U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Bulletin Series

J. Robert Flores, Administrator May 2003

Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention

Rolf Loeber, David P. Farrington, and David Petechuk Juvenile courts are being challenged by an increase in the number of child Sparked by high-profile cases involving programs and approaches that work to delinquents coming before them. In children who commit violent crimes, pub- prevent the development of delinquent 1997 alone, juvenile courts handled lic concerns regarding child delinquents behavior by focusing on risk and protec- more than 180,000 juvenile offenders have escalated. Compared with juveniles tive factors. younger than 13 years old. These who first become involved in delinquency child delinquents account for 1 in 3 in their teens, child delinquents (offenders juvenile arrests for arson, 1 in 5 juve- younger than age 13) face a much greater Some Key Findings nile arrests for sex offenses, and 1 in risk of becoming serious, violent, and 1 12 juvenile arrests for violent crime. The number of child delinquents (ju- chronic juvenile offenders. OJJDP formed veniles between the ages of 7 and 12) Because youth referred to juvenile the Study Group on Very Young Offenders handled in the nation’s juvenile courts court before the age of 13 are far to explore what is known about the prev- has increased 33 percent over the last more likely to become chronic juve- alence and frequency of very young decade (Snyder, 2001). This develop- nile offenders than youth whose offending, investigate how very young ment is cause for concern not only initial contact occurs at a later age, offenders are handled by various systems there is reason for concern about the because offense patterns reflect more (e.g., juvenile justice, mental health, and growing number of child delinquents. serious crimes among these youngsters, social services), and determine effective but also because these very young of- This Bulletin summarizes the final methods for preventing very young of- fenders are more likely to continue their report of OJJDP’s Study Group on fending. The Study Group identified par- involvement in crime. Child delinquents Very Young Offenders, Child Delin- ticular risk and protective factors that are are two to three times more likely to quents: Development, Intervention, crucial to developing early intervention and Service Needs. The report draws become serious, violent, and chronic and protection programs for very young 2 on hundreds of studies to describe offenders than adolescents whose offenders. the developmental course of child delinquent behavior begins in their delinquency and delineate key risk This Bulletin, the first in OJJDP’s Child and protective factors. It also identi- 1 fies effective and promising preven- Delinquency Series, offers valuable infor- Child delinquents are not legally defined in the mation on the nature of child delinquency same way across the United States (Snyder and tion and intervention programs that Sickmund, 1999; Wiig, 2001). For example, the mini- help reduce the incidence of delin- and describes early intervention and pre- mum age of criminal responsibility varies from age 6 quency while offering significant vention programs that effectively reduce in North Carolina to age 10 in Arkansas and Colorado. cost savings to society. delinquent behavior. Subsequent Bulletins In addition, many states do not have a legally defined age of criminal responsibility. In this Bulletin, child will present the latest information about The information provided by the delinquents are defined as juveniles between the child delinquency, including analyses of ages of 7 and 12, inclusive, who have committed a findings of the Study Group on Very child delinquency statistics, insights into delinquent act according to criminal law—an act Young Offenders demonstrates the that would be a crime if committed by an adult. the early origins of very young offending, need to invest in effective early pre- 2 Chronic offenders are defined here as those with at vention and intervention efforts with and descriptions of early intervention least four referrals to juvenile court. such children. Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.ncjrs.org teens. Recent high-profile media cases of violence committed by children age 12 Figure 1: Proportion of Delinquency Careers That Eventually Had Four or younger also have drawn attention to or More Delinquency Referrals, by Age at First Referral the potential for child delinquents to inflict deadly harm. For these reasons 40 alone, child delinquents represent a significant concern for both society and the juvenile justice system. 30

The arrest rate of child delinquents changed between 1988 and 1997: arrests 20 for violent crimes increased by 45 per- cent (paralleling the increase in vio- lence for all juveniles) and drug abuse 10 our or More Referrals F violations increased by 156 percent. In With rcentage of Careers contrast, arrests for property crimes Pe decreased by 17 percent (Snyder, 2001). 0 The Denver Youth Survey, which is a 7 891011 12 13 14 15 16 17 followup study of more than 1,500 high- Age at First Referral risk youth, showed that at ages 11–12, about 10 percent of boys and girls had Note: The proportion of careers with four or more referrals is likely to be underestimated for the a police contact because of delinquency first bar in this graph. Coding errors in the birth dates of a small number of youth first referred at (Espiritu et al., 2001). age 17 caused them to be misclassified with an onset age of 7. Source: Snyder, 2001. The total volume of child delinquency cases handled in the juvenile courts is large. In 1997, an estimated 181,300 delinquents were less than 13 years old Figure 2: Very Young Offenders Have a Greater Percentage of at the time of court intake (Butts and Serious, Violent, and Chronic Careers Than Older Onset Snyder, 1997; Snyder, 2001). Youth re- Delinquents ferred to court for a delinquency of- fense for the first time before the age of 13 were far more likely to become Child Delinquents Older Onset chronic juvenile offenders than youth Delinquents first referred to court at an older age (see figure 1). It is important to note Serious that because the upper age of juvenile Serious court jurisdiction generally is 17, older Chronic Chronic first-time delinquents have fewer years Violent of opportunity to develop into chronic Violent juvenile offenders.

Figure 2 shows the overlap between juvenile offenders and serious, violent, and chronic offenders for two groups: child delinquents and older onset Source: Snyder, 2001. delinquents. A larger proportion of child delinquents, compared with later onset delinquents, become serious, one-third of all juvenile arrests for arson, This Bulletin summarizes the final re- violent, and chronic offenders. Also, a one-fifth of juvenile arrests for sex port of the Office of Juvenile Justice higher proportion of the violent child offenses and vandalism, one-eighth of and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) delinquents become chronic offenders. juvenile arrests for burglary and forc- Study Group on Very Young Offenders ible rape, and one-twelfth of juvenile (the Study Group). See the box on Child delinquents have their own typi- arrests for violent crime (Snyder, 2001). page 3 for more information on the Study cal offense profile. They account for

2 OJJDP’s Study Group on Very Young Offenders Historically, delinquency studies have Consisting of 16 primary study group review of preventive and remedial inter- focused on later adolescence, the time members and 23 coauthors who are ex- ventions relevant to child delinquency. when delinquency usually peaks. During perts on criminology, child delinquency, The Child Delinquency Bulletin Series the 1990s, numerous studies examined psychopathology, and the law, the Study draws from the Study Group’s final chronic juvenile offenders, a group Group on Very Young Offenders re- report, which was completed in 2001 responsible for a disproportionately viewed hundreds of studies, undertook under grant number 95–JD–FX–0018 large number of crimes (especially seri- many special analyses, and received and subsequently published by Sage ous crimes). However, OJJDP’s Study valuable input from a survey of more Publications as Child Delinquents: Group on Serious and Violent Juvenile than 100 practitioners in the field. The Development, Intervention, and Serv- Offenders—whose work was inspired by Study Group concentrated on the delin- ice Needs (edited by Rolf Loeber and OJJDP’s Comprehensive Strategy for quent behavior of children ages 7 to 12 David P. Farrington). OJJDP encourages Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile and on children’s persistently disruptive parents, educators, and the juvenile jus- Offenders (Wilson and Howell, 1993)— and precociously deviant behavior from tice community to use this information reported in 1998 that youth who are the toddler years up to adolescence. to address the needs of young offenders referred to juvenile court for their first This concerted effort produced valuable by planning and implementing more delinquency offense before age 13 are far insights into the nature of child delin- effective interventions. more likely to become chronic offenders quency. The Study Group found evi- than youth first referred to court at a later dence that some young children engage Study Group Members age. Specifically, this Study Group found in very serious antisocial behavior and that the onset of problem behaviors in The Study Group on Very Young Offend- that, in some cases, this behavior fore- male children starts, on average, much ers was chaired by Rolf Loeber and shadows early delinquency. The Study earlier than the average age of first court David P. Farrington. The initial members Group also identified several important contact for Crime Index offenses.1 The of the Study Group were Barbara J. risk factors that, when combined, may discovery that minor problem behavior Burns, John D. Coie, Darnell F. Hawkins, be related to the onset of early offend- leading to delinquency often begins at a J. David Hawkins, James C. Howell, ing. To better understand the early ori- very young age was a major impetus for David Huizinga, Kate Keenan, David R. gins of child delinquency, the Study OJJDP to develop a new initiative, the Offord, Howard N. Snyder, Terence P. Group emphasizes that research should Study Group on Very Young Offenders, Thornberry, and Gail A. Wasserman. focus on the preschool and elementary which began its work in 1998. This coop- Leena K. Augimeri, Brandon C. Welsh, years, a time during which early inter- erative 2-year-long venture was under- and Janet K. Wiig later joined these ventions can be implemented, before the taken to analyze existing data and to members. Over the years, many addi- accumulation of multiple offenses and address key issues that had not previ- tional practitioners from the field have the commission of serious offenses. The ously been studied in the literature. contributed to this effort. Study Group report concluded with a

