research on juvenile delinquency

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Risk and protective factors and interventions for reducing juvenile delinquency: a systematic review.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. inclusion criteria, 2.2. exclusion criteria, 2.3. data sources and search strategy, 2.4. risk of bias assessment, 4. discussion, 5. limitations, 6. conclusions, author contributions, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Aksnes, Dag W., and Gunnar Sivertsen. 2019. A Criteria-based Assessment of the Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Data and Information Science 4: 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amani, Bita, Norweeta G. Milburn, Susana Lopez, Angela Young-Brinn, Lourdes Castro, Alex Lee, and Eraka Bath. 2018. Families and the juvenile justice system: Considerations for family-based interventions. Family & Community Health 41: 55–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anderson, Valerie R., and Brinn M. Walerych. 2019. Contextualizing the nature of trauma in the juvenile justice trajectories of girls. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community 47: 138–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, Valerie R., Laura L. Rubino, and Nicole C. McKenna. 2021. Family-based Intervention for Legal System-involved Girls: A Mixed Methods Evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology 67: 35–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arias-Pujol, Eulàlia, and M. Teresa Anguera. 2017. Observation of interactions in adolescent group therapy: A mixed methods study. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barnert, Elizabeth S., Rebecca Dudovitz, Bergen B. Nelson, Tumaini R. Coker, Christopher Biely, Ning Li, and Paul J. Chung. 2017. How does incarcerating young people affect their adult health outcomes? Pediatrics 139: e20162624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barrett, James G., and Elizabeth Janopaul-Naylor. 2016. Description of a collaborative community approach to impacting juvenile arrests. Psychological Services 13: 133–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Borduin, Charles M., Lauren B. Quetsch, Benjamin D. Johnides, and Alex R. Dopp. 2021. Long-term effects of multisystemic therapy for problem sexual behaviors: A 24.9-year follow-up to a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 89: 393–405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bright, Charlotte Lyn, Sarah Hurley, and Richard P. Barth. 2014. Gender differences in outcomes of juvenile court-involved youth following intensive in-home services. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 5: 23–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buchanan, Molly, Erin D. Castro, Mackenzie Kushner, and Marvin D. Krohn. 2020. It’s F** ing Chaos: COVID-19’s impact on juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. American Journal of Criminal Justice 45: 578–600. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Campbell, Mhairi, Joanne E. McKenzie, Amanda Sowden, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Sue E. Brennan, Simon Ellis, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Rebecca Ryan, Sasha Shepperd, and James Thomas. 2020. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline. BMJ 368: l6890. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cavanagh, Caitlin, and Elizabeth Cauffman. 2017. The longitudinal association of relationship quality and reoffending among first-time juvenile offenders and their mothers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 46: 1533–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Costello, Barbara J., and John H. Laub. 2020. Social Control Theory: The Legacy of Travis Hirschi’s Causes of Delinquency . Annual Review of Criminology 3: 21–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D.C. Department of Human Services. n.d. Functional Family Therapy (FFT). Available online: https://dhs.dc.gov/page/functional-family-therapy-fft#:~:text=Functional%20Family%20Therapy%20(FFT)%20is,relational%2C%20family-based%20perspective (accessed on 23 June 2023).
• D’Agostino, Emily, Stacy L. Frazier, Eric Hansen, Maria I. Nardi, and Sarah E. Messiah. 2020. Association of a park-based violence prevention and mental health promotion after-school program with youth arrest rates. JAMA Network Open 3: e1919996. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dakof, Gayle A., Craig E. Henderson, Cynthia L. Rowe, Maya Boustani, Paul E. Greenbaum, Wei Wang, Samuel Hawes, Clarisa Linares, and Howard A. Liddle. 2015. A randomized clinical trial of family therapy in juvenile drug court. Journal of Family Psychology 29: 232–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dodson, Lisa. 2013. Stereotyping low-wage mothers who have work and family conflicts. Journal of Social Issues 69: 257–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ezell, Jerel M., Margaret Richardson, Samira Salari, and James A. Henry. 2018. Implementing trauma-informed practice in juvenile justice systems: What can courts learn from child welfare interventions? Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 11: 507–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gan, Daniel Z. Q., Yiwei Zhou, Eric Hoo, Dominic Chong, and Chi Meng Chu. 2019. The Implementation of Functional Family Therapy (FFT) as an Intervention for Youth Probationers in Singapore. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 45: 684–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garduno, L. Sergio. 2022. How Influential are Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) on Youths?: Analyzing the Immediate and Lagged Effect of ACEs on Deviant Behaviors. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 15: 683–700. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gearhart, Michael C., and Riley Tucker. 2020. Criminogenic risk, criminogenic need, collective efficacy, and juvenile delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior 47: 1116–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halgunseth, Linda C., Daniel F. Perkins, Melissa A. Lippold, and Robert L. Nix. 2013. Delinquent-oriented attitudes mediate the relation between parental inconsistent discipline and early adolescent behavior. Journal of Family Psychology 27: 293–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Henggeler, Scott W., Michael R. McCart, Phillippe B. Cunningham, and Jason E. Chapman. 2012. Enhancing the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts by integrating evidence-based practices. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 80: 264–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Higgins, Julian, James Thomas, Jacqueline Chandler, Miranda Cumpston, Tianjing Li, Matthew Page, and Vivian Welch, eds. 2022. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions . Version 6.4. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoeve, Machteld, Geert Jan J. M. Stams, Claudia E. Van der Put, Judith Semon Dubas, Peter H. Van der Laan, and Jan R. M. Gerris. 2012. A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 40: 771–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hogue, Aaron, Sarah Dauber, Jessica Samuolis, and Howard A. Liddle. 2006. Treatment techniques and outcomes in multidimensional family therapy for adolescent behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology 20: 535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karam, Eli A., Emma M. Sterrett, and Lynn Kiaer. 2017. The integration of family and group therapy as an alternative to juvenile incarceration: A quasi-experimental evaluation using Parenting with Love and Limits. Family Process 56: 331–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lantos, Hannah, Andra Wilkinson, Hannah Winslow, and Tyler McDaniel. 2019. Describing associations between child maltreatment frequency and the frequency and timing of subsequent delinquent or criminal behaviors across development: Variation by sex, sexual orientation, and race. BMC Public Health 19: 1306. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Leve, Leslie D., Patricia Chamberlain, and Hyoun K. Kim. 2015. Risks, outcomes, and evidence-based interventions for girls in the US juvenile justice system. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 18: 252–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lippold, Melissa A., Andrea Hussong, Gregory M. Fosco, and Nilam Ram. 2018. Lability in the parent’s hostility and warmth toward their adolescent: Linkages to youth delinquency and substance use. Developmental Psychology 54: 348–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Logan-Greene, Patricia, and Annette Semanchin Jones. 2015. Chronic neglect and aggression/delinquency: A longitudinal examination. Child Abuse & Neglect 45: 9–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Logan-Greene, Patricia, B. K. Elizabeth Kim, and Paula S. Nurius. 2020. Adversity profiles among court-involved youth: Translating system data into trauma-responsive programming. Child Abuse & Neglect 104: 104465. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• May, Jessica, Kristina Osmond, and Stephen Billick. 2014. Juvenile delinquency treatment and prevention: A literature review. Psychiatric Quarterly 85: 295–301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moher, David, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G. Altman, and PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151: 264–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mowen, Thomas J., and John H. Boman. 2018. A developmental perspective on reentry: Understanding the causes and consequences of family conflict and peer delinquency during adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 47: 275–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). 2020. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Updated 8 July. Available online: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05101.asp (accessed on 24 May 2023).
• Page, Matthew J., Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, and Sue E. Brennan. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery 88: 105906. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Perron, Susannah. 2013. Family Attachment, Family Conflict, and Delinquency in a Sample of Rural Youth. Doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA. [ Google Scholar ]
• Petry, Nancy M., Sheila M. Alessi, Todd A. Olmstead, Carla J. Rash, and Kristyn Zajac. 2017. Contingency management treatment for substance use disorders: How far has it come, and where does it need to go? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 31: 897. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Puzzanchera, Charles. 2022. Trends in Youth Arrests for Violent Crimes. In Juvenile Justice Statistics: National Report Series Fact Sheet . Available online: https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/trends-in-youth-arrests.pdf (accessed on 18 August 2023).
• Robst, John, Mary Armstrong, and Norin Dollard. 2017. The association between type of out-of-home mental health treatment and juvenile justice recidivism for youth with trauma exposure. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 27: 501–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruch, Donna A., and Jamie R. Yoder. 2018. The effects of family contact on community reentry plans among incarcerated youths. Victims & Offenders 13: 609–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, Joseph P. 2012. Substitute care in child welfare and the risk of arrest: Does the reason for placement matter? Child Maltreatment 17: 164–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ryan, Joseph P., Abigail B. Williams, and Mark E. Courtney. 2013. Adolescent neglect, juvenile delinquency and the risk of recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42: 454–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sanders, Courtney. 2021. State Juvenile Justice Reforms Can Boost Opportunity, Particularly for Communities of Color. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Available online: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-juvenile-justice-reforms-can-boost-opportunity-particularly-for (accessed on 24 May 2023).
• Sitnick, Stephanie L., Daniel S. Shaw, Chelsea M. Weaver, Elizabeth C. Shelleby, Daniel E. Choe, Julia D. Reuben, Mary Gilliam, Emily B. Winslow, and Lindsay Taraban. 2017. Early childhood predictors of severe youth violence in low-income male adolescents. Child Development 88: 27–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strathearn, Lane, Michele Giannotti, Ryan Mills, Steve Kisely, Jake Najman, and Amanuel Abajobir. 2020. Long-term cognitive, psychological, and health outcomes associated with child abuse and neglect. Pediatrics 146: e20200438. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• The PEW Charitable Trusts. 2014. Public Opinion on Juvenile Justice in America. Available online: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2015/08/pspp_juvenile_poll_web.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2023).
• Trinkner, Rick, Ellen S. Cohn, Cesar J. Rebellon, and Karen Van Gundy. 2012. Don’t trust anyone over 30: Parental legitimacy as a mediator between parenting style and changes in delinquent behavior over time. Journal of Adolescence 35: 119–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Triplett, Ruth. 2007. Social learning theory of crime. In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology . Malden: Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. 2012. Program Profile: Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT). Updated 6 May. Available online: https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedprograms/267#:~:text=Multidimensional%20Family%20Therapy%20(MDFT)%20is,%2C%20and%20other%20mental%20comorbidities (accessed on 23 June 2023).
• Underwood, Lee A., and Aryssa Washington. 2016. Mental illness and juvenile offenders. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13: 228–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vidal, Sarah, Christine M. Steeger, Colleen Caron, Leanne Lasher, and Christian M. Connell. 2017. Placement and delinquency outcomes among system-involved youth referred to multisystemic therapy: A propensity score matching analysis. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 44: 853–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Walker, Sarah C., Mylien Duong, Christopher Hayes, Lucy Berliner, Leslie D. Leve, David C. Atkins, Jerald R. Herting, Asia S. Bishop, and Esteban Valencia. 2019. A tailored cognitive behavioral program for juvenile justice-referred females at risk of substance use and delinquency: A pilot quasi-experimental trial. PLoS ONE 14: e0224363. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• White, Stuart F., Paul J. Frick, Kathryn Lawing, and Daliah Bauer. 2013. Callous–unemotional traits and response to Functional Family Therapy in adolescent offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31: 271–85. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wiatrowski, Michael D., and Mary K. Swatko. 1979. Social Control Theory and Delinquency—A Multivariate Test. Available online: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/social-control-theory-and-delinquency-multivariate-test#:~:text=Hirschi’s%20social%20control%20theory%20suggests,in%20social%20rules%20and%20convention (accessed on 24 May 2023).
• Wilkinson, Andra, Hannah Lantos, Tyler McDaniel, and Hannah Winslow. 2019. Disrupting the link between maltreatment and delinquency: How school, family, and community factors can be protective. BMC Public Health 19: 588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Young, Joanna Cahall, and Cathy Spatz Widom. 2014. Long-term effects of child abuse and neglect on emotion processing in adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect 38: 1369–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zajac, Kristyn, Jeff Randall, and Cynthia Cupit Swenson. 2015. Multisystemic therapy for externalizing youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics 24: 601–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Aazami, A.; Valek, R.; Ponce, A.N.; Zare, H. Risk and Protective Factors and Interventions for Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review. Soc. Sci. 2023 , 12 , 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090474

