The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: A Review of the Research
By Edward P. Mulvey, Michael W. Arthur, & N. Dickon Reppucci
The Prevention Researcher,
Volume 4, Number 2, 1997, Pages 1-4
Feature Article:
Juvenile delinquency is a complex problem that exacts a substantial and continuing toll on our society. After being stable for more than 10 years, juvenile violent crime rates soared between 1988 & 1994. If this trend continues they will double by the year 2010. Social indicators suggest that recent declines in the proportion of teenagers in the population may soon reverse as children of the "baby boomers" come of age. Emerging trends in family demographics also reveal that more children than ever are growing up homeless, in poverty, and in single parent homes, while funding for social programs is decreasing.
While the exact mechanisms and Iikely strength of the relationships between these conditions and juvenile crime remain ambiguous, these trends suggest that the press to find adequate intervention methods for juvenile delinquents will only increase. Primary and secondary prevention of delinquency rest on the principle of identifying individuals and environments at risk for delinquent activity before the behavior has occurred and then either removing risk factors or strengthening resistance to the risk factors. The impact of this approach depends upon the process of identifying risk factors and the choice of when and where to direct the intervention. When in the life course of what targeted individuals is what intervention most likely to be successful?
The family is one of the most logical starting places for prevention efforts. Because of the weight of recent empirical evidence relating family functioning to various forms of adolescent antisocial behavior, and alarm at the rapidly changing demographics of U.S. families, early family intervention has received wide endorsement as a locus for preventive intervention.
Early family interventions, however, may be perceived as an invasion of privacy. They may also stigmatize or inappropriately label youth and families as problems, and may have unanticipated negative long-term effects. These barriers to primary prevention may prohibit well-intentioned interventions from being adequately implemented. To provide both widely acceptable services and targeted programs for those who need it most, preventive efforts have generally been of two types: (a) those that focus on training parents in family management techniques, and (b) those that provide an array of supportive services such as child care and/or medical and social services to socially disadvantaged families.
Parent Training
Parent training interventions developed during the 1960's when behavioral-oriented child therapists recognized the importance of involving parents in child behavior management in the home. Unfortunately, although several studies have supported the efficacy of parent training for reducing problem behaviors of conduct disordered youth, scant evidence exists concerning its effectiveness as a primary prevention strategy. Because parent training is typically a component of community based or school-based interventions, it is impossible to separate its effects from the other aspects of the interventions. One interesting finding, however, was that siblings of behavior-disordered youths were less likely to exhibit problem behaviors and delinquency following intervention than siblings of comparison youth.
While the exact mechanisms and Iikely strength of the relationships between these conditions and juvenile crime remain ambiguous, these trends suggest that the press to find adequate intervention methods for juvenile delinquents will only increase. Primary and secondary prevention of delinquency rest on the principle of identifying individuals and environments at risk for delinquent activity before the behavior has occurred and then either removing risk factors or strengthening resistance to the risk factors. The impact of this approach depends upon the process of identifying risk factors and the choice of when and where to direct the intervention. When in the life course of what targeted individuals is what intervention most likely to be successful?
Family-Based Preventive Interventions
The family is one of the most logical starting places for prevention efforts. Because of the weight of recent empirical evidence relating family functioning to various forms of adolescent antisocial behavior, and alarm at the rapidly changing demographics of U.S. families, early family intervention has received wide endorsement as a locus for preventive intervention.
Early family interventions, however, may be perceived as an invasion of privacy. They may also stigmatize or inappropriately label youth and families as problems, and may have unanticipated negative long-term effects. These barriers to primary prevention may prohibit well-intentioned interventions from being adequately implemented. To provide both widely acceptable services and targeted programs for those who need it most, preventive efforts have generally been of two types: (a) those that focus on training parents in family management techniques, and (b) those that provide an array of supportive services such as child care and/or medical and social services to socially disadvantaged families.
Parent Training
Parent training interventions developed during the 1960's when behavioral-oriented child therapists recognized the importance of involving parents in child behavior management in the home. Unfortunately, although several studies have supported the efficacy of parent training for reducing problem behaviors of conduct disordered youth, scant evidence exists concerning its effectiveness as a primary prevention strategy. Because parent training is typically a component of community based or school-based interventions, it is impossible to separate its effects from the other aspects of the interventions. One interesting finding, however, was that siblings of behavior-disordered youths were less likely to exhibit problem behaviors and delinquency following intervention than siblings of comparison youth.
