ES • BALANCED APPROACH • FAMILY STRE

MENT • IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION • PROMIS

AMS • PEER GROUPS • CRIME REDUCTION 

UENCY PREVENTION • GRADUATED SANCTIO

FICATION • RISK FACTORS • PROTECTIVE F

ES • BALANCED APPROACH • FAMILY STRE

MENT • IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION • PROMIS

AMS • PEER GROUPS • CRIME REDUCTION 

UENCY PREVENTION • GRADUATED SANCTIO

FICATION • RISK FACTORS • PROTECTIVE F

ES • BALANCED APPROACH • FAMILY STRE

MENT • IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION • PROMIS

AMS • PEER GROUPS • CRIME REDUCTION 

UENCY PREVENTION • GRADUATED SANCTIO

FICATION • RISK FACTORS • PROTECTIVE F

ES • BALANCED APPROACH • FAMILY STRE

MENT • IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION • PROMIS

AMS • PEER GROUPS • CRIME REDUCTION 

UENCY PREVENTION • GRADUATED SANCTIO

FICATION • RISK FACTORS • PROTECTIVE F

ES • BALANCED APPROACH • FAMILY STRE

MENT • IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION • PROMIS

AMS • PEER GROUPS • CRIME REDUCTION 

UENCY PREVENTION • GRADUATED SANCTIO

FICATION • RISK FACTORS • PROTECTIVE F

ES • BALANCED APPROACH • FAMILY STRE

MENT • IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION • PROMIS

AMS • PEER GROUPS • CRIME REDUCTION 

UENCY PREVENTION • GRADUATED SANCTIO

FICATION • RISK FACTORS • PROTECTIVE F

ES • BALANCED APPROACH • FAMILY STRE

ENGTHENING • COMMU

ISING PROGRAMS • EFFE

• JUVENILE JUSTICE SYST

ONS • RISK ASSESSMENT

FACTORS • CONTINUUM

ENGTHENING • COMMU

ISING PROGRAMS • EFFE

• JUVENILE JUSTICE SYST

ONS • RISK ASSESSMENT

FACTORS • CONTINUUM

ENGTHENING • COMMU

ISING PROGRAMS • EFFE

• JUVENILE JUSTICE SYST

ONS • RISK ASSESSMENT

FACTORS • CONTINUUM

ENGTHENING • COMMU

ISING PROGRAMS • EFFE

• JUVENILE JUSTICE SYST

ONS • RISK ASSESSMENT

FACTORS • CONTINUUM

ENGTHENING • COMMU

ISING PROGRAMS • EFFE

• JUVENILE JUSTICE SYST

ONS • RISK ASSESSMENT

FACTORS • CONTINUUM

ENGTHENING • COMMU

ISING PROGRAMS • EFFE

• JUVENILE JUSTICE SYST

ONS • RISK ASSESSMENT

FACTORS • CONTINUUM

ENGTHENING • COMMU

ISING PROGRAMS EFFE

uide for

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJ DP BJS OVC

Implementing the

Comprehensive

Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile

Offenders

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

G

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJ DP BJS OVC
i

Guide for Implementing

the Comprehensive Strategy

for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders

Editor

James C. Howell, Director

Research and Program Development Division

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

May 1995

Developmental Research and

 Programs, Inc.

J. David Hawkins

Richard F. Catalano

Devon D. Brewer

Holly J. Neckerman

Sherry Wong

Pat Chappell

National Council on Crime and

 Delinquency

Barry Krisberg

David Onek

Richard Wiebush

Elliott Currie

Christopher Baird

Greg Pearce
ii

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office

of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
iii

Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................................ ix

Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................. xi

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................... xiii

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Arrest Trends ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Victimization ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Chronic, Serious, and Violent Career Patterns ........................................................................................................... 2

New Research on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders ................................................................... 3

Violent Careers............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Age of Onset................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Chronic Offending ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

Prevalence Rates .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Co-Occurring Problem Behaviors ............................................................................................................................. 4

Multiple Risk Factors .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Interacting Risk Factors .............................................................................................................................................. 5

Protective Factors ........................................................................................................................................................ 5

Developmental Pathways .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy .................................................................................................................. 7

General Principles ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

Target Populations ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

Program Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

The Juvenile Justice System ..................................................................................................................................... 10

Delinquency Prevention ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Graduated Sanctions ...................................................................................................................................................... 11

Intervention ................................................................................................................................................................ 12

Immediate Intervention .................................................................................................................................... 12

Intermediate Sanctions ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Secure Corrections..................................................................................................................................................... 13

Community Confinement ................................................................................................................................. 14

Incarceration in Training Schools, Camps, and Ranches.............................................................................. 14
iv

Expected Benefits ........................................................................................................................................................... 14

Delinquency Prevention ........................................................................................................................................... 14

Graduated Sanctions ................................................................................................................................................. 14

Crime Reduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Part I: A Blueprint for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders ......................................................................... 17

Strategy for the Prevention of Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Delinquency ...................................... 17

Foundations of Risk-Focused Prevention .............................................................................................................. 17

Risk Factors for Crime, Violence, and Substance Abuse ..................................................................................... 18

Risk Factors for Adolescent Problem Behaviors ................................................................................................... 18

Community Risk Factors .................................................................................................................................. 18

Family Risk Factors ............................................................................................................................................ 20

School Risk Factors ............................................................................................................................................ 21

Individual and Peer Group Risk Factors ........................................................................................................ 21

Generalizations About Risk ..................................................................................................................................... 22

Protective Factors Against Crime, Violence, and Substance Abuse ................................................................... 22

Social Development Strategy ................................................................................................................................... 23

Prevention Principles ................................................................................................................................................ 24

Planning and Implementing a Comprehensive Prevention Strategy ................................................................ 25

A Model for Implementing a Comprehensive Prevention Strategy .................................................................. 27

Selecting Program Strategies ............................................................................................................................ 28

A Risk-Focused Approach to Graduated Sanctions ................................................................................................ 28

Coordinating and Integrating Services .................................................................................................................. 29

The Role of Risk-Focused Classification ................................................................................................................ 30

Results of Previous Classification Studies ............................................................................................................. 31

Forming a Graduated Sanctions Working Group................................................................................................. 35

Determining Which Population Should Be Screened by the Classification System........................................ 36

Developing a Risk Assessment Instrument ........................................................................................................... 36

Developing a Needs Assessment Instrument ....................................................................................................... 36

Developing a Program Selection Matrix ................................................................................................................ 37

Developing Staff Override Procedures .................................................................................................................. 39

Applying the Program Matrix to the Selected Population .................................................................................. 40

Program Options: Filling in the Gaps .................................................................................................................... 41

Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Implementation, Management, and Evaluation ....................................................................................................... 46

Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy ......................................................................................................... 46

Coordinating the Prevention and Intervention Components...................................................................... 46

Securing Support for the Comprehensive Strategy ...................................................................................... 46

Ensuring Interagency Cooperation ................................................................................................................. 47

Staffing Issues ..................................................................................................................................................... 48
v

Case Management ..................................................................................................................................................... 48

Developing a Management Information System .................................................................................................. 49

Evaluating the Comprehensive Strategy ............................................................................................................... 53

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 54

Part II: Preventing Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Delinquency and Crime ......................................................................................................................................... 57

Effective Early Interventions ........................................................................................................................................ 57

Pre- and Perinatal/Early Education ....................................................................................................................... 57

Educare ................................................................................................................................................................ 58

Ages 4 to 6 .................................................................................................................................................................. 59

Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Childhood, Adolescence, and the Community ......................................................................................................... 60

Review of Prevention Programs ............................................................................................................................. 61

Classroom Organization, Management, and Instructional Strategies........................................................ 62

School Behavior Management Strategies ....................................................................................................... 67

Conflict Resolution and Violence Prevention Curriculums ......................................................................... 72

Peer Mediation ................................................................................................................................................... 77

Peer Counseling ................................................................................................................................................. 79

School Organization .......................................................................................................................................... 79

Parent Training ................................................................................................................................................... 84

Intensive Family Preservation Services—Home Visitation ......................................................................... 86

Marital and Family Therapy............................................................................................................................. 88

Mentoring ............................................................................................................................................................ 90

Afterschool Recreation Programs .................................................................................................................... 95

Gang Prevention ................................................................................................................................................. 96

Youth Service Programs .................................................................................................................................. 100

Vocational Training and Employment .......................................................................................................... 102

Community Laws and Policies Related to Weapons .................................................................................. 110

Policing Strategies ............................................................................................................................................ 118

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................... 127

Contacts for More Information on Effective Programs ......................................................................................... 129

Contacts for More Information on Promising Programs ...................................................................................... 130

Part III: Graduated Sanctions for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders ............................................................................................................................. 133

Core Principles of a System of Graduated Sanctions ............................................................................................ 133

Overview of Research on Graduated Sanctions ..................................................................................................... 134

Research on Individual Programs......................................................................................................................... 134

Research on State Systems ..................................................................................................................................... 136

Meta-Analyses ......................................................................................................................................................... 138

Literature on the Characteristics of Effective Programs .................................................................................... 140

Guidelines for Effective Programs ............................................................................................................................ 141

Effective Programs ....................................................................................................................................................... 143
vi

Program Search Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 143

Immediate Sanctions Programs............................................................................................................................. 144

Bethesda Day Treatment Center .................................................................................................................... 145

Choice Program ................................................................................................................................................ 145

Michigan State Diversion Project ................................................................................................................... 146

The North Carolina Intensive Protection Supervision Project .................................................................. 147

Intermediate Sanctions Programs ......................................................................................................................... 148

Family and Neighborhood Services Project ................................................................................................. 148

Lucas County Intensive Supervision Unit.................................................................................................... 149

Wayne County Intensive Probation Program .............................................................................................. 150

About Face ........................................................................................................................................................ 151

Spectrum Wilderness Program ...................................................................................................................... 152

VisionQuest ....................................................................................................................................................... 153

Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center ..................................................................................................................... 154

Secure Corrections................................................................................................................................................... 155

The Violent Juvenile Offender Program ....................................................................................................... 155

Florida Environmental Institute..................................................................................................................... 155

Capital Offender Program .............................................................................................................................. 157

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................................... 158

Contacts for More Information on Effective Programs ......................................................................................... 159

Descriptions of and Contacts for Promising Programs ......................................................................................... 161

Part IV: Risk Assessment and Classification for Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Offenders ............................................................................................................................. 189

Background .............................................................................................................................................................. 189

Risk Assessment and Classification...................................................................................................................... 189

Purpose and Format................................................................................................................................................ 190

Risk Assessment and Classification: Rationale, Goals, and Uses ...................................................................... 191

Structure and Consistency ..................................................................................................................................... 191

Optimized Resource Allocation ............................................................................................................................ 193

Types of Assessment Instruments ......................................................................................................................... 194

Risk Assessment Instruments ......................................................................................................................... 194

Placement and Custody Assessment Instruments ...................................................................................... 197

Needs Assessment Instruments ..................................................................................................................... 198

Needs Assessment Items ................................................................................................................................. 199

Essential Properties of Assessment and Classification Systems ....................................................................... 202

Risk Assessment and Prevention .............................................................................................................................. 202

Risk Assessment and Prevention at the Community Level .............................................................................. 203

Risk Assessment in Child Welfare ........................................................................................................................ 205

The Children’s Research Center Model ........................................................................................................ 206

Research Results ............................................................................................................................................... 210

Child Welfare Needs Assessment .................................................................................................................. 210
vii

Risk Assessment for Detention Decisions .............................................................................................................. 210

Impact of Risk Screening on Detention ................................................................................................................ 211

Risk Assessment and Classification in Placement Decisionmaking ................................................................. 213

Types of Placement Decision Tools ....................................................................................................................... 214

Impact of Classification on Placement Decisions and Resource Needs .......................................................... 215

Risk Assessment and Classification in Probation and Parole Supervision ...................................................... 218

Relationship of Risk and Needs in the Classification Decision ........................................................................ 219

Overrides .................................................................................................................................................................. 222

Reassessment ........................................................................................................................................................... 223

Risk Assessment and Classification for Institutional Custody .......................................................................... 223

The Illinois Institutional Custody Scale ............................................................................................................... 225

The Model Case Management System Institutional Custody Scale ................................................................ 226

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 226

References and Index ............................................................................................................................................ 231

References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 231

Index ............................................................................................................................................................................... 253
viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Overview of Comprehensive Strategy .............................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2. Risk Factors for Health and Behavior Problems ............................................................................................ 19

Figure 3. Social Development Strategy ........................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 4. Louisiana Office of Juvenile Services Secure Custody Screening Document ............................................ 32

Figure 5. Colorado Security Placement Instrument ...................................................................................................... 33

Figure 6. State Classification Recommendations Based on Risk Assessment Instruments ..................................... 34

Figure 7. Alaska Youth Services Needs Assessment Scale ........................................................................................... 38

Figure 8. Indiana Juvenile Corrections Placement Matrix (Proposed Model) ........................................................... 40

Figure 9. Indiana Delinquent Offense Categories .......................................................................................................... 41

Figure 10. Brief Descriptions of Programs Included in Indiana Matrix ....................................................................... 42

Figure 11. Indiana Refined Estimates of Program Space Needs .................................................................................... 44

Figure 12. Sample Case Planning Format ......................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 13. Examples of MIS Data Elements ...................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 14. Juvenile Probation and Aftercare Assessment of Risk ................................................................................ 192

Figure 15. Colorado Security Placement Instrument .................................................................................................... 198

Figure 16. Lucas County Juvenile Court Needs Assessment ....................................................................................... 200

Figure 17. Rhode Island DCYF Initial Family Assessment of Abuse/Neglect .......................................................... 207

Figure 18. Oklahoma Family Service Assessment for Abuse/Neglect ....................................................................... 208

Figure 19. Family Assessment of Needs .......................................................................................................................... 209

Figure 20. Broward County Detention Risk Assessment .............................................................................................. 212

Figure 21. Los Angeles County Detention/Release Scale ............................................................................................ 213

Figure 22. Louisiana Office of Juvenile Services Secure Custody Screening Document.......................................... 216

Figure 23. Michigan Initial Security Matrix for Delinquency ...................................................................................... 217

Figure 24. Indiana Juvenile Corrections Placement Matrix (Proposed Model) ......................................................... 217

Figure 25. NCCD Michigan Delinquency Risk Assessment Scale............................................................................... 220

Figure 26. Wisconsin Delinquency Risk Assessment Scale .......................................................................................... 221

Figure 27. Lucas County Risk and Needs Score Matrix ................................................................................................ 222

Figure 28. Indiana Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division:

 Risk Reassessment for Community Supervision ...................................................................................... 224

Figure 29. Illinois DOC Juvenile Custody Risk Assessment ........................................................................................ 227

Figure 30. Initial Custody Classification Scale ............................................................................................................... 228

Figure 31. Custody Reclassification Scale ....................................................................................................................... 229

List of Tables

Table 1. Michigan Youth Services Rates of Subsequent Rearrest by Risk Group ...................................................... 31

Table 2. NCCD Bed Calculation ....................................................................................................................................... 35

Table 3. Proposed Indiana Juvenile Corrections Placement Matrix ............................................................................ 43

Table 4. Indiana Estimates of Program Space Needs ..................................................................................................... 44

Table 5. Comparison of Risk Predictors in Eight Jurisdictions .................................................................................. 196

Table 6. Comparison of Needs Assessment Items ....................................................................................................... 201

Table 7. CPS Outcomes by Risk Level............................................................................................................................ 210

Table 8. Risk Classification Results for Selected Training School Populations ........................................................ 218

Table 9. Recidivism and Contact Standards for Ohio Parolees .................................................................................. 219

Table 10. Recidivism by Risk/Classification Level ........................................................................................................ 222

Table 11. Indicated IDOC Custody Classification Based on Risk Assessment .......................................................... 225
ix

Foreword

Juvenile violence is increasing in America and is causing great fear both of and for our youth. The FBI’s most

recent data, published in the Uniform Crime Reports, show that from 1992 to 1993, arrests of juveniles under age 18

for violent crimes increased nearly 6 percent, while arrests of adults for violent crimes decreased. Juvenile arrests

increased nearly 14 percent for murder, almost 6 percent for robbery, and nearly 6 percent for assault. Even more

alarming, arrests of juveniles under 15 for murder increased more than 24 percent, while arrests of youth in this

age group for weapons violations increased 14 percent. During the same period, arrests of adults increased only 2

percent for murder and 7 percent for weapons violations.

These patterns continue a trend that began in the latter half of the 1980’s. Between 1989 and 1993, arrests of

juveniles for violent crimes increased 36 percent and arrests for homicides increased nearly 45 percent. National

victimization data show a similar pattern. Between 1987 and 1992, robberies and assaults (including simple

assaults) committed against juveniles increased more than 12 percent, from 1.3 million per year to in excess of

1.5 million.

America is demanding solutions to escalating violent juvenile crime. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders provides a

framework for strategic responses at the community, city, State, and national levels. The Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders provides the necessary tools and program

information to systematically and comprehensively address rising violent juvenile crime. Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy, however, will require a true national commitment to improving the juvenile justice

system and providing appropriate prevention and programmatic interventions for our youth.

The Comprehensive Strategy and this Guide are important resources for communities interested in identifying

and implementing solutions to growing juvenile violence by creating a more effective juvenile justice system.

While this is being accomplished, and to the extent that the juvenile justice system is not currently able to handle

some of the more violent or intractable juvenile offenders, waivers and transfers of some juveniles to the criminal

justice system may be required in order to protect society. We must begin, however, to strengthen the juvenile

justice system by providing the tools and graduated sanction programs necessary to address the needs of juvenile

offender populations. Only then can the juvenile justice system play its proper role in working effectively with

delinquent youth and securing public safety.

The Guide provides “best practice” information found in an exhaustive survey of the research addressing successful mobilization of communities, assessment of the needs of those communities in a risk-focused prevention

approach, and the identification of appropriate and effective prevention and intervention activities in a graduated

sanctions model. I am pleased to provide this Guide as a tool for communities that are ready to make a sustained

commitment to turn back the tide of juvenile violence that they are confronting.

Shay Bilchik

Administrator
x
xi

Preface

In 1993, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention published its Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Program Summary (Wilson and Howell). Shortly thereafter, OJJDP made a

competitive award to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to undertake a national assessment of programs to identify effective and promising programs nationwide for use in implementing the Comprehensive Strategy. NCCD was aided by Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., (DRP) in this review. Under

the direction of Dr. Barry Krisberg, NCCD assumed responsibility for the review of treatment programs, and DRP,

under the direction of Dr. David Hawkins, carried out the review of prevention programs. Five products resulted

from the work Krisberg and Hawkins directed:

• Barry Krisberg and David Onek, “A Manual for the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders,” National Council on Crime and Delinquency, December 1994. This material appears in

Part I of the Guide.

• J. David Hawkins, Richard F. Catalano, and Devon D. Brewer, “Preventing Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offending: Effective Strategies from Conception to Age Six,” Developmental Research and Programs,

Inc., August 1994. This material appears in Part II of the Guide.

• Devon D. Brewer, J. David Hawkins, Richard F. Catalano, and Holly Neckerman, “Preventing Serious, Violent,

and Chronic Juvenile Offending: A Review of Evaluations of Selected Strategies in Childhood, Adolescence,

and the Community,” Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., November 1994. This material appears in

Part II of the Guide.

• Barry Krisberg, Elliott Currie, and David Onek, “Graduated Sanctions for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders,” National Council on Crime and Delinquency, November 1994. This material appears in Part III

of the Guide.

• Richard Wiebush, Christopher Baird, Barry Krisberg, and David Onek, “Risk Assessment and Classification for

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders,” National Council on Crime and Delinquency, November

1994. This material appears in Part IV of the Guide.

In its report on “Preventing Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offending,” Developmental Research and

Programs, Inc., used the term “potentially promising programs” to describe those interventions that did not have

sufficiently strong research designs to warrant calling them “promising.” Solely for the purpose of simplifying the

language in this Guide, the term “promising” is used to describe this program category.
xii
xiii

Acknowledgments

OJJDP is grateful to Barry Krisberg, David Hawkins, and Richard Catalano for their superb work in reviewing

programs and tools for use in implementing the Comprehensive Strategy. With the help of their colleagues, they

carried out the entire project in less than 1 year. This was an enormous effort that demonstrated their commitment

to the project, to the field, and to finding solutions to serious, violent, and chronic juvenile crime.

OJJDP thanks the many professionals in the field who helped NCCD and DRP identify promising and effective

programs and all the program directors who responded promptly to requests from NCCD and DRP for information on their programs. Without this assistance, this project could not have been brought to such a successful

conclusion.

OJJDP also thanks Dr. James C. “Buddy” Howell, recently retired from OJJDP’s Research and Program Development Division, for his dedication to the study of juvenile justice, his pioneering work in formulating the Comprehensive Strategy, and his many contributions to the production and editing of this document.
xiv
1

Increasing youth violence has

become a major national concern,

and juvenile arrests are on the rise.

Introduction

This Guide is a resource to help States, cities, and communities implement OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy

for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders

(Wilson and Howell, 1993). The Guide is presented in

four parts. The first provides a detailed blueprint for

use by communities and organizations that plan to

implement all or part of the Comprehensive Strategy.

The remaining three parts provide detailed, researchfocused program information on key topics covered

in Part I, including prevention, graduated sanctions,

and risk assessment.

Arrest Trends

The following review of research and statistics on

delinquency assesses what is known about serious,

violent, and chronic juvenile delinquency.

Increasing youth violence has become a major

national concern, and juvenile arrests are on the rise.

Between 1984 and 1993, arrests of juveniles for violent

offenses rose by nearly 68 percent. Most of this increase occurred between 1989 and 1993, during which

time juvenile arrests for murder increased 45 percent,

arrests for robbery increased 37 percent, and arrests

for aggravated assault increased 37 percent (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1994). This pattern was especially

pronounced from 1992 to 1993, when:

• Total juvenile arrests increased 5 percent.

• Juvenile arrests for violent crimes increased

6 percent.

• Juvenile arrests for homicide increased 14 percent.

• Juvenile arrests for weapons violations increased

12 percent.

• Adult changes in these categories were negligible,

with the exception of weapons violations, which

increased 7 percent (FBI Uniform Crime Reports,

1994).

The most alarming statistics among these increases are

the growth in homicides and weapons violations

among younger juveniles. Between 1992 and 1993,

homicide arrests of adolescents under age 15 increased

24 percent while arrests of youth in this age group for

weapons violations increased 12 percent (FBI Uniform

Crime Reports, 1994).

Victimization

National victimization data also show an increase in

violent crimes against juveniles. An estimated 1.55

million violent crimes were committed against juveniles in 1992, a 23 percent increase since 1987 (Moone,

1994).

Children are raped, robbed, and assaulted at higher

rates than adults, according to the National Crime

Victims Survey (Moone, 1994). In 1992, juvenile (ages

12 to 17) victimization rates for these violent crimes

were about the same as rates for youth 18 to 24 years

old and were almost twice those for individuals ages

25 to 34. Although these three groups were victims of

robbery at about the same rate, juveniles were assaulted at much higher rates than the two older

groups. Of an estimated 6.62 million rapes, robberies,

and assaults committed in 1992, approximately 1.3

million were assaults committed against juveniles

(Moone, 1994).
2

Hamparian, Schuster, Dinitz, and Conrad’s (1978)

cohort study of arrested juveniles in Columbus, Ohio,

found that juveniles arrested for violent offenses were

a small proportion (2 percent) of the total cohort. The

researchers also observed that juvenile offenders did

not typically progress from less to more serious crime,

making it difficult to predict violent behavior.

Hamparian, Schuster, Davis, and White (1985) conducted a followup study of the violent subgroup of

the Columbus cohort into their midtwenties. The

study found that almost 60 percent of these individuals were arrested at least once as a young adult for a

felony offense. The first adult arrest was likely to be

prior to age 20. Those who were subsequently arrested in adulthood tended to have more arrests as

juveniles, to have begun their delinquent acts earlier,

to have continued them late into their juvenile years,

and to have been involved in more serious violent

offenses as juveniles. Many of these youth have been

committed at least once to a State juvenile correctional

facility.

Snyder (1988) studied a cohort of Phoenix and Utah

juveniles, among whom 34 percent had a juvenile

court record. Among the entire cohort, 5 percent had

four or more referrals to juvenile court. They represented 16 percent of offenders but were responsible

for 51 percent of all offenses, including 61 percent of

murders, 64 percent of rapes, 67 percent of robberies,

61 percent of aggravated assaults, and 66 percent of

burglary cases.

The National Youth Survey (NYS) showed (Elliott,

1994; Elliott, Huizinga, and Morse, 1986) that about

5 percent of all juveniles (ages 12 to 17) at each age

level were classified as serious violent offenders

(those who have engaged in three or more of the

following offenses: aggravated assault, sexual assault,

gang fights, and strong-arm robbery). On average,

these offenders commit 132 delinquent offenses annually, 8 of which were serious violent offenses; however, 84 percent of serious violent offenders in the

survey had no official delinquency record.

Elliott (1994) and Elliott, Huizinga, and Morse’s (1986)

analyses of the NYS data also showed that the onset

of serious violent careers begins to increase at age 12,

doubles between ages 13 and 14, continues to increase

to a peak at ages 16 to 17, drops 50 percent by age 18,

Chronic, Serious, and Violent

Career Patterns

Evidence continues to mount that a small proportion

of offenders commit the most of the serious and violent juvenile crimes. Several studies have provided

estimates of the proportion of juveniles in the general

population that is responsible for most serious violent

juvenile delinquency.

The Philadelphia birth cohort study (Wolfgang, Figlio,

and Sellin, 1972) found that “chronic offenders” (five

or more police contacts) constituted 6 percent of the

cohort and 18 percent of the cohort's delinquents.

Chronic offenders were responsible for 51 percent of

all offenses and about two-thirds of all violent

offenses. A 15-year followup study of a 10 percent

sample of the original Philadelphia birth cohort

(Wolfgang, Thornberry, and Figlio, 1987) examined

the cohort’s police records through age 30. Researchers found that although chronic offenders’ offenses

increased in seriousness into adulthood, arrests

declined steadily after age 18 and about one-quarter

of the adults had no official juvenile record.

A second Philadelphia birth cohort study (Tracy,

Wolfgang, and Figlio, 1990) found that 7 percent of

the cohort and 23 percent of offenders in that cohort

accounted for 61 percent of all offenses, 65 percent of

aggravated assaults, 60 percent of homicides, 75 percent of forcible rapes, and 73 percent of robberies.

Shannon (1988, 1991) studied three youth cohorts in

Racine, Wisconsin. Although he found slightly less

concentration of crime among chronic offenders than

was found in the Philadelphia studies, the findings

regarding criminal patterns were very similar to those

of the Philadelphia research: From 8 percent to 14

percent of each cohort was responsible for about 75

percent of all felony arrests.

Evidence continues to mount that

a small proportion of offenders

commit most serious and violent

juvenile crimes.
3

New Research on Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders

OJJDP’s Program of Research on Causes and Correlates of Juvenile Delinquency (three longitudinal studies in Denver, Colorado; Rochester, New York; and

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) has produced important

new information on serious, violent, and chronic juvenile careers (Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry, 1994;

Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry, In press). These

three studies are the most detailed ever conducted on

the causes and correlates of delinquency. Large random samples of inner-city high-risk youth are being

studied using the same core measures, beginning

with children 6 years old. The results reported below

(Huizinga et al., In press) cover data collected between 1988 and 1992. All of the juvenile delinquency

involvement reported below is based on self-reports

by the surveyed youth. Findings on arrests and court

referrals will be reported later.

Violent Careers

A surprisingly large proportion of juveniles committed violent acts. By the time they were in the 10th or

11th grades, 58 percent of the Rochester juveniles and

54 percent of the Denver youth had self-reported

being involved in a violent crime at some time in

their lives. However, tremendous variation was observed in the extensiveness of youth involvement.

Chronic violent offenders, who constituted 15 percent of the adolescent sample in Rochester and 14

percent of the sample in Denver, accounted for the

vast majority of all violent offenses: 75 percent of the

violent offenses in Rochester and 82 percent of the

violent offenses in Denver.

Age of Onset

A large proportion of those who are involved in

violent behavior at an early age eventually become

chronic violent offenders. Although this finding is

not new, the early age of onset was startling. In

Rochester, of those who began committing violent

offenses at age 9 or younger, 39 percent became

and continues to decrease through age 27. More than

half of all violent offenders initiate their violence between ages 14 and 17. Nearly one-half (45 percent) of

those who reported that they committed their first

serious violent offense before age 11 continued their

violent careers into their twenties. Most serious violent offenders’ careers lasted only 1 year, and only 4

percent had a career length of 5 years or more. A significant amount of intermittency was evident in serious violent careers (Elliott et al., 1986). A considerable

amount of episodic offending among serious violent

offenders was also found by Huizinga, Esbensen, and

Weiher (1994) in their Denver study.

Examination of arrest data shows that there is a significant time lag between the peak age at which juveniles

are actively involved in serious violent offending and

peak arrest ages (Elliott, 1994; Elliott et al., 1986).

Whereas the NYS indicates that actual violent behavior

of males peaks at age 17, studies based on official

records show that arrest rates remain high between

ages 18 and 25. Fewer than 5 percent of serious violent

offenders in the NYS had an initial arrest for a serious

violent offense before age 18. Therefore, initial arrests

for a violent offense in a serious violent career most

often take place several years after initiation into this

type of behavior, given that nearly half of those who

continued their violent careers into their twenties reported having begun their violent offending before age

11. For intervention and treatment purposes, it is clear

that the juvenile justice system is not seeing most

offenders until it is too late to intervene effectively.

The NYS sample were ages 11 to 17 in 1976. When

they were last interviewed in 1993, they were in the

27 to 33 age range. A key question is whether more

recent data show similar patterns. Therefore, we turn

to the National Program of Research on Causes and

Correlates of Juvenile Delinquency.

For intervention and treatment

purposes, it is clear that the juvenile

justice system does not see most

offenders until it is too late to

intervene effectively.
4

an anticipated downward age curve will be found for

males in the future requires analysis of additional

years of data that are being collected at each site.

Co-Occurring Problem Behaviors

All three studies showed that chronic violent offenders

not only engaged in multiple types of offenses but also

in a variety of other problem behaviors. These youth

have higher rates of dropping out of school, gun ownership for protection, gun use, gang membership, teenage sexual activity, teenage parenthood, and early

independence from their family. In Rochester, nearly

two-thirds of chronic violent offenders reported being

members of street gangs. During the period of gang

membership among juveniles in Rochester and Denver, levels of involvement in violence were much

higher than during the periods before and after gang

membership.

The Rochester site examined the relationship between

exposure to family violence and later involvement in

youth violence. Not only was greater risk for violent

offending found to exist when a child was physically

abused or neglected early in life, but such children

were more likely to begin violent offending earlier and

to be more involved in such offending than children

who had not been abused or neglected. Second, this

research revealed that children who witnessed and

experienced multiple acts of violence in the home

(child abuse, spouse abuse, and family conflict) were

twice as likely to commit violent acts themselves

(Thornberry, 1994).

Multiple Risk Factors

These three studies have also confirmed earlier research showing that serious, violent, chronic juvenile

offenders have multiple risk factors. No single risk

factor is responsible for serious delinquency and violence. Chronic offenders have multiple risk factors in

their backgrounds, including deficits in such arenas as

family, school, peers, and neighborhood characteristics. Moreover, these factors tend to be cumulative and

to interact with one another to produce high levels of

serious offending.

chronic violent offenders during adolescence. However, among those who began committing violent

offenses between ages 10 and 12, 30 percent became

chronic violent offenders. The Denver findings were

more striking. Of those who initiated violent behavior at age 9 or younger, 62 percent became chronic

violent offenders. On average, the chronic violent

offenders began offending a full year prior to those

who did not become chronic offenders.

Chronic Offending

In Rochester, a total of 5,504 violent acts were selfreported by the respondents. Of these, nonchronic

violent offenders up to ages 17 and 18 reported 1,370

violent offenses, or an average of 3.9 per person. On

the other hand, chronic violent offenders reported a

total of 4,134 violent crimes, an average of 33.6 per

person. Denver respondents up to ages 17 and 18

reported 5,164 violent acts. Of these, 927 violent

offenses were committed by nonchronic offenders, an

average of 4.5 per person; 4,237 violent offenses were

committed by chronic offenders, an average of 51.7

per person.

Prevalence Rates

Preliminary analyses of serious violent prevalence

rates (percentage of boys who self-report serious violent offenses) show a different pattern than has been

found in other studies of individual offending. Previous studies have found male prevalence rates to peak

at ages 16 to 17, unlike arrest rates, which generally

have been found to peak at ages 18 to 19. However,

data from these three sites have shown no decline in

male self-reported serious violent offending in late

adolescence. These prevalence rates remain high (17

to 20 percent) during the 17 to 19 age period. Whether

A large proportion of those who

are involved in violent behavior at

an early age eventually become

chronic violent offenders.
5

Interacting Risk Factors

The family violence analysis showed that as risk factors accumulate, the risks for delinquency increase

substantially; that is, the presence of additional types

of family violence increased the likelihood of subsequent violent youth behavior. Other data showed that

multiple risk factors interact with one another to produce higher levels of risk than simple additive models

would suggest. For example, juveniles who have both

delinquent friends and problem parents exhibit the

highest levels of involvement in serious delinquency,

and this effect far exceeds the individual effects of

either peers or parents by themselves. The roles of

parents and peers interact in influencing the level of

serious and violent delinquency.

Protective Factors

Not all high-risk youth succumb to the risk and actually engage in delinquency or violence. Some highrisk youth are resilient and manage to avoid the

negative influences of risk factors. Researchers in the

Rochester site identified 12 protective factors in the

categories of family, school, peer group, and personal

characteristics. Individually, each of these protective

factors had only a small impact on reducing delinquency. Collectively, however, the presence of multiple protective factors had a sizeable impact on

reducing delinquency. Of the high-risk youth (those

who had five or more risk factors), 80 percent of those

who had fewer than six of the protective factors in

their environment reported involvement in serious

delinquency. On the other hand, of the high-risk

youth, only 25 percent who had nine or more of these

protective factors in their environment reported involvement in serious delinquency.

Developmental Pathways

The studies also delineated pathways juveniles take to

problem behavior and serious, violent, and chronic

offending. The following developmental pathways

were identified in the Pittsburgh study:

Authority Conflict Pathway—starting with stubborn behavior, followed by defiance, and subsequently followed by authority avoidance (staying

out late, truancy, running away from home).

Covert Pathway—starting with minor covert

behaviors, followed by property damage, and

subsequently followed by moderate to serious

delinquency (burglary, fraud, car theft).

Overt Pathway—starting with minor aggression,

followed by fighting, and subsequently followed

by more serious violence (attacks, rape).

The overt pathway is the most violent. However, the

most serious, violent, and chronic offenders traveled

in all three pathways. Most (75 percent) high-rate

offenders fit into one or more of these pathways.

Conclusion

These studies clearly document that a rather small

subset of the offending juvenile population is responsible for the bulk of serious violent juvenile crime.

While this is not a recent revelation, the accumulation

of evidence has added important knowledge to our

understanding of serious, violent, and chronic offending. What do the data and research tell us?

First, most violent offending is not brought to the

attention of juvenile justice authorities. The juvenile

justice system does not have an opportunity to rehabilitate these offenders. Second, in most cases the

juvenile justice system is intervening toward the end

of self-reported offending careers, when the crimereduction potential is much lower. Third, scarce

resources are often wasted on noncareer juvenile

delinquents who are unlikely to commit further

offenses because they are at the end of their short

offending span. Fourth, prevention programs are

much more likely to be successful than intervention

programs that attempt to reduce and offset risk factors that, over time, multiply and become more

If we want to reduce the overall

level of violence in society, we

must successfully intervene in the

lives of high-risk offenders, who

commit about 75 percent of all

violent juvenile offenses.
6

interwoven. Fifth, intervention programs must target

career offenders early. Research has highlighted the

importance of identifying risk factors early in the

development of serious and violent careers. Sixth,

such programs must be comprehensive, addressing

multiple risk factors. Seventh, interventions should be

made available on a long-term basis because of the

negative interaction of multiple risk factors. Eighth, a

subset of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile delinquents consists of dangerous offenders who present a

real threat to public safety. To protect society, these

cases must be reviewed for the possibility of prosecution in the criminal justice system.

Authorities are beginning to see the need to focus

prevention and juvenile justice resources on the

serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offender. As

Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry (In press) have

pointed out, if we want to reduce the overall level of

violence in our society, we must successfully intervene in the lives of high-risk offenders because they

constitute about 15 percent of high-risk youth yet

commit about 75 percent of all violent juvenile

offenses. The researchers’ observation is sobering:

“even if we were 100 percent successful in preventing

the nonchronic violent offenders from ever engaging

in violence, we would only reduce the level of violent

offending by 25 percent” (p. 17). The only way to

substantially reduce serious and violent offending is

through prevention and early intervention with youth

who are on paths toward becoming serious, violent,

chronic offenders.

The Guide presents the best available technology for

addressing serious, violent, and chronic juvenile

offending. It contains a blueprint for applying this

technology that reflects the understanding research

has provided regarding the development of careers of

serious and violent offenders.

In addition, the Guide presents advanced techniques

that take into account what we know about risk factors

and causes and correlates of serious and violent

offending. It incorporates programs that have been

evaluated and found to be effective or promising, and

that constitute a continuum of care, and a parallel

system of graduated sanctions that, combined with

prevention and early intervention, constitutes a

comprehensive strategy.

Finally, the approach this Guide outlines is comprehensive in another respect. It calls for collaborative

interventions on the part of all the human service

systems—juvenile justice, mental health, health care

education, and child welfare. The Comprehensive

Strategy recommended in this Guide is necessary to

address what otherwise would be an intractable

problem.
7

This Guide brings together in one place the information necessary for a community to design and implement its own comprehensive strategy to deal with the

problem of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile

delinquency. For the convenience of the reader, we

include in this section the essence of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy as originally presented in the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders: Program Summary (Wilson and

Howell, 1993). Figure 1 provides an overview of the

key elements of the Comprehensive Strategy.

• We must strengthen the family in its primary

responsibility to instill moral values and provide

guidance and support to children. Where there is

no functional family unit, we must establish a family surrogate and assist that entity to guide and

nurture the child.

• We must support core social institutions—schools,

religious institutions, and community organizations—in their roles of developing capable, mature,

and responsible youth. A goal of each of these societal institutions should be to ensure that children

have the opportunity and support to mature into

productive law-abiding citizens. A nurturing community environment requires that core social institutions be actively involved in the lives of youth.

Community organizations include public and private youth-serving agencies; neighborhood groups;

and business and commercial organizations providing employment, training, and other meaningful economic opportunities for youth.

• We must promote delinquency prevention as the

most cost-effective approach to reducing juvenile

delinquency. Families, schools, religious institutions, and community organizations, including

citizen volunteers and the private sector, must be

enlisted in the Nation’s delinquency prevention

efforts. These core socializing institutions must be

strengthened and assisted in their efforts to ensure

that children have the opportunity to become

capable and responsible citizens. When children

engage in “acting out” behavior, such as status

offenses, the family and community, in concert

with child welfare agencies, must respond with

appropriate treatment and support services.

Communities must take the lead in designing and

building comprehensive prevention approaches

that address known risk factors and target other

youth at risk of delinquency.

OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy

The emerging professional consensus is that communities need comprehensive strategies to combat

youth crime. OJJDP has developed

a framework for such a comprehensive approach.

General Principles

Increases in juvenile arrests and admissions to juvenile facilities are overwhelming communities across

the Nation. At the same time, communities have

fewer resources—due to fiscal crises—to handle these

increases. Elected officials have responded to public

fears about juvenile crime by passing a slew of “get

tough” measures nationwide. But few juvenile justice

professionals believe that tougher laws by themselves

will stem the tide of serious youth crime. The emerging professional consensus is that communities need

comprehensive strategies to combat youth crime.

OJJDP has developed a framework for such a comprehensive approach. OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy is

based on five general principles.
8

Prevention

 Target Population: At-Risk Youth

Youth Development Goals:

● Healthy and nurturing families.● Safe communities.● School attachment.

● Prosocial peer relations.● Personal development and life skills.● Healthy lifestyle choices.

Graduated Sanctions

 Target Population: Delinquent Youth

 Youth Habilitation Goals:

● Healthy family participation.● Community reintegration.● Educational success and skills development.

● Healthy peer network development.● Prosocial values development.● Healthy lifestyle choices.

Programs forAll Youth

Programs for Youthat Greatest Risk

ImmediateIntervention

 Intermediate Sanctions

CommunityConfinement

TrainingSchools

 Aftercare

Overview of

Comprehensive Strategy

Problem Behavior Noncriminal Misbehavior Delinquency Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending

Figure 1
9

• We must intervene immediately and effectively

when delinquent behavior occurs to successfully

prevent delinquent offenders from becoming

chronic offenders or progressively committing

more serious and violent crimes. Initial intervention efforts, under an umbrella of system authorities (police, intake, and probation), should be

centered in the family and other core societal institutions. Juvenile justice system authorities should

ensure that an appropriate response occurs and act

quickly and firmly if the need for formal system

adjudication and sanctions has been demonstrated.

• We must identify and control the small group of

serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders

who have committed felony offenses or have failed

to respond to intervention and nonsecure community-based treatment and rehabilitation services

offered by the juvenile justice system. Measures to

address delinquent offenders who are a threat to

community safety may include placement in secure

community-based facilities, training schools and

other secure juvenile facilities, and, when necessary, waiver or transfer of the most violent or intractable juveniles to the criminal justice system.

Under OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy, it is the family and community, supported by our core social institutions, that have primary responsibility for meeting

the basic socializing needs of our Nation’s children.

Socially harmful conduct, acting-out behavior, and

delinquency may be signs of the family being unable

to meet its responsibility. It is at these times that the

community must support and assist the family in the

socialization process, particularly for youth at the

greatest risk of delinquency.

The strategy incorporates two principal components:

(1) preventing youth from becoming delinquent by

focusing prevention programs on at-risk youth and

(2) improving the juvenile justice system response to

delinquent offenders through a system of graduated

sanctions and a continuum of treatment alternatives

that include immediate intervention, intermediate

sanctions, and community-based corrections sanctions, incorporating restitution and community service when appropriate.

Target Populations

The initial target population for prevention programs

is juveniles at risk of involvement in delinquent

activity. While primary delinquency prevention programs provide services to all youth wishing to participate, maximum impact on future delinquent conduct

can be achieved by seeking to identify and involve in

prevention programs youth at greatest risk of involvement in delinquent activity. This includes youth who

exhibit known risk factors for future delinquency;

drug and alcohol abuse; and youth who have had

contact with the juvenile justice system as nonoffenders (neglected, abused, and dependent), status

offenders (runaways, truants, alcohol offenders, and

incorrigibles), or minor delinquent offenders.

The next target population is youth, both male and

female, who have committed delinquent (criminal)

acts, including juvenile offenders who evidence a

high likelihood of becoming, or who already are,

serious, violent, or chronic offenders.

Program Rationale

What can communities and the juvenile justice system

do to prevent the development of and interrupt the

progression of delinquent and criminal careers? Juvenile justice agencies and programs are one part of a

larger picture that involves many other local agencies

and programs that are responsible for working with

at-risk youth and their families. It is important that

juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention

programs are integrated with local police, social service, child welfare, school, and family preservation

programs and that these programs reflect local community determinations of the most pressing problems

and program priorities. Establishing community planning teams that include a broad base of participants

drawn from local government and the community

(e.g., community-based youth development organizations, schools, law enforcement, social service agencies, civic organizations, religious groups, parents,

and teens) will help create consensus on priorities and

services to be provided as well as build support for a

comprehensive program approach that draws on all

sectors of the community for participation. Comprehensive approaches to delinquency prevention and

intervention will require collaborative efforts between
10

tional resources for law enforcement, juvenile courts,

and juvenile corrections officials. The graduated sanctions component requires that the juvenile justice

system’s capacity to identify, process, evaluate, refer,

and track delinquent offenders be enhanced.

The Juvenile Justice System

The juvenile justice system plays a key role in protecting and guiding juveniles, including responding to

juvenile delinquency. Law enforcement plays a key

role by conducting investigations, making custody

the juvenile justice system and other service provision

systems, including mental health, health, child welfare, and education. Developing mechanisms that

effectively link these different service providers at the

program level will need to be an important component of every community’s comprehensive plan.

Evidence suggests that a risk reduction and protective

factor enhancement approach to prevention is effective. Risk factors include the family, the school, the

peer group, the community, and characteristics of

juveniles themselves. The more risk factors present

in a community, the greater the likelihood of youth

problems in that community as children are exposed

to those risk factors. Prevention strategies will need to

be comprehensive, addressing each of the risk factors

as they relate to the chronological development of

children being served.

Research and experience in intervention and treatment programming suggest that a highly structured

system of graduated sanctions holds significant promise. The goal of graduated sanctions is to increase the

effectiveness of the juvenile justice system in responding to juveniles who have committed criminal acts.

The system’s limited resources have diminished its

ability to respond effectively to serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile crime. This trend must be reversed by

empowering the juvenile justice system to provide

accountability and treatment resources to juveniles.

This includes gender-specific programs for female

offenders, whose rates of delinquency have generally

been increasing faster than males in recent years and

who now account for 23 percent of juvenile arrests. It

will also require programs for special needs populations such as sex offenders and mentally retarded,

emotionally disturbed, and learning disabled

delinquents.

The graduated sanctions approach is designed to

provide immediate intervention at the first offense to

ensure that the juvenile’s misbehavior is addressed by

the family and community or through formal adjudication and sanctions by the juvenile justice system, as

appropriate. Graduated sanctions include a range of

intermediate sanctions and secure corrections options

to provide intensive treatment that serves the

juvenile’s needs, provides accountability, and protects

the public. They offer an array of referral and disposiNew ways of organizing and focusing the resources of the juvenile

justice system are required to effectively address serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile crime.

and arrest determinations, and exercising discretionary release authority. Police should be trained in community-based policing techniques and provided with

program resources that focus on community youth,

such as Police Athletic Leagues and the Drug Abuse

Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Program.

The traditional role of the juvenile and family court is

to treat and rehabilitate the dependent or wayward

minor, using an individualized approach and tailoring its response to the particular needs of the child

and family with goals of:

• Responding to the needs of troubled youth and

their families.

• Providing due process while recognizing the rights

of the victim.

• Rehabilitating the juvenile offender.

• Protecting both the juvenile and the public.

While juvenile and family courts have been successful

in responding to the bulk of youth problems to meet

these goals, new ways of organizing and focusing the

resources of the juvenile justice system are required to
11

effectively address serious, violent, and chronic juvenile crime. These methods might include the establishment of unified family courts with jurisdiction

over all civil and criminal matters affecting the family.

A recent statement by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) succinctly

describes the critical role of the court:

The Courts must protect children and families

when private and other public institutions are unable or fail to meet their obligations. The protection

of society by correcting children who break the law,

the preservation and reformation of families, and

the protection of children from abuse and neglect

are missions of the Court. When the family falters,

when the basic needs of children go unmet, when

the behavior of children is destructive and goes

unchecked, juvenile and family courts must respond. The Court is society’s official means of

holding itself accountable for the well-being of its

children and family unit (NCJFCJ, “Children and

Families First, A Mandate for Change,” 1993).

Earlier, NCJFCJ developed 38 recommendations regarding serious juvenile offenders and related issues

facing the juvenile court system. These issues included confidentiality of juvenile offenders and their

families, transfer of a juvenile offender to adult court,

and effective treatment of the serious juvenile offender (NCJFCJ, 1984).

Finally, juvenile corrections has the responsibility to

provide treatment services that will rehabilitate the

juvenile and minimize the chances of reoffending.

Juvenile courts and corrections will benefit from a

system that makes a continuum of services available

that respond to each juvenile’s needs.

The juvenile justice system, armed with resources

and knowledge that permit matching juveniles with

appropriate treatment programs while holding them

accountable, can have a positive and lasting impact

on the reduction of delinquency. Developing effective

case management and management information systems (MIS) will be integral to this effort. OJJDP will

provide leadership in building system capacity at the

State and local levels to take maximum advantage of

available knowledge and resources.

Delinquency Prevention

Most juvenile delinquency efforts have been unsuccessful because of their negative approach—attempting to keep juveniles from misbehaving. Positive

approaches that emphasize opportunities for healthy

social, physical, and mental development have a

much greater likelihood of success. Another weakness

of past delinquency prevention efforts is their narrow

scope, focusing on only one or two of society’s institutions that have responsibility for the social development of children. Most programs have targeted either

the school arena or the family. Communities are an

often neglected area. Successful delinquency prevention strategies must be positive in their orientation

and comprehensive in their scope.

The prevention component of OJJDP’s comprehensive

strategy is based on a risk-focused delinquency prevention approach (Hawkins and Catalano, 1992). This

approach states that to prevent a problem from occurring, the factors contributing to the development of

that problem must be identified and then ways must

be found (protective factors) to address and ameliorate those factors.

Graduated Sanctions

An effective juvenile justice system program model

for the treatment and rehabilitation of delinquent

offenders is one that combines accountability and

sanctions with increasingly intensive treatment and

rehabilitation services. These graduated sanctions

must be wide-ranging to fit the offense and include

both intervention and secure corrections components.

The intervention component includes the use of immediate intervention and intermediate sanctions, and

the secure corrections component includes the use of

community confinement and incarceration in training

schools, camps, and ranches.

An effective juvenile justice system

combines accountability and sanctions with increasingly intensive

treatment and rehabilitation

services.
12

Each of these graduated sanctions components should

consist of sublevels, or gradations, that together

with appropriate services constitute an integrated

approach. The purpose of this approach is to stop the

juvenile’s further penetration into the system by

inducing law-abiding behavior as early as possible

through the combination of appropriate intervention

and treatment sanctions. The juvenile justice system

must work with law enforcement, courts, and corrections to develop reasonable, fair, and humane

sanctions.

At each level in the continuum, the family must

continue to be integrally involved in treatment and

rehabilitation efforts. Aftercare must be a formal component of all residential placements, actively involving the family and the community in supporting and

reintegrating the juvenile into the community.

Programs will need to use Risk and Needs Assessments to determine the appropriate placement for the

offender. Risk assessments should be based on clearly

defined objective criteria that focus on (1) the seriousness of the delinquent act; (2) the potential risk for

reoffending, based on the presence of risk factors; and

(3) the risk to the public safety. Effective risk assessment at intake, for example, can be used to identify

those juveniles who require the use of detention as

well as those who can be released to parental custody

or diverted to nonsecure community-based programs.

Needs assessments will help ensure that (1) different

types of problems are taken into account when formulating a case plan; (2) a baseline for monitoring a

juvenile’s progress is established; (3) periodic reassessments of treatment effectiveness are conducted;

and (4) a systemwide data base of treatment needs

can be used for the planning and evaluation of programs, policies, and procedures. Together, risk and

needs assessments will help to allocate scarce

resources more efficiently and effectively. A system

of graduated sanctions requires a broad continuum

of options.

Intervention

For intervention efforts to be most effective, they must

be swift, certain, consistent, and incorporate increasing sanctions, including the possible loss of freedom.

As the severity of sanctions increases, so must the

intensity of treatment. At each level, offenders must

be aware that, should they continue to violate the law,

they will be subject to more severe sanctions and

could ultimately be confined in a secure setting, ranging from a secure community-based juvenile facility

to a training school, camp, or ranch.

The juvenile court plays an important role in the provision of treatment and sanctions. Probation has

traditionally been viewed as the court’s main vehicle

for delivery of treatment services and community

supervision. However, traditional probation services

and sanctions have not had the resources to effectively target delinquent offenders, particularly serious, violent, and chronic offenders.

The Balanced Approach to juvenile probation is a

promising approach that specifies a clear and coherent framework. The Balanced Approach consists of

three practical objectives: (1) Accountability; (2) Competency Development; and (3) Community Protection.

Accountability refers to the requirement that offenders make amends to the victims and the community

for harm caused. Competency Development requires

that youth who enter the juvenile justice system

should exit the system more capable of being productive and responsible citizens. Community Protection

requires that the juvenile justice system ensure

public safety.

The following graduated sanctions are proposed

within the Intervention component:

Immediate Intervention

First-time delinquent offenders (misdemeanors and

nonviolent felonies) and nonserious repeat offenders

(generally misdemeanor repeat offenses) must be

targeted for system intervention based on their probability of becoming more serious or chronic in their

delinquent activities. Nonresidential communitybased programs, including prevention programs for

at-risk youth, may be appropriate for many of these

offenders. Such programs are small and open, located

in or near the juvenile’s home, and maintain community participation in program planning, operation,

and evaluation. Community police officers, working

as part of Neighborhood Resource Teams, can help

monitor the juvenile’s progress. Other offenders may

require sanctions tailored to their offense(s) and their
13

needs to deter them from committing additional

crimes.

Intermediate Sanctions

Offenders who are inappropriate for immediate intervention (first-time serious or violent offenders) or

who fail to respond successfully to immediate intervention as evidenced by reoffending (such as repeat

property offenders or drug-involved juveniles) would

begin with or be subject to intermediate sanctions.

These sanctions may be nonresidential or residential.

Many of the serious and violent offenders at this stage

may be appropriate for placement in an Intensive

Supervision Program as an alternative to secure

incarceration. OJJDP’s Intensive Supervision of

Probationers Program Model is a highly structured,

continuously monitored individualized plan that

consists of five phases with decreasing levels of

restrictiveness:

• Short-Term Placement in Community

Confinement.

• Day Treatment.

• Outreach and Tracking.

• Routine Supervision.

• Discharge and Followup.

nile facilities (training schools, camps, and ranches)

have not proven to be particularly effective in rehabilitating juvenile offenders. Although some continued use of these types of facilities will remain a

necessary alternative for those juveniles who require

enhanced security to protect the public, the establishment of small community-based facilities to provide

intensive services in a secure environment offers the

best hope for successful treatment of those juveniles

who require a structured setting. Secure sanctions are

most effective in changing future conduct when they

are coupled with comprehensive treatment and

rehabilitation services. A smaller group of violent

offenders, whose conduct warrants criminal sanctions, or those offenders who have proven themselves

not to be amenable to juvenile justice system treatment, will require waiver or transfer to the criminal

justice system.

Standard parole practices, particularly those that have

a primary focus on social control, have not been effective in normalizing the behavior of high-risk juvenile

parolees over the long term. Consequently, growing

interest has developed in intensive aftercare programs

that provide high levels of social control and treatment services. OJJDP’s Intensive Community-Based

Aftercare for High-Risk Juvenile Parolees

Program provides an effective aftercare model that

incorporates five programmatic principles:

• Preparing youth for progressive responsibility, and

freedom in the community.

• Facilitating youth-community interaction and

involvement.

• Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems (e.g., families, peers,

schools, and employers) to facilitate constructive

interaction and gradual community adjustment.

• Developing needed resources and community

support.

• Monitoring and ensuring the youth’s successful

reintegration into the community.

The following graduated sanctions strategies are

proposed within the Secure Corrections component:

Secure Corrections

The criminal behavior of many serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders requires the application of

secure sanctions to hold these offenders accountable

for their delinquent acts and to provide a structured

treatment environment. Large congregate-care juveSecure sanctions are most effective

in changing future conduct when

they are coupled with comprehensive treatment and rehabilitation

services.
14

Community Confinement

Offenders whose presenting offense is sufficiently

serious (such as a violent felony) or who fail to

respond to intermediate sanctions as evidenced by

continued reoffending may be appropriate for community confinement. Offenders at this level represent

the more serious (such as repeat felony drug trafficking or property offenders) and violent offenders

among the juvenile justice system correctional

population.

The concept of community confinement provides

secure confinement in small community-based facilities that offer intensive treatment and rehabilitation

services. These services include individual and group

counseling, educational programs, medical services,

and intensive staff supervision. Proximity to the community enables direct and regular family involvement

with the treatment process as well as a phased reentry

into the community that draws upon community

resources and services.

Incarceration in Training Schools,

Camps, and Ranches

Juveniles whose confinement in the community

would constitute an ongoing threat to community

safety or who have failed to respond to communitybased corrections may require an extended correctional placement in training schools, camps, ranches,

or other secure options that are not community-based.

These facilities should offer comprehensive treatment

programs for these youth with a focus on education,

skills development, and vocational or employment

training and experience. These juveniles may include,

where State law permits, youth convicted in the criminal justice system following a determination that the

serious or violent nature of their conduct warrants

waiver or transfer to the criminal justice system. Such

juveniles are generally referred to an adult correctional facility upon reaching the age at which they are

no longer subject to the original or extended jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system.

Expected Benefits

The proposed strategy provides for a comprehensive

approach in responding to delinquent conduct and

serious, violent, and chronic criminal behavior, consisting of (1) community protection and public safety,

(2) accountability, (3) competency development,

(4) individualization, and (5) balanced representation

of the interests of the community, victim, and juvenile. By taking these factors into account in each

program component, a new direction in the administration of juvenile justice is fostered.

Delinquency Prevention

This major component of the comprehensive strategy

involves implementation of delinquency prevention

technology that has been demonstrated to be effective. Prevention strategies within the major areas that

influence the behavior of youth (individual development, family, school, peer group, and community)

parallel the chronological development of children.

Because addressing these five areas has been found to

be effective in reducing future delinquency among

high-risk youth, it should result in fewer children

entering the juvenile justice system in demonstration

sites. This would, in turn, permit concentration of

system resources on fewer delinquents, thereby

increasing the effectiveness of the graduated sanctions

component and improving the operation of the

juvenile justice system.

Graduated Sanctions

This major component of the comprehensive strategy

is premised on a firm belief that the juvenile justice

system can effectively handle delinquent juvenile

behavior through the judicious application of a range

of graduated sanctions and a full continuum of treatment and rehabilitation services. Expected benefits of

this approach include:

• Increased juvenile justice system responsiveness.

This program will provide additional referral and

dispositional resources for law enforcement, juvenile courts, and juvenile corrections. It will also

require these system components to increase their

ability to identify, process, evaluate, refer, and track

juvenile offenders.

• Increased juvenile accountability. Juvenile offenders will be held accountable for their behavior,

decreasing the likelihood of their development
15

• Increased program effectiveness. As the statistical

information presented herein indicates, credible

knowledge exists about who the chronic, serious,

and violent offenders are, that is, their characteristics. Some knowledge also exists about what can

effectively be done regarding their treatment and

rehabilitation. However, more must be learned

about what works best for whom under what circumstances to intervene successfully in the potential criminal careers of serious, violent, and chronic

juvenile offenders. Followup research and rigorous

evaluation of programs implemented as a part of

this strategy should produce valuable information.

Crime Reduction

The combined effects of delinquency prevention and

increased juvenile justice system effectiveness in intervening immediately and effectively in the lives of

delinquent offenders should result in measurable

decreases in delinquency in sites where the above

concepts are demonstrated. In addition, long-term

reduction in crime should result from fewer serious,

violent, and chronic delinquents becoming adult

criminal offenders.

into serious, violent, or chronic offenders and

tomorrow’s adult criminals. The juvenile justice

system will be held accountable for controlling

chronic and serious delinquency while also protecting society. Communities will be held accountable

for providing community-based prevention and

treatment resources for juveniles.

• Decreased costs of juvenile corrections. Applying

the appropriate graduated sanctions and developing the required community-based resources

should reduce significantly the need for high-cost

beds in training schools. Savings from the high

costs of operating these facilities could be used to

provide treatment in community-based programs

and facilities.

• Increased responsibility of the juvenile justice

system. Many juvenile offenders currently waived

or transferred to the criminal justice system could

be provided opportunities for intensive services

in secure community-based settings or in longterm treatment in juvenile training schools,

camps, and ranches.
16
17

Part I: A Blueprint for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders

Part I of the Guide is designed to assist communities

in implementing the Comprehensive Strategy. It

describes planning and organizational steps that

communities must consider in building their comprehensive strategies. The focus is on a systemwide

approach that moves communities away from the

traditional emphasis on single-factor programs. A

blueprint is provided to assist communities in assessing their serious, violent, and chronic juvenile delinquency problems and juvenile justice system

responses.

This blueprint is organized around three major topics:

• Strategy for the Prevention of Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Juvenile Delinquency.

• A Risk-Focused Approach to Graduated Sanctions.

• Implementation, Management, and Evaluation.

A final section offers some concluding observations.

Strategy for the Prevention of

Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Delinquency

Reducing serious, violent, and chronic juvenile

delinquency requires a multifaceted, coordinated

approach, with prevention as a critical first step. The

comprehensive approach presented here is based on

research findings regarding factors that increase or

decrease the likelihood that young people will commit serious and violent crimes and on the effectiveness of various approaches to address these factors.

Prevention approaches that reduce risk and enhance

protection can be effective in preventing crime, violence, and substance abuse among adolescents and

young adults.

Reducing serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile delinquency requires a multifaceted, coordinated

approach, with prevention as a

critical first step.

We begin with a brief description of risk and protective factors for violence, crime, and substance abuse,

followed by a theoretical framework known as the

Social Development Strategy for reducing risks and

enhancing protective factors. Next, we describe a

model that includes communitywide involvement in

assessing local risks and resources and implementing

promising preventive approaches to address the

community’s unique risk and resource profile. We

then identify proven and promising prevention

approaches. More detailed information on prevention

programs can be found in Part II.

Foundations of Risk-Focused

Prevention

Public health professionals pioneered risk-focused

approaches to prevention that have been successfully

applied to problems as diverse as cardiovascular

disease and traffic-related injuries. Prevention

approaches attempt to interrupt the processes that

produce problem behavior. During the past 30 years,

research has identified precursors of juvenile delinquency and violence, called risk factors, as well as

protective factors that buffer the effects of exposure to

risks and inhibit the development of behavior problems even in the face of risk.

Risk and protective factors predict increased or decreased probability of developing problem behaviors,
18

Availability of firearms (delinquency, violence).

Firearms, primarily handguns, are the leading mechanism of violent injury and death in the United States

(Fingerhut, Kleinman, Godfrey, and Rosenberg, 1991).

The easy availability of firearms in a community can

escalate an exchange of angry words and fists into an

exchange of gunfire. Research has found that communities with greater availability of firearms experience

higher rates of violent crime, including homicide

(Alexander, Massey, Gibbs, Altekruse, 1985;

Kellerman, Rivara, Rushforth, et al., in review;

Wintenute, 1987).

Community laws and norms favoring drug use, firearms, and crime (substance abuse, delinquency, and

violence). Community norms—the attitudes and policies a community holds concerning drug use, violence, and crime—are communicated through laws,

written policies, informal social practices, the media,

and the expectations that parents, teachers, and other

members of the community have for young people.

Laws, tax rates, and community standards that favor

or are unclear about substance abuse or crime put

young people at higher risk of delinquency.

One example of a law affecting drug use is the taxation

of alcoholic beverages. Higher rates of taxation decrease

the rate of alcohol use (Levy and Sheflin, 1985; Cook and

Tauchen, 1982). Other examples of local rules and norms

affecting drug and alcohol use are policies and regulations in schools and workplaces.

Media portrayals of violence (violence). There is

growing evidence that media violence can influence

community acceptance of violence and rates of violent

or aggressive behavior. Both long- and short-term

effects of media violence on aggressive behavior have

been documented (Eron and Huesmann, 1987;

National Research Council, 1993).

Transitions and mobility (substance abuse, delinquency, and school dropout). Even normal school

transitions can predict increases in problem behaviors. When children move from elementary school to

middle school or from middle school to high school,

significant increases in the rates of drug use, school

dropout, and antisocial behavior may occur

(Gottfredson, 1988).

including serious crime and violence. However, just

as prevention measures are not an absolute guarantee

against developing heart disease and other illnesses,

protective factors cannot eliminate all delinquent

behavior. Nonetheless, approaches to prevention that

attempt to reduce risk factors and, at the same time,

enhance protective factors are likely to provide the

most effective form of prevention (Institute of Medicine, 1994).

Risk Factors for Crime, Violence, and

Substance Abuse

Extensive research has identified risk factors for crime

and violence (Tolan and Guerra, 1994; Yoshikawa, 1994;

American Psychological Association, 1993; Reiss and

Roth, 1993; Dryfoos, 1990), and substance abuse

(Kandel, Simcha-Fagan, and Davies, 1986; Hawkins,

Catalano, and Miller, 1992). These risk factors exist

within the communities in which children develop, as

well as within families, schools, peer groups, and

within each individual. Some risk factors can be reduced; others cannot. After identifying and setting

priorities of risk factors that can be changed, communities can design prevention efforts to reduce known risk

factors. However, it is equally important to know

which risk factors cannot be modified, because this

helps identify populations that should receive protective interventions.

Figure 2 shows risk factors identified in longitudinal

studies as predictors of health and behavior problems.

The specific problems predicted by each risk factor

are checked in the figure.

Risk Factors for Adolescent Problem

Behaviors

The following is a summary of the risk factors and the

problem behaviors they predict.

Community Risk Factors

Availability of drugs (substance abuse). The more

easily available that drugs and alcohol are in a community, the greater the risk that drug abuse will occur

in that community (Gorsuch and Butler, 1976). Perceived availability of drugs in school is also associated with increased risk (Gottfredson, 1988).
19

Substance AbuseDelinquencyTeenage PregnancySchool DropoutViolence

Source: Catalano and Hawkins, Risk Focused Prevention. Using the Social Development Strategy. 1995.

Seattle: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.

Figure 2: Risk Factors for Health and Behavior Problems

Adolescent Problem Behaviors

Risk Factor

Community

Availability of Drugs ✔

Availability of Firearms ✔ ✔

Community Laws and Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, ✔✔ ✔

Firearms, and Crime

Media Portrayals of Violence ✔

Transitions and Mobility ✔✔ ✔

Low Neighborhood Attachment and Community Organization ✔✔ ✔

Extreme Economic Deprivation ✔✔✔✔✔

Family

Family History of the Problem Behavior ✔✔✔✔

Family Management Problems ✔✔✔✔✔

Family Conflict ✔✔✔✔✔

Favorable Parental Attitudes and Involvement in the Problem Behavior ✔✔ ✔

School

Early and Persistent Antisocial Behavior ✔✔✔✔✔

Academic Failure Beginning in Elementary School ✔✔✔✔✔

Lack of Commitment to School ✔✔✔✔

Individual/Peer

Rebelliousness ✔✔ ✔

Friends Who Engage in the Problem Behavior ✔✔✔✔✔

Favorable Attitudes Toward the Problem Behavior ✔✔✔✔

Early Initiation of the Problem Behavior ✔✔✔✔✔

Constitutional Factors ✔✔ ✔
20

Communities with high rates of mobility appear to

have increased drug and crime problems. The more

frequently people in a community move, the greater

the risk of criminal behavior (Farrington, 1991).

Whereas some people find buffers against the negative effects of mobility by making connections in new

communities, others are less likely to have the resources to deal with the effects of frequent moves and

are more likely to have problems.

Low neighborhood attachment and community disorganization (substance abuse, delinquency, and

violence). Higher rates of juvenile drug problems,

crime, and delinquency, as well as higher rates of

adult crime and drug trafficking, occur in neighborhoods where people have little attachment to the community, where the rates of vandalism are high, and

where there is low surveillance of public places

(Murray, 1983; Wilson and Hernstein, 1985).

Perhaps the most significant issue affecting community attachment is whether residents feel they can

make a difference in their lives. If the neighborhood’s

key players—such as merchants, teachers, police, and

human and social services personnel—live outside

the neighborhood, residents’ sense of commitment

will be less. Lower rates of voter participation and

parental involvement in school also reflect attitudes

about community attachment. Neighborhood disorganization makes it more difficult for schools, churches,

and families to pass on prosocial values and norms

(Herting and Guest, 1985; Sampson, 1986).

Extreme economic and social deprivation (substance

abuse, delinquency, violence, teenage pregnancy,

and school dropout). Children who live in deteriorating neighborhoods characterized by extreme poverty,

poor living conditions, and high unemployment are

more likely to develop problems with delinquency,

teenage pregnancy, and school dropout, and are more

likely to engage in violence toward others during

adolescence and adulthood (Bursik and Webb, 1982;

Farrington, Loeber, Elliott, Hawkins, Kandel, Klein,

McCord, Rowen, and Tremblay, 1990). Children who

live in these neighborhoods and have behavior or

adjustment problems early in life are also more likely

to have drug abuse problems as they grow older

(Robins and Ratcliff, 1979).

Family Risk Factors

Family history of high-risk behavior (substance

abuse, delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and school

dropout). Children raised in a family with a history of

addiction to alcohol or other drugs are at increased risk

of having alcohol or other drug problems (Goodwin,

1985), and children born or raised in a family with a

history of criminal activity are at increased risk of delinquency (Bohman, 1978). Similarly, children born to a

teenage mother are more likely to be teenage parents,

and children of dropouts are more likely to drop out of

school themselves (Slavin, 1990b).

Family management problems (substance abuse,

delinquency, violence, teenage pregnancy, and

school dropout). Poor family management practices

are defined as not having clear expectations for

behavior, failing to supervise and monitor children,

and excessively severe, harsh, or inconsistent punishment. Children exposed to these poor family management practices are at higher risk of developing all of

the health and behavior problems listed above

(Patterson and Dishion, 1985; Farrington, 1991;

Kandel and Andrews, 1987; Peterson et al., 1994;

Thornberry, 1994.)

Family conflict (substance abuse, delinquency,

violence, teen pregnancy, and school dropout).

Although children whose parents are divorced have

higher rates of delinquency and substance abuse, it

appears that it is not the divorce itself that contributes

to delinquent behavior. Rather, conflict between family members appears to be more important in predicting delinquency than family structure (Rutter and

Giller, 1983). For example, domestic violence in a family increases the likelihood that young people will

engage in violent behavior themselves (Loeber and

Dishion, 1984). Children raised in an environment of

conflict appear to be at risk for all of the problem

behaviors that have been noted in this section.

Parental attitudes and involvement in problem

behaviors (substance abuse, delinquency, and

violence). Parental attitudes and behavior toward

drugs and crime influence the attitudes and behavior

of children (Brook et al., 1990; Kandel, Kessler, and

Maguiles, 1978; Hansen, Graham, Shelton, Flay, and

Johnson, 1987). Children who are excused for breaking the law are more likely to develop problems with
21

juvenile delinquency (Hawkins and Weis, 1985) and

children whose parents engage in violent behavior

inside or outside the home are at greater risk for

exhibiting violent behavior.

In families in which parents are heavy illegal drug or

alcohol users or are tolerant of their children’s use,

children are more likely to become drug and alcohol

abusers in adolescence. The risk is further increased if

parents involve children in their drug- or alcoholusing behavior—for example, asking a child to light

a cigarette or to get a beer from the refrigerator

(Ahmed, Bush, Davidson, Ianotti, 1984).

School Risk Factors

Early and persistent antisocial behavior (substance

abuse, delinquency, violence, teen pregnancy, and

school dropout). Boys who are aggressive in grades

K–3 or who have trouble controlling their impulses

are at higher risk for substance abuse, delinquency,

and violent behavior (Loeber, 1988; Lerner and Vicary,

1984; American Psychological Association, 1993).

When a boy’s aggressive behavior in the early grades

is combined with isolation, withdrawal, or hyperactivity, there is an even greater risk of problems in

adolescence (Kellam and Brown, 1982).

Academic failure beginning in late elementary

school (substance abuse, delinquency, violence,

teenage pregnancy, and school dropout). Beginning

in the late elementary grades, academic failure increases the risk of drug abuse, delinquency, violence,

teen pregnancy, and school dropout. Children fail for

many reasons, but it appears that the experience of

failure itself, not necessarily a lack of ability, increases

the risk of problem behaviors (Jessor, 1976;

Farrington, 1991).

Lack of commitment to school (substance abuse,

delinquency, teenage pregnancy, and school dropout). Children who are not committed to school have

ceased to see the role of student as a viable part of

their lives and are at higher risk for problem behaviors (Gottfredson, 1988; Johnston, 1991).

Individual and Peer Group Risk Factors

Rebelliousness (substance abuse, delinquency, and

school dropout). Young people who feel they are not

a part of society and not bound by its rules, who do

not believe in trying to be successful or responsible, or

who take an actively rebellious stance toward society

are at higher risk of drug abuse, delinquency, and

school dropout (Jessor and Jessor, 1977; Kandel, 1982;

Bachman, Lloyd, and O’Malley, 1981).

Friends who engage in the problem behaviors (substance abuse, delinquency, violence, teenage pregnancy, and school dropout). Young people who

associate with peers who engage in problem behaviors—delinquency, substance abuse, violent activity,

sexual activity, or dropping out of school—are much

more likely to engage in the same behaviors (Barnes

and Welte, 1986; Farrington, 1991; Cairns, Cairns,

Neckerman, Gest, and Gairepy, 1988; Elliott et al., 1989).

This association is one of the most consistent predictors that research has identified. Even when young

people come from well-managed families and do not

experience other risk factors, just spending time with

friends who engage in problem behaviors greatly

increases the risk of developing similar problems.

Favorable attitudes toward the problem behavior

(substance abuse, delinquency, teenage pregnancy,

and school dropout). During their elementary school

years, children usually express anti-drug, anti-crime,

and prosocial attitudes, and have difficulty imagining

why people use drugs, commit crimes, or drop out of

school. In middle school, however, their attitudes

often shift toward greater acceptance of delinquent

behaviors as others they know participate in such

activities. This acceptance places them at higher risk

(Kandel et al., 1978; Huesmann and Eron, 1986).

Early initiation of problem behaviors (substance

abuse, delinquency, violence, teenage pregnancy,

and school dropout). The earlier young people drop

out of school, begin using drugs, commit crimes, and

become sexually active, the greater the likelihood that

they will have chronic problems with these behaviors

later in life (Elliott et al., 1986). Research shows, for

example, that young people who initiate drug use

before the age of 15 are at twice the risk of having

drug problems as those adolescents who wait until

after the age of 19 (Robins and Przybeck, 1985).

Constitutional factors (substance abuse, delinquency, and violence). Constitutional factors that
22

contribute to problem behaviors may have a

biological or physiological basis (Hawkins and Lam,

1987). These factors are often seen in young people

exhibiting such behaviors as sensation seeking, low

harm-avoidance, and lack of impulse control. These

factors appear to increase the risk of young people

abusing drugs, engaging in delinquent behavior, and

committing violent acts.

Generalizations About Risk

The following generalizations regarding risks for

crime, violence, and substance abuse have important

implications for risk-focused prevention:

• Exposure to a greater number of risk factors increases risk of crime, violence, and substance abuse

geometrically.

• Risks are found in many domains, including the

community, the family, the school, the peer group,

and the individual. These findings suggest that

prevention programming must use multiple strategies to reduce multiple risk factors. Agencies that

traditionally administer categorical funds will need

to collaborate in reducing a variety of risks at multiple levels if a risk-focused prevention approach is

to succeed.

• Because common risk factors predict diverse problem behaviors—including crime, violence, and

substance abuse—generic prevention strategies

that address these common risk factors should

affect a wide spectrum of health and behavior

problems. Thus, comprehensive risk-focused prevention initiatives should be designed and implemented to reduce overall levels of risk exposure at

the community, family, school, peer, and individual

levels. Effects on a broad range of health and behavior problems, including substance abuse, school

dropout, teen pregnancy, violence, and crime,

should be evaluated.

• Risk factors show much consistency in effects

across different races and cultures. While levels of

risk may vary in different groups, the risk factors

appear to operate in the same way across different

racial and cultural groups.

• Protective factors may buffer exposure to risks.

Protective Factors Against Crime,

Violence, and Substance Abuse

Awareness of the risk factors helps identify what to

focus on to prevent adolescent problem behaviors.

However, knowledge of the risk factors does not indicate how to reduce risk. Understanding protective factors provides the key to effective risk reduction.

Research shows that some children exposed to multiple risk factors manage to avoid adolescent health

and behavior problems. Research has identified protective factors that appear to insulate these children

against the effects of risk exposure. These protective

factors have been grouped into three classes:

• Factors inherent in the individual.

• Factors related to social bonding.

• Healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior.

When families, schools, and communities have clearly stated policies

and expectations for young people’s

behavior, children are less likely to

become involved in crime and

delinquency.

Individual protective factors include female gender,

high intelligence, a positive social orientation, and a

resilient temperament that helps a child bounce back

in adverse circumstances. Research indicates that one

of the most effective ways to protect young people

from risk exposure is to strengthen their bonds with

positive, prosocial family members, adults outside the

family (including teachers, coaches, youth leaders),

and friends. Young people with strong, supportive

relationships with families, friends, school, and community are invested in or committed to achieving the

goals held by these groups. They are bonded to these

groups. Young people who are bonded are less likely

to do things that threaten that bond—such as use

drugs, become violent, or commit crimes. Studies of

children who avoid problem behavior despite living
23

in high-risk situations show that strong bonds with

an adult—whether parent or other family member,

teacher, coach, community member, or other significant adult—can decrease the likelihood of delinquent

behavior.

When families, schools, and communities have clearly

stated policies and expectations for young people’s

behavior, children are less likely to become involved

in crime and delinquency. Healthy beliefs and clear

standards, communicated consistently by the significant individuals and social groups to whom the child

is bonded, build a web of protection for young people

exposed to risk.

Social Development Strategy

The social development strategy (see figure 3) reduces

identified risk factors by enhancing known protective

factors against health and behavior problems. It provides a model for addressing targeted risks in a way

that enhances protection.

The goal of the social development strategy is healthy

behavior. Healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior in the family, school, and community directly

promote healthy behavior in children. For example,

during the 1980’s the “Just Say No” campaign, the

War on Drugs, and Drug-Free Zones were all elements of a strategy of advocating clear standards for

behavior concerning illegal drug use, and they had an

important impact in changing community standards

about illegal drug use.

Another element was an increasing recognition that

drug use was unhealthy, as studies reported the negative health consequences of tobacco, alcohol, and

other drug use. As new standards and beliefs developed concerning drug use, marijuana and cocaine use

rates dropped significantly.

The United States is just beginning a discussion about

healthy beliefs and clear standards in response to

violence in families, neighborhoods, and communities. Responsible adults must, through words and

deeds, show the Nation’s youth that fighting does not

solve problems and that the violent behavior portrayed in the entertainment media does not provide a

good model for real life. We need to set clear standards about acceptable, nonviolent behavior. Another

Healthy Beliefs

and

Clear Standards

Bonding

Individual

Characteristics

● Attachment

● Commitment

Opportunities Skills Recognition

Healthy Behaviors

Figure 3: Social Development Strategy

critical protective factor that promotes healthy behavior is bonding with families, peer groups, schools, and

communities. A sense of community must be recreated in this country. Despite changes in norms concerning drug use, each year thousands of young

people in the United States begin to use tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and other drugs. Many of

these youth do not identify with individuals or

groups that communicate healthy beliefs and clear

standards about drugs. Because they are not bonded

to the larger society, these young people ignore the

anti-drug message. For young people to accept these

messages, they first need help in developing the motivation to live by healthy standards. The social development strategy suggests that by bonding with

people and institutions that promote healthy beliefs

and clear standards, youth will adopt similar beliefs

and standards. Bonding can provide the motivation

youth need to protect themselves from exposure

to risk.

Children who feel a bond to those with healthy beliefs

and clear standards do not want to behave in ways

that would threaten that bond.
24

To promote bonding, three conditions must be met:

• Children must have meaningful, challenging

opportunities to contribute to their families,

schools, peers, and communities. This helps them

feel responsible and significant.

• Children must be taught the skills they need to

take advantage of the opportunities they receive.

Without these skills, children are likely to experience frustration and/or failure.

• Children must receive recognition for their efforts.

Recognition motivates children to contribute and

reinforces skillful performance.

In short, families, schools, and communities that view

youth as resources and that provide youth with

opportunities, skills, and recognition for making an

active contribution create a protective environment

for healthy development.

Without strong bonds to positive individuals and

groups with healthy beliefs and clear standards for

behavior, youth may bond with those who have unhealthy beliefs and standards, such as gangs. Gangs

provide all the conditions necessary to promote bonding. If young people do not have opportunities to

bond with people who have healthy beliefs, many

youth will find their way to antisocial individuals

and groups.

possess these special protective characteristics must

have opportunities and recognition in their families,

schools, and communities to promote strong bonding

as a protective factor.

Prevention Principles

Understanding the research on risk and protective

factors for crime, violence, and substance abuse suggests a set of principles that should guide prevention

programming:

• Prevention efforts must address known risk factors

for crime, violence, and substance abuse.

• Prevention efforts must clearly connect program

activities with risk reduction. For example, family

management problems have been identified as a

risk factor for health and behavior problems in

children, and these problems may emerge from

different sources. Parents who work may need

more effective ways to monitor their children’s

behavior; in such cases, childcare centers, schools,

and latchkey programs can report children’s daily

behavior to parents. Alternatively, if the problem

stems from a lack of knowledge of effective discipline techniques, providing parents with opportunities to learn and practice a variety of parenting

skills may be effective. The link between prevention activities and the risk reduction objective

should be clearly specified.

• Prevention programs should communicate consistent, healthy beliefs and clear standards and encourage bonding. This means giving young people

opportunities for meaningful involvement, teaching them the skills they need, and recognizing their

contributions.

• Risk reduction activities should address risks at or

before the time they become predictive of later

problems. Early intervention is likely to minimize

the effort needed and maximize the outcome. For

example, interventions to improve family management practices before the child is born or during

infancy are likely to be more effective than efforts

after a referral to authorities for abuse or neglect.

• Interventions should reach individuals and communities exposed to multiple risk factors. Since

Prevention programs should

communicate consistent, healthy

beliefs and clear standards and

encourage bonding.

Individual protective factors affect one’s ability to

perceive opportunities, develop skills, and obtain

recognition. For example, a child with a positive social orientation is more likely to see a childcare setting

as an opportunity to make new friends. An intelligent

child may find it easier to develop the reading skills

necessary for success in the classroom of a mediocre

teacher. Children with resilient temperaments are

more likely to persist in discovering ways to be recognized for their accomplishments. Youth who do not
25

those exposed to multiple risks are at much greater

risk, efforts to prevent chronic and serious problems of crime, violence, and substance abuse need

to reach these populations. Approaches can identify individuals or communities exposed to multiple risks. Working with high-risk communities

has advantages in that individual children are not

labeled at early ages as potential problems. A second advantage is that high- and low-risk children

can continue to associate and learn from each other.

Evidence suggests that this approach benefits

youth exposed to high levels of risk without

deleterious effects on youth at lower risk. A

communitywide approach allows higher- and

lower-risk families in a neighborhood to work and

learn together, modeling, supporting, and reinforcing efforts to strengthen protective factors and

processes.

• Since multiple risks in multiple domains predict

serious crime, violence, and substance abuse, a

range of coordinated prevention approaches

should be used that address key risk factors across

the domains of community, family, school, individual, and peer group.

• Prevention programs must reach and be accepted

by the diverse racial, cultural, and socioeconomic

groups in a community. This is best accomplished

by providing full representation of these groups in

all aspects of planning and implementation.

Planning and Implementing a

Comprehensive Prevention Strategy

The process of planning and implementing a comprehensive prevention strategy is crucial to the success of

this strategy. The following elements are essential:

• Take a communitywide approach.

• Create ownership.

• Reach the diverse groups in the community.

• Include key elected officials and grassroots community leaders.

• Give priority to risk factors that cause the most

problems in the community.

• Gain the commitment of all stakeholders to a longterm, sustained effort.

The most effective approach is one that reduces risk

and enhances protection in all areas that affect young

people’s lives, including the family, school, peer

group, and community. For example, even an excellent school behavior management curriculum is not

likely to deter adolescents from crime and delinquency by itself because children and youth spend

much of their time outside the school environment—

with family, peers, and in the larger community.

A communitywide approach to prevention of serious

and violent crime is effective for several reasons. First,

this approach affects the entire social environment.

The focus is on influencing norms, values, and policies throughout the community, as well as eliminating

the conditions that place children at risk for adolescent problems. Second, this approach develops a

broad base of support and teamwork. By involving

the entire community, no single organization, strategy,

person, or institution carries the entire burden of

responsibility for solving serious and violent crime.

This teamwork approach brings together all community members—young people, parents, educators, law

enforcement, government officials, religious leaders,

ethnic and minority groups, business people, civic

groups, social service providers, and health professionals—to work toward a common vision of their

community as a healthy, protective environment for

all children. Third, a communitywide approach institutionalizes prevention by integrating prevention

strategies into the services and activities of existing

organizations and institutions.

The strategy must mobilize key community leaders

who control resources and direct policy. These key

Key leaders must have the ability

to empower a coalition of diverse

community representatives to work

collaboratively to build a web of

protection and support for all

children.
26

leaders must have the will and the leadership to focus

the community on prevention. They must commit to

institutionalizing a collaborative approach to riskfocused prevention so that the necessary long-term

effort can be sustained independent of leadership

changes. They must have the ability to empower a

coalition of diverse community representatives to

work collaboratively to build a web of protection and

support for all children. The breadth and diversity of

this collaborative working group will determine the

success of prevention efforts.

Prevention strategies must reach and communicate

effectively with the population at risk. Effective prevention programs address diverse populations and

empower people to take ownership of the program

techniques. Without this ownership, it is difficult to

apply even the most potent program with sufficient

vigor to change a neighborhood, family, or child. The

best outcomes are likely to result from combining

knowledge of effective prevention programs focused

on risk and protective factors with local ownership of

prevention initiatives.

Prevention programs should address those factors

that put children in a particular community at most

danger of developing serious criminal, violent, or

substance-abusing behavior. Addressing all risk factors at once is likely to overburden the prevention

system. Each community should assess its unique risk

profile to select and design prevention strategies that

address the risk factors most dangerous in that

community.

Prevention strategies must be long term to realize the

full benefits—sustained efforts are required to change

and shape behavior patterns. Comprehensive,

communitywide prevention literally changes how

children are reared. For example, in programs using

home visitors to deliver services, long-term intervention increases the likelihood that the mother and

home visitor will develop a trusting relationship in

which knowledge and skills can be shared, which in

turn can strengthen the mother’s commitment to her

own and her child’s development.

Comprehensive, communitywide prevention requires

collaboration and resource sharing. In most communities, barriers must be broken down and collaborative

bridges built among and within agencies, organizations, and groups with responsibility for addressing

juvenile delinquency. For example, schools must interact more effectively with the community—including business, senior organizations, local government,

social service and health agencies, and civic organizations—in pursuing their educational goals. Just as

important, schools must become models of collaboration by eliminating barriers between teachers, administrators, special educators, educational assistants,

parent volunteers, and students and building bridges

that help them reach the goal of success for all young

people. Each organization, agency, and institution

must “get its own house in order” as well as reach out

to build collaborative relationships with others in the

community. Clearly success in this process requires a

sustained effort. Evidence from public health efforts

to affect community norms about smoking and highfat diets demonstrates that community norms can be

changed. However, change requires long-term commitment by the entire community.

Preventive strategies must be carried out by those

who have a strong commitment to prevention and

who are trained for specific intervention tasks. Service

providers, whether professionals or paraprofessionals, must be well trained in the preventive methods

they are expected to implement. All staff require regular inservice training, supportive supervision, and

sufficient compensation to promote high-quality services, engage families and children in the intervention, and reduce job stress.

Finally, expectations should be realistic. Good prevention programs usually show modest to moderate benefits. Reducing crime, violence, and substance abuse

requires sustained, communitywide efforts directed at

all developmental stages and across all the influential

domains affecting children’s behavior.

Evidence from public health efforts

to affect community norms about

smoking and high-fat diets demonstrates that community norms can

be changed.
27

A Model for Implementing a

Comprehensive Prevention Strategy

The overall effectiveness of a community’s prevention

efforts will be determined by three factors: the processes used to select prevention strategies, the specific

preventive programs used, and the methods used to

implement these programs.

An approach that can guide communitywide, riskfocused prevention is the Communities That Care

(CTC) model (Hawkins and Catalano, 1992). This

model empowers communities to identify and address

priority risk factors based on epidemiological evidence

on local risk and protective factors. By recognizing and

building on existing community resources and programs, this model develops a comprehensive system to

reduce risks and enhance protective factors.

CTC is the result of more than 14 years of research and

program development on delinquency and substance

abuse prevention. It includes a 1-year planning phase

involving community mobilization, risk and resource

assessment, and strategic planning followed by an

implementation phase. The planning phase begins

with an orientation period for key community leaders—mayors, police chiefs, judges, school superintendents, and business, civic, and religious leaders—on

the risk-focused prevention approach. The orientation

helps the leaders understand the community they seek

to mobilize, assess its readiness, and develop a shared

vision for the future. Involving community leaders in

this process makes it more likely that they will commit

resources to prevention once the community’s strategic

prevention plan is completed. After the orientation

period, the leaders appoint or identify a community

prevention board, whose members should include

informal and grassroots leaders and representatives of

key educational, law enforcement, business, religious,

and health and human service areas. The prevention

board becomes a permanent community institution.

The following questions should be considered when

developing a community prevention board:

• How many members should be appointed to the

board? (Depending on the size of the community,

a board of 15 to 30 people is necessary.)

• Does the board reflect the racial, ethnic, cultural,

and socioeconomic diversity of the community?

• Are all the significant areas of a youth’s life represented on the board—home, school, community,

and peers? Young people should also serve on the

board.

• What will be the board’s official status? Will it be a

separate 501(C)(3) nonprofit organization? Will it

be a part of government?

• How will the board be governed and to whom will

it be accountable?

• How will communication between board members

and key leaders be ensured?

• How will the board use the social development

strategy as a model in bonding members to the

group by providing opportunities, skills, and

recognition?

Once established, the community prevention board is

trained to assess community risks. The board must

collect and analyze data on risk indicators and assess

existing prevention programs in terms of risk, protective factors, and demonstrated effectiveness. This risk

assessment provides the prevention board with a

concrete, objective analysis of community risks,

enabling communities to focus resources on the highpriority risks. Using objective data to identify community priorities promotes community support for

prevention activities and reduces turf battles over

programs and resources.

