Bulletin Series

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Sparked by high-profile cases involving

children who commit violent crimes, public concerns regarding child delinquents

have escalated. Compared with juveniles

whose delinquent behavior begins later in

adolescence, child delinquents (offenders

younger than age 13) face a greater risk

of becoming serious, violent, and chronic

juvenile offenders. OJJDP formed the

Study Group on Very Young Offenders to

examine the prevalence and frequency 

of offending by children younger than 13.

This Study Group identified particular risk

and protective factors that are crucial to

developing effective early intervention

and protection programs for very young

offenders. 

This Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s Child

Delinquency Series, which presents the

findings of the Study Group on Very Young

Offenders. This series offers the latest

information about child delinquency, including analyses of child delinquency statistics, insights into the origins of very

young offending, and descriptions of early

intervention programs and approaches

that work to prevent the development of

delinquent behavior by focusing on risk

and protective factors.

Compared with juveniles who start

offending in adolescence, child delinquents (age 12 and younger) are two 

to three times more likely to become

tomorrow’s serious and violent offenders. This propensity, however, can be

minimized. These children are potentially identifiable either before they

begin committing crimes or at the very

early stages of criminality—times when

interventions are most likely to succeed. Therefore, treatment, services,

and intervention programs that target

these very young offenders offer an

exceptional opportunity to reduce the

overall level of crime in a community.

Although much can be done to prevent

child delinquency from escalating into

chronic criminality, the most successful

interventions to date have been isolated and unintegrated with other ongoing

interventions. In fact, only a few wellorganized, integrated programs designed

to reduce child delinquency exist in

North America today.

The Study Group on Very Young Offenders (the Study Group), a group of 39

experts on child delinquency and child

Youth who start offending early in

childhood—age 12 or younger—are

far more likely to become serious, violent, and chronic offenders later in

life than are teenagers who begin to

offend during adolescence. We have

an opportunity to direct these young

offenders to a better path because research indicates that they are at an

age when interventions are most likely to succeed in diverting them from

chronic delinquency.

Part of OJJDP’s Child Delinquency Series, this Bulletin draws on findings

from OJJDP’s Study Group on Very

Young Offenders to assess treatment,

services, and intervention programs

designed for juvenile offenders under

the age of 13. The Bulletin reviews

treatment and services available to

such child delinquents and their families and examines their efficacy. At a

time of limited budgets, it is imperative that we consider the cost effectiveness of specific programs because

children who are not diverted from

criminal careers will require significant resources in the future.

The timely provision of the kinds

of treatment, services, and intervention programs described in this

Bulletin while child delinquents are

still young and impressionable may

prevent their progression to chronic

criminality, saving the expense of

later interventions.

Treatment, Services, and

Intervention Programs for

Child Delinquents 

Barbara J. Burns, James C. Howell, Janet K. Wiig, Leena K. Augimeri,

Brendan C. Welsh, Rolf Loeber, and David Petechuk

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.ncjrs.org

J. Robert Flores, Administrator March 2003
2

psychopathology convened by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP), has concluded that

juveniles who commit serious and violent offenses most often have shown

persistent disruptive behavior in early

childhood and committed minor delinquent acts when quite young. Therefore, comprehensive intervention

programs should encompass children

who persistently behave in disruptive

ways and child delinquents, in addition

to young juvenile offenders who have

committed serious and violent crimes.

Focusing on children who persistently

behave disruptively and child delinquents has the following advantages:

● If early interventions are successful, both groups are less likely to become chronically delinquent if they

are exposed to additional risk factors that typically emerge during

adolescence.

● If early interventions are successful,

both groups are less likely to suffer

from the many negative social and

personal consequences of persistent

misbehavior.

● Both persistent disruptive behavior

and delinquency can be reduced

at an early age through effective

interventions.

Child delinquents who become serious

and violent offenders consume significant funds and resources from the juvenile justice system, schools, mental

health agencies, and other child welfare

and child protection agencies. Nevertheless, many children, especially those

who behave disruptively, are not receiving the services they need to avoid lives

marked by serious delinquency and

criminal offending. More intervention

programs fostering cooperation among

families, schools, and communities

need to be devised, implemented, and

evaluated.

This Bulletin explores the services available to children and their families and

the efficacy and cost effectiveness of

particular interventions. (The Study

Group’s findings concerning risk factors

for child delinquency will be discussed

more fully in another Bulletin.) The

Study Group reviewed how the mental

health, education, child welfare, and

juvenile justice sectors meet the service

needs of children with conduct disorder

or who exhibit conduct disorder symptoms.1 Although not all children with

conduct disorder are technically child

delinquents, the behavior and problems

of acting out associated with the disorder are often delinquent in nature.

Focusing on children with conduct disorder or who exhibit conduct disorder

symptoms helps researchers target

both children who commit delinquent

acts but have not been detected and

children at risk of committing such acts.

This Bulletin also discusses juvenile justice system programs and strategies for

very young offenders. Four promising

programs—the Michigan Early Offender

Program, the Minnesota Delinquents

Under 10 Program, the Sacramento

County Community Intervention Program, and the Toronto Under 12 Outreach Project—that organize interventions for child delinquents are

reviewed. In addition, the Bulletin outlines a model for comprehensive interventions and examines the Canadian

approach to child delinquency, which

may serve as a guide for prevention

efforts in the United States and Europe.

Child Delinquency Research: An Overview

Historically, delinquency studies have focused on later adolescence, the time when

delinquency usually peaks. This was particularly true in the 1990s, when most researchers studied chronic juvenile offenders because they committed a disproportionately large amount of crime. Research conducted during this period by OJJDP’s

Study Group on Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders concluded that youth

referred to juvenile court for their first delinquent offense before age 13 are far

more likely to become chronic offenders than youth first referred to court at a later

age. To better understand the implications of this finding, OJJDP convened the

Study Group on Very Young Offenders in 1998. Its charge was to analyze existing

data and to address key issues that had not previously been studied in the literature. Consisting of 16 primary study group members and 23 coauthors who are

experts on child delinquency and psychopathology, the Study Group found evidence that some young children engage in very serious antisocial behavior and

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

also identified several important risk factors that, when combined, may be related

to the onset of early offending. The Study Group report concluded with a review of

preventive and remedial interventions relevant to child delinquency.

The Child Delinquency Bulletin Series is drawn from the Study Group’s final report,

which was completed in 2001 under grant number 95–JD–FX–0018 and subsequently published by Sage Publications as Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention,

and Service Needs (edited by Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington). OJJDP encourages parents, educators, and the juvenile justice community to use this information

to address the needs of young offenders by planning and implementing more

effective interventions.

1 According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of

Mental Disorders–IV (DSM–IV) (American Psychiatric

Association, 1994), conduct disorder symptoms include aggression toward people and animals, destruction of property, deceitfulness or theft, and serious

violations of rules. Juveniles who exhibit conduct

disorder symptoms are also prone to certain other

conditions, such as attention deficit/hyperactivity

disorder (ADHD), internalizing disorders (anxiety and

depression), and substance abuse (Angold, Costello,

and Erkanli, 1999).
3

Treatment Approaches

A growing body of research has focused

on the treatment of juvenile offenders

and juveniles with conduct disorder. An

examination of 200 studies published

between 1950 and 1995 found that the

most effective interventions for serious

and violent juvenile offenders were

interpersonal skills training, individual

counseling, and behavioral programs

(Lipsey and Wilson, 1998). Another

review of 82 studies of interventions for

children and adolescents with conduct

problems found strong evidence for

several effective treatments, including

delinquency prevention and parentchild treatment programs for preschoolage children and problem-solving skills

training and anger-coping therapy for

school-age children (see, e.g., Brestan

and Eyberg, 1998).

