67 Articol

Development and Psychopathology, 12 (2000), 737762
Copyright 2000 Cambridge University Press

Printed in the United States of America
Young children who commit crime:

Epidemiology, developmental origins,
risk factors, early interventions, and
policy implications
ROLF LOEBERa,b AND DAVID P. FARRINGTONc

a
University of Pittsburgh; Free University, Amsterdam; and cUniversity of Cambridge
b
Abstract
An early onset of delinquency prior to age 13 years increases the risk of later serious, violent, and chronic offending
by a factor of 23. Also child delinquents, compared to juveniles who start offending at a later age, tend to have
longer delinquent careers. This article summarizes the report of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Preventions Study Group on Very Young Offenders, chaired by Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington. The Study
Group, consisting of 16 scholars and 23 coauthors, worked for 2 years on preparing a report, undertaking extensive
secondary data analyses, and writing chapters in different speciality areas. The report consists of a state of the art
review of the developmental background of child delinquents. The report also summarizes risk and protective factors
in the individual, family, peer group, school, and neighborhood that affect that development. Lastly, the report
renews relevant preventive and remedial interventions in the juvenile justice system, families, peer groups, schools,
and neighborhoods, and makes a case for improvement in the integration of services for child delinquents. Policy
recommendations are presented to improve methods of dealing with child delinquents by juvenile justice, child
welfare, and mental health agencies.
The Study Group on Very Young Offenders was chaired practitioners who gave us advice, including Menke
by Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington. We are much Bol, Theo Dorelijers, Hans Heiner, Eric Joy, Willem
indebted to the study group members and their coauthors Koops, Jim Reiland, Evelyn Wei, and Cathy Spatz Wi-
for their extraordinary efforts to make the study group dom, and to over 100 attendees at the National Confer-
report highly informative and practical. The initial mem- ence on Juvenile Justice conference in Minneapolis, Min-
bers of the study group were Barbara J. Burns, John D. nesota, who in March 1999 responded to our survey on
Coie, J. David Hawkins, James C. Howell, David Hui- very young offenders, and the attendees of the meeting
zinga, Kate Keenan, Darnell F. Hawkins, David R. Of- on Delinquents Under 10: Targeting the Young Of-
ford, Howard N. Snyder, Terence P. Thornberry, and Gail fender, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, SeptemberOctober
A. Wasserman. They were later joined by Leena K. Au- 1999. Special thanks are due to Magda Stouthamer
gimeri, Brandon C. Welsh, and Janet K. Wiig. The study Loeber for her continuing support and encouragement
group members enlisted many coauthors to help them throughout the project. The Study Group on Very Young
with their chapters, including Meda ChesneyLind, Ick Offenders has been sponsored by the Office of Juvenile
Joong Chung, Anne Crawford, Erik K. Duku, Rachele C. Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP; grant 95-
Espiritu, Leyla Faw, Kenneth Goldberg, Andrea Hazen, JD-FX-0018). Points of view or opinions in this paper
Todd I. Herrenkohl, Karl G. Hill, Larry M. Kalb, Kelly are ours and do not necessarily represent the official
Kelleher, Gordon Keeler, Kimberly KempfLeonard, position of OJJDP. Throughout this project we received
Christopher J. Koegl, Marvin D. Krohn, John Landsverk, consistent encouragement and superior counsel from
David LeMarquand, Marc Le Blanc, Ellen L. Lipman, OJJDPs staff, particularly Barbara AllenHagen, Shay
Shari MillerJohnson, Craig Rivera, and Angela Seracini. Bilchik, Betty Chemers, Charlotte Kerr, and John
We also owe much to our informal group of advisors, Wilson.
including Alfred Blumstein, Dante Cicchetti, Nancy Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Rolf
Crowell, Bernadine Dohrn, Joan McCord, and Christy Loeber, Ph.D., WPIC, 3811 OHara St., Pittsburgh, PA
Visher. We are also grateful to many colleagues and 15213; E-mail: loeberr@msx.upmc.edu.
737
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Universitatea din Bucuresti (Central University Library), on 05 May 2017 at 12:19:05, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https:/www.cambridge.org/core/product/C9CAB48D65935A247F6C107ED2E72CBF
738 R. Loeber and D. P. Farrington
Child delinquents have a 2- to 3-fold in- crime) in communities. Although valuable,

creased risk of becoming tomorrows serious, the problem with this approach is that, with-
violent, and chronic offenders. Child delin- out screening methods, chronic offenders be-
quents also tend to have a longer delinquency come recognizable only when they have ac-
career than those with a later onset of offend- crued multiple offenses, which usually is late
ing. For these reasons alone, child delinquents in their criminal careers when they have al-
constitute a disproportionate threat to the ready inflicted much harm and property loss
safety and property of citizens across the na- on others and possibly are beginning to dees-
tion. The main aim of this paper is to summa- calate and desist. It is a waste of criminal jus-
rize the results of the Study Group on Very tice resources to focus on offenders who are
Young Offenders, sponsored by the Office of about to stop offending.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Focusing on an earlier stage of criminal ca-
(OJJDP). The principal aims of the Study reers, Loeber and Farrington (1998) published
Group were to advance knowledge about the results of the Study Group on Serious and
child delinquents, address factors that contrib- Violent Juvenile Offenders, which summa-
ute to offending starting at an early age, and rized knowledge about development, risk fac-
show what types of interventions are effec- tors, and interventions for serious and violent
tive. We define child delinquents as children juvenile offenders. The Study Group con-
who have committed a delinquent act between cluded that many of these offenders began
ages 7 and 12 years inclusive. their careers of antisocial behavior before the
The Study Group on Very Young Offend- teenage years, but that little was known about
ers consisted of 16 scholars on juvenile delin- child delinquency and few resources were de-
quency and child problem behaviors. They voted to the prevention either of child delin-
and 23 coauthors have worked for 2 years on quency or of escalation in the severity of of-
the preparation of a volume, entitled Child fending after the onset of child delinquency.
Delinquents: Development, Interventions, and These conclusions from the first Study Group
Service Needs (Loeber & Farrington, in on Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders led
press), through regular meetings, special data logically to the second Study Group on Very
analyses, and the writing and joint revision of Young Offenders. Thus, scientific and policy
the chapters. The present paper presents high- concerns about serious crime have gradually
lights from that volume and discusses policy moved the main focus earlier and earlier in
implications. life.
Juvenile offending is an enduring phenom- The second Study Group focused on child
enon in our society, and it persists from gen- delinquents. As mentioned, child delinquents,
eration to generation of juveniles. Increas- compared to juveniles with a later onset of
ingly scholars (e.g., Cicchetti, 1993) have delinquents, are at risk of becoming serious,
realized that juvenile delinquency, like many violent, and chronic offenders, and have
other forms of child problem behaviors that longer delinquency careers (Espiritu, Hui-
wax and wane with age, can best be studied zinga, Crawford, & Loeber, in press; Farring-
from a developmental point of view. How- ton, Loeber, Elliott, Hawkins, Kandel, Klein,
ever, scholars differ in their developmental McCord, Rowe, & Tremblay, 1990; Krohn,
focus and their choice of specific high-risk Thornberry, Rivera, & Le Blanc, in press;
categories of youth. Initially, pioneering work Loeber, 1982, 1988; Loeber & Farrington,
during the 1980s and 1990s focused on 1998; Moffitt, 1993). The main advantage of
chronic offendersthat is, those with at least concentrating on child delinquents is the iden-
four or five arrests or convictions (e.g., tification of and possible intervention with
Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, & Visher, 1986; children at a much earlier age, prior to the
Farrington, Ohlin, & Wilson, 1986). The main accumulation of multiple offenses. In addi-
rationale for this was that chronic offenders tion, the second Study Group focused on per-
are responsible for a disproportionately large sistently disruptive children, who are not yet
amount of crime (and especially serious engaged in delinquent acts but whose behav-
Children who commit crime 739
ior puts them at risk of becoming child delin- in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York,
quents. Disruptive child behaviors are defined age 8 years in Arizona, and age 10 years in
first as a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defi- the states of Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas,
ant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward Minnesota, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South
authority figures, and second as a disturbance Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The
of childrens conduct lasting at least 6 months remaining states do not have a minimum age
(American Psychiatric Association, 1994). of criminal responsibility for children, but ac-
Figure 1 summarizes the developmental cording to common law the minimum age is 7
links between the three groups of youth that years (Griffin, Torbert, & Szymanski, 1998).
concern us most. Children showing persistent Canada has a minimum age of 12 years, with
disruptive behavior are likely to become child a minimum age of 14 years for juveniles re-
delinquents, while child delinquents are likely ferral to adult court. England has a minimum
to become serious, violent, or chronic offend- age of 10 years. In this article, we define child
ers. In summary, although many delinquency delinquency as offending between the ages of
studies have focused on adolescence when the 7 and 12 years inclusive.
prevalence of delinquency usually peaks, the
search for the early origins of serious, violent,
and chronic offending necessarily focuses on What are important distinctions between
the elementary school years and even the pre- problematic children?
school years.
We are particularly interested in three catego-
Many issues surrounding early onset and
ries of problematic children up to age 12 years:
child delinquency are unclear. Not all early
(a) serious child delinquents, who have com-
onset delinquents become chronic offenders.
mitted one or more of the following acts: ho-
Therefore, the key question is who will and
micide, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, or
under what conditions. Also, we need to know
serious arson; (b) other child delinquents (ex-
whether early onset bodes equally ill for of-
cluding serious delinquents); and (c) children
fenders from different ethnic or racial back-
showing persistent disruptive behavior, who
grounds, and for female as opposed to male
are at risk of offending.
offenders. Further, what are the causes of
We will briefly discuss the importance of
child delinquency, and are they different from
these three groups.
the causes of a later onset of delinquency?
Given the young age of child delinquents,
what types of agencies, other than the juvenile Serious child delinquents. It has become in-
justice system, are dealing with them, and creasingly clear that child delinquents can
how successful are their efforts in reducing commit very serious crimes, that offenders up
early onset offending? What are the best inter- to age 12 years constitute a surprisingly high
vention methods for child delinquents, and (10%) proportion of all juvenile cases (Butts
what are the best opportunities to prevent de- & Snyder, 1997; Puzzanchera, 1998; Snyder,
linquency in this high-risk group? in press), and that the number of arrested
child delinquents increased considerably be-
tween 1980 and 1997 (Snyder, 1997, in
Early Problem Behavior and Delinquency press).
How are child delinquents legally defined?