After the assessment is completed, the community

prevention board identifies two to five high-priority

risk factors that are present at the local level at a

higher rate than national or State averages. This creates a collaborative problem-solving focus in which

all groups play an active role. For example, if academic failure is a priority risk factor, schools can provide enhanced instruction, family-oriented groups

can establish parent programs to support academic

success, youth agencies can include educational components in afterschool and late-night programs, and

law enforcement can emphasize truancy prevention.

Once the priority risk factors have been identified, the

board collects information about the effectiveness of

existing community programs to address these risk

factors. Resource assessment helps identify programming gaps that can be addressed in the strategic plan.
28

The next step is to create a strategic prevention plan

to fill identified programming gaps with specific programs that address high-priority risk factors. Effective

programs that reduce risks and enhance protection

are described in Part IV, along with those that show

promise. Effective programs that already address

high-priority risk factors are included in the strategic

plan, which includes a design for evaluating the process and outcomes of the Comprehensive Strategy.

The implementation phase begins at this point, with

the board creating working groups for each new or

enhanced program element in the strategic plan.

The working groups oversee program planning and

implementation in each area. The board has overall

responsibility for implementing identified programs

and providing ongoing, systematic evaluation of the

program activities and outcomes. In addition, the

board oversees the new risk and resource assessment

that is carried out at least every 2 years. As changes in

risk and protective factors occur in the community,

the board should adjust its prevention plan accordingly. This allows the plan to address changing conditions produced either by the previous interventions or

changing risk conditions. At all stages of planning

and implementation, it is important to have diverse

representation from the community—including

ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, age, and geographic

diversity, and representation by all relevant community agencies and organizations.

Selecting Program Strategies

The process of evaluating and selecting prevention

strategies is an ongoing part of a comprehensive, riskfocused prevention effort. Once communities develop

strategic plans to fill gaps identified through the risk

and resource assessment, the next step is to select

program strategies.

This section highlights effective and promising

approaches developed through CTC for reducing

risks while enhancing protection. As used here, the

term “effective programs” refers to those where there

is strong research evidence of reduced risks and

enhanced protective factors for crime, violence, and

substance abuse. Promising programs are those that

show promise of effectiveness and meet the program

assessment criteria drawn from prevention principles.

Once communities develop strategic

plans to fill gaps identified through

the risk and resource assessment,

the next step is to select program

strategies.

These programs can be used in several ways, depending on the community’s risk profile. Some programs

may fill identified gaps in the community. Others may

serve as models for modifying existing community

programs to more effectively address risks and

enhance protection.

In choosing prevention strategies, communities must

remember that risk factors for serious crime and

violence exist for children of all ages, from infancy

through adolescence, as well as in all the domains that

affect their lives. A comprehensive prevention plan

must address risks and protective factors at all stages

of development and span the domains of the family,

school, community, individual, and peer group.

Promising strategies for reducing risks for delinquency and violence can be classified as follows:

• Preschool and family programs.

• School programs.

• Programs directed to youth in peer groups and

settings outside the family and school.

• Community-level interventions.

A fuller discussion of prevention strategies and

specific programs appears in Part II, which focuses

specifically on prevention.

A Risk-Focused Approach to

Graduated Sanctions

The OJJDP Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders is based on

a risk-focused continuum of graduated sanctions in

which secure care is reserved for the small percentage

of juvenile offenders who are violent and in which a

broad range of well-structured, community-based
29

programs is provided for most offenders. Research

has shown that such community-based programs can

reduce recidivism more effectively than traditional

large-scale institutions and at less cost. Part III

reviews some of these programs.

The Comprehensive Strategy’s model of risk-focused

graduated sanctions is based on a planned continuum

of programs. This continuum includes immediate

sanctions in the community for first-time, nonviolent

offenders; intermediate sanctions for more serious

offenders; and secure care programs for the most violent offenders. For those who are placed in residential

programs, there must be a high-quality system of

aftercare to support community reentry.

While there is no perfect model for a graduated sanctions system, something close to a professional consensus has emerged concerning the core principles of

such a system. These core principles were summarized by Wilson and Howell (1993) in the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders: Program Summary. (See p. 7 in this Guide.)

The risk-focused graduated sanctions system combines reasonable, fair, humane, and appropriate

sanctions that blend concern for public safety with

attention to the rehabilitative needs of young people.

Juveniles move between different levels of the continuum through a well-structured system involving

different levels of control and supervision. At each

level of the continuum, offenders and their families

understand that the youth will be subject to more

restrictive sanctions if offending continues.

Objective risk-based classification instruments are

employed to determine which level of the continuum

is most appropriate for each youth. The instruments

are based on the risk the offender poses in terms of

reoffending and take into account the severity of the

current offense, the number and severity of prior

offenses, and the presence of other risk factors.

Under the Comprehensive Strategy, programs are

small in size at all levels of the continuum, ensuring

that youth receive individualized attention. Rehabilitation plans are customized to meet the needs of each

youth and, whenever possible, involve families and

extended families in the reform process. Residential

programs have strong aftercare components in which

the family and the community help reintegrate the

youth to the community.

Coordinating and Integrating Services

Soler (1992) has noted that most services for children

and families in the United States are categorical, fragmented, and uncoordinated. Children labeled as

“delinquent” are tracked toward correctional placements aimed at keeping them within a designated

setting and modifying their behavior, with little effort

to resolve underlying family problems. Children

labeled “abused,” “neglected,” or “dependent” are

removed from their homes and quickly placed in

foster care but rarely receive preventive family support or mental health services. Children with mental

health needs are placed in secure psychiatric settings

and often heavily medicated, with little opportunity

for treatment in community-based, family-oriented

programs.

This fragmented human services system does not

effectively serve anyone: not youth, not families, and

not communities. The system is expensive, it often

fails to solve youth’s problems, and youth are referred

from here to there with little followup. In some cases,

this fragmented system results in iatrogenic outcomes, making the patient sicker, rather than effecting

a cure. One solution to this dilemma is to create a

coordinated, community-based system that offers a

continuum of care, including prevention, early intervention, and treatment services. Its goal would be to

serve youth’s needs, not the requirements of funding

streams or various bureaucracies. Collaborative

efforts are needed among agencies responsible for

assessing the needs of at-risk youth and providing

several simultaneous services to maximize efforts.

Without a continuum of care, the piecemeal, fragmented

systems will continue to offer fragmented services for a

Most services for children and

families in the United States are

categorical, fragmented, and

uncoordinated.
30

variety of problems, never solving any of them. Children

in trouble who need out-of-home services can be found

in four different systems: the juvenile justice system, the

alcohol and other drug treatment system, the mental

health system, and the social welfare system. Without

coordination among these systems, the same youth will

loop in and out of all of them.

Peggy Smith, director of Indiana’s Step Ahead program, a statewide coordinating effort, says, “We’ve

got staff who have been living in silos for 30 years.

We’re asking them to interrelate differently, that their

relationships should be different, and to move away

from categorical approaches to a more blended

approach, a networked approach that forces them to

behave differently. That’s the hard part.” (Howard,

1994, p.1).

Comprehensive service systems should offer services

that provide care, protection, and treatment while

reducing placements in out-of-home settings. The

services should be focused on the child, strengthen

the family, and be located in the community. These

services provide alternatives to restrictive out-ofhome placements, which are more expensive.

In-home placements are best for the child unless there

is a serious case of abuse or neglect or the public

safety is threatened.

An example of a comprehensive service system is the

Norfolk Interagency Consortium (NIC), which was

created to coordinate community resources and to

improve services. It is governed by a board of representatives of the heads of health, social services, police, education, juvenile services and other agencies,

parents, and private citizens. The board ensures coordinated delivery of comprehensive services, including

access to a State pool of funds. Service collaboration

is put into action by Community Assessment Teams

(CAT’s), which consist of case manager supervisors

from the agencies represented on the NIC. The CAT’s

conduct needs assessments and treatment plans for

children whose multiple, co-occurring problem behaviors require the assessment resources of more than

one discipline or agency and whose service needs

require collaboration by two or more agencies. The

comprehensive assessments and treatment plans are

carried out by the responsible agencies, working in

close collaboration, under the supervision of the assigned CAT.

The ultimate goal of the public health model of

prevention is to avoid illness. In the juvenile justice

context, the goal should be to prevent youth from

becoming involved in the juvenile justice system.

However, unlike medicine’s eradication of smallpox

in the 20th century, we have not yet found the way to

prevent all youth from becoming involved in the juvenile justice system. We do know, however, that once

youth become involved in the system, graduated

sanctions can deter some from becoming more deeply

involved. We also recognize that some youth need to

be in secure care to protect society.

The Role of Risk-Focused Classification

Communities developing a graduated sanctions system need tools to determine how many youth, and

which ones, should be placed at each security level of

the continuum of care. In an effective graduated sanctions system, risk-focused classifications are used to

make placement decisions for juvenile offenders.

Risk-focused classification instruments are gaining

popularity because they give juvenile justice practitioners a more objective, simple, and reliable tool to help

them make placement decisions. It is critical to note

that these risk-assessment instruments are used to

augment, not replace, the judgment of experienced

juvenile justice personnel. The Comprehensive Strategy assumes that placement decisions are initially

based solely on public safety considerations. Treatment or rehabilitative needs are considered only after

deciding on the level of security required by each

youthful offender. It has frequently been observed

that juvenile justice decisions often vacillate between

a treatment versus public protection philosophy.

While both philosophies are important to the juvenile

court, putting initial emphasis on public safety considerations will increase public support for juvenile

justice programs and result in efficient use of limited

secure confinement resources.

The concept of risk assessment is central to the Comprehensive Strategy. Risk assessment is a procedure

for estimating the probability that a group of similar

offenders will commit future crimes. Risk assessment

instruments attempt to sort youth into groups with

differing probabilities of reoffending, just as insurance

companies estimate the risks for customers seeking
31

automobile or life insurance. Well-designed risk instruments provide maximum separation of these subgroups based on their actual rates of recidivism; the

highest risk group will have much higher rates of

recidivism than the lowest risk group. Table 1 shows

the rates of subsequent rearrest by risk group of delinquents referred or committed to Michigan Youth Services. Those in the high-risk group were more than

three times as likely to be rearrested as those in the

low-risk group.

Risk assessment instruments are effective in predicting aggregate outcomes because they are based on

group data. However, these instruments cannot correctly predict outcomes for specific individuals: some

high-risk youth will not commit additional crimes

and low-risk youth will reoffend. Thus, risk assessment can be viewed as a technique to reduce, but not

eliminate, our uncertainty about human behavior

(Clear, 1988).

Because the rate of violence (even among serious

offenders) is usually low, predicting future violent or

assaultive behavior is extremely difficult. As a result,

most risk assessment scales are not designed to predict violence. General recidivism is easier to predict

because minor or moderately serious offenses occur

more frequently, and a statistical prediction that a

new offense of any type will be committed is easier

than a prediction of future violent behavior. While the

risk scale does not, therefore, predict the likelihood of

future violent acts, program selections and placement

review procedures discussed later do take into

account prior violent offenses when determining the

appropriate security level required for each youth.

Risk assessment instruments generally include two

types of measures: criminal history and social and

personal stability. Most research indicates that these

two types of variables are strongly related to recidivism. Typical criminal history items include number

of prior arrests or adjudications and age at first arrest

or adjudication. Stability items may include substance

abuse problems, history of running away, mental

health problems, and prior out-of-home placements.

Figures 4 and 5 show the risk assessment instruments

utilized in Louisiana and Colorado. The factors used

in the two instruments reflect both the severity of the

current offense and the probability of continued delinquency. Both instruments give the greatest weight to

measures of the severity of current and prior offenses.

In fact, the offense severity weights and the classification cutoff scores have been designed to ensure that

youth committing the most serious offenses are automatically recommended for secure placement. Both

instruments classify youth into three categories: highrisk youth in need of secure placement, medium-risk

youth in need of short-term secure placement followed by community supervision, and low-risk

youth who are appropriate for intensive communitybased placements.

Results of Previous Classification

Studies

Risk-focused classification systems have been developed in many States. Krisberg, Onek, Jones, and

Schwartz (1993) examined the results of classification

studies conducted in 14 States. According to their

study, many States clearly need a broader range of

Table 1: Michigan Youth Services Rates of Subsequent Rearrest by Risk Group

 Percent Rearrested

Risk Level Number of Cases Once Twice Thrice Total

Low 331 (33%) 11.2% 3.6% 0.3% 14.8%

Moderate 511 (51%) 28.8% 7.6% 2.9% 39.3%

High 156 (16%) 28.8% 16.7% 7.1% 52.6%

 Total 998 (100%)
32

Figure 4: Louisiana Office of Juvenile Services Secure Custody Screening Document

 Score

1. Severity of Present Adjudicated Offense ___________

Level 0 felony ..................................................................................................................... 10

Level 1 felony ....................................................................................................................... 7

Level 2 felony ....................................................................................................................... 5

Level 3 felony ....................................................................................................................... 3

Level 4 felony ....................................................................................................................... 1

All others .............................................................................................................................. 0

2. If Present Adjudication Involves ___________

Possession/use of firearm.................................................................................................. 2

Multiple felonies.................................................................................................................. 2

3. Number of Prior Adjudications ___________

Two or more felony adjudications .................................................................................... 2

One felony or 2 + misdemeanors ...................................................................................... 1

None ...................................................................................................................................... 0

4. Most Serious Prior Adjudication ___________

Level 0 or level 1 felony ..................................................................................................... 5

Level 2 felony ....................................................................................................................... 3

Level 3 or below .................................................................................................................. 0

5. For Offenders With Prior Adjudications ___________

Age at first adjudication

Age 13 or younger ....................................................................................................... 2

Age 14 ............................................................................................................................ 1

Age 15 and older .......................................................................................................... 0

6. History of Probation/Parole Supervision ___________

Offender currently on probation/parole ......................................................................... 2

Offender with probation/parole revocation ................................................................... 1

7. History of Inhome/Nonsecure Residential Intervention ___________

Three or more prior failures .............................................................................................. 3

One or two prior failures ................................................................................................... 1

None ...................................................................................................................................... 0

8. If the Offender Had a Prior Placement in OJS .................................................................... 2 ___________

9. Prior Escapes or Runaways ___________

From secure more than once.............................................................................................. 3

From secure once or nonsecure 2+ ................................................................................... 2

From nonsecure once .......................................................................................................... 0

Total Score ___________

Recommended Action

0–6 = Consider nonsecure placement

7–8 = Consider short-term secure placement

9 + = Consider secure placement
33

Figure 5: Colorado Security Placement Instrument

1. Severity of Current Offense ___________

Murder, rape, kidnap, escape .......................................................................................... 10

Other violent ........................................................................................................................ 5

All other ................................................................................................................................ 0

2. Severity of Prior Adjudication ___________

Violent offense ..................................................................................................................... 5

Property offense .................................................................................................................. 3

Other/none .......................................................................................................................... 0

3. Number of Prior Adjudications ___________

Two or more ......................................................................................................................... 5

Less than two ....................................................................................................................... 0

Total Items 1–3 ___________

Total items 1–3. If score is 10 or higher, score as secure placement.

If less than 10, score remaining stability items.

4. Age at First Referral ___________

12–13...................................................................................................................................... 2

14+ ......................................................................................................................................... 0

5. History of Mental Health Outpatient Care ___________

Yes .......................................................................................................................................... 1

No .......................................................................................................................................... 0

6. Youth Lived Alone or With Friends at Time of Current Adjudication ___________

Yes .......................................................................................................................................... 1

No .......................................................................................................................................... 0

7. Prior Out-of-Home Placements ___________

Yes .......................................................................................................................................... 1

No .......................................................................................................................................... 0

Total Items 1–7 ___________

Apply score to the following placement scale:

10+ Consider for Secure

5–9 Short-Term Placement

0–4 Immediate Community
34

Figure 6: State Classification Recommendations Based on

Risk Assessment Instruments

Percent of Youth

High Risk 27 54 23 34 59 67 51 46 13 23 51 16 66 27

Medium Risk 22 30 49 66 23 28 37 19 16 33 26 31 22 26

Low Risk 51 16 28 – 18 5 12 35 71 44 23 53 12 47

program options more closely suited to the public

safety risks posed by the juveniles in State custody.

In each State in this study, researchers worked in

conjunction with a local juvenile justice task force to

develop a risk assessment instrument. The factors

included in the risk assessment instruments reflected

a primary emphasis on public safety in making placement decisions. The risk assessment instruments,

which were applied to the training school populations

in each State, classified youth into one of three

groups: high risk, medium risk, and low risk.

Figure 6 shows how youth in the 14 States were distributed among the 3 risk categories. In every State, a

significant portion of the youth in training schools

were found not to need long-term residential care;

that is, did not score as high risk. In Mississippi, only

13 percent of training school youth were classified

as high risk; in Oregon, this proportion was just

16 percent. In Georgia training schools, which had the

highest percentage of high-risk youth (67 percent),

one-third of the youth scored as medium or low risk.

In each of the 14 States, at least one-third of the youth

in training schools were found not to need long-term

secure residential care, based on public safetyoriented assessment criteria developed by juvenile

justice officials in the respective States.

Krisberg and his colleagues took this analysis a step

further by applying the risk classification results to

compute the number of secure beds needed in each

State. According to their calculations (shown in table

2), using objective public safety risk factors, an average of 31 percent of incarcerated juveniles in the

14 States could be safely placed in less secure settings.

Nebraska had the highest estimated secure bed reduction of 68 percent; Rhode Island had the lowest at

5 percent. Many States maintained more secure

Note: Instrument design varied among States.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk

AL AR AZ CO DE GA IL LA MS NE NH OR RI WI
35

residential beds than were necessary, based on their

own public safety standards. Since States commonly

spend between $35,000 and $60,000 per year to incarcerate a youth (Camp and Camp, 1990), reductions in

training school placements would reduce costs

considerably.

The 14 studies included in the Krisberg analysis, as

well as similar and more recent studies in the District

of Columbia, Indiana, and Michigan, underscore the

value of structured, public-safety oriented classification instruments in making placement decisions. In

addition to ensuring that these decisions are made in

a consistent fashion, these instruments help reduce

inappropriate placements, thereby reducing the costs

of juvenile court sanctions.

Forming a Graduated Sanctions

Working Group

The first step a community must take to develop a

risk-focused graduated sanctions system is to convene

a special graduated sanctions working group. The

makeup of this working group is crucial to the success

of the Comprehensive Strategy. The working group

must include all key juvenile justice decisionmakers

in the jurisdiction, including judges, prosecutors,

police, and youth corrections managers. Members

must have a high degree of respect and credibility in

the community. If the working group includes respected decisionmakers from the diverse components

of the juvenile justice system, the programs will be

more readily accepted by juvenile justice personnel,

elected officials, and the public. The working group

carries out the following tasks:

• Decides which population to screen using the

classification instruments.

• Develops a risk assessment instrument.

• Develops a needs assessment instrument.

• Develops a program selection matrix.

Table 2: NCCD Bed Calculation

Residential Beds

Annual Number of Needed per Percentage

State Admissions Residential Beds NCCD/CSYP Study Reduction

Alabama 891 430 327 24

Arizona 981 640 369 42

Arkansas 692 267 248 7

Colorado 543 342 244 29

Delaware 243 65 53 18

Georgia 901 730 670 8

Illinois 1,596 1,210 978 19

Louisiana 899 778 482 38

Mississippi 1,354 300 222 26

Nebraska 281 305 98 68

New Hampshire 110 107 65 39

Oregon 720 513 203 60

Rhode Island 224 171 162 5

Wisconsin 992 658 371 44

Totals 10,427 6,516 4,492 31
36

• Recommends program options based on applying

the classification instruments to the selected

population.

Determining Which Population Should

Be Screened by the Classification

System

The working group must first determine the population to be classified using the risk-focused system.

Ideally, the classification instrument would be applied

to all adjudicated youth in a community. In practice,

however, because of budget and staffing limitations,

many jurisdictions choose to focus initially on youth

in secure care, who account for the bulk of juvenile

justice expenditures. Policymakers are often interested in conserving resources by determining how

many secure beds are needed and which youth are

being inappropriately placed. However, it is important that assessments be conducted across the entire

juvenile justice system population.

Developing a Risk Assessment

Instrument

At its first meeting, the working group receives information about how risk assessment is used in similar

jurisdictions. Next, the group begins to develop a risk

assessment instrument for its jurisdiction. There are

two approaches to this task: the empirical model and

the consensus model. The empirical model is recommended for communities that have the time and resources to carry out a large-scale assessment. The

empirical model is research-based and items in an

empirical risk assessment instrument are selected

because they correlate statistically with higher recidivism rates. A community using the empirical model

conducts original research on the recidivism rates of

its juvenile justice population (the question of who is

included in this population is discussed later) to determine which items to include in its risk assessment

instrument. The Colorado risk assessment instrument

shown in figure 5 was developed using the empirical

model. Risk factors were selected for this instrument

that statistically predicted major rule violations or

frequent minor violations while the youngster was

under State custody.

The Louisiana risk assessment instrument shown in

figure 4 was developed using the consensus model.

Under this model, the working group takes an instrument that has been validated elsewhere and modifies

it to conform to its community norms. Working group

members must decide which factors to include in the

instrument and what the relative weight of each factor

will be. The consensus approach is based on the assumption that officials with an intimate understanding of the State’s juvenile justice system and clientele

will make informed, accurate decisions regarding

public safety risks.

The consensus model is less costly and less time consuming than the empirical model because original

research is not required. In practice, its results are

often similar to those of the empirical model because

most policymakers are guided by the results of existing research-based instruments. Nevertheless, it is

crucial that jurisdictions adopting consensus model

risk instruments conduct periodic validation studies

to determine if the instrument is reasonably predictive of youth’s future behavior.

The working group must decide the cutoff points for

classifying youth as high risk, medium risk, and low

risk. These risk classifications will usually be one of

two dimensions to be taken into account in selecting

programs and placement levels for individual youth.

Offense severity is the other.

Developing a Needs Assessment

Instrument

Next, the working group develops a needs assessment

instrument. Results of the needs assessment do not

come into play until after the security level has been

determined. Needs assessments ensure the selection

of the most appropriate program for a youth within

the security level already determined for that youth

through the risk assessment process. The needs

assessment may identify cases with severe needs that

would warrant placement in specialized programs

(e.g., sex offender or violent offender programs) or

make placement in certain programs seem inappropriate. For example, the needs assessment may suggest that a youth’s health problems make the youth an

inappropriate candidate for a rigorous wilderness

program. Needs assessment results should also be
37

the two most important factors to be considered when

making placement decisions: the severity of the current offense and the risk of future recidivism as determined by the risk assessment instrument.

The classification determined by the program selection matrix leads directly to the level and type of

placement for each youth, although there are staff

override procedures that will be discussed in the following section. Using the program matrix, low-risk

youth with limited offense histories are recommended

for immediate sanctions; high-risk youth who are

serious or violent offenders are recommended for

secure incarceration; and youth who fall between

these two categories are recommended for intermediate sanction programs. The program matrix developed by policymakers in Indiana is shown in figure 8.

Now the working group has completed the first step

in developing a program matrix: development of a

risk assessment instrument that classifies youth into

various risk categories. The second step is to decide

what the offense severity groupings will be for the

current charge and which offenses to include in each

offense grouping. In the Indiana matrix, there were

four offense severity groupings: violent offenses, serious offenses, less serious offenses, and minor offenses.

The offense categories included in each of the four

offense severity groupings are listed in figure 9.

The outline of the program matrix is now complete. In

the Indiana example, the risk dimension (consisting of

three levels of risk) and the offense severity dimension (consisting of four levels) combine to form the

12 cells in the matrix. The working group’s next step

is to identify appropriate programs or dispositions for

each cell. The Indiana matrix, developed in consultation with NCCD, serves as an excellent model for the

types of program options that should be available in a

graduated sanctions system. In Indiana, the programs

selected were based on “best practices” identified in a

survey of graduated sanctions conducted by NCCD

for OJJDP and augmented by NCCD’s knowledge of

recently initiated program models in other States.

Brief descriptions of the programs included in the

Indiana matrix can be found in figure 10. Part III provides other examples of the types of programs that

could be included in the matrix.

used in case planning after program acceptance to

identify the appropriate service needs for youth.

The structured needs assessment serves several

purposes in addition to program selection and case

planning. It ensures that certain treatment issues

are consistently examined for all youth by all staff.

It provides a simple, easy-to-use overview of an

individual’s problems for the case manager, program

staff, and service providers. Needs assessment scores

also provide additional measures for setting priorities,

with more time being devoted to cases with higher

scores. Finally, aggregated information derived from

needs assessments provides a data base for agency

planning and evaluation, especially in determining

whether there are enough treatment resources to meet

current client treatment needs.

A review of juvenile justice needs assessment instruments nationwide reveals that most are quite similar

in content and format. Instruments usually contain

items on substance abuse, family functioning and

relationships, emotional stability, school attendance

and behavior, and peer relationships. Many assessments also include measures of health and hygiene,

intellectual ability and achievement, and learning

disabilities. The needs assessment instrument developed by Alaska Youth Services is shown in figure 7.

The reader will note that many of these factors are

identical to the risk factors identified in the CTC

model.

Unlike risk assessment instruments, needs assessments do not necessarily predict future behavior.

Thus, they are not developed through empirical

research. Instead, the consensus approach is employed to identify and set priorities for the most

important service issues. Members of the working

group are responsible for selecting items to include in

the needs assessment instrument. They are guided in

this effort by existing State and Federal laws (e.g.,

laws addressing special education services) and local

philosophies about effective rehabilitation services.

Developing a Program Selection Matrix

After developing the risk and needs assessment

instruments, the working group turns its attention to

developing a program matrix. This matrix consists of
38

Figure 7: Alaska Youth Services Needs Assessment Scale

1. Basic Living Situation ____________

Suitable living environment ................................................................................................ 0

Stable out-of-home residence .............................................................................................. 2

Transitional residence problems, three or more settings ................................................ 3

Chronic residence problems, nomadic lifestyle, unacceptable residence..................... 6

2. Primary Family Relationships ____________

Relatively stable or not applicable ..................................................................................... 0

Some disorganization or stress, but potential for improvement ................................... 2

Chronic disorganization or stress with some potential for improvement ................... 3

Major chronic disorganization or stress ............................................................................ 6

3. Alternative Family Relationships ____________

Relatively stable relationship or not applicable ............................................................... 0

Some disorganization or stress but potential for improvement .................................... 2

Chronic but moderate disorganization or stress .............................................................. 3

Major chronic disorganization or stress ............................................................................ 6

4. Emotional Stability ____________

Appropriate adolescent responses. No apparent dysfunction....................................... 0

Marginal adolescent responses. Minor reluctantly responds to

 expectations and directions ............................................................................................ 2

Exaggerated periodic or sporadic responses such as aggressive

 acting out or depressive withdrawal ............................................................................ 3

Excessive responses prohibit or limit adequate functioning .......................................... 6

5. Peer Relationships ____________

Adequate social skills and nondelinquent friends .......................................................... 0

Negative friends or socially inept ...................................................................................... 2

Delinquent peers ................................................................................................................... 3

Exploitative or manipulative peers or self, and most activities

 with groups having strong delinquent orientation ..................................................... 6

6. Substance Abuse ____________

No known use or interference with functioning .............................................................. 0

Experimentation but no indication of sustained use ....................................................... 1

Occasional use/abuse, some disruption of functioning ................................................. 2

Chronic abuse, serious disruption of functioning ........................................................... 4

7. Victimization ____________

No history or indication of physical or sexual abuse ...................................................... 0

Suspected physical or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation ............................................ 1

Verified physical abuse ........................................................................................................ 2

Verified sexual abuse or both sexual and physical abuse ............................................... 4

8. Intellectual Ability ____________

Ability to function independently...................................................................................... 0

Average or above measured intelligence but has educational disability ..................... 1

Mild retardation requiring need for some assistance ...................................................... 2

Deficiencies severely limit independent functioning ...................................................... 3
39

9. School Adjustment ____________

Attending, in correspondence, graduated, GED. No history of

 discipline problems ......................................................................................................... 0

Occasional attendance, work effort or disciplinary problems

 handled at home/school level ....................................................................................... 2

Severe truancy, behavior problems, or failing to maintain grade-level standing ....... 3

Not attending, withdrawn or expelled .............................................................................. 6

10. Employment ____________

Not needed or currently employed .................................................................................... 0

Currently employed but poor work habits ....................................................................... 1

Needs part-time employment to pay restitution ............................................................. 2

Needs employment full- or part-time................................................................................ 3

11. Vocational/Technical Skills ____________

Currently developing marketable skill or not applicable ............................................... 0

Needs skills/attending school ............................................................................................ 2

Needs vocational training ................................................................................................... 3

12. Transportation ____________

Adequate transportation is available ................................................................................. 0

Transportation is unavailable or inadequate .................................................................... 2

13. Health/Hygiene and Personal Appearance

Enter the value “1” for each characteristic that applies to this case.

Medical or dental referral needed ........................................................................................ ___________

Health or hygiene education needed ................................................................................... ___________

Appearance and self-sufficiency skills needed .................................................................. ___________

Handicap or fitness limits functioning ................................................................................ ___________

Total Needs Score (1–13) ____________

The great advantage of the matrix format is that it

provides an opportunity to create a large number of

classifications and thereby to refine the precision with

which offenders are assigned to different security

levels and programs. The Indiana matrix illustrates

this point. The instrument goes beyond simply grouping youth into three security levels. Instead, it links

classification results to a full range of security and

program options. The Indiana instrument provides a

blueprint for a continuum of care that is integrally

tied to the risk assessment and classification process.

Although other jurisdictions may provide guidance

to the working group, a matrix must reflect the

community’s own laws, values, and policies. The

working group should apply its matrix to a variety of

individual cases to determine if the resulting recommendations would appear appropriate to working

group members and the public.

Again, it is crucial that working group members represent all parts of the juvenile justice system and are

well respected in their fields. This group will decide

what factors and programs to include in the matrix.

Only if these decisions reflect a strong consensus

among key juvenile justice decisionmakers will the

program receive the support necessary for successful

implementation.

Developing Staff Override Procedures

The working group must also develop criteria for staff

override procedures in the program selection process.

Discretionary overrides can and should occur when

staff practitioners agree that the unique circumstances

of a case warrant a different placement than that suggested by the matrix. An effective override procedure

documents in writing the reasons for the departure
40

from the matrix. Reasons may include the extreme

violence of an offense or extraordinary individual

needs that can best be met in a residential setting,

such as the need for inpatient mental health treatment. No set of instruments can capture all information about an individual, and the professional

judgment of juvenile justice practitioners may dictate

the placement decision.

Overrides do need to be closely monitored, however.

Generally, overrides should not exceed 10 percent of

all placement decisions. A higher override rate indicates problems with the decisionmaking instruments

or with staff acceptance of the system. In programs

where staff do not have final control over program

acceptance, documentation of judicial overrides

should also be maintained. If these become excessive,

the discrepancies should be discussed with the court

to resolve the problem.

Applying the Program Matrix to the

Selected Population

The completed program matrix is a blueprint for a

broad, comprehensive, risk-focused continuum of

care. Developing the blueprint, however, is not an end

in itself: the blueprint still must be implemented. A

key step in doing so is to apply the program selection

matrix to a large sample of youth (the issue of which

youth was an earlier decision made by the working

group). The results of this analysis should be summarized and presented to the working group. The results

show how many youth fall into each box on the program matrix grid, giving the jurisdiction a sense of

what types of programs it needs, and how many slots

it needs in each program area.

The results from Indiana, where the instrument was

applied to training school admissions, are shown in

table 3. The results show that 35 percent of the males

and 61 percent of the females in the study fell in the

four cells in the lower right-hand corner of the

figure 8 matrix. These youth were committed for less

Figure 8: Indiana Juvenile Corrections Placement Matrix

(Proposed Model)

Offense Severity Risk Level

High Medium Low

1. Violent Offenses Violent Offender Program Violent or Sex Offender Boot Camp

Assaultive Sex Offender Program Intermediate Sanctions

 Program Staff Secure Residential Program

Staff Secure Residential

2. Serious Offenses Boot Camp Intermediate Sanctions Intermediate Sanctions

Staff Secure Residential Program Program

Job Corps Day Treatment

Intermediate Sanctions Specialized Group

 Program Homes

3. Less Serious Intermediate Sanctions Proctor Program Community Supervision

 Offenses Program Tracking Community Service

Day Treatment Community Service Mentors

Specialized Group Homes

4. Minor Offenses Proctor Program Community Supervision Mentors

Tracking Mentors

Community Supervision
41

Figure 9: Indiana Delinquent Offense Categories

Violent Murder

Offenses Nonnegligent Manslaughter

Negligent Homicide

Murder/Nonnegligent Manslaughter

Manslaughter (Unspecified)

Criminal Homicide

Forcible Rape

Other Violent Sex Offenses

Sodomy (Unspecified)

Statutory Rape

Sex Offense, Rape (Unspecified)

Aggravated Assault

Assault (Unspecified)

Kidnapping

Endangerment

Attempted Murder

Serious Other Nonviolent Sex Offenses

Offenses Sex Offense, Not Rape (Unspecified)

Robbery

Simple Assault

Offenses Against Persons (Unspecified)

Burglary

Burglary and Trespassing

Arson

Arson and Vandalism

Drug Other/Marijuana, Traffic

Weapons

Less Serious Larceny/Shoplifting

Offenses Larceny, No Shoplifting/Motor Theft

Larceny (Unspecified)

Trespassing

Auto Theft, Unauthorized Use

Auto Theft, Not Unauthorized Use

Auto Theft (Unspecified)

Vandalism

serious or minor offenses and scored in the moderateor low-risk range. Under typical scenarios adopted in

other jurisdictions, these incarcerated youth would be

eligible for community-based programs.

After determining the percentage of youth that fall

into each cell, the working group must estimate the

number of youth that will be placed in each program

type, based on current admission levels. The results of

this analysis in Indiana are summarized in table 4.

Finally, the number of beds or program slots needed

for each program can be estimated by making

assumptions about how each matrix cell will be

divided among programs and how long the average

stay will be for each program. Figure 11 details the

refined program space needs for Indiana. The working group must follow the Indiana example and come

up with its own estimates.

Program Options: Filling in the Gaps

The working group’s task is nearly completed. The

next step is to assess existing community programs to

see where they fit in the matrix. This process should

Less Serious Stolen Property Offenses

Offenses Fraud Offenses/Forgery

(continued) Miscellaneous Property Offenses

Drug Other/Marijuana, Possess/Use

Drug Other/Marijuana (Unspecified)

Marijuana, Possess/Use

Marijuana, Traffic

Drugs Include/Marijuana,

 Possess/Use

Drugs Include/Marijuana, Traffic

Drugs Include/Marijuana

 (Unspecified)

Marijuana (Unspecified)

Minor Prostitution/Related Offenses

Offenses Liquor Law Violations, Not Status

Disorderly Conduct

Tools of Crime

Escape

Obstruction of Justice

Technical Violation of Probation

Other Public Order Offenses

Other Delinquency (Unspecified)

Running Away

Truancy

Curfew Violation

Ungovernability

Liquor Status Offense

Other Status Offense

Driving Under Influence

Hit and Run

Reckless Driving

Driving Without License

Other Traffic Offense

Criminal Mischief

Violator, Parole
42

Figure 10: Brief Descriptions of Programs Included in Indiana Matrix

1. Violent Offender Program — a secure residential treatment program with no more than 25 residents.

Average length of stay of 9–12 months with extensive treatment services focused on anger management, neutralizing gang culture, and nonviolent dispute resolution techniques. These youth would

typically move into the Intermediate Sanction Program described below as part of their reentry plans.

2. Assaultive Sexual Offender Program — another secure residential treatment program with no more

than 25 residents. Similar length of stay in a Violent Offender Program. NCCD is currently examining

sex offender treatment strategies and will make recommendations later as to possible intervention

approaches. These youths would typically exit this program through the Intermediate Sanction

Program.

3. Staff Secure Residential Program — designed for chronic property offenders and persistent drug

traffickers, this program could house up to 35 youth in a residential setting. The expected length of

stay is 6–9 months. These youngsters would exit to day treatment or community programs as needed.

4. Wilderness Boot Camps, Ecology, and Job Corps Programs — designed for 25 youths each, these

programs assume a 90-day stay in a rural setting. The focus of intervention would be physical challenges, constructive work, and patterns of personal discipline. There would be great attention to

literacy and job skills training. These youths would exit to one or more community programs.

5. Intermediate Sanction Program — conceived of as the heart of the model system, this program ties

together 30 days in a secure residential program and 6 months in a day treatment program. This

phased reentry system should handle the bulk of departmental commitments and should be the

expected aftercare program for more serious offenders. NCCD has developed a detailed operational

manual and training program for this program.

6. Day Treatment — this program handles up to 35 youths in a nonresidential setting. Youth arrive at a

center for education, counseling, and recreational activities. There are wraparound services covering

weekends and evenings. Typical enrollment in day treatment is 6 months.

7. Tracking — this program uses small caseloads and intensive supervision on 24-hour, 7-day a week

basis. The trackers are both advocates and watchers. The services provided approximate those of a

family preservation model. Supervision could last from 4 to 6 months.

8. Proctor — this program combines tracking with residential services. The youth literally live with the

trackers, who are typically graduated students at a local university or foster parents. This program is

designed for youth who should be in a tracking program but lack a safe living environment.

9. Specialized Group Homes — through this program, a limited number of specialized group homes

support other community programs. The maximum size of such a program is 10 residents. These

youngsters are living in the community, attending schools, and working.

10. Community Service — for minor offenders, this is a short-term community-based program emphasizing work, victim restitution, and community betterment projects. Clients are living at home.

11. Community Supervision and Mentoring — a program of limited supervision and contacts, probably

best done by well-managed volunteers. The chief role of the agent would be brokering services. This is

a limited cost service for lowest severity offenders.
43

clearly show any gaps in programming, indicating

what new programs must be developed and implemented. The working group must make recommendations about what these programs should be.

As part of the Comprehensive Strategy effort, NCCD

has identified effective programs at every level of the

juvenile justice continuum that communities can use

as models to develop programs in their own systems.

(See Part III, pp. 141–155.) All the programs identified

by NCCD have been evaluated with positive results.

The Indiana program selection matrix divides youth

into 12 cells. The cells that are often of greatest concern to juvenile justice policymakers are those in the

upper left-hand corner—cells that include serious and

violent offenders in high- and medium-risk groups.

NCCD research shows that these youth are most

effectively handled in small, secure programs where

they can receive individualized attention.

One such program is the Florida Environmental Institute (FEI), which targets Florida’s most serious and

violent juvenile offenders. Most FEI youth are committed for crimes against persons and have been processed in the criminal justice system; they average 18

prior offenses and 11.5 prior felonies. The program is

an unlocked facility whose remote location in the

Table 3: Proposed Indiana Juvenile Corrections Placement Matrix

Males Risk

Offense Severity High Medium Low

I. Violent Offenses 4.6% 3.7% 1.3%

II. Serious Offenses 11.4% 18.5% 5.6%

III. Less Serious Offenses 13.9% 17.7% 6.0%

IV. Minor Offenses (Trespass, Vandalism,

Status Offenses, Warrants) 6.1% 9.2% 1.9%

Females Risk

Offense Severity High Medium Low

I. Violent Offenses 1.4% 4.1% 0.7%

II. Serious Offenses 4.7% 6.4% 1.4%

III. Less Serious Offenses 10.2% 18.3% 5.4%

IV. Minor Offenses (Trespass, Vandalism,

Status Offenses, Warrants) 10.5% 25.8% 11.2%

Florida Everglades, coupled with high supervision of

clients, protects the public safety. FEI focuses on education and vocational skills, employs a system of

rewards and sanctions, operates a phase system,

promotes bonding with staff role models, and has a

strong aftercare component. The intensive aftercare

program includes supervised community-based

residential care.

The Capital Offender Program (COP) in Texas is an

innovative program for the most serious of offenders:

youth incarcerated for homicide. COP is an intensive,

offense-specific group treatment program. Eight juveniles live together and participate in group psychotherapy for 16 weeks. Role-playing is a key element of

the group sessions; youth reenact their crimes from

both their own perspectives and from those of their

victims. COP groups are led by highly trained psychologists who are also available for individual counseling should youth require more intensive support.

This intensive period is followed by more traditional

secure confinement and intensive aftercare.

While serious and violent offenders are of greatest

concern to most jurisdictions, many studies have

shown that most delinquent youth fall into the

middle cells on the placement grid—cells slated for
44

Figure 11: Indiana Refined Estimates of Program Space Needs

A. All Secure Programs 100% = 99 males, 21 females

B. Boot Camps 50% = 76 males, 10 females

Job Corps 20% = 30 males, 4 females

Intermediate Sanctions 30% = 46 males, 6 females

C. Intermediate Sanctions 45% = 209 males, 32 females

Day Treatment 45% = 209 males, 32 females

Group Homes 10% = 46 males, 4 females

D. Tracking 30% = 85 males, 27 females

Community Supervision 30% = 85 males, 27 females

Community Services 30% = 85 males, 27 females

Proctor Program 10% = 29 males, 9 females

E. Community Supervision 50% = 104 males, 90 females

Mentors Program 50% = 103 males, 90 females

Program Summary

Secure Programs 120 admissions x 12-month stay = 120 beds

Boot Camps 86 admissions x 90-day stay = 22 beds

Job Corps 34 admissions x 90-day stay = 9 beds

Intermediate Sanction Program 293 admissions x 30-day stay = 24 beds

Day Treatment 1 774 admissions x 6-month stay = 387 program slots

Group Homes 51 admissions x 12-month stay = 51 beds

Tracking 112 admissions x 5-month average stay = 47 program slots

Proctor Programs 38 admissions x 5-month average stay = 16 program slots

Community Service 112 admissions x 90-day average stay = 28 program slots

Community Supervision 306 admissions x 6-month stay = 153 program slots

Mentoring 193 admissions x 6-month stay = 97 program slots

1

 Day treatment program slots include all intermediate sanction program participants and all youth exiting secure

programs, boot camp, and Job Corps.

Table 4: Indiana Estimates of Program Space Needs

Males Females

A. Violent Offender, Sex Offender (Staff Secure Residential) 99 (8.3%) 21 (5.5%)

B. Boot Camp, Ecology/Job Corps (Intermediate Sanctions) 152 (12.7%) 20 (5.4%)

C. Day Treatment, Specialized Group Homes (Intermediate Sanctions) 455 (38.0%) 68 (18.0%)

D. Community Services, Proctor Program/Tracking 284 (23.7%) 90 (23.7%)

E. Community Supervision/Mentors 207 (17.3%) 180 (47.5%)

Total* 1,197 (100%) 379 (100%)

* May not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
45

intermediate sanctions programs such as communitybased residential programs, intensive supervision

programs, boot camps, and outdoors programs.

As shown on the Indiana matrix, these programs are

targeted for low-risk violent offenders, serious

offenders of all risk levels, and high-risk youth who

have committed less serious offenses.

The most restrictive intermediate sanction programs

are community-based residential programs. The

Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center (TOYC) is a model of

such a program. TOYC is an unlocked, staff-secure

residential program located in rural Maryland. The

typical youth in this program has many prior court

referrals, generally for property crimes and drug

offenses. Youth stay at TOYC for an average of

9 months, followed by 6 months of community aftercare. Key program components include group counseling, intensive family counseling, individualized

educational services, and a phase system that rewards

appropriate behavior and imposes sanctions for inappropriate behavior.

Serious offenders can also be handled by outdoors/

wilderness programs. VisionQuest is a national outdoors program that serves as an alternative to incarceration for serious juvenile offenders. VisionQuest

youth spend 12–15 months in various challenging

outdoor “impact” programs. Typically, the program

sequence involves 3 months in an orientation wilderness camp; 5 months in an adventure program such as

a wagon train, sailing expedition, or biking trip; and

5 months in a community residential program. There

is also an aftercare program to facilitate youth’s return

to their families. VisionQuest youth have a consistent

education plan that follows them through each stage

of the program. Youth also have individual treatment

plans developed for them, which are constantly

reevaluated and updated.

Boot camp programs have become increasingly popular in recent years. Research has shown that boot camp

approaches stressing control aspects have been ineffective, while research on boot camps combining control and treatment has been inconclusive. Nonetheless,

NCCD has identified one boot camp that does seem

effective: the About Face boot camp in Memphis, Tennessee. About Face serves nonviolent males, ages 14 to

17, convicted of cocaine trafficking. It consists of 3

months in a nonsecure residential facility followed by

Research has shown that boot camp

approaches stressing control aspects

have been ineffective, while research on boot camps combining

control and treatment has been

inconclusive.

6 months of aftercare. About Face’s residential program focuses on military training (which avoids

abusive, punitive aspects sometimes associated with

correctional boot camps), group and individual counseling, and individualized education services.

Family preservation programs are another type of

intermediate sanction. Of all programs reviewed by

NCCD, the program with the strongest research was

the Family and Neighborhood Services (FANS) program. FANS is a public program in South Carolina

utilizing the principles of “multisystemic” therapy,

defined as highly individualized and family- and

home-based treatment that deals with offenders in the

context of their family and community problems.

FANS youth are at imminent risk of out-of-home

placement because of the seriousness of their offense

histories; they average 3.5 previous arrests and 9.5

weeks of previous incarceration, and over half have

been arrested at least once for a violent crime. The

program, which operates out of a community mental

health center, employs masters-level therapists who

work with very small caseloads (four families each)

over an average of slightly more than 4 months. The

caseworkers are available on a 24-hour basis and see

the juvenile and/or the family as often as once daily,

usually in the juvenile’s home.

Intensive supervision programs (ISP’s) are perhaps

the most widespread type of intermediate sanctions

program. NCCD has done extensive work in the ISP

area and has identified model ISP programs. One of

these is the Lucas County, Ohio, Intensive Supervision

Unit (ISU), which provides case management and

surveillance services to nonviolent felony offenders

without a previous commitment. ISU operates a fourtiered phase system in which youth begin under

house arrest and move to successive phases, with

more freedom and privileges, as they exhibit more
46

services and graduated sanctions to control serious

and violent youth crime.

Implementation, Management,

and Evaluation

Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy

Coordinating the Prevention and

Intervention Components

It is crucial to the success of the Comprehensive Strategy to integrate the prevention and intervention components at both the policy and operational levels.

These components may have separate working

groups, but formal channels of communication

should be established between them. Attempts at

responsibility and socially appropriate behavior. ISU

probation officers have average caseloads of just 15

youth and develop a comprehensive treatment plan

for each youth.

The last program types to discuss are those for youth

who fall into the bottom right-hand corner of the

placement grid—youth who have committed minor

offenses and are low to medium risk. Immediate sanction programs—such as day treatment programs,

diversion programs, peer jury programs, and community service programs—are appropriate for these

youth. The goal with these youth is to apply “swift

and sure” sanctions that are proportionate to the

severity of the current offense.

Little research exists on most immediate sanction

programs, making it difficult to point to particular

programs as models. One day-treatment program that

does serve as a model is the Bethesda Day Treatment

Program in West Milton, Pennsylvania. Bethesda

provides intensive day treatment to delinquents and

status offenders. An individual treatment plan is

developed for each Bethesda client. The program

focuses on life skills, career opportunities, and individual, family, and group counseling.

This section has illustrated the continuum of care

inherent in the program selection matrix by providing

examples of model programs at each stage of the continuum. Communities interested in more detailed

descriptions of several model programs can find them

in Part III of this Guide.

Conclusion

Using the step-by-step process outlined above, a community can develop a model juvenile justice system

based on a risk-focused, graduated sanctions approach. A well-rounded, well-respected working

group should be established to develop a risk assessment instrument, needs assessment instrument, and

program matrix. Applying the classification instruments and program matrix to selected offender populations will allow community leaders to examine the

adequacy of existing program options and develop a

systematic plan to fill in the gaps in sanctions. The

next section discusses how to manage and evaluate a

comprehensive strategy that encompasses prevention

It is essential to have a high level

of support for the Comprehensive

Strategy from elected officials and

from top administrators of those

agencies implementing component

programs.

comprehensive approaches in the past have often

failed because they have treated prevention and juvenile justice as separate and unrelated activities. The

strength of the Comprehensive Strategy is that it

places these two components under the same umbrella. Prevention and intervention programs should

support and enhance one another.

Securing Support for the

Comprehensive Strategy

Broad support for the Comprehensive Strategy must

be secured during the planning stage and maintained

after implementation. This support must come from

the administration and staff of the governmental unit

or agency implementing the strategy, from other juvenile justice decisionmakers and agencies, from community agencies, and from the community at large.
47

The Comprehensive Strategy must actively involve a

broad cross section of the community, especially those

youth and families who will be involved in program

services.

A high level of support for the Comprehensive Strategy from elected officials and from top administrators

of those agencies implementing component programs

is essential. These administrators must thoroughly

understand the premises and designs of the Comprehensive Strategy. Including these administrators in

the working groups discussed previously will likely

increase their support for the model.

Support must also be gained from juvenile justice

policymakers and other community leaders outside of

the governmental unit or agency implementing the

model. These may include juvenile court judges, police, prosecutors, public defenders, schools, community service providers, mayors, State juvenile

corrections officials, and State legislators. Some of

these actors should be included in the working

groups. Meetings should also be held with those not

serving on the working group to explain the rationale

and design of the Comprehensive Strategy. Meeting

planners should anticipate some negative reactions to

the model, as participants may be concerned about

whether public safety issues will be adequately addressed. Presenting the impressive research supporting effective programs can demonstrate that

prevention and graduated sanction programs are both

safe and effective.

Successful implementation also hinges on garnering

support for the Comprehensive Strategy from serviceproviding community agencies. Again, meetings

should be held with key agency personnel and policy

boards. Support of the schools is particularly important, since most of the at-risk youth will have specialized educational needs. School staff will need to work

cooperatively with case managers to coordinate educational planning and monitor behavior.

Support from other community programs and groups

is also important. Most youth and their families will

be receiving services from multiple community resources. Good relationships with these agencies will

make it easier for case managers to coordinate services, avoid duplicating efforts, and make appropriate

referrals.

Support from the community at large must be generated as well. The media’s response to the Comprehensive Strategy will influence public opinion and

support. Concerns about keeping juvenile offenders

in the community are likely to be raised. To counter

this, an effective public education effort should be

included in the implementation plan. Meetings

should be held with groups such as local victims’

organizations and neighborhood associations. While

wholehearted public support for the program will be

difficult to achieve, a strong public education effort is

the best way to generate program support and minimize opposition.

Formal cooperative interagency

agreements or memorandums of

understanding should be developed

that explicitly state the relationship

between agencies.

Ensuring Interagency Cooperation

Successful implementation of the model depends on

coordinating the efforts of multiple agencies. Formal

and informal relationships must be forged with all

agencies that will provide services to youth in the

model. These agencies include schools, community

programs, and other juvenile justice programs.

Strained relations with these organizations can be

extremely harmful to the success of the Comprehensive Strategy.

Formal cooperative interagency agreements or memorandums of understanding should be developed that

explicitly state the relationships between agencies.

While informal relationships with other service providers may be helpful, formal agreements are needed

to ensure that youth are referred to appropriate agencies and receive services identified in the case plan.

These formal agreements should include provisions

ensuring that service slots are available to youth in

the model system. An excellent example of the approach can be seen in the Norfolk Interagency Consortium, a forum for interagency collaboration in

Norfolk, Virginia (Pratt, 1994).
48

The agency that takes the lead in implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy must develop a particularly

strong relationship with the local school system. Day

treatment programs, which are part of the graduated

sanctions component, will have onsite educational

programs. An agreement may be reached with the

school district allowing the district to assign teachers

to the program. If the program hires its own teachers,

the program will need to have its educational program accredited by the school district.

In addition, most youth in the graduated sanctions

programs will be transitioned back to regular schools

eventually. Case managers must work with the school

system to ensure that youth are placed in the appropriate school setting (for example, a youth might need

special education services) and with individual teachers to check on student progress and behavior. Formal

interagency agreements and school administration

support will encourage individual teachers to

cooperate.

Formal agreements should be made with other community resources as well, such as mental health services, medical resources, drug and alcohol treatment,

parental support groups, legal services. Case managers should receive a document listing agencies, their

services, and procedures to obtain these services for

their clients.

Staffing Issues

Agency staff should be integrally involved in planning and implementing the Comprehensive Strategy.

This will both improve staff commitment to the model

and ensure that it is grounded in operational reality. A

cross-section of agency staff—including line, supervisory, and administrative staff—should be represented

on the working group. In addition, meetings should

be held within the agency to explain the model to staff

and address their concerns, and all agency staff

should receive basic information on the model.

The intensive nature of the Comprehensive Strategy

requires that staff be dedicated, motivated, energetic,

and committed. Staff will require extensive initial and

ongoing training. Agencies implementing the model

must design policies to address the issue of staff burnout. These policies should consist of concrete incentives such as higher pay, liberal compensatory time

policies, and flexible work schedules to compensate

for nontraditional work hours and the psychological

pressures the job entails. One innovative response to

staff burnout is to place a cap—usually 12 to 18

months—on the number of consecutive months that

staff can work in the model system.

Case Management

An effective case management system is crucial to the

success of the Comprehensive Strategy. Case management leads to the coordination of services and a high

level of accountability. One person—the case manager—must follow each youth through the various

stages of the continuum of graduated sanctions and

be responsible for all key decisions concerning that

youth. For prevention services, the case management

should be at the family level. Two excellent case management systems are the Massachusetts Division of

Youth Services system and the system in

Hillsborough County, Florida.

Case managers serve as both service brokers and direct service providers. Which of these two roles is

emphasized more will vary from site to site, depending largely on the availability of community resources. Case managers are responsible for case

assessment and planning, referral and monitoring of

service delivery, and reassessment. They may also

serve as mentors for youth. Case managers should

have caseloads of no more than 15 to 20 serious

offenders.

The case manager must complete a case assessment

and a written case plan for each youth involved in the

graduated sanctions programs. The case assessment

should consider the unique history, characteristics,

and circumstances of each youth. It should address

the factors most closely related to the youth’s risk of

reoffending. Many of these factors will have already

been identified by the risk and needs instruments

discussed earlier. Thus, the assessment should begin

An effective case management

system is crucial to the success of

the Comprehensive Strategy.
49

with an examination of these instruments. However,

the assessment should go well beyond the information contained on these instruments. As part of the

assessment, the case manager should examine the

results of previous and current clinical and educational evaluations. In addition, new evaluations might

be conducted. For example, if the risk and needs

instruments indicate a history of mental health problems, the case manager might arrange for a formal

mental health evaluation.

The case assessment should examine the particular

circumstances of the youth’s offenses—both the

instant offense and prior offenses—in addition to

reviewing offender needs. This examination, which

should include the youth’s cognitive processes and

affective states, may reveal motivations for and triggers of the youth’s behavior.

The case assessment should identify youth’s strengths

as well as their problem areas. This should include the

youth’s individual strengths as well as the strengths

of the youth’s family, peers, and community. These

strengths should be viewed as key protective factors

that can buffer the youth against delinquent

tendencies.

An individualized case plan must be developed for

each youth based on the results of the case assessment. The case plan should identify intervention priorities and consist of both short-term and long-term

goals. These goals should be explicitly stated in the

case plan. An example of a case plan is shown in

figure 12.

A behavioral contract based on the case plan should

be developed by the case manager, the youth, and the

youth’s parents. The contract should be written in

specific behavioral terms and specify what the rewards and sanctions will be for complying or not

complying with the contract. These rewards and sanctions should be delivered swiftly and consistently.

Case plans must be flexible and responsive, and

should be reassessed at regularly prescribed intervals—approximately every 2 to 3 months. The reassessment should be based on the youth’s recent

behavior, progress in meeting objectives, and newly

identified needs. It should take into account changes

in the youth’s environment and in available resources.

Developing a Management

Information System

A well-designed Management Information System

(MIS) is another core component of the Comprehensive Strategy. The MIS can be used for client tracking,

planning, budgeting, monitoring, and evaluation.

While the MIS will be useful to line staff as well as

management, its main purpose should be to support

broad-level management and reporting needs. The

MIS is based on individual-level data that can be

used to track individuals through the system as well

as to produce aggregate system-level data such as

program enrollments, terminations, and lengths of

stay. These individual-level data generally include

youth characteristics, offense history, placement history, risk and needs assessment information, and

outcome information.

Communities implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy should convene a special MIS task force

(which is distinct from the main Comprehensive

Strategy working groups). The MIS task force should

consist of technical MIS staff, managers, and line

staff. This mixture of personnel is essential so that

program staff can tell MIS staff what information

they need to run the Comprehensive Strategy most

effectively. The task force is charged with deciding

what data to include in the MIS and how and when

to collect and process these data.

The task force should begin by defining the community’s data needs. Data needs include informa

tion desired for reports, documents, listings, statistics, and rapid inquiry. These data needs should

drive which data elements are included in the MIS.

A careful, deliberate process is required to ensure

that the right data elements are selected. The importance of the MIS rests in the quality and usefulness

of the information collected, not in the quantity of

the data. The MIS should include whatever data

elements are needed to effectively operate and

evaluate the Comprehensive Strategy. Agencies

that collect too much information run the risk of

becoming overwhelmed with inaccurate and untimely information. Agencies that collect too little

information may be unable to adequately plan

or evaluate the Comprehensive Strategy unless
50

Figure 12: Sample Case Planning Format

Client: JJ

Phase: 2

Date: 8/1/91

Area: Family

Goals: To return home by 10/1 and remain in home with minimal conflict with mother.

Phase 1. To achieve prerelease status at Group Home by 9/1 and release by 10/1.

Objectives: 2. To complete all chores and adhere to 7 p.m. curfew while on weekend passes at home

during September.

3. To not argue with mother about restrictions on peers in the home.

4. To attend all family counseling sessions in September and October.

Steps: N/A

Responsibilities: CM complete court papers for release from group home.

Mother attend family counseling and ISP parents group.

Resources: Group home and ISP staff, Mr. Johnson at Lighthouse Center, CM.

Area: Education/Work

Goals: Get GED and enroll in vocational school by end of Phase 4.

Phase 1. To complete remedial work in math and reading (and pass tests) at ISP school by 10/1.

Objectives: 2. To complete GED prep work at Roxbury H.S. by 2/15/92 (test on 3/2/92).

3. To obtain brochures and applications for vocational schools by 11/1.

Steps: Continue with tutor; enroll in GED at Roxbury; clarify vocational interests.

Responsibilities: CM identify area vocational schools and sources of scholarships/funding.

Tutor available 3 times per week next 2 months.

Resources: Tutor, Mrs. White at Roxbury, Joint Area Vocational, Electronics Academy, ISP school staff.

Area: Peers

Goals: Disengage from McGruder St. crowd.

Phase 1. To have no contact with Ray B., Raheem, and Rabbit on weekend passes and

Objectives: after return home.

2. To finish work on “easily influenced” problem in group.

3. Once home, to meet with mentor three times per week.

4. Complete scuba course or weightlifting program at YMCA.

Steps: N/A

Responsibilities: Mentor available three times per week; mother and surveillance staff monitor friends.

Resources: Mentor, ISP group, YMCA.
51

they undergo the costly and time-consuming process

of collecting additional data.

How can the task force identify how much and what

kind of data it needs? It is helpful to work from the

general to the specific, as outlined in the following

approach:

• Describe the output reports needed in general

terms.

• Identify who needs which reports how often.

• Identify the data elements needed for each report.

• Identify the desired format.

• Identify inquiry needs and unique data elements.

For each data element to be included, the task force

should be able to explain the function the element

relates to, how it will be used, who needs it, and how

it will be captured. Only if these characteristics can be

accurately defined should a data element be included

in the MIS. A practical purpose must exist for every

data element included in the MIS.

Figure 13 shows data elements that might be included

in an MIS. This list should be used only as a guide,

because particular communities must follow the

design steps listed above to determine their specific

needs.

Another MIS issue to be addressed is using automated versus manual data. Some data elements

should be automated while others can be retrieved

manually. The MIS designers must recognize which

data need to be computerized. The distinctive capabilities and needs of a particular community should

be taken into account when making decisions about

the degree of automation in the MIS. However, some

general guidelines are helpful in selecting the most

efficient data collecting and processing options.

Manual systems can be the most efficient way to process information that does not need to be aggregated.

For example, such manual systems can produce lists

of case actions due in a specified time period, case

plans, and the frequency and types of contacts.

A manual system with batch processing of summary

data can also be an efficient option. Some tracking

procedures can be effectively done manually and still

provide valuable aggregate data for management.

A particular community must compare the cost of

automating an entire process with the cost of keying in

manually tabulated summaries on a regular basis. In

some situations, this may be the best option due to its

simplicity and low cost. The disadvantage of such a

system is the time lag that occurs between staff actions, summaries, and data entry. Thus, this approach

should be used only for routine reports in which a

brief delay in obtaining the data will not be a problem.

An automated system should be used for data that

will be aggregated for management use. Automated

client-tracking systems can also be extremely useful to

line staff and supervisors. The most successful systems are based on simple designs. Recent advances in

technology (e.g., the microprocessor) have created

new opportunities for automated data management.

Microcomputers can meet the needs of nearly all juvenile corrections agencies. This frees juvenile agencies

from centralized data processing operations, enabling

them to control the collection, processing, and reporting of data. Microcomputer-based processing operations are quickly replacing centralized operations in

other fields and should be seriously considered by all

communities implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy.

In sum, an effective MIS should consist of the following features:

• Often utilizes a combination of manual, batch processing, and online applications to meet agency

needs (although microcomputers and distributive

processing are resulting in increased automation).

• Captures data from forms used for other agency

purposes rather than adding a new layer of

paperwork.

Microcomputer-based processing

operations are quickly replacing

centralized operations in other fields

and should be seriously considered

by all communities implementing

the Comprehensive Strategy.
52

Figure 13: Examples of Management Information Systems Data Elements

1. Intake and Assessment Information

Client Demographics

• Name

• Birth Date

• Sex

• Race

• Address

• Phone Number

• Social Security Number

• School Name (if any)

• School Address

• Contact Person at School

• School Phone Number

• Employer’s Name (if any)

• Address of Employer

• Phone Number of Employer

Parents/Guardian and Siblings

• Parents/Guardian Names

• Relationship to Client

• Address

• Phone Number

• Employer

• Work Phone

• Marital Status

• Sibling Names

• Sibling Ages

Offense History

• Disposition Date

• Committing Offense and Date

• Adjudicated Offense(s)

• Offense(s) Charged at Arrest

 (if different from adjudication)

• Detention at Arrest?

• Current Placement Status

• Number of Prior Delinquency Referrals

• Prior Adjudicated Offenses and Dates

Risk Assessment

• Date of Assessment

• Age at First Adjudication

• Number of Prior Arrests

• Current Offense

• Number of Prior Out-of-Home Placements

• History of Drug Usage

• Current School Status

• Probation Status

• Number of Runaways from Prior Placements

• Number of Grades Behind in School

• Level of Parental/Caretaker Control

• Peer Relationships

Needs Assessment

• Date of Assessment

• Basic Living Situation

• Primary Family Relationships

• Alternative Family Relationships

• Emotional Stability

• Peer Relationships

• Substance Abuse

• Victimization

• Intellectual Ability

• School Adjustment

• Employment

• Vocational/Technical Skills

• Transportation

• Health/Hygiene and Personal Appearance

• Runaway History

• Victims of Abuse/Neglect

• School Status

• Truancy History

• Prior Placements

2. Client Progress in Program

• Phase Completion Dates

• Services Received—type and date

• Academic Gain

• Rules Violation—type and date

• Program Sanctions—type and date

• Living Arrangements

• Arrests—type and date

• Risk and Needs Reassessments

• Staff Assigned

3. Termination

• Date of Termination

• Reason for Termination

• Legal Status

• Living Arrangement

• School Status

• Employment Status

• Assessment of Progress

4. Followup Data (6 months and/or 12 months

following termination)

• Date of Followup

• Number of Arrests

• Number of Adjudications/Convictions

• Legal Status

• Living Arrangement

• School Status

• Employment Status
53

• Operates in a dynamic and flexible manner. Items

and report formats can be added, changed, or

deleted without a major programming effort.

• Routinely provides aggregate information to management. (Management use of this information

should, in turn, be conveyed to line staff.)

• Provides timely and useful information to all levels

of the organization and is integrally tied to other

management functions.

• Includes routine editing procedures (manual and/

or automated) to protect the integrity of the data.

A comprehensive MIS is crucial in the management

and evaluation of the Comprehensive Strategy. Recent

technology has made it relatively easy for all communities implementing the Comprehensive Strategy to

operate such a system.

Evaluating the Comprehensive

Strategy

The Comprehensive Strategy must incorporate a comprehensive evaluation component consisting of two

parts: a process evaluation and an outcome evaluation. The process evaluation will assess the degree to

which the model was implemented as planned. The

outcome evaluation will analyze how successfully it

reduced youth crime and recidivism.

The process evaluation will describe how the Comprehensive Strategy actually operates. It will describe

and analyze the planning and implementation of the

model. The evaluation will discuss the forces that

influenced the model’s implementation.

Ideally, the evaluation should be conducted by an

outside organization that is independent of the

agency operating the Comprehensive Strategy. If the

evaluation is not conducted by an outside organization, its design should describe how the organization

will maintain neutrality and objectivity and how conflicts between the needs of the model and the needs of

the evaluation will be avoided.

The process evaluation should include at a minimum

an analysis of the following program elements: context, client identification, program interventions, and

program linkages. Contextual issues include system

philosophy, local juvenile justice conditions, and key

decisionmakers involved in the development and

implementation of the model. Client identification

refers to the degree to which planned client selection

procedures were implemented and selected youth

reflect the planned target population. The element of

program interventions includes information on all

programs in the continuum of graduated sanctions.

Types of information include number of youth served

and youth and staff attitudes towards each program.

Program linkages refer to a description and assessment of the formal and informal conditions and relationships that may hinder or support program

operations. The attitudes of agency staff and staff

from other juvenile justice agencies should be analyzed, as should the degree of cooperation between

the agency and other service-providing agencies.

An independent research group should conduct the

outcome evaluation. When possible, experimental

designs should be used to test the efficacy of program

interventions. This means that youth in various components of the model system should be compared to a

randomly selected control group. The outcome evaluation should examine recidivism, positive social

adjustments, and costs.

Several recidivism outcome measures should be

included in the evaluation. These include the number

and seriousness of rearrests, number and seriousness

of readjudications, number of incarcerations, and

self-report delinquency measures. The design should

specify how the analysis will treat technical violations

that do not involve a new offense.

Youth’s “positive adjustment” refers to their participation in educational, vocational, family, and community activities that research has shown can reduce

delinquency. Measures for the “positive adjustment”

portion of the evaluation could include attendance at

educational programs, completion of educational

programs, and improvements in educational scores;

employment measures such as hours worked per

week and income earned; and attitudinal and motivational measures such as satisfaction with family and

law-abiding friends, self-esteem, and perceived control over life.
54

models from a wide range of options which that particular community wishes to implement to reduce

priority risk factors or provide protective buffers

against them. Reviews of early intervention and prevention approaches by Hawkins and his colleagues

have provided encouragement that sufficient program

strategies and models are available to communities to

prevent even serious and violent crime among

juveniles.

The landmark studies conducted under OJJDP’s Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of

Juvenile Delinquency (Huizinga, Loeber, and

Thornberry, In press) suggest that eliminating all violent acts among nonchronic violent offenders would

reduce violence by only 25 percent. This conclusion is

based on their finding that at least 75 percent of all

violent juvenile offenses are committed by chronic

violent offenders, who constitute about 15 percent of

high-risk populations. Therefore, the Comprehensive

Strategy targets these offenders for immediate intervention and graduated sanctions. Prevention efforts

may not succeed in reducing the most intractable

youth’s violence because of the large number of multiple risk factors in their lives. Interventions must be

instituted early in the onset of their offending careers.

A Comprehensive Strategy is needed because most

juvenile justice system interventions occur too late. In

general, serious and violent youth behavior peaks at

ages 16 and 17, while peak ages for arrests are 18 and

19 (Elliot, 1994). Earlier intervention with graduated

sanctions and treatment measures is essential to rehabilitation efforts.

Our review of intervention and treatment programs

for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders is

very encouraging. A surprisingly large number of

promising and effective programs were identified.

Moreover, most of them appear to address the concerns raised by delinquency researchers regarding the

difficult task of successfully rehabilitating chronic,

violent juveniles because of the severity, scope, and

interactive nature of their problems. To be successful,

treatment programs for chronic, violent juveniles

must address the wide range of co-occurring problems in a comprehensive and highly structured

manner over a long period of time. Indeed, it is remarkable that there are as many promising graduated

sanctions programs as were found in our review.

Conclusion

This Guide offers a solution to growing juvenile violence: “A Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.” This proposed

solution is an alternative to the currently popular

response of increasing reliance on the criminal justice

system with decreasing reliance on prevention and

the juvenile justice system. Neither punishment alone

nor treating juveniles as adults offers much promise

as a strategy for reducing juvenile violence.

Two main features of the Comprehensive Strategy

hold the key to success in dealing with serious, violent, and chronic juvenile delinquency: prevention

and balanced blending of treatment and graduated

sanctions. Prevention is essential because of the pervasiveness of violence among America’s youth, which

is no longer mainly an inner-city or urban problem.

Furthermore, most of the juveniles responsible for

about two-thirds of serious, violent crime do not have

an official juvenile justice system record during their

adolescent years (see Elliot et al., 1986). This startling

finding implies that community-based prevention

holds the most prospects for reducing the bulk of

juvenile crime.

Most of the juveniles responsible

for about two-thirds of serious,

violent crime do not have an official juvenile justice system record

during their adolescent years.

New prevention technology, patterned after successful efforts in the health arena, enables communities to

manage communitywide prevention programs. This

“risk factor” approach involves reducing risk factors

and providing protective buffers against known risk

factors. The CTC strategy pioneered by Hawkins and

Catalano (1992) guides communities in risk-focused

prevention and actively involves civic leaders, juvenile justice professionals, citizens, and youngsters.

The CTC model is a systematic process of assessing

local risk factors, identifying those most prevalent in

the community, and then selecting specific program
55

The intensive treatment approach, coupled with

graduated sanctions, called for in the Comprehensive

Strategy necessitates reallocation of juvenile justice

system resources. The necessary technology is at hand

to enable the system to target scarce resources on

those serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders

responsible for most of the juvenile crimes of greatest

concern in America today.

Risk assessments enable corrections officials to assess

objectively the extent to which confined juveniles

threaten public safety. On average, about one-third of

those confined in long-term juvenile corrections facilities could safely receive treatment in less secure, and

less expensive, community-based programs. Doing so

would make resources available to improve programming for those most difficult to rehabilitate. Conducting comprehensive needs assessments, covering the

wide range of problems serious, violent, and chronic

juvenile offenders possess, together with the promising programs identified, could significantly improve

the success of the juvenile justice system with these

offenders.

This Guide provides a support base for the implementation of OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy. Implementation of the Comprehensive Strategy holds great

promise for achieving the following objectives:

• Making more resources available for delinquency

prevention.

• Increasing juvenile justice system responsiveness.

• Increasing juvenile accountability.

• Decreasing costs of juvenile corrections.

• Increasing the responsibility of the juvenile justice

system.

• Increasing juvenile justice system program

effectiveness.

• Reducing crime in the long run.

These prospects remain to be realized. Full implementation and evaluation are necessary before any firm

conclusions can be drawn. However, this Guide for the

Comprehensive Strategy should help communities

plan and implement a full continuum of care that

gives every juvenile a fair chance to become a productive and contributing member of society.
56
57

Part II: Preventing Serious, Violent, and

Chronic Delinquency and Crime

Part II summarizes the review of preventive intervention strategies. Twenty-five effective and promising

interventions are grouped into two categories: conception to age 6 (9 specific programs) and childhood

through adolescence (16 program areas). Approaches

to prevention that seek to reduce identified risk factors and, at the same time, enhance protective factors

are likely to provide the strongest form of prevention.

Effective Early Interventions

Reducing youth violence and crime requires a multifaceted, coordinated approach in which early intervention is a critical first step (General Accounting

Office, March 31, l992). Several researchers (Hawkins

and Catalano, 1992; Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller,

1992; Institute of Medicine, 1994; Olds and Kitzman,

1993; and Yoshikawa, 1994) have reviewed well-designed evaluations of preventive interventions targeting risk factors for delinquency, violence, and

substance abuse. These sources should be consulted

for more complete descriptions of the programs and

their effects than can be presented in this Guide.

The programs described here have been found to

reduce risks and enhance protective factors against

crime, violence, and substance abuse. Some have

demonstrated long-term preventive effects as well.

Only programs that provide direct services to individuals and/or their families are included in this consideration of early interventions.

As the child reaches school age and moves beyond

the world of home and family, the community begins

to play a more active role in the youth’s development.

Thus, community action, development, and policing;

changes in laws or regulations; and other communitywide interventions aimed at affecting broad community risks are discussed later in this part in the review

of the period from childhood to adolescence.

The preventive interventions described below have

been tested extensively with children born to single

(often teenage) mothers living in poverty. Preventive

initiatives using these early intervention strategies

should reach those children at risk because of low

birthweight or preterm birth or because their mothers

were unwed, poor, or teenagers. The interventions are

organized developmentally from the prenatal period

through age 6.

Pre- and Perinatal/Early Education

The Prenatal/Early Infancy Project is an example of a

comprehensive program that includes many of the

intervention components from both the pre-/perinatal

period and the birth to age 4 developmental stage

(Olds, Henderson, Tatelbaum, and Chamberlin, 1986;

Olds, Henderson, Chamberlin, and Tatelbaum, 1986).

The program targeted a geographical area with high

rates of poverty and child abuse in the semirural

Appalachian region of New York State. Most of the

mothers in the sample were unmarried and from the

lowest socioeconomic group; nearly half were teenagers. In the full implementation of the program,

home visits by a nurse began during pregnancy and

continued until children were 2 years old. The nurses

provided mothers with health and parent education,

job and education counseling, health and social service linkage through referral and advocacy, and emotional and social support. The nurses also encouraged

Approaches to prevention that seek

to reduce identified risk factors and,

at the same time, enhance protective factors are likely to provide the

strongest form of prevention.
58

the mothers’ close friends and family members to

participate in the home visits and assist the mothers

in a variety of ways, including helping with child care

and household responsibilities.

The project evaluation, which used a randomized

clinical trial design, identified significant reductions

in several risk factors. Program participation decreased perinatal difficulties for teenage mothers and

mothers who smoked. In addition, 24 months after

the program had ended, the rate of verified child

abuse and neglect was only 4 percent for program

participants compared with 19 percent for those in the

control group. Of the mothers who had not finished

high school at the beginning of the study, program

participants were twice as likely as those in the control group to have graduated from high school or be

enrolled in an educational program. Program participation also led to increased employment for single,

poor, older mothers and delayed subsequent pregnancies for single, poor mothers.

Parent-Child Interaction Training is another example

of a program that effectively reduced risk factors,

including poor family management practices and

early antisocial behavior (Strayhorn and Weidman,

1991). This program targeted low-income parents who

had complained that their preschool children (ages 2

to 5) exhibited at least one behavioral or emotional

problem. Most parents were unmarried and experiencing depressive symptoms, and the sample was

predominantly African-American. Parents participated in four to five 2-hour small group sessions with

instruction and role-playing on parenting skills, including behavioral management. Parents also were

trained to play constructively with their preschool

children, conducting individual play sessions with

them and attending sessions until the parents reached

a criterion level. A randomized trial showed that at

the 1-year followup, children who participated in the

program improved significantly more than those in

the control group in terms of teacher-rated attentiondeficit, hyperactive, aggressive, and anxious behavior.

The Healthy Start program in Hawaii, although not

yet rigorously evaluated, is a promising example of a

statewide policy-driven early intervention program.

Healthy Start is an ongoing service project that aims

to prevent child abuse and neglect by reducing the

risks of poor family management and academic failure and enhancing the protective factor of parentchild bonding (Breakey and Pratt, 1991). Healthy Start

screens mothers who are admitted to hospitals for

childbirth, using 15 indicators for determining at-risk

status. The screening procedures are effective in identifying those families at high and low risk for child

abuse and neglect (Hawaii State Department of

Health, 1992). Families determined to be at risk are

offered comprehensive early intervention services;

approximately 95 percent of the families accept the

offer. The program serves families beginning postpartum and continues until children are 5 years old.

Healthy Start provides linkage to a “medical home,”

which emphasizes preventive health care, and comprehensive home visits by trained paraprofessionals,

which include parent training, family counseling,

enhancement of parent-child interaction, child development activities, health and social service linkage

and coordination, and emotional and social support.

Beginning with weekly home visits, the level and

intensity of services vary over time with the families’

needs and risk levels.

Three major controlled studies of

early childhood education and

home visitation have tracked

participants well into adolescence

and have shown that these interventions predict lower rates of

violence and crime.

Educare

Structured educational daycare, or educare, and preschool programs that emphasize language development (including teacher-directed, student-centered,

and student-initiated programs) advance children’s

cognitive and social development (Yoshikawa, 1994).

Programs with various structures seem about equally

effective in reducing these risk factors and enhancing

children’s bonds to school and home (Hawkins and

Catalano, 1992).
59

development activities. The second stage of the program began when the child was 2 years old and consisted of center-based educational nursery school and

parent training. Followup evaluations 5 to 8 years

later, when children were ages 8 to 11, discovered that

participants in the Houston Parent-Child Development Center program displayed less teacher-rated

fighting and disruptive, impulsive, and restless behavior than control children (Johnson and Walker, 1987).

Three major controlled studies of early childhood

education and home visitation have tracked participants well into adolescence and have shown that

these interventions predict lower rates of violence

and crime. The Perry Preschool program (BerruetaClement, Schweinhart, Barnett, Epstein, and Weikart,

1984) used the High/Scope Cognitively Oriented

curriculum to foster social and intellectual development in children ages 3 to 4 years. The program

targeted children with below average IQ’s from lowincome African-American families in a poor neighborhood in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Nearly half the children

in the study were from single-parent families. In the

program, the preschool teacher divided the classroom

into language-oriented learning centers that encouraged children to use, experience, and discover language through activities and play. The teacher and

child jointly planned and initiated activities. In addition to early education, teachers met with each

mother and child weekly. The teacher encouraged the

mother to engage the child in activities in a manner

consistent with the classroom curriculum.

In a randomized trial, the Perry Preschool program

showed significant reductions in risk factors, as well

as criminal and violent behavior (Berrueta-Clement et

al., 1984). Program participants attached greater importance to school and displayed higher academic

achievement than those in the control group as indicated by standardized tests and grade point averages

in high school, high school completion rates, and

literacy levels at age 19. Only 31 percent of program

participants had ever been arrested or charged with a

crime by age 19, as compared with 51 percent of those

in the control group. Program participants also selfreported approximately 50 percent less violent behavior than controls. The Perry Preschool program also

had other positive impacts for participants, including

better employment and a lower likelihood of receiving public assistance by age 19.

Two other programs that employed early education

and home/family interventions are the Houston

Parent-Child Development Center and the Syracuse

Family Development Research Project. During the

first year of the child’s life, the Houston Parent-Child

Development Center program consisted of home

visitation services that focused on enhancement

of parent-child interaction and child cognitive

The Family Development Research Project included a

home visitation component with parent training, enhancement of parent-child interaction, child cognitive

development activities, social support, promotion of

social service use, and a toy and book lending library.

The other components of the program were centerbased educational child care and a parent organization. A followup evaluation showed that only

6 percent of the program participants had juvenile

records by age 15, in comparison to 22 percent of

those in the control group (Lally, Mangione, and

Honig, 1988). Moreover, program participants who

had juvenile records committed less serious and fewer

offenses than control subjects with juvenile records.

Ages 4 to 6

As children prepare to enter elementary school, preventive interventions should be supplemented with

social competence curriculums, which may be delivered at preschool centers or at home by parents. These

curriculums aim to counteract and prevent early antisocial behavior by teaching basic interpersonal skills

(Hawkins, Catalano, Morrison, et al., 1992). Two examples of programs of this type are the Interpersonal

Cognitive Problem-Solving (ICPS) and the PATHS

curriculums. The ICPS curriculum tries to decrease

impulsivity and inhibition (Shure and Spivack, 1980;

Spivack and Shure, 1989). The program consists of

daily lessons in the form of games. Early lessons focus

Program participants who had juvenile records committed less serious

and fewer offenses than control

subjects with juvenile records.
60

on simple word concepts, such as “not,” “or,” “same,”

“different,” and “because,” which are essential for

understanding later problem-solving skills. The rest

of the curriculum emphasizes alternative solutions to

interpersonal problems, consequential thinking, and

recognition of and sensitivity to others’ feelings. In

preschool, kindergarten, and home implementations

of the ICPS curriculum with children from low-income urban families, the program had significant and

durable effects on behavioral adjustment, including

reduced aggressive and socially inappropriate behaviors and improved problem-solving skills in program

participants compared with control subjects (Shure

and Spivack, 1980, 1982, 1988).

PATHS (Providing Alternative Thinking Strategies) is

a newer social competence curriculum that attempts

to reduce early antisocial behavior by integrating

emotional, cognitive, and behavior skill development

in young children (Greenberg and Kusche, 1993). The

PATHS curriculum begins with kindergarten children

and has four main objectives:

• Control arousal and behavior through selfregulation (“stop and calm down”).

• Develop affective vocabulary and emotion processing to help understand self and others.

• Integrate affective, cognitive, and linguistic skills

for effective social problem solving.

• Promote positive self-esteem and effective peer

relations.

Lessons are developmentally sequenced and include

dialoguing, role-playing, modeling by teachers and

peers, social- and self-reinforcement, attribution training, and verbal mediation. The program has been

found to be effective in reducing behavior problems

of deaf children (Greenberg and Kusche, 1993). While

evaluations are ongoing with hearing populations, the

approach represents an advance over earlier social

competence curriculums because it integrates skills to

recognize and regulate emotions with cognitive and

behavioral skills training, an element missing from

earlier skills training programs.

Summary

The programs described above are promising interventions that reduce risk and enhance protection for

infants and very young children. The evidence is clear

that prevention approaches applied from the prenatal

period through age 6 can help prevent crime, violence, and substance abuse in adolescence and young

adulthood. To implement effective interventions,

communities must design and guide their own comprehensive local strategies using the risk-focused

prevention approach. Communities that find risk

factors affecting children from conception through

age 6 to be major contributors to overall levels of community risk should consider the preventive interventions reviewed here for inclusion in their strategic

prevention plans.

Childhood, Adolescence, and

the Community

We turn now to a review of selected preventive interventions focused on the developmental periods of

children in early elementary school through adolescence and on the community at large. The importance

of the community in preventing delinquency among

children from age 6 through adolescence cannot be

overemphasized. For greatest effectiveness, community prevention efforts should consist of interventions

that do the following:

• Address the highest priority risk and protective

factors to which children in a particular community are exposed.

• Focus on populations exposed to multiple risk

factors.

• Address risk and protective factors early and at the

appropriate developmental stage.

• Address multiple risk factors in multiple domains.

• Create a continuum of prevention services across

developmental stages and throughout the

community.

• Reach and communicate effectively with the target

populations.
61

The program areas in the first group, which are based

in schools, include the following:

• Classroom organization, management, and

instructional strategies.

• School behavior management strategies.

• Conflict resolution and violence prevention

curriculums.

• Peer mediation.

• Peer counseling.

• School organization.

The second group of interventions, which are directed

to children, youth, and families in settings outside

school, include those listed below:

• Parent training.

• Intensive family preservation services.

• Marital and family therapy.

• Mentoring.

• Afterschool recreation.

• Gang prevention.

• Youth service.

• Vocational training and employment.

The third group of approaches involves communitylevel interventions:

• Community laws and policies related to weapons.

• Policing strategies.

• Community mobilization.

Within the first two broad groups of preventive interventions, approaches are ordered in a developmental

sequence, from early elementary school through late

adolescence. The position of a prevention approach in

this ordering is determined by the age of participants

when the program began. In some cases, a particular

prevention approach may also be implemented at

later points developmentally. The school-based

approaches also are sequenced from individually

• Continue over a long period of time.

• Involve a service delivery system that employs

personnel who are well trained for specific intervention tasks and who have a unified vision of

risk-focused prevention.

Putting such a comprehensive strategy in place requires that communities organize to take the steps

listed below:

• Assess their children’s risk exposure and the current resources directed at these risks.

• Prioritize risk factors and identify gaps in existing

resources that address those risk factors.

• Put new programming in place to address service

gaps.

In the following pages, we will present evaluations of

preventive interventions for childhood through adolescence in 16 program areas. Communities will find

the evaluations helpful in the selection of effective

programs for inclusion in their comprehensive risk

reduction strategies. Because these programs are

popular, they need to be assessed to determine their

effectiveness in preventing delinquency and violence.

For most of these program areas, no current comprehensive review of rigorous evaluations exists.

Review of Prevention Programs

An extensive literature search was conducted for this

review. The PsycInfo, ERIC, Sociofile, and Social Work

Abstracts data bases and the holdings of the University of Washington libraries were searched using numerous author names and key words. More than 375

programs, organizations, and researchers involved in

delinquency and violence prevention in the United

States were contacted in the search for evaluated programs. Descriptions and evaluations of relevant preventive interventions were requested, and written

materials were received from 101 of these sources.

The 16 prevention approaches reviewed here focus on

children from age 6 through adolescence. (Delinquency and violence prevention approaches that intervene in the period between conception and age 6

were examined previously.) Overall, the 16 program

areas are classified here into 3 groups.
62

oriented programs to interventions on the organizational and ecological levels. Multicomponent programs are classified according to the intervention’s

principal component. In some program areas, existing

literature reviews and meta-analyses that adequately

discuss relevant quasi-experimental and experimental

evaluations are used as sources. The results and conclusions are discussed and supplemented with reviews of other program evaluations not previously

examined. Program evaluations chosen for review

satisfied six criteria (modified from Institute of Medicine, 1994):

• The program addressed known risk and protective

factors for delinquency and violence. While some

investigators did not present a program in terms of

the risk factors it addressed, if it could be reasonably assumed that the program addressed an identified risk or protective factor for delinquency and

violence, then the evaluation was judged to have

met this criterion.

• The demographic, social, and risk characteristics of

the population served by the program were

specified.

• The preventive intervention itself was adequately

described, including details on goals and content,

personnel delivering the program, and methods of

service delivery.

• The evaluation used a quasi-experimental or a

more rigorous research design in testing program

effects. Uncontrolled, preexperimental designs

suffer from too many threats to internal validity to

allow reasonable interpretation of results.

• The evaluation provided evidence concerning the

degree of program implementation and information on whether the intervention was delivered

according to plan.

• Quantitative evidence was presented regarding

program outcomes on delinquency, violence, and

associated risk and protective factors. Unless otherwise noted, the investigators controlled for preprogram differences between experimental and

control/comparison groups in assessing program

outcomes.

The review in this Guide includes only delinquency

and violence prevention programs. It excludes programs that involve young people as a result of contact

with law enforcement or the juvenile justice system.

Covered programs may have included youth with

previous contact with law enforcement or the juvenile

justice system, but their participation was not a

consequence of this contact. Interventions for young

offenders are reviewed in Part III of this guide. This

review does not include related programs that are

specifically designed to prevent substance abuse, such

as drug education programs and changes in drinking

age laws. See Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller (1992)

and Hawkins, Arthur, and Catalano (in press) for

reviews of these programs. In addition, most research

discussed in this review has not distinguished serious, violent, or chronic delinquency from more general delinquent behavior. As a result, the conclusions

at the end of this section primarily apply to the prevention of delinquency and violence as a whole.

School districts considering reducing class size to increase achievement must weigh the cost of this

intervention relative to the small

educational benefits observed.

Classroom Organization, Management,

and Instructional Strategies

Interventions involving classroom organization,

management, and instructional strategies attempt to

promote the protective factors of opportunities to

participate actively in learning, skills to establish positive social relationships, and bonding to school and

prosocial peers. These interventions seek to reduce

school-related risk factors of academic failure, low

commitment to school, and early and persistent antisocial behavior.

Robert Slavin and his associates have conducted several reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of

classroom organization, management, and instructional strategies. Their reviews and meta-analyses

included studies that met four criteria: the program

must be portable and replicable, the program must
63

have lasted at least one semester, the evaluation must

have included objective standardized academic

achievement tests as outcome measures, and the

evaluation must have involved at least three experimental and three control teachers.

In a meta-analysis, Slavin (1990a) showed that substantial reductions in class size (i.e., greater than 20

percent) had small positive effects (median effect size

= .14) on students’ reading achievement in kindergarten and first grade classrooms. Reliable effects of reduced class size have not been found for second and

higher grades. School districts considering reducing

class size to increase achievement must weigh the cost

of this intervention relative to the small educational

benefits observed.

Slavin (1994) reviewed controlled evaluations of the

presence of teacher aides in classrooms. He found that

using multipurpose teacher aides who helped with

instructional, clerical, and custodial activities did not

consistently increase students’ academic achievement

in the early elementary grades.

A comprehensive meta-analysis of experimental and

quasi-experimental studies by Slavin (1987) indicated

that the effects of ability grouping for instruction in

elementary school varied by format. The results demonstrated no improvement from ability-grouped class

assignment or tracking within grades (median effect

size = .00), but showed moderate positive effects for

ability grouping in reading across classes and grades

(median effect size = .45) and within class ability

grouping in mathematics in the middle and late

elementary grades (median effect size = .32). Almost

all the studies included in this meta-analysis were

conducted before 1980 (Hiebert, 1987), which suggests

caution in generalizing these results.

Ability grouping in the secondary schools, however,

does not appear to improve students’ academic

achievement. Slavin (1990b) performed a metaanalysis of experimental, quasi-experimental, and

correlational studies of ability grouping in secondary

schools. The median effect size of between- and

within-class ability grouping on students’ academic

achievement was -.02. This result held for different

forms of ability grouping, different subjects, and

students of different ability levels.

Holmes and Matthews (1984) conducted a metaanalysis of the effects of not promoting students to the

next grade in elementary and junior high schools.

They showed that nonpromotion had negative effects

on students’ academic achievement, behavior, attitudes toward school, and school attendance, over and

above the effects of nonpromoted students’ lower

intelligence and academic achievement.