1 Index offenses include murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson.

Group. The report, Child Delinquents: more research and the efforts of a ● Serious child delinquents who have Development, Intervention, and Service broader community to be fully under- committed one or more of the follow- Needs (Loeber and Farrington, 2001), is stood and addressed. The work summa- ing acts: homicide, aggravated assault, the first volume published that pre- rized in this Bulletin helps to advance robbery, rape, or serious arson. sents empirical information on child knowledge about child delinquents and ● Other child delinquents (excluding delinquents from hundreds of studies, about fair and effective ways to deal serious delinquents). including data from several studies with them. that were newly analyzed for the report. ● Children showing persistent disrup- It summarizes knowledge concerning the tive behavior (including truancy and nature of child delinquency, its develop- Defining the Scope of incorrigibility), who are at risk of mental course, key risk and protective Very Young Offenders offending. factors, and effective interventions. Child delinquency is an enduring and The Study Group was concerned with Generations of studies in criminology troubling phenomenon that requires three categories of children: show that the best predictor of future

3 behavior is past behavior. Children period may have important implications ● Many important developmental skills showing persistent disruptive behavior for understanding and preventing very (such as language development) be- are likely to become child delinquents young offending: gin during this period, and difficul- and, in turn, child delinquents are likely ties in developing these skills may ● Disruptive problem behavior, includ- to become serious, violent, or chronic weaken the foundation of learning ing serious aggression and chronic juvenile offenders. Figure 3 summarizes and contribute to later disruptive violation of the rights and property the relationship between the three cate- behavior and child delinquency of others, is the most common gories of youth behavior that are of (Keenan, 2001). source of referral to mental health greatest concern. services for preschool children ● Understanding the early emergence In more than 20 studies they reviewed, (Keenan and Wakschlag, 2000). of problem behaviors may help in the creation of earlier, effective interven- the Study Group found a significant ● Studies have documented a predic- tions for the prevention of child delin- relationship between an early onset of tive relationship between problem quency (Kazdin and Kendall, 1998). delinquency and later crime and delin- behaviors in preschool and later con- quency. Child delinquents, compared duct disorder and child delinquency Behaviors that place a child at risk for with juveniles with a later onset of (Silva, 1990). an early career of disruptive behavior delinquency, are at greater risk of be- coming serious, violent, and chronic offenders and have longer delinquency careers (Espiritu et al., 2001; Farrington, Figure 3: Relationship Between Risk/Protective Factors, Development Lambert, and West, 1998; Krohn et al., of Child Problem Behavior, and Interventions 2001; Loeber, 1982, 1988; Loeber and Farrington, 1998b; Moffitt, 1993). Risk/protective factors in the individual, family, peer group, school, neighborhood, and media Not all disruptive children will become child delinquents, and not all child delin- quents will become serious, violent, or Persistent Child Serious and chronic juvenile offenders. However, the disruptive delinquency violent juvenile majority of the eventual serious, violent, behavior offending and chronic juvenile offenders have a history of problem behaviors that goes back to the childhood years. Research Prevention Prevention Prevention shows that the antisocial careers of male juvenile offenders start, on average, at age 7, much earlier than the average Remediation Remediation Remediation age of first court contact for Crime Source: Loeber and Farrington, 2001. Index offenses, which is age 14.5 (see table 1). Because it is not yet possible to accurately predict which children will progress from serious problem Table 1: Average Age of Onset of Problem Behaviors and Delinquency in behaviors to delinquency, it is better to Male Juveniles tackle problem behaviors before they become more serious and ingrained. Moderately First Court Minor Problem Serious Serious Contact for Behavior Problem Behavior Delinquency Index Offenses* Early Disruptive Age 7.0 9.5 11.9 14.5 Behavior The preschool period is critical in setting Note: The table shows the average age of onset of problem behaviors and delinquency for males who had their first contact with the juvenile court for an Index offense. Data are based on the state- a foundation for preventing the develop- ments of the oldest sample in the Pittsburgh Youth Study and on statements made by their mothers. ment of disruptive behavior and, eventu- *Index offenses include murder, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, auto theft, ally, child delinquency. There are four and arson. primary reasons why the preschool Source: Loeber and Farrington, 1998b.

4 and child delinquency may be present understanding the nature of social rela- increased by 33 percent to a total of as young as 2 years of age (Keenan, tions (Landy and Peters, 1992; Kuczynski 181,300 cases in 1997, far more than the 2001). Although the majority of child and Kochanska, 1990; Achenbach and corresponding increase in child arrests delinquents have a history of disruptive Edelbrock, 1981). Another issue is (Snyder, 2001). These data indicate that behavior—such as aggressive, inatten- whether young children are able to com- law enforcement agencies referred a tive, or sensation-seeking behavior in mit willful acts of aggression. A number larger percentage of the child delin- the preschool period—the majority of of developmental researchers have quents they arrested to juvenile court preschoolers with such behavior prob- demonstrated that preschool children in 1997 than they had in 1988, probably lems do not go on to become young do have a basic understanding of the because the offenses committed be- offenders. The following factors may impact of their behavior on others and came relatively more violent. The racial affect the development of pro- and anti- can control their behavior based on breakdown of juvenile court referrals social behavior during preschool and internalized social norms (Kochanska, also changed during this 10-year period, beyond: Murray, and Coy, 1997). Overall, the with court cases of child delinquents Study Group found sufficient evidence increasing by 41 percent for nonwhite ● Language is the primary means by to conclude that some preschool chil- youth and 28 percent for white youth. which parents and others affect chil- dren can engage in very serious antiso- In addition, a greater proportion of dren’s behavior. Delayed language cial behavior and that, in some but not the 1997 nonwhite cases (45 percent development may increase a child’s all cases, preschool behavior problems nonwhite cases versus 37 percent stress level, impede normal social- foreshadow early delinquency. white cases) were placed on the court ization, and be associated with later docket for an adjudicatory hearing criminality up to age 30 (Stattin and (Snyder, 2001). Klackenberg-Larsson, 1993). Child Delinquency— ● Temperamental characteristics are Official Records Overall, from 1988 to 1997, the juvenile individual predispositions for certain courts experienced a substantial change According to the Federal Bureau of behavior characteristics that can be in both the number and types of child Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime modified by environmental influ- delinquents sent to them for processing: Reports, in 1997 law enforcement agen- ences (Goldsmith et al., 1987). Diffi- child delinquents in 1997 were signifi- cies made an estimated 253,000 arrests cult temperament (predominance of cantly more likely than their predeces- of children age 12 or younger, and these negative moods such as anger and sors from a decade earlier to have been made up 9 percent of all juvenile arrests difficulty in controlling behaviors charged with a violent offense. In turn, (i.e., arrests of persons under age 18). and emotions) early in life may be a juvenile courts significantly intervened Of these arrests of children, 17 percent marker for the early antecedents of in the lives of a growing number of child (about 43,000) involved persons under antisocial behavior and behavior delinquents; the number of cases that the age of 10. Only 10 percent of these problems (Earls and Jung, 1987; arrests were for status offenses (e.g., Prior et al., 1993; Guerin, Gottfried, running away from home, curfew viola- and Thomas, 1997). tions, and liquor law violations). ● Low attachment to caregivers, as in the early mother-infant bond, plays Interestingly, between 1988 and 1997, the an important role in later behavior total number of child arrests increased and delinquency problems (Egeland by only 6 percent, as compared with a and Farber, 1984; Adams, Hillman, and 35-percent increase for all juveniles, Gaydos, 1994). The closer a child is and child arrests for property crimes to the mother, the less likely a child dropped by 17 percent. However, during is to be at risk for delinquency. this same period, child arrests for vio- lent crimes increased by 45 percent. Understandably, one of the difficulties Overall, child delinquents arrested in in dealing with preschool children is 1997 were relatively more likely to be the use of inappropriate labels such as charged with a violent crime, a weapons “disruptive” for behaviors that may be offense, or a drug law violation than a developmentally normal. For example, property offense (Snyder, 2001). aggression, noncompliance, and lying are common behaviors in the second From 1988 to 1997, the number of cases year of life and are part of the develop- disposed by juvenile courts involving ment of self-identity, self-control, and child delinquents (age 12 or younger)