Homicide. Rightly or wrongly, serious child
Child delinquents are not necessarily legally delinquents are increasingly featured in the
defined in the same way across states in the news media, especially after unusual and seri-
United States (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999; ous crimes committed in parental homes,
Wiig, in press). If child delinquents were de- schools, or the community (e.g., Gegax, Ad-
fined according to the age of criminal respon- ler, & Pederson, 1998; Cowley, 1998; James
sibility, information for 1997 shows that this & Jenks, 1996; Welch, Fenwick, & Roberts,
was age 6 years in North Carolina, age 7 years 1997), including the recent murder by a 6-
year-old boy who fired a gun and killed a mit sexual homicides (Myers, & Blashfield,
classmate in school (Barboza, 2000). 1997), and it is very uncommon for them to
Between 1980 and 1997, 27,000 murders kill more than one person. Children under age
were committed by juveniles; in about 2% of 9 years who kill, in contrast to older youth,
these cases (or about 600 murders), at least do not fully understand the concept of death
one of the identified offenders was age 12 and have great difficulties comprehending
years or less. Thus, murders by child delin- that their actions are irreversible (Heide,
quents are uncommon but are still large in ab- 1999, p. 30).
solute numbers. Weapons are frequently used
by child offenders: guns were used in over Nonserious child delinquents. Most child de-
half of the murders committed by child of- linquents commit less serious forms of delin-
fenders (Snyder, in press). In the Pittsburgh quency, such as shoplifting of items of low
Youth Study (Loeber, Farrington, Stout- monetary value, or other acts for which they
hamerLoeber, & Van Kammen, 1998), juve- rarely are prosecuted (e.g., cruelty to animals,
nile gun owners had a lower age of onset of setting fires). However, for some young chil-
moderately serious delinquency (shoplifting, dren less serious delinquency is a stepping
vandalism, minor fraud) than juveniles not stone to more serious offending (e.g.,
owning guns (average onset age 9.2 vs. 10.3 Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Lipsey & Derzon,
years, respectively; Drinkwater, 1998). 1998; Loeber, Wung, Keenan, Giroux, Stout-
School killings are often featured in the me- hamerLoeber, Van Kammen, & Maughan,
dia, but homicide at school committed by ju- 1993). Better screening devices are needed to
veniles appears very rare (Kachur, Stennies, enable juvenile justice officials and others
Powell, Modzeleski, Stephens, Murphy, Kres- dealing with child delinquents to discriminate
now, Sleet, & Lowry, 1996), and appears par- between those who will escalate to more seri-
ticularly rare for children younger than age 13 ous offending and those who will not (How-
years. ell, in press-a).
There are few studies of the background of
children below age 13 years who committed Disruptive children. Many youth who be-
homicide. In the majority of these cases come serious and violent offenders have a
(59%), the homicide is the first recorded of- long history of nondelinquent, disruptive prob-
fense, and in about a third of the cases (36%) lem behaviors during childhood (Loeber &
the childs guardian or teachers described the Farrington, 1998; Robins, 1966). Typical dis-
offender as a discipline problem (Goetting, ruptive behaviors are serious and persistent
1989; see also Cornell, Benedek, & Benedek, disobedience, frequent lying, aggressive be-
1987, Heide, 1999).1 It is clear that adolescent haviors, minor forms of theft, truancy during
murderers are a heterogeneous group of of- elementary school, and early substance use.
fenders (Benedek & Cornell, 1989; Ewing, Longitudinal studies show that a quarter to a
1990; Hardwick & RowtonLee, 1996; half of these disruptive children are at risk of
Heide, 1999). Some commit murder as part becoming child delinquents (Loeber & Dis-
of a criminal enterprise and others because of hion, 1983; Offord, Lipman, & Duku, in
personal conflict, often with relatives or peers press; Tremblay, Pihl, Vitaro, & Dobkin,
(Myers, Scott, Burgess, & Burgess, 1995; 1994).
Rowley, Ewing, & Singer, 1987). Homicidal In addition, already early in life, disruptive
victims of child delinquents are mostly children tend to show multiple problems in a
younger siblings and infants (Adelson, 1972; diversity of areas, including, attention-deficit
Ewing, 1990). Child delinquents rarely com- hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), ungovernabil-
ity in the home, poor school performance, in-
ternalizing problems (e.g., depressed mood),
1. In contrast, adolescent murderers tend to have a history
of one or more prior arrests (Bailey, 1996; Lewis, and, at a later point, substance use, spousal
Moy, Jackson, Aaronson, Restifo, Serra, & Simos, abuse, and young parenthood (Espiritu et al.,
1985; Myers, Scott, Burgess, & Burgess, 1995). in press; Farrington, 1994; Loeber, Farring-
ton, et al., 1998; Offord et al., in press). More- after age 2 years (Loeber & Hay, 1997).
over, child delinquents are disproportionally Studies confirm the generally held belief that
victims of child abuse (Howell, in press-b; already at an early age more boys than girls
Wasserman & Seracini, in press; Wiig, in show disruptive behavior, such as aggression.
press). However, the prevalence of indirect aggres-
sion (e.g., ostracizing others and spreading
malicious rumors) is about the same for each
Epidemiology
gender, and if anything slightly higher for fe-
males (Offord et al., in press). Official records
How prevalent are child delinquents?
and self-reports of delinquent acts show that
Child delinquency is quite common. Two in- early onset offending is more common among
ner-city studies (Denver and Pittsburgh) show males than females (Snyder, in press; Kempf
that at 1112 years of age, about 10% of boys Leonard et al., in press). For example, self-
and girls have a police contact because of de- reports of two inner-city samples of children
linquency (Espiritu et al., in press). The total below age 13 years show that 79% of boys
volume of child delinquents handled in the ju- and 3% of girls had committed serious aggra-
venile courts is large: in 1997 an estimated vated assaults or robberies (Espiritu et al., in
181,300 delinquents were below age 13 years press).
at the time of the court intake (Butts & Sny-
der, 1997; Puzzanchera, 1998; Snyder, in
press). Disturbingly, the National Longitudi- What are the most common delinquent acts
nal Survey of Youth in 1997 found that 7% committed by child delinquents?
of all American 12-year-olds reported that
In general, child delinquents commit a similar
they had carried a handgun in the past year
pattern of delinquent acts to older delinquents
(Puzzanchera, 2000). In summary, child delin-
(Espiritu et al., in press; Snyder, in press).
quents constitute a surprisingly high danger
However, the proportion of juvenile arrests in-
and burden for society and for the juvenile
volving child delinquents is highest for arson
courts.
(35%), followed by sex offenses and vandal-
ism (1819%), larceny or theft, minor assault,
Race differences. The rate of referral of Afri-
burglary, and forcible rape (1214%). The
can American child delinquents to the juve-
proportion of child delinquents arrested for
nile court in 1997 was 3 times higher than the
status offenses (running away from home,
referral rate for Caucasian child delinquents
curfew violation, liquor law violations) is
(Snyder, in press; KempfLeonard, Chesney
lower (about 10%), but this may reflect cur-
Lind, & Hawkins, in press). These differences
rent practices to avoid processing children un-
in referral rates and disruptive behavior need
der age 13 years for status offenses. National
to be examined in the context of childrens
surveys report that 69% of children below
exposure to risk factors, particularly in the
age 13 years commit status offenses (Espiritu
worst inner-city neighborhoods and with re-
et al., in press). In summary, child delin-
gard to the greater police patrolling and likeli-
quency is common and includes serious of-
hood of detection in these areas.
fenses, as well as status offenses.
Sex differences. The male referral rate of
child delinquents to the juvenile court in 1997 Are there geographic concentrations of
was over 3 times the female rate. Over the child delinquents?
years, however, the sex gap has been narrow-
ing. Between 1988 and 1997, court referrals It is likely that child delinquents are not ran-
of female child delinquents increased by 69%, domly distributed across the nation, but the
compared with the male increase of 26% evidence for their concentration in certain
(Snyder, in press). Sex differences in disrup- states and cities is incomplete. Child delin-
tive child behavior already tend to emerge quents in secure juvenile facilities are un-
equally distributed across the nation, with However, a comparison of self-reported delin-
the highest concentrations found in Florida, quency over the past 20 years does not indi-
Georgia, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Alaska cate any increase by young offenders in the
(Snyder, in press). United States (Espiritu et al., in press). More-
It is impossible to say whether the geo- over, between 1980 and 1997 the number of
graphic concentration of child delinquents in murders by an offender up to age 12 years
those states reflects the prevalence of child remained about the same, averaging about 30
delinquents, availability of residential and non- per year (Snyder, in press).
residential services, or routine judicial prac-
tices unique to those states. However, we
Have child delinquents become
know that juvenile homicides (and probably
more violent?
other serious offenses) committed by juve-
niles of any age are concentrated in large The recorded offense pattern of child delin-
cities (e.g., Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, quents changed between 1988 and 1997. Dur-
Detroit, New York; see Snyder & Sickmund, ing that period arrests for violent crimes in-
1999). Since a high proportion of serious vio- creased by 45%, arrests for simple assaults
lent offenders start their delinquency careers increased by 79%, and arrests for weapons
at an early age, it follows that child delin- law violations increased by 76%. These in-
quents probably are also concentrated in the creases in arrests parallel the increases in
same locations. This would agree with find- these behaviors seen for older juvenile offend-
ings showing that the prevalence of aggres- ers. However, the increases in violence and
sion is particularly elevated in children from drug abuse violations by child delinquents has
the lowest income groups and concentrated in received scant attention so far. The number of
inner-city children growing up in poverty (Of- violence cases involving child delinquents in
ford et al., in press). We know that many of the courts more than doubled (up 113%), and
the child delinquents had been highly aggres- the number of drug offenses over the period
sive when younger (Lipsey & Derzon, 1998; increased even more (163%; Snyder, in
Loeber & Dishion, 1983). press). It is debatable whether these changes
reflect true secular changes in society or
Has the prevalence of child delinquents changes in prosecution practices in the juve-
increased in recent years? nile justice system. Arrests of child delin-
quents for property crimes decreased by 17%
Between 1988 and 1997, the number of ar-
between 1988 and 1997 (Snyder, in press).
rested child delinquents only increased by
6%, although the number dealt with by the
juvenile court increased by 33%, showing that Development
law enforcement agencies were increasingly
likely to refer child delinquents to the juvenile What is the developmental context of
court. Over two-thirds (69%) of the prac- child delinquency?
titioners we surveyed said that it is now more
Some children engage in minor delinquent
common than in the recent past for children
acts for excitement, adventure, or other emo-
to become delinquent at a very young age.2
tions common among children. For these chil-
dren, offending may be considered as part of
2. On March 22, 1999, Rolf Loeber, David P. Farrington,
Darnell F. Hawkins, Melissa H. Sickmund, and Gail
the context of child development in which
A. Wasserman made presentations describing the work youngsters learn prosocial behaviors by trial
of the OJJDP Study Group on Very Young Offenders and error. This may be the case for a propor-
at the 26th National Conference on Juvenile Justice in
Minneapolis. During this session, a questionnaire was
given out to the audience soliciting their opinions on ers (juvenile court officers, juvenile probation officers,
eight policy issues relevant to child delinquents (see prosecutors, public defenders, court administrators,
Loeber, Farrington, & Kalb, 1999). Out of about 150 child advocates, etc.), while one-quarter were mental
persons in the audience, 111 completed the question- health workers (psychologists, psychiatrists, social
naire. About three-quarters were juvenile justice work- workers, court clinicians, etc.).
tion of the early onset offenders. However, severity levels are different manifestations of
several important points should be kept in the same underlying deviancy, and children
mind: (a) many of the children who come to differ in the extent that they progress over
the attention of the police and the court be- time on developmental pathways to serious
cause of minor delinquent acts also, unknown delinquent behaviors. The term pathway is de-
to the juvenile justice system, engage in more fined as a common pattern of development
serious acts (Snyder, 1998); (b) for some shared by a group of individuals which is
child offenders, early status offenses and de- distinct from the behavioral development ex-
linquency are stepping stones in pathways to perienced by other groups of individuals
serious, violent, and chronic offending, partic- (Loeber, 1991, p. 98). A key thesis is that a
ularly when the status offenses first appear at proportion of child delinquents develop into
a young age (e.g., Loeber & Dishion, 1983; serious and violent offenders but that individ-
Lipsey & Derzon, 1998; Loeber et al., 1993); uals pathways leading to a similar outcome
(c) about a quarter to a half of children who (i.e., serious and violent offending) can be di-
engage in disruptive behavior are at risk of verse (called equifinality; Cicchetti & Ro-
escalating to delinquent acts (Farrington, gosch, 1996).
1991; Loeber & Dishion, 1983; Offord et al., Empirical work by Loeber and his col-
in press; Tremblay et al., 1994); (d) about a leagues, initially on the three samples of the
third to two-thirds of child delinquents are at Pittsburgh Youth Study and since then repli-
risk of escalating to serious delinquency cated in several other studies, has demon-
(Hawkins, Laub, & Lauritsen, 1998; Lipsey & strated three pathways in male disruptive and
Derzon, 1998; Loeber & Dishion, 1983), and delinquent child behavior, as shown in Figure
4060% run the risk of becoming chronic of- 2 (Kelley, Huizinga, Thornberry & Loeber,
fenders (Blumstein, Farrington, & Moitra, 1997; Loeber, Keenan, & Zhang, 1997;
1965; KempfLeonard et al., in press); and Loeber, DeLamatre, Keenan, & Zhang,
(e) screening procedures are needed to distin- 1998a; Loeber, Wei, StouthamerLoeber, Hui-
guish prospectively (rather than after the fact) zinga, & Thornberry, 1999; Loeber, Wung, et
between those youth whose early offending is al., 1993; Tolan, 1998; Tolan & Gorman
temporary and those who will either persist Smith, 1998; Tolan, GormanSmith, &
in offending over time or escalate to serious Loeber, in press): (a) an overt pathway, start-
offenses (Howell, in press-a). ing with minor aggression, followed by physi-
In summary, research findings support the cal fighting, and followed in turn by violence;
notion that the development of offending is (b) a covert pathway prior to age 15 years,
part of a broader pattern of deviant develop- consisting of a sequence of minor covert be-
ment that usually starts with disruptive nonde- haviors (e.g., shoplifting), followed by prop-
linquent behavior (see Figure 1). Although erty damage (fire setting or vandalism) and
some of the predictions may refer to similar moderate to serious forms of delinquency;
behaviors (e.g., aggression predicting vio- and (c) an authority conflict pathway prior to
lence), some types of disruptive behaviors age 12 years, consisting of a sequence of stub-