Aazami A, Valek R, Ponce AN, Zare H. Risk and Protective Factors and Interventions for Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review. Social Sciences . 2023; 12(9):474. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090474

Aazami, Aida, Rebecca Valek, Andrea N. Ponce, and Hossein Zare. 2023. "Risk and Protective Factors and Interventions for Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review" Social Sciences 12, no. 9: 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090474

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Juvenile Delinquency

Theory, Research, and the Juvenile Justice Process

• © 2020
• Latest edition
• Peter C. Kratcoski 0 ,
• Lucille Dunn Kratcoski 1 ,
• Peter Christopher Kratcoski 2

Sociology/Justice Studies, Kent State University, Tallmadge, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Tallmadge, USA

Williams, Welser & Kratcoski LLC, Kent, USA

• Provides an overview of major topics related to Juvenile Delinquency for advanced undergraduate and graduate-level students
• Includes quantitative and qualitative research findings, with new interviews and discussions of the experiences of child care professionals and juvenile justice practitioners
• Provides an interpretation of theory to practice in the criminal justice system
• Explores recent discussion of children as victims, such as non-fault children who are victims of abuse, neglect, and at-risk situations such as violence and bullying
• Incorporates international perspectives on juvenile justice and delinquency, in addition to addressing changes in the characteristics of delinquents, changes in laws, and the influence of social media and electronic communications devices on juvenile delinquency

51k Accesses

19 Citations

3 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

Similar content being viewed by others.

How Young Offenders’ Perceive Their Life Courses and the Juvenile Justice System: A Systematic Review of Recent Qualitative Research

Examining the Presenting Characteristics, Short-Term Effects, and Long-Term Outcomes Associated with System-Involved Youths

It’s F**ing Chaos: COVID-19’s Impact on Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice

• juvenile delinquency
• juvenile justice
• at-risk children
• at-risk youth
• status offenders
• juvenile court
• family court
• juvenile corrections
• developmental and life-course criminology
• age-crime curve

Table of contents (16 chapters)

Front matter, the transition of child to adult.

• Peter C. Kratcoski, Lucille Dunn Kratcoski, Peter Christopher Kratcoski

Past and Current Bio-Social Perspectives on Delinquency Causation

Social-psychological theories of delinquency, social organization perspectives on delinquency causation, perspectives on interpersonal relationships in the family, perspectives on gangs and peer group influences pertaining to delinquency causation, perspectives on delinquency and violence in the schools, laws and court cases pertaining to children: offenders and victims, perspectives on children as victims of abuse and neglect, the police role in delinquency prevention and control, processing the juvenile offender: diversion, informal handling, and special dockets, the juvenile court process, probation and community-based programs, perspectives on juveniles incarcerated in secure facilities, parole and community supervision, counseling and treatment of juvenile offenders, back matter, authors and affiliations.

Peter C. Kratcoski

Lucille Dunn Kratcoski

Williams, Welser & Kratcoski LLC, Kent, USA

Peter Christopher Kratcoski

About the authors

Peter Charles Kratcoski earned a PhD in sociology from the Pennsylvania State university, a MA in sociology from the University of Notre Dame and a BA in sociology from King’s College. He taught at St. Thomas College and Pennsylvania State University before assuming the position of assistant professor of sociology at Kent State University. He retired as professor  of  sociology/criminal justice studies and Chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice Studies at Kent State University. He is currently a professor emeritus and adjunct professor at Kent State. He has published many books, book chapters and journal articles in juvenile delinquency, juvenile justice, juvenile victimization and crime prevention as well as completing numerous research  projects   relating to policing, crime prevention, juvenile delinquency prevention and victimization. His most recent publications include author of Correctional Counseling and Treatment (6 th edition) 2017, co-editor of Corruption, Fraud, Organized Crime, and the Shadow Economy, 2016 and co-editor of Perspectives on Elderly Crime and Victimization, 2018.

Lucille Dunn Kratcoski was awarded a  Bachelor of Arts degree  from Marywood College and a Master degree in music from Pennsylvania State University. She has numerous years teaching experience at the elementary, high school and university levels as well as providing private instruction. She co-authored Juvenile Delinquency and a number of book chapters and journal articles on the subject of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. In addition to her private practice, she serves as a  Kratcoski Research Associate.

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Juvenile Delinquency

Book Subtitle : Theory, Research, and the Juvenile Justice Process

Authors : Peter C. Kratcoski, Lucille Dunn Kratcoski, Peter Christopher Kratcoski

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31452-1

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology , Law and Criminology (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Hardcover ISBN : 978-3-030-31451-4 Published: 16 December 2019

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-030-31454-5 Published: 06 January 2021

eBook ISBN : 978-3-030-31452-1 Published: 03 December 2019

Edition Number : 6

Number of Pages : XXVI, 442

Number of Illustrations : 6 b/w illustrations

Additional Information : Originally published by Pearson Education, Inc., Old Tappan, New Jersey, 2003

Topics : Youth Offending and Juvenile Justice , Criminological Theory

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Corrections
• Crime, Media, and Popular Culture
• Criminal Behavior
• Criminological Theory
• Critical Criminology
• Geography of Crime
• International Crime
• Juvenile Justice
• Prevention/Public Policy
• Race, Ethnicity, and Crime
• Research Methods
• Victimology/Criminal Victimization
• White Collar Crime
• Women, Crime, and Justice
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Juvenile delinquency in an international context.

• Katharina Neissl Katharina Neissl School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University
•  and  Simon S. Singer Simon S. Singer School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Northeastern University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.567
• Published online: 30 June 2020

Juvenile delinquency is a global phenomenon, and interest in comparative studies of juvenile offending and society’s reaction to it has been steadily growing, despite the inherent difficulties of comparing juvenile justice processes across different regions. Both adolescence and the concept of juvenile delinquency are social constructs that vary by time and place. To know what constitutes a juvenile, or a delinquent act, requires detailed knowledge of a jurisdiction’s social, political, cultural, and legal history. International data in the form of officially recorded contact of juveniles with formal institutions are scarce, and they are often limited in their use for direct comparisons, due to divergent definitions and recording practices, or coverage of geographical regions. The United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (UN-CTS) have the widest geographical reach, but lack transparency of definitions or verification. The World Prison Brief by the Institute for Policy Research at Birkbeck University of London provides prison trends around the globe, but only offers one indicator of juvenile imprisonment. The Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE) and the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics collect data on a range of custodial and non-custodial measures, and include detailed notes on national definitions, but are limited to Europe. The largest self-report study of youth is the International Self-Report Delinquency (ISRD) study, which is currently in its third wave that includes 40 countries across the globe.

Since 1990 the United Nations has developed international conventions, rules, and guidelines that govern the rights of children, particularly as they relate to juvenile justice, and these guidelines have shaped, and continue to shape, juvenile justice processes across the globe. Almost all regions in the world have provisions to treat juveniles violating the law differently from adults, but they do so in a multitude of ways. Not all countries have separate systems for juveniles and adults, and in some regions of the world informal reactions to juvenile law-breaking dominate, or coexist with formal juvenile justice institutions. Juvenile justice systems are often categorized according to their founding philosophies, between the poles of a welfare and protection approach on one extreme, and a crime control and justice approach on the other. However, such classifications mask important differences between countries, and can only be seen as broad generalizations. In order to capture the intricacies of existing systems, and compare them between jurisdictions, a localized approach to juvenile justice is needed. It is not sufficient to describe which legal orientations or traditions inform a system, but rather it is necessary to examine how these traditions (as well as global trends and pressures) are interpreted by local juvenile justice administrators. Comparative juvenile justice research that can contribute to public debates and to achieving better outcomes for juveniles across the globe needs to be localized, pay special attention to the specific cultural, legal, and historical context of the jurisdiction studied, and differentiate between the law in theory and the law in practice.

• juvenile justice
• juvenile delinquency
• comparative criminology
• globalization
• international criminology

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Criminology and Criminal Justice. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 29 July 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.14.133]
• 185.66.14.133

Character limit 500 /500

• Criminal Law
• Youth Crime
• Delinquency

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: DEFINITIONS, TREND AND GOVERNMENTAL EFFORTS TO CURB THE PROBLEM

• Conference: Round Table Discussion on Youth - Ministry of Youth Culture and Sport
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Universiti Putra Malaysia

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Ati Kusmawati
• Nelly Marhayati
• Nadeem Parvez
• Fasih Raghib Gauhar
• C Bartollas
• M S Suhaimi
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Get new issue alerts Get alerts
• Submit a Manuscript

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Impact of social factors responsible for Juvenile delinquency – A literature review

Abhishek, R; Balamurugan, J

Department of Social Sciences, School of Social Sciences and Languages, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Address for correspondence: Dr. J Balamurugan, Department of Social Sciences, School of Social Sciences and Languages, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore - 632 014, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail: [email protected]

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

BACKGROUND: 

Juvenile delinquency appears to be the most widespread social issue in comparison to other social issues. Social factors and conditions have a significant impact on the prevalence of delinquency. Individuals who engage in criminal behavior before reaching the age of 18 are commonly referred to as juvenile offenders. The aim of this study is to comprehensively elucidate the research and work carried out on juvenile offenders, with a specific focus on the critical role played by social factors in all facets of juvenile delinquency. Additionally, this research seeks to investigate the social roots and influences that contribute to the criminal behavior of young offenders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 

This article uses a literature review methodology to analyze research on social factors influencing juvenile delinquency. It synthesizes and evaluates prior findings to understand the complex interplay between social factors and young individuals’ involvement in delinquent behaviors. The study analyzed 80 articles from reputable online databases, focusing on juvenile delinquency, offenders, crime, and social factors. Out of the 80 articles, 53 were cited, meeting inclusion criteria, including publication within 2000–2023, rigorous peer-review, and reputable database indexing.

RESULTS: 

As per the findings of the research, it has been observed that children who grow up in households that exhibit affection, hospitality, and encouragement are comparatively less susceptible to the manifestation of societal maladies. Children who have experienced parental abandonment are at heightened risk of developing delinquent behaviors.

CONCLUSION: 

The presence of negative family dynamics and associations with delinquent peers are widely recognized as significant contributors to the development of drug abuse behavior. It is imperative for policymakers and preventive initiatives to have a comprehensive understanding of this complex relationship. Therefore, this literature review presented a distinct overview of the influence of social factors on juvenile offenders in India.

