of youth participants. The study authors also compared the outcomes of conferences coordinated 

by municipal police officers, compared with Indianapolis school police officers. The results showed a 

statistically significant decrease in the hazard rate for arrest by the municipal police officers (17 

percent), when compared with the school police officers. This suggested that patrol officers may be 

more appropriate facilitators than school police officers; however, the study authors cautioned that 

there were various reasons why the outcomes from cases involving municipal police officers differed 

from the school police officers, and that it was not clear what accounted for the observed differences. A 

2008 study by Hipple and McGarrell compared family group-conferencing sessions facilitated by police 

officers with those facilitated by civilians. The study found that conferences run by police were 

9The CrimeSolutions.gov program profile for Indianapolis Family Group Conferencing can be found at: 

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=250 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

procedurally similar and resulted in similar recidivism rates as those run by civilians (although police 

facilitators were found to lecture youth participants more than civilian facilitators did). The findings 

suggest that police can serve as facilitators in a family group-conferencing diversion program, without 

interfering with the process and intent of the program. 

Results from a recent meta-analysis of restorative justice programs and practices showed police 

cautioning and other diversion programs had the largest positive effect on delinquency outcomes, 

compared with other restorative justice program types, suggesting that these programs might be 

effective for low-risk and first-time youth offenders (Wilson, Olaghere, and Kimbrell 2017). 

Police Training Programs 

There have not been many police training programs focusing specifically on law enforcement and youth 

interactions that have been designed and evaluated. The 2013 Census of Law Enforcement Training 

Academies found that although 97 percent of academies provided juvenile justice law/procedures 

training, the average number of hours of instruction required for recruits was only 10 hours, compared 

with 71 hours required for firearms skills (Reaves 2016). Below are some examples of police training 

programs specifically focused on improving interactions between law enforcement and youth. 

 Baltimore Outward Bound Police Insight Program is a 1-day program that brings together 

police officers and middle school youths to participate in team-building activities (such as ropes 

course or wall-climbing challenges) in an outdoor setting outside the city. While youths 

volunteer to participate, the program is a part of a mandatory training curriculum for the 

Baltimore Police Department. Police officers and youths participate in various group activities, 

with the overall goal of improving the quality of officer–youth interactions (Broaddus et al. 

2013). Although there has been a qualitative study of the program, there has not been a formal 

evaluation conducted. 

 Effective Policing with Youth is a 1-day policing training curriculum designed to reduce 

disproportionate minority contact (DMC) in Connecticut by decreasing the odds that 

interactions between police officers and youths will lead to arrest, especially for minority 

youths. The goals of the training are to improve officers’ awareness of DMC; increase officers’

knowledge of youth behavior and strategies for interacting with youths; improve officers’

attitudes toward youths; increase the likelihood that interactions between police and youths 

will have a positive outcome; and increase the likelihood that youths will respond positively to 

police (Sanderson et al. 2008; LaMotte et al. 2010). LaMotte and colleagues (2010) conducted an 

experimental design study of the training program and found that, at the 5- to 7-month followup period, officers who participated in the training displayed statistically significant increases 

in their knowledge scores as well as significant improvements in attitude measures, compared 

with the non-trained control group. However, the study focused on measures of attitudes and 

knowledge and did not examine changes to police officers’ actual behaviors. Therefore, it is still

unclear if the training program impacts interactions between police officers and youths. 

 De-Escalating Juvenile Aggression Training Program was a 1-day training curriculum designed 

to teach selected police officers in Nebraska about developmental factors that can contribute to 

juveniles’ aggressive behavior, appropriate methods to handle aggressive juveniles, and verbal 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

skills needed to de-escalate aggressive (and potentially aggressive) youths (Herz 2001). 

Specifically, the curriculum focused on the differences between adults and juveniles, the 

developmental process that impacts juveniles’ emotions, and the psychological and social 

factors that affect juvenile aggression. Herz (2001) conducted a pretest–posttest study with an 

unmatched comparison group to examine the effects of the curriculum on police officers’

attitudes toward handling juveniles. At the 5-month follow up, trained officers showed 

statistically significant, positive improvement on the Handle Scale (which measured officers’

views of their role in handling aggressive juveniles), compared with untrained officers. 

However, there were no other differences between the groups on any other attitudinal measure. 

The study also did not measure police officers’ changes in behaviors, if any, as a result of

participating in the training program. 

 Chicago Police Department’s (CPD’s) Crisis Intervention Team for Youth (CIT-Y) Training is a 

5-day course to teach police officers how to respond to youths with mental, emotional, or 

behavioral disorders (Skorek and Westley 2016). The CIT-Y training was designed to prepare 

CPD officers to identify youths in crisis, assess their risk of harm, and use de-escalation 

techniques to respond to youths and reduce trauma for those involved (including the officers, 

youths, and the youths’ families). Participation in the training is voluntary, but officers are

required to have already completed the adult CIT training. The goals of the training include 

diverting youths in crisis away from the justice system to community-based mental health 

treatment, and promoting safe interactions between police and youths with mental, emotional, 

or behavioral disorders. Skorek and Westley (2016) used a pretest–posttest study design to 

examine the training’s impact on officers’ knowledge relating to the curriculum objectives.

Officers’ knowledge of risk and de-escalation and service call disposition (but not identification) 

significantly improved from pre- to posttest (a comparison group was included, but only in the 

pretest analysis before the training; posttest analysis only included training participants). As 

with previous research, the study did not include measures of officers’ behaviors following the

training; the lack of a comparison group at posttest also limited the ability to assess the trained 

officers’ knowledge of responding to youths appropriately. 