may also predict different types of delinquent born behavior, defiance, and authority avoid-
acts. For example, research shows that boys ance (truancy, running away, staying out late
who are aggressive by 89 years of age, com- at night), and which, at the highest level, con-
pared to nonaggressive boys, have 5 times as cerns behaviors that can be construed as status
high a risk of engaging in property offenses offenses.
by ages 12 and 13 years (Offord et al., in Only a minority of boys, especially those
press). with persistent problem behaviors, advance to
the most serious level within a pathway. Boys
can advance on one or more pathways at the
What are developmental pathways to
same time. Those with an early onset of disrup-
disruptive and delinquent behavior?
tive or delinquent behavior are more likely to
We hypothesize that disruptive behavior, sta- progress to the highest level of a pathway (To-
tus offenses, and delinquent acts of different lan, 1998; Tolan & GormanSmith, 1998).
Figure 1. Relationship between risk and protective factors, development of child problem
behavior, and interventions.
Figure 2. Three developmental pathways in disruptive behavior, status offenses, and delin-
quent acts (Loeber, Wei, et al., 1999).
Truancy, curfew violation, and running escalating in the overt or covert pathways
away from home all constitute the last step in leading to violence or serious property of-
the authority conflict pathway (Loeber et al., fenses, respectively (Loeber et al., 1993).
1993) and denote avoidance of authority fig- There are two qualitative changes that take
ures such as parents and teachers (Figure 2). place when children advance from the lower
Research findings show that boys advance- to the higher levels within pathways. First,
ment in this pathway increases their risk of there is development of disruptive or delin-
Figure 3. Age of onset of earlier problem behaviors for boys brought before the juvenile
court for and index offense (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998).
quent behavior starting in the home and elapsed between the onset of minor problem
spreading to the school and the community. behavior and boys first court appearance for
Often, a developmental pathway towards seri- an index offense. This means that there is a
ous offending starts with persistent disruptive wide window of opportunity for intervention
behavior in the home, which then spreads to during the interim period. However, early
delinquent acts outside of the homethat is, intervention is preferable to prevent all the
at school and in the community. The re- antisocial acts committed during this time
versethat is, serious delinquent acts starting period.
in the community (without prior disruptive
behavior in the family home) and then spilling
What are the consequences of an early onset
over into disruptive or delinquent behavior at
of a delinquent career for the offenders?
homeappears rare. Second, there is devel-
opment from infliction of harm on relatives There are many negative consequences for
and peers to infliction of harm on strangers. children who start their delinquency career
Typically, early disruptive behavior in the early in life (Farrington et al., 1990). We list
preschool period is directed at adults, espe- the most important ones:
cially parents and other caretakers, but often
same-age and younger siblings and peers are 1. It is likely that the repeated practice of dis-
victimized as well. For example, the majority ruptive behaviors and delinquent acts dur-
of murders committed by child delinquents ing a formative period of life contributes to
are of acquaintances and relatives. Usually the subsequent stability and continuation of
during adolescence, youth start to inflict harm such acts over time.
on strangers in the neighborhood close to the
2. Desistance from offending is less likely for
youths home and then, as transportation be-
early onset offenders, especially for those
comes available, in neighborhoods further
who advance to the more serious forms of
away from home.
offending (Loeber, 1988).
The study of developmental pathways has
shown that there is a relatively wide time win- 3. Years of engaging in delinquency tend to
dow of opportunities for early intervention. rob youth of many opportunities to learn
For example, research (Office of Juvenile Jus- and practice prosocial behaviors.
tice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998) shows
4. Engaging in persistent disruptive behavior
that the average age of boys first brought be-
and delinquency often is associated with
fore the juvenile court for an index offense
poor social skills, leading to major and con-
was 14.5 years (Figure 3). Most of these boys
tinued disturbances in social relationships
had a longstanding history of earlier problem
with relatives, peers, partners, and later,
behavior. The average age of onset of minor
employers and coworkers in places of
problem behavior (Step 1 in any of the path-
work.
ways) for this category of offenders was 7.0
years. The average age of onset of moderately 5. Low interest and motivation in educational
serious problem behavior (Step 2 in the path- matters associated with early onset offend-
ways) was 9.5 years, while the average age of ing leads to major disruption in class-
onset of serious delinquency was 11.9 years rooms, exposure to remedial and often al-
(Step 3 in the pathways). Thus, about 7 years ternative special education services, and,
eventually, to chronic truancy and early riod (see below). Thus, although some have
school dropout. The resulting poor educa- proposed that life-course persistent offend-
tional achievement has negative effects on ers can be identified very early in life (Mof-
later employment opportunities and lifetime fitt, 1993), this discrimination is far from
income. perfect because many children show some
problem behavior early in life. Childhood is a
6. Young male repeat offenders are more like-
period in which most youth learn about what
ly to become fathers at a young age and
is good and bad, what is permissible and not
often are unable or unwilling to fulfill the
permissible in the acquisition of goods, and
father role or assume financial responsibili-
how to solve interpersonal conflicts without
ties for their partner and child. In addition,
resorting to violence. Childhood is also char-
they often provide undesirable role models
acterized by age-normative problem behaviors
for their children (Wei & Stouthamer
which most children give up as they grow up.
Loeber, 1999).
Usually, in this period of trial and error learn-
7. Young aggressive delinquents have a high ing, many children engage in problem behav-
risk of depression and suicide (e.g., Lewis, iors of a relatively minor nature for a short
Shanok, Grant, & Ritvo, 1983). time and, therefore, are not of major concern.
The fact is, however, that currently we have
8. Young offenders often are at high risk of
few tools to distinguish between those young
criminal victimization in the community
children who will continue with their problem
and, as a consequence, have a relatively high
behavior and those who will not (see, e.g.,
likelihood of being killed or maimed for
Walker, Severson, Stiller, Williams, Haring,
life (Loeber, DeLamatre, Tita, Cohen, Van
Shinn, & Todis, 1988; Walker, Severson,
Kammen, & StouthamerLoeber, 1999).
Todis, BlockPedego, Williams, Haring, &
9. Early onset offenders often start using il- Barckley, 1990; Feil, Severson, & Walker,
licit substances at a young age (Le Blanc & 1995, 1998). Third, it is unlikely that a single
Loeber, 1998), and children who use sub- screening method would be of the greatest
stances at an early age are at risk of becom- utility in identifying those at highest risk; in-
ing persistent substance abusers (Grant & stead, it is much more likely that screening
Dawson, 1998). methods applied in sequence over time would
have a greater utility. Yet researchers are not
In summary, early and persistent involve- in agreement about at what age(s) such
ment in disruptive and delinquent behavior screening should be accomplished (Le Blanc,
generates cumulative and cascading negative 1998; Howell, in press-a).
consequences for a persons life (Thorn-
berry & Krohn, in press).
What are early warning signs?
Generally, the foundations for both prosocial
How early can we identify children at risk
and disruptive behaviors are laid in the first 5
for child delinquency?
years of life (Keenan, in press). Deviations
Some researchers have argued that we need to from normal developmental processes can be
identify during the preschool years or in early identified during this period. In subsequent
childhood those who will later become child years child behavior can undergo major
delinquents. Although in some ways it is laud- changes, with some youth developing more
able to conduct research on criteria that would serious disruptive and delinquent behavior
facilitate such identification, there are several and others who had an early onset of disrup-
important complications attached to this strat- tive behavior eventually ceasing.
egy. The development of disruptive behavior Some level of disruptive behavior is com-
and early forms of delinquency often takes mon during the preschool years, especially
years and is a function of juveniles exposure during the terrible twos and threes when
to risk and protective factors during that pe- many children of both sexes show high levels
of aggression and noncompliance. However, of these theories, see Krohn et al., in press). In
the following are important warning signs of addition, several other developmental theories
later problems: (a) disruptive behavior that is contain aspects relevant to early onset offend-
either more frequent or more severe than that ing: Sampson and Laubs age-graded theory
of children of the same age; (b) disruptive be- of informal social control (1993), Elliotts in-
havior, such as temper tantrums and aggres- tegration of strain, social learning, and social
sion, that persists beyond the first 2 to 3 years control perspectives (Elliott, Ageton, & Can-
of life. However, the majority of early onset ter, 1979; Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985),
antisocial youth had a history of aggressive, and Catalano and Hawkins Social Develop-
inattentive, or sensation-seeking behavior in ment Model (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996).
the preschool years. The reverse, however, is Summaries of these theories can be found in
not truethe majority of preschoolers with Krohn et al. (in press) and Herrenkohl, Hawk-
behavior problems do not go on to become ins, Chung, Hill, and BattinPearson (in
child delinquents. press).
In summary, in the case of many offenders Theoreticians such as Moffitt (1993) have
disruptive behavior becomes apparent during argued cogently for the importance of the dis-
the preschool years and certainly during the tinction between early and later onset of child
elementary school years (Keenan, in press). problem behavior. However, what may be a
The question of how early can we tell is somewhat clear concept for an individual
critical from a scientific as well as a policy child may not be so clear for populations of
standpoint. Specific early warning signs for children. Are there differences evident in on-
the development of delinquency at a young set data for populations of children? And at
age include overt acts, such as physical fight- what ages can such distinctions best be made?
ing, cruelty to people or animals, and not get- First, studies do not always agree whether
ting along with others; covert acts, such as age 10 years or higher should be used as a
frequent lying, theft, and fire setting; school cutoff to distinguish between early and later
problem behaviors including low school moti- onset groups of youth (e.g., American Psychi-
vation; and substance use without parental atric Association, 1994; Farrington et al.,
permission (Lipsey & Derzon, 1998; Loeber, 1990; Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Second,
Green, Lahey, Frick, & McBurnett, 2000; the onset of disruptive behaviors in popula-
Loeber, StouthamerLoeber, Van Kammen, tions of children is not stepwise but, instead,
& Farrington, 1991). In addition, repeated takes place gradually. This is revealed by the
victimization plays a role in an unknown pro- onset curves of serious delinquency for male
portion of cases of child delinquents. This vic- persistent juvenile offenders in three inner-
timization may take the form of child abuse city, longitudinal studies (Loeber & Farring-
by adults or extended exposure to bullying by ton, 1998). As shown in Figure 4, in Pitts-
peers. burgh half of the persistent juvenile offenders
experienced the onset of serious delinquency
by ages 1213 years. Two years later (ages
How different are early onset offenders?
1415 years) over 80% had begun to commit
Advances have been made in the theoretical serious delinquency.
underpinnings of the distinction between early Figure 4 does not show the onset curves
and later onset offenders, particularly Mof- for disruptive child behavior (such as physical
fitts (1993) distinction between life course fighting) and nonserious forms of delinquency.
persistent and adolescent-limited delinquency, For example, the onset curve for moderate to
Pattersons coercion theory as it applies to serious conduct disorder symptoms (e.g.,
early onset offending (Patterson, 1996; Patter- theft, fire setting, cruelty to animals or people,
son, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991), Thornberry and physical fighting) in a clinic-referred sample
Krohns interactional theory (Thornberry & of boys before the age of 13 years shows that
Krohn, in press), and Gottfredson and Hir- by age 6 years over 40% already showed one
schis (1990) self-control theory (for a review or more of such symptoms, and this increased
Figure 4. Cumulative onset of persistent serious and violent delinquency in three inner-city
studies (Loeber & Farrington, 1998).
to almost 90% by age 10 years (Loeber, committed by child delinquents (Sleek, 1998).
Mutchko, & Burke, 2000). In summary, re- Many of the risk factors and predictors (and,
search findings show that the onset of many possibly, the causes) of child delinquency
conduct problems usually predates the onset tend to be partly different from the causes of
of serious delinquency by several years juveniles offending starting at a later age. For
(Loeber et al., 1993; Loeber & Stouthamer example, Loeber (1988), who focused on
Loeber, 1998; Loeber, Wei, Stouthamer early precursor behaviors, postulated that ju-
Loeber, Huizinga, & Thornberry, 1999b). veniles who eventually commit both property
Also, the findings do not support a simple di- and violent crime, compared to less serious
chotomy of early versus later onset in popula- offenders with an onset during adolescence,
tions of children. often begin showing the onset of conduct
Population onset curves do not show indi- problems in the preschool years, and show ag-
vidual childrens trajectories in disruptive and gressive and covert problem behaviors and
delinquent behavior over time. Differences in hyperactive or impulsive behavior at a young
the within-individual development of various age. These children often have educational
problem behaviors are much better captured problems, display poor social skills, and dem-
by the conceptualization of developmental onstrate poor relationships with peers and
pathways (Figure 2). The study of the onset adults. Importantly, this group of juveniles
of disruptive and delinquent child behavior is has a lower remission rate than the later onset
important, however. Even though the preva- offenders. The male to female ratio is higher
lence of delinquency peaks at ages 1718 for early compared to later onset offenders.
years, many of the most seriously delinquent Further support for many of these proposi-
offenders start their deviant career prior to ad- tions has come from several studies and one
olescence. meta-analysis (see, e.g., Lipsey & Derzon,
1998; Loeber, Farrington, et al., 1998; Mof-
fitt, 1993).
Causes and Risk Factors
Many risk factors (listed in Table 1) are
associated with child delinquency. An exten-
What are the causes of child offending?
sive summary of knowledge about these risk
Experts, as reported in the media, are not in factors can be found in Loeber and Farrington
agreement about the causes of serious crimes (in press). That summary is inspired by Bron-
Table 1. Childhood risk factors for child delinquency and later serious and violent juvenile
offending
Child factors Parents disagree on child discipline