Introduction

The negative behavior of some people within a society is one of the difficulties in nation-building because it can ultimately have an impact on a country’s infrastructure, financial stability, cultural identity, and overall societal progress. [ 1 ] There exist multiple categories of societal issues, among which is the issue of adolescent delinquency. Researchers in various fields such as criminology, psychology, and philosophy have been attempting to understand the reasons behind individuals’ immoral behavior for a considerable period of time. The primary focus of researchers and theorists has been to identify risk factors that may contribute to delinquency, such as individual, social, and environmental factors that can increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. [ 2 , 3 ] However, this review study was performed to profile the different social factors and their causes of juvenile delinquency, which will be presented in this article. Worldwide, more than three-quarters of the population lives in countries with higher levels of criminality. Particularly in Asia, there are the highest levels of criminality, whereas India holds a criminality score of 5.53 and is placed in rank 64 among all countries. [ 4 ] In many countries, violent crimes were committed by the younger generation and were increasing rapidly. Delinquency is typically brought on by poverty, difficult familial circumstances, and a lack of education. [ 5 ] India is home to a significant number of 444 million children who are aged 0 to 18 years and a 253 million adolescent population in the age group of 10 to 19 years, and there is a growing concern about juvenile delinquency in the country. [ 6 , 7 ] This includes involvement in various illegal activities such as robbery, burglary, riots, murder, rape, possession of illegal weapons, drug use, and participation in gambling activities. [ 8-11 ]

The phenomenon of juvenile delinquency is nothing new. [ 12 ] In other terms, it refers to a set of actions that are antisocial and illegal when carried out by an individual who has not yet reached the age of 18 (i.e. who is not an adult). These actions contradict existing criminal codes and laws. [ 13 ] The antisocial acts, which include begging, dropping out, insults, hanging out, stealing, drinking, and lying around, were socially unacceptable at any given moment and consisted of unethical and opposing behavior. [ 14 , 15 ]

Juvenile delinquency in India

The topic of juvenile delinquency in India has emerged as a significant worry for both the community and the government. Efforts have been made by the Indian government to address the issue. As per Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000, a person who is under the age of 18 is referred to as a “junior.” Two significant terminologies have been introduced in the field: juveniles in need of care and protection and juveniles in conflict with the law. A juvenile offender is an individual who has engaged in conduct that is considered a violation of the law and subject to legal punishment. A juvenile in need of care and protection includes individuals who are street kids, lack a guardian, are neglected, are at risk of mistreatment by a guardian, are terminally ill, are abandoned, or are in similar circumstances. [ 16 ]

The amendment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, was a response to the Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case. The amendment permits the trial of a juvenile over the age of 16 as an adult, but it cannot be subsequently applied. The amendment has categorized in the offences committed by a juvenile into three distinct categories, namely, “heinous, serious, and petty offences.” Individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 who have committed serious crimes are to be regarded as adults and face trial in regular courts. [ 17 ] In 2021, as per the report, there were 31,170 cases of juvenile apprehension in India, indicating a 4.7% rise from the previous year. The data show that a significant number of juveniles, specifically 32,654 under the IPC and 4,790 under SLL crimes, were apprehended within the age range of 16–18 years old. [ 18 ]

Leading causes of juvenile delinquency

Family Factors: The deterioration of juvenile reprobate behavior is a solid illustration of the familial circumstances associated with it. These home circumstances include a lack of proper parental guidance, a lack of constant monitoring of the children, growing conflict between the parents, and parental neglect or abuse, whether it be psychological, mental, or physical. [ 19 ] Children with parents who do not respect the law or societal norms are likely to be intelligent. Homes have severed links with one another and ruined close interactions. A major contributing factor to youth crime could be shattered households. [ 20 ] It could prove challenging for foster parents, stepparents, or guardians to support a kid’s sustainable integration if indeed the youngster resents the fact that they are required to become his adoptive parents, stepparents, or guardians. This may cause him to stand out from the other children and cause further problems. This resentment makes it harder for them to have an impact on children through their profession or example. It is not possible to use the child’s inherent suggestibility to lead him painlessly and unintentionally down the path to an excellent behavior. If a teen does not feel loved and is constantly yelled at, he may become so angry and frustrated that he tries to leave home and turns to a life of crime. The following factors may contribute to inadequate love and care from their parents: inadequate knowledge and curiosity, a mother who engages in household work, and inadequate family support. [ 21 ] Like a child’s body, their emotions need the right food to work well. When a youngster lacks empathy and compassion at home, he or she misses out on learning from a positive role model how to treat someone else with respect and kindness. He loses the short break from certain responsibilities that is both refreshing and necessary for him to do his fair share of social duties, both as a child playing with his friends and as an adult. Even tangential factors in the family could contribute to crime. Parents influence the child’s psychological and physiological state as a result of their reactions, and that in turn significantly influences how he behaves. It is possible that elements that have a greater impact on a student’s emotional well-being and familial dynamics can have a greater impact on misbehavior than those that primarily influence their physiological health. [ 22 ] Although hailing from a similar family, one youngster may develop criminal tendencies, whereas his sibling can develop into a brilliant leader.

Individual Factors: Following the importance of a child’s home environment is the significance of their social circles. If parents are too restrictive, their children may seek solace in the wrong crowd and violate the rules in order to feel better about themselves. In a similar vein, if a kid’s parents are not there and the youngster is unable to distinguish between wrong and right, the child may choose to go with a circle so that they may feel in charge and protected. The child may have to conform to the behaviors of the group that they want to associate with in order to be accepted into that group, whether those behaviors include drug use or criminal activity. [ 23 ]

School factors: A child’s poor performance in school, whether measured by attendance or grades, is a major contributing factor in the commission of juvenile offences. The person in charge is the one who is responsible for taking care of something. Learning is just one benefit of attending an educational institution. A youngster who attends school is more likely to have a lifestyle that is beneficial to their health, including waking up, getting dressed, riding the bus to school, studying, and going home. The establishment of good habits and self-discipline is facilitated by these routines. If a student does not consistently attend school, they will have extra time on their hands, which might lead to their participation in risky behaviors. If the kid disobeys fundamental norms as they grow up, such as going to school on a consistent basis, they will eventually become an adult who has little regard for other restrictions that society imposes. In addition to this, a child’s learning skills are also a contributing factor. Those students who have difficulty meeting the academic standards at their schools report feeling alone. If the youngster is motivated, even when they are not doing well academically or otherwise, it is unlikely that they would turn elsewhere to feel good about themselves or to be acknowledged. Bullying may be a significant contributing factor in and of itself, producing feelings of social exclusion and ultimately leading to participation in illegal activities. [ 24 ] An excellent school cares more for its students, especially its younger ones, and maintains a discipline that is helpful for them. The majority of our underfunded and overcrowded schools do not have the necessary level of control. In these types of environments, when there is a lack of law and order, the youngster feels the need to take matters into their own hands in order to defend themselves. In addition, the degree to which the kid’s parents and instructors are involved in their child’s academic success is another aspect that plays a role in deciding how the child will feel about education. Due to the frequent inspections, the kid will eventually acquire a feeling of accountability since they are aware that they will be questioned about their work and their advancement. [ 25 ]

Substance abuse Factors: Some youngsters are unable to function as regular members of society because they are exposed to harmful substances either at home or in their surroundings. Long-term use of such substances can lead to dependency as well as the development of unhealthy coping mechanisms to manage cravings. In the vast majority of the time, these people wind up committing crimes that they never would have considered committing otherwise. In situations like these, children seek the assistance of therapy professionals so that they can reclaim their sense of self-worth and value. [ 26 ]

Socio-economic factors: Although criminal activity may be found in every neighborhood, the incidence of unlawful behavior is significantly higher in economically disadvantaged regions. Children who live in these neighborhoods are more likely to engage in illegal behavior, such as shoplifting or getting into violent altercations, simply because they believe they have no other choice but to do so. It is possible that youngsters living in such regions may not feel the need to turn to criminal activity in order to make ends meet if they are given access to an appropriate education and the essentials for survival. [ 12 ]

Materials and Methods

This article utilizes a comprehensive literature review methodology to critically examine and analyze the existing body of research pertaining to social factors influencing juvenile delinquency. By synthesizing and evaluating the findings from prior studies, this article aims to contribute to the understanding of the complex interplay between social factors and the involvement of young individuals in delinquent behaviors. The present study aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of the research outcomes while also highlighting any existing deficiencies in the current body of knowledge. A thorough and extensive search was undertaken to identify pertinent articles from reputable online databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The search terms employed encompassed various aspects of the topic, such as juvenile, offenders, crime, juvenile delinquency, delinquent behaviour, and social factors. A comprehensive analysis has been conducted on a total of 80 articles that have been systematically collected and compiled for the purpose of this study. In due course, the present study successfully referenced a total of 52 scholarly articles out of the 80 articles that were gathered for analysis. The inclusion criteria for the selection of articles encompass the following specifications: the articles must have been published within the time span of 2000 to 2023, they should have undergone a rigorous peer-review process, and they must be indexed in reputable databases. Furthermore, only articles will be considered for inclusion in this study.

Social factors responsible for Juvenile Delinquency

Family, peers, school and neighborhood.

The importance of the family unit in the process of bringing up children to adulthood is frequently disregarded, despite the fact that this factor can play a considerable part in determining whether a kid will engage in antisocial behavior. Factors such as traditional family values, child-rearing practices, mass media, parental responsibility, and a lack of parental supervision have been found to contribute to juvenile delinquency. [ 9 ] However, the probability of juvenile delinquency is influenced by multiple factors rather than a single factor, such as inadequate household finances, familial status (nuclear or joint families, homeless persons), and parenting indifference towards kids’ well-being. Recently, there appears to be a substantial correlation between criminal activity and a variety of socioeconomic and demographic factors, including dysfunctional family dynamics, drug addiction, and unpleasant experiences. [ 27 ] Children who grow up in loving, accepting, and supportive families are much less likely to experience the ills of society. [ 28 ] As a direct consequence of this, children who have been rejected by one or both of their parents are the ones who are most likely to develop antisocial behaviors. The child’s family is one of the most essential and influential factors in their social development, which in turn has a significant impact on how the child will behave and how their personality will develop. The breakdown of the traditional nuclear family unit is another factor that can play a role in the maturation of criminal conduct. Family violence has a major influence on the growth of children’s personalities and self-concepts, making it an essential component in the construction of these aspects of the children’s identities. [ 29 ] Earlier studies show peers encourage delinquency since they appreciate and emulate nonconventional social behavior, whereas parents limit it because they respect the conventional. [ 30 ] It is considered that peer groups are mostly responsible for the development of deviant behavior. [ 31 ]

In our contemporary age, juvenile delinquency has gradually begun to develop into a significant problem that has to be addressed. Because of this, there is a significant threat to the community. The criminal activity of young people is steadily on the rise, mirroring the overall trend in the country. It is vital to have an understanding of the primary factors that contribute to the development of juvenile delinquency. [ 32 ] This is the only way to prevent younger people from engaging in illegal, unethical, and damaging activities. There are still a great many ways in which all of these literature evaluations might be enhanced in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of how these structures connect to the factors that contribute to criminal behavior and its various components. [ 33 ] Even though society’s methods, which are concentrated on rehabilitative compliance with the objective within the judiciary, have a larger influence on conformity, educational institutions are increasingly using severe parenting practices to govern school discipline. [ 34 ] This is despite the fact that the purpose of the judiciary is to rehabilitate in accordance with the goal. The field of criminal science has attempted to determine whether environmental factors are responsible for increases or decreases in crime rates by utilizing concepts such as social disorganization, collective efficacy, and social investment. [ 35 ]