 Youth-Police Initiative (YPI) brings together at-risk adolescents and police officers who patrol 

their neighborhoods, with the goal of building better relationships (Watts and Washington 

2014). The program (usually 6 or 7 days long, over a 2-week period) takes place in a 

neighborhood-based setting, which is convenient for all participants. The first week of YPI 

focuses on teaching youths about specific interaction skills such as public speaking. Police 

officers join the training during the second week and learn about interacting and building 

relationships with youths. Youths and police officers share their life stories during the program 

and are encouraged to ask each other questions. Team-building activities are also part of YPI, to 

have youths and officers work together on a more informal basis (Watts and Washington 2014). 

Although there has been an evaluability assessment of the program, there has not been a formal 

evaluation conducted. 

 In 2017, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) released a toolkit for law 

enforcement agencies entitled Enhancing Police Responses to Children Exposed to Violence: A 

Toolkit for Law Enforcement. The toolkit discusses topics such as on-scene protocols, police 

responses to children’s traumatic stress, responding to the needs of children at scenes of 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

domestic violence, and the importance of police–youth interactions in situations involving CEV. 

The toolkit was designed to help police play an important role in ensuring that victimization 

and exposure to violence does not lead to harmful and negative outcomes for youths such as 

involvement in delinquency or gangs, substance use, or posttraumatic stress disorder (IACP 

2017). However, the impact of the toolkit has not been formally evaluated. 

Community-Based Policing Programs 

The programs above were specifically designed with a primary (or secondary) goal of improving 

police–youth interactions and relationships. The policing programs described below are not necessarily 

designed with the intent to improve police–youth relations, but do involve interactions between law 

enforcement and youths in the community. 

 Operation Ceasefire10 is a problem-solving police strategy in Boston, Massachusetts, which 

seeks to reduce gang violence, illegal gun possession, and gun violence in communities. The 

goals of the program are to carry out a comprehensive strategy to apprehend and prosecute 

offenders who carry firearms, to put others on notice that offenders face certain and serious 

punishment for carrying illegal firearms, and to prevent youths from following the same 

criminal path. A study by Braga and colleagues (2001) found a reduction in youth homicides, 

citywide gun assaults, and calls for service. A 2005 study by Braga and Pierce also found a 

statistically significant reduction in the percentage of recovered handguns. 

 Operation Peacekeeper11 is a community and problem-oriented policing program that was 

implemented in 1997 to address gun violence among youth gang members in Stockton, 

California. The program’s goal was to reduce gang involvement among urban youths ages 10 

to 18 and decrease gun-related violence among gang-involved youths. It was modeled after 

Operation Ceasefire, which was implemented by the Boston Police Department. An evaluation 

by Braga (2008) demonstrated that Operation Peacekeeper was associated with an overall 42 

percent decrease in the monthly number of gun homicide incidents in Stockton. 

 In response to high numbers of gang crimes, the Dallas Police Department implemented the 

Anti-Gang Initiative12. The goal of the initiative was to reduce gang-related crime among 

juveniles in Dallas using specialized police strategies. The program implemented three main 

suppression tactics: 1) aggressive curfew enforcement, 2) aggressive truancy enforcement, and 

3) simple saturation patrol. Fritsch and colleagues (1999) found statistically significant decreases 

in violent gang-related offenses in areas targeted by the initiatives, but no significant reductions 

in gang-related offenses reported to police. 

 The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project (GVRP)13 was a comprehensive, 

community-wide program designed to reduce serious violence in Chicago’s gang-ridden Little 

10The CrimeSolutions.gov program profile for Operation Ceasefire can be found at: 

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=207 

11The CrimeSolutions.gov program profile for Operation Peacekeeper can be found at: 

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=51 

12The CrimeSolutions.gov program profile for the Dallas Anti-Gang Initiative can be found at: 

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=174 

13The CrimeSolutions.gov program profile for Little Village GVRP can be found at: 

https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=278 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Village neighborhood. The main goal of the GVRP was to reduce the extremely high level of 

serious gang violence, first at the individual gang member level, and then at the aggregate 

(especially gang and community) level. The foundation of the GVRP was the Comprehensive 

Gang Model (also known as the Comprehensive Community-Wide Gang Program Model, the 

Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Intervention Model, and the Spergel Model). The five 

core elements of the Comprehensive Gang Model are 1) community mobilization, 2) social 

intervention, 3) provision of social opportunities, 4) suppression, and 5) organizational change 

and development of local agencies and groups. Overall, an evaluation by Spergel and colleagues 

(2003) found mixed results. The GVRP appeared to have had a statistically significant effect in 

reducing arrests for violent crimes, serious violent crimes, and drug crimes; however, it did not 

affect arrests for property crimes or total arrests. 

Limitations to Research 

Overall, the strength of the evidence and the rigor of the program evaluations differ across the types of 

programs related to law enforcement and youth interactions. For example, DARE and GREAT have 

been evaluated using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs (QEDs), 

respectively. But other prevention programs (such as police athletic leagues) have not yet been 

rigorously evaluated. In addition, for those programs that have been evaluated (whether with RCTs, 

QEDs, or simple pretest–posttest designs), one limitation to the research has been the outcome 

measures. Most studies have examined attitudes or perceptions of youths or police after participating 

in a program or training, but rarely measured the impacts on actual behavioral changes. When 

behavioral change is measured, as with community-based policing programs, it is often measured as 

changes in crime rates, which may not reflect changes in police–youth interactions. 

Another limitation to the research is that there are some programs that law enforcement and youth 

considered to be successful, but are not recognized as a part of the evidence. This is due in part to the 

fact that program evaluations are not typically qualitative in nature or do not incorporate 

implementation science in their analysis. There is a limited amount of research that examines whether 

programs are being implemented as designed or if findings from impact evaluations can be 

operationalized to inform day-to-day practices between police officers and youth (Booz Allen Hamilton 

2018). 