O’Leary and O’Leary (1977) reviewed experimental

research on behavioral techniques for classroom management. The authors identified several effective techniques to promote positive classroom behavior, such

as clear rules and directions, praise/approval, modeling, token reinforcement, self-specification of contingencies, self-reinforcement, and shaping. They also

identified effective strategies for decreasing disruptive negative behavior, such as ignoring misbehavior,

reinforcing behavior incompatible with the undesired

behavior, and using soft reprimands, timeouts, point

Gutierrez and Slavin (1992) conducted a metaanalysis of a related classroom arrangement, the

nongraded elementary school, where “students are

grouped according to their level of academic performance, not their ages” (p. 334) and are allowed to

progress through elementary school at their own

pace. They found that nongraded programs had positive effects on student achievement when used for

one subject (median effect size = .46) and multiple

subjects (median effect size = .34). This effect did not

hold when nongraded programs were combined with

individualized instruction, where the student initiates

more of the individually tailored learning activity

(median effect size = .02) or with individually guided

education (a variant of individualized instruction)

(median effect size = .11). However, both nongraded

elementary schools and ability-grouping programs in

elementary school may attach a stigma to students of

lower ability groups.

Both nongraded elementary schools

and ability-grouping programs in

elementary school may attach a

stigma to students of lower ability

groups.
64

loss and fines in token economies, and relaxation

methods.

Kellam and Rebok (1992) and Kellam, Rebok, Ialongo,

and Mayer (1994) evaluated the impacts of a behavioral classroom management technique called the

Good Behavior Game. Program teachers measured

students’ levels of aggression and disruption during a

baseline period and then assigned students to one of

three heterogeneous teams that included equally

aggressive and disruptive children. When the Good

Behavior Game was in progress, teachers assigned

checkmarks on the chalkboard to a team when a

member engaged in disruptive behavior. At the end

of a game period, teams with fewer than five

checkmarks earned a reward. During the beginning

of the program, game periods were announced, and

tangible rewards such as stickers were immediately

distributed to team members. As the program progressed, the teacher began the game unannounced

and provided less tangible rewards, such as participation in a rewarding activity (e.g., extra recess) or class

privileges that were delayed until the end of the day

or week. Teams that won (by having fewer than five

checkmarks) most often during the week received a

special reward on Friday. The 2-year program was

tested with first grade students in public schools in

eastern Baltimore. The participating urban public

schools recruited children from low- and middleincome residential areas and included neighborhoods

varying in ethnic diversity. Forty-nine percent of the

study children were male, and 65 percent were

African-American.

The researchers used a true experimental design to

evaluate program effects. Within each of five urban

areas, schools were assigned to receive the Good

Behavior Game, a mastery learning instructional

intervention, or no intervention (the control group).

Teachers and entering students were randomly

assigned to intervention or control classrooms. During the first weeks of the program, the Good Behavior

Game was played for three 10-minute periods a week.

The duration of game periods gradually increased

over subsequent weeks to a maximum of 3 hours.

After 1 year, experimental students were rated as

significantly less aggressive and shy by teachers and

peers in comparison to control students. The largest

program effects after 1 year were found for the most

aggressive children. There were no overall program

effects on sixth grade teacher-rated aggression after

controlling for aggression ratings by first grade teachers. However, boys in the experimental group rated as

highly aggressive in first grade were rated as significantly less aggressive in sixth grade than their counterparts in the control and mastery learning groups,

controlling for the level of first grade aggression.

Slavin and Madden (1989) reviewed controlled evaluations of instructional strategies for elementary school

students, especially for those at risk of academic failure. They found evidence of effectiveness (small to

moderate effect sizes) for two categories of instructional methods: continuous progress and cooperative

learning.

In continuous progress programs, students proceed

through a defined hierarchy of skills and are tested at

each level to assess their readiness to advance to the

next skill. Students who fail these mastery assessments receive special instructional assistance (e.g.,

tutoring, assignment to different groups, corrective

instruction in small groups, or other materials and

activities). Continuous progress programs maintain

careful records of each student’s progress through

the curriculum, and these records are used to guide

instructional decisions. In these programs, teachers

deliver most instruction to groups of students at

the same instructional level. Evaluations of seven

different continuous progress programs showed

positive effects on students’ academic achievement.

In cooperative learning programs, teachers provide

initial instruction to groups of students at the same

skill level or to the entire class. Then students work in

learning teams, each with four to five members of

mixed skill levels, helping each other learn and

Boys in the experimental group rated

as highly aggressive in first grade

were rated as significantly less

aggressive in sixth grade than their

counterparts in the control and

mastery learning groups, controlling

for the level of first grade aggression.
65

assessing one another’s progress in preparing for tests

and teacher assessments. Students take tests individually, without help from teammates, but receive some

type of recognition based on the learning of all team

members. When students do not meet the required

level of mastery, they are provided with specific corrective procedures. Cooperative learning has shown

positive effects on academic achievement in a variety

of subjects for short-term interventions lasting less

than a full semester in elementary and secondary

schools (Slavin, 1983b), as well as in longer term interventions in elementary schools (Slavin and Madden,

1989). In addition, cooperative learning programs of

all types have had positive effects on such outcomes

as attitudes toward school, race relations, and acceptance of special education students mainstreamed into

regular classes (Slavin, 1983a, 1990c).

achievement (see also Wasik and Slavin, 1994). These

findings held whether tutoring was remedial or preventive in nature and structured or unstructured in

design. Moreover, older students who served as tutors

to younger students also showed academic gains as a

result of their participation. Cohen, Kulik, and Kulik

(1982) showed similar results in their meta-analysis of

controlled evaluations of peer- and cross-age tutoring

in the elementary and middle school grades. Tutoring

had moderate positive effects on both tutees’ and

tutors’ academic achievement (mean effect sizes = .40

and .33, respectively) and attitudes toward the subject

matter covered in tutoring (mean effect sizes = .29

and .42, respectively). These effects held for students

across all achievement levels. Furthermore, randomized evaluations of classwide peer tutoring and tutoring by adults in elementary grades demonstrated

long-term positive program effects on students’

academic achievement 1–2 years following tutoring

(Coie and Krehbiel, 1984; Greenwood, Terry, Utley,

Montagna, and Walker, 1993).

In addition, Madden and Slavin (1989) demonstrated

that computer-assisted instruction had reliable,

though modest, positive effects on students’ achievement in acquiring basic reading and math skills. They

also found that diagnostic-prescriptive pullout strategies may be somewhat effective in increasing students’ academic achievement. In these programs,

“. . . students identified as being in need of remedial

services are carefully assessed and then instruction

appropriate to their needs is given by a teacher in a

location separate from the regular classroom (or occasionally within the classroom setting). Instruction

may be given to individuals or to small groups within

a pullout class of roughly three to eight students”

(p. 54).

The Seattle Social Development Project, which was

explicitly designed to prevent delinquency and other

problem behaviors (Hawkins and Lam, 1987), employed several classroom management and instruction program components, including cooperative

learning, proactive classroom management, and interactive teaching. Proactive classroom management

consisted of establishing expectations for classroom

behavior; using methods of maintaining classroom

order that minimized interruptions to instruction and

learning; and giving frequent, specific, and contingent

One-on-one tutoring of elementary

school students in reading and math

by older students, adult community

volunteers, trained paraprofessionals, and professional teachers

produced substantial and longterm improvements in student

achievement.

Slavin and Madden (1989) also noted the apparent

lack of effectiveness of certain instructional methods.

They found no good evidence of improvement from

developmental and humanistic models (such as open

classrooms or Piagetian-based programs) or groupbased mastery learning programs (which are somewhat similar to continuous progress programs but

have teachers deliver instruction to the entire class,

not to small groups of students at the same skill

level).

Madden and Slavin (1989) reviewed elementary

school compensatory education programs that

involved “pulling out” students from class for additional instruction. One-on-one tutoring of elementary

school students in reading and math by older students, adult community volunteers, trained paraprofessionals, and professional teachers produced

substantial and long-term improvements in student
66

praise and encouragement for student effort and

progress. Interactive teaching involved several elements, including assessment, mental set, objectives,

input, modeling, and checking for understanding and

remediation. Students had to master specific learning

objectives before proceeding to more advanced work.

The program was tested in regular classrooms in

multi-ethnic public elementary and middle schools in

combination with a social competence curriculum and

parent training. (See Hawkins, Catalano, and Brewer,

1994, for a review of these latter preventive interventions.) The evaluation used a true experimental design. In six elementary and three middle schools,

entering first and seventh grade students, as well as

teachers, were randomly assigned to experimental

and control classrooms. One additional school of each

level (elementary and middle) was designated as a

full experimental school, and another school of each

level was designated as a full control school. In elementary schools, the program was implemented in

grades one to six for the experimental cohort. In

middle schools, the program was implemented only

during the seventh grade in math, language arts, and

social studies classrooms. The program was fairly

well imple- mented. Experimental teachers’ instructional practices consistently and significantly more

closely matched intended program practices than

control teachers’ classroom behavior.

For the elementary school cohort, by the end of grade

two there were significantly less teacher-rated

aggressive behavior for experimental boys and selfdestructive behavior for experimental girls than for

their control counterparts. However, no program

effects were found for African-American children in

the study on teacher-rated behaviors in second grade

(Hawkins, Von Cleve, and Catalano, 1991). By the

beginning of fifth grade, experimental students

reported significantly better family management practices in their homes and greater bonding to family

and school than control students after controlling for

socioeconomic status, race, and mobility. Experimental students also were significantly less likely to have

initiated delinquent behavior and alcohol use. There

were no significant differences between experimental

and control students in their attitudes and beliefs

toward problem behaviors (Hawkins, Catalano,

Morrison, O’Donnell, Abbott, and Day, 1992). By the

end of sixth grade, low-income experimental students

reported significantly greater bonding to conventional

society and more opportunities and rewards for conventional involvement and interaction than lowincome control students. In addition, low-income

experimental boys had significantly greater academic

achievement and better teacher-rated behavior.

Low-income experimental girls reported significantly

fewer opportunities for antisocial involvement and

interaction and less alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana

use than low-income control girls (O’Donnell,

Hawkins, Catalano, Abbott, and Day, in press).

There is also some evidence that a

combination of proactive classroom

management, interactive teaching,

and cooperative learning has

worked to prevent delinquency.

For the middle school cohort, after 1 year of intervention, experimental students showed significant increases in bonding to school relative to their control

counterparts. This effect held for low-achieving students as well. In addition, low-achieving experimental students, relative to low-achieving controls, had

significantly smaller increases in school suspensions

and expulsions (Hawkins, Doueck, and Lishner,

1988). There were no significant differences between

experimental and control students in academic

achievement or delinquent and violent behavior following the 1-year middle school intervention. As with

most other multicomponent prevention programs,

evaluations of the Seattle Social Development Program could not estimate the independent effects of

the different program components.

Summary. Evaluations of classroom organization,

management, and instructional interventions generally used relatively strong experimental designs.

These evaluations constitute a fairly large body of

research conducted over decades in which significant

knowledge of program effects has accumulated. Many

of these programs had reliable, positive effects on

school-related risk and protective factors.
67

Slavin and Madden (1989) concluded that “consistently effective classroom programs accommodate

instruction to individual needs while maximizing

direct instruction, and they frequently assess student

progress through a structured hierarchy of skills”

(p. 45). There is also some evidence that a combination of proactive classroom management, interactive

teaching, and cooperative learning has worked to

prevent delinquency.

School Behavior Management Strategies

Beyond programs focused solely on classroom management, behavioral interventions have been used in

schools to improve behavior and achievement. Four

kinds of school behavior management programs have

been evaluated:

• Structured playground activities.

• Behavioral consultation.

• Behavioral monitoring and reinforcement of attendance, academic progress, and school behavior.

• Special educational placements for disruptive,

disturbed, and learning-disabled students.

These school-based behavioral interventions beyond

the classroom can address the protective factors of

bonding to school and recognition of positive behavior, and several risk factors, including poor family

management practices, academic failure, alienation

and rebelliousness, low commitment to school, and

early and persistent aggressive behavior.

Structured playground activities. Murphy,

Hutchison, and Bailey (1983) evaluated a playground

program at an elementary school in Tallahassee,

Florida. Children gathered on the school playground

beginning an hour before school started. Prior to the

program, school staff regarded students’ disruptive

and aggressive behavior on the playground as a problem during this morning period. The program consisted of organized games (jump rope and foot races)

for kindergarten to second grade children on the playground in the 40 minutes before school started. Three

aides supervised these activities and used a timeout

procedure for students who committed particularly

unruly behaviors. For timeout, the disruptive student

was required to sit quietly on a bench for 2 minutes.

The researchers used a reversal (ABAB) design to

evaluate program effects. Twelve days of baseline

observations of student playground behavior (during

which teacher aides monitored unorganized activities

as usual) were followed by observations during 7

days of the experimental program. The next 4 days

were the second baseline observation period, which

were followed by 6 more days of the experimental

program. Seven observers stationed on the perimeter

of the playground observed students’ behavior in

different thirds of the play area in the 20 minutes before school started. These observers made reliable

behavioral observations of disruptive incidents, including aggression, property abuse such as taking

someone else’s books, and violations of school rules.

Behavioral interventions have

been used with some success in

schools to improve behavior and

achievement.

The children participated vigorously in the organized

games, although they were still free to play on their

own. The mean number of disruptive incidents per

observation period during the experimental periods

was 53 percent less than during the baseline periods.

This difference was highly statistically significant.

Most of the disruptive incidents, especially during

baseline periods, involved aggression. This program

showed only situation-specific reductions in aggressive behavior on the playground. Program effects

on student behavior in other settings were not

investigated.

Behavioral consultation. Mayer and Butterworth

(1979) evaluated a program in which graduate

student consultants trained in applied behavioral

analysis and behavioral consultation worked with

elementary school teams composed of two teachers,

the principal, and the school counselor or psychologist to develop classroom and schoolwide antivandalism programs. Teams from all program schools also

attended ten 2-hour training workshops. The behavioral interventions and training focused on:
68

• Matching academic materials to students’ skill

levels.

• Increasing positive reinforcement for appropriate

classroom behavior and academic progress.

• Reducing the use of punishment.

• Applying various learning and behavioral management principles.

• Educating school counselors or psychologists in

behavioral consultation methods.

Four graduate student consultants worked in a school

1 half-day per week for a school year.

The evaluators used a true experimental design to

assess program impacts. Nineteen elementary schools

in Los Angeles County participated in the study, with

10 randomly assigned to the program and 9 randomly

assigned to the control group. In most study schools,

students were predominantly from low-income

African-American or Latino families. In both experimental and control schools, principals selected two

respected and openminded teachers from their

schools who taught in grades four to six. In experimental schools, these teachers were part of the antivandalism teams. In all schools, observers rated the

disruptive and on-task behavior of six randomly chosen students in the two participating teachers’ classes

in the fall and again in late spring. Both experimental

and control teachers’ use of positive reinforcement in

class decreased from fall to spring, but the decrease

was significantly less for experimental teachers than

control teachers.

In terms of vandalism costs, experimental and control

schools were roughly comparable before the program

began. Vandalism costs decreased by 57 percent for

experimental schools but increased by 320 percent for

control schools. However, the statistical significance

of these findings was not reported, and vandalism

costs are highly sensitive to single, very expensive

damages. During the program year, observer-rated

disruptive behavior significantly decreased for experimental students relative to control students, and experimental students’ on-task classroom behavior (as

rated by observers) increased significantly compared

with controls.

Mayer, Butterworth, Nafpaktitis, and Sulzer-Azaroff

(1983) evaluated essentially the same program as the

one described by Mayer and Butterworth (1979). The

only differences between the programs were that the

former included junior high schools and continued to

offer limited program services (fewer training workshops and lower intensity consultation) for 2 years

after the first program year. The evaluators used a

delayed intervention control group design. Eighteen

elementary and junior high schools from 12 school

districts in Los Angeles County participated in the

study, with 9 schools randomly assigned to the experimental group (group I) and 9 schools randomly

assigned to the control group (group II). Group I

schools received the program for 3 continuous years,

and group II schools received the program for the

second and third years. By the third year, four schools

dropped out of the program from group I, and three

Behavioral consultation may

improve students' school behavior

and reduce school vandalism.

schools dropped out of the program from group II. In

addition to the two teachers in each school who participated in the program teams, two other “barometer” teachers in each study school were selected at

random to measure possible “spillover” effects of the

program. Project staff made no deliberate attempt to

consult with these teachers. Six low-achieving and

disruptive students in classrooms of each of the team

and barometer teachers were randomly selected to be

observed at regular intervals during the project. Each

year, behavioral observations were made in late fall,

winter, and late spring.

Team and barometer teachers significantly increased

their use of positive reinforcement in the classroom

after the program was in place and maintained these

improvements throughout the project. Significantly

more experimental (6/9) than control schools (1/9)

reduced their vandalism costs in the first project year.

A similar decrease appeared when the program began

for group II schools in the second project year. In

comparison with baseline levels, vandalism costs,
69

adjusted for school size, decreased in project schools

by 79 percent on average. Relative to controls, experimental students significantly decreased their disruptive and off-task behavior, maintaining these program

effects in following years of the project.

Behavioral monitoring and reinforcement of attendance, academic progress, and school behavior.

Brooks (1975) evaluated a school behavior management program designed to increase the attendance of

truant high school students. Program participants

signed contracts pledging not to have unexcused

absences and agreeing to have all their teachers sign

a daily attendance card, which would be turned in to

the school counselor at the end of each school day.

Participants earned one ticket for each teacher’s signature and each written positive comment from a

teacher. Participants’ accumulated tickets were used

in raffles held at the midpoint and end of the intervention period. Prizes included money, movie tickets,

record albums, and gift certificates. Students with

better attendance (and thus more tickets) had higher

probabilities of winning a prize.

Program effects were evaluated using a true experimental design. Persistently truant students in one

suburban southern California high school were randomly assigned to the experimental or the control

group. Attendance was monitored over an 8-week

baseline period and an 8-week intervention period.

During the baseline period, regular school attendance

procedures were followed, including parent contacts,

home calls, suspensions, contacts with probation

officers, and truancy petitions filed with the district

attorney. Relative to controls’ attendance rates, experimental students’ attendance rates increased significantly and dramatically from the baseline period to

the intervention period.

Barber and Kagey (1977) evaluated an attendance

program for first through third grade students in a

rural Virginia elementary school. Each month during

the program, students with no unexcused absences

for that month could attend a party with free nonalcoholic drinks and activities. Students who had one to

three unexcused absences for the month could attend

the party, but for less time and with some restrictions

on the activities in which they could participate.

Students with more than three unexcused absences

were sent to a special workroom to work on academic

assignments while other students attended the party.

One month prior to the program, teachers carefully

explained it to students (in person) and parents

(through letters). At the beginning of the program, the

school organized a party and allowed all students to

attend, regardless of their attendance histories. During the program, each classroom maintained a visible

record of each student’s attendance.

Monthly attendance rates were computed by teachers

and school administrators for a 3-month baseline

period from September through November and for

the 4-month intervention period from January

through April of the program year. Monthly attendance rates were also calculated for the program

school for 4 years prior to the program year. In addition, monthly attendance rates were available for nine

comparison elementary schools in the same county

for the whole 5-year study period.

These evaluations indicate that

monitoring school attendance

coupled with contingent reinforcement of attendance can reduce

truancy in both elementary and

high schools.

Attendance rates at the experimental school during

the baseline period of the program year were not significantly different from the school’s attendance rates

during the same months over the 4 previous years.

However, attendance rates in the experimental school

during the intervention period were significantly

higher than in the same months during the 4 previous

years. During the program year, attendance rates at

the comparison schools did not vary significantly

from the previous 4 years for either the baseline or

intervention periods. For the comparison schools

during the whole 5-year study period and for the

experimental school during the 4 years before the

program, there were substantial and significant declines in attendance from the fall months to the winter

and spring months. However, in the experimental

school during the program year, there was no significant seasonal decline in attendance rates.
70

than controls. In the 1 1/2 years after the main program period, experimental youth self-reported significantly less abuse of some types of illegal drugs

and less criminal behavior. These significant program impacts on delinquency were long-term: 5

years after the main program period ended, experimental youth were 66 percent less likely than control

youth to have a juvenile record with the county probation office. Although the sample was somewhat

small, the study had a very strong design and very

little attrition of study participants.

These evaluations indicate that monitoring school

attendance coupled with contingent reinforcement

of attendance can reduce truancy in both elementary and high schools.

Bry (1982) evaluated a 2-year behavioral intervention focused on low-achieving, disruptive seventh

grade students who had low bonding to their families. Program staff interviewed participants’ teachers weekly about participants’ tardiness, class

preparedness, class performance, and behavior.

Program staff then met with participants in weekly

small group sessions to review their school behavior. Participants earned points for positive ratings

from the teacher interviews, attendance, and lack of

disciplinary referrals, as well as lack of inappropriate behavior during the weekly meetings. Participants could use the points they accumulated during

the school year for an extra school trip of their own

choosing. Program staff contacted participants’ parents periodically with progress reports. During the

year after the 2-year intervention period, program

staff conducted teacher interviews biweekly and

offered small group “booster” review sessions biweekly. Program staff sent written feedback to those

participants who did not attend these booster sessions, since fewer than 50 percent of participants

attended each session.

The evaluation used a true experimental design.

Pairs of identified at-risk students from the same

classrooms were matched on academic achievement

and school attendance, and one student in each pair

was randomly assigned to the experimental group

and the other to the control group. Approximately

half of the study youth were from an urban school

system, and the other half were from a suburban

school system. Forty-two percent of the study youth

were African-American, and the rest were white.

At the end of the program, experimental youth

had significantly better school grades and attendance than controls (Bry and George, 1979, 1980),

and program impacts were uniform across race,

sex, socioeconomic, and achievement motivation

groups. In the year after the main program intervention, experimental youth displayed significantly fewer problem behaviors at school (e.g.,

suspensions, academic failure, poor attendance,

and tardiness as determined from school records)

Special educational placements for disruptive, disturbed, and learning-disabled students. Safer (1982)

reviewed quasi-experimental and true experimental

evaluations of special education placements, including self-contained classes and resource rooms, for

disruptive, emotionally disturbed, learning-disabled,

and/or educable developmentally disabled elementary students. He found that such special education

placements had no, or marginally positive, effects on

academic achievement and school behavior during

the program and no lasting effects after students left

the program.

There are two available evaluations of special educational placements for disruptive secondary school

students. Safer (1990) evaluated a program in which

multisuspended seventh to ninth grade students were

placed into a special classroom section for the school

day. At each grade level, a regular teacher and an aide

led classes of 10 to 15 multisuspended youth in four

major academic subjects during consecutive morning

periods using small group and individualized instruction. The program used a token economy for reinforcing good classroom behavior. Points could be used to

earn early release from school (at approximately

1 p.m.), gain access to play in an afternoon recreation

room, study in an academic resource room, or buy

Special education placements had

no, or marginally positive, effects

on academic achievement and

school behavior during the program

and no lasting effects after students

leave the program.
71

attendance rates and better classroom behavior (as

indicated in school records) than comparison youth.

Experimental and comparison youth did not differ

significantly in the 10th grade in terms of grades, rate

of office visits, or suspensions, although this lack of

differences could be due to the greater attrition of

comparison youth. Comparison youth were significantly more likely to drop out of school than program

youth, but there were no significant differences

between groups in graduation rates. The evaluation

did not measure youth’s behavior outside of school,

which might have been especially important given

that youth who behaved well in class could be released from school early. A potential disadvantage of

this program was that it isolated participants from

other students for much of the school day, while

increasing association with peers who had behavior

problems.

Trice, Parker, and Safer (1982) evaluated school-based

behavioral interventions for disruptive 10th grade

students. They tested three approaches for responding to disruptive students, each implemented independently for 1 year over 3 successive years in the

same high school. In the first year, there was no special program available, and disruptive students were

placed in regular classes.

The intervention in the second year consisted of a

self-contained special class where disruptive students

received instruction in four major academic subjects

from one teacher and an aide. The program used

behavior management techniques in the classroom

similar to those used in the junior high program

evaluated by Safer (1990). In addition, teachers sent

parents daily student behavior reports, and parents

engaged their children in contingency contracting

with home-based reinforcement for favorable reports.

Students also participated in part-time, afternoon

vocational training in carpentry and related areas for

school credit. Students were paid to participate in the

training during the second semester.

In the third year, all 10th grade students were placed

in regular classrooms, but teachers could refer disruptive or low-achieving students to a resource room for

tutoring, individual instruction, counseling, and/or

inschool detention. The resource room was staffed by

a teacher or a counselor and two aides, and most of

items such as food or dance tickets. Other school reinforcers included daily, weekly, and monthly recognition of good behavior in the form of certificates and

cash awards; grades also were partially based on

attendance. Program staff had regular meetings with

program youth’s parents to develop home-based reinforcement contracts that specified the rewards parents

would provide youth contingent on their good school

reports. Students who broke more than one class rule

during the same period were expelled from the class

until they spent a few hours in school detention or

renegotiated their home reinforcement contracts.

Virtually all program students were returned to regular classes 3 months before the end of ninth grade.

The evaluation used a nonequivalent comparison

group design that compared one experimental junior

high school with two comparison junior high schools

in suburban, working-class areas in Baltimore County,

Maryland. In each of the three study schools, study

youth were multisuspended students selected by the

school’s assistant principal. Prior to entry to the study,

experimental and comparison youth were similar in

terms of intelligence, socioeconomic status, family

structure, academic achievement, and school misconduct. The program operated for 7 years.

More evaluations using rigorous

experimental designs are needed

to determine the effectiveness

of school-based behavioral

interventions.

During the program, experimental youth had significantly fewer expulsions from the classroom, fewer

school suspensions, and better grades than comparison youth. These findings, however, reflect measures

of school reactions to misbehavior that may have

themselves been affected by the presence of the program. There were no reliable differences between

groups on a standardized academic achievement test

and apparently no significant differences in attendance during the program. Following the program,

experimental youth were significantly more likely to

enter high school and had significantly higher
72

staff time was spent on relatively long-term (2- to

3-month) academic instruction. Almost half of the

disruptive students participated in vocational training

similar to that offered in the second-year intervention.

If major academic subject teachers reported favorably

on a student’s behavior for the day, that individual

could participate in vocational training or leave

school early. Students were paid for their participation in vocational training throughout the school year.

The evaluators mentioned that during this year the

school also implemented several special incentive

programs for truancy prevention.

The evaluators used a quasi-experimental design to

assess program impacts. In one Baltimore County

senior high school, the 10th grade students from each

year who were identified as disruptive were compared on outcomes during their 10th grade years and

for 2 years following their respective programs.

There were no significant differences among students

in the three interventions in terms of age, gender,

academic achievement scores, or attendance and suspension rates before the interventions. During the

10th grade, disruptive students in the resource room

program implemented in the third year of the study

had significantly higher grades, increases in academic

achievement scores, and attendance rates and significantly lower suspension rates than students in the

other two programs. Disruptive students in the

resource room program also were significantly more

likely to attend school in the 2 years following the

program than disruptive students in the other

programs. On virtually every outcome, disruptive

students in the self-contained class fared worst in

comparison with students in the other programs. It is

possible that truancy prevention activities also implemented in the third year of the study contributed to

the positive outcomes associated with the resource

room intervention. The evaluators provided no information on implementation for any of the programs.

Summary. These school-based behavioral interventions vary in their degree of demonstrated effectiveness. Monitored, structured activities outside of the

classroom, such as on the playground, may reduce

antisocial behavior, particularly aggression, in these

contexts. In addition, behavioral consultation in

elementary and secondary schools may improve

students’ school behavior and reduce school vandalism. Special educational placements, while ineffective

in elementary school for disruptive, disturbed, learning-disabled, and educable developmentally disabled

students, might enhance academic achievement,

attendance, and school behavior among disruptive

secondary school students, but the available evidence

is mixed. More evaluations using rigorous experimental designs are needed to determine the effectiveness

of these interventions.

The available evaluations indicate that behavioral

monitoring and reinforcement of attendance, academic progress, and school behavior are effective in

improving these areas for both elementary and secondary school children. In one evaluation (Bry, 1982),

regular behavioral monitoring and reinforcement

of appropriate school behavior and performance

reduced delinquency for adolescents at risk by virtue

of academic failure, persistent behavior problems, and

low bonding to family.

Numerous conflict resolution and

violence prevention curriculums

have been developed in recent

years, but very few have been

evaluated in controlled studies.

Conflict Resolution and Violence Prevention Curriculums

Conflict resolution and violence prevention curriculums are designed to improve students’ social,

problem-solving, and anger management skills.

Curriculums vary in the incorporation and intensity

of these components.

Risk factors addressed by these curriculums include

early and persistent aggressive behavior and association with delinquent and violent peers. Protective

factors addressed include increasing skills to resolve

conflict and healthy beliefs and clear standards for

behavior. Numerous conflict resolution and violence

prevention curriculums have been developed in

recent years, but very few have been evaluated in

controlled studies. All the evaluations below used

nonequivalent comparison group designs.
73

Brennan (1992) evaluated a version of the Empowering Children to Survive and Succeed (ECSS) curriculum designed for prekindergarten to third grade

students. Curriculum content focused on self-control,

self-confidence, speaking and listening, responsibility,

relaxation, thinking, problem solving, and cooperation. A trained consultant led instruction in the curriculum (with the participation of the classroom

teacher) for one 30-minute session a week. In the

evaluation, first and second grade experimental students received the curriculum over 10 weeks, while

experimental students in all other grades received the

curriculum over 6 weeks. The consultant modeled

skills in the classroom, and then students practiced

the skills in age-appropriate games and successoriented activities. Lessons ended with a class discussion of the skill examined during that lesson. Over the

school year, nine workshops (three for teachers, three

for parents, and three for school staff) were presented

to introduce ECSS methods and skills. Teachers and

parents were encouraged to use program techniques

with students, and parents received ECSS handbooks

that described program techniques and vocabulary.

School administrators monitored teachers’ implementation of program methods as part of their regular

observation of classroom teaching. Curriculum instruction and workshops were supplemented by

training handbooks, worksheets, charts, and stamps

that were distributed to students throughout the

school year. In addition, posters highlighting curriculum skills were displayed in the classroom and

throughout the school.

The evaluation used a nonequivalent comparison

group design, including an experimental and comparison group for each of five grade levels from

prekindergarten to third grade. Except for the

prekindergarten group, in which experimental and

comparison students attended the same school, comparison classes were “. . . drawn from schools with

similar demographic patterns and achievement . . .”

(p. 7) to experimental schools. No information was

provided about the characteristics of the students. For

some grade levels, experimental and comparison

students numbered as few as nine, suggesting that

bias may have been introduced by nonresponse and

attrition (Brennan, personal communication, June 16,

1994). No information was reported about workshop

implementation and attendance. Immediately before

and after the curriculum period, students were orally

interviewed with a 45-item inventory of attitudes and

behaviors focusing on self-responsibility, self-control,

self-esteem, self-concept, attitudes toward diversity,

attitudes toward learning, conflict resolution, problem

solving, and learning skills.

Outcome data were aggregated across grade levels.

Analysis of covariance results showed that the

program was significantly associated with improved

overall scores on the outcome inventory after controlling for grade level. There was a significant grade by

intervention interaction, with greater improvements

for experimental students, relative to comparison

students, in kindergarten, first, and second grades

than in the other grades. However, the results from

this evaluation are somewhat difficult to interpret.

The global outcome measure included a high proportion of items measuring wide-ranging constructs;

thus, it is unclear whether the program actually affected risk and protective factors for delinquency and

violence. Also, in four grade levels there appeared to

be sizable pretest differences between study groups

on the outcome measure favoring experimental students. Additionally, selection bias may have contributed to the observed outcomes.

Relative to comparison students,

experimental students improved

significantly in their empathy, interpersonal problem solving, anger

management, and behavioral social

skills as measured by interview

responses to hypothetical social

conflict situations.

The Committee for Children (1988, 1989, 1990, 1992)

developed and tested the Second Step violence prevention curriculum, with versions specifically tailored

to students in preschool and kindergarten, grades one

to three, four and five, and six to eight. The curriculum teaches skills in empathy, appropriate social

behavior, interpersonal problem solving, and anger

management through discussion, modeling, and roleplaying. Trained teachers implement the curriculum,
74

measures consisted of students’ responses to hypothetical social conflict situations.

Experimental students improved significantly more

than comparison students in their prosocial responses

to the hypothetical social conflict situations. Teacherreported incidents of problem behaviors (including

aggression and violence) also significantly decreased

among experimental students relative to comparison

students. Unfortunately, this evaluation had several

limitations, including poorly constructed, unvalidated

measures; unspecified procedures for assignment of

classrooms to experimental conditions; and potentially biased teacher reports of student behavior (since

teachers also implemented the curriculum).

Gainer, Webster, and Champion (1993) developed and

evaluated a violence prevention curriculum for students in grades five to nine. The curriculum reviews

risk factors for violence (including drug use and sales,

alcohol, weapons, anger and arguments, and poverty)

and discusses the relationship between drugs and

violence. Half the sessions focus on social problemsolving skills. As part of the program, students also

contract with an adult who is not involved with

drugs, alcohol, or weapons to help them resolve conflicts nonviolently. Experienced instructors (including

an attorney, a trauma nurse, an emergency medical

technician, and a former drug dealer who was shot

and subsequently became a paraplegic) taught different sessions of the curriculum. The curriculum consists of fifteen 50-minute sessions conducted on

consecutive days over 3 weeks for the particular

implementation assessed in this evaluation.

The experimental group included all fifth grade students in two elementary schools and students in three

seventh grade classes at a junior high school. The

comparison group consisted of all fifth and seventh

grade students enrolled in the same three schools the

year following the intervention. All schools were located in high-crime areas in Washington, D.C., and

most students knew someone who had been murdered or assaulted with a gun or knife. For experimental students, pretests were administered 1 to 3

days before the program began and posttests 1 to 2

weeks after the program ended. For both tests, students responded to hypothetical social conflict situations and indicated their beliefs about aggression and

which consists of approximately 30 lessons taught one

to three times per week over a 3- to 6-month period

(the number of lessons and length of instruction periods varied across implementations and grade levels).

The version for grades 6 to 8 has 13 to 18 lessons

taught over 3 to 6 weeks. Evaluations of each version

were conducted with students in western Washington

State. For each evaluation, the experimental classes of

students were matched with comparison classes of

similar grade levels from the same schools on demographic and academic achievement factors. The

evaluators administered pretests 1 week before the

curriculum began and posttests 1 to 2 weeks after the

curriculum ended. Relative to comparison students,

experimental students improved significantly in their

empathy, interpersonal problem solving, anger management, and behavioral social skills as measured by

interview responses to hypothetical social conflict

situations. These results were limited by somewhat

small samples in each evaluation.

Experimental students improved

significantly more than comparison

students in their prosocial responses

to the hypothetical social conflict

situations.

Marvel, Moreda, and Cook (1993) evaluated the Fighting Fair conflict resolution curriculum. The curriculum covers causes and dynamics of conflict, anger,

communication, problem solving, anger reduction

techniques, mediation, and negotiation. Trained

teachers used discussion, brainstorming, role-playing,

and storytelling techniques in 30-minute daily lessons

over a 7-week period. Teachers infused conflict resolution topics into language arts and social studies

lessons and directed students to use their conflict

resolution knowledge in their interpersonal disputes.

Three classes of fourth, fifth, and sixth grade students

were assigned to the experimental group, and three

classes of the same grades served as comparisons. All

students in both groups attended the same public

school with a student population of primarily lowincome, ethnic minority children. Pretest and posttest
75

violence. Comparison students’ pre- and posttests

were separated by the same amount of time 1 year

later.

This study yielded mixed results. Following intervention, experimental students significantly increased

their knowledge of risk factors for violence and listed

more negative consequences to using violence, compared to control students. Experimental students also

were significantly less likely to define social problems

in adversarial ways and legitimize violence. However,

experimental students were significantly less likely to

provide nonviolent solutions in hypothetical conflict

situations. There were no differences between groups

regarding the desire to have a weapon for protection.

Furthermore, following the intervention, experimental students actually perceived significantly less risk

of violence associated with drug dealing than did

comparison students.

Hammond and Yung (1991) developed and evaluated

the PACT (Positive Adolescents Choices Training)

violence prevention curriculum, a training program

specifically designed for African-American youth.

Trained doctoral-level facilitators led group instruction and practice in six social skills (giving positive

feedback, giving negative feedback, accepting negative feedback, resisting peer pressure, problem solving, and negotiation). Skills were introduced with

videotaped vignettes featuring African-American teen

role models in ethnically relevant social contexts.

Students’ practice role-playing sessions also were

videotaped and reviewed. Active participation and

appropriate behavior were rewarded with desirable

items such as cassette tapes. Students attended two

50-minute training sessions per week for a semester.

The experimental group consisted of 14 AfricanAmerican middle school students referred for behavior problems, while the comparison group included

13 students who were referred for the same reasons

but did not receive intervention. The authors did not

explain why these students did not participate. At

pretest and posttest, students were videotaped performing role-plays for the six targeted social skills as

well as for following instructions and conversation.

Trained observers rated these performances. The

evaluators also collected pretest and posttest teacher

and self-ratings of behavior and checked students’

school records for suspensions and expulsions.

The results suggested improvement in all skill levels

for experimental students as judged by observers,

teachers, and participants. Overall, comparison students did not improve on teacher ratings. In addition,

experimental students’ suspensions and expulsions

decreased, while comparison students’ increased.

Interpretation of these findings is difficult because it

is unclear whether the experimental and comparison

groups were comparable initially and because the

authors did not report the statistical significance of

results. Furthermore, the teachers were not blind to

students’ experimental condition.

Hammond and Yung (1992, 1993) reported long-term

evaluation results for the first year of the PACT

program and for replications of the program in the

3 following years with the same target population in

similar settings. Participants in the replications received essentially the same curriculum as in the first

year. Examination of school disciplinary records indicated that experimental youth’s physical and verbal

aggression tended to decrease in the semester during

and semester after the program, while comparison

youth’s aggression tended not to decrease in these

periods. For each of the four program cohorts, experimental youth also tended to have lower rates of juvenile court-recorded criminal offenses at followup than

comparison youth. No inferential data analyses comparing study groups were reported for any of these

results. Hammond and Yung (1992) stated that comparison group youth were generally those whose

academic schedules did not allow participation.

They also noted, however, that program staff made

“. . . efforts to exclude youth who are chronically truant” (p. 9) from the experimental group. Such youth

are at risk for violent and delinquent behavior, and

their inclusion in the comparison group suggests that

the study groups were not comparable. This potentially serious selection bias could account for the

observed differences in outcomes between experimental and comparison youth. The PACT evaluation

reports also lacked descriptions of other important

characteristics of experimental and comparison youth

(such as age and socioeconomic status).

Larson (1992) evaluated the Think First anger-control

and problem-solving training program with middle

school students designated by the school as high

risk. Through modeling (from live and videotaped
76

demonstrations) and role-playing, the program taught

students functional analysis of behavior and selfinstructional methods of anger-aggression control and

problem solving. The program also included an incentive system for attendance and completion of selfmonitoring homework assignments. The program

consisted of ten 50-minute sessions, with participants

meeting twice weekly over 5 weeks. From the author’s

report, it is not clear who led the program sessions,

although the students’ teachers were not involved.

Students in one middle school classroom were

assigned to be the experimental group and students in

another classroom, closely matched on demographic

characteristics, served as the comparison group. Both

classes were for students classified by the school as at

risk. Most students in both groups were AfricanAmericans from low-income families. While students

in the experimental class received the training program, students in the comparison group participated

in discussions (not specified by the author) with an

incentive system for attendance. The author gathered

data on students’ problem behavior referrals from

teachers during the intervention and for unspecified

baseline and followup periods. Pretest and posttest

self-reports of anger and attitudes toward delinquency

and aggression and teacher reports of student aggression were collected 1 week before and 1 week after the

program.

Results indicated no significant decrease in referrals

for experimental students. There was a significant

treatment by phase (baseline, intervention, followup)

interaction: during the program, referrals were highest

for experimental students and lowest for comparison

students, but during the followup period, referrals

were lowest for experimental students and highest for

comparison students. There were apparently no

significant main or interaction effects on self-reported

anger and aggression, attitudes toward delinquency

and violence, or teacher-rated aggression.

Bretherton, Collins, and Ferretti (1993) tested the impact of the Dealing With Conflict curriculum for adolescents. This conflict resolution curriculum consists of

activities that build participants’ group cohesion, trust

and respect for one another, self-esteem, and selfdisclosure. Lessons also review barriers to communication, causes and types of conflict, and ways to

resolve conflict, especially by using assertiveness.

Trained teachers held weekly 1-hour sessions in the

classroom for 10 weeks. Classes were drawn from

three Melbourne, Australia, secondary schools. One

9th grade and one 10th grade class were designated

as experimental classes, and one 10th grade class was

designated as a comparison class. Students in both

classes were approximately 15 years old, and most

came from working class, immigrant families. Pretests

were conducted 3 weeks before the curriculum began,

and posttests were administered 1 week after the

curriculum ended. At each test, students responded to

hypothetical social conflict situations and provided

self-reports of aggressive behavior and attitudes

toward aggression and violence. Relative to comparison students, experimental students self-reported

significantly decreased violent behavior and were

significantly less likely to perceive hypothetical conflict situations in a hostile way. There were no significant differences between groups in their attitudes

toward violence and aggression or on other problemsolving and cognitive measures. Slight age differences

between the experimental and comparison students

might have contributed to the significant findings.

Spiro et al. (1989) (discussed and cited in Webster,

1993) evaluated Prothrow-Stith’s (1987) Violence

Prevention Curriculum for high school students. This

curriculum focuses on risk factors for violence, anger

management, negative consequences of violence, and

alternatives to violence. Experimental teachers from

four inner-city high schools across the United States

received 1 day of training in the curriculum. These

teachers assigned (nonrandomly) 10th grade classes to

the experimental or comparison group. These teachers

also administered pretests 2 weeks before the curriculum began and posttests 1 month after the curriculum

ended. Webster (1993) did not mention whether

Spiro et al. (1989) assessed the degree of curriculum

implementation.

Relative to comparison students,

experimental students self-reported

significantly decreased violent

behavior and were significantly

less likely to perceive hypothetical

conflict situations in a hostile way.
77

There were no significant differences between experimental and comparison students in pretest to posttest

changes on knowledge about violence, attitudes about

how to handle conflicts, acceptance of violence, violence locus of control, self-esteem, self-reported fighting, drug use, or weapon carrying. A decrease in

experimental subjects’ self-reported fighting, relative

to changes in comparison students’ self-reports,

would have been significant if the significance level

had not been adjusted for multiple comparisons. This

marginal result is further tempered by the greater

attrition for high-risk students in the experimental

group than in the comparison group, the unknown

comparability of the experimental and comparison

groups, and the questionable procedure of using program teachers to collect evaluation data.

ological flaws that hinder clear interpretations of their

results.

In reviewing evaluations of some of these curriculums, Webster (1993) highlighted several methodological and theoretical problems, including (among

others) the possibility of social desirability influences

in students’ self-reported responses, short-term

followups, and lack of measurement of behavior outside of school. Conflict resolution and violence prevention curriculums are also partially predicated on

the assumption that aggressive youth are deficient in

their social- and self-perceptions. However, there is

only slight, if any, evidence of such a relationship

(Cairns and Cairns, 1991). Aggressive and nonaggressive youth do differ, however, in their approval

of violence; curriculum intervention might be more

successful if nonviolent beliefs and attitudes were the

primary emphasis. Thus, in addition to the specific

methodological problems in each evaluation and the

lack of random assignment to study groups, these

limitations suggest that the few positive results

should be interpreted very carefully. More rigorous

evaluations of conflict resolution and violence prevention curriculums are clearly needed.

Peer Mediation

Peer mediation programs, which sometimes operate

in conjunction with conflict resolution curriculums,

may be offered in elementary and secondary schools.

In terms of risk factors, peer mediation may address

early and persistent antisocial behavior and association with peers who are involved in violence and

delinquency. Protective factors addressed include

opportunities to contribute, skills to resolve conflict,

and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior.

In peer mediation programs, students involved in a

conflict agree to have a trained peer mediator help

them resolve their dispute. Peer mediators help the

disputants examine the problem at hand, recommend

changes and compromises, and help develop a mutually agreed-on solution. The peer mediation process

is designed to be democratic and avoid blame. The

topics covered in peer mediator training vary across

programs but can include instruction in problem

solving, active listening, communicating, taking

command of adversarial situations, identifying points

of agreement, and maintaining confidentiality and a

nonjudgmental stance.

Summary. Evaluated conflict resolution and violence

prevention curriculums generally have been effective

in improving students’ social skills as measured by

verbal responses to hypothetical social conflict situations. Of the four evaluations that measured students’

attitudes toward violence, only one (Gainer et al.,

1993) demonstrated a positive program impact on

these attitudes. This program differed from the other

curriculums in that instructors had intimate knowledge of the violence problem, and the curriculum

included information on the relationship between

drugs and violence. The results of all four studies that

assessed students’ aggressive or violent behavior

suggested some positive program impacts (Bretherton

et al., 1993; Hammond and Yung, 1991, 1992, 1993;

Marvel et al., 1993; Spiro et al., 1989). These four programs varied significantly in content and instructional method. However, in the two studies with

apparent reductions in self-reported violent behavior

(Bretherton et al., 1993; Spiro et al., 1989), there were

no accompanying changes in attitudes toward violence. In addition, the evaluations by Spiro et al.

(1989), Hammond and Yung (1991, 1992, 1993), and

Marvel et al. (1993) all suffered from serious methodCurriculum intervention might be

more successful if nonviolent beliefs

and attitudes were the primary

emphasis.
78

Lam (1989) reviewed 14 evaluations of peer mediation programs in North America. None of the evaluations used a randomized experimental design, and

only three used quasi-experimental designs (most of

these had short baseline/pretest observation periods, poorly conceived measures, short-term

followup observations, and lacked objective indicators of impact). Two quasi-experimental evaluations

of peer mediation programs that operated in tandem

with conflict resolution curriculums suggested that

the intervention positively affected students’ attitudes toward conflict and violence and knowledge

of conflict resolution techniques (Benenson, 1988;

Jenkins and Smith, 1987). Qualitative and anecdotal

reports in many of the studies Lam reviewed also

suggested that peer mediation had positive effects

on students’ knowledge, attitudes, and behavior.

However, none of the controlled studies of peer mediation showed significant impacts on students’

observable behavior (e.g., fighting disciplinary

referrals).

To illustrate, Araki, Takeshita, and Kadomoto (1989)

evaluated a peer mediation program in several ethnically diverse Hawaiian public schools. Their controlled study represents perhaps the largest and best

documented evaluation of peer mediation. A peer

mediation program was implemented in three

schools, including one elementary, one intermediate,

and one high school. There were two comparison

schools for each elementary and intermediate school

and one comparison high school. The program

lasted 3 years and was well implemented. The researchers gathered data for the year prior to program implementation and all 3 years of the program.

The results indicated no consistent program effects

on school climate, rates of student retention, suspension, dismissal, or attendance despite the favorable

assessments of the program by student mediators,

disputants, school administrators, and project staff.

Since Lam’s (1989) review, the only well-designed

evaluation of a peer mediation program was Tolson,

McDonald, and Moriarty’s (1992) study of a high

school peer mediation program. Students referred to

the assistant deans for interpersonal conflicts were

randomly assigned to either peer mediation or the

control condition of traditional discipline (e.g.,

warnings, demerits, or suspensions). The program

was implemented in a predominantly middle-class,

ethnically diverse, suburban high school with a dropout rate of less than 2 percent. Peer mediation participants were significantly less likely to be referred

again in 2 1/2 months to the assistant dean for interpersonal conflicts than students receiving traditional

discipline.

Summary. The two evaluations that measured attitudes toward conflict and knowledge of conflict resolution techniques showed positive program impacts

on these variables (Benenson, 1988; Jenkins and

Smith, 1987). However, only one of four studies with

a quasi-experimental or true experimental design

associated a decrease in aggressive behavior with

peer mediation. This study (Tolson et al., 1992) found

that high school students who participated as disputants in peer mediation were less likely to be referred

to school officials for interpersonal conflicts during a

short followup period than were control students.

Other evaluations focused on peer mediation with

younger students and did not follow the behavior of

individual disputants over time, but measured aggregate changes in school behavior instead. Thus, the

available evidence is inconclusive about the impact of

peer mediation programs. Existing controlled evaluations of peer mediation presented no evidence of the

schools’ having significant problems with conflict

among students or a large number of students at high

risk for delinquent and violent behavior. It may be

that the lack of significant effects reported in some

evaluations were due to floor effects, since interpersonal conflict may have been already at fairly low

levels. We need further evaluations of programs serving populations at risk of delinquency and violence

using rigorous research designs (including random

assignment of students or schools to intervention and

control groups) to determine whether peer mediation

can help prevent delinquency and violence.

Peer mediation participants were

significantly less likely to be

referred again in 2 1/2 months to

the assistant dean for interpersonal

conflicts than students receiving

traditional discipline.
79

bonding to school, healthy beliefs and clear standards

for behavior, and skills to resist engaging in and becoming a victim of aggression. School organization

interventions may address a number of risk factors,

including transitions, laws and norms regarding

delinquency and violence, academic failure, lack of

commitment to school, association with delinquent

and violent peers, and alienation and rebelliousness.

Cauce, Comer, and Schwartz (1987) and Comer (1988)

evaluated a comprehensive school organization intervention designed for demoralized inner-city elementary schools serving disadvantaged students. There

were four primary program components:

• A social calendar that integrated arts and athletic

programs into school activities.

• A parent program in support of school academic

and extracurricular activities that fostered interaction among parents, teachers, and other school

staff.

• A multidisciplinary mental health team that provided consultation, especially for school staff, in

managing student behavior problems.

• A representative governance and management

team composed of school administrators, teachers,

support staff, and parents that oversaw the implementation of the other three program components.

This team identified and assessed problems and

opportunities in the school, developed and allocated resources, created programs to address problems and opportunities, evaluated these program

outcomes, and modified the programs as necessary.

The program was originally implemented in two

inner-city public elementary schools in New Haven,

Connecticut. Ninety-nine percent of students at these

schools were African-American, and the overwhelming majority came from low-income families. Before

the program, these schools were characterized by

poor attendance, low achievement, discipline problems, and high teacher turnover.

The researchers used a nonequivalent comparison

group design in evaluating program impacts. Study

youth were seventh grade students in the same division of a middle school. Experimental students had

attended the program elementary school, while

Peer Counseling

G. Gottfredson (1987) reviewed evaluations of peer

counseling approaches, variously referred to as

guided group interaction, positive peer culture, peer

culture development, and peer group counseling.

Peer counseling typically involves an adult leader

guiding group discussions in which participants are

encouraged to recognize problems with their behavior, attitudes, and values. The approach tries to shift

participants’ attitudes so that they become unfavorable to antisocial behavior, including delinquency and

violence, and to provide peer group support for this

shift in attitudes. The adult leader asks questions,

creates norms of reassurance, repeats ideas expressed

in the group, and summarizes important themes. Peer

counseling programs may address the risk factors of

favorable attitudes toward delinquency, alienation

and rebelliousness, and association with delinquent

and violent peers. Protective factors addressed may

include healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior and opportunities and skills to communicate and

resolve problems. Peer counseling interventions have

primarily been implemented in treatment rather than

prevention settings. As a preventive intervention,

peer counseling is implemented in schools (including

elementary and secondary levels) and frequently involves students at high risk for delinquency and violence as well as prosocial student leaders and others

at low risk. The available evidence from quasi- and

true experimental evaluations indicates that peer

counseling in elementary and secondary schools has

no or even negative effects on delinquency and associated risk factors, including academic failure, alienation and rebelliousness, lack of commitment to

school, and association with delinquent and violent

peers (Gottfredson, 1987). This research also demonstrates that peer counseling fails to increase protective

factors such as bonding to family and school.

School Organization

School organization approaches can involve a wide

variety of interventions, including changes in school

ecology; parent involvement; development and communication of school policies; and teams of school

administrators, teachers, and parents that plan and

implement school policies and programs. These

programs may strengthen the protective factors of
80

comparison students had attended another elementary school. Comparison students were matched with

experimental students on age and sex. Although these

reports did not describe detailed implementation

data, in one of the two program schools 92 percent of

the parents had visited the school 10 times or more

over the past year (Comer, 1988), indicating a high

degree of parent involvement. The outcomes showed

that experimental students had significantly higher

middle school grades, academic achievement test

scores, and self-perceived social competence than

comparison students. These results, however, are

limited by the small sample size and questions about

whether the study groups were comparable in terms

of characteristics other than sex and age.

To paraphrase Olweus (1991), bullying may be

defined as repeated negative actions by one person to

one or more others. Bullying is a prevalent aggressive

behavior among children and youth, especially in

elementary school. Olweus (1991) evaluated a largescale antibullying program in Norway. The five program components are listed below:

• School personnel at all Norwegian comprehensive

schools (grades one to nine) received a booklet that

described bully/victim problems, suggested how

teachers and the school could counteract and prevent such problems, and dispelled myths about the

nature and causes of bullying.

• All families in Norway with school-age children

received an information packet with information

and advice about bullying.

• A videocassette depicting episodes from the daily

lives of two early adolescent bullying victims was

made available for purchase or rental at a highly

subsidized price.

• Students in all comprehensive schools completed a

brief anonymous questionnaire about bullying

problems, and the results were used to inform

school and family interventions.

• In the city of Bergen, project staff met with school

staff 15 months after the program began to provide

feedback on the program and emphasize main

program principles and components.

The evaluation used a quasi-experimental design

employing time-lagged contrasts between ageequivalent groups. The program was implemented

nationwide at the same time, so the design involved

comparisons among successive cohorts of children for

particular grade levels. Data were collected from

approximately 2,500 students originally belonging to

grades 4 to 7 in 42 Bergen schools. Time 1 measurements were made 4 months before the program

began, and time 2 and 3 measurements were made

1 and 2 years after time 1, respectively. At each time

point, students were surveyed about their experiences

as perpetrators and victims of bullying, participation

in other antisocial and delinquent behavior, enjoyment of recess time (when much bullying occurs),

estimates of how many classmates were bullies and

victims, and attitudes toward bullying.

Classes that implemented more of

the three program components had

fewer subsequent bullying problems

than other classes.

Significantly fewer students reported being victims

and bullies at 8 and 20 months after the program began. There were corresponding decreases in students’

estimates of the number of classmates who were

bullies and victims. Students reported significantly

decreased antisocial and delinquent behavior and

significantly increased enjoyment of recess time at 8

and 20 months after the program began. There were

only weak and inconsistent changes in attitudes about

bullying. It is unclear which of the program’s recommended interventions for schools and families (p. 444)

were actually implemented, and to what degree. As a

result, it is not possible to specify those components

that were most effective in reducing bullying. Olweus

(in press), though, demonstrated a substantial dosage

effect for the program. Classes that implemented

more of the three program components (class rules

against bullying, class meetings about bullying problems, and class role-plays about bullying) had fewer

subsequent bullying problems than other classes

(r = -.51).
81

Gottfredson (1986) evaluated Project PATHE (Positive

Action Through Holistic Education), a comprehensive

school organization intervention for secondary

schools. Listed below are PATHE’s six main

components:

• Teams of teachers, other school staff, students, parents, and community members that designed,

planned, and implemented school improvement

programs with help from two full-time project staff

persons.

• Curriculum and discipline policy review and revision, including student participation in developing

school and classroom rules and ongoing inservice

training for teachers in instructional and classroom

management practices.

• Schoolwide academic innovations, including

study skills programs and cooperative learning

techniques.

• Schoolwide climate innovations, including expanded extracurricular activities, peer counseling,

and a school pride campaign to improve the overall image of the school.

• Career-oriented innovations, including a jobseeking skills program and a career exploration

program.

• Special academic and counseling services for lowachieving and disruptive students.

The evaluation used a nonequivalent comparison

group design involving four study middle schools

and four study high schools in low-income, predominantly African-American urban and rural areas in

Charleston County, South Carolina. One school at

each level was designated as a comparison school. In

experimental schools, students experiencing academic

and behavioral problems were randomly assigned to

an experimental group that received special academic

and counseling services or a control group that did

not. Evaluation results were available for 2 years of

the program in the middle schools and for 1 year of

the program in the high schools.

The intervention was well implemented, efficiently

managed, and regarded positively by teachers. The

author reported changes in outcomes for experimental and comparison schools separately but did not

directly compare the outcomes for experimental and

comparison schools. Over the course of the program,

students in experimental schools reported significantly less delinquency and drug involvement and

significantly fewer school suspensions and punishments. Students in comparison schools did not tend to

show the same pattern of changes in these outcomes.

Students in experimental schools significantly improved in grades, attendance, and self-concept, but

these changes were matched by similar improvements

on these outcomes among students in comparison

schools. Teachers’ assessments of school climate generally improved in the experimental schools while

worsening in comparison schools.

The students in experimental schools who received

special academic and counseling services scored significantly higher on standardized tests of basic academic skills and were significantly less likely to report

drug involvement or repeat a grade than control

group students in the experimental school. Seniors

who received these services were significantly more

likely to graduate (76 percent) than seniors in the

corresponding control group (42 percent). There were

no significant differences between those students who

received the special services and their respective controls on self-reported delinquency, court contacts,

suspensions, expulsions, other disciplinary problems,

dropout rates, grades, attachment to school, attendance, educational expectations, or self-concept. It is

difficult to interpret the effectiveness of the whole

intervention, however, because the author did not

directly compare students in experimental and comparison schools in terms of outcomes.

D. Gottfredson (1987) evaluated Project CARE, a

2-year school organization intervention for secondary

schools. Within the context of an organizational development activity (Program Development Evaluation),

a team of teachers, administrators, and other school

staff planned and implemented school improvement

programs. The two major program components were

classroom management techniques (Assertive Discipline and Reality Therapy) and cooperative learning.

Several other components were partially implemented, including a parent volunteer program, a

community support and advocacy program, and

other programs used by Project PATHE (Gottfredson,
82

1986). The evaluation used a nonequivalent comparison group design involving two junior high schools in

low-income, predominantly African-American areas

in Baltimore, Maryland. One school was designated

the experimental school, and the other was designated the comparison school. The program was not

successfully implemented at the comparison school,

which also experienced considerable turnover in

administrative personnel during the program period.

In the experimental school, the program was primarily implemented in only one of three physically separate units of the school. A cohort of students from

other units in the school was used for comparison.

expectations and significantly higher social integration and academic rewards than comparison group

students. Experimental unit students also had significantly more office referrals (perhaps as a result of the

classroom management strategies) but significantly

fewer suspensions than comparison cohort students.

There were no other significant differences in outcomes for students in the experimental unit and corresponding comparison group. The lack of direct

comparisons between experimental and comparison

schools again hampers the assessment of program

effects. Furthermore, the comparison school may not

have been adequately comparable to the experimental

school given the comparison school staff’s resistance

to the program.

Gottfredson, Karweit, and Gottfredson (1989) evaluated another multicomponent school organization

intervention for middle schools with four main program components:

• School discipline policy review and revision to

develop school rules (including provisions for systematically rewarding positive student behavior)

that were clear, specific, administered fairly, and

coordinated with individual classroom policies.

• A behavior tracking system for recording individual students’ positive and negative referrals to

the office and disciplinary actions, which was used

for notifying parents of their child’s school

behavior.

• Classroom organization and management that

focused on clear and effectively communicated

rules, procedures, and instruction; monitoring;

activity transitions; fair grading; and frequent and

systematic feedback on student academic progress.

• Behavioral modification techniques in which teachers reinforced positive behavior and consistently

responded to misbehavior according to the communicated rules and consequences.

These components were implemented in the context

of an organizational development activity (Program

Development Evaluation) intended to increase school

staff commitment to and ownership of the program

and equip them with the skills and information

needed to manage program implementation

effectively.

The lack of direct comparisons

between experimental and comparison schools again hampers the

assessment of program effects.

The author did not report direct comparisons between

experimental and comparison schools in terms of

outcomes. Over the program period, teachers in the

experimental school reported significantly better organizational health, but the comparison school tended

to experience such improvements as well. Over the

course of the program, students’ self-reports of delinquency decreased significantly in the experimental

school but increased significantly in the comparison

school. Comparison school students reported significantly more rebellious behavior, and experimental

school teachers reported significantly more classroom

orderliness over the program period. Experimental

school students’ reports of social integration at school

and academic rewards significantly increased and

reports of educational expectations decreased. However, comparison school students also showed the

same pattern of changes on these outcomes. There

were no significant changes for students in either

experimental or comparison schools over the course

of the program in terms of attachment to school or

positive peer associations.

Within the experimental school, students in the

experimental unit reported significantly less delinquent and rebellious behavior and lower educational
83

returned to the general student population. The

researchers used a nonequivalent comparison group

design in which a set of ninth grade students entering

a large urban high school were randomly selected to

be placed in the school’s STEP unit. The comparison

group consisted of other entering ninth grade students, matched with experimental students on sex,

age, and ethnicity. Most study youth were ethnic

minorities.

The evaluators used a nonequivalent comparison

group design. Eight study schools in Charleston

County, South Carolina, were selected for their high

levels of student punishment (implying low levels of

bonding to school). Six of these schools were assigned

to the program and two were designated as comparison schools. Comparison schools were roughly similar to experimental schools in size and unspecified

demographic factors. Teachers and students completed surveys of classroom climate on a quarterly

basis in every class except gym. The experimental

program ran for 3 years. Only three of the experimental schools successfully implemented all or most of

the program components. Over the project period,

students in experimental schools perceived significantly less classroom disruption and more classroom

organization and rule clarity. Students in comparison

schools showed similar, though mostly nonsignificant, changes. The evaluators did not report any

direct comparisons between experimental and comparison schools, nor were any details given on how

well matched the experimental and comparison

schools were.

Felner, Ginter, and Primavera (1982), Felner and Adan

(1988), and Felner, Brand, Adan, Mulhall, Flowers,

and Sartain (1993) evaluated the School Transitional

Environment Project (STEP). This 1-year program,

which targeted students entering large secondary

schools from multiple feeder schools, was designed to

facilitate successful adaptation to large middle and

high schools, particularly for low-income, minority,

and other disadvantaged students. Incoming students

were assigned to units of approximately 65–100

students, or “schools within the school.” Homerooms

and classes in primary academic subjects included

only students in the same unit, and classrooms for a

unit were located near each other (e.g., the same wing

and floor of a building). Teachers of primary academic subjects also served as homeroom teachers for

students in that unit. Homeroom teachers acted as the

main administrative and counseling link between the

students, their parents, and the rest of the school.

STEP homeroom teachers contacted parents before

the school year began to explain the program and

encourage them to contact program teachers. The

program homeroom teachers also had brief counseling sessions with homeroom students approximately

once a month. After a year in STEP, participants

STEP students had significantly

higher grades and attendance rates

in the first 2 years of high school

and lower long-term dropout rates.

Experimental students had significantly more positive

perceptions of school, teachers, and other school personnel (indicating greater bonding to school) than

comparison students at the end of the intervention

year. Experimental students showed significantly

smaller decreases in academic performance and attendance during the transition between junior and senior

high school. Long-term results showed a significantly

lower dropout rate for experimental students (24 percent) than for comparison students (43 percent). STEP

students also had significantly higher grades and

attendance rates in the first 2 years of high school (the

difference in grades disappeared in subsequent years

as a result of comparison students’ higher dropout

rate). No pretest measures were available for most

outcomes, which limits a clear interpretation of these

results. However, there were no significant preprogram differences between experimental and comparison students in terms of attendance and grades.

Felner and Adan (1988) and Felner et al. (1993) briefly

mentioned that replications of STEP in rural and suburban lower-class and lower-middle class junior and

senior high schools yielded similar results as well as

positive effects on delinquency, substance abuse, and

depression outcomes. No details of these evaluations

were given in the researchers’ reports.

Reyes and Jason (1991) evaluated a school transition

program very similar to STEP. Students in the

program unit, however, took only three primary
84

academic classes with other program students, and

program classrooms were not specifically located

close to each other. As in the STEP program, homeroom teachers taught one of the program students’

primary academic subjects and served as the main

administrative and counseling link between program

students, their parents, and other school personnel.

In addition, this program, in contrast to STEP, included an academic progress feedback component in

which parents of participating students were sent

progress reports on their children’s academic performance. The program was implemented with students entering ninth grade at a large, urban high

school attended primarily by low-income, Hispanic

youth. The evaluators used a nonequivalent comparison group design to estimate program impacts.

Identified regular education students were randomly

assigned to experimental and comparison groups the

summer before the program began. Sixteen percent

of incoming students did not enroll until the beginning of the school year and were assigned to the

comparison group, which received regular education

in the general school population.

Summary. School organization interventions are

noteworthy for their comprehensiveness and systemoriented prevention approach. In several evaluations,

various school organization interventions appeared to

reduce risk factors and increase protective factors for

delinquency and violence. Olweus’ (1991) evaluation

of a multicomponent antibullying program presented

evidence of significant reductions in violent and delinquent behavior. However, none of these evaluations used a true experimental design, and several

evaluations did not report complete analyses of the

outcome data, which hinders a clear interpretation of

evaluation results. Although school organization interventions are potentially promising, future evaluations of such programs should use more rigorous

designs and include thorough data analysis.

Parent Training

Parent training approaches involve teaching parents

specific child management skills. Typically, such programs instruct parents to define behavior in observable terms, observe and note specific instances of a

child’s pro- and antisocial behavior, use social learning techniques (including positive reinforcement,

ignoring and distraction, punishment, and contingency contracting), and use family problem-solving

techniques to help them respond consistently to their

children’s behavior. Parent training addresses the risk

factors of family management problems, family conflict, and early and persistent antisocial behavior.

Protective factors addressed include opportunities for

active family involvement, skills to meet goals without resorting to aggression, recognition of positive

behavior, consequences for negative behavior, bonding to family, and healthy beliefs and clear standards

for behavior. Parent training interventions have been

conducted with parents of children and adolescents.

Dumas (1989) reviewed experimental and quasiexperimental evaluations of parent training programs

conducted by such major contributors as Patterson

and his colleagues at the Oregon Social Learning

Center, McMahon, Forehand, and other researchers.

Dumas (1989) concluded that parent training approaches were clearly effective in reducing children’s

antisocial behavior (such as aggression and noncompliance) and improving family management practices.

However, short-term parent training programs are

Although school organization interventions are potentially promising,

future evaluations of such programs

should use more rigorous designs

and include thorough data analysis.

At the end of the program year (ninth grade), there

were no significant differences between experimental

and comparison students in grades, course failure,

attendance, class rank, counseling referrals, school

dropout, or standardized math and writing scores.

Experimental students did, however, obtain significantly higher reading achievement scores than comparison students. The school’s considerable gang,

drug, and violence problems and a long teacher strike

at the beginning of the project year may have contributed to a demoralized educational and institutional

climate that could have interfered with successful

implementation of the program.
85

unlikely to succeed with families characterized by low

stability and high conflict and plagued by unemployment, poverty, illness, and other crises (Fraser,

Hawkins, and Howard, 1988; Patterson and Reid,

1973; Wahler, 1980). For instance, Patterson (1974)

found that while an average family required 31 hours

of training, some low-income, crisis-prone families

needed over 100 hours of training to make significant

improvements (Patterson and Fleishman, 1979).

On average, experimental boys were 9 months older

and rated by teachers as slightly less hyperactive than

comparison boys. Otherwise, there were no significant differences between experimental and comparison boys on numerous preintervention demographic,

psychological, and family characteristics. Most boys’

families were middle or upper class, and about half of

the boys lived with both biological parents. The use of

stimulant medication was carefully monitored for

both groups for response and compliance, and boys

received monthly checkups by a psychiatrist for their

medication use. Most boys in both groups received

the stimulant for 2 years. There were no significant

differences between groups over time in stimulant

dosages or the proportion of boys still receiving medication. Experimental boys and their families were

seen for a mean of 3.5 therapy visits per month for an

average of 35 months. Followup assessments of boys’

juvenile offense records were made approximately 9

years after boys entered the program.

The rate of attrition was not significantly different

between study groups (27 percent and 30 percent for

experimental and comparison groups, respectively).

Except for a tendency for boys living with their two

biological parents to remain in the study, there were

no other significant correlates of attrition. At followup, there was no significant difference between study

groups in minor delinquency (e.g., status offenses,

intoxication, vandalism, petty theft, etc.). However,

boys in the experimental group were significantly less

likely to have been arrested for major offenses (including robbery, burglary, grand theft, automobile

theft, and assault) than comparison boys (27 percent

versus 43 percent). Similarly, experimental boys were

significantly less likely to be arrested or institutionalized than comparison boys (8 percent versus 22 percent). Analyses of covariance that controlled for boys’

age and hyperactivity at program entry confirmed

these results, as did further analyses based only on

boys from birth cohorts represented in both study

groups.

Tremblay, McCord, Boileau, Charlebois, Gagnon,

LeBlanc, and Larivee (1991) and Tremblay, Vitaro,

Bertrand, LeBlanc, Beauchesne, Boileau, and David

(1992) evaluated a 2-year intervention directed at

disruptive kindergarten boys from white, Frenchspeaking families of low socioeconomic background

in Montreal. The two primary program components

Two evaluations of multicomponent programs that

include parent training as a major component have

demonstrated long-term preventive effects on delinquent behavior. Satterfield, Satterfield, and Schell

(1987) evaluated a multicomponent, clinic-based intervention for hyperactive Euro-American schoolboys

of normal intelligence ages 6 to 12. The researchers

used a nonequivalent control group design to assess

program effects. The experimental group included

boys referred to the clinic for hyperactivity from 1973

to 1974, and the comparison group included boys

referred to the clinic for hyperactivity from 1970 to

1972. The criteria for admission into the study were

constant over these 5 years. Boys in both study

groups received a stimulant medication (methylphenidate) to counteract their hyperactivity. Parents

of boys in the experimental group were provided

parent training that focused on behavior management. In addition, a team of therapists provided boys

in the experimental group with various combinations

of individual and group psychotherapy and educational therapy; experimental boys and their families

also received family therapy. Individual therapy focused on building self-esteem, teaching consequences

of inappropriate behavior, identifying interpersonal

triggers of aggressive behavior, and modeling and

role-playing appropriate behavior.

Boys in the experimental group

were significantly less likely to have

been arrested for major offenses

(including robbery, burglary, grand

theft, automobile theft, and assault)

than comparison boys (27 percent

versus 43 percent).
86

significantly reduced self-reported and parent-rated

aggressive, antisocial, and delinquent behavior at

1-year followup more than parent training or

problem-solving skills training alone. In addition,

the combined intervention significantly reduced

parents’ stress and overall symptoms of dysfunction

at 1-year followup in comparison with either type of

training alone. This study suggests that parent training interventions are most effective when combined

with other promising approaches for preventing

delinquent and violent behavior.

Summary. Parent training programs effectively

reduce children’s antisocial behavior and improve

family management practices. Moreover, two multicomponent interventions involving parent training

have demonstrated significant preventive effects on

delinquency and violence. Parent training during

pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood also is an

effective intervention with long-term preventive impacts. However, parent training alone may not be

sufficient to alter family management practices or

improve children’s behavior in families experiencing

multiple problems. In combination with child training

in social skills, however, parent training has demonstrated improvement in child behavior even in multiproblem families.

Intensive Family Preservation Services—

Home Visitation

Intensive family preservation services (IFPS) programs are short-term crisis interventions for families

whose children are at risk for out-of-home placement.

IFPS are delivered to families in their homes to stabilize the family by improving family functioning and

linking the family to sustaining sources of support.

The Homebuilders Program, developed by Jill Kinney

and David Haapala, was the first such intervention

and continues to serve as a model for other IFPS programs. In this approach, workers respond within 24

hours to a family in crisis and deliver a variety of

clinical and material services in the home over a brief

period (90 days or less). Workers have small caseloads

(two to three families) but provide intensive services

(a minimum of 8 to 10 hours of face-to-face client

contact per week). IFPS interventions may address the

risk factors of poor family management practices,

transitions (in the form of out-of-home placements),

family conflict, and early and persistent antisocial

were home-based parent training and school-based

social skills training for the boys. The parent training

included a reading program and emphasized monitoring children’s behavior, positive reinforcement for

prosocial behavior, effective and nonabusive punishment, family crisis management, and generalization

skills. The social skills training was conducted within

groups, including both disruptive and prosocial boys.

Skills training sessions focused on initiating social

interaction, improving interpersonal skills, making

verbal requests, following rules, handling anger, and

mastering “look and listen” techniques for regaining

self-control. The researchers used a true experimental

design. Boys were randomly assigned to one of three

groups: experimental (received intervention), observational (received attention but no intervention), and

control (no attention or intervention). Parents received a mean of 17 parent-training sessions and boys

received 19 skills-training sessions during the 2-year

intervention.

Experimental boys’ teacher-rated fighting behavior

decreased significantly relative to observational and

control boys at the 3-year followup when boys were

age 12. In comparison to observational and control

boys, experimental boys were also significantly less

likely at the 3-year followup to be held back a grade

or placed in special classes, schools, or institutions.

By age 12, experimental boys were 50 percent less

likely to have serious school adjustment problems

and significantly less likely to have initiated delinquent behaviors, including trespassing and theft, than

observational and control boys.

Kazdin, Siegel, and Bass (1992) conducted a true

experimental evaluation of a similar program. They

found that for boys and girls ages 7 to 13 who were

exhibiting antisocial behavior, a combination of

parent training and problem-solving skills training

The Homebuilders Program, developed by Jill Kinney and David

Haapala, was the first such intervention and continues to serve as

a model for other IFPS programs.
87

behavior. Protective factors addressed may include

bonding to family and healthy beliefs and clear

standards.

Rossi (1992) reviewed quasi-experimental and experimental evaluations of IFPS programs conducted before 1993. In these evaluations, families with children

at risk for out-of-home placement received either

IFPS or unspecified ordinary child protective services. Most evaluations focused on out-of-home

placement as the primary outcome. Rossi (1992) concluded that there was not consistent evidence across

studies about the impact of IFPS on out-of-home

placement. In addition, he noted that in two true

experimental evaluations, there were no significant

differences between experimental and control families in terms of the number of child maltreatment

complaints filed against them during followup periods of 8 months and 5 years, respectively.

Bergquist, Szwejda, and Pope (1993) evaluated the

State of Michigan’s Families First program, which

was based on the Homebuilders model. Families with

substantiated incidents of child abuse, neglect, or

delinquency and with a child judged to be at imminent risk for out-of-home placement were referred to

the program. Cases from three counties were studied

in this evaluation. Experimental families were those

families referred to the program who were cooperative and willing to participate. Comparison families

had a child who was being returned to the home after

placement in foster care. Experimental and comparison cases were matched in terms of county of residence, type of referral, previous involvement with

child protective services (apparently previous to

Families First or foster care), date of termination of

services (either Families First or foster care), and

child age. From case records, the evaluators calculated the proportion of experimental and comparison

children who were placed outside the home at 3, 6,

and 12 months after the end of services.

The intervention was well implemented. On average,

28 hours passed between the time of the referral and

first caseworker contact. Most caseworkers had

caseloads of only two families, and caseworkers were

available to clients 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Experimental families received an average of 30 days

of IFPS, and most caseworker time was devoted to

providing clinical and material services to families.

Caseworkers reported a high degree of satisfaction

with the program. At each followup point, more comparison children were in out-of-home placements

than experimental children. At the 12-month

followup, significantly more comparison children (35

percent) than experimental children (24 percent) were

placed outside the home. However, methodological

problems hinder a clear presentation of these results.

Experimental and comparison families were substantially different in two ways: experimental families

were selected partially on the basis of their cooperation and willingness to participate, and approximately 15 percent of experimental families were

judged by staff not to be at imminent risk for outof-home placement.

Walton, Fraser, Lewis, Pecora, and Walton (1993)

conducted a true experimental evaluation of IFPS for

families with children already in an out-of-home

placement. In this study, experimental children were

returned home and their families received IFPS.

Control families received routine family reunification

services. For a year after the 90-day IFPS period, significantly more children returned to experimental

families than control families. It is not clear, however,

whether this difference was due to the IFPS or simply

returning children to their families without specific

intervention.

Some evaluation results suggest that IFPS may reduce

risk for delinquency and violence and increase protection. Using a true experimental design, Feldman

(1991) evaluated a well-implemented IFPS program

for families with children at risk for out-of-home

placement in four New Jersey counties. IFPS produced significant, but small and decreasing, reductions in out-of-home placement over a 1-year

followup period after the intervention. In addition,

families that received IFPS improved significantly

more during the program in several aspects of

At each followup point, more

comparison children were in

out-of-home placements than

experimental children.
88

parent-rated family environment and child well-being

than control families. However, experimental families

did not decline significantly during the program in

parent-rated social support relative to control families.

Summary. IFPS programs may be promising interventions for reducing risk factors and enhancing protective factors for delinquent and violent behavior. The

available evaluations do not demonstrate clear or consistent IFPS program effects on out-of-home placement

or child maltreatment reports, although one evaluation

suggests that IFPS enhanced family environment and

child well-being. More evaluation research is needed

to assess adequately the effectiveness of IFPS, especially with respect to such outcomes as child maltreatment and family and child functioning.

therapies on family behavioral outcomes such as frequency of marital fights. The meta-analysis included

only those studies involving clinically distressed

clients and focused only on posttest outcomes. The

mean effect size, weighted by study sample size, for

the 58 studies included was .70, indicating a moderate

degree of improvement in family functioning due to

family and marital therapy. Shadish (1992) was not

able to determine decisively whether effectiveness

varied significantly across different therapy approaches, such as behavioral, systemic, humanistic,

psychodynamic, and eclectic orientations, although

there were some indications that behavioral

approaches may be somewhat more effective.

Hazelrigg, Cooper, and Borduin (1987) conducted a

meta-analysis of quasi-experimental and true experimental evaluations of family therapy. For families

with children and/or adolescents with behavior problems, family therapy significantly improved posttest

outcomes, including family interaction (weighted

mean effect size = .45) and child behavior (weighted

mean effect size = .50), in comparison to no treatment.

For families with children or adolescents with behavior problems or parents with mental health problems,

family therapy significantly improved posttest family

interaction, child behavior, and parents’ level of functioning in comparison to other therapeutic interventions (e.g., group therapy). These improvements were

not maintained over followup periods ranging from

6 weeks to 3 1/2 years (weighted mean effect size =

.06), although clients receiving family therapy were

significantly less likely to return to the referring

agency with continuing problems (weighted mean

effect size = .47).

More recent experimental evaluations have documented positive effects of family therapy with lowincome and ethnic minority families with children

exhibiting behavioral problems. For instance,

Szapocznik, Rio, Murray, Cohen, Scopetta, RivasVazquez, Hervis, Posada, and Kurtines (1989) showed

that for Hispanic families with boys with behavioral

and emotional problems, structural family therapy

conducted with family members conjointly significantly improved family interaction at 1-year followup

in comparison to individual psychodynamic child

therapy and a child recreation control condition.

Two meta-analyses have demonstrated the general effectiveness of

marital and family therapy in reducing family conflict, family management problems, and children’s

antisocial behavior.

Marital and Family Therapy

While there are several types of marital and family

therapy, the diverse approaches share a focus on

changing maladaptive patterns of family interaction

and communication. Marital and family therapy typically involves a trained therapist working with multiple family members as a group. Family therapy may

address several risk factors, including poor family

management practices, family conflict, and early antisocial behavior. Protective factors addressed include

skills for effective family interaction, bonding to

family, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for

behavior.

Two meta-analyses have demonstrated the general

effectiveness of marital and family therapy in reducing family conflict, family management problems,

and children’s antisocial behavior. Shadish (1992)

performed a meta-analysis of true experimental

evaluations of the effectiveness of marital and family
89

Garrigan and Bambrick (1977, 1979) also assessed the

preventive impact of family therapy on delinquency.

Using a true experimental design, they evaluated the

effects of Zuk’s go-between method of systemic family therapy with the families of white, middle-class,

preadolescent, and adolescent children who attended

a school for emotionally disturbed students. Over a

20-week period, graduate students trained in counseling provided 10 to 15 family therapy sessions to experimental families. Control families were offered the

chance after the intervention to participate in parent

group discussions and seminars. After the intervention, children and their parents rated family interaction, and parents rated the behavior of their children

at home. Before and after the intervention, independent observers rated child school behavior. Parents

were interviewed 1 to 2 years after the intervention

period about the behavior of their children. Also at

followup, school personnel (typically counselors or

principals) rated those study children who were

attending public schools on various aspects of their

academic performance and school behavior.

While most marital and family therapies are designed

for families already experiencing conflict, one intervention related to marital therapy aims to help families avoid developing problems in the first place.

Markman, Renick, Floyd, Stanley, and Clements

(1993) evaluated a communication skills training program to prevent distress and divorce in couples who

were planning marriage and in couples who were

already married. Their experimental evaluation

showed that the experimental couples had significantly less family conflict than control couples

throughout a 5-year followup period.

Two studies have specifically examined the preventive effects of family therapy on delinquency. In the

first, Klein, Alexander, and Parsons (1977) evaluated

the impact of 8 hours of behavioral systems family

therapy delivered over a 4-week period. The therapy

focused on differentiating rules from requests, establishing a token economy system for each family member to reinforce desired behaviors, training in

communication skills, and presenting a modified

therapy guide to families for study (Parsons and

Alexander, 1973). Families were referred to family

therapy by the Salt Lake County (Utah) juvenile court

for an adolescent’s delinquent behavior. The Klein et

al. (1977) evaluation focused on the preventive effects

of the intervention on the delinquent behavior of the

identified adolescents’ siblings.

The evaluators used a true experimental design in

which families were randomly assigned to behavioral

systems family therapy, client-centered family group

discussion, church-based “eclectic-dynamic” family

counseling, or no treatment. Families that received

behavioral family therapy had significantly better

family interaction at posttest than families receiving

the other treatments or no treatment at all. From 2 1/2

to 3 1/2 years after the intervention, significantly

fewer siblings of identified delinquents whose families received behavioral systems family therapy had

juvenile court records (20 percent) than siblings of

identified adolescents whose families received no or

other interventions (40–63 percent), indicating a substantial preventive impact. In addition, for the identified delinquents, recidivism 6 to 18 months following

the intervention period was significantly lower for

those whose families received behavioral family

therapy (26 percent) than for those whose families

received no or other interventions (47–73 percent).

At followup, experimental children

overall were significantly more likely

to be in regular school classes or

employed than control children.

Experimental children showed significantly better

behavior at home after the intervention and significantly improved school behavior over the course of

the program in comparison to control children. Experimental parents’ ratings of some facets of family

interaction also were significantly more favorable

than control parents’ ratings at the end of the program. At followup, experimental children overall

were significantly more likely to be in regular school

classes or employed than control children. In addition, according to parent reports, experimental

children were significantly less likely to have been

involved with the courts with respect to arrest, conviction, or probation than control children. Experimental children also received better ratings on all nine

aspects of academic performance and school behavior

than control children. It is not clear whether there was
90

a selection bias in the families interviewed at

followup, because study families who requested (and

then received) therapy after the intervention period

were not interviewed at followup.

Summary. A relatively large body of research indicates that marital or family therapy is an effective

intervention for reducing family conflict and

children’s antisocial behavior and improving family

management practices. In addition, two different

family therapy programs demonstrated long-term

preventive effects on delinquency. More research is

required to determine whether effects vary by the

type of marital and family therapy applied and

whether different approaches are more appropriate

for different levels of family functioning and child

behavior problems.

Mentoring

Mentoring programs typically involve nonprofessional volunteers spending time with individual

youth in a supportive, nonjudgmental manner while

acting as role models. Mentoring interventions may

address several risk factors, including alienation, academic failure, low commitment to school, and association with delinquent and violent peers, as well as the

protective factors of opportunities for prosocial involvement, skills for and recognition of prosocial

involvement, bonding to prosocial adults, and healthy

beliefs and clear standards for behavior.

Goodman (1972) evaluated a form of mentoring called

“companionship therapy” in which college students

served as mentors to fifth and sixth grade boys with

emotional and behavioral problems in Berkeley, California. Mentors were to be empathetic and open with

their mentees and participate in conversation and

recreational activities together. Each mentor was

given a small monthly expense allowance to spend

on the boy. The paid male mentors met with their

mentees two or three times weekly for a total of 4 to 8

hours a week over an 8-month period. Mentors were

selected on the basis of the understanding, openness,

warmth, and “therapeutic talent” they displayed in

small-group discussions. Half of the mentors received

approximately 8 hours of training and orientation,

while the other half of mentors received the 8-hour

orientation and also attended weekly interpersonal

discussion/training groups.

The evaluators used a true experimental design to

assess program effectiveness. Pairs of students were

closely matched on severity and type of behavior

problem, race, socioeconomic status, and family structure. One student in each pair was randomly assigned

to the experimental group, and the other student was

assigned to the control group. Each mentor was

nonrandomly assigned to a different boy. Outcome

assessments of study boys were made before the program, at the end of the program, and 1 year after the

program ended. The program operated for 2 years.

Scores for boys in the experimental group on numerous aspects of

parent-, classmate-, and teacherrated behavior tended to move in

a less favorable direction over

time in comparison with control

boys’ scores.

Most mentors met with their mentees twice a week

for an average of 3 hours per visit. Scores for boys in

the experimental group on numerous aspects of

parent-, classmate-, and teacher-rated behavior

tended to move in a less favorable direction over

time in comparison with control boys’ scores. This

study, though, was limited by substantial attrition in

the control group.

Dicken, Bryson, and Kass (1977) evaluated a program

similar to Goodman’s (1972) intervention. In the program, unpaid college student volunteers met children

from low-income families twice weekly for a total of

6 hours per week over a one-semester period. Mentors participated in various social and recreational

activities with their mentees. The San Diego County

Welfare department referred children ages 6 to 13

whose families received public assistance to the program. The researchers used a nonequivalent comparison group design in which some children were

nonrandomly assigned to the program and others to a

wait-list comparison group. The welfare department

nonrandomly paired each volunteer mentor with a

different child. At the end of the program, parentrated behavior improved significantly and substan-
91

tially more for experimental children than for comparison children. However, changes in teacherrated behavior were virtually the same for both

experimental and control children, indicating no program effect from teacher reports. As the researchers

noted, the teacher ratings were more objective measures of behavior than the potentially highly reactive

parent ratings. The researchers did not report any

information on the preintervention comparability of

study groups.

Poorkaj and Bockelman (1973) evaluated a 1-schoolyear mentoring program in which community volunteers acted as supportive persons to children ages 9 to

12 at risk for delinquent behavior. Mentors were to

involve mentees in meaningful community activities.

The county probation department recruited mentors

and, after screening and interview procedures, selected those individuals with positive, healthy attitudes and strong interpersonal skills. Mentors

received several training sessions to learn general

techniques for dealing with problem children.

At each of six schools in one southern California

school district, a school staffperson identified for the

study students considered to be “delinquency-prone.”

The evaluation compared those students who received mentoring with those who did not. It is unclear

how students were assigned to study groups, but

from the evaluators’ report, experimental and comparison groups had roughly similar levels of misconduct at school and elsewhere prior to the program.

The probation department assigned a different mentor to each of the experimental students. There was no

significant difference between groups on self-reported

misconduct, although the evaluators did not specify

whether this result was based on pretest-posttest

change scores or posttest scores only. Furthermore,

the evaluation was based on a fairly small sample,

and the report lacked information on program implementation. Fo and O’Donnell (1974) evaluated the

Buddy System mentoring program designed for

multi-ethnic youth ages 11 to 17 with behavior management problems. Mentors included men and

women ranging in age from 17 to 65 who were diverse in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

Each mentor was matched with three youth. Mentors

met with the youth individually and as a group and

participated in social and recreational activities

together. Mentors were to develop respectful, trusting, and affective relationships with the youth. The

program paid mentors up to $144 per month for contacting their mentees weekly, submitting weekly behavioral data on and completing weekly assignments

with each of their mentees, submitting weekly log

sheets, and attending biweekly training sessions.

Mentors received 18 hours of training before the program began and biweekly training sessions on behavior management throughout the program.

In two Hawaiian cities, youth exhibiting behavior

problems were referred to the program from the

schools, police, courts, social welfare agencies, community residents, and parents for behavior problems

such as truancy. The researchers used a true experimental design in which youth were randomly

assigned to one of three experimental groups or a

no-treatment control group. In the three experimental

groups, mentors received $10 to spend on each

mentee each month. The three experimental groups

were as follows:

• Relationship only, where mentors established

warm and positive relationships and spent the

$10 per month on the mentee in a way not contingent on the mentee’s behavior.

• Social approval, where mentors responded to

mentees warmly and positively contingent on

appropriate and desired behavior, but spent the

$10 monthly allotment for the mentee in a

noncontingent manner.

• Social and material reinforcement, where mentors

provided social approval and the $10 monthly

allotment contingent on appropriate and desired

behavior.

Study youth’s school attendance rates were monitored for three consecutive 6-week periods: baseline,

first intervention period (when experimental youth

received one of the three mentor interventions), and

second intervention period (when all experimental

youth received the social and material reinforcement

mentoring intervention).

Truancy decreased significantly from baseline to the

first intervention period for the social approval and

social and material reinforcement experimental

groups, but did not increase significantly for the
92

relationship-only experimental group and did not

decrease significantly for the control group. During

the first intervention period, the social approval and

social and material reinforcement experimental

groups had significantly lower truancy rates than the

relationship-only and control groups. Truancy decreased significantly for the relationship-only group

from the first intervention period to the second intervention period, when mentors used the social and

material reinforcement intervention. There were no

significant differences among experimental groups in

truancy in the second intervention period, but each

experimental group had significantly lower truancy

rates than the control group. Thus, truancy was

reduced when mentoring relationships included

reinforcement contingent on appropriate behavior,

but not when mentoring relationships did not include

contingent reinforcement. This evaluation was limited

by the short intervention periods, a very small sample

(26 youth), and no information on implementation.

have a recorded major offense during the program

year. Thus, the program had no preventive effects

and, in fact, contributed to delinquency in those

youth with no prior records of major offenses. In their

report, the evaluators did not state whether the

relationship-only, contingency, or both forms of the

Buddy System were used in this implementation. The

researchers suggested that the increased delinquency

for experimental youth with no prior offense could

have resulted from associating with other experimental youth during the program who had previous

offenses. The evaluation did not include any information on the degree of implementation.