5 resulted in formal court-ordered proba- status offenses, and less than one- other hand, prosocial behavior rated tion increased 73 percent and place- tenth reported burglary or arson. by kindergarten teachers is a protective ments to residential facilities increased (Denver Youth Survey and Pitts- factor against delinquency. 49 percent. Based on data from the burgh Youth Study data.) 1997 Census of Juveniles in Residential Six longitudinal studies conducted in ● Self-report rates for major forms of Placement—which consisted of a roster five countries (Canada, England, New delinquency were practically the of all juveniles in all residential facilities Zealand, Sweden, and the United States) same in 1976 and 1998; for example, on 1 day—about 19 of every 100,000 on three continents confirmed that 16–17 percent of children ages 11–12 youth ages 10–12 were being held in a childhood antisocial behavior tends reported felony assault in 1976, com- juvenile facility on a typical day in the to be the best predictor of early-onset pared with 14 percent in 1998. (Na- United States (Snyder, 2001). delinquency for boys. For example, an tional Youth Survey and National Oregon study found that antisocial be- Longitudinal Survey of Youth data.) havior (such as aggression), as rated Self-Reports of by parents, teachers, peers, and the Delinquency children themselves, was the best pre- Risk Factors and dictor of age at first arrest, compared Official statistics reflect the delinquent Predictors with other factors such as family dis- behavior of youth that is both known advantage, parental monitoring, and Many of the risk factors and predictors to and recorded by authorities. Self- parental discipline (Patterson, Crosby, (and possibly causes) of child delin- reports of delinquency are more com- and Vuchinich, 1992). quency tend to be somewhat different prehensive in that they include those from those of offending by older juve- behaviors not reported, or not otherwise Research findings consistently have niles. Risk factors for offending at a known, to the authorities. Research indi- shown that the onset of many conduct young age are more likely to be biolog- cates that young people are willing to problems usually predates the onset of ical, individual, and family factors. report accurate information about their serious delinquency by several years minor and serious delinquent acts (Far- The causal status of known risk factors rington et al., 1996). Another advantage remains to be clarified, and no single of self-report research (and research risk factor can explain child delinquency. using parent and teacher reports) is that Homicide Rather, the greater the number of risk it focuses on misbehaviors (e.g., disobe- factors (e.g., poor parental supervision Recent instances of children commit- dience, defiance, aggression, and con- coupled with poor academic perfor- ting homicides have come to national duct disorder) that are not in themselves mance) or the greater the number of attention and have attracted intense delinquent but may serve as precursors risk factor domains (e.g., risk in the media scrutiny. Despite the nationwide to some children’s later involvement in family and the school), the greater the outrage in response to some of these delinquency. The Study Group’s review likelihood of early-onset offending cases, the number of juveniles age 12 of previous and current self-reported (Loeber and Farrington, 1998b; or younger who are involved in mur- delinquency studies revealed the follow- Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002). der is relatively small. Between 1980 ing (Espiritu et al., 2001): and 1997, about 2 percent (or 600 cases) of murders involved such child ● Although the vast majority of youth Early Risk Factors offenders, and the annual number of age 12 or younger (85 percent of these murders was relatively stable, boys, 77 percent of girls) reported During the preschool years, the most averaging about 30 per year. Accord- involvement in some form of aggres- important risk factors stem from the ing to the FBI’s Supplementary Homi- sion or violence, only about 5 per- individual and family. Particular pre- cide Reports (Snyder, 2001): cent of children (9 percent of boys, dictors, such as aggressiveness and 3 percent of girls) were involved in a child’s level of impulsivity or sensa- ● The large majority (84 percent) of serious violence, that is, violence tion seeking, result from numerous children who murdered were male. considered to be a delinquent/ influences—from genetics to the child’s ● Seventy percent of the murder vic- criminal offense. (Denver Youth environment—over a period of years. tims of child delinquents were male Survey and Pittsburgh Youth Study Aggression appears to be the best pre- and likely to be acquaintances or data.) dictor of delinquency up to age 12. For example, physical aggression rated by family members. ● Roughly one-third of children age kindergarten teachers is the best pre- ● More than one-half (54 percent) of 12 or younger reported property dictor of later self-reported violent the murder victims of child delin- offenses, one-quarter reported delinquency (Haapasalo and Tremblay, quents were killed with a firearm. property damage, one-fifth reported 1994; Tremblay et al., 1994). On the

6 (Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998) offending may be the result of a com- A more recent issue is peer rejection as (see table 1, page 4). Loeber (1988) pos- bination of the following factors: a risk factor for antisocial behavior. In tulated that juveniles who eventually the Oregon Youth Study, investigators ● Antisocial tendencies of children engage in both property offenses and found, after controlling for earlier anti- with persistent early disruptive violence show the following behaviors: social behavior, that peer rejection in behaviors. the fourth grade predicted antisocial ● Onset of conduct problems in the ● Associations with peers who already behavior 2 years later (Patterson and preschool years. show deviant behavior. Bank, 1989). Another study that followed ● Aggressive and covert problem be- children from first through fourth grade ● Negative consequences of peer haviors, such as lying and shoplifting. found that aggressive behavior and rejection. rejection by peers in the first grade pre- ● Hyperactive/impulsive behavior at dicted later self-reported delinquency. a young age. As children get older, attend school, This indicates that first-grade rejection and become integrated into their com- may be a useful marker for the early In addition to early antisocial behavior, munity, the array of risk factors for starter pathway to antisocial behavior family characteristics are important pre- child delinquency expands (see table 2, (Miller-Johnson et al., 1997). dictors of early-onset offending. The page 9). Many studies show a relation number of family risk factors to which between deviant peer associations and Peer rejection may also influence child a child is exposed and the child’s length juvenile offending (Elliott and Menard, and adolescent delinquency by inducing of exposure to these stressors also are 1996). A major issue is whether “birds of the rejected child to associate with important (Williams et al., 1990). Some a feather flock together” or “bad compa- deviant peer groups and gangs (Patter- family characteristics that may contri- ny corrupts.” Most hypotheses suggest son, Capaldi, and Bank, 1991). Gang bute to early-onset child delinquency that deviant peers can lead some youth membership provides a ready source of include the following: with no previous history of delinquent co-offenders for juvenile delinquency behavior to initiate delinquent acts and ● Antisocial parents. and reflects the greatest degree of may influence already delinquent youth deviant peer influence on offending. ● Substance-abusing parents. to increase their delinquency. Youth Also, youth tend to join gangs at younger who associate with deviant peers are ages than in the past, which leads to an ● Parental psychopathology likely to be arrested earlier than youth increased number of youthful offenders (e.g., Lahey et al., 1988). who do not associate with such peers (Howell, 1998). The importance of hav- ● Poor parenting practices, such as (Coie et al., 1995). In addition, studies ing accomplices cannot be overstressed lack of monitoring (Patterson, emphasize that a delinquent sibling can in child delinquency. For example, a Crosby, and Vuchinich, 1992) and/ greatly encourage a child to become recent study found that less than 5 per- or a lack of positive reinforcement delinquent, especially when the siblings cent of offenders who committed their (Bor et al., 1997). are close in age and have a close rela- first offense at age 12 or younger acted tionship (Reiss and Farrington, 1991; alone (McCord and Conway, 2002). Gang ● The prevalence of physical abuse. Rowe and Gulley, 1992). membership has a strong relationship ● A history of family violence. ● Large family size.

Many of the family risk factors interact with other social systems, such as peers and the community environment. Nevertheless, a recent study found that the strongest predictors of early-onset violence included large family size, poor parenting skills, and antisocial parents (Derzon and Lipsey, 2000).

Peers Although much more research is need- ed, the Study Group believes that an accelerated path toward child delin- quency and subsequent more serious

7 and Hawkins, 1996). In addition, disor- How Early Can We Tell? ganized neighborhoods with weak social controls (i.e., attempts by adults to con- A critical question from a scientific and policy standpoint concerning child delin- trol the behavior of youth) allow delin- quency is, “How early can we tell?” It is difficult, however, to obtain a clear answer quent activity to go unmonitored and to this question. For example, many children engage in problem behaviors of a rela- even unnoticed (Sampson, Raudenbush, tively minor nature, but only for a short period. Few tools are available to distinguish and Earls, 1997). At the extreme end of those youth who will continue with behaviors that may lead them to become child the spectrum, some neighborhoods may delinquents. Although the foundations for both prosocial and disruptive behaviors even provide opportunities for anti- are laid in the first 5 years of life (Keenan, 2001), it is important to point out that social behavior. For example, youth the majority of preschoolers with behavior problems do not go on to become child living in high-crime neighborhoods may delinquents. be at high risk for offending because The Study Group has identified several important warning signs of later problems: they are exposed to more norms favor- able to crime (Developmental Research ● Disruptive behavior that is either much more frequent or more severe than what and Programs, 1996). other children in the same age group display.

