Violent Juvenile Offenders Research Articles

Waiver and Juvenile Justice Reform: Widening the Punitive Net

The incidence of violent juvenile offending and the publicity sur rounding it have prompted some legislatures to review and revise their statutory provisions for waiver. This paper examines the recent statutes that have been enacted, the procedures stipulated, and their implications. Particular attention is focused on the politicalization of juvenile crime, the politics of fear, and the evolution of juvenile justice philosophy from a rehabilitative to a punishment perspective. The restructuring of the waiver process in the juvenile justice system is one of a series of "quick-fixes" that provides the illusion of effectively addressing juvenile crime and prevent ing its occurrence.

PATTERNS OF SCHOOL CRIME: A Replication and Empirical Extension

Crimes committed at schools, such as burglary, theft, vandalism and violence, have generally not been an issue that has occupied Swedish criminologists. However, according to the official statistics in 1975 about 5,800 burglaries in educational premises (including schools, day-care centres and libraries) were reported to the police. In 1994 over 11,500 burglaries were reported - an increase of almost 100 per cent. As a comparison, domestic burglary decreased during the same period by 12 per cent. Theft without breaking and entering in educational settings also increased substantially between 1975 and 1994 (from 5,700 to nearly 10,300), or by 80 per cent, whereas theft from other work places increased by 40 per cent on average. On the whole, this indicates that a thorough investigation of school crime seems to be needed in Sweden. (Abstract Adapted from Source: British Journal of Criminology, 1997. Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press) Sweden Foreign Countries School Crime School Violence Crime Rates Violence Rates Juvenile Crime Juvenile Violence Juvenile Offender Student Violence Student Crime 12-01

The effects of two types of exposure on attitudes toward aspects of juvenile delinquency.

Four violent juvenile offenders from a local correctional facility spoke to a class of U.S. undergraduates studying abnormal psychology. Two weeks later, the students attended a tour sponsored by the correctional facility that had provided the speakers. The results of a semantic differential scale administered both before and after the talk and tour indicated that the students attitudes became significantly more positive for the 3 dimensions assessed by the scale: juvenile delinquent, state correctional facility for juvenile delinquents, and treatment staff for juvenile delinquents. The talk and the tour appeared to be equally effective in bringing about positive changes in the students attitudes.

Risks, Fixers, and Zeal: Implementing Experimental Treatments for Violent Juvenile Offenders

Implementation is a critical factor in the evaluation of correctional interventions. This study analyzes the implementation of experimental intervention programs for chronically violent delinquents in four urban juvenile justice systems. The strength and integrity of implementation varied across sites, depending on the program element and type of measurement. Some aspects of experimental programs were evident in mainstream corrections programs, suggesting that implementation is a continuous variable whose strength is relative to antecedent conditions. Political, organizational, and ideological factors influenced implementation: effective leadership, dissatisfaction with existing conditions, risk taking, and a commitment to innovation and experimentation. The results show that, where theory and program design are thoroughly implemented, treatment programs can be established to reintegrate violent youths into the community with new social skills and behaviors.

Violent Youth in Juvenile and Adult Court: An Assessment of Sentencing Strategies in Texas

This paper examines the effectiveness of two sentencing strategies for managing serious and violent juvenile offenders: judicial waiver to adult court and determinate sentencing in juvenile court. Corrections data were analyzed and it was found that both groups consistently receive longer terms of incarceration than are available through normal juvenile justice processing. However, this finding changed when actual time served was taken into consideration. A discriminant analysis showed that juveniles determin‐ately sentenced in juvenile court are more likely to be younger and receive and serve shorter sentences than juveniles waived to adult court and sentenced to prison.

Treatment of violent juvenile offenders--we have the knowledge: Comment on Gorman-Smith et al. (1996).

Treatment of violent juvenile offenders--we have the knowledge: Comment on Gorman-Smith et al. (1996).

Treatment of violent juvenile offenders—we have the knowledge: Comment on Gorman-Smith et al. (1996).

Treatment of violent juvenile offenders—we have the knowledge: Comment on Gorman-Smith et al. (1996).

Violent juvenile delinquents. Treatment effectiveness and implications for future action.