Examples of effective interventions

include the parent training programs

based on Patterson and Gullion’s Living

With Children (1968), which are designed

to teach adults how to monitor child

problem and prosocial behaviors, reward

behavior incompatible with problem

behavior, and ignore or apply negative

consequences to problem behavior.

Another example of effective interventions is the parent-training program

developed by Webster-Stratton and

Hammond (1997), which involves groups

of parents in therapist-led discussions of

videotaped lessons.

Far less evidence of efficacy is available

for psychopharmacology than psychosocial treatments; the results of studies

are often conflicting. For example, one

study found that lithium effectively

reduced aggressiveness in juveniles

(Campbell and Cueva, 1995), whereas

two other studies did not produce this

result (Klein, 1991; Rifkin et al., 1997)

and one found only limited benefits

from lithium treatment (Burns, Hoagwood, and Mrazek, 1999). Other medications for children with conduct disorder are also being studied, including

methylphenidate, dextroamphetamine,

carbamazepine, and clonidine.

Controlled research on institutional

care (e.g., psychiatric hospitalization,

residential treatment centers, and group

homes) for children with conduct disorder is limited, and the findings are less

than encouraging. To some extent, this

result may be linked to the finding that

interactions among delinquent juveniles

are prone to promote friendships and

alliances among them and intensify

delinquent behavior rather than reduce

it (Dishion, McCord, and Poulin, 1999).

Several older clinical trials demonstrated that community care was at least

as effective as inpatient treatment. A

recent study that compared inpatient

treatment with multisystemic therapy

(MST) found that this community-based

alternative treatment was more effective

at the 4-month followup (Schoenwald et

al., 2000). A series of controlled studies

(Burns et al., 2000) with older delinquents involved in MST found multiple

positive outcomes (e.g., fewer arrests,

less time in incarceration).

Service Sectors

In its effort to document information

about services for child delinquents age

12 and younger, the Study Group was

concerned with two primary issues:

access to services and patterns of

service use among juveniles who seek

help. As opposed to focusing only on

juveniles who have committed offenses,

the Study Group focused on juveniles

with conduct disorder or who exhibited

conduct disorder symptoms. This approach stemmed partly from the fact

that mental health services and treatment programs typically describe juveniles by diagnosis and do not identify

delinquent status. Symptoms or a diagnosis of conduct disorder functions as a

proxy for early-onset offending.

Although conduct problems usually are

apparent and children (in most circumstances) are identified for some type of

service, it is not known exactly which

service sectors are most used and, perhaps more important, whether effective

treatment is provided. Although much

research has focused on the onset, prognosis, course, and outcome of conduct

disorder in children, seldom has research explored the link between conduct disorder and offending and the

services and interventions used to

address them. It is apparent, however,

that the most effective interventions for

younger children focus on parents and

are home- or school-based. This section

offers a brief overview of the four service sectors most commonly used to
4

help juveniles with conduct disorder

symptoms or a conduct disorder diagnosis: mental health, education, child

welfare, and juvenile justice.

Mental Health

Early-onset offenders have frequently

developed multiple mental health

problems early in life. These juveniles,

however, often are not identified until

they have had some contact with the

police or the court. In general, a large

proportion of juveniles with any type

of psychiatric disorder do not receive

specialized mental health services. It is

unclear whether the same is true specifically for juveniles with conduct problems. Considerable evidence suggests,

however, that conduct disorder is highly prevalent among juveniles referred to

mental health services (Kazdin, 1985;

Lock and Strauss, 1994). Conduct disorder accounts for 30 to 50 percent of

psychiatric referrals among juveniles,

making it the most frequent reason for

referral in this age group. Although the

juvenile justice system can serve as a

gateway into professional mental health

services, this is not always the case. For

example, one study found that juveniles

with a court contact and those with

delinquent behavior but no court contact were about equally likely to have

sought help for their behavioral problems and to have received professional

mental health treatment (StouthamerLoeber, Loeber, and Thomas, 1992).

In some juveniles, the early onset of

delinquency is associated with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder

(ADHD). The Multimodal Treatment

Study of Children With Attention Deficit/

Hyperactivity Disorder (MTA Cooperative Group, 1999a) compared combinations of medication and behavioral

treatments (including parent management training, use of a behavioral aide

in the classroom, and child behavioral

treatment in a summer program) with

a standard community treatment (e.g.,

a pediatrician prescribing stimulant

medication for children with ADHD).

For ADHD, medication worked better

than the combined behavioral treatments. Children receiving both behavioral treatment and medication

responded better than those receiving

behavioral treatments alone, whereas

behavioral treatments combined with

medication worked no better than medication alone. Families whose children

received behavioral treatment, with or

without medication, were more satisfied

with their children's treatment than

families whose children received only

medical treatment; behavioral treatment

improved juveniles’ acceptance of and

compliance with medical treatment; and

combined treatment was associated

with a lower dose of medication (MTA

Cooperative Group, 1999b). In other

words, one type of treatment (e.g.,

behavioral) appears to enhance family

compliance with other treatment components (e.g., medication). Although

the evidence base for pharmacological

interventions with children and adolescents is less developed for juveniles

with conduct disorder than for those

with ADHD, the results highlight the

importance of combining multiple components into clinically successful treatment programs that involve both children and their families.

Education

The Study Group found that school systems can play an important role in identifying a child’s need for mental health

services and providing such services.

For example, juveniles and parents most

often contact teachers about emotional

and behavioral problems. In a North

Carolina study, 71.5 percent of juveniles

with serious emotional disturbances

received services from schools, compared with much smaller proportions

of help from other service sectors

(Burns et al., 1995). However, the adequacy of school-based mental health

services has been questioned, largely

because school personnel, such as guidance counselors, have limited mental

health training. A discussion of school

interventions that seek to change the

social context of schools and improve

academic and social skills of students

is provided on page 6 of this Bulletin. 

Child Welfare

Child welfare services, especially the

foster care segment, may also serve as

a major gateway into the mental healthcare system. The child welfare system

provides children and adolescents with

financial coverage for mental health

care through Medicaid. In addition,

children and adolescents enter the

child welfare system primarily because

of maltreatment such as child abuse

and neglect, conditions associated with

a higher risk of psychiatric problems

and delinquency. For example, recent

reviews of child welfare studies suggest

that between one-half and two-thirds of

children entering foster care have behavior problems warranting mental

health services (Landsverk and Garland,

1999). Two studies of computerized

Medicaid program claims found substantially greater use of mental health

services by children in foster care than

by children in the overall Medicaid

population (Takayama, Bergman, and

Connell, 1994). Nevertheless, little is

known about how the child welfare system identifies child delinquents and

potential child delinquents and refers

them to mental health services. These

children are a critical population for

early intervention because of their

exposure to trauma and other risk factors and their consequent externalizing

(or acting out) behavior. By using the

results of additional research, the child

welfare system could serve as an early

warning system for identifying children

who demonstrate conduct problems

and are at an increased risk of entering

the juvenile justice system during their

adolescence.

