B u l l e t i n S e r i e s

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Sparked by high-profile cases involvingchildren who commit violent crimes, pub-lic concerns regarding child delinquentshave escalated. Compared with juvenileswhose delinquent behavior begins later inadolescence, child delinquents (offendersyounger than age 13) face a greater riskof becoming serious, violent, and chronicjuvenile offenders. OJJDP formed theStudy Group on Very Young Offenders toexamine the prevalence and frequency of offending by children younger than 13.This Study Group identified particular riskand protective factors that are crucial todeveloping effective early interventionand protection programs for very youngoffenders.

This Bulletin is part of OJJDP’s ChildDelinquency Series, which presents thefindings of the Study Group on Very YoungOffenders. This series offers the latestinformation about child delinquency, in-cluding analyses of child delinquency sta-tistics, insights into the origins of veryyoung offending, and descriptions of earlyintervention programs and approachesthat work to prevent the development ofdelinquent behavior by focusing on riskand protective factors.

Compared with juveniles who startoffending in adolescence, child delin-quents (age 12 and younger) are two to three times more likely to becometomorrow’s serious and violent offend-ers. This propensity, however, can beminimized. These children are poten-tially identifiable either before theybegin committing crimes or at the veryearly stages of criminality—times wheninterventions are most likely to suc-ceed. Therefore, treatment, services,and intervention programs that targetthese very young offenders offer anexceptional opportunity to reduce theoverall level of crime in a community.

Although much can be done to preventchild delinquency from escalating intochronic criminality, the most successfulinterventions to date have been isolat-ed and unintegrated with other ongoinginterventions. In fact, only a few well-organized, integrated programs designedto reduce child delinquency exist inNorth America today.

The Study Group on Very Young Offend-ers (the Study Group), a group of 39experts on child delinquency and child

Youth who start offending early inchildhood—age 12 or younger—arefar more likely to become serious, vi-olent, and chronic offenders later inlife than are teenagers who begin tooffend during adolescence. We havean opportunity to direct these youngoffenders to a better path because re-search indicates that they are at anage when interventions are most like-ly to succeed in diverting them fromchronic delinquency.

Part of OJJDP’s Child Delinquency Se-ries, this Bulletin draws on findingsfrom OJJDP’s Study Group on VeryYoung Offenders to assess treatment,services, and intervention programsdesigned for juvenile offenders underthe age of 13. The Bulletin reviewstreatment and services available tosuch child delinquents and their fami-lies and examines their efficacy. At atime of limited budgets, it is impera-tive that we consider the cost effec-tiveness of specific programs becausechildren who are not diverted fromcriminal careers will require signifi-cant resources in the future.

The timely provision of the kindsof treatment, services, and interven-tion programs described in thisBulletin while child delinquents arestill young and impressionable mayprevent their progression to chroniccriminality, saving the expense oflater interventions.

Treatment, Services, andIntervention Programs forChild Delinquents Barbara J. Burns, James C. Howell, Janet K. Wiig, Leena K. Augimeri,Brendan C. Welsh, Rolf Loeber, and David Petechuk

Access OJJDP publications online at ojjdp.ncjrs.org

J. Robert Flores, Administrator March 2003

2

psychopathology convened by the Of-fice of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention (OJJDP), has concluded thatjuveniles who commit serious and vio-lent offenses most often have shownpersistent disruptive behavior in earlychildhood and committed minor delin-quent acts when quite young. There-fore, comprehensive interventionprograms should encompass childrenwho persistently behave in disruptiveways and child delinquents, in additionto young juvenile offenders who havecommitted serious and violent crimes.Focusing on children who persistentlybehave disruptively and child delin-quents has the following advantages:

● If early interventions are success-ful, both groups are less likely to be-come chronically delinquent if theyare exposed to additional risk fac-tors that typically emerge duringadolescence.

● If early interventions are successful,both groups are less likely to sufferfrom the many negative social andpersonal consequences of persistentmisbehavior.

● Both persistent disruptive behaviorand delinquency can be reducedat an early age through effectiveinterventions.

Child delinquents who become seriousand violent offenders consume signifi-cant funds and resources from the ju-venile justice system, schools, mentalhealth agencies, and other child welfareand child protection agencies. Never-theless, many children, especially thosewho behave disruptively, are not receiv-ing the services they need to avoid livesmarked by serious delinquency andcriminal offending. More interventionprograms fostering cooperation amongfamilies, schools, and communitiesneed to be devised, implemented, andevaluated.

This Bulletin explores the services avail-able to children and their families andthe efficacy and cost effectiveness of

particular interventions. (The StudyGroup’s findings concerning risk factorsfor child delinquency will be discussedmore fully in another Bulletin.) TheStudy Group reviewed how the mentalhealth, education, child welfare, andjuvenile justice sectors meet the serviceneeds of children with conduct disorderor who exhibit conduct disorder symp-toms.1 Although not all children withconduct disorder are technically childdelinquents, the behavior and problemsof acting out associated with the disor-der are often delinquent in nature.

Focusing on children with conduct dis-order or who exhibit conduct disordersymptoms helps researchers targetboth children who commit delinquentacts but have not been detected andchildren at risk of committing such acts.

This Bulletin also discusses juvenile jus-tice system programs and strategies forvery young offenders. Four promisingprograms—the Michigan Early OffenderProgram, the Minnesota DelinquentsUnder 10 Program, the SacramentoCounty Community Intervention Pro-gram, and the Toronto Under 12 Out-reach Project—that organize inter-ventions for child delinquents arereviewed. In addition, the Bulletin out-lines a model for comprehensive inter-ventions and examines the Canadianapproach to child delinquency, whichmay serve as a guide for preventionefforts in the United States and Europe.

Child Delinquency Research: An Overview

Historically, delinquency studies have focused on later adolescence, the time whendelinquency usually peaks. This was particularly true in the 1990s, when most re-searchers studied chronic juvenile offenders because they committed a dispropor-tionately large amount of crime. Research conducted during this period by OJJDP’sStudy Group on Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders concluded that youthreferred to juvenile court for their first delinquent offense before age 13 are farmore likely to become chronic offenders than youth first referred to court at a laterage. To better understand the implications of this finding, OJJDP convened theStudy Group on Very Young Offenders in 1998. Its charge was to analyze existingdata and to address key issues that had not previously been studied in the liter-ature. Consisting of 16 primary study group members and 23 coauthors who areexperts on child delinquency and psychopathology, the Study Group found evi-dence that some young children engage in very serious antisocial behavior andthat, in some cases, this behavior foreshadows early delinquency. The Study Groupalso identified several important risk factors that, when combined, may be relatedto the onset of early offending. The Study Group report concluded with a review ofpreventive and remedial interventions relevant to child delinquency.

The Child Delinquency Bulletin Series is drawn from the Study Group’s final report,which was completed in 2001 under grant number 95–JD–FX–0018 and subsequent-ly published by Sage Publications as Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs (edited by Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington). OJJDP encour-ages parents, educators, and the juvenile justice community to use this informationto address the needs of young offenders by planning and implementing moreeffective interventions.

1 According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders–IV (DSM–IV) (American PsychiatricAssociation, 1994), conduct disorder symptoms in-clude aggression toward people and animals, destruc-tion of property, deceitfulness or theft, and seriousviolations of rules. Juveniles who exhibit conductdisorder symptoms are also prone to certain otherconditions, such as attention deficit/hyperactivitydisorder (ADHD), internalizing disorders (anxiety anddepression), and substance abuse (Angold, Costello,and Erkanli, 1999).