Difficult temperament Single parenthood
Impulsive behavior Large family
Hyperactivity (but only when co-occurring with High turn-over of caretakers
disruptive behavior) Low socioeconomic status of the family
Impulsivity Unemployed parent
Substance use Poorly educated mother
Aggression Family members carelessness in allowing
Early onset disruptive behavior children access to weapons, especially guns
Withdrawn behavior School factors
Low intelligence Poor academic performance
Lead toxicity Old for grade
Family factors Weak bonding to school
Parental antisocial or delinquent behavior Low educational aspirations
Parental substance abuse Low school motivation
Parents poor child rearing practices Poorly organized and functioning schools.
Poor supervision Peer factors
Physical punishment Association with deviant or delinquent siblings
Poor communication and peers
Poor parentchild relations Rejection by peers
Parental physical and sexual abuse Neighborhood factors
Parental neglect Neighborhood disadvantage and poverty
Maternal depression Disorganized neighborhoods
Mothers smoking during pregnancy Availability of weapons
Teenage motherhood Media portrayal of violence
Note: Adapted from Loeber and Farrington (in press) and based on Hawkins et al. (1998), Lipsey and Derzon
(1998), Loeber, StouthamerLoeber, Van Kammen, and Farrington (1991), and Loeber, Farrington, et al. (1998).
fenbrenners (1979) conceptualization of the will be exposed to additional risk factors situ-
different spheres of influence that affect child ated within schools or in the community at
behavior, such as the family, the peer group, large (see Herrenkohl et al., in press).
and community. However, a more distinctive Research findings agree that no single risk
developmental model is preferable in which factor explains serious and violent offending.
certain domains of risk factors (and possible Instead, studies indicate that the higher the
causes) initially promote early forms of child number of risk factors, the greater the likeli-
deviancy, and in which subsequent deviant hood of these outcomes later (summarized in
development is affected by additional do- Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Second, research
mains of risk factors. Specifically, we hypoth- also suggests that the risk of later offending is
esize that the initial risk factors for child de- dependent on the number of risk factors and
linquency lie, first, within the individual child the number of protective or promotive factors
(such as impulsive behavior; see Tremblay & (i.e., factors associated with a positive out-
LeMarquand, in press) and, second, within the come). Recent research on the Pittsburgh
family (such as parents child-rearing prac- Youth Study confirms that this is the case for
tices; see Keenan, in press, and Wasserman & risk domains (such as the individual child and
Seracini, in press). Starting in the preschool the family; StouthamerLoeber, Loeber, Wei,
years, and certainly from the elementary Farrington, & Wikstrom, in press). As shown
school period onward, the array of risk factors in Figure 5, there is an almost linear relation-
expands, because some children will be ex- ship between the number of promotive or risk
posed to negative peer influences outside of domains and the likelihood of persistent seri-
the home (see Coie & MillerJohnson, in ous offending 5 years later. In the youngest
press). Also during this period, some children sample, first studied at age 7 years, none of the
Figure 5. Prediction of male persistent serious offending as a function of the number of