Traditionally, the juvenile justice system has emphasized the goals of treatment and rehabilitation of young offenders, while protecting them from punishment, retribution, and stigmatization. Violent juvenile offenders have posed a challenge to this rehabilitative ideal because of mounting public pressure to ensure societal protection. Juveniles who are perceived as dangerous or persistent in their criminal activity are increasingly transferred to the adult criminal justice system, where they may receive much harsher consequences. Whether violent delinquents can be successfully treated is a key point in the debate regarding the wisdom of this trend in juvenile justice. This article considers the available research to address the policy question of how society should reasonably invest in the treatment of violent juvenile offenders.

Boot camps for juvenile offenders: Just say no

The apparent increase in the violence of juvenile crime and the media's sensationalistic portrayals of juvenile violence have fueled public outrage and spawned numerous political strategies to "get tough." Among the most popular of these is for shapers of policy to vocally advocate the development and proliferation of boot camps. As this editorial is being written, governors and legislatures in several states are advocating the use of boot camps for juvenile offenders, and the Crime Bill currently being debated in Congress, and supported by President Clinton, contains a provision for boot camps for juvenile offenders. While the boot camp solution may be politically expedient (in that it assuages public anger and fear and casts the impression that lawmakers are taking action) there is little reason to believe or suggest that such camps are effective in treating chronic, serious, or violent juvenile offenders. Two types of evidence bear upon the question of whether boot camps are effective. The first type consists of findings from studies of boot camps themselves. Most of the studies are quasi-experimental, at best, and many reports are based entirely upon anecdotal evidence (Office of Technology Assessment, 1991). The second type consists of findings on the correlates and causes of juvenile delinquency.

Planning for Safer and Better Schools: School Violence Prevention and Intervention Strategies

VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: The goal of this paper by Stephens was to describe a plan for achieving safer schools using specific assessment tools and intervention techniques. METHODOLOGY: The author employed a non-experimental research design drawing on information gathered from personal visits to more than 500 schools across the United States. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: The author argued that schools cannot accomplish their academic goals if they are not safe. To achieve safer schools, many states have passed laws requiring schools to implement comprehensive plans to reduce drugs, violence, and fear on campus. It was suggested that the most important part of these plans is an assessment of the current level of crime and violence in one's school. The assessment should include a crime analysis detailing the frequency and severity of problems in ones school, as well as a survey of students, staff and community members and their perceptions of the problems. It was argued that the assessment should also involve the participation of students, staff, parents, law enforcement officials, and other community members in the form of focus groups which discuss problems and how they should be addressed. The author recommended that this assessment be conducted by schools on a yearly basis. The author recommended several policies and programs for preventing violence in schools. He suggested that students and staff be encouraged to have a sense of ownership and pride in their school, and that the school campus be made a welcoming and safe place. It was recommended that students become actively involved in making their schools safe through new curricula focusing on decision making and conflict management. It was also suggested that students be given alternatives for positive extracurricular activities to interest and challenge them while also keeping them out of trouble. The author recommended that chronic troublemakers be targeted so that teachers could direct extra attention to them, and suggested that schools should work closely with law enforcement officials in identifying and working with these students. It was argued that parents play an important role in keeping schools safe; one suggestion given by the author was that schools create a parents' center to recruit parents for volunteer work at school. It was recommended that teachers receive special training in classroom management and conflict resolution, and that all staff members be screened prior to hiring to prevent child molesters and other felons from working in schools. Other recommendations made by the author included dress codes, adequate adult supervision of students at all times (a 25:1 ratio of students to adults), limited access to school grounds for visitors, clear and consistent behavior guidelines for students, a requirement for reporting and tracking school crime problems, a plan for responding to crises, and support and protection for victims of school crime. The author listed a specific procedure for school staff to implement when confronted with a potentially violent conflict. This procedure consisted of four parts: evaluating the problem, evacuating other children from the area, isolating the students in conflict, and negotiating or mediating an end to their dispute. The author concluded that achieving safe schools is a continuous process which must be broad based and involve the participation of students, staff, parents, and the surrounding community. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) School Violence Juvenile Offender Juvenile Violence Student Violence Violence Intervention Violence Prevention School Safety Planning School Security School Based Intervention Recommendations Prevention Recommendations 06-03