Conclusion 

Interactions between law enforcement and youth, whether youth-initiated or police-initiated, occur 

often and in many different settings, such as on the street, in malls, in schools, as well as other public 

or private places. Concerns with youth, officer, and community safety are always present during these 

interactions, but the available information suggests that there is much that is still unknown about the 

nature of police-youth contact. Though law enforcement officers have higher rates of work-related 

injuries (BLS 2016), youths under the age of 18 only commit a small number of assaults and police 

killings every year (FBI 2016). Although the juvenile arrest rate has been declining for many years, there 

were still nearly 1 million arrests of individuals under age 18 in 2015 (OJJDP, 2017). These statistics 

underscores the complicated nature of police-youth contact, and the importance of understanding and 

improving interactions. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

During such encounters, there are several legal, individual, organizational, and environmental factors 

that affect police officers’ perceptions of youth and the decisions that they make. These factors can also

influence youths’ perceptions and behaviors toward law enforcement. However, there is no consensus 

on the overall impact of such factors, or whether one factor, such as officers’ concerns for community

safety and their own safety, compete with other factors, such as youths’ perceived demeanor toward 

police. Despite a limited understanding of interactions between law enforcement and youth, there are 

several programs, including prevention programs, police-led diversion programs, and communitybased policing programs, that are either specifically designed to improve interactions or incorporate 

secondary elements that can have an impact on interactions between police officers and youth. Yet, an 

analysis of the available research and outcomes evidence suggests that more research is needed to 

improve the quality and applicability of research on law enforcement and youth interactions. 

In 2017, OJJDP convened a group of researchers, practitioners, and federal staff to discuss the current 

state of research on interactions between law enforcement and youth; the goal was to identify research 

strategies that could inform OJJDP’s efforts to support officer, youth, and community safety. From the

meeting, the following considerations regarding future research were identified: 

1. There are often multiple stakeholder groups and a single evaluation may not be able to 

determine a program’s impact for all groups simultaneously. Thus, future research can a) seek 

to better understand the often-competing factors that influence youth–police interactions; and 

b) measure different types of interactions and experiences occurring between youth and law 

enforcement. 

2. Some law enforcement–youth activities thought to be successful by practitioners are not 

evidence-based programs or practices. Thus, future research can a) balance the confines and 

structure of research with the practical needs of law enforcement and communities; b) include 

evaluations that consider law enforcement’s perspective about programs and their definition of

a successful impact on youth interactions; and c) help translate research findings into practice 

within the field (Booz Allen Hamilton 2018). 

References 

Allen, Terrence T. 2005. “Taking a Juvenile into Custody: Situational Factors That Influence Police

Officers' Decisions.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 32(2):121–29. 

Alpert, Geoffrey P., Roger Dunham, Meghan Stroshine, Katherine Bennett, and John MacDonald. 2004. 

Police Officers’ Decision Making and Discretion: Forming Suspicion and Making a Stop. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Anderson, Stephen A., Ronald M. Sabatelli, and Jennifer Trachtenberg. 2007. “Community Police and 

Youth Programs as a Context for Positive Youth Development.” Police Quarterly 10(1):23–40. 

Anshel, Mark H. 2000. “A Conceptual Model and Implications for Coping with Stressful Events in 

Police Work.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 27(3):375–400. 

Baffour, Tiffany D. 2006. “Ethnic and Gender Differences in Offending Patterns: Examining Family

Group Conferencing Interventions Among At-Risk Adolescents.” Child and Adolescent Social 

Work Journal 23(5-6):557–78. 

Baumer, Eric, Janet L. Lauritsen, Richard Rosenfeld, and Richard Wright. 1998. “The Influence of Crack

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cocaine on Robbery, Burglary, and Homicide Rates: A Cross-city, Longitudinal 

Analysis.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35(3):316–40. 

Black, Donald J., and Albert Reiss, Jr. 1970. “Police Control of Juveniles.” American Sociological Review 

35(1):63–77. 

Blader, Steven I., and Tom R. Tyler. 2003. “A Four-Component Model or Procedural Justice: Defining 

the Meaning of a ‘Fair’ Process.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(6):747–58. 

Bonnie, Richard. J., Robert. L. Johnson, Betty M. Chemers, and Julie Schuck. 2013. Reforming Juvenile 

Justice: A Developmental Approach. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. 

Booz Allen Hamilton. 2018. “Notes from the Research on Interactions Between Law Enforcement and

Youth Discussion.” Report submitted to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/251458.pdf 

Braga, Anthony. 2008. “Pulling Levers Focused Deterrence Strategies and the Prevention of Gun 

Homicide.” Journal of Criminal Justice 36(4):332–43. 

Brady, Kevin P., Sharon Balmer, and Deinya Phenix. 2007. “School-Police Partnership Effectiveness in 

Urban Schools: An Analysis of New York City’s Impact Schools Initiative.” Education and Urban 

Society 39(4):455–78. 

Braga, Anthony A., David M. Kennedy, Elin J. Waring, and Anne Morrison Piehl. 2001. “ProblemOriented Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: An Evaluation of Boston’s Operation 

Ceasefire.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38(3):195–225. 

Braga, Anthony A., and Glenn L. Pierce. 2005. “Disrupting Illegal Firearms Markets in Boston: The

Effects of Operation Ceasefire on the Supply of New Handguns to Criminals.” Criminology & 

Public Policy 4(4):717–48. 

Broaddus, Elena T., Kerry E. Scott, Lianne M. Gonsalves, Canada Parrish, Evelyn L. Rhodes, Samuel E. 