Perhaps the most consistent finding across the parent training literature is the difficulty of keeping families with the greatest need engaged in programs on a regular basis. Dropout rates over 50% are reported. In addition, it has been demonstrated that multistressed parents are more likely to have parenting difficulties-and are less likely to complete training programs and/or continue to apply the skills they have learned after completion of the program.
Thus, while evidence for the efficacy of this approach exists, it is compromised by the likelihood of self-selection, and the inability of most designs to isolate the effects of parent training as a separate strategy.
Family Support Interventions
These provide a broad array of social support services, including day care, medical care, counseling, family needs assessment, and referrals to other social service agencies. Although an oft cited example of this type of casework approach to delinquency prevention, the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, apparently had negative long term effects on participants, more recent interventions have shown evidence of positive impact. While the effectiveness of day care, particularly with infants, is currently being debated, there is general agreement that quality day care is beneficial to disadvantaged families. Other studies have demonstrated that supportive interventions with parents of high risk, low birth weight infants can erase the cognitive and parenting problems associated with low birth weight. Few studies, however, have examined the long-term effects of day care and other family support interventions on later delinquency and antisocial behavior.
The second major social system historically charged with responsibility for socializing youth is the school. A large body of research has shown that low IQ, learning disability, poor attitudes toward school, and school failure are related to and often precede official and self-reports of delinquent behavior. While schools traditionally have provided a number of individual-focused prevention services such as free lunches, health screening, counseling, and remedial and special education, system-level preventive interventions have only recently been tried. These interventions have been encouraged by research showing that school processes and climate are related to academic achievement and rates of delinquent behavior. However, individual-focused interventions are still far more common than system-level interventions.
Thus, while evidence for the efficacy of this approach exists, it is compromised by the likelihood of self-selection, and the inability of most designs to isolate the effects of parent training as a separate strategy.
Family Support Interventions
These provide a broad array of social support services, including day care, medical care, counseling, family needs assessment, and referrals to other social service agencies. Although an oft cited example of this type of casework approach to delinquency prevention, the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, apparently had negative long term effects on participants, more recent interventions have shown evidence of positive impact. While the effectiveness of day care, particularly with infants, is currently being debated, there is general agreement that quality day care is beneficial to disadvantaged families. Other studies have demonstrated that supportive interventions with parents of high risk, low birth weight infants can erase the cognitive and parenting problems associated with low birth weight. Few studies, however, have examined the long-term effects of day care and other family support interventions on later delinquency and antisocial behavior.
School-Based Preventive Interventions
The second major social system historically charged with responsibility for socializing youth is the school. A large body of research has shown that low IQ, learning disability, poor attitudes toward school, and school failure are related to and often precede official and self-reports of delinquent behavior. While schools traditionally have provided a number of individual-focused prevention services such as free lunches, health screening, counseling, and remedial and special education, system-level preventive interventions have only recently been tried. These interventions have been encouraged by research showing that school processes and climate are related to academic achievement and rates of delinquent behavior. However, individual-focused interventions are still far more common than system-level interventions.
Preschool Programs
The best known school-based preventive intervention undoubtedly is Project Head Start. Started as a component of President Johnson's War on Poverty, the program's intent was to prevent academic problems among economically disadvantaged children by providing a broad range of social services centered around a creative preschool curriculum. Evaluations of Head Start programs' impact on participants have been mixed and reflect variations in the quality of Head Start programs and in outcome measures used in the evaluations.
The evidence generally suggests, however, that many Head Start programs produced short-term improvements in children's IQ and academic performance and long-term improvements in school functioning. These include less need for special education placement, less likelihood of grade retention, and greater likelihood of graduation. Additional benefits to communities and mothers of Head Start children have only recently begun to be assessed. Longitudinal studies of similar preschool programs have produced even more striking results.
Evaluations of the specific effect of Head Start on preventing delinquency are sparse. However, some results demonstrate its potentially long-lasting effects on the development of delinquent behaviors and the importance of longitudinal assessments of program outcome. Although the findings of this one program cannot be generalized to all preschool programs with all disadvantaged children, they do indicate that programs of this type may have profound impact on participants, with delinquency prevention one of the ultimate outcomes.
Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions
Cognitive behavioral interventions are based on the idea that conduct disorders such as juvenile delinquency can result from an inability to develop and maintain positive social relationships due to deficits in social skills. These interventions can be described as either: 1) Interpersonal cognitive problem-solving programs which focus on processes such as interpreting social cues, generating alternative solutions to social problem situations, evaluating the likely outcomes of different solutions, and means-ends thinking; or 2) Behavioral social-skills-training programs which focus on teaching specific behaviors such as entering a peer group, accepting criticism, giving compliments, and resisting peer pressure.
Evaluations of Cognitive behavioral skills-training programs have shown consistent, short-term improvements in problem-solving abilities, particularly for younger, disadvantaged children. The evidence for long-term behavioral improvements is not clear.
The best known school-based preventive intervention undoubtedly is Project Head Start. Started as a component of President Johnson's War on Poverty, the program's intent was to prevent academic problems among economically disadvantaged children by providing a broad range of social services centered around a creative preschool curriculum. Evaluations of Head Start programs' impact on participants have been mixed and reflect variations in the quality of Head Start programs and in outcome measures used in the evaluations.
The evidence generally suggests, however, that many Head Start programs produced short-term improvements in children's IQ and academic performance and long-term improvements in school functioning. These include less need for special education placement, less likelihood of grade retention, and greater likelihood of graduation. Additional benefits to communities and mothers of Head Start children have only recently begun to be assessed. Longitudinal studies of similar preschool programs have produced even more striking results.
Evaluations of the specific effect of Head Start on preventing delinquency are sparse. However, some results demonstrate its potentially long-lasting effects on the development of delinquent behaviors and the importance of longitudinal assessments of program outcome. Although the findings of this one program cannot be generalized to all preschool programs with all disadvantaged children, they do indicate that programs of this type may have profound impact on participants, with delinquency prevention one of the ultimate outcomes.
Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions
Cognitive behavioral interventions are based on the idea that conduct disorders such as juvenile delinquency can result from an inability to develop and maintain positive social relationships due to deficits in social skills. These interventions can be described as either: 1) Interpersonal cognitive problem-solving programs which focus on processes such as interpreting social cues, generating alternative solutions to social problem situations, evaluating the likely outcomes of different solutions, and means-ends thinking; or 2) Behavioral social-skills-training programs which focus on teaching specific behaviors such as entering a peer group, accepting criticism, giving compliments, and resisting peer pressure.
Evaluations of Cognitive behavioral skills-training programs have shown consistent, short-term improvements in problem-solving abilities, particularly for younger, disadvantaged children. The evidence for long-term behavioral improvements is not clear.
Social Process Interventions
Some researchers have designed interventions to alter the social structures and processes of schools to facilitate better adjustment among students. Though some of these interventions incorporate social skills training, their major focus is to change the school social environment to encourage greater involvement and commitment among students. One type of system level intervention focuses on changing teacher practices within the classroom to increase the bonding of low achievers. This approach is discussed in detail by Drs. O'Donnell, Hawkins, Catalano, Abbott and Day in this issue.
Community Organization
It was recognized during the 1920's and 1930's that most juvenile delinquents in Chicago lived in low socioeconomic status (SES), inner city neighborhoods characterized by rapid residential transition, high unemployment, and a lack of citizen involvement. Accordingly, the Chicago Area Project was developed to prevent delinquency by organizing neighborhood residents to provide greater structure, supervision, and opportunities for positive involvement of youth. Despite evidence that delinquency rates in the Project neighborhoods declined by almost 50% during the 1930's, the Project was never systematically evaluated and its effectiveness at preventing delinquency remains unproven. However, the Project was successful at organizing community residents, and continues to support neighborhood groups in South Chicago to this day. Recent studies based on this pioneering work continue to provide evidence that community disorganization is related to higher crime rates.
Current interventions that focus on increasing community involvement to prevent crime generally are limited to developing Neighborhood or Block Watch organizations, or citizen patrols such as the Guardian Angels. While in some instances the development of such programs has been shown to reduce crime and fear of crime, other studies have shown that it is hardest to organize these programs in high crime neighborhoods, and that in some programs fear may increase. Moreover, some studies suggest that neighborhood organizing has little direct effect on delinquency when compared with family, school, and peer influences. Although efforts to improve neighborhood environments and community organizations should not be abandoned, there is little evidence at present that these efforts alone will have a significant impact on juvenile crime.
