Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice (2001) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Preventing Juvenile Crime
Preventing Juvenile Crime
Pages 107-153
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 107... ...
In selecting evaluations to include, the panel chose to look at programs that measured effects on risk factors for delinquency as well as on delinquent behavior itself. Few programs for families and young children have follow-ups that are long enough to test for delinquent behavior.
|
From page 108... ...
These experiments can often be considered interventions with disruptive adolescents in an effort to prevent the intergenerational continuity of antisocial behavior. Unfortunately, participants in these intervention studies generally have not been followed long enough to document the program's impact on the development of disruptive behavior for either the mother or the child.
|
From page 109... ...
free transportation to prenatal care appointments plus developmental screening and referral services for the child at 6, 12, and 24 months; (3) free transportation,
|
From page 110... ...
= 36 Elmira Nurse Experimental N(exp) = 97 Nurse home visiting Prenatal Home Visitation (Randomized N(control)
|
From page 111... ...
PREVENTING JUVENILE CRIME luency 111 Delinquency Age at Length of Length of and antisocial portents treatment treatment follow-up behavior outcomes Other outcomes 10 to 14 12 weeks 1 year Teen-focus group Parent-focus and teen en group; years had more teacher focus groups had ltation; identified behavior improved family materials problems at functioning; teen-focus follow-up than group had significantly those in other more tobacco use at groups follow-up than parent focus or controls visiting Prenatal 2 years 15 years Fewer arrests, Less cigarette and to age 2 convictions, and tobacco use and fewer probation sexual partners among violations among treatment group; lower treatment group; rate of child abuse and fewer incidents of neglect by treatment running away from group parents home among treatment group visiting Prenatal 2 years 0 years Fewer injuries and to age 2 hospitalizations of program children; fewer subsequent pregnancies and less time on welfare for program mothers d home Age 3-4 1 to 2 24 years Significantly fewer Treatment group had years arrests by age 27 significantly higher high among treatment school graduation rates, group significantly higher incomes, were significantly more likely to be home owners, and were less likely to receive social services g, Ages 1 to 2 years 5 to 8 Program children parent 3 years years had fewer acting out, aggressive behavior problems continued
|
From page 112... ...
Montreal Experimental N(exp) = 46 Parent training and Age 7 Longitudinal (Randomized N(attention- school-based social Experimental Study controlled control)
|
From page 113... ...
behavior groups for other modifica- treatment tion-2 conditions school terms; nurturing work 5 school terms reacher Age 4 8 to 9 12 to 18 Intervention Intervention children weeks months children significantly increased significantly their positive affect decreased their compared to no change misbehavior in control group. compared to no change in control group continued
|
From page 114... ...
free transportation, developmental screening, and nurse home visitation during pregnancy continuing to child's second birthday. When the children were age 2, the group that received the full home visitation program (the experimental group)
|
From page 115... ...
Only 6 percent of program children, compared with 22 percent of the control children, had been processed as probation cases for delinquent behavior. Furthermore, the program children had committed less severe offenses than the control children.
|
From page 116... ...
More recently, Webster-Stratton (1998) administered a parent training program that targeted risk factors for disruptive behavior in Head Start centers.
|
From page 117... ...
The impact of day care without any other form of intervention, however, is not known because experiments generally include other forms of intervention, such as parent training and medical services. To the extent that cognitive development, emotional regulation, and peer interaction underlie the development of behavior problems, one would expect that quality day care programs would be an essential component of preventive efforts with at-risk infants and toddlers.
|
From page 118... ...
Of all the treatments, only the play group therapy with the younger children resulted in a significant decrease in antisocial behavior compared with the control group. The Seattle Social Development Project (Hawkins et al., 1998a)
|
From page 119... ...
In most cases, individual attention is needed, preferably by visits in their homes. A follow-up study when children were age 18 found significantly higher academic achievement and lower rates of self-reported lifetime violent delinquent behavior among children exposed to the full intervention compared with those in the control group (Hawkins et al., 1999~.
|
From page 120... ...
While classrooms and neighborhoods are disrupted more by the deviant behavior of males than of females, the health of females affects their fetuses and the behavior of females influences crime through the adequacy of their childrearing techniques (Cohen, 1998; Perry et al., 1996; Serbin et al., 1998~. There appears to be no experimental or quasi-experimental study that has assessed the disruptive or antisocial behavior of the children of boys and girls who were in an intervention experiment as children or adolescents themselves.
|
From page 121... ...
Disruptive behavior in the classroom consumes a teacher's time and energy and interferes with the learning processes of disruptive and nondisruptive students, which may lead to a classwide reduction in academic achievement. Moreover, classroom behavior problems may represent early expressions of disruptiveness that may later develop into delinquent behavior.
|
From page 122... ...
Alcohol use and drug use, however, are often examined. In addition, few evaluations include long-term follow-up, making it impossible to know whether reductions in risk factors result in reduced delinquency or whether delinquent behaviors shortly following an intervention are maintained over time.
|
From page 123... ...