Mass media and substance use

The number and impact of the media have both grown significantly throughout the course of history. Newspapers were the first form of mass media to receive widespread use throughout history, and then came radio, television, and ultimately computers. In the modern, linked world, information is simple to obtain by just pressing a button, which creates the impression that the entire globe has been shrunk down to the size of a town. [ 36 ] Today, children’s lives are dominated by a variety of forms of media, including both classic media such as television and new media such as mobile devices, iPads, the internet, and social media. [ 37 , 38 ] New technologies are becoming more common among children and teenagers, and a lack of self-regulation has resulted in a significant increase in criminal activity and aggressive conduct, which results in the emergence of juvenile crime. [ 39 ] The use of illicit substances is yet another significant contributing factor. There is a rising public health issue over the incidence of drug use among adolescents in India. According to earlier studies, there is a correlation between increased levels of engagement in the use of substances and more significant levels of involvement in criminal activity. It is possible that factors such as poverty, dysfunctional households, and a family history of criminal activity might serve as predictors of criminal behavior and substance use among juveniles. [ 26 ] Teenagers may resort to illegal activities such as theft, robbery, prostitution, or assault in order to get the funds necessary to purchase a narcotic. Furthermore, adolescents may commit violent crimes connected to the trafficking and sale of the substance. [ 40 ] It is said that the use of illegal substances such as alcohol and marijuana, in particular, has a substantial influence on criminal activities such as theft, deceit, and robbery. [ 41 ]

Poverty and socioeconomic conditions

Children from low-income homes have a higher risk of becoming juvenile delinquents. Being poor can lead to feelings of inadequacy, unhappiness, and even criminal behavior. When parents are unable to purchase basic necessities, they may get their children engaged in the drug trade, which in turn causes criminality and young delinquency. [ 12 ] When it comes to a child’s whole physical, social, psychological, and moral growth, the function that society plays is absolutely essential. The effect of social standards and values on the behavior of a youngster can sometimes result in delinquency in that child. Children who were not properly watched over by their parents, who failed to teach them how to recognize good and bad, who failed to keep an eye on their activities, who were disciplined in a manner that was inconsistent and harsh, and who witnessed some level of violence in the home, are more likely to develop into delinquents. Children who were not properly watched over by their parents are more likely to become delinquents. [ 19 ]

Children who display immaturity or who have difficulties distinguishing between right and wrong are more likely to be affected by detrimental societal practices and ideals, which in turn increases the possibility that these children will engage in antisocial activity. In this scenario, education plays a significant role in the effort to reduce the number of illegal activities. It is possible for there to be an increase in the rate of juvenile delinquency in a society when there is an inadequate supply of educational opportunities. [ 42 ]

Psycho-social conditions

There are a few potential psychosocial factors that may lead to juvenile delinquency, which might raise the chance of juveniles engaging in antisocial activity. Being male, having a lower intellectual capacity, belonging to a specific race, being an adolescent, suffering from immigration and poverty, interacting with delinquent friends, experiencing child abuse, having poor academic accomplishment, and not having appropriate assistance from their parents are some of these risk factors. In delinquent youths, the commission of more severe crimes is associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and conduct disorder (CD), among other psychiatric factors. [ 43-45 ] Individuals with ADHD commonly experience comorbidities such as substance use and personality disorders. [ 46 ] Some of the factors, like psychological stress and depressive mood disorder, are usually found in juvenile delinquents and mainly result in stress, anxiety, and depression. [ 47 ]

In this review, our aim was to present an updated summary of the research that has been conducted on social factors and their impact on involvement in delinquency. This review also emphasizes significant areas that should be taken into account for future research. Several potential areas for future research have been identified but have not yet been extensively explored. It implies that the associations are far from straightforward and that the impact of these conceptions depends on a range of personal, societal, and environmental factors. [ 40 ] One of the findings of this review is that family factors are the most powerful socializing factors in children’s lives. Children who come from homes with negative family characteristics, such as a lack of parental supervision, are thought to be at a greater risk of becoming delinquents or criminals than children who do not come from such homes. [ 48 ] Peer groups have been widely acknowledged as a significant factor in determining youth problem behaviors. Numerous studies have demonstrated the negative impact of peer influence on youth behavior, including academic dishonesty, illicit drug use, underage drinking and smoking, teenage pregnancy, and criminal activities. [ 49 ] It is important for future research to consider the role of self-control and the changing nature of attachment among parents and delinquent peer relationships in predicting criminal behavior.

Further investigation is required to ascertain the effects of commitment and attachment to school, parents, and delinquent peers. [ 50 ] The key findings of this review suggest that preventative measures aimed at improving the well-being of children can effectively reduce juvenile delinquency. Additionally, it is important to avoid placing blame solely on the child and instead consider the role of their environment in shaping their behavior. Furthermore, the approach to averting juvenile delinquency in children involves the utilization of rehabilitation programs or rehabilitation centers for children. These facilities provide instruction on appropriate behavior and how to react in similar circumstances. [ 51 ] It is suggested that providing proper direction, schooling, and guidance both in school and at home can help prevent children from engaging in criminal behavior. [ 52 ] Children who commit crimes are not only the perpetrators of the crime but also the wounded of this broken society. If proper precautions are taken or guided at home and at school, juvenile offenders will be controlled and stopped at an early stage. Children’s attitudes and minds must be shaped and nurtured by their parents and teachers. The consequences of actions must be implemented and performed to allow young offenders opportunities for correction rather than designating them as offenders.

Social factors play an important role in juvenile offenders’ behavior in India. Juvenile offenders are when a child or teen does something erroneous and is younger than the legal minimum age in India. Juvenile offenders who defy the law are vagrants who persistently ignore orders and engage in behavior that puts their own and their families’ morals in jeopardy. Social factors significantly contribute to juvenile offenders in India, and one that has attracted the attention of Indian society is adolescent misbehavior. It is well understood that the depraved child of today may grow up to be a habitual criminal tomorrow. So, it is mandatory to organize and regulate juvenile offenders financially and socially in India.

In conclusion, this review highlights the ways in which social factors have contributed to a better understanding of the underlying causes of juvenile delinquency. Simultaneously, it is apparent that in each of the corresponding fields of study, there exist significant subjects of investigation that necessitate further examination. With this objective in mind, it is our aspiration that this analysis motivates upcoming researchers to further unravel the diverse mechanisms through which social factors hinder or encourage engagement in delinquent behavior.

Suggestions and implications

The results of the study show that preventative interventions are needed to halt juvenile misbehavior before it begins. One of the suggested preventative methods is to identify young people who are at risk or who may become involved in juvenile delinquency by looking at the major risk factors. When choosing their friends and interacting with technology, teenagers should exercise prudence. Their parents and teachers can and should encourage strong relationships and open communication in order to create a happy environment at home and at school.

The researcher came to understand the precise research gap where he is going to investigate and extend his subsequent study as a result of the review, which forms the only basis of this work. Through this study, recommendations for further protecting children from all societal ills may be made.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

• Cited Here |
• Google Scholar
• PubMed | CrossRef |
• View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef |

Crime; delinquent behavior; juvenile; juvenile delinquency; offenders; social factors

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Development of accreditation modules based on hospital types in iran: protocol..., negative expectations (nocebo phenomenon) in clinical interventions: a scoping..., comparison of the iranian and scandinavian bachelor of nursing curriculum..., innovative aetcom session on health care as a right: experience at the medical..., compensation based on work relative value unit for cardiovascular surgeons in....

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Juvenile Court Statistics, 2020

This document provides an overview and introduction to 2020’s juvenile court statistics, and is organized into the following chapters: National Estimates of Delinquency Cases, detailing counts and trends, case rates, age at referral, gender, and race; National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing, detailing information on referral, detention, intake decision, waiver, adjudication, dispositions for out-of-home placement and probation, and case processing by various categories; National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases, with information on counts and trends, case rates, age at referral, gender, race, source of referral, detention, adjudication, dispositions, and case processing; it also includes appendices and an index of tables and figures.

This document describes delinquency cases and petitioned status offense cases handled between 2005 and 2020 by U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction. The preface provides a history of juvenile court statistics reporting, dating back to 1929, while the introduction provides details on the measurement methodology for the reports, their scope of coverage, juvenile court caseloads and processing, data quality, validity of the estimates, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the structure of the report, data access, and other sources of juvenile court data. Chapters two through four provide detailed reports on National Estimates of Delinquency Cases, National Estimates of Delinquency Case Processing, and National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offense Cases.

Additional Details

Related topics, similar publications.

• The California School Safety Study: School and Community Contexts that Contribute to Root Causes and Prevention of Violence in California
• Missing or Murdered Indigenous People: Bringing Loved Ones Home
• Childhood Adversity, Emotional Well-Being, Loneliness, and Optimism: A National Study

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Five Things About Juvenile Delinquency Intervention and Treatment

Juvenile delinquency intervention and treatment programs have the broad goals of preventing crime and reducing recidivism by providing treatment and services to youth who have committed crimes.

The five statements below are based on practices and programs rated by CrimeSolutions. [1]

1. Juvenile awareness programs may be ineffective and potentially harmful.

Juvenile awareness programs — like Scared Straight — involve organized visits to adult prison facilities for adjudicated youth and youth at risk of adjudication. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of two meta-analyses of existing research , youth participating in these types of programs were more likely to commit offenses in the future than adjudicated youth and youth at risk of adjudication who did not. Consequently, recidivism rates were, on average, higher for participants compared to juveniles who went through regular case processing.

The results suggest that not only are juvenile awareness programs ineffective at deterring youth from committing crimes, but youth exposed to them are more likely to commit offenses in the future.

Read the practice profile Juvenile Awareness Programs (Scared Straight) to learn more.

2. Cognitive behavioral therapy can effectively reduce aggression in children and adolescents.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a problem-focused, therapeutic approach that attempts to help people identify and change the dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and patterns that contribute to their problem behaviors. CBT programs are delivered in various settings, including juvenile detention facilities. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of two meta-analyses of existing research , a variant of CBT focused specifically on children and adolescents who have anger-related problems is effective for reducing aggression and anger expression, and for improving self-control, problem-solving, and social competencies.

Read the practice profile Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anger-Related Problems in Children and Adolescents to learn more.

3. Multisystemic therapy for juveniles reduces recidivism, rearrests, and the total number of days incarcerated.

Multisystemic therapy is a family- and community-based treatment program for adolescents with criminal offense histories and serious antisocial, delinquent, and other problem behaviors. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of three randomized controlled trials (each evaluating a program in a different state), the program effectively reduced rearrests and number of days incarcerated.

Read the program profile Multisystemic Therapy to learn more.

4. Intensive supervision of juveniles — the conditions of which may vary — has not been found to reduce recidivism.

This practice consists of increased supervision and control of youth on probation in the community, compared with those on traditional community supervision. Intensive supervision programs have three primary features: 1) smaller caseloads for juvenile probation officers, 2) more frequent face-to-face contacts, and 3) strict conditions of compliance with stiffer penalties for violations. Other conditions may vary, but they can include electronic monitoring, drug/urinalysis testing, and participation in programming (such as tutoring, counseling, or job training). Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of three meta-analyses of existing research , the practice does not reduce recidivism.

Read the practice profile Juvenile Intensive Supervision Programs to learn more.

5. Incarceration-based therapeutic communities for juveniles with substance use disorders have not been found to reduce recidivism after release.

Incarceration-based therapeutic communities employ a comprehensive, residential drug-treatment program model for youth in a detention facility who have substance use disorders. Therapeutic communities are designed to foster changes in attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors related to substance use and to reduce subsequent criminal offending. Based on the review and rating by CrimeSolutions of two meta-analyses of existing research , incarceration-based therapeutic communities have not been found to reduce recidivism after release for those who participate.

Read the practice profile Incarceration-Based Therapeutic Communities for Juveniles to learn more.

[note 1] As defined by CrimeSolutions, a practice is a general category of programs, strategies, or procedures that share similar characteristics with regard to the issues they address and how they address them. Practice profiles tell us about the average results from multiple evaluations of similar programs, strategies, or procedures. A program is a specific set of activities carried out according to guidelines to achieve a defined purpose. Program profiles on CrimeSolutions tell us whether a specific program was found to achieve its goals when it was carefully evaluated.