3

Treatment ApproachesA growing body of research has focusedon the treatment of juvenile offendersand juveniles with conduct disorder. Anexamination of 200 studies publishedbetween 1950 and 1995 found that themost effective interventions for seriousand violent juvenile offenders wereinterpersonal skills training, individualcounseling, and behavioral programs(Lipsey and Wilson, 1998). Anotherreview of 82 studies of interventions forchildren and adolescents with conductproblems found strong evidence forseveral effective treatments, includingdelinquency prevention and parent-child treatment programs for preschool-age children and problem-solving skillstraining and anger-coping therapy forschool-age children (see, e.g., Brestanand Eyberg, 1998).

Examples of effective interventionsinclude the parent training programsbased on Patterson and Gullion’s LivingWith Children (1968), which are designedto teach adults how to monitor childproblem and prosocial behaviors, rewardbehavior incompatible with problembehavior, and ignore or apply negativeconsequences to problem behavior.Another example of effective interven-tions is the parent-training programdeveloped by Webster-Stratton andHammond (1997), which involves groupsof parents in therapist-led discussions ofvideotaped lessons.

Far less evidence of efficacy is availablefor psychopharmacology than psycho-social treatments; the results of studiesare often conflicting. For example, onestudy found that lithium effectivelyreduced aggressiveness in juveniles(Campbell and Cueva, 1995), whereastwo other studies did not produce thisresult (Klein, 1991; Rifkin et al., 1997)and one found only limited benefitsfrom lithium treatment (Burns, Hoag-wood, and Mrazek, 1999). Other med-ications for children with conduct dis-order are also being studied, includingmethylphenidate, dextroamphetamine,carbamazepine, and clonidine.

Controlled research on institutionalcare (e.g., psychiatric hospitalization,residential treatment centers, and grouphomes) for children with conduct disor-der is limited, and the findings are lessthan encouraging. To some extent, thisresult may be linked to the finding thatinteractions among delinquent juvenilesare prone to promote friendships andalliances among them and intensifydelinquent behavior rather than reduceit (Dishion, McCord, and Poulin, 1999).Several older clinical trials demonstrat-ed that community care was at leastas effective as inpatient treatment. Arecent study that compared inpatienttreatment with multisystemic therapy(MST) found that this community-basedalternative treatment was more effectiveat the 4-month followup (Schoenwald etal., 2000). A series of controlled studies(Burns et al., 2000) with older delin-quents involved in MST found multiplepositive outcomes (e.g., fewer arrests,less time in incarceration).

Service SectorsIn its effort to document informationabout services for child delinquents age12 and younger, the Study Group wasconcerned with two primary issues:access to services and patterns of

service use among juveniles who seekhelp. As opposed to focusing only onjuveniles who have committed offenses,the Study Group focused on juvenileswith conduct disorder or who exhibitedconduct disorder symptoms. This ap-proach stemmed partly from the factthat mental health services and treat-ment programs typically describe juve-niles by diagnosis and do not identifydelinquent status. Symptoms or a diag-nosis of conduct disorder functions as aproxy for early-onset offending.

Although conduct problems usually areapparent and children (in most circum-stances) are identified for some type ofservice, it is not known exactly whichservice sectors are most used and, per-haps more important, whether effectivetreatment is provided. Although muchresearch has focused on the onset, prog-nosis, course, and outcome of conductdisorder in children, seldom has re-search explored the link between con-duct disorder and offending and theservices and interventions used toaddress them. It is apparent, however,that the most effective interventions foryounger children focus on parents andare home- or school-based. This sectionoffers a brief overview of the four serv-ice sectors most commonly used to

4

help juveniles with conduct disordersymptoms or a conduct disorder diag-nosis: mental health, education, childwelfare, and juvenile justice.

Mental HealthEarly-onset offenders have frequentlydeveloped multiple mental healthproblems early in life. These juveniles,however, often are not identified untilthey have had some contact with thepolice or the court. In general, a largeproportion of juveniles with any typeof psychiatric disorder do not receivespecialized mental health services. It isunclear whether the same is true specif-ically for juveniles with conduct prob-lems. Considerable evidence suggests,however, that conduct disorder is high-ly prevalent among juveniles referred tomental health services (Kazdin, 1985;Lock and Strauss, 1994). Conduct disor-der accounts for 30 to 50 percent ofpsychiatric referrals among juveniles,making it the most frequent reason forreferral in this age group. Although thejuvenile justice system can serve as agateway into professional mental healthservices, this is not always the case. Forexample, one study found that juvenileswith a court contact and those withdelinquent behavior but no court con-tact were about equally likely to havesought help for their behavioral prob-lems and to have received professionalmental health treatment (Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, and Thomas, 1992).

In some juveniles, the early onset ofdelinquency is associated with atten-tion deficit/hyperactivity disorder(ADHD). The Multimodal TreatmentStudy of Children With Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (MTA Cooper-ative Group, 1999a) compared combina-tions of medication and behavioraltreatments (including parent manage-ment training, use of a behavioral aidein the classroom, and child behavioraltreatment in a summer program) witha standard community treatment (e.g.,a pediatrician prescribing stimulantmedication for children with ADHD).

For ADHD, medication worked betterthan the combined behavioral treat-ments. Children receiving both be-havioral treatment and medicationresponded better than those receivingbehavioral treatments alone, whereasbehavioral treatments combined withmedication worked no better than med-ication alone. Families whose childrenreceived behavioral treatment, with orwithout medication, were more satisfiedwith their children's treatment thanfamilies whose children received onlymedical treatment; behavioral treatmentimproved juveniles’ acceptance of andcompliance with medical treatment; andcombined treatment was associatedwith a lower dose of medication (MTACooperative Group, 1999b). In otherwords, one type of treatment (e.g.,behavioral) appears to enhance familycompliance with other treatment com-ponents (e.g., medication). Althoughthe evidence base for pharmacologicalinterventions with children and adoles-cents is less developed for juvenileswith conduct disorder than for thosewith ADHD, the results highlight theimportance of combining multiple com-ponents into clinically successful treat-ment programs that involve both chil-dren and their families.

EducationThe Study Group found that school sys-tems can play an important role in iden-tifying a child’s need for mental healthservices and providing such services.For example, juveniles and parents mostoften contact teachers about emotionaland behavioral problems. In a NorthCarolina study, 71.5 percent of juvenileswith serious emotional disturbancesreceived services from schools, com-pared with much smaller proportionsof help from other service sectors(Burns et al., 1995). However, the ade-quacy of school-based mental healthservices has been questioned, largelybecause school personnel, such as guid-ance counselors, have limited mentalhealth training. A discussion of schoolinterventions that seek to change the

social context of schools and improveacademic and social skills of studentsis provided on page 6 of this Bulletin.

Child WelfareChild welfare services, especially thefoster care segment, may also serve asa major gateway into the mental health-care system. The child welfare systemprovides children and adolescents withfinancial coverage for mental healthcare through Medicaid. In addition,children and adolescents enter thechild welfare system primarily becauseof maltreatment such as child abuseand neglect, conditions associated witha higher risk of psychiatric problemsand delinquency. For example, recentreviews of child welfare studies suggestthat between one-half and two-thirds ofchildren entering foster care have be-havior problems warranting mentalhealth services (Landsverk and Garland,1999). Two studies of computerizedMedicaid program claims found sub-stantially greater use of mental healthservices by children in foster care thanby children in the overall Medicaidpopulation (Takayama, Bergman, andConnell, 1994). Nevertheless, little isknown about how the child welfare sys-tem identifies child delinquents andpotential child delinquents and refersthem to mental health services. Thesechildren are a critical population forearly intervention because of theirexposure to trauma and other risk fac-tors and their consequent externalizing(or acting out) behavior. By using theresults of additional research, the childwelfare system could serve as an earlywarning system for identifying childrenwho demonstrate conduct problemsand are at an increased risk of enteringthe juvenile justice system during theiradolescence.