domains of risk and promotive factors (StouthamerLoeber et al., in press).
boys with a score of 2 or lower (meaning a as straightforward as with older delinquents,

preponderance of promotive domains) became and rules for interrogation and prosecution
a persistent serious offender later, compared to have been challenged (Geraghty, 1997; Po-
two thirds of those with a score of 5 (meaning lice Charge Methods, 1998; Wiig, in press).
a greater preponderance of risk domains). The Child delinquents are often difficult to deal
results show that promotive domains may with in the juvenile courts, because of their
counteract the impact of risk domains. less than average intelligence, poor under-
standing of court procedures, and general im-
maturity (Geraghty, 1997). Crucial issues are
Interventions
the degree to which child delinquents are
competent enough to undergo the legal proce-
What are the opinions of practitioners about
dures of the juvenile court, whether they un-
interventions with child delinquents?
derstand their own culpability, and whether
Loeber, Farrington, and Kalb (1999) conducted they understand the reasons for sanctions.
a survey of practitioners opinions about child In addition, judges options for the disposi-
delinquents. Nearly three quarters (71%) tion of child delinquents are often restricted
thought that there were effective ways of deal- because of characteristics of parents. More of
ing with child delinquents to reduce their risk the child delinquents, compared to later onset
of offending in the future. However, only delinquents, come from dysfunctional fami-
36% thought that current juvenile court pro- lies with one or more of the following: family
cedures were effective in achieving this aim, disruption, especially a succession of different
that current mental health programs were effec- caretakers; parental antisocial behavior; pa-
tive, or that current child welfare, dependency, rental substance use; mothers depression; and
and neglect programs were effective. Almost child abuse and neglect (Hennepin County At-
all practitioners (88%) agreed that there was an torneys Office, 1995; Wasserman & Seracini,
acute problem for juvenile courts concerning in press). These characteristics pose special
how best to deal with child delinquents. challenges to agencies, such as the juvenile
court, mental health clinics, schools, and child
welfare agencies, dealing with these problem-
Why do child delinquents pose a special
atic children. Therefore, a lack of resources in
challenge to agencies?
the home environment increases the risk of
In the juvenile justice system, procedures for child delinquents being institutionalized or
dealing with child delinquents are not always permanently removed from the home.
Developmentally informed interventions Is this knowledge generally translated into