Juvenile Justice

Conduct disorder is characterized by

externalizing behaviors as opposed to

internalizing behaviors. It is not surprising, then, that this disorder is found
Researchers have estimated that a

typical criminal career spanning the

juvenile and adult years costs society

between $1.3 million and $1.5 million

(Cohen, 1998). Several cost-benefit analyses have shown that early prevention

programs designed to halt the development of criminal potential in individuals

show promise as being both effective

and economical in reducing delinquency

(e.g., Aos et al., 2001; Wasserman and

Miller, 1998; Welsh and Farrington, 2000).

For example, in the Yale Child Welfare

Research Program, a cost-benefits analysis found that in the course of 1 year,

the control group of 15 families who

received no special services consumed

$40,000 more in public resources than

the treatment group of families who

participated in programs to help disadvantaged young parents support their

children’s development and improve the

quality of family life (Seitz, Rosenbaum,

and Apfel, 1985). Aos and colleagues

(2001) showed that, based on ability to

reduce felonies and total costs to taxpayers and crime victims, multisystemic

therapy, a community-based model of

service delivery, is currently the most

cost-effective treatment program for

reducing delinquency and incarceration,

saving an estimated $31,661 to $131,918

per participant in costs to taxpayers and

victims. Other cost-effective programs

include treatment foster care (which has

reduced felonies by 37 percent among

participants and saved taxpayers and

crime victims $21,836 to $87,622 per

participant) (Aos et al., 2001) and functional family therapy (which has reduced felonies by 27 percent among

participants and saved taxpayers and

crime victims $14,149 to $59,067 per

participant) (Sexton and Alexander,

2000).1

Nevertheless, more research focusing

on cost-benefit analysis is needed because benefits tend to be estimated

conservatively, whereas costs are often

taken into full account. More research

will also help to determine specific

monetary benefits of prevention programs (see Welsh, Farrington, and

Sherman, 2001).

As shown in the table above, cost-benefit analyses of early prevention reveal

many important economic benefits of

prevention programs. For example, in

addition to preventing delinquency,

many programs affect other life factors,

such as educational achievement,

health, and parent-child relationships,

all of which have economic benefits. An

analysis of one program, conducted 13

years after the intervention, found that

the greatest share of total benefits (57

percent) resulted from reduced welfare

costs, whereas increased revenues from

employment-related taxes accounted for

23 percent of total benefits, and savings

to the criminal justice system accounted

for 20 percent (Karoly et al., 1998).

5

Cost Effectiveness of Intervention

1 The cost to taxpayers is defined by criminal justice system costs, and the cost to crime victims is equal to the costs of personal and property losses.

These figures represent net benefits per participant after subtracting the program costs per participant. The lower figures include taxpayer benefits only;

the higher figures include both taxpayer and crime victim benefits.

Summary of Early Prevention Program Benefits

Outcome Variable Benefits

Delinquency/crime ● Offers savings to the criminal justice system

(e.g., police, courts, probation, corrections).

● Avoids tangible and intangible costs incurred by

crime victims (e.g., medical care, damaged and

lost property, lost wages, lost quality of life, pain

and suffering).

● Avoids tangible and intangible costs incurred by

family members of crime victims (e.g., funeral

expenses, lost wages, lost quality of life).

Substance abuse ● Offers savings to the criminal justice system.

● Improves health.

Education ● Improves educational output (e.g., high school

completion, enrollment in higher education).

● Reduces schooling costs (e.g., remedial classes,

support services).

Employment ● Increases wages (tax revenue for government).

● Decreases use of welfare services.

Health ● Decreases use of public health care (e.g., fewer

visits to hospitals and clinics).

● Improves mental health.

Family factors ● Reduces childbirths by women of low socioeconomic status.

● Offers parents more time to spend with their

children.

● Reduces divorces and separations.

Source: Welsh, B.C. 1998. Economic costs and benefits of early developmental prevention. In

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by

R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 339–355.
6

more often among juveniles referred

to the juvenile justice system than in

the general population (Otto et al.,

1992). In one review of nine studies, the

prevalence rates of conduct disorder for

juveniles in the juvenile justice system

ranged from 10 to 90 percent, and rates

were higher for incarcerated juveniles

than for those residing in the community (Cocozza, 1992). Mental health and

substance use disorders are pervasive

among incarcerated juveniles. For example, among 697 juveniles in detention in

Cook County, IL, 80 percent had at least

one mental health or substance use disorder; 20 percent had an affective disorder, 24 percent an anxiety disorder, 44

percent a substance use disorder, and

44 percent a disruptive behavior disorder (Teplin, Northwestern University

Medical School, personal communication, 1997). The limited attention given

to providing mental health services to

incarcerated juveniles raises questions

about whether the lack of studies in this

area is also associated with a failure to

provide needed services.

Service Use Patterns

Despite the need for more research, the

outlook for the treatment of juvenile

offenders in general is more encouraging now than it was 10 years ago.

Several strategies for a comprehensive

approach involving community actions

have shown promise for juveniles who

exhibit conduct disorder symptoms. In

addition, three recent studies have shed

light on patterns of service use and may

have implications for future intervention programs. The Great Smoky Mountains Study (GSMS), conducted in 11

counties of western North Carolina,

examined access to services. The Patterns of Care (POC) Study in San Diego

County, CA, provided information on

service use patterns for juveniles and

families seeking treatment. (The POC

study consists of an annual count of

youth involved in service delivery systems and a longitudinal survey of youth

who received services.) The Cost of

Services in Medicaid Study in southwestern Pennsylvania examined service

use and costs for juveniles with conduct

disorder and juveniles with oppositional

defiant disorder.

As expected, the studies found that

education was the service sector most

likely to intervene and that the mental

health sector provided services to a

significant proportion of juveniles who

exhibited conduct disorder symptoms.

Institutional placement (in a psychiatric

hospital or detention center) remained

a significant form of treatment for children who exhibited conduct disorder

symptoms. Unexpectedly, the juvenile

justice system had limited contact with

juveniles who exhibited severe antisocial behavior, and when there was contact, the rate of mental health services

intervention was extremely low. In the

GSMS, the major finding was that youth

with a significant history of serious antisocial behavior were not identified by

the justice system, suggesting an important potential role of police in detection

and referral.

If appropriate services are not available

through the police or courts, a welldefined mechanism for obtaining timely

help is needed. The first step toward

obtaining effective treatment is gaining

access to services. However, although

the early detection of emotional and

behavioral problems has long been a

public health goal, the common delay between symptom onset and helpseeking is apparent. For example, in the

child welfare sector, it appears that a

child’s first access to mental health services is often triggered by foster care

placement. A further issue is how widely

available effective interventions are to

such youth once they gain access to

treatment in typical mental health

settings.

School Interventions

Research shows that school interventions that change the social context of

schools and the school experiences of

children can reduce and prevent the

delinquent behavior of children younger

than 13. Several approaches to school

interventions have yielded positive

results. These approaches include

classroom- and schoolwide behavior

management programs; social competence promotion curriculums; conflict

resolution and violence prevention curriculums; bullying prevention efforts;

and multicomponent classroom-based

programs that help teachers and parents manage, socialize, and educate

students and improve their cognitive,

social, and emotional competencies.