Practice ratings do not take into account variations in implementation or other program-specific factors which may impact the effectiveness of a specific program. Practices may be rated differently on outcomes not included here.

CrimeSolutions helps practitioners and policymakers understand what works in justice-related programs and practices. CrimeSolutions is funded by the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Programs and practices profiles related to juveniles also appear on OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide .

Cite this Article

Read more about:, nij's "five things" series.

Find more titles in NIJ's "Five Things" series . 

Many juvenile ‘lifers’ freed

Uc criminologist and researchers compile study of persons under 18 sentenced to life without parole.

In 1953, 15-year-old Joe Ligon and four other Pennsylvania teens went on an alcohol-fueled tear that resulted in the stabbing deaths of two people and injuries to six more.

The teens were tried as a group, and all received life without parole. 

After a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 2012 and 2016 found that mandatory life sentences for juveniles was unconstitutional, Ligon’s case went to federal court. After 67 long years in prison, the case was decided in his favor in 2020.

Ligon was granted his freedom in 2021 — at 83 years of age and after nearly seven decades behind bars. Soon after his release, J.Z. Bennett , a University of Cincinnati professor, criminologist and champion of criminal justice reform, got the chance to meet Ligon.   

Joe Ligon (left) and UC criminologist J.Z. Bennett meeting after Ligon's release from prison in 2021. Ligon was sentenced to live without parole when he was 15 years old. Photo provided by Bennett.

“Meeting Joe Ligon showed me how we have ignored this group of children, primarily Black children, sentenced to life without parole and treated them as outcasts in this country through their long-term incarceration,” says Bennett, an assistant professor of criminology at UC’s College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services (CECH).

 “We need to think about second chances for adults who were sentenced as children. To punish someone for life for what they did at 12 or 15 years old is stark,” he said. 

According to Bennett, lead author on a journal article published in the Journal of Criminal Justice , there are 2,904 juvenile “lifers” (as they are called) spread across the U.S. penal system, ranging in age from 19 to 70 (the average age being 45) and a significant number were 13 or 14 at the time of the offense. 

"This is groundbreaking data as it is the first time academic literature provides a national overview of this population,” says Bennett. 

The journal article, he says, provides insight into a full demographic profile of the juvenile life without parole population. It is based on a three-year study conducted by Bennett and co-investigators at the University of California and Temple University. The study examined key outcomes such as resentencing, release statuses, mortality and exonerations. 

We are just scratching the surface of what it means to provide equitable decarceration...

J.Z. Bennett UC assistant professor of criminology

Since the Supreme Court rulings, more than 2,500 individuals have been resentenced and more than 1,000 of those have been released, the research team found. Approximately 400 await resentencing.

The open-access extensive national study explored young people who are ultimately given a chance at freedom after having been sentenced to life in prison. 

“Given the gravity of this issue and this being the first national analysis, we are just scratching the surface of what it means to provide equitable decarceration efforts for individuals with long sentences,” says Bennett. 

Additionally, he says the research underscores that the U.S. is unique among developed nations in sentencing minors to life without parole. Bennett believes that practice conflicts with international human rights standards, such as those outlined in Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 

J.Z. Bennett in his office on the University of Cincinnati campus. Bennett worked with researchers across the country to gather national data on juveniles who are serving life sentences without parole. Photo/Andrew Higley/UC Marketing + Brand.

“Substantial disparities [exist] among states in how they handle the resentencing and release of individuals sentenced to juvenile life without parole,” he says. For example, California has resentenced nearly all eligible individuals, while Alabama and North Carolina have much lower rates of resentencing and subsequent release. 

The article notes the numerous challenges faced by juvenile lifers upon release, including limited access to housing and employment, health issues and the difficulties of adjusting to a society that has changed significantly during their incarceration. 

There is a need for reexamining all “lifer” cases and providing comprehensive support systems where successful reintegration is emphasized, says Bennett. 

As in the case of Ligon who served 68 years, “for the first time, men and women who were sentenced as children are returning to society, some after serving 30, 40 and even over 50 years.”  

Feature image at top of J.Z. Bennett. Photo/Andrew Higley/UC Marketing + Brand.

Impact Lives Here

The University of Cincinnati is leading public urban universities into a new era of innovation and impact. Our faculty, staff and students are saving lives, changing outcomes and bending the future in our city's direction. Next Lives Here.

• Next Lives Here
• College of Education, Criminal Justice, & Human Services
• School of Criminal Justice

Related Stories

Youth placed in adult prison have their lives cut shorter, study says.

July 27, 2023

A University of Cincinnati co-authored study found that in the U.S. youth who are incarcerated in adult correctional facilities are at a 33% higher risk for an early death between the ages of 18 and 39. The study, published in JAMA Open Network, also found that formal encounters with the legal system put youth at risk for a shorter lifespan during those same years.

WVXU: Youth placed in adult prisons are more likely to die early, study says

August 4, 2023

Criminal justice researcher Joseph Nedelec speaks to WVXU regarding new study of youth and longevity and the legal system. Nedelec is an associate professor in the UC School of Criminal Justice and co-led a study which found youth die earlier when they are placed in adult prisons.

Criminal Justice professor receives grant to research reporting barriers for victims of violence

February 23, 2024

Brittany Hayes, an Associate Professor with the University of Cincinnati’s School of Criminal Justice in the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services (CECH), is researching language barriers for crime victims with IDD.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

The Long-Term Effects of the Youth Crime Prevention Program “New Perspectives” on Delinquency and Recidivism

Sanne l. a. de vries.

1 University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

2 Utrecht University, The Netherlands

Machteld Hoeve

Jessica j. asscher, geert jan j. m. stams.

New Perspectives (NP) aims to prevent persistent criminal behavior. We examined the long-term effectiveness of NP and whether the effects were moderated by demographic and delinquency factors. At-risk youth aged 12 to 19 years were randomly assigned to the intervention group (NP, n = 47) or care as usual (CAU, n = 54). Official and self-report data were collected to assess recidivism. NP was not more effective in reducing delinquency levels and recidivism than CAU. Also, no moderator effects were found. The overall null effects are discussed, including further research and policy implications.

Introduction

Although recent downward trends in juvenile offending are encouraging ( Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2011 ; Van der Laan & Blom, 2011 ), there is an increasing trend toward punitive responses to youth antisocial behavior ( Artello et al., 2015 ). Many studies have shown that juvenile justice programs without a therapeutic foundation (e.g., probation, deterrence, incarceration without treatment) are ineffective in reducing juvenile delinquency ( Andrews & Bonta, 2010 ; Parhar, Wormith, Derkzen, & Beauregard, 2008 ). Young adolescents with disruptive and delinquent behavior, showing multiple risk factors, need constructive change-oriented treatment ( Lipsey, 2009 ). Given that these youngsters are at risk of developing a chronic and serious criminal trajectory ( Loeber, Burke, & Pardini, 2009 ), and are highly costly to society ( Welsh et al., 2008 ), it is essential to invest in (early) preventive interventions.

The present study is one of the first outside the United States to examine the effectiveness of a prevention program targeting adolescents at risk for persistent delinquency by using a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We examined the effectiveness of New Perspectives (NP), comparing the long-term effects on self-reported and official reports of delinquency comparing adolescents who received NP or care as usual (CAU).

Previous Research on Programs Preventing Delinquency

Several (systematic) reviews have examined the effectiveness of preventive interventions. Many researchers concluded that at-risk youth (selective/indicated prevention) benefited most from these programs (e.g., Deković et al., 2011 ; Farrington, Ttofi, & Lӧsel, 2016 ; Lösel & Beelmann, 2003 ). Given that these programs are generally short and of low intensity, these findings are in accordance with the Risk principle of the RNR model ( Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990 ) in that the program intensity should be kept low for youngsters showing relative low-risk profiles.

Farrington and colleagues (2016) stated, on the basis of a systematic review, that all types of community-based interventions (including individual, family- and school-based interventions) produced an average of 5% reduction in the prevalence of problem behavior. However, although her findings on effects of early prevention programs (including monitoring and diversion) were positive, Gill (2016) , evaluating 15 systematic reviews including 13 meta-analytic studies, found that the effects of selective (secondary) prevention programs were less straightforward and depended on the program type. Programs consisting of repressive and punitive elements were ineffective, whereas programs targeting positive social relations of at-risk youth (providing informal and supportive social control) proved to be successful. Varying outcomes of selective prevention programs were also found by Mulvey, Arthur, and Reppucci (1993) , concluding that well-implemented programs, including behavioral and family-based change components, produced reductions in reoffending rates, although not in self-reported delinquent behavior. However, these results were based on a narrative review and should therefore be interpreted carefully.

Several meta-analytic studies found promising effects of family-based and behavioral-oriented prevention programs. Long-term positive effects of (behavioral) parent training in preventing antisocial and delinquent behavior were reported by meta-analytic studies of Farrington and Welsh (2003) and Piquero et al. (2009) . Furthermore, Schwalbe and colleagues (2012) indicated that family-based diversion programs resulted in a reduction of recidivism. However, the overall impact of diversion programs on recidivism was nonsignificant. Also, Wilson and Hoge (2012) found that diversion programs were significantly more successful than traditional judicial programs, but differences were no longer significant when a robust research design was used, excluding (most) alternative explanations for established intervention effects (e.g., RCT, or successfully matched control design, independency of researchers). Finally, findings of a meta-analytic study ( De Vries, Hoeve, Assink, et al., 2015 ) on the effectiveness of interventions for at-risk youth confirmed that family-based programs, including behavior-oriented techniques (training parenting skills), are most effective in preventing a persistent criminal career. Notably, group-based and highly intensive programs proved to be counterproductive.

Lösel and Beelmann (2003) found that social skills training showed positive effects in preventing antisocial behavior of adolescents, well-structured multimodal cognitive-behavioral programs showing the strongest impact on antisocial behavior. A meta-analytic study by Deković et al. (2011) examining early prevention programs found that shorter, but more intensive programs and programs targeting social and behavioral skills showed the largest effects. However, early prevention programs had no significant effects on the reduction of criminal behavior in adulthood.

In conclusion, the findings of previous studies on the effectiveness of prevention programs targeting risk factors, such as family factors and lack of social skills, show overall positive effects. However, the effectiveness of prevention programs may depend on certain conditions, such as the theoretical foundation, intensity, format, and components of the program. Moreover, several meta-analytic reviews concluded that studies with larger samples had smaller effects than those based on smaller samples (e.g., Deković et al., 2011 ; Farrington & Welsh, 2003 ; Lösel & Beelmann, 2003 ; Piquero et al., 2009 ). Andrews and Bonta (2010) found that interventions based on the RNR model principles of Risk (proportionality between program intensity and risk of reoffending), Need (targeting criminogenic needs), and Responsivity (match between program style/mode and person’s characteristics) reduced offender recidivism up to 35%. Thus, we expect that preventive interventions that are designed according to the RNR model and general principles of effectiveness derived from previous meta-analytic studies are promising in preventing a persistent criminal trajectory.

A preventive intervention, based on the theoretical framework of the RNR model ( Andrews et al., 1990 ), is NP, an intensive community-based program focusing on adolescents in early stages of delinquency. NP adheres to the risk principle by applying risk assessment and providing modules (NP Prevention and NP Plus) that differ in treatment intensity to adjust to the offender’s risk of recidivism. Second, NP aims to prevent a persistent delinquent trajectory of at-risk adolescents. To prevent persistent delinquent behavior, NP addresses the following criminogenic needs (as secondary treatment goals): poor relationships in the social network (parents and peers), cognitive distortions, and poor parenting behavior. The multisystemic approach of NP enables treatment of these multiple criminogenic factors related to delinquency and recidivism ( needs principle ).