Donovan, and Peter J. Winch. 2013. “Building Connections Between Officers and Baltimore City

Youth: Key Components of a Police-Youth Teambuilding Program.” OJJDP Journal of Juvenile 

Justice 3(1):48–62. 

Brick, Bradley T., Terrance J. Taylor, and Finn-Aage Esbensen. 2009. “Juvenile Attitudes Towards the

Police: The Importance of Subcultural Involvement and Community Ties.” Journal of Criminal 

Justice 37(5):488–95. 

Brown, Robert. 2005. “Black, White, and Unequal: Examining Situational Determinants of Arrest

Decisions from Police-Suspect Encounters.” Criminal Justice Studies 18(1):51–68. 

Brown, Robert, and W.R. Benedict. 2002. “Perceptions of Police: Past Findings, Methodological Issues, 

Conceptual Issues, and Policy Implications.” Journal of Criminal Justice 25:543–78. 

Brown, Robert A., Kenneth Novak, and James Frank. 2009. “Identifying Variation in Police Officer

Behavior between Juveniles and Adults.” Journal of Criminal Justice 37(2):200–8. 

Brunson, Rod K., and Jody Miller. 2005. “Young Black Men and Urban Policing in the United

States.” British Journal of Criminology 46(4):613–40. 

Brunson, Rod K., and Ronald Weitzer. 2011. “Negotiating Unwelcome Police Encounters: The

Intergenerational Transmission of Conduct Norms.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 

40(4):425–56. 

Brunson, Rod K., and Ronald Weitzer. 2009. “Police Relations with Black and White Youths in Different

Urban Neighborhoods.” Urban Affairs Review 44(6):858–85. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Cao, L., J. Frank, and F. T. Cullen. 1996. “Race, Community Context, and Confidence in the Police.”

American Journal of Police 15(1):3–22. 

Carr, Patrick J., Laura Napolitano, and Jessica Keating. 2007. “We Never Call the Cops and Here is Why:

A Qualitative Examination of Legal Cynicism in Three Philadelphia 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neighborhoods.” Criminology 45(2):445–80. 

Carrington, Peter J., and Jennifer L. Schulenberg. 2004. Prior Police Contacts and Police Discretion with 

Apprehended Youth. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. 

Center for Applied Research in Human Development. 2008. Effective Police Interactions with Youthtraining Evaluation: Full Report: Prepared for the State of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. 

Storrs, Ct.: University of Connecticut. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. 2017. Youth Violence: Definitions. Atlanta, Ga.: CDC, 

Injury Prevention & Control, Division of Violence Prevention. 

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/definitions.html 

Chappell, Allison T., John M. MacDonald, and Patrick W. Manz. 2006. “The Organizational

Determinants of Police Arrest Decisions.” Crime & Delinquency 52(2):287–306. 

Cleary, Hayley, and Todd C. Warner. 2016. “Police Training in Interviewing and Interrogation

Methods: A Comparison of Techniques Used with Adults and Juvenile Suspects.” Law and 

Human Behavior 40(3):270–84. 

Conley, Darlene J. 1994. “Adding Color to a Black and White Picture: Using Qualitative Data to Explain 

Racial Disproportionality in the Juvenile Justice System.” Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency 31(2):135-44. 

Diliberti, Melissa, Michael Jackson, Jana Kemp, and Rachel Hansen. 2017. Crime, Violence, Discipline, and 

Safety in U.S. Public Schools: Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2015–16. First 

Look. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

Institute of Education Sciences. 

Durose, Matthew, and Lynn Langton. 2013. Requests for Police Assistance, 2011. Special Report. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. 

Eck, John E., and Edward R. Maguire. 2000. “Have Changes in Policing Reduced Violent Crime? An 

Assessment of the Evidence.” The Crime Drop in America 207:228. 

Eith, Christine, and Matthew R. Durose. 2011. Contacts between Police and the Public, 2008. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Engel, Robin Shepard, and Jennifer M. Calnon. 2004. “Examining the Influence of Drivers’

Characteristics During Traffic Stops with Police: Results from a National Survey.” Justice 

Quarterly 21(1):49–90. 

Ennett, Susan T., Dennis P. Rosenbaum, Robert L. Flewelling, Gayle S. Bieler, Christopher L. Ringwalt, 

and Susan L. Bailey. 1994. “Long-term Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education.”

Addictive Behaviors 19:113–25. 

Esbensen, Finn–Aage, Dana Peterson, Terrance J. Taylor, and D. Wayne Osgood. 2012. “Results from a

Multisite Evaluation of the G.R.E.A.T. Program.” Justice Quarterly 29(1):125–51. 

Esbensen, Finn–Aage, Dana Peterson, Terrance J. Taylor, and D. Wayne Osgood. 2001. “How Great is

G.R.E.A.T.? Results from a Longitudinal Quasi-Experimental Design.” Criminology & Public 

Policy 1(1):87–118. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]. 2016. Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2015. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2015 

Feld, Barry C. 2006. “Police Interrogation of Juveniles: An Empirical Study of Policy and Practice.” The 

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology: 219–316. 

Feld, Barry C. 2013. “Real Interrogation: What Actually Happens When Cops Question Kids.” Law & 

Society Review 47(1):1–36. 

Feyerherm, William, Howard N. Snyder, and Francisco Villarruel. 2009. “Identification and 

Monitoring.” In Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Manual, Fourth 

Edition. Washington, D.C: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Fine, Michelle, and Kersha Smith. 2001. “Zero Tolerance: Reflections on a Failed Policy that Won’t Die.” 

In R. Ayers, W. Ayers, B. Dohrn, and J. Jackson (Eds.). Zero Tolerance: Resisting the Drive for 

Punishment. New York, N.Y.: New Press, 256–63. 

Fine, Michelle, Nick Freudenberg, Yasser Payne, Tiffany Perkins, Kersha Smith, and Katya Wanzer. 

