Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
PrepublicationCopyUncorrectedProofs
Reforming Juvenile Justice:
A Developmental Approach
Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform
Richard J. Bonnie, Robert L. Johnson, Betty M. Chemers, and Julie Schuck, Editors
Committee on Law and Justice
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
ADVANCE COPY
Not For Public Release Before
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
11:00 a.m. EST
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract/Grant No. 2009-JF-FX-0102 between the National Academy of
Sciences and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Any opinions, findings,
conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW,
Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2012). Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental
Approach. Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform, Richard J. Bonnie, Robert L. Johnson,
Betty M. Chemers, and Julie A. Schuck, Eds. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
PrepublicationCopyUncorrectedProofs
OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in
scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general
welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to
advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of
Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a
parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing
with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of
Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and
recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent
members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts
under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal
government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is
president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community
of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating
agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the
government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies
and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the
National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs
OCR for page R4
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs
OCR for page R5
Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform
ROBERT L. JOHNSON (Chair), University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New
Jersey Medical School
RICHARD J. BONNIE (Vice-Chair), IOM member, University of Virginia School of Law
CARL C. BELL, Community Mental Health Council, Inc.
LAWRENCE D. BOBO, NAS member, Harvard University
JEFFREY A. BUTTS, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
GLADYS CARRIÓN, New York State Office of Children & Family Services
B.J. CASEY, Weill Medical College of Cornell University
KENNETH A. DODGE, Duke University
SANDRA A. GRAHAM, University of California, Los Angeles
ERNESTINE GRAY, Orleans Parish Juvenile Court, New Orleans, Louisiana
EDWARD P. MULVEY, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
ROBERT D. PLOTNICK, University of Washington
ELIZABETH S. SCOTT, Columbia University
TERENCE P. THORNBERRY, University of Maryland, College Park
CHERIE TOWNSEND, Texas Juvenile Justice Department
BETTY M. CHEMERS, Study Director
JULIE A. SCHUCK, Senior Program Associate
BARBARA BOYD, Administrative Coordinator
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs v
OCR for page R6
Committee on Law and Justice
2012-2013
JEREMY TRAVIS (Chair), John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York
CARL C. BELL, Community Mental Health Council, Inc.
JOHN J. DONOHUE, III, Stanford Law School
MARK A.R. KLEIMAN, Department of Public Policy, University of California, Los Angeles
GARY LAFREE, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland
JANET L. LAURITSEN, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University
Missouri
GLENN LOURY, Department of Economics, Brown University
CHARLES F. MANSKI, NAS member, Department of Economics, Northwestern University
TERRIE E. MOFFITT, Department of Psychology, Duke University
DANIEL S. NAGIN, Carnegie Mellon University
RUTH D. PETERSON, Department of Sociology, Ohio State University
ANNE MORRISON PIEHL, Department of Economics & Program in Criminal Justice,
Rutgers University
DANIEL B. PRIETO, Public Sector Strategy & Innovation, IBM Global Business Services,
Washington, DC
ROBERT J. SAMPSON, NAS member, Department of Sociology, Harvard University
DAVID WEISBURD, Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy, George Mason University
CATHY SPATZ WIDOM, Psychology Department, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
PAUL K. WORMELI, Integrated Justice Information Systems, Ashburn, VA
JANE L. ROSS, Director
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs vi
OCR for page R7
Preface
Recent findings from research on adolescent development, and particularly increasing
knowledge about the adolescent brain, have led to deep and growing concerns about the
treatment of juveniles in the nation's justice system. There is a fundamental disconnect between
what is now known about the characteristic features of adolescents and the apparent assumptions
of that system. One reflection of that disconnect is a recent series of decisions from the United
States Supreme Court forbidding the most severe penalties for adolescent offenders, especially
the death penalty. There have also been a wide range of reforms in the administration of juvenile
justice over the past 15 years, some of which reflect the emerging knowledge about adolescents
and some of which do not.
The committee's charge was to take stock of the juvenile justice reforms undertaken over
the past 15 years in light of current knowledge about adolescent development. The study was
requested by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), an agency of
the U.S. Department of Justice. In an austere fiscal environment with so many pressing priorities,
OJJDP naturally wants to ensure that it supports the research and programs that best harness the
available scientific evidence.