School Violence Miniseries: Impressions and Implications

VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article by Miller was to summarize current research about the prevalence and causes of school violence and the ways school psychologists can work to prevent and deal with the problem. METHODOLOGY: The author employed a non-experimental research design in this paper. Her conclusions and recommendations were based on a review of literature in the area of school violence. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: The author organized this article around four questions. The first question was, Is school violence really a major problem? It was posited that school violence estimates are difficult to judge because violence is difficult to operationally define. It was asserted that when records are kept they must be interpreted with caution, for the record-keeping of such incidents is often imprecise and nonstandardized, and because some school officials are unwilling to report the true extent of the problem in their schools. It was argued that these factors have led to a serious underestimation in the rates of violence. Additionally, it was argued that violence estimates do not include threats and other less obvious offenses, nor do they include the secondary effects of school violence, such as fear or avoidance of school. The author argued that several trends suggest that school violence is a major problem. For example, it was noted that children are becoming involved in violence at younger ages, that drug and alcohol abuse is a widespread problem, that weapons are more likely to be used in school fights, that membership in gangs is increasing, and that trivial matters are increasingly resulting in violence. The question, What contributes to youth violence?, was posited next. It was argued that such factors as stressful environment, family circumstances, individual personality characteristics, and attributes of the school itself have been found to be associated with school violence. However, it was suggested that the most powerful predictors of school violence are those factors which predict the resiliency and healthy development of youth. Additionally, it was suggested that the most successful violence prevention efforts have been those which focused on the school climate and culture, the individual characteristics of students and staff members, and the physical environment of the school. The question, What role should school psychologists play?, was also addressed in the article. It was recommended that school psychologists make violence prevention and school safety a priority by creating a nurturing environment for students. It was recommended that they design extensive policies and programs to achieve this goal. Finally, the author posited the question, Is there a consensus on how to combat school violence? The author asserted that there are several points of similarity among effective school-based violence prevention efforts. These findings were presented in the form of recommendations for other educators to follow. For example, it was suggested that effective programs treat school violence as an educational issue which is integrated into the curriculum, rather than treated as an issue for law enforcement to deal with. It was also recommended that violence prevention, school safety and crisis management be emphasized as goals, instead of focusing on reactionary efforts to reduce violence. The author suggested that the goal of school safety be worked towards with the cooperation of educators, law enforcement, health and human service agencies, students, parents, and community members. Together, these groups could design policies and procedures for dealing with and preventing crises such as school violence. Finally, it was recommended that efforts to combat school violence be tailored to the specific needs of students, taking into account their individual family and community backgrounds. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) Violence Causes School Personnel School Counselor Violence Prevention Violence Intervention Intervention Recommendations Prevention Recommendations School Mental Health Literature Review Mental Health Personnel School Based School Violence Student Violence Juvenile Offender Juvenile Violence Violence Effects School Safety Violence Incidence and Prevalence Violence Rates 04-05

Introduction to Miniseries: School Violence and Safety in Perspective

VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: The goal of this article by Furlong and Morrison was to summarize the major findings of research on school violence and school safety. METHODOLOGY: The authors employed a non-experimental research design in this study relying on data gathered in previous research. The data they used were gathered using three different research methodologies: surveys of school officials about the frequency and severity of different crimes on campus, victimization surveys of students, and surveys which aimed to assess the opinions of students, educators and the general public regarding school crime and violence. The authors recommended that any findings about school violence be examined critically due to the different methods used to gather this information. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: It was found that violent crimes that occurred in school were less likely to be reported to police than those that occurred elsewhere. In 1989, 9% of students aged 12-19 reported being the victims of crime in or around school in and 2% reported being the victims of violence. It was argued that violence in school is becoming more lethal, just as violence elsewhere is. From 1987-1994, homicides committed with firearms among youth increased significantly, particularly among African-American males. There is no database to track homicides occurring on school campuses but an examination of media reports revealed that between 1986 and 1990, 65 students and 6 school staff members were killed with firearms on school property, and another 201 were seriously injured. Studies investigating the prevalence of bringing weapons to school indicated that between 1 and 4% of students carried guns to school and between 15-23% carried knives. It was found that students reported being less concerned about their safety in the 1990's than they were in the 1970's. A 1987 study revealed that students were more concerned about how they were doing in school and how they looked than about school violence. The authors noted that these findings may be a result of a growing desensitization to crime and violence and not an indicator of schools being safer. Certain students were more likely to feel unsafe in school than others. Specifically, those students who had been victimized before and those who went to schools where they believed drugs were available were more likely to report feeling unsafe in school than other students. The authors concluded that school psychologists should insist that their schools provide data about the frequency and severity of crime and violence on their campuses so that the problem may be effectively addressed. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) Violence Causes School Violence Research Juvenile Offender Juvenile Violence Student Violence Violence Effects School Personnel School Mental Health School Psychologist 01-00