● Disruptive behavior, such as temper tantrums and aggression, that persists Race and Gender beyond the “terrible twos and threes.” The intersection of race, gender, and ● A history of aggressive, inattentive, or sensation-seeking behavior in the early childhood offending is a largely preschool years. unexplored terrain. Too often, policy- makers, law enforcement agents, and social services agencies rely on stereo- to violent delinquency, even when asso- School organization and process also types and assumptions concerning race ciations with delinquent peers, family may play a role as risk factors. Schools and gender when dealing with juveniles. poverty, poor parental supervision, low with fewer teachers and higher student commitment to school, negative life enrollment had higher levels of teacher Youth of color—particularly African events, and prior involvement in vio- victimization, and poor rule enforce- American males—are overrepresented lence are controlled for (Battin et al., ment within schools was associated in arrest rates (especially arrests for 2000; Battin-Pearson et al., 1998). with higher levels of student victimi- serious or violent offenses) in relation zation (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, to their proportion in the population 1985). Although research on the rela- School and Community (Kempf-Leonard, Chesney-Lind, and tionship between school processes and Hawkins, 2001). Conversely, in relation Risk factors for child delinquency with- offending is sparse, evidence suggests to their proportion in the population, in the school and community have that many school characteristics, in- females are underrepresented in arrests not been as well documented as individ- cluding the following, may be linked to for serious or violent offenses but over- ual, family, and peer risk factors (see antisocial behavior in children (Herren- represented in arrests for status offens- table 2). The Study Group hypothesized kohl et al., 2001): es and child welfare cases. However, that children who developed strong ● Low levels of teacher satisfaction. rates of court referrals are rising faster bonds to school (high commitment) for females than for males. When self- would conform to the norms and values ● Little cooperation among teachers. report data are considered, the race that schools promote, thereby reducing and gender gaps apparent in official ● Poor student-teacher relations. their probability of antisocial behavior. records are less pronounced. ● The prevalence of norms and values Studies addressing school influences that support antisocial behavior. The Study Group recommends that race on antisocial behavior have consistently and gender comparisons be routinely shown that poor academic performance ● Poorly defined rules and expecta- conducted in research on child delin- is related to child behavior problems tions for conduct. quency. For example, in the Pittsburgh and to the prevalence, onset, and seri- ● Inadequate rule enforcement. Youth Study, researchers found no race ousness of delinquency (Brewer et al., differences in offending once adequate 1995; Maguin and Loeber, 1996). Weak Several community factors, such as a controls were included for “underclass” bonds to school (low commitment), low high level of poverty in the neighbor- status of neighborhoods (Peeples and educational aspirations, and poor moti- hood, are important in the development Loeber, 1994). The Study Group also vation place children at risk for offend- of child antisocial behavior (Catalano reanalyzed the 1958 Philadelphia birth ing (Hawkins et al., 1987; Hawkins et al., 1998).

8 cohort data to investigate race and gen- Table 2: Approximate Developmental Ordering of Risk Factors Associated der associations with child delinquency With Disruptive and Delinquent Behavior (Kempf-Leonard, Chesney-Lind, and Hawkins, 2001). The analyses showed Risk Factors Emerging During Pregnancy and From Infancy Onward that, regardless of race and gender, seri- Child Pregnancy and delivery complications ous and chronic delinquency were more Neurological insult prevalent among early-onset offenders. Exposure to neurotoxins after birth More of this type of information is need- Difficult temperament ed to identify and understand race and Hyperactivity/impulsivity/attention problems gender differences in developmental Low intelligence Male gender pathways leading to child delinquency. Family Maternal smoking/alcohol consumption/drug use during pregnancy Teenage mother High turnover of caretakers Interventions Poorly educated parent Most juvenile justice, child welfare, and Maternal depression school resources currently focus on Parental substance abuse/antisocial or criminal behavior Poor parent-child communication adolescent juvenile offenders and prob- Poverty/low socioeconomic status lem children whose behaviors are al- Serious marital discord ready persistent or on education and Large family size behavior management programs for Risk Factors Emerging From the Toddler Years Onward youth in middle and high schools rather than on children in elementary schools Child Aggressive/disruptive behavior Persistent lying or preschools. Interventions usually Risk taking and sensation seeking seek to remediate disruptive behavior, Lack of guilt, lack of empathy child delinquency, and serious and vio- Family Harsh and/or erratic discipline practices lent offending after these behaviors Maltreatment or neglect have emerged. Community Television violence The Study Group concluded that pre- Risk Factors Emerging From Midchildhood Onward vention is a better approach. Of all Child Stealing and general delinquency known interventions to reduce juvenile Early onset of other disruptive behaviors Early onset of substance use and sexual activity delinquency, preventive interventions Depressed mood that focus on child delinquency will Withdrawn behavior probably take the largest “bite” out of Positive attitude toward problem behavior crime. Specifically, these efforts should Victimization and exposure to violence be directed first at the prevention of Family Poor parental supervision persistent disruptive behavior in chil- School Poor academic achievement dren in general; second, at the preven- Repeating grade(s) tion of child delinquency, particularly Truancy among disruptive children; and third, at Negative attitude toward school the prevention of serious and violent Poorly organized and functioning schools juvenile offending, particularly among Peer Peer rejection Association with deviant peers/siblings child delinquents. “The earlier the bet- ter” is a key theme in establishing inter- Community Residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood Residence in a disorganized neighborhood ventions to prevent child delinquency, Availability of weapons whether these interventions focus on the individual child, the home and fami- Risk Factors Emerging From Midadolescence Onward ly, or the school and community. Child Weapon carrying Drug dealing Support for prevention and early inter- Unemployment vention was generally endorsed by School School dropout practitioners. An opinion survey of Peer Gang membership practitioners conducted by the Study Source: Adapted from Loeber and Farrington, 1998a. Group found that nearly three-quarters (71 percent) thought that effective

9 methods were available to deal with child delinquents to reduce their risk of future offending. On the other hand, only 3–6 percent of the practitioners thought that current juvenile justice, mental health, or child welfare programs were effective in achieving this goal (Farrington, Loeber, and Kalb, 2001).

Following a public health approach to intervention, the Study Group recom- mended preventive and remedial inter- ventions that focus on known risk factors and on knowledge of the behav- ior development of juveniles (see figure 3, page 4). However, the Study Group cautions that there is no single magic bullet for preventing or correcting child delinquency. Investigation of inter- ● Bullying prevention. developed a comprehensive and success- ventions for child delinquency clearly ful training program for parents of Head ● Afterschool recreation programs. demonstrates that multiple risk factors, Start children that includes a focus on their relationships with one another, ● Mentoring programs. social skills and prosocial behavior. and their complexity pose important challenges for implementing interven- ● School organization programs. The Study Group’s analyses of three re- tions. Comprehensive public health cent service delivery studies—the Great ● Comprehensive community interventions should focus on changing Smoky Mountains Study of youth in interventions. both the conditions and institutions North Carolina, the Patterns of Care that influence offending in the commu- Several unique programs have demon- program in San Diego, CA, and the nity (Farrington, 1994, 2000). strated that interventions with young southwestern Pennsylvania Costs of children can reduce later delinquency. Services in Medicaid Study (Burns et al., In addition, mental health, welfare, and The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project 2001)—strongly indicate that the first juvenile justice interventions for child focuses on 3- and 4-year-olds at risk for step toward obtaining effective treat- delinquency must deal with the multiple school failure. In this program, treat- ment is to provide families with access problems stemming from dysfunctional ment group participants, when com- to mental health and other services. families. pared with control group participants, While the very early detection of emo- showed a number of benefits across a tional and behavior problems is a pub- Promising Interventions range of prosocial functioning indica- lic health goal, results have not been tors, including fewer than half the life- encouraging. The delay between symp- The most promising school and com- time arrests (Schweinhart, Barnes, and tom onset and help seeking is apparent, munity prevention programs for child Weikart, 1993). The Elmira Prenatal/ and the rates of mental health interven- delinquency focus on several risk do- Early Infancy Project sent nurses to the tions in juvenile justice are extremely mains (Herrenkohl et al., 2001). The homes of pregnant, unmarried women low. Clearly, a mechanism for obtaining Study Group recommends integrating in households with low socioeconomic timely, specialized help is imperative. the following types of school and com- status. These visits began during preg- Such help could also alleviate the high munity prevention programs: nancy and continued to the end of the cost of care—both psychiatric and gen- ● Classroom and behavior manage- second year after the child’s birth. By eral medical—for youth with the diag- ment programs. the time the children were 15 years old, nosis of conduct disorder. the positive impact of the visits was ● Multicomponent classroom-based It is extremely important to communi- reflected in a decrease in children’s programs. cate to mental health and other serv- reports of arrests, convictions, violation ices what treatments are effective. For ● Social competence promotion of probation, consumption of alcohol, example, many juvenile offender inter- curriculums. sexual activity, and running away from vention programs, such as Multisys- home (Olds et al., 1998). As another ● temic Therapy (MST) (Henggeler, Conflict resolution and violence example, Webster-Stratton (1998) has prevention curriculums. Pickrel, and Brondino, 1999), have had

