John J. Wilson, J.D. 

Acting Administrator 

James C. Howell, Ph.D. 

Director of Research 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

U.S. Department of Justice 

July 1, 1993 
Serious. Violent. and ChronicJuvenile Offenders .............................................................................................................2 

.................................................................................................. Causes of Serious.Violent, and ChronicJuvenileCrime 5 

Program Evaluations .............................................................................................................................................................5 

A Comprehensive Strategyfor Serious.Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders .............................................................7 

................................................................................................................................................................. General Principles 7 ................................................................................................................................................................. TargetPopulations 8 

...................................................................................................... .......................................................... Program Rationale : 8 

The Juvenile Justice System .......................................................................................................................................8 

..................................................................................................................................................... Delinquency Prevention 9 

............................................................................................................................................... Individual Characteristics 10 

........................................................................................................................................................... Family Influences 10 

............................................................................................................................. .................. SchoolExperiences ..... 11 

.................................................................................................................................................... Peer Group Influences 11 

....................................................................................................................................... Neighborhood and Community 11 

Graduated Sanctions............................................................................................................................................................ 12 

Intervention .................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

Secure Corrections ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 

.............................................................................................................................................................. Expected Benefits 15 

...................................................................................................................................................... Delinquency Prevention 15 

Graduated Sanctions........................................................................................................................................................... 15 

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

................................................................................................. Appendix: Statistics. Research. and Program Evaluations 19 

Stat&tics.............................................................................................................................................................................. 19 

........................................................................................................................................... Delinquent BehaviorTrends 19 

Arrest Trends ...........................................................................................................................................................19 

............................................................................................................. ..................................... Juvenile Court Trends ... 19 

ConfinementTrends .....................................................................................................................................................20 

................................................................................................................................................ Criminal CollrtHandling 20 

...................................................................................................................................................... ImprisonmentTrends 20 

Female Delinquency ....................................................................................................................................................... 20 

justice system. Admissions tojuvenile facilities are at their 

highest levels ever, and an increasing percentage of these 

facilitiesare operating over capacity. Unfortunately, the already strainedjuvenile justice system doesnot have adequatefiscal and programmatic resources to identify serious, 

violent,and chronic offenders and to interveneeffectively 

with them. 

The Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP)has developed a comprehensivestrategy for dealing 

with serious, violent, and chronicjuvenile offenders.* This 

program can be implemented at the State, county, or local 

levels. The program background,rationale, principles, and componentsare set forth in this smegy paper. Prior to developing this new program, OJJDP reviewed relevant statistics,research, and program evaluations. This 

review was conducted to develop a clearer understanding of 

serious,violent, and chronicjuvenile delinquency issues, 

trends, and effectivedelinquencyprevention, treatment, and 

control approaches. Detailed information on statistics,research,and program evaluation information is set forth in the 

appendix. A brief overview follows. 

self

reportedmeasures of delinquentbehavior indicate an 

increase in certain violent acts: aggravated assault and robbery 

(Osgood et al., 1989).National victimization surveys show 

that the rate of juvenile victimization for violent offenses has also increased during the latter part of the 1980's (Bureau of 

Justice Statistics,1993). 

Arrests and Crime Rates 

Juvenile arrests are increasing, particularly for violent 

offenses. Juvenile arrests for violent crimes increased 41 

percent from 1982-1991. In 1991,the juvenile arrestrate for 

violent offenses reached its highest level in history. In the 10-

year period between 1982and 1991,the number of juvenile 

arrests for murder increased by 93 percent and aggravated 

assault arrests increased by 72 percent (Snyder, 1993).(See 

figure 1for violent crime index arrest rates from the FBI's 

Uniform Crime Reports for the period 1965 to 1991.) Gang Crime and Drugs 

The national scope and seriousness of the youth gang 

problem have increased sharply since the late 1970's and 

early 1980's. Gang violencehas risen drastically in a number 

*Which juveniles are determined to be serious,violent, or chronic 

offendersis an important matter. The consequencesof being 

placed in one of these categories are critical to the allocation of 

scarcetreatmentresources. In somejurisdictions, identification of 

ajuvenile as a serious,violent,or chronic offender determines 

how a juvenile is "handled in the system, for example, whether a 

juvenile is subjectto establishedminimum periods of secure 

confinement or subjectto criminalcourtjurisdiction. Generally, 

such determinations are made at the State and local levels. 

OJJDPhas developed the following definitionsof serious,violent, 

and chronicjuvenile offenders for purposes of this program. 

Definitions used in various research and statistics-gathering 

efforts often vary. 

Juvenile refers to a person under the age establishedby a State to 

determine when an individual is no longer subjectto original 

juvenile courtjurisdiction for (any) criminal misconduct.While 

this age is 18in a majority of jurisdictions, it ranges from 16to 19 

years of age. SeriousJuvenile Offendersare those adjudicated 

delinquent for committing any felony offense,including larceny or theft, burglary or breaking and entering,extortion, arson, and 

drug trafficking or other controlleddangerous substanceviolations. Violent Juvenile Offendersare those seriousjuvenile 

offenders adjudicated delinquentfor one of the following felony 

offenses-homicide, rape or other felony sex offenses,mayhem, 

kidnapping, robbery, or aggravated assault. Chronic Juvenile 

Offenders are juveniles adjudicated delinquentfor committing 

three or more delinquentoffenses. Thesedefinitionsinclude 

juveniles convicted in criminal court for particular offense types. 

An informative discussion of the research and issues involved in 

formulating a working definition of these and related terms is 

found in Mathias, 1984, chapter two, "Strategic Planning in 

Juvenile Justi-Defining the Toughest Kids." 
of large cities. Moreover, gangs have emerged in many (See figures 2,3, and 4 for published statistics on juvenile 

middle-sized and smallercities and suburban communities confinement in public facilitiesand figure 5 for detained 

acrossthe country. Youth gangs are becoming more violent, delinquency case trends by race and offense for 1985and and gangs increasinglyserve as a way for members to engage 1989.) 

in illegalmoney-makingactivity,including street-leveldrug 

trafficking (Miller, 1982;Spergel et al., 1991). 

Juvenile Court 

Juvenile court caseloadsare increasing, largely as a result 

of increasing violent delinquency.From 1986through 1990, 

the number of delinquency cases actually disposed by juvenile courts increased 10percent. During the sameperiod,juvenile 

courts disposed of 31 percent more violent cases,including 64 

percent more homicide and 48 percent more aggravated 

assault cases (Snyder et al., 1993a). 

0-':::!:'::::::::!:!I! I:::! I 

1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 

Arrest Rate =Arrests per 100.000 youth ages 10-17 Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 

Admissions Confinement 

to juvenile detention and correctionsfacilities 

are increasing, resultingin crowded facilities with attendant problems such as institutional violence and suicidal 

behavior. Admissionsto juvenile facilitiesrose after 1984, 

reaching an all-timehigh in 1990with the largest increasein 

detention (Krisberg et al., 1992).Forty-sevenpercent of 

confinedjuveniles are in detention and correctionalfacilities 

in which the populationexceeds the facility design capacity. 

More than half of the detained and incarcerated population in 

1991were held for nonviolent offenses (Parentet al., 1993). 

Waivers and Imprisonment Juvenile cases handled in criminal courts have increased, 

resultingin increased numbersof juveniles placed in 

crowded adultprisons. The number of juvenile cases handled 

in criminal courts is unknown, but it is estimated to be as 

many as 200,000 cases in 1990(Snyder, 1993b).Judicial 

waivers to criminal court increased78 percent between 1985 

and 1989(Snyder et al., 1993a). Between 1984and 1990,the 

number of annualadmissions of juveniles to adult prisons 

increased 30 percent, from 9,078 to 11,782(OJJDP, 1991, 

Serious, 

Research 

1993). 

Violent, and Chronic 

Juvenile Offenders 

Evidence continuesto mount that a small proportion of 

- offenderscommit most of the seriousand violent juvenile 

crimes.ThePhiladelphiabirth cohort study (Wolfgang, 
6. Drug-RelatedOffenses 10 10.4 5.3 

7. Public Order Offenses 4 4.4 5.4 

8. ProbationIParoleViolations 8 7.2 12.9 

9. Other 5 4.8 6.4 

Status Offenses 3 1.8 12.9 Nonoffenders 1 0.7 4.2 

Voluntary Commitments 1 0.2 2.2 

Offense categories includethe following offenses: 

Violent: murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravatedassault. 