Green (1980) evaluated a Big Brothers program in

Nassau County, New York. The program matched

each volunteer mentor with a different boy. Mentors

met with mentees once a week for at least half a day

and engaged in activities of mutual interest. The program also sponsored social events and outings for

groups of mentors and mentees. Mentor-mentee

matches were made on the basis of pairs’ similarity

on such characteristics as ethnic background, socioeconomic status, religion, and interests.

The researcher used a quasi-experimental design to

assess program impacts on predominantly white,

working-class boys from single-parent (father-absent)

families. Experimental boys and their mothers were

interviewed before the intervention and after 6

months of the program. Boys on the program’s waiting list served as comparisons, and they and their

mothers were interviewed before the intervention and

6 months later as well. Over the course of the program, there were no significant differences between

experimental and comparison boys in terms of

changes in parent- and boy-rated number of friends,

number of social contexts participated in, relations

with family members, school adaptation, arguments

with teachers, disruptive classroom behavior, or selfesteem. The researcher’s report did not present information on the comparability of study groups or the

degree of program implementation.

Stanwyck and Anson (1989) evaluated a mentoring

program for low-achieving high school seniors. Volunteer mentors were adult members of the business

community. Mentors met with their mentees regularly

and provided social support, encouragement, and

career education advice. Mentors and program

Truancy was reduced when

mentoring relationships included

reinforcement contingent on appropriate behavior, but not when

mentoring relationships did not

include contingent reinforcement.

Fo and O’Donnell (1975) also evaluated the effects of

the Buddy System mentoring program on a much

larger scale. Participants were multi-ethnic youth in

Hawaii ages 10 to 17 who were referred to the program by the schools, police, courts, social welfare

agencies, and community residents. This implementation of the program lasted 1 year. The evaluators used

a true experimental design in which youth were

randomly assigned to the experimental or the nointervention control group. Youth in the experimental

group with no court-recorded major offenses (e.g.,

auto theft, burglary, assault) in the year prior to the

program were significantly more likely than controls

to have a recorded major offense during the program

year. However, experimental youth with one or

more recorded major offenses in the year before the

program were significantly less likely than controls to
93

students attended six 3-hour workshops on motivation, self-esteem, social and personal grooming skills,

career awareness, and job seeking and “survival”

skills. Program staff matched mentors and students at

the beginning of the school year, and mentors were to

continue meeting with their mentees throughout the

summer after graduation.

The program was implemented in 20 Atlanta high

schools attended by primarily low-income, AfricanAmerican students. The evaluators used a nonequivalent comparison group design in which school

counselors determined which students to invite to

participate (the experimental group) or serve as alternates (the comparison group). Followup interviews

were conducted approximately 10 months after students’ expected graduation. Most mentors met with

mentees one to three times per month, according to

mentees.

There were no significant differences between experimental and comparison students in academic achievement or graduation rate. At followup, experimental

and control students showed no significant differences in participation in postsecondary education,

employment, wages, job satisfaction, type of job, or

length of tenure of current job. Comparison students

had significantly more jobs following high school

than experimental students. This evaluation had several limitations, including substantial attrition at

followup, the lack of a clear description of sample

characteristics and research design, and the absence of

information on the preintervention comparability of

study groups.

Rowland (1991) evaluated a mentoring program

designed to improve the self-esteem of elementary

school students, as well as their school performance

and behavior. Each volunteer mentor was assigned to

a different mentee. Mentors were business persons,

community leaders, retirees, and other citizens, and

most were also members of the local chamber of commerce. Mentors met with mentees at least 1 hour a

week for a school year. Mentors received training

about school rules, appropriate developmental activities for mentees, and confidentiality. Study children

were elementary school students in grades one to five

in San Antonio, Texas, who were identified by the

school district as at risk. School personnel nonrandomly matched students in terms of grade and

sex and assigned students to experimental and comparison groups. According to mentor, parent, and

teacher reports, most mentors listened to them and

helped them with schoolwork and decisions about

goals for the future. Few mentors helped mentees

with problems at home. All mentors reported that

they enjoyed the experience, and the large majority of

parents and teachers indicated that the mentees also

enjoyed having a mentor. No information was reported on the amount of time mentors actually spent

with mentees.

The researcher compared changes in the experimental

and comparison students’ grades, absences, and discipline referrals from the first to the second semester of

the intervention year. There were no significant differences between experimental and comparison students’ changes in grades for six subjects. In three

subjects, experimental students did not improve significantly more than comparison students, while comparison students did not improve significantly more

than experimental students in the other three subjects.

Experimental students’ attendance did not improve

significantly more than comparison students from the

first to the second semester, but the experimental

students as a whole also did not significantly increase

in the number of discipline referrals than comparison

students as a whole.

Trained volunteer mentors contacted their mentees at least once

weekly and met in person at least

twice a month.

McPartland and Nettles (1991) evaluated Project

RAISE, a program to prevent school dropouts that

involved one-on-one mentoring and school-based

advocacy. Seven community organizations (churches,

businesses, universities, and a fraternity) each sponsored a different middle school program site. At each

site, participants included entering middle school

students considered to be at risk for dropping out

who had attended the same elementary school. The

program began working with students in the sixth

grade and was designed to continue working with

participants through high school. One paid advocate
94

was based at every middle school site. The advocate

monitored participants’ attendance, grades, and behavior; built trusting relationships with participants;

helped with troubleshooting for participants; and

directed afterschool activities for participants such as

tutoring, recreation, and special events like visits to

the zoo or going to the movies. Trained volunteer

mentors contacted their mentees at least once weekly

and met in person at least twice a month. Mentors

were expected to develop sustained, caring, trusting,

and attentive relationships with their mentees and act

as effective role models for positive personal development. The school-based advocates regularly gave

mentors information on mentees’ school progress.

Program participants were identified in fifth grade

apparently on the basis of below-grade reading level.

The researchers used a nonequivalent comparison

group design in which comparison students were

drawn from the same middle school as experimental

students but had not attended the same elementary

school as participants. Outcomes were assessed before

the beginning of the program at the end of the fifth

grade and after 2 years of the program at the end of

the seventh grade. Two sites fully implemented both

the advocacy and mentoring components; two sites

implemented only the advocacy component; and the

other three sites fully implemented the advocacy component but only partially implemented the mentoring

component.

Controlling for fifth grade academic achievement test

scores, sex, race, and age, there were no significant

differences at the end of seventh grade between experimental students as a whole and comparison students as a whole in math grades, overall grade point

averages, promotion rates, or standardized academic

achievement scores. Experimental students had significantly higher seventh grade attendance rates and

English grades than comparison students, controlling

for fifth grade academic achievement scores, sex, race,

and age. The same analyses on attendance and English grades were conducted for each site separately.

The direction of effects was inconsistent across sites.

The increase in attendance associated with the program was significant at only one site, but mentoring

was not implemented at this site. The increase in

English grades associated with the program was significant and substantial at only two sites, including a

site where mentoring was not implemented at all. The

degree of implementation of mentoring at a site was

not noticeably related to the direction or size of effects

on these outcomes. Furthermore, this evaluation provided no information on the comparability of study

groups prior to the program or on the procedure for

matching mentors with students.

Slicker and Palmer (1993) evaluated a mentoring program for potential high school dropouts. Mentors in

the 6-month program were school personnel, including teachers, principals, counselors, secretaries, and

instructional aides. Each mentor worked with only

one student. Mentors met with their mentees at least

three times weekly, primarily at school during school

hours. Mentors were encouraged to share their

knowledge about school procedures and resources,

recognize and encourage their mentees’ academic

achievement, and give their mentees small gifts on

birthdays and holidays. Throughout the program,

mentors served as role models for their mentees in

terms of conflict resolution, dependability, positive

attitude, and academic achievement.

Study participants were 10th grade students in two

suburban Houston high schools identified as at risk

for dropout on the basis of several academic achievement indicators. The evaluators used a nonequivalent

comparison group design to assess program impacts.

Students determined to be most at risk for dropout

were assigned to receive mentoring. Another set of

students determined to be somewhat less at risk for

dropout were matched as well as possible with the

experimental students on sex, race, age in grade, and

grade point average, and were designated the comparison group. Each mentor selected one mentee from

the pool of experimental students.

Experimental students had significantly higher seventh grade attendance rates and English grades than

comparison students, controlling for

fifth grade academic achievement

scores, sex, race, and age.
95

Controlling for pretest grade point average and selfconcept scores, there was no significant difference

between study groups in posttest grade point average.

Comparison students had significantly higher selfconcept scores at posttest than experimental students,

after controlling for pretest grade point average and

self-concept scores. In addition, the dropout rates for

the two study groups were not significantly different.

Thus, there was no evidence of positive program effects. However, the study groups were not comparable in terms of academic achievement before the

program, and no clear documentation of program

implementation was provided.

Summary. The evidence from the 10 available evaluations consistently indicates that noncontingent, supportive mentoring relationships do not have desired

effects on outcomes such as academic achievement,

school attendance, dropout, various aspects of child

behavior including misconduct, or employment. This

lack of demonstrated effects has occurred whether

mentors were paid or unpaid and whether mentors

were college undergraduates, community volunteers,

members of the business community, or school personnel. However, when mentors used behavior management techniques in one small, short-term study,

students’ school attendance improved. This is consistent with the findings from studies of school behavior

management interventions reported earlier. In another

larger, longer term experimental evaluation by the

same researchers, unspecified mentoring relationships

significantly increased delinquency for youth with no

prior offenses but significantly decreased recidivism

for youth with prior offenses. However, more evaluations with randomized designs are needed to test

these preliminary conclusions about mentoring.

Afterschool Recreation Programs

Afterschool recreation programs can address the risk

factors of alienation and association with delinquent

and violent peers. Protective factors may include opportunities for involvement with prosocial youth and

adults, skills for leisure activities, and bonding to

prosocial others.

Brown and Dodson (1959) evaluated the impact of a

neighborhood Boys Club on delinquency in Louisville, Kentucky. The Boys Club provided various

recreational activities, including clubs, sports, crafts,

scouts, and summer camps. The evaluators tallied the

delinquency rates for the program neighborhood and

two demographically matched comparison areas for

2 years before the club began and the first 9 years of

the club’s operation. The program area had a reduction in delinquency from the baseline period before

the intervention to 9 years later, while the comparison

areas experienced increases in delinquency over the

same period. However, during the first few years of

the club, shifts in delinquency rates for the comparison areas generally paralleled those of the program

area. Although this pattern of results could have been

due to a cumulative effect of the program, the lack

of statistical tests performed on the data and the absence of other checks for threats to internal validity

hamper the interpretation of these findings. Furthermore, the authors presented no data on program

implementation.

Jones and Offord (1989) evaluated the effects of an

afterschool recreation program that targeted lowincome children ages 5 to 15 residing in a public housing project in Ottawa, Ontario. Program staff actively

recruited all children in the housing development to

participate in structured afterschool courses for improving skills in sports, music, dance, scouting, and

other nonsport areas. After children reached a certain

skill level, they were encouraged to participate in ongoing leagues or other competitive activities in the

surrounding community. The 32-month program was

evaluated with a nonequivalent comparison group

design. The experimental housing project was

matched with another public housing project with

only minimal city-provided recreational services. Approximately halfway through the intervention period,

a large Boys and Girls Club was built next to the comparison project, but the club did not aggressively recruit nonparticipating children from the project.

The program area had a reduction

in delinquency from the baseline

period before the intervention to

9 years later, while the comparison

areas experienced increases in

delinquency over the same period.
96

The program was fairly successful in recruiting

project youth. During the program’s 3 years, 71 percent, 60 percent, and 49 percent of age-eligible children in the experimental complex participated in at

least one program course. Youth in the experimental

project advanced more levels in Red Cross swimming

than youth in the comparison project, although the

statistical significance of this difference was not reported. The number of arrests for juveniles residing in

the experimental complex during the program declined significantly from the 2 years before the intervention compared with juvenile arrests for youth in

the comparison project over the same time period (a

75-percent decrease in the experimental project but a

67-percent increase in the comparison project). There

were no such differences, however, in the number of

arrests for adults. In addition, the number of security

reports due to juveniles at the experimental complex

declined significantly after the intervention began,

relative to the comparison complex. Sixteen months

after the program had ended, these positive changes

had diminished significantly. The reductions in antisocial behavior in the experimental complex did not

carry over to home and school. Parent- and teacherrated social behavior of experimental complex youth

did not change significantly over the course of the

intervention. The authors also showed that the financial benefits of the program far exceeded the program

costs.

evaluated further with research designs employing

random assignment to study groups.

Gang Prevention

Gang prevention programs vary in content and

approach. Three general strategies for preventing gang

delinquency and violence have been evaluated: preventing youth from joining gangs, transforming

existing gangs into benign neighborhood clubs, and

mediating and intervening in crisis conflict situations

between existing gangs. Components of gang prevention programs may address such risk factors as association with delinquent and violent peers, alienation

and rebelliousness, favorable attitudes toward delinquency, community norms favorable to delinquency,

and neighborhood disorganization. Protective factors

addressed can include opportunities for prosocial involvement, skills for prosocial involvement, bonding

to prosocial youth and adults, and healthy beliefs and

clear standards.

Thompson and Jason (1988) evaluated a program designed to prevent high-risk youth from joining gangs.

The two components of the program were a gang prevention curriculum and afterschool recreational activities. The curriculum included 12 classroom sessions

conducted over 12 weeks that focused on background

information on gangs, gang violence, and substance

abuse in gangs; gang recruitment and methods of

resisting recruitment; consequences of gang membership; and values clarification. Most sessions were led

by project staff, but some were led by a prosecuting

attorney and by ethnic minority guest speakers who

held various occupations. The curriculum was taught

to eighth grade students in Chicago middle schools

located in lower- and lower-middle class areas with

high gang activity. After the curriculum ended, youth

considered to be at high risk for joining a gang were

invited to participate in afterschool recreational activities, including organized sports clinics, competition

with youth both in their own and other neighborhoods, job skills training workshops, educational

assistance programs, and social activities. From the

researchers’ report, it was not clear when in the school

year the curriculum began.

The researchers used a nonequivalent comparison

group design in which three pairs of public middle

schools were matched on the basis that the same gang

Afterschool recreation programs

that aggressively recruit youth and

maintain high participation rates

may be a promising intervention

for preventing delinquency.

From these results, it seems likely that program

impact was due to the program providing prosocial

opportunities for youth in the afterschool hours

where these opportunities had not previously existed.

Providing these opportunities appears to have reduced youth’s involvement in delinquent behavior in

the community. Afterschool recreation programs that

aggressively recruit youth and maintain high participation rates may be a promising intervention for preventing delinquency and violence but should be
97

actively recruited members from both schools in a

pair. One school in each pair was nonrandomly

assigned to be an experimental school, and the other

was designated as a no-intervention comparison

school. Project staff and teachers identified youth in

experimental and comparison schools who were at

risk for joining a gang but were not already gang

members (as determined from gang rosters compiled

by the project’s detached street gang workers from

interviews with gang members). The researchers

assessed gang membership again at the end of the

schoolyear (the intervention presumably was for

1 schoolyear) by the same method. Fifty-one percent

of experimental at-risk youth participated in the classroom curriculum and at least one afterschool program

activity; the rest of the experimental at-risk youth

received only the curriculum. Results showed that

experimental youth were less likely to become gang

members than comparison youth, but the difference

was only marginally statistically significant (p = .06).

This evaluation was limited by the short-term

followup period and the relatively small sample size,

given the prevalence of gang membership (4 of the 43

comparison youth had joined gangs by the end of the

school year, while only 1 of the 74 experimental youth

had).

developed relationships with gang members and

organized and led clubs composed of neighborhood

gang members. These clubs adopted constitutions,

met regularly, and carried out activities such as athletic contests, dances, and fundraising dinners. Caseworkers arranged and facilitated job interviews for

gang youth, gave them employment advice, encouraged them to stay in school and keep their jobs, and

generally acted as law-abiding, productive citizen role

models for the youth. Caseworkers also served as

go-betweens for gang youth and personnel in recreational, social service, juvenile justice, and law

enforcement agencies and organizations. Other components of the program included the establishment of

a district citizens’ council and a partially implemented psychotherapy intervention for “chronic

problem” (i.e., high-risk) families.

The evaluation used a nonequivalent comparison

group design. The experimental group included

members of five neighborhood gangs in contiguous

lower-class neighborhoods. Four gangs consisted of

white males; the other gang’s members were AfricanAmerican males. A total of 205 youth received services. The comparison group included members of 11

neighborhood gangs with similar sociodemographic

characteristics who did not receive program services.

The primary outcome measure was the number of

criminal charges resulting in court appearances between ages 7 and 23 for experimental and comparison

group youth. These data were supplemented by

streetworkers’ daily records, which included reports

of crimes committed by experimental gang youth

during the program (and which were more complete

than officially recorded offense records).

The author presented little systematic data on implementation, but from his description, the program

appeared to be reasonably well implemented.

Descriptive outcome data indicated very similar profiles of delinquent behavior (in terms of frequency

and proportion of youth involved) for experimental

and comparison youth before, during, and after the

intervention. Miller did not directly assess program

impact in terms of statistical significance, but all indications suggested no significant impact of the program on delinquent behavior. Additionally, according

to streetworker records, experimental gang members,

especially younger gang members, did not commit

Caseworkers arranged and facilitated job interviews for gang youth,

gave them employment advice,

encouraged them to stay in school

and keep their jobs, and generally

acted as law-abiding, productive

citizen role models for the youth.

Early gang programs dealt with gang members directly, trying to transform criminal gangs into benign

neighborhood clubs. Miller (1962) evaluated this type

of program, which arose in response to uncontrolled

gang violence in an area of Boston in the mid-1950’s.

The 3-year program attempted to reduce delinquency

and gang activity by increasing the social, economic,

educational, and recreational opportunities of gang

youth. Seven college-trained caseworkers each

worked with a different gang. The caseworkers
98

significantly more major offenses in the last third of

the project than in the first third.

Klein (1969) evaluated a similar gang intervention in

Los Angeles that operated in the mid-1960’s. The

4-year program was designed to “de-isolate” gang

members by integrating them more into the community and reducing their alienation. Five detached

streetworkers each worked with a different gang in

four lower- and lower-middle class African-American

neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Streetworkers conducted informal casework with gang youth and, to a

lesser degree, their parents, and organized and led

weekly club meetings for members of a neighborhood

gang. Club meetings focused on teaching democratic

values, procedural mechanisms, activity planning,

and “useful attitudes and behavior” and involved

minimal counseling. Club activities—usually sporting

events or recreational outings—involved gang members as a group and were held, on average, once every

2 weeks in a neighborhood. Casework, club meetings,

and special activities occupied 20 percent of streetworkers’ time; the rest was spent on office work,

transportation, and informal contacts with parents

and other adults. Other components of the program

included community organizing efforts, sponsorship

of a gang club by a community group, an academic

tutoring project, and a remedial reading project. Some

of these latter components were introduced in only

one or two program neighborhoods, and none was

implemented to a significant degree.

The author used a reasonable, but complex, modification of a time-series design that controlled for differing age distributions of gang members throughout

baseline and intervention periods. The baseline

period was the 4 years before the 4-year intervention

period. The principal outcome measure was the number of officially recorded offenses in probation records

for gang youth in the target neighborhoods over the

baseline and intervention periods. Other outcomes

measured were the number of gang members in a

gang (obtained from streetworker records) and intergang fights (obtained from multiple sources). Results

showed that the program actually increased delinquency. Increases in programming were matched by

increases in overall offenses, “companion” offenses

(those offenses likely to be committed by multiple

youth together), gang membership, and intergang

fights. Decreases in programming were accompanied

by decreases in each of these outcomes. The negative

effects of program exposure were most pronounced

for younger members (ages 12 to 15), the age group at

which the program was most directly targeted. In

addition, the program’s effect was equally negative

on core and fringe members. Based on several lines of

evidence, the increases in gang members’ offenses

during the intervention period could not be reasonably explained by intensified police action against the

gang members or demographic changes in project

neighborhoods between the baseline and intervention

periods (which were slight in most areas).

Both of these streetworker interventions with existing

gangs failed to reduce the delinquency of gang members. Klein (1969) concluded that the streetworker

program activities increased the cohesiveness of gang

members and reinforced the identity of the gangs,

which resulted in elevated delinquent behavior. These

results suggest that interventions that increase gang

cohesiveness and solidify gang identity are also

counterproductive.

The primary component of the

program was crisis intervention

and mediation with youth gangs

and young adults on the streets.

Spergel (1986) evaluated an intervention that also

dealt with existing gang members. This program did

not attempt to transform gangs into clubs but sought

to intervene in crisis situations that could lead to

intergang violence. The program assumptions were

that gangs arose from youth’s failed transition from

family to school and work, neighborhood disorganization hindered the development of adequate opportunities for youth and appropriate social controls over

their behavior, and gang members were isolated from

conventional local institutions. The 10-month program in Chicago employed nine part-time field staff,

including former gang leaders and graduate students,

and five administrative staff. The primary component

of the program was crisis intervention and mediation

with youth gangs and young adults on the streets.

Staff patrolled the streets in a gang area (especially
99

for the 10-month intervention period as well as for a

baseline period in the year before the program corresponding to the same 10 months.

The crisis intervention and mediation component was

well implemented, but the other components were

less so. Most gang youth contacted by staff were ages

14 to 29. During the program, staff contacted about

400 gang members, 35 community residents, and

30 community agencies and groups a month; approximately 90 gang youth were contacted two or three

times per week. Only 26 youth received intensive

counseling. The average attendance at monthly advisory group meetings was 35, and 200 people attended

the gang conference. During the intervention, no new

community groups were created, nor did membership

increase in any of the existing community organizations in the experimental area.

locations where gang youth “hung out” and violence

was likely to occur) every night from 6 p.m. to midnight or later and at other times as well. Staff distributed cards listing their pager numbers to gang

members, neighborhood residents, and personnel of

community agencies (e.g., police and schools). The

pagers allowed quick communication of developing

problems and conflicts to program staff. In the course

of their interaction with gang youth, staff verified and

corrected gang-related rumors on the street, passed on

information and rumors that might serve to deter

intergang violence, provided informal counseling to

gang youth and their families, and dissuaded them

from using violence in crisis situations. The dissuasion

frequently entailed direct, indirect, or parallel mediation between the parties in conflict. Field staff also

communicated with police about relevant gang news

and topics.

The secondary components of the program included

intensive counseling of a small subset of gang youth

and their families referred from juvenile court, mobilizing local neighborhood groups to address the gang

problem (e.g., organizing paintouts of gang graffiti),

and establishing a community advisory group of key

community leaders. The advisory group oversaw the

project, facilitated interagency communication, held

monthly meetings, and organized a conference on

gangs for community leaders and residents.

The experimental area was a predominantly Puerto

Rican, 3-square-mile, recently settled neighborhood in

northwest Chicago with several opposing street

gangs. During the early 1980’s, this lower- and lowermiddle class neighborhood of approximately 70,000

people was undergoing substantial sociodemographic

changes and significant disorganization, had a very

high homicide rate, and had perhaps the highest level

of gang violence in the city. The comparison area was

a conglomerate of neighborhoods, including neighborhoods of similar sociodemographic composition that

were adjacent to the experimental area and another

neighborhood in the southwest part of Chicago. Some

comparison neighborhoods were more stable residentially and had less crime (including gang crime) than

the experimental area but were essentially comparable

in economic terms. The evaluators collected outcome

data on recorded gang crimes (primarily serious and

violent offenses) from the city police Gang Crime Unit

The rate of increase in serious

gang crimes (homicide, robbery,

aggravated assault, and aggravated

battery) was significantly greater

for the comparison area than the

experimental area.

For both experimental and comparison areas, gang

crimes and crimes in general increased from the

baseline to the intervention period. However, the rate

of increase in serious gang crimes (homicide, robbery,

aggravated assault, and aggravated battery) was significantly greater for the comparison area than the

experimental area. The rates of increase were not significantly different between experimental and comparison areas for less serious gang crimes (simple

assault, simple battery, intimidation, gang recruitment, and unlawful use of a weapon). In the experimental area, more serious gang crimes accounted for

a relatively smaller proportion of gang crimes overall

during the intervention than either before the intervention or in the 5 months after the program ended.

Furthermore, from baseline to intervention periods,

more serious gang crimes accounted for proportionally fewer of all gang crimes in the experimental area.

In the comparison area, however, more serious gang
100

crimes accounted for an increased proportion of all

gang crimes. The data were too limited, however, to

assess the statistical significance of these changes.

These differences could reflect regression to the mean,

since at baseline, more serious gang crimes accounted

for 56 percent of all gang crimes in the experimental

area, but only 41 percent in the comparison area.

Within the experimental area, more intensively served

neighborhoods experienced a significantly lower rate

of increase in juvenile gang crimes and a significantly

higher rate of increase in adult gang crimes than less

intensively served areas. This suggests that more services had a desired effect on juvenile gang members’

violent activity but an undesired effect on adult gang

members’ violent activity.

Summary. Irving Spergel and his colleagues recently

conducted for OJJDP a national assessment of gang

prevention, intervention, and suppression programs

(Spergel, Chance, Ehrensaft, Regulus, Kane, Laseter,

Alexander, and Oh, 1994). They suggested that the

interrelated application of strategies of community

mobilization and provision for social opportunities,

combined to a lesser degree with suppression, organizational development, and social intervention, should

lead to lower crime rates among youth gang members,

The gang prevention programs reviewed here were

implemented to a fairly high degree, indicating that

these programs are feasible. In most of these evaluations, risk factors for delinquency and violence were

not assessed directly. Thompson and Jason’s (1988)

evaluation of a program consisting of a gang prevention curriculum and afterschool recreational activities

offered to eighth grade students suggests that this

kind of intervention may hold promise for preventing

youth at risk from joining gangs and perhaps associating with delinquent and violent peers more generally.

In contrast, programs that attempt to redirect existing

gangs and gang members toward more prosocial

activities appear to be counterproductive (Miller,

1962; Klein, 1969). Spergel’s (1986) evaluation gave

mixed support for the crisis-intervention and mediation approach to decreasing incidents of gang crime

and violence. The rate of increase in serious juvenile

gang crime in the experimental area was reduced,

relative to the comparison area. However, there was

no difference in the rate of less serious gang crimes

between the study areas, and the rate of adult gang

crime increased in intensively served experimental

neighborhoods. Further, the somewhat questionable

equivalence of experimental and comparison areas in

that study and other equivocal findings suggest caution in drawing conclusions regarding the effects of

this method of intervention with gangs.

Youth Service Programs

Youth service programs typically involve adolescents

in unpaid activities that benefit others in their schools

and communities, such as tutoring or providing assistance to senior citizens. Service-learning interventions

may address the risk factors of alienation and lack of

commitment to school and the protective factors of

opportunities to participate in prosocial activities and

interaction, skills for prosocial interaction, bonding to

school and community, and healthy beliefs and clear

standards for behavior.

Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson (1990) evaluated the

Teen Outreach Program (TOP), which was directed at

secondary school students (grades 7 to 12), many of

whom were at risk for school dropout or teenage

pregnancy. This 1-year program had two components:

• A classroom-based curriculum, led by trained

facilitators, which involved discussion of values,

particularly in rates of violent crime. They also suggested that broad-scale prevention approaches are

likely to be less effective than targeting high-risk youth

groups and applying appropriate deterrent and rehabilitative procedures. Spergel and his colleagues developed 12 program models that, together, constitute a

comprehensive intervention and suppression approach.

Thompson and Jason’s evaluation

of a program consisting of a gang

prevention curriculum and afterschool recreational activities offered

to eighth grade students suggests

that this kind of intervention may

hold promise for preventing youth

at risk from joining gangs and perhaps associating with delinquent

and violent peers more generally.
101

communication skills, family stress, human development, parenting, and sex education.

• Volunteer activities in a wide range of community

and school settings.

TOP was implemented at 35 sites in 30 schools across

the United States. The evaluators used a nonequivalent comparison group design to assess program impacts. Comparison students and experimental students were selected from the same schools and

were matched on several demographic factors.

Experimental students, however, were significantly

more likely to live in single-parent households, have

fathers with slightly less education, and have failed a

course in the year before the program than comparison students. Approximately 70 percent of students in

both groups were female, and about half were ethnic

minorities. Students in both groups were surveyed at

the beginning and end of the program.

based service and weekly seminars at which participants discussed their service activities. About 25

percent of program participants tutored younger

students or students for whom English was not a

primary language or acted as companions and assistants to residents of a local senior citizen center in

craft and oral history projects. The remaining participants served in other projects in the school or community. The program began in the late fall and lasted

throughout the school year. Ten seventh grade classes

of students at an ethnically and socioeconomically

diverse urban junior high school in New York City

were nonrandomly assigned by a school secretary to

either the experimental or comparison group, with

five classes in each group. Each study group included

two classes identified as “intellectually advantaged”

(as determined by standardized intelligence measures). Study youth were surveyed 2 weeks before

and at the end of the program period. Study groups

were comparable on most demographic characteristics, although experimental students came from

families of slightly higher socioeconomic status.

Experimental students participated in program activities for a mean of 3 hours per week (Switzer, personal

communication, June 14, 1994).

There were no significant overall program impacts on

any of the measured outcomes, including self-esteem,

mastery, depressive affect, involvement in school and

community activities (excluding program activities),

attitudes toward school, and problem behavior at

school. Further analysis showed that experimental

boys—in comparison to experimental girls, comparison boys, and comparison girls as a group—improved

significantly in their self-esteem, depressive affect,

involvement in school and community activities, and

problem behavior in school. There were no significant

differences between experimental boys and other

study youth in changes in mastery, attitudes toward

school, and altruistic self-image outcomes. However,

experimental boys were not specifically compared

with comparison boys, so it is not clear whether the

reported program impacts on boys could be due to

the addition of experimental and comparison girls in

the analysis. The evaluation also had a fairly low response rate (under 60 percent), and most respondents

were middle class. Nonrespondents might have

included a larger proportion of students at higher risk

for delinquency and violence.

Over the course of the program,

experimental students were significantly less likely to fail a course

in school, drop out of school, or

become pregnant or cause a pregnancy than comparison students.

Program implementation varied across sites. The

average participant received 72 hours of classroom

instruction and worked 32 hours in volunteer activities during the program year. Over the course of the

program, experimental students were significantly

less likely to fail a course in school, drop out of school,

or become pregnant or cause a pregnancy than comparison students. Multiple regression analyses suggested that the volunteer service component was more

influential in reducing these problem behaviors than

the classroom instruction. However, experimental

students were volunteers, while comparison students

were not, opening the possibility of selection bias.

Switzer, Simmons, Dew, Regalski, and Wang (1994)

evaluated one implementation of the National Center

for Service Learning’s Early Adolescent Helper Program. The program combined mandatory community-
102

Summary. These two evaluations indicate that youth

service programs may reduce risks and increase protection. The current evidence on the effectiveness of

youth service interventions is mixed and somewhat

unclear. The evaluation by Allen et al. (1990) showed

significant positive outcomes, but these may have

been due in part to selection bias. Switzer et al. (1994)

did not observe significant program effects overall,

although there may have been benefits for experimental boys. Further research with randomized experimental designs and thorough data analysis will

clarify the preventive impacts, if any, of youth service

programs.

American. The evaluation used a true experimental

design. In each housing project, youth were randomly

assigned to one of four experimental groups or a control group. In two housing projects, youth in experimental groups received remedial education for 2

hours one afternoon a week, which involved studying

with a teaching machine testing program under the

supervision of a professional teacher. As part of the

program, youth in experimental groups 1 and 2

worked on Saturdays in the housing project or city

parks under either formal or informal adult supervision. Youth in experimental group 3 were provided

with occasional jobs in the surrounding community

but were not specifically supervised by the program.

When summer was over, this component of the program was terminated because of the lack of sustained

work for these youth. Youth in experimental group 4

were not provided with jobs but were invited to participate in the remedial education component if it was

offered in their housing project. The program placed

youth who lived in projects where remedial education

was not offered on a waiting list for jobs. Control

group youth did not receive jobs or remedial education. Study youth were assessed on outcome measures before and after the program and 3 years after

its end.

Experimental youth in each group and as a whole

showed no significant improvements over the program year relative to control youth on numerous

outcome measures, including officially recorded

delinquency, referrals to the school counselor, teacher

ratings, self-image, and alienation. Experimental

youth in the two housing projects with remedial education experienced slightly more favorable outcomes

overall relative to controls, but the statistical significance of this result was not reported.

The evaluators also compared the proportion of youth

in experimental and control groups who had an officially recorded delinquent offense before the program

and in the 4 years after the program started. The proportion of youth in groups 1 and 2 who had an officially recorded delinquent offense in the 4 years after

program entry was 6 percent less than the proportion

of experimental youth with an offense in the preprogram period. The proportion of control youth with a

recorded offense in the 4 years after program entry

was 14 percent less than the proportion of control

Depending on their focus, vocational training and employment

programs may address several risk

factors, including academic failure,

alienation and rebelliousness,

association with delinquent and

violent peers, and low commitment

to school.

Vocational Training and Employment

Vocational training and employment programs are

primarily intended to increase youth employment

and participants’ earnings, although secondary program objectives frequently include improving participants’ social and educational functioning. Depending

on their focus, vocational training and employment

programs may address several risk factors, including

academic failure, alienation and rebelliousness, association with delinquent and violent peers, and low

commitment to school. Protective factors enhanced

can include opportunities to acquire job experience,

job skills, and recognition for work performed.

Hackler (1966) and Hackler and Hagan (1975) evaluated the Opportunities for Youth Project. This 1-year

program targeted all 13- to 15-year-old male youth

who lived in four public housing projects with high

official delinquency rates in Seattle, Washington. Half

of the youth in this target population participated in

the study, and 57 percent of these youth were African-
103

youth with a preprogram offense. For experimental

youth who received the teaching machine intervention, the prevalence of recorded offenses declined

18 percent from the preprogram period to the

followup period. For youth who did not receive the

teaching machine intervention, there was a 6 percent

decrease. The work component of the program

appears to have had small, undesirable long-term

effects, while the teaching machine component may

have decreased delinquency slightly. However, the

statistical significance of the differences between

groups in changes of offense prevalence over the

study period was not reported.

Longstreth, Shanley, and Rice (1964) evaluated a

school-based vocational training and employment

program for males thought to be at risk for dropping

out of a southern California senior high school. The

program lasted 3 years, but students were involved

with the program usually for only 1 year. There were

three primary program components:

• A practical, vocationally oriented academic curriculum consisting of classes in English, mathematics, and social studies taught by the same teacher

for a group of 15 students.

• A counselor available to students in the program.

• Paid afternoon jobs in the community for school

credit. The jobs were typical part-time jobs, such as

bagging groceries.

Program teachers had experience and good reputations in dealing with problem students. The potential

dropouts were identified by their school records of

low academic achievement and excessive tardiness

and truancy.

Potential dropouts were matched in terms of level of

aggressiveness, junior high school attended, age, and

intelligence. Study youth were nonrandomly assigned

to the experimental and comparison groups. Seventyseven percent of experimental youth had a job at

some point during the program, and these participants worked a median of 326 hours.

Following the interventions, there was no significant

difference between experimental and comparison

youth’s dropout rates. Relative to comparison students, experimental students increased their enjoyment of and attachment to school during their participation in the program. This improvement was limited

to those who were considered to be aggressive as

indicated by their pattern of school misconduct prior

to the program. However, there was no significant

difference between groups in the prevalence of police

contacts from the 14 months before to the 14 months

after entry into the program.

Ahlstrom and Havighurst (1971) evaluated an employment program for socially and educationally

maladjusted eighth grade males (ages 13 to 14) in

schools serving students from low-income families in

Kansas City, Missouri. Participants spent half of each

day in academic instruction in small classes and the

other half in a supervised work setting. During the

first phase of the program, participants worked in

groups on school and community projects and received nominal payment for their work. In the second

phase of the program, participants worked at parttime paid jobs with private employers. A full-time

project employment coordinator assisted participants

with job placement, helped them with their adjustment problems, and observed and recorded their

work progress. In the third phase of the program,

participants left school altogether for full-time jobs in

the community but remained in contact with the employment coordinator. Participants who completed

the program did not receive a high school diploma;

instead, they received a certificate of successful participation in a supervised youth work program. Eligible youth were randomly assigned to study groups.

Twenty percent of the youth initially assigned to the

experimental group dropped out because their parents did not consent to their participation. Youth in

the comparison group attended regular junior high

school programs. Eighty percent of program participants obtained part-time paid jobs with private employers in the second phase of the program, and 60

percent were placed in full-time jobs in the third

Potential dropouts were matched

in terms of level of aggressiveness, junior high school attended,

age, and intelligence.
104

In each city, there were two intervention groups and a

comparison group. The two intervention groups were

“year-round” participants who had worked in the program for an average of 14 months (two summers and a

school year) and “summer-only” participants who

worked in the program only during a summer for an

average of 8 weeks, but whose employment was terminated at the end of the summer due to budgetary reasons. In Cincinnati, the comparison group consisted of

youth who had signed up to participate and were

found eligible but were placed on a waiting list for

participation when the evaluation was completed.

Youth in Cincinnati were assigned randomly to the

summer-only and comparison groups. In Detroit, comparison youth were those who had applied to the program but had been declared ineligible due to family

incomes slightly above the program cutoff. In both

cities, youth in the summer-only and comparison

groups had applied to the program at essentially the

same time (13 months before the measurement of outcomes) that the year-round participants began the program. Seven months after the end of the summer-only

program, the author collected data on the youth’s recorded offenses from city police files and noted for each

youth whether an offense was recorded before and after

participation (for the year-round group) or application

(for the summer-only and comparison groups). It was

not clear from the evaluator’s report how much participants actually worked or met with their counselors.

In both cities, for youth who had no offense history

before participating in or applying to the program,

there were no significant differences across groups in

the proportion of youth who had offended after application or participation. Nor were there significant differences across study groups in the rates of delinquency

during the intervention period for those youth who had

offenses prior to participation or application. In sum,

the program had no preventive impact on delinquency.

Betsey, Hollister, and Papageorgiou (1985) provided

a detailed and comprehensive review of quasiexperimental and experimental evaluations of youth

employment and training programs funded under the

U.S. Youth Employment and Demonstration Projects

Act (YEDPA). Only those program evaluations that

measured program impacts on risk factors for delinquency and violence and for delinquency and violence

outcomes are included here.

phase. Five years after the program began, participants had approximately the same program completion rate (13 percent) as comparison youth’s

graduation rate (9 percent), and both study groups

were judged to be essentially equivalent in terms of a

composite measure of overall adjustment (based on

youth’s school, work, and criminal behavior).

Ahlstrom and Havighurst (1982) indicated that participants had slightly higher arrest rates in the

5 years after the program than comparison students,

as determined from police records. The authors did

not report the statistical significance of any of these

results. It is difficult to interpret these results because

of the selection bias in the experimental group due to

the elimination of those youth whose parents did not

consent to their participation. These nonconsenting

youth actually had a higher graduation rate (26 percent) than comparison or experimental youth. This

bias may have served to dampen any positive program effects. Furthermore, there were some negative

aspects of the program. Program youth could not

receive a high school diploma, and participation in

special classes and work projects at school may have

been stigmatizing, as evidenced by comments from

participants and program staff.

Robin (1969) evaluated the impact of the Neighborhood Youth Corps on delinquency. The program

placed youth in paid jobs for up to 15 hours per week

during the school year and up to 32 hours per week

during the summer. Participants were assigned to

counselors with whom they met periodically to discuss problems, progress in the program, and the

importance and value of continuing their high school

education. The program was tested in Cincinnati and

Detroit with African-American youth ages 16 to 21

who came from low-income families.

It is difficult to interpret these

results because of the selection

bias in the experimental group

due to the elimination of those

youth whose parents did not

consent to their participation.
105

Mallar, Kerachsky, Thornton, and Long (1982) evaluated the Job Corps program. The Job Corps was a

residential program for out-of-school, low-income

youth between 14 and 21 years old. Program components included remedial education, vocational skills

training, and health care. Participants usually moved

from their home community to a program site in another area. The experimental group for the evaluation

was a representative sample of Job Corps participants

from 61 program sites. The comparison group consisted of youth who were eligible for the Job Corps

and lived in geographic areas where Job Corps participation was low. Participants and comparison youth

were matched on age, race, poverty status, and educational level. Participants, who were primarily ethnic

minorities (75 percent), males (70 percent), and school

dropouts (80-90 percent), participated in the program

for an average of 30 weeks.

Work crews were closely supervised, and participants became accountable to increasingly higher

performance standards during the program, with the

standards eventually corresponding to those in

unsubsidized jobs. High school dropouts between

the ages of 17 and 20 could participate in the program for as long as 12 to 18 months. Ninety-two

percent of participants were ethnic minorities, 88

percent were males, and many had a history of delinquency. Supported Work was implemented at five

sites across the country. Eligible youth were randomly assigned to study groups and were interviewed at 9-month intervals for 3 years after the

program (some study youth were interviewed up to

4 1/2 years after leaving the program). Most participants left before the maximum period allowed for

participation.

The program significantly improved participants’

employment and earnings in the first year after the

program, but these effects disappeared by the second

year. Supported Work had no significant long-term

impact on education, drug use, or criminal activity,

although the program produced slight long-term

reductions in participants’ dependence on public

assistance. In addition, the costs of the program were

larger than the estimated benefits.

A.L. Nellum and Associates (1980) evaluated the

Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). The

program provided low-income 14- to 21-year-old

youth a 10-week summer work experience and

supplemental services such as job counseling and/or

vocational training at some sites. The evaluators

studied program impacts on participants at eight

urban, suburban, and rural SYEP sites. A random

sample of participants at the eight sites constituted

the experimental group, while the comparison group

consisted of youth who were eligible for the program

but were rejected on some unspecified basis. Sixty

percent of the participants in the experimental group

were ethnic minorities, and 54 percent were males.

Participants were significantly older, less likely to be

black, and more likely to have previously participated in Comprehensive Employment and Training

Act (CETA) programs than comparison youth.

Three months after the program, participants were

significantly more likely to be in school than comparison youth, although the difference was small

Within the first 6 months after the program, Job Corps

participants were five times more likely to have

earned a high school diploma or GED than comparison youth. In contrast to comparison youth, experimental youth experienced improved health,

employment, and earnings outcomes over a 4-year

period after the program. The program also was associated with reduced criminal behavior. During the

program, participants had arrest rates significantly

lower than comparison youth, and in the 4 years after

the program, participants had significantly fewer

arrests for serious crimes than comparison youth.

Benefit-cost analyses also showed the Job Corps to be

effective from a fiscal perspective. However, the

evaluation could not rule out the possibility of a selection bias since experimental youth volunteered for the

program, while comparison youth did not.

Maynard (1980) and Maynard, Cavin, and Schore

(1982) evaluated the Supported Work program.

Supported Work participants were assigned to work

crews largely made up of other program participants.

Within the first 6 months after the

program, Job Corps participants

were five times more likely to have

earned a high school diploma or

GED than comparison youth.
106

(3 percent). Participants were also significantly more

likely to be employed in part-time jobs than comparison youth, but there were no significant differences in

terms of contact with the criminal justice system or

attitudes toward such contact. In addition, program

participants and staff reported mutually negative

attitudes toward each other. The lack of comparability

between experimental and comparison groups on

several factors and the attrition (especially for comparison youth) at some sites limit the conclusions that

can be made about the program’s effectiveness. Further, it was not clear how much participants actually

worked while in the program.

constituted 76 percent of participants. In addition,

44 percent of participants were males.

Experimental youth participated in the program for a

mean period of 15 months. Approximately two-thirds

of eligible youth at program sites participated at some

time during the program period. The evaluators conducted followup interviews approximately 1 to 3

months after the program ended. During the program, employment and earnings increased significantly for eligible youth at program sites relative to

those at comparison sites. Only the earnings effect

remained at followup. No consistent effects on high

school enrollment or graduation rates were associated

with the program.

The Corporation for Public/Private Ventures (1983)

evaluated the 70001 youth employment program,

which targeted out-of-school youth ages 16 to 21.

The program included job preparation workshops,

job search training, and related services. Staff also

conducted unspecified followup activities with youth

after they found a job. According to Smith, Walker,

and Baker (1988), “those without high school diplomas [were] provided with educational services, including GED instruction” (p. 52). Experimental youth

were all participants in five program cities over a

15-month period, while comparison youth were “. . .

drawn from Employment Service registers, school

dropout lists, and other sources” (Betsey et al., 1985,

p. 164). Forty percent of participants were males, and

87 percent were ethnic minorities. Program sites were

chosen for the evaluation because of their higher

placement rates compared to other sites where the

program was implemented.

70001 participants received 32 hours of program services on average, and 50 percent were placed in jobs.

Earnings were significantly higher for program youth

than comparison youth in the short-term period after

the program, but these differences vanished by the

24- to 40-month followup interview. By the time of the

followup, significantly more participants had received

a high school degree or GED (34 percent) than comparison youth (21 percent), but no effects on criminal

behavior were associated with the program. As noted

previously, however, the selection of experimental

program sites for the evaluation was biased toward

more successful sites, and comparison and experimental youth may not have been comparable.

Farkas, Smith, Stromsdorfer, Trask, and Jerrett (1982)

and Farkas, Olsen, Stromsdorfer, Sharpe, Skidmore,

Smith, and Merrill (1984) evaluated the Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot Projects (YIEPP). All lowincome youth ages 16 to 19 residing in target areas

who had not graduated from high school were eligible to participate in the program. YIEPP participants

were guaranteed full-time summer jobs and part-time

jobs during the school year (mainly in the public sector) if they were enrolled in school or an approved

alternative educational program. Participants earned

the minimum wage in their jobs and some participants also received employment counseling. The

program operated for 2 1/2 years and continued at

reduced levels for another year, during which it provided jobs for only a minority of eligible youth. Three

YIEPP experimental sites (including one rural and

two urban locations) were matched with three comparison sites that had other large YEDPA programs in

operation, but not YIEPP. The evaluators drew stratified random samples of eligible youth from both

experimental and comparison sites, but the evaluation

was based only on African-American youth ages 15

to 16 at the beginning of the program. These youth

YIEPP participants were guaranteed

full-time summer jobs and part-time

jobs during the school year (mainly

in the public sector) if they were

enrolled in school or an approved

alternative educational program.
107

depending on the cohort. Data also were collected

from school records throughout the intervention and

followup periods.

STEP was implemented with high fidelity in all sites;

however, the program required extensive outreach

and recruitment to ensure that adequate numbers of

youth participated. Seventy-five percent of experimental youth returned for the second summer of the

program. Relative to control youth, experimental

youth improved in their reading and math test scores

and increased their contraceptive knowledge during

the program. Over the long-term, however, there were

no significant differences between experimental and

control groups in terms of high school dropout, college entrance, teen pregnancy, and employment rates.

Replications of the program in over 100 sites in 15

States with more than 20,000 participating youth have

produced similar in-program improvements in academic skills.

Shapiro, Gaston, Hebert, and Guillot (1986) evaluated

the Louisiana State Youth Opportunities Unlimited

Program (LSYOU). For 8 weeks during the summer,

economically disadvantaged youth (ages 14 to 16)

who were at risk for dropping out of school lived in

dormitories on the Louisiana State University campus. For half of each weekday, participants received

academic instruction in reading and math and earned

high school credit. During the other half of each

weekday, participants worked at individually chosen,

minimum-wage jobs at various sites throughout the

university. In the evening, experimental youth participated in recreational activities and career, academic,

and personal counseling. Weekend activities involved

field trips, speakers, tutoring, and parent participation events (parents received transportation to and

from the university). Other program components

included providing health care to participants and

requiring them to open savings accounts and deposit

a designated amount each pay period.

The evaluators used a true experimental design in

which Job Training Partnership Act-eligible program

applicants from three parishes in Louisiana were randomly assigned to the experimental program or the

control group. Control group youth participated in

the Summer Youth Employment Program. Overall,

experimental youth, relative to control youth, significantly improved academically and increased their

There have been several evaluations of major youth

employment and training programs since the comprehensive review by Betsey et al. (1985). Walker and

Vilella-Velez (1992) evaluated the Summer Training

and Education Program (STEP), which was developed

for youth ages 14 and 15 who were behind academically and from low-income urban families. Youth in

this program participated for 6- to 8-week periods

during two consecutive summers. Participating youth

worked half-time summer jobs (90 hours per summer)

and received remedial reading and math instruction

half-time (90 hours per summer). The educational

component involved specially designed curriculums

and innovative teaching approaches. Participating

youth also attended a life skills class a few hours each

week, which focused on decisionmaking and responsible health, sexual, and social behavior. During the

school year, participating youth received 5 to 15 hours

of support, such as recreational and other noneducational activities. Participants were paid the same

wages for attending the remedial education and life

skills classes as they were for working.

The program was tested in five initial demonstration

cities: Boston, Fresno, Portland, San Diego, and Seattle. The researchers used data from two cohorts of

study youth (involving approximately 2,500 youth

altogether) to evaluate the program. Youth were randomly assigned to the experimental or control group.

Control group youth were offered one summer job

through the Summer Youth Employment and Training Program, except at the San Diego and Seattle sites,

where controls were offered summer jobs over two

consecutive summers. The researchers tested the

youth on math and reading skills and contraceptive

knowledge before the program and at the end of both

summer periods. The researchers also interviewed

youth at followup 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 years after entry into

the program (when youth were 17 to 19 years old),

Participating youth worked halftime summer jobs (90 hours per

summer) and received remedial

reading and math instruction halftime (90 hours per summer).
108

career maturity from pretest to posttest (as indicated

by responses to a survey on career decisionmaking).

In addition, experimental youth significantly increased their commitment to stay in school from pretest to posttest, while control youth did not. No

long-term followup assessments were made.

Cave and Quint (1990) evaluated the Career Beginnings program. The program targeted high school

juniors who displayed average academic achievement, satisfactory school attendance, personal motivation and commitment beyond school activities (such

as working part-time or regularly participating in

some form of school or community service), and no

history of significant disciplinary problems. At each

site, the program involved collaboration among a

college or university (which served as the program

sponsor), public schools, and the business community.

Participants were offered jobs during the summer

between their junior and senior years of high school.

During that summer and the following school year,

the program provided workshops, classes, and counseling on educational and career planning and preparation (including such topics as study skills, college

entrance exams, and college and career alternatives).

Another component of the program included mentors

who served as role models and actively helped participants make career plans. The evaluators used a

true experimental design to assess program impacts

at seven sites across the United States (Santa Ana,

California; Jacksonville, Florida; Gary and Indianapolis, Indiana; the Bronx and Rochester, New York; and

Youngstown, Ohio). At each site, program applicants

who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to the experimental or control group.

The integrity of study groups was generally maintained, as 80 percent of experimental youth and 11

percent of control youth participated in Career Beginnings services. During the program period, a little

over a third of both experimental and control youth

received educational and job-related services not associated with Career Beginnings. The results indicated

that experimental youth did not have a significantly

higher graduation rate and were significantly more

likely to be enrolled in a 2- or 4-year college at 1-year

followup (53 percent) than control youth (48 percent).

The target population for this intervention, however,

was at fairly low risk for delinquency and violence.

Cave, Bos, Doolittle, and Toussaint (1993) evaluated

JOBSTART, an employment program for urban, lowincome, school dropouts ages 17 to 21. The program

provided self-paced and competency-based instruction in basic academic skills, occupational skills training for specific jobs, training-related support services

(some combination of transportation, child care, counseling, mentoring, tutoring, need-based and incentive

payments, work readiness, and life skills instruction),

and job placement assistance. The emphasis of these

different components varied across program sites. At

13 sites across the United States, eligible youth were

randomly assigned to experimental and control

groups. Ninety-one percent of study youth were ethnic minorities, and 54 percent were females. Eightynine percent of experimental youth received at least

some JOBSTART services, and the average participant

received 400 hours of services. The median and mean

lengths of participation in the program were 6 and 7

months, respectively.

At the 48-month followup, significantly more participants (42 percent) than controls (29 percent)

had earned a GED or high school

diploma.

The evaluators conducted followup surveys with

study youth 12, 24, and 48 months after random assignment. Overall, the program did not significantly

affect earnings or employment, except during program training. There were, however, significant longterm program impacts on reducing public assistance

for women who did not live with their children but

not for other study subgroups. At the 48-month

followup, significantly more participants (42 percent)

than controls (29 percent) had earned a GED or high

school diploma. This result was reliable across numerous subgroups of youth defined by various demographic characteristics. Participants also were

significantly more likely to have a trade certificate or

license.

JOBSTART participants who had not been arrested

between age 16 and entry into the program were significantly less likely to be arrested in the first year
109

after random assignment (11 percent) than controls

(18 percent). This effect, however, disappeared in

subsequent years (at the 4-year followup, 38 percent

of both experimental and control youth with no preprogram arrests had been arrested at least once), and

there were no other program effects on criminal behavior for study youth. In the fourth year after random assignment, a marginally significant smaller

percentage of participants (4 percent) than controls

(6 percent) used drugs other than marijuana. A limited benefit-cost analysis showed no overall economic

benefit from the program. This conclusion was not

based on all program outcomes (such as criminal

behavior and drug use) and may be premature, given

that the net overall benefits were steadily increasing

over the last 2 years of the 4-year followup period.

Bloom, Orr, Cave, Bell, Doolittle, and Lin (1994)

evaluated the impact of programs funded under Title

II–A of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). The

programs included a diverse set of interventions for

out-of-school youth between the ages of 16 and 21,

including classroom training in occupational skills,

on-the-job training, job search assistance, remedial

education, and miscellaneous other services. In 16

urban and rural service areas across the United States,

JTPA applicants were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. Experimental youth participated in JTPA programs for an average of 6 months,

and approximately 60 percent of experimental youth

received JTPA services. Experimental youth were

about twice as likely to receive some employment and

training services than control youth.

Thirty months after random assignment, there were

no significant program impacts on earnings or employment (male youth who had been arrested were

excluded from these analyses). Female experimental

youth without a high school diploma or GED at random assignment were significantly more likely to

have received a diploma or GED within 30 months

than their control counterparts. There were no such

program effects for male youth, however, nor were

there any significant program impacts on the amount

of public assistance received. Female experimental

youth were no less likely to be arrested than female

control youth. There was a similar lack of program

effect for male youth who had been arrested before

random assignment. At 36 months after random

assignment, however, male experimental youth who

had not been arrested before random assignment were

significantly more likely to be arrested (26 percent)

than their control youth counterparts (19 percent).

A cost-benefit analysis showed that JTPA produced

greater costs than benefits from the perspective of

participants and U.S. society as a whole.

Branch, Leiderman, and Smith (1987) reviewed evaluations of youth conservation and service corps. None of

the evaluations measured program impacts on either

known risk factors for delinquency and violence or

delinquency and violence outcomes. However, participating low-income youth, relative to nonparticipating

control youth, increased their earnings in the years

following participation.

Summary. Of the program areas reviewed, vocational

training and employment programs tended to be the

largest-scale interventions, and evaluations of these

programs were usually higher quality than other

evaluations. Youth employment and training programs generally could recruit participants successfully from hard-to-reach high-risk populations.

Program impacts on employment and earnings outcomes were typically positive, although the effects

tended to last only during and immediately after the

program. Substantial improvements on educational

outcomes appeared only when the program included

a significant educational component (Mallar et al.,

1982; Corporation for Public/Private Ventures, 1983;

Shapiro et al., 1986; Cave and Quint, 1990; Walker and

Vilella-Velez, 1992; Cave et al., 1993). However, programs for secondary school students that replaced

academic instruction with vocational training did not

significantly improve educational outcomes

(Longstreth et al., 1964; Ahlstrom and Havighurst,

1971). Nine evaluations specifically assessed program

A cost-benefit analysis showed that

JTPA produced greater costs than

benefits from the perspective of

participants and U.S. society as a

whole.
110

impacts on crime and delinquency. Six showed no

significant program effects, and one (Bloom et al.,

1994) actually indicated an increase in criminal behavior. For the two that reported positive effects, crime

and delinquency prevention or reduction was essentially restricted to the period when participants were

involved in intensive, largely educationally oriented

programs that offered a comprehensive array of services to school dropouts (Mallar et al., 1982; Cave et

al., 1993). Although the Mallar et al. (1982) evaluation

indicated long-term program impacts on some crime

outcomes, the initial crime prevention effect reported

in the Cave et al. (1993) evaluation disappeared by the

4-year followup.

Community Laws and Policies Related to

Weapons

A number of laws, regulations, and policies have been

enacted to reduce firearm violence, and they can be

categorized as shown below:

• Restrictions on the sale, purchase, and transfer of

guns.

• Regulations on the place and manner of carrying

firearms.

• Mandatory sentencing laws for felonies involving

firearms.

• Firearm training and mandatory firearm

ownership.

• Metal detectors in schools.

These interventions address the risk factors of firearm

availability and norms tolerant of crime and violence

and the protective factor of healthy beliefs and clear

standards for behavior. Zimring and Hawkins (1992)

discussed laws that restrict gun purchases by “dangerous persons” (e.g., former psychiatric patients or

convicted felons) and sales of “dangerous guns” (e.g.,

semiautomatic weapons or guns without trigger

locks). However, there are no available quasiexperimental or experimental evaluations of such laws.

Restrictions on the sale, purchase, and transfer of

guns. The aim of restricting the sale, purchase, and

transfer of guns is to reduce the number of guns available to potential offenders (Pierce and Bowers, 1981).

The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted to

control the sale and purchase of guns by requiring

that gun dealers obtain licenses (Cook, 1981; Kleck,

1991). Licensed gun dealers may sell firearms only to

persons who can prove that they reside in the State in

which the business is located. The law proscribes

interstate gun sales (except to gun dealers) and the

sale of firearms to classes of peoples defined as high

risk due to their age, mental status, or criminal history

(Cook, 1981). The Federal Gun Control Act prohibits

dealers from knowingly selling a firearm to people

under the age of 21 (18 for long guns), convicted felons, fugitives from justice, defendants in criminal

cases, adjudicated or former mental hospital patients,

drug abusers, persons with dishonorable discharges

from the military, or illegal aliens. Buyers must sign

statements that they do not fall into any of these categories, yet there is no requirement for the gun dealer

to verify this information. Unfortunately, most homicides are committed by persons who probably would

not be stopped by these restrictions (Zimring, 1986).

Several cities have enacted more restrictive regulations on the sale, purchase, and transfer of handguns

within city limits. In 1977, the District of Columbia

implemented the Firearms Control Regulations Act,

which prohibited the purchase, sale, transfer, and

possession of handguns by civilians, except those

who already owned handguns (Loftin, McDowall,

Wiersema, and Cottey, 1991). People who owned guns

prior to the law were required to reregister them

within 60 days after the law went into effect. After

this period, handgun registration was terminated,

making new handgun purchases illegal except by law

enforcement and military personnel. New purchasers

of long guns had to register them with the police.

Registrants had to be at least 21 years old; pass a written test on firearm laws and safety; have no record of

mental illness, alcoholism, or violent/weaponsrelated criminal offenses; satisfy physical fitness

requirements; and provide full-face photographs and

fingerprints. The law further required registered gun

Several cities have enacted more

restrictive regulations on the sale,

purchase, and transfer of handguns

within city limits.
111

owners to have certification of registration whenever

in possession of the firearm; report lost, stolen,

destroyed, or transferred firearms to the police; keep

guns unloaded and disassembled or bound by a

trigger-locking device in their homes; and not transfer

the gun to anyone other than a licensed firearms

dealer. The penalty for violating this ordinance, which

was initially a fine up to $300 and/or up to 10 days

in jail, was increased in 1981 to a fine of $1,000 and

1 year in jail (Loftin et al., 1991).

private citizens. The researchers conducted a timeseries analysis of monthly burglary data from the

small Chicago suburb for the 5 years preceding and

following passage of the ordinance. They found that

the ordinance received minimal enforcement, with

only 8 arrests for violations of the law and 12 confiscated weapons in the 5 years after the law was enacted. Reported burglaries decreased significantly in

Morton Grove after the ordinance went into effect.

The researchers also mentioned in passing that there

were no significant changes in assaults in Morton

Grove.

A similar ordinance was adopted in Evanston, Illinois,

another Chicago suburb, in 1982 (Jung and Jason,

1988; McDowall et al., 1991). This law banned the

possession of all handguns, although residents could

continue to own and use handguns if kept in gun

clubs outside the city limits. The mandatory sentence

for violating the law was a minimum $500 fine and a

6-month jail term. Kleck (1991, p. 410) reported that

the law was only lightly enforced, as only 74 charges

of violating the ordinance were made from 1983

through 1985. The police announced that they would

rely on voluntary compliance and not actively search

for violators. Two evaluations assessed the effects of

this ordinance.

Jung and Jason (1988) used a multiple time-series

design to examine intervention impacts on firearm

assaults and firearm robberies in Evanston and Rock

Island, a comparison city of approximately 150,000

persons in northwestern Illinois that was similar to

Evanston in reported crime rate and ethnic composition. The law went into effect in October 1982, and the

analysis was performed on monthly data from July

1981 through December 1983. In Evanston, reported

firearm assaults decreased significantly during the

preintervention period but showed no significant

variation in the postintervention period. Jung and

Jason (1988) attributed the preintervention decline to

intense media coverage of the law. No intervention

impact in Evanston was apparent when the number

of firearm assaults was displayed over time. There

was no significant variation in reported firearm

robberies in Evanston in either the pre- or

postintervention periods. The evaluators also mentioned that there were no significant substitution

effects (i.e., replacing firearms with other weapons)

In Washington, D.C., firearm

homicides decreased significantly

(25 percent) immediately following enactment of restrictive legislation and held steady at this

lower level through 1987.

In their evaluation of the District of Columbia ordinance, Loftin et al. (1991) used a multiple time-series

design to examine monthly frequencies of firearm

homicide from 1968 to 1987 in Washington, D.C., and

adjacent metropolitan areas in Virginia and Maryland.

In Washington, D.C., firearm homicides decreased

significantly (25 percent) immediately following enactment of the legislation and held steady at this

lower level through 1987. Nonfirearm homicides in

the District of Columbia did not decrease significantly

by 4 percent after the law went into effect. In adjacent

metropolitan areas, firearm homicides did not change

significantly (7 percent decrease), but nonfirearm

homicides increased significantly by 23 percent.

Similar results were obtained when homicide rates,

instead of frequencies, were used in the analysis. Furthermore, the decline in firearm homicides associated

with the law could not be accounted for by decreasing

firearm homicides in the District of Columbia in the

years just prior to the law (from 1974 to 1976) (Loftin,

McDowall, Wiersema, and Cottey, 1992). Loftin et al.

(1991) did not report any data on enforcement of the

law.

McDowall, Lizotte, and Wiersema (1991) evaluated

the impact of a 1981 Morton Grove, Illinois, law that

banned the sale of handguns and their possession by
112

The two cities had similar overall rates of reported

burglary, but Seattle had slightly higher rates of

reported robbery, simple assault, and aggravated

assault. The use of firearms in aggravated assaults

was almost eight times higher in Seattle than in

Vancouver, and this difference explained the overall

difference between the two cities in aggravated assaults, as the cities did not differ significantly in the

rate of aggravated assault involving other weapons.

Similarly, the homicide rate was significantly higher

in Seattle than Vancouver (age- and sex-adjusted relative risk = 1.63), and this difference was accounted for

by the five times greater rate of firearm homicides in

Seattle than in Vancouver. The two cities had similar

rates of homicides involving other weapons. As the

researchers noted, however, other possible differences

between the cities (such as differences in illegal drugrelated activity and illegal gun transfers) might confound the apparent relationship between firearm

legislation and violent crime for these two cities.

Summary. The Loftin et al. (1991) evaluation of the

District of Columbia law suggested that it reduced

firearm homicides over an 11-year period. The comparison of Seattle and Vancouver by Sloan et al. also

suggested that laws restricting the sale and purchase

of handguns prevented violent gun-related crime.

However, the evaluations of the handgun bans in

Morton Grove and Evanston, Illinois (Jung and Jason,

1988; McDowall et al., 1991) did not show any reliable

evidence of significant preventive effects on reported

burglaries or gun-related crime. These outcomes may

reflect weak enforcement of the ordinances in these

cities. More research on well-implemented laws with

long time-series and careful documentation of enforcement is needed to ascertain more fully the effects

of these restrictions.

Regulations on the place and manner of carrying

firearms. State and local governments have enacted

regulations on the place and manner of carrying firearms to reduce the number of persons who carry and

use firearms in public. O’Carroll, Loftin, Waller,

McDowall, Bukoff, Scott, Mercy, and Wiersema (1991)

evaluated a 1986 Detroit ordinance implemented at

the beginning of 1987 that imposed a mandatory

30- to 90-day jail sentence and $100–$500 fine for anyone convicted of carrying a concealed, loaded pistol

or carrying a loaded firearm in a car. The researchers

for assaults and robberies in Evanston. In Rock Island,

the evaluators reported no significant variation in

firearm assaults and firearm robberies in either the

pre- or postintervention periods. This evaluation,

however, did not include direct comparisons between

pre- and postintervention periods for either city.

McDowall et al. (1991) conducted a longer-term timeseries analysis of the Evanston law. They examined

the monthly frequencies of reported burglaries in the

6 years before the law was enacted and the 4 years

after it was enacted. Reported burglaries did not vary

significantly between pre- and postintervention periods. Further, there were no significant changes associated with the ordinance in reported robberies or

assaults.

Sloan, Kellerman, Reay, Ferris, Koepsell, Rivara, Rice,

Gray, and LoGerfo (1988) compared rates of violent

crime from 1980 to 1986 in two cities—Seattle, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia—that were

similar in climate, geography, history, and demography, yet different in terms of gun control legislation. In Seattle, handguns could be purchased for

self-defense purposes; permits for carrying a concealed weapon could be obtained after a 30-day

waiting period; and few restrictions existed on the

recreational use of handguns. In Vancouver, handguns could be purchased only by police and security

personnel, members of legitimate gun clubs, and

legitimate gun collectors. Handguns could be discharged only at licensed shooting clubs. In order to

transport a handgun, handgun owners needed to

obtain an additional permit for carrying a weapon.

In addition, concealed weapons were not permitted.

However, the two cities were alike in other gunrelated legislation. Convictions for gun-related

offenses and violent crimes carried similar penalties

in both cities. The prevalence of firearms in Seattle

was almost four times higher than in Vancouver,

corresponding to the differences in legal access to

firearms.

Reported burglaries decreased

significantly in Morton Grove after

the ordinance went into effect.
113

performed an interrupted time-series analysis of

monthly homicide frequencies in Detroit from 1980

through 1987. Two time-series analyses were conducted: one compared inside (private) to outside

(public) homicides, while the other compared gun

homicides to nongun homicides. When the ordinance

went into effect, homicides were increasing in Detroit.

While the ordinance did not reverse the increasing

trend in homicides, it was related to a lower rate of

increase for outdoor homicides (10 percent increase,

p =.418) than for indoor homicides (22 percent increase, p = .006). In addition, nongun homicides increased slightly but not significantly (16 percent) as

did gun homicides (13 percent). Although 1,020 persons were charged under the ordinance in 1989, only

22 defendants were sentenced to jail. The researchers

attributed the small positive effects to publicity on the

ordinance.

In July 1974, Massachusetts enacted the Bartley-Fox

Amendment, which prohibited carrying unlicensed

and concealed firearms (Beha, 1977a; Deutsch and Alt,

1977). Before the law went into effect in April 1975,

there was an intense 2-month publicity campaign to

educate the public about the new law, although some

publicity materials contained inaccuracies (usually

overstating the scope of the law). According to the

law, an individual had to obtain a Firearm Owner

Identification (FOI) card before purchasing either a

firearm or ammunition. To obtain an FOI card, applicants had to prove that they were nonalien and over

18 years of age with no felony convictions or hospitalizations for drug addiction, mental illness, or drunkenness. In addition, potential handgun owners had to

prove their need to own a handgun to the police in

order to obtain a special license to own and carry a

handgun. The law prescribed a mandatory 1-year jail

sentence (without the normal discretionary options of

parole, suspension, or furlough) for persons convicted

of carrying a handgun without a special license or

purchasing or carrying a long gun without an FOI

card.

Beha (1977a, b) assessed the implementation and enforcement of the Bartley-Fox law. Informal analysis

showed that the police and courts enforced the law

when appropriate. In addition, there was a dramatic

increase in the number of FOI cards issued in the first

year the law was in effect. From July 1973 through

June 1974 (the year preceding adoption of the law),

just over 42,000 FOI cards were issued, compared to

over 190,000 cards issued from June 1974 through

June 1975. Compliance with the requirement for a

special license to carry a handgun increased dramatically, especially during the year following adoption of

the law. In 1974, the number of special handgun licenses issued per month ranged between 1,000 and

3,300, but in April 1975 approximately 7,200 licenses

were issued.

Armed robberies and gun assaults

decreased significantly after the

law was enacted, but the monthly

number of homicides did not

change significantly in the period

of the introduction, enactment,

and enforcement of the law.

Several studies have evaluated the effects of the

Bartley-Fox law. Deutsch and Alt (1977) evaluated the

law’s impact on armed robbery, gun assault, and

homicide with a time-series analysis of monthly reported crime data from January 1966 to October 1975

(6 months after the law went into effect). Armed robberies and gun assaults decreased significantly after

the law was enacted, but the monthly number of homicides did not change significantly in the period of

the introduction, enactment, and enforcement of the

law. This analysis did not test for substitution effects

(i.e., use of other weapons instead of guns) in armed

robberies and homicides.

In a reanalysis of the same data using different timeseries models, Hay and McCleary (1979) also found

no intervention impact on homicide but, unlike

Deutsch and Alt (1977), did not observe a significant

reduction in armed robberies associated with the law.

In addition, Hay and McCleary’s (1979) analysis

showed that the decline in gun assaults associated

with the law was only temporary and not constant,

as suggested by Deutsch and Alt’s analysis.

Pierce and Bowers (1981) conducted a time-series

analysis of monthly frequencies of reported armed
114

assault (gun and nongun) in Boston. They found that

gun assaults decreased significantly the month before

the law went into effect, and nongun armed assaults

increased significantly the month after the law went

into effect, which suggests a substitution effect. The

evaluators did not report the specific time period for

their analysis.

Jung and Jason (1988) evaluated the impact of an East

St. Louis, Illinois, law that required a mandatory $500

fine and possible 6-month jail term for persons found

carrying a firearm on the street. The researchers used

a time-series design to examine intervention effects on

firearm assaults and firearm robberies in East St.

Louis and Rock Island, a city with a reported crime

level similar to that of East St. Louis. The law went

into effect in December 1981, and the analysis was

conducted on monthly reported crime data from November 1979 through December 1983. In East St.

Louis, firearm assaults declined significantly approximately 1 year before the law went into effect and then

increased significantly approximately 5 months after

the law went into effect. Changes in East St. Louis

firearm robberies over time paralleled those for firearm assaults. The evaluators also mentioned that

there were no significant substitution effects for assaults and robberies in East St. Louis. Jung and Jason

(1988) suggested that the preintervention decline

might be attributable to media coverage of the proposed law, although they did not report how much

this coverage coincided with the decrease in gunrelated crime. In Rock Island, no significant variation

in firearm assaults and firearm robberies occurred in

either the pre- or postintervention periods. This

evaluation, however, did not include direct comparisons between pre- and postintervention periods for

either city. In addition, no data were reported on enforcement of the East St. Louis law.

Summary. Three laws regulating the place and manner

of carrying firearms have been evaluated. Overall, the

evidence for the effectiveness of these laws is weak

and mixed. The Detroit law may have slightly reduced the rate of increase in outside homicides

(O’Carroll et al., 1991), and the East St. Louis law may

have produced a short-term decrease in assaults and

robberies involving guns (Jung and Jason, 1988).

However, the Massachusetts Bartley-Fox law

appeared to have few preventive effects on gunrelated crime. The intervention impact on gun assaults was temporary and may have resulted in a

substitution of other weapons in assaults (Hay and

McCleary, 1979; Pierce and Bowers, 1981). These

evaluations may not reflect the preventive potential

of laws regulating the place and manner of carrying

firearms, since significant enforcement may have been

lacking for the Detroit and St. Louis laws.

The proportion of New Jersey

homicides that involved firearms

increased insignificantly from

1974 to 1980 but decreased significantly from 1980 to 1986.

Mandatory sentencing laws for felonies involving

firearms. At both the Federal and State levels, mandatory sentencing laws have been enacted that impose

more stringent sentences for offenders who use or

carry a firearm during the commission of a felony. Fife

and Abrams (1989) evaluated the effects of New

Jersey’s 1981 Graves Amendment, which mandated a

minimum prison sentence for any person convicted of

one of several serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, kidnapping, aggravated criminal assault, aggravated criminal sexual

assault, robbery, burglary, and escape) who carried or

used a firearm during commission of the crime. The

evaluators examined annual percentages of homicides

that involved a firearm from 1974 to 1986 for New

Jersey and the United States as a whole. The proportion of New Jersey homicides that involved firearms

did not increase significantly from 1974 to 1980 but

decreased significantly from 1980 to 1986. The difference between these rates of increase and decrease was

significant. For the United States as a whole, the proportion of homicides that involved firearms decreased

significantly in the preintervention period and decreased at a slightly smaller (but not significant) rate

for the postintervention period. The difference between the pre- and postintervention decreases for the

entire United States was not significant. However, the

evaluators did not examine the patterns of firearm

homicide rates over time and compare them with the
115

corresponding patterns of nonfirearm homicides.

Additionally, the time-series included few (13) observations.

Loftin, Heumann, and McDowall (1983) evaluated the

1977 Michigan Felony Firearm Statute, which imposed a 2-year mandatory sentence for persons in

possession of a firearm while committing a felony.

Mandatory sentences were to be served consecutively

to the sentence for the corresponding felony. The statute explicitly prohibited suspended, deferred, and

withheld sentences, and parole was not possible until

after the firearm sentence was served (McDowall,

Loftin, and Wiersema, 1992). The law was publicized

by a mass media campaign (McDowall et al., 1992).

The researchers used a time-series design to examine

the frequency of monthly homicide (gun and nongun)

and aggravated assault (gun and nongun) from 1969

to 1979 and monthly reported robbery (armed and

unarmed) from 1967 to 1979 in Detroit. Loftin et al.

(1983) showed that the law was implemented partially. The prosecutor vigilantly prosecuted all violators of the law. People convicted of four kinds of

felonies (not murder and criminal sexual conduct)

who carried a gun during the crime received significantly longer prison sentences after the law went into

effect (during 1977 and 1978) than in the year before

(1976). This increase in sentence length was over and

above the simple main effects of gun possession during the crime and the time the crime was committed,

that is, before or after the law went into effect. The net

effects of the law on sentence length (taking into account significant overall decreases in sentence length

for most felonies after the law went into effect), however, amounted to approximately 9 months extra time,

less than the 24 additional months expected from the

law. Gun homicides decreased significantly and

abruptly (almost 11 fewer each month) once the law

went into effect. This pattern of change held whether

the victim and offender were strangers, acquaintances, or close friends or relatives. The proportion of

homicides involving a gun declined significantly by 5

percent after the law went into effect. However, there

were no significant changes associated with the intervention for nongun homicides, armed robberies, unarmed robberies, gun assaults, or nongun assaults.

The lack of consistent results across firearm-related

felony categories thwarts a clear interpretation of the

law’s overall impact.

Loftin and McDowall (1984) evaluated the effects of

the 1975 Florida Felony Firearm law, which went into

effect in October 1975. The law mandated a 3-year

sentence for possessing a firearm while committing or

attempting to commit any of 11 felonies (murder,

sexual battery, robbery, burglary, arson, aggravated

assault, aggravated battery, kidnapping, escape,

breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony,

and aircraft piracy). Suspended, deferred, and withheld sentences were prohibited until the 3-year

sentence had been served. Supporters of the law organized a massive public information campaign to educate citizens about the law. Loftin and McDowall

(1984) cited a 1977 survey by Burr that reported that

79 percent of convicted felons in five Florida correctional facilities were aware of the law.

Abrupt, permanent decreases in

gun homicides associated with the

law occurred in all three cities, but

only in Tampa was the decline

significant.

The evaluators used a time-series design to examine

monthly frequencies of reported homicide (gun and

nongun) from January 1968 to December 1978 and

reported robbery (armed and unarmed) and aggravated assault (gun and knife) from January 1967 to

December 1978 in Jacksonville, Miami, and Tampa.

Abrupt, permanent decreases in gun homicides associated with the law occurred in all three cities, but

only in Tampa was the decline significant. Nongun

homicides did not increase significantly in each city

after the law went into effect. Armed robberies did

not decrease significantly in Tampa and Miami, but

did not increase significantly in Jacksonville. In contrast, unarmed robberies increased in all three cities,

and the increase was significant in Tampa and Miami.

After the law went into effect, both gun and knife

assaults did not decrease significantly in Jacksonville

and Miami. In Tampa, however, gun and knife assaults increased, and the increase for gun assault was

significant. These mixed results hamper a clear interpretation of the law’s effect on gun-related crime. The

evaluators did not report any information on enforcement of the law.
116

enacted, and the overall effect across studies was significant (mean effect size = -.69). Nongun homicides

decreased only in two cities after mandatory sentencing laws were passed, and the overall effect across

evaluations was virtually nonexistent (mean effect

size = -.03). The effects of the sentencing laws on

aggravated assault and robbery were estimated by

cumulating results from Detroit, Jacksonville, Miami,

Tampa, and the State of Pennsylvania. After the laws

were adopted, gun assaults declined in four of the

jurisdictions, but the overall intervention effect was

modest and nonsignificant (mean effect size = -.36).

Other types of assaults (nongun, knife, and nongun

weapon assaults) decreased in only two of the five

jurisdictions and did not change appreciably after the

laws were passed (mean effect size = -.06). Armed

robberies decreased in two of the jurisdictions, and

the combined effect was essentially null (mean effect

size = .08). Unarmed robberies increased in all five

jurisdictions, and the aggregated effect was moderate

but nonsignificant (mean effect size = .68). For each of

these six subtypes of crimes, there was significant

variation in the magnitude of intervention effects

among the cities.

While the aggregate effects of the sentencing laws on

aggravated gun assaults and armed robberies were

not significant or large, they were more preventive

than the aggregate effects for other assaults and unarmed robberies. As McDowall et al. (1992) noted, the

homicide data are probably more completely and

accurately reported than the assault or robbery data.

Greater inaccuracies in the assault and robbery data

might have masked the impact of the sentencing laws

on these crimes. Furthermore, in these evaluations

armed robbery did not specifically refer to robberies

committed with a gun (except for the Pennsylvania

data), and this additional imprecision in coding could

further mask intervention effects.

Summary. There is evidence that mandatory sentencing laws for crimes involving firearms prevented

firearm homicides. Such laws also may prevent other

types of violent crime involving firearms, but the

available evaluations do not yet permit this conclusion. McDowall et al. (1992) urged more research on

the impact of sentencing laws with probability

samples of jurisdictions to identify which mechanisms of the laws bring about the preventive impact.

McDowall et al. (1992) evaluated the impact of a

mandatory sentencing law in Pennsylvania. The law,

enacted in June 1982, imposed a 5-year mandatory

sentence for committing any of seven felonies with

the visible possession of a firearm. The mandatory

sentence also applied if the defendant had been convicted of the same felony within the past 7 years or

the felony was committed in or near public transportation facilities. As with the Michigan and Florida

laws, suspended, deferred, and withheld sentences

were explicitly prohibited, and parole was not possible until the mandatory firearm sentence was

served. Using a time-series design, the researchers

examined monthly frequencies of reported homicide

(gun and nongun) from January 1970 through December 1984 for the city of Philadelphia and Allegheny County (which includes Pittsburgh). They also

examined monthly frequencies of robbery (gun and

nongun weapon) and aggravated assault (gun and

nongun weapon) from January 1978 through December 1984 for Pennsylvania. Gun homicides decreased

significantly in Philadelphia and Allegheny County

after the law was enacted. Nongun homicides also

declined in both cities after the law was adopted

(significantly so in Philadelphia). In Pennsylvania,

the drop in gun assaults and gun robberies was not

significant, and the rise in nongun weapon assaults

and nongun weapon robberies was not significant

after the law was passed. No information on enforcement of the law was reported.

McDowall et al. (1992) and Loftin, McDowall, and

Wiersema (1993) performed a meta-analysis of their

evaluations of mandatory sentencing laws. The researchers combined the time-series results of intervention impacts on homicide, aggravated assault, and

robbery in the five cities (Detroit, Jacksonville, Miami,

Philadelphia, and Tampa) and Allegheny County.

Gun homicides decreased in all six jurisdictions after

mandatory enhancement sentencing laws were

There is evidence that mandatory

sentencing laws for crimes involving firearms prevented firearm

homicides.
117

Firearm training and mandatory gun ownership.

Using time-series analyses of reported crime data,

McDowall et al. (1991) evaluated the preventive impacts of two firearm training programs and one mandatory gun ownership law. The former programs were

designed to deter crime by increasing the number of

citizens who know how to use guns properly. The

latter law attempted to communicate the risk criminals face in committing a crime. From October 1966 to

March 1967, an Orlando, Florida, firearm training

program taught 2,500 women how to use a firearm.

The program received a large amount of publicity in

the local newspaper. The researchers examined annual

frequencies of rape between 1958 and 1971. The number of rapes declined nonsignificantly in the year following the program (1967). The pattern of rapes in the

Orlando standard metropolitan statistical area and the

State of Florida (both excluding the city of Orlando)

also showed nonsignificant decreases following the

program, suggesting that the Orlando program was

not responsible for the observed nonsignificant decrease in rapes.

Another firearm training program was implemented

in Kansas City, Missouri, in response to concern about

retail business robberies. From September to November 1967, the program taught 138 persons how to use

guns. There was some degree of publicity about the

program. McDowall et al. (1991) examined annual

frequencies of robbery from 1961 to 1986 and found

that the number of robberies decreased nonsignificantly in the year following the intervention (1968). A

similar pattern over time was observed for robberies

in the State of Missouri, suggesting that the nonsignificant reduction in robberies in Kansas City was not

attributable to the training program.

McDowall et al. (1991) also evaluated an ordinance in

Kennesaw, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta), that required every household in the city to maintain a firearm. Enacted in March 1982, the law imposed no

penalty for violators, and no violations were recorded

in the 5 years after the law went into effect. The ordinance received extensive media coverage. The researchers examined monthly frequencies of burglaries

from January 1976 to December 1986 and found that

burglaries increased nonsignificantly after the law

was passed.

Summary. None of the evaluations of firearm training

programs or the mandatory gun ownership law demonstrated any significant intervention effects on crime

or violence. More evaluation research using longer

time-series with more observations would provide

more definitive answers on the intervention impacts

of these strategies.

Metal detectors in schools. Metal detector programs

usually have security personnel or school staff use

detectors to search some or all students for metal

weapons, such as guns and knives. In 1992, 19 of the

115 public high schools in New York City had schoolbased metal detector programs (Ginsberg and

Loffredo, 1993). In a school with a metal detector program, a team of security officers scanned randomly

selected students with hand-held metal detectors as

they entered the building. Ginsberg and Loffredo

(1993) surveyed a representative sample of all New

York City high school students, stratified by schools

with and without metal detector programs. Sixtyseven percent of students in 3 schools with metal

detector programs and in 12 schools without them

participated in the survey, which included questions

on weapon carrying over the past 30 days and being

physically threatened or involved in fights over the

past 30 days.

The students in schools with and without metal detector programs were virtually identical in terms of their

self-reports of being threatened or involved in fights

at school, on their way to and from school, or anywhere. Students in the two groups also were equally

likely to report carrying a gun, knife, or other kind of

weapon somewhere in the previous 30 days. However, self-reported weapon carrying at school was

significantly less prevalent in schools with metal

detector programs than those without. In schools

without metal detector programs, students were

approximately twice as likely to bring a gun, knife,

More evaluation research using

longer time-series with more observations would provide more definitive answers on the intervention

impacts of these strategies.
118

or other weapon to school as students in schools with

metal detector programs. Although assignments of

schools to implement a metal detector program were

not random, students in all schools were very similar

in their overall experience with interpersonal violence

and weapon carrying. This suggests that the students

in the two groups of schools were closely matched.

The results from this survey imply that metal detector

programs may have a site-specific impact on weapon

availability, which might decrease the escalation and

lethality of interpersonal conflicts at such sites.

Policing Strategies

In recent decades, various innovations in policing

practices have been attempted to reduce crime. Several of these policing strategies have been evaluated

and are reviewed here:

• Intensified motorized patrol.

• Field interrogation.

• Foot patrol and neighborhood storefront police

stations.

• Citizen contact patrol.

• Community mobilization, including neighborhood

block watch and citizen patrol.

These strategies address the risk factors of community

disorganization and low neighborhood attachment

and norms tolerant of crime and violence. Protective

factors addressed include healthy beliefs and clear

standards for behavior, opportunity for involvement

with police, and bonding to police.

Intensified motorized patrol. Patrol strategies, in

general, are designed to prevent crime by reducing

the opportunities and increasing the perceived risks

for engaging in criminal activity through the visible

presence of police in the community (Wycoff, 1982).

Four controlled evaluations of intensified motorized

patrol have been done. The Kansas City, Missouri,

Preventive Patrol Experiment was a welldocumented, quasi-experimental evaluation of

different levels of motorized patrol (Kelling, Pate,

Dieckman, and Brown, 1974). The three patrol conditions were normal (one car per beat), reactive (police

responded only to service calls, with only one car

patrolling a beat’s perimeter), and intensive (two to

three cars per beat). In all conditions, police cars were

marked. There were five sets of three beats, and one

beat in each set was assigned to a different patrol

condition. All beats in a set were matched for level of

crime, number of calls for service, ethnic composition,

income, and transiency of population. Overall, the

beats were diverse in terms of residents’ income level

and ethnicity. The intervention lasted 12 months and

was implemented with a high degree of fidelity.

A police force that manages routine crime and processes criminals efficiently helps to prevent crime by

enforcing laws and bolstering norms against criminal

behavior. To illustrate, Sherman (1992, pp. 192–193,

201) discussed numerous instances of dramatic increases in crime and violence during police strikes in

several cities across the world. Makinen and Takala

(1980), for instance, documented elevated rates of

assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism during a 17-day

police strike in Finland in comparison to periods before and after the strike.

Research shows, however, that simply employing

more police and allocating more funds for police services has no effect on crime. Wycoff (1982) reviewed

numerous cross-sectional and panel studies conducted in the 1960’s and 1970’s and found that neither

the numbers of police personnel nor rates of police

expenditures correlated reliably to reported crime

rates, clearances (crimes solved by police), or arrests.

Although many policing strategies

such as foot patrols and citizen

contact patrols are not new policing

techniques, they are being implemented with a new goal that can

make them an element of a law

enforcement agency’s community

policing strategy.
119

To evaluate program impact, the evaluators collected

data from a number of sources:

• Probability sample victimization surveys conducted in the month before the intervention and in

the last month of the intervention.

• Reported crime rates for the intervention year and

the 4 preceding years.

• Arrest rates for the intervention year and the

3 preceding years.

• Rates of traffic accidents for the intervention year

and the 2 preceding years.

There were no significant differences between conditions in rates of victimization, officially reported

crime, arrests for an array of offenses, including serious and violent crimes, or traffic accidents. There also

were no significant differences across conditions in

citizen and business perceptions of the police, quality

of their interactions with police, or police response

time to service calls.

available for the 43 weeks preceding the saturation

patrol as well as the 9 weeks after. No significant

changes in officially recorded burglaries were associated with the intervention in the experimental zones

or in comparison zones. Burglary arrests increased

significantly after the saturation patrols began in the

experimental zones and increased nonsignificantly in

the comparison zones.

Schnelle, Kirchner, Casey, Uselton, and McNees (1977)

investigated another intensified motorized patrol

intervention in Nashville, Tennessee. In this intervention, four additional marked patrol cars were

assigned to patrol zones that normally had one patrolling car. Officers in these preventive saturation patrol

cars were instructed not to respond to ordinary

service calls, except for emergencies and crimes in

progress. Saturation patrol cars were to patrol areas at

sustained slow speeds. The saturation patrol was

tested in four patrol zones with consistently high rates

of serious crime. The researchers used a multiple

baseline time-series design and collected daily

reported crime and arrest data to evaluate the

program’s impact. Two patrol zones were randomly

assigned to day saturation patrol (from 9 a.m. to

5 p.m.) and the other two zones were assigned to

night saturation patrol (from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m.). The

saturation patrols lasted for 10 days in each zone.

Baseline periods ranged from 45 to 90 days and

postsaturation patrol observation periods ranged

from 13 to 35 days. The program was implemented as

designed to a very high degree.

Reported serious crimes decreased significantly

during night saturation patrols in comparison to the

baseline and postsaturation patrol periods. There

were no significant increases in crime in zones adjacent to those with night saturation patrol, so it is

unlikely that this decrease in crime represented displacement of crime to other neighborhoods. However,

there were no significant changes in reported serious

crimes for day saturation patrols. Furthermore, the

number of arrests did not change significantly in any

of the patrol zones over the course of the experiment.

Sherman and Weisburd (1990; cited in Sherman, 1992)

conducted a randomized trial of targeting patrol at

very specific high-crime locations or “hot spots” in

Minneapolis, Minnesota. These hot spots were characterized by high frequencies of reported crimes over a

Patrol strategies, in general, are

designed to prevent crime by

reducing the opportunities and

increasing the perceived risks for

engaging in criminal activity through

the visible presence of police in

the community.

Schnelle, Kirchner, McNees, and Lawler (1975) evaluated the effectiveness of an intensified motorized

home-burglary patrol in Nashville, Tennessee. Over a

period of 5 weeks, plainclothes officers patrolled experimental zones in unmarked cars at levels four to

eight times greater than normal between 8 a.m. and 4

p.m. Patrolling officers also received information on

suspects frequenting the patrol areas. Time-series

analyses were conducted on officially recorded home

burglaries for three experimental zones during the

saturation patrol shift and during other shifts and for

three randomly chosen comparison zones in the city.