2003. “‘Anything Can Happen with Police Around’: Urban Youth Evaluate Strategies of

Surveillance on Public Places.” Journal of Social Issues 59(1):141–58. 

Finn, Peter, and Jack McDevitt. 2005. National Assessment of School Resource Officer Programs Final Project 

Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice. 

Finkelhor, David, Heather Turner, Anne Shattuck, and Sherry Hamby. 2015. “Prevalence of Childhood 

Exposure to Violence, Crime, and Abuse: Results from the National Survey of Children’s

Exposure to Violence.” JAMA Pediatrics 169(8):746-54. 

Flexon, Jamie L., Richard G. Greenleaf, Dustin S. Dariano, and Dorian Gibson. 2016. “An Examination

of Police Stops and Youths’ Attitudes toward Police: Do Interracial Encounters Matter?” Journal 

of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 14(1):21–39. 

Forman Jr., James. 2004. “Community Policing and Youth as Assets.” Journal of Criminal Law and 

Criminology 95(1):1–48. 

Friedman, Warren, Arthur J. Lurigio, Richard Greenleaf, and Stephanie Albertson. 2004. “Encounters

between Police Officers and Youths: The Social Costs of Disrespect.” Journal of Crime and 

Justice 27(2):1–25. 

Fritsch, Eric, Tory J. Caeti, and Robert W. Taylor. 1999. “Gang Suppression Through Saturation Patrol,

Aggressive Curfew, and Truancy Enforcement: A Quasi-Experimental Test of the Dallas AntiGang Initiative.” Crime & Delinquency 45(1):122–39. 

Furnham, Adrian, and Laurence Alison. 1994. “Theories of Crime, Attitudes to Punishment and Juror 

Bias Amongst Police, Offenders and the General Public.” Personality and Individual Differences 

17(1):35–48. 

Gallagher, Catherine, Stephen D. Mastrofski, Edward Maguire, and Michael D. Reisig. 2001. The Public 

Image of the Police. Final Report to IACP. Manassas, Va.: George Mason University, 

Administration of Justice Program. 

Gau, Jacinta M., and Rod K. Brunson. 2010. “Procedural Justice and Order Maintenance Policing: A 

Study of Inner-City Young Men’s Perceptions of Police Legitimacy.” Justice Quarterly 27:225–79. 

Goldstein, Naomi E. Sevin, Lois Oberlander Condie, Rachel Kalbeitzer, Douglas Osman, and Jessica L. 

Geier. 2003. “Juvenile Offenders’ Miranda Rights Comprehension and Self-Reported Likelihood 

of Offering False Confessions.” Assessment 10(4): 359–69. 

Goodrich, Samantha A., Stephen A. Anderson, and Valerie LaMotte. 2014. “Evaluation of a Program 

Designed to Promote Positive Police and Youth Interactions.” Journal of Juvenile Justice 3(2):55. 

Hagan, John, Carla Shedd, and Monique R. Payne. 2005. “Race, Ethnicity, and Youth Perceptions of 

Criminal Injustice. American Sociological Review 70(3):381–407. 

Hardin, J. A. 2004. Juveniles’ Attitudes toward the Police as Affected by Prior Victimization. Master’s thesis. 

Johnson City, Tenn.: East Tennessee State University. 

Haarr, Robin N. 2001. “The Making of a Community Policing Officer: The Impact of Basic Training and

Occupational Socialization on Police Recruits.” Police Quarterly 4(4):402–33. 

Hawdon, James. 2008. “Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles: A Theoretical

Statement.” Police Quarterly 11(2):182–201. 

Herz, Denise C. 2001. “Improving Police Encounters with Juveniles: Does Training Make a Difference?”

Justice Research and Policy 3(2):57–77. 

Hinds, Lyn. 2007. “Building Police—Youth Relationships: The Importance of Procedural Justice.” Youth 

Justice 7(3):195–209. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hinds, Lyn. 2009. “Youth, Police Legitimacy and Informal Contact.” Journal of Police and Criminal 

Psychology 24(1):10–21. 

Hipple, Natalie Kroovand, and Edmund F. McGarrell. 2008. “Comparing Police- and Civilian-Run 

Family Group Conferences.” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 

31(4):553–77. 

Hockenberry, Sarah and Charles Puzzanchera. 2017. Juvenile Court Statistics 2014. Pittsburgh, Pa.: 

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Hurst, Yolander G. 2007. “Juvenile Attitudes toward the Police: An Examination of Rural 

Youth.” Criminal Justice Review 32(2):121–41. 

Hurst, Yolander G., and James Frank. 2000. “How Kids View Cops: The Nature of Juvenile Attitudes 

Toward the Police.” Journal of Criminal Justice 28:189–202. 

Hurst, Yolander G., James Frank, and Sandra Browning. 2000. “The Attitudes of Juveniles Toward the

Police: A Comparison of Black and White Youth.” Policing: An International Journal of Police 

Strategies and Management 23(1):37–53. 

Hyland, Shelley, Lynn Langton, and Elizabeth Davis. 2015. Police Use of Nonfatal Force, 2002-11. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. 

Inbau, F. E., J.E. Reid, J.P. Buckley, and B.C. Jayne. 2013. Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (5th ed.). 

Burlington, Mass.: Jones & Bartlett Learning. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP]. n.d. The Effects of Adolescent Development on Policing. 

Alexandria, Va.: International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP]. 2017. Enhancing Police Responses to Children Exposed 

to Violence: A Toolkit for Law Enforcement. Alexandria, Va.: International Association of Chiefs of 

Police. http://www.theiacp.org/Children-Exposed-to-Violence 

Jesilow, P., and J. Meyer. 1995. “Public Attitudes toward the Police.” American Journal of Police 14:67–88. 