Other Personal: negligent manslaughter, assault, sexual assault. 

Serious Property: burglary, arson, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft. Other Property:vandalism, forgery, counterfeiting, fraud, stolenproperty, unauthorizedvehicle use. 

Public Order: alcohol offenses, drug-relatedoffenses, public order offenses. 

Status: offenses not consideredcrimes if committedby adults. 

Nonoffenders: dependency, neglect, abuse, emotionaldisturbance, retardation, other. 

Source: 1991 Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctionaland Shelter Facilities: Census day a15/91. 

Figure 3 U.S. Public Detention Centers 

Capacity and Average Dally Population 1982-1 990 

Population and Capacity 22,000 -

14,000 

------- -------- ------------------------------. 

10,000 12,000-.-------------------------------------------------------. 

-. I I I I I 

'82 '84 '86 '88 '90 

Population 13,354 13,031 15.628 17.042 18,928 Capacity 16,806 17,422 18,638 18.840 19.863 

Year 

-Capacity 

-

Population 

Source: 1983-1991 Census of Publtc Juvenile Detentton. Correcttonal and Sheller Facilittes. 
Figure 5 Detained Delinquency Case Trends by Race and 

Offense,1985and 1989 

PercentChange 

------

----------

Total Person Property Drugs Publlc Order 

EZl Total Whlte l%El Nonwhlte 

Source: National Center of Juvenlle Justice, a spedal analysis of 1989 data from the National Juveniie Court 

Data Archive. 

20,000 

-Pacity 

Population 

Year 

-Capacity 

-

Population 

Source: 1983-1991 Census of Public Juvenile Detention, Correctionaland Shelter Facilities. 

I 

'90 

28,077 

27,688 

I 

'88 

27,067 27,292 

i 

'86 

27,711 25,695 

I 

'82 

27,182 24,486 

I 

'84 

26,811 24,151 
q

y 

g 

"serious violent" offenses. Most serious and violent juvenile 

careers last about 1 year, and nearly 10 percent of "serious violent" offenders have a career length of 5 years or more 

(Elliott et al., 1986). 

Causes of Serious, Violent, and Chronic 

Juvenile Crime 

Recent research has documented the behavioral pathways 

and factors that contribute to serious, violent, and chronic 

juvenile crime. OJJDP's Program of Research on the Causes 

and Correlates of Delinquency conducted a longitudinal study in three sites using common measures and oversampling of 

high-risk youth. The major factors influencing delinquency 

were identified as delinquent peer groups, poor school performance, high-crime neighborhoods, weak family attachments, 

and lack of consistent discipline and behavioral monitoring. 

The study identified three developmental pathways to chronic 

delinquency-overt pathway (from aggression, to fighting, to 

violence), covert pathway (from minor covert behavior, to 

property damage, to serious delinquency), and authority 

conflict pathway (from stubborn behavior, to defiance, to authority avoidance) (Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry, 

1992). This research provides the basis for designing prevention programs and intervention strategies. 

comprehensive delinquency prevention program model, called 

the "social development model," has been demonstrated to be 

effective in preventing serious and violent juvenile delinquency (Hawkins and Catalano, 1992). This model specifies 

programs that enhance protective factors, or buffers, against 

delinquent behavior for implementation at key points in the 

chronological or social development of the child. Interventions 

must begin early in family life. 

A wide array of intervention models for delinquent juveniles 

has been found to be effective in treating and rehabilitating 

offenders. Intensive Supervision Programs have been found to 

be effective for many serious and violent juvenile offenders, 

obviating the need for secure incarceration (Krisberg et al., 

1989a). OJJDP has also developed an intensive aftercare 

model designed to successfully reintegrate high-risk juvenile 

parolees back into the community (Altschuler and Armstrong, 

1992). 

< 

Evaluations demonstrate that innovative programs, including 

secure and nonsecure community-based programs, can be used 

effectively as alternatives to incarceration for many serious 

and violent juvenile offenders. Examples of these types of 

programs include a day treatment and education program 

operated by Associated Marine Institutes (AMI); the Florida 

Environmental Institute's (FEI) wilderness camp for juveniles 

who would otherwise be sent to adult prisons; and intensive 

family-based, multisystemic therapy (MST) programs, which 

have been effective with serious juvenile offenders in several 

localities (Krisberg, 1992). OJJDP's Violent Juvenile Offender Program demonstrated that most violent juvenile 

offenders could be successfully rehabilitated through intensive 

treatment in small secure facilities (Fagan et al., 1984,1984a). 

Other effective community-based programs include the 

Broward County, Florida, Home Detention Program; the 

Juvenile Alternative Work Service programs in Orange 

County and Los Angeles, California; the Seattle, Washingtonbased Homebuilders program; and the KEY Outreach and 

Tracking program in Massachusetts (National Coalition of 

State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups, 1993). 

and reduce juvenile involvement in serious, violent, and 

chronic delinquency: 

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, a family surrogate should be established and assisted to 

guide and nurture the child. 

E 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. 

B Promote delinquency prevention as the most costeffective approach to dealing with 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 take primary responsibility for responding with 

appropriate trement and support services. Communities 

must take the lead in designing and building comprehensive prevention approaches that address known risk 

ate response occurs and act quickly and firmly if the need 

for formal system adjudication and sanctions has been 

Identify demonstrated. 

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 placements in 

secure community-based facilities or, when necessary, training schools and other secure juvenile facilities. 

Under OJJDP's comprehensive strategy, it is the family and 

community, supported by our core social institutions, that has 

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 

delinauencv. 

fact& and target other youth at risk of delinquency. The proposed smtegy incorporates two principal components: @ Intervene immediately and effectively when delii- (1) preventing youth from becoming delinquent by focusing quent behavior occurs to successfully prevent delinquent prevention programs on at-risk youth; and (2) improving the offenders from becoming chronic offenders or progres- juvenile justice system response to delinquent offenders 

- 
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 inconigibles), 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 fiom local govemment 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. 

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, 

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, mentally retarded, emotionally disturbed, and learning disabled delinquents. The graduated sanctions approach is designed to provide 

immediate intervention at the fmt 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 dispositional 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 

The 

enhanced. 

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 and arrest determinations, or 

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 (DARE) 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: (1) 

responding to the needs of troubled youth and their families; 
The Courts must protect children and families when 

private and other public institutions are unable or fail 

to meet their obligations. The protection of societyby 

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 unrnet, 

when the behavior of children is destructiveand goes unchecked,juvenile and family courts must respond. 

The Court is society's official means of holding itself 

accountablefor the well-being of its children and family 

unit. (NCJFCT, "Children and Families First, A Mandate 

for Change," 1993) 

Earlier, NCJFCJ developed 38 recommendationsregarding 

seriousjuvenile offendersand related issues facing thejuvenile court system. These issues included confidentiality of the 

juvenile offender and his or her family, transfer of 

ajuvenile 

offender to adult court, and effective treatment of the serious 

juvenile offender (NCJFCJ, 1984). 

Finally, juvenile corrections has the responsibility to provide 

treatment servicesthatwill rehabilitate thejuvenile and minimize his or her chances of reoffending. Juvenile courts and 

corrections will benefit from a system thatmakes a continuum 

of services available thatrespond to each juvenile's needs. 

Thejuvenile justice system, armed with resources and knowledge that permit matchingjuveniles 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 leadershipin building system capacity at the Stateand 

local levels to take maximum advantageof availableknowledge and resources. 

in their orientation and comprehensive in their scope. 

The prevention componentof OJJDP's comprehensivestrategy is based on a risk-focused delinquency prevention approach (Hawkins and Catalano, 1992).This approach states 

that to prevent a problem from occ~~rring, the factorsconhibuting to the developmentof that problem must be identified 

and then ways must be found (protective factors) to address 

and amelioratethose factors. 

Research conducted over the past half century has clearly 

documented five categoriesof causes and correlatesof juvenile delinquency: (1) individual characteristicssuch as alienation, rebelliousness, and lack of bonding to society; (2) 

family influences such as parental conflict, child abuse, and 

family history of problem behavior (substance abuse, criminality, teen pregnancy, and school dropouts); (3) school 

experiences such as early academic failure and lack of commitment to school; (4) peer group influences such as friends 

who engage in problem behavior (minor criminality,gangs, 

and violence); and (5) neighborhood and community factors 

such as economic deprivation, high rates of substanceabuse 

and crime, and low neighborhood attachment. These categories can also be thought of as risk factors. 