(1998a) of the Seattle Social Development Project demonstrated that teacher training in classroom management, interactive teaching, and cooperative learning, particularly in the context of a multimodal intervention package, can lead to long-term reductions in delinquent behavior and other negative outcomes.
|
From page 124... ...
= all students; parent Research Group, 180 classrooms training, home visits, 1999a, b) tutoring, and small group social skills work at-risk students Good Behavior Quasi- N(exp)
|
From page 125... ...
PREVENTING JUVENILE CRIME 125 Delinquency Age at Length of Length of and antisocial portents treatment treatment follow-up behavior outcomes Other outcomes Contracts, 12- to 17- 4 months 0 More court School and home tent years-old contacts among behavior more likely to control group, improve among but differences not experimental group statistically significant ultations, 7th-8th 2 years 5 years Significantly fewer figs with graders court contacts iodic among program it group High 8 weeks 0 Increased school School attendance rates for experimental group notional 1st grade 1 year 1 month Intervention schools Intervention schools had training had lower rates of more positive classroom parent peer- and teacher- atmospheres as rated by Be visits, rated aggression independent observers small- and lower rates of skills teacher rated k students conduct problems rangement 1st and 2 years 6 years For program boys, 2nd grades reduction in aggressive behavior ~1 13- to 16 to 20 Post Fewer police and Fewer referrals to Bunions 17-year- weeks inter- court contacts principal's office, less olds vention among intervention absenteeism, and better and group immediately grades in humanities and 1 year post intervention, social sciences among but no difference at intervention group at 1 year follow-up post-intervention and 1 year continued
|
From page 126... ...
= students, teachers, 1 school, police 192 students, 90 teachers Seattle Social Non- N=598 Teacher training, 1st to Development randomized parent education, 6th grad' Project controlled social competence (Hawkins et al., trial training for children 1999)
|
From page 127... ...
Significantly lower externalizing and internalizing behavior problems among experimental group (measured by CBCL) Classrooms in which teachers gave a high number of RCCP lessons exhibited a slowed rate of growth in aggressive behaviors and maintenance of prosocial behaviors Program school had reduction in student fights, student-teacher conflicts, and incidents resulting in student suspension Significantly less violent delinquent behavior among experimental group Students and teachers in program both reported increased feelings of safety Less heavy drinking, sexual intercourse, multiple sex partners, and pregnancy among experimental group; higher academic achievement among experimental group continued
|
From page 128... ...
At age 18, children in the intervention had significantly higher academic achievement and lower rates of lifetime violent delinquent behavior than children in the control group (Hawkins et al., 1999~. The Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)
|
From page 129... ...
Initial evaluations at the end of the first grade indicated that in schools with the Fast Track program there were lower rates of peer-rated aggression and hyperactivity, lower rates of teacher-rated aggression and conduct problems, and more positive classroom atmosphere as rated by independent observers (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999a, l999b)
|
From page 130... ...
The control group had more juvenile court contacts at pastiest than the experimental group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Seventh graders from a low-income urban school system and a middle-class suburban school system were selected based on low academic achievement, a disregard for rules, and a feeling of distance from their families.
|
From page 131... ...
School interventions emphasizing moral reasoning skills have also demonstrated some efficacy in reducing delinquent behavior. Arbuthnot and Gordon (1986)
|
From page 132... ...
Both junior and senior high school students in the treatment group reported significantly less drug use than controls. Treatment students also reported less serious delinquent behavior than controls, although the difference was significant only for senior high school students.
|
From page 133... ...
After the first year of the evaluation, children in cluster one classes, in which their teachers taught the most lessons (up to 30 are available) , showed the slowest growth of antisocial behaviors and the greatest retention of prosocial behaviors of all children.
|
From page 134... ...
Intervening at younger ages, before the development of delinquent behavior, may be a profitable course of action. Also, the length of the intervention may be important.
|
From page 135... ...
Although a variety of school-based strategies appear to have the potential for reducing antisocial and delinquent behavior, how best to replicate such programs while maintaining their quality and intensity remains an unanswered question. Gottfredson (1997:5-61)
|
From page 136... ...
= 37 control group recruited Cambridge- Matched pairs, N(exp) = 248 Counseling for child under 12 Somerville one randomly N(control)
|
From page 137... ...
. manlc-aepresslve, or died prior to age 35 Increased waywardness, increased tardiness, decreased attachment to parents, and more self-reported delinquent behavior among high school students in treatment group Antisocial behavior of antisocial boys in groups with prosocial boys declined and their prosocial behavior increased compared to no decrease in antisocial behavior in groups of all antisocial boys
|
From page 138... ...
found that putting one or two at-risk juveniles in groups of prosocial juveniles reduced antisocial behaviors and increased prosocial behaviors, whereas groups of at-risk juveniles receiving the same interventions increased their misbehavior. Putting antisocial or at-risk juveniles together may provide them the opportunity to actively reinforce deviant behavior through laughter and social attention while talking about such behavior (Dishion et al., 1995, 1997~.
|
From page 139... ...
One of the most difficult aspects of evaluating community interventions is devising an appropriate control group (Hollister and Hill, 1995~. It is much more difficult to use random assignment with neighborhoods or communities than with individuals.
|
From page 140... ...