The Limited Promise of Public Health Methodologies to Prevent Youth Violence

The Limited Promise of Public Health Methodologies to Prevent Youth Violence

Psychological and Sociological Discriminants of Violent and Nonviolent Serious Juvenile Offenders

Psychological and Sociological Discriminants of Violent and Nonviolent Serious Juvenile Offenders

The Myth of Black Violence

The Myth of Black Violence

Treatment and reintegration of violent juvenile offenders: Experimental results

Violent juvenile crime has become the focus of policy debates on the philosophy of juvenile justice systems and the efficacy of rehabilitation. The Violent Juvenile Offender (VJO) Program was an experiment to test correctional interventions for chronically violent juvenile offenders. Programs in four sites tested an intervention model with four central elements: reintegration, case management, social learning processes, and a phased program of reentry from secure facilities to intensive supervision in the community. Recidivism and social outcomes of participants were compared with those of youths randomly assigned to mainstream juvenile corrections programs. Implementation of the experimental intervention varied by site; results suggest that treatment should be measured as a vector with several dimensions. Failure rates and arrest rates by time at risk for VJO youths were lower than those for control youths in two sites with strong implementation. Reintegration and transition strategies should be the focus of correctional policy, rather than lengthy confinement in state training schools with minimal supervision upon release.

Social and Legal Policy Dimensions of Violent Juvenile Crime

The problem of what to do about violent delinquents has existed since the juvenile court was established in 1899. Doubts about the efficacy of rehabilitation, together with persistently high rates of violent juvenile crime, placed violent juvenile offenders at the center of an ideological debate between proponents of traditional juvenile justice policies and those who would restrict or eliminate the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Recent research has shown that effect and proportionate correctional interventions in the juvenile justice system can advance crime control and rehabilitative policies. The existence of such programs obviates the rationale for judicial or legislative exclusion of violent juvenile offenders from the juvenile justice system. Policies to reallocate resources and reorganize juvenile corrections services should emphasize reintegration efforts to sustain institutional treatment through the process of community reentry.

Determinants of Judicial Waiver Decisions for Violent Juvenile Offenders

The selection of jurisdiction for adjudicating juvenile crime today is one of the most controversial debates in crime control policy, reflecting differences in assumptions about the causes of crime and philosophies of jurisprudence and punishment. For adolescent offenders, especially violent youth whose behaviors may pose particular social danger, critics view the traditional goals of the juvenile court and the 'best interests of the child standard as being at odds with public concerns for retribution and incapacitation of criminals. The choice between jurisdictions is a choice between the nominally rehabilitative dispositions of the juvenile court and the explicitly punitive dispositions of the criminal courts.' The choice reflects differences between sentencing policies that assign primary importance to the individual and those that accord greater significance to the seriousness of the offense committed and the goal of proportional punishment. _ Critics of the juvenile court's rehabilitative policies suggest that the court's sanctions for violent crimes are not only inappropriate and disproportionate for the seriousness of the crimes, but also inef-

Prior adjustment of violent juvenile offenders.

This study compares 202 juvenile offenders on a series of preoffense adjustment variables grouped into five categories: Family Dysfunction, School Adjustment, Prior Violence, Criminal Activity, and Substance Abuse. Emphasis is placed on the importance of distinguishing subgroups of violent youth based on the type of assault (interpersonal conflict or crime-related) and the youth's relationship to the victim (parent or other victim). Findings support the need to identify multiple developmental pathways and distinctive risk factors for different forms of juvenile violence.

Female Adolescent Sex Offenders: A Neglected Treatment Group

Female Adolescent Sex Offenders: A Neglected Treatment Group