Research also shows that communitybased activities such as afterschool

recreation and mentoring programs can

reduce child delinquency (Jones and

Offord, 1989).

Several classroom and school behavior

management programs have positively

influenced children’s behavior. For example, evaluations of the Good Behavior

Game showed that proactive behavior

Juvenile Justice Facilities

and Programming

The ability of the juvenile corrections

system to provide appropriate facilities and programming for child delinquents is a major concern. Because

the juvenile justice system is not

geared to handle child delinquents,

they are sometimes housed with older

offenders in detention centers and

juvenile correctional facilities. Little is

known about the detrimental effects

of secure confinement on these children’s emotional and cognitive development, and much less is known

about the impact confinement has on

children. One study found that excessive detention (more than a 30-day

period) negated the positive effects

that community treatment had on

recidivism rates among juveniles

(Wooldredge, 1988). For young children who have committed violent

offenses, short-term facilities and

comprehensive community-based programs may offer a good alternative to

the many disadvantages of long-term

confinement.
7

management in the classroom can

reduce aggressive behavior and promote positive long-term effects on the

most aggressive elementary school children (Kellam and Rebok, 1992; Kellam

et al., 1994). Murphy and colleagues

(1983) found that programs that effectively manage behavior on the playground can reduce aggressive behavior.

By providing structured activities and

timeout procedures for elementary

school children, teacher’s aides were

able to reduce disruptive and aggressive

behavior during recreational periods.

Mayer and Butterworth (1979) have

shown that schoolwide behavior management and consultation programs in

urban elementary schools can increase

the safety of students and enhance

learning and healthy social interactions.

Curriculums that seek to promote social

competence teach prosocial norms and

enhance children’s problem-solving and

social interaction skills. Several of these

curriculums have been successfully

used to reduce aggressive behavior and,

in some cases, child delinquency. Examples include PATHS (Greenberg and

Kusche, 1993), the Social Relations Intervention (Lochman et al., 1993), the

Metropolitan Area Child Study (Eron et

al., forthcoming), the Social Competence

Promotion Program for Young Adolescents (Weissberg, Barton, and Shriver,

1997), and the Montreal Longitudinal

Experiment Study (Tremblay et al.,

1990). Although variations exist regarding the specific content, number of

sessions, and ages targeted by these

programs, social competence promotion programs with sufficient intensity

and duration consistently have been

found to reduce aggressive and other

antisocial behaviors of children younger

than 13.

Conflict resolution, violence prevention

curriculums, and antibullying programs

also focus on problem-solving and

social interaction skills. In addition,

they seek to educate children about the

causes and destructive consequences

of violence and bullying (Olweus, 1991).

The Second Step curriculum for elementary school students and the Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways

curriculum for middle school students

have successfully reduced aggressive

behavior in children (Grossman et al.,

1997). Social competence and violence

prevention curriculums can be combined with other intervention components into multicomponent approaches,

as illustrated by Fast Track (Conduct

Problems Prevention Research Group,

1999a, 1999b), the Child Development

Project, and the Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP).

Multicomponent classroom-based programs seek to reduce misbehaving

(both inside and outside the classroom)

and strengthen academic achievement.

Fast Track, the Child Development Program, and SSDP have shown positive

effects in reducing early behavior problems (Battistich et al., 1997; Conduct

Problems Prevention Research Group,

1999a, 1999b; Hawkins et al., 1999). Each

of these programs included classroomand family-focused components. Positive effects of the Fast Track intervention on the disruptive-oppositional

behavior of first-graders were evident

immediately after the program concluded. Today, those children are being

tracked to determine whether the ongoing intervention will continue to

influence their behavior. The Child

Development Program used proactive

behavior management and cooperative

learning strategies with elementary

school students. The program successfully reduced antisocial behavior (including interpersonal aggression and

weapon carrying) among children in a

high-implementation subgroup. In the

classroom, SSDP combined proactive

behavior management strategies with

interactive instructional methods, cooperative learning, and cognitive and

social skills instruction for students.

Effects of the program on children’s

antisocial behavior were shown during

the intervention, immediately after its

completion (at the end of elementary

school), and when the students turned

18 (6 years after the intervention

ended) (Hawkins et al., 1999).

These results clearly document the

important role that schools can play

in the prevention of child delinquency.

This role is particularly important in

light of research findings that indicate

that children whose academic performance is poor face a greater risk of becoming involved in child delinquency

than other children (Herrenkohl et al.,
8

2001). Through the school and classroom management policies and practices that they adopt, and through the

instructional methods and curriculums

that teachers choose to use in the classroom, schools can promote or inhibit

offending behavior among students.

Good schools are a fundamental component in preventing delinquency.

From the perspective of preventing

child delinquency, good schools are

schools with explicit, consistent, and

contingent (and fairly applied) expectations for behavior. Good schools use

interactive and cooperative methods

of instruction that actively involve

students in their own learning. Good

schools empower parents to support

the learning process and to practice

more effective child management skills.

Good schools offer elementary and middle school children curriculums that

promote the development of social and

emotional competencies and the development of norms against violence,

aggression, and offending.

Schools that do these things promote

academic attainment and reduce the

risk for antisocial behavior among

their students. Federal, State, and local

efforts should focus on encouraging

schools to assess their current practices in these areas and to adopt practices, programs, and approaches shown

to reduce offending behavior. Currently,

94 percent of the resources intended to

combat violent offending are used after

violent offenses have occurred. To adequately prevent youthful offending,

more resources should be made available to ensure that schools use methods

and programs that will help them effectively educate and socialize children.

Juvenile Justice

Programs

Most children with a conduct disorder

diagnosis or who exhibit conduct disorder symptoms do not enter the juvenile

justice system before age 12. Nevertheless, the likelihood that many of these

juveniles will eventually come in contact with the system during their adolescence is a clear incentive for earlier

justice system involvement. This section summarizes the status of the juvenile justice system’s involvement with

child delinquency and describes several

promising programs.

The juvenile court system typically gives

child delinquents more opportunities to

reform than it gives to older offenders,

which explains why juvenile courts do

not normally adjudicate very young,

first-time offenders. When confronted

with child delinquents (even if they

are repeat or serious offenders), juvenile courts must deal with legal issues

surrounding the handling of these children in a system that does not really

anticipate their presence. Traditionally, the courts have been expected to

intervene only when families, service

agencies, and schools fail to give children the help they need. Children

exhibiting problem behaviors often

have not been served adequately by

child welfare, social services, child protective services, mental health agencies,

and public schools (Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

1995). Because their needs have not

been met elsewhere, the juvenile court

has long been a “dumping ground” for

children with a wide variety of problem

behaviors (Kupperstein, 1971).2

The juvenile court’s intervention in

child delinquency has been affected by

policy changes during the 1970s and

1980s—e.g., the Federal Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP)

Act of 1974—which have increased

the diversion of status offenders, nonoffenders, and child delinquents from

juvenile court processing. In the view

of many judges, this diversion has

meant a lost opportunity to help

children (Holden and Kapler, 1995).