Jones, Chenelle A., Everette B. Penn, and Shannon Davenport. 2015. “Social Distance between Minority

Youth and the Police: An Exploratory Analysis of the TAPS Academy.” Journal of Juvenile Justice 

4(1):30–46. 

Kostelnik, J. O., and N.D. Reppucci. 2009. “Reid Training and Sensitivity to Developmental Maturity in

Interrogation: Results from a National Survey of Police.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law 27:361–

79. 

LaMotte, Valerie, Kelly Ouellette, Jessica Sanderson, Stephen A. Anderson, Iva Kosutic, Julie Griggs, 

and Marison Garcia. 20010. “Effective Police Interactions with Youth: A Program Evaluation.”

Police Quarterly 13(2):161-79. 

Langton, Lynn, and Matthew Durose. 2013. Police Behavior During Traffic and Street Stops, 2011. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. 

Lee, Joanna M., Laurence Steinberg, and Alex R. Piquero. 2010. “Ethnic Identity and Attitudes Toward

the Police Among African American Juvenile Offenders.” Journal of Criminal Justice 38:781–89. 

Lee, Joanna M., Laurence Steinberg, Alex R. Piquero, and George P. Knight. 2011. “Identity-linked 

Perceptions of the Police Among African American Juvenile Offenders: A Developmental 

Perspective.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 40(1):23–37. 

Leiber, Michael J., Mahesh K. Nalla, and Margaret Farnworth. 1998. “Explaining Juveniles’ Attitudes 

Toward the Police.” Justice Quarterly 15(1):151–74. 

Leroux, Elisabeth J., and Kelly McShane. 2017. “Changing Youth Attitudes Toward the Police through 

Community Policing Programming.” Journal of Community Psychology 45(6):810–22. 

Liederbach, John. 2007. “Controlling Suburban and Small-Town Hoods: An Examination of Police 

Encounters with Juveniles.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 5(2):107–24. 

Lum, Cynthia, and Daniel S. Nagin. 2017. “Reinventing American Policing.” Crime and Justice 46(1):339–

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93. 

Lundman, Richard J., Richard E. Sykes, and John P. Clark. 1978. “Police Control of Juveniles: A

Replication.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 15(1):74–91. 

Mastrofski, Stephen D. 2004. “Controlling Street-level Police Discretion.” The Annals of the American 

Academy of Political and Social Science 593(1):100–18. 

Mastrofski, Stephen D., Jeffrey B. Snipes, and Anne E. Supina. 1996. “Compliance on Demand: The

Public’s Response to Specific Police Requests.” Journal of Research in Crime and 

Delinquency 33(3):269–305. 

Mastrofski, Stephen D., Robert E. Worden, and Jeffrey B. Snipes. 1995. “Law Enforcement in a Time of

Community Policing. Criminology 33(4):539–63. 

Maxson, C., K. Hennigan, and D. Sloane. 2003. Factors that Influence Public Opinion of the Police. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of 

Justice. 

McCold, Paul. 2003. “An Experiment in Police-Based Restorative Justice: The Bethlehem (PA) Project.”

Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 4(4):379–90. 

McGarrell, Edmund F., Kathleen Olivares, Kay Crawford, and Natalie Kroovand Hipple. 2000. 

Returning Justice to the Community: The Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice Experiment. 

Indianapolis, Ind.: Hudson Institute, Crime Control Policy Center. 

Meyer, Jessica R., and N. Dickon Reppucci. 2007. “Police Practices and Perceptions Regarding Juvenile

Interrogation and Interrogative Suggestibility.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law 25:757–80. 

Michie, Gregory. 2001. “Ground Zero.” In R. Ayers, W. Ayers, B. Dohrn, and J. Jackson (Eds.). Zero 

Tolerance: Resisting the Drive for Punishment. New York, N.Y.: New Press, 3–10. 

Moffitt, Terrie E. 1993. “Adolescence-Limited and Life-Court-Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A 

Developmental Taxonomy.” Psychological Review 100(4):674–701. 

Mohr, Philip B., and Giuseppa Luscri. 1995. “Blame and Punishment: Attitudes to Juvenile and 

Criminal Offending.” Psychological Reports 77(3):1091–96. 

Murphy, Kristina. 2015. “Does Procedural Justice Matter to Youth? Comparing Adults’ and Youths’

Willingness to Collaborate with Police.” Policing and Society 25(1):53–76. 

Murphy, Kristina, and Alana Gaylor. 2010. Policing Youth: Can Procedural Justice Nurture Youth 

Cooperation with Police? Working Paper No. 6. Geelong Vic., Australia: Deakin University, Alfred 

Deakin Research Institute. 

Murphy, Robert A., Robert A. Rosenheck, Steven J. Berkowitz, and Steven R. Marans. 2005. “Acute

Service Delivery in a Police-Mental Health Program for Children Exposed to Violence and 

Trauma.” Psychiatric Quarterly 76(2):107–21. 

Myers, Stephanie M. 2003. Police Encounters with Juvenile Suspects: Explaining the Use of Authority and 

Provision of Support. PhD diss. Albany, N.Y.: University at Albany, School of Criminal Justice. 

Na, Chongmin, and Denise C. Gottfredson. 2013. “Police Officers in Schools: Effects on School Crime

and the Processing of Offending Behaviors.” Justice Quarterly 30(4):619–50. 

Nagin, Daniel. 2013. “Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century.” In M. Tonry (Ed.). Crime and Justice in 

America: 1975–2025. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. 

Nordberg, Anne, Marcus R. Crawford, Regina T. Praetorius, and Schnavia Smith Hatcher. 2016. 