At the start of the intervention phase, social workers systematically assess the client’s criminogenic needs to target them in treatment. Third, NP is based on the responsivity principle by adjusting treatment to the client’s motivation level and personal background. Techniques of motivational interviewing and individual coaching are used to influence treatment motivation of adolescents. In addition, the NP program is carried out in a multimodal format by incorporating a variety of effective cognitive social learning strategies (including problem-solving skills and cognitive restructuring methods; Elling & Melissen, 2007 ). NP attempts to modify cognitive distortions by using cognitive restructuring techniques based on Ellis’s (1962) Antecedent–Belief–Consequence (ABC) model of emotional disturbances. The ABC model aims to give clients insight into their irrational beliefs, or cognitive distortions, and their dysfunctional behavioral consequences ( Ellis & Dryden, 1997 ). To conclude, given that the NP program is based on the RNR model, including behaviorally oriented techniques, and a multimodal format, NP is considered to be a promising intervention preventing persistent delinquency. See for an overview of NP elements in Appendix B .

Previous evaluation studies of the NP program found reductions in delinquency ( Noorda & Veenbaas, 1997 ) and improvements in multiple life domains ( Geldorp, Groen, Hilhorst, Burmann, & Rietveld, 2004 ). These studies lacked the use of a control group, and therefore, possible confounding effects, such as maturation, could not be ruled out ( Clingempeel & Henggeler, 2002 ). To date, there is only one experimental study (De Vries, Hoeve, Wibbelink, Asscher, & Stams, 2015), showing that NP did not outperform other interventions (“CAU”) on delinquency and secondary outcomes (parenting behavior, attachment, peers, and cognitive distortions) at postintervention measurement. Previous studies, however, reported only on short-term and self-reported outcomes of the NP program. As changing behavior is a long-term and intensive process ( Prochaska & Velicer, 1997 ), it is possible that NP will result in more positive effects in the long term (minimum of 12 months after program completion), which is also known as “sleeper effects” or delayed effects of therapy ( Bell, Lyne, & Kolvin, 1989 ). Although self-report is generally perceived as a reliable and valid method of measuring criminal behavior ( Thornberry & Krohn, 2003 ), there are still limitations, such as underreporting and overreporting criminal activity. Therefore, the present study investigated the long-term effects of NP in preventing and reducing persistent criminal behavior, based on both self-reports and official records.

The Present Study

The central aim of the present study was to examine whether NP outperforms existing services (“CAU”) using a randomized control trial. First, we determined whether NP is effective in preventing and decreasing criminal (re)offending. Recidivism was assessed during 18 months after program start, 12 months after program completion, and at maximum available follow-up period per participant. We focused on percentages of reoffending, number of rearrests, seriousness (violent reoffenses), and velocity in reoffending. Next to official judicial reports, we used self-report data to reach a more comprehensive view on adolescents’ criminal behavior.

A second aim was to examine potential moderators of NP effectiveness. This approach is in line with the shift in intervention research toward a focus on the question “what works for whom?” instead of “does it work?” ( Weisz et al., 2006 ). Previous studies have indicated that boys and girls, adolescents from different ages, and diverse ethnic groups show specific risk factors related to delinquency and recidivism, and, therefore, have suggested specific interventions for these subgroups ( Hipwell & Loeber, 2006 ; Loeber et al., 1993 ; Stevens & Vollebergh, 2008 ; Van der Put et al., 2011 ). However, there is limited information about which prevention programs are effective in treating specific problems of these subgroups ( Kazdin, 1993 ; Kumpfer, Alvarado, Smith, & Bellamy, 2002 ; Zahn, Day, Mihalic, & Tichavsky, 2009 ). By examining ethnicity, age, and gender as moderators, we can determine whether the NP program is successful for all participants regardless of their specific demographic background.

Finally, a history of offending, severity of prior offending (a history of violent offenses), and age of first arrest are considered as the most important (static) risk factors of reoffending in delinquent youth ( Andrews & Bonta, 2010 ; Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001 ; Loeber & Farrington, 1998 ). Therefore, we included these risk factors as potential moderators of program effectiveness.

Participants

Adolescents were included in the present study if they met the following criteria for NP according to the behavioral scientist: (a) age 12 to 23 years, (b) experiencing problems on multiple life domains, and (c) at risk for the development and progression of a deviant life style. Adolescents were excluded if they showed severe psychiatric problems, IQ below 70, long history of delinquency, severe drug or alcohol use (dependency), absence of residence status in the Netherlands, and absence of motivation to stop committing criminal acts.

A total of N = 160 adolescents were recruited for the study at baseline ( n = 81, NP group; n = 79, CAU). Thirty-seven percent ( n = 59) of the adolescents dropped out at first assessment, because they were unwilling to participate or were untraceable, resulting in a final sample of 101 adolescents. Despite extensive efforts, 12 adolescents were lost to follow-up, resulting in an attrition rate of 7.5% of the original sample and in 89 adolescents (NP, n = 40; CAU, n = 49) who completed both pretest and follow-up (questionnaires). Details for attrition on pretest and follow-up can be found in Appendix A . As a result, full data were available on 89 participants. However, full official data were present, and therefore, the total sample consisted of N = 101 adolescents.

Little’s missing completely at random (MCAR) test indicated that data of self-reported delinquency were missing completely at random for adolescents χ 2 (4209) = 494.0, p = 1.000. Results of independent sample t tests for continuous variables and chi-square analyses for categorical variables showed no significant differences between the treatment conditions at pretest ( p > .05). We only found a trend for ethnic minority status, χ 2 (4209) = 2.7, p = .097, indicating that those with an ethnic minority status were slightly more likely to drop out at follow-up. Missing values on the categorical outcome measure, self-reported delinquency, were not estimated, as it is not well supported to impute missings in a dichotomous construct such as recidivism. Post hoc power calculations with the program G*Power ( Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009 ) indicated that 50 participants per condition (assuming an alpha of .05, and a correlation of .50 between baseline covariates and outcome variables) were sufficient to detect a difference in problem behavior at posttest (power > .80, a small effect size defined by Cohen, 1988 , as .20). There was also sufficient power to perform moderator analyses for different subgroups (power > .80 to detect small effects for four groups).

According to the self-reports, 80% of the adolescents reported having ever committed one or more of the delinquent acts before pretest. According to official data, 47% of the adolescents had been arrested at least once before treatment. The majority of our final sample consisted of boys (67%), and the mean age at pretest was 15.58 years ( SD = 1.53). A total of 83% ( n = 84) of the juveniles belonged to an ethnic minority group (at least one of the youth’s parents was born abroad). The largest second-generation groups had a Surinamese (27%, n = 27), Moroccan (24%, n = 24), Dutch (21%, n = 21), or other background (29%, n = 29). 1 The mean age of first police contact of participants was 15.12 years ( SD = 1.46). Table 1 presents additional information on the final sample ( N = 101).

Background Characteristics and Problem Severity in NP and CAU at Baseline.

Note . NP = New Perspectives (experimental group); CAU = care as usual (control group).

Participants living in Amsterdam were recruited after being referred to NP by one of the various youth care referral agencies and (secondary) schools. The inclusion period lasted from September 2011 until April 2013. Adolescents meeting inclusion criteria for NP were randomly assigned to the experimental group (NP intervention) or control group (CAU). Self-report follow-up data of adolescents were collected 12 months after completion of the intervention. A more elaborate description of the recruitment and randomization process can be found in prior studies of De Vries, Hoeve, Assink, et al. (2014 ; De Vries, Hoeve, Wibbelink, et al., 2015).

To establish whether participants had reoffended, the official records of the Judicial Information Service (JustID) were requested in January 2015. Two starting points of the observation period for reoffending were used. The first starting point of the observation period was the date on which a person entered treatment (NP/CAU), and the second starting point was the date on which a person completed treatment. The observation period ended on the day that the official records were released by JustID (January 2015). Formal consent for using official records was obtained from the Netherlands Ministry of Security and Justice. The official records were coded using the Recidivism Coding System (RCS) of the Research and Documentation Centre (WODC; Wartna, Blom, & Tollenaar, 2011 ; Wartna, Harbachi, & Van der Laan, 2005 ).

To assess interrater agreement, 25% of the cases were randomly selected and coded by two trained junior researchers. Percentages of agreement were calculated for all variables of the coding form. The interrater reliability for categorical variables (Kappa) ranged from good (.89) for classification of violent and nonviolent offenses to perfect (1.00) for status registration (including cases as recidivism: yes or no). The interrater reliability for continuous variables was very good, with intraclass correlations ranging from .99 for date of the offense to 1.00 for the registration number of the case.

NP is a voluntary program divided in an intensive coaching phase of 3 months and a 3-month aftercare phase. Youth care workers with a caseload of four clients are available 24 hours a day, 7 days per week. During the intensive coaching phase, the youth care workers have 8 hours a week per client. The contact intensity of the program aftercare phase is low, ranging from a minimum of 4 hours to a maximum of 12 hours (in 12 weeks). NP is culturally responsive in that adolescents who receive NP are assigned to a social worker with similar ethnic background. More information regarding core components of the NP program can be found in the prior studies of De Vries, Hoeve, Assink, et al. (2014 ; De Vries, Hoeve, Wibbelink, et al., 2015).

Adolescents in the control group received various youth care interventions. The care services included probation service (20%), individual counseling (monitoring/supervision, 17%), family counseling (monitoring/supervision, 9%), individual coaching (influencing cognition and behavior, 13%), academic service coaching (tutoring and special education included, 15%), and other programs, such as social skills training, clinical group care, crisis intervention, family therapy, and Real Justice group conferencing (26%). Most services were carried out in a community-based setting (63%), in a mixed format (individual and family-based, 46%), and most services were provided by the Child Protection Board of Amsterdam (37%). Notably, 35% of the juveniles ( n = 19) did not receive an intervention (see also Appendix A for an overview of the flow of participants through the study and Appendix C for a description of treatment types offered in the CAU and NP conditions).

Demographic characteristics

Participants reported their date of birth, place of birth, and place of birth of their parents to determine their age and ethnic background. To assess the influence of age on program effectiveness, the group was divided into a group of adolescents younger than 16 years of age ( n = 54) and in a group of adolescents of 16 years and older ( n = 47). The division in age group was based on age criteria of NP, consisting of two different modalities for younger (NPP/NP Plus) and older adolescents (NP). The influence of ethnicity was assessed by dividing adolescents into two groups: native Dutch adolescents ( n = 17) and second-generation adolescents from ethnic minority groups ( n = 84). The age of first offense, total number of prior offenses (history of offending), and total number of prior violent offenses (history of violent offending) were coded from official records of JustID.

Delinquent behavior

To establish whether participants had reoffended, we used self-reports of the adolescents and requested official records from the JustID. Prevalence of reoffending was assessed by the “Self-report Delinquency Scale” (SRD) of the Research and Documentation Centre ( Van der Laan & Blom, 2006 ; Van der Laan, Blom, & Kleemans, 2009 ). Three subscales of the SRD scale were used for examination of the program effectiveness: Violent Crime (seven items), Vandalism (four items), and Property Crime (six items). In the present study, sum scores were used, indicating how often the participant showed delinquent activities in 12 and 18 months before assessment. Cronbach’s alpha for assessment of delinquent behavior was α = .74 (12 months) and α = .92 (18 months).

Prevalence, frequency, and seriousness of recidivism were assessed by official records of JustID. Recidivism was defined as the occurrence of any new conviction for any criminal offense after program start and after program completion (see also Asscher et al., 2014 ; James, Asscher, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2014 ; Wartna et al., 2011 ). Recidivism was assessed in terms of percentage (dichotomous variable: at least one arrest), frequency (continuous variable: number of any reconvictions), velocity (time until first reconviction), and seriousness of recidivism (number of violent offenses and at least one violent arrest). In addition, guidelines of the official RCS were used to code the seriousness of offenses into nonviolent (0) and violent offenses (1). Misdemeanors, such as traffic offenses, were taken into account, because the program examined in the present study is focused on prevention and on adolescents showing no or very low levels of delinquency before start of the intervention.