Juvenile JusticeConduct disorder is characterized byexternalizing behaviors as opposed tointernalizing behaviors. It is not surpris-ing, then, that this disorder is found

Researchers have estimated that atypical criminal career spanning thejuvenile and adult years costs societybetween $1.3 million and $1.5 million(Cohen, 1998). Several cost-benefit anal-yses have shown that early preventionprograms designed to halt the develop-ment of criminal potential in individualsshow promise as being both effectiveand economical in reducing delinquency(e.g., Aos et al., 2001; Wasserman andMiller, 1998; Welsh and Farrington, 2000).For example, in the Yale Child WelfareResearch Program, a cost-benefits anal-ysis found that in the course of 1 year,the control group of 15 families whoreceived no special services consumed$40,000 more in public resources thanthe treatment group of families whoparticipated in programs to help disad-vantaged young parents support theirchildren’s development and improve thequality of family life (Seitz, Rosenbaum,and Apfel, 1985). Aos and colleagues(2001) showed that, based on ability toreduce felonies and total costs to tax-payers and crime victims, multisystemictherapy, a community-based model ofservice delivery, is currently the mostcost-effective treatment program forreducing delinquency and incarceration,saving an estimated $31,661 to $131,918per participant in costs to taxpayers andvictims. Other cost-effective programsinclude treatment foster care (which hasreduced felonies by 37 percent amongparticipants and saved taxpayers andcrime victims $21,836 to $87,622 perparticipant) (Aos et al., 2001) and func-tional family therapy (which has re-duced felonies by 27 percent amongparticipants and saved taxpayers andcrime victims $14,149 to $59,067 perparticipant) (Sexton and Alexander,2000).1

Nevertheless, more research focusingon cost-benefit analysis is needed be-cause benefits tend to be estimated

conservatively, whereas costs are oftentaken into full account. More researchwill also help to determine specificmonetary benefits of prevention pro-grams (see Welsh, Farrington, andSherman, 2001).

As shown in the table above, cost-bene-fit analyses of early prevention revealmany important economic benefits ofprevention programs. For example, inaddition to preventing delinquency,many programs affect other life factors,

such as educational achievement,health, and parent-child relationships,all of which have economic benefits. Ananalysis of one program, conducted 13years after the intervention, found thatthe greatest share of total benefits (57percent) resulted from reduced welfarecosts, whereas increased revenues fromemployment-related taxes accounted for23 percent of total benefits, and savingsto the criminal justice system accountedfor 20 percent (Karoly et al., 1998).

5

Cost Effectiveness of Intervention

1 The cost to taxpayers is defined by criminal justice system costs, and the cost to crime victims is equal to the costs of personal and property losses.These figures represent net benefits per participant after subtracting the program costs per participant. The lower figures include taxpayer benefits only;the higher figures include both taxpayer and crime victim benefits.

Summary of Early Prevention Program Benefits

Outcome Variable Benefits

Delinquency/crime ● Offers savings to the criminal justice system(e.g., police, courts, probation, corrections).

● Avoids tangible and intangible costs incurred bycrime victims (e.g., medical care, damaged andlost property, lost wages, lost quality of life, painand suffering).

● Avoids tangible and intangible costs incurred byfamily members of crime victims (e.g., funeralexpenses, lost wages, lost quality of life).

Substance abuse ● Offers savings to the criminal justice system.● Improves health.

Education ● Improves educational output (e.g., high schoolcompletion, enrollment in higher education).

● Reduces schooling costs (e.g., remedial classes,support services).

Employment ● Increases wages (tax revenue for government).● Decreases use of welfare services.

Health ● Decreases use of public health care (e.g., fewervisits to hospitals and clinics).

● Improves mental health.

Family factors ● Reduces childbirths by women of low socioeco-nomic status.

● Offers parents more time to spend with theirchildren.

● Reduces divorces and separations.

Source: Welsh, B.C. 1998. Economic costs and benefits of early developmental prevention. InSerious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited byR. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 339–355.

6

more often among juveniles referredto the juvenile justice system than inthe general population (Otto et al.,1992). In one review of nine studies, theprevalence rates of conduct disorder forjuveniles in the juvenile justice systemranged from 10 to 90 percent, and rateswere higher for incarcerated juvenilesthan for those residing in the communi-ty (Cocozza, 1992). Mental health andsubstance use disorders are pervasiveamong incarcerated juveniles. For exam-ple, among 697 juveniles in detention inCook County, IL, 80 percent had at leastone mental health or substance use dis-order; 20 percent had an affective disor-der, 24 percent an anxiety disorder, 44percent a substance use disorder, and44 percent a disruptive behavior disor-der (Teplin, Northwestern UniversityMedical School, personal communica-tion, 1997). The limited attention givento providing mental health services toincarcerated juveniles raises questionsabout whether the lack of studies in thisarea is also associated with a failure toprovide needed services.

Service Use PatternsDespite the need for more research, theoutlook for the treatment of juvenileoffenders in general is more encour-aging now than it was 10 years ago.Several strategies for a comprehensiveapproach involving community actionshave shown promise for juveniles whoexhibit conduct disorder symptoms. Inaddition, three recent studies have shedlight on patterns of service use and mayhave implications for future interven-tion programs. The Great Smoky Moun-tains Study (GSMS), conducted in 11counties of western North Carolina,examined access to services. The Pat-terns of Care (POC) Study in San DiegoCounty, CA, provided information onservice use patterns for juveniles andfamilies seeking treatment. (The POCstudy consists of an annual count ofyouth involved in service delivery sys-tems and a longitudinal survey of youthwho received services.) The Cost ofServices in Medicaid Study in south-western Pennsylvania examined service

use and costs for juveniles with conductdisorder and juveniles with oppositionaldefiant disorder.

As expected, the studies found thateducation was the service sector mostlikely to intervene and that the mentalhealth sector provided services to asignificant proportion of juveniles whoexhibited conduct disorder symptoms.Institutional placement (in a psychiatrichospital or detention center) remaineda significant form of treatment for chil-dren who exhibited conduct disordersymptoms. Unexpectedly, the juvenilejustice system had limited contact withjuveniles who exhibited severe antiso-cial behavior, and when there was con-tact, the rate of mental health servicesintervention was extremely low. In theGSMS, the major finding was that youthwith a significant history of serious anti-social behavior were not identified bythe justice system, suggesting an impor-tant potential role of police in detectionand referral.

If appropriate services are not availablethrough the police or courts, a well-defined mechanism for obtaining timelyhelp is needed. The first step towardobtaining effective treatment is gainingaccess to services. However, althoughthe early detection of emotional andbehavioral problems has long been apublic health goal, the common de-lay between symptom onset and help-seeking is apparent. For example, in thechild welfare sector, it appears that achild’s first access to mental health ser-vices is often triggered by foster careplacement. A further issue is how widelyavailable effective interventions are tosuch youth once they gain access totreatment in typical mental healthsettings.

School InterventionsResearch shows that school interven-tions that change the social context ofschools and the school experiences ofchildren can reduce and prevent thedelinquent behavior of children youngerthan 13. Several approaches to school

interventions have yielded positiveresults. These approaches includeclassroom- and schoolwide behaviormanagement programs; social compe-tence promotion curriculums; conflictresolution and violence prevention cur-riculums; bullying prevention efforts;and multicomponent classroom-basedprograms that help teachers and par-ents manage, socialize, and educatestudents and improve their cognitive,social, and emotional competencies.Research also shows that community-based activities such as afterschoolrecreation and mentoring programs canreduce child delinquency (Jones andOfford, 1989).