“Exploring Minority Youths’ Police Encounters: A Qualitative Interpretive Meta-Synthesis.”

Journal of Child Adolescence and Social Work 33:137–49. 

Novich, Madeleine, and Geoffrey Hunt. 2017. “Get Off Me: Perceptions of Disrespectful Police 

Behaviour Among Ethnic Minority Youth Gang Members.” Drugs: Education, Prevention, and 

Policy 24(3):248–55. 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and International Association of Chiefs of Police. 2012. 

Emerging Use of Force Issues: Balancing Public Order and Officer Safety. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]. 2014. Statistical Briefing Book. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05308.asp 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]. 2017. Statistical Briefing Book. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05101.asp?qaDate=2015 

Parker, Ann L., Philip B. Mohr, and Carlene Wilson. 2004. “Attitudinal and Personality Predictors of

Diversionary Behavior by Police.” Policing 27(1):9–21. 

Piliavin, Irving, and Scott Briar. 1964. “Police Encounters with Juveniles.” American Journal of 

Sociology 70(2):206–14. 

Pickering, Jordan C., and David A. Klinger. 2016. “Enhancing Police Legitimacy by Promoting Safety

Culture.” Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance 21:21–39. 

Pope, Carl E., and Howard E. Snyder. 2003. “Race as a Factor in Juvenile Arrests.” OJJDP Juvenile Justice 

Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Potter, Roberto Hugh, and Suman Kakar. 2002. “The Diversion Decision-Making Process from the 

Juvenile Court Practitioners’ Perspective: Results of a Survey.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal 

Justice 18(1):20–36. 

Puzzanchera, Charles. 2014. Juvenile Arrests 2012. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report Series. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Rabois, Dana, and David A. F. Haaga. 2002. “Facilitating Police-Minority Youth Attitude Change: The 

Effects of Cooperation within a Competitive Context and Exposure to Typical Exemplars.”

Journal of Community Psychology 30(2):189–95. 

Ramsey, Alison L., James O. Rust, and Susan M. Sobel. 2003. “Evaluation of the Gang Resistance and 

Training Program: A School-Based Prevention Program.” Education 124(2):297–309. 

Raymond, Barbara. 2010. Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Response Guides Series No. 10: Assigning Police 

Officers to School. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services. 

Reaves, Brian A. 2015. Local Police Departments, 2013: Personnel, Policies, and Practices. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Reaves, Brian A. 2016. State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academics, 2013. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Redner-Vera, Erica, and Marcus-Antonio Galeste. 2015. “Attitudes and Marginalization: Examining

American Indian Perceptions of Law Enforcement Among Adolescents. Journal of Ethnicity in 

Criminal Justice 13(4):283–308. 

Rengifo, Andres, F., and Jennifer Fratello. 2015. “Perceptions of the Police by Immigrant Youth: Looking

at Stop-and-Frisk and Beyond Using a New York City Sample.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 

13(4):409–27. 

Rengifo, Andres F., and Morgan McCallin. 2017. “‘You Don’t Get Respect if You Give No Respect’: How

Black and Latino Youth Make Sense of Encounters with Police.” Sociological Focus 50(1):66–80. 

Reisig, M. D., and R.B. Parks. 2000. “Experience, Quality of Life, and Neighborhood Context.” Justice 

Quarterly 17:607–29. 

Rosenbaum, Dennis P., Amie M. Schuck, Sandra K. Costello, Darnell F. Hawkins, and Marianne K. 

Ring. 2005. “Attitudes Toward the Police: The Effects of Direct and Vicarious Experience.” Police 

Quarterly 8(3):343–65. 

Sanborn, Joseph B., and Anthony W. Salerno. 2005. The Juvenile Justice System: Law and Process. Los 

Angeles, Calif.: Roxbury Publishing Company. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sanderson, Jessica, Iva Kosutic, Julie Griggs, and Stephen Anderson. 2008. Effective Police Interactions 

with Youth: Training Evaluation. Storrs, Ct.: Center for Applied Research in Human 

Development. 

Schuck, Amie M. 2013. “A Life-Course Perspective on Adolescents’ Attitudes to Police: DARE, 

Delinquency, and Residential Segregation.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 

50(4):579–607. 

Schuck, Amie M., and Dennis P. Rosenbaum. 2005. “Global and Neighborhood Attitudes Toward the 

Police: Differentiation by Race, Ethnicity and Type of Contact.” Journal of Quantitative 

Criminology 21(4):391–418. 

Schur, E.M. 1973. Radical Nonintervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 

Prentice- Hall. 

Sealock, Miriam D., and Sally S. Simpson. 1998. “Unraveling Bias in Arrest Decisions: The Role of

Juvenile Offender Type-scripts.” Justice Quarterly 15(3):427–57. 

Sherman, Lawrence W., and David Weisburd. 1995. “General Deterrent Effects of Police Patrol in Crime 

“Hot Spots”: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Justice Quarterly 12(4):625–48. 

Sickmund, Melissa, and Charles Puzzanchera. 2014. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014 National Report. 

Pittsburgh, Pa.: National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Sickmund, Melissa, Howard N. Snyder, and Eileen Poe-Yamagata. 1997. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 

1997 Update on Violence. Statistics Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Skaggs, Sherry Lynn, and Ivan Y. Sun. 2017. “Policing Juveniles in Rural Communities: Determinants 

of Officer Authoritative and Supportive Behavior.” Policing: An International Journal of Police 

Strategies & Management 40(2):244–64. 

Skogan, Wesley, and Kathleen Frydl. 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The 

Evidence. Washington D.C.: The National Academic Press. 

Skogan, Wesley G. 2006. “Asymmetry in the Impact of Encounters with Police.” Policing and 

Society 16(2):99–126. 