Analytic Strategy

First, we conducted negative binomial regression analysis to examine the main intervention effects of self-reported delinquency at follow-up (12 months after program completion and 18 months after program start), with the outcome measures at follow-up as dependent variables, treatment condition as factor, and pretest scores of the outcome variables as covariates. We applied negative binomial regression analysis instead of the more commonly used analysis of variance. The measure of our dependent variable, self-reported delinquency, is a count of the number of offenses and has a skewed and overdispersed distribution, which violates key assumptions of analysis of variance.

To take into account differences in duration of follow-up between conditions and to be able to compare assessment periods of official arrests with assessment periods of self-reports, the official judicial data were analyzed in two ways. First, we analyzed recidivism rates after start of the program (18 months) and after program completion (12 months). The two conditions were compared with regard to frequency (number) of rearrests, seriousness of reoffenses (violent reoffenses), and time to rearrest, using negative binomial regression analysis and chi-square tests.

Next, we examined survival curves of the whole follow-up period (up to January 2015). The duration to follow-up was not the same for all participants due to the considerable length of the inclusion period ( M = 875.50 days, SD = 161.937). Moreover, the time to follow-up was shorter for CAU ( M = 841.41 days) than for NP ( M = 914.66 days), t (99) = 2.32, p = .023. Therefore, we controlled for differences in length of follow-up between conditions by centering the duration until follow-up period and including this in Step 1 of the survival analysis following Asscher et al. (2014) . Cox regression analyses were applied to examine differences in survival curves between NP and CAU. The centered variable of follow-up duration was added at Step 1 into the Cox regression analysis; condition (NP or CAU) was added in the second step. A chi-square difference test was used to assess whether condition would predict survival length over duration to follow-up.

Furthermore, negative binomial regression analyses were conducted for moderator analyses on the self-report delinquency data, with the moderator as factor, and including an interaction term of Condition × Moderator. Gender, ethnicity (native Dutch vs. ethnic minorities), age group (<16 vs. ≥16) were included as potential moderators. We created a risk index on the basis of history of offenses, type of offenses, and age of first arrest. Particularly those with prior violent offenses and an early onset (i.e., age of first arrest is younger than 15 years) were considered to be at high risk of recidivism, whereas the others were considered to be at lower risk of recidivism. Furthermore, we examined potential moderating effects of age of first crime, a history of offending (yes or no), and a history of violent offending (yes or no) separately.

For the moderator analyses on the recidivism data (based on official judicial reports), Cox regression analysis was conducted: Condition was entered in the first step, and the moderator and interaction between condition and the moderator were added in the second step. Chi-square tests were conducted to determine whether program effects (recidivism) were moderated by gender, ethnicity, age group, age of first crime, prior offenses, and prior violent offenses.

Intervention Effects

Results of the negative binomial regression analyses are presented in Table 2 . Twelve months after the end of treatment and 18 months after program start, we found no significant contribution of condition to self-reported delinquency, adjusting for self-reported delinquency before the start of the program. These analyses indicate that no significant differences were found between the experimental and control groups on participation in self-reported general delinquency and specific types of delinquency (violence, theft, and vandalism).

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intervention Effects of NP Versus CAU, Self-Reports.

Note. All tests are nonsignificant. NP = New Perspectives (experimental group); CAU = care as usual (control group); OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

Table 3 presents the results of the frequency, seriousness, and velocity of recidivism, based on official records, for both conditions. The results show that there were no differences between NP and CAU in the number of rearrests (frequency) and number of violent rearrests (seriousness) at 12 months after program completion and 18 months after program start. Similarly, no significant differences between the two conditions were found in time to rearrest at 12-month follow-up after program completion and at 18-month follow-up (after program start).

Frequency, Seriousness, and Velocity of Recidivism ( n = 47) Versus CAU ( n = 54) by Observation Period, Official Records.

Note . All tests are nonsignificant. NP = New Perspectives (experimental group); CAU = care as usual (control group); OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

Cox regression analyses were performed to compare the survival curves of NP and CAU for the whole follow-up period. At the end of the follow-up (on average 875.50 days, SD = 161.94), 30% of the NP group and 41% of the CAU group had been rearrested at least once (see also Figure 1 ). This difference was not significant: The hazard ratio for condition was .691, p = .302, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.342, 1.395], indicating no significant differences between the groups.

Survival curve for recidivism for NP and CAU groups separately.

Note. NP = New Perspectives (experimental group); CAU = care as usual (control group).

Moderators of Effectiveness

Moderator tests were conducted to determine whether NP is more beneficial for specific participants. At 18 months after program start, we found no moderating effects of risk index, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.47, p = .492; prior offenses, Wald χ 2 (1) = 2.56, p = .110; prior violent offenses, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.08, p = .773; age of first arrest, Wald χ 2 (1) = 1.86, p = .173; gender, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.04, p = .835; ethnicity, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.35, p = .554; and age group, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.31, p = .579. At 12-month follow-up, no significant moderating effect was present for risk index, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.08, p = .785; offense history, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.53, p = .466; prior violent offenses, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.04, p = .840; age of first arrest, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.79, p = .375; gender, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.24, p = .627; ethnicity, Wald χ 2 (1) = 0.44, p = .505; and age category, Wald χ 2 (1) = 2.78, p = .096.

For the official judicial data, at 18-month follow-up, no moderator effects were found for prior offenses, hazard ratio = 1.075, p = .935, 95% CI = [0.188, 6.161]; prior violent offenses, hazard ratio = 0.939, p = .945, 95% CI = [0.135, 6.532]; age of first arrest, hazard ratio = 0.734, p = 0.279, 95% CI = [0.420, 1.284]; ethnicity, hazard ratio = 0.466, p = .555, 95% CI = [0.037, 5.874]; age group, hazard ratio = 3.700, p = .115, 95% CI = [0.728, 18.798]; and gender, hazard ratio = 0.650, p = .769, 95% CI = [0.036, 11.632]. Similar results were found at 12-month follow-up, indicating that program effects (survival length) were not significantly moderated by gender, ethnicity, age group, age of first crime, history of offenses, and history of violent offenses.

In the present study, the long-term effects of NP were examined by using adolescent reports and official judicial data on the number of delinquent acts during 12 months after program completion, 18 months after program start, and on average 2.40 years (for official judicial data). The program effectiveness was determined by using an RCT. The present study revealed that NP was not more effective in reducing delinquency levels and recidivism than CAU (during various observation periods). On the basis of self-reports and official reports, we found no significant differences between the conditions in recidivism timing, frequency, and seriousness of reoffending. Adolescents in NP and CAU recidivated at a rate of 30% to 41% during the average follow-up period of well over 2 years.

The present findings are not in line with the meta-analytic study on the effectiveness of preventive interventions ( De Vries, Hoeve, Assink, Stams, & Asscher, 2015 ), in which small positive results were found. However, our results concerning adolescent reports are consistent with findings of the review of Mulvey et al. (1993) , indicating that (secondary) preventive interventions did not produce significant reductions in self-reported delinquency. Moreover, the general results of the present study are in line with other rigorous experimental studies, showing no long-term effects (with a minimum of 1-year follow-up period) of prevention programs on delinquency and recidivism (e.g., Berry, Little, Axford, & Cusick, 2009 ; Cox, 1999 ; Lane, Turner, Fain, & Sehgal, 2005 ). The present study is also consistent with previous findings on the short-term effectiveness study of NP, in which largely the same sample was used (by De Vries, Hoeve, Wibbelink, et al., 2015), indicating that NP did not outperform CAU on self-reported delinquency. Finally, work on the association between research design and study outcomes in the field of criminal justice revealed that studies that adopted a more robust (i.e., stricter) research design generally reported weaker or no effects ( Weisburd, Lum, & Petrosino, 2001 ; Welsh, Peel, Farrington, Elffers, & Braga, 2011 ). Given that the present study’s design, an RCT, is considered to be a strong design in effectiveness research, the present results are in line with the findings of the research of Weisburd et al. (2001) and Welsh et al. (2011) .

There are several explanations why we did not find effects of NP. A first plausible explanation might be the focus and content of the NP program. Although NP can be considered as a theoretically grounded skill building program, NP lacks a focused, structured, and clear therapeutic intervention approach that attempts to engage the youth in a supportive and constructive process of change ( Lipsey, 2009 ). The general coaching style of the NP program (counseling and social work) is comparable with other preventive interventions, such as coaching community programs, education programs, and probation programs, which have not been proven effective in reducing offending in the long term ( Berry et al., 2009 ; Cox, 1999 ; Lane et al., 2005 ; D. B. Wilson, Gottfredson, & Najaka, 2001 ). These preventive interventions do not include specialized effective components of behavioral modeling, contracting, and training parenting skills, which have been proven effective in the treatment of at-risk youth ( De Vries, Hoeve, Assink, et al., 2015 ). In addition, targeting the program at youth whose antisocial behavior is the product of poor bonds with (prosocial) peers, parents, and other important persons in the social network, the area where NP is thought to make a difference seems advisable (see also De Vries, Hoeve, Stams, & Asscher, 2016 ).

Another explanation of not finding evidence to support the effectiveness of NP is that NP was not entirely carried out as intended. Program integrity is an important factor influencing program effectiveness ( Lipsey, 2009 ). A study of De Vries, Hoeve, Asscher, and Stams (2014) examining program integrity levels in treatment of 76 NP adolescents (meeting NP selection criteria) showed that treatment adherence was found to be too low in the aftercare program phase of NP. In 45% of the cases during the aftercare phase, less than 60% of standard services were carried out ( De Vries, Hoeve, Asscher, & Stams, 2014 ). Also, in 46% of the cases, the social network of NP clients was not involved in the treatment process. Durlak and DuPre (2008) recommended minimum levels of program integrity of 60% to reach program effectiveness. Consequently, low levels of treatment adherence (in the aftercare phase) of NP may explain the null effects of NP.

Furthermore, considering the principles of the RNR model, previous evaluation studies suggested a mismatch between program intensity and risk levels of adolescents (e.g., Buysse et al., 2008 ; De Vries et al; Geldorp et al., 2004 ; Loef et al., 2011). De Vries, Hoeve, Wibbelink, et al. (2017) concluded that 28% of the NP adolescents showed a very low risk of reoffending. Given that NP is primarily designed for adolescents whose risk of developing a persistent criminal trajectory is significantly higher than average, the program may be too intensive for adolescents showing (very) low risk levels. According to the risk principle of Andrews and Bonta (2010) and results of a meta-analytic study on preventive interventions ( De Vries, Hoeve, Assink, et al., 2015 ), minimal intervention (low intensity levels) is needed for low-risk offenders. Moreover, a closer look at the NP elements shows that adhering to the risk principle could be improved in the intervention. Although risk assessment has been implemented in the intake phase, it appears not to be a standard procedure, as the clinical practitioners do not always apply risk assessment. Furthermore, the risk assessment instrument used is not validated for the NP group of first offenders. In conclusion, not fully adhering to the risk principle and referral of adolescents with very low risk levels of reoffending to the NP program may negatively influence program effectiveness.