To counter these causes and risk factors,protectivefactors 

must be introduced.Protectivefacm are qualities or conditions that moderate a juvenile's exposure to risk. Research 

indicates that protective factorsfall into three basic categories: 

(1) individual characteristicssuch as a resilient temperament 

and a positive social orientation; (2) bonding with prosocial 

family members, teachers, and friends; and (3) healthy beliefs 

and clear standards for behavior. While individual characteristics are inherent and difficult to change,bonding and clear 

standards for behavior work together and can be changed. To 

increase bonding, children must be provided with opportunities to contribute to their families, schools, peer groups, and 

communities; skills to take advantage of opportunities; and 

recognition for their efforts to contribute. Simultaneously, 

parents, teachers, and communities need to set clear standards 

that endorse prosocial behavior. 
Individual Characteristics 

Our children must be taught moral, spiritual, and civic values. 

The decline in inculcating these values has contributed significantly to increases in delinquent behavior. Therefore, oppomnities for teaching positive values must be increased. 

Youth Leadership and Service Programs can provide such opportunities and can reinforce and help internalize in children 

such positive individual traits as discipline, character, selfrespect, responsibility, teamwork, healthy lifestyles, and good 

citizenship. They can also provide opportunities for personal 

growth, active involvement in education and vocational training, and life skills development. 

A Youth Leadership and Service Program could consist of a 

variety of components targeted to the needs of grade school, 

junior high, and high school youth. Elementary and junior 

high school children could be assisted in achieving healthy 

social development through instillation in them of basic 

values. High school-aged youth could be supported in the 

development of leadership skills and community service in 

preparation for adulthood. The components of a Youth Leadership and Service Program may include the following types 

of program activities: 

II Youth Service Corps. !M Adventure Training (leadership, endurance, and 

team-building). 

II Mentoring. 

t Recreational. 

I[ Summer Camp. 

I Leadership and Personal Development. i Health and Mental Health. 

S Career Youth Development. 

Family Influences 

The family is the most important influence in the lives of 

children and the first line of defense against delinquency. 

Programs that strengthen the family and foster healthy growth 

and development of children from prenatal care through 

adolescence should be widely available. These programs 

should encourage the maintenance of a viable family unit and 

bonding between parent and child, and they should provide 

suppoit for families in crisis. Such programs should involve 

other major spheres of influence such as religious institutions, 

schools, and community-based organizations. By working together, these organizations will have a pronounced impact 

on preserving the family and preventing delinquency. 

To have the greatest impact, assistance must reach families before significant problems develop. Therefore, the concept of 

earliest point of impact should guide the development and 

implementation of prevention programs involving the family. 

Researchers in the area of juvenile delinquency and the family 

have found that the following negative family involvement 

factors are predictors of delinquency: 

3 Inadequate prenatal we. 

B Parental rejection. 

Inadequate supervision and inconsistent discipline by parents. 

ilsl Family conflict, marital discord, and physical violence. MI Childabuse. 

The following programs directly address negative family 

involvement fac'tors and how to establish protective factors: 

S Teen Abstinence and Pregnancy Prevention. 

B Parent Effectiveness and Family Skills Training. 
School Experiences 

Outside the family, the school has the greatest influence in the lives of children and adolescents. Through the school, the 

hopes and dreams of youth are profoundly influenced. 

Many of America's children bring one or more of the aforementioned risk factors to school with them, and these factors 

may hinder the development of their academic and social 

potential. School prevention programs, including traditional 

delinquencyprevention programs not related to the school's 

educational mission, can assist the family and the community 

by identifying at-risk youth, monitoring their progress, and 

intervening with effectiveprograms at critical times during a 

youth's development. 

School-basedprevention programs may include: 

IDrug and Alcohol Prevention and Education. IP Bullying Prevention. I ViolencePrevention. 

IAlternative Schools. 

&! Truancy Reduction. 

ISchool Disciplineand Safety Improvement. ITargeted-Literacy Programs in the Primary Grades. I Law-Related Education. IAfterschool Programs for Latchkey Children. IPB Teen Abstinence and Pregnancy Prevention. 

I Values Development. 

R# Vocational Training. 

Providing youth with structured opportunities to develop skills 

and contribute to the community in nonschool hours is particularly important for at-risk youth who have lower levels of 

personal and social support. Communitiesneed to develop 

strategiesand programs, such as those recommended by the 

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, to address this 

need. 

children also provide the samefunction for children at high 

risk for negative influences. Crime prevention programs that 

educate youth on how to preventjuvenile violence and crime andprovide opportunities for youth to actually work on 

solving specific community delinquencyproblems are another 

effective way of encouragingpeer leadership. Promising approaches have been identified for combating 

juvenile gangs. "Community mobilizationnappears to be 

effective in cities with chronic gang problems and in cities 

where the gang problem is just beginning. Other promising 

preventiveoptionsincludeefforts to dissolveassociationswith 

delinquentpeers and develop alternativebehaviors that promote moral developmentand reject violence as a means of 

resolving interpersonal disputes. Opportunities to achieve 

successin conventional, nondelinquentactivities are also 

The 

imperative. 

followingprograms reflect these principles: 

a Gang Prevention and Intervention. 

ill Conflict Resolution-Peer Mediation. 

W Peer Counseling and Tutoring. a Self-HelpFellowship for Peer Groups. 

I Individual Responsibility Training. Ed Community Volunteer Service. 

ill CompetitiveAthletic Team Participation. I Teens, Crime, and the Community. 

Neighborhood and Community 

Children do not choose where they live. Children who live in 

fear of drug dealers, street violence, and gang shootings 

cannot enjoy childhood. Children are dependent on parents, 

neighbors,and police to provide a safe and secureenvironment in which to play, go to school,and work. Community 

policing can play an important role in creating a safer environment. Community police officers not only help to reduce 
groups. The private

sector business community can make a 

major contribution through Private Industry Councils and other partnerships by providing job training, apprenticeships, 

and other meaningful economic opportunities for youth. 

Neighborhood and community programs include: 

B Community Policing. II Safe Havens for Youth. I Neighborhood Mobilization for Community Safety. B Drug-Free School Zones. I Community Organization-Sponsored Afterschool Programs in Tutoring, Recreation. Mentoring, and Cultural 

Activities. 

II Community and Business Partnerships. 

lls Foster Grandparents. IP Job Training and Apprenticeships for Youth. I Neighborhood Watch. A Victim Programs. 

The Carnegie Council (1992), following an extensive study of adolescent development, concluded that community-based youth programs, offered by more than 17,000 organizations 

nationwide, can provide the critical community support necessary to prevent delinquency. This can be done, the Council 

concluded, through community organizations' contributions to 

youth development in conjunction with family- and schoolfocused efforts. Communities must be created that support families, educate adolescents for a global economy, and 

provide opportunities to develop skills during nonschool 

hours. The Council found that many adolescents are adrift 

during nonschool hours and can be actively involved in community-based programs that provide opportunities to 

develop a sense of importance, well being, belonging, and 

active community participation. Through such programs, risks 

can be transformed into opportunities. 

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 ai 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 fonnal component of all residential 

placements, actively involving the family and the community in supporting and reintegrating the juvenile into the 

Programs community. 

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 
g 

p

y 

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 subjectto more severe sanctions 

and could ultimately be confined in a securesetting, ranging from a securecommunity-basedjuvenile facility to a training 

school,camp, or ranch. 

Thejuvenile courtplays 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 communitysuper-vision.However, traditional 

probation servicesand sanctions have not had the resources to 

effectivelytarget delinquent offenders, particularly serious, 

violent, and chronic offenders. 

The Balanced Approach to juvenile probation is a promising 

approach that specifies a clear and coherentframework.The 

Balanced Approach consistsof three practical objectives: (1) 

Accountability; (2) Competency Development;and (3) Community Protection. Accountabilityrefers to the requirement 

that offenders make amends to the victims and the community 

for harm caused. CompetencyDevelopmentrequires that 

youth who enter the juvenile justice system should exit the system more capable of being productive and responsible citizens. Community Protection requires that thejuvenile 

justice system ensurepublic safety. 