early preventive interventions? Overall, soci-
Figure 1 schematically presents our model of ety appears more prepared to carry the huge
developmentally informed interventions, con- costs of dealing with serious and violent
sisting of three components: (a) problem be- juvenile offenders in adolescence and adult-
havior develops from persistent disruptive be- hood rather than to take cost-effective pre-
havior to, first, child delinquency and, second, ventive measures in childhood (Childrens
serious and violent juvenile offending; (b) this Secretariat, 1999). Currently, most juvenile
development is thought to be a function of justice resources are spent on adolescent juve-
risk and protective factors in the individual, nile offenders rather than on child delin-
family, peer group, school, and neighborhood; quents, and are not spent in proportion to the
and (c) preventive and remedial interventions risk of long-term serious outcomes. The same
based on knowledge of (a) and (b) can reduce typically applies to schools, where most of the
childrens deviant behavior. resources of special education and behavior
As shown in Figure 1, preventive interven- management are funneled into middle and
tions can be aimed, first, at the prevention of high schools, rather than elementary schools
persistent disruptive behavior in children in or preschools. Similarly, programs for child
general; second, at the prevention of child de- delinquents undertaken by welfare agencies
linquency, particularly among persistent dis- often are directed at children whose disruptive
ruptive children; and, third, at the prevention behavior is already persistent. We strongly ar-
of serious and violent juvenile offending, par- gue that professionals in schools and those
ticularly among child delinquents. At the same working with families should shift their per-
time, remedial interventions to address cur- ception of an early intervention time frame
rent problem behaviors can be implemented from elementary school to infancy and tod-
at the level of either persistent disruptive be- dlerhood.
havior, child delinquency, or serious and vio- Of all known interventions to reduce juve-
lent juvenile offending. Both preventive and nile delinquency, preventive interventions that
remedial interventions can be aimed at the re- focus on child delinquents probably will take
duction of child problem behavior and the re- the largest bite out of crime. Yet, as we will
duction of risk factors in each domain of the show later, the responses of institutions
individual child, family, peer group, school, dealing with child delinquents (the juvenile
and neighborhood. Interventions can also be justice system, mental health, child welfare
aimed at promoting protective factors in each and child protection agencies, schools, par-
of the domains associated with prosocial be- ents) often are inadequate on their own and
havior. fail to intercept the life course of high-rate of-
fending that commonly follows child offend-
Are interventions for child delinquents taking ing. In summary, a reorientation of agencies
place sufficiently early? toward early prevention is urgently needed
to redirect resources to deal with youth at a
We saw that three key aspects that justify an younger age. This needs to be accomplished
early and preventive approach to child delin- along with interventions for serious forms of
quency are clear from the preceding (Keenan, delinquency by juveniles of any age.
in press). First, the foundations for developing
prosocial and antisocial behavior are estab-
Effectiveness of interventions
lished in the first 5 years of life. Second, some
preschool children engage in very serious an- One of the important issues is whether pre-
tisocial behavior. Third, in some cases disrup- ventive and remedial interventions (Figure 1)
tive behavior problems occurring as early as are effective in reducing the likelihood of
age 23 years predicted child delinquency be- long-term serious problem behaviors (e.g., se-
tween ages 7 and 12 years. rious and violent offending) and are effective
in reducing current disruptive behavior. We children, are often less well equipped to com-
will briefly discuss interventions by each of prehend their own culpability and the conse-
the principal agencies that deal with child de- quences of their actions. Also, there are large
linquents and with children with persistent individual differences in the cognitive func-
disruptive behavior. tioning of older children, with some, because
of immaturity or low intelligence, lagging be-
Juvenile justice. In practice, children are re- hind their age-mates. We mentioned that
ferred to the juvenile court if (a) their offense states differ very much in the minimum age
is thought to be sufficiently serious (which of criminal responsibility. It is not clear how
depends on the judgment of a police officer rigorously these age cutoffs are enforced or
or a court intake officer); and (b) they are old followed, and what mechanisms are in place
enough to be held criminally responsible (this to deal with those children who, although at
applies only to those states which have stat- or above the cutoff, are not competent in one
utes to that effect). If these conditions are not or several ways.
met, children may either be sent back home Thus, child delinquents in the juvenile
(with or without a message to their parent; see court have a need to be assessed for their
Espiritu et al., in press) or be classified as de- competence before being processed through
pendent, resulting in a referral to Children and the juvenile justice system (Wiig, in press). In
Youth Services. National figures about the the court and also in their contact with the
prevalence of these referrals are not available. police and probation departments, child delin-
Snyder (in press), in reviewing the quents need to have an advocate, especially
response of the juvenile court to child delin- in case of the absence or impairment of their
quents, found that the number of child delin- parents. Once program decisions are made,
quency cases that resulted in formal court- child delinquents need to be protected from
ordered probation increased by 73% between the negative and criminogenic influences of
1980 and 1997, while placements of child de- older delinquent youth in institutions or in de-
linquents to residential facilities increased by linquency programs outside of institutions.
49%. Juvenile courts in 1997 placed nearly The juvenile justice system also has a respon-
23,000 child delinquents on formal, court- sibility to protect child delinquents from
ordered probation and placed another 7,000 physical and sexual abuse in institutions. Im-
child delinquents in a residential facility for portantly, child delinquents have a need to
committing a delinquent act. In addition, benefit from the least intrusive program to re-
18,000 child delinquents were held in secure duce the risk of disruptive behavior escalating
detention facilities in 1997, an increase of to delinquency and to reduce the risk of early
47% compared to 1988. Residential place- onset, first-time offenders becoming recidi-
ment for status offenses is relatively more vists.
common among child delinquents compared
to older delinquents. According to the Census
of Juveniles in Residential Placement in 1997, Legislation. Several countries have new juve-
19% of child delinquents were held for a sta- nile justice acts (e.g., Canada and England) or
tus offense (all of the above and truancy), have such acts in the making (United States).
compared with 6% of older juveniles (Snyder, Currently, the effectiveness of legislation to
in press). There are no evaluations of the ef- reduce recidivism of child delinquents is far
fects of juvenile court actions upon the recidi- from clear. Some politicians have suggested
vism of child delinquents, nor is it clear stiffer legal sanctions for child delinquents
whether some actions by the juvenile court within the juvenile court. Others have pro-
are more effective than other actions. posed transfer of juvenile offenders to the
Child delinquents, compared to older of- adult court. However, in both cases it is un-
fenders, often have special needs and pose clear to what extent these measures are appro-
many challenges to the juvenile justice sys- priate for what types of offenses, appropriate
tem. Very young children, compared to older to what minimum age, and whether legal
sanctions are effective for child delinquents. Effective interventions for disruptive and de-
Also, proposals have been put forward to linquent juveniles include parent management
make parents more legally responsible for the training (PMT), functional family therapy,
lawbreaking of their children, and especially and multisystemic therapy (MST), although
to provide sanctions for parents who do not the latter two programs still need to be evalu-
prevent children access to guns (Seelye, ated with child delinquents (Alexander, Bar-
1999). Theoretically, parents who are defi- ton, Schiavo, & Parsons, 1976; Borduin,
cient in their supervision of their child (or Cone, Mann, Henggeler, Fucci, Blaske, &
practice poor child-rearing methods, such as Williams, 1995; Kazdin, 1995).
harsh punishment) could be forced by court In addition, interventions targeted on known
order or legislation to participate in parent and malleable risk factors within the family
training (Wiig, in press). The effectiveness of have been developed and evaluated, such as
such compulsory methods, however, remains marital conflict and violence and child abuse,
uncertain. but the effectiveness of these interventions in
preventing or reducing disruptive or delin-
quent behavior in young children remains to
Child welfare agencies. Children with persist-
be established. Stimulant medication for
ing disruptive or delinquent behavior, such as
ADHD often can reduce both off-task behav-
curfew violations, truancy, and underage
ior of children and disruptive behavior. Often
drinking, can be referred to child welfare
such medication is used in conjunction with
agencies. However, often these agencies ap-
family intervention aimed at increasing skills
pear understaffed and overloaded with child
both of the parents and the child. However,
abuse investigations. When children are not
there is no empirical evidence that medication
physically at risk (which applies to the major-
alone prevents delinquency in childhood or
ity of child delinquents), they are given a low
prevents serious and violent offending later
priority, resulting in a lack of programs to
(Wasserman & Seracini, in press).
prevent further offending. For example, Au-
gimeri, Koegl, and Goldberg (in press) con-
Peers. Demonstrated peer interventions in
ducted a survey of directors of child welfare
schools have largely focused on the reduction
in 13 provinces and territories in Canada. The
of bullying and associated aggression (e.g.,
results indicated that the emphasis in child
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group,
welfare is on child protection, not offending
1999a, 1999b). Interventions to reduce rejec-
behavior per se. For example, child welfare
tion by peers remain to be undertaken (Coie
assesses only the childs need of protection
& MillerJohnson, in press). Not all peer-
from parental abuse or neglect. Furthermore,
focused interventions are beneficial. An ex-
we found no consistent tracking of the num-
ample is programs that bring delinquent or
ber of referrals child welfare receives from
highly disruptive children together for group
the police for children under 12 who commit
therapy (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999).
offenses. Although such a survey appears
Knowledge about the effectiveness of routine
not available in the United States, it is our
interventions is an absolute necessity to elimi-
impression that the same applies in this
nate interventions that can have deleterious
country.
effects. The more widely used interventions
are, the more urgent is this knowledge. Peer
Parents. Keenan (in press), in reviewing early interventions can be best undertaken in con-
child disruptive behaviors, concluded that such junction with other types of programs, such
behaviors are the most common source of re- a training program for parents, as has been
ferral of preschool children for mental health undertaken in the Fast Track Project (Coie &
services. Parenting practices are among the MillerJohnson, in press).
most powerful predictors of later outcomes in
children and constitute opportunities for inter- Schools. Herrenkohl et al. (in press) reviewed
ventions (Wasserman & Seracini, in press). school programs and found several interven-
tions with demonstrated effectiveness in re- rode, Kitzman, Luckey, Pettitt, Sidora, Mor-
ducing child disruptive behavior. Examples ris, & Powers, 1998), for preschool intellec-
are the Good Behavior Game (Kellam & Re- tual enrichment programs (e.g., Schweinhart,
bok, 1992; Kellam, Rebok, Ialongo, & Mayer, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993), and for child skills
1994), the Seattle Social Development Project training (Hawkins et al., 1999). More cost
(Hawkins, Catalano, Morrison, ODonnell, benefit analyses of prevention and interven-
Abbott, & Day, 1992; Hawkins, Von tion programs for child delinquents should be
Cleve, & Catalano, 1991; Hawkins, Catalano, carried out.
Kosterman, Abbott, & Hill, 1999; ODonnell,
Hawkins, Catalano, Abbott, & Day, 1995),
The need for integrated services
the Child Development Program, and Fast
Track (Conduct Problems Prevention Re- Child delinquents, because of their misbehav-
search Group, 1999a, 1999b; Greenberg, ior, often are seen by a greater variety of
1998). Most of the programs aim at increasing agencies than later onset offenders, including
social skills and improving conflict resolu- the juvenile justice system, schools, child wel-
tion, especially by promoting skills that are fare and child welfare agencies, and mental
incompatible with aggression. Some programs health clinics (Augimeri, et. al., in press; Her-
also improve teachers teaching skills (e.g., renkohl et al., in press; Wasserman & Sera-
the Seattle Social Development Project). Sev- cini, in press; Wiig, in press). In addition,
eral programs have been evaluated for ele- child delinquents frequently have other prob-
mentary and middle school students, such as lems such as learning difficulties, ADHD,
the Second Step curriculum (Grossman, mood problems, and exposure to child abuse
Neckerman, Koepsell, Asher, Liu, Beland, and neglect. Different agencies also provide
Frey, & Rivara, 1997) and the Responding in remedial services to child delinquents in these
Peaceful and Positive Ways curriculum (Far- areas. Together, this means that child delin-
rell & Meyer, 1997, 1998). quents consume during their youth a dispro-
portionately large amount of funds and re-
Community. Increasingly, interventions are sources of several agencies.
aimed at reducing risk factors in communities. Our survey of practitioners (Loeber et al.,
An example is the Communities That Care 1999) indicated that they were almost unani-
program (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992). How- mous (99%) in agreeing that more integration
ever, the effectiveness of community pro- between agencies (juvenile justice, child wel-
grams in reducing persistent disruptive child fare, mental health, schools, etc.) was needed
behavior and preventing child delinquency to deal with very young offenders. However,
and later serious and violent offending re- such integrated programs are extremely rare.
mains to be evaluated. Of the few programs for child delinquents that
came to our attention, those in the cities of
Toronto and Minneapolis achieved a success-
Costbenefit analysis of programs
ful integration of services for child delin-
Welsh (in press) reviewed costbenefit analy- quents (Augimeri et al., in press; Howell, in
ses of programs to prevent or intervene with press-b), but their effectiveness in reducing
children showing persistent disruptive behav- recidivism and preventing serious and violent
ior. Most intervention programs have not been juvenile offending remains to be evaluated.
evaluated using costbenefit analysis. How- There are three possible models for im-
ever, this type of analysis is needed if the ben- proving coordination between different agen-
efits of the programs are to be properly evalu- cies. First, an interagency coordinating coun-
ated. For several programs, the monetary cil could be set up, including representatives
benefits exceed the monetary costs. This is from all the different agencies. Second, a sin-
true, for example, for home visits to disadvan- gle agency (i.e., a Community Assessment
taged women in pregnancy and with infant Center) could be set up to coordinate service
children (e.g., Olds, Henderson, Cole, Ecken- provision from different agencies, to provide
a single point of entry for all children, and to diate sanctions, community-based corrections
track the progress of all children in an inte- including restitution and community service,
grated case management system. Third, wrap- and secure corrections including community
around services could be established, in which confinement and incarceration in training
one person is designated to be responsible for schools. In summary, the Comprehensive
coordinating all service provision for each Strategy offers a promising approach to inte-
family. The Toronto and Minneapolis projects grate the efforts of different institutions in so-
were more like the second model, including ciety in their efforts to prevent and deal with
integrated service delivery teams in the proj- child delinquents effectively.
ects.
Are there effective screening methods to
The need for a comprehensive strategy to identify high risk child delinquents?
reduce child delinquency
Our practitioner survey indicated that the vast
The need for the integration of services is all majority (85%) agreed that better screening
the more important because of changing man- instruments were needed to discriminate be-
ifestations of disruptive or delinquent behav- tween child delinquents who are at high risk
ior as children grow up (Figure 1). Therefore, of becoming serious and violent juvenile of-
a comprehensive strategy within and across fenders and those who are not. Currently, a
agencies is needed. The Study Group on Very few screening methods for child delinquents
Young Offenders was inspired by OJJDPs are available, but, although they are based on
Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, known risk factors, their predictive utility re-
and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Howell, 1995; mains to be evaluated (Howell, in press-a).
Howell, in press-b; Howell, Krisberg, Hawk- One of the most promising is the EARL-20B,
ins, & Wilson, 1995; Wilson & Howell, 1993). developed in Toronto, which is an empirically
The conceptual and practical thrust of this based screening instrument constructed to
strategy lies in an integration of forces in the red flag certain areas of the child and fami-
family and core social institutions (schools, lys life for services, help match services with