10 a significant impact on reducing the rates of felonies. Currently, OJJDP is Child Delinquents, Incarceration, and Legal Sanctions testing the ability to disseminate MST in a large, three-city study, with the The Study Group found no studies showing that incarceration of serious child delin- goals of identifying effective methods quents results in a substantial reduction in recidivism or the prevention of later seri- for dissemination, retraining clinicians, ous and violent offending. In addition, victimization by older, serious delinquent and developing approaches to ensure offenders in correctional facilities may fuel criminal propensities in child delin- quality implementation. quents. Likewise, the Study Group does not advocate increased legal sanctions for nonserious child delinquents. Instead, more programs that specifically target child delinquents are needed, including specific procedures on how to deal with child Juvenile Justice Programs delinquents when there is an absolute need for their detention. Nonserious child Because children are malleable, adoles- delinquents can best be dealt with in the mental health and the child welfare sys- cence has generally been recognized tems, with a focus on interventions involving the children’s parents. as “a stage of developmental immaturity that rendered youths’ transgressions less blameworthy than those of adults mental health services. These programs ● Sacramento County Community and required a special legal response” have yet to be evaluated, and their long- Intervention Program. This program (Grisso, 1996). Traditionally, juvenile term success may depend on receiving provides services coordinated by a courts do not adjudicate very young, consistent funding from year to year. community intervention specialist first-time offenders and step in only Several of the most promising programs who conducts an indepth, strength- when such institutions as families, are listed below: based family assessment, including social and child protective services, physical and mental health, sub- ● and schools fail in their efforts with Michigan Early Offender Program. stance abuse, economic strengths/ children. This program provides specialized, needs, vocational strengths/needs, intensive, in-home interventions to family functioning, and social func- Unfortunately, the juvenile court has youth who are age 13 or younger at tioning (Brooks and Pettit, 1997). long served as a dumping ground for a the time of first adjudication and wide variety of problem behaviors of who have two or more prior police All multisystemic programs designed children that other institutions (e.g., contacts (Howitt and Moore, 1991). to deal with child delinquency rely on particular approaches and programs social, mental health, and child protec- ● Minnesota Delinquents Under 10 targeting the child, the family, peers, tive services) fail to serve adequately Program. This program includes the school, and the community. Many (Kupperstein, 1971; Office of Juvenile interventions such as sending par- programs either have proven to be ef- Justice and Delinquency Prevention, ents an admonishment letter from fective or hold promise within these 1995). Although collaboration between the county attorney, referring delin- domains, such as Parent Management juvenile justice and child and adoles- quents to child protective services Training (Patterson, Reid, and Dishion, cent social services was once consid- and other agencies, identifying diver- 1992), Functional Family Therapy ered the cornerstone of a comprehensive sion programs, identifying children (Sexton and Alexander, 2000), and MST childcare system, the two systems are in need of protection or services (Henggeler, Pickrel, and Brondino, severely fragmented. The deinstitutional- petitions, and targeting early inter- 1999). In terms of peer interventions, ization and diversion policies of the past vention for high-risk children (see, care must be taken when delinquent or 25 years have turned child delinquents e.g., Stevens, Owen, and Lahti- highly disruptive children are brought away from juvenile courts, resulting in Johnson, 1999). sparse program development for these together for group therapy because of children. ● Toronto Under 12 Outreach Project. the potential contaminating effects This fully developed Canadian pro- (Dishion, McCord, and Poulin, 1999). Although few programs in the juvenile gram emphasizes a multisystemic Peer interventions are best undertaken justice system are explicitly designed for approach combining interventions in conjunction with other programs child delinquents, new models are being that target children, parents, schools, (Coie and Miller-Johnson, 2001). School developed. Currently, only a few well- and communities. It includes a cen- programs (e.g., the Good Behavior Game organized, integrated programs for child tralized police protocol to expedite and the FastTrack Program [Herrenkohl delinquents exist in North America services for children who engage et al., 2001]) and community programs (Howell, 2001). Most of them involve in delinquent activity (Hrynkiw- (e.g., Communities That Care [Hawkins coordinated efforts among police, the Augimeri, Pepler, and Goldberg, 1993). and Catalano, 1992]) may help alleviate public, prosecutors, judges, schools, and risk factors for child delinquency.

11 A community policing program has ● A mechanism to ensure interagency Key Research Priorities also demonstrated some success in coordination and collaboration in the working with child delinquents. The delivery of services in the postadjudi- There are many gaps in current knowl- OJJDP-funded New Haven Child cation phase, such as wraparound edge about the development of child Development–Community Policing services that can be applied to chil- delinquency, the risk and protective fac- Program (Marans and Berkman, 1997) dren and families in a flexible and tors associated with it, and appropriate brings police officers and mental health individualized manner (Duchnowski prevention/intervention methods. In professionals together to provide each and Kutash, 1996). addition to reanalysis of existing data other with training, consultation, and and collection of additional data in support and to provide direct inter- ongoing studies, new research projects disciplinary intervention to children Legal Issues that focus specifically on child delin- quents are needed. This is especially who are victims of, witnesses to, or In addition to overall policy and re- true for very serious young offenders, perpetrators of violent crimes. search issues, many important legal who represent a small group about issues concerning child delinquents which little systematic knowledge has must be resolved, including the follow- been gathered. The Study Group recom- Interagency Mechanism ing (Wiig, 2001): mends that additional research should Because child delinquents often have ● Jurisdiction. States differ greatly in focus on the following areas: many concurrent problems, including their minimum age for delinquency antisocial behavior, learning difficulties, ● Child delinquent development and jurisdiction and their enactment of mood problems, and exposure to child epidemiology, based on self-reports alternative grounds for court jurisdic- abuse and neglect, a number of agen- and official records of offending. tion (such as dependency and chil- cies have typically provided services dren in need of protective services). ● to this group. Practitioners almost The relation between child delin- quency and co-occurring problem unanimously agree that more coordi- ● Competency. The competency of behaviors. nation among the juvenile justice sys- most child delinquents is debatable tem, schools, child welfare agencies, in terms of their ability to under- ● Escalation from child delinquency and mental health agencies is needed stand the severity of charges, court to serious and violent offending. to deal with very young offenders proceedings, and the implications of ● (Farrington, Loeber, and Kalb, 2001). sentences. Risk and protective factors that influ- However, such integrated programs are ence continuity and escalation in ● extremely rare, and their effectiveness Counsel. The right to counsel and the severity of delinquency after its remains to be evaluated. The Study other constitutional rights are of childhood onset. Group suggests that one of the follow- importance to all juvenile delin- ● Longitudinal studies to investigate ing three mechanisms may be needed quents but are complicated for questions about development, risk to coordinate and fully integrate a con- children because of their inability and protective factors, and risk tinuum of care and sanctions for child to understand rights (e.g., the assessment. delinquents: Miranda warning or the privilege against self-incrimination). ● The major service agencies’ methods ● A governing body or interagency ● for dealing with child delinquents. council that, at minimum, includes Parental responsibility. The value representatives from all juvenile both of making parents more legally ● Cost-benefit analyses of prevention/ justice-related human services orga- responsible for their children’s delin- intervention programs. nizations and agencies and has the quency and of followup sanctions for ● Studies with experimental and con- authority to convene these agencies parents needs to be investigated. trol groups and random assignment to develop a comprehensive strategy ● Alternatives to court jurisdiction. of participants to investigate for dealing with child delinquents. Alternatives for handling child prevention/intervention strategies. ● A front-end mechanism within the delinquents outside the courts juvenile justice system that can make (e.g., either informally by the police comprehensive assessments of re- or through a voluntary referral to a Costs and Benefits child-serving agency) may represent ferred child delinquents, such as Although literature reviews of early an important and promising approach Community Assessment Centers interventions to prevent the develop- to deflecting children from future that provide a single point of entry ment of criminal potential demonstrate delinquency. (Dembo and Brown, 1994; Oldenettel that this approach is promising for and Wordes, 1999).