Several classroom and school behaviormanagement programs have positivelyinfluenced children’s behavior. For ex-ample, evaluations of the Good BehaviorGame showed that proactive behavior

Juvenile Justice Facilitiesand Programming

The ability of the juvenile correctionssystem to provide appropriate facili-ties and programming for child delin-quents is a major concern. Becausethe juvenile justice system is notgeared to handle child delinquents,they are sometimes housed with olderoffenders in detention centers andjuvenile correctional facilities. Little isknown about the detrimental effectsof secure confinement on these chil-dren’s emotional and cognitive devel-opment, and much less is knownabout the impact confinement has onchildren. One study found that exces-sive detention (more than a 30-dayperiod) negated the positive effectsthat community treatment had onrecidivism rates among juveniles(Wooldredge, 1988). For young chil-dren who have committed violentoffenses, short-term facilities andcomprehensive community-based pro-grams may offer a good alternative tothe many disadvantages of long-termconfinement.

7

management in the classroom canreduce aggressive behavior and pro-mote positive long-term effects on themost aggressive elementary school chil-dren (Kellam and Rebok, 1992; Kellamet al., 1994). Murphy and colleagues(1983) found that programs that effec-tively manage behavior on the play-ground can reduce aggressive behavior.By providing structured activities andtimeout procedures for elementaryschool children, teacher’s aides wereable to reduce disruptive and aggressivebehavior during recreational periods.Mayer and Butterworth (1979) haveshown that schoolwide behavior man-agement and consultation programs inurban elementary schools can increasethe safety of students and enhancelearning and healthy social interactions.

Curriculums that seek to promote socialcompetence teach prosocial norms andenhance children’s problem-solving andsocial interaction skills. Several of thesecurriculums have been successfullyused to reduce aggressive behavior and,in some cases, child delinquency. Ex-amples include PATHS (Greenberg andKusche, 1993), the Social Relations In-tervention (Lochman et al., 1993), theMetropolitan Area Child Study (Eron etal., forthcoming), the Social Competence

Promotion Program for Young Adoles-cents (Weissberg, Barton, and Shriver,1997), and the Montreal LongitudinalExperiment Study (Tremblay et al.,1990). Although variations exist regard-ing the specific content, number ofsessions, and ages targeted by theseprograms, social competence promo-tion programs with sufficient intensityand duration consistently have beenfound to reduce aggressive and otherantisocial behaviors of children youngerthan 13.

Conflict resolution, violence preventioncurriculums, and antibullying programsalso focus on problem-solving andsocial interaction skills. In addition,they seek to educate children about thecauses and destructive consequencesof violence and bullying (Olweus, 1991).The Second Step curriculum for ele-mentary school students and the Re-sponding in Peaceful and Positive Wayscurriculum for middle school studentshave successfully reduced aggressivebehavior in children (Grossman et al.,1997). Social competence and violenceprevention curriculums can be com-bined with other intervention compo-nents into multicomponent approaches,as illustrated by Fast Track (ConductProblems Prevention Research Group,

1999a, 1999b), the Child DevelopmentProject, and the Seattle Social Devel-opment Project (SSDP).

Multicomponent classroom-based pro-grams seek to reduce misbehaving(both inside and outside the classroom)and strengthen academic achievement.Fast Track, the Child Development Pro-gram, and SSDP have shown positiveeffects in reducing early behavior prob-lems (Battistich et al., 1997; ConductProblems Prevention Research Group,1999a, 1999b; Hawkins et al., 1999). Eachof these programs included classroom-and family-focused components. Pos-itive effects of the Fast Track interven-tion on the disruptive-oppositionalbehavior of first-graders were evidentimmediately after the program conclud-ed. Today, those children are beingtracked to determine whether the on-going intervention will continue toinfluence their behavior. The ChildDevelopment Program used proactivebehavior management and cooperativelearning strategies with elementaryschool students. The program success-fully reduced antisocial behavior (in-cluding interpersonal aggression andweapon carrying) among children in ahigh-implementation subgroup. In theclassroom, SSDP combined proactivebehavior management strategies withinteractive instructional methods, coop-erative learning, and cognitive andsocial skills instruction for students.Effects of the program on children’santisocial behavior were shown duringthe intervention, immediately after itscompletion (at the end of elementaryschool), and when the students turned18 (6 years after the interventionended) (Hawkins et al., 1999).

These results clearly document theimportant role that schools can playin the prevention of child delinquency.This role is particularly important inlight of research findings that indicatethat children whose academic perform-ance is poor face a greater risk of be-coming involved in child delinquencythan other children (Herrenkohl et al.,

8

2001). Through the school and class-room management policies and prac-tices that they adopt, and through theinstructional methods and curriculumsthat teachers choose to use in the class-room, schools can promote or inhibitoffending behavior among students.Good schools are a fundamental com-ponent in preventing delinquency.

From the perspective of preventingchild delinquency, good schools areschools with explicit, consistent, andcontingent (and fairly applied) expecta-tions for behavior. Good schools useinteractive and cooperative methodsof instruction that actively involvestudents in their own learning. Goodschools empower parents to supportthe learning process and to practicemore effective child management skills.Good schools offer elementary and mid-dle school children curriculums thatpromote the development of social andemotional competencies and the devel-opment of norms against violence,aggression, and offending.

Schools that do these things promoteacademic attainment and reduce therisk for antisocial behavior amongtheir students. Federal, State, and localefforts should focus on encouragingschools to assess their current prac-tices in these areas and to adopt prac-tices, programs, and approaches shownto reduce offending behavior. Currently,94 percent of the resources intended tocombat violent offending are used afterviolent offenses have occurred. To ade-quately prevent youthful offending,more resources should be made avail-able to ensure that schools use methodsand programs that will help them effec-tively educate and socialize children.

Juvenile JusticeProgramsMost children with a conduct disorderdiagnosis or who exhibit conduct disor-der symptoms do not enter the juvenilejustice system before age 12. Neverthe-less, the likelihood that many of these

juveniles will eventually come in con-tact with the system during their ado-lescence is a clear incentive for earlierjustice system involvement. This sec-tion summarizes the status of the juve-nile justice system’s involvement withchild delinquency and describes severalpromising programs.

The juvenile court system typically giveschild delinquents more opportunities toreform than it gives to older offenders,which explains why juvenile courts donot normally adjudicate very young,first-time offenders. When confrontedwith child delinquents (even if theyare repeat or serious offenders), juven-ile courts must deal with legal issuessurrounding the handling of these chil-dren in a system that does not reallyanticipate their presence. Traditional-ly, the courts have been expected tointervene only when families, serviceagencies, and schools fail to give chil-dren the help they need. Childrenexhibiting problem behaviors oftenhave not been served adequately bychild welfare, social services, child pro-tective services, mental health agencies,and public schools (Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention,1995). Because their needs have notbeen met elsewhere, the juvenile courthas long been a “dumping ground” forchildren with a wide variety of problembehaviors (Kupperstein, 1971).2

The juvenile court’s intervention inchild delinquency has been affected bypolicy changes during the 1970s and1980s—e.g., the Federal Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention (JJDP)Act of 1974—which have increasedthe diversion of status offenders, non-offenders, and child delinquents fromjuvenile court processing. In the viewof many judges, this diversion hasmeant a lost opportunity to help

children (Holden and Kapler, 1995).Despite policy changes, however, thejuvenile courts continue to handle manystatus offenders, nonoffenders, andchild delinquents. Yet the policies of thepast 25 years have restricted the devel-opment of programs for these children.A fairly strong principle seems to becommonly held—that very young chil-dren should not be subject to disposi-tions normally reserved for older ormore serious offenders. However, dispo-sitions specifically tailored to addressthe unique circumstances of child delin-quents are scant. The juvenile justicesystem has no special facilities for theseyoung offenders, and few programs aredesigned specifically for them. Never-theless, among these few programs, theStudy Group has identified some promis-ing interventions for child delinquents.