Skorek, Rebecca R., and Christine Devitt Westley. 2016. Evaluation of Chicago Police Department’s Crisis

Intervention Team for Youth (CIT-Y) Training Curriculum: Year 2. Chicago, Ill.: Illinois Criminal 

Justice Information Authority. 

Slocum, Lee Ann, Stephanie Ann Wiley, and Finn-Age Esbensen. 2016. “The Importance of Being

Satisfied: A Longitudinal Exploration of Police Contact, Procedural Injustice, and Subsequent 

Delinquency.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 43(1):7–26. 

Snyder, Howard N., Alexia D. Cooper, and Joseph Mulako-Wangota. 2017. Arrest in the United States, 

1980-2014. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=datool&surl=/arrests/index.cfm# 

Solis, Carmen, Edwardo L. Portillos, and Rod K. Brunson. 2009. “Latino Youths’ Experiences with and

Perceptions of Involuntary Police Encounters.” The ANNALS of the American Academy 623:39–51. 

Spergel, Irving A., Kwai Ming Wa, Susan F. Grossman, Ayad Jacob, Sungeun E. Choi, Rolando V. Sosa, 

Elisa M. Barrios, and Annot Spergel. 2003. The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in 

Chicago. Chicago, Ill.: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 

Stewart, Daniel M., Robert G. Morris, and Henriikka Weir. 2014. “Youth Perceptions of the Police: 

Identifying Trajectories. “Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 12(1):22–39. 

Stoudt, Brett G., Michelle Fine, and Madeline Fox. 2011. “Growing up Policed in the Age of Aggressive

Policing Policies.” New York Law School Law Review 56: 13-31. 

Tallon, Jennifer A., Joseph C. Spadafore, and Melissa Labriola. 2016. “Creating Off-Ramps: Lessons 

Learned from Police-Led Diversion Programmes.” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 11(2): 

214–28. 

Taylor, Terrance J., Kelly B. Turner, Finn-Aage Esbensen, and L. Thomas Winfree. 2001. ”Coppin’ an

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attitude: Attitudinal Differences Among Juveniles Toward Police.” Journal of Criminal 

Justice 29(4):295–305. 

Theriot, Matthew T. 2009. “School Resource Officers and the Criminalization of Student Behavior.” 

Journal of Criminal Justice 37:280–7. 

Thurau, Lisa H. 2009. “Rethinking How We Police Youth: Incorporating Knowledge of Adolescence

into Policing Teens.” Children’s Legal Rights Journal 29(3):30–48. 

Thurau, Lisa H., Paige Pihl Buckley, Geneva Gann, and Johanna Wald. 2013. If Not Now, When? A Survey 

of Juvenile Justice Training in America’s Police Academies. Cambridge, Mass.: Strategies for Youth. 

Tyler, Tom R., and Yuen Huo. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and 

Courts. New York, N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation. 

Tyler, Tom R., Jeffrey Fagan, and Amanda Geller. 2014. “Street Stops and Police Legitimacy: Teachable

Moments in Young Urban Men’s Legal Socialization.” Journal of Empirical Legal 

Studies 11(4):751–85. 

Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press. 

Watkins, Adam M., and Michael O. Maume. 2012. “Rethinking the Study of Juveniles’ Attitudes toward 

the Police.” Criminal Justice Studies 25(3):279–300. 

Watts, Brad, and Heather Washington. 2014. Evaluability Assessment of the NAFI Youth & Police Initiative 

Training: Final Report. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York, University at Albany, Center 

for Human Services Research. 

Weisburd, David, Nancy A. Morris, and Elizabeth R. Groff. 2009. “Hot Spots of Juvenile Crime: A

Longitudinal Study of Arrest Incidents at Street Segments in Seattle, Washington.” Journal of 

Quantitative Criminology 25(4): 443. 

Wiley, Stephanie A., and Finn-Aage Esbensen. 2016. “The Effect of Police Contact: Does Official

Intervention Result in Deviance Amplification?” Crime & Delinquency 62(3)283–307. 

Willis, James J., and Stephen D. Mastrofski. 2016. “Improving Policing by Integrating Craft and Science: 

What Can Patrol Officers Teach Us about Good Police Work?” Policing and Society, published 

online January 22, 2016. 

Willis, James J. 2013. “Improving Police: What’s Craft Got to Do with It?” Ideas in American Policing 16:1–

14. 

Wilson, Holly A., and Robert D. Hoge. 2013. “The Effect of Youth Diversion Programs on Recidivism: 

A Meta-Analytic Review.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 40(5):497–518. 

Wilson, David B., Ajima Olaghere, and Catherine S. Kimbrell. 2017. Effectiveness of Restorative Justice 

Principles in Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Wilson, David B., Charlotte Gill, Ajima Olaghere, and Dave McClure. 2016. ”Juvenile Curfew Effects 

on Criminal Behavior and Victimization: A Systematic Review.” Campbell Systematic 

Reviews 12(3). 

Wilson, David B., Iain Brennan, and Ajima Olaghere. 2017. “Police Initiated Diversion for Youth to

Prevent Future Delinquent Behaviors: A Systematic Review.” Campbell Systematic Reviews. 

Wilson, James Q. 1968. “Dilemmas of Police Administration.” Public Administration Review 28(5): 407–

17. 

Wolf, Kerrin C. 2014. “Arrest Decision Making by School Resource Officers.” Youth Violence and Juvenile 

Justice 12(2):137–51. 

Worden, Robert E., and Stephanie M. Myers. 2000. Police Encounters with Juvenile Suspects. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Wu, Yuning, Rodney Lake, and Liqun Cao. 2015. “Race, Social Bonds, and Juvenile Attitudes Toward 

the Police. “Justice Quarterly 32(3):445–70. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 31