During the two years of our study, we have been struck by the energy and dedication of
all the stakeholders and participants in the juvenile justice system who took the time to appear
before the committee and to assist us carry out our charge. A diverse array of the nation's
institutions and leaders, both private and public, are playing key roles in the movement for
juvenile justice reform, including elected officials in the states and localities, judges,
foundations, advocacy organizations, and research organizations.
The central premise of this report is that the goals, design and operation of the juvenile
justice system should be informed by the growing body of knowledge about adolescent
development. If designed and implemented in a developmentally informed way, procedures for
holding adolescents accountable for their offending, and the services provided to them, can
promote positive legal socialization, reinforce a prosocial identity, and reduce reoffending.
However, if the goals, design, and operation of the juvenile justice system are not informed by
this growing body of knowledge, the outcome is likely to be negative interactions between youth
and justice system officials, increased disrespect for the law and legal authority, and the
reinforcement of a deviant identity and social disaffection.
Scientists commonly complain that policy makers are not paying attention to the
scientific evidence. Our experience in studying juvenile justice has been quite the reverse. We
have detected an impressive consensus among stakeholder groups and public officials regarding
the goals of the juvenile justice system, a genuine hunger for evidence about what works, and a
willingness to embrace evidence-based policies and programs. This report aims to consolidate
the progress that has been made in both science and policy making and to establish a strong
platform for a 21st century juvenile justice system.
Advancing knowledge has helped to foster a climate of optimism. However, this
energizing spirit of change has not taken root in all parts of the country, and it could dissipate if
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs vii
OCR for page R8
institutional structures are not put in place to sustain it and to assure a continuing partnership
among practitioners, researchers and policy makers. The locus of reform lies at the state, local
and tribal levels, and most of this report focuses on the opportunities and challenges facing the
courts, law enforcement agencies, schools, social service agencies, and mental health agencies in
communities throughout the nation. However, OJJDP support and leadership are critically
important if the reform process is to succeed, and the report urges Congress to embrace the cause
of juvenile justice reform by clarifying and reaffirming the mission of OJJDP.
Many people may argue that the lives of nation's youth most deeply ensnared by juvenile
justice system will not be substantially improved simply by reforming the juvenile justice
system. We do not claim that juvenile justice reform can carry the burden of overcoming the
many causes of juvenile crime. Also needed are stronger families, better schools, truly equal
opportunity, and safe and healthy communities for the nation's youth. However, this report
shows that a harsh system of punishing troubled youth can make things worse, while a
scientifically based juvenile justice system can make an enduring difference in the lives of many
youth who most need the structure and services it can provide.
Robert L. Johnson, Chair
Richard J. Bonnie, Vice Chair
Committee on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs viii
OCR for page R9
Acknowledgments
This report would not have been possible without the efforts of many people, each of
whom has contributed their time and expertise. The committee had the assistance and close
cooperation of the staff of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the
report's sponsor. The committee benefitted greatly from briefings received from senior staff
such as Andrea Coleman, Disproportionate Minority Coordinator; Melodee Hanes, Deputy
Administrator for Policy; Elissa Rumsey, Compliance Monitor Coordinator; Jeff Slowikowski,
Acting Deputy Administrator; and Greg Thompson, Associate Administrator, State Relations and
Assistance Division. The committee also appreciates the assistance and insight of other OJJDP
staff that briefed NRC staff including Janet Chiancone, Associate Administrator, Budget and
Planning Division; Brecht Donahue, Research Coordinator; and Kathi Grasso, Senior Juvenile
Justice Policy and Legal Advisor. Robin Delany-Shabazz, Director, Concentration of Federal
Efforts Program, and Anita Butler, Program Analyst, also provided information. Kellie
Dressler-Tetrick, Acting Associate Administrator, Demonstration Programs, and Marilyn
Roberts, Deputy Administrator for Programs, helped coordinate the committee's activities and
assure that all funding requirements were met.
The committee drew on the expertise of many people during the course of its information
gathering. The committee extends its thanks to Kristin N. Henning, J.D., LL.M. of Georgetown
University Law School for her thoughtful analysis of procedural justice and adolescent's
perceptions of law and legal authority that has been incorporated into Chapter 7; Alex R.