The following graduated sanctions are proposed within the 

Interventioncomponent: 

Immediateintervention.First-timedelinquent offenders 

(misdemeanorsand nonviolent felonies)and nonseriousrepeat 

offenders (generallymisdemeanorrepeat offenses) must be 

targeted for system intervention based on their probability of becoming more serious or chronic in their delinquentactivities. Nonresidential community-basedprograms, 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 

W CommunityService. IBI Restitution. Si Day-TreatmentPrograms. 

1 Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment (Outpatient). I Peer Juries. Intermediatesanctions.Offenders who areinappropriate for 

immediateintervention (first-time seriousor violent offenders) 

or who fail to respond successfully to immediate intervention 

as evidenced by reoffending (such as repeat property offenders 

or drug-involvedjuveniles) would begin with or be subject to 

intermediatesanctions. These sanctions may be nonresidential or residential. Many of the serious and violent offenders at this stage may be 

appropriate for placement in an IntensiveSupervisionProgram 

as an alternativeto secure incarceration. OJJDP's Intensive 

Supervisionof ProbationersProgram Model is a highly structured, continuouslymonitored individualizedplan that consists 

of five phases with decreasinglevels of restrictiveness: (1) 

Short-Term Placement in CommunityConfinement;(2) Day 

Treatment; (3) Outreachand Tracking; (4) Routine Supervision; and (5) Discharge and Followup. Other appropriate 

programs include: 

1 Drug Testing. I WeekendDetention. 1 Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment (Inpatient). 

W Challenge Outdoor Programs. I Community-BasedResidential Programs. W Electronic Monitoring. 

W Boot Camp Facilities and Programs. 
j

q

g

most effectivein changing future conduct when they are 

coupled with comprehensivetreatmentand rehabilitation 

Standard

se~ces. 

parole practices, particularly those that have a priImary focus on social control,have not been effective in 

normalizing the behavior of high-risk juvenile parolees over 

the long term, and consequently, growing interesthas developed in intensiveaftercareprograms that providehigh levels 

of socialcontroland treatment services. OJJDP's Intensive Community-Based Aftercare for High-RiskJuvenileParolees 

Program provides an effectiveaftercaremodel: 

The Intensive Aftercare Program incorporatesfive programmatic principles: (1)preparing youth for progressive 

responsibility and freedom in the community; (2) facilitating youth-community interactionand involvement; (3) 

working with both the offenderand targeted community 

supportsystems(e.g., families,peers, schools,and employers) to facilitateconstructive interactionand gradual community adjustment,(4) developingneeded resourcesand 

community support;and (5) monitoring and ensuring the 

youth's successfulreintegration into the community. 

include individual and group counseling,educationalprograms,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 

resourcesand services. 

Incarcerationin training schools, camps, and ranches. 

Juvenileswhose confinement in the community would constitute an ongoing threat to community safety or who have failed 

to respond to community-basedcorrectionsmay require an 

extended correctional placement in training schools,camps, 

ranches,or other secureoptionsthat are not community-based. 

These facilitiesshould offer comprehensive treatment programs for these youth with a focus on education,skills development, and vocational or employment training and 

experience.Thesejuveniles may include those convictedin 

the criminaljustice system prior to their reaching the age at 

which they areno longer subject to the original or extended 

jurisdiction of thejuvenile justice system. 
j

j

is fostered. 

Delinquency Prevention 

This major component of the comprehensivestrategy involves implementation of delinquencyprevention technology thathas been demonstratedto be effective. Prevention strategieswithin 

the major areas that influencethe behavior of youth (individual development,family, school, peer group,and community) parallel the chronological developmentof children. 

Because addressing these fiveareas has been found to be 

effectivein reducing futuredelinquencyamong high-risk 

youth, it shouldresult in fewer children entering the juvenile 

justice system in demonstrationsites. This would, in turn, 

permit concentration of systemresources on fewer delinquents, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the graduated 

sanctionscomponentand improving the operation of the 

juvenilejustice system. 

Graduated Sanctions 

This major componentof the comprehensivestrategy is premised on a f m belief thatthe juvenile justice system can 

effectively handle delinquentjuvenile behavior through the 

judicious application of a range of graduated sanctions and a 

full continuumof treatment and rehabilitation services. Expected benefits of this approachinclude: 

B Increasedjuvenilejustice system responsiveness.This 

program will provide additionalreferral and dispositional resources for law enforcement,juvenile courts, and 

juvenile corrections. It will also require these system 

componentsto increase their ability to identify,process, 

evaluate, refer, and track juvenile offenders. 

required community-based resourcesshouldreduce 

significantlythe need for high-cost beds in training 

schools. Savingsfrom the high costs of operating 

these facilities couldbe used to provide treatment in 

community-basedprograms and facilities. 

1DI Increased responsibilityof 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 long-term treatment in juvenile training schools, camps, and ranches. 

Increased program effectiveness.As the statistical 

informationpresented herein indicates,credibleknowledge exists about who the chronic, serious, and violent 

offendersare, that is, their characteristics. Someknowledge also exists about what can effectivelybe done 

regarding their treatment and rehabilitation. However, 

more must be learned about what works best for whom 

under what circumstances to intervene successfullyin the 

potential criminal careers of serious, violent, and chronic 

juvenile offenders. Followupresearch and rigorous 

evaluation of programs implemented as part of this 

strategy should produce valuable information. 

Crime Reduction 

The combined effects of delinquency prevention and increased 

juvenile justice system effectivenessin intervening immediately and effectively in the lives of delinquent offenders 

should result in measurable decreases in delinquencyin sites 

where the above concepts are demonstrated.In addition,longterm reduction in crime should result from fewer serious, 

violent,and chronic delinquentsbecoming adult criminal 

offenders. 

IBB[ Increasedjuvenile accountability. Juvenile offenders 

will be held accountablefor their behavior, decreasing the 

likelihood of their development into serious,violent,or 

chronic offenders and tomorrow's adult criminals. The 
Appendix 
Statistics 

vated assault arrests, and 14 percent of all murder arrests 

(Snyderet al., 1993). 

Delinquent Behavior Trends Juvenilearrests for violent crimes increased 41 percent from 

National Crime Survey data indicatethat between 1988 and 1982-199 1. Violent crimes with the greatest proportionate 

1990 victimizationsof youth ages 12-18 for rape, robbery, increase were murder (93 percent) and aggravated assault (72 

and assault increased 7.5 percent, from 1,391,791 victimiza- percent). Arrests of juveniles for forciblerape increased 24 

tions in 1988 to 1,496,416offenses in 1990 (Bureau of Justice percent and robbery increased 12 percent during the lo-year Statistics, 1993). period (Snyder, 1993). 

The only source of national self-reported delinquency is the 

"Monitoring the Fuhlre" study,an annual survey of High 

School Seniors. This survey of 17-year-oldsbetween 1975 and 

1985 indicated a noticeableincrease in assault rates and a 

sharp increase in robbery rates from 1981 to 1985. Measures 

of other fom of delinquency showed a stableor erratic trend 

during the study period (Osgoodet al., 1989). 

Analysis of self-reportedmeasures of violent offending employed in the NYS, covering the period 1976 to 1980,'indicates that (Elliott, 1986:483-503): 

P From ages 12 to 17, approximately 5 percent of juveniles 

at each age were classifiedas serious violent offenders. 

IApproximately 35 percent of males were classifiedas 

seriousviolent offenders for at least 1 year by the age of 

21, compared with 11percent of females. 

IBBI[ On the average, serious violent offenders commit eight 

serious violent offenses annually. 

I On the average, each of these individuals commit 132 

delinquent offenses annually, compared with 54 for 

serious nonviolent offenders. 

P The mean length of serious violent careers is about 1 year. I Nearly 10 percent of serious violent offenders have a 

career length of 5 years or more. 

I Eighty-four percent of the most serious offenders had no 

officialrecord. 

Evidence exists thatjuveniles account for an increasingly 

larger shareof violent crimes. The number of Violent Crime Index arrests of youth under age 18 increased 50 percent 

between 1987 and 1991 comparedwith a 25 percent increase 

for persons age 18 and older. Youth arrests formurder increased 85 percent compared with 21 percent for adults; youth 

rape arrestsrose 16 percent compared with 7 percent for 

adults; youth robbery arrests rose 52 percent compared with 

20 percent for adults; and youth aggravated assaults increased 

52 percent compared with 29 percent for adults. As a result of 

this growth in recent years, youth shareof arrestsfor Violent 

Crime Index offenseshas increased. In 1987 youth arrests 

accounted for less than 10 percent of all murder arrests but by 

1991 youth arrests were 14percent of the murder arrests. 