Despite policy changes, however, the

juvenile courts continue to handle many

status offenders, nonoffenders, and

child delinquents. Yet the policies of the

past 25 years have restricted the development of programs for these children.

A fairly strong principle seems to be

commonly held—that very young children should not be subject to dispositions normally reserved for older or

more serious offenders. However, dispositions specifically tailored to address

the unique circumstances of child delinquents are scant. The juvenile justice

system has no special facilities for these

young offenders, and few programs are

designed specifically for them. Nevertheless, among these few programs, the

Study Group has identified some promising interventions for child delinquents.

Michigan Early Offender

Program

Established in 1985 by a Michigan probate court, the Early Offender Program

(EOP) provides specialized, intensive,

in-home interventions for children age

13 or younger at the time of their first

adjudication and who have had two or

more prior police contacts. Interventions include individualized treatment

plans, therapy groups, school preparation assistance, and short-term detention of up to 10 days. Comparisons with

a control group showed that EOP participants had lower recidivism rates, fewer

new adjudications per recidivist, and

fewer and briefer out-of-home placements. In general, both parents and

children reported positive changes in

family situations, peer relations, and

school performance and conduct after

participating in EOP (e.g., Howitt and

Moore, 1991).

Minnesota Delinquents

Under 10 Program

The Delinquents Under 10 Program in

Hennepin County, MN, involves several

county departments (Children and

Family Services, Economic Assistance,

2 Most practitioners surveyed by the Study Group on

Very Young Offenders thought that effective methods

were available for reducing child delinquents’ risk of

future offending. However, only 3 to 6 percent of

practitioners thought that current juvenile court

procedures were effective in achieving this goal

(Loeber and Farrington, 2001).
9

approaches. The multisystemic approach uses interventions that target

children, parents, schools, and communities, as required. Interventions include

skills training, cognitive problem solving, self-control strategies, cognitive selfinstruction, family management skills

training, and parent training. These interventions are organized in eight major

program components, such as a 12-week

afterschool structured group session, a

12-week parent training group, in-home

academic tutoring, school advocacy,

teacher consultations, and individual

befriending, which connects juveniles

with volunteers who help them join

recreational facilities in their community.

A Comprehensive

Model

Based on the initial experiences of

these community-based efforts and a

recognition of the multiple causes of

child delinquency, the need for a comprehensive model emerges to guide

Community Health, and County Attorney’s Office). A screening team reviews

police reports and then determines

appropriate dispositions for children.

Interventions include an admonishment

letter to parents from the county attorney, referrals to child protective services

and other agencies, diversion programs,

and targeted early interventions for children deemed to be at the highest risk for

future delinquency (Hennepin County

Attorney’s Office, 1995). For each targeted child, a specific wraparound network

is created. Networks include the following elements:

● A community-based organization

to conduct indepth assessments,

improve behavior and school attendance, and provide extracurricular activities.

● An integrated service delivery team

made up of county staff who coordinate service delivery and help children and family members access

services.

● A critical support person or mentor.

● A corporate sponsor that funds

extracurricular activities.

Sacramento County

Community Intervention

Program

Sacramento County, CA, welfare authorities found that families of most young

(ages 9 to 12) children arrested in the

county had been investigated for both

neglect and physical abuse. In addition,

children who were reported as abused

or neglected were six to seven times

more likely than other children to be

arrested for delinquent behavior (Brooks

and Petit, 1997; Child Welfare League of

America, 1997). Based on this data, the

Community Intervention Program (CIP)

for child delinquents was developed

(Brooks and Petit, 1997). The intervention begins when law enforcement officers notify the probation department

that a child between ages 9 and 12 has

been arrested. The court intake screener then refers the children who have

instances of family abuse or neglect to

CIP. Next, a community intervention

specialist conducts a crisis assessment

and provides initial crisis intervention

services to the child and family. The

intervention specialist then conducts

an indepth assessment, which includes

physical and mental health, substance

abuse, school functioning, economic

strengths/needs, vocational strengths/

needs, family functioning, and social

functioning. The intervention specialist

coordinates all services, which are community based and family focused and

may vary in intensity over time to match

the needs of the child and family. Intervention services include individual and

family counseling and abuse and neglect

risk monitoring.

Toronto Under 12 Outreach

Project

The Under 12 Outreach Project in

Toronto, Canada, is a fully developed

intervention program that combines

social learning and behavioral system

Policy Issues

A critical question for policymakers is how to transfer effective treatments, such as

in-home treatment, parent training, and other approaches, to the appropriate service

sectors, especially schools, where children and parents are most likely to use and

benefit from such services. How to best combine interventions is another important

question. For many children and families, a single intervention may be sufficient, but

for others, a package of interventions and support may be critical.

As a result of its research review, the Study Group recommends that new research

focus on issues such as the applicability and effectiveness of interventions for child

delinquents.

The Study Group’s recommendations for policy development include the following:

● Take steps within the juvenile justice system to assist parents of child delinquents

in seeking help.

● Enhance police training in the screening and detection of juveniles who are not

necessarily child delinquents but who have encountered the police because of

predelinquent behavior and who could benefit from a referral for mental health

services.

● Increase support for the training of mental health workers in evidence-based

prevention and treatment for offending juveniles.

● Develop policies that promote multiagency collaborative efforts.

● Ensure that policies and procedures monitor the provision of interventions.
10

new efforts. Historically, interagency

coordination and collaboration in service delivery to children have been less

than impressive (Knitzer, 1982; Nelson, Rutherford, and Wolford, 1996).

Undoubtedly, children with serious

behavioral disturbances need to receive

several different services simultaneously in a continuum of care that involves

multiple human services agencies. A

comprehensive wraparound model is

needed to integrate interventions for

children who have committed delinquent acts or are at risk of delinquency.

The model should integrate prevention,

early intervention, graduated sanctions,

and aftercare in a comprehensive approach that enables communities to

address child delinquency more effectively (Wilson and Howell, 1993).

Mechanisms for a

Comprehensive Approach

The Study Group has identified three

crucial mechanisms for coordinating

and fully integrating a continuum of care

and sanctions for child delinquents:

Governing body. The Study Group

recommends that communities and

governments create a governing body,

or interagency council, that includes

(at a minimum) representatives from

all human services organizations and

agencies related to juvenile justice that

provide services to child delinquents

and their families. These agencies include child welfare, education, health

and human services, housing and human development, juvenile justice, and

mental health. The council must have

the authority to convene the agencies

and to direct their work toward developing a comprehensive strategy for

dealing with child delinquency.

Comprehensive assessment and case

management. The Study Group believes

that an effort must be made for comprehensive assessments of referred

child delinquents at the front end of the

juvenile justice system. One option is to

use a single mechanism, such as a community assessment center, to perform

risk and needs assessments for a wide

range of agencies, thus providing a single point of entry and immediate and

comprehensive assessments. These

“one-stop shops” could help integrate

multidisciplinary perspectives, enhance

coordination of efforts, and reduce service duplication. However, to ensure that

child delinquents have access to available services and that the services are

effectively delivered, it is also critical

to implement integrated case management, tracking of children through the

system, periodic reassessment, and monitoring of service provisions (Oldenettel

and Wordes, 1999).