Michigan Early OffenderProgramEstablished in 1985 by a Michigan pro-bate court, the Early Offender Program(EOP) provides specialized, intensive,in-home interventions for children age13 or younger at the time of their firstadjudication and who have had two ormore prior police contacts. Interven-tions include individualized treatmentplans, therapy groups, school prepara-tion assistance, and short-term deten-tion of up to 10 days. Comparisons witha control group showed that EOP partic-ipants had lower recidivism rates, fewernew adjudications per recidivist, andfewer and briefer out-of-home place-ments. In general, both parents andchildren reported positive changes infamily situations, peer relations, andschool performance and conduct afterparticipating in EOP (e.g., Howitt andMoore, 1991).

Minnesota DelinquentsUnder 10 ProgramThe Delinquents Under 10 Program inHennepin County, MN, involves severalcounty departments (Children andFamily Services, Economic Assistance,

2 Most practitioners surveyed by the Study Group onVery Young Offenders thought that effective methodswere available for reducing child delinquents’ risk offuture offending. However, only 3 to 6 percent ofpractitioners thought that current juvenile courtprocedures were effective in achieving this goal(Loeber and Farrington, 2001).

9

approaches. The multisystemic ap-proach uses interventions that targetchildren, parents, schools, and commu-nities, as required. Interventions includeskills training, cognitive problem solv-ing, self-control strategies, cognitive self-instruction, family management skillstraining, and parent training. These inter-ventions are organized in eight majorprogram components, such as a 12-weekafterschool structured group session, a12-week parent training group, in-homeacademic tutoring, school advocacy,teacher consultations, and individualbefriending, which connects juvenileswith volunteers who help them joinrecreational facilities in their community.

A ComprehensiveModelBased on the initial experiences ofthese community-based efforts and arecognition of the multiple causes ofchild delinquency, the need for a com-prehensive model emerges to guide

Community Health, and County Attor-ney’s Office). A screening team reviewspolice reports and then determinesappropriate dispositions for children.Interventions include an admonishmentletter to parents from the county attor-ney, referrals to child protective servicesand other agencies, diversion programs,and targeted early interventions for chil-dren deemed to be at the highest risk forfuture delinquency (Hennepin CountyAttorney’s Office, 1995). For each target-ed child, a specific wraparound networkis created. Networks include the follow-ing elements:

● A community-based organizationto conduct indepth assessments,improve behavior and school at-tendance, and provide extracurric-ular activities.

● An integrated service delivery teammade up of county staff who coordi-nate service delivery and help chil-dren and family members accessservices.

● A critical support person or mentor.

● A corporate sponsor that fundsextracurricular activities.

Sacramento CountyCommunity InterventionProgramSacramento County, CA, welfare authori-ties found that families of most young(ages 9 to 12) children arrested in thecounty had been investigated for bothneglect and physical abuse. In addition,children who were reported as abusedor neglected were six to seven timesmore likely than other children to bearrested for delinquent behavior (Brooksand Petit, 1997; Child Welfare League ofAmerica, 1997). Based on this data, theCommunity Intervention Program (CIP)for child delinquents was developed(Brooks and Petit, 1997). The interven-tion begins when law enforcement offi-cers notify the probation departmentthat a child between ages 9 and 12 hasbeen arrested. The court intake screen-er then refers the children who haveinstances of family abuse or neglect to

CIP. Next, a community interventionspecialist conducts a crisis assessmentand provides initial crisis interventionservices to the child and family. Theintervention specialist then conductsan indepth assessment, which includesphysical and mental health, substanceabuse, school functioning, economicstrengths/needs, vocational strengths/needs, family functioning, and socialfunctioning. The intervention specialistcoordinates all services, which are com-munity based and family focused andmay vary in intensity over time to matchthe needs of the child and family. Inter-vention services include individual andfamily counseling and abuse and neglectrisk monitoring.

Toronto Under 12 OutreachProjectThe Under 12 Outreach Project inToronto, Canada, is a fully developedintervention program that combinessocial learning and behavioral system

Policy Issues

A critical question for policymakers is how to transfer effective treatments, such asin-home treatment, parent training, and other approaches, to the appropriate servicesectors, especially schools, where children and parents are most likely to use andbenefit from such services. How to best combine interventions is another importantquestion. For many children and families, a single intervention may be sufficient, butfor others, a package of interventions and support may be critical.

As a result of its research review, the Study Group recommends that new researchfocus on issues such as the applicability and effectiveness of interventions for childdelinquents.

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

● Take steps within the juvenile justice system to assist parents of child delinquentsin seeking help.

● Enhance police training in the screening and detection of juveniles who are notnecessarily child delinquents but who have encountered the police because ofpredelinquent behavior and who could benefit from a referral for mental healthservices.

● Increase support for the training of mental health workers in evidence-basedprevention and treatment for offending juveniles.

● Develop policies that promote multiagency collaborative efforts.

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

10

new efforts. Historically, interagencycoordination and collaboration in serv-ice delivery to children have been lessthan impressive (Knitzer, 1982; Nel-son, Rutherford, and Wolford, 1996).Undoubtedly, children with seriousbehavioral disturbances need to receiveseveral different services simultaneous-ly in a continuum of care that involvesmultiple human services agencies. Acomprehensive wraparound model isneeded to integrate interventions forchildren who have committed delin-quent acts or are at risk of delinquency.The model should integrate prevention,early intervention, graduated sanctions,and aftercare in a comprehensive ap-proach that enables communities toaddress child delinquency more effec-tively (Wilson and Howell, 1993).

Mechanisms for aComprehensive ApproachThe Study Group has identified threecrucial mechanisms for coordinatingand fully integrating a continuum of careand sanctions for child delinquents:

Governing body. The Study Grouprecommends that communities andgovernments create a governing body,or interagency council, that includes(at a minimum) representatives fromall human services organizations andagencies related to juvenile justice thatprovide services to child delinquentsand their families. These agencies in-clude child welfare, education, healthand human services, housing and hu-man development, juvenile justice, andmental health. The council must havethe authority to convene the agenciesand to direct their work toward devel-oping a comprehensive strategy fordealing with child delinquency.

Comprehensive assessment and casemanagement. The Study Group believesthat an effort must be made for com-prehensive assessments of referredchild delinquents at the front end of thejuvenile justice system. One option is touse a single mechanism, such as a com-munity assessment center, to perform

risk and needs assessments for a widerange of agencies, thus providing a sin-gle point of entry and immediate andcomprehensive assessments. These“one-stop shops” could help integratemultidisciplinary perspectives, enhancecoordination of efforts, and reduce serv-ice duplication. However, to ensure thatchild delinquents have access to avail-able services and that the services areeffectively delivered, it is also criticalto implement integrated case manage-ment, tracking of children through thesystem, periodic reassessment, and mon-itoring of service provisions (Oldenetteland Wordes, 1999).

Interagency coordination and collabo-ration. Although juvenile justice, mentalhealth, child welfare, and education serv-ices may have the same clients, theseagencies often work at cross-purposesor duplicate services. The Study Grouprecommends developing wraparoundservices to target children and familiesin a flexible and individualized mannertailored to their strengths and needs(Burns and Goldman, 1999; Goldman,1999). Although promising and effectivewraparound models have been devel-oped for children with emotional dis-turbances and their families, the bestmethod of addressing child delinquencywithin the juvenile justice system hasnot been determined. One program,the 8% Early Intervention Program inOrange County, CA, ensures coordinat-ed service delivery by operating underthe authority of the probation depart-ment and using contractual arrange-ments for services (Schumacher andKurz, 1999).