= Mass media, 6th and Prevention (random 32 schools, school-based 7th grad' Project assignment 557 high-risk educational program, Indianapolis of schools students parent education, (Chou et al., to program N(control) = community 1998)
|
From page 141... ...
PREVENTING JUVENILE CRIME 14 Delinquency Age at Length of Length of and antisocial portents treatment treatment follow-up behavior outcomes Other outcomes 10- to 12 months 18 months Treatment group Less truancy, improved 16-year- average after less likely to grades for treatment olds random initiate alcohol or group assignment drug use and less likely to hit someone ucation, 16- to Up to 2.5 years Reductions in Higher earnings, higher airing, 24-year- 2 years after arrests, convictions, rate of completion of viny, olds (8 months random and incarcerations high school or GED nd average) assignment among 16- to among 16- to 17-year tion, 17-year-olds in olds in treatment group End job treatment group resistance 6th and 2 years 3.5 years Significant reductions in 7th grade from tobacco use at 6 months Program, baseline and alcohol use at 1.5 lion, years in treatment schools school- 6th and 2 years 1 year Less tobacco, alcohol, :ional 7th grade and marijuana use tent among experimental Immunity group earth 6th 5 years 2 years Less heavy Lower smoking rates, Program, through drinking among more exercise, and better Peer 10th grade 9th graders in food choices in treatment fig, treatment community vice community ly Families 1 to 3.5 Fewer behavioral Better health and less .s with years problems among victimization among moving minor after boys in treatment treatment groups ty children random groups d assign ment continued
|
From page 142... ...
10 school districts and education, and 8th N(control) = behavioral curricula grades 10 school districts for students, peer leadership training, community task force Urban Crime Quasi- N = selected Door to door contacts, Not Prevention experimental target areas from block meetings, reported Program 5 neighborhoods neighborhood (Rosenbaum et al., meetings, and the 1986)
|
From page 143... ...
One to three and a half years after random assignment, 48 percent of the experimental group and 62 percent of the Section 8 comparison group had moved. Families in both the experimental group and comparison group were more likely to be residing in neighborhoods with low poverty rates and high education levels than were families in the control group.
|
From page 144... ...
The few credible evaluations of such activities as block watches have failed to show reductions in crime rates (Hope, 1995~. Using a quasi-experimental design, Rosenbaum et al.
|
From page 145... ...
Although not evaluated specifically for their effect on juvenile crime, some of these measures have been found to reduce crime, particularly property crimesoffenses in which juveniles are likely to be involved. Unfortunately, these evaluations seldom use experimental or even quasi-experimental designs.
|
From page 146... ...
As noted above, methods for evaluating comprehensive community interventions are still being devised. Although there have been no evaluations of the effects on juvenile crime of comprehensive community interventions, some more narrow community-based programs aimed at reducing drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among youngsters have found effects on substance use.
|
From page 147... ...
Mentoring Evaluations of mentoring programs have consistently found that noncontingent, supportive mentoring relationships do not have the desired effects on academic achievement, school attendance, dropout, child behavior, or employment (Dicken et al., 1977; Goodman, 1972; McPartland and Nettles, 1991; Poorjak and Bockelman, 1973; Rowland, 1992; Slicker and Palmer, 1993~. When mentors used behavior management techniques, Fo and O'Donnell (1974)
|
From page 148... ...
Both program and control groups were assessed at time of random assignment and 18 months later through surveys administered to the youth, through surveys administered to the parent or guardian of the youth, and through data collected by the case managers. At 18 months, youngsters in the program group were 46 percent less likely than controls to have initiated drug use and 27 percent less likely to have initiated alcohol use.
|
From page 149... ...
Although this evaluation accounts for that level of motivation by its random assignment of qualified youngsters to either program or waiting list conditions, it is possible that a mentoring program such as Big Brothers/ Big Sisters may be less successful for young people who are not as motivated. After-School and Nonschool-Hours Programs Increasing attention in recent years has been given to providing children and adolescents with supervised activities during nonschool hours.
|
From page 150... ...
Groups met once per week during the school year and participated in a wide range of recreational and leisure activities. Referred boys in the mixed groups significantly reduced their antisocial behaviors and increased their prosocial behaviors over the course of the year, but referred boys in the nonmixed group did not show decreases in antisocial behavior.
|
From page 151... ...
Both groups were interviewed 12 months and 30 months after random assignment. At the 30 month follow-up, the treatment group had increased their education and earnings more than the control group, and had significantly reduced their involvement in the criminal justice system.
|
From page 152... ...
Public concern about juvenile crime should be used to encourage adequate, scientifically credible evaluations of the programs instituted to address that concern. RECOMMENDATIONS A variety of interventions with infants, preschoolers, and elementary school children have been found to successfully reduce risk factors for delinquency.
|
From page 153... ...
Funding for programs whose effectiveness is shown to be limited should be discontinued. Placing one or two antisocial juveniles in a group of primarily prosocial young people can decrease their antisocial behavior and increase their prosocial behavior without negatively influencing the prosocial youngsters.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.