Interagency coordination and collaboration. Although juvenile justice, mental

health, child welfare, and education services may have the same clients, these

agencies often work at cross-purposes

or duplicate services. The Study Group

recommends developing wraparound

services to target children and families

in a flexible and individualized manner

tailored to their strengths and needs

(Burns and Goldman, 1999; Goldman,

1999). Although promising and effective

wraparound models have been developed for children with emotional disturbances and their families, the best

method of addressing child delinquency

within the juvenile justice system has

not been determined. One program,

the 8% Early Intervention Program in

Orange County, CA, ensures coordinated service delivery by operating under

the authority of the probation department and using contractual arrangements for services (Schumacher and

Kurz, 1999).

Prevention

Any program that targets children and

child delinquents should include a

strong prevention component with a

focus on discouraging gang involvement.

Often, the most dysfunctional adolescents in urban areas are recruited into

gangs (Lancot and Le Blanc, 1996). Prior

delinquency and antisocial behavior

also predict gang membership (e.g.,

Hill et al., 1999). A successful program

in Montreal, Canada, combined parent

training with individual social skills

training for aggressive-hyperactive boys

ages 7 to 9 and found that, when compared with a control group, significantly

fewer boys in the treatment group

joined a gang (Tremblay et al., 1996).

Early intervention is paramount in

preventing delinquency and gang

involvement, especially for disruptive

children. One approach programs can

take is improving parenting skills to better manage impulsive, oppositional, and

defiant children. Another approach targets parents at high risk for abusing

and neglecting their children. An example of this approach is the Children’s

Research Center’s innovative method

for identifying the relative degree of risk

for continued abuse or neglect among

families that have a substantiated abuse

or neglect referral (Children’s Research

Center, 1993). With this method, children are classified according to risk levels, which are then used to determine

services. Community policing should

also be part of early intervention. For

example, a program in New Haven, CT,

brings police officers and mental health

professionals together to provide each

with training, consultation, and support

and to offer interdisciplinary interventions to child victims, witnesses, and

perpetrators of violent crime (Marans

and Berkman, 1997).

Graduated Sanctions

Child delinquency intervention efforts need to be linked to a system of

graduated sanctions—a continuum of

treatment alternatives that includes

immediate intervention, intermediate

sanctions, community-based correctional sanctions, and secure corrections

(Howell, 1995). One such program, the

8% Early Intervention Program, focuses

on juveniles younger than 15 who, although they represent only 8 percent

of the total probation caseload, are of

greatest concern to the community

because they account for more than half

of all repeat offenders among juvenile

probationers and because they are at
11

risk of becoming chronic, serious, and

violent juvenile offenders (Schumacher

and Kurz, 1999). The following problems

serve as criteria for inclusion in the 8%

Program:

● Significant family problems

(e.g., abuse/neglect).

● Significant school problems 

(e.g., truancy, suspension).

● A pattern of individual problems

(drug and/or alcohol use).

● Predelinquent behavior patterns

(e.g., running away or gang

associations).

The 8% Program targets these juveniles

upon court referral. Cases are identified

during screening at probation intake

and verified through a comprehensive

risks and needs assessment process. A

youth and family resource center provides well-coordinated, intensive, and

multisystemic intervention services that

focus on strengthening the family unit,

improving school attendance and academic performance, teaching and modeling prosocial behavior and values, and

ensuring easy access to intervention

resources.

A Lesson Learned From

Innovations in Canada

Legislation and policy developments

that focus on child delinquency do not

always work as expected. Programs and

policies sometimes lack coordination,

proper data collection, adequate monitoring and feedback, and ongoing analysis.

Nonetheless, a review of such practices

can prompt policymakers to develop

new and improved approaches. Canada’s

near two-decade-old approach to child

delinquency is a case in point.

The Canadian Young Offenders Act of

1984 effectively decriminalized children

younger than 12 by making them exempt

from the juvenile justice system. The

rationale was that these children would

be better served through provincial

and territorial child welfare and mental

health services. However, several surveys3 of Canada’s 10 provinces and 3 territories revealed that the legislation did

not lead to a systemic development of

multifaceted interventions tailored to

children’s unique needs.

Nevertheless, the surveys influenced

the Earlscourt Child and Family Centre

(see footnote 3) to make several recommendations, which the Study Group

believes may offer guidance to jurisdictions in the United States and Europe.

Canada has already taken the first step

toward improving services by developing early assessment and centralized

services protocols in Toronto.4 The following recommendations made to the

Canadian government emphasize early

identification and intervention.

Community Teams for Children Under

12 Committing Offenses. In this initiative, community teams of representatives from police departments, child

welfare programs, schools, mental

health agencies, and other organizations would be mandated to provide

services for children who commit offenses and their families and for teachers,

children’s peers, and communities in

general. The teams would conduct needs

and risk assessments and would assign

interventions according to offense severity. Within this framework, multifaceted

interventions would be tailored to individual children and their families. Temporary placement options would range

from secure mental health facilities to

treatment foster homes.

Children Committing Offenses Act

(CCOA). To ensure accountability and

meet community standards of public

safety, the Canadian CCOA would mandate that services to child delinquents

be based on an assessment of their risk

for further offending. The Act would

provide clear direction to police regarding their responsibilities in tracking

children and would ensure services

according to established protocols.

The Act would also provide for the

placement of specially designated

police liaison officers who are trained

to intervene with delinquent children,

coordinate with community agencies,

and participate in community teams

(Augimeri, Goldberg, and Koegl, 1999).

This Act may inspire similar legislation

in other countries.

National Information Center on Very

Young Offenders. This proposed center

would encourage, monitor, and evaluate interventions for children younger

than 12. It would track the incidence of

offending and act as a clearinghouse for

interventions. To meet prevention goals,

the center would facilitate a nationally

sustained parent education program

to promote parenting skills and would

offer technical assistance to communities. It would also focus on antibullying

and antistealing campaigns targeting

both the entire school population and

children most at risk of offending.

Summary and

Conclusion

Because persistent disruptive behavior

and child delinquency are predictors of

later serious and violent offending, the

Study Group suggests that efforts to

reduce serious delinquency should focus on children who exhibit persistent

disruptive behavior in addition to child

delinquents and serious juvenile offenders. Little evidence supports the idea

that harsher sanctions in the juvenile

justice system reduce child delinquency.

Instead, effective interventions to reduce

both persistent disruptive behavior and

child delinquency have been developed.

3 Earlscourt Child and Family Centre (an accredited

children’s mental health center specializing in programs for children with disruptive behavior problems) developed and conducted the surveys, which

were administered to a variety of service providers,

including law enforcement, child welfare, and mental

health agencies and school boards. 

4 The Toronto Centralized Services Protocol for

Children Under 12 in Conflict With the Law was implemented in Toronto in 1999. Since the implementation

of the Protocol in Toronto, many other communities

across Ontario and across Canada have indicated an

interest in implementing a similar protocol in their

own jurisdictions.
12

The Study Group found that the best

intervention and service programs provide a treatment-oriented, nonpunitive

framework that emphasizes early identification and intervention.

When considering intervention program

development, it is important to recognize the fact that no single system—

juvenile justice, education, mental

health, or child welfare—can reduce

child delinquency on its own. The Study

Group’s survey of juvenile justice practitioners found that they were unanimous

about the need for integration among

agencies (Loeber and Farrington, 2001).