More targeted community based programs aimed at providing a comprehensive, caring environment for adolescents have also been established and enjoy some positive regard by practitioners. These programs all operate from the premise that adolescents experiencing trouble need a supportive place to find help with a variety of problems. Following this logic, these settings try to deal with adolescents by offering multiple services for multiple problems, attempting to be responsive to the particular life situation of the individual youth who comes to them for help. Evaluations of this approach have been sparse, although there is an inherent attractiveness to the notion of creating an accessible, nurturant, and flexible environment for youths who are least likely to connect with conventional professional services.
Some researchers have designed interventions to alter the social structures and processes of schools to facilitate better adjustment among students. Though some of these interventions incorporate social skills training, their major focus is to change the school social environment to encourage greater involvement and commitment among students. One type of system level intervention focuses on changing teacher practices within the classroom to increase the bonding of low achievers. This approach is discussed in detail by Drs. O'Donnell, Hawkins, Catalano, Abbott and Day in this issue.
Community-Based Preventive Interventions
Community Organization
It was recognized during the 1920's and 1930's that most juvenile delinquents in Chicago lived in low socioeconomic status (SES), inner city neighborhoods characterized by rapid residential transition, high unemployment, and a lack of citizen involvement. Accordingly, the Chicago Area Project was developed to prevent delinquency by organizing neighborhood residents to provide greater structure, supervision, and opportunities for positive involvement of youth. Despite evidence that delinquency rates in the Project neighborhoods declined by almost 50% during the 1930's, the Project was never systematically evaluated and its effectiveness at preventing delinquency remains unproven. However, the Project was successful at organizing community residents, and continues to support neighborhood groups in South Chicago to this day. Recent studies based on this pioneering work continue to provide evidence that community disorganization is related to higher crime rates.
Current interventions that focus on increasing community involvement to prevent crime generally are limited to developing Neighborhood or Block Watch organizations, or citizen patrols such as the Guardian Angels. While in some instances the development of such programs has been shown to reduce crime and fear of crime, other studies have shown that it is hardest to organize these programs in high crime neighborhoods, and that in some programs fear may increase. Moreover, some studies suggest that neighborhood organizing has little direct effect on delinquency when compared with family, school, and peer influences. Although efforts to improve neighborhood environments and community organizations should not be abandoned, there is little evidence at present that these efforts alone will have a significant impact on juvenile crime.
More targeted community based programs aimed at providing a comprehensive, caring environment for adolescents have also been established and enjoy some positive regard by practitioners. These programs all operate from the premise that adolescents experiencing trouble need a supportive place to find help with a variety of problems. Following this logic, these settings try to deal with adolescents by offering multiple services for multiple problems, attempting to be responsive to the particular life situation of the individual youth who comes to them for help. Evaluations of this approach have been sparse, although there is an inherent attractiveness to the notion of creating an accessible, nurturant, and flexible environment for youths who are least likely to connect with conventional professional services.
Youth Recreation
Over the years, numerous youth recreation programs such as the Police Athletic League, Boys' Clubs, and the Fresh Air Fund have developed to provide constructive activities for youth and reduce their involvement in antisocial activity. A few studies have shown a relationship between participation in organized athletic programs and lower levels of delinquent activity, particularly for working class boys. Currently more than 20 million youths aged 6-15, participate in some form of organized, extra scholastic sports activity. This has prompted some researchers to suggest that organized sports may have considerable potential for promoting competence and preventing delinquency. Unfortunately, this potential has never been systematically assessed.
Similarly, recent studies indicating that children and adolescents spend more than 20 hours per week watching TV has increased concern about the impact of TV violence on behavior. Moreover, studies have typically shown moderate correlations between the amount of violence seen on TV and aggressive behavior, with some evidence that the effect of viewing televised violence as a young child may have a relationship to adolescent delinquency. Given this possibility of the media as an influence on adolescent attitudes, commercials designed to discourage drug use and encourage parent involvement with their children have recently been developed. However, the impact of these commercials on substance use and/or delinquent behavior has not been assessed. It should be recognized that the impact of commercials versus that of regular programming may be significantly different.