PreventionAny program that targets children andchild delinquents should include astrong prevention component with afocus on discouraging gang involvement.Often, the most dysfunctional adoles-cents in urban areas are recruited intogangs (Lancot and Le Blanc, 1996). Priordelinquency and antisocial behavioralso predict gang membership (e.g.,Hill et al., 1999). A successful program

in Montreal, Canada, combined parenttraining with individual social skillstraining for aggressive-hyperactive boysages 7 to 9 and found that, when com-pared with a control group, significantlyfewer boys in the treatment groupjoined a gang (Tremblay et al., 1996).

Early intervention is paramount inpreventing delinquency and ganginvolvement, especially for disruptivechildren. One approach programs cantake is improving parenting skills to bet-ter manage impulsive, oppositional, anddefiant children. Another approach tar-gets parents at high risk for abusingand neglecting their children. An ex-ample of this approach is the Children’sResearch Center’s innovative methodfor identifying the relative degree of riskfor continued abuse or neglect amongfamilies that have a substantiated abuseor neglect referral (Children’s ResearchCenter, 1993). With this method, chil-dren are classified according to risk lev-els, which are then used to determineservices. Community policing shouldalso be part of early intervention. Forexample, a program in New Haven, CT,brings police officers and mental healthprofessionals together to provide eachwith training, consultation, and supportand to offer interdisciplinary interven-tions to child victims, witnesses, andperpetrators of violent crime (Maransand Berkman, 1997).

Graduated SanctionsChild delinquency intervention ef-forts need to be linked to a system ofgraduated sanctions—a continuum oftreatment alternatives that includesimmediate intervention, intermediatesanctions, community-based correc-tional sanctions, and secure corrections(Howell, 1995). One such program, the8% Early Intervention Program, focuseson juveniles younger than 15 who, al-though they represent only 8 percentof the total probation caseload, are ofgreatest concern to the communitybecause they account for more than halfof all repeat offenders among juvenileprobationers and because they are at

11

risk of becoming chronic, serious, andviolent juvenile offenders (Schumacherand Kurz, 1999). The following problemsserve as criteria for inclusion in the 8%Program:

● Significant family problems(e.g., abuse/neglect).

● Significant school problems (e.g., truancy, suspension).

● A pattern of individual problems(drug and/or alcohol use).

● Predelinquent behavior patterns(e.g., running away or gangassociations).

The 8% Program targets these juvenilesupon court referral. Cases are identifiedduring screening at probation intakeand verified through a comprehensiverisks and needs assessment process. Ayouth and family resource center pro-vides well-coordinated, intensive, andmultisystemic intervention services thatfocus on strengthening the family unit,improving school attendance and aca-demic performance, teaching and mod-eling prosocial behavior and values, andensuring easy access to interventionresources.

A Lesson Learned FromInnovations in CanadaLegislation and policy developmentsthat focus on child delinquency do notalways work as expected. Programs andpolicies sometimes lack coordination,proper data collection, adequate moni-toring and feedback, and ongoing analysis.Nonetheless, a review of such practicescan prompt policymakers to developnew and improved approaches. Canada’snear two-decade-old approach to childdelinquency is a case in point.

The Canadian Young Offenders Act of1984 effectively decriminalized childrenyounger than 12 by making them exemptfrom the juvenile justice system. Therationale was that these children wouldbe better served through provincialand territorial child welfare and mental

health services. However, several sur-veys3 of Canada’s 10 provinces and 3 ter-ritories revealed that the legislation didnot lead to a systemic development ofmultifaceted interventions tailored tochildren’s unique needs.

Nevertheless, the surveys influencedthe Earlscourt Child and Family Centre(see footnote 3) to make several recom-mendations, which the Study Groupbelieves may offer guidance to jurisdic-tions in the United States and Europe.Canada has already taken the first steptoward improving services by develop-ing early assessment and centralizedservices protocols in Toronto.4 The fol-lowing recommendations made to theCanadian government emphasize earlyidentification and intervention.

Community Teams for Children Under12 Committing Offenses. In this initia-tive, community teams of representa-tives from police departments, childwelfare programs, schools, mentalhealth agencies, and other organiza-tions would be mandated to provideservices for children who commit offens-es and their families and for teachers,children’s peers, and communities ingeneral. The teams would conduct needsand risk assessments and would assigninterventions according to offense sever-ity. Within this framework, multifacetedinterventions would be tailored to indi-vidual children and their families. Tem-porary placement options would rangefrom secure mental health facilities totreatment foster homes.

Children Committing Offenses Act(CCOA). To ensure accountability andmeet community standards of publicsafety, the Canadian CCOA would man-date that services to child delinquentsbe based on an assessment of their riskfor further offending. The Act wouldprovide clear direction to police regard-ing their responsibilities in trackingchildren and would ensure servicesaccording to established protocols.The Act would also provide for theplacement of specially designatedpolice liaison officers who are trainedto intervene with delinquent children,coordinate with community agencies,and participate in community teams(Augimeri, Goldberg, and Koegl, 1999).This Act may inspire similar legislationin other countries.

National Information Center on VeryYoung Offenders. This proposed centerwould encourage, monitor, and evalu-ate interventions for children youngerthan 12. It would track the incidence ofoffending and act as a clearinghouse forinterventions. To meet prevention goals,the center would facilitate a nationallysustained parent education programto promote parenting skills and wouldoffer technical assistance to communi-ties. It would also focus on antibullyingand antistealing campaigns targetingboth the entire school population andchildren most at risk of offending.

Summary andConclusionBecause persistent disruptive behaviorand child delinquency are predictors oflater serious and violent offending, theStudy Group suggests that efforts toreduce serious delinquency should fo-cus on children who exhibit persistentdisruptive behavior in addition to childdelinquents and serious juvenile offend-ers. Little evidence supports the ideathat harsher sanctions in the juvenilejustice system reduce child delinquency.Instead, effective interventions to reduceboth persistent disruptive behavior andchild delinquency have been developed.

3 Earlscourt Child and Family Centre (an accreditedchildren’s mental health center specializing in pro-grams for children with disruptive behavior prob-lems) developed and conducted the surveys, whichwere administered to a variety of service providers,including law enforcement, child welfare, and mentalhealth agencies and school boards.

4 The Toronto Centralized Services Protocol forChildren Under 12 in Conflict With the Law was imple-mented in Toronto in 1999. Since the implementationof the Protocol in Toronto, many other communitiesacross Ontario and across Canada have indicated aninterest in implementing a similar protocol in theirown jurisdictions.

12

The Study Group found that the bestintervention and service programs pro-vide a treatment-oriented, nonpunitiveframework that emphasizes early identi-fication and intervention.

When considering intervention programdevelopment, it is important to recog-nize the fact that no single system—juvenile justice, education, mentalhealth, or child welfare—can reducechild delinquency on its own. The StudyGroup’s survey of juvenile justice practi-tioners found that they were unanimousabout the need for integration amongagencies (Loeber and Farrington, 2001).However, providing multiple services fortroubled children in a comprehensive,integrated manner has proven difficult.Several pioneering programs describedin this Bulletin provide models of con-sistent coordination among agenciesconcerned with children. Such integrat-ed efforts will give communities theopportunity to identify children whoeither have committed delinquent actsor are at risk of delinquency and thenhelp communities target individualizedinterventions for these children andtheir families. Should this effort occuron a large scale, the potential for sig-nificantly reducing the overall level ofcrime in a community will increase. Asa result, the future expenditure of asso-ciated tax dollars will likely decrease.

ReferencesAmerican Psychiatric Association. 1994.Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychiatric Association.