religious institutions, and community organi- the childs level of risk, and promote multi-
zations) in their roles of developing capable, disciplinary team assessment of the risk of
mature, and responsible youth. aggression and violence (Augimeri, Gold-
One of the strengths of the Comprehensive berg, & Koegl, 1999). More research is
Strategy is its orientation to promote preven- needed on the development of screening in-
tion as the most cost-effective approach to struments to identify child delinquents who
dealing with juvenile delinquency, and its em- are likely to escalate in the future. It is impor-
phasis on intervening immediately and effec- tant to establish how early and how accurately
tively when delinquent behavior occurs, to future serious and violent juvenile offenders
prevent delinquents from becoming chronic can be predicted.
offenders or progressively committing more
serious and violent crimes. A second strength
Policy Implications
is that it views the juvenile justice system as
a second screen, after family and core institu- Child delinquents constitute a population not
tions, to deal with those child delinquents who usually recognized as needing services to pre-
cannot be handled by other systems. The vent them becoming tomorrows serious, vio-
Comprehensive Strategy aims to improve the lent, and chronic offenders. The Study Groups
juvenile justice system response to delinquent work has clear implications for policymakers
offenders through a system of graduated sanc- on town, city, county, state, and federal levels.
tions, based on risk and needs assessments The policymakers referred to here are those
(Howell, in press-b). Attached to these assess- who can influence the day to day and long-
ments is a continuum of treatment alternatives term operation of agencies or their funding to
that includes immediate intervention, interme- maintain, improve, or create new programs.
The Study Group indirectly also addresses the coming serious offenders is as high as other
frontline workers who everyday deal with more widely known public health threats.
child delinquents and children with persistent What is different is that such risks for chil-
disruptive behavior, and whose voices and dren are not general public knowledge and,
concerns should be heard by policymakers. consequently, are rarely acted on to prevent
The Study Group focused on three inter- the development of serious, violent, and
linked categories of children, who should re- chronic offending.
ceive more attention from policymakers: (a)
very serious offenders at ages 712 years
Better information is needed about
(committing homicide, robbery, rape, aggra-
child delinquents
vated assault, or serious arson); (b) identified
offenders at ages 712 years (excluding very The question is whether we as a society have
serious offenders); (c) children with persistent the information about child delinquents that is
disruptive behavior up to age 12 years who needed to reduce this pervasive social prob-
are at risk of offending but who have not been lem. Such knowledge is crucial for the plan-
identified as offenders. ning of services for child offenders at an early
There are several key reasons why policy- stage in childrens delinquency careers.
makers should be concerned about child de- Specifically, information addressing the fol-
linquents and children with persistent disrup- lowing questions is important: Are child de-
tive behavior: (a) child delinquents are a linquents included in national, regional, or
significant public health risk, (b) better infor- citywide surveys of offenders or victims?
mation is needed about child delinquents, (c) How common are very serious child delin-
child delinquents are highly costly to taxpay- quents? Are they qualitatively or quantita-
ers and society, and (d) early intervention tively different from other child delinquents?
with child delinquents is essential. We will Currently, we know less about children in
briefly discuss each of these points. the United States than about farm animals. In-
formation about the numbers of animals (such
as cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats) and their off-
Child delinquents are a significant public
spring is collected monthly and is readily
health risk
available on the World Wide Web for each
Child delinquents and children with persistent state and for the whole country (http://jan.
disruptive behavior constitute a serious public mannlib.cornell.edu/ reports/nassr/livestock/
health risk of a magnitude that is directly pct-bbc/). In contrast, the Study Group noted
comparable to other, more widely recognized the absence of annual surveys of the preva-
public health risks. As mentioned, child delin- lence of persistent disruptive children in ele-
quents, compared to later onset offenders, have mentary schools. In addition, there appears to
23 times the risk of becoming tomorrows be no consistent tracking of the number of re-
serious offenders. To put this in perspective, ferrals child welfare offices receive from the
this risk is about the same as that of adults police for children under 12 years of age who
developing coronary heart disease when they commit delinquent acts. On the other hand,
have high blood pressure (Gordon & Shurt- annual police reports of juvenile delinquency
leff, 1973, cited in Kahn & Sempos, 1989). are available. However, it is not clear how ac-
To return to child problem behavior and risk curate and comprehensive this information is
factors, StouthamerLoeber et al. (in press) collected on child delinquents because of dif-
found that children with three risk domains ferences among jurisdictions in the minimal
more than protective domains, compared to age of criminal responsibility of children and,
children with a balance of fewer risk domains, possibly, differences in police recording prac-
have an 8-fold increase in the likelihood of tices of delinquent acts committed by chil-
becoming a persistent serious delinquent in dren.
adolescence. There is an urgent need for policymakers
In summary, the risk of some children be- to step forward and insist on informing our
society in a timely fashion about (a) the prev- assume that the cost to society of child delin-
alence of child delinquency and persistent dis- quents is considerable.
ruptive behaviors, (b) the proportion of such
children who receive services for their prob-
Early intervention with child delinquents
lem behaviors, (c) the proportion of risk
is essential
factors for these children that are routinely
targeted for intervention, and (d) the dissemi- Currently, there is a whole array of effective
nation of effective and replicated interven- interventions to reduce persistent disruptive
tions. child behavior and early onset delinquency.
Also, there are well-tested interventions to
prevent delinquent juveniles from escalating
Child delinquents are highly costly to
to serious, violent, and chronic offending.
taxpayers and society
Much needed, however, are evaluations of
Child delinquents tend to be highly costly to well-tried integrated programs for child delin-
society because of the number of interven- quents, such as the ones developed in Minne-
tions they receive from different agencies, apolis and in Toronto (Howell, in press-a).
such as special school services, services by Policymakers tend to fund more plentiful
child welfare agencies, mental health agen- programs for adolescent than for child delin-
cies, and family counseling services. Child quents, and for programs that confine serious
delinquents are likely to receive service from adolescent offenders in costly institutions
the majority of agencies dealing with chil- rather than prevent high-risk children from
dren. Although not all of these children are becoming tomorrows incarcerated offenders.
engaged by all of these services at the same We do not imply that adolescent delinquents
time, many of the young problematic children should be ignored and that all the attention
require the attention and intervention of a suc- and funds should be given to child delin-
cession of several of the agencies. quents. Instead, we make a case for a more
Given the barriers that often exist between effective balance of resources so that the roots
different agencies and given poor data shar- of adolescent serious delinquency can be ad-
ing among agencies, it is highly likely that dressed better in childhood than is the case
assessments are duplicated. Also, many prac- now.
titioners complain about the lack of an inte- Unfortunately, policymakers appear rarely
grated and coordinated approach by multiple cognizant of the efficacy and cost effective-
agencies trying to deal with the multiple prob- ness of alternative interventions. We find that
lems of child delinquents. Although precise very often policymakers do not choose to
figures are needed, the cost of unintegrated fund prevention methods that can benefit ju-
and uncoordinated services must be higher veniles in general, and taxpayers and citizens
than that of integrated services. Also, the ef- in particular. As a parallel, nowadays no poli-
fectiveness of unintegrated services can be ex- cymaker in his or her right mind would argue
pected to be lower than that of integrated ser- that an optimal public health strategy to deal
vices, especially when well-planned and with nicotine addiction is the removal of a
evaluated services are used. cancerous lungs in large numbers of affected
The other major aspect of cost is the fact smokers. Fortunately, prevention strategies
that 6 in 10 child delinquents become later have been developed and are now widely en-
chronic offenders (Blumstein, et al. 1985). dorsed and enforced. The same type of strate-
We know that the cost to society of a single gies that are applied to smoking and other
high-risk youth engaging in 4 years of offend- public health risks should be undertaken now
ing as a juvenile and 10 years as an adult to prevent serious and violent juvenile delin-
ranged from $1.7 to $2.3 million (in 1997 dol- quency by focusing on early risk factors asso-
lars; Cohen, 1998). Given that many of these ciated with child delinquency and persistent
high-rate offenders start their delinquent and disruptive child behavior. In more and more
disruptive career early in life, we can safely communities, the increase in the number of
child delinquents (and disruptive youth) is ers realize that the problem has become too
reaching the level of critical massthe point large to be ignored and that special programs
at which system professionals and policymak- are needed. The time for action is now.
References
Adelson, L. (1972). The battering child. Journal of the Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and
American Medical Association, 222, 159161. multifinality in developmental psychopathology. De-
Alexander, J. F., Barton, C., Schiavo, R. S., & Parsons, velopment and Psychopathology, 8, 597600.
B. V. (1976). Systems-behavioral intervention with Cohen, M. A. (1998). The monetary value of saving a
families of delinquents: Therapist characteristics, high-risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
family behavior and outcome. Journal of Consulting 14, 533.
and Clinical Psychology, 44, 656664. Coie, J. D., & MillerJohnson, S. (in press). Peer factors
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and interventions. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington
and statistical manual for mental disorders (4th ed.). (Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, interven-
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association tions, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Press. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999a).
Augimeri, L. K., Koegl, C. J., & Goldberg, K. (in press). Initial impact of the Fast Track Prevention Trial for
Children under 12 committing offenses: Canadian le- Conduct Problems: I. The high-risk sample. Journal
gal and treatment approaches. In R. Loeber & D. P. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 631647.
Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999b).
interventions, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Initial impact of the Fast Track Prevention Trial for
Sage. Conduct Problems: II. Classroom effects. Journal of
Augimeri, L. K., Goldberg, K., & Koegl, C. (1999). Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648657.
Canadian children under 12 committing offenses: Po- Cornell, D. G., Benedek, E. P., & Benedek, D. M. (1987).
lice protocols. Toronto: Earlscourt Child and Family Juvenile homicide: Prior adjustment and a proposed
Centre. typology. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57,
Bailey, S. (1996). Adolescents who murder. Journal of 383393.
Adolescence, 19, 1939. Cowley, G. (1998, April 6). Why children turn violent.
Barboza, D. (2000, March 2). A life of guns, drugs and Newsweek, 2426.
now, killing, all at 6. The New York Times, pp. A1, Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When
A8. interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behav-
Benedek, E. P., & Cornell, D. G. (1989). Juvenile homi- ior. American Psychologist, 54, 755764.
cide. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Drinkwater, M. (1998). The relationship between onset
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. of delinquency and gun ownership. Unpublished anal-
(1986). Criminal careers and career criminals yses on data from the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Pitts-
(Vol. II). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. burgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, School of Medi-
Blumstein, A., Farrington, D. P., & Moitra, S. (1985). cine.
Delinquency careers: Innocents, desisters, and persist- Elliott, D. S., Ageton, S. S., & Canter, R. J. (1979). An
ers. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Jus- integrated theoretical perspective on delinquent be-
tice (Vol. 6, pp. 137168). Chicago: University of havior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-
Chicago Press. quency, 16, 327.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human devel- Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Ex-
opment. Experiments by nature and design. Cam- plaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills,
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CA: Sage.
Borduin, C. M., Cone, L. T., Mann, B. J., Henggeler, Espiritu, R. C., Huizinga, D., Crawford, A., & Loeber, R.
S. W., Fucci, B. R., Blaske, D. M., & Williams, (in press). Epidemiology of self-reported delinquency.
R. A. (1995). Multisystemic treatment of serious ju- In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delin-
venile offenders: Long-term prevention of criminality quents: Development, interventions, and service needs.
and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
chology, 63, 569578. Ewing, C. P. (1990). When children kill. The dynamics of
Butts, J. A., & Snyder, H. N. (1997). The youngest delin- juvenile homicide. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
quents: Offenders under age 15. OJJDP Bulletin. Farrell, A. D., & Meyer, A. L. (1997). The effectiveness
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of a school-based curriculum for reducing violence
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. among urban sixth-grade students. American Journal
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social de- of Public Health, 87, 979984.
velopment model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In Farrell, A. D., & Meyer, A. L. (1998). Social skills train-
J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current ing to promote resilience in urban sixth-grade stu-
theories (pp. 149197). New York: Cambridge Uni- dents: One product of an action strategy to prevent
versity Press. youth violence in high-risk environments. Richmond,
Childrens Secretariat. (1999). Early years study: Revers- VA: Unpublished manuscript, Virginia Common-
ing the real brain drain. Toronto: Author. wealth University.
Cicchetti, D. (1993). Developmental psychopathology: Farrington, D. P. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult
Reactions, reflections, projections. Developmental violence: Early precursors and later-life outcomes. In
Review, 13, 471502. D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development
and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 529). Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Morrison, D. M., ODon-
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. nell, J., Abbott, R. D., & Day, L. E. (1992). The Seat-
Farrington, D. P. (1994). Childhood, adolescent, and tle Social Development Project: Effects of the first
adult features of violent males. In L. R. Huesmann four years on protective factors and problem behav-
(Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. iors. In J. McCord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Prevent-
215240). New York: Plenum Press. ing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth
Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Elliott, D. S., Hawkins, through adolescence (pp. 139161). New York: Guil-
J. D., Kandel, D. B., Klein, M. W., McCord, J., Rowe, ford Press.
D. C., & Tremblay, R. E. (1990). Advancing knowl- Hawkins, D. F., Laub, J. H., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1998).
edge about the onset of delinquency and crime. In Race, ethnicity, and serious juvenile offending. In R.
B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clini- Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious & violent
cal child psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 283342). New juvenile offenders (pp. 3046). Thousand Oaks, CA:
York, NY: Plenum Press. Sage.
Farrington, D. P., Ohlin, L. E., & Wilson, J. Q. (1986). Hawkins, J. D., Von Cleve, E., & Catalano, R. F. (1991).
Understanding and controlling crime: Towards a new Reducing early childhood aggression: results of a pri-
research strategy. New York: SpringerVerlag. mary prevention program. Journal of the American
Feil, E. G., Severson, H. H., & Walker, H. M. (1995). Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30,
The Early Screening Project for young children with 208217.
behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behav- Heide, K. M. (1999). Young killers: The challenge of ju-
ior Disorders, 3, 194202. venile homicide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Feil, E. G., Severson, H. H., & Walker, H. M. (1998). Hennepin County Attorneys Office. (1995). Delinquents
Screening for emotional and behavioral delays: The under 10 in Hennepin County: A statistical analysis
Early Screening Project. Journal of Early Interven- and practices and experiences of police jurisdiction.
tion, 21, 252266. Minneapolis, MN: Hennepin County Attorneys Of-
Gegax, T. T., Adler, J., & Pederson, D. (1998, April 6). fice.
The boys behind the ambush. Newsweek, pp. 2026. Herrenkohl, T. I., Hawkins, J. D., Chung, I. J., Hill,
Geraghty, T. F. (1997). Justice for children: How do we K. G., & Sara BattinPearson, S. (in press). School