Weekly reported crime and burglary arrest data were
120

2-year period. The hot spots were no larger than onehalf block in each direction from an intersection, and

no hot spot was visible from any other. Intensive hot

spot patrols were to provide 3 hours of intermittent

patrol presence between 11 a.m. and 3 a.m. Officers

left the location to answer service calls but returned

to the hot spot at unpredictable intervals to write

reports, talk with pedestrians, and generally maintain

a presence. The intervention lasted 1 year. The researchers used a true experimental design to evaluate

the program. Hot spots were randomly assigned to

intensive patrol or patrol as usual. Over the whole

intervention period, experimental hot spots were

patrolled almost three times as much as control hot

spots, and police maintained an average of 2.5 hours’

presence at experimental hot spots per day. The intensive patrols did not significantly affect serious crimes

overall, although the “...[intensive] patrol had a modest deterrent effect on robbery in the hot spots...”

(Sherman, 1992, p. 194). This evaluation did not assess

the possibility that crime was displaced to other areas.

Field interrogation. Boydstun (1975) evaluated the

effects of field interrogation (FI) in San Diego, California. In FI, officers stopped persons who appeared to

be suspicious to question them about their activities

and sometimes search them and/or their vehicles. If

the officer found the person’s explanations satisfactory, no record of the contact was made. If the explanations were unsatisfactory, however, the officer

could file an FI report on the contact or arrest the person if there was probable cause to do so. FI was a

regular part of motorized patrol officers’ activities in

San Diego in the early 1970’s.

The evaluators used a quasi-experimental design

involving three comparison areas to assess program

impacts. In one comparison area, FI was maintained

as usual; in another comparison area, FI was maintained but patrolling officers received supplementary

training in how to reduce friction between FI subjects

and officers. In a third area, FI was discontinued

entirely for 9 months. The three areas were noncontiguous patrol beats representative of the city in demographic, physical, and crime history characteristics.

All three areas were matched on these variables. The

evaluators collected data on reported crime rates for

“suppressible” crimes (i.e., robbery, burglary, grand

theft, petty theft, auto theft, assault and battery, sex

crimes, and malicious mischief and disturbances) and

total arrests in the three areas for 7 months prior

to and 5 months after the 9-month intervention

period. The evaluators also conducted separate probability sample surveys on residents’ victimization and

attitudes toward police before and after intervention.

The researchers observed a significant increase during the intervention period in reported suppressible crimes in the area where field

interrogation was discontinued

compared to the areas where it

was maintained.

The researchers observed a significant increase during

the intervention period in reported suppressible

crimes in the area where FI was discontinued compared to the areas where it was maintained. When FI

was reinstituted in the same area, reported crime decreased significantly. Arrest rates did not vary significantly as a result of the FI program. Experience with

crime (as a witness or victim) and perceptions of

the level of crime increased significantly in the FIdiscontinued area and, counter to expectation, in one

area where FI was maintained. Fear of crime also

increased over time in the neighborhood where FI

was discontinued. FI was not related to any changes

in residents’ attitudes toward police.

Foot patrol and neighborhood storefront police

stations. The largest field experiment on foot patrol

was conducted in the late 1970’s in Newark, New

Jersey (The Police Foundation, 1981). The evaluation

used a quasi-experimental design in which four beats

without existing foot patrol added foot patrol and one

beat in each of four pairs of beats with existing foot

patrol (matched for proportion of residential units)

was randomly assigned to discontinue foot patrol.

The addition and discontinuation of foot patrols

lasted 1 year. Foot patrols operated along commercial

strips 8 to 16 blocks long from 4 p.m. to midnight on

weeknights. Researchers gathered data on reported

crime and arrests for the 5 years prior to the intervention and the intervention year itself and administered
121

aboard public buses . . . ” (Pate, Skogan, Wycoff, and

Sherman, 1985, p. 5); and road checks to serve warrants and apprehend drunk drivers, persons driving

stolen vehicles, and persons driving without a license.

The police conducted these operations at least three

times a week on a random basis. The program also

included cleanup activities such as removing graffiti,

improving lighting, repairing streets, maintaining

garbage collection, and cleaning streets and vacant

lots. Cleanup activities were performed by city employees, juvenile offenders doing community service,

and community residents.

One of five similar neighborhoods closely matched on

several characteristics, including size, demographic

composition, land use, and level of disorder was randomly selected to receive the intervention, and another was randomly selected to serve as a comparison

area. In both experimental and comparison neighborhoods, residents primarily lived in apartments and

most (97 percent or more) were African-American.

The researchers carried out probability sample victimization surveys before and at the end of the program.

The program was fairly well implemented. In their

door-to-door visits, officers contacted more than half

of the households in the neighborhood. Sixteen of 20

designated locations were cleaned up, and the level of

officer hours spent in the program area per month

was 45 percent of the level spent on intensive foot

patrol in the 1981 Police Foundation experiment. Relative to comparison area residents, experimental area

residents’ satisfaction with the neighborhood and

evaluations of police service increased significantly,

while their perceptions of neighborhood social disorder and worry about property crime decreased significantly. In spite of these positive effects, surveyed

residents in the experimental area reported significantly increased crime victimization for both personal

and property crimes relative to comparison area residents. However, time-series analyses showed significant reductions in reported serious crimes, personal

crimes, auto theft, and outdoor offenses in the experimental area but not in the comparison area.

In the early 1970’s, Nashville, Tennessee, introduced

an innovative policing strategy involving foot patrol

and a neighborhood storefront police station. Schnelle

et al. (1975) evaluated the effects of this program with

a multiple-baseline time-series design. The target

separate probability sample victimization surveys in

the 3 months before and after the intervention year.

The foot patrol intervention was reasonably well

implemented. Residents were aware of the increase

and decrease in foot patrols in foot patrol addition

and discontinuation areas. The evaluation showed no

significant changes between areas in reported crime,

arrests, or victimization for any of several categories

of offenses of varying severity. However, residents in

areas with foot patrol perceived a significant decrease

in crime and reported a significant increase in their

use of crime prevention techniques and in favorable

attitudes toward police and police services.

Pate, Skogan, Wycoff, and Sherman (1985) evaluated a

program introduced in Newark, New Jersey, in the

early 1980’s that combined foot patrol with efforts to

reduce the physical “signs of crime.” This multicomponent program was based on Wilson and Kelling’s

(1982) “broken windows” theory that neighborhood

social and physical disorder are causally related to

crime. The program began by establishing a storefront

police station in a neighborhood. At the station,

officers accepted reports of crime in the neighborhood, distributed crime prevention information, referred problems to other agencies, recruited members

for block watch and other community organizations,

and communicated informally with residents. For

most of the 10-month intervention period, the station

was open from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through

Saturday, and staffed by three police officers and

other civilian staff. Early in the program, officers

visited residents at their homes to identify crimerelated fears and problems, give information about

crime prevention and the station, and provide

followup assistance and referral advice. Officers from

the station also produced a newsletter that highlighted crime prevention, neighborhood and station

activities, and news about solved crimes. Officers

distributed the newsletters to neighborhood businesses, organizations, and apartment buildings.

The program’s other main components were foot

patrol and cleanup activities. A separate group of foot

patrol officers enforced disorderly conduct and loitering laws and maintained order on sidewalks and

street corners. In addition, officers on foot patrol performed radar checks for speeding on city streets; bus

checks “ . . . to enforce ordinances and maintain order
122

ers and apartment dwellers. Each of the Houston

interventions was implemented in a different experimental area. Three months before and 9 to 10 months

after the interventions began, the evaluators conducted probability sample surveys on crime and

neighborhood topics in experimental and comparison

neighborhoods. Data analyses controlled for socioeconomic and demographic factors and preintervention

levels of outcome measures.

The neighborhood storefront station was staffed by

four police officers and police and civilian staff from

10 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and from 10 a.m.

to 6 p.m. on Saturdays (Skogan and Wycoff, 1986;

Wycoff et al., 1985c). Other police officers were responsible for routine patrol in the neighborhood, but

station officers were responsible for service calls made

to the neighborhood station. Station staff’s activities

included the following:

• Holding monthly community meetings (attended

by an average of 150 residents) to discuss crime

issues and present guest speakers.

• Maintaining regular contact with school officials,

which resulted in officers’ working on returning

truant students to school and sometimes making

counseling referrals.

• Fingerprinting neighborhood children who visited

the station.

• Offering blood pressure readings monthly to area

residents at the station.

• Offering ride-alongs with officers to members of

neighborhood groups.

• Patrolling a neighborhood park known for

disorder.

• Organizing recreational activities in the park during the summer.

• Distributing monthly newsletters discussing station activities to several hundred residents.

Station services were reasonably well implemented,

and most residents were aware of the station. More

affluent and established residents were the most

likely to be aware of and contact the station. Results

demonstrated that residents in the storefront station

zones for this intervention were two adjacent, lowincome, predominantly African-American residential

areas consisting of public housing. Six patrol officers

for each zone operated out of a centralized storefront

office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The foot patrols were

introduced sequentially in the two zones. The level of

reported crime increased significantly in the two

zones during the foot patrol program in comparison

to the baseline periods. This increase, however, was

due to more reports of minor offenses such as theft,

simple assault, public drunkenness, and disorderly

conduct. No increases in major crimes such as murder, rape, and burglary were observed. There was no

significant change in the level of arrests for either

zone between the baseline and intervention periods. It

is possible that the increased police presence made it

easier for residents to report minor crimes to police

that would have otherwise gone unreported. It is

unlikely that the observed increase in reported minor

crime represents an upsurge in actual criminal behavior associated with foot patrol.

It is possible that the increased

police presence made it easier for

residents to report minor crimes to

police that would have otherwise

gone unreported.

Three different policing interventions, including a

neighborhood storefront police station, a citizen contact patrol, and a police-initiated community organization effort, were tested in separate evaluations

during the early 1980’s in Houston, Texas (Wycoff,

Skogan, Pate, and Sherman, 1985a, b, c; Skogan and

Wycoff, 1986). The evaluation of the community organization effort is described more fully in the next section on community mobilization. Each of these

interventions was evaluated with a nonequivalent

comparison group design. Four similar high-crime

neighborhoods were designated as experimental

areas, and another neighborhood was chosen as a

comparison area that matched the experimental

neighborhoods on size, demographic characteristics,

land use, level of crime, and other characteristics.

Approximately half of the residents in study areas

were ethnic minorities, and most residents were rent-
123

Addresses with high repeat-call records were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups.

During the first 6 months of the program, experimental addresses had significantly fewer calls for police

service than the control addresses. After a year, however, there were no significant differences between

experimental and control addresses in terms of calls.

No information was presented on implementation or

the possibility of crime displacement caused by tenant

evictions in the experimental group.

neighborhood, relative to residents in the comparison

neighborhood, reported a significant decrease in

perceived physical disorder and crime but were no

less likely to report being a victim of either a property

or personal crime. The program had no significant

impact on residents’ assessments of police service or

satisfaction with the neighborhood.

Citizen contact patrol. The citizen contact patrol involved patrol officers visiting residents at home in a

1-square-mile area with 1,390 households (Wycoff et

al., 1985a). During these brief visits, officers typically

asked residents about neighborhood crime problems,

suggested solutions, left business cards, and sometimes followed up on complaints. Officers also put

these residents on the mailing list for the police neighborhood newsletter. On each shift, one officer was

responsible for making citizen contacts and could be

called away from these duties only for service calls in

the experimental area. Over the 10-month intervention, officers contacted 37 percent of the households in

the area. Perceived crime levels, social disorder, and

fear of crime declined significantly in the experimental area, and satisfaction with the area and evaluations

of police service rose significantly. Experimental area

residents also reported significantly less property

crime victimization than residents of the comparison

area. There were no significant differences between

experimental and comparison areas in terms of personal crime victimization. Overall, the results suggest

positive effects of the citizen contact patrol, although

residents in the experimental area had more extreme

values on outcome variables than comparison area

residents before program implementation, indicating

that regression to the mean may have contributed to

the observed positive results.

Sherman (1990) summarized his evaluation of a program in which a five-officer unit focused on residential and commercial addresses responsible for a large

proportion of police calls in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Police met with landlords to inform them about the

addresses with a high number of calls, and some

landlords used this information to buttress eviction

petitions. Officers in the unit also met with resident

managers to give them information on how to control

problem tenants and tenant problems. In addition, at

addresses where there had been repeated domestic

disturbance calls, officers left letters on the doorsteps

asking residents to call the unit.

The Kansas City Police Department used intensified

motorized patrol in high gun crime areas in a single

patrol beat. A pair of two-officer cars patrolled the target beat between the hours of 7 p.m. and 1 a.m., 7 days

a week. The emphasis of the patrol was the enforcement of laws regarding carrying concealed weapons.

For 29 weeks, they focused their patrol efforts on gun

crime “hot spots” identified through geographic distribution of gun crimes in the area. The patrol units “focused exclusively on gun detection through proactive

patrol and did not respond to calls for service”

(Sherman, Shaw, and Rogan, 1995, p. 4). Officers spent

an average of 3.27 of the 12 car-hours (27 percent) in

patrol activities. The other 73 percent of the time was

spent processing arrests, patrolling other areas, and

performing “other patrol-related duties.”

The program was evaluated through comparison to

another patrol beat in the Kansas City area, matched

on the number of drive-by shootings in 1991. The

target and comparison beats were similar in several

additional characteristics, including percent of population under 25; both had low proportions of white

residents, similar patterns of home ownership and

single family housing, and similar rates of firearmrelated crimes. The areas also had several differences.

The comparison area had almost twice the populaPerceived crime levels, social disorder, and fear of crime declined

significantly in the experimental

area, and satisfaction with the area

and evaluations of police service

rose significantly.
124

tion, three times the land area, higher housing prices,

and a greater proportion of high school graduates.

The program outcome was examined using several

methods, including an examination of gun crimes

before and during the intensified patrol and an examination using ARIMA methods to analyze weekly gun

crimes over a longer period. Both methods demonstrated a significant reduction in gun crime in the

target area. Further, community surveys before and

after the intensified patrol showed that respondents

in the intervention area became less fearful of crime

and more satisfied with their neighborhood, perceived less physical and social disorder, and were

more likely to say that neighborhood drug problems

had gotten better compared to the nonintervention

area. Finally, none of the adjacent beats demonstrated

a significant increase in crime, perhaps indicating that

gun crime had not spread to nearby neighborhoods.

When the patrols were discontinued at the end of the

29 weeks, gun-related crime increased gradually.

When the intensified patrol was reinstituted 6 months

later, it was associated with a drop in gun crimes,

though not as dramatically as the first introduction of

intensified patrol. The second drop in gun crimes may

not have been as great because of the already reduced

level over baseline when the second intervention period began. The authors caution that the study needs

replication and that potential negative effects on police-community relations and risks to the officers’

safety should be monitored.

Community mobilization. Community mobilization

strategies encompass a diversity of programs that

seek to prevent crime and violence by organizing

citizens for grassroots efforts. Community mobilization approaches address the risk factors of community

disorganization, low neighborhood attachment, and

laws and norms favorable to crime and violence. Protective factors include opportunities for involvement

with police, bonding to police, skills to monitor and

positively influence neighborhoods, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. To date, only

two kinds of community mobilization approaches to

crime and violence prevention have been evaluated:

neighborhood block watch and citizen patrol.

Neighborhood block watch programs are based on

the rationale that residents are in the best position to

monitor suspicious activities and individuals in their

neighborhood. Social connections among residents

resulting from block watch meetings also might facilitate neighborhood monitoring and communication

about suspicious events.

Lindsay and McGillis (1986) evaluated the effectiveness of a neighborhood block watch program in

Seattle, Washington. Professional community organizers affiliated with the city police department initiated

the formation of block watch groups by recruiting

interested residents through announcements to local

civic groups and church organizations, telephone calls

and letters to neighborhood residents, and doorto-door canvassing. After the recruitment phase, block

watch groups held organizing meetings during which

the professional community organizer discussed

neighborhood burglary problems and residential burglary prevention techniques, including property

marking. The organizer also distributed information

about home security and made appointments for the

use of a project property engraver. In addition, during

the meeting, residents elected a block watch captain

and exchanged telephone numbers.

In the weeks following the initial meeting, organizers

gave participants who had marked their property

window decals to warn intruders that household

property was marked. Organizers also visited participating residents’ homes to perform brief home security inspections to identify burglary vulnerabilities

and make recommendations on correcting them. To

maintain these initial block watch activities, project

organizers also produced a newsletter and organized

followup meetings.

The evaluation used a nonequivalent comparison

group design. A few census tracts in Seattle with high

burglary rates were targeted to receive the intervention. Two tracts were designated as comparison areas,

which were adjacent and similar in burglary rates to

some of the experimental tracts. The program was

implemented as designed to a fairly high degree. At

least 40 percent of the households in the experimental

areas participated in at least two of the three main

program services (block watch, property marking,

and home security inspection). The evaluators conducted probability sample victimization surveys for

the year before intervention and the first year of intervention. Program participants in experimental areas

reported significant reductions in burglary to their
125

residences, but this finding could be due to a selection

bias since residents volunteered to participate in the

neighborhood block watch. There was a 33 percent

reduction in burglary victimization overall in experimental tracts compared with a 5 percent reduction in

adjacent comparison tracts, although neither of these

reductions was statistically significant. The authors

did not directly compare the experimental and comparison areas for changes in victimization over time.

Rosenbaum, Lewis, and Grant (1986) tested a similar

block watch program implemented in middle and

lower-middle class neighborhoods in Chicago,

Illinois. The intervention lasted 1 year and consisted

of block watch meetings every month or few months.

In their evaluation, the researchers used a quasiexperimental design with five experimental areas

selected on the basis of having well-established volunteer community organizations, interest in a block

watch program, and resources and support to carry

out such a program. One set of comparison neighborhoods included areas that met only the first criterion.

Another set of citywide comparison areas was selected for each program area, including three census

tracts with similar demographic characteristics (ethnicity, age, percentage rentals, home value, and rental

rate) chosen randomly from a set of tracts throughout

the city sharing these characteristics. The researchers

carried out probability panel sample victimization surveys at the beginning and end of the program.

Analysis of the survey data controlled for several

covariates (sex, race, education, occupancy status,

victimization history, and acquaintance with a crime

victim). The intervention did not produce any consistent changes in residents’ crime prevention activities

or neighborhood social cohesion. Overall, there were

no program effects on victimization or perceived disorder. Residents in experimental areas reported significant increases in perceived crime and fear of crime

and displayed significant decreases in attachment to

their neighborhoods relative to residents in comparison areas. Furthermore, in one experimental area,

blocks in which the program had been implemented

as designed to a high degree were compared to blocks

in which the program had not been implemented. No

significant differences in outcomes were found. In

sum, this block watch program produced no significant effects on crime, victimization, or attitudes

toward the neighborhood.

A neighborhood mobilization intervention similar to

block watch programs was the police-initiated community organization in Houston (Wycoff et al.,

1985b). (The preceding section on community policing

gives details of this study’s design and methodology.)

Program staff, including four police officers and an

urban planner, canvassed 12 percent of the households in the experimental neighborhood to ask about

area problems and their willingness to host neighborhood meetings. During an 8-month period, program

staff helped organize 13 small neighborhood meetings

attended by 6 to 18 residents and 2 to 3 officers. The

program also mailed newsletters about neighborhood

crime problems to approximately 8 percent of area

households. Approximately 20 residents from the

neighborhood meetings agreed to form a neighborhood task force that worked without program staff’s

direct involvement. This neighborhood task force held

a drug information seminar, designated 30 “safe

houses” where children could go for assistance, organized a 1-month trash and junk cleanup effort in the

neighborhood, and promoted property marking and

resident ride-alongs with police officers. There were

no previously existing neighborhood organizations in

the experimental area.

Survey results showed that residents in the experimental area perceived significantly decreased crime

and social disorder and significantly increased police

service relative to comparison area residents. However, no decreases in victimization or increases in

satisfaction with the area were associated with the

program. The authors discussed several difficulties in

implementing the program, including the lack of a

permanent organization location or office, only moderate levels of perceived crime in the experimental

area, the lack of neighborhood organizations, and

program staff’s lack of familiarity with the area.

During an 8-month period, program

staff helped organize 13 small

neighborhood meetings attended

by 6 to 18 residents and 2 to 3

officers.
126

Another community mobilization strategy advocated

by some is the active patrolling of neighborhoods by

citizens who are not law enforcement officers. One

controlled study has evaluated the impact of the

Guardian Angels, a nonprofessional foot patrol organization (Pennell, Curtis, Henderson, and Tayman,

1989). The Guardian Angels consist of unarmed,

racially diverse youth who wear red berets and patrol

the streets. The organization specifically seeks to prevent or deter crimes that involve force or personal

injury. Using a quasi-experimental design, Pennell et

al. (1989) compared an experimental area patrolled by

Guardian Angels with an unpatrolled area in San

Diego, California. The authors did not provide details

on the study areas. The researchers obtained data on

the reported crimes for a baseline period 6 months

prior to the onset of the Guardian Angels’ patrol and

for 3 years of Guardian Angels’ patrol. The level of

patrol over the 3-year period was less than that recommended in the Guardian Angels’ guidelines. Outcomes indicated a 22 percent decline in major violent

offenses in the experimental area but a 42 percent

decline in the comparison area. For property crimes,

there was a 25 percent decline in the experimental

area and a 15 percent reduction in the comparison

area. Statistical significance was not reported for any

of these results.

Summary. In general, the innovative policing interventions decreased residents’ perceived crime and

fear of crime and in many cases improved citizen

evaluations of the police. Four evaluations examined

physical and social disorder and satisfaction with the

area (Pate et al., 1985; Skogan and Wycoff, 1986;

Wycoff et al., 1985a; Sherman et al., 1995), and all four

studies documented reduced physical and social disorder; three studies reported positive effects on resident satisfaction with the area.

In spite of these changes in perceptions of crime, the

police, and the neighborhood, three of the seven

evaluations demonstrated no preventive effect on

crime itself. Two evaluations showed some positive

program effects on officially reported crime (Pate et

al., 1985; Sherman et al., 1995). Pate et al. (1985) found

increased crime victimization among surveyed residents in the experimental area relative to the comparison area. Another study indicated that the experimental addresses targeted by the program generated

significantly fewer police service calls than control

addresses in the program’s first 6 months, but that

this effect disappeared by the end of the intervention

year (Sherman, 1990). Only one of the four evaluations with victimization data showed reductions in

victimization rates, generally regarded as one of the

best measures of crime. The main component of this

program (Wycoff et al., 1985a) was a citizen contact

patrol in which police officers visited residents at

their homes to inquire about crime problems.

The three controlled evaluations of block watch programs did not produce evidence of significant effects

on crime in experimental neighborhoods. The only

available evaluation of a citizen patrol also failed to

demonstrate a significant preventive effect on crime.

Clearly, additional evaluations with more rigorous,

randomized research designs are required to determine

the preventive effects of these community mobilization

approaches. Furthermore, other types of community

organizing, such as strategies involving community

leaders and grassroots citizens in comprehensive crime

risk assessment and risk reduction planning and action

strategies, should be evaluated for their potential to

prevent delinquency and violence.

Of the various policing strategies reviewed, the most

promising tactics appear to be intensified (motorized)

patrol in marked cars at night in specific high-crime

locations and field interrogations. These results suggest

that increased police presence must be judiciously directed at high-risk times, areas, and persons in order to

deter crime. Simply increasing the number of police is

not likely to prevent crime. However, replications of

these results in larger studies using more rigorous experimental research designs are necessary to bolster

confidence in the effectiveness of these strategies.

Many of the policing strategies described in the previous section can be considered elements of a community-oriented policing strategy. However, a law

enforcement agency that simply implements a foot

patrol program or uses storefront substations or initiates a community watch program may not be implementing a fully developed community-oriented

policing strategy.

According to Goldstein (1994, p. viii), the term

community policing is used “to encompass practically all

innovations in policing, from the ambitious to the mun-
127

dane, from the most carefully thought through to the

most casual.” The Department of Justice's Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) describes community policing as a new concept in police

reform in which the foundation for a successful community policing strategy is close, mutually beneficial

ties between police and community members. This

strategy consists of two complementary core components: community partnership and problem solving.

One of the key components of many community-oriented policing strategies is enhanced communications

between the police and the community, as well as other

public and social service agencies. The community

must be viewed as an active partner with the police in

defining which problems are to be addressed, which

tactics are to be used, and how success is to be measured. The problem-solving approach targets persistent

or recurring problems in communities and looks for

long-term solutions to identified problems. Using this

approach, law enforcement agencies go beyond individual crimes and service calls and take on the underlying problems that create them.

The problem-solving approach as a component of community policing has demonstrated some success. Many

anecdotal examples of implementation success stories

exist and give reason to believe that comprehensive

community policing strategies can be effective.

Although many policing strategies such as foot

patrols and citizen contact patrols are not new policing techniques, they are being implemented with a

new goal that can make them an element of a law

enforcement agency’s community policing strategy.

None of the available controlled studies reviewed

evaluated a comprehensive community policing strategy that included both community partnership and

problem-solving components of community policing.

Typical evaluations of policing programs and strategies have relied on reported crimes and victimization

surveys. Success and failure were measured by the

decrease or increase in reported crime. However, the

goals of community policing often include preliminary steps toward crime prevention and do not always begin with crime reduction.

As Eck and Rosenbaum (1994, p. 15) pointed out,

community policing places an increased emphasis on

responding to emergencies, reducing fear, mobilizing

communities, and enhancing security for the community—variables measured by indicators other than

crime statistics. Future evaluations of communityoriented policing strategies will have to overcome

these inherent definitional problems in measuring

outcomes as well as crime reduction.

Conclusion

Part II has explored early intervention programs for

the period from conception to age 6 and prevention

programs for the developmental period from kindergarten to high school. Together these sets of programs

complement one another and constitute promising

approaches for preventing delinquency and violence.

The quality of the evaluation research is uneven for

the program areas reviewed above. As a result, scientifically based conclusions regarding program effectiveness are limited for many program areas.

There are, however, some areas in which evaluations

of well-implemented programs used relatively strong

research designs and included thorough and appropriate data analysis. Program effects in these areas

also were replicated or documented in evaluations

with large samples. Evaluations of several interventions consistently demonstrated positive effects on

risk and protective factors for delinquency and violence. Effective (or proven) interventions include

those listed below:

• Reductions of class size for kindergarten and first

grade classes.

• Continuous progress instructional strategies.

• Cooperative learning.

• Tutoring.

• Computer-assisted instruction.

• Diagnostic and prescriptive pullout programs.

• Ability grouping within classes in elementary

school.

• Nongraded elementary schools.

• Classroom behavior management techniques.
128

• Behavioral monitoring and reinforcement of school

attendance, academic progress, and school

behavior.

• Parent training.

• Marital and family therapy.

• Youth employment and vocational training programs with an intensive educational component.

Several interventions have also had long-term preventive effects on delinquency, including two types of

family therapy, two multicomponent programs

involving parent training, and a combination of

proactive classroom management, interactive teaching, cooperative learning, and parent training. In

addition, mandatory sentencing laws for felonies

involving a firearm have prevented gun-related

violent crime.

Evaluations of other interventions showed no or

negative effects on risk and protective factors. These

ineffective programs include the following:

• Humanistic and developmental instructional

strategies.

• Teacher aides.

• Tracking or between-class ability grouping.

• Nonpromotion of students to the next grade.

• Special educational placements for disruptive,

emotionally disturbed, learning-disabled, and/or

educable developmentally disabled elementary

school students.

• Peer counseling.

• Youth employment and vocational training

programs without an intensive educational

component.

Interventions of the last type also failed to prevent

crime and delinquency.

Other types of programs have not been evaluated

adequately to permit classification as either effective

or ineffective. However, the evidence in the currently

available evaluations suggests that the following programs are not effective:

• Mentoring relationships that are noncontingent

and uncritically supportive.

• Gang streetworkers.

• Firearm training and mandatory firearm

ownership.

• Citizen patrol.

In general, very little program development has

occurred in the above areas. Additionally, it is recognized that while some programs may not be effective

with respect to delinquency prevention, they may still

be of benefit for other purposes.

For a number of interventions, the available evaluations, though inadequate, have indicated at least some

positive program effects. The amount of empirical

support for the effectiveness of the interventions varies widely across these program areas. The following

are potentially promising program areas:

• Structured playground activities.

• Behavioral consultation for schools.

• Special educational placements for disruptive

secondary school students.

• Conflict resolution and violence prevention

curriculums.

• Peer mediation.

• School organization.

• Mentoring relationships that include behavior

management techniques.

• Afterschool recreation.

• Gang prevention curriculums.

• Gang crisis intervention and mediation.

• Youth service.

• Restrictions on the sale, purchase, and transfer of

guns.

• Regulations on the place and manner of carrying

firearms.
129

• Metal detectors in schools.

• Intensified motorized patrol.

• Field interrogations.

• Community policing.

• Neighborhood block watch.

More rigorously designed research is needed to determine the preventive effects of these interventions.

Overall, the evaluation research reviewed could be

improved with stronger research designs, longer term

followups, and better documentation of program

implementation.

Contacts for More Information on

Effective Programs

Programs: Reductions in class size for kindergarten

and first grade classes, continuous

progress instructional strategies, cooperative learning, tutoring, computer-assisted

instruction, diagnostic and prescriptive

pullout programs, and ability grouping

within classes in elementary schools.

Contact: Dr. Robert Slavin

Johns Hopkins University

Center of Social Organization of Schools

3505 North Charles Street

Baltimore, MD 21218

Program: Classroom behavior management

techniques.

Contact: Dr. Sheppard G. Kellam

Prevention Research Center

Department of Mental Hygiene

School of Hygiene and Public Health

Johns Hopkins University

Mason F. Lord Building, Suite 500

Francis Scott Key Medical Center

4940 Eastern Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21224

Program: Cooperative learning, classroom behavior

management techniques, and parent

training.

Contact: Dr. J. David Hawkins

Social Development Research Group

School of Social Work

University of Washington

146 North Canal Street, Suite 211

Seattle, WA 98103

Program: Behavioral monitoring and reinforcement

of attendance, academic progress, and

school behavior.

Contact: Dr. Brenna Bry

Graduate School of Applied and

Professional Psychology

Rutgers University

Piscataway, NJ 08855–0819

Program: Parent training.

Contact: Dr. Gerald Patterson

Oregon Social Learning Center

207 East 5th Avenue, Suite 202

Eugene, OR 97401

Program: Parent training and social skills training for

children.

Contact: Dr. Richard E. Tremblay

Professeur Titulaire

Université de Montreal

Directeur

750 Boulevard Gouin Est

Montreal, Quebec

CANADA H2C 1A6

Program: Brief behavioral family systems therapy.

Contact: Dr. James F. Alexander

Department of Psychology

University of Utah

Salt Lake City, UT 84112

Program: Vocational training with an intensive

educational component.

Contact: Dr. George Cave

Manpower Demonstration Research

Corporation

Three Park Avenue

New York, NY 10016
130

Program: Mandatory sentencing laws for felonies

involving a firearm.

Contact: Dr. Colin Loftin

Violence Research Group

Institute of Criminal Justice and

Criminology

University of Maryland

2220 Lefrak Hall

College Park, MD 20742–8235

Contacts for More Information on

Promising Programs

Program: Peer mediation.

Contact: Dr. Eleanor Reardon Tolson

Jane Addams College of Social Work

University of Illinois

Box 4348

Chicago, IL 60680

Program: Structured playground activities.

Contact: Dr. H. Allen Murphy

Department of Psychology

Florida State University

Tallahassee, FL 32306

Program: Behavioral consultation for schools.

Contact: Dr. G. Roy Mayer

Department of Counselor Education

California State University, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA 90032

Program: Special educational placements for

disruptive secondary students.

Contact: Dr. Daniel J. Safer

9100 Franklin Square Drive

Rosedale, MD 21237

Program: Conflict resolution and violence prevention

curriculum.

Contact: Dr. Di Bretherton

Department of Psychology

University of Melbourne

Parkville VIC 3052

Australia

Program: Conflict resolution and violence prevention

curriculum.

Contact: Committee for Children

172 20th Avenue

Seattle, WA 98122

Program: School organization.

Contact: Dr. James Comer

Child Study Center

Yale University

230 South Frontage Road

New Haven, CT 06510–8009

Program: School organization.

Contact: Dr. Robert D. Felner

Institute of Government and Public Affairs

Center for Prevention, Research, and

Development

University of Illinois

Champaign, IL 61820

Program: School organization.

Contact: Dr. Gary D. Gottfredson

Center for Social Organization of Schools

Johns Hopkins University

3505 North Charles Street

Baltimore, MD 21208

Program: School organization and antibullying

program.

Contact: Dr. Dan Olweus

Department of Personality Psychology

University of Bergen, Box 25

N–5014 Bergen, Norway

Program: Mentoring with behavioral management

techniques.

Contact: Dr. Clifford R. O’Donnell

Department of Psychology

University of Hawaii

Honolulu, HI 96822

Program: Afterschool recreation.

Contact: Dr. Marshall B. Jones

Department of Behavioral Science

M.S. Hershey Medical Center

Hershey, PA 17033
131

Program: Metal detectors in the schools.

Contact: Linda Loffredo

Office of the Executive Director

Division of School Safety

New York City Public Schools

P.S. 64, Third Floor

600 East Sixth Street

New York, NY 10009

Program: Intensified motorized patrol.

Contact: Dr. John F. Schnelle

Borun Center, Multicampus Division of

Geriatrics

Department of Medicine

University of California, Los Angeles

10833 Leconte Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90024–1687

Program: Field interrogations, community policing.

Contact: Police Foundation

1909 K Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20006

Program: Gang prevention curriculum.

Contact: Dr. David W. Thompson

Hope Haven/Madonna Manor

1101 Barataria Boulevard

Marrero, LA 70072–3085

Program: Gang crisis intervention and mediation.

Contact: Dr. Irving Spergel

School of Social Service Administration

969 East 60th Street

University of Chicago

Chicago, IL 60637

Program: Youth service.

Contact: Dr. Galen Switzer

Western Psychiatric Institute

University of Pittsburgh

3811 O’Hara Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Program: Restrictions on the sale, purchase, and

transfer of guns; regulations on the place

and manner of carrying firearms.

Contact: Dr. Colin Loftin

Violence Research Group

Institute of Criminal Justice and

Criminology

University of Maryland

2220 Lefrak Hall

College Park, MD 20742–8235
133

Part III: Graduated Sanctions for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders

This part summarizes the state of the art in graduated

sanctions for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile

offenders. It begins by setting forth the core principles

of a system of graduated sanctions, followed by a

review of relevant research literature that includes

studies of individual programs and broad metaanalyses of studies in the field. Part III concludes with

guidelines for graduated sanctions programs and

descriptions of model programs identified through an

extensive national search.

Core Principles of a System of

Graduated Sanctions

There is no graduated sanctions system in operation

today that can be identified as a perfect model. Nevertheless, a consensus exists among juvenile justice

professionals about the core principles of a model

system. These core principles were summarized by

Wilson and Howell (1993) in OJJDP’s Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Program Summary.

According to Wilson and Howell, a model graduated

sanctions system combines treatment and rehabilitation with reasonable, fair, humane, and appropriate

sanctions, and offers a continuum of care consisting

of diverse programs. The continuum includes the

following:

• Immediate sanctions within the community for

first-time, nonviolent offenders.

• Intermediate sanctions within the community for

more serious offenders.

• Secure care programs for the most violent

offenders.

• Aftercare programs that provide high levels of

social control and treatment services.

Juveniles should move along the continuum through

a well-structured system of phases that addresses

both their needs and the safety of the community. At

each level of the continuum, offenders should be subject to more severe sanctions if they continue in their

delinquent activities. A smaller group of violent

offenders, or those offenders who have proven themselves to be unresponsive to juvenile justice system

treatment, may warrant criminal sanctions and

require waiver to the criminal justice system.

Objective risk assessments, described in Part IV,

should be employed to determine the most appropriate sanction for each youth, with assessments based

on the risk the offender poses to society, the nature of

the offense for which the youth is committed, the

number and nature of prior offenses, and the presence

of other risk factors.

All programs must be small enough to ensure that

youth receive individualized attention. Treatment

plans need to be appropriate for each youth, and they

should involve families whenever possible. Residential programs must have a strong aftercare component

to involve the family and the community in reintegrating the youth into the community. Finally, a

model graduated sanctions program should address

A model graduated sanctions

system combines treatment and

rehabilitation with reasonable, fair,

humane, and appropriate sanctions.
134

the same risk and protective factors described in

detail in Part I.

Overview of Research on

Graduated Sanctions

A review of the graduated sanctions research literature reveals that there is solid research in some areas

but not in others. In areas in which limited research

has been conducted, there is not enough information

to draw significant conclusions.

One reason for this lack of research is the relatively

small numbers of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Small samples make it problematic for

researchers to identify statistically significant differences. As a result, it is difficult to draw meaningful

conclusions from studies of graduated sanctions, particularly those examining programs for the most serious offenders.

Another common problem for researchers conducting

studies on graduated sanctions programs is finding a

comparable control group. Practitioners often resist

studies with random assignment. Yet without random

assignment, researchers must identify a control group

that is comparable to the experimental group. Such

control groups often are not carefully selected, or the

differences between the two groups are not taken

into account in the analysis. As a result, it is unclear

whether differences between the outcomes of experimental and control groups in such studies result from

differences between the experimental and control

programs or from differences between the youth each

program serves.

However, some types of graduated sanctions programs have been well researched. For example, highly

structured alternative programs for youth who would

otherwise be incarcerated have been tested fairly

extensively and reliable studies are available on intensive supervision programs (ISP’s). Examples of both

program types are described in the model programs

that follow.

Many large gaps still exist, however, in the body of

research on programs for delinquent youth. Very

little research has been conducted on violent juvenile

offenders (the Violent Juvenile Offender study

described in the model programs section of this report

being one exception), and there is a shortage of highquality research on aftercare.

The least research has been conducted in the area of

immediate sanctions. Most of these programs have

been poorly evaluated or not evaluated at all. Only a

few studies exhibit a strong evaluation, substantial

positive results, and a clear enough theoretical rationale to make the results understandable or replicable.

Moreover, even where evaluations are reasonably

strong, measures of effectiveness vary widely, and

followup periods are short.

Community-based graduated sanctions programs appear to be at least

as successful as traditional incarceration in reducing recidivism, and

the most well-structured graduated

sanctions programs appear to be

more effective than incarceration.

Although the body of research on graduated sanctions is clearly limited, some conclusions can be

drawn. Community-based graduated sanctions programs appear to be at least as successful as traditional

incarceration in reducing recidivism, and the most

well-structured graduated sanctions programs appear

to be more effective than incarceration. In addition,

community-based programs often cost significantly

less than their traditional counterparts. However,

more research is needed to determine more definitively the most effective approaches in dealing with

serious, violent, and chronic offenders. What follows

is an overview of the most relevant research conducted to date.

Research on Individual Programs

In the 1970’s, the claim that “nothing works” with

juvenile offenders (Martinson, 1974) was widely

disseminated among criminal justice researchers.

Martinson and his followers argued that it was fruitless to attempt to rehabilitate serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders; they recommended instead
135

released from training schools throughout the State.

The two groups that had remained in the community

had recidivism rates lower than those of the training

school group. The probation groups averaged 2.4 new

arrests during the 4-year tracking period while the

training school group averaged 5.3. The intensive

probation group fared significantly better than the

traditional probation group, although their differences leveled out after 1 year.

A study by Murray and Cox (1979) of the Unified

Delinquency Intervention Services (UDIS) programs

in Chicago included a new outcome measure—the

“suppression effect,” or reductions in the frequency of

reoffending. The study compared youth assigned to a

UDIS alternative program with youth sent to traditional Department of Corrections facilities. Both

groups showed large reductions in the incidence of

reoffending. The most intensive of the UDIS programs

produced suppression effects comparable to institutionalization.

An evaluation by Greenwood and Turner (1993) of

experimental aftercare programs in Detroit and Pittsburgh found little support for the effectiveness of

aftercare. The two experimental programs shared

common core features based on a Massachusetts

model. These features included prerelease planning

by the aftercare worker, youth, and family; an intensive level of supervision including several daily

contacts; efforts to resolve family problems and to

involve the youth in community activities; and highly

motivated caseworkers. Youth in the program were

released from residential placement 2 months early

and received intensive aftercare supervision for the

next 6 months. Researchers found that the experimental programs were implemented largely as planned.

Youth in the study, all of whom were returning home

from residential placement, were randomly assigned

to either the experimental programs or to traditional

postrelease supervision. There were no significant

differences between the experimental and control

groups in number of rearrests, number of

reconvictions, and severity of reoffenses. There were

also no significant differences between the groups in

self-reported offenses. The authors explained these

disappointing results by noting the difficulty, as

discussed earlier, in finding significant differences

a greater focus on deterrence and incapacitation. By

the late 1970’s and afterwards, however, Martinson’s

conclusion had begun to be critically scrutinized. A

substantial and growing body of evidence now

suggests that some rehabilitation programs do work

with juvenile offenders, and Martinson himself has

renounced his earlier views (Martinson, 1979).

Studies conducted since the 1960’s have shown that

community-based programs are at least as effective as

traditional correctional programs. In the 1960’s, the

California Youth Authority, in a study carried out as

part of the Community Treatment Project (CTP), randomly assigned youth to either an intensive community treatment program (with caseloads no larger than

12) or to traditional training schools. Palmer’s early

results (1971) concluded that the community-based

group did better than the traditional group. After

1 year, the rate of parole failure for the former group

was 18 percent, compared with 35 percent for the

traditional group. After 2 years, the community-based

group had a parole failure rate of 39 percent, compared with 60 percent for the traditional group. A

later study, although critical of the level of success

claimed earlier, concluded that the community-based

group fared no worse than the traditional group

(Lerman, 1975).

The Silverlake experiment, conducted by Empey and

Lubeck (1971), studied juvenile offenders from Los

Angeles County who were randomly assigned to

either a county correctional facility (control group) or

a small, community-based program emphasizing

daily school attendance and intensive group therapy

(experimental group). The rearrest rates for the two

groups were virtually identical—60 percent for the

experimental group versus 56 percent for the control

group. Empey and Lubeck concluded that enhanced

community-based programs were as effective as traditional correctional placements. Significantly, the

community program cost $1,700 per youth per year,

considerably less than the traditional program, which

cost $4,600 per youth per year.

Empey and Erickson (1972) conducted a similar study

in Provo, Utah. Youth were randomly assigned either

to traditional probation or intensive probation with

daily counseling. The two groups were compared

with one another and with another group of youth
136

among small sample sizes. Each site had a sample of

approximately 50 experimental and 50 control youth.

Taken together, these studies show that communitybased programs can serve as safe, cost-effective alternatives to incarceration for many youth. Even the less

favorable studies show community-based programs

to be as effective as traditional training schools in

reducing recidivism, and more encouraging studies

suggest that carefully conceived and well-implemented alternative programs can be more effective

than training schools. Additional studies of individual

programs are discussed in this chapter’s model programs section.

reforms were enacted. The researchers reported that

the average recidivism rates for youth in the community-based programs sample were higher than those

for the training school sample (74 percent versus 66

percent). This finding may be partially explained by a

decrease in less serious offenders being committed to

DYS. In any case, a closer analysis of the data revealed

that in those parts of the State where community programs were properly implemented, recidivism rates

were equal to or slightly lower than those for the

training school sample. The authors concluded that

“regions that most adequately implemented the

reform measures with a diversity of programs did

produce decreases in recidivism over time . . . ”

(p. 177). In addition, youth participating in community programs throughout the State developed more

positive attitudes than did institutionalized youth.

In 1989, NCCD completed a second study of the Massachusetts community-based system (Krisberg, Austin

and Steele, 1989) which revealed recidivism rates that

were equal to or better than most jurisdictions

throughout the country. Compared to their pre-DYS

period, youth showed a significant decline in the incidence and severity of offending in the 12 months after

entry into DYS community programs. These declines

in offending were sustained during the next 2 years.

NCCD also found that the Massachusetts approach

was cost-effective: Massachusetts saved an estimated

$11 million annually by relying on community-based

care.

NCCD (Krisberg, Austin, Joe, and Steele, 1988) also

completed a study of the Utah juvenile justice system,

which, like Massachusetts, relies on community-based

programs for most committed youth. Using a pre- and

posttest design, the study found that although a high

proportion of youth were rearrested, there was a substantial “suppression effect”; youth showed large

declines in the frequency and severity of offending

after correctional intervention.

Gottfredson and Barton (1992) found different results

in a study of the closing of the Montrose Training

School in Maryland. The experimental group consisted of youth who were committed to the Maryland

Division of Youth Services (DYS) and placed in community-based programs after Montrose had been

closed. The control group was made up of youth who

had been incarcerated in Montrose before it was

Research on State Systems

In addition to studies of individual programs that

provide alternatives to incarceration, studies have

been conducted of State systems that emphasize alternative approaches. The Massachusetts Department of

Youth Services (DYS) places less emphasis on incarceration than perhaps any other State in the Nation.

In 1972, Massachusetts closed its traditional training

schools. Today, the State relies on a sophisticated network of small, secure programs for violent youth

coupled with a broad range of highly structured community-based programs for the majority of committed

youth. Most of these community-based programs are

operated by private, nonprofit agencies under contract with DYS. Secure facilities are reserved for the

most serious offenders (approximately 15 percent of

all commitments). The largest of the secure programs

includes just 20 offenders.

The Massachusetts system was studied initially by

Coates, Miller, and Ohlin (1978), who compared the

outcomes of youth released in 1974 from the newly

established community-based programs with a group

released in 1968 from training schools before the 1972

Taken together, these studies show

that community-based programs

can serve as safe, cost-effective

alternatives to incarceration for

many youth.
137

Herrera, 1993), which analyzed data from 28 State

juvenile correctional systems, found that only 14 percent of the juveniles in State institutions were committed for serious and violent crimes. More than half of

those in State institutions were committed for

property and drug crimes and were experiencing

their first confinement in a State institution. Another

study of incarcerated youth in 14 States found that

depending on the State, only 11 percent to 44 percent

of the youth were committed for serious and violent

offenses (Krisberg et al., 1993). This study determined

that based on objective public safety risk factors, an

average of 31 percent of incarcerated juveniles in

these States could be safely placed in less secure

settings and that many youth are needlessly

incarcerated.

closed. The researchers found that the control group

outperformed the experimental group on most recidivism measures. This result is similar to that of the

original Massachusetts study completed by Coates

et al. (1978) although they did find positive results in

the regions with strong program implementation.

The Maryland study, like the original Massachusetts

study, was conducted immediately after the closing of

a training school when community-based programs

were at the earliest stage of implementation. It may be

that community-based programs need to operate and

improve for several years before positive results will

be found. Indeed, NCCD’s later Massachusetts study

found such positive results.

Rivers and Trotti (1989) conducted a study of 39,250

males born between 1964 and 1971 who had official

delinquency records in South Carolina. The researchers traced the number of these youth who were incarcerated or placed on probation as adults. Time at risk

varied from approximately 1 year for the 1971 cohort

to approximately 8 years for the 1964 cohort. The

study found that institutionalization as a juvenile

substantially increased the chances that a delinquent

would reoffend as an adult. The recidivism rate for

delinquent youth who were never institutionalized

was 14 percent, compared with 46 percent for youth

who were institutionalized. Moreover, this percentage

increased with each additional institutionalization,

to a rate of 67 percent for youth with four or more

institutionalizations. The study also found an increase

in recidivism rates with increased delinquency referrals and increased delinquency adjudications. The

authors concluded that their findings “effectively

underscore the need to bolster programming for early,

effective intervention in order to prevent the recurrence of delinquent behavior” (p. 17).

The studies of State systems highlighted above, in

conjunction with the studies of individual programs

discussed earlier, suggest that well-structured community-based programs are at least as effective as,

and sometimes more effective than, traditional training schools, and at a lower cost. Community-based

programs address two other important issues: overuse of incarceration and racial disparity in the incarcerated population. NCCD’s Juveniles Taken Into

Custody (JTIC) study (DeComo, Tunis, Krisberg, and

The JTIC data also indicated that minority youth are

disproportionately incarcerated in State institutions

(Austin, Krisberg, DeComo, Del Rosario, Rudenstine,

and Elms, 1994). This finding is based on prevalence

rates, which measure the estimated proportion of the

at-risk population that will be taken into State custody at least once as juveniles. The prevalence rate for

African Americans is 5 times that for whites (3.01

percent to 0.59 percent, respectively). For young

African-American males, this rate is even higher—

1 in 18 African-American males (5.52 percent) are

taken into custody before they reach adulthood. This

is 5 times higher than the prevalence rate for white

males (1.05 percent). Prevalence rates for AfricanAmerican males are particularly high in New Hampshire (18.96 percent, or 1 in 5), Iowa (15.44 percent),

and Wisconsin (14.98 percent). The overincarceration

of minority youth in State institutions is another reason States should consider decreasing their reliance

on traditional training schools.

A study of incarcerated youth in 14

States found that depending on the

State, only 11 percent to 44 percent

of the youth were committed for

serious and violent offenses.
138

Meta-Analyses

Through meta-analyses, researchers can synthesize

the results of multiple program evaluations. Several

recent meta-analyses challenge the claim that “nothing works” with juvenile offenders and support the

notion that rehabilitation can be effective. They

also identify specific strategies that appear most

promising.

Mark Lipsey (1992) has completed the most comprehensive meta-analysis of delinquency studies to date.

His analysis incorporates 443 such studies, 373 of

which were published between 1970 and 1987. It includes studies of both institutional programs and

community-based programs. All of the studies had

experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Lipsey

found that 64 percent of the study outcomes favored

the treatment group, 30 percent favored the control

group, and 6 percent favored neither group. The primary outcome measure in 85 percent of the studies

was formal contact with the police or juvenile justice

system (arrests, police contact, court contact, probation contact, parole contact, institutionalization, or

institutional disciplinary contact). One such outcome

measure was selected per study to be included in the

meta-analysis. Lipsey’s study tested the factors that

had the greatest impact on program outcomes. Factors associated with the evaluation method (such as

sample size, outcome measure, and equivalence of

treatment and control groups) and factors associated

with the type of treatment (such as length of treatment, location of treatment, and nature of treatment)

were included in a multiple regression analysis. The

results showed that both evaluation method and

treatment type influence juvenile delinquency studies.

Collectively, the evaluation method variables appeared to be more influential than the treatment variables. However, of the individual variables, the type

of treatment was the most influential. Programs

employing behaviorally oriented, skill-oriented, and

multimodal treatment methods produced effects

larger than those of other treatment approaches.

Deterrence and “shock” approaches were associated

with negative results. In addition, Lipsey found that

the successful treatment approaches produced larger

positive effects in community as opposed to institutional settings.

Garrett (1985) analyzed 111 quasi-experimental studies of adjudicated delinquents conducted between

1960 and 1983. Most of the studies (81 percent) were

from institutional treatment programs; the rest (19

percent) were from community residential treatment

programs. Diversion, probation, and parole programs

were not included in the analysis. Three-fourths of the

studies involved a control group; the remaining

one-fourth used a pre- and post-design with no comparison group. The majority of studies (52 percent)

employed “more rigorous” experimental designs

(random, matched, pretest-design equation assignment procedures); 48 percent were “less rigorous”

(convenience sample, pre- and post-design with no

controls, and other nonrandom). The outcome measures used varied from study to study and included

recidivism, institutional adjustment, psychological

adjustment, and academic performance.

Garrett found that the treatment groups, on average,

outperformed the controls on these outcome measures.

She concluded that the results are “encouraging in that

adjudicated delinquents were found to respond positively to treatment on many criteria. The change was

modest in some cases, substantial in others, but overwhelmingly in a positive direction” (p. 306). The overall average-effect size, an estimate of the amount the

treatment group differed from the control group, was

+.37 for all studies. The effect size for the “more rigorous” studies (+.24) was smaller than that for the “less

rigorous” studies (+.65), but was positive nonetheless.

The results of studies using recidivism as an outcome

measure were also positive (+.13), although to a lesser

extent than studies with other outcome measures.

Behavioral treatment showed larger positive effects

Garrett concluded that the results

are “encouraging in that adjudicated delinquents were found to

respond positively to treatment on

many criteria. The change was

modest in some cases, substantial

in others, but overwhelmingly in a

positive direction.”
139

than did psychodynamic treatment or life skills treatment. The individual treatment approaches with the

largest positive effects were contingency management

(+.86), family therapy (+.81), and cognitive-behavioral

(+.58). Garrett concluded that “the results of the metaanalysis suggest that treatment of adjudicated delinquents in an institutional or community residential

setting does work” (p. 287).

Davidson, Gottschalk, Gensheimer, and Mayer, 1984;

Gottschalk, Davidson, Gensheimer, and Mayer, 1987;

Gensheimer, Mayer, Gottschalk, and Davidson, 1986;

and Mayer, Gensheimer, Davidson, and Gottschalk,

1986, analyzed 90 studies of institutional and community-based programs completed between 1967 and

1983. The results of their analyses were inconclusive.

The researchers found that 60 percent of the studies

favored the experimental group over the control

group. However, when the effect sizes were analyzed,

the difference between the two groups did not reach

conventional levels of statistical significance. Behavioral interventions were found to have greater positive effects than other types of interventions such as

group psychotherapy and educational/vocational.

Another less encouraging study, Whitehead and Lab’s

(1989) meta-analysis of 50 studies of institutional and

community-based programs, concluded that “correctional treatment has little effect on recidivism”

(p. 291). This conclusion, however, was based on

adopting an extremely rigid definition of success.

Andrews et al. (1990) challenged this conclusion in a

meta-analysis that included 45 of the 50 studies used

by Whitehead and Lab and added 35 additional studies of both juvenile and adult programs. The researchers coded the programs into four categories:

• Programs with “appropriate” correctional service.

• Programs with “inappropriate” correctional

service.

• Programs with unspecified correctional service.

• Programs with nonservice criminal sanctioning.

The appropriate correctional service group included:

• Service delivery to higher risk cases.

• All behavioral programs (except those involving

delivery of service to lower risk cases).

• Comparisons reflecting specific responsivitytreatment comparisons.

• Nonbehavioral programs that clearly stated that

criminogenic need was targeted and that structured intervention was employed (p. 379).

The inappropriate correctional service included:

• Service delivery to lower risk cases and/or mismatching according to a need/responsivity system.

• Nondirective relationship-dependent and/or

unstructured psychodynamic counseling.

• All milieu and group approaches that emphasized

within-group communication but lacked a clear

plan for gaining control over procriminal modeling

and reinforcement.

• Nondirective or poorly targeted academic and

vocational approaches.

• “Scared Straight” (p. 379).

Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendrew, and Cullen

(1990) found that programs with appropriate correctional service had the most positive outcomes, followed by unspecified correctional service.

Inappropriate service and nonservice criminal sanctioning were both associated with negative outcomes.

The authors reaffirmed the importance of rehabilitation, concluding that “appropriate correctional service

appears to work better than criminal sanctions not

involving rehabilitative service and better than services less consistent with . . . principles of effective

rehabilitation” (p. 384).

The authors reaffirmed the importance of rehabilitation, concluding

that “appropriate correctional service appears to work better than

criminal sanctions not involving

rehabilitative service and better than

services less consistent with . . .

principles of effective rehabilitation.”
140

In a comprehensive review of existing meta-analyses,

Palmer (1992) summarized the findings in four main

points:

• When individual programs were grouped together

and analyzed as a single, generic approach (e.g.,

counseling), many approaches did not seem to

successfully reduce recidivism.

• Despite this finding, there were many individual

programs that appeared to be successful. The

experimental group outperformed the controls in

many or most individual programs. Specifically,

experimentals significantly outperformed controls

in at least 25 to 35 percent of all programs, while

controls significantly outperformed experimentals

in just under 10 percent. Statistically successful

individual programs could be found in almost

every generic program category, even if the category as a whole appeared to be unsuccessful.

• Although generic approaches did not have better

outcomes, some were associated with equal outcomes. Such approaches seem to be as effective as

traditional approaches and often cost much less.

• At the generic level, the interventions considered

most successful were behavioral, cognitivebehavioral, skill or life-skills oriented, multimodal,

and family oriented.

Palmer concluded that “the large number of positive

outcomes that have been found in the past three

decades with studies whose designs and analysis

were at least adequate leaves little doubt that many

programs work” (p. 76).

Literature on the Characteristics of

Effective Programs

Two sets of researchers have identified what they

believe are the critical components of successful

programs for delinquent youth. Altschuler and

Armstrong (1984) cited six key components:

• Continuous case management.

• Emphasis on reintegration and reentry services.

• Opportunities for youth achievement and

involvement in program decisionmaking.

• Clear and consistent consequences for misconduct.

• Enriched educational and vocational

programming.

• A variety of forms of individual, group, and family

counseling matched to youth’s needs.

Greenwood and Zimring (1985) also identified several

features essential for program success. These features,

similar to those noted by Altschuler and Armstrong,

include the following:

• Opportunities for success and development of a

positive self-image.

• Youth bonding to prosocial adults and institutions.

• Frequent, timely, and accurate feedback for both

positive and negative behavior.

• Reduced influence of negative role models.

• Recognition and understanding of thought

processes that rationalize negative behavior.

• Opportunities for juveniles to discuss childhood

problems.

• Program components adapted to the needs of

individual youth.

Armstrong and Altschuler (1994) later described the

critical components of a model aftercare program in

an OJJDP-funded study. Their Intensive Aftercare

Program (IAP) model is particularly important

because there is “an almost total lack of published

information about juvenile aftercare, especially with

regard to high-risk offenders . . . ” (pp. 189–190).

Armstrong and Altschuler began their study with an

assessment of the current state of juvenile aftercare.

The assessment focused on a review of the aftercare

literature, a description of innovative aftercare programs identified through a national survey, and an

analysis of site visits to these programs.

Based on findings from the assessment stage,

Armstrong and Altschuler developed their IAP model.

IAP is a balanced, highly structured, and comprehensive model of intervention for serious, violent, and

chronic juvenile offenders returning to the community

following a residential placement. It incorporates

intensive intervention strategies for both surveillance
141

Guidelines for Effective Programs

Through an extensive program search discussed

below, NCCD studied the characteristics of hundreds

of juvenile programs. Information gained from the

program search complements the findings of the research literature in identifying the crucial components

of successful graduated sanctions programs.

NCCD found that the most effective programs are

those that address key areas of risk in the youth’s life,

those that seek to strengthen the personal and institutional factors that contribute to healthy adolescent

development, those that provide adequate support

and supervision, and those that offer youth a longterm stake in the community. These principles apply

and rehabilitation. The model is theory driven and

provides a framework of individual assessment and

differential response designed to meet the needs of

juvenile offenders.

The IAP model is based on the following five fundamental principles:

• Preparing youth for progressively increased

responsibility and freedom in the community.

• Facilitating youth-community interaction and

involvement.

• Working with both the offender and targeted

community support systems (e.g., families, peers,

schools, and employers) on qualities needed for

constructive interaction and the youth’s successful

community adjustment.

• Developing new resources and support where

needed.

• Monitoring and testing the youth and the community concerning their ability to deal with each other

productively.

Case management is central to the IAP model. Case

management components include assessment, classification, and selection criteria; individual case planning that incorporates a family and community

perspective; a mix of intensive surveillance and services; a balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition of realistic,

enforceable conditions; and brokering of services with

community resources and linkages with social networks. The model stipulates that aftercare case managers become actively involved with the juvenile at

the beginning of secure confinement.

Armstrong and Altschuler discuss two other key

elements of the IAP model. Organizational and structural characteristics refer to the context in which the

IAP will operate. This context will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; different jurisdictions will have

different types of institutions and agencies involved

in IAP; and cooperation among institutions and agencies will be crucial to IAP success. The final elements

of the IAP model are development of a management

information system and ongoing program evaluation.

to youth at all stages of the continuum of care. What

makes for effectiveness in aftercare or in residential

treatment also works in diversion programs. What is

most important, the research suggests, is not the particular stage of intervention, but the quality, intensity,

direction, and appropriateness (see Andrews et al.,

1990) of the intervention itself.

Although this might seem obvious, emphasis on the

quality and nature of the intervention has not usually

driven the development of graduated sanctions programs, particularly immediate intervention programs.

Most of the discussion about how to respond to youth

(including serious, violent, and chronic offenders)

who have come into contact with the justice system

has a laundry-list character. It lumps together

everything that is not either primary prevention or

The most effective programs are

those that address key areas of risk

in the youth’s life, those that seek to

strengthen the personal and institutional factors that contribute to

healthy adolescent development,

those that provide adequate support

and supervision, and those that

offer youth a long-term stake in the

community.
142

“tertiary” involvement with the system—a variety of

unrelated and often inadequately evaluated strategies

ranging from peer juries to school counseling to informal probation to intensive outreach and tracking

programs.

The laundry-list approach fails to differentiate

between substantive interventions (e.g., counseling,

remedial education) and procedural or administrative

categories (e.g., diversion). A greater problem is that

there is no coherent concept of youth development—

even a broad, eclectic one—underlying the numerous

programs that are lumped together. Therefore, it is

often difficult to determine why the programs were

expected to be effective. It is therefore essential to

examine the emerging literature to gain a more coherent sense of which strategies appear to be effective,

which appear ineffective, and which appear promising but require more research.

The strategies that appear not to work include

conventional individual psychological counseling

in or out of the juvenile justice system; deterrence

approaches such as Scared Straight; and most peergroup counseling strategies in which offenders talk

together without substantial interventions to address

their underlying issues (Dryfoos, 1990, pp. 145–147).

Slightly more effective strategies are short-term

community service, restitution, and mediation programs, among others. However, the effectiveness of

such programs in reducing recidivism or deflecting

delinquent careers is slight at best. There is only limited evidence, for example, that restitution programs

have reduced offending (Schneider, 1986). On the

other hand, some evaluations suggest that they increase both the offenders’ and the victims’ satisfaction

with the justice process, deliver significant restitution

in the form of financial repayments and/or community service, and make victims less fearful of being

victimized again (Umbreit and Coates, 1992).

There are common threads among programs that

produce negative or inconclusive findings. Such programs often provide only one-time or short-term

contact with offenders. Programs of shorter duration

fail to address the key social or personal problems

that contribute to the youth’s delinquent behavior,

and if they do address key issues, they often treat

them as isolated problems separate from the rest of

the young person’s life. Ineffective programs rarely

have a clear underlying developmental rationale.

They seldom attempt to alter the youth’s “ecological”

or institutional situation by improving family functioning, for example, or improving work opportunities, or matching youth with appropriate schools.

Programs that appear to make a difference in youth

behavior are those that engage individual problems

and deficits, have an underlying developmental rationale, and attempt to alter the youth’s ecological and

institutional conditions. Earlier reviews of the evidence (e.g., Wright and Dixon, 1977; Sechrest, White,

and Brown, 1979) have repeatedly found that overall

implementation factors such as the consistency and

integrity of the intervention are more important than

the specific intervention model or its specific theoretical underpinning. Within that general framework,

however, some crucial themes are common to the

most successful and carefully evaluated programs:

• They are holistic (comprehensive or multisystemic), dealing simultaneously with many

aspects of youth’s lives.

• They are intensive, often involving multiple contacts weekly, or even daily, with at-risk youth.

• They operate mostly, though not exclusively, outside the formal juvenile justice system, under a

variety of auspices: public, nonprofit, or university.

• They build on youth’s strengths rather than

focusing on their deficiencies.

• They adopt a socially grounded approach to

understanding a youth’s situation and treating it

rather than an individual or medical-therapeutic

approach.

These themes apply at the substantive level. On the

process or implementation level, the programs that

work are usually those that, as with other successful

interventions into problematic behavior, are relatively

long-term and intensive, are delivered by energetic and

committed though not necessarily highly trained staff,

and are consistent in achieving what they set out to do.

Successful programs also have a case management

component that begins at intake and follows youth

through various program phases until discharge. Case

management also involves the development of indi-
143

vidual treatment plans to address the needs of each

youth. These treatment plans are updated on a

regular basis. Successful programs provide frequent

feedback, both positive and negative, to youth on

their progress. Positive behavior is acknowledged and

rewarded, while negative behavior results in clear

and consistent sanctions.

Other essential program components include effective

education, vocational training, and counseling strategies tailored to the individual needs of juveniles.

The most effective type of counseling seems to be a

cognitive-behavioral approach. In addition to

individual and group counseling, the counseling component must include family counseling because many

problems of youth are caused or exacerbated by

family dysfunction.

aftercare services are crucial to program success,

particularly for residential programs.

Effective Programs

The principles enunciated thus far can be illustrated

by examining specific intervention programs that are

based on these principles. The illustrations that follow

are examples of successful programs and approaches

that have been carefully conceived, adequately implemented, and rigorously evaluated. Although the evidence of success is not absolutely conclusive, research

on the programs has been careful and well designed,

and the findings match the evidence accumulating

from broader meta-analyses of delinquency intervention programs. The findings have added strength

because programs found to be successful have many

crucial elements in common. Evidence that one program works, therefore, is buttressed by similar evidence from the others.

Program Search Methodology

In December 1993, NCCD initiated an exhaustive

search of prevention and intervention programs for

serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders.

Groups contacted by NCCD included Federal agencies, OJJDP State Advisory Groups (SAG's), State

youth correctional officials, and child welfare organizations and foundations. NCCD also contacted major

national professional organizations, including the

American Probation and Parole Association, Police

Executives’ Research Forum, National Association of

Black Law Enforcement Executives, International

Association of Chiefs of Police, National Council of

Family and Juvenile Court Judges, American Correctional Association, National Juvenile Detention Association, National Governors Association, National

Conference of State Legislatures, National District

Attorneys Association, National Association of Juvenile Correctional Agencies, and International Association of Residential and Community Alternatives.

Letters were also sent to foundations involved in

violence issues including the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation, Ford Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts,

Annie E. Casey Foundation, Edna McConnell Clark

Foundation, and California Wellness Foundation.

Finally, NCCD posted announcements about the

In addition to family issues, successful programs also

typically address youth’s community, peers, school,

and work. Research findings suggest that youth

should be treated in the least restrictive environment

possible, preferably while living with their families or

remaining within their communities. However, for

public safety reasons, community-based treatment is

not always appropriate, nor is family-based treatment

when the family is dysfunctional or nonexistent.

Other key components of successful programs concern the intensity of services for youth who remain in

the community. Successful community programs have

low caseloads to ensure that youth receive constant

and individualized attention. Frequent face-to-face

contacts, telephone contacts, and contacts with parents, teachers, and employers are essential to provide

close monitoring and consistent support for youth.

This support is most successful if its intensity is

diminished gradually over a long period.

Finally, successful programs reintegrate youth into

their homes and communities gradually. Intensive

Successful programs provide

frequent feedback, both positive

and negative, to youth on their

progress.
144

program search and requests for program information

in the Criminal Justice Newsletter and Juvenile Justice

Coalition News.

NCCD contacted the programs identified by the

search and requested four types of information:

• Program description.

• A clear statement of the program philosophy,

including the risk and protective factors addressed

by the program.

• Target population.

• Evaluation data.

NCCD requested the same information from programs identified through the database for the

National Center for Juvenile Justice’s (NCJJ) OJJDPfunded project “Juvenile Prevention and Treatment

Programs: What Works Best and For Whom.” In addition, NCCD contacted all of the programs that won

OJJDP Gould-Wysinger Awards in 1992 and 1993. A

final source of program information was Attorney

General Reno, who in public appearances around the

Nation requested that people send her information on

innovative juvenile programs. Program information

received by the Attorney General’s office was forwarded to NCCD.

The program search yielded information from 209

programs, including 122 intervention programs, 38

prevention programs, and 49 programs that had both

prevention and intervention components. The most

promising programs—based on both descriptive

information and evaluation data—are discussed

below. These programs, though imperfect, embody

the core principles set forth in this document.

Immediate Sanctions Programs

The lack of consistent intervention with juvenile

offenders soon after their initial contact with the

police or other authority has long been recognized as

perhaps the largest single gap in services for troubled

youth. Without mechanisms to intervene predictably

and early, the juvenile justice system is unable to

impose swift and clear consequences for delinquent

behavior and provide supports and services to

address the individual, family, and community issues

that typically underlie such behavior.

Too often, the juvenile justice system’s response to

young offenders is either too much or too little. The

system may resort too quickly to secure confinement

or to out-of-home placement; or it may let offenders

off without significant consequences, often because

facilities are overcrowded or needed services are not

available; or it may shunt youth into ordinary probation in overburdened agencies that are unable to provide supervision or support.

This is not to say that every young offender needs

intensive, protracted intervention. Some clearly do

not, and attempting to extend such a response to the

more than 1 million juveniles arrested each year

would strain resources to the breaking point.

The lack of consistent intervention

with juvenile offenders soon after

their initial contact with the police

or other authority has long been

recognized as perhaps the largest

single gap in services for troubled

youth.

But for some youth, the failure to intervene—

strategically and appropriately—means that they fall

through the cracks of the juvenile justice system and

of social agencies that might act on their behalf. For

youth on a trajectory toward serious or repeated

offending, lack of intervention can be disastrous,

resulting in an all-too-common pattern: several

encounters with authorities; short-term detentions

with no coherent, intensive interventions; repeated

offenses; and eventual incarceration in juvenile or

adult corrections facilities. Another ineffective but

common pattern is placement of youth in secure confinement not because community safety requires it

but because it is the only way to ensure that they

receive even minimal services. This practice is harmful to youth, detrimental to community safety, and

enormously costly—in missed prevention opportunities and in confinement costs.
145

Immediate sanctions programs provide the crucial

first rung on the ladder of graduated sanctions. Here

are examples of four promising immediate sanctions

programs.

Bethesda Day Treatment Center

The Bethesda Day Treatment Center, a private, nonprofit corporation established in West Milton, Pennsylvania, in 1983, provides intensive day treatment for

preadjudicated and adjudicated youth who have committed delinquent or status offenses. Youth are referred to Bethesda from nine Pennsylvania counties.

Bethesda provides up to 55 hours of services per week

to youth who reside at home. It administers both

school and afterschool programs. The school program

operates from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. each day; the

afterschool program operates from 3 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.

Some youth attend both programs; others attend

regular school during the day and come to Bethesda

for the afterschool program.

The school program provides individualized education; the afterschool program focuses on a variety of

treatment services. Clients’ families are integrally

involved in the treatment process. Treatment services

include individual, group, and family counseling;

drug and alcohol counseling; life skills development;

and opportunities for employment. Work experiences

are provided for all clients of working age; clients are

required to contribute the majority of their paychecks

to pay restitution, court costs, and fines.

Bethesda serves as an alternative to residential placement for some youth. For other youth returning to the

community from residential placements, the program

serves as part of an aftercare plan. The average

length of participation at Bethesda is approximately

6 months, although some youth continue with the

program for up to 12 months. The staff-to-client ratio

is 1 to 3.

A preliminary study of the Bethesda program revealed a recidivism rate of only 5 percent in the first

year after discharge, far lower than State and national

norms. This finding, while impressive, must be

viewed with extreme caution because the sample size

was very small (n=20), and the study did not incorporate a control group.

Choice Program

The Choice program is an intensive monitoring and

multiple-service program for high-risk youth at five

sites in and around Baltimore, Maryland. It is similar

to the Key Tracking Program that originated in

Massachusetts in the 1970’s in response to the State’s

deinstitutionalization of most young offenders. The

Key program in Massachusetts has not been carefully

evaluated, despite considerable statewide support

and anecdotal evidence of success. Baltimore’s Choice

program, however, has recently undergone an encouraging, if preliminary, evaluation.

Choice is an intensive, home-based, family-oriented

program operating under the auspices of the Shriver

Center of the University of Maryland at Baltimore

County (UMBC). The program addresses the problem

of youth in the context of their families and wider

communities and develops highly individualized

treatment plans for each participant. Youth are

referred to Choice from Maryland’s Department of

Juvenile Services and other public agencies. Program

participants include numerous status offenders and

youth arrested for minor delinquent activities. More

serious, violent offenders are excluded from the program, as are youth requiring residential substance

abuse treatment.

An intensive, month-long assessment period enables caseworkers to

sort out the range of problems the

referred youth is facing—at home,

at school, or with physical health—

and to identify and coordinate the

resources needed to deal with them.

Choice is distinctive in the intensity of contact

between caseworkers and clients—three to five

contacts per day during the initial stages—and in the

limits placed on length of service for caseworkers

who usually are recent college graduates. To avoid the

burnout that often accompanies long service in a program working with difficult clients, caseworkers

remain with the program for approximately 1 year.
146

making the results more tentative. But of 33 former

Choice youth and 20 matched control youth, 76 percent of the Choice youth had no arrests within 6

months, compared with 55 percent of the control

youth. Somewhat fewer Choice youth (24 percent

compared with 30 percent) had been arrested for

medium or major offenses.

Michigan State Diversion Project

Like Choice, the Michigan State Diversion Project for

arrested juveniles uses college students as the principal caseworkers. The program was based on three

recurring themes in research and program experience

with juvenile offenders: they respond better if treated

outside the juvenile justice system; the youth’s community and family are the natural context for intervention; and service delivery by nonprofessionals

may be both more effective and less costly than relying on credentialed professionals (see similar early

findings in Wright and Dixon, 1977).

Early research (Davidson, Seidman, Rappaport, Berck,

Rapp, Rhodes, and Herring, 1977) found significant

decreases in recidivism in a community-based diversion program in Michigan when active behavioral

interventions were compared with a control group of

similar youth released outright. In a later evaluation,

Davidson and his coworkers (1987) extended this

analysis, randomly assigning a sample of more than

200 young offenders to one of five separate treatment

strategies, while a control group received normal

juvenile justice services.

The youth workers in the program were college students who received 8 weeks of training in behavioral

intervention and advocacy and then worked one on

one with clients in the community. The average age of

offenders in the study was 14. Twenty-six percent

were members of minority groups with an average

age of 14. Their offense histories were more serious

than those of the Choice youth. They averaged 1.5

petitions to court for a wide range of person, property,

and status offenses; nearly three-fifths were charged

with either larceny or breaking and entering.

Referred youth were randomly sorted into several

treatment strategies, each lasting about 18 weeks and

involving 6 to 8 hours per week of contact with the

caseworkers in the juveniles’ home, school, and

An intensive, month-long assessment period enables

caseworkers to sort out the range of problems the

referred youth is facing—at home, at school, or with

physical health—and to identify and coordinate the

resources needed to deal with them. The caseworker

meets regularly with family members and school

personnel and may call on outside experts including

psychologists and substance abuse counselors when

needed. The close and intensive daily contact allows

caseworkers to closely track the client’s progress and

the obstacles that arise and also enables caseworkers

to function as role models—offering consistent guidance and support. The typical length of participation

is 4 to 6 months.

A preliminary evaluation by the UMBC psychology

department, although based on relatively few cases

and a short-term followup, is quite positive. The

evaluation (Maton, Seifert, and Zapert, 1991) compared 75 youth referred to Choice with 39 controls

taken from a computerized database of all arrested

youth in Baltimore, matched by sex, race, age, and

offense type. About two-thirds of both groups were

African-American, and slightly over three-fourths

were male, with a mean age of just over 15. About 40

percent of each group had been arrested for what the

evaluators termed medium offenses, including thefts

and simple assaults; small proportions (1 percent and

3 percent respectively for Choice and controls) had

been arrested for major offenses, including assault

with intent to maim, murder, or rape, and for felony

weapons charges; the rest had been arrested for minor

offenses including alcohol and loitering violations.

There were strong and statistically significant differences between the Choice group and the control

group on both number and seriousness of arrests

while in the program. Twenty-one percent of Choice

youth were arrested during the intervention period,

compared with 44 percent of control youth; 9 percent

of Choice clients were arrested more than once compared with 15 percent of control youth. Sixteen percent of the Choice youth were arrested for medium or

major offenses compared with 31 percent of control

youth, although the one major offense arrest was a

Choice youth.

At a 6-month followup evaluation after leaving

Choice, the sample size had dwindled considerably,
147

Thus, active, hands-on intervention of several kinds

worked better than normal processing of offenders

through the juvenile system, but only if they were

thoroughly separated from the system. Even a nonspecific strategy that provided youth with steady attention from a stable caseworker (the Placebo Condition)

had a positive impact, but results were better, in terms

of recidivism, in the three more active strategies

implemented outside the juvenile justice system. The

researchers note that these findings should be interpreted with caution because the samples were small

and because no significant effects were found for measures of self-reported delinquency. Nevertheless, the

research provides additional evidence of the effectiveness of intensive approaches that serve delinquent

youth on their own turf, the importance of diverting

appropriate youth from the formal juvenile justice

system, and the value of basing programs on a coherent model with effective training and supervision.

The North Carolina Intensive Protection

Supervision Project

The North Carolina Court Counselors Intensive

Protective Supervision Project (IPS), another wellevaluated program, shares several key features with the

programs already mentioned, but with some interesting

differences. Unlike the other programs, IPS intervened

within the juvenile justice system. Caseworkers worked

intensively (initially up to several contacts a day) with

offenders and arranged for additional professional

services when needed. The program was designed for

status offenders deemed at high risk of becoming serious, violent, and chronic offenders.

The project operated at four sites in North Carolina

during the late 1980’s and included an independent,

randomized experimental evaluation by a team of researchers from Duke University. Each site employed a

counselor who received training in the goals of the project but little special training in counseling, supervision,

or therapeutic techniques. This was a deliberate choice

based on the premise that if the program succeeded, it

would be replicable elsewhere without the need to hire

highly trained, expensive professionals. Instead, counselors would arrange for specialized services.

Youth referred to the program were deemed undisciplined by the North Carolina Juvenile Services Division and were randomly assigned to either intensive

community environment. Researchers used the term

“condition” to describe various program categories.

The Action Condition used behavioral contracting

and child advocacy techniques to address the often

overlapping problem areas of the youth’s life, including family and school. The Action Condition-Family

Focus was similar, but concentrated wholly on working with the youth’s family. A Relational Condition

involved, at least in theory, less emphasis on advocacy and behavioral contracting and greater emphasis

on developing empathy and communication between

caseworker and client. The Action Condition-Court

Context offered a similar proactive approach but used

a caseworker from the juvenile court to train and

supervise the student workers. The other conditions

used psychology graduate students as supervisors.

The Court-Context approach was included as a

tentative test of the possibility—suggested by some

research and theory—that connection with the formal

juvenile justice system itself exacerbates delinquency,

or at least hinders effective treatment.

To determine whether effects on subsequent offending might be simply the result of youth receiving sustained attention rather than of a specific intervention,

some youth were assigned to an Attention Placebo

Condition, in which workers received little training

and simply offered recreational activities to their

clients. Finally, youth assigned to a Control Condition

underwent normal court processing.

The evaluation of this project is encouraging and generally supports the theoretical underpinnings of this and

similar strategies for working with young offenders.

The active approaches that occurred outside the juvenile system (Action Condition and Action ConditionFamily Focus), along with the Relational Condition,

tended to perform better than the Placebo Condition.

The Placebo group worked better than the Control

Condition and the Court-Context approach. In fact, the

youth in the Court-Context Condition did worse than

the control group. For example, 67 percent of the CourtContext youth and 62 percent of the Control Condition

group had one or more court petitions during the 2

years following the intervention, compared with 38

percent of the Action Condition group, 46 percent of

the Family Focus group, and 33 percent of the Relational group (Davidson et al., 1987, p. 73). The Attention Placebo group fell in the middle (52 percent).
148

protective supervision or ordinary probation services.

In the IPS project, caseloads were small—no more than

10 youth per counselor compared with 35 to 50 per

counselor in regular probation. Among other

advantages, this allowed IPS counselors to spend more

time working with families and maintaining intensive

contact with clients. During the formal assessment period, counselors met regularly with youth and their

families and arranged for an external evaluation by a

mental health professional. This professional identified

appropriate service providers, who were then brought

together in a meeting to define an individualized service

plan. For up to a year, the counselor, along with contracted service providers, made regular home visits.

Sixty-seven percent of the sample youth were age 14

or younger, two-thirds were white, and two-thirds

were female. About 20 percent had a prior referral for

a status offense, and 15 percent had a prior referral for

a delinquent offense. A sophisticated project evaluation (Land et al., 1990) found considerable success in

keeping participants from moving from status offenses to delinquency. Participation in the IPS group

reduced the likelihood of a delinquent offense during

the course of the program by about 60 percent compared with the regular probation control group. The

effect was not significant, however, for IPS youth with

a prior referral for delinquency.

Once again, the findings must be taken cautiously,

given the small samples and relatively short

followup. The researchers’ statement that the IPS

project “must be judged a success” (Land et al., 1990,

p. 604) was tempered by their later finding that widespread burnout among counselors prevented the program from continuing to demonstrate clear successes

(Land, McCall, and Williams, 1992). The findings do

suggest, however, that when properly implemented,

consistent, intensive interventions can help prevent

the escalation of minor offenses into serious

delinquency.

Intermediate Sanctions Programs

Intermediate sanction programs are designed for

youth whose offenses are too serious for placement in

immediate sanction programs but not serious enough

for placement in secure corrections. Such youth are

usually repeat property offenders or first-time serious

offenders. Intermediate sanctions encompass a

diverse range of programs, both nonresidential and

residential. Types of intermediate sanctions include

intensive supervision programs, boot camps, wilderness programs, and community-based residential

programs.

Family and Neighborhood Services

Project

The Family and Neighborhood Services (FANS)

project is a public program in South Carolina that

employs the principles of “multisystemic” therapy—

a “highly individualized family- and home-based

treatment” designed to deal with offenders in the

context of their family and community problems

(Henggeler et al., 1992). Based in a community mental

health center, the program represents a cooperative

effort between the State’s Department of Youth

Services and Department of Mental Health. FANS

attempts to avoid the institutionalization of

seriously troubled youth. The program is rooted in

a developmental model derived partly from Urie

Bronfenbrenner’s “ecological” approach—the idea

that the adolescent is “nested” in a series of institutions (family, school, peers, and community) and that

work with the youth must involve several or all of

those institutions, hence multisystemic.

Youth referred to FANS from the Department of

Youth Services were at imminent risk of out-of-home

placement because of the seriousness of their offense

histories. They averaged 3.5 previous arrests and 9.5

weeks of previous incarceration. Over half had at

least one arrest for a violent crime, including manslaughter, assault with intent to kill, and aggravated

assault. Seventy-seven percent of the sample were

male, and 56 percent were African American. More

than one-quarter lived with neither biological parent.

The program employed therapists with master’s

degrees who were assigned small caseloads of four

families each. The therapists worked with the families

The IPS project caseloads were

small—no more than 10 youth per

counselor compared with 35 to 50

per counselor in regular probation.
149

on average for just over 4 months. Treatment integrity

was maintained through a brief training program in

the principles of multisystemic therapy and regular

supervision and feedback from the program’s directors. The caseworkers were available on a 24-hour

basis and saw the juvenile and the family as often as

once daily, most often in the juvenile’s home.

The project was evaluated using a random-assignment design that compared program participants

with youth who received the regular services provided by the Department of Youth Services. The latter

youth received normal probation treatment, including

at least once-monthly visits with probation officers;

some who did not comply with probation orders were

sent to institutions. Though many of the “usual services” youth were referred by DYS for mental health

services, few substantive services were delivered

because of the relative lack of serious alternative

programs in the community (Henggeler et al., 1992,

p. 955).

The evaluation findings were very encouraging

despite considerable attrition, especially in the usual

services group. Fifty-nine weeks after the initial referral, there were significant positive differences in

incarceration, arrests, and self-reported offenses

between FANS and control youth. FANS participants

had slightly more than half as many arrests as the

usual services control youth: 68 percent of control

youth experienced some incarceration compared with

20 percent of the FANS group, and 58 percent of

FANS youth had no arrests compared with 38 percent

of control youth. These findings were reinforced by

self-report measures and by favorable changes among

the FANS group regarding family cohesion and

reduced aggression with peers.

Moreover, these effects were found equally among

youth of varying ethnic backgrounds and both genders, as well among youth with differing arrest and

incarceration histories. The results are particularly

noteworthy because the referred youth were serious

offenders who, with their families, “presented

extremely serious and long-standing problems”

(Henggeler et al., 1992, p. 958). Even given the intensity of the intervention, costs were relatively low,

averaging $2,800 per client for a period of several

months, compared with more than $16,000 for the

usual course of institutionalization in South Carolina.

ISU uses case management and surveillance services

and includes four phases. Youth begin the program in

Phase I under house arrest. As they exhibit increased

responsibility and socially appropriate behavior—

measured by number of credit days earned—they

move to successive phases. With each new phase,

youth gain more freedom and privileges. At the start

of each phase, a juvenile must pass a test on the rules

and expectations of that phase.

The ISU is designed to provide control and treatment

for youthful offenders. While the level of control

diminishes as the youth progresses through the four

phases, the treatment components remain high

throughout the program. A comprehensive treatment

plan is developed for each youth. The plan may

include individual, family, and group counseling;

psychological assessment for the youth and family;

assessment for chemical dependency of the youth and

family members; school evaluations and testing;

random urinalysis; and restitution and community

service.

ISU has a maximum enrollment of 60 youth. ISU probation officers have average caseloads of 15 youth.

Lucas County Intensive Supervision Unit

The Lucas County, Ohio, Intensive Supervision Unit

(ISU), begun in 1987, is operated by the juvenile court

as part of the court probation department. Nonviolent

felony offenders committed to the Ohio Department

of Youth Services for the first time are the target population. The program does not accept youth convicted

of drug trafficking or weapons offenses.

The theoretical basis for the program is the belief that

delinquency is related to a breakdown of family functioning and other environmental factors. Thus, it is

crucial that youth remain in their own homes and

communities while they address these issues.

Fifty-nine weeks after the initial

referral, there were significant

positive differences in incarceration,

arrests, and self-reported offenses

between FANS and control youth.
150

Diversion Program, operated by the Comprehensive

Youth Training and Community Involvement Program, Inc. (CYTCIP). The last two programs are operated by private agencies. Maximum enrollment for all

three programs is 220 (170 for IPU, 100 for Spectrum,

and 50 for CYTCIP).

The IPU program has the most traditional intensive

supervision model of the three programs. It is characterized by low caseloads (a maximum of 10 youth per

probation officer) and frequent probation officer contacts and surveillance activities. IPU operates through

a system of four steps, with diminishing levels of

supervision as the juvenile demonstrates more responsibility and lawful behavior. Probation officers

must have two to three weekly face-to-face contacts

with youth during the first phase, and at least one

face-to-face contact per week during the subsequent

phases. In addition, telephone contacts to check

school attendance, curfew adherence, and home

behavior are made on a regular basis. Youth remain

in the program from 7 to 11 months.

The two private programs have different approaches.

The In-Home Care Program employs a family-focused

services and treatment approach based on the philosophy that comprehensive family treatment using

community resources is needed to alleviate the causes

of delinquent behavior. In-Home Care provides comprehensive services including supervision; individual,

family, and group counseling; educational planning;

recreational activities; and comprehensive employment training and placement activities. Maximum

caseload ratios are one family worker for every eight

juveniles. Family counselors meet with the juvenile

and their families 3 to 5 times per week during the

early stages of the program, and a minimum of once

per week as youth demonstrate progress in the

program. The length of the program is from 9 to 12

months.

The State Ward Diversion Program is a day treatment

program actively involved in several key areas of

youth’s lives—home, family, school, employment, and

community. An onsite alternative education program

offers classes every weekday for 5 hours, 12 months

per year. In addition to the education component, the

program provides the following services: ongoing

individual and group counseling; youth information

groups; group parenting sessions; psychological

Initially, probation officers monitor their clients

closely. The level of surveillance decreases as the juvenile moves to successive phases. In Phase I, there are

two random surveillance contacts per day, two counselor contacts per week, and one meeting with the

family per week. In Phase IV, there are 20 surveillance

contacts, 2 counselor contacts, and 1 family meeting

per month.

NCCD’s independent evaluation of ISU (Wiebush,

1993) used a quasi-experimental design to compare

the outcomes of ISU youth (n=81) with a group of

youth who were eligible for ISU but instead were

incarcerated and then released to parole supervision

(n=76). Analysis of the youth’s preprogram characteristics showed that there were few differences. Outcome measures included rearrest, readjudication, and

incarceration. All youth were tracked during their first

18 months in the community. For ISU youth, tracking

began with program placement; for incarcerated

youth, tracking began with release to parole.

The results showed that there were no significant

differences between the two groups in the extent or

seriousness of recidivism, except that the ISU youth

had more technical violations. It was concluded that

ISU was as effective as incarceration for serious

offenders. Moreover, the ISU cost $6,020 per youth

per year, compared with $32,320 per youth per year

for incarceration.

Wayne County Intensive Probation

Program

The Wayne County Intensive Probation Program (IPP)

in Detroit, Michigan, is administered by the juvenile

court and operated by the court probation department

and two private, nonprofit agencies under contract

with the court. The IPP target population is adjudicated delinquents between ages 12 and 17 who have

been committed to the State Department of Social

Services (DSS). The State funded program was

begun in 1983 to reduce the level of delinquency

commitments.

Youth referred to IPP are placed in one of three programs for casework services and supervision: the

Probation Department’s Intensive Probation Unit

(IPU); the In-Home Care Program, operated by

Spectrum Human Services, Inc.; or the State Ward
151

evaluations; preemployment preparation for older

youth; family outings; and structured group activities.

In addition to seeing the youth onsite every weekday,

the probation counselor meets with youth and parents

at least once per week. Program enrollment is for a

minimum of 11 months and generally does not exceed

15 months.

Barton and Butts evaluated the Wayne County program in 1988. The experimental group consisted of

youth assigned to one of the three intensive supervision probation programs; the control group included

youth placed in a State institution. Youth were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The length

of the followup period was 2 years.

spend 3 months in a nonsecure residential facility (the

Memphis Naval Air Station, an active military base)

followed by 6 months of aftercare. During 2 years, a

total of 344 youths participated in the program.

About Face’s residential program has four main

components.

• Military training conducted by current and former

Navy and Marine personnel. The training includes

discipline, drill, physical conditioning, and leadership; however, it intentionally avoids the abusive,

punitive aspects usually associated with military

boot camps.

• Counseling based on a cognitive-behavioral model.

Youth participate in 2 hours of group counseling

each day and a minimum of 1 hour of individual

counseling per week.