While the youth share of rape arrests remained constant between 1987 and 1991, the youth shareof robbery arrests 

rose from 22 percent to 26 percent, and their share of aggravated assault arrests went from 13 percent to 14 percent. In 

1991 the youth arrestrate for Violent CrimeIndex offenses 

reached its highest level in history (459 youth arrests per 

100,000 youth ages 10-17) (Snyder, 1993). 

Juvenile CourtTrends 

The number of delinquency cases processed by juvenile courts 

increased 10 percent from 1986 through 1990. This translates 

into 50 cases for every 1,000juveniles in the population. The 

delinquencycase rate increased steadily from 1986 through 

1990, so that by 1990 the rate was 13 percent greater. The 

number of cases involving Violent Crime Index offenses 

increased 31 percent between 1986 and 1990, including 64 
percent change than any other offense category (Snyder et al., 

Confinement 

1993a). 

Trends 

The number of admissions intopublic and privatejuvenile 

custody facilities has increased 19percent over the past 

decade-from 638,309to 760,644 facility admissions 

(Krisberg et al., 1992).In 1978there were 2,220juvenile 

facility admissions for every 100,000juveniles in the population; by 1988the admission rate had increased 34 percent to 

2,974. The vast majority of admissions in 1988were public 

facility admissions(81percent), althoughprivate facilities 

experienced a greater increasefrom 1978through 1988in the 

number of admissions(104 percent compared with a 9-percent 

increasefor public facilities). Detention centeradmissions accounted for 81 percent of public facility admissionsin 1988 

and, although the detention centerproportion of admissions 

was relatively stable, there was an 11percent increase from 

1978through 1988in the number of admissionsto detention 

centers.There was also a substantialincrease in private detention center admissions (373 percent, fromjust under 2,000 to 

more than9,000). 

Criminal Court Handling 

Nationwide data arenot available to make a reliable estimate 

of the number of juveniles handled in criminal courtsannually.* The only national study in this area was conducted by 

White (1978)and his colleagues, who estimated that during 

1978more than9,000juveniles werejudicially waived to 

criminal court; 2,000 were referred to criminal court under 

concurrentjurisdiction provisions;and an additional 1,300 

were criminally charged under excluded offenseprovisions. 

An additional250,000 youth under the age of 18faced criminal court charges due to lower ages of criminal court jurisdiction in 11States. 

Since 1978,at least three Stateshave enacted new statutory 

provisions to exclude seriousoffensesfrom juvenile court 

jurisdiction. Five Stateshave enacted concurrentjurisdiction 

criminal courts in 1990. 

ImprisonmentTrends 

Between 1984and 1990,the number of annual admissions of 

juveniles to adult prisonsincreased 30 percent, from 9,078 to 

11,782.Data from the 1987National Correctional Reporting 

Program,which provided information on juvenile prison 

admissions for a sample of States, indicated that about 8 

percent were convicted of murder or manslaughter;40 percent 

were convicted of a personal offense(typicallya robbery-18 

percent);48 percent were convicted for a property offense 

(morethanhalf of those convicted for a property offensehad 

burglary as their most serious commitment offense);and about 

5 percent were sentenced to prison for a drug crime (OJJDP, 

Female 

1991,1993). 

Delinquency 

Over the 27-year period .from 1965 to 1991arrest rates for 

females ages 10-17 have remained substantially lower than 

the rates for males (Snyder, 1993).Between 1987and 1991 

the increasein the number of robbery arrests involving females under age 18 was greater thanthe increase for male 

youth (88-percentincrease for females compared with a 49-

percent increasefor males). Female arrests for Property Crime 

Index offensesincreased more than male arrests for all offensesexcept arson. Overall, Property Crime Index arrests 

increased 14percent for females compared with 7 percent for 

* The General Accounting Office is currently conducting a study 

of juvenile waivers to criminal courts as required by the 1992 

Amendments to the JJDP Act. 

** Eighteen States now have excluded offenseprovisions for 

serious or violent crimes; 12 have concurrentjurisdiction 

legislation. Fifteen is the upper age of juvenile courtjurisdiction 

in 3 States, 16 in 8 States, 17 in 39 States and the District of 

Columbia, and 18 in 1 State (Wyoming) (National Center for 

Juvenile Justice, 1993). 
were less likely to involve detention during court processing 

than were cases involving males (17 percent compared with 24 

percent in 1990). Between 1978 and 1988 the number of 

female admissions to public and private juvenile custody facilities increased 18 percent, about the same as for males 

(k3sberg et al., 1992). 

Youth Research 

Gangs 

In the late 19707s, Walter Miller conducted the first nationwide study of youth gangs (Miller, 1975,1982). The study 

found youth gang problems in half of the Nation's large (more 

than 1 million population) metropolitan areas. The 10 largest 

gang-problem cities contained about half the gangs. Miller 

estimated that 300 U.S. cities and towns contained about 2,300 

youth gangs, with nearly 100,000 members. About 3,400 

youth gang-related kiUings were reported for about 60 cities 

during a 13-year period ending in 1980. Miller's major conclusions were: 

R By 1980 there were more gang members in the United 

States than at any time in the past. 

R Youth gangs were active in more cities than at any other 

time. 

M Gang crime was more lethal than any time in history; 

more people were shot, stabbed, and beaten to death in 

gang-related incidents than during any previous decade. 

I Members of gangs and other groups were more heavily 

armed than any time in the past. Such groups have always 

used weapons, but the prevalence and sophistication of 

fuearrns used in the 1970's was unprecedented. 

!# The amount of property destruction by gangs through 

vandalism and arson of schools, residential and comrnercia1 buildings, and automobiles was more extensive and 

costly than in any previous decade. 

SO States. 

#i Evidence exists of a general increase in gang-related 

violence in several cities, particularly on the west coast. 

I Gang members with arrest records are responsible for a 

disproportionate amount of violent crime. At the same 

time, the proportion of total violent crime committed by 

gang members is very low. 

W Gang violence is concentrated in certain categories of 

violent crime, such as homicide and aggravated assault, 

and is concentrated in certain neighborhoods. 

I Historically, youth gangs have rarely engaged in drug 

dealing, especially hard drugs. Recently, some youth 

gangs have become involved in street sale of drugs. 

I The age range of gang members has expanded in recent 

decades. Members remain in gangs longer. Extreme gang 

violence is concentrated in the older teen and young adult 

range. The average age of the arrested gang offender is 

17-18. The average age of the gang homicide offender is 

19-20. 

I Several observers suggest a close relationship between 

youth gangs and organized crime. Youth gang struchlres, 

or cliques within gangs, are sometimes seen as subunits of 

organized crime and are employed for purposes of drug 

distribution, auto theft, extortion, and burglary. 

Spergel's research revealed that five basic strategies have 

evolved in dealing with youth gangs: (1) suppression, (2) 

social intervention, (3) social opportunities, (4) community 

mobilization, and (5) organizational development or change. Community mobilization, including improved 

communication and joint policy and program development 

among justice, community-based, and grassroots organizations, appears to be an effective primary strategy in both 

emerging gang problem cities and in those with chronic gang 

problems. 
community sentences(probation or fine) than incarceration, except for the excluded offense category. 

IYouth convicted as adultsand sentenced to adult corrections facilities could probably expect to do more time than 

they would underjuvenile dispositions. 

The research team concluded that: 

"Our research to date revealed that adult courts in 1978ordered fines and probation in half of the cases initiated against 

juveniles throughjudicial waiver or prosecutorial mechanisms. 

Further, where confinements were ordered,maximum sentences did not exceed 1 year in over40 percent of the cases. 

All of these sanctions arenormally withinjuvenile court 

dispositional powers (Hamparianet al., 1982:228)." OJJDP funded a subsequentstudy (White et al., 1985)comparing the outcomes of cases involvingjuveniles charged with 

"dangerous" offenses (murder, rape, aggravated assault, 

robbery, and burglary) in thejuvenile justice system with 

similar cases against young defendants in the criminaljustice 

system. Comparisons were made in nine selected sites during 

1980-81. Major findings: 

I Juvenile courts waived about 5 percent of the dangerous 

cases filed with them. 

I Adult courts were slightly more likely to find offenders 

guilty (77 percent versus 70 percent). 

E Adult courts were more than twice as likely to incarcerate 

the young adults as werejuvenile courts to incarcerate 

juveniles. 

