literature review on juvenile delinquency

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

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

1. Introduction

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

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

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

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

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

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

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Juvenile delinquency treatment and prevention: a literature review

Affiliation.

• 1 Hofstra NSLIJ School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA.
• PMID: 24610601
• DOI: 10.1007/s11126-014-9296-4

In the last three decades there has been ample research to demonstrate that instituting Multisystemic Therapy for serious juvenile offenders, keeping them in the community with intensive intervention, can significantly reduce recidivism. When there is recidivism, it is less severe than in released incarcerated juveniles. Multisystemic Therapy provides 24 h available parental guidance, family therapy, individual therapy, group therapy, educational support and quite importantly a change of peer group. In New York City, there is the new mandate through the Juvenile Justice Initiative to implement interventions to keep juvenile offenders in the community rather than sending them to be incarcerated. However, this paper aims to examine how teaching prosocial values in early childhood can reduce the incidence of first-time juvenile delinquency. Programs such as the Perry School Project will be discussed to demonstrate that although somewhat expensive, these innovative programs nonetheless are quite cost-effective as the cost to society of adjudication, incarceration and victim damages are significantly greater. Along with teaching prosocial 0020 values, there has been renewed interest in early identification of youth at risk for developing Antisocial Personality Disorder. An update is given on the status of both promising approaches in early intervention to prevent serious juvenile delinquency and hence adult criminality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• A Two-Week Psychosocial Intervention Reduces Future Aggression and Incarceration in Clinically Aggressive Juvenile Offenders. Kendall AD, Emerson EM, Hartmann WE, Zinbarg RE, Donenberg GR. Kendall AD, et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Dec;56(12):1053-1061. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2017.09.424. Epub 2017 Oct 5. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017. PMID: 29173739 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
• Juvenile justice mental health services. Thomas CR, Penn JV. Thomas CR, et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2002 Oct;11(4):731-48. doi: 10.1016/s1056-4993(02)00024-x. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2002. PMID: 12397896
• Family and parenting interventions in children and adolescents with conduct disorder and delinquency aged 10-17. Woolfenden SR, Williams K, Peat J. Woolfenden SR, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;2001(2):CD003015. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003015. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001. PMID: 11406062 Free PMC article. Review.
• Family preservation using multisystemic therapy: an effective alternative to incarcerating serious juvenile offenders. Henggeler SW, Melton GB, Smith LA. Henggeler SW, et al. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992 Dec;60(6):953-61. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.60.6.953. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992. PMID: 1460157 Clinical Trial.
• Multisystemic treatment of criminality and violence in adolescents. Borduin CM. Borduin CM. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999 Mar;38(3):242-9. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199903000-00009. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999. PMID: 10087684 Review.
• Mortality and Cause of Death Among Youths Previously Incarcerated in the Juvenile Legal System. Ruch DA, Steelesmith DL, Brock G, Boch SJ, Quinn CR, Bridge JA, Campo JV, Fontanella CA. Ruch DA, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 1;4(12):e2140352. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.40352. JAMA Netw Open. 2021. PMID: 34940865 Free PMC article.
• Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2013 Sep;57(9):1054-75 - PubMed
• BMC Public Health. 2011 May 23;11:364 - PubMed
• J Fam Psychol. 2012 Apr;26(2):187-97 - PubMed
• Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(2):CD002796 - PubMed
• Future Child. 1995 Winter;5(3):51-75 - PubMed

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources, other literature sources.

• scite Smart Citations
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Juvenile Delinquency Treatment and Prevention: A Literature Review

• Original Paper
• Published: 09 March 2014
• Volume 85 , pages 295–301, ( 2014 )

Cite this article

• Jessica May 1 ,
• Kristina Osmond 2 &
• Stephen Billick 3  

11k Accesses

18 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In the last three decades there has been ample research to demonstrate that instituting Multisystemic