Angold, A., Costello, E.J., and Erkanli, A.1999. Comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychol-ogy and Psychiatry 40(1):57–87.

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., and Lieb, R.2001. The Comparative Costs and Benefitsof Programs To Reduce Crime. Olympia, WA:Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Augimeri, L.K., Goldberg, K., and Koegl, C.1999. Canadian Children Under 12 CommittingOffenses: Police Protocols. Toronto, ON:Earlscourt Child and Family Centre.

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., andSchaps, E. 1997. Caring school communities.Educational Psychologist 32:137–151.

Brestan, E.V., and Eyberg, S.M. 1998. Effec-tive psychosocial treatments of conduct-disordered children and adolescents: 29years, 82 studies, and 5,272 kids. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology 27(2):180–189.

Brooks, T.R., and Petit, M. 1997. Early In-tervention: Crafting a Community Response toChild Abuse and Violence. Washington, DC:Child Welfare League of America.

Burns, B.J., Costello, E.J., Angold, A., Tweed,D., Stangl, D., Farmer, E.M.Z., and Erkanli, A.1995. Children’s mental health service useacross service sectors. Health Affairs14(3):147–159.

Burns, B.J., and Goldman, S.K., eds. 1999.Promising practices in wraparound for chil-dren with serious emotional disturbance andtheir families. In Systems of Care: PromisingPractices in Children’s Mental Health, 1998Series, Vol. 4. Washington, DC: Center forEffective Collaboration and Practice, Amer-ican Institutes for Research.

Burns, B.J., Hoagwood, K., and Mrazek, P.1999. Effective treatment for mental disor-ders in children and adolescents. ClinicalChild and Family Psychology Review2(4):199–254.

Burns, B.J., Schoenwald, S.K., Burchard, J.D.,Faw, L., and Santos, A.B. 2000. Comprehen-sive community-based interventions foryouth with severe emotional disorders:Multisystemic therapy and the wraparoundprocess. Journal of Child and Youth Studies9:283–314.

Campbell, M., and Cueva, J.E. 1995. Psycho-pharmacology in child and adolescent psychi-atry: A review of the past seven years—PartII. Journal of the American Academy of Childand Adolescent Psychiatry 34(10):1262–1272.

Child Welfare League of America. 1997.Sacramento County Community InterventionProgram. Washington, DC: Child WelfareLeague of America.

Children’s Research Center. 1993. A NewApproach to Child Protection: The CRC Model.Madison, WI: National Council on Crime andDelinquency.

Cocozza, J.J. 1992. Responding to the MentalHealth Needs of Youth in the Juvenile JusticeSystem. Seattle, WA: The National Coalition

for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal JusticeSystem.

Cohen, M.A. 1998. The monetary valueof saving a high-risk youth. Journal ofQuantitative Criminology 14(1):5–33.

Conduct Problems Prevention ResearchGroup. 1999a. Initial impact of the Fast TrackPrevention Trial for Conduct Problems: I.The high-risk sample. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology 65:631–647.

Conduct Problems Prevention ResearchGroup. 1999b. Initial impact of the Fast TrackPrevention Trial for Conduct Problems: II.Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 67:648–657.

Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., and Poulin, F. 1999.When interventions harm: Peer groups andproblem behavior. American Psychologist54(9):755–764.

Eron, L.D., Guerra, N., Henry, D., Huesmann,R., Tolan, P., and Van Acker, R. Forthcoming.A Cognitive-Ecological Approach to Prevent-ing Aggression in Urban Inner-City Settings:Preliminary Outcomes. Chicago, IL: Metro-politan Area Child Study Research Group,University of Illinois.

Goldman, S.K. 1999. The conceptual frame-work for wraparound: Definition, values,essential elements, and requirements forpractice. In Promising Practices in Wraparoundfor Children With Serious Emotional Disturb-ances and Their Families, edited by B.J. Burnsand S.K. Goldman. Washington, DC: Center forEffective Collaboration and Practice,American Institutes for Research.

Greenberg, M.T., and Kusche, C.A. 1993.Promoting Social and Emotional Developmentin Deaf Children: The PATHS Project. Seattle,WA: University of Washington Press.

Grossman, D.C., Neckerman, H.J., Koepsell,T., Asher, K., Liu, P.Y., Beland, K., Frey, K., andRivara, F.P. 1997. Effectiveness of a violenceprevention curriculum among children inelementary school. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 277:1605–1611.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., Kosterman, R.,Abbott, R., and Hill, K.G. 1999. Preventingadolescent health-risk behaviors by strength-ening protection during childhood. Archives

13

of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine153:226–234.

Hennepin County Attorney’s Office. 1995.Delinquents Under 10 in Hennepin County:A Research Update and Program ProgressReport. Minneapolis, MN: Hennepin CountyAttorney’s Office.

Herrenkohl, T.I., Hawkins, J.D., Chung, I., Hill,K.G., and Battin-Pearson, S. 2001. School andcommunity risk factors and interventions. InChild Delinquents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs, edited by R. Loeber andD.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc., pp. 217–218.

Hill, K.G., Howell, J.C., Hawkins, J.D., andBattin, S.R. 1999. Childhood risk factors foradolescent gang membership: Results fromthe Seattle Social Development Project.Journal of Research on Crime and Delin-quency 36(3):300–322.

Holden, G.A., and Kapler, R.A. 1995. De-institutionalizing status offenders: A recordof progress. Juvenile Justice 2(2):3–10.

Howell, J.C. 1995. Guide for Implementing theComprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Howitt, P.S., and Moore, E.A. 1991. The effica-cy of intensive early intervention: An evalua-tion of the Oakland County Probate CourtEarly Offender Program. Juvenile and FamilyCourt Journal 42(3):25–36.

Jones, M.B., and Offord, D.R. 1989. Reductionof antisocial behavior in poor children bynonschool skill-development. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry and AlliedDisciplines 30:737–750.

Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham,S.S., Houbé, J., Kilburn, M.R., Rydell, C.P.,Sanders, M., and Chiesa, J. 1998. Investing inOur Children: What We Know and Don’t KnowAbout the Costs and Benefits of Early Child-hood Interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Kazdin, A.E. 1985. Treatment of AntisocialBehavior in Children and Adolescents.Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Kellam, S.G., and Rebok, G.W. 1992. Build-ing developmental and etiological theorythrough epidemiologically based preventiveintervention trials. In Preventing Antisocial

Behavior: Interventions From Birth ThroughAdolescence, edited by J. McCord and R.E.Tremblay. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp.162–195.

Kellam, S.G., Rebok, G.W., Ialongo, N., andMayer, L.S. 1994. The course and malleabilityof aggressive behavior from early first gradeinto middle school: Results of a developmen-tal epidemiologically-based preventive trial.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry35:259–281.

Klein, R. 1991. Preliminary results: Lithiumeffects in conduct disorders. Paper present-ed at the 144th annual meeting of theAmerican Psychiatric Association, NewOrleans, LA.

Knitzer, J. 1982. Unclaimed Children: TheFailure of Public Responsibility to Childrenand Adolescents in Need of Mental HealthServices. Washington, DC: The Children’sDefense Fund.

Kupperstein, L. 1971. Treatment and rehabili-tation of delinquent youth: Some socio-cultural considerations. Acta Criminologica4:11–111.

Lancot, N., and Le Blanc, M. 1996. The partic-ipation of boys in a marginal gang: A phe-nomenon of selection and opportunities.Canadian Journal of Criminology 38:375–400.

Landsverk, J., and Garland, A. 1999. Fostercare and pathways to mental health serv-ices. In The Foster Care Crisis: TranslatingResearch Into Practice and Policy, edited byP. Curtis and G. Dale. Lincoln, NE: Universityof Nebraska Press, pp. 193–210.

Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D.B. 1998. Effectiveintervention for serious juvenile offenders:A synthesis of research. In Serious andViolent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors andSuccessful Interventions, edited by R. Loeberand D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 313–345.

Lochman, J.E., Coie, J.D., Underwood, M.K.,and Terry, R. 1993. Effectiveness of a socialrelations intervention program for aggressiveand nonaggressive rejected children. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology61:1053–1058.

Lock, J., and Strauss, G.D. 1994. Psychiatrichospitalization of adolescents for conductdisorder. Hospital and Community Psychiatry45:925–928.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 1998.Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: RiskFactors and Successful Interventions. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. 2001.Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention,and Service Needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc.

Marans, S., and Berkman, M. 1997. ChildDevelopment-Community Policing: Partnershipin a Climate of Violence. Bulletin. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Mayer, G.R., and Butterworth, T.W. 1979. Apreventive approach to school violence andvandalism: An experimental study. Personneland Guidance Journal 57:436–441.

MTA Cooperative Group. 1999a. A 14-monthrandomized clinical trial of treatment strate-gies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disor-der. Archives of General Psychiatry 56(12):1073–1086.

MTA Cooperative Group. 1999b. Moderatorsand mediators of treatment response forchildren with attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder. Archives of General Psychiatry56(12):1088–1096.

Murphy, H.A., Hutchinson, J.M., and Bailey,J.S. 1983. Behavioral school psychology goesoutdoors: The effect of organized games onplayground aggression. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Analysis 16:29–35.

Nelson, C.M., Rutherford, R.B., and Wolford,B.I. 1996. Comprehensive and CollaborativeSystems That Work for Troubled Youth: ANational Agenda. Richmond, KY: EasternKentucky University.

Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention. 1995. Delinquency PreventionWorks. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Oldenettel, D., and Wordes, M. 1999. Com-munity Assessment Centers. Fact Sheet. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Olweus, D. 1991. Bully/victim problemsamong schoolchildren: Basic facts andeffects of an intervention program. In The

14

This Bulletin was prepared under grant num-ber 95–JD–FX–0018 from the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. De-partment of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention is a component of the Office ofJustice Programs, which also includes theBureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau ofJustice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Development and Treatment of ChildhoodAggression, edited by K. Rubin and D. Pepler.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 411–448.

Otto, R.K., Greenstein, J.J., Johnson, M.K.,and Friedman, R.M. 1992. Prevalence of men-tal disorders among youth in the juvenilejustice system. In Responding to the MentalHealth Needs of Youth in the Juvenile JusticeSystem, edited by J.J. Cocozza. Seattle, WA:The National Coalition for the Mentally Ill inthe Criminal Justice System, pp. 7–28.

Patterson, G.R., and Gullion, M.E. 1968. LivingWith Children: New Methods for Parents andTeachers. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Rifkin, A., Karajgi, B., Dicker, R., Perl, E.,Boppana, V., Hasan, N., and Pollack, S. 1997.Lithium treatment of conduct disorders inadolescents. American Journal of Psychiatry154(4):554–555.

Schoenwald, S., Ward, D., Henggeler, S.,Rowland, M., and Brondino, M. 2000. Multi-systemic therapy versus hospitalization forcrisis stabilization of youth: Placement out-comes 4 months post-referral. Mental HealthServices Research 2(1):3–12.

Schumacher, M., and Kurz, G. 1999. The 8%Solution: Preventing Serious, Repeat JuvenileCrime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,Inc.

Seitz, V., Rosenbaum, L.K., and Apfel, H. 1985. Effects of family support intervention:A ten-year follow-up. Child Development56:376–391.

Sexton, T.L., and Alexander, J.F. 2000. Func-tional Family Therapy. Bulletin. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., andThomas, C. 1992. Caretakers seeking help for

boys with disruptive and delinquent childbehavior. Comprehensive Mental Health Care2:159–178.

Takayama, J., Bergman, A., and Connell, F.1994. Children in foster care in the state ofWashington: Health care utilization andexpenditures. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 271:1850–1855.

Tremblay, R.E., Mâsse, L.C., Pagani, L., andVitaro, F. 1996. From childhood physicalaggression to adolescent maladjustment:The Montreal Prevention Experiment. InPreventing Childhood Disorders, SubstanceAbuse and Delinquency, edited by R.D. Petersand R.J. McMahon. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc., pp. 268–298.

Tremblay, R.E., McCord, J., Boileau, H., LeBlanc, M., Gagnon, C., Charlebois, P., andLarivée, S. 1990. The Montreal preventionexperiment: School adjustment and self-reported delinquency after three years offollow-up. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Society of Crim-inology, Baltimore, MD, November 1990.

Wasserman, G.A., and Miller, L.S. 1998. Theprevention of serious and violent juvenileoffending. In Serious and Violent JuvenileOffenders: Risk Factors and SuccessfulInterventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P.Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc., pp. 197–247.

Webster-Stratton, C., and Hammond, M.A.1997. Treating children with early-onset con-duct problems: A comparison of child andparent training interventions. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology65(1):93–109.

Weissberg, R.P., Barton, H.A., and Shriver, T.P.1997. The Social-Competence PromotionProgram for young adolescents. In Primary

Prevention Works. Issues in Children’s andFamilies’ Lives, Vol. 6, edited by G.W. Albeeand T.P. Gullotta. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc., pp. 268–290.

Welsh, B.C., and Farrington, D.P. 2000.Monetary costs and benefits of crime pre-vention programs. In Crime and Justice: AReview of Research, Vol. 27, edited by M.Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress, pp. 305–361.

Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P., and Sher-man, L.W., eds. 2001. Costs and Benefits ofPreventing Crime. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.

Wilson, J.J., and Howell, J.C. 1993. A Com-prehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, andChronic Juvenile Offenders. Report. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Wooldredge, J.D. 1988. Differentiating theeffects of juvenile court sentences on elimi-nating recidivism. Journal of Research inCrime and Delinquency 25:264–300.

15

Want to know more about the issues in this Bulletin orrelated information? Log on to ojjdp.ncjrs.org:

➤ Browse titles alphabetically or by topic.

➤ Discover the latest OJJDP releases.

➤ Subscribe to OJJDP’s listserv JUVJUST and the electronic newsletter JUSTINFO.

➤ Link to the NCJRS Abstracts Database to searchfor publications of interest.

Take the Online Path to

OJJDP Information

It’s Fast ➤ It’s Easy ➤ It’s Free

Acknowledgments

Barbara J. Burns, Ph.D., is Professor ofMedical Psychology and Director, Serv-ices Effectiveness Research Program,Department of Psychiatry and Behav-ioral Sciences, Duke University Schoolof Medicine. James C. Howell, Ph.D.,is Adjunct Researcher, National YouthGang Center, Tallahassee, FL. Janet K.Wiig, J.D., M.S.W., is Executive Dir-ector, Institute on Criminal Justice,University of Minnesota Law School.Leena K. Augimeri, M.Ed., is Manager,Earlscourt Under 12 Outreach Project,Toronto, Canada. Brendan C. Welsh,Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Depart-ment of Criminal Justice, Universityof Massachusetts—Lowell. Rolf Loeber,Ph.D., is Professor of Psychiatry, Psy-chology, and Epidemiology, Universityof Pittsburgh, PA; Professor of Develop-mental Psychotherapy, Free University,Amsterdam, Netherlands; and Directorof the Pittsburgh Youth Study. DavidPetechuk is a freelance health scienceswriter.

Photograph page 3 copyright © 1995PhotoDisc, Inc.; photograph page 7copyright © 1997 PhotoDisc, Inc.

NCJ 193410