B4 Confmed young adults served considerably more time in 

adult prisons than did juveniles in reformatories. 

IYoung adults recidivated 1 112times more often than did 

juveniles. 

IThe best mechanism for discriminatingbetween those 

juveniles who should be med as adultsand those who 

should be tried asjuveniles appears to be judicial waiver. 

repeat offenders. 

)88 Although thejuvenile court is less likely to incarcerate,it 

is much more likely to impose some sanction or supervision upon persons over 15referred for serious offenses 

than is the criminaljustice system upon adults referred for 

felonies. 

Fagan (1991) compared the severity and effectiveness of 

juvenile and criminalcourt sanctions for 1,200adolescent 

felony offenders,ages 15-16, arrested for robbery and burglary during 1981-82 and 1986-87, in matched counties in adjacent Stateswhere they were handled in thejuvenile justice 

and adult systems,respectively, because of different legislativerequirements. 

The results showed that sanctions were more certainand about 

as severe in the juvenile court as in the criminal court.Recidivism rates were lower for adolescents sanctioned in the juvenile court. They were rearrested less often,at a lower rate, and 

after a longer crime-freeinterval. Adolescents sanctioned in 

the criminal court had higher crime rates. 

Chronic Juvenile Offenders 

The Philadelphia birth cohort study (Wolfgang,Figlio, and 

Sellin, 1972)foundthat "chronic offenders" (five or more 

police contacts) constituted 

6percent of the cohort and 18 

percent of the delinquents. They were responsible for: 

#! 62 percent of all offenses. 

68 percent of the UCR Index offenses. 

About two-thirds of all violent offenses: 

-61 percent of homicides. -75 percent of rapes. 

-73 percent of robberies. 

-65 percent of aggravated assaults. 

-66 percent of the offensesthat involved injuries. 
offense and showed a much higher probability of committing 

additional violent offenses. The offense rate of Cohort I1 

members was higher and their delinquencies were more 

serious than those of the earlier cohort. The females studied in 

Cohort 11showed less significant chronicity thandid males 

(Tracy,Wolfgang, and Figlio, 1985). 

The greatest immediate contributions of this research were its 

substantiation of the Cohort I findingsregarding chronicity 

among males and its documentationof the increasing severity 

of delinquencyamong Philadelphia youths. 

Shannon(1988,1991,forthcoming)studied three youth 

cohorts born in 1942,1949,and 1955in Racine, Wisconsin. 

His research was designed, in part, to serve as a comparison to Wolfgang's and his colleagues' Philadelphia study. Central to 

Shannon'sresearch was the question whether similarpatterns 

of chronicitymight be found in smaller metropolitan areas. 

Although he found slightly less concentration of crime among 

chronic offenders,the findings regarding criminalpatterns 

were very similar to those of the Philadelphiaresearch: from 8 

percent to 14percent of each cohort was responsible for 75 

percent of all felonies.He also found that Racine youths' 

police contactsfor serious crimes peaked earlierthanwas the 

case among Philadelphiajuveniles. 

Harnparian and her colleagues conducted a cohort analysis of 

1,200youth born in Columbus,Ohio, in 1956-60 who had at 

least one violent arrest. This study found that violentjuvenile 

offenders were a very small proportion (2 percent) of the total 

cohort;juvenile offenders did not typically progress from less 

to more serious crime,making it difficult to predict violent 

behavior; fewer than 10percent of the cohort delinquents 

began their careers with a status offense; and recidivism 

increasedfollowinginstitutional confinement (Hamparianet 

al., 1978). 

Hamparian conducted a followup study of the violent subgroup of the cohort into their mid-20's. It showed thac 

IAlmost 60 percent of these individuals were arrested at 

least once as a young adult for a felony offense. 

percent of rape, 67 percent of robbery, 61 percent of aggravated assault,and 66 percent of burglary cases. 

These studies documented the size of the chronic and violent offender subset,the severity of their offenses, and the relationship of juvenile to adult criminal careers, providing the basis 

for targeting these offenders for delinquencyprevention efforts and specializedjuvenile justice systemintervention. 

Causes of Serious, Violent, and Chronic 

Juvenile Crime 

A number of studies have documented the fact that chronic 

juvenile offenders tend to start their careersearly and often 

continue them into adulthood (Wolfgang,Figlio, and Sellin, 

1972;Hamparian et al., 1978;Farrington, 1983;Gottfredson 

and Hirschi, 1986;Wolfgang, Thornberry, and Figlio, 1987; 

Shannon, 1988). More recently, several scholars have concentrated their attention on factorsrelated to early onset of delinquent careers (Wilson and Hemstein, 1985;Farrington and 

West, 1990;Farrington et al., 1990;Gottfredson and Hirschi, 

1990;Farrington and Hawkins, 1991; Nagin and Farrington, 

However, 

1992). 

the most significant theoretical contributionto 

understanding the onset and maintenance of delinquentcareers, and more important, delinquencyprevention generally, 

has been made by the "social development" theory, pioneered 

by Hawkins (1981). Thistheoretical approachhas been extended and elaborated recently by Elliott and Menard, 1988; 

Loeber and LeBlanc, 1990; Loeber et al., 1991;Hawkins et 

al., 1986;and Huizinga et al., 1991. 

c--

, 

OJJDP's Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of 

Delinquency,conductedby Huizinga (Denver),Loeber (Pittsburgh), and Thornberry (Rochester)has examined a broad 

array of correlates and causal factors. Thiscomprehensive 

study employed common measures in the three sites and 

oversampledhigh-risk youth. Findings from this landmark 

research (Huizinga, Loeber,and Thornberry, 1992)include the 

following. 
property damage, to seriousdelinquency. 

Authority conflict pathway-From stubborn behavior, 

to defmce, to authority avoidance. 

B Whilerelatively few in number (15 percent of the Rochestersample), chronic violent delinquents self-reported 

committing 75 percent of all violent offenses. 

B4 Any successfuleffort to reduce youth violence and juvenile delinquencyclearly must deal with hard-core, chronic 

offenders. 

P No current ability enablesus to accurately predict who 

will be chronic offenders. The most promising approach 

is to use our knowledge of developmentalpathways to 

identify youth already moving towards chronic offending. 

ICharacteristicsof chronic violent offenders: 

Family-The offenders are less attached to and less 

monitored by their parents. 

School-The offenders have less commitmentto school 

and attachment to teachers. 

Peers-They have more delinquent peers and are more 

apt to be gang members. 

Neighborhood-They are more likely to reside in poor, 

high-crime-rateareas. 

The authors drew the followinginferences: 

B Because there is no single cause of youth violence, intervention programsneed to be comprehensive,dealing with 

the above multiple causes of delinquency. 

R Particular attention needs to be focused on peer networks. 

IDelinquent behavior should not be left unattended because it leads to the deterioration of prosocial skills and to 

the acquisitionof other problem behaviors. 

IBecause of the co-occurrence of problem behaviors and 

their interlockingrelationships,the transition to adulthood for chronicoffendersis questionable. 

& Interventionand treatment are imperative. 

Conditions of Confinement 

In a 1991national study of conditions of confinement in 

juvenile detention and correctional facilities (Parent et al., 

1993),institutional crowding was found to be a pervasive 

problem. Thousandsof juvenile offenders,more than 75 

percent of the confined population, were housed in facilities 

that violated one or more standardsrelated to living space 

(facility design capacity,sleeping areas, and living unit size). 

Between 1987and 1991,the percentage of confinedjuveniles 

living in facilitiesin which the daily populationexceeded 

design capacity increased from 36 percent to 47 percent. 

Crowding was found to be associated with higher rates of 

institutional violence, suicidalbehavior, and greater reliance 

on the use of short-term isolation. Sixty-fivepercent of all 

juvenile correctional administrators interviewed said their 

facilitieshad crowding problems. 

The study found that the percentage of minorityjuveniles in 

detention and correctionalfacilitiesis increasing. Between 

1987and 1991,the minority population in detention and 

correctionalfacilitiesgrew from 53 percent to 63 percent of 

the confinedpopulation. 

The study also found that many confinedjuveniles are held in 

public facilitiesthat are under court orders or consent decrees. 

Twenty-threepercent of juveniles held in public facilities were 

confined in a facilityunder a court order or consent decree. 

Juveniles in public training schoolsand reception centers were much more likely to be confined in a facility under a court 

order or consent decree (34 percent and 65 percent respectively), compared with public detention centers (8 percent). 