Piquero, Ph.D., of the University of Texas at Dallas for a review of research on racial disparities
for Chapter 8; Simon Singer, Ph.D., of Northeastern University for assisting committee member
Jeff Butts with a paper on current juvenile justice practices; Beth Huebner, Ph.D., of the
University of Missouri at St. Louis for her paper on the Missouri Model that appears in
Appendix B of this report; Jessica Kostelnik, a post-doctoral fellow at the Institute of Law,
Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia for a background paper on socializing
agents and unique characteristics of adolescents relevant to their sense of accountability; Kyle
Frankiewich, M.P.A., and Daniel J. Evans, School of Public Affairs, University of Washington
for developing material used in Appendix A on costs and benefits of juvenile justice
interventions. The committee also relied on a paper prepared for the Academies' Board on
Children and Families by a member of the committee, Kenneth A. Dodge, and Nancy Gonzales,
Ph.D. of the University of Arizona for a portion of the material on parental and peer influences
on adolescent behavior in Chapter 4.
The committee would also like to acknowledge the following people for giving
presentations at committee meetings: Neelum Arya, Campaign for Youth Justice; James Bell,
W. Haywood Burns Institute; Shay Bilchik, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown
University Public Policy Institute; Marcia I. Cohen, Development Services Group, Inc.; Susan
Davis, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety; Lindsey Draper,
Office of Justice Assistance, State of Wisconsin; William Feyerherm, Hatfield School of
Government, Portland State University; Laurie Garduque, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation; Amy Holmes Hehn, District Attorney's Office, Multnomah County, Oregon; Nancy
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs ix
OCR for page R10
Gannon Hornberger, Coalition for Juvenile Justice; James C. Howell, National Gang Center,
Institute for Intergovernmental Research; Lisa Hutchinson, Department of Criminal Justice,
University of Arkansas at Little Rock; Candice Jones, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation; Valerie LaMotte, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Division, Connecticut Office
of Policy and Management ; Akiva Liberman, Urban Institute; Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody
Research Institute, Vanderbilt University; Daniel J. Losen, Civil Rights Project, University of
California, Los Angeles; Bart Lubow, Annie E. Casey Foundation; Katyoon Majid, Public
Welfare Foundation; Ashley Nellis, Sentencing Project; Laura Nissen, Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation; Judy Preston, Special Litigation Unit, Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of
Justice; Patricia Puritz, National Juvenile Defense Center; Brad Richardson, University of Iowa
School of Social Work, National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice; Pili Robinson,
Missouri Youth Service Institute; John Ryals, Department of Juvenile Services, Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana; Vincent N. Schiraldi, New York City Department of Probation; Dana Shoenberg,
Center for Children's Law and Policy; Mark Soler, Center for Children's Law and Policy;
Thomas Stickrath, Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation; Joe Vignati,
Governor's Office for Children and Families, State of Georgia; John Wilson, Institute for
Intergovernmental Research; and Jennifer Woolard, Department of Psychology, Georgetown
University. Special thanks goes to Dwayne Betts who graciously appeared before the Committee
and shared his experiences as an adolescent offender confined in adult institutions and the
obstacles he overcame on his way to achieving academic and professional success.