However, providing multiple services for

troubled children in a comprehensive,

integrated manner has proven difficult.

Several pioneering programs described

in this Bulletin provide models of consistent coordination among agencies

concerned with children. Such integrated efforts will give communities the

opportunity to identify children who

either have committed delinquent acts

or are at risk of delinquency and then

help communities target individualized

interventions for these children and

their families. Should this effort occur

on a large scale, the potential for significantly reducing the overall level of

crime in a community will increase. As

a result, the future expenditure of associated tax dollars will likely decrease.

References

American Psychiatric Association. 1994.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American

Psychiatric Association.

Angold, A., Costello, E.J., and Erkanli, A.

1999. Comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 40(1):57–87.

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., and Lieb, R.

2001. The Comparative Costs and Benefits

of Programs To Reduce Crime. Olympia, WA:

Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Augimeri, L.K., Goldberg, K., and Koegl, C.

1999. Canadian Children Under 12 Committing

Offenses: Police Protocols. Toronto, ON:

Earlscourt Child and Family Centre.

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., and

Schaps, E. 1997. Caring school communities.

Educational Psychologist 32:137–151.

Brestan, E.V., and Eyberg, S.M. 1998. Effective psychosocial treatments of conductdisordered children and adolescents: 29

years, 82 studies, and 5,272 kids. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology 27(2):180–189.

Brooks, T.R., and Petit, M. 1997. Early Intervention: Crafting a Community Response to

Child Abuse and Violence. Washington, DC:

Child Welfare League of America.

Burns, B.J., Costello, E.J., Angold, A., Tweed,

D., Stangl, D., Farmer, E.M.Z., and Erkanli, A.

1995. Children’s mental health service use

across service sectors. Health Affairs

14(3):147–159.

Burns, B.J., and Goldman, S.K., eds. 1999.

Promising practices in wraparound for children with serious emotional disturbance and

their families. In Systems of Care: Promising

Practices in Children’s Mental Health, 1998

Series, Vol. 4. Washington, DC: Center for

Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research.

Burns, B.J., Hoagwood, K., and Mrazek, P.

1999. Effective treatment for mental disorders in children and adolescents. Clinical

Child and Family Psychology Review

2(4):199–254.

Burns, B.J., Schoenwald, S.K., Burchard, J.D.,

Faw, L., and Santos, A.B. 2000. Comprehensive community-based interventions for

youth with severe emotional disorders:

Multisystemic therapy and the wraparound

process. Journal of Child and Youth Studies

9:283–314.

Campbell, M., and Cueva, J.E. 1995. Psychopharmacology in child and adolescent psychiatry: A review of the past seven years—Part

II. Journal of the American Academy of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry 34(10):1262–1272.

Child Welfare League of America. 1997.

Sacramento County Community Intervention

Program. Washington, DC: Child Welfare

League of America.

Children’s Research Center. 1993. A New

Approach to Child Protection: The CRC Model.

Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency.

Cocozza, J.J. 1992. Responding to the Mental

Health Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice

System. Seattle, WA: The National Coalition

for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice

System.

Cohen, M.A. 1998. The monetary value

of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 14(1):5–33.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research

Group. 1999a. Initial impact of the Fast Track

Prevention Trial for Conduct Problems: I.

The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology 65:631–647.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research

Group. 1999b. Initial impact of the Fast Track

Prevention Trial for Conduct Problems: II.

Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 67:648–657.

Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., and Poulin, F. 1999.

When interventions harm: Peer groups and

problem behavior. American Psychologist

54(9):755–764.

Eron, L.D., Guerra, N., Henry, D., Huesmann,

R., Tolan, P., and Van Acker, R. Forthcoming.

A Cognitive-Ecological Approach to Preventing Aggression in Urban Inner-City Settings:

Preliminary Outcomes. Chicago, IL: Metropolitan Area Child Study Research Group,

University of Illinois.

Goldman, S.K. 1999. The conceptual framework for wraparound: Definition, values,

essential elements, and requirements for

practice. In Promising Practices in Wraparound

for Children With Serious Emotional Disturbances and Their Families, edited by B.J. Burns

and S.K. Goldman. Washington, DC: Center for

Effective Collaboration and Practice,

American Institutes for Research.

Greenberg, M.T., and Kusche, C.A. 1993.

Promoting Social and Emotional Development

in Deaf Children: The PATHS Project. Seattle,

WA: University of Washington Press.

Grossman, D.C., Neckerman, H.J., Koepsell,

T., Asher, K., Liu, P.Y., Beland, K., Frey, K., and

Rivara, F.P. 1997. Effectiveness of a violence

prevention curriculum among children in

elementary school. Journal of the American

Medical Association 277:1605–1611.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., Kosterman, R.,

Abbott, R., and Hill, K.G. 1999. Preventing

adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives
13

of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine

153:226–234.

Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. 1995.

Delinquents Under 10 in Hennepin County:

A Research Update and Program Progress

Report. Minneapolis, MN: Hennepin County

Attorney’s Office.

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

K.G., and Battin-Pearson, S. 2001. School and

community risk factors and interventions. In

Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention,

and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber and

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

Publications, Inc., pp. 217–218.

Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D., and

Battin, S.R. 1999. Childhood risk factors for

adolescent gang membership: Results from

the Seattle Social Development Project.

Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency 36(3):300–322.

Holden, G.A., and Kapler, R.A. 1995. Deinstitutionalizing status offenders: A record

of progress. Juvenile Justice 2(2):3–10.

Howell, J.C. 1995. Guide for Implementing the

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,

and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington,

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

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Howitt, P.S., and Moore, E.A. 1991. The efficacy of intensive early intervention: An evaluation of the Oakland County Probate Court

Early Offender Program. Juvenile and Family

Court Journal 42(3):25–36.

Jones, M.B., and Offord, D.R. 1989. Reduction

of antisocial behavior in poor children by

nonschool skill-development. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied

Disciplines 30:737–750.

Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham,

S.S., Houbé, J., Kilburn, M.R., Rydell, C.P.,

Sanders, M., and Chiesa, J. 1998. Investing in

Our Children: What We Know and Don’t Know

About the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Kazdin, A.E. 1985. Treatment of Antisocial

Behavior in Children and Adolescents.

Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Kellam, S.G., and Rebok, G.W. 1992. Building developmental and etiological theory

through epidemiologically based preventive

intervention trials. In Preventing Antisocial

Behavior: Interventions From Birth Through

Adolescence, edited by J. McCord and R.E.

Tremblay. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp.

162–195.

Kellam, S.G., Rebok, G.W., Ialongo, N., and

Mayer, L.S. 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.

Klein, R. 1991. Preliminary results: Lithium

effects in conduct disorders. Paper presented at the 144th annual meeting of the

American Psychiatric Association, New

Orleans, LA.

Knitzer, J. 1982. Unclaimed Children: The

Failure of Public Responsibility to Children

and Adolescents in Need of Mental Health

Services. Washington, DC: The Children’s

Defense Fund.

Kupperstein, L. 1971. Treatment and rehabilitation of delinquent youth: Some sociocultural considerations. Acta Criminologica

4:11–111.

Lancot, N., and Le Blanc, M. 1996. The participation of boys in a marginal gang: A phenomenon of selection and opportunities.