12 reducing delinquency and later offend- outcomes in educational achievement, buffered the effect of risk domains in ing (see Zigler, Taussig, and Black, 1992; health, and parent-child relationships. the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Using a Farrington and Welsh, 1999), there has A cost-benefit analysis of the Elmira total score of protective and risk do- been little discussion of economic costs Prenatal/Early Infancy Project in New mains for each participant, the study and benefits. The potential benefits of York, NY, for example, showed a reduc- found that children whose balance prevention programs targeting delin- tion in welfare and health costs and a between protective and risk domains quents or high-risk youth are indicated higher tax base because of increased favored one or more risk domains had by estimates that a typical, single crimi- employment (Karoly et al., 1998). an elevenfold increase in the likelihood nal career encompassing the juvenile of becoming persistent serious delin- and adult years costs society between Although many programs claim cost quents in adolescence, compared with $1.7 and $2.3 million in 1997 dollars savings based on overall effectiveness, children who had an overall balance of (Cohen, 1998). more economic evaluation is needed to fewer risk domains and more protective assess the monetary value of programs domains. Although cost-benefit studies are rela- and to help answer important questions tively rare, a few studies have provided facing policymakers. There is a real risk that some children important evidence on the economic will become serious offenders. However, efficiency of early developmental delin- this danger is not general public knowl- quency prevention programs. For exam- Conclusions and Policy edge and, consequently, is rarely ad- ple, the High/Scope Perry Preschool Recommendations dressed to prevent the development of Project—founded in 1962 in Michigan— serious, violent, and chronic juvenile focused on preschool programs to help Child delinquents constitute a popula- offending. children (ages 3–4) in poverty make tion not usually recognized as needing a better start in their transition from services to prevent them from becom- Information about child delinquency home to school and community, includ- ing tomorrow’s serious, violent, and is inadequate. Society does not have ing setting them on paths to becoming chronic juvenile offenders. The Study the information about child delinquents economically self-sufficient and socially Group’s work has clear implications that is necessary to reduce this perva- responsible adults (Schweinhart, Barnes, for policymakers at the federal, state, sive social problem. Such knowledge is and Weikart, 1993; Parks, 2000). The county, and municipal levels who can crucial for planning services for child most recent followup data, collected influence the day-to-day and long-term offenders at an early stage in their delin- when these children were 27, revealed operation of agencies and/or their fund- quency careers. Child delinquents need several differences in outcomes between ing to maintain, improve, or create new to be included in national, regional, and the children who received treatment and programs. Indirectly, the Study Group citywide surveys of offenders and vic- those who did not (the controls). Among also addresses the frontline workers tims to address important questions children who received treatment, there who deal every day with child delin- such as how common serious child was less delinquency, a lower rate of quents and children with persistent delinquency is and whether serious absenteeism from school, less need for disruptive behavior, whose voices child delinquents are qualitatively or remedial and supportive school services, and concerns should be heard by quantitatively different from other and less likelihood of aggressive, pre- policymakers. child delinquents. delinquent behavior. A cost-benefit analysis of the High/Scope Perry Pre- Policymakers should be concerned The Study Group noted the absence of school Project (Barnett, 1993) found about child delinquents and children annual surveys focusing on the prev- that for every dollar spent on the proj- with persistent disruptive behavior for alence of persistent disruptive children ect, taxpayers and crime victims were the key reasons discussed below in elementary schools. In addition, there saved more than $7. The total costs of (Farrington, Loeber, and Kalb, 2001). appears to be no consistent tracking of the program were estimated at $12,356 the number of referrals child welfare Child delinquents constitute a signifi- per participant; total benefits, when offices receive from police for children cant problem for society. Child delin- adjusted for inflation and a 3-percent age 12 or younger who have committed quents, compared with later onset discount rate, were estimated at $88,433 delinquent acts. Annual police reports offenders, are two to three times more per participant (Welsh, 2001). of juvenile delinquency are available. likely to become tomorrow’s serious However, jurisdictional differences in In addition to showing promise as eco- offenders. Part of this likelihood de- the minimum age of criminal responsi- nomically efficient approaches to reduc- pends on the presence of risk and bility and possible differences in police ing delinquency, several intervention protective factors. Stouthamer-Loeber practices for recording delinquent acts programs have revealed other impor- and colleagues (2002) examined the committed by children call into question tant spinoff benefits, such as improved degree to which protective domains

13 the accuracy and comprehensiveness of Early intervention with child delin- more communities, system profession- the information collected on child delin- quents is essential. Currently, a whole als and policymakers realize that the quents. Policymakers need to step for- array of effective interventions is avail- increase in the number of child delin- ward and insist on informing society, in able to reduce persistent disruptive quents (and disruptive youth) is too a timely fashion, about the prevalence child behavior and early-onset delin- large a problem to be ignored and that of child delinquents and their persistent quency. Also, well-tested interventions special programs are needed. disruptive behaviors; the proportion of exist to prevent delinquent juveniles such children who do or do not receive from escalating to serious, violent, and services for their problem behaviors; chronic juvenile offending. However, for Summary the number of risk factors for these child delinquents known to the juvenile Often, neither parents nor the various children, who are routinely targeted for justice system, special programs, such professionals who work with children intervention; and the dissemination of as the previously mentioned ones in know which problematic children will effective and replicated interventions. Toronto and Minneapolis (Howell, 2001), cease their disruptive or delinquent need to be further evaluated and tested behaviors and which ones will continue Child delinquents are expensive to tax- in other jurisdictions. or worsen their behavior over time. payers and society. Child delinquents Nevertheless, because most of the nec- tend to be expensive to society because Rather than intervening to prevent high- essary conditions for later serious and of the numerous interventions they re- risk children from becoming tomorrow’s violent juvenile offending begin in child- ceive from different agencies, including incarcerated offenders, policymakers hood, the Study Group on Very Young special school services, child welfare tend to fund the more plentiful pro- Offenders strongly urges that efforts to and social services, mental health agen- grams for older adolescent delinquents reduce serious forms of delinquency cies, and family counseling services. and programs that confine serious ado- should shift from a focus on adolescent Child delinquents are likely to receive lescent offenders in costly institutions. delinquents and more serious chronic services from the majority of agencies This is not to suggest that all the atten- juvenile offenders to a focus on child dealing with children. Although not all tion and funds should be given to child delinquents. To help with this task, of these children are engaged by all of delinquents and that adolescent delin- the Study Group has presented some these services simultaneously, many of quents should be ignored. However, a important new information on child the young problematic children require more effective balance of resources delinquency, including analyses of the attention and intervention of a suc- should be developed so that the roots epidemiological data, risk and protec- cession of several agencies. of serious adolescent delinquency can tive factors, early prediction, interven- be better addressed in childhood. tions for disruptive and delinquent Given the barriers that often exist be- children, and juvenile justice system tween different agencies and their poor Unfortunately, many policymakers issues. This information will benefit data sharing, it is highly likely that as- are unaware of the efficacy and cost- future studies and interventions that sessments are duplicated. Also, many effectiveness of alternative interven- attempt to prevent offending among the practitioners complain about the lack tions and often choose not to fund early very young and to change the behavior of an integrated and coordinated ap- prevention methods that can benefit of those children who are already proach among the agencies trying to juveniles in general and taxpayers and involved in offending. deal with the multiple problems of child citizens in particular. Yet no policymaker delinquents. Unintegrated services may would argue that the optimal public be less effective than integrated servic- health strategy to deal with nicotine References es, especially when integrated services addiction is the removal of cancerous are well planned and evaluated. lungs in large numbers of affected smok- Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C.S. ers. Instead, risk-based smoking preven- 1981. Behavioral problems and compe- Many child delinquents become chronic tion strategies have been developed tencies reported by parents of normal offenders (Blumstein, Farrington, and and are now widely endorsed and im- and disturbed children aged 4 through Moitra, 1985). As previously mentioned, plemented. The same rationale used for 16. Monographs of the Society for Re- the cost to society of a single criminal public health risks should be applied to search in Child Development 46(1):1–78. career ranges from $1.7 to $2.3 million preventing serious and violent juvenile Adams, C.D., Hillman, N., and Gaydos, in 1997 dollars (Cohen, 1998). Given that delinquency. The focus should be on G.R. 1994. Behavioral difficulties in tod- many of these high-rate offenders start targeting early risk factors associated dlers: Impact of sociocultural and bio- their delinquent careers early in life, it is with child delinquency and persistent logical risk factors. Journal of Clinical safe to assume that the cost to society disruptive child behavior. In more and of child delinquents is considerable. Child Psychology 23:373–381.