Thanks and acknowledgments are due to the members of the Committee, all of whom
gave generously of their time. Several members took primary responsibility for drafting sections
of the report. We wish to thank Terence Thornberry for Chapter 1; Elisabeth Scott for Chapters
2 and 5; Jeff Butts for Chapter 3; B.J. Casey, Kenneth Dodge, Sandra Graham, and Edward
Mulvey for Chapter 4; Edward Mulvey and Robert Plotnick for Chapter 6; and Richard Bonnie
for Chapter 7. Finally, we would like to thank the National Research Council staff for valuable
assistance with this project: project coordinator Barbara Boyd, for facilitating the panel's
meetings; senior research associate Julie A. Schuck, for providing critical budgetary and
programmatic information on OJJDP and pulling together other research materials for the
committee; study director Betty M. Chemers, for filling in numerous gaps and turning the report
into a coherent whole; Kirsten Sampson--Snyder for help guiding the report through reviews,
Christine McShane and Eugenia Grohman for skillful editing, and Yvonne Wise for managing
the production process.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse
perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National
Research Council's (NRC's) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent
review is to provide candid and critical comments that assist the institution in making its report
as sound as possible, and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity,
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript
remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following
individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Shay Bilchik, Center for Juvenile
Justice Reform, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Georgetown University; Barry C. Feld,
Centennial Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School; Anne Holton, AECF Child
Welfare Strategy Group Consultant, Richmond, Virginia; Antoinette Kavanaugh, Forensic
Clinical Psychologist, Chicago, Illinois: Diane Nunn, Center for Families, Children and the
Courts, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts; Mark W. Lipsey,
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs x
OCR for page R11
Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University; Alex R. Piquero, Program in Criminology,
University of Texas at Dallas; Steven Raphael, Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public
Policy, University of California, Berkeley; Carol Wilson Spigner (emerita) University of
Pennsylvania, and Child Welfare Services and Policy Consultant, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and
Laurence Steinberg, Department of Psychology, Temple University.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and
suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions and recommendations nor did they
see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by
Alfred Blumstein, The H. John Heinz III College of Public Policy and Information Systems,
Carnegie Mellon University, and Ellen Wright Clayton, Center for Biomedical Ethics and
Society, Vanderbilt University. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making
certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with
institutional procedures and that all of the review comments were carefully considered.
Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and
the institution.
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs xi
OCR for page R12
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs xii
OCR for page R13
Contents
Acronyms
Summary
1 Introduction
2 Historical Context
3 Current Practice in the Juvenile Justice System
4 Adolescent Development
5 A Developmental Framework for Reform
6 Preventing Reoffending
7 Accountability and Fairness
8 Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities
9 Achieving Reform
10 The Federal Role
11 -- Moving Forward
References
Appendixes
A Costs and Benefits of Juvenile Justice Interventions
B The Missouri Model A Critical State of Knowledge
C - Mentoring
D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs xiii
OCR for page R14
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs xiv
OCR for page R15
Acronyms
AAG Assistant Attorney General
Act4JJ Act 4 Juvenile Justice Campaign
Archive National Juvenile Court Data Archive
ART Aggression Replacement Therapy
BARJ Balanced and Restorative Justice
BCA Benefit-cost Analysis
BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics
Centers Community Learning Centers
CIUS Crime in the United States
CJRP Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement
CPC Correctional Program Checklist
CPPRG Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group
CRIPA Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980
CV Contingent Valuation
DMC Disproportionate Minority Contact
DOJ United States Department Justice
DSO Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders
DTI Diffusion Tensor Imaging
DYS Department of Youth Services
EUDL Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws
FASD Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FFLIC Family and Friends of Louisiana's Incarcerated Children
fMRI Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
GAO U. S. General Accounting Office
GGI Guided Group Interaction
IAP Intensive Aftercare Program
IDEA Individuals with Disability Education
IOM Institute of Medicine
JABG Juvenile Accountability Block Grant
JAIBG Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant
JDAI Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
JJDPA Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1974
JJPL Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana
JRFC Juvenile Residential Facility Census
JUMP Juvenile Mentoring Program
MAYSI Massachusetts Adolescent Youth Screening Instrument
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs xv
OCR for page R16
MCAA Missing Children's Assistance Act
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MTFC Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care
MVPP Multisite Violence Prevention Project
NCJJ National Center for Juvenile Justice
NCLB No Child Left Behind Act
NCVS National Crime Victimization Survey
NLSY97 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
NRC National Research Council
NREPP National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices
NTTAC National Training and Technical Assistance Center
NYS National Youth Survey
OCFS Office of Children, Youth and Family Services
ODYS Ohio Department of Youth Services
OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
OJP Office of Justice Programs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PbS Performance-based Standards
PEP Parent Empowerment Program
PLRA Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
PPC Positive Peer Culture
RNR Risk Needs Responsibility
RRI Relative Rate Index
SACWIS Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System
SAGS State Advisory Groups
SAMHSA Substance Abuse, Mental Health Services Administration
SYP Strategies for Youth
SYRP Survey of Youth in Residential Placement
TTA Training and Technical Assistance
TYP Tribal Youth Program
UCR Uniform Crime Reports
VOCA Victims of Child Abuse Act
WSIPP Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Prepublication Copy Uncorrected Proofs xvi