More than 50 percent of detention centersreported they were 

under court orders or consent decrees for crowding (Parent et 

al., 1993). 

This study was required by Congress in the 1988amendments 

to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) 

Act. It is the first such nationwide investigationof conditions 

in securejuvenile detention and correctionalfacilities.Using nationally recognized correctionalstandards,the research team 

assessed how juvenile offenders' basic needs are met, how 

institutionalsecurity and resident safety are maintained, what 
need not be centered around large training schools. 

Several evaluations of Massachusetts' community-based 

programs have found them to be effective. The initial study, 

conductedby Ohlin and his colleagues (Coates,Miller, and Ohlin, 1978)did not find dramatic differences. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency conducteda 10-year 

followup study in 1984-85. Designed to examinethe effectiveness of current youth services for delinquentyouth, it 

comparedthe Massachusetts' juvenile correctionsprograms with those of California. It revealed that youth who spent 5 

months in a Massachusettsprogram followedby supervision 

in the community had a rearrest rate of 

51percent, while 

youth who spent 14 months in a California institutionhad a 

rearrest rate of 70 percent. Of those released from Massachusetts correctionalprograms, only 23 percent were reincarcerated while 62 percent were reincarcerated in California 

This study also found that youth under community-based 

supervision in Massachusetts accounted for a small fraction of 

crimes in the State, and that there was a tendency over time for 

these youth to commit less serious crimes (Krisberg,Austin, 

and Steele, 1989). 

Other Stateshave followed Massachusetts' lead in closing 

large training schools and replacing them with communitybased programs. Pennsylvania has closed its training school 

and provided a combinationof programsrunby the State and 

private organizations. Utah has opted for community-based 

programs in lieu of training schools. Maryland has closed one 

training schooland reduced the population of the remaining 

one. Florida has reduced its training schoolpopulation and 

developed a variety of community-basedprograms (Lemer, 

In 

1990). 

the early 1980's, Utah closed its singlelarge juvenile 

institution in favor of a community-basedapproachto juvenile 

corrections. Small secureunits were built for chronic and 

violentjuvenile offenders, who averaged 30 prior convictions. These maximum securitytreatment facilities housed 3040 

youth per facility. Three evaluations have found the small 

securefacilities to be effective.One of these studies found that 

only 6 percent of released offenders were charged with violent 

adequate staff,and program content rather than through 

dependenceon high levels of mechanical and physical constraints. All of the effectiveresidential programs used graduated systems of conml and supervisionand placed greater 

degrees of responsibility on youth as they moved toward 

completereintegration into the community. 

In 1985 the RAND Corporationexamined the effectiveness of 

private-sectorprograms for dealing with seriousjuvenile 

offenders. One of these, Ohio Paint Creek Youth Center 

(PCYC),funded by OJJDP as a private-sector alternative, 

provides residential services for up to 34 male youth ages 15-

18who have been convicted of first-or second-degreefelonies. PCYC was found to effectively combine treatment, 

education, employment,life skills,and specialized counseling 

and support servicesinto one coordinatedapproach, in addition to providing staff and residents with a secure setting 

through intensive staff and peer supervisionand influence 

(OJJDP, 1988). 

The Unified Delinquency Intervention Services (UDIS) 

Program, a Chicagoexperiment designed and funded by the 

Stateof Illinois, provided a system of "graduated sanctions" 

for chronic inner-city juvenile offenders. Level I sanctions 

consisted of less drastic interventions, such as arrest and 

release, temporary detention, and informal supervision.Level 

11comprised the UDIS program, consisting of communitybased servicesprovided for those who recidivated at Level I. Level 111,for those who failed at the second level, consisted of 

commitment to the IllinoisDepartmentof Corrections. 

In 1979Murray and Cox conducted a followup study of the 

"suppression effects" of each level of sanctions. This research 

sought to determinethe effectiveness of each type of sanction 

in reducing recidivism and suppressingadditional crimes. It 

reveals that: 

B Both the UDIS program and incarcerationthrough the 

Department of Corrections had a substantialimpact on 

postprogram arrests, court appearances, and violent 

offensesamong the chronic offenders. 
OJJDP

s Violent Juvenile Offender Research and Development Program, Part 1, was established in 1981.It was designed 

to test the capability of the juvenile justice system to deal with 

the chronic, serious, violent offender in an innovative fashion 

as compared with traditional juvenile justice and adult court 

intervention. A specific goal of the effort was to test an intervention model for the treatment and reintegration of violent 

juvenile offenders,designed to reduce violent crimes through 

an individually-based case management strategy with strong 

emphasison planned, integrated aftercare. 

A total of 244 males were assigned to treatment or "control" 

groups. Thoseprovided treatment had been charged with an 

averageof nearly eight prior offenses,resulting in an average 

of more thanthree prior adjudications each. One-fourth had 

previously been incarcerated. Evaluationresults (Fagan et al., 1984,1984a,1987)showed 

&! 

that: 

The case management approachhelped identify appropriate treatment and ensured a consistentreward structure. 

IBB Case managers felt that the violent offenders whose 

treatment they managed made progress in virtually all treatment areas while still in the program. 

P Treatment youth showed the most consistent progress in 

strengthened familyrelations. 

Had the fundedjurisdictionsnot experienced implementation 

problems,there is every reason to believe that this program 

would have been successful.The evaluation showed program effectivenesswhere implementationprogressed smoothly,and 

many of the program elements have been found to be successful in other studies. These include: 

Case management systemsto ensure a consistent reward 

structure and appropriatetreatment. 

P Comprehensivediagnosticassessment and availability of 

a variety of servicesto meet individual needs. 

I A correctionalsystem of graduated sanctions. 

strategy was to 

throw the book at them and, through escalating penalties, to lock them up through their crime-prone years. 

In the 20 cities, SHO's included less than2 percent of all 

arrestedjuveniles. Oxnard, California, has probably had the 

most success with the strategy. Recent claims attribute to the 

program a 38-percent drop in violent crimes (includinga 60-

percent drop in murders) and a 29-percent decreasein burglaries (Methvin, 1991:4). 

See Krisberg (1992) and Greenwood and Zimring (1985) for 

other evaluationsof community-basedalternatives to large 

training schools. 

This 

Summary 

brief review of statistics,research, and program evaluations highlights the scopeand magnitude of the serious, 

violent, and chronicjuvenile delinquencyproblem. The 

statistics indicatethat juveniles responsible for seriousand violent delinquency are presenting a growingproblem for overloaded juvenile justice and criminal justice systems.This 

is all the more troubling when considered in light of the fact 

that the size of the juvenile-aged population will continue to 

increase in the 1990's as a result of the "baby boom echo." 

Consequently the volume of juvenile crime can be expected to 

increase and, coupled with evidence thatjuvenile crime is 

becoming more violent, the public perception of a crisis in 

juvenile crime can be expected to grow. 

The research demonstrates that a small proportion of juveniles 

accounts for the bulk of serious and violentjuvenile delinquency. Recent researchhas shed lighton factors that push 

juveniles down pathways to chronic delinquency. The link 

between child abuse and neglect and later serious, violent, and 

chronic delinquency offers an additionaltarget for delinquency preventionprograms. 

Our review of the program evaluation literature focused 

primarily on the alternativesto large congregate-carecorrec-
Altschuler, 

David, and Troy Armstrong. "Intervening with 

SeriousJuvenile Offenders: A Summary of a Study on 

Community-Based Programs." In Robert Mathias et al. (eds.). 

ViolentJuvenile Offenders: An Anthology. San Francisco: 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 1984,187-206. 

Altschuler, David, and Troy Armstrong. "Intensive Aftercare 

for High-Risk Juvenile Parolees: A Model Program Design." 

The Johns Hopkins University Institutefor Policy Studies. 

June 1992. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Specialanalysis. April 1993. 

Bursik, Robert. "Erickson Could Never Have Imagined: 

Recent Extensions of Birth Cohort Studies." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 5: 389-396,1989. 

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. A Matter of 

Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Nonschool Hours. New 

York: Carnegie Corporation of New 

York. 1992. 

Coates, Robert, Alden Miller, and Lloyd Ohlin. Diversity in a 

Youth Correctional System: Handling Delinquents in Massachusetts. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company. 1978. 

Edwards, Leonard P. "The Juvenile Court and the Role of the 

Juvenile Court Judge." Juvenile and Family Court Journal 43, 

Elliott, 

2,1992. 

Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Barbara Morse. "SelfReported Violent Offending-A Descriptive Analysis of 

Juvenile Violent Offenders and Their Offending Careers." 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1:472-514,1986. 

Elliott, Delbert S., and Scott Menard. "Delinquent Behavior 

and Delinquent Peers: Temporal and Developmental Patterns." 

Unpublishedmanuscript. University of Colorado, Boulder. 

Fagan, 

1988. 

Jeffrey, et al. "System Processing of Violent Juvenile 

Offenders: An Empirical Assessment." In Robert A. Mathias, 

Paul DeMuro, and Richard S. Allinson (4s.). Juvenile Offenders--An Anthology. San Francisco: National Council on Crime 

and Delinquency. 1984,117-136. 

Age." In Katherine T. Van Duren and Samoff A. Mednick 

(eds.). Prospective Studies of Crime and Delinquency. Boston: 

Kluwer-Nijhoff. 1983. 

Farrington, David P., and David Hawkins. "Predicting Participation, Early Onset and Later Persistence in OfficiallyRecorded Offending." Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 

Farrington, 

1:l-33,1991. 

David P., and Donald J. West. "The Cambridge 

Study in Delinquent Development." In Hans-Jurgen Kemer 

and Gunter Kaiser (eds.). Criminality: Personality, Behavior 

and Life History. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 1990. 

Farrington, David P., et al. "Advancing Knowledge About the 

Onset of Delinquency and Crime." In Benjamin B. Lahey and 

Alan E. Kazdin (eds.). Advances .in Clinical Child Psychology, 

Vol. 13. New York: Plenum. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. News release. October 25, 

Feld, 

1992. 

Barry.Neutralizing Inmate Violence:Juvenile Offenders 

in Institutions. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Ballinger Publishing Co. 1978. 

Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. "The True Value of 

Lambda Would Appear to be Zero: An Essay on Career 

Criminals, Criminal Careers, SelectiveIncapacitation,Cohort 

Studies and Related Topics." Criminology 24:213-234. 

Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. A General Theory 

of Crime. Palo Alto, California: StanfordUniversity Press. 

Greenwood,

1990. 

Peter, and Franklin Zing. "One More Chance: 

The Pursuit of Promising Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders." Santa Monica: RAND. 1985. 

Hamparian, Donna, et al. The ViolentFew: A Study of Dangerous Juvenile Offenders. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books. 1978. 
and Problem Behaviors.

 In J. McCord and R. Trimbley 

(eds.).The Prevention of Antisocial Behavior in Children. 

New York: Guilford. 1992. 

Hawkins, David, and Richard Catalano, Jr. Communities That 

Care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. 1992. 

Huizinga, David, Finn-Aage Esbensen, and Anne W. Weiher. "Are There Multiple Paths to Delinquency?"Journal of 

Criminal Law and Criminology 8283-118.1991. 

Huizinga, David,Rolf Loeber, and Terence Thornberry. "New 

Findingson Delinquency and SubstanceAbuse in Urban 

Areas." Congressionalbriefing. Washington,D.C. May 15, 

Krisberg, 

1992. 

Bany, James Austin, and Pamcia Steele, ''Unlocking Juvenile Corrections:Evaluatingthe MassachusettsDepartment of Youth Services." San Francisco: National Council 

on Crime and Delinquency. 1989. 

Krisberg, Barry, et al. "Demonstration of Post-Adjudication 

Non-Residential IntensiveSupervisionProgram Assessment Repon" Final report submitted to OJJDP. November 1989a 

Krisberg, Barry. "Juvenile Justice: Improving the Quality of 

Care." San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 1992. 

Krisberg, Barry, et al. "Juvenile IntensiveSupervisionProgram Model, Operations Manual and Guide," Special Report 

submitted to OJJDP. July 1991. 

Krisberg, Bany, et al. National Juvenile Custody Trends 

1978-1989. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 1992. 

Lerner, Steve. The Good News About Juvenile Justice. 

Bolinas, California: Common Knowledge Press. 1990. 

Loeber,Rolf, and Marc LeBlanc. 'Toward a Developmental 

Criminology." In Michael Tonry and Norval Morris (eds.). 

Crime and Justice, Vol. 12.Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press. 1990. 

Miller, Walter. Crime by Youth Gangs and Groups in the 

United States. Washington, D.C.: Office of JuvenileJustice 

and Delinquency Prevention. 1982. 

Miller, Walter. Violence by Youth Gangs and YouthGroups as a Crime Problem in Major American Cities. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office. 1975. 

Miller, Walter. "Why the United States Has Failed to Solve Its 

Youth Gang Problem." In C.R. Huff (ed.). Gangs in America. 

Newbury Park, California: Sage. 1990:263-287. 

Nagin, Daniel S., and David P. Farrington. "The Stability of 

CriminalPotential from Childhood to Adulthood." Criminology 30:235-260. 

Nagin, Daniel S., and David P. Farrington. "The Onset and 

Persistence of Offending." Criminology 30:501-523. 

National Center for Juvenile Justice. Special analysis. April 

National 

1993. 

Coalition of StateJuvenile Justice Advisory Groups. 

Myths and Realities: Meeting the Challenge of Serious, Violent and ChronicJuvenile Offenders. 1992Annual Report. 

Washington, D.C. 1993. 

National Commission on Children. Beyond Rhetoric: A New 

American Agendafor Children and Families. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1991. 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. "Children and Families First, A Mandate for Change." Reno: 

NCJFCJ, 1993. 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. "The 

Juvenile Court and SeriousOffenders: 38Recommendations." 

Juvenile and Family Court Journal. Summer 1984. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. "A Private Sector Corrections Program for Juveniles: Paint Creek 

Youth Center." OJJDP Update on Programs. June 1988. 
Osgood, D. Wayne, et al. 'Time Trends and Age Trends in Arrests and Self-Reported Illegal Behavior." Criminology, 

Parent, 

27:389415.1989. 

Dale, et al. Conditions of Confinement:A Study to 

Evaluate Conditions in Juvenile Detention and Corrections 

Facilities. Final report submitted to the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. April 1993. 

Shannon,Lyle. Criminal Career Continuity: Its Social Context. New York: Human SciencesPress. 1988. 

Shannon,Lyle. Changing Patterns in Delinquency and Crime: 

A Longitudinal Study in Racine. Boulder, Colorado: Westview 

Press. 1991. 

Shannon,Lyle. Alcohol and Drugs, Delinquency and Crime 

Smith,

(forthcoming). 

Carolyn A., and TerenceP. Thornberry. "The Relationship Between Childhood Maltreatmentand Adolescent Involvement in Delinquency and Drug Use." Paper presented at 

the meetings of the Society for Research on Child Development. New Orleans. March 1993. 

Snyder, Howard, and John Hutzler. "The SeriousJuvenile 

Offender: The Scope of the Problem and the Response of 

Juvenile Courts." Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice. September 1981. 

Snyder, Howard. Cowt Careers of Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 1988. 

Snyder,Howard. Jzivenile Court Statistics: 1989. Washington, 

D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

1992. 

Foundation from the Vera Instituteof Justice. New York: 

Monarch Press. 1978. 

Szymanski,Linda. "Upper Age of Juvenile Court Jurisdiction 

StatutesAnalysis (1990 Update). Pittsburgh: National Center 

for Juvenile Justice. 1991. 

Tracy, Paul, Marvin E. Wolfgang,and Robert M. Figlio. 

"Delinquency in Two Birth Cohorts." Executive Summary. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1985. Weis, Joseph G., and David Hawkins.Preventing Delinquency. Washington,D.C.: Officeof Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 1981. 

Weis, Joseph G., and John Sedersmm. The Prevention of 

Serious Delinquency: What to Do?. Washington, D.C.: Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1981. 

White, Joseph. "The Comparative DispositionsStudy." Final 

report submitted to OJJDP. February 1985. 

Widom, Cathy Spatz. "The Cycle of Violence." National 

Institute of JusticeResearch in Brief. October 1992. 

Wilson, James Q., and Richard Hemstein. Crime and Human 

Nature. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1985. 

Wolfgang, Marvin, Robert M. Figlio,and Thomsten Sellin. 

Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1972. 

Wolfgang, Marvin, Terence P. Thornberry, and Robert M. 

Figlio. From Boy to Man, From Delinquency to Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1987. 

Snyder, Howard, et al. "Arrests of Youth 1991." Washington, 

D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

1993.