• Education using Navy-designed reading and math

immersion techniques, computer-assisted learning,

and individualized instruction. Youth receive 6

hours of education services per day, not including

study time.

• Spiritual support that includes voluntary attendance at religious services conducted twice a week

by members of local African-American churches.

During the About Face aftercare component, youth

attend weekly 2-hour group counseling sessions and

receive continued educational assistance.

A formal evaluation of the About Face program conducted by researchers from Memphis State University

showed some promising results; however, the lack of

a control group makes interpreting the outcomes

difficult.

An evaluation of in-program changes measured for

245 youth indicated that the youth:

• Significantly increased their average overall

achievement scores, from a grade level of 5.9 to 6.7.

• Significantly improved their performance in math,

English, vocabulary, and spelling.

• Significantly improved in 4 of 11 psychological

measures: life purpose, addiction risk, law and

order, and authoritarianism.

Barton and Butts found that the IPP

program was as effective as incarceration at less than one-third the

cost. The program saved an estimated $8.8 million over 3 years.

The overall performances of the experimental and

control groups were comparable. Institutionalized

youth were slightly less likely to reappear in court

than were intensive probation youth; however, this

difference disappeared when time at risk in the community was taken into account. The IPP youth committed less serious crimes than the institutional youth,

performed better on self-report tests, and were less

likely to commit violent crimes measured both by

court records and self-report data. Barton and Butts

found that the IPP program was as effective as incarceration at less than one-third the cost. The program

saved an estimated $8.8 million over 3 years. The IPP

study shows that a variety of program models can be

successful in serving high-risk juvenile offenders in

the community.

About Face

About Face is a boot camp for nonviolent males ages

14 to 17 who were adjudicated of cocaine trafficking.

Participants are sentenced to the program by the

Memphis juvenile court. About Face participants
152

Participants also improved in their understanding of

societal obligations and principled behavior. As previously noted, however, these results must be viewed

with caution because of the lack of a control group.

Recidivism data were based on 121 participants who

were tracked for 20 months from program entry,

including time spent in the residential component, in

aftercare, and after discharge. Almost half (47 percent)

of the youth were rearrested during the 20-month

period. However, this rate compares favorably with

recidivism rates for other programs that handle similar types of offenders. Moreover, the later charges

were significantly less serious than those incurred in

the 12 months preceding program entry. In addition,

although 99 percent of the youth had originally been

convicted of a cocaine offense, only 6 percent were

charged with a cocaine offense during the followup

period.

Similar to About Face is the Boot Camps for Juvenile

Offenders program, launched by OJJDP in 1992 to

create alternative intermediate sanctions for nonviolent juvenile offenders. This program emphasizes discipline, treatment, and work. The program has four

phases: a screening phase to determine program eligibility; a 90-day residential phase that includes military-style drills and discipline, educational and

vocational services, and drug counseling; an aftercare

phase in which youth return to the community under

close supervision; and a final phase with decreased

emphasis on supervision and increased emphasis on

education and job training. The program was

launched at three sites: Mobile, Alabama; Denver,

Colorado; and Cleveland, Ohio. Although an experimental evaluation design is in place at each site, the

results of the evaluation are not yet available.

Spectrum Wilderness Program

The Spectrum Wilderness Program is a 30-day therapeutic outdoor program for delinquent and otherwise

troubled youth operated by the Touch of Nature Environmental Center at Southern Illinois University.

Each Spectrum course includes an Immersion Phase, a

Training Expedition, a Major Expedition, and a Solo

Experience. The specific outdoor activities vary from

course to course but include backpacking, canoeing,

spelunking, taking initiative, team courses, rope

courses, rock climbing, and community service

projects. Students also participate in daily chores

including making camp, cooking, and cleaning.

In addition to outdoor skills, the program emphasizes

academic skills such as reading, writing, and problem

solving. Youth must write daily in both personal and

group journals. They also select passages from books

and read them aloud to the group.

The Spectrum program has a strong counseling component based on the group “circle” method. Circle

groups meet daily to address youth’s behavior problems and to recognize their successes. Conflicts that

arise during the program are viewed as group problems and are worked out in the Circle. Counselors use

reality therapy techniques for solving interpersonal

problems through the Circle.

Spectrum groups vary in size from 7 to 11 participants. A staff team includes from three to five

full-time staff with occasional support staff. The

instructor-to-student ratio is normally 1 to 3. Staff

provide 24-hour supervision. They lead the Circle

group, provide individual counseling, give frequent

feedback, teach outdoor skills, and serve as role models for the youth.

All participants have an individualized performance

contract that is drawn up before the program begins.

Spectrum staff, participating youth, the youth’s families, and representatives from the agency that referred

the youth all provide input into the individual behavior goals that make up the contract. Within 2 weeks

after the course ends, Spectrum staff hold a followup

meeting with these same parties to assess the

juvenile’s performance.

An evaluation of the Spectrum program showed some

promising results. Forty-eight adjudicated delinquents who completed a Spectrum Wilderness Course

were compared with a similar group of delinquent

youth who participated in more traditional programs

(e.g., group homes, counseling, work camps). The

outcome measures were the number and type of

delinquency petitions filed. The tracking period was

7 months after program completion. The Spectrum

group had a total of 11 petitions (23 percent) filed

against them while the control group had 19 petitions

(39 percent). In addition, the petitions for the Spectrum group were significantly less serious than those
153

for the control group. The Spectrum Group was not

petitioned for any Class 1 felonies, while 42 percent of

the control group’s petitions were for Class 1 felonies.

A different evaluation examined the extent in program change for Spectrum participants (n=36) on 40

measures of asocial behavior. The evaluation used a

nonequivalent control group (n=36) whose members

were provided mentoring services. Results showed

that the wilderness program participants significantly

reduced asocial behaviors, while the control group

did not. These results were found to be valid even

when preexisting differences between the groups

were statistically controlled.

juveniles receive an orientation to the program and

undergo educational, psychological, and behavioral

evaluations. They also undergo an intensive physical

conditioning program in addition to their regular

school work.

Next, youth may participate in an adventure program, such as a wagon train. On a wagon train, youth

travel across the western States on mule-drawn wagons and assume responsibility for everything from

feeding the animals to setting up nightly camps. Each

wagon train consists of approximately 50 youth and

50 staff. The wagon train experience teaches juveniles

the value of cooperation, self-discipline, and the work

ethic.

In addition to the wagon train, youth may engage in

various quests that differ in theme, scope, and duration. Examples of quests include ocean voyages,

cross-country bike trips, hikes through wilderness,

and breaking mustangs or camels.

After completing two wagon train or quest experiences, VisionQuest youth enter the residential program. Living in group homes prepares youth to

return to their own homes by focusing on educational

goals, family relationships, and plans for the future.

HomeQuest offers support to youth when they return

to their families and neighborhoods. This intensive

program monitors school progress and home curfew,

provides family counseling, and offers alternative

recreational activities.

VisionQuest youth have a consistent educational plan

that extends through each stage of the program. They

also have individual treatment plans that are constantly reevaluated and updated.

The RAND Corporation conducted an evaluation of

the San Diego VisionQuest program in 1987 (Greenwood and Turner, 1987). The outcomes for 89

VisionQuest graduates were compared with those of

177 delinquent youth who had been placed in a traditional county correctional institution. Although the

experimental VisionQuest group consisted of more

serious offenders than the control group, the

VisionQuest group outperformed the control group

members. VisionQuest youth were substantially less

likely to be rearrested in the first year after release

than the traditional group (55 percent compared with

Results showed that the wilderness

program participants significantly

reduced asocial behaviors, while

the control group did not.

VisionQuest

VisionQuest, founded in 1973, is a national program

that provides an alternative to incarceration for serious juvenile offenders. VisionQuest youth spend 12 to

15 months in various challenging outdoor impact

programs. Typically, the program sequence involves

3 months in an orientation wilderness camp, 5 months

in an adventure program, and 5 months in a community residential program.

Most VisionQuest youth are committed to the program by the juvenile court. VisionQuest staff interview youth prior to placement to ensure that they are

appropriate candidates. Youth must make four commitments before entering the program:

• To complete three high impact programs.

• To abstain from drugs, sex, alcohol, and tobacco.

• To participate for a minimum of 1 year.

• To face their problems.

The first phase of the VisionQuest program is a wilderness camp. Youth live outdoors in tepees, with a

tepee family of 6 to 10 youths and 1 counselor. Here,
154

71 percent). When differences in group characteristics

were statistically controlled, first-year rearrest rates

for VisionQuest youth were about half that of the

control youth.

Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center

The Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center (TOYC) is located

in rural Maryland, 45 minutes from Baltimore. It is a

38-bed, unlocked, staff-secure residential program for

male youth committed to the Maryland Department

of Juvenile Services (DJS). TOYC is operated by the

North American Family Institute (NAFI), a nonprofit

multiservice human service agency with headquarters

in Danvers, Massachusetts. The typical TOYC youth

has many prior court referrals, generally for property

crimes and drug offenses. On average, youth stay at

the center for 9 months, followed by 6 months of community aftercare.

in small group discussions and problem solving.

TOYC is divided into four groups of up to 10 youth

each. Each group lives in separate dormitory areas,

eats meals together, engages in work details as a unit,

and participates in group therapy.

TOYC has a strong education program because many

of its youth have special education needs. Class sizes

are small, and instruction is highly individualized.

Educational staff are closely involved with the other

aspects of the program.

Individual and group successes, both large and small,

are openly recognized at TOYC. The program uses

a point system that rewards youth for excellent

behavior.

The TOYC program begins with an orientation phase

of at least 28 days. Orientation youth live together

and participate in group sessions led by staff members who were former residents and can serve as role

models. The juveniles’ major task during orientation

is to learn the dynamics of the group process. During

phase 1, which lasts for approximately 60 days, youth

acquire more knowledge about TOYC and its normative system. To move from phase 1 to phase 2, residents must demonstrate consistent and positive

behavior in all aspects of TOYC life, including school

attendance, work details, group meetings, and meal

times. In phase 2, the resident is expected to demonstrate even higher levels of expertise in group process

and community activities, including teaching the

program to others. Phase 2 youth must demonstrate

high levels of success in on-campus jobs and are

encouraged to find part-time employment in the

community. They also meet with aftercare workers

to develop a community treatment aftercare plan.

TOYC operates an intensive aftercare program for

participants. Each youth who completes the TOYC

residential program has a specialized aftercare plan

and receives postrelease services from two aftercare

workers—including assistance in reentering school,

vocational counseling, crisis intervention, family

counseling, transportation, and mentoring. Aftercare

lasts for 6 months, during which time aftercare workers contact the youth at least 12 days per month.

An NCCD study found that the majority (55 percent)

of the first 56 TOYC graduates had no further court

The study showed a dramatic

decline in the number of offenses

committed by youth after their

stay at TOYC.

The TOYC philosophy is to create a community of

dignity and respect for all of its members. This positive social environment is at the core of all TOYC

activities. Residents are asked to take responsibility

for their behavior and to provide encouragement to

fellow residents.

TOYC employs the Normative Model, a treatment

theory that recognizes the importance of norms

(social rules and expectations) in creating bonds

among individuals. TOYC norms focus on creating

and fostering expectations that respect the individual,

the community, and the program. In the early stages

of the Normative Model, the staff play a central role in

teaching, modeling, and encouraging community

values. Over time, TOYC residents assume responsibility for teaching community norms to new members

and for dealing with violations of them.

The group process is at the heart of the TOYC community. Several times each day the community engages
155

inappropriate behavior, and provide individualized

treatment. Youth who had been adjudicated for a Part

1 index felony and who had a prior adjudication for a

major felony were eligible for the program.

Fagan (1990) conducted an indepth evaluation of the

VJO program that included a study of VJO implementation at the four urban sites. He found the program

to be well implemented in Boston and Detroit, but

poorly implemented in Memphis and Newark.

Fagan’s evaluation compared outcome measures from

VJO programs with those from traditional juvenile

corrections programs. Eligible youth had been randomly assigned either to experimental VJO programs

or to more traditional ones. Outcome measures included the frequency, severity, and timing of rearrests;

the rate of reincarceration; and self-report measures of

delinquency. Outcome data showed that in Boston

and Detroit, the two sites with the strongest implementation of the VJO program design, VJO youth had

referrals in the postrelease period (an average of 11.6

months). The study showed a dramatic decline in the

number of offenses committed by youth after their

stay at TOYC. In the 12 months prior to placement in

TOYC, the 56 youth were charged with 219 offenses,

an average of almost four court referrals each. However, in the year after leaving TOYC, these youngsters

were charged with just 51 offenses, a decline of 77

percent. NCCD also observed that youth who committed new crimes after leaving TOYC were likely to

commit less serious offenses than before. Even

though no control group was employed in this study,

making interpretation of results problematic, these

findings are promising in that the TOYC recidivism

rate compares favorably with that of the best community-based youth corrections programs nationwide.

Secure Corrections

Some offenders pose such a threat to society that they

must be placed in locked, secure facilities. Such secure

corrections programs should be reserved for only the

most serious and violent offenders. Youth in secure

programs should be provided with a wide range of

rehabilitation services. Research has shown that the

most effective secure corrections programs allow only

a small number of participants and provide them

with individualized services; large training schools

have not proven to be effective in rehabilitating juvenile offenders. Examples of secure corrections programs follow.

The Violent Juvenile Offender Program

The Violent Juvenile Offender (VJO) program provided a continuum of care for violent male juvenile

offenders at four urban sites: Boston, Detroit, Memphis, and Newark. VJO youth were initially placed in

small, secure facilities and were gradually reintegrated into the community through community-based

residential programs followed by intensive neighborhood supervision. Case management was continuous, beginning in secure care and extending through

the reintegration phases.

The VJO model sought to strengthen youth’s bonds to

prosocial people and institutions, provide realistic

opportunities for achievement, employ a system of

rewards for appropriate behavior and sanctions for

Fagan concluded that “the principles and theories built into [VJO]

programs can reduce recidivism

and serious crime among violent

juvenile offenders.”

significantly fewer and less serious rearrests than

the control group when time at risk was taken into

account. In addition, youth at these two sites had

significantly longer intervals until their first rearrest,

regardless of time at risk. Fagan concluded that “the

principles and theories built into [VJO] programs can

reduce recidivism and serious crime among violent

juvenile offenders” (p. 254).

Florida Environmental Institute

The Florida Environmental Institute (FEI), also known

as “The Last Chance Ranch,” targets Florida’s most

serious juvenile offenders. It is operated by Associated Marine Institutes (AMI), a network of affiliated

residential and nonresidential programs that operates

in seven States. FEI is located in a remote area of the

Florida Everglades. It has a capacity of 40 youth—20
156

in the residential portion of the program and 20 in the

nonresidential aftercare component.

FEI receives two-thirds of its referrals from the adult

justice system. Under Florida law, a juvenile who has

been found guilty as an adult may be returned to the

juvenile justice system for treatment. FEI-referred

youth average 18 prior offenses and 11.5 prior felonies. Almost two-thirds (63 percent) are committed

for crimes against persons, the rest for chronic property or drug offenses.

Although FEI handles serious offenders, it is not a

locked facility. Nevertheless, it is considered a secure

facility because it is in an extremely remote location

completely surrounded by forests and swamp. This

physical isolation, in addition to a low staff-to-student

ratio, protects the public’s safety.

The average length of participation in FEI is 18

months, with a residential stay of at least 9 months.

All but a handful of participants return to their communities after they have met strict educational, social,

and behavioral objectives.

The FEI philosophy reflects the following imperatives:

• Treat youth in the least restrictive setting that is

appropriate.

• Focus on education as a means of reducing

recidivism.

• View hard work as therapeutic and a way to

increase vocational skills.

• Employ a system of rewards for positive behavior

and sanctions for inappropriate behavior.

• Promote bonding with staff role models.

• Provide a strong aftercare component.

The FEI program begins with a 3-day orientation program, during which case treatment plans are established, work projects are assigned, and the bonding

process between staff and students begins. Phase 1,

which emphasizes work and education, has a low

staff-to-student ratio of 3 or 4 to 1. Students must earn

points to move on to the second phase, where they

can participate in paid work projects to help with

restitution payments. Near the end of the second

phase, the program’s community coordinator takes

the students back to their communities to assist aftercare job placements and to work on rebuilding family

relationships.

In the third phase, students live in the community but

maintain constant contact with the institute. Aftercare

staff, with small caseloads of six, contact the students

at least four times per week. They assist with job

searches, family problems, and other issues. The

youth must adhere to a strict curfew. If they break

curfew or engage in criminal activity, they are

returned to the residential part of the program.

The Florida Environmental Institute,

also known as “The Last Chance

Ranch,” targets Florida’s most

serious juvenile offenders.

Outcome data on a sample of 21 FEI graduates are

quite promising. A 3-year followup study found that

only one-third of the sample were convicted of new

crimes during this extended period. While no control

group was used in this study, making it difficult to

assess program effectiveness, studies of training

school releases indicate much higher recidivism

rates—50 to 70 percent.

FEI outcome data were also included in a 1992 Florida

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

(DHRS) study of recidivism among committed youth

in seven residential programs for high-risk offenders.

The study compared youth outcomes from all seven

programs and revealed impressive results, with some

qualifiers: None of the programs was specifically

designed as a control group for any of the others; the

FEI sample was small (n=11); and outcome data were

based on returns to the juvenile system only. Nonetheless, the 1-year outcomes of the FEI youth were

promising. Slightly over one-third (36 percent) were

referred again to juvenile court, compared with 47 to

73 percent for the other six programs. Moreover, none

of the FEI youth were readjudicated or recommitted

to DHRS during the followup period, while the

readjudication rates in the other facilities ranged from

20 to 50 percent.
157

Capital Offender Program

The Capital Offender Program (COP) at Giddings

State Home and School in Texas, begun in 1988, is an

innovative group treatment program for juveniles

committed for homicide. It is an intensive, 16-week

program involving a group of eight juveniles and two

or three staff members. The group meets twice a week

for approximately 3 hours each session. Recently, a

residential treatment component has been added to

COP: the eight students live together in the same

cottage until their release. Most program participants

are incarcerated at Giddings for an average of 2 1/2 to

3 years.

Youth must meet four criteria to be eligible for the

COP program:

• They must be committed for homicide (capital

murder, murder, or voluntary manslaughter).

• They must have been at Giddings for at least 12

months and have at least 6 months remaining on

their sentences.

• They must be at either a senior or prerelease level

at Giddings.

• They cannot be diagnosed as psychotic or mentally

retarded, or have a pervasive developmental

disorder.

The primary goals of the COP program are to promote verbal expression of feelings, to foster empathy

for victims, to create a sense of personal responsibility,

and to decrease feelings of hostility and aggression.

The COP treatment approach focuses on group psychotherapy with an emphasis on role-playing. In

addition to role-playing their life stories, participants

role-play their homicidal offense, reenacting the crime

first from the perpetrator’s perspective and then from

the victim’s.

Two COP groups run concurrently, each led by a

Ph.D.-level psychologist and a master’s-level

cotherapist. Psychologists are also available for individual counseling should a student have emotional

reactions requiring more intensive support. COP psychologists receive extra training before participating

in the program.

COP has been rigorously evaluated by the Texas

Youth Commission to determine both in-program

effects on personality measures and postrelease outcomes. While in the program, youth displayed significant changes in the following areas:

• Levels of hostility and aggression.

• Extent of internal control and ability to assume

responsibility.

• Degree of empathy for their victims.

To assess COP’s impact on recidivism, the evaluators

compared COP participants’ rearrest and reconviction

rates at 1- and 3-year intervals after release with those

of a control group of untreated capital offenders. The

control group consisted of youth who were not served

by the program because of space limitations.

At 1 year after release, the COP

participants (n=51) showed a significantly lower rearrest rate than the

control youth (n=77), 22 percent

versus 40 percent, as well as a lower

rate of reincarceration, 0 percent

versus 13 percent.

At 1 year after release, the COP participants (n=51)

showed a significantly lower rearrest rate than the

control youth (n=77), 22 percent versus 40 percent, as

well as a lower rate of reincarceration, 0 percent versus 13 percent. After 3 years, however, these differences disappeared. COP youth (n=17) had rearrest

rates nearly equal to those of control youth (n=23),

35 percent compared with 39 percent. Also, they

were not significantly less likely to be reincarcerated,

6 percent versus 22 percent. Still, both the in-program

changes and the short-term impact on recidivism

suggest that COP should be considered a promising

strategy for violent offenders.
158

Conclusion

The results of NCCD’s intensive review of programs,

along with the findings of 15 years of careful research,

point the way toward an understanding of the crucial

elements of success in graduated sanctions programs

for young offenders. A number of past and current

programs across the country have achieved credible

results using some combination of these crucial elements. It can be said with confidence that some programs do work when they are carefully conceived,

properly implemented, and provided with enough

resources to do the job they set out to do.

Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that a new generation of programs is needed to build on these successes and move beyond them to address aspects of

youth’s lives that even the more effective graduated

sanctions efforts typically neglect. While the successful

outcomes described earlier are encouraging, they are

only partial: Positive results too often deteriorate after

clients leave the programs. This does not mean that

the programs do not work or that their replication

should become a lower priority. Rather, it means that

programs for serious offenders must be enhanced and

extended, especially in ways that improve offenders’

chances of succeeding in the long term and becoming

full, participating members of their communities.

Put simply, the effects of even good intervention programs are bound to be weakened or nullified if youth

are simply returned to communities with shrinking

opportunities for work, self-sufficiency, and social contribution. One of the most effective ways to address this

all-too-common problem is to build a more substantial

employment component into intervention programs for

young offenders. The importance of employment, to be

sure, varies with age (Huizinga et al., 1994): The value

of a job to a 14-year-old first-time offender is likely to be

less important than to a 17-year-old. By late adolescence, employment is a crucial factor in development

and one of the most important predictors of later adjustment (Sampson and Laub, 1993). Yet employment is

arguably the least consistently addressed component in

conventional interventions with delinquent youth.

However, less conventional programs suggest the positive potential of including a systematic employment

component in strategies aimed at high-risk youth.

The most interesting effort, and one with a fairly convincing evaluation, is the vocationally oriented psychotherapy program for low-income high school

dropouts in Massachusetts, initiated by Milton Shore

and Joseph Massimo (1963, 1973) in the early 1960’s.

The program strategy was simple and inexpensive.

Troubled youth with a history of failure in other service programs were contacted by a trained therapist

within 24 hours of dropping out of school. The core of

the therapy was to place them in a steady job and to

use the job placement as an entree for other services,

including psychotherapy and remedial education.

The services, as in the successful programs described

above, were individualized, intensive, and flexible.

Followup comparisons with a comparable untreated

group at 5 and 10 years revealed striking differences.

For example, at 10 years after the intervention, only

2 of 10 participants were deemed to have made an

inadequate adjustment, with one incarcerated and

one in a mental institution. The rest had experienced

relatively stable employment, most had no arrests,

and most were married with families. The fate of the

10 control youth, on the other hand, was bleak and

virtually the opposite of the treated group: only two

were judged as having made an adequate adjustment;

only two were arrest-free; and five had spent time in

prison, jail, or a drug rehabilitation center (Shore and

Massimo, 1973, pp. 129–131).

This program never received the attention it deserved,

although it is one of several employment-oriented

efforts with positive results included in Wright and

Dixon’s review of prevention programs in the late

1970’s. The small size of the samples means that the

results, though striking, must be treated cautiously.

The findings are supported, however, by evaluations

of other work programs for disadvantaged youth.

Especially relevant is the experience of the Job Corps,

which has been shown to prevent a substantial

amount of serious, violent crime. Though not specifically aimed at youthful offenders, the Job Corps

serves a population of high-risk youth, many with a

substantial history of delinquency. Another related

example is the Associated Marine Institutes (AMI)

program in Florida and several other States. In addition to providing support services and remedial education, AMI uses a vocationally oriented approach to

teach marine-related skills.
159

Contacts for More Information on

Effective Programs

Bethesda Day Treatment Center

Dominic Herbst

Managing Director

Bethesda Day Treatment Center

P.O. Box 270

Central Oak Heights

West Milton, PA 17886

(717) 568–1131

Choice Program

Mark Shriver

Executive Director

The Choice Program

The Shriver Center

5401 Wilkens Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21228

(410) 455–2494

Michigan State Diversion Project

William Davidson

Professor

Department of Psychology

135 Snyder Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824–1117

(517) 353–5015

North Carolina Intensive Protection

Supervision Project

Tom Danek

Administrator

Juvenile Services Division

Administrative Office of the Courts

Justice Building

P.O. Box 2448

Raleigh, NC 27602

(919) 662–4300

Family and Neighborhood Services

Project

Scott Henggeler

Professor

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Medical University of South Carolina

171 Ashley Avenue

Charleston, SC 29425

(803) 792–8003

What all these programs have in common—and what

seems to account for their effectiveness—is the combination of a solid focus on a real job or serious skills

training with intensive support services. The importance of real work as a strategy for preventing serious

and violent juvenile offenses and deeper penetration

into the justice system fits with everything known

about adolescent development and the factors that

protect against a variety of problematic behavior.

Yet a work component has had only a sporadic place

in program development up until now. That must

change. Preparation for stable employment and placement in real jobs should have a prominent place in

programming for older adolescents.

What all these programs have in

common—and what seems to

account for their effectiveness—is

the combination of a solid focus on

a real job or serious skills training

with intensive support services.

In designing appropriate training and placement

strategies, it is important to note another frequent

finding: programs tend to work better if they combine

offenders with nondelinquent peers rather than

isolating delinquents in one group (see Feldman,

Caplinger, and Wodarski, 1983).

Linking young offenders to a broader communityoriented youth work program—perhaps modeled on

existing Conservation Corps programs—could be a

critical part of a comprehensive or multisystemic

approach.
160

Lucas County Intensive Supervision Unit

Sandy Strong

Supervisor

Intensive Supervision Unit

429 Michigan Avenue

Toledo, OH 43624

(419) 249–6663

Wayne County Intensive Probation

Program

Priscilla Wells

Supervisor

Intensive Probation Program

1025 East Forest

Detroit, MI 48207

(313) 577–9426

About Face

Frank Dawson

Director of Operations

Youth Service USA

314 South Goodlett

Memphis, TN 38117

(901) 452–5600

Spectrum Wilderness Program

Karen Hand

Program Coordinator

Spectrum Wilderness Program

Southern Illinois University

Carbondale, IL 62901

(618) 453–1121

VisionQuest

Bob Burton

Chief Executive Officer

VisionQuest

P.O. Box 12906

Tucson, AZ 85732

(602) 881–3950

Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center

John Yates

Director

Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center

P.O. Box 306

Woodstock, MD 21163

(410) 549–6330

Violent Juvenile Offender Program

Jeffrey Fagan

Associate Professor

Rutgers University

School of Criminal Justice

15 Washington Street, 12th Floor

Newark, NJ 07102

(201) 648–1305

Florida Environmental Institute

Robert Weaver

President

Associated Marine Institutes

5915 Benjamin Center Drive

Tampa, FL 33634

(813) 887–3300

Capital Offender Program

Linda Reyes

Chief of Mental Health

Texas Youth Commission

4900 North Lamar

P.O. Box 4260

Austin, TX 78765

(512) 483–5152
161

Descriptions of and Contacts for

Promising Programs

In the program search that identified the effective

graduated sanctions programs described earlier in

this part, NCCD also compiled a list of promising

programs. The programs listed in this section contain

one or more of the elements associated with effective

graduated sanctions programs and have been judged

to be effective by officials in the jurisdictions where

they have been implemented.

However, these programs do not yet have evaluation

results. Some of them are currently undergoing evaluations and more information on their effectiveness

will soon be available. The following section contains

brief descriptions of these promising programs and

identifies the specific target population that each one

serves.

Immediate Sanction

Adolescent Substance Abuse Program

(ASAP)

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Diversion Program

Target

Population: Adjudicated, substance-abusing

delinquents

This program identifies substance abusers and refers

them to appropriate treatment. Drug abuse users are

referred to an outpatient treatment facility; low- or

moderate-risk youth may undergo urinalysis and

attend a “drug school” with their parents. Youth selling drugs may be placed in a special program for

drug dealers.

Contact: David Kilmer

Program Coordinator

Jefferson County Family Court

120 Second Court North

Birmingham, AL 35204

(205) 325–5996

Community Service Early Intervention

Program

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Diversion Program

Target

Population: Preadjudicated first-time offenders

This program provides supportive guidance, counseling, academic education, and community service

work for first-time offenders classified as at-risk

youth and school failures. Primary interventions

include community service, skill development, and

academic education.

Contact: Tami Runkle

Early Intervention Coordinator

Marion County Juvenile Court

1440 Mt. Vernon Avenue

Marion, OH 43302

(614) 389–5476

Diversion Program

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Diversion Program

Target

Population: First-time, nonviolent, nonfelony

offenders

This program aims to keep high-risk youth away from

the formal court system by linking them with social,

medical, and psychological service agencies. Direct

services include needs assessment, problem solving,

youth advocacy, and family support. Skill development, counseling, and mentoring are the program’s

primary intervention strategies.

Contact: Shari Bukowski

Diversion Officer

Diversion Services

Room 209, City-County Building

Gaylord, MI 49735

(517) 732–6484
162

Juvenile Diversion Program

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Diversion Program

Target

Population: First-time, nonviolent offenders

This program offers youth and their families an

optional counseling program as an alternative to the

court process. Youth are referred to appropriate

community-based counseling agencies that provide

case management, advocacy followup, and progress

assessment.

Contact: Ruth Budelman

Director

Juvenile Diversion Program

Museum Place

One East India Square

Salem, MA 01970

(508) 745–6610

Juvenile Alcohol and Marijuana Diversion

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Diversion Program

Target

Population: First-time, substance-abusing offenders

This program targets juveniles apprehended on firsttime drug and alcohol possession charges. The program requires that offenders and parents attend

chemical awareness class or else face juvenile court

proceedings. The diversion program is considered a

cost-effective alternative for handling first-time

substance abuse violators.

Contact: Diane Anderson

Legal Assistant

Dakota County Judicial Center

1560 West Highway 55

Hastings, MN 55033

(612) 438–4438

First Offenders Program

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Diversion Program

Target

Population: First-time offenders

In this program, first-time offenders and their parents

attend a 7-week program that addresses family communication, peer pressure, the juvenile justice system,

substance abuse, pregnancy prevention, AIDS education, and how to access other youth service support

systems.

Contact: Lydia Ashanin

Communications Specialist

Youth Development, Inc.

6301 Central NW.

Albuquerque, NM 87105

(505) 831–6038

Juvenile Diversion Program

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Diversion Program

Target

Population: First-time, nonviolent offenders

This program offers an alternative to prosecution for

first-time offenders. A Diversion Counselor creates a

personalized program in contract form for the youth.

If the youth complies with the contract and does

not reoffend, the case is closed. If the youth is

noncompliant, the case is referred for prosecution.

Contact: Sharon Blackman

Supervisor

Juvenile Diversion Program

Office of the District Attorney

215 West 10th Street

Pueblo, CO 81003

(719) 546–6030
163

Partnership for Learning

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Diversion Program

Target

Population: Learning disabled, nonviolent, first-time

juvenile offenders

This program screens first-time offenders to identify

and assist those who are learning disabled. Identified

youth may participate in an intensive 90-day counseling program having a minimum of 60 hours of

remedial tutoring as an alternative to prosecution.

Successful participants have their cases dismissed.

Contact: Delgreco Wilson

Program Coordinator

206 Mitchell Courthouse

110 North Calvert Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 396-5092

Y-Cap

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Diversion Program

Target

Population: Juvenile offenders ages 9–16

This program provides intensive services and treatment to high-risk offenders and families referred by

the school system and the juvenile court. The program includes group counseling, tutoring, parent

skills, recreation, and a big brother program. Primary

interventions include individual/family counseling,

mentoring, and academic education.

Contact: Mark Dickerson

Family Intervention Coordinator

Y-CAP: Metro Juvenile Court

802 Second Avenue

Nashville, TN 37210

(615) 862–8068

Youth Forensic Services

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Diversion Program

Target

Population: First-time offenders with mental health

problems

This program aims to reduce recidivism by providing

predispositional evaluations and treatment. The target

population includes youth with problems stemming

from serious mental illness, dysfunctional home lives,

severe school difficulties, substance abuse, or youth

who are very young. Services include individualized

treatment and child- and family-focused intervention.

Contact: Debra Deprato

Director

Youth Forensic Services

3101 West Napolean Avenue, Suite 110

Metarie, LA 70001

(504) 838–5216

Partners

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subgroup: Mentoring Program

Target

Population: Delinquent and at-risk youth

This mentorship program matches adult volunteers

with youth ages 8 to 18. The mentoring relationship

promotes positive change by allowing youth to

observe an alternative way of living. The program

provides training, counseling, and support groups for

youth and parents; recreational/educational activities;

health and dental care; and community service

projects.

Contact: Tina Shaffer

Marketing Coordinator

Partners

910 16th Street, Suite 426

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 595–4400
164

YouthWorks

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Mentoring Program

Target

Population: First-time offenders under age 15

This program, sponsored by the Louisville District of

the United Methodist Church, matches adult volunteers with youth ordered by the court to participate in

the program for 6 months. Volunteers provide guidance, support, and recreational activities to discourage delinquent activity. Primary interventions are

mentoring, skill development, and individual/family

counseling.

Contact: Kelly Lopez

Program Coordinator

YouthWorks

1228 South Jackson Street

Louisville, KY 40203

(502) 637–5648

Peer Jury Program

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Peer Jury Program

Target

Population: First-time, nonviolent offenders

This program is a joint community effort that seeks to

foster change in the lives of young offenders by offering them the option of participating in community

service. The program recognizes that community

service provides an offender with appropriate role

models for socially acceptable behavior and helps to

prevent the youth from having a police record.

Contact: Donald Cundriff

Chief of Police

Police Department

1200 Gannon Drive

Hoffman Estates, IL 60194

(708) 882–1818

Teen Court

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Peer Jury Program

Target

Population: Misdemeanor offenders ages 14–17

This is a diversion program for youth who have committed a first misdemeanor or truancy. A teen jury

and adult judge hear cases and determine sentencing,

which may include counseling, community service, or

service on the teen court. The program’s goals are to

provide positive peer pressure, to keep youth out of

the juvenile justice system, and to familiarize participants with the legal process.

Contact: Terri Vickers

Teen Court Coordinator

P. O. Box 1000

County Courthouse

Bradenton, FL 34206

(813) 749–1800

Y-Teen Court

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Peer Jury Program

Target

Population: Minor misdemeanor offenders

This diversion program targets youth accused of

minor misdemeanors, such as truancy, curfew violation, possession of alcohol, and traffic violations. A

teen jury and an adult judge hear cases and determine

sentences, which may include counseling, community

service, or service on the teen court. The program

provides positive peer influences and keeps youth out

of the juvenile justice system while familiarizing them

with the legal process.

Contact: Bob Fleming

YMCA of Greater Houston

7903 South Loop East

Houston, TX 77012

(713) 659–5566
165

Kingman Youth Service Corps

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Restitution Program

Target

Population: Delinquent and at-risk males ages 13–15

This 8-week summer program (40 hours per week)

involves work, education, and recreation. Participants

receive a $10 daily stipend, half of which is designated for restitution payments. Besides work skills,

the program teaches basic values, independent living,

leadership, and physical training.

Contact: Dean Moore

Programs Coordinator

Mohave County Probation Department

515 East Beale Street

Kingman, AZ 86401

(602) 753–1741

Madison County Restitution/Community

Service Program

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Restitution Program

Target

Population: Delinquents

This program targets youth who have committed

property destruction, theft, assault, alcohol and drug

offenses, and less serious crimes. It teaches offenders

that they are responsible for their misdeeds and that

they must make restitution to the community and to

their victims. Juveniles work without pay at public or

nonprofit agencies for an assigned number of hours.

Contact: Barbara Dooley

Director

Juvenile Court Services

224 Lexington Avenue

Jackson, TN 38301

(901) 423–6140

Earn-It

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Restitution Program

Target

Population: Nonviolent, low-risk offenders

This sentencing alternative program arranges work

opportunities for young offenders to enable them to

pay for damages they have caused. Youth allocate

two-thirds of their earnings to restitution and keep

one-third as an incentive. The program has an 80 to 85

percent success rate for keeping youth out of court

and from becoming repeat offenders.

Contact: Judith Sadoski

Earn-It Program Manager

City Hall

3 Washington Street

Keene, NH 03431

(603) 357–9811

Juvenile Work Restitution Program

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Restitution Program

Target

Population: Delinquent youth

This program targets youth performing court-ordered

community service. Youth are assigned to worksites

where they learn positive work habits under the

supervision of adult volunteers who work at the site.

Youth ages 13–16 are required to attend a 6-hour self

esteem and job training course. Participants must also

write apology letters to their victims.

Contact: Tammy Cobb

Director

Almanac Friends of Youth

124 West Elm Street

Graham, NC 27253

(910) 228–7563
166

Tuscaloosa Restitution Program

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Restitution Program

Target

Population: Nonviolent offenders

This program offers a balanced approach to juvenile

restitution through emphasis on victims and victim

services as well as offender accountability and employment opportunities. The program’s goals are to

provide damage compensation to victims, reduce

recidivism of juvenile offenders, and increase public

confidence in the juvenile justice system.

Contact: John Upchurch

Director of Court Services

Juvenile Court of Tuscaloosa County

6001 12th Avenue East

Tuscaloosa, AL 35405

(205) 758–1668

Adelphoi Village Day Treatment

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Delinquents ages 13–18

This program provides delinquent youth with individual, group, and family counseling services; along

with education and life skills training in a nurturing

environment. The program enables youth to develop

a positive self-image and paves the way for them to

unite with their families.

Contact: John Bukovac

Executive Director

Adelphoi Village

354 Main Street

Latrobe, PA 15650

(412) 537–3052

Community Intensive Treatment for

Youth (CITY)

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Delinquents ages 12–18

This State-run, nonresidential program provides academic education, social functioning, positive behavior

skills, employment skills training, consumer education, success planning, and counseling to youth

offenders. Families receive assistance through linkages with community agencies.

Contact: Ed Earnest

Program Director

CITY Programs of Alabama

3420 Second Avenue North

Birmingham, AL 35222

(205) 251–2489

Kids in Need of Development (KIND)

Programs

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Delinquent youth ages 12–18

This program provides comprehensive day treatment

to delinquent youth and their families. Services

include individual and family counseling, case management, and advocacy. A followup assessment is

conducted 1 year after youth complete the program.

Reality therapy and academic education are primary

intervention techniques.

Contact: Steve Munz

Program Coordinator

KIND Programs

208 North Hood Street

Lake Providence, LA 71254

(318) 559–0653
167

Manito Incorporated

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Delinquent and at-risk youth ages 13–17

Manito Incorporated operates day treatment programs for up to 120 adolescents. The programs provide individualized education, case planning, social

and life skills development, and counseling. The program subscribes to a restorative justice model, emphasizing a balance of community protection, offender

accountability, and competency development.

Contact: Robert Whitmore

Executive Director

Manito Incorporated

7564 Browns Mill Road

Chambersburg, PA 17201

(717) 375–4733

PACE Center for Girls

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Delinquent and otherwise troubled girls

ages 12–18

This program provides comprehensive education and

treatment services including individual and family

counseling, accredited education, career planning,

pregnancy prevention, cultural awareness, life skills,

and volunteer opportunities.

Contact: Gail Henson

Program Development Manager

PACE Center for Girls

9250 Cypress Green Drive, Suite 106

Jacksonville, FL 32256

(904) 737–3275

Probation Fields

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Delinquents ages 12–18 at risk of being

removed from the home

This 6-month program serves youth referred by the

juvenile court and aims to deter them from future delinquent activity. Program components include guided

group interaction, vocational training, and basic skills

education. Participants must attend school or obtain

full-time employment following program completion.

Contact: George Sullivan

Supervising Probation Officer

Passaic County Probation Department

182 First Street

Passaic, NJ 07055

(201) 881–2808

Specialized Training and Remedial

Tutoring (START)

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Juvenile offenders who have dropped

out of school

This program uses video and group discussions to

teach crime avoidance to juveniles in diversion, in

detention, or on academic probation. The program

develops decisionmaking skills and helps youth cope

with peer and family issues. Primary interventions are

skill development, academic education, and individual/family counseling.

Contact: Gerald David

Intake Supervisor

Calcasieu Parish Juvenile Court

Box 5544 Drew Station

Lake Charles, LA 70606

(318) 478–1550
168

The Day Program

Type: Immediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Youth ages 13–18 with a history of

juvenile court contact, chronic truancy,

or substance abuse

This comprehensive youth services program provides

individualized attention to troubled youth and their

families. Services include academic remediation, GED

preparation, behavioral modification, counseling, and

employment training.

Contact: Elizabeth Morris

Director

The Day Program

P. O. Box 1811

Alabaster, AL 35007

(205) 664–1600

Intermediate Sanction

Alternative Rehabilitation Communities

(ARC), Inc., Day Treatment

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Adjudicated offenders ages 13–18

This treatment program is for serious and chronic

juvenile offenders in need of supervision, counseling,

and education. Youth receive services in a community-based setting as an alternative to placement in a

remote facility.

Contact: Daniel Elby

Executive Director

Alternative Rehabilitation

 Communities, Inc.

2743 North Front Street

Harrisburg, PA 17110

(717) 238–7101

Missouri Day Treatment Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment/Aftercare

Target

Population: Serves as a diversion program for lowrisk, committed youth and as an aftercare program for moderate- and highrisk committed youth returning to the

community from residential placement.

This year-round program provides a structured educational alternative to the public school system for

youth at risk of residential placement. The program

includes academic courses, GED classes, career planning, job placement, and community service. Youth

receive individual attention.

Contact: Mark Steward

Director

Division of Children and Youth Services

P.O. Box 447

Jefferson City, MO 65102

(314) 751–3324

Pinellas Marine Institute (PMI)

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Delinquents ages 15–18

This program provides treatment and aftercare services to youth adjudicated delinquent by juvenile

courts. It focuses on individualized education and

marine activities such as scuba diving and sailing.

A 12-week aftercare program is provided following

completion of the 6-month PMI program.

Contact: Bob Weaver

President

Associated Marine Institutes

5915 Benjamin Center Drive

Tampa, FL 33634

(813) 887–3300
169

Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment

Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Outpatient Sex Offender Program

Target

Population: Adjudicated juvenile sex offenders who

can be safely treated in the community

This program aims to deter corrections placement and

to reduce the number of sex offender victims by providing offense-specific group counseling for juvenile

sex offenders who are at low to moderate risk of

reoffending. The program uses a cognitive approach

to treatment and focuses on offense cycles and relapse

prevention through the use of skill development,

individual and family counseling, and mentoring.

Contact: Debbie Cunningham

Coordinator

Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment

 Program

Coles County Mental Health Center

1300 Charleston Avenue, Box 1307

Mattoon, IL 61938

(217) 234–6405

Sexual Behavior Problems Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Outpatient Sex Offender Program

Target

Population: Adjudicated sex offenders who can

safely remain in the community

This group therapy program is sex-offense specific

and seeks to provide youth with understanding and

control of their sexual behavior. Program staff, families, and community agencies cooperate in holding

individuals accountable for their behavior. Services

include monitoring, risk assessment, outpatient treatment, and therapy.

Contact: Deborah Hartlaub

Coordinator

Sexual Behavior Problems Program

Akron Child Guidance Center

312 Locust Street

Akron, OH 44302

(216) 762–0591

Texas Key Day Treatment

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Day Treatment

Target

Population: Delinquent youth

This program provides probation services to juveniles

who have committed crimes and aftercare services to

juveniles released from a corrections facility. The

12-hour per day program includes education, counseling, vocational skills, training, and recreation programming. Youth are tracked after hours as well.

Contact: Carla Ventura

Special Assistant to the Executive

Director

The Texas Key Program

3000 South IH-35, Suite 410

Austin, TX 78704

(512) 462–2181

Adolescent Sex Offender Treatment

Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Outpatient Sex Offender Program

Target

Population: Low-risk youth adjudicated for a sex

offense

This program, an alternative to institutional treatment, provides assessment and treatment services to

youth charged with sex-related offenses. It encourages offenders to accept responsibility for their

actions and to acquire skills for healthier ways of

coping with emotional needs. Primary interventions

include group therapy, individual and family counseling, and skill development.

Contact: Ginny Vanderzee

Therapist

Adolescent Sex Offender Treatment

 Program

Kent County Juvenile Court

1501 Cedar Street NE.

Grand Rapids, MI 49503

(616) 336–3700
170

Specialized Treatment of Perpetrators

(STOP)

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Outpatient Sex Offender Program

Target

Population: Adjudicated sex offenders

This program’s mission is to intervene with sex

offenders and stop their sexually victimizing behaviors by promoting offender accountability, victim

empathy, and trust. Youth learn more effective methods of meeting emotional needs. Services include

evaluation, psycho-education, treatment, counseling,

and long-term case management.

Contact: Vicki Wallace

Psychological Services Administrator

STOP

201 North Eugene

Greensboro, NC 27401

(919) 373–3630

Family-Based Services (FBS)

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Family Preservation

Target

Population: Youth in contact with the juvenile justice

system

This program provides in-home therapy to youth and

families for up to 12 weeks to preserve the family unit

and to avoid out-of-home placement. Caseworkers

and families address problems and attempt to

strengthen areas of weakness through counseling,

skill development, and mentoring.

Contact: William Boley

Human Resources Development

 Council

Box 1509

Havre, MT 59501

(406) 265–6743

Family Ties

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Family Preservation

Target

Population: Delinquent youths who would

otherwise be placed out of the home

This program attempts to avert placement of adjudicated youth in juvenile justice facilities. Counselors

trained in family preservation work intensively with

youth and their families for 4 to 8 weeks to address

problems that contribute to the child’s delinquency.

If the outcome is successful, placement in a facility is

avoided.

Contact: Eric Parsons

Chief of Staff

Department of Juvenile Justice

365 Broadway

New York, NY 10013

(212) 925–7779

Prime Time Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Family Preservation

Target

Population: Delinquent or at-risk substance abusers

ages 10–17

This program provides treatment to youth and

families who abuse drugs and alcohol. It seeks to

strengthen the family and reduce family contacts with

the juvenile justice system. Services include Family

School Group involvement, family counseling, substance abuse education and treatment, and home

visits.

Contact: Mellie Baron

Supervisor

Prime Time Program

The House Next Door

121 West Pennsylvania Avenue

DeLand, FL 32720

(904) 734–7571
171

Turning Point

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Family Preservation

Target

Population: Chronic, serious offenders with prior

out-of-home placements

This program helps troubled families stay together by

providing skills to halt the cycle of violence, abuse,

and neglect. Counselors provide intensive in-home

counseling and case management services. Mentors

provide educational, recreational, and social activities.

Contact: Karen Percy

Director

Public Relations and Marketing

Family Preservation Services

3330 Bourbon Street, Suite 126

Fredericksburg, VA 22408

(703) 372–8709

Advancing Youth Project (AYP)

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Youth on parole, probation, or at risk of

future criminal behavior

This program provides targeted youth with comprehensive social services and vocational training. Its

purpose is to assist them in making the transition

from school to jobs, higher education, or independent

living by providing support and training.

Contact: H.D. Bud Fredericks, Ed. D.

Research Professor and Associate

 Director

Teaching Research Division

Western Oregon State College

Monmouth, OR 97361

(504) 838–8391

Arizona Key Outreach and Tracking

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Adjudicated youth ages 10–18 on

probation or parole

This program provides probation services to juveniles

who have committed crimes and aftercare services to

juveniles released from a corrections facility. Services

include daily contacts, strict supervision, counseling,

advocacy, crisis intervention, and curfews.

Contact: Melissa Jenkins-Simon

Regional Director

Arizona Key Program

827 North Fifth Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85003

(602) 256–9552

Community Corrections Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Juvenile offenders who would otherwise

be incarcerated

This program provides presentencing alternatives for

youth who might otherwise be institutionalized. The

program treats juvenile offenders in the community

by providing supervision and support services to the

offender and to the family.

Contact: Lydia Ashanin

Communications Specialist

Youth Development, Inc.

6301 Central NW.

Albuquerque, NM 87105

(505) 831–6038
172

Community Intervention Services (CIS)

Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Serious offenders who would otherwise

be incarcerated

This program is designed to divert hardcore, serious

offenders from institutional placement and, instead,

allow rehabilitation in the community. Services

include counseling, supervision and monitoring, lifeskills courses, prevocational counseling, adventurebased outings, recreation, and community service.

Contact: Sherry Seal

CIS Program Manager

East Tennessee Human Reserve Agency

1835 North Cumberland

Morristown, TN 37814

(615) 581–7402

Community Caseworker Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Adjudicated and at-risk youth

This program provides multiple services to youth and

families to preserve the family unit. Caseworkers with

small caseloads work with clients in the community

to address individual, family, social, educational, and

vocational needs. Services include skill development,

counseling, and special education.

Contact: Frank Janakovic

Executive Director

Alternative Community Resource

 Program

726 Franklin Street

Johnstown, PA 15901

(814) 536–5611

Community Commitment, Inc.

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Delinquent adolescents

This nonresidential program for delinquent or emotionally abused youth emphasizes counseling, education, recreation, and living skills. Counselors interact

personally with clients and make appropriate service

linkages for clients and their families.

Contact: Peter Stollery

Executive Director

Community Commitment, Inc.

4125 Swamp Road

Doylestown, PA 18901

(215) 348–9809

Families in Need of Support (FINS)

Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Delinquent and otherwise troubled

youth ages 12–18

This program aims to avert out-of-home placement

and to strengthen families. Clients meet with counselors once a week. Counselors conduct home visits and

help the family develop education, vocational, and

recreational plans. At the end of 6 months, clients

develop an aftercare plan.

Contact: Cecilia Halverson

Developmental Director

Volunteer Counseling Service

151 South Main Street

New City, NY 10956

(914) 634–5729
173

High Intensity Treatment Supervision

(HITS) Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Chronic serious offenders ages 13–18

This program provides an alternative to incarceration

for juvenile offenders. The target group includes repeat serious offenders whose behavior is not altered

by traditional probation. The program provides intense supervision, monitoring, and treatment services

to youth and families.

Contact: Brenda Mosley

Clinical Program Director

HITS Program

Superior Court of the District of

 Columbia

409 East Street NW., B Room 302

Washington, DC 20001

(202) 508–1627

House Arrest Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Probation violators and minor offenders

This program targets youth who are not in control of

their behavior. The program provides intensive supervision through electronic monitoring, home telephone

calling, or self-reporting. Youth must report for daily

group meetings, attend school, and adhere to a

curfew.

Contact: Michael Spangler

Casework Supervisor

Juvenile Division

Elkhart County Court Services

County Courts Bldg.

315 South Second Street

Elkhart, IN 46516

(219) 523–2203

Intensive Probation Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Youth ages 10–18 who are having

problems on regular probation

This program targets juveniles who have committed

serious offenses but have demonstrated a desire to

change their behavior. It provides more supervision

and support than regular probation. Program components include weekly contacts, curfew checks, and

school attendance monitoring.

Contact: Doris Lucy

Program Director

Intensive Probation Department

141 Tuscaloosa Street

Mobile, AL 36607

(205) 476–1450

Intensive Case Monitoring

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Low-risk, first-time offenders and

medium-risk youth returning to the

community from residential placement

In this program, college students assist case managers

as intensive case monitors. The college students monitor school attendance and curfew compliance and

serve as mentors and role models.

Contact: Mark Steward

Director

Division of Children and Youth Services

P.O. Box 447

Jefferson City, MO 65102

(314) 751–3324
174

Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS)

Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Nonviolent youth who would otherwise

be incarcerated

This program is a community-based sentencing alternative for high-risk and serious offenders. It emphasizes frequent contacts, mandatory school attendance,

and community service. Client selection depends

partly on family support, positive attitude, and positive response to past probation.

Contact: William Sifferman

IPS Program Coordinator

Circuit Court of Cook County

1100 South Hamilton Avenue

Chicago, IL 60612

(312) 738–8200

Juvenile Intervention Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: First-time, nonviolent offenders

This program provides positive direction to first-time

offenders. Volunteer sheriff’s deputies track and

counsel youth. Program requirements include school

attendance, a curfew, and community service. Successful participation may mitigate the need to file

criminal charges.

Contact: A. J. Johnson

Sheriff

Office of the Sheriff

P.O. Box 359

Eagle County, CO 81631

(303) 328–6611

Juvenile Community Intervention

Services

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Delinquent youth who would otherwise

be incarcerated

This program serves chronic offenders and their families in the home. The program’s goals are to empower

parents to resolve problems without relying on the

court system and to monitor youth compliance so

they will not further burden the system.

Contact: Erin Creal

Program Manager

Juvenile Community Intervention

 Services

P.O. Box 909

Dunlap, TN 37327

(615) 949–2191

Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program

(JISP)

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Incarcerated youth returning to the

community

This program targets a select group of juvenile offenders posing a minimal risk to the public. Applicants

earn the privilege of entering and remaining in the

program by continuous adherence to a series of shortterm goals and to obligations such as education,

employment, and personal accountability.

Contact: Philip Hill

Director

Juvenile Intensive Supervision Program

Administrative Office of the Courts

CN–987

Trenton, NJ 08625

(609) 633–6547
175

Special Services Unit (SSU)

Type: Intermediate Sanction/Secure

Corrections

Subtype: Intensive Supervision Program/

Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Adjudicated sex offenders, institutionalized and noninstitutionalized

This program seeks to demonstrate the viability of

community-based residential treatment for high-risk

sex offenders and to prevent their recidivism by

managing and treating sexual aggression. Probation

officers provide specialized aftercare services for institutionalized youth and specialized supervision and

treatment of youth on probation.

Contact: Ronald Seyko

Supervisor

Northern Probation Center

906 Western Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15233

(412) 321–0365

Special Probation Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Adjudicated delinquents who are

about to be committed

This program is based on a comprehensive, individualized treatment plan and on frequent treatmentfocused contacts. During the first month of the

program, juveniles are monitored continuously, often

via electronic monitoring. The level of supervision

decreases during the last 5 months of the program.

Contact: Austin Suits

Manager

Family Court of St. Louis County

501 South Brentwood Boulevard

Clayton, MO 63105

(314) 889–3400

Juvenile TASC

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Delinquent youth with substance abuse

problems

This program prescreens first-time offenders and

frequently tests them for drug and alcohol use. The

program links the juvenile justice system and community treatment providers. Program components

include screening, assessment, referral, case management, surveillance, and drug testing.

Contact: Sandy McIntire

TASC Director

Preble County Juvenile Division

204 North Barron Street

Eaton, OH 45320

(513) 456–3443

Key Outreach and Tracking

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Delinquent youth who would otherwise

be placed in a residential program

This program serves both as a sentencing alternative

and as an aftercare program. Services include daily

contact with the youth and family, frequent surveillance, advocacy with other community resources, and

referrals for clinical services such as counseling.

Contact: William Lyttle

President

The Key Program

670 Old Connecticut Path

Framingham, MA 01701

(508) 877–3690
176

STAR Project

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Junior high school youth who have

committed detainable offenses

This program combines an educational component

with supervision by the county probation department. Program goals include keeping the offender in

school, reducing disruptive behavior, and instilling

pride and self-discipline in program participants.

School expulsion is used only as a last resort.

Contact: Melvin Brown

Executive Director

STAR Project

County Administration Building

301 North Thompson

Conroe, TX 77301

(409) 760–6995

Texas Key Outreach and Tracking

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Delinquent youth

This program provides probation services to juveniles

who have committed crimes and aftercare services to

juveniles released from a corrections facility. Services

include daily contacts, strict supervision, counseling,

advocacy, crisis intervention, and curfews.

Contact: Carla Ventura

Special Assistant to the Executive

 Director

The Texas Key Program

3000 South IH–35, Suite 410

Austin, TX 78704

(512) 462–2181

Tracker Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Youth released from Maine Youth

Correctional Center

The goals of this program are to shorten the time

youth spend in correctional institutions and to reduce

recidivism by reintegrating youth with their families

and communities. Juveniles are released to the program with an individualized case plan that may include a curfew, substance abuse counseling, family

counseling, school attendance, and volunteer work.

Contact: Roxy Hennings

Planning Coordinator

Maine Department of Corrections

State House Station 111

Augusta, ME 04333

(207) 287–4341

Violence Intervention Program (VIP)

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Violent offenders who would otherwise

be incarcerated

This program serves youth ages 13–15 who have committed violent offenses such as homicide, battery,

assault, and robbery, and who have been placed on

probation. Services include daily contact, drug testing, curfew, and education.

Contact: Melinda Smith

Executive Director

New Mexico Center for Dispute

 Resolution

620 Roma NW., Suite B

Albuquerque, NM 87102

(505) 247–0571
177

Youth Advocacy

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Intensive Supervision

Target

Population: Adjudicated chronic offenders who

would otherwise be incarcerated

This program targets mostly youth convicted of

property-related crimes or assault, providing intensive case management and community-based technical assistance to youth and their families for 1 year.

The program incorporates individualized planning,

advocacy, and unconditional care of youth.

Contact: Marsha Weissman

Executive Director

Center for Community Alternatives

430 East Genesee Street, Suite 205

Syracuse, NY 13202

(315) 422–5638

Community Intensive Supervision Project

(CISP)

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Electronic Monitoring

Target

Population: Chronic male juvenile offenders who

would otherwise be institutionalized

This program serves as an alternative to incarceration

for male offenders ages 10–18 who recidivate while on

probation. Most participants are property or crack

cocaine offenders. Sex offenders are ineligible for the

program. Youth are tracked constantly through

electronic monitoring. During the day, they attend

school or work jobs, and in the evening go to

CISP classes where they receive a full range of

programming.

Contact: Joseph Daugerdas

Director of Court Services

Family Division—Juvenile Section

3333 Forbes Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15213

(412) 578–8210

Early Release Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Electronic Monitoring

Target

Population: Committed delinquents

This program facilitates early release of appropriate

youth from institutions. The program provides intensive counseling services to youth and families. Clients

undergo electronic monitoring and receive intensive

team supervision by probation staff.

Contact: Virginia Perfetta

Program Coordinator

Juvenile Justice Department

Court Administration Office

Pottsville, PA 17901

(717) 628–1245

Nokomis Challenge Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Outdoors Program

Target

Population: Adjudicated felony offenders ages 14–18

This program includes an 84-day residential component that provides youth with prosocial, life management, and academic skills by using a cognitive/

behavioral approach and wilderness experiences.

A 9-month community surveillance and treatment

component helps reintegrate youth with their families

and communities.

Contact: John Castle

Director

Nokomis Challenge Program

6300 South Reserve Road

Prudenville, MI 48651

(517) 366–5368
178

Project Challenge

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Outdoors Program

Target

Population: Delinquent youth

This program targets substance-abusing youth referred from a locked residential facility. It is designed

to reintegrate youth into the community and provide

activities to improve self-esteem, education, decisionmaking, and social skills.

Contact: Lisa Rae Galm

Program Director

Project Adventure

P.O. Box 2447

Covington, GA 30209

(404) 784–9310

Challenge Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Boot Camp

Target

Population: Adjudicated males ages 14–16

This sentencing alternative program consists of three

phases: 90 days in a secure residential facility with

emphasis on discipline and education, 120 days in a

halfway house with counseling and job skills training,

and aftercare with services and monitoring.

Contact: Jesus Chavez

Supervisor

Challenge Program

Juvenile Probation Department

6400 Delta Drive

El Paso, TX 79905

(915) 772–2133

Lead Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Boot Camp

Target

Population: Committed youth and first-time parole

violators

This program uses a treatment continuum that begins

with a short-term, intensive, and highly structured

institutional program modeled on a military boot

camp. This initial phase is followed by an intensive

parole phase with graduated supervision levels.

Services include physical training, education, and

counseling.

Contact: William Kolender

Director

Department of the Youth Authority

421 Williamsbourgh Drive

Sacramento, CA 95823

(916) 262–1467

New Start Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Boot Camp

Target

Population: Chronic property offenders

During this 6-month program, residents spend the

first 12 weeks at the Lloyd E. Rader Center, where

they are assigned in groups of eight. There, physical

training, recreational therapy, and communication

activities build self esteem. Group interactions provide real-life material for group counseling. The next

12 weeks of the program include closely supervised

community tracking.

Contact: Larry Dobbs

Program Director

New START Program

Lloyd Rader Center

Route 4, Box 9

Sand Springs, OK 74063

(918) 245–2541
179

Harborcreek Youth Services Residential

Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquent males ages 10–18

This program uses a system of rewards and punishments to modify youth behavior. Individualized

counseling and bonding between each resident and

his counselor are integral parts of the rehabilitation

process. Program services include group and family

counseling, drug and alcohol treatment, and psychological and sexual counseling.

Contact: Jerome Pelkowski

Executive Director

Harborcreek Youth Services

5712 Iroquois Avenue

Harborcreek, PA 16421

(814) 899–7664

Abraxas I Drug Sellers Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Nonviolent delinquent males ages 14–18

charged with or involved in drug sales

This program is run in an open residential facility that

provides a nurturing, structured environment for

residents to make positive changes in their behaviors

and attitudes that will help them remain drug- and

crime-free. Therapeutic activities include individual,

group, and family counseling; clinical study; and lifeskills education.

Contact: Jack Godlesky

Administrator/Regional Director

Abraxas I

Abraxas High School

Blue Jay Village

Box 59

Marienville, PA 16239

(814) 927–6615

Abraxas I Intensive Treatment Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Nonviolent delinquent males ages 14–18

with substance abuse issues

This program provides a safe, structured environment

where residents can make positive changes in their

behaviors, leading to recovery. The program uses a

comprehensive approach to treatment and rehabilitation and enforces mandatory compliance with program rules. Firm intervention enables clients to

increase their self-awareness and provides motivation

to change.

Contact: Jack Godlesky

Administrator/Regional Director

Abraxas I

Abraxas High School

Blue Jay Village

Box 59

Marienville, PA 16239

(814) 927–6615

Adelphoi Village Group Homes

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquents ages 12–17

This group home program provides supervision and

life management skills to youth unable to return

home because of the severity of their individual cases.

Program components include independent living

skills, education, counseling, job readiness, vocational

planning, and intensive supervision.

Contact: John Bukovac

Executive Director

Adelphoi Village

354 Main Street

Latrobe, PA 15650

(412) 537–3052
180

Arizona Boys’ Ranch

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquent and otherwise troubled boys

ages 8–18

This family-centered program emphasizes education,

recreation, vocational counseling, and work programs. These activities, along with the relationships

youth develop with staff members, are designed to

reinforce the juveniles’ sense of self worth and responsibility.

Contact: Denice Fitchie

Assistant Director

Arizona Boys' Ranch

Boys' Ranch, AZ 85242

(602) 987–9700

Arrowhead Ranch

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Nonviolent, delinquent, and troubled

boys ages 13–18

This private, nonprofit treatment facility provides a

safe and caring environment that encourages responsibility, trust, and a positive work ethic for clients.

Services include group treatment, individualized

education, family therapy, recreation, independent

living skills training, community service involvement,

and aftercare.

Contact: Ted Amlong

Treatment Director

Arrowhead Ranch

12200 104th Street

Coal Valley, IL 61240

(309) 799–7044

Alliance House

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Newly committed males ages 13–17

This short-term (up to 60 days) residential assessment

and intervention program has as its goals stabilization, diagnosis, and short-term counseling. The secure

environment it provides encourages responsibility

and respect for others through skill development,

community service, and mentoring.

Contact: Peter Downey

Program Director

Alliance House

38 Pleasant Street

Stoneham, MA 02180

(617) 438–6880

Anchor House Ministries, Inc.

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquent or otherwise troubled males

ages 12–18 who have been emotionally

or physically abused

This nonsecure, structured residential program provides counseling, individualized education, life-skills

training, work assignments, cultural activities, and

recreation for all its clients. Males 16 to 18 years old

also receive predischarge employment and independent living skills training.

Contact: Mark Rivera

Director

Anchor House Ministries

P.O. Box 625

Auburndale, FL 33823

(813) 665–1916
181

Bowling Brook

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Serious, chronic male offenders

ages 16–19

This secure, rural program provides academic,

prevocational, social skills, and athletic training in

addition to general care and intensive supervision.

Program services are designed to change client behavior from negative to prosocial and to develop these

life skills necessary to sustain behavioral change.

Contact: Mike Sunday

Executive Director

Bowling Brook

P.O. Box 94

Middleburg, MD 21768

(410) 775–7881

Civic Conservation Corps (CCC)

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquent and otherwise troubled

males ages 16–18

This is a paramilitary-style program for delinquent

youth referred from throughout the country. The program provides work ethic and vocational training,

social skills development, GED preparation, and

group and individual counseling.

Contact: Denice Fitchie

Assistant Director

Arizona Boys' Ranch

Boys' Ranch, AZ 85242

(602) 987–9700

Genesis Residential Treatment Facility

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquent and otherwise troubled

males ages 13–18

This program provides a positive, homelike environment for adolescent males unable to remain in their

own homes. Residents receive an individualized treatment plan; undergo individual, group, and family

therapy; attend a school program; and receive services from appropriate community agencies. Length

of stay ranges from 29 days to 18 months, or more.

Contact: Paula Mortensen

Program Manager

Genesis Residential Treatment Facility

Campus Avenue, P.O., Box 7291

Lewiston, ME 04243

(207) 777–8944

George Junior Republic

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquent and otherwise troubled

adolescent males

This program helps boys develop a positive selfimage by accentuating positive traits and working to

eliminate negative ones. The program teaches youth

how to select and achieve career goals in both academic and vocational fields. Project staff serve as

positive role models to foster productive growth.

Contact: Daniel Baker

Assistant Social Services Director

George Junior Republic

P.O. Box 471

Grove City, PA 16127

(412) 458–9330
182

Gulf Coast Trades Center

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Adjudicated youth ages 16–18

This residential and vocational institution rehabilitates youth by helping them to become economically

independent. The program includes an assessment,

basic skills classes, GED preparation, vocational training, counseling, substance abuse education, driver’s

education, work experience, job referral, discharge

planning, and aftercare.

Contact: Thomas Buzbee

Executive Director

Gulf Coast Trades Center

P. O. Box 515

New Waverly, TX 77358

(409) 344–6677

Idaho Youth Ranch Short-Term

Residential Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Chronic serious offenders with three or

more felony convictions

This diversion program focuses on youth who have

been sentenced to the State training school. The program serves youth and their families in the community. Behavior management, restitution, school,

peer groups, and parental effect are the focal points

throughout treatment. The program enables youth to

maintain family contact and to reunite with support

faster than if they had been incarcerated.

Contact: Jeffrey Schatz

Director

Idaho Youth Ranch

4403 East Locust Lane

Nampa, ID 83686

(208) 467–1750

Mill Street Project

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquent and otherwise troubled

youth

The goal of this program is to provide youth with

positive alternative lifestyles. Program services include individual, group, and family counseling; education; and 24-hour medical services. Project staff

include a certified social worker, licensed chemical

dependency counselor, and others.

Contact: John Warren

Director

Johnson County Juvenile Services

116 South Mill Street

Cleburne, TX 76031

(817) 556–6880

New Dominion, Inc.

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquent and otherwise troubled

males

This program provides treatment and accredited academics in a camp-like setting. Students live in therapeutic groups consisting of 10 or 11 boys, 2 full-time

counselors, and support staff. Each group builds its

own structure in which to live, plans projects and

activities, and takes wilderness trips. The natural

environment allows students to experience the

rewards and consequences of their actions.

Contact: Tim Snyder

Director

New Dominion, Inc.

P.O. Box 8

Oldtown, MD 21555

(301) 478–5721
183

Paint Creek Youth Center

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Serious felony offenders ages 15–18

This program draws on such treatment philosophies

as positive peer culture, reality therapy, and critical

thinking processes. By adhering to well-defined

behavior goals, residents move through successive

phases characterized by increased privileges and

responsibilities. Security is achieved through structure

and constant staff presence.

Contact: Elizabeth Baldwin

Ohio DYS

51 North High Street

Columbus, OH 43266

(614) 466–4314

Scarseth House

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Nonviolent substance abusers who have

completed a residential placement

This program provides youth released from an

institution with a transitional living environment.

Accepted residents typically have completed a primary substance treatment program and have maintained 30 days of sobriety. Services include substance

abuse education, counseling, and skill development.

Contact: Cheryl Coleman

Executive Director

Scarseth House

535 South 17th Street

La Crosse, WI 54601

(608) 785–1270

Nicholas Residential Treatment Center

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquent males ages 11–16

This program serves youth who have been adjudicated

delinquent or unruly and who are unresponsive to

school programs and outpatient counseling services.

The program fosters growth and achievement, provides a positive educational environment, and develops positive decisionmaking skills to help youth avoid

delinquent behavior.

Contact: Lee Townsel

Director

Nicholas Residential Treatment Center

5581 Dayton-Liberty Road

Dayton, OH 45418

(513) 496-7100

Ocean Tides

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquent males ages 13–17

This residential, group home program provides specialized treatment services for adjudicated delinquent

males. Program services include education, family

therapy, skill development, and a 3-month aftercare

component.

Contact: Timothy Balfe

Director of Social Service

Ocean Tides

635 Ocean Road

Narragansett, RI 02882

(401) 789–1016
184

Senior Tutors for Youth

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Delinquents in residential placements

This program uses senior citizen volunteers as tutors

and mentors for youth. Program goals are to provide

one-on-one academic assistance, to encourage youth

to achieve, and to provide supportive role models

who help youth develop social skills and self-esteem.

Contact: Pauline Johns

Associate Program Director

Senior Tutors For Youth

3640 Grand Avenue, Suite 205

Oakland, CA 94610

(510) 839–1039

Sexual Counseling Services

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Adjudicated male sex offenders

This program provides offense-specific treatment for

such sex-related crimes as rape, child molestation,

involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and indecent

assault. Violent offenders are excluded from the program, which seeks to modify maladaptive behaviors.

Contact: Richard Ferko

Administrator

Sexual Counseling Services

Harborcreek Youth Services

5712 Iroquois Avenue

Harborcreek, PA 16421

(814) 899–7664

Specialized Treatment Services

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Emotionally disturbed, delinquent

males, ages 12–18

This program focuses on behavior related to sex

offenses. Clients receive psychiatric evaluations and

individual treatment plans. Program services include

family, group, and individual counseling; GED preparation; religious and recreational activities; nutrition

education; and aftercare.

Contact: Edward Vogelsong

Clinical Director

Specialized Treatment Services

P.O. Box 484

Mercer, PA 16137

(412) 662–1277

Texas Key Residential Program

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: High-risk delinquents

This diversion program provides a secure and nurturing environment to juveniles assigned there by the

juvenile court. Program components include education, individual and family therapy, recreation, vocational training, life skills, and individualized

attention.

Contact: Carla Ventura

Special Assistant to the Executive

Director

The Texas Key Program

3000 South IH-35, Suite 410

Austin, TX 78704

(512) 462–2181
185

Three Springs Residential Treatment

Center

Type: Intermediate Sanction

Subtype: Community-Based Residential

Target

Population: Male sex offenders ages 12–17 with

emotional and behavioral disorders

This program emphasizes supervision and structure,

using a multidisciplinary team approach to provide

individualized treatment, educational services, and

recreational therapy. The program seeks to teach juveniles to manage aggressive sexual behaviors and to

arrest the development of habitual patterns of

aggression.

Contact: Mike Watson

President

Three Springs Treatment Programs

247 Chateau Drive

Huntsville, AL 35801

(205) 880–3339

Secure Corrections

Cheltenham Young Women’s Facility

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Community Confinement

Target

Population: Adolescent females adjudicated for

serious and violent offenses

This secure treatment program provides education,

vocational training, counseling, individualized case

management, and recreation for up to 28 females. The

treatment modality is a four-level behavior modification program. Average length of stay is from 4 to 6

months.

Contact: Herman Ingram

Superintendent

Cheltenham Young Women’s Facility

P.O. Box 160

Cheltenham, MD 20623

(301) 782–4223

Robert F. Kennedy School

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Community Confinement

Target

Population: Serious offenders

This small, secure program for serious offenders provides individual and group therapy, individualized

educational services, and recreational activities. The

psycho-educational curriculum includes sex offender

therapy, drug and alcohol counseling, health education, and violence prevention.

Contact: Edward Kelley

Executive Director

RFK Action Corps

11 Beacon Street

Boston, MA 02108

(617) 227–4138

Weaversville Intensive Treatment Unit

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Community Confinement

Target

Population: Chronic violent male offenders

This intensive group psychotherapy program uses a

delinquency-specific model that is directive and

psycho-educational, emphasizing personal prosocial

development and accountability. Services include academic and vocational programs; recreational, social,

religious, and work programs; and a family therapy

program.

Contact: Arthur Eisenbuch

Project Director

Weaversville Intensive Treatment Unit

Career Systems Development

 Corporation

6710 Weaversville

Northhampton, PA 18067

(215) 262–1591
186

Dunbar and Kincaid Cottages

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Incarceration

Target

Population: Adjudicated sex offenders

This program assists juveniles in processing their

denial and assuming responsibility for sexually

offending behaviors. The program offers three weekly

groups for sex offenders, a weekly community meeting, and weekly meetings with assigned primary

staff. Students also attend a specially designed program at a local school.

Contact: Robert Jester

Acting Superintendent

MacLaren School

2630 North Pacific Highway

Woodburn, OR 97071

(503) 982–4476

Free Venture Program

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Incarceration

Target

Population: Incarcerated youth

In this program, private industries operate their

businesses within the correctional institution, using

offenders as employees. Offenders receive meaningful

job training, and victims receive restitution payments.

The program teaches occupational skills and positive

work habits and attitudes.

Contact: Frederick Mills

Administrator

Free Venture Program

Department of the Youth Authority

4241 Williamsbourgh Drive

Sacramento, CA 95823

(916) 262–1467

Independent Living Program

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Incarceration

Target

Population: Incarcerated males and females ages

16–18 about to return to the community

This program provides youth with an 8-week

prerelease program and with financial assistance after

release. Prior to their release, youth must meet a specific set of performance measures that include adult

skills training, community service, employment,

special offender treatment, and a transition plan.

Contact: Tom Tye

Chief of Independent Living

Texas Youth Commission

4900 North Lamar, P.O. Box 4260

Austin, TX 78765

(512) 483–5122

Intensive Sexual Intervention System

(ISIS)

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Incarceration

Target

Population: Sex offenders committed to the Gibault

School for Boys

This two-tiered program provides 80 to 100 hours of

group counseling for less severe sexual offenders and

more intensive treatment for multiple sex offenders.

Both tiers provide individualized counseling, treatment plans, and therapeutic assignments in an effort

to build up a morality base, empathy, responsibility,

and social skills in offenders.

Contact: Norbert Gottschling

Director of Programs

Gibault School for Boys

6301 South U.S. Hwy. 41, P.O. Box 2316

Terre Haute, IN 47802

(812) 299–1156

Minority Youth Concerns Program

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Incarceration

Target

Population: Incarcerated, gang-involved minority

youth

This program promotes self- and social awareness by

challenging minority students to evaluate and redefine their values. Intervention techniques include

reality therapy, problem solving, guest speakers, and

role playing.
187

Contact: Robert Jester

Acting Superintendent

MacLaren School

2630 North Pacific Highway

Woodburn, OR 97071

(503) 982–4476

Secure Intensive Treatment Program

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Incarceration

Target

Population: Violent offenders

This program provides offense-specific treatment and

educational along with vocational services. The program is housed in a self-contained, 20-bed maximum

security unit with an inhouse school, shop, and gym.

Treatment focuses on holding students responsible for

their behavior and on helping them develop new

behavior patterns.

Contact: Robert Jester

Acting Superintendent

MacLaren School

2630 Pacific Highway

Woodburn, OR 97071

(503) 982–4476

Sex Offender Treatment Program

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Incarceration

Target

Population: Incarcerated male sex offenders

This program focuses on youth adjudicated for sexual

and aggravated assault and seeks to modify behavior

and reduce risk of reoffending. Release requirements

are performance related. Treatment addresses denial,

sexual assault cycle, relapse prevention, behavior and

skills training, victimization, and empathy.

Contact: Linda Reyes

Chief of Mental Health

Texas Youth Commission

4900 North Lamar, P. O. Box 4260

Austin, TX 78765

(512) 483–5152

Vermont Intensive Treatment Program

for Aggressive Adolescents

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Incarceration

Target

Population: Serious violent offenders requiring

secure care

This program is designed to eliminate criminal

relapse, develop positive relationships with adults,

and promote long-term personal change. Program

components include education, treatment, skill development, monitoring, recreation, and community

service work.

Contact: Stephen Coulman

Director

Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center

26 Woodside Drive East

Colchester, VT 05446

(802) 655–4990

Young Men as Fathers Program

Type: Secure Corrections

Subtype: Incarceration

Target

Population: Incarcerated fathers

This program works with wards, parenting experts,

State agencies, and community-based organizations

to improve the parenting skills of incarcerated males.

The program contracts with community-based organizations and local service providers to implement culturally sensitive parenting classes that total 60 hours.

Contact: William Kolender

Director

Department of the Youth Authority

4241 Williamsbourgh Drive

Sacramento, CA 95823

(916) 262–1467
188
189

Background

The success of a comprehensive continuum of interventions and sanctions depends on proper identification of specific types of offenders for placement in the

various levels of intervention. For example, what

criteria will be used to determine which noncourtinvolved youth require preventive services? Similarly, when confronted with a first-time violent

offender, on what basis will the decision be made to

place the youth under probation supervision as

opposed to a more restrictive placement? And at

what point does a chronic, nonviolent offender

become eligible for secure care as opposed to a highly

structured community-based program?

These questions relate directly to assessment and

classification issues. The answers are central to the

success not only of the individual programs and interventions within a continuum model, but also to the

model itself. It is our contention that any system

predicated on graduated, differential interventions

must include the following components:

• Clearly specified selection criteria for the various

programs and levels of intervention.

• Adequate methods for assessing the degree to

which individual youth meet those criteria.

• A selection process that ensures that youth

intended for a particular level of intervention

will in fact be served at that level.

When assessment and classification procedures consistently fail to link youth with the interventions

designed for them, there are a number of potentially

negative consequences.

Part IV: Risk Assessment and Classification

for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders

Consequences include the following:

• Increased risk to public safety, because high-risk

and/or violent youth are placed in a setting that is

not sufficiently restrictive to control their behavior.

• Inefficient use of resources resulting from the

placement of nonviolent youth or youth who are

not high-risk in overly restrictive settings.

• Inequities resulting from placing youth with

similar offense, risk, and need characteristics at

different levels of intervention.

• Negative or inconclusive evaluation of the system

and/or individual interventions because of

“net-widening” or other evidence of failing to

serve intended target populations.

Risk Assessment and Classification

Broadly defined, risk assessment and classification in

juvenile justice refer to the process of estimating an

individual’s likelihood of continued involvement in

delinquent behavior and making decisions about the

most appropriate intervention for the identified risk

level. Classification decisions based on risk assessment are made at all levels of the juvenile justice

process including reporting, arrest, intake, detention,

The success of a comprehensive

continuum of interventions and

sanctions depends on proper identification of specific types of offenders for placement in the various

levels of intervention.
190

prosecution, disposition, and placement. For example,

in making detention decisions, intake staff attempt to

assess whether juveniles pose a danger to the community or themselves and whether they are likely to

appear for subsequent court hearings. Judges routinely weigh offender risk when determining whether

a youth should be placed on probation or in secure

care or should be given some type of intermediate

sanction. In making security and custody decisions,

correctional facility staff must assess the likelihood

that an offender will try to escape, commit suicide, or

assault someone. The assessment of risk and other

factors leads directly to a classification decision. As

Glaser (1987, p. 251) has noted, “Risk assessment

always involves case classification since the person

about whom a judgment must be made is implicitly

or explicitly equated with others in a more or less

clearly conceived group who are categorized as

relatively safe or dangerous individuals.”

Historically, risk assessment and classification have

been informal, highly discretionary procedures performed by individuals with varying philosophies

about juvenile justice, different levels of experience

and knowledge, and different criteria for making

assessments. Such informal procedures have been

criticized because they lead to decisions that may be

erroneous, inconsistent or inequitable, and that lack

accountability as a result of the “invisible” rationale

and criteria used by the decisionmaker (Baird, 1984;

Clear, 1988; Glaser, 1987).

Increasingly, such criticisms have prompted the criminal and juvenile justice systems to adopt more formal

procedures for decisionmaking, including sentencing

guidelines, standardized risk and needs assessment

instruments, and structured classification systems.

Although empirical data are not available to document this phenomenon, there is evidence that structured decisionmaking is now widespread, if not the

norm, in juvenile justice agencies. For example,

Barton and Gorsuch (1989) conducted a survey to

determine the extent to which risk assessment tools

are being used by State juvenile corrections agencies.

Of the States responding (n=37), almost half (47 percent) used formal risk assessment tools to make classification decisions. An additional 30 percent of the

reporting agencies used formal classification procedures that did not include risk assessment. Only 22

percent reported they do not use formal assessment or

classification instruments. Another indicator of the

trend toward formal decisionmaking is the growing

number of jurisdictions that have worked with the

National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD)

to develop, implement, or revise risk assessment and

classification systems. Between 1990 and 1993, NCCD

worked with 20 to 25 State and local jurisdictions on

these issues.

Purpose and Format

Despite the increasing use of formal assessment and

classification tools in juvenile justice, relatively little

attention has been given to variations in system

design, especially differences in how tools are used

among the distinct levels of the juvenile justice system. If risk assessment and classification are to be the

cornerstones of a systematic response to serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offending, it is imperative

to clearly define risk assessment, to understand the

rationale for structured decisionmaking and to identify how this approach is being used or could be used

to enhance the response to juvenile delinquency.

This part provides an overview of the assessment and

classification systems in current use, including the

problems the systems are designed to address, the

general principles upon which they are based, and

their roles in case decisionmaking. The different tools

and procedures used at various stages in the juvenile

justice process are also discussed. For each decision

point, promising approaches are identified based on

the literature and known assessment and classification systems. The emphasis is on risk assessment,

although some discussion of needs assessment is

included.

If risk assessment and classification are to be the cornerstones of

a systematic response to serious,

violent, and chronic juvenile

offending, it is imperative to clearly

define risk assessment.
191

supervision based on the client’s need for services.

Such variations in assessment and classification criteria result in inconsistency among decisionmakers and

unequal treatment for similarly situated offenders.

Structured assessment procedures are designed to

address this problem by identifying a limited number

of factors known or believed to be the most relevant to

the decision being made and incorporating them into

a simple, standardized format (a “tool”). The assessment instrument is then applied to all cases by all

decisionmakers and the results are used to classify

offenders according to predetermined decision rules

(e.g., everyone with a score of 20 or more points is to

receive intensive supervision).

An example of a well-known and widely used risk

assessment instrument is shown in Figure 14. Developed as one component of a Model Case Management

System for juveniles (Baird, 1984), this instrument is

used to determine the level of community supervision

for probationers and/or parolees. It includes eight

items that were determined through research to be

predictive of recidivism. The points given to an

offender for each item are added together to derive a

total risk score, with higher scores indicating a greater

likelihood of committing a new offense. The range of

possible risk scores is divided into three groups to

discriminate among those with a “low,” “moderate,”

or “high” likelihood of committing another offense.

These classification categories translate directly into an

indicated level of supervision.

This type of instrument has several benefits:

• It ensures that the same factors are taken into

account by all decisionmakers in all cases, thereby

creating greater consistency in the assessment

process.

The following section examines the rationale and

goals of risk assessment and classification in juvenile

justice. The discussion includes definitions of different types of assessment scales, their intended uses

and methods of development, commonly included

variables, and the basic principles of all successful

classification systems. Subsequent sections focus on

risk assessment at the prevention stage (including risk

assessment at the community level and in child welfare agencies) and at different decision points in the

juvenile justice system. These decision points include

detention, placement, probation/parole supervision,

and institutional custody. The final section provides a

brief summary and highlights a set of key design and

implementation issues.

Risk Assessment and

Classification: Rationale, Goals,

and Uses

The primary rationale for using formal assessment

and classifications systems is twofold:

• To provide greater validity, structure, and consistency to the assessment and decisionmaking

processes.

• To allocate limited system resources more efficiently by directing the most intensive and intrusive interventions to the most serious, violent, and

chronic offenders.

Structure and Consistency

As mentioned previously, traditional approaches to

decisionmaking in juvenile justice have been highly

discretionary, subjective, and intuitive. The information selected to assess a particular case and how that

information is evaluated varies among individual

decisionmakers not only according to their philosophy and experience, but also according to their assumptions about what factors are most relevant

(Wagner, 1992). For example, one probation officer

may determine how closely an offender should be

supervised based on the seriousness of the offense, a

second officer might make the decision based on a

certain risk factor such as the extent of substance

abuse, and a third officer might determine the level of

The range of possible risk scores is

divided into three groups to discriminate among those with a “low,”

“moderate,” or “high” likelihood of

committing another offense.
192

Figure 14: Juvenile Probation and Aftercare Assessment of Risk

Select the highest point total applicable for each category.

1. Age at First Adjudication _________

16 or older ..................................................................................................................................... 0

14 or 15........................................................................................................................................... 3

13 or younger ................................................................................................................................ 5

2. Prior Criminal Behavior _________

No prior arrests ............................................................................................................................ 0

Prior arrest record, no formal sanctions ................................................................................... 2

Prior delinquency petition sustained; no offenses classified as assaultive ......................... 3

Prior petition sustained for an assaultive offense ................................................................... 5

3. Institutional Commitments or Placements of 30 Days or More _________

None............................................................................................................................................... 0

One ................................................................................................................................................. 2

Two or more .................................................................................................................................. 4

4. Drug/Chemical Use _________

No known use or no interference with functioning ............................................................... 0

Some disruption of functioning ................................................................................................. 2

Chronic abuse or dependency.................................................................................................... 5

5. Alcohol Abuse _________

No known use or no interference with functioning ............................................................... 0

Occasional abuse, some disruption of functioning ................................................................. 1

Chronic abuse, serious disruption of functioning ................................................................... 3

6. Parental Control _________

Generally effective ....................................................................................................................... 0

Inconsistent and/or ineffective .................................................................................................. 2

Little or none................................................................................................................................. 4

7. School Disciplinary Problems _________

Attending, graduated, GED equivalence ................................................................................. 0

Problems handled at school level .............................................................................................. 1

Severe truancy or behavioral problems .................................................................................... 3

Not attending/expelled .............................................................................................................. 5

8. Peer Relationships _________

Good support and influence ...................................................................................................... 0

Negative influence, companions involved in delinquent behavior ..................................... 2

Gang member ............................................................................................................................... 4

• Unlike subjective methods where the decision process is unknown, the rationale for every decision is

visible and explicit. Ultimately, this makes both the

individual decisionmaker and the agency more

accountable.

• Because the instrument uses a limited number of

relatively objective criteria, it is easy to complete

and can expedite the decisionmaking process.

• The empirical basis for the instrument increases the

validity of the risk assessment process.

• The results of the assessment directly inform the

classification decision, which means that classification and case-handling decisions are more objective

and equitable.
193

populations in 14 different States (Krisberg et al.,

1993). In each State, researchers had worked with

juvenile justice officials to develop a structured risk

assessment tool that incorporated the key factors (determined by consensus) in placement decisionmaking.

The identified factors reflected an emphasis on public

safety concerns and included measures of offense

seriousness, offense history, and risk of recidivism.

The researchers then applied the instrument to the

actual training school population to determine the

proportion of incarcerated youth who, according to

the guidelines, fell into each of the

following categories:

• Required long-term placement in a secure facility.

• Required short-term secure care (1–3 months) followed by movement to a less restrictive setting.

• Could be placed directly into a community-based

setting.

Optimized Resource Allocation

The second major rationale for structured assessment

and classification is that they provide a mechanism

for more efficient allocation of system and agency

resources. Clearly, all juvenile offenders arrested by

the police do not need to be detained; all those placed

on probation do not need intensive supervision; and

all those committed to the custody of a State correctional agency do not require secure care placement.

Although differential intervention is a hallmark of

juvenile justice, traditional, unstructured classification

methods lead to interventions that have questionable

congruence with more objectively determined levels

of risk or seriousness. The result is that high-risk

offenders may not get the level of intervention

required to protect public safety, while lower risk

offenders may receive overly intrusive and expensive

interventions. In either event, assessment and classification systems that result in inappropriate placements

represent serious inefficiencies in resource allocation.

The results of three recently completed studies illustrate these problems. One study focused on the case

classification practices for community supervision in

Oklahoma’s juvenile corrections agency (Wiebush,

Wagner, Prestine, and Van Gheem, 1993). The study

examined the relationship between the assigned level

of supervision (determined informally by the probation officer and the supervisor) and the level of supervision indicated by the results of a structured risk

assessment. The results showed that under current

practices, only 2 percent of the community-supervised

youth were assigned to the “intensive” supervision

level, while 73 percent were assigned to the “low”

level of supervision. In contrast, the formal risk

assessment results indicated that 27 percent of the

youth were high-risk (and therefore should have

received intensive supervision) and that just 29 percent were low-risk. These extraordinary discrepancies

between actual and risk-indicated levels of supervision showed that the use of informal methods

resulted in a significant degree of underclassification.

In turn, this finding raised important public safety

issues because such a small percentage of high-risk

offenders were actually receiving the highest level of

supervision.

The second study involved an analysis of offense

histories and risk characteristics of training school

The identified factors reflected an

emphasis on public safety concerns

and included measures of offense

seriousness, offense history, and

risk of recidivism.

The results showed that in every State at least onethird of the training school population scored “low”

or “medium” on the scale and, therefore, did not

require long-term stays in secure care. If placement

decisions in these States were made strictly according

to the agreed-upon public safety criteria, far fewer

youth would be assessed as requiring secure care.

Moreover, because States commonly spend between

$35,000 and $60,000 per year to incarcerate a youth

(Camp and Camp, 1990), the reductions in training

school placements would result in considerable cost

savings. The savings in turn could be used to develop

alternative intervention programs.