14 Barnett, W.S. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis. Brooks, T.R., and Pettit, M. 1997. Early Derzon, J.H., and Lipsey, M.W. 2000. The In Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Intervention: Crafting a Community correspondence of family features with Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27, Response to Child Abuse and Violence. problem, aggressive, criminal and vio- edited by L.J. Schweinhart, H.V. Barnes, Washington, DC: Child Welfare League lent behavior. Unpublished manuscript. and D.P. Weikart. Ypsilanti, MI: High/ of America. Nashville, TN: Institute for Public Policy Scope Press, pp. 142–173. Studies, Vanderbilt University. Burns, B.J., Landsverk, J., Kelleher, K., Battin, S.R., Hawkins, J.D., Thornberry, Faw, L., Hazen, A., and Keeler, G. 2001. Developmental Research and Programs. T.P., and Krohn, M.D. 2000. Contribution Mental health, education, child welfare, 1996. Promising Approaches To Prevent of Gang Membership to Delinquency Be- and juvenile justice service use. In Child Adolescent Problem Behaviors. Seattle, yond the Influence of Delinquent Peers. Delinquents: Development, Intervention, WA: Developmental Research and Washington, DC: U.S. Department of and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber Programs. Justice, Office of Justice Programs, and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 273–303. Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., and Poulin, F. quency Prevention. 1999. When interventions harm: Peer Butts, J.A., and Snyder, H.N. 1997. The groups and problem behavior. American Battin-Pearson, S.R., Thornberry, T.P., Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under Psychologist 54(9):755–764. Hawkins, J.D., and Krohn, M.D. 1998. Age 15. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Gang Membership, Delinquent Peers, and Department of Justice, Office of Justice Duchnowski, A.J., and Kutash, K. 1996. Delinquent Behavior. Bulletin. Wash- Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and A mental health perspective. In Compre- ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Delinquency Prevention. hensive and Collaborative Systems That Office of Justice Programs, Office of Work for Troubled Youth: A National Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. 1996. Agenda, edited by C.M. Nelson, R.B. Prevention. The social development model: A theo- Rutherford, and B.I. Wolford. Richmond, ry of antisocial behavior. In Delinquency KY: Eastern Kentucky University, pp. Blumstein, A., Farrington, D.P., and and Crime: Current Theories, edited by 90–110. Moitra, S. 1985. Delinquency careers: J.D. Hawkins. New York, NY: Cambridge Innocents, desisters, and persisters. University Press, pp. 149–197. Earls, F., and Jung, K.G. 1987. Tempera- In Crime and Justice, vol. 6, edited by ment and home environment charac- M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL: Cohen, M.A. 1998. The monetary value teristics as causal factors in the early University of Chicago Press, pp. 187– of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of development of childhood psychopa- 222. Quantitative Criminology 14(1):5–33. thology. Journal of the American Acade- my of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Bor, W., Najman, J.M., Andersen, J., Coie, J.D., and Miller-Johnson, S. 2001. 26(4):491–498. O’Callaghan, M., Williams, G.M., and Peer factors and interventions. In Child Behrens, B.C. 1997. The relationship Delinquents: Development, Intervention, Egeland, B., and Farber, E.A. 1984. Infant- between low family income and psycho- and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber mother attachment: Factors related to its logical disturbance in young children: and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: development and changes over time. An Australian longitudinal study. Aus- Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 191–209. Child Development 55:753–771. tralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 31(5):664–675. Coie, J.D., Miller-Johnson, S., Terry, R., Elliott, D.S., and Menard, S. 1996. Delin- Lochman, J.E., Maumary-Gremaud, A., quent friends and delinquent behavior: Brewer, D.D., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, and Hyman, C. 1995. The influence of Temporal and developmental patterns. R.F., and Neckerman, H.J. 1995. Prevent- deviant peer associations on juvenile In Delinquency and Crime: Current ing serious, violent, and chronic juve- offending among African-American ado- Theories, edited by J.D. Hawkins. New nile offending: A review of evaluations lescents. Paper presented at the annual York, NY: Cambridge University Press, of selected strategies in childhood, meeting of the American Society of pp. 28–67. adolescence, and the community. In Criminology, Boston, MA. Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Espiritu, R.C., Huizinga, D., Crawford, A., Chronic Juvenile Offenders, edited by Dembo, R., and Brown, R. 1994. The and Loeber, R. 2001. Epidemiology of J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, Hillsborough County Juvenile Assess- self-reported delinquency. In Child and J.J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA: ment Center. Journal of Child & Ado- Delinquents: Development, Intervention, Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 61–141. lescent Substance Abuse 3(2):25–43. and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 47–66.

15 Farrington, D.P. 1994. Early developmen- Guerin, D.W., Gottfried, A.W., and Howell, J.C. 1998. Youth Gangs: An Over- tal prevention of juvenile delinquency. Thomas, C.W. 1997. Difficult tempera- view. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health ment and behavior problems: A longi- Department of Justice, Office of Justice 4(3):209–227. tudinal study from 1.5 to 12 years. Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and International Journal of Behavioral Delinquency Prevention. Farrington, D.P. 2000. Explaining and Development 21(1):71–90. preventing crime—the globalization of Howell, J.C. 2001. Juvenile justice pro- knowledge: The American Society of Haapasalo, J., and Tremblay, R.E. 1994. grams and strategies. In Child Delin- Criminology 1999 Presidential Address. Physically aggressive boys from ages 6 quents: Development, Intervention, and Criminology 38:1–24. to 12: Family background, parenting Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber and behavior, and prediction of delinquency. D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Farrington, D.P., Lambert, S., and West, J. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 305–321. 1998. Criminal careers of two generations chology 62(5):1044–1052. of family members in the Cambridge Howitt, P.S., and Moore, E.A. 1991. The Study in Delinquent Development. Hawkins, J.D., and Catalano, R.F. 1992. efficacy of intensive early intervention: Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention Communities That Care. San Francisco, An evaluation of the Oakland County 7:85–106. CA: Jossey-Bass. Probate Court Early Offender Program. Juvenile and Family Court Journal Farrington, D.P., Loeber, R., and Kalb, Hawkins, J.D., Herrenkohl, T., Farring- 42:25–36. L.M. 2001. Key research and policy ton, D.P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.F., and issues. In Child Delinquents: Develop- Harachi, T.W. 1998. A review of predic- Hrynkiw-Augimeri, L., Pepler, D., and ment, Intervention, and Service Needs, tors of youth violence. In Serious and Goldberg, K. 1993. An outreach program edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors for children having police contact. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, and Successful Interventions, edited by Canada’s Mental Health 41:7–12. Inc., pp. 385–394. R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Evering- Farrington, D.P., Loeber, R., Stouthamer- 106–146. ham, S.S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M.R., Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W.B., and Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M., and Chiesa, J. Schmidt, L. 1996. Self-reported delin- Hawkins, J.D., Lishner, D.M., Jenson, 1998. Investing in Our Children: What quency and a combined delinquency J.M., and Catalano, R.F. 1987. Delin- We Know and Don’t Know About the scale based on boys, mothers, and quents and drugs: What the evidence Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood teachers: Concurrent and predictive suggests about prevention and treat- Interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND validity for African Americans and ment programming. In Youth at High Corporation. Caucasians. Criminology 34:493–517. Risk for Substance Abuse (DHHS Pub- lication No. ADM 87–1537), edited Kazdin, A.E., and Kendall, P.C. 1998. Farrington, D.P., and Welsh, B.C. 1999. by B.S. Brown and A.R. Mills. Wash- Current progress and future plans for Delinquency prevention using family- ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing developing effective treatments: Com- based interventions. Children and Office, pp. 81–131. ments and perspectives. Journal of Society 13(4):287–303. Clinical Child Psychology 27(2):217–226. Henggeler, S., Pickrel, S., and Brondino, Goldsmith, H.H., Buss, A.H., Plomin, R., M. 1999. Multisystemic treatment of Keenan, K. 2001. Uncovering preschool Rothbart, M.K., Thomas, A., Chess, S., substance-abusing and dependent precursors to problem behavior. In Hinde, R.A., and McCall, R.B. 1987. delinquents: Outcomes, treatment fideli- Child Delinquents: Development, Inter- Roundtable: What is temperament? ty, and transportability. Mental Health vention, and Service Needs, edited by Four approaches. Child Development Services Research 1:171–184. R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand 58(2):505–529. Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. Herrenkohl, T.I., Hawkins, J.D., Chung, 117–134. Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, D.C. I.J., Hill, K.G., and Battin-Pearson, S. 1985. Victimization in Schools. New York, 2001. School and community risk fac- Keenan, K., and Wakschlag, L.S. 2000. NY: Plenum Press. tors and interventions. In Child Delin- More than the terrible twos: The nature quents: Development, Intervention, and and severity of behavior problems in Grisso, T. 1996. Society’s retributive re- Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber and clinic-referred preschool children. sponse to juvenile violence: A develop- D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology mental perspective. Law and Human Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 211–246. 28(1):33–46. Behavior 20(3):229–247.