get there? The Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi- and community risk factors and interventions. In R.
nology, 88, 190241. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents:
Goetting, A. (1989). Patterns of homicide among chil- Development, interventions, and service needs. Thou-
dren. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16, 6380. sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gordon, T., & Schurtleff, D. (1973). The Framingham Howell, J. C. (in press-a). Juvenile justice programs and
Study (NIH Publication No. 74478). Washington, strategies. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.),
DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Child delinquents: Development, interventions, and
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Howell, J. C. (in press-b). Risk-needs assessment and
Press. screening devices. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington
Grant, B. F., & Dawson, D. A. (1998). Age of onset of (Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, interven-
drug use and its association with DSM-IV drug use tions, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
and dependence: Results from the National Longitu- Howell, J. C. (1995). Guide for implementing the com-
dinal Alcohol Epidemiology Survey. Journal of Sub- prehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic
stance Abuse, 10, 163178. juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
Greenberg, M. T. (1998, August). Testing developmental of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
theory of antisocial behavior with outcomes from the Prevention.
Fast Track Prevention Project. Paper presented at the Howell, J. C., Krisberg, B., Hawkins, J. D., & Wilson,
Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Asso- J. J. (1995). A source book: Serious, violent, and
ciation, Chicago. chronic juvenile offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying Sage.
juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of James, A., & Jenks, C. (1996). Public perceptions of
state transfer provisions. Washington, DC: U.S. De- childhood criminality. British Journal of Criminol-
partment of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and De- ogy, 47, 315331.
linquency Prevention. Kachur, S. P., Stennies, G. M., Powell, K. E., Modze-
Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T., Asher, leski, W., Stephens, R., Murphy, R., Kresnow, M.,
K., Liu, P. Y., Beland, K., Frey, K., & Rivara, F. P. Sleet, D., & Lowry, R. (1996). School-associated vio-
(1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curric- lent deaths in the United States, 1992 to 1994. Jour-
ulum among children in elementary school. Journal nal of the American Medical Association, 275, 1729
of the American Medical Association, 277, 1605 1733.
1611. Kahn, H. A., & Sempos, C. T. (1989). Statistical methods
Hardwick, P. J., & RowtonLee, M. A. (1996). Adoles- in epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
cent homicide: Towards assessment of risk. Journal Kazdin, A. E. (1985). Treatment of antisocial behavior
of Adolescence, 19, 263276. in children and adolescents. Homewood, IL: Dorsey
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1992). Communities Press.
that care. San Francisco: JosseyBass, Keenan, K. (in press). Uncovering preschool precursor
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott, problem behaviors. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington
R., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent (Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, interven-
health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection dur- tions, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ing childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Kellam, S. G., & Rebok, G. W. (1992). Building develop-
Medicine, 153, 226234. mental and etiological theory through epidemiologi-
cally based preventive intervention trials. In J. Mc- models for studying the individual (pp. 185215).
Cord & R. E. Tremblay (Eds.), Preventing antisocial Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
behavior: Interventions from birth through adoles- Loeber, R., DeLamatre, M., Tita, G., Cohen, J., Van
cence (pp. 162195). New York: Guilford Press. Kammen, W. B., & StouthamerLoeber, M. (1999).
Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Ialongo, N., & Mayer, Gun injury and mortality: The delinquent background
L. S. (1994). The course and malleability of aggres- of its juvenile victims. Violence and Victims, 14,
sive behavior from early first grade into middle 339352.
school: Results of a developmental epidemiologi- Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. J. (1983). Early predictors of
cally-based preventive trial. Journal of Child Psychol- male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin,
ogy and Psychiatry, 35, 259281. 94, 6899.
Kelley, B. T., Huizinga, D., Thornberry, T. P., & Loeber, Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. (1998). Serious and violent
R. (1997). Developmental pathways in disruptive and juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful inter-
delinquent behavior. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Wash- ventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Ju- Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (in press). Child delin-
venile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. quents: Development, interventions, and service
KempfLeonard, K., ChesneyLind, M., & Hawkins, needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
D. F. (in press). Race and gender issues. In R. Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., & Kalb, L. (1999). Find-
Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: ings from a questionnaire administered at the 26th
Development, interventions, and service needs. Thou- National Conference on Juvenile Justice, Minneapo-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. lis, MN. Unpublished manuscript, Western Psychiat-
Krohn, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., Rivera, C., & Le Blanc, ric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh, Pitts-
M. (in press). Later delinquency careers. In R. burgh, PA.
Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., StouthamerLoeber, M., &
Development, interventions, and service needs. Thou- Van Kammen, W. B. (1998). Antisocial behavior and
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. mental health problems: Explanatory factors in child-
Le Blanc, M. (1998). Screening of serious and violent hood and adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
juvenile offenders: Identification, classification, and Loeber, R., Green, S. M., Lahey, B. B., Frick, P. J., &
prediction. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), McBurnett, K. (2000). Findings on disruptive behav-
Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors ior disorders from the first decade of the Develop-
and successful interventions (pp. 167196). Thousand mental Trends Studies. Clinical Child and Family
Oaks, CA: Sage. Psychology Review, 3, 3760.
Le Blanc, M., & Loeber, R. (1998). Developmental crim- Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997). Key issues in the develop-
inology updated. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and jus- ment of aggression and violence from childhood to
tice: A review of research (Vol. 23, pp. 115198). early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 371410.
Lewis, D. O., Moy, E., Jackson, L. D., Aaronson, R., Re- Loeber, R., Keenan, K., & Zhang, Q. (1987). Boys ex-
stifo, N., Serra, S., & Simos, A. (1985). Biopsycho- perimentation and persistence in developmental path-
logical characteristics of children who later murder: ways toward serious delinquency. Journal of Child
A prospective study. American Journal of Psychiatry, and Family Studies, 6, 321357.
142, 11611167. Loeber, R., Mutchko, J., & Burke, J. (2000). [Analyses
Lewis, D. O., Shanok, S. S., Grant, M., & Ritvo, E. from the Developmental Trends Study] Unpublished
(1983). Homicidally aggressive young children: Neu- data, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, Univer-
ropsychiatric and experiential correlates. The Ameri- sity of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
can Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 148153. Loeber, R., & SouthamerLoeber, M. (1998). Develop-
Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of vio- ment of juvenile aggression and violence: Some com-
lent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early mon misconceptions and controversies. American
adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R. Psychologist, 53, 242259.
Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent Loeber, R., StouthamerLoeber, M., Van Kammen,
juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful inter- W. B., & Farrington, D. P. (1991). Initiation, escala-
ventions (pp. 313345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. tion and desistance in juvenile offending and their
Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delin- correlates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
quent and child behavior: A review. Child Develop- 82, 3682.
ment, 53, 14311446. Loeber, R., Wei, E., StouthamerLoeber, M., Huizinga,
Loeber, R. (1988). The natural histories of juvenile con- D., & Thornberry, T. (1999). Behavioral antecedents
duct problems, substance use and delinquency: Evi- to serious and violent juvenile offending: Joint analy-
dence for developmental progressions. In B. Lahey & ses from the Denver Youth Survey, Pittsburgh Youth
A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psy- Study, and the Rochester Development Study. Studies
chology (Vol. 11, pp. 73124). New York: Plenum in Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 245263.
Press. Loeber, R., Wung, P., Keenan, K., Giroux, A., Stout-
Loeber, R. (1991). Questions and advances in the study hamerLoeber, M., Van Kammen, W. B., &
of developmental pathways. In D. Cicchetti & S. Toth Maughan, B. (1993). Developmental pathways in dis-
(Eds.), Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psy- ruptive child behavior. Development and Psychopath-
chopathology (Vol. 3, pp. 97115). Rochester, NY: ology, 5, 101132.
Rochester University Press. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-
Loeber, R., DeLamatre, M., Keenan, K., & Zhang, Q. course-persistent antisocial behavior: A develop-
(1998). A prospective replication of developmental mental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674
pathways in disruptive and delinquent behavior. In R. 701.
Cairns, L. Bergman, & J. Kagan (Eds.), Methods and Myers, W. C., & Blashfield, R. (1997). Psychopathology
and personality in juvenile sexual homicide offenders. DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Law, 25, 497508. Prevention.
Myers, W. C., Scott, K., Burgess, A. W., & Burgess, A. Snyder, H. N. (1998). Serious, violent, and chronic juve-
G. (1995). Psychopathy, biopsychological factors, nile offenders: An assessment of the extent of and
crime characteristics, and classification of 25 homi- trends in officially-recognized serious criminal be-
cidal youths. Journal of the American Academy of havior in a delinquent population. In R. Loeber &
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 14831489. D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile
ODonnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions
R. D., & Day, L. E. (1995). Preventing school failure, (pp. 428444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
drug use, and delinquency among low-income chil- Snyder, H. N. (in press). Epidemiology of official offend-
dren: Long-term intervention in elementary schools. ing. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 87100. delinquents: Development, interventions, and service
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(OJJDP). (1998, May). Serious and violent juvenile Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offend-
offenders. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: ers and victims: 1999 national report. Washington,
U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP. DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Offord, D. R., Lipman, E. L., & Duku, E. K. (in press). Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Epidemiology of problem behavior up to age 12. In R. StouthamerLoeber, M., Loeber, R., Wei, E., Farrington,
Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: D. P., & Wikstrom, P.-O. H. (in press). Risk and pro-
Development, interventions, and service needs. Thou- motive effects in the explanation of persistent serious
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. delinquency in boys. Journal of Clinical and Consult-
Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Cole, R., Eckenrode, J., Kitz- ing Psychology.
man, H., Luckey, D., Pettitt, L., Sidora, K., Morris, Thornberry, T. P. & Krohn, M. D. (in press). The devel-
P., & Powers, J. (1998). Long-term effects of nurse opment of delinquency: An interactional perspective.
home visitation on childrens criminal and antisocial In S. O. White (Ed.), Handbook of law and social
behavior: Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized science: Youth and justice. New York: Plenum Press.
controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical As- Tolan, P. H. (1998). Voorspellen van gewelddadig gedrag
sociation, 280, 12381244. bij jongeren. In W. Koops & W. Slot (Eds.), Van las-
Patterson, G. R. (1996). Some characteristics of a devel- tig to misdadig (pp. 5264). Houten/Diegem, Nether-
opmental theory for early-onset delinquency. In M. F. lands: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghem.
Lenzenweger & J. J. Haugaard (Eds.), Frontiers of Tolan, P. H., & GormanSmith, D. (1998). Development
developmental psychopathology (pp. 81124). New of serious and violent offending careers. In R.
York: Oxford University Press. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent
Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D. M., & Bank, L. (1991). An juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful inter-
early starter model for predicting delinquency. In ventions (pp. 6885). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development Tolan, P. H., GormanSmith, D., & Loeber, R. (in press).
and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 139 Developmental timing of onsets of disruptive behav-
168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. iors and later delinquency of inner-city youth. Journal
Police charge methods for very young suspects. (1998, of Child and Family Studies.
October 2). The New York Times. Tremblay, R. E., & LeMarquand, D. (in press). Individual
Puzzanchera, C. M. (1998, November). The youngest of- risk and protective factors. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farr-
fenders. OJJDP Fact Sheet (Nos. 12). Washington, ington (Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, inter-
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile ventions, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Sage.
Puzzanchera, C. M. (2000, February). Self-reported de- Tremblay, R. E., Pihl, R. O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin,
linquency by 12-year olds, 1997. OJJDP Fact Sheet P. L. (1994). Predicting early onset of male antisocial
(No. 3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, behavior from preschool behavior. Archives of Gen-
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- eral Psychiatry, 51, 732739.
tion. Walker, H. M., Severson, H., Stiller, B., Williams, G.,
Robins, L. N. (1966). Deviant children grown up. Balti- Haring, N., Shinn, M., & Todis, B. (1988). Systematic
more, MD: Williams & Wilkins. screening of pupils in the elementary age range at risk
Rowley, J. C., Ewing, C. P., & Singer, S. I. (1987). Juve- for behavior disorders: Development and trial testing
nile homicide: The need for an interdisciplinary ap- of a multiple gating model. Remedial and Special Ed-
proach. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 5, 110. ucation, 9, 820.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the mak- Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., Todis, B. J., BlockPed-
ing: Pathways and turning points through life. Cam- ego, A. E., Williams, G. J., Haring, N. G., & Barck-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ley, M. (1990). Systematic Screening for Behavior
Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. Disorders (SSBD): Further validation, replication, and
(1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry normative data. Remedial and Special Education, 11,
preschool study through age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/ 3246.
Scope Press. Wasserman, G. A. & Seracini, A. M. (in press). Family
Seelye, K. Q. (1999, April 27). Clintons new gun pro- risk factors and interventions. In R. Loeber & D. P.
posal include charging parents of children who com- Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: Development,
mit gun crimes. The New York Times. interventions, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sleek, S. (1998, August). Experts scrambling on school Sage.
shootings. APA Monitor, 1, 3536. Wei, E., & StouthamerLoeber, M. (1999). Sexual activ-
Snyder, H. N. (1997). Juvenile arrests 1996. Washington, ity and fatherhood among persistent & violent offend-
ers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American ment, interventions, and service needs. Thousand
Society of Criminology, Toronto. Oaks, CA: Sage.
Welch, M., Fenwick, M., & Roberts, M. (1997). Primary Wiig, J. K. (in press). Legal issues. In R. Loeber &
definitions of crime and moral panic: A content anal- D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: Develop-
ysis of experts quotes in feature newspaper articles ment, interventions, and service needs. Thousand
on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin- Oaks, CA: Sage.
quency, 34, 474494. Wilson, J. J., & Howell, J. C. (1993). A comprehensive
Welsh, B. C. (in press). Economic costs and benefits of strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile of-
early developmental prevention. In R. Loeber & fenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: Develop- Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

67 Articol

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

67 Articol

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Development and Psychopathology, 12 (2000), 737762

Copyright 2000 Cambridge University Press

Young children who commit crime:

ROLF LOEBERa,b AND DAVID P. FARRINGTONc

Child delinquents have a 2- to 3-fold in- crime) in communities. Although valuable,

How are child delinquents legally defined?

Child factors Parents disagree on child discipline

Figure 5. Prediction of male persistent serious offending as a function of the number of

boys with a score of 2 or lower (meaning a as straightforward as with older delinquents,

Developmentally informed interventions Is this knowledge generally translated into

Anda mungkin juga menyukai