Criminal history is an important predictor of general reoffending ( Cottle et al., 2001 ; Heilbrun, Lee, & Cottle, 2005 ). It is well known that adolescents with higher levels of delinquency risk profit most from intensive programs ( Andrews et al., 1990 ; Lipsey, 2009 ), such as NP. However, we did not found an impact of criminal history on program effects on the basis of self-reported and official judicial reports of delinquency factors (offense history, age of first crime, and a history of violence). As the target group of NP also includes adolescents at onset of a criminal trajectory (predelinquents), future research should examine the influence of a more inclusive risk profile, including dynamic criminogenic factors (such as antisocial peer affiliations and poor family circumstances) on the effectiveness of youth crime prevention. Finally, results of the moderator analyses suggest that effects of NP were about the same for boys and girls, older and younger adolescents, and native Dutch adolescents and adolescents from ethnic minority groups, which is consistent with findings of previous meta-analytic studies ( De Vries, Hoeve, Assink, et al., 2015 ; S. J. Wilson, Lipsey, & Soydan, 2003 ; Zahn et al., 2009 ).

Limitations

Several limitations of the present study should be mentioned. A first limitation is that the sample size of adolescents ( N = 101) was relatively small to detect effects for subgroups. A larger sample size would have increased possibilities to further differentiate between the effects of NP for different subgroups, for example, adolescents from various ethnic backgrounds and various offending risk level groups (low, medium, and high risk of reoffending). Second, we could not assess the influence of program integrity on program effects, as there was no standardized monitoring system of treatment adherence implemented in the (clinical) practice of NP. Therefore, we were not able to relate the level of program integrity to the program outcomes in the present study. Third, we were not able to examine the influence of (static and dynamic criminogenic) risk levels on program effectiveness, while risk profiles were not available for all participants in the present study (only for participants in the NP group). Referral agencies lacked the use of valid risk assessment instruments. A final limitation involves the risk of selection bias, a common methodological problem in experimental (RCT) designs ( Asscher, Deković, Manders, van der Laan, & Prins, 2007 ). Despite relatively high drop-out rates (37%) at first assessment, we found no preexisting differences between participants and nonparticipants on demographic factors.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In summary, the present experimental study reports on the long-term effectiveness of the prevention program NP. We conducted this study in a real-world treatment setting, which contributes to higher levels of external validity. Results of self-report data and official judicial reports provide very little evidence of effectiveness of NP in preventing and reducing persistent (juvenile) delinquency, given that recidivism rates were not lower for those receiving NP than for those receiving CAU.

Those who followed the NP program recidivated later than those receiving CAU. Furthermore, the present study provides several implications for the improvement of prevention programs, such as NP. In order to adhere to the principles of the RNR model, risk assessment should be carried out as a standard procedure, and program integrity could be enhanced. The effectiveness could be enhanced if youth crime prevention programs (such as NP) have a clear program focus, which is based on theoretical models explaining criminal behavior (e.g., targeting poor adolescent–parent bonds), and integrate effective components that are characterized by a strong therapeutic and (cognitive) behavior–oriented approach, such as training parenting skills.

Our study also shows that to gain more knowledge about effective youth crime prevention, government policy makers and purchasers of youth care services should support the continuation of experimental evaluations in naturalistic settings. Given the overall small effects of (secondary) preventive interventions, it is important that research, policy, and clinical practice focus on further testing the effectiveness of promising (theoretically grounded) prevention programs, and on implementation of standardized treatment adherence monitoring systems and reliable risk assessment instruments (to refer youth to the appropriate program).

Flow diagram of the randomization procedure.

Appendix B.

NP Elements and RNR Principles.

Note. NP = New Perspectives.

Source . Adapted from Elling and Melissen (2007) .

Appendix C.

Youth Care Services (Pretest to Posttest, 6 Months), NP and CAU.

1. “Other ethnic background” consisted of following ethnic backgrounds: Afghan ( n = 1, 1%), African ( n = 7, 7%), Antillean ( n = 3, 3%), Dominican Republic ( n = 1, 1%), Russian ( n = 1, 1%), Turkish ( n = 9, 9%), Kurdish ( n = 1, 1%), and unknown ( n = 9, 9%).

Authors’ Note: Sanne L. A. de Vries is now at Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Informed Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethical Approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Trial Registration: Dutch trial register number NTR4370. The study is financially supported by a grant from ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (Grant Number 157004006/80-82435-98-10109). The study is approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Amsterdam (Approval Number 2011-CDE-01).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by ZonMw, The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (project 157000.4006).

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Contact Contact

Join Donate

AmeriCorps and Department of Justice Announce Millions to Support 12 Innovative Juvenile Justice and Reentry Programs

New grants awarded to Second Chance programs across the nation to support youth impacted by the juvenile justice system

WASHINGTON, DC—AmeriCorps, the federal agency for national service and volunteerism, and the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs’ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention today announced awards to 12 innovative programs that support youth transitioning back into their communities from juvenile residential or correctional facilities.  

The awards were made possible through $2.5 million in federal funding from the Office of Justice Programs’ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Combined with funding from AmeriCorps State and National, these funds will help support the work of nearly 4,000 AmeriCorps members who will engage in service across the nation.  

"AmeriCorps' collaboration with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention allows us to connect with young individuals who may have been overlooked by the system, recruit a diverse range of talent into AmeriCorps and bolster organizations with resources and know-how to support second-chance youth," said Michael D. Smith, CEO, AmeriCorps. "We are honored to welcome new grantees like Credible Messenger Mentoring Movement and support their impactful work in the juvenile justice and second-chance arenas to make a difference and create brighter futures for our nation's youth."

AmeriCorps and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention are dedicated to addressing the complex needs of youth in the justice system. By leveraging the strengths of new and existing grantees, the partnership aims to create a comprehensive support network that fosters rehabilitation, growth and community integration for young individuals.

“As an AmeriCorps member myself many years ago, I know firsthand what a great opportunity AmeriCorps offers for young people,” said Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Administrator Liz Ryan. “We couldn’t be more proud to partner with AmeriCorps to help system-involved youth overcome the barriers they face during reentry and provide them the opportunity to contribute to their communities, foster civic engagement, and improve lives. These young volunteers will gain critical experience and resources, while their communities get stronger. It is the ultimate win-win for public safety.”

AmeriCorps programs awarded funds:

• Rocky Mountain Youth Corps – Taos, N.M.
• Milwaukee Christian Center Inc. – Milwaukee, Wis.
• Credible Messenger Mentoring Movement – Washington, DC
• Impact Justice California Justice Leaders – Oakland, Calif.
• Judiciary Courts of the State of Arizona – Phoenix, Ariz.
• PowerCorpsPHL – Philadelphia, Pa.
• Public Allies Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wis.
• Public Allies Indianapolis, Ind.  
• Public Allies Chicago, Chicago, Ill.
• Renewal Unlimited, Inc. Fresh Start Program – Portage, Wis.
• YouthBuild USA, Inc. – Roxbury, Mass.
• The Corps Network’s Opportunity Youth Service Initiative – Washington, DC

Credible Messenger Mentoring Movement helps youth and families break the cycle and long-term impact of justice system involvement by supporting and advancing credible messenger initiatives in the most impacted communities across the nation. Through their grant with AmeriCorps, they established the Credible Messenger Mentoring Movement’s Credible Messenger Corps made up of 50 leaders who will mentor and support 500 justice-involved youth, in Atlanta, Columbus, New Orleans, New York and San Diego.  

“CM3 is honored and excited to launch the Credible Messenger Corps!” said Clinton Lacey, President & CEO, Credible Messenger Mentoring Movement. “With AmeriCorps support, we are now training, developing and positioning 50 emerging credible messenger leaders in five cities across the nation to provide intensive transformative mentoring to 500 highly vulnerable second chance youth per year. By forming trusting relationships, providing safe spaces, facilitating healing and restorative experiences and connecting youth to core services, the Credible Messenger Corps members will make an important impact on the youth they serve and the communities where they live.”

PowerCorpsPHL connects people to careers and advances community. In Philadelphia, PowerCorpsPHL engages un- and under-employed 18- to 30-year-olds venerable to gun violence in an immersive, paid 4-to 24-month experience that results in connection to living wage jobs in clean energy, green infrastructure and community-based careers.

“This collaboration lifts up what we’ve long known about our communities: offering meaningful ways to connect and opportunities to contribute to all people, regardless the paths thus far, brings out the best in individuals and strengthens our communities,” said Julia Hillengas, Co-Founder and Executive Director, PowerCorpsPHL . “PowerCorpsPHL is proud and honored to be part of this network to activate and support  the wealth of untapped talent in our communities.”

Impact Justice’s California Justice Leaders program supports young adults to make positive life choices after incarceration, from helping them find safe, affordable housing and paid work to continuing their education and forging healthy relationships—challenges they would otherwise face with little or no support. AmeriCorps members serving with California Justice Leaders also help the young people they mentor take advantage of record clearing pathways, opening doors that otherwise might remain closed to them. The program is also a growth opportunity and launch pad for the Justice Leaders themselves, who transition from AmeriCorps placements into permanent jobs, go on to pursue advanced degrees, and excel in many other ways.

“Our members don’t take this commitment lightly,” said Kriss Goss-Marr, Director of Leadership Programs at Impact Justice and lead for California Justice Leaders. “Since launching California Justice Leaders in February 2020, we’ve seen our members provide essential support to hundreds of young people throughout their re-entry journeys and on to bright and successful futures. They know that their service as credible messengers creates ripple effects, touching the lives of young people who face the same challenges they once did, making it possible for those same young people to pay it forward in their own communities."

AmeriCorps, the federal agency for national service and volunteerism, provides opportunities for Americans to serve their country domestically, address the nation’s most pressing challenges, improve lives and communities, and strengthen civic engagement. Each year, the agency places more than 200,000 AmeriCorps members and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers in intensive service roles; and empowers millions more to serve as long-term, short-term, or one-time volunteers. Learn more at AmeriCorps.gov .

AmeriCorps offers opportunities for individuals of all backgrounds to be a part of the national service community, grow personally and professionally, and receive benefits for their service. Learn how to get involved at AmeriCorps.gov/Serve .

About the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a program office within the Office of Justice Programs in the U.S. Department of Justice . OJJDP works to prevent and respond to youth delinquency and protect children. Through its divisions, OJJDP sponsors program, training, and research initiatives; develops priorities and sets policies to guide federal juvenile justice and child protection efforts; disseminates information; and awards funds to support state and local programming.  

You are leaving AmeriCorps.gov

The website you’re going to is not part of the AmeriCorps domain and may not be under AmeriCorps’ control. Its privacy and security practices and policies may differ from AmeriCorps’. AmeriCorps is not responsible for the link, nor does it endorse the content of the third-party website.

Click on the continue button to proceed to the external website; otherwise click cancel to stay on AmeriCorps.gov.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Data Snapshots Highlight Youth Placements, Court Cases Judicially Waived

OJJDP has updated its  Statistical Briefing Book  with two new data snapshots:

• Highlights from the 2022 Juvenile Residential Facility Census presents findings from OJJDP's biennial Juvenile Residential Facility Census. The data show the number of youth in placement in 2022 was 75 percent below the number reported in 2000. More than 90 percent of facilities reported evaluating youth for service needs within one week of admission.
• Characteristics of Cases Judicially Waived from Juvenile Court to Criminal Court draws on data from OJJDP’s  National Juvenile Court Data Archive . The data show the number of cases judicially waived in 2021 was 57 percent less than the number in 2005. Person offenses accounted for the largest number of judicially waived cases between 2005 and 2021.

Developed for OJJDP by the  National Center for Juvenile Justice , the research division of the  National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges , the Statistical Briefing Book offers easy online access to statistics on a variety of juvenile justice topics.

RESOURCES: 

• Access the full list of  Data Snapshots  and  Data Analysis Tools  available from the Statistical Briefing Book .
• Follow OJJDP on  X formerly known as Twitter  and  Facebook .