The OJJDP-sponsored Juveniles Taken Into Custody

(JTIC) statistical reporting program provides a third

source of information on the use of juvenile corrections resources. This annual survey collects and analyzes individual-level data on the characteristics of
194

youth admitted to State juvenile corrections agencies,

including the nature of offenses for which youth were

committed, number of prior admissions, and length of

stay. Analysis of 1992 data (Austin et al., 1994) supports the basic conclusions of the Krisberg study discussed above. For example, the data on the nature of

the most serious committing offense show that the

vast majority of youth in State custody are not violent

offenders. Based on 39,000 admissions in 29 States,

Austin et al. found that less than one-third (29 percent) of the admissions were for person offenses,

while 42 percent were for property offenses, 10 percent were for drug offenses, and 13 percent were for

public order offenses. The JTIC data were also used to

create “severity profiles” of admitted youth that incorporated measures of offense severity and number

of prior admissions to State custody. The results

showed:

• Only 14 percent of the youth taken into custody in

the 29 States had been admitted for what were

identified as “serious and violent” offenses.1

• Another 27 percent did not have a current “serious

or violent” offense but had been previously placed

into State custody (recommitments).

• Just over half (51 percent) of the admissions involved youth who did not commit a serious or

violent offense and who were never previously in

State custody.

• Eight percent of the youth had been admitted for

what were considered minor offenses.2

These data raise the issue of whether we are using our

most intensive and expensive resources in the most

efficient manner, because it appears that State corrections facilities are not reserved for the “dangerous

few”, but rather are overloaded with relatively less

serious juvenile offenders.

The results of these studies emphasize the two primary purposes for using structured assessment and

classification approaches—more consistent decisions

and more effective resource allocation. These purposes inform all formal classification systems, regardless of the particular instruments used or the point in

the system at which those instruments are applied.

Types of Assessment Instruments

A wide variety of tools are used to assess and classify

juvenile offenders. The instruments vary in purpose,

structure, content, and method of development. This

section provides an overview of the key characteristics of the most frequently used assessment instruments and discusses their similarities and differences.

Risk Assessment Instruments

As used here, risk assessment instruments are tools

that are (1) designed to estimate the likelihood that an

identified juvenile offender will subsequently commit

another offense within a specified followup period

(e.g., 18–24 months) and (2) are based on the statistical

relationship between youth characteristics and recidivism rates. These instruments generally are used to

determine the level of supervision for probationers

and parolees, although they have also been integrated

into classification systems for sentencing and placement decisions.

Although there are two basic approaches to risk

assessment—actuarial and clinical—our definition

and focus exclude the latter type for two reasons.

First, clinical predictions are typically based on the

interpretation and judgment of staff and are not organized in a structured format. Second, clinical risk

assessment repeatedly has been demonstrated to be

less accurate than empirically derived tools (Dawes,

Faust, and Meehl, 1989; Meehl, 1954; Monahan, 1981).

The actuarial approach to risk assessment is similar to

that used to determine automobile insurance rates.

Historical data on offender (or driver) characteristics

and outcomes (new offenses or accidents) are analyzed to determine the set of characteristics most

closely correlated with negative outcomes. After those

factors are identified, all newly referred offenders (or

drivers) are assessed to determine the extent to which

their characteristics are similar to those who have had

1. Included murder, manslaughter, homicide, forcible rape, other

violent sex offenses, sodomy, kidnapping, endangerment, robbery

(with priors), and assault (with priors).

2. Included shoplifting, minor public order and traffic offenses,

status offenses, and technical probation/parole violations.
195

low, medium, or high failure rates in the past. In other

words, the individual’s future behavior is estimated

based on the known outcomes of a group of individuals with similar characteristics (Baird, 1984; Wagner,

1992).

Because risk instruments are developed from group

data, their utility is based on knowledge of aggregate

outcomes rather than on the accuracy of prediction

for a single individual. The ability to predict an individual offender’s behavior is extremely limited. Even

the best risk assessment instruments may produce

substantial prediction errors. Many identified highrisk offenders never commit another crime while

many low-risk offenders do. Therefore, the corrections field has shifted the emphasis in risk assessment

from “prediction” to “classification.” The classification goal suggests that the key issue in risk assessment is the extent to which it is able to identify

groups of offenders with widely different rates of

reoffending. Well-designed instruments are typically

able to identify a group of high-risk offenders who are

four or five times more likely to commit a new offense

than the identified low-risk offenders. For example, in

include age at first referral or adjudication, number of

prior referrals or arrests, number of out-of-home

placements or institutional commitments, school behavior and attendance, substance abuse, family stability, parental control, and peer relationships, among

others (Baird, 1984; Farrington, 1983; Farrington and

Hawkins, 1991; Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992).

In developing the model risk assessment tool, Baird

(1984) found that the factors identified above provided the best prediction model for a large sample of

probationers and parolees in five different sites. However, an examination of research-based risk instruments currently in use shows a great deal of variation

in some of the predictive items. We compared the

items from eight different empirically based scales

developed for use in probation and parole during the

past decade. These scales include Baird’s model; the

instruments developed for county probation agencies

in Calhoun County (Michigan), Cobb County (Georgia), Cuyahoga and Lucas Counties (Ohio); and those

developed for statewide use in Indiana, Michigan,

and Wisconsin. The results of this analysis appear in

Table 5. “School functioning” is the only item that

appears on all eight instruments. Age at first referral,

number of priors, substance abuse, peers, and family

functioning were also typically found to be predictive—each appear on at least five of the eight instruments. The remaining items were included as

predictors on half or fewer of the scales.

This comparison suggests that a core set of factors

appears repeatedly—if not universally—on validated

scales. However, some items increase the prediction

or classification power of the scales in some jurisdictions but not in others. This finding suggests that

there are site-specific factors that influence either recidivism or the measurement of it. Therefore, an

instrument developed for one site may not be transferable to another jurisdiction without first being validated by the adopting agency (Wright, Clear, and

Dickson, 1984).

Risk and offense seriousness. Discussions of risk

assessment often involve confusion about the relationship between risk and offense seriousness;

specifically, whether the seriousness of the presenting

offense is predictive of a subsequent offense and

whether risk assessment instruments can predict

violent behavior.

Well-designed instruments are

typically able to identify a group of

high-risk offenders who are four or

five times more likely to commit a

new offense than the identified

low-risk offenders.

an instrument developed for the State of Michigan,

the recidivism rate among Wayne County high-risk

juvenile offenders was 76 percent, while the rate

among medium- and low-risk offenders was 39 percent and 19 percent respectively. This ability to

discriminate risk potential for different subgroups

of offenders provides the basis for targeting interventions and resources on those at the highest level of

risk, while reducing efforts for those at the lowest

level (Baird, 1991; Clear, 1988).

Risk predictors. A core set of variables has been identified repeatedly in the research literature as recidivism predictors for juvenile offenders. These variables
196

Model

Policymakers and practitioners frequently assume

that youth who commit serious or violent offenses are

more likely to commit subsequent offenses than those

who do not. However, risk research has usually found

that the seriousness of the current offense is not

highly correlated with, and is often inversely related

to, a negative outcome (Clear, 1988). Of the eight

instruments reviewed above, only four included seriousness of the current offense as a predictive item.

On two of the four instruments (Calhoun and

Cuyahoga), youth who committed felony offenses—

but not necessarily violent offenses—were found to

have higher recidivism rates than those who committed misdemeanor offenses. However, on the other two

scales that incorporated this measure, seriousness was

inversely related to repeat offenses. In Lucas County,

a misdemeanor offense had a stronger relationship to

recidivism than did a felony offense. In Michigan,

nonassaultive offenses were predictive, while

assaultive offenses were not. Based on the literature

and these scales, it appears that offense seriousness is

generally not predictive when measured by violence

or the felony-misdemeanor dichotomy, although an

association was found in some sites.

Another area of confusion is whether risk instruments

are able to predict “dangerousness.” Because it is

much more difficult to predict recidivism for a specific type of crime than it is to predict repeat criminal

behavior generally, most risk instruments have been

designed to predict only a reoccurrence. The problem

with predicting violent behavior is that the proportion

Table 5: Comparison of Risk Predictors in Eight Jurisdictions

County Systems State Systems

Risk Item Risk Calhoun Cobb Cuyahoga Lucas Indiana Michigan Wisconsin

Age 1st Referral x x x x x x x

Number Priors x x x x x

Current Offense x x x x

Prior Assault x x

Prior Out of Home

 Placement x x x x

Drug or Alcohol Abuse x x x x x x x

School Problems x x x x x x x x

Special Ed. x

Peers x x x x x x

Mental Health Stability x

Family Problems/

 Parent Control x x x x x x

Runaway x x x

Victim Abuse/Neglect x x

Gender x x x

Prior Supervision

 Adjustment x x x

Other x x
197

Each of these uses is discussed in greater detail later

in this part.

The factors incorporated in placement or custody

decisionmaking instruments are different from those

found in risk instruments because the goals of the

assessment and classification process differ. For

example, in making placement decisions, judges and

corrections officials not only must assess the juvenile’s

likelihood of reoffending, they also must consider

“just desserts” and public sensitivity issues. As a

result, instruments designed to guide the selection of

an appropriate placement typically include measures

of current and prior offense severity. They also give

these items relatively greater weight than the predictive factors in the scale (see Figure 15). If a “pure” risk

instrument were used to guide placement decisions, it

would not capture other dimensions that are relevant

to the decision.

Detention screening instruments also have a unique

purpose. They focus on the juvenile’s short-term

threat to public safety and the likelihood that the individual will abscond prior to an adjudicatory hearing.

Because the issue is not whether the youth is likely to

reoffend during the succeeding 18 months, applying

risk assessment instruments developed for probation

and/or parole supervision is not appropriate for

detention decisions. Instead, these tools typically

include measures of current and prior offense severity, the frequency and recency of past offenses, and

stability measures such as a history of escapes or

runaways.

Finally, custody assessments used within correctional

facilities are concerned primarily with a juvenile’s

“risk” to himself or others while in the institution.

Such assessments help determine whether a youth

needs a maximum, moderate, or minimum security

living environment. In this situation, risk is defined

and measured by the potential for disruptive behavior

generally, as well as specific behavior such as assaults

on staff or peers, escape, or suicide.

The methods used to develop placement and custody

instruments are frequently consensus-based rather

than empirically based. This is particularly true for

placement assessment instruments, in which policy

in any given juvenile offender population who go on

to commit a violent offense is quite low—usually less

than 10 percent. This low “base rate” makes it difficult

to identify with statistical confidence those characteristics that discriminate between youth who do and

do not subsequently commit violent offenses (Clear,

1988). As a result, most scales are developed using

general outcome measures such as rearrest or

readjudication, rather than the specific measure of

“arrest for a violent crime.” Consequently, identifying an individual as high-risk does not mean that

person is more likely than other offenders to commit a

violent crime.

The problem with predicting violent behavior is that the proportion

in any given juvenile offender

population who go on to commit a

violent offense is quite low—

usually less than 10 percent.

Placement and Custody Assessment

Instruments

Another widely used assessment tool is the “placement assessment” or “custody assessment” instrument. Although they are often described as risk

assessment tools, these instruments are designed to

do more than assess an offender’s likelihood of committing a new offense. As a result, they incorporate

different assessment areas. Although they frequently

include predictive items, they are usually driven more

by policy considerations than research results. This

type of instrument can be used as:

• A screening tool to determine whether a youth

should be placed into detention pending an

adjudicatory hearing.

• A guide for judges or State corrections officials in

determining the appropriate placement or level of

security.

• A method for determining the custody needs of

incarcerated youth.
198

Figure 15: Colorado Security Placement Instrument

1. Severity of Current Offense ___________

Murder, rape, kidnap, escape .................................................................................................10

Other violent offenses ...............................................................................................................5

All other offenses .......................................................................................................................0

2. Severity of Prior Adjudication ___________

Violent offense ............................................................................................................................5

Property offense .........................................................................................................................3

Other/none .................................................................................................................................0

3. Number of Prior Adjudications ___________

Two or more ................................................................................................................................5

Less than two ..............................................................................................................................0

Total Items 1–3 ___________

Total Items 1–3. If score is 10 or higher, score as secure placement. If less than 10, score remaining

stability items.

4. Age at First Referral ___________

12–13 years of age ......................................................................................................................2

14+ ................................................................................................................................................0

5. History of Mental Health Outpatient Care ___________

Yes ................................................................................................................................................1

No .................................................................................................................................................0

6. Youth Lived Alone or With Friends at Time of Current Adjudication ___________

Yes ................................................................................................................................................1

No .................................................................................................................................................0

7. Prior Out-of-Home Placements ___________

Yes ................................................................................................................................................1

No .................................................................................................................................................0

Total Items 1–7 ___________

Apply score to the following placement scale.

10+ Consider for Secure

5–9 Short-term Placement

0–4 Immediate Community

* Detention screening tools are usually developed using the consensus approach. Although risk of absconding or committing a new

offense while awaiting adjudication could be measured, the low base

rate has precluded (to our knowledge) the development of a researchbased detention screening device. Empirical custody assessments

have been developed and are described later in this part.

concerns are predominant.* Generally, the developmental process involves a cross section of juvenile

justice decisionmakers (e.g., prosecutors, judges,

corrections administrators). They determine what

items will be included in the scale and how they will

be weighted, how the seriousness of offenses will be

ranked, and what type of placement will be associated with various assessment scores.

Needs Assessment Instruments

The third type of basic assessment tool used in juvenile justice is the needs assessment instrument. Frequently administered with risk or placement/custody

assessment instruments, this instrument is used to

systematically identify critical offender problems.
199

Needs assessment tools serve multiple purposes,

including:

• Consistency—They ensure that certain types of

problems are considered by all staff for all youth in

the assessment process.

• Conciseness—They provide a “quick read” of a

juvenile’s problems for the case manager, other

staff and supervisors, and service providers from

other agencies.

• Case planning—Assessment results provide the

foundation for the service plan.

• Workload priorities—Needs scores can provide an

additional basis for classification in community

settings. Those with the highest scores are usually

considered to be more time consuming and are

presumed to need more contact.

• Management information—Aggregated needs information provides a database for agency planning

and evaluation, especially regarding the sufficiency

of available treatment resources.

outcomes, they are not developed through research.

Most agencies use a consensus approach to identify

and select the service issues most frequently encountered in the client population. A typical needs assessment tool is shown in Figure 16.

Needs Assessment Items

The similarities and differences found in needs assessment scales from several different jurisdictions, including the scale developed as part of the Model Case

Management System, are shown in Table 6. The table

illustrates that needs assessment tools from different

sites tend to incorporate similar sets of factors. For

example, all nine instruments include items related to

substance abuse, family functioning or relationships,

emotional stability, school attendance and behavior,

and peer relationships. The majority also include

measures of health/hygiene, intellectual ability or

achievement, and learning disability.

There are also important differences among the scales

that reflect potential differences in offender populations and/or in staff perceptions of the important

variables in assessment and case planning. For

example, there are variations in the measurement of

specific concerns such as parental problems (substance abuse, mental health, and criminal behavior);

family housing or financial issues; the juvenile’s history of abuse or neglect; vocational/employment

issues; and involvement in structured activities.

The specific items included on needs assessment

instruments may be less important than the scale’s

format and the extent to which item scoring is clearly

defined. Most of the scales reviewed here are 1-page

documents that measure 10 to 15 items and that are

easy to complete. More complex assessments typically

provide more information, but they are also more

time consuming and the additional information

gained may not be directly relevant to case planning.

Whatever the number or nature of the items, they

must be clearly defined because many needs issues

are subject to wide interpretation (e.g., emotional

stability and family functioning). The instrument

must include clear definitions to guide scoring or

consistency in the assessment process will be limited.

Risk and/or custody assessments are

used to decide the level of supervision or type of placement, while

needs assessments help determine

the specific program interventions to

be delivered within the designated

custody/supervision level.

Because of the increased emphasis in recent years on

public protection and offender accountability, needs

assessment results often are not used to make classification decisions. Instead, risk and/or custody assessments are used to decide the level of supervision or

type of placement, while needs assessments help

determine the specific program interventions to be

delivered within the designated custody/supervision

level.

Because needs assessment instruments are designed to

describe a juvenile’s functioning rather than to predict
200

Figure 16: Lucas County Juvenile Court Needs Assessment

1. Family Relationships _________

Stable/Supportive ........................................................................................................................... 0

Some Disorganization/Stress ........................................................................................................ 3

Major Disorganization/Stress ....................................................................................................... 6

2. Parental Problems (Check all that apply/add points) _________

Inadequate Discipline ..................................................................................................................... 1

Emotional Instability ....................................................................................................................... 1

Criminality ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Substance Abuse .............................................................................................................................. 1

Physical/Sexual Abuse ................................................................................................................... 1

Family Violence ............................................................................................................................... 1

Marital Discord ................................................................................................................................ 1

3. Support System _________

Youth Has Support System or None Needed .............................................................................. 0

No Family/External Support ........................................................................................................ 1

4. School Attendance _________

No Problem ...................................................................................................................................... 0

Some Truancy ................................................................................................................................... 1

Major Truancy .................................................................................................................................. 2

5. School Behavior _________

No Problem ...................................................................................................................................... 0

Some Problem .................................................................................................................................. 1

Major Problem.................................................................................................................................. 2

6. Substance Abuse _________

No Use ............................................................................................................................................... 0

Experimenter .................................................................................................................................... 1

Former Abuse/In Recovery ........................................................................................................... 3

Occasional Use ................................................................................................................................. 4

Abuse................................................................................................................................................. 8

7. Emotional Stability _________

No Problem ...................................................................................................................................... 0

Some Problem, Occasional Interference ....................................................................................... 1

Major Problem, Serious Interference ............................................................................................ 2

8. Peer Relationships _________

Good Support/Influence ................................................................................................................ 0

Associations with Occasional Negative Results ......................................................................... 1

Associations Primarily Negative ................................................................................................... 2

9. Health _________

No Problem ...................................................................................................................................... 0

Some Health Problems.................................................................................................................... 1

Major Handicap/Illness ................................................................................................................. 2

10. Sexual Adjustment (check all that apply, enter highest) _________

No Problem ...................................................................................................................................... 0

Prostitution ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Sex Offense ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Sexual Identity/Awareness Problems .......................................................................................... 1

Pregnant/Has Child........................................................................................................................ 3

Aggressive/Assaultive Sex Offense ............................................................................................. 4

11. Structured Activities _________

Involvement ..................................................................................................................................... 0

No Involvement ............................................................................................................................... 1

Total Score _________
201

Model

Table 6: Comparison of Needs Assessment Items

County Systems State Systems

Need Item Needs Cuyahoga Lucas Orange Delaware Indiana Michigan Wisconsin

Substance Abuse x x x xxxx x

Family Relationships x x x xxxx x

Parent Problems* x x x x

Parent Skills x x x x x

Mental Health x x x x x x x x

Stability

Intellectual Ability/

 Academic

 Achievement x x x x x x x

Special Education x x x x x x

Employment/

 Vocational Skills x x x x x x

School Problems x x x x x x x x

Peer Relationships x x x xxxx x

Health/Hygiene x x x x x x x

Sexual Adjustment x x x x x x

Victimization x x x x

Housing/Finances x x x

Structured Activities x x x x

Independent Living

 Skills x x

* Includes substance abuse, criminality, and/or mental health.
202

Risk Assessment and Prevention

This section focuses on the use of risk assessment at

the prevention stage. It includes a discussion of a

communitywide risk assessment strategy and risk

assessment in child welfare programs. Traditionally,

juvenile justice interventions take place only after a

youth has been arrested and referred to the juvenile

court. However, a comprehensive and cost-effective

approach to serious, violent, and chronic juvenile

offenders must also include preventive strategies.

Because research on the etiology of delinquency has

consistently identified a set of risk indicators at the

community, family, and individual level (Elliot,

Huizinga and Ageton, 1985; Farrington and Hawkins,

1991; Huizinga et al., 1994), this knowledge can be

Essential Properties of Assessment

and Classification Systems

Regardless of the instruments chosen or the way

they are used to structure decisions, a classification

system must embody the following principles to be

successful:

• Validity—Validity exists when an assessment

system achieves agency goals. Many systems are

statistically based and predictive in nature. These

instruments must actually predict what they purport to predict. However, a valid system can also

be policy driven and does not have to be statistically valid to achieve agency goals. For example, if

placement assessment tools are used to identify the

chronic or violent offenders who require secure

care, they can be considered valid if they result in

secure care populations that consist predominantly

of chronic and violent offenders.

• Reliability— Reliability requires clearly specified

criteria and staff trained in their use and consistent

application. Unreliability flows from widespread

discretion and nonstandardized criteria. All youth

must be handled in the same way regardless of

who is making the decision and youth with similar

characteristics must be treated similarly.

• Equity—Assessment and classification systems

must be both fair and justifiable. Fairness refers to

the system’s ability to provide equal, nondiscriminatory treatment. Justifiable systems are consistent

with broader social values. Although factors such

as race or IQ may be predictive of reoffending,

their inclusion in a risk instrument would violate

fairness requirements and would not be justifiable.

Although it may not be possible to eliminate all

bias, systems must be tested against relevant

offender subpopulations and be revised as necessary to control potential bias.

• Utility—All tools and associated classification

protocols should be easy for staff to use and understand. Complex, confusing, or time-consuming

systems will be rejected by staff regardless of their

conceptual attractiveness or their efficacy in fulfilling the other principles.

Many problems identified as precursors to delinquency have also

been determined to be risk indicators for other adolescent behavior

problems such as drug and alcohol

abuse, school dropout, and teenage pregnancy.

used as the basis for prevention activities. Moreover,

many problems identified as precursors to delinquency have also been determined to be risk indicators for other adolescent behavior problems such as

drug and alcohol abuse, school dropout, and teenage

pregnancy. Successful efforts to identify and control

common risk factors can have a prevention impact in

multiple domains. This section highlights a

communitywide approach to risk assessment that is

based on these empirically identified risk factors and

uses them as the foundation for the development of

primary prevention activities. It discusses the risk

factors and assessment process incorporated in the

Hawkins and Catalano (1992) Communities That Care

(CTC) risk prevention model.

This section also focuses on recent developments in

risk assessment in the area of child abuse and neglect.

In the CTC model, the prevalence of child abuse and

neglect in a community is a key risk factor for adolescent problem behavior. At the individual level,
203

• Individual and Peer Risk Factors—These factors

include withdrawal from or rebelliousness toward

conventional social norms such as alienation and

lack of bonding; association with peers who are

involved in delinquency or have other problem

behaviors; favorable attitudes toward such behaviors; and early onset of negative behaviors.

Although the presence of these factors increases the

likelihood of adolescent involvement in delinquency,

countervailing forces—or protective factors—can

reduce the impact of the risk factors. These protective

factors may also change the way individuals respond

to the risks. The empirical evidence suggests that

protective factors fall into three basic categories:

• Individual characteristics.

• Attachment and commitment to prosocial persons,

institutions, and values.

• Healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior in

families, schools, and communities.

research has consistently shown a strong link between

maltreatment and subsequent delinquency (Burgess,

Hartman, and McCormack, 1987; Mouzakatis, 1981;

Sandberg, 1989; Zingraff, Leiter, Meyers, and Johnson,

1993), including violent delinquent behavior

(Thornberry, 1994; Widom, 1989). Because of this link,

risk assessment to estimate the likelihood of reabuse

in identified child welfare cases can be used as a strategy for both primary delinquency prevention and

secondary abuse prevention.

Risk Assessment and Prevention at

the Community Level

Hawkins and Catalano (1992) developed a comprehensive prevention model (Communities That Care)

formulated by identifying the factors that increase

and mitigate the likelihood of delinquent involvement

and other dysfunctional behaviors. The model emphasizes the need for communitywide efforts to ameliorate those risk factors. Based on their own work in

the areas of delinquency and substance abuse, and

extensive reviews of the empirical literature on these

and related problems, Hawkins and Catalano have

identified 19 risk factors in five areas that place youth

at risk for one or more problem behaviors. The areas

identified include the following:

• Community Risk Factors—These factors include

the availability of drugs and firearms and the

norms that support their use, community disorganization and low attachment and commitment to

traditional neighborhood institutions, extreme

economic deprivation, and high rates of mobility.

• Family Risk Factors—These factors include multigenerational involvement in crime, substance

abuse and school dropout; poor parenting practices

such as lack of supervision, inconsistent or overly

punitive disciplinary practices, or high levels of

family conflict; and parental attitudes or behaviors

that condone activities such as delinquent behavior

or substance abuse.

• School Risk Factors—These factors include antisocial and aggressive behavior in the early elementary grades; disruptive behavior and truancy in the

early adolescent years; the experience of failure in

late elementary school; and a lack of commitment

to learning and attachment to the school setting.

The prevention model developed by Hawkins and

Catalano emphasizes the need for community interventions that are designed to strengthen protective

factors, thereby mitigating the influence of the risk

factors. Certain personal/psychological buffers at the

individual level such as temperament and intelligence

may not be readily amenable to change; however,

prevention programs can increase the extent to which

clear prosocial standards operate in the community

and in families. They can also promote child and adolescent bonding to prosocial persons and institutions.

In fact, prevention programs must address these two

factors simultaneously. It does little good to facilitate

youth attachment or commitment to persons who do

The prevention model developed

by Hawkins and Catalano emphasizes the need for community

interventions that are designed to

strengthen protective factors,

thereby mitigating the influence

of the risk factors.
204

not have prosocial values. Conversely, attempts to

promote the development of prosocial family and

community norms will have little impact unless

mechanisms are also devised to facilitate strong

adolescent attachments to those holding the positive

norms.

A detailed description of the conceptual and operational components of the prevention model is beyond

the scope of this discussion. However, it is important

to recognize that this approach is a comprehensive

community development strategy based on a

communitywide risk assessment, rather than a program or series of programs. Based on a public health

model, this approach attempts to influence the total

community environment by reducing risk and adopts

a long-term perspective. The methods of the Communities That Care model also differ significantly from

those of traditional program development efforts in

juvenile justice. These methods include preparation of

a communitywide risk and resources assessment,

extensive use of the media, community education

strategies, and widespread grassroots community

involvement. The goal of the CTC model is not only

to develop specific programs but also to change community norms.

A critical first step in community prevention efforts

is to conduct a community risk and resources assessment to identify the risk factors faced by various

community subgroups and to determine how much

impact current programs have on those risk factors.

A task force of community leaders and residents often

conducts the survey following a detailed protocol that

addresses risk factors at the community, school, family, and individual level. They use measures that are

both quantitative (e.g., domestic violence and school

dropout rates) and qualitative (e.g., the clarity of community standards regarding substance abuse and

school policies on assaultive behavior). The task force

then analyzes the results, establishes priorities of the

risk factors, and examines the impact of current programs on them. The result is a community-specific

risk profile and a comprehensive plan to address

the risk indicators. In developing the plan, the task

force is able to review nationally tested alternative

intervention models for applicability to the local

community.

The community risk assessment approach described

above differs both conceptually and operationally

from the assessment techniques described in subsequent sections. Most risk assessment tools evaluate

individuals who have already become involved in the

official system. The purpose of these instruments is to

shape the juvenile justice system’s response by determining the offender’s relative level of risk of continued involvement and to allocate available resources

accordingly. Although the risk-focused prevention

model is also concerned with assessing relative levels

of risk, it focuses on the community rather than the

individual in an effort to ward off the onset of problematic behavior. However, the empirical bases for

both types of risk assessment are nearly identical.

Although the risk-focused prevention model is also concerned with

assessing relative levels of risk, it

focuses on the community rather

than the individual in an effort to

ward off the onset of problematic

behavior.

This process raises the question of whether individual

risk assessment tools should be developed for prevention as well. In other words, if we can identify those

individuals who are most likely to become serious

offenders, why not use that information to intervene

before an offense occurs? Although this concept is

attractive, there are two significant problems. First,

risk assessment technology for identifying individuals

in the general population who will become chronic or

violent offenders has limitations. For example, longitudinal cohort studies like those conducted by

Wolfgang et al. (1972) found that only 7 percent of the

cohort eventually commit five or more delinquent

offenses. This low base rate makes it difficult to accurately classify who will and who will not commit

delinquent offenses. Second, the difficulty of identifying offenders also raises the problem of selecting

“false positives”—juveniles identified in advance as

high-risk chronic or violent offenders who, in fact,

never become such offenders. Currently, the best risk

instruments have been developed on samples of
205

youth already identified as delinquent. However,

even these tools typically have a false positive rate of

40 to 50 percent. In other words, half the high-risk

delinquents do not commit another offense.

For risk tools developed for the general youth population, the false positive rate can be expected to be even

higher. This dilemma suggests the need for caution

when applying risk assessment methods to identify

high-risk individuals for preventive intervention.

Problems of labeling, net widening, and the

criminogenic effects of juvenile justice system involvement raise serious questions about attempts to

prevent delinquent behavior in individuals who have

not committed a crime.

This does not mean that individual intervention

should be avoided altogether in prevention efforts. In

fact, both individuals and groups experiencing high

levels of risk (or who are engaged in behaviors that

are both current problems and predictors of future

delinquency) are candidates for selective and indicated prevention efforts (Institute of Medicine, 1994).

To illustrate, aggressive behavior in the classroom in

the early elementary grades inhibits learning and

increases the risk for later substance abuse, crime, and

violence. Individuals with serious conduct problems

in kindergarten through the second grade may require selective intervention, whether through parents

(Patterson, Chamberlain, and Reid, 1982; WebsterStratton, 1984), specialized skills training activities

(Coie and Krehbiel, 1984; Greenberg and Kusche,

1993), or a combination of interventions to achieve

significant improvements in conduct.

To the extent that intervention measures are taken to

address current conduct problems and implemented

in a way that avoids the potential negative effects

mentioned above, they can be an important element

of a comprehensive risk reduction strategy. However,

the justification for intervention should be the current

problem behavior rather than what might occur in the

future based on an assessment of the individual’s

characteristics. The comprehensive communityfocused model described earlier is the preferred risk

assessment approach for prevention, rather than the

individual-focused models typically used in formal

juvenile justice settings.

Risk Assessment in Child Welfare

There is a well-established empirical link between

child maltreatment and subsequent delinquency that

provides a strong rationale for viewing child welfare

interventions, in part, as delinquency prevention.

Consequently, the relatively recent use of risk assessment tools and risk-based case management strategies

in child welfare agencies is a positive sign. Through

more consistent and accurate identification of children

who are most likely to suffer continued maltreatment,

child welfare interventions can accomplish two

complementary purposes—child protection and

delinquency prevention.

Abuse and neglect referrals to child

welfare agencies increased dramatically in the 1980’s, which created

additional pressure to find more

efficient and effective ways to

manage heavy caseloads.

The expanded use of risk assessment and classification in child welfare emerged from many of the same

pressures and concerns that precipitated their use in

juvenile justice. Abuse and neglect referrals to child

welfare agencies increased dramatically in the 1980’s,

which created additional pressure to find more efficient and effective ways to manage heavy caseloads.

At the same time, public officials were demanding

greater accountability regarding agency decisions

and actions. The introduction of risk assessment

addressed both concerns by providing a structured

mechanism for determining which cases should

receive service priority and by explicitly stating the

criteria used for making those decisions.

Risk assessment in child welfare can have different

meanings depending on the goals of the system decision points, such as response priority, removal during

investigation, case opening, level of service for

opened cases, foster care placement, or reunification.

Although there is a need for structured decisionmaking and validated tools at many of these junctures, progress in developing them has been uneven

(Wald and Wolverton, 1990). One notable exception is
206

• Risk and need assessments and reassessments.

• Service standards that define different levels of

case contacts, based on risk level.

• A workload accounting system that translates service standards into staff resource requirements.

• An information system that uses classification

and workload data for monitoring, planning, and

budgeting (CRC, 1993).

CRC developed research-based risk tools for child

welfare agencies in Alaska, Michigan, Oklahoma,

Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. The instruments are

designed to identify the relative degree of risk for

continued abuse or neglect among families that have

a substantiated abuse or neglect referral. The degree

of risk is used to set a service level for opened cases,

and in some States it is used as a key criterion in the

case opening decision.

Each instrument was based on an analysis of the relationship between family characteristics and case outcomes using large samples (e.g., 1,000–2,000 families)

of previously substantiated cases. Negative outcomes

were defined as a subsequent referral or substantiation for abuse or neglect within 18 to 24 months of the

original referral. CRC created two separate risk scales

for each jurisdiction because predictive factors differed for subsequent incidents of abuse and subsequent incidents of neglect. In practice, the higher of

the two risk assessment scores is used to make case

classification decisions.

Figures 17, 18, 19, and 20 provide examples of the

family risk assessment scales developed for child

welfare agencies. Each scale has 9 to 12 items that are

highly correlated with risk of reabuse or reneglect.

Predictive items include objective measures of the

nature of the current incident, the number of prior

referrals, and the number and/or ages of the children

and adults in the home when the incident occurred.

The scales also include subjective measures (e.g., family stability, self-esteem, and social isolation), and

scoring is determined by definitional guidelines. Because the instruments are completed subsequent to

the investigation, workers have comprehensive information to use when scoring an item.

in assessing families’ longer term potential for repeated abuse or neglect. Recent research has provided

child welfare with the risk information necessary to

make fully informed decisions regarding case opening and level of service.

Two basic child welfare risk assessment models have

been developed and widely implemented. One model

is a consensus-based approach that has been popular

because it has face validity and is comprehensive.

However, it has also been criticized for being cumbersome and time consuming to use. In addition, some

tests of the reliability and the predictive and classificatory power of consensus models have had marginal

results (Weedon, Torti, and Zunder, 1988). The second

model, which is empirically based, has been shown to

The National Center on Child Abuse

and Neglect has endorsed the

empirical approach to risk assessment because it has been judged

“superior to consensus models in

predicting reoccurrence” and

because empirical models “lead to

more effective use of available

services.”

effectively discriminate among low-, medium-, and

high-risk child welfare cases. The National Center on

Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) has endorsed the

empirical approach to risk assessment because it has

been judged “superior to consensus models in predicting reoccurrence” and because empirical models

“lead to more effective use of available services”

(NCCAN, 1993). The development and use of this

model is highlighted below.

The Children’s Research Center Model

The Children’s Research Center (CRC) of the National

Council on Crime and Delinquency has developed a

risk assessment and classification model as part of a

larger case management system that includes the

following components:
207

Figure 17: Rhode Island DCYF Initial Family Assessment of Abuse/Neglect

 Case Name Unit

 SCR# CYCIS # Staff Person Date

Neglect Score Abuse Score

N1. Did the current investigation indicate ______

neglect?

a. No ............................................................ 0

b. Yes ......................................................... +1

N2. Was the type of neglect indicated at this ______

investigation inadequate food, clothing,

medical care or failure to thrive (CANTS

allegations 43,45,46,48)?

a. No ............................................................. 0

b. Yes ......................................................... +1

N3. How many early warnings were received ______

for this household prior to this incident?

a. None ........................................................ 0

b. One ....................................................... +1

c. Two or more ........................................ +2

N4. How many unfounded investigations of ______

this house hold were conducted prior to

the current incident?

a. None ...................................................... -1

b. One .......................................................... 0

c. Two or more ........................................ +1

N5 Was neglect or sexual abuse indicated ______

at any prior investigation of this household?

a. Neglect +1

b. Sexual abuse ........................................ +2

c. None of the above ................................. 0

N6. How many children were indicated ______

for abuse or neglect in this incident?

a. One or two children .............................. 0

b. Three or more children ...................... +1

N7. Age of the oldest child indicated for ______

abuse or neglect in this incident?

a. Age 11 or older ..................................... -1

b. 6–10 years old ......................................... 0

c. Less than 6 years old .......................... +2

N8. Was the primary adult caretaker a ______

perpetrator in this incident?

a. No ............................................................ 0

b. Yes ......................................................... +1

N9. Does this appear to be a stable family? ______

a. No ............................................................ 0

b. Yes .......................................................... -1

N10. Does any child in this family have a CYCIS ______

contact record or a CYCIS service history?

a. None ........................................................ 0

b. Yes, CYCIS contact record ................. +1

c. Yes, CYCIS service history ................ +2

Total Neglect Score ______

A1. Did the current investigation indicate ______

abuse?

a. No ............................................................ 0

b. Yes ......................................................... +1

A2. How many early warnings were received for ______

this household prior to the current incident?

a. None ...................................................... -1

b. One .......................................................... 0

c. Two or more ........................................ +1

A3. How many unfounded investigations of this ______

household were conducted prior to the

current incident?

a. None ........................................................ 0

b. One ....................................................... +1

c. Two or more ........................................ +3

A4. Has any prior investigation of this ______

household indicated sexual abuse?

a. No ............................................................ 0

b. Yes, prior sexual abuse ...................... +2

A5. How many children were indicated for ______

abuse or neglect in this incident?

a. One child ................................................ 0

b. Two children ....................................... +1

c. Three or more children ...................... +2

A6. Age of the youngest child indicated for ______

abuse or neglect in this incident?

a. Age 16 or older ................................... -2

b. Age 15 or younger ................................. 0

A7. Age of the primary adult caretaker? ______

a. 36 years or older .................................. -1

b. 35 years or younger ............................... 0

A8. Is there evidence that either caretaker ______

has an alcohol or drug problem?

a. No ............................................................ 0

b. Yes ......................................................... +1

A9. Does the family appear to receive little or ______

no external support from family, friends,

or community resources?

a. Some support ......................................... 0

b. Little or no support ............................ +1

A10. Does this appear to be a stable family? ______

a. No ............................................................ 0

b. Yes .......................................................... -1

A11. Does any child in the family have a CYCIS ______

contact record or CYCIS service history?

a. No .......................................................... -1

b. Yes, CYCIS contact record .................... 0

c. Yes, CYCIS service history ................ +1

Total Abuse Score ______

Initial Abuse/Neglect Classification

Assign the family’s A/N classification based on the higher of the

abuse of neglect scores, using the following chart:

A/N Classification Neglect Score Abuse Score

_____ Low ____ -3 to 1 ____ -6 to -3

_____ Medium ____ 2 to 4 ____ -2 to 0

_____ High ____ 5 to 7 ____ 1 to 3

_____ Intense ____ 8 to 16 ____ 4 to 14
208

Figure 18: Oklahoma Family Service Assessment for Abuse/Neglect

Neglect Score

N1. Current investigation confirmed _____

a. Abuse .....................................................................0

b. Neglect ................................................................... 2

N2. Prior CPS referral history _____

a. Prior confirmed neglect .......................................2

b. Any prior referral for abuse/neglect ................. 1

c. None .................................................................... -1

N3. Age of primary caretaker _____

a. 33+ .......................................................................... 0

b. 24–32 years old ..................................................... 1

c. Less than 24 years old ..........................................3

N4. Number of Children/Caretakers Involved in _____

Abuse/Neglect Incident

a. One child ...............................................................0

b. Two + children, two caretakers .......................... 1

c. Two + children, unassisted

 primary caretaker .............................................. 2

N5. Child is Provided Inadequate Physical Care by _____

Primary Secondary Caretaker

 a. No ...........................................................................0

b. Yes, secondary caretaker ..................................... 1

c. Yes, primary caretaker ......................................... 2

N6. Child is Inadequately Supervised by _____

Either Caretaker

a. No ...........................................................................0

b. Yes, primary or secondary caretaker ................. 1

N7. Primary Caretaker’s Emotional Stability Limits _____

Adequate Functioning as Caretaker

a. No ...........................................................................0

b. Yes ...........................................................................1

N8. Primary Caretaker Needs Assistance in Caretaking _____

Role Because of Intellectual/Reasoning Capacity

a. No ...........................................................................0

b. Yes ...........................................................................1

N9. Primary Caretaker Characteristics _____

a. Not motivated to improve parental skills .......... 1

b. Childhood history of abuse or neglect ...............1

c. Has impulse control problem ............................... 2

d. None of the above ................................................. 0

N10. Caretaker(s) Viewed the Current Abuse/Neglect _____

Incident at least as Seriously as the Investigating

Worker

a. Yes, primary caretaker ....................................... -1

b. Yes, secondary caretaker ................................... -1

c. Neither caretaker .................................................. 0

Total Neglect Score _____

Overrides

Policy: Override to very high. Circle appropriate reason.

1. Sexual abuse cases where the perpetrator is likely to have

access to the child victim.

2. Cases with nonaccidental physical injury or lifethreatening neglect to an infant.

Discretionary: 5. Reason ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Perpetrator(s) (check): _________ Primary Caretaker _________ Secondary Caretaker __________ Other Household Resident

_________ Other Nonresident _________ Unknown

Final Service Clasification ______ Very Low ______ Low ______ Medium _____ High _____ Very High

Initial Service Classification

Assign the family’s service classification based on the highest score

on either scale, using the following charts:

Service Level Neglect Score Abuse Score

_____ Very Low ______ -3 – 0 ______ -3 – 0

_____ Low ______ 1 – 3 ______ 1 – 3

_____ Medium ______ 4 – 6 ______ 4 – 6

_____ High ______ 7 –10 ______ 7 –10

_____ Very High ______ 11 –19 ______ 11 –21

Abuse Score

A1. Current Investigation Confirmed _____

a. Neglect only .......................................................... 0

b. Abuse .....................................................................1

A2. Prior CPS Referral History _____

a. Prior investigated referral for abuse ..................2

b. Any prior referral for abuse/neglect ................. 1

c. None of the above .............................................. -1

A3. Child Characteristics _____

a. Female .................................................................... 1

b. Mentally retarded or history of delinquency ...2

c. None of above ....................................................... 0

A4. Number of Children Involved in the Abuse/ _____

Neglect Incident

a. One ......................................................................... 0

b. Two ......................................................................... 1

c. Three + children ...................................................2

A5. Household Address Changes Last 12 Months _____

a. None or one........................................................... 0

b. Two or more .......................................................... 1

A6. A Child in the Household was Placed Outside _____

the Home Prior to this Incident

a. No ...........................................................................0

b. Yes ...........................................................................1

A7. Caretaker(s) have Unrealistic Expectations of Child _____

a. No ...........................................................................0

b. Yes, primary or secondary caretaker ................. 1

c. Yes, both caretakers .............................................. 2

A8. Caretaker(s) use Excessive/Inappropriate Discipline _____

a. No .......................................................................... 0

b. Yes, primary or secondary caretaker ................. 1

c. Yes, both caretakers .............................................. 3

A9. Primary Caretaker has an Alcohol or Drug Abuse _____

Problem that Contributed to the Incident

a. No ...........................................................................0

b. Yes, drug or alcohol use ...................................... 1

c. Yes, both drug and alcohol use .......................... 2

A10. Primary Caretaker’s Ability to Provide the Child _____

with Emotional Support and Discipline

a. Effective in meeting child’s minimum needs ...0

b. Not effective in some areas .................................1

A11. Primary Caretaker has a History of Abuse or _____

Neglect as a Child

a. No ...........................................................................0

b. Yes ...........................................................................1

A12. Primary Caretaker’s Relationship Problems with _____

Other Adults

a. Domestic violence/severe problems ................. 2

b. Harmful relationships ......................................... 1

c. Not applicable/limited adult relationships ..... 0

d. No serious problems .......................................... -1

A13. Caretaker(s) are Strongly Motivated to Improve _____

Parenting Skills

a. Yes, primary or secondary caretaker is strongly

motivated ............................................................ -1

b. Neither primary nor secondary caretaker ........ 0

Total Abuse Score _____

3. Serious nonaccidental physical injury or neglect requiring

 hospital or medical treatment.

4. Child born into a condition of dependence on a controlled

 dangerous substance or total alcohol syndrome (medically

 diagnosed).
209

Figure 19: Family Assessment of Needs

Score

1. Emotional Stability a. Appropriate responses ...................................................................... 0

b. Both parents or single parent, some problems .............................. 3

c. Chronic depression, severely low esteem,

emotional problems ..................................................................... 5 ________

2. Parenting Skills a. Appropriate skills .............................................................................. 0

b. Improvement needed ........................................................................ 3

c. Destructive/abusive parenting ........................................................ 5 ________

3. Substance Abuse a. No evidence of problem .................................................................... 0

b. One caretaker with some substance problem ................................ 2 ________

c. One caretaker with a serious problem or both caretakers

 with some substance problems .................................................... 3

d. Problems resulting in chronic dysfunction ..................................... 5 ________

4. Domestic Relations a. Supportive relationship/single caretaker........................................ 0

b. Marital discord, lack of cooperation ................................................ 2

c. Serious marital discord/domestic violence..................................... 4 ________

5. Social Support System a. Adequate support system .................................................................. 0

b. Limited support system ..................................................................... 2

c. No support or destructive relationships .......................................... 4 ________

6. Interpersonal Skills a. Appropriate skills................................................................................ 0

b. Limited or ineffective skills ............................................................... 2

c. Hostile/destructive ............................................................................. 4 ________

7. Literacy a. Adequate literacy skills ...................................................................... 0

b. Marginally literate .............................................................................. 2

c. Illiterate ................................................................................................. 3 ________

8. Intellectual Capacity a. Average or above functional intelligence ........................................ 0

b. Some impairment, difficulty in decisionmaking skills .................. 2

c. Severe limitation .................................................................................. 3 ________

9. Employment a. Employed or no need ......................................................................... 0

b. Unemployed, but looking .................................................................. 1

c. Unemployed, not interested .............................................................. 2 ________

10. Physical Health Issues a. No problem .......................................................................................... 0

b. Health problem or handicap that affects family............................. 1

c. Serious health problem or handicap that affects ability to

 provide for or protect child............................................................. 2 ________

11. Resource Availability/ a. Sufficient income to meet needs ....................................................... 0

Management b. Income mismanagement .................................................................... 2

c. Financial crisis...................................................................................... 3 ________

12. Housing a. Adequate housing ............................................................................... 0

b. Some housing problems, but correctable ........................................ 1

c. No housing, eviction notice ............................................................... 2 ________

13. Sexual Abuse a. No evidence of problem ..................................................................... 0

b. One or both caretakers have abused children sexually ................. 5 ________

14. Child Characteristics a. Age appropriate, no problems .......................................................... 0

b. Minor physical, emotional, intelligence problems ......................... 1

c. Significant problems that put strain on family ............................... 2

d. Severe problems resulting in dysfunction ...................................... 3 ________
210

Research Results

Table 7 shows the results of risk research in Rhode

Island, Alaska, and Oklahoma in terms of the proportion of families at each level of predicted risk with

subsequent incidents of abuse or neglect during the

followup period. The data indicate that the instruments used in the respective jurisdictions successfully

identified dramatic differences in the risk potential of

the client population. In Rhode Island, for example,

almost two-thirds of the identified high-risk clients

had subsequent incidents, while only about 1 in 20

(6 percent) of the identified low-risk cases had subsequent incidents. In other words, the high-risk families

had a return rate that was 10 times greater than that of

the low-risk families. Similar findings occurred at the

other sites. These findings support the risk assessment

rationale for child welfare: by using empirically derived instruments to identify different levels of risk,

agency resources can be targeted to higher risk families where the potential is greatest for reducing subsequent maltreatment.* See Table 7 below.

Child Welfare Needs Assessment

Needs assessment instruments have been developed

for child welfare systems to support and complement

risk tools. As discussed earlier, needs assessments

identify critical problems in the family. They provide

a concise, yet thorough evaluation of client circumstances that provide a foundation for service planning

and intervention. In some States, need and risk results

are used together to determine the level of family

service to be provided.

Needs assessment tools typically have been developed using a staff consensus-building model in which

the staff identifies the 10 or 15 most common and/or

important intervention issues. Unlike the needs scales

used in juvenile justice, child welfare instruments

focus almost exclusively on the caretaker and the

family, rather than on the individual child. Figure 19

is a typical child welfare needs assessment scale.

Risk Assessment for Detention

Decisions

In 1990, more than 550,000 juveniles in the United

States were placed in detention facilities. This figure

represents a 20 percent increase over 1986 admissions

(DeComo et al., 1993). Although it might be expected

that recent increases in juvenile arrests for violent

crime have fueled the expanded use of detention,

Table 7: CPS Outcomes by Risk Level

Rhode Island Alaska Oklahoma

Risk Sample Percentage Sample Percentage Sample Percentage

Category N Subsequent N Subsequent N Subsequent

Abuse/Neglect Abuse/Neglect Abuse/Neglect

Very Low — — 124 3.2 82 3.7

Low 94 6 105 10.5 218 14.7

Moderate 368 23 121 19.0 273 23.4

High 299 39 112 33.9 399 32.1

Intensive 195 63 88 56.8 226 57.1

Total 956 35 550 22.9 1198 29.7

* Although these instruments were not designed to predict the seriousness of subsequent incidents, several of them are able to do just

that. In Rhode Island, just 1 percent of the low-risk cases, compared to 27 percent of the “intense” cases, had a subsequent referral that

required medical treatment or hospitalization.
211

national statistics show:

• Less than one-fourth (23 percent) of detainees were

charged with violent offenses.

• Only 9 percent were charged with drug offenses.

• Nearly half (47 percent) of the youth were detained

for a property offense.

• Over 21 percent were charged with public order

offenses (DeComo et al., 1993).

Increased and often inappropriate use of detention

(Pappenfort and Young, 1976) has resulted in overcrowded facilities, lawsuits charging violation of constitutional rights, and a severe strain on local budgets

(Dale and Sanniti, 1993; Schwartz, Barton, and

Orlando 1991; Soler, Shotten, Bell, Jameson, Shauffer,

and Warboys, 1990). These conditions have prompted

some jurisdictions to turn to risk-screening devices to

control populations and introduce greater objectivity

into the detention decision. In a recent major detention reform initiative, the Casey Foundation recognized the usefulness of these tools and required

participating sites to develop objective assessment

procedures as key components of their reform efforts.

Existing detention risk instruments typically are not

based on the results of research on youth outcomes

for two reasons:

• Detention decisions focus on whether a youth

represents an immediate threat to the community

(i.e., in the period between arrest and adjudication)

and whether the youth is likely to abscond to avoid

court processing. Because less than 5 percent of

nondetained youth commit a new offense or

abscond prior to court appearance (Smykla and

Selke, 1982), the low base rate prohibits the development of an empirically based risk tool.

• Although some jurisdictions have risk tools that

were developed for probation or parole populations, using such an instrument to guide detention

decisions would be inappropriate because the

rationale for detention has little to do with the

long-term risk of committing a new offense.

As a result, jurisdictions using risk screening for

detention have relied on statutory requirements and

the identification of criteria that reflect public safety

and youth stability issues. As shown in Figures 20 and

21, typical measures of risk include the seriousness of

the current offense (with a particular emphasis on

violence), the recency and frequency of prior offenses,

and whether the youth was under court supervision

at the time of the current offense. These measures

reflect agreed-upon policy choices regarding who

should or should not be detained and are used to

structure the detention decision.

Impact of Risk Screening on Detention

Recent research results show that the use of risk

assessment can have a significant impact on the size

and composition of detention populations. Sacramento County (a Casey Foundation site) developed

detention admission and risk-screening criteria

almost identical to that shown in Figure 20. To determine the potential impact on admissions, the criteria

were applied to a sample of 396 youth who were

admitted to detention in 1992 and who were eligible

for diversion. Results of the study were as follows:

• Just 155 youth or 39 percent of the sample would

have been admitted to detention using the 4 basic

admission guidelines.

• Of youth who met the admission criteria, 10 percent received risk scores that made them eligible

for an unrestricted release, and an additional 11

percent received scores indicating that they could

be released to a nonsecure detention alternative.

• If admission criteria and risk guidelines had been

in place during 1992, they would have resulted in a

45 percent decrease in the number of detention

beds required (NCCD, 1993).

Equally dramatic evidence was found in Broward

County, Florida. In response to a class action suit,

juvenile justice system officials developed structured

risk-screening criteria and created alternatives to

secure detention (Dale and Sanniti, 1993; Schwartz et

al., 1991). In 1988, prior to the implementation of the

screening guidelines, the 109-bed detention center

had an average daily population (ADP) of 166 youth,

of which less than 10 percent were violent offenders.

Because of the crowded conditions, youth slept on

floors and in classrooms converted into dormitories.

Applying the screening instrument to their popula-
212

Figure 20: Broward County Detention Risk Assessment*

I. Admission Criteria (If each of the following 4 items are answered no the youth must be released. If any of

the items are answered yes, complete the risk assessment)

Yes ___ No ___ 1. Youth is alleged to be an escapee/absconder from a commitment program, community

control program, furlough or aftercare; or youth is wanted in other jurisdiction for felony

level offense.

Yes ___ No ___ 2. Youth charged with delinquent act/law violation and requests detention for protection

from imminent physical threat to his/her personal safety.

Yes ___ No ___ 3. Youth charged with capital, life, first degree or second degree felony or any violent felony.

Yes ___ No ___ 4. Youth charged with burglary, grand theft auto, any offense involving use of firearm, or

any second or third degree felony drug charge and:

Yes ___ No ___ youth has record of failure to appear at court hearings; or

Yes ___ No ___ youth has record of law violations prior to court hearings; or

Yes ___ No ___ youth has already been detained or has been released and is awaiting

final case disposition; or

Yes ___ No ___ youth has a record of violent conduct resulting in physical injury.

II. Risk Assessment

A. Most Serious Current Offense ________

1. All capital, life and first degree felony PBL ................................................................................. 15

2. All other first degree felonies, vehicular homicide, violent second degree

 felonies, or youth wanted by other jurisdiction for felony offense ...................................... 12

3. Second degree felony drug charge, escape/abscond, any third degree felony

 involving use of firearm, burglary of occupied residence ..................................................... 10

4. Violent third degree felony ............................................................................................................... 9

5. All other second degree felonies (except dealing stolen property) ............................................ 8

6. Dealing stolen property; third degree felonies that qualify for detention................................ 7

7. Reckless display, unlawful discharge of firearm ........................................................................... 4

B. Other Current Offenses and Pending Charges (separate incidents) ________

1. Each felony.......................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Each misdemeanor ............................................................................................................................ 1

3. Prior felony arrest within last 7 days .............................................................................................. 6

C. Offense History ________

1. Three felony adjudications or withheld adjudications last 12 months ...................................... 4

2. Two felony adjudications or withheld adjudications last 12 months ......................................... 2

3. One felony adjudication or withheld adjudication or misdemeanor adjudication or

 withheld adjudication ................................................................................................................... 1

D. Legal Status ________

1. Committed or detention ................................................................................................................... 8

2. Active community control case and last adjudication within 90 days ...................................... 6

3. Active community control case and last adjudication more than 90 days ago......................... 2

E. Aggravating/Mitigating Factors ________

1. Aggravating Factors (add 1–3 points to score; document reasons fully)

2. Mitigating Factors (subtract 1–3 points; document reasons fully)

Total Score (add A through E) ________

Detain/Release Decision:

0–6 = Release 7–11 = Nonsecure or home detention 12+ = Secure detention

* Contains slight modifications to format and language.
213

Figure 21: Los Angeles County Detention/Release Scale

1. Most Serious Present Offense _________

Serious/Violent Offenses

WIC 707(b) Offense ................................................................................................................. 10

Other Violent Offenses (battery, assault)................................................................................ 7

Serious Property/Drug Offenses Burglary, Grand Theft, MV theft, Sale of Narcotics ......... 5

All Other Crimes ............................................................................................................................. 3

Status Offenses, Noncriminal Violations ..................................................................................... 0

2. Number Sustained Petitions, Last 12 Months _________

Two or more ..................................................................................................................................... 5

One..................................................................................................................................................... 3

None .................................................................................................................................................. 0

3. Youth Residing With: _________

Out-of-Home (institution, group home, etc.) .............................................................................. 2

In-Home (parent, guardian, relative)........................................................................................... 0

4. Under Influence of Drugs/Alcohol at Time of Arrest? _________

Yes ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

No ...................................................................................................................................................... 0

5. Probation Status _________

Active Probation, New Criminal Offense Alleged .................................................................... 4

Active Probation, No Criminal Allegation .................................................................................. 2

Not on Active Probation ................................................................................................................. 0

6. Warrant Status _________

Minor is Subject of Active Bench Warrant ................................................................................. 10

Total Score _________

Detain/Release Scale

0–9 = Release

10+ = Consider for Home Detention, DAAP or Secure Detention

tion had a major impact on occupancy. The detention

facility’s ADP dropped by more than half—to 74

youth—by 1991. In 1992, the ADP fell to 53 youth. The

population reductions led to immediate cost savings

(especially in staff overtime), a significant decline in

behavior problems, and generally improved conditions throughout the facility (Dale and Sanniti, 1993;

Bazemore, Dicker, and Nyhan, 1994). These findings

demonstrate the potential of structured risk assessment in making detention decisions and controlling

detention populations. However, it is important to

note that there are significant implementation issues

including obtaining staff commitment to the process

and developing the necessary alternatives, such as

home detention, for diverted youth.

Risk Assessment and

Classification in Placement

Decisionmaking

The problems confronting juvenile detention facilities

are even more pronounced among the Nation’s training schools. Admissions to public and private training

schools increased by 6 percent and 68 percent respectively between 1982 and 1990. Institutions are severely

overcrowded, with many operating at 150 to 200

percent over capacity. Suits have been filed regarding

overcrowding and/or institutional conditions in a

number of States including Rhode Island, Louisiana,

Indiana, Delaware, and Florida. However, budget

restrictions have limited the capacity to build new
214

facilities or to address deteriorating conditions in the

existing facilities. At the same time, however, research

has demonstrated that, in spite of increases in violent

juvenile crime, the majority of offenders in training

schools are not violent offenders. For example,

Krisberg’s review of the offense characteristics of

incarcerated juveniles in 14 States in 1992 revealed

that the proportion of admissions accounted for by

violent offenders ranged from a high of 44 percent to

a low of 11 percent (Krisberg et al., 1993).

each youth are defined in the same manner, regardless of where the case is processed or who does the

assessment. This chapter discusses the central features

of these structured assessment systems.

Note that the term “placement decisionmaking”

includes decisions about the correctional placement

of adjudicated youth regardless of whether those

decisions rest with judicial or administrative authorities. That is, the tools discussed here can and have

been implemented to structure judges’ dispositions

or the decisions of State/local juvenile corrections

agencies.

Types of Placement Decision Tools

Well-designed classification instruments used for

structuring placement decisions are based on factors

that reflect public safety considerations. Usually these

factors include the severity of current and prior

offenses and several measures that assess a youth’s

potential for reoffending. Consequently, they reflect

the twin concerns of those making the placement

decision: (1) the proportionality of the level of restrictiveness to the severity of the offense (“just desserts”),

and (2) the level of control necessary to manage risk.

As with other classification devices, these instruments

almost always incorporate “override” provisions.

This mechanism allows the decisionmaker—in unique

case circumstances—to place a youth in a facility or

program other than that indicated by the assessment

results. Finally, although needs assessments may be

completed, they do not usually play a major role in

deciding the level of custody or security. Instead, program-specific decisions are most often made after the

custody level has been determined.

The primary differences in placement decision tools

are related to the number and type of predictive variables taken into account and the extent to which their

formats separate issues related to the severity of

offenses from those related to risk. The placement

decision instruments that traditionally have been

called “risk assessment” combine offense severity and

risk measures on a single scale that uses point totals

to determine the classification and associated level of

security. This type of instrument has, with few exceptions, resulted from a consensus-building process that

In seeking answers to overcrowding, inappropriate

placements, and cost inefficiencies, an increasing number of States have turned toward a continuum of care

model such as that pioneered in Massachusetts and

Utah and subsequently implemented, in whole or

in part, in a number of other States. This approach

emphasizes reserving secure care placement for only

the most violent and serious offenders. Other youth

are served through a broad array of intermediate sanctions and community-based supervision and services.

The model has wide-ranging appeal because it makes

intuitive and fiscal sense, and because it is consistent

with the juvenile court’s philosophy of providing

treatment in the least restrictive setting possible without jeopardizing public safety.

However, in States that have adopted such an approach, there has been considerable initial disagreement about which youth should be defined as “violent

or serious” and therefore about where youth should

be placed along the various stages of the continuum.

Typically, juvenile justice officials have addressed this

dilemma by designing formal classification systems

that incorporate agreed-upon risk and offense-severity

factors to guide placement decisionmaking. Such systems ensure that the custody or supervision needs of

Well-designed classification instruments used for structuring placement decisions are based on

factors that reflect public safety

considerations.
215

involves judges, prosecutors, corrections officials,

child advocates, program providers, and other key

actors in the juvenile justice system. Examples of such

instruments are provided by Colorado (see Figure 15)

and Louisiana (see Figure 22). Both instruments are

designed to classify youth into one of three categories.

Those youth with the highest total scores are considered primary candidates for secure care, while an

immediate community-based placement is indicated

for those with the lowest scores. Youth in the middle

category are considered for a short-term stay in secure

care (e.g., 1–3 months) followed by a less restrictive

placement. The Colorado and Louisiana tools both

include measures of current and prior offense severity

and tend to give these variables higher weights relative to the other measures. In fact, the offense severity

weights and the classification cutoff scores have been

designed to ensure that youth committing the most

serious offenses are automatically indicated for secure

placement. The primary differences between the two

instruments are that Louisiana has more items related

to offense history (use of weapon or multiple felonies

in the present adjudication, or number of priors), and

that Louisiana places a greater emphasis on the success of prior interventions as indicators of risk.

The second type of placement decision tool also incorporates measures of offense severity and risk. However, the assessment format is a matrix and the

placement classification decision requires a two step

process. The first step is the completion of an empirically derived risk assessment tool that measures the

likelihood of reoffending. The second step involves

cross-indexing the level of risk with the nature of the

current and most serious prior offenses. A matrix

developed for the Michigan juvenile services agency

is shown in Figure 23.

The matrix approach has important advantages. First,

the two underlying and separate issues informing

placement decisions (proportionality and risk) are

treated as distinct assessment dimensions, thereby

eliminating possible confusion about the meaning of

“risk assessment.” Second, the inclusion of a complete risk assessment score provides a more accurate

measure of the likelihood of recidivism than do the

three or four risk-related items found in the more

traditional instruments. Third, the matrix format provides the opportunity to create a larger number of

classifications and therefore, refine the precision with

which offenders are assigned to different security

levels or programs.

To illustrate the last point, a placement matrix developed for the Juvenile Division of the Indiana Department of Corrections is shown in Figure 24. Instead of

simply determining which of three security levels

should be associated with each cell in the matrix, the

Indiana instrument takes advantage of the model’s

inherent flexibility by linking classification results to a

full range of security and program options. Consequently, distinctions can be made among youth who

commit violent offenses but have different levels of

risk. Similarly, the model allows high-risk offenders to

be treated differently based on the severity of their

presenting offense. In effect, Indiana officials have

developed a blueprint for a continuum of care that is

integrally tied to the risk assessment and classification

process.

Impact of Classification on Placement

Decisions and Resource Needs

A study completed in 1993 by Krisberg and associates—highlighted earlier—examined the results of

classification studies conducted in 14 States. Briefly,

the results showed that when structured assessment

tools were applied to the States’ secure care populations, a minimum of one-third of the youth were classified as low or medium risk, indicating that they did

not require long-term secure care. Now we will examine the implications of the study results for correctional bedspace needs.

Although instrument design (e.g., items, weights, and

cutoff scores) varied across the study sites, all used a

three-tiered classification scheme that sorted youth

into low-, medium-, and high-risk. In each site, highrisk youth were considered to need long-term secure

care. Table 8 shows how youth in six of the States

were distributed across the three risk categories.

Although the proportion of youth in each risk category varied widely from State to State, all States

placed a substantial percentage of youth in secure

care who did not need to be there. Note that these

results were based on assessment criteria developed

by juvenile justice officials in the respective locations.
216

Figure 22: Louisiana Office of Juvenile Services Secure

Custody Screening Document

 Score

1. Severity of Present Adjudicated Offense _________

Level 0 Felony ................................................................................................................................. 10

Level 1 Felony ................................................................................................................................... 7

Level 2 Felony ................................................................................................................................... 5

Level 3 Felony ................................................................................................................................... 3

Level 4 Felony ................................................................................................................................... 1

All Other ............................................................................................................................................ 0

2. If Present Adjudication Involves _________

Possession/Use of Firearm.............................................................................................................. 2

Multiple Felonies .............................................................................................................................. 2

3. Number Prior Adjudications _________

Two or More Felony Adjudications................................................................................................ 2

One Felony or Two + Misdemeanors............................................................................................. 1

None ................................................................................................................................................... 0

4. Most Serious Prior Adjudication _________

Level 0 or Level 1 Felony ................................................................................................................. 5

Level 2 Felony ................................................................................................................................... 3

Level 3 or below ................................................................................................................................ 0

5. For Offenders With Prior Adjudications _________

Age at First Adjudication

Age 13 or younger ...................................................................................................................... 2

Age 14 ........................................................................................................................................... 1

Age 15 and older ......................................................................................................................... 0

6. History of Probation/Parole Supervision _________

Offender Currently On Probation/Parole..................................................................................... 2

Offender With Probation/Parole Revocation ............................................................................... 1

7. History of In-Home/Nonsecure Residential Intervention _________

Three or More Prior Failures ........................................................................................................... 3

One or Two Prior Failures ............................................................................................................... 1

None ................................................................................................................................................... 0

8. If the Offender Had a Prior Placement in OJS ................................................................................ 2 _________

9. Prior Escapes or Runaways _________

From Secure More Than Once ........................................................................................................ 3

From Secure Once or Nonsecure 2+ ............................................................................................... 2

From Nonsecure Once ..................................................................................................................... 0

Total Score _________

Recommended Action

0–6 = consider nonsecure placement

7–8 = consider short-term secure placement

9+ = consider secure placement
217

Class III

Class I or II Yes No

Yes No

Class IV or V Yes No

Figure 23: Michigan Initial Security Matrix for Delinquency

Most Serious Prior Risk Level

Committing Class I or II

Offense Adjudication Low Medium High

High High High

Medium Medium High

Low Medium Medium

Community- Community- Low

Based Based

Community- Community- Low

Based Based

Community- Community- CommunityBased Based Based

Figure 24: Indiana Juvenile Corrections Placement Matrix

(Proposed Model)

Risk Level

Offense Severity High Medium Low

1. Violent Offenses Violent Offender Violent or Sex Offender Boot Camp

 Program Program Intermediate Sanction

Assaultive Sex Offender Staff Secure Residential Program

 Program

Staff Secure Residential

2. Serious Offenses Boot Camp Intermediate Sanction Intermediate Sanction

Staff Secure Residential Program Day Treatment

Job Corps Specialized Group

Intermediate Sanction Homes

 Program

3. Less Serious Offenses Intermediate Sanction Proctor Program Community Supervision

 Program Tracking Community Service

Day Treatment Community Service Mentors

Specialized Group

Homes

4. Minor Offenses Proctor Program Community Supervision Mentors

Tracking Mentors

Community Supervision
218

Table 8: Risk Classification Results for Selected Training School Populations

Risk Level Arizona Delaware Georgia Illinois Louisiana Oregon

Percent High 23 59 67 51 46 16

Percent Medium 49 23 28 37 19 31

Percent Low 28 18 5 12 35 53

To develop estimates of the potential reduction in bed

needs that would result from structured decisionmaking, Krisberg et al. (1993) modeled the flow of

cases through each State’s training schools. They used

classification results in conjunction with admissions

data and assumptions about length of stay in secure

care for each classification group. For example, the

Louisiana classification results showed that of the juvenile agency’s 900 annual admissions, 413 (46 percent)

would be classified as high, 171 (19 percent) as

medium, and 315 (35 percent) as low. For modeling

purposes, researchers assumed that high-risk youth

would stay in secure care for 12 months, that medium

cases would remain in secure care for an average of 3

months, and that low-risk youth would remain in secure care for about 1 month. The number of youth in

each group was multiplied by their expected length of

stay to estimate the total number of beds needed each

year. In Louisiana, applying this calculation indicated

a need for 482 training school beds which was 296 beds

fewer than the 778 beds actually operated by the State,

a reduction of 38 percent.

The same modeling process was used for all 14 States

included in the study. The results showed that the

percentage reduction in secure bed needs ranged from

a low of 5 percent (in Rhode Island) to a high of 68

percent (in Nebraska), with an average reduction

across all States of 31 percent.

Subsequent studies were conducted in Michigan, Indiana, and the District of Columbia with similar results.

All of these studies underscore the utility of using

highly structured and public-safety oriented criteria

when making placement decisions. Using such criteria

ensures that decisionmaking is more consistent, and

also reduces the number of inappropriate placements,

thereby improving cost effectiveness.

Risk Assessment and Classification in

Probation and Parole Supervision

Each year approximately 57 percent of all youth adjudicated delinquent by the Nation’s courts are placed

on formal probation supervision. In 1992, this percentage translated into approximately 316,100 juveniles, or twice the number of offenders placed out of

the home (Butts, Snyder, Finnegan, Aughenbaugh,

Tierney, Sullivan, Poole. In press.). The perception

among juvenile probation staff that their case-loads

include many more serious offenders now than in the

past is supported by available data. The proportion of

youth placed on probation for person-related offenses

increased by 50 percent between 1988 and 1992. Faced

with static or diminishing resources, probation and

parole agencies need to improve the methods used to

identify those youth who pose the greatest risks to the

community and manage available resources so that

they are targeted to the highest risk offenders. As a

result of these needs, risk assessment and classification systems have become major case management

tools for community supervision.

The risk-based aftercare system developed by the

Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) in 1987

provides a powerful example of the rationale for using classification in probation/parole. The aftercare

system used an empirically derived risk scale to classify parolees into one of three risk levels. It also incorporated differential service standards (expressed as

the frequency of monthly face-to-face supervision

contacts) for each risk category.

This risk instrument enabled ODYS to clearly identify

youth most and least likely to commit a new offense

within 18 months of their release to parole. Table 9

shows that recidivism rates for youth classified at the

intensive level was more than three times that of

youth classified at the low level of supervision (75

percent versus 22.5 percent). These findings provide a
219

Table 9: Recidivism and Contact Standards for Ohio Parolees*

Risk/Supervision Percent Percent Minimum

Category Releases Recidivism Contacts/MO

Intensive 21.7 75.0 6

Regular 56.9 48.4 2

Low 21.4 22.5 .5

compelling rationale for directing staff effort and

available resources to those at the highest level of risk.

Prior to implementing the new system, parole officers

were expected to meet all youth a minimum of twice

per month. Consideration of risk levels dramatically

altered supervision expectations. As shown in Table 9,

youth at the highest risk level were expected to receive a minimum of six contacts per month instead of

the traditional two. Conversely, contacts for those

least likely to recidivate were reduced to one every

other month. Moreover, this redirection of staff energies was accomplished without additional resources.

Two basic types of risk assessment instruments have

been used to determine the level of supervision for

probationers and parolees, the primary distinction

being the method of development. Either the instruments were developed from research conducted in the

local jurisdiction, or they were developed by modifying an existing instrument that was borrowed from

another jurisdiction. Many agencies have adopted the

Model Case Management risk scale and modified it to

reflect local concerns. The advantage to adopting a

preexisting instrument—and the reason most agencies

do it—is that it saves the time and resources needed

to conduct local risk research.

The main disadvantage of this approach is that juvenile justice officials never really know whether the

tool adopted from another agency is valid for their

population. As discussed previously, although research-based risk instruments contain common items,

each scale also has important variations in predictive

variables that result from differences in offender

populations, system policies and practices, and information sources. In other words, there is no guarantee

that risk scales are directly transferrable between

jurisdictions. Even the developers of the Model Case

Management risk scale, while advocating its adoption, include the caveat that validation research

would be required at the local level to ensure accurate

results. Unfortunately, most jurisdictions that have

adopted or adapted tools have not validated them.

Figures 25 and 26 show examples of instruments validated through site-specific research for use with probationers. Figure 25 is a risk instrument developed for

the Michigan youth services agency and used in the

Michigan placement matrix previously discussed.

Figure 26 is a risk assessment scale developed for use

at the county level in Wisconsin.

As shown in Table 10, these two instruments are able

to discriminate among groups of probationers with

varying degrees of risk. The data are based on youth

from the largest jurisdiction in each State—Wayne

County and Milwaukee County. The table shows the

percentage of youth at each classification level who

were rearrested within a specified period of time

(30 months in Michigan and 18 months in Wisconsin)

following their assignment to probation supervision.

The recidivism rate of youth classified at the highest

risk levels in both jurisdictions is almost twice that

for youth classified at the medium level of risk.

Recidivism rates for youth at the highest levels were

approximately four times (Wayne County) and three

times (Milwaukee County) higher than youth at the

lowest levels.

Relationship of Risk and Needs in the

Classification Decision

Probation and parole agencies vary in the way they

use risk and needs assessment results to influence the

classification process. Variation is largely a matter of

agency philosophy. Those agencies that stress public

* Contact standards as of 1988–89
220

Figure 25: NCCD Michigan Delinquency Risk Assessment Scale

 Score

1. Age at First Adjudication ___________

11 or under ................................................................................................................................... 3

12–14 ............................................................................................................................................. 2

15 ................................................................................................................................................... 1

16 or over ..................................................................................................................................... 0

2. Number of Prior Arrests ___________

None ............................................................................................................................................. 0

One or two ................................................................................................................................... 1

Three or more .............................................................................................................................. 2

3. Current Offense ___________

Nonassaultive offense (i.e., property, drug, etc.) ................................................................... 2

All others ..................................................................................................................................... 0

4. Number of Prior Out-of-Home Placements ___________

One or fewer................................................................................................................................ 0

Two or more ................................................................................................................................ 1

5. History of Drug Usage ___________

No known use or experimentation only ................................................................................. 0

Regular use, serious disruption of functioning ...................................................................... 1

6. Current School Status ___________

Attending regularly, occasional truancy only, or graduated/GED..................................... 0

Dropped out of school ............................................................................................................... 1

Expelled/suspended or habitually truant .............................................................................. 2

7. Youth was on Probation at Time of Commitment to DSS ___________

No ................................................................................................................................................. 0

Yes ................................................................................................................................................. 1

8. Number of Runaways from Prior Placements ___________

None ............................................................................................................................................. 0

One or more................................................................................................................................. 1

9. Number of Grades Behind in School ___________

One or fewer................................................................................................................................ 0

Two or three................................................................................................................................. 1

Four or more................................................................................................................................ 2

10. Level of Parental/Caretaker Control ___________

Generally effective ...................................................................................................................... 0

Inconsistent and/or ineffective ................................................................................................ 1

Little or no supervision provided ............................................................................................ 2

11. Peer Relationships ___________

Good support and influence; associates with nondelinquent friends ................................ 0

Not peer-oriented or some companions with delinquent orientations .............................. 2

Most companions involved in delinquent behavior or

gang involvement/membership ........................................................................................ 3

Total Score ___________

Risk Assessment 0–8 Low Risk

9–13 Moderate Risk

14–18 High Risk
221

Figure 26: Wisconsin Delinquency Risk Assessment Scale

 Score

1. Age at First Referral to Juvenile Court Intake _________

13 or under .................................................................................................................................... 2

14 .................................................................................................................................................... 1

15 or over ....................................................................................................................................... 0

2. Prior Referrals to Juvenile Court Intake _________

None............................................................................................................................................... 0

One or two .................................................................................................................................... 1

Three or more ............................................................................................................................... 2

3. Prior Assaults (includes use of a weapon) _________

Yes .................................................................................................................................................. 2

No ................................................................................................................................................... 0

4. Prior Out-of-Home Placements _________

None or one .................................................................................................................................. 0

Two or more .................................................................................................................................. 2

5. Prior runaways (from home or placement) _________

None or one .................................................................................................................................. 0

Two or more .................................................................................................................................. 2

6. School Behavior Problems (includes truancy) _________

None or only minor problems.................................................................................................... 0

Serious problems noted .............................................................................................................. 2

7. History of Physical or Sexual Abuse as a Victim _________

Yes .................................................................................................................................................. 1

No ................................................................................................................................................... 0

8. History of Neglect as a Victim _________

Yes .................................................................................................................................................. 2

No ................................................................................................................................................... 0

9. History of Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse _________

Yes .................................................................................................................................................. 2

No ................................................................................................................................................... 0

10. History of serious emotional problems _________

Yes .................................................................................................................................................. 1

No ................................................................................................................................................... 0

11. Peer Relationships _________

Good support and influence ...................................................................................................... 0

Negative influence; some companions involved in delinquent behavior or lack of

 peer relationships ..................................................................................................................... 1

Strong negative influence; most peers involved in delinquent behavior,

 such as gang involvement ...................................................................................................... 2

Total Risk Score _________

Risk Classification: 0–5 Low Risk

6–9 Medium Risk

10–13 High Risk

 14 or Above Very High Risk
222

Table 10: Recidivism by Risk/Classification Level

Risk Percent Rearrested Percent Rearrested

Classification Wayne County Milwaukee County

Low 19 24

Medium 39 35

High 76 43

Very High N/A 60

Figure 27: Lucas County Risk and Needs Score Matrix

Risk Score

Needs Score High Medium Low

High High Supervision High Supervision Regular Supervision

Medium High Supervision Regular Supervision Low Supervision

Low Regular Supervision Regular Supervision Sole Sanction

safety and risk control tend to use risk score results to

determine the assigned supervision level. The same

agencies typically use needs assessments, but the

purpose is to inform case planning rather than classification decisions. Other agencies stress the need for

balancing public safety issues and youth service

needs when classifying juvenile offenders. Where this

is the case, either the higher of the risk/need scores is

used to classify the youth or, as shown in Figure 27,

the assessment results are integrated in a matrix to

determine appropriate supervision level.

The Lucas County (Toledo, Ohio) classification matrix

shown in Figure 27 uses both risk and needs to place

youth at one of four levels of supervision as follows:

• Youth scoring low on both risk and needs are

diverted from formal probation and placed under

the supervision of volunteer probation staff.

• Youth receiving a high-risk or high-needs score are

placed in the highest level of supervision, unless

their other score falls into the low category, in

which case they are placed in regular supervision.

• Youth scoring medium on risk and medium or low

on needs are also assigned to regular supervision.

• Youth at low risk and medium need are assigned to

low supervision.

As with the matrixes used for determining placements, this approach allows agencies to carefully

delineate their policy choices regarding the relative

influence that risk and needs measures should have

on classification decisions.

Overrides

Virtually all classification systems for probation and

parole include provisions for staff or supervisors to

override the indicated level of supervision. Overrides

may be mandatory or discretionary. Mandatory overrides reflect agency policies toward certain types of

offenders. Typically, youth convicted of serious

offenses (e.g., rape or armed robbery), even though

placed on probation, cannot with good conscience be

placed at a low supervision level regardless of their

risk/needs scores. In some jurisdictions, policy overrides are built into an instrument’s scoring system

(e.g., by giving violent offenders 15 points), while in

others they are acknowledged as superseding the

instrument’s results.
223

Discretionary overrides are critical to the success of

classification systems because they allow decisions to

be influenced by individual case factors that may not

be captured on the risk or needs assessment tools. For

example, a sophisticated drug dealer may never have

been involved in the delinquency system and may not

have many of the problems identified on risk/needs

scales. Discretionary overrides provide for additional

staff input into the formal decisionmaking process

and therefore serve to strengthen it. However, such

overrides must be carefully monitored to ensure that

staff do not simply return to subjective assessment

and classification methods. One rule of thumb suggests that not more than 15 percent of classification

decisions should be the result of overrides.

Reassessment

Periodic and routine reassessment of risk and needs

should be an integral component of case management

systems. A youth’s circumstances and problems may

change frequently, resulting in a need for adjustments

in supervision requirements and case plans. In the

juvenile justice system, these structured reassessments are generally completed every 90 days. Case

progress (or lack thereof) determines whether a youth

should be assigned to a lower or higher supervision

level during the next supervision period.

A risk reassessment instrument used by the Indiana

Department of Corrections Juvenile Division is shown

in Figure 28. All items on the reassessment were also

on the initial assessment scale, except the last item.

It should be noted, however, that historical factors

(which do not change) are separated from predictive

items that focus on behavior (which can change over

time). These items are scored for the most recent

supervision period.

The “Response to Supervision” question is weighted

more than any other item, thereby playing a major role

in determining the subsequent supervision level.

Risk Assessment and

Classification for Institutional

Custody

A central concern of institutional administrators is

ensuring that:

• Inmates, staff, and the community are protected

from harm.

• Offender treatment needs are appropriately

matched with available programs.

• Available resources are allocated and used in the

most efficient manner.

As a result, classification for security, custody, and/

or treatment is crucial to institutional operations

(Brennan, 1987; Clements, 1986). Historically, formal

classification systems in juvenile facilities have

focused on treatment needs (Baird, 1984), while custody decisions have been made using informal methods and criteria such as age, physical size, or mental

health status. However, in recent years juvenile institutions have become overcrowded and inmate populations have “hardened.” The need for order and safety

has become paramount. These developments have

expanded administrators’ interest in formal custody

classification methods based on risk assessment.

Risk assessment for security and custody purposes

differs from community supervision assessment

because the goals are different. Community supervision is concerned primarily with an offender’s risk of

committing a new offense, while custody decisions

focus on the risk of disruptive behavior, assaultiveness

Generally, the needs instruments used for initial classification can also be used for reassessment. Changes

in needs can serve as a gauge of the effectiveness of

case plans and service provision. However, the structure and content of the risk assessment is usually

altered for reassessment purposes. Although predictive items based on the youth’s history are retained,

the emphasis will shift to the youth’s actual adjustment while under supervision, including progress

with risk factors such as family functioning, substance

abuse, and school attendance and behavior.

Periodic and routine reassessment

of risk and needs should be an

integral component of case management systems.
224

Figure 28: Indiana Department of Corrections, Juvenile Division:

Risk Reassessment for Community Supervision

1. Age at First True Finding _________

16 or older ......................................................................................................................................... 0

13–15 .................................................................................................................................................. 2

12 or younger ................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Prior Institutional Commitments or Placements _________

None .................................................................................................................................................. 0

Post-Adjudication Commitment ................................................................................................... 1

Residential

Prior Parental Placement(s) .................................................................................................... 1

Court/Welfare Placement(s) ................................................................................................... 2

Any State’s DOC .............................................................................................................................. 3

3. Prior Supervision Behavior _________

No Prior Supervision ...................................................................................................................... 0

Reoffended After Previous Supervision Ended .......................................................................... 1

Reoffended During Previous Supervision ................................................................................... 2

4. Number of Prior Offenses _________

None .................................................................................................................................................. 0

1 to 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 1

3 or more ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Rate the Following Since the Last Classification

5. Substance Abuse _________

No Known Use................................................................................................................................. 0

Experimental Use ............................................................................................................................ 1

Some Disruption .............................................................................................................................. 2

Serious Disruption........................................................................................................................... 3

6. School/Employment _________

No Problems ..................................................................................................................................... 0

Moderate Problems ......................................................................................................................... 1

Serious Problems ............................................................................................................................. 2

Not Enrolled or Not Employed ..................................................................................................... 3

7. Peers _________

No Problems ..................................................................................................................................... 0

Some Delinquents............................................................................................................................ 1

Mostly Delinquents ......................................................................................................................... 2

8. Parental/Guardian Supervision _________

Effective............................................................................................................................................. 0

Inconsistent or Ineffective .............................................................................................................. 1

No Supervision ................................................................................................................................ 2

Contributes to Delinquency ........................................................................................................... 4

9. Response to Supervision _________

No Significant Problems ................................................................................................................. 0

Moderate Compliance Problems ................................................................................................... 3

Major Compliance Problems, Commits New Delinquent Act .................................................. 6

Total Score _________

Cutoff Scores 0–12 Low

13–19 Medium

20+ High
225

to staff and other inmates, escape potential, and

victimization potential. As a result, risk assessment

procedures that assess the probability of a juvenile

“committing a new offense within the next 18

months” have little relevance to custody decisions.

The concern is with behavior while in the institution.

Two examples of research-based custody assessment

instruments are discussed below. Each could be used

to determine the particular facility to which a youth

would be assigned within a larger system, or to

decide the specific housing unit/cottage within a

single facility.

The Illinois Institutional Custody Scale

In 1990, the Juvenile Division of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) developed an initial

classification instrument for use at its seven youth

centers. System goals were to move youth through the

correctional process in an efficient and effective manner and to place youth in the least restrictive secure

environment possible, while simultaneously matching

program needs with available resources. Specifically,

by identifying the predictors of institutional misconduct, the IDOC’s objective was to place youth at the

lowest security level possible while reducing the risk

of major rule violations (Eich and Joyce, 1991).

IDOC researchers selected a sample of more than

200 admissions from a 3-month period in 1989 and

tracked their institutional behavior for the following

6 months. Youth characteristics were analyzed to

determine their relationship to the number and severity of disciplinary “tickets” they received during the

followup period. Correlation and regression analyses

identified four factors that are predictive of institutional adjustment. These factors are as follows:

Table 11: Indicated IDOC Custody Classification Based on Risk Assessment

Custody Classification Number of Percent of All Percent

Risk Score Youth Youth Failures

Minimum 0–2 68 33 7

Medium 3–9 99 49 20

Maximum 10+ 36 18 42

• Prior aggressive behavior against peers or staff in

school, detention, or the reception and classification unit (this item alone accounted for 56 percent

of the explained variance).

• The number of property offenses committed.

• The presence or absence of parental control.

• The youth’s mental health needs (determined by a

clinical evaluation).

Researchers applied the resulting scale to the admissions sample and sorted them into three indicated

custody levels (minimum, medium, maximum)

according to the outcome measure of success or failure. The distribution of the institutionalized youth

across the levels of custody is shown in table 11.

The scale discriminated well among varying levels

of risk for institutional misconduct. The failure rate

among those identified as high-risk (42 percent) was

twice that of the youth classified as medium-risk

(20 percent) and six times that of the youth identified

as low-risk (7 percent failure). Another important

finding was that only 18 percent of the IDOC youth

required maximum custody and that one-third could

be considered candidates for minimum security

settings.

Youth characteristics were analyzed

to determine their relationship to

the number and severity of disciplinary “tickets” they received

during the followup period.
226

It was not possible to establish a connection between

youth characteristics and escapes based on this research study because of the low base rate. Therefore,

the final assessment instrument included four additional items believed to be associated with the likelihood of escape. Currently, IDOC officials use both the

risk assessment and escape assessment results to determine the final custody level assignment. A copy of

the IDOC custody scale is shown in figure 29.

The Model Case Management System

Institutional Custody Scale

The Model Case Management System (Baird, 1984)

includes an institutional custody assessment scale

that was developed using data from multiple sites.

Baird examined the relationship between offender

characteristics and major disciplinary reports and

found that the following eight factors were moderately correlated with institutional adjustment:

• Number and seriousness of prior offenses.

• Seriousness of the committing offense.

• Age at first adjudication.

• Emotional stability.

• Family problems.

• School problems.

• Intellectual ability.

• Substance abuse.

The selection of scale items was influenced by two

important considerations, including lack of cross-site

consistency in data, especially on some of the more

subjective measures (e.g., family problems), and the

inappropriateness of including nonbehavioral measures (e.g., intellectual functioning). The Initial Custody Classificaion Scale is shown in Figure 30.

The model also included a custody reassessment

scale, to be administered at 90-day intervals. Like

community supervision reassessments, custody reassessments provide for routine evaluations of a youth’s

adjustment and allow the agency to move the juvenile

from one security level to another. The reassessment

instrument emphasizes actual behavior during a

specific time period on a range of institutional adjustment measures. An example of a reassessment tool is

shown in figure 31.

Conclusion

If the Nation’s juvenile justice system is to develop an

enhanced response to serious, violent, and chronic

juvenile offenders, it must design a comprehensive

array of interventions and sanctions. But it must also

develop the capacity to accurately assess and classify

juvenile offenders so that the impact of those interventions will be maximized, while at the same time

conserving scarce resources. Well-designed assessment procedures improve our ability to accurately

and consistently identify those who are, or may

become, serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Carefully crafted classification systems ensure

that the system’s response is equitable and graduated.

They also provide for a direct linking of an offender’s

need for control and services with the most appropriate intervention.

This section discussed the rationale and goals of

structured risk assessment and classification and

presented key issues and promising approaches at

several levels of the system. These assessment and

classification models have demonstrated their ability

to structure the juvenile justice system’s responses so

that decisions are more consistent, rational, and cost

effective. Particularly promising approaches include:

• Communitywide risk assessment and prevention

strategies such as CTC developed by Hawkins and

Catalano.

• Empirically based risk assessment tools developed

for child welfare and juvenile probation/parole

that identify youth and families with dramatically

different levels of risk.

• Structured placement and custody decisionmaking

instruments that (1) serve to reduce inappropriate

placements in detention and training schools and

(2) have the potential to clearly articulate the

intended connection between identified levels of

risk/seriousness and a range of placement and

program options.

Research findings clearly support the continued

development and application of structured decision-
227

Figure 29: Illinois DOC Juvenile Custody Risk Assessment

Score

1. Prior Aggressive Behaviors _________

No prior aggressive behavior ........................................................................................................ 0

Aggressive toward peers in school, detention, R&C.................................................................. 2

Aggressive behavior toward staff in school, detention, R&C ................................................... 6

Aggressive behavior toward peers and staff ............................................................................... 8

2. Number of Petitioned Property Offenses _________

Less than 11 ...................................................................................................................................... 0

More than 11 ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3. Parental Control _________

Parent has some control over youth ............................................................................................. 0

Parent has no control or supports anti-social activity or no parental

 involvement with youth ........................................................................................................ 3

4. Needs Level (Based on clinical evaluation) _________

No need: no clinical done or no need ........................................................................................... 0

Minimal: needs 2–4 monthly contacts with MH professional .................................................. 1

Moderate: needs weekly contact ................................................................................................... 2

Urgent: needs more than one contact weekly ............................................................................. 3

Total Score _________

Classification:

0–2 = Minimum 3–9 = Medium 10+ = Maximum

Escape/Security/Risk Minimum Medium Maximum

1. Nature of the Offense

Comments: ____________ ____________ ____________

2. Run History

Comments: ____________ ____________ ____________

3. Outstanding Charges/Warrants

Comments: ____________ ____________ ____________

4. Time to Serve

Comments: ____________ ____________ ____________

making systems. However, a number of key issues

must be considered in the design and development of

risk assessment and classification models. Unless

these issues are addressed, juvenile justice systems

risk implementing approaches that will not achieve

the intended goals and may in fact subvert them.

Of particular concern is the need to:

• Distinguish the goals of assessment and classification at different decision points in the system. Different goals require the use of different assessment

criteria. Consequently, instruments developed for

one application at one point in the system may not

be valid for making decisions about offenders at

another point in the system. For example, an

instrument designed to determine whether a youth

should be detained will not provide useful information about the likelihood of recidivism among

parolees.