16 Kempf-Leonard, K., Chesney-Lind, M., Loeber, R. 1988. The natural histories of Miller-Johnson, S., Coie, J.D., Maumary- and Hawkins, D.F. 2001. Ethnicity and juvenile conduct problems, substance Gremand, A., Bierman, K., and Conduct gender issues. In Child Delinquents: use, and delinquency: Evidence for Problems Prevention Research Group. Development, Intervention, and Serv- developmental progressions. In Ad- 1997. Peer rejection and aggression and ice Needs, edited by R. Loeber and vances in Clinical Child Psychology, early starter models of conduct disor- D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: vol. 11, edited by B.B. Lahey and A.E. der. Paper presented at the meeting of Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 247–269. Kazdin. New York, NY: Plenum Press, the Society for Research in Child De- pp. 73–124. velopment, Indianapolis, IN, April 1997. Kochanska, G., Murray, K., and Coy, K. 1997. Inhibitory control as a contributor Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P. 1998a. Moffitt, T. 1993. Adolescence-limited and to conscience in childhood: From tod- Never too early, never too late: Risk fac- life-course-persistent antisocial behav- dler to early school age. Child Develop- tors and successful interventions for ior: A developmental taxonomy. Psy- ment 68(2):263–277. serious and violent juvenile offenders. chological Review 100(4):674–701. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention Krohn, M.D., Thornberry, T.P., Rivera, C., 7(1):7–30. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- and Le Blanc, M. 2001. Later delinquen- quency Prevention. 1995. Delinquency cy careers. In Child Delinquents: De- Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. Prevention Works. Summary. Washing- velopment, Intervention, and Service 1998b. Serious and Violent Juvenile ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Needs, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Office of Justice Programs, Office of Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Publications, Inc., pp. 67–93. Publications, Inc. Prevention.

Kuczynski, L., and Kochanska, G. 1990. Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. Oldenettel, D., and Wordes, M. 1999. Development of children’s noncompli- 2001. Child Delinquents: Development, Community Assessment Centers. Fact ance strategies from toddlerhood to Intervention, and Service Needs. Thou- Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department age 5. Developmental Psychology sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 26(3):398–408. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- Loeber, R., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. quency Prevention. Kupperstein, L. 1971. Treatment and 1998. Development of juvenile aggres- rehabilitation of delinquent youth: Some sion and violence: Some common Olds, D., Henderson, C.R., Cole, R., socio-cultural considerations. Acta- misconceptions and controversies. Eckenrode, J., Kitzman, H., Luckey, D., Criminologica 4:11–111. American Psychologist 53(2):242–259. Pettitt, L., Sidora, K., Morris, P., and Powers, J. 1998. Long-term effects of Lahey, B.B., Piacentini, J.C., McBurnett, Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. 1996. Aca- nurse home visitation on children’s K., Stone, P., Hartdagen, S., and Hynd, G. demic performance and delinquency. criminal and antisocial behavior: 1988. Psychopathology in the parents In Crime and Justice, vol. 20, edited by Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized of children with conduct disorder and M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of controlled trial. Journal of the American hyperactivity. Journal of the American Chicago Press, pp. 145–264. Medical Association 280:1238–1244. Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy- chiatry 27(2):163–170. Marans, S., and Berkman, M. 1997. Child Parks, G. 2000. The High/Scope Perry Development–Community Policing: Part- Preschool Project. Bulletin. Washington, Landy, S., and Peters, R.D. 1992. Toward nership in a Climate of Violence. Bulletin. DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of an understanding of a developmental Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus- Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile paradigm for aggressive conduct prob- tice, Office of Justice Programs, Office Justice and Delinquency Prevention. lems during the preschool years. In of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Aggression Throughout the Life Span, Prevention. Patterson, G.R., and Bank, L. 1989. Some edited by R.D. Peters, R.J. McMahon, amplifying mechanisms for pathologic and V.L. Quinsey. Newbury Park, CA: McCord, J., and Conway, K.P. 2002. processes in families. In Systems and Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 1–30. Patterns of juvenile delinquency and Development: The Minnesota Symposia co-offending. In Crime and Social Organi- on Child Psychology, edited by M.R. Loeber, R. 1982. The stability of anti- zation, vol. 10 of Advances in Crimino- Gunnar and E. Thelen. Hillsdale, NJ: social and delinquent and child behav- logical Theory, edited by E. Waring and Erlbaum, pp. 167–209. ior: A review. Child Development 53(6): D. Weisburd. New Brunswick, NJ: Trans- 1431–1446. action Publishers, pp. 15–30.

17 Patterson, G.R., Capaldi, D.M., and Bank, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin- Welsh, B.C. 2001. Economic costs and L. 1991. An early starter model for pre- quency Prevention. benefits of early developmental preven- dicting delinquency. In The Development tion. In Child Delinquents: Development, and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, Silva, P.A. 1990. The Dunedin Multidis- Intervention, and Service Needs, edited edited by D.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin. ciplinary Health and Development by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thou- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 139–168. Project: A 15 year longitudinal study. sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology pp. 339–355. Patterson, G.R., Crosby, L., and Vuch- 4:96–127. inich, S. 1992. Predicting risk for Wiig, J.K. 2001. Legal issues. In Child early police arrest. Journal of Quanti- Snyder, H.N. 2001. Epidemiology of offi- Delinquents: Development, Intervention, tative Criminology 8(4):335–355. cial offending. In Child Delinquents: and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber Development, Intervention, and Service and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., and Dishion, Needs, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 323–338. T.J. 1992. Antisocial Boys. Eugene, OR: Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Castalia. Publications, Inc., pp. 25–46. Williams, S., Andersen, J., McGee, R., and Silva, P.A. 1990. Risk factors for Peeples, F., and Loeber, R. 1994. Do Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1999. behavioral and emotional disorder in individual factors and neighborhood Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 preadolescent children. Journal of the context explain ethnic differences in National Report. Report. Washington, American Academy of Child and Adoles- juvenile delinquency? Journal of Quan- DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office cent Psychiatry 29(3):413–419. titative Criminology 10(2):141–158. of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993. Com- Prior, M., Smart, M.A., Sanson, A., and prehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, Oberklaid, F. 1993. Sex differences in Stattin, H., and Klackenberg-Larsson, I. and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program psychological adjustment from infancy 1993. Early language and intelligence Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- to 8 years. Journal of the American development and their relationship to ment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro- Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy- future criminal behavior. Journal of grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and chiatry 32(2):291–304. Abnormal Psychology 102(3):369–378. Delinquency Prevention.

Reiss, A.J., and Farrington, D.P. 1991. Ad- Stevens, A.B., Owen, G., and Lahti- Zigler, E., Taussig, C., and Black, K. 1992. vancing knowledge about co-offending: Johnson, K. 1999. Delinquents Under Early childhood intervention: A promis- Results from a prospective longitudinal 10: Target Early Intervention Phase I ing preventative for juvenile delinquency. survey of London males. Journal of Evaluation Report. St. Paul, MN: Wilder American Psychologist 47(8): 997–1006. Criminal Law and Criminology 82:360– Research Center, Amherst H. Wilder 395. Foundation. This Bulletin was prepared under grant num- ber 95–JD–FX–0018 from the Office of Juvenile Rowe, D.C., and Gulley, B. 1992. Sibling Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. De- effects on substance abuse and delin- Wei, E., Farrington, D.P., and Wikström, partment of Justice. quency. Criminology 30:217–233. P-O.H. 2002. Risk and promotive effects Points of view or opinions expressed in this in the explanation of persistent serious document are those of the authors and do not Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., and delinquency in boys. Journal of Consult- necessarily represent the official position or Earls, F. 1997. Neighborhoods and vio- ing and Clinical Psychology 70:111–123. policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of lent crime: A multilevel study of collec- Justice. tive efficacy. Science 277(5328):919–924. Tremblay, R.E., Pihl, R.O., Vitaro, F., and The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Dobkin, P.L. 1994. Predicting early onset Prevention is a component of the Office of Schweinhart, L.J., Barnes, H.V., and of male antisocial behavior from pre- Justice Programs, which also includes the Weikart, D.P. 1993. Significant Benefits: school behavior. Archives of General Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Psychiatry 51(9):732–739. Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Through Age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/ Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Scope Press. Webster-Stratton, C. 1998. Preventing conduct problems in Head Start chil- Sexton, T.L., and Alexander, J.F. 2000. dren: Strengthening parenting compe- Functional Family Therapy. Bulletin. tencies. Journal of Consulting and Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Clinical Psychology 66:715–730. Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

18 Acknowledgments Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., is Professor of Psy- chiatry, Psychology, and Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, PA; Professor of Developmental Psychopathology, Free University, Amsterdam, Nether- lands; and Director of the Pittsburgh Youth Study. David P. Farrington, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychological Criminol- Want to know more about the issues ogy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, It’s Fast in this Bulletin or related information? England. David Petechuk is a freelance Log on to ojjdp.ncjrs.org: health sciences writer. The authors thank Magda Stouthamer-Loeber for ➤ Browse titles alphabetically or her contributions to this research. by topic. Photographs pages 5 and 10 copyright It’s Easy © 2001 Corbis Corporation; photograph ➤ Discover the latest OJJDP releases. page 7 copyright © 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc. ➤ Subscribe to OJJDP’s listserv It’s Free JUVJUST and the electronic newsletter JUSTINFO.

➤ Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Data- base to search for publications of interest.

NCJ 186162

19 *NCJ~186162*