In sum, recent research has provided some encouraging evidence that prevention programs can prevent juvenile delinquency. Demonstrations of the links between these efforts and actual reduction in delinquent behavior in the groups of most interest is, however, still tenuous. There is some evidence that parent training programs can reduce the emergence of child behavior problems up to 8 years following intervention, and that structural family therapy can prevent delinquency. However, these interventions appear to be less successful with high risk, multiproblem families and families of older children due to problems with recruitment and maintained use of the parenting skills taught.
For lower SES and minority families, some family support and structured preschool interventions were able to reduce the risk of delinquency many years following intervention. School programs that change teacher behavior and/or school organization seem to improve the school behavior and performance of low achievers, as do social skills and cognitive problem-solving interventions, but the long-term impact of school programs on delinquency has not been established. Community approaches to delinquency prevention are difficult to evaluate and have not been adequately tested. The available literature points toward the importance of integrating the more successful approaches into a comprehensive strategy, rather than expecting any single approach to have a large effect.
Dr. Edward Mulvey is Associate Professor of Child Psychiatry and Director of the Law and Psychiatry program in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Dr. N. Dickon Reppucci is Professor of Psychology and Head of the Community Psychology program at the University of Virginia. Dr. Michael Arthur is Research Associate Professor working with the Social Development Research Group at the University of Washington.
This article is abstracted, with permission from "The Prevention and Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency: A Review of the Research," Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 133-167.
Over the years, numerous youth recreation programs such as the Police Athletic League, Boys' Clubs, and the Fresh Air Fund have developed to provide constructive activities for youth and reduce their involvement in antisocial activity. A few studies have shown a relationship between participation in organized athletic programs and lower levels of delinquent activity, particularly for working class boys. Currently more than 20 million youths aged 6-15, participate in some form of organized, extra scholastic sports activity. This has prompted some researchers to suggest that organized sports may have considerable potential for promoting competence and preventing delinquency. Unfortunately, this potential has never been systematically assessed.
Similarly, recent studies indicating that children and adolescents spend more than 20 hours per week watching TV has increased concern about the impact of TV violence on behavior. Moreover, studies have typically shown moderate correlations between the amount of violence seen on TV and aggressive behavior, with some evidence that the effect of viewing televised violence as a young child may have a relationship to adolescent delinquency. Given this possibility of the media as an influence on adolescent attitudes, commercials designed to discourage drug use and encourage parent involvement with their children have recently been developed. However, the impact of these commercials on substance use and/or delinquent behavior has not been assessed. It should be recognized that the impact of commercials versus that of regular programming may be significantly different.
Summary
In sum, recent research has provided some encouraging evidence that prevention programs can prevent juvenile delinquency. Demonstrations of the links between these efforts and actual reduction in delinquent behavior in the groups of most interest is, however, still tenuous. There is some evidence that parent training programs can reduce the emergence of child behavior problems up to 8 years following intervention, and that structural family therapy can prevent delinquency. However, these interventions appear to be less successful with high risk, multiproblem families and families of older children due to problems with recruitment and maintained use of the parenting skills taught.
For lower SES and minority families, some family support and structured preschool interventions were able to reduce the risk of delinquency many years following intervention. School programs that change teacher behavior and/or school organization seem to improve the school behavior and performance of low achievers, as do social skills and cognitive problem-solving interventions, but the long-term impact of school programs on delinquency has not been established. Community approaches to delinquency prevention are difficult to evaluate and have not been adequately tested. The available literature points toward the importance of integrating the more successful approaches into a comprehensive strategy, rather than expecting any single approach to have a large effect.
Dr. Edward Mulvey is Associate Professor of Child Psychiatry and Director of the Law and Psychiatry program in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Dr. N. Dickon Reppucci is Professor of Psychology and Head of the Community Psychology program at the University of Virginia. Dr. Michael Arthur is Research Associate Professor working with the Social Development Research Group at the University of Washington.
This article is abstracted, with permission from "The Prevention and Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency: A Review of the Research," Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 133-167.
Page:
1
2
3
4
5
View references for this article »
This article can be found in the issue:
Juvenile Delinquency
The Prevention Researcher,
Volume 4, Number 2, 1997
This 1997 issue focuses exclusively on juvenile delinquency.
This issue also featured these articles:
- • Family Solutions for Juvenile First Offenders, Pages 10-12
- • Resilience to Delinquency, Pages 4-7
- • Seattle Social Development Project: Preventing Delinquency Among Low-Income Children, Pages 7-9
- • The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: A Review of the Research, Pages 1-4
Order this print issue for only $10.00!