• Maintain the distinction between “risk” and “seriousness” in the assessment and classification process, as well as the distinction between risk of

recidivism generally and risk of future violence.
228

Figure 30: Initial Custody Classification Scale

Name_________________________________________________________ Number____________________________

 Last First MI

Date of Admission______________________________________________ Staff Person_________________________

1. Severity of Current Offense* ___________

Highest..........................................................................................................................................6

High ..............................................................................................................................................5

Moderate ......................................................................................................................................3

Low................................................................................................................................................1

2. Most Serious Prior Offense* ___________

Highest..........................................................................................................................................7

High ..............................................................................................................................................5

Moderate ......................................................................................................................................3

Low................................................................................................................................................1

3. Number of Prior Offenses ___________

8 or more.......................................................................................................................................6

5–7..................................................................................................................................................4

3–4..................................................................................................................................................2

2 or fewer......................................................................................................................................0

4. Age at First Adjudication ___________

12 or under ...................................................................................................................................5

13–14..............................................................................................................................................3

15....................................................................................................................................................2

16 or older ....................................................................................................................................0

5. Prior Assaultive Behavior ___________

Assault leading to adjudication ................................................................................................6

Assault on authority figure, no conviction ..............................................................................5

Fighting resulting in injury to others or suspension from school ........................................4

6. Prior Escapes/Runaways (Within last 12 months) ___________

None ..............................................................................................................................................0

Runaway (attempts) from parents’ home ................................................................................2

Runaways from group or foster home placement..................................................................4

Escape from secure facility (jail or correctional facility) .......................................................6

7. Emotional Stability ___________

No serious problems ...................................................................................................................0

Moderate problems (aggressive acting out or withdrawal) .................................................3

Major problems (excessive responses, limits functioning) ...................................................5

Total Score ___________

*Each jurisdiction should assign offenses to the appropriate category.
229

Figure 31: Custody Reclassification Scale

Name___________________________________________________ Number_______________________________

 Last First MI

Date_________/__________/___________ Staff Person____________________________

1. Severity of Current Offense* ___________

Highest........................................................................................................................................... 3

High ............................................................................................................................................... 2

Moderate ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Low................................................................................................................................................. 0

2. Most Serious Prior Offense* ___________

Highest........................................................................................................................................... 5

High ............................................................................................................................................... 2

Moderate ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Low................................................................................................................................................. 0

3. Number of Prior Offenses ___________

8 or more........................................................................................................................................ 3

5–7................................................................................................................................................... 2

4 or fewer ....................................................................................................................................... 0

4. Escapes/Attempts (Last 3 months) ___________

1 or more........................................................................................................................................ 5

None ............................................................................................................................................... 0

5. Number of Major Misconduct Reports (Last 3 months) ___________

3 or more........................................................................................................................................ 5

1–2................................................................................................................................................... 3

None ............................................................................................................................................... 0

6. Most Serious Misconduct Report Received (Last 3 months) ___________

Highest........................................................................................................................................... 7

High ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Moderate ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Low................................................................................................................................................. 1

7. Program Participation/Adjustment (Last 3 months) ___________

Major problems reported ............................................................................................................ 5

Moderate problems ...................................................................................................................... 3

Full participation/no significant problems .............................................................................. 0

8. Furlough/Days Off Experience ___________

Completed 3 or more successfully ........................................................................................... -5

Completed 1 or 2 successfully .................................................................................................. -3

Total Score ___________

*Each jurisdiction should assign offenses and infractions to the appropriate category.
230

• Conduct the research necessary to validate any

instrument adapted or adopted from another jurisdiction or an instrument designed locally through

consensus. These instruments might have some

degree of face validity, but only empirical testing

will establish their predictive validity.

• Involve key actors from related systems in the

development of any classification system that has

widespread implications for how cases are

handled. For example, an instrument used to determine placements for youth committed to a corrections agency will more likely be implemented

successfully if judges, prosecutors, and others are

involved in the development.

• Do not expect that the development and implementation of a valid risk assessment and classification system for placement or custody decisions will

automatically reduce the correctional facility population. Classification for placement assumes that

well-structured alternatives to secure care are in

place. If they are not, strategies for developing

them must accompany the effort to develop the

classification system.

Offense seriousness is a major consideration in

placement and custody decisions; however, it

should not be confused with measuring the likelihood of a person committing a new offense. The

fact that a juvenile has committed a serious crime

does not mean that he is more likely than other

youth to commit a new offense. Conversely, a

youth assessed as high-risk is not necessarily more

likely than other youth to commit a serious or violent crime in the future. These distinctions exist

because most risk instruments have been designed

using rearrest or readjudication for any new offense as an outcome measure and generally do not

measure potential for violent behavior.

• Be aware of the limitations of risk instruments for

predicting an individual’s behavior. The state of

the art in risk assessment is such that predictive

accuracy is relatively weak. The primary intent of

risk assessment is to classify offenders into groups

based on estimated aggregate outcomes. One practical implication is that risk of recidivism should

never be used alone for decisions having major

consequences for the individual, such as whether

or not they will be placed in a training school.
231

References

The page(s) where the following references are cited

in the Guide are noted in italics following each item.

Some publications have been included in the References because of their relevance to the Comprehensive Strategy even though they are not cited

specifically in the text. These publications are not

followed by an italic page number.

A.L. Nellum and Associates. 1980. Impacts of SYEP

Participation on Work-Related Behavior and Attitudes of

Disadvantaged Youth, Final Report. Washington, DC.

p. 105

Ahlstrom, W., and R.J. Havighurst. 1982. “The Kansas

City Work/Study Experiment.” In D.J. Safer (ed.),

School Programs for Disruptive Adolescents. Baltimore,

MD: University Park Press. p. 104

Ahlstrom, W. and R.J. Havighurst. 1971. 400 Losers:

Delinquent Boys in High School. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass. p. 103, 109

Ahmed, S.W., P.J. Bush, F.R. Davidson, and R.J.

Iannotti. 1984. “Predicting Children’s Use and Intention to Use Abusable Substances.” Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Public Health

Association, Anaheim, CA, November. p. 21

Alexander, G.R., R.M. Massey, T. Gibbs, and J.M.

Altekruse. 1985. “Firearm-Related Fatalities:

An Epidemiologic Assessment of Violent Death.”

American Journal of Public Health 75:165–168. p. 18

Allen, J.P., S. Philliber, and N. Hoggson. 1990.

“School-Based Prevention of Teen-age Pregnancy and

School Dropout: Process Evaluation of the National

Replication of the Teen Outreach Program.” American

Journal of Community Psychology 18:505–524. p. 100, 102

Allen-Hagen, B., and M. Sickmund. 1993. “Juveniles

and Violence: Juvenile Offending and Victimization.”

OJJDP Fact Sheet #3:1–4 (July).

Altschuler, D., and T. Armstrong. 1992. Intensive

Aftercare for High-Risk Juvenile Parolees: A CommunityCare Model. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Altschuler, D., and T. Armstrong. 1984. “Intervening

with Serious Juvenile Offenders.” In R. Mathias, P.

DeMuro, and R. Allinson (eds.), Violent Juvenile

Offenders. San Francisco, CA: National Council on

Crime and Delinquency. p. 140

American Psychological Association. 1993. Violence

and Youth: Psychology’s Response. Washington, DC.

p. 18, 21

Andrews, D.A., I. Zinger, R. Hoge, J. Bonta, P.

Gendrew, and F. Cullen. 1990. “Does Correctional

Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta-Analysis.” Criminology

28:369–404. p. 139, 141

Anisfeld, E., U. Casper, M. Nozyce, and N.

Cunningham. 1990. “Does Infant Carrying Promote

Attachment? An Experimental Study of the Effects of

Increased Physical Contact on the Development of

Attachment.” Child Development 61:1617–1627.

Araki, C.T., C. Takeshita, and L. Kadomoto. 1989.

Research Results and Final Report for the Dispute Management in the Schools Project. Honolulu, HI: Program

on Conflict Resolution, University of Hawaii, Manoa.

p. 78

Armstrong, T. 1988. “National Survey of Juvenile

Intensive Probation Supervision, Parts I and II.”

Criminal Justice Abstracts 2:342–348; 497–523.
232

Bazemore, G., T.J. Dicker, and R. Nyhan. 1994. “Juvenile Justice Reform and the Difference It Makes: An

Exploratory Study of the Impact of Policy Change on

Detention Worker Attitudes.” Crime and Delinquency

40:18–36. p. 213

Beha, J.A., II. 1977a. “And Nobody Can Get You Out:

The Impact of a Mandatory Prison Sentence for the

Illegal Carrying of a Firearm on the Use of Firearms

and on the Administration of Criminal Justice in

Boston—Part I.” Boston University Law Review 57:96–

146. p. 113

Beha, J.A., II. 1977b. “And Nobody Can Get You Out:

The Impact of a Mandatory Prison Sentence for the

Illegal Carrying of a Firearm on the Use of Firearms

and on the Administration of Criminal Justice in

Boston—Part II.” Boston University Law Review 57:289–

333. p. 113

Behar, L. 1986. “A State Model for Child Mental

Health Services: The North Carolina Experience.”

Children Today 15:16–21.

Benenson, W. 1988. Assessing the Effectiveness of a Peer

Based Conflict Management Program in Elementary

Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College

of Education, University of Idaho. p. 78

Bergquist, C., D. Szwejda, and G. Pope. 1993. Evaluation of Michigan’s Families First Program, Summary

Report. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Social

Services. p. 83

Berrueta-Clement, J.R., L.J. Schweinhart, W.S. Barnett,

A.S. Epstein, and D.P. Weikart. 1984. Changed Lives:

The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youth

through Age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. p. 59

Betsey, C.L., R.G. Hollister, Jr., and M.R. Papageorgiou

(eds.). 1985. Youth Employment and Training Programs:

The YEDPA Years. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. p. 104, 107

Bloom, H.S., L.L. Orr, G. Cave, S.H. Bell, F. Doolittle,

and W. Lin. 1994. The National JTPA Study: Overview:

Impacts, Benefits, and Costs of Title II-A. Bethesda, MD:

Abt Associates, Inc. p. 109, 110

Armstrong, T., and D. Altschuler. 1994. “Recent

Developments in Programming for High-Risk Juvenile Parolees.” In Albert Roberts (ed.), Critical Issues in

Crime and Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. p. 140,

141

Ashford, J.B., and C.W. LeCroy. 1988.

“Decisionmaking for Juvenile Offenders in Aftercare.”

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 39:47–53.

Austin, J., B. Krisberg, R. DeComo, D. Del Rosario,

S. Rudenstine, and W. Elms. 1994. Juveniles Taken Into

Custody Research Program: FY 1993 Annual Report

(Draft). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

p. 137, 194

Bachman, J.G., D.J. Lloyd, and P.M. O’Malley. 1981.

“Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use Among American

High School Students: Correlates and Trends, 1975–

1979.” American Journal of Public Health 71:59–69. p. 21

Baird, S.C. 1991. Validating Risk Assessment Instruments

Used in Community Corrections. Madison WI: National

Council on Crime and Delinquency. p. 195

Baird, S.C. 1984. Classification of Juveniles in Corrections:

A Model Systems Approach. Madison, WI: National

Council on Crime and Delinquency. p. 190, 191, 195,

223, 226

Barber, R.M., and J.R. Kagey. 1977. “Modification of

School Attendance for an Elementary Population.”

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 10:41–48. p. 69

Barnes, G.M., and J.W. Welte. 1986. “Patterns and

Predictors of Alcohol Use Among 7–12th Grade

Students in New York State.” Journal of Studies on

Alcohol 47:53–62. p. 21

Barton, W., and J.A. Butts. 1988. The Metro County

Intensive Supervision Experiment. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. p. 151

Barton, W., and K. Gorsuch. 1989. “Risk Assessment

and Classification in Juvenile Justice.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society

of Criminology, Reno, NV, November. p. 190
233

Bohman, M. 1978. “Some Genetic Aspects of Alcoholism and Criminality.” Archives of General Psychiatry

35:269–276. p. 20

Boydstun, J.E. 1975. San Diego Field Interrogation Final

Report. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. p. 120

Branch, A., S. Leiderman, and T.J. Smith. 1987. Youth

Conservation and Service Corps: Findings from a National

Assessment. Executive Summary. Philadelphia, PA:

Public/Private Ventures. p. 109

Breakey, G., and B. Pratt. 1991. “Healthy Growth for

Hawaii’s ‘Healthy Start’: Toward a Systematic Statewide Approach to the Prevention of Child Abuse and

Neglect.” Zero to Three (April) 16–22. p. 58

Brennan, T. 1992. Project Evaluation: ECSS Program

of the Lesson One Foundation Beginners’ Curriculum

(Pre-Kindergarten to Third Grade). Boston, MA: Lesson

One Foundation. p. 73

Brennan, T. 1987. “Classification for Control in Jails

and Prisons.” In D.M. Gottfredson and M. Tonry

(eds.), Prediction and Classification: Criminal Justice

Decision Making. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press, pp. 323–336. p. 223

Bretherton, D., L. Collins, and C. Ferretti. 1993.

“Dealing with Conflict: Assessment of a Course for

Secondary School Students.” Australian Psychologist

28:105–111. p. 76, 77

Brook, J.S., D.W. Brook, A.S. Gordon, M. Whiteman,

and P. Cohen. 1990. “The Psychosocial Etiology of

Adolescent Drug Use: A Family Interactional

Approach.” Genetic, Social and General Psychology

Monographs, 116. p. 20

Brooks, B.D. 1975. “Contingency Management as a

Means of Reducing School Truancy.” Education

95:206–211. p. 69

Brown, R.C., Jr., and D.W. Dodson. 1959. “The Effectiveness of a Boys’ Club in Reducing Delinquency.”

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Sciences 322:47–52. p. 95

Bry, B.H. 1982. “Reducing the Incidence of Adolescent

Problems through Preventive Intervention: One- and

Five-Year Follow-Up.” American Journal of Community

Psychology 10:265–276. p. 70, 72

Bry, B.H., and F.E. George. 1980. “The Preventive

Effects of Early Intervention on the Attendance and

Grades of Urban Adolescents.” Professional Psychology

11:252–260. p. 70

Bry, B.H., and F.E. George. 1979. “Evaluating and

Improving Prevention Programs: A Strategy from

Drug Abuse.” Evaluation and Program Planning 2:127–

136. p. 70

Burgess, A., C.R. Hartman, and A. McCormack. 1987.

“Abused to Abuser: Antecedents of Socially Deviant

Behavior.” American Journal of Psychiatry 144:1432–

1436. p. 203

Bursik, R.J., and J. Webb. 1982. “Community Change

and Patterns of Delinquency.” American Journal of

Sociology 99:24-42. p. 20

Butts, J.A., H. Snyder, T. Finnegan, A. Aughenbaugh,

N.Tierney, D. Sullivan, and R. Poole. 1995. Juvenile

Court Statistics 1992. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In press. p. 218

Butts, J.A. 1994. “Delinquency Cases in Juvenile

Court, 1992.” Fact Sheet #18. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Butts, J.A., and E. Poe. 1993. “Offenders in Juvenile

Court, 1990.” OJJDP Update on Statistics. Washington,

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

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Butts, J.A., and M. Sickmund. 1992. “Offenders in

Juvenile Court 1989.” OJJDP Update on Statistics.”

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

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Cairns, R.B., and B.D. Cairns. 1991. “Social Cognition

and Social Networks: A Developmental Perspective.”

In D.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin (eds.), The Development

and Treatment of Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum. p. 77

Cairns, R.B., B.D. Cairns, H.J. Neckerman, S.D. Gest,

and J. Gairepy. 1988. “Social Networks and Aggressive Behavior: Peer Support or Peer Rejection?”

Developmental Psychology 24:815–823. p. 21
234

Camp, G.M., and C.G. Camp. 1990. The Corrections

Yearbook 1990: Juvenile Corrections. New York, NY:

Criminal Justice Institute. p. 35, 193

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. 1992.

A Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool

Hours. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New

York.

Catalano, R.F., and J.D. Hawkins. “The Social Development Model: A Theory of Antisocial Behavior.”

In J.D. Hawkins (ed.), Some Current Theories of Delinquency. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press

(In press).

Cauce, A.M., J.P. Comer, and D. Schwartz. 1987.

“Long Term Effects of a Systems-Oriented School

Prevention Program.” American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry 57:127–131. p. 79

Cave, G., H. Bos, F. Doolittle, and C. Toussaint. 1993.

JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration

Research Corporation. p. 108, 109, 110

Cave, G., and J. Quint. 1990. Career Beginnings Impact

Evaluation: Findings from a Program for Disadvantaged

High School Students. New York, NY: Manpower

Demonstration Research Corporation. p. 108, 109

Center for the Study of Youth Policy. 1989. Programs

for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Ann Arbor,

MI: Center for the Study of Youth Policy.

Children’s Research Center. 1993. “A New Approach

to Child Protection: The CRC Model.” Madison, WI:

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. p. 206

Clear, T. 1988. “Statistical Prediction in Corrections.”

Research in Corrections (March) 1:1–39. p. 31, 190, 195,

196, 197

Clements, C.B. 1986. Offender Needs Assessment. College Park, MD: American Correctional Association.

p. 223

Coates, R., A. Miller, and L. Ohlin. 1978. Diversity in a

Youth Correctional System. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

p. 136, 137

Cohen, P., J.A. Kulik, and C.C. Kulik. 1982. “Educational Outcomes of Tutoring: A Meta-Analysis of

Findings.” American Educational Research Journal

19:237–248. p. 65

Coie, J.D., and G. Krehbiel. 1984. “Effects of Academic

Tutoring on the Social Status of Low-Achieving,

Socially Rejected Children.” Child Development

55:1465–1478. p. 65, 205

Coie, J.D., N.F. Watt, S.G. West, J.D. Hawkins, J.R.

Asarnow, H.J. Markman, S.L. Ramey, M.B. Shure, and

B. Long. 1993. “The Science of Prevention: A Conceptual Framework and Some Directions for a National

Research Program.” American Psychologist 48:1013–

1022.

Comer, J.P. 1988. “Educating Poor Minority Children.”

Scientific American 259(5):42–48. p. 79, 80

Committee for Children. 1992. Evaluation of Second

Step, Preschool- Kindergarten, a Violence-Prevention

Curriculum Kit. Seattle, WA. p. 73

Committee for Children. 1990. Second Step, Grades 6–8,

Pilot Project 1989–90, Summary Report. Seattle, WA.

p. 73

Committee for Children. 1989. Second Step, Grades 4–5,

Pilot Project 1988–89, Summary Report. Seattle, WA.

p. 73

Committee for Children. 1988. Second Step, Grades 1–3,

Pilot Project 1987–88, Summary Report. Seattle, WA.

p. 73

Cook, P.J., and G. Tauchen. 1982. “The Effect of Liquor

Taxes on Heavy Drinking.” Bell Journal of Economics

12:379–390. p. 18

Cook, P.J. 1981. “The Effect of Gun Availability on

Violent Crime Patterns.” Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science 455:63–79. p. 110

Corporation for Public/Private Ventures. 1983. Longer

Term Impacts of Pre-Employment Services on the Employment and Earnings of Disadvantaged Youth. Philadelphia, PA: Corporation for Public/Private Ventures.

p. 106, 109
235

Dale, M.J., and C. Sanniti. 1993. “Litigation as an

Instrument for Change in Juvenile Detention; A Case

Study.” Crime and Delinquency 39:49–68. p. 211, 213

Davidson, W., R. Gottschalk, L. Gensheimer, and J.

Mayer. 1984. Interventions with Juvenile Delinquency:

A Meta-Analysis of Treatment Efficacy. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. p. 139

Davidson, W.S., R. Redner, C.H. Blakely, C. Mitchell,

and J. Emshof. 1987. “Diversion of Juvenile Offenders:

An Experimental Comparison.” Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology 55(1):68–75. p. 146

Davidson, W.S., E. Seidman, J. Rappaport, P. Berck, N.

Rapp, W. Rhodes, and J. Herring. 1977. “Diversion

Programs for Juvenile Offenders.” Social Work Research

and Abstracts 13:40–49. p. 146

Dawes, R.M., D. Faust, and P. Meehl. 1989. “Clinical

Versus Actuarial Judgement.” Science 243:1668–1674.

p. 194

DeComo, R. 1993. The Juveniles Taken Into Custody

Research Program: Estimating the Prevalence of Juvenile

Custody by Race and Gender. San Francisco, CA:

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. p. 210,

211

DeComo, R., S. Tunis, B. Krisberg, and N. Herrera.

1993. Juveniles Taken Into Custody Research Program:

FY 1992 Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. p. 137

Deutsch, S.J., and F.B. Alt. 1977. “The Effect of Massachusetts’ Gun Control Law on Gun-Related Crimes in

the City of Boston.” Evaluation Quarterly 1:543–568.

p. 113

Dicken, C., R. Bryson, and N. Kass. 1977. “Companionship Therapy: A Replication in Experimental Community Psychology.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology 45:637–646. p. 90

Dryfoos, J.G. 1990. Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and

Prevention. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

p. 18, 142

Dumas, J.E. 1989. “Treating Antisocial Behavior in

Children: Child and Family Approaches.” Clinical

Psychology Review 9:197–222. p. 84

Eck, J.E., and D.P. Rosenbaum. 1994. “The New Police

Order: Effectiveness, Equity, and Efficiency in Community Policing.” In Dennis Rosenbaum (ed.), The

Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 3–23.

p. 127

Eich, B., and N. Joyce. 1991. “The Development of the

Juvenile Initial Classification Instrument.” In New

Directions for Community Corrections in Illinois. San

Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, pp. 72–85. p. 225

Elliott, D.S. 1994. “Serious Violent Offenders: Onset,

Developmental Course, and Termination—The

American Society of Criminology 1993 Address.”

Criminology 32:1–21. p. 2, 3, 54

Elliott, D.S., D. Huizinga, and S. Menard. 1989. Multiple Problem Youth: Delinquency, Substance Use and

Mental Health Problems. New York, NY: SpringerVerlag. p. 21

Elliott, D.S., D. Huizinga, and S. Ageton. 1985.

Explaining Delinquency and Drug Abuse. Beverly Hills,

CA: Sage. p. 202

Elliott, D.S., D. Huizinga, and B. Morse. 1986.

“Self-Reported Violent Offending—A Descriptive

Analysis of Juvenile Violent Offenders and Their

Offending Careers.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence

1:472–514. p. 2, 3, 21, 54

Empey, L., and M. Erickson. 1972. The Provo

Experiment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. p. 135

Empey, L., and S. Lubeck. 1971. The Silverlake

Experiment. Chicago, IL: Aldine. p. 135

Eron, L., and L.R. Huesmann. 1987. “Television as a

Source of Maltreatment of Children.” School Psychology Review 16:195–202. p. 18

Fagan, J.A. 1994. Separating the Men from the Boys:

The Comparative Advantage of Juvenile Versus Criminal

Court Sanctions on Recidivism Among Adolescent Felony

Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice.
236

Fagan, J.A. 1990. “Treatment and Reintegration of

Violent Juvenile Offenders: Experimental Results.”

Justice Quarterly 7:233–263. p. 155

Farkas, G., R. Olsen, E.W. Stromsdorfer, L.C. Sharpe,

F. Skidmore, D.A. Smith, and S. Merrill. 1984.

Post-Program Impacts of the Youth Incentive Entitlement

Pilot Projects. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. p. 106

Farkas, G., D.A. Smith, E.W. Stromsdorfer, G. Trask,

and R. Jerrett, III. 1982. Impacts from the Youth Incentive

Entitlement Pilot Projects: Participation Work and Schooling over the Full Program Period. New York, NY: Manpower Research Development Corporation. p. 106

Farrington, D.P. 1991.”Childhood Aggression and

Adult Violence.” In D. Pepler and K.H. Rubin (eds.),

The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. p. 20, 21

Farrington, D.P., R. Loeber, D.S. Elliott, J.D. Hawkins,

D.B. Kandel, M.W. Klein, J. McCord, D.C. Rower, and

R.E. Tremblay. 1990. “Advancing Knowledge about

the Onset of Delinquency and Crime.” In B.B. Lahey,

A.E. Kazdin (eds.), Advances in Clinical Child Psychology 13:283–342. p. 20

Farrington, D.P. 1983. “Offending From 10 to 25 Years

of Age.” In Katherine VanDuren and Sarnoff Mednick

(eds.), Prospective Studies of Crime and Delinquency.

Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff. p. 195

Farrington, D.P., and J.D. Hawkins. 1991. “Predicting

Participation, Early Onset, and Later Persistence in

Officially Recorded Offending Criminal Behavior and

Mental Health.” Criminal Behavior and Mental Health

1:1–33. p. 195, 202

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1994. Uniform Crime

Reports 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1993. Uniform Crime

Reports 1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1991. Crime in the

United States 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Feldman, L.H., 1991. “Evaluating the Impact of Intensive Family Preservation Services in New Jersey.”

In K. Wells and D.E. Biegel (eds.), Family Preservation

Services: Research and Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage. p. 87

Feldman, R.A., T.E. Caplinger, and J.S. Wodarski. 1983.

The St. Louis Conundrum: The Effective Treatment of Antisocial Youths. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

p. 159

Felner, R.D., and A.M. Adan. 1988. “The School Transitional Environment Project: An Ecological Intervention

and Evaluation.” In R. Price, E. Cowen, R. Lorion, and

J. Ramos-McKay (eds.), Fourteen Ounces of Prevention:

A Casebook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association. p. 83

Felner, R.D., S. Brand, A.M. Adan, P.F. Mulhall, N.

Flowers, and B. Sartain. 1993. “Restructuring the Ecology of the School as an Approach to Prevention During School Transitions: Longitudinal Follow-Ups and

Extensions of the School Transitional Environment

Project (STEP).” Prevention in Human Services 10:103–

136. p. 83

Felner, R.D., M. Ginter, and J. Primavera. 1982. “Primary Prevention During School Transitions: Social

Support and Environmental Structure.” American Journal of Community Psychology 10:277–290. p. 83

Fife, D., and W.R. Abrams. 1989. “Firearms’ Decreased

Role in New Jersey Homicides After a Mandatory

Sentencing Law.” Journal of Trauma 29:1548–1551. p. 114

Finckenauer, J.O. 1984. Juvenile Delinquency and

Corrections. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc.

Fingerhut, L.A., and J.C. Kleinman. 1990. “International and Interstate Comparisons of Homicides

among Young Males.” Journal of the American Medical

Association 263:3292–3295.

Fingerhut, L.A., J.C. Kleinman, E. Godfrey, and H.

Rosenberg, 1991. “Firearm Mortality Among Children,

Youth and Young Adults 1–34 Years of Age, Trends and

Current Status: United States, 1979-88.” Monthly Vital

Statistics Report 39(11): Supplement, 1–15. p. 18
237

General Accounting Office. March 31, 1992. Reducing

Youth Violence: Coordinated Federal Efforts and Early

Intervention Strategies Could Help. Washington, DC.

p. 57

Gensheimer, L., J. Mayer, R. Gottschalk, and W.

Davidson. 1986. “Diverting Youth from the Juvenile

Justice System: A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Efficacy.” In S. Apter and A. Goldstein (eds.), Youth Violence: Program and Prospects. New York: Pergamon.

p. 139

Ginsberg, C., and L. Loffredo. 1993. “Violence-Related

Attitudes and Behaviors of High School Students—

New York City, 1992.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly

Report 42:773–777. p. 117

Glaser, D. 1987. “Classification for Risk.” In D.M.

Gottfredson and M. Tonry (eds.), Prediction and Classification: Criminal Justice Decision Making. Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press, pp. 249–292. p. 190

Goldstein, H. 1994. Foreword. In Dennis Rosenbaum

(ed.), The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the

Promises. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage pp. viii–x. p. 126

Gomby, D.S., C.S. Larson, E.M. Lewit, and R.E.

Behrman. 1993. “Home Visiting: Analysis and Recommendations.” The Future of Children 3(3):6–22.

Goodman, G. 1972. Companionship Therapy: Studies in

Structured Intimacy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

p. 90

Goodstein, L., and H. Sontheimer. 1987. A Study of the

Impact of Ten Pennsylvania Residential Placements on

Juvenile Recidivism. Shippensberg, PA: The Center for

Juvenile Justice Training and Research.

Goodwin, D.W. 1985. “Alcoholism and Genetics: The

Sins of the Fathers.” Archives of General Psychiatry

42:171–174. p. 20

Gorsuch, R.L., and M.C. Butler. 1976. “Initial Drug

Abuse: A Review of Predisposing Social Psychological

Factors.” Psychological Bulletin 83:120–137. p. 18

Goruch, K., M. Steward, R. Van Vleet, and I. Schwartz.

1992. “The Missouri Division of Youth Services: An

Experience in Delinquency Reform.” Missouri and

Hawaii: Leaders in Youth Correction Policy. Ann Arbor,

MI: Center for the Study of Youth Policy, pp. 1–13.

Fo, W.S.O., and C.R. O’Donnell. 1975. “The Buddy

System: Effect of Community Intervention on

Delinquent Offenses.” Behavior Therapy 6:522–524.

p. 92

Fo, W.S.O., and C.R. O’Donnell. 1974. “The Buddy

System: Relationship and Contingency Conditioning

in a Community Intervention Program for Youth with

Nonprofessionals as Behavior Change Agents.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42:163–169.

p. 91

Fraser, M.W., J.D. Hawkins, and M.O. Howard. 1988.

“Parent Training for Delinquency Prevention.” Child

and Youth Services 11:93–125. p. 85

Gainer, P.S., D.W. Webster, and H.R. Champion. 1993.

“A Youth Violence Prevention Program: Description

and Preliminary Evaluation.” Archives of Surgery

128:303-308. p. 74, 77

Garmezy, N. 1985. “Stress-Resistant Children: The

Search for Protective Factors.” In J.E. Stevenson (ed.),

Recent Research in Developmental Psychopathology. Book

supplement to Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 4:213–233.

Garrett, Carol. 1985. “Effects of Residential Treatment

on Adjudicated Delinquents: A Meta-Analysis.”

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 22:287–

308. p. 138, 139

Garrigan, J.J., and A.F. Bambrick. 1979. “New Findings in Research on Go-Between Process.” International Journal of Family Therapy 1:76–85. p. 89

Garrigan, J.J., and A.F. Bambrick. 1977. “Family

Therapy for Disturbed Children: Some Experimental

Results in Special Education.” Journal of Marriage and

Family Counseling 3:83–93. p. 89

Gendreau, P., and R. Ross. 1987. “Revivification of

Rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980’s.” Justice

Quarterly 4:349–407.

General Accounting Office. September 1992. Integrating Human Services: Linking At-Risk Families with Services More Successful Than System Reform Efforts.

Washington, DC.
238

Gottfredson, D.C. 1987. “An Evaluation of an Organization Development Approach to Reducing School

Disorder.” Evaluation Review 11:739–763. p. 79, 81

Gottfredson, D.C. 1986. “An Empirical Test of

School-Based Environmental and Individual Interventions to Reduce the Risk of Delinquent Behavior.”

Criminology 24:705–731. p. 81

Gottfredson, D.C., and W.H. Barton. 1992.

Deinstitutionalization of Juvenile Offenders. College

Park, MD: University of Maryland. p. 136

Gottfredson, D.C., N.L. Karweit, and G.D.

Gottfredson. 1989. Reducing Disorderly Behavior in

Middle Schools. Report No. 37. Baltimore, MD: Center

for Research on Elementary and Middle Schools,

Johns Hopkins University. p. 82

Gottfredson, G.D. 1988. Issues in Adolescent Drug Use.

Unpublished final report to the U.S. Department of

Justice, Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research

on Elementary and Middle Schools, Baltimore, MD.

p. 18, 21

Gottfredson, G.D. 1987. “Peer Group Interventions to

Reduce the Risk of Delinquent Behavior: A Selective

Review and a New Evaluation.” Criminology 25:671–

714. p. 79

Gottschalk, R., W. Davidson, L. Gensheimer, and

J. Mayer. 1987. “Community-Based Interventions.”

In H. Quay (ed.), Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency.

New York, NY: Wiley and Sons. p. 139

Green, B.C. 1980. An Evaluation of a Big Brothers’ Program for Father-Absent Boys: An Eco-Behavioral Analysis.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of

Psychology, New York University. p. 92

Greenberg, M.T., and C.A. Kusche. 1993. Promoting

Social and Emotional Development in Deaf Children: The

PATHS Project. Seattle, WA: University of Washington

Press. p. 60, 205

Greenwood, C.R., B. Terry, C.A. Utley, D. Montagna,

and D. Walker. 1993. “Achievement, Placement, and

Services: Middle School Benefits of Classwide Peer

Tutoring Used at the Elementary School.” School

Psychology Review 22:497–516. p. 65

Greenwood, P. 1986. “Differences in Criminal Behavior and Court Responses among Juvenile and Young

Adult Defendants” In M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.),

Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research 7:151–

187.

Greenwood, P., E.P. Deschenes, and J. Adams. 1993.

Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Final Results from the

Skillman Aftercare Experiment. Santa Monica, CA:

RAND Corporation.

Greenwood, P., and S. Turner. 1993. “Evaluation of the

Paint Creek Youth Center: A Residential Program for

Serious Delinquents,” Criminology 31:263–279. p. 135

Greenwood, P., and S. Turner. 1987. The VisionQuest

Program: An Evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND

Corporation. p. 153

Greenwood, P., and F. Zimring. 1985. One More

Chance: The Pursuit of Promising Intervention Strategies

for Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Santa Monica, CA:

RAND Corporation. p. 140

Gurling, H.M.D., L.A. Clifford, and R.M. Murray.

1981. “Genetic Contribution to Alcohol Dependence

and Its Effects in Brain Function.” In L. Gedder, P.

Pinsi, and W.A. Nance (eds.), Twin Research. New

York, NY: Alan R. Liss.

Gutierrez, R., and R.E. Slavin. 1992. “Achievement

Effects of the Nongraded Elementary School: A Best

Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational Research

62:333–376. p. 63

Hackler, J.C. 1966. “Boys, Blisters, and Behavior: The

Impact of a Work Program in an Urban Central Area.”

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 3:155–164.

p. 102

Hackler, J.C., and J.L. Hagan. 1975. “Work and Teaching Machines as Delinquency Prevention Tools: A

Four-Year Follow-Up.” Social Service Review 49:92–106.

p. 102

Hammond, W.R., and B.R. Yung. 1993. Evaluation and

Activity Report: Positive Adolescents Choices Training

(PACT) Program. (Grant No. 92–DG–B01–7138, Ohio

Governor’s Office of Criminal Justice Services.)

Dayton, OH: School of Professional Psychology,

Wright State University. p. 75, 77
239

tion of Antisocial Behavior in Children. New York, NY:

Guilford. p. 59, 66

Hawkins, J.D., H.J. Doueck, and D.M. Lishner. 1988.

“Changing Teaching Practices in Mainstream Classrooms to Improve Bonding and Behavior of Low

Achievers.” American Educational Research Journal

25:31–50. p. 66

Hawkins, J.D., and T. Lam. 1987. “Teacher Practices,

Social Development, and Delinquency.” In J.D.

Burchard and S.N. Burchard (eds.), Prevention of

Delinquent Behavior. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. p. 22, 65

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

Catalano. 1987. “Delinquents and Drugs: What the

Evidence Suggests About Prevention and Treatment

Programming.” In B.S. Brown, and A.R. Mills (eds.)

Youth At High Risk for Substance Abuse (DHHS Publication No. ADM. 97–1537, pp. 81–133). Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Hawkins, J.D., E. Von Cleve, and R.F. Catalano. 1991.

“Reducing Early Childhood Aggression: Results of a

Primary Prevention Program.” Journal of the American

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 30:208–217.

p. 66

Hawkins, J.D., and J.G. Weis. 1985. “The Social Development Model: An Integrated Approach to Delinquency Prevention.” Journal of Primary Prevention,

No. 6. p. 20

Hay, R.A., Jr., and R. McCleary. 1979. “Box-Tiao Time

Series Models for Impact Assessment: A Comment on

the Recent Work of Deutsch and Alt.” Evaluation

Quarterly 3:277–314. p. 113, 114

Hazelrigg, M.D., H.M. Cooper, and C.M. Borduin.

1987. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Family Therapies: An Integrative Review and Analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 101:428–442. p. 88

Henggeler, S., et al. 1992. “Family Preservation Using

Multisystemic Therapy: An Effective Alternative to

Incarcerating Serious Juvenile Offenders.” Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60(6). p. 148, 149

Herting, J.R., and A.M. Guest. 1985. “Components of

Satisfaction with Local Areas in the Metropolis.” The

Sociological Quarterly 26:99–115. p. 20

Hammond, W.R., and B.R. Yung. 1992. Evaluation and

Activity Report: Positive Adolescents Choices Training

(PACT) Program. (Grant No. MCJ–393A15–01–0, Ohio

Governor’s Office of Criminal Justice Services.)

Dayton, OH: School of Professional Psychology,

Wright State University. p. 75, 77

Hammond, W.R., and B.R. Yung. 1991. “Preventing

Violence in At-Risk African-American Youth.” Journal

of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 2:359–373.

p. 75, 77

Hamparian, D.M., R. Schuster, J. Davis, and J. White.

1985. The Young Criminal Years of the Violent Few.

Report to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. p. 2

Hamparian, D.M., R. Schuster, S. Dinitz, and J.

Conrad. 1978. The Violent Few: A Study of Dangerous

Juvenile Offenders. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

p. 2

Hansen, W.B., J.W. Graham, D.R. Shelton, B.R. Flay,

and C.A. Johnson. 1987. “The Consistency of Peer and

Parent Influences on Tobacco, Alcohol, and

Marijuana Use Among Young Adolescents.” Journal

of Behavioral Medicine 17:135–154. p. 20

Hawaii State Department of Health. 1992. Healthy

Start: Hawaii’s System of Family Support Services. Report

to the 16th Legislature, State of Hawaii. Honolulu, HI:

Hawaii State Department of Health. p. 58

Hawkins, J.D., M.W. Arthur, and R.F. Catalano.

“Preventing Substance Abuse.” Crime and Justice 18.

In press. p. 62

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

That Care. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. p. 11, 27, 54,

57, 58, 202, 203

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

“Risk and Protective Factors for Alcohol and Other

Drug Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood:

Implications for Substance Abuse Prevention.”

Psychological Bulletin 112:64–105. p. 18, 57, 62, 195

Hawkins, J.D., R.F. Catalano, D.M. Morrison,

J. O’Donnell, R.D. Abbott, and L.E. Day. 1992. “The

Seattle Social Development Project: Effects of the First

Four Years on Protective Factors and Problem Behaviors.” In J. McCord and R. Tremblay (eds.), The Preven-
240

Hiebert, E.H. 1987. “The Context of Instruction and

Student Learning: An Examination of Slavin’s

Assumptions.” Review of Educational Research 57:337–

340. p. 63

Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publications.

Holmes, C.T., and K.M. Matthews. 1984. “The Effects

of Nonpromotion on Elementary and Junior High

School Pupils: A Meta-Analysis.” Review of Educational

Research 54:225–236. p. 63

Howard, B. 1994. “Replacing the Crazy Quilt: Can

Youth Service Programs Collaborate?” Youth Today 3:5,

p. 1. p. 30

Hrubec, Z., and G.S. Omenn. 1981. “Evidence of

Genetic Predisposition to Alcoholic Cirrhosis and

Psychosis: Twin Concordances for Alcoholism and its

Biological End Points by Zygosity among Male Veterans.” Alcoholism 5:207–215.

Huesmann, L.R., and L.D. Eron. 1986. “The Development of Aggression in American Children as a Consequence of Television Violence Viewing.” In L.R.

Huesmann; L.D. Eron (eds.) Television and the Aggressive Child: A Cross-National Comparison. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 21

Huizinga, D., F.A. Esbensen, and A. Weiher. 1994.

“Examining Developmental Trajectories in Delinquency Using Accelerated Longitudinal Research

Designs.” In E.G.M. Weitekamp and H.J. Kerner, eds.

Cross-National Longitudinal Research on Human Development and Criminal Behavior. The Netherlands: Kluwer

Academic Publishers., pp. 203–216. p. 3

Huizinga, D., F.A. Esbensen, and A. Weiher. 1991.

“Are There Multiple Paths to Delinquency?” Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology 82:83–118.

Huizinga, D., R. Loeber, and T.P. Thornberry. “The

Prevention of Serious Delinquency and Violence:

Implications from the Program of Research on the

Causes and Correlates of Delinquency.” Washington,

DC: Report submitted to U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

In press. p. 3, 6, 54

Huizinga, D., R. Loeber, and T.P. Thornberry. 1994.

Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings.

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

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. p. 3, 158

Institute of Medicine. 1994. Reducing Risks for Mental

Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. p. 18, 57,

62, 205

Jenkins, J., and M. Smith. 1987. “Mediation in the

Schools 1986–87 Program Evaluation.” Albuquerque,

NM: New Mexico Center for Dispute Resolution. p. 78

Jessor, R. 1976. “Predicting Time of Onset of Marijuana Use: A Developmental Study of High School

Use.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychological

44:125–134. p. 21

Jessor, R., and S.L. Jessor. 1977. Problem Behavior and

Psychosocial Development. San Diego, CA: Academic

Press. p. 21

Johnson, D.L., and T. Walker. 1987. “Primary Prevention of Behavior Problems in Mexican-American

Children.” American Journal of Community Psychology

15:375–385. p. 59

Johnston, L.D., 1991.”Toward a Theory of Drug

Epidemics.” In L. Donohew, H.E. Sypher, and W.J.

Bukoski (eds.), Persuasive Communication and Drug

Abuse Prevention. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. p. 21

Jones, M.B., and D.R. Offord. 1989. “Reduction of

Antisocial Behavior in Poor Children by Nonschool

Skill-Development.” Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 30:737–750. p. 95

Jones, M.A., and B. Krisberg. 1994. Images and Reality:

Juvenile Crime, Youth Violence and Public Policy.

San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency.

Jung, R.S., and L.A. Jason. 1988. “Firearm Violence

and the Effects of Gun Control Legislation.” American

Journal of Community Psychology 16:515–524. p. 111,

112, 114

Kandel, D.B. 1982. “Epidemiological and

Psychosocial Perspectives on Adolescent Drug Use.”

Journal of American Academic Clinical Psychiatry

21:328–347. p. 21
241

Kandel, D.B., and K. Andrews. 1987. “Processes of

Adolescent Socialization by Parents and Peers.”

International Journal of the Addictions 22:319–342. p. 20

Kandel, D.B., R.C. Kessler, and R.S. Magulies. 1978.

“Antecedents of Adolescent Initiation into Stages of

Drug Use: A Developmental Analysis.” Journal of

Youth and Adolescence 7:13–40. p. 20, 21

Kandel, D.B., O. Simcha-Fagan, and M. Davies. 1986.

“Risk Factors for Delinquency and Illicit Drug Use

from Adolescence to Young Adulthood.” Journal of

Drug Issues 16:67–90. p. 18

Kazdin, A.E., T.C. Siegel, and D. Bass. 1992. “Cognitive Problem-Solving Skills Training and Parent

Management Training in the Treatment of Antisocial

Behavior in Children.” Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 60:733–747. p. 86

Kellam, S.G., and H. Brown. 1982. Social Adaptational

and Psychological Antecedents of Adolescent Psychopathology Ten Years Later. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

University. p. 21

Kellam, S.G., and G.W. Rebok. 1992. “Building Developmental and Etiological Theory through Epidemiologically Based Preventive Intervention Trials.” In J.

McCord and R.E. Tremblay (eds.), Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Interventions from Birth through Adolescence. New York, NY: Guilford. p. 64

Kellam, S.G., G.W. Rebok, N. Ialongo, and L.S. Mayer.

1994. “The Course and Malleability of Aggressive

Behavior from Early First Grade into Middle School:

Results of a Developmental Epidemiologically-Based

Preventive Trial.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35:259–281. p. 64

Kellerman, A.L., F.P. Rivara, N.B. Rushforth, J.G.

Banton, D.T. Reay, J.T. Francisco, A.B. Locci, J.

Prodzinski, B.B. Hackman, and G. Somes. Drugs, First,

and Firearms: Risk Factors for Homicide in the Home.

Unpublished manuscript. p. 18

Kelling, G.L., and M.H. Moore. 1988. “From Political

to Reform to Community: The Evolving Strategy of

Police.” In J.R. Greene and S.D. Mastrofski (eds.),

Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. New York, NY:

Praeger.

Kelling, G.L., T. Pate, D. Dieckman, and C.E. Brown.

1974. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A

Summary Report. Washington, DC: The Police

Foundation. p. 118

Kleck, G. 1991. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in

America. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. p. 110, 111

Klein, M.W. 1969. “Gang Cohesiveness, Delinquency,

and a Street-Work Program.” Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency 6:135–166. p. 98, 100

Klein, N.C., J.F. Alexander, and B.V. Parsons. 1977.

“Impact of Family Systems Intervention on Recidivism and Sibling Delinquency: A Model of Primary

Prevention and Program Evaluation.” Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 45:469–474. p. 89

Krisberg, B. 1992. Juvenile Justice: Improving the Quality

of Care. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency.

Krisberg, B. 1992. The Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center.

San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency.

Krisberg, B., and J. Austin. 1993. Reinventing Juvenile

Justice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Krisberg, B., J. Austin, K. Joe, and P.A. Steele. 1988.

The Impact of Juvenile Court Sanctions. San Francisco:

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. p. 136

Krisberg, B., J. Austin, and P.A. Steele. 1989. Unlocking

Juvenile Corrections. San Francisco, CA: National

Council on Crime and Delinquency. p. 136

Krisberg, B., C. Baird, P. Quigley, and R. Wiebush.

1992. A Classification and Placement System for Indiana

Juvenile Corrections. San Francisco, CA: National

Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Krisberg, B., et al. 1992. National Juvenile Custody

Trends 1978–1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Krisberg, B., D. Neuenfeldt, R. Wiebush, and

O. Rodriguez. 1991. Juvenile Intensive Supervision:

Planning Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.
242

Krisberg, B., D. Onek, M. Jones, and I. Schwartz. 1993.

Juveniles in State Custody: Prospects for CommunityBased Care for Troubled Adolescents. San Francisco, CA:

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. p. 31,

137, 193, 214, 215, 218

Krisberg, B., O. Rodriguez, A. Bakke, et al. 1989.

Juvenile Intensive Supervision: An Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Lally, J.R., P.L. Mangione, and A.S. Honig. 1988. “The

Syracuse University Family Development Research

Project: Long-Range Impact of an Early Intervention

with Low-Income Children and Their Families.” In

D.R. Powell (ed.), Annual Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology: Vol. 3. Parent Education as Early

Childhood Intervention: Emerging Directions in Theory,

Research and Practice. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. p. 59

Lam, J.A. 1989. The Impact of Conflict Resolution Programs on Schools: A Review and Synthesis of the Evidence.

Amherst, MA: National Association for Mediation in

Education. p. 78

Land, K., et al. 1990. “Something That Works in Juvenile Justice: An Evaluation of the North Carolina

Court Counselors’ Intensive Protective Supervision

Randomized Experimental Project, 1987–1989.” Evaluation Review 14(6). p. 148

Land, K., P. McCall, and J. Williams. 1992. “Intensive

Supervision in Status Offenders.” In J. McCord and R.

Tremblay, eds., Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Interventions from Birth through Adolescence. New York, NY:

Guilford Press. p. 148

Larson, J.D. 1992. “Anger and Aggression Management Techniques through the Think First Curriculum.”

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 18:101–117. p. 75

Lerman, P. 1995. “Child Protection and Out-of-Home

Care: System Reforms and Regulating Placements.”

In G.B. Melton and F.D. Barry (eds.), Protecting Children from Abuse and Neglect. New York, NY: Guilford

Publications, Inc., pp. 353–437.

Lerman, P. 1975. Community Treatment and Social

Control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

p. 135

Lerner, S. 1990. The Good News About Juvenile Justice.

Bolinas, CA: Common Knowledge Press.

Lerner, J.V., and J.R. Vicary. 1984. “Difficult Temperament and Drug Use: Analyses from the New York

Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Drug Education 14:1–8.

p. 21

Levy, D., and N. Sheflin. 1985. “The Demand for Alcoholic Beverages: An Aggregate Time-Series Analysis.”

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 4:47–54. p. 18

Lindsay, B., and D. McGillis. 1986. “Citywide Community Crime Prevention: An Assessment of the Seattle Program.” In D.P. Rosenbaum (ed.), Community

Crime Prevention: Does It Work? Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage. p. 124

Lipsey, M.W. 1992. “Juvenile Delinquency Treatment:

A Meta-Analytic Inquiry into the Variability of

Effects.” In T.D. Cook et al. (eds.), Meta-Analysis for

Explanation: A Casebook. New York, NY: Russell Sage

Foundation. p. 138

Loeber, R. 1988. “Natural Histories of Conduct

Problems, Delinquency, and Associated Substance

Use: Evidence from Developmental Progressions.” In

B.B. Lahey and A.E. Kazdin, (eds.) Advances in Clinical

Psychology 11:73–124. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

p. 21

Loeber, R., and T.J. Dishion. 1984. “Boys Who Fight at

Home and School: Family Conditions Influencing

Cross-Setting Consistency.” Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 52(5):759–68. p. 20

Loeber, R., and P.O. Wikstrom. 1993. “Individual Pathways to Crime in Different Types of Neighborhoods.”

In D.P. Farrington (ed.), Integrating Individual and

Ecological Aspects of Crime. Stockholm, Sweden: The

National Council for Crime Prevention, pp. 169–204.

Loftin, C., M. Heumann, and D. McDowall. 1983.

“Mandatory Sentencing and Firearms Violence:

Evaluating an Alternative to Gun Control.” Law and

Society Review 17:287–318. p. 115

Loftin, C., and D. McDowall. 1984. “The Deterrent

Effects of the Florida Felony Firearm Law.” Journal of

Criminal Law and Criminology 75:250–259. p. 115
243

Loftin, C., D. McDowall, and B. Wiersema. 1993.

“Evaluating Effects of Changes in Gun Laws.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 9: Supplement, 39–

43. p. 116

Loftin, C., D. McDowall, B. Wiersema, and T.J. Cottey.

1992. “Letter to the Editor.” New England Journal of

Medicine 326:1160. p. 111

Loftin, C., D. McDowall, B. Wiersema, and T.J. Cottey.

1991. “Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on

Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia.”

New England Journal of Medicine 325:1615–1620. p. 110,

111, 112

Longstreth, L.E., F.J. Shanley, and R.E. Rice. 1964.

“Experimental Evaluation of a High-School Program

for Potential Dropouts.” Journal of Educational Psychology 55:228–236. p. 103, 109

Madden, N.A., and R.E. Slavin. 1989. “Effective Pullout Programs for Students at Risk.” In R.E. Slavin,

N.L. Karweit, and N.A. Madden (eds.), Effective Programs for Students at Risk. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon. p. 65

Makinen, T., and H. Takala. 1980. “The 1976 Police

Strike in Finland.” Scandinavian Studies in Criminology

7(“Policing Scandinavia”):87–106. p. 118

Mallar, C., S. Kerachsky, C. Thornton, and D. Long.

1982. Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Job Corps

Program, Third Follow-Up Report. Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research. p. 105, 109, 110

Markman, H.J., M.J. Renick, F. Floyd, S.M. Stanley,

and M. Clements. 1993. “Preventing Marital Distress

through Effective Communication and Conflict Management: A 4- and 5-Year Follow-Up.” Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 47:743–749. p. 89

Martinson, R. 1979. “New Findings, New Views: A

Note of Caution regarding Sentencing Reform.”

Hofstra Law Review 7:242–258. p. 135

Martinson, R. 1974. “What Works? Questions and

Answers About Prison Reform.” The Public Interest

36:22–45. p. 134

Marvel, J., I. Moreda, and I. Cook. 1993. Developing

Conflict Resolution Skills in Students: A Study of the

Fighting Fair Model. Miami, FL: Peace Education

Foundation. p. 74, 77

Mathias, R., P. DeMuro, and R. Allinson. 1984. Violent

Juvenile Offenders. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Maton, K., K. Seifert, and K. Zapert. 1991. Choice Program Evaluation: Preliminary Findings. Catonsville,

MD: Department of Psychology, University of Maryland. p. 146

Maupin, J.R. 1993. “Risk Classification Systems and

the Provision of Juvenile Aftercare.” Crime and

Delinquency 39:90–105.

Mayer, G.R., and T.W. Butterworth. 1979. “A Preventive Approach to School Violence and Vandalism: An

Experimental Study.” Personnel and Guidance Journal

57:436–441. p. 67, 68

Mayer, G.R., T.W. Butterworth, M. Nafpaktitis, and B.

Sulzer-Azaroff. 1983. “Preventing School Vandalism

and Improving Discipline: A Three-Year Study.”

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 16:355–369. p. 68

Mayer, J., L. Gensheimer, W. Davidson, and R.

Gottschalk. 1986. “Social Learning Treatment within

Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis of Impact on Natural Environment.” In S. Apter and A. Goldstein (eds.),

Youth Violence: Program and Prospects. New York, NY:

Pergamon. p. 139

Maynard, R. 1980. The Impact of Supported Work on

Young High School Dropouts. Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research. p. 105

Maynard, R., E. Cavin, and J. Schore. 1982.

Post-Program Impacts of Supported Work on Young High

School Dropouts: Results from a Follow-Up Survey.

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. p. 105

McCord, J. 1988. “Parental Behavior in the Cycle of

Aggression.” Psychiatry 51:14–23.

McDowall, D., A.J. Lizotte, and B. Wiersema. 1991.

“General Deterrence through Civilian Gun Ownership: An Evaluation of the Quasi-Experimental

Evidence.” Criminology 29:541–559. p. 111, 112, 117
244

McDowall, D., C. Loftin, and B. Wiersema. 1992.

“A Comparative Study of the Preventive Effects of

Mandatory Sentencing Laws for Gun Crimes.” Journal

of Criminal Law and Criminology 83:378–394. p. 115, 116

McGarrell, Edmund F. 1991. “Differential Effects of

Juvenile Justice Reform on the Incarceration Rates of

the States.” Crime and Delinquency 37:262–280.

McPartland, J.M., and S.M. Nettles. 1991. “Using

Community Adults as Advocates or Mentors for

At-Risk Middle School Students: A Two-Year Evaluation of Project RAISE.” American Journal of Education

(August):568–586. p. 93

Meehl, P. 1954. Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction;

A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

p. 194

Michaud, L.J., F.P. Rivara, K.M. Jaffe, G. Fay, and J.L.

Dailey. 1993. “Traumatic Brain Injury as a Risk Factor

for Behavioral Disorders in Children.” Archives of

Physical and Medical Rehabilitation 74:368–375.

Miller, W. 1982. Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the

United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Miller, W.B. 1962. “The Impact of a ‘Total-Community’

Delinquency Control Project.” Social Problems 10:168–

191. p. 97, 100

Monahan, J.M. 1981. Predicting Violent Behavior.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. p. 194

Moone, J. 1994. “Juvenile Victimization: 1987–1992.”

Fact Sheet #17. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. p. 1

Mouzakatis, C.M. 1981. “An Inquiry into the Problem

of Child Abuse and Juvenile Delinquency." In R.J.

Hunner and Y.E. Walker (eds.), Exploring the Relationship Between Child Abuse and Delinquency. Montclair,

NJ: Allenheld, Osmun. p. 203

Mulvey, E. et al. 1993. “The Prevention and Treatment

of Juvenile Delinquency: A Review of the Evidence.”

Clinical Psychology Review 13(2).

Murphy, C. 1988. “Community Problems, Problem

Communities, and Community Policing in Toronto.”

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25:392–

410.

Murphy, H.A., J.M. Hutchison, and J.S. Bailey. 1983.

“Behavioral School Psychology Goes Outdoors: The

Effect of Organized Games on Playground Aggression.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 16:29–35.

p. 67

Murray, C., and L. Cox. 1979. Beyond Probation.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. p. 135

Murray, C.A. 1983. “The Physical Environment and

Community Control of Crime.” In J.Q. Wilson (ed.),

Crime and PublicPolicy. 107–122. San Francisco, CA:

Institute for Contemporary Studies. p. 20

National Assembly. 1994. Building Resiliency: What

Works! Washington, DC.

National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. 1993.

“Summary of Discussion Issues.” Proceedings of the

7th National Roundtable on CPS Risk Assessment.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. p. 206

National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advisory

Groups 1993. Myths and Realities: Meeting the Challenge

of Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: National Coalition of State Juvenile

Justice Advisory Groups.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges. 1993. “Children and Families First, A Mandate for Change.” Reno, NV. p. 11

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges. 1984 (Summer). “The Juvenile Court and Serious Offenders: 38 Recommendations.” Juvenile and

Family Court Journal. Reno, NV. p. 11

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 1993.

“Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative: Detention Utilization Case Level

Data and Projections for Sacramento County.”

San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency. p. 211
245

National Institute of Justice. 1992 (June). 1991 Drug

Use Forecasting Annual Report (NCJ–123–941).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice.

National Research Council. 1993. “Losing Generations: Adolescents in High-Risk Settings.” Panel on

the High Risk Youth, Committee on Behavioral and

Social Sciences and Education, National Research

Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

p. 18

Newcomb, M.D., E. Maddahian, R. Skager, and P.M.

Bentler. 1987. “Substance Abuse and Psychosocial

Risk Factors among Teenagers: Associations with Sex,

Age, Ethnicity, and Type of School.” American Journal

of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 13:413–433.

O’Carroll, P.W., C. Loftin, J.B. Waller, D. McDowall, A.

Bukoff, R.O. Scott, J.A. Mercy, and B. Wiersema. 1991.

“Preventing Homicide: An Evaluation of the Efficacy

of a Detroit Gun Ordinance.” American Journal of Public Health 81:576–581. p. 112, 114

O’Donnell, J., J.D. Hawkins, R.F. Catalano, R.D.

Abbott, and L.E. Day. “Preventing School Failure,

Drug Use, and Delinquency Among Low-Income

Children: Effects of a Long-Term Prevention Project

in Elementary Schools.” American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry. In press. p. 66

Olds, D.L., C.R. Henderson, Jr., R. Chamberlin, and R.

Tatelbaum. 1986. “Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect: A Randomized Trial of Nurse Home Visitation.”

Pediatrics 78:65–78. p. 57

Olds, D.L., C.R. Henderson, C. Phelps, H. Kitzman,

and C. Hanks. “Effect of Prenatal and Infancy Nurse

Home Visitation on Government Spending.” Medical

Care 31:(2).

Olds, D.L., C.R. Henderson, Jr., R. Tatelbaum, and

R. Chamberlin. 1986. “Improving the Delivery of Prenatal Care and Outcomes of Pregnancy: A Randomized Trial of Nurse Home Visitation.” Pediatrics

77:16–27. p. 57

Olds, D.L., and H. Kitzman. 1993. “Review of

Research on Home Visiting for Pregnant Women and

Parents of Young Children.” The Future of Children

3(3):53–92. p. 57

O’Leary, K.D., and S.G. O’Leary. 1977. Classroom

Management: The Successful Use of Behavior Modification, Second Edition. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

p. 63

Olweus, D. 1991. “Bully/Victim Problems Among

Schoolchildren: Basic Facts and Effects of a School

Based Intervention Program.” In D.J. Pepler and K.H.

Rubin (eds.), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. p. 80, 84

Olweus, D. “Assessing Change in a CohortLongitudinal Study with Hierarchical Data.” In D.

Magnusson, L.R. Bergman, G. Rudinger, and

B. Torestad (eds.), Matching Problems and Methods in

Longitudinal Research. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press (in press). p. 80

Oregon Option. 1994. Paper Presented at the Domestic

Policy Council Meeting, Washington, DC.

Osgood, D.W., et al. 1989. “Time Trends and Age

Trends in Arrests and Self-Reported Illegal Behavior.”

Criminology 27:389–415.

Palmer, T. 1992. The Re-Emergence of Correctional Interventions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. p. 140

Palmer, T. 1971. “California’s Community Treatment

Program for Delinquent Adolescents.” Journal of

Research on Crime and Delinquency 8:74–82. p. 135

Pappenfort, D., and T. Young. 1976. Use of Secure

Detention for Juveniles and Alternatives To Its Use.

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

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. p. 211

Parent, D., et al. 1993. Conditions of Confinement: A

Study to Evaluate Conditions in Juvenile Detention and

Corrections Facilities. Final report submitted to the U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Parsons, B.V., Jr., and J.F. Alexander. 1973. “Short-term

Family Intervention: A Therapy Outcome Study.”

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 41:195–

201. p. 89

Pate, A.M., W.G. Skogan, M.A. Wycoff, and L.W.

Sherman (with S. Annan and the Newark Police

Department). 1985. Reducing the “Signs of Crime”: The

Newark Experience, Executive Summary. Washington,

DC: The Police Foundation. p. 121, 126
246

Patterson, G.R. 1974. “Interventions for Boys with

Conduct Problems: Multiple Settings, Treatments, and

Criteria.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

42:471–481. p. 85

Patterson, G.R., D. Capaldi, and L. Bank. 1991.

“An Early Starter Model for Predicting Delinquency.”

In D. Pepler and K.H. Rubin (eds.), The Development

and Treatment of Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Patterson, G.R., P. Chamberlain, and J.B. Reid. 1982.

“A Comparative Evaluation of a Parent Training

Program.” Behavior Therapy 13:638–650. p. 205

Patterson, G.R., and T.J. Dishion. 1985. “Contributions

of Families and Peers to Delinquency.” Criminology

23:63–77. p. 20

Patterson, G.R., and M.J. Fleishman. 1979. “Maintenance of Treatment Effects: Some Considerations

Concerning Family Systems and Follow-up Data.”

Behavior Therapy 10:168–185. p. 85

Patterson, G.R., and J.B. Reid. 1973. “Intervention for

Families of Aggressive Boys: A Replication Study.”

Behavior Research Therapy 11:383–394. p. 85

Pennell, S., C. Curtis, J. Henderson, and J. Tayman.

1989. “Guardian Angels: A Unique Approach to

Crime Prevention.” Crime and Delinquency 35:378–400.

p. 126

Peterson, P.L., J.D. Hawkins, R.D. Abbott, and R.F.

Catalano. 1994. “Disentangling the Effects of Parental

Drinking, Family Management, and Parental Alcohol

Norms on Current Drinking by Black and White

Adolescents.” Journal of Research on Adolescents 4(2):

203–227. p. 20

Pierce, G., and W. Bowers. 1981. “The Bartley-Fox

Gun Law’s Short Term Impact on Crime in Boston.”

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science 455:120–137. p. 110, 113, 114

Police Foundation, The. 1981. The Newark Foot Patrol

Experiment. Washington, DC: The Police Foundation.

p. 120

Poorkaj, H., and C. Bockelman. 1973. “The Impact of

Community Volunteers on Delinquency Prevention.”

Sociology and Social Research 57:335–341. p. 91

Pratt, G. 1994. “Community-Based Comprehensive

Wrap-Around Treatment Strategies.” Paper presented

at the Arizona Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Research Symposium. Phoenix, AZ. December. p. 47

Prothrow-Stith, D. 1987. Violence Prevention Curriculum for Adolescents. Newton, MA: Education Development Center. p. 76

Quay, H. 1987. Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency. New

York, NY: Wiley and Sons.

Reiss, A.J., Jr., and J.A. Roth (eds.) 1993. Understanding

and Preventing Violence. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press. p. 18

Renzema, M., and D.T. Skelton. 1989. “Use Of Electronic Monitoring in the United States: 1989 Update.”

Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Reyes, O., and L.A. Jason. 1991. “An Evaluation of a

High School Dropout Prevention Program.” Journal of

Community Psychology 19:221–230. p. 83

Rivers, J., and T. Trotti. 1989. South Carolina Delinquent

Males: A Follow-Up Into Adult Corrections. Columbia,

SC: South Carolina Department of Youth Services.

p. 137

Roberts, A. 1994. Critical Issues in Crime and Justice.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Robin, G.D. 1969. “Anti-Poverty Programs and Delinquency.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police

Science 60:323–331. p. 104

Robins, L.N. 1978. “Sturdy Childhood Predictors of

Adult Anti-Social Behavior: Replications from Longitudinal Studies.” Psychological Medicine 8:611–622.

Robins, L.N., and T.R. Przybeck. 1985. “Age of Onset

of Drug Use as a Factor in Drug and Other Disorders.” In C.L. Jones and R.J. Battjes (eds.), Etiology of

Drug Abuse: Implications for Prevention, pp. 178–192.

(NIDA Research Monograph No. 56, DHHS Publication No. ADM 85–1335). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 21

Robins, L.N., and K.S. Ratcliff. 1979. “Risk Factors in

the Continuation of Childhood Antisocial Behavior

into Adulthood.” International Journal of Mental Health,

7, 76–116. p. 20
247

Rosenbaum, D.P., D.A. Lewis, and J.A. Grant. 1986.

“Neighborhood-Based Crime Prevention: Assessing

the Efficacy of Community Organizing in Chicago.”

In D.P. Rosenbaum (ed.), Community Crime Prevention:

Does It Work? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. p. 125

Rossi, P.H. 1992. “Assessing Family Preservation Programs.” Children and Youth Services Review 14:77–97.

p. 87

Rowland, R.N.G. 1991. An Evaluation of the Effects of a

Mentoring Program on At-Risk Students in Selected

Elementary Schools in the North East Independent School

District. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of

Education, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX.

p. 93

Rutter, M. 1987. “Temperament, Personality and

Personality Disorder.” British Journal of Psychiatry

150:443–458.

Rutter, M. 1980. Changing Youth in a Changing Society.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rutter, M., and H. Giller. 1983. Juvenile Delinquency:

Trends and Perspectives. New York, NY: Penguin. p. 20

Safer, D.J. 1990. “A School Intervention for Aggressive

Adolescents.” In L.J. Hertzberg, G.F. Ostrum, and J.R.

Field (eds.), Violent Behavior, Volume 1: Assessment and

Intervention. Great Neck, NY: PMA Publishing Corp.

p. 70, 71

Safer, D.J. 1982. “Special Education and Programs for

Behavior Problem Youth.” In D.J. Safer (ed.), School

Programs for Disruptive Adolescents. Baltimore, MD:

University Park Press. p. 70

Salzinger, S., R.S. Feldman, and M. Hammer. 1993.

“The Effects of Physical Abuse on Children’s Social

Relationships.” Child Development 64:169–187.

Sampson, R.J. 1994. “Community-Level Factors in the

Development of Violent Behavior: Implications for

Social Policy.” Paper presented at the Aspen Institute

Conference on Children and Violence, Boca Raton, FL,

February.

Sampson, R.J. 1986. “Crime in Cities: The Effects of

Formal and Informal Social Control.” In A.J. Reiss and

M. Tonry (eds.), Crime and Justice, Volume 8. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 20

Sampson, R.J., and J. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making:

Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press. p. 158

Sandberg, David N. 1989. The Child Abuse-Delinquency

Connection. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. p. 203

Satterfield, J.H., B.T. Satterfield, and A.M. Schell. 1987.

“Therapeutic Interventions to Prevent Delinquency in

Hyperactive Boys.” Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 26:56–64. p. 85

Schlenger, W., R. Etheridge, D. Hansen, and D.

Fairbank. 1990. Alaska CASSP Case Study Report.

Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

Schneider, A. 1986. “Restitution and Recidivism Rates

of Juvenile Offenders: Results from Four Experimental Studies.” Criminology 24(3). p. 142

Schnelle, J.F., R.E. Kirchner, Jr., J.D. Casey, P.H.

Uselton, Jr., and M.P. McNees. 1977. “Patrol Evaluation Research: A Multiple-Baseline Analysis of Saturation Police Patrolling during Day and Night Hours.”

Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis 10:33–40. p. 119

Schnelle, J.F., R.E. Kirchner, M.P. McNees, and J.M.

Lawler. 1975. “Social Evaluation Research: The Evaluation of Two Police Patrolling Strategies.” Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis 8:353–365. p. 119, 121

Schwartz, I., W. Barton, and F. Orlando. 1991. “Keeping Kids Out Of Secure Detention.” Public Welfare

46:20–26. p. 211

Sechrest, L., S.O. White, and E.D. Brown. 1979. The Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: Problem and Prospects.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press. p. 142

Shadish, W.R., Jr. 1992. “Do Family and Marital

Psychotherapies Change What People Do?

A Meta-Analysis of Behavioral Outcomes.” In T.D.

Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L.V.

Hedges, R.J. Light, T.A. Louis, and F. Mosteller (eds.),

Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. New York,

NY: Russell Sage Foundation. p. 88

Shannon, L. 1991. Changing Patterns of Delinquency and

Crime—A Longitudinal Study in Racine. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press. p. 2
248

Shannon, L. 1988. Criminal Career Continuity: Its Social

Context. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press. p. 2

Shapiro, J.Z., S.N. Gaston, J.C. Hebert, and D.J.

Guillot. 1986. LSYOU (Louisiana State Youth Opportunities Unlimited) Project Evaluation. Baton Rogue, LA:

College of Education, Louisiana State University.

p. 107, 109

Sherman, L.W. 1992. “Attacking Crime: Police and

Crime Control.” In M. Tonry and N. Morris (eds.),

Crime and Justice, Volume 15. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press. p. 118, 119, 120

Sherman, L.W. 1990. “Police Crackdowns: Initial and

Residual Deterrence.” In Crime and Justice, Volume 13.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 123, 126

Sherman, L.W., J.W. Shaw, and D.P. Rogan. January

1995, “The Kansas City Gun Experiment,” Research in

Brief. Wasington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

p. 123, 126

Shore, M., and J. Massimo. 1963. “The Effectiveness of

a Comprehensive, Vocationally-Oriented

Psychotherapeutic Program for Adolescent Delinquent Boys.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 33

(4):634–642. p. 158

Shore, M., and J. Massimo. 1973. “After Ten Years:

A Followup Study of Comprehensive Vocationally

Oriented Psychotherapy.” American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry 43(1). p. 158

Shure, M.B., and G. Spivack. 1988. “Interpersonal

Cognitive Problem Solving.” In R.H. Price, E.L.

Cowen, R.P. Lorion, and J. Ramos-McKay (eds.),

Fourteen Ounces of Prevention: A Casebook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association. p. 60

Shure, M.B., and G. Spivack. 1982. “Interpersonal

Problem-Solving in Young Children: A Cognitive

Approach to Prevention.” American Journal of Community Psychology 10:341–356. p. 60, 158

Shure, M.B., and G. Spivack. 1980. “Interpersonal

Problem Solving as a Mediator of Behavioral Adjustment in Preschool and Kindergarten Children." Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 1:29–44. p. 59,

60

Skogan, W.G. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the

Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. New York,

NY: Free Press.

Skogan, W.G., and M.A. Wycoff. 1986. “Storefront

Police Officers: The Houston Field Test.” In D.P.

Rosenbaum (ed.), Community Crime Prevention: Does It

Work? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. p. 122, 126

Skolnick, J.H., and D.H. Bayley. 1988. “Theme and

Variation in Community Policing.” In M. Tonry and

N. Morris (eds.), Crime and Justice, Volume 10. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Slavin, R.E. 1994. “School and Classroom Organization in Beginning Reading: Class Size, Aides, and

Instructional Grouping.” In R.E. Slavin, N.L. Karweit,

and B.A. Wasik (eds.), Preventing Early School Failure:

Research, Policy, and Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon. p. 63

Slavin, R.E. 1990a. “Class Size and Student Achievement: Is Smaller Better?” Contemporary Education

42:6–12. p. 63

Slavin, R.E. 1990b. “Achievement Effects of Ability

Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence

Synthesis.” Review of Educational Research 60:471–499.

p. 20, 63

Slavin, R.E. 1990c. Cooperative Learning: Theory,

Research, and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall. p. 65

Slavin, R.E. 1987. “Ability Grouping and Student

Achievement in Elementary Schools: A Best-Evidence

Synthesis.” Review of Educational Research 57:293–336.

p. 63

Slavin, R.E. 1983a. Cooperative Learning. New York,

NY: Longman. p. 65

Slavin, R.E. 1983b. “When Does Cooperative Learning

Increase Student Achievement?” Psychological Bulletin

94:429–445. p. 65

Slavin, R.E., and N.A. Madden. 1989. “Effective Classroom Programs for Students at Risk.” In R.E. Slavin,

N.L. Karweit, and N.A. Madden (eds.), Effective Programs for Students at Risk. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon. p. 64, 65, 67
249

Spergel, I.A., R. Chance, K. Ehrensaft, T. Regulus, C.

Kane, R. Laseter, A. Alexander, and S. Oh. 1994. Gang

Suppression and Intervention: Community Models:

Research Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. p. 100

Spergel, I.A., et al. 1991. “National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Program.” OJJDP Juvenile

Justice Bulletin (Reprinted from NIJ Reports, No. 222,

June 1990). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Spivack, G., and M.B. Shure. 1989. “Interpersonal

Cognitive Problem Solving (ICPS): A CompetenceBuilding Primary Prevention Program.” Prevention in

the Human Services 6:151–178. p. 59

Stanwyck, D.J., and C.A. Anson. 1989. The AdoptA-Student Evaluation Project, Final Report. Submitted to

the W. T. Grant Foundation. Atlanta, GA: Georgia

State University. p. 92

Strasburg, P. 1978. Violent Delinquents. Report to the

Ford Foundation from the Vera Institute of Justice.

New York, NY: Monarch Press.

Strayhorn, J.M., and C.S. Weidman. 1991. “Follow-Up

One Year after Parent-Child Interaction Training:

Effects on Behavior of Preschool Children.” Journal of

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

30:138–143. p. 58

Sweet, R.W. 1991. “Beyond the Mandates: The

Chronic Offender.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal

42(4).

Switzer, G.E., R.G. Simmons, M.A. Dew, J.M. Regalski,

and C.H. Wang. 1994. “The Effect of a School-Based

Helper Program on Adolescent Self-Image, Attitudes,

and Behavior.” Unpublished manuscript. Pittsburgh,

PA: Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University

of Pittsburgh. p. 101, 102

Szapocznik, J., A. Rio, E. Murray, R. Cohen, M.

Scopetta, A. Rivas-Vazquez, O. Hervis, V. Posada,

and W. Kurtines. 1989. “Structural Family Versus

Psychodynamic Child Therapy for Problematic Hispanic Boys.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57:571–578. p. 88

Slicker, E.K., and D.J. Palmer. 1993. “Mentoring

At-Risk High School Students: Evaluation of a

School-Based Program.” School Counselor 40:327–334.

p. 94

Sloan, J.H., A.I. Kellerman, D.T. Reay, J.A. Ferris, T.

Koepsell, F.P. Rivara, C. Rice, L. Gray, and J. LoGerfo.

1988. “Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and

Homicide: A Tale of Two Cities.” New England Journal

of Medicine 319:1256–1262. p. 112

Smith, C.A., and T.P. Thornberry. 1993. “The Relationship Between Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescent Involvement in Delinquency and Drug Use.”

Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development in New Orleans.

Smith, T.J., G.C. Walker, and R.A. Baker. 1988. Youth

and the Workplace: Second-Chance Programs and the

Hard-to-Serve. Report for Youth and America’s Future:

The William T. Grant Foundation Commission on

Work, Family and Citizenship. New York, NY:

William T. Grant Foundation. p. 106

Smykla, J.O., and W.L. Selke. 1982. “The Impact of

Home Detention: A Less Restrictive Alternative to the

Detention of Juveniles.” Juvenile and Family Court

Journal 33:3–9. p. 211

Snyder, H. 1988. Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders.

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

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. p. 2

Soler, M. 1992. “Interagency Services in Juvenile Justice Systems.” In Justice and Public Policy: Toward A

National Agenda. New York, NY: Lexington Books,

pp. 134–50. p. 29

Soler, M., A. Shotten, J. Bell, E. Jameson, C. Shauffer,

and L. Warboys. 1990. Representing the Child Client.

New York, NY: Matthew Bender. p. 211

Soler, M., and L. Warboys. 1990. Services for Violent and

Severely Disturbed Children: The Willie M. Litigation.

New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development.

Spergel, I.A. 1986. “The Violent Gang Problem in

Chicago: A Local Community Approach.” Social

Service Review 60:94–131. p. 98, 100
250

Umbreit, M.S., and R.B. Coates. 1992. “The Impact of

Mediating Victim-Offender Conflict: An Analysis of

Programs in Three States.” Juvenile and Family Court

Journal 43(1). p. 142

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1992.

“Setting the National Agenda for Injury Control in the

1990’s.” Position papers from the 3d National Injury

Control Conference. Washington, DC.

U.S. Public Health Service. Expert Panel on the Content of Prenatal Care. 1989. “Caring for Our Future:

The Content of Prenatal Care.” Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services.

Van Den Berg, J. 1989. The Alaska Youth Initiative.

Juneau, AK: Alaska Division of Mental Health and

Developmental Disabilities.

Ventura County Children’s Mental Health Services

Demonstration Project. 1987a. “Two Year Report on

the Ventura Model for Interagency Children’s Mental

Health Services.” Ventura County, CA: Department of

Mental Health Services.

Ventura County Children’s Mental Health Services

Demonstration Project. 1987b. “A Report and Commentary on the Ventura Model for Children’s Mental

Health Services.” Ventura County, CA: Department of

Mental Health Services.

Wagner, D. 1992. “Actuarial and Clinical Decisionmaking in Parole; Should We Use Our Heads, The

Formula or Both?” Dissertation. Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin. p. 191, 195

Wahler, R.G. 1980. “The Multiply Entrapped Parent:

Obstacles to Change in Parent-Child Problems.”

Advances in Family Intervention, Assessment, and Theory

1:29–52. p. 85

Wald, M., and M. Woolverton. 1990. “Risk Assessment: The Emperor’s New Clothes?” Child Welfare

69:483–511. p. 206

Walker, G., and F. Vilella-Velez. 1992. Anatomy of a

Demonstration: STEP from Pilot through Replication and

Postprogram Impacts. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private

Ventures. p. 107, 109

Thompson, D.W., and L.A. Jason. 1988. “Street Gangs

and Preventive Interventions.” Criminal Justice and

Behavior 15:323–333. p. 96, 100

Thornberry, T.P. 1994. “Violent Families and Youth

Violence.” Fact Sheet #21. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. p. 4, 20, 203

Tolan, P., and N. Guerra. 1994. “What Works in

Reducing Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review

of the Field.” Report submitted to the Center for the

Study and Prevention of Violence. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago. p. 18

Tollett, T. 1987. A Comparative Study of Florida

Delinquency Commitment Programs. Tallahassee, FL:

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

Tolson, E.R., S. McDonald, and A.R. Moriarty. 1992.

“Peer Mediation among High School Students: A Test

of Effectiveness.” Social Work in Education 14:86–93.

p. 78

Tracy, P., M.E. Wolfgang, and R.M. Figlio. 1990.

Delinquency in Two Birth Cohorts. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention. p. 2

Tremblay, R.E., J. McCord, H. Boileau, P. Charlebois,

C. Gagnon, M. LeBlanc, and S. Larivee. 1991. “Can

Disruptive Boys Be Helped to Become Competent?”

Psychiatry 54:148–161. p. 85

Tremblay, R.E., F. Vitaro, L. Bertrand, M. LeBlanc, H.

Beauchesne, H. Boileau, and L. David. 1992. “Parent

and Child Training to Prevent Early Onset of Delinquency: The Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental

Study.” In J. McCord and R.E. Tremblay (eds.), Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Interventions from Birth

through Adolescence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

p. 85

Trice, A.D., F.C. Parker, and D.J. Safer. 1982. “A Comparison of Senior High School Interventions for Disruptive Students.” In D.J. Safer (ed.), School Programs

for Disruptive Adolescents. Baltimore, MD: University

Park Press. p. 71
251

Walton, E., M.W. Fraser, R.E. Lewis, P.J. Pecora, and

W.K. Walton. 1993. “In-Home Family-Focused Reunification: An Experimental Study.” Child Welfare

72:473–487. p. 87

Wasik, B.A., and R.E. Slavin. 1994. “Preventing Early

Reading Failure with One-to-One Tutoring: A Review

of Five Programs.” In R.E. Slavin, N.L. Karweit, and

B.A. Wasik (eds.), Preventing Early School Failure: Research, Policy, and Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon. p. 65

Weaver, R. 1989. “The Last Chance Ranch: The Florida

Environmental Institute Program for Chronic and

Violent Juvenile Offenders.” Programs for Serious and

Violent Juvenile Offenders. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for

the Study of Youth Policy.

Webster, D.W. 1993. “The Unconvincing Case for

School-Based Conflict Resolution Programs for Adolescents.” Health Affairs 12:126–141. p. 76, 77

Webster-Stratton, C. 1992. “Individually Administered

Videotape Modeling Parent Training: Who Benefits?”

Cognitive Therapy and Research 16:31–35.

Webster-Stratton, C. 1984. “Randomized Trial of

Two Parent Training Programs for Families with

Conduct-Disordered Children.” Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology 52:666–678. p. 205

Weedon, J., T. Torti, and P. Zunder. 1988. “Vermont

Division of Social Services, Family Risk Assessment

Matrix Research and Evaluation.” In T. Tatara (ed.),

Validation Research in CPS Risk Assessment: Three Recent

Studies. Washington, DC: APWA, pp. 3–33. p. 206

Werner, E.E., and R.S. Smith. 1982. Vulnerable But

Invincible. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Whitehead, J.T., and S.P. Lab. 1989. “A Meta-Analysis

of Juvenile Correctional Treatment.” Journal of Research

in Crime and Delinquency 26:276–295. p. 139

Wichman, T. 1991. “Of Wilderness and Circles: Evaluating a Therapeutic Model for Wilderness Adventure

Programs.” The Journal of Experiential Education

14:43–48.

Widom, C.S. 1992. “The Cycle of Violence.” National

Institute of Justice Research in Brief, October.

Widom, C.S. 1989. “Child Abuse, Neglect and Violent

Criminal Behavior.” Criminology 27:251–271. p. 203

Wiebush, R.G. 1993. “Juvenile Intensive Supervision:

Impact on Felony Offenders Diverted From Institutional Placement.” Crime and Delinquency 39:68–88.

p. 150

Wiebush, R.G., D. Wagner, R. Prestine, and S.

VanGheem. 1993. “Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Justice 1992 Workload Study: Final Report.” Madison,

WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

p. 193

Wilson, J.Q., and R.J. Hernstein. 1985. Crime and

Human Nature. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. 1993. A Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Program Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. p. 1, 7, 29, 133

Wilson, J.Q., and R. Hernstein. 1985. Crime and Human

Nature. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. p. 20

Wilson, J.Q., and G.L. Kelling. 1982. “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety.” Atlantic

Monthly (March):29–38. p. 121

Wintenute, G.J. 1987. “Firearms as a Cause of Death in

the United States, 1920–1982.” The Journal of Trauma

27(5):532–536. p. 18

Wolfgang, M., T.P. Thornberry, and R.M. Figlio. 1987.

From Boy to Man, From Delinquency to Crime. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 2

Wolfgang, M., R.M. Figlio, and T. Sellin. 1972. Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press. p. 2

Wright, K.R., T.R. Clear, and P. Dickson. 1984. “Universal Applicability of Probation Risk Assessment

Instruments.” Criminology 22:113–133. p. 195

Wright, W.E., and M.C. Dixon. 1977. “Community

Prevention and Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency:

A Review of Evaluation Studies.” Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency 14:35–67. p. 142, 146, 158
252

Yoshikawa, H. 1994. “Prevention as Cumulative Protection: Effects of Early Family Support and Education on Chronic Delinquency and Its Risks.”

Psychological Bulletin 115:28–54. p. 18, 57, 58

Zimring, F.E. 1986. “Gun Control.” Bulletin of the New

York Academy of Medicine 62:615–621. p. 110

Zimring, F. E., and G. Hawkins. 1992. The Citizen’s

Guide to Gun Control. New York, NY: Macmillan. p. 110

Zingraff, M.T., J. Leiter, K. Meyers, and M. Johnson.

1993. “Child Maltreatment and Youthful Problem

Behavior.” Criminology 31:173–202. p. 203

Wycoff, M.A. 1982. “Evaluating the CrimeEffectiveness of Municipal Police.” In J. R. Greene

(ed.), Managing Police Work: Issues and Analysis.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. p. 118

Wycoff, M.A., W.G. Skogan, A.M. Pate, and L.W.

Sherman (with S. Annan). 1985a. Citizen Contact

Patrol: The Houston Field Test. Executive Summary.

Washington, DC: The Police Foundation. p. 122, 123,

126

Wycoff, M.A., W.G. Skogan, A.M. Pate, and L.W.

Sherman (with S. Annan and G. Eckman). 1985b.

Police as Community Organizers: The Houston Field Test,

Executive Summary. Washington, DC: The Police

Foundation. p. 122, 125

Wycoff, M.A., W.G. Skogan, A.M. Pate, and L.W.

Sherman (with S. Annan and G. Eckman). 1985c.

Police Community Stations: The Houston Field Test,

Executive Summary. Washington, DC: The Police

Foundation. p. 122
253

Index

The following alphabetized index identifies key topics

in the Guide and provides the initial page of the section where the topic is discussed most fully. The

index, however, does not provide an exhaustive list

of all pages where a topic is mentioned.

Afterschool Recreation Programs, p. 95

Arrest Trends, p. 1

Assessment and Classification Systems Essential

Properties, p. 202

Case Management, p. 48

Chronic Offending, p. 4

Chronic, Serious, and Violent Career Patterns, p. 2

Classification Studies, p. 31

Classroom Organization, Management, and

Instructional Strategies, p. 62

Community Laws and Policies Related to Weapons,

p. 110

Conflict Resolution and Violence Prevention

Curriculums, p. 72

Coordinating and Integrating Services, p. 29

Delinquency Prevention, p. 11

Determining Population To Be Screened, p. 36

Effective Early Intervention: Ages 4 to 6, p. 57

Effective Early Intervention: Pre- and Perinatal/Early

Education, p. 57

Effective Graduated Sanctions Programs Contacts,

p. 159

Effective Prevention Program Contacts, p. 129

Effective Programs: Guidelines, p. 141

Effective Programs: Literature on the Characteristics,

p. 140

Evaluating the Comprehensive Strategy, p. 53

Filling in the Gaps, p. 41

Gang Prevention, p. 96

Graduated Sanctions, p. 11

Graduated Sanctions: Core Principles, p. 133

Graduated Sanctions: Meta-Analysis, p. 138

Graduated Sanctions: Research on Individual

Programs, p. 134

Graduated Sanctions: Research on State Systems,

p. 136

Graduated Sanctions Working Group, p. 35

Immediate Interventions, p. 12

Immediate Sanctions Programs: Bethesda Day

Treatment Center, p. 145

Immediate Sanctions Programs: Choice Program,

p. 145

Immediate Sanctions Programs: Michigan State

Diversion Project, p. 146

Immediate Sanctions Programs: The North Carolina

Intensive Protection Supervision Project, p. 147

Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy, p. 46
254

Intensive Family Preservation Services—Home

Visitation p. 86

Interagency Cooperation, p. 47

Intermediate Sanctions, p. 13

Intermediate Sanctions Programs: About Face, p. 151

Intermediate Sanctions Programs: Family and

Neighborhood Services Project, p. 148

Intermediate Sanctions Programs: Lucas County

Intensive Supervision Unit, p. 149

Intermediate Sanctions Programs: Spectrum

Wilderness Program, p. 152

Intermediate Sanctions Programs: Thomas O’Farrell

Youth Center, p. 154

Intermediate Sanctions Programs: VisionQuest, p. 153

Intermediate Sanctions Programs: Wayne County

Intensive Probation Program, p. 150

Juvenile Justice System, The, p. 10

Management Information System Development, p. 49

Marital and Family Therapy, p. 88

Mentoring, p. 90

Needs Assessment Instrument Development, p. 36

Needs Assessment Instruments, p. 198

Needs Assessment Items, p. 199

OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy, p. 7

Parent Training, p. 84

Peer Counseling, p. 79

Peer Mediation, p. 77

Placement and Custody Assessment Instruments,

p. 197

Planning and Implementing a Comprehensive

Prevention Strategy, p. 25

Policing Strategies, p. 118

Prevention and Intervention Components, p. 46

Prevention Principles, p. 24

Prevention Programs Review, p. 61

Problem Behaviors: Co-Occurring, p. 4

Program Selection Matrix Development, p. 37

Promising Graduated Sanctions Programs

Descriptions, p. 161

Promising Prevention Program Contacts, p. 130

Protective Factors, p. 5

Protective Factors Against Crime, Violence, and

Substance Abuse, p. 22

References, p. 231

Risk Assessment and Classification: Background,

p. 189

Risk Assessment and Classification for Institutional

Custody, p. 223

Risk Assessment and Classification in Placement

Decisionmaking, p. 213

Risk Assessment and Classification in Probation and

Parole Supervision, p. 218

Risk Assessment and Classification: Rationale, Goals,

and Uses, p. 191

Risk Assessment and Prevention at the Community

Level, p. 203

Risk Assessment for Detention Decisions, p. 210

Risk Assessment in Child Welfare, p. 205

Risk Assessment Instrument Development, p. 36

Risk Assessment Instruments, p. 194

Risk Factors: Adolescent Problem Behaviors, p. 18

Risk Factors: Community, p. 18

Risk Factors: Crime, Violence, and Substance Abuse,

p. 18

Risk Factors: Family, p. 20
255

Risk Factors: Individual and Peer Group, p. 21

Risk Factors: Interacting, p. 5

Risk Factors: Multiple, p. 4

Risk Factors: School, p. 21

Risk-Focused Approach to Graduated Sanctions, p. 28

Risk-Focused Classification, p. 30

Risk-Focused Prevention, p. 17

School Behavior Management Strategies, p. 67

School Organization, p. 79

Secure Corrections: Capital Offender Program, p. 157

Secure Corrections: Florida Environmental Institute,

p. 155

Secure Corrections: The Violent Juvenile Offender

Program, p. 155

Selecting Program Strategies, p. 28

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, p. 3

Social Development Strategy, p. 23

Staffing, p. 48

Staff Override Procedures Development, p. 39

Training Schools, Camps, and Ranches, p. 14

Victimization, p. 1

Violent Careers, p. 3

Vocational Training and Employment, p. 102

Youth Service Programs, p. 100