Canadian Journal of Criminology 38:375–400.

Landsverk, J., and Garland, A. 1999. Foster

care and pathways to mental health services. In The Foster Care Crisis: Translating

Research Into Practice and Policy, edited by

P. Curtis and G. Dale. Lincoln, NE: University

of Nebraska Press, pp. 193–210.

Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D.B. 1998. Effective

intervention for serious juvenile offenders:

A synthesis of research. In Serious and

Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and

Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber

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

Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 313–345.

Lochman, J.E., Coie, J.D., Underwood, M.K.,

and Terry, R. 1993. Effectiveness of a social

relations intervention program for aggressive

and nonaggressive rejected children. Journal

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

61:1053–1058.

Lock, J., and Strauss, G.D. 1994. Psychiatric

hospitalization of adolescents for conduct

disorder. Hospital and Community Psychiatry

45:925–928.

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

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk

Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 2001.

Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention,

and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

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

Development-Community Policing: Partnership

in a Climate of Violence. Bulletin. Washington,

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

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Mayer, G.R., and Butterworth, T.W. 1979. A

preventive approach to school violence and

vandalism: An experimental study. Personnel

and Guidance Journal 57:436–441.

MTA Cooperative Group. 1999a. A 14-month

randomized clinical trial of treatment strategies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry 56(12):

1073–1086.

MTA Cooperative Group. 1999b. Moderators

and mediators of treatment response for

children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry

56(12):1088–1096.

Murphy, H.A., Hutchinson, J.M., and Bailey,

J.S. 1983. Behavioral school psychology goes

outdoors: The effect of organized games on

playground aggression. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Analysis 16:29–35.

Nelson, C.M., Rutherford, R.B., and Wolford,

B.I. 1996. Comprehensive and Collaborative

Systems That Work for Troubled Youth: A

National Agenda. Richmond, KY: Eastern

Kentucky University.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. 1995. Delinquency Prevention

Works. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Oldenettel, D., and Wordes, M. 1999. Community Assessment Centers. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Olweus, D. 1991. Bully/victim problems

among schoolchildren: Basic facts and

effects of an intervention program. In The
14

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 95–JD–FX–0018 from the Office of Juvenile

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

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention is a component of the Office of

Justice Programs, which also includes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of

Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Development and Treatment of Childhood

Aggression, edited by K. Rubin and D. Pepler.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 411–448.

Otto, R.K., Greenstein, J.J., Johnson, M.K.,

and Friedman, R.M. 1992. Prevalence of mental disorders among youth in the juvenile

justice system. In Responding to the Mental

Health Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice

System, edited by J.J. Cocozza. Seattle, WA:

The National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in

the Criminal Justice System, pp. 7–28.

Patterson, G.R., and Gullion, M.E. 1968. Living

With Children: New Methods for Parents and

Teachers. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Rifkin, A., Karajgi, B., Dicker, R., Perl, E.,

Boppana, V., Hasan, N., and Pollack, S. 1997.

Lithium treatment of conduct disorders in

adolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry

154(4):554–555.

Schoenwald, S., Ward, D., Henggeler, S.,

Rowland, M., and Brondino, M. 2000. Multisystemic therapy versus hospitalization for

crisis stabilization of youth: Placement outcomes 4 months post-referral. Mental Health

Services Research 2(1):3–12.

Schumacher, M., and Kurz, G. 1999. The 8%

Solution: Preventing Serious, Repeat Juvenile

Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Seitz, V., Rosenbaum, L.K., and Apfel, H. 

1985. Effects of family support intervention:

A ten-year follow-up. Child Development

56:376–391.

Sexton, T.L., and Alexander, J.F. 2000. Functional Family Therapy. Bulletin. Washington,

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

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

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

Thomas, C. 1992. Caretakers seeking help for

boys with disruptive and delinquent child

behavior. Comprehensive Mental Health Care

2:159–178.

Takayama, J., Bergman, A., and Connell, F.

1994. Children in foster care in the state of

Washington: Health care utilization and

expenditures. Journal of the American

Medical Association 271:1850–1855.

Tremblay, R.E., Mâsse, L.C., Pagani, L., and

Vitaro, F. 1996. From childhood physical

aggression to adolescent maladjustment:

The Montreal Prevention Experiment. In

Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance

Abuse and Delinquency, edited by R.D. Peters

and R.J. McMahon. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc., pp. 268–298.

Tremblay, R.E., McCord, J., Boileau, H., Le

Blanc, M., Gagnon, C., Charlebois, P., and

Larivée, S. 1990. The Montreal prevention

experiment: School adjustment and selfreported delinquency after three years of

follow-up. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Baltimore, MD, November 1990.

Wasserman, G.A., and Miller, L.S. 1998. The

prevention of serious and violent juvenile

offending. In Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful

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

Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc., pp. 197–247.

Webster-Stratton, C., and Hammond, M.A.

1997. Treating children with early-onset conduct problems: A comparison of child and

parent training interventions. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology

65(1):93–109.

Weissberg, R.P., Barton, H.A., and Shriver, T.P.

1997. The Social-Competence Promotion

Program for young adolescents. In Primary

Prevention Works. Issues in Children’s and

Families’ Lives, Vol. 6, edited by G.W. Albee

and T.P. Gullotta. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc., pp. 268–290.

Welsh, B.C., and Farrington, D.P. 2000.

Monetary costs and benefits of crime prevention programs. In Crime and Justice: A

Review of Research, Vol. 27, edited by M.

Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press, pp. 305–361.

Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P., and Sherman, L.W., eds. 2001. Costs and Benefits of

Preventing Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview

Press.

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

Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Wooldredge, J.D. 1988. Differentiating the

effects of juvenile court sentences on eliminating recidivism. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency 25:264–300.
15

Want to know more about the issues in this Bulletin or

related information? Log on to ojjdp.ncjrs.org:

➤ Browse titles alphabetically or by topic.

➤ Discover the latest OJJDP releases.

➤ Subscribe to OJJDP’s listserv JUVJUST and the 

electronic newsletter JUSTINFO.

➤ Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Database to search

for publications of interest.

Take the Online Path to

OJJDP Information

It’s Fast ➤ It’s Easy ➤ It’s Free

Acknowledgments

Barbara J. Burns, Ph.D., is Professor of

Medical Psychology and Director, Services Effectiveness Research Program,

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School

of Medicine. James C. Howell, Ph.D.,

is Adjunct Researcher, National Youth

Gang Center, Tallahassee, FL. Janet K.

Wiig, J.D., M.S.W., is Executive Director, Institute on Criminal Justice,

University of Minnesota Law School.

Leena K. Augimeri, M.Ed., is Manager,

Earlscourt Under 12 Outreach Project,

Toronto, Canada. Brendan C. Welsh,

Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, University

of Massachusetts—Lowell. Rolf Loeber,

Ph.D., is Professor of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Epidemiology, University

of Pittsburgh, PA; Professor of Developmental Psychotherapy, Free University,

Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Director

of the Pittsburgh Youth Study. David

Petechuk is a freelance health sciences

writer.

Photograph page 3 copyright © 1995

PhotoDisc, Inc.; photograph page 7

copyright © 1997 PhotoDisc, Inc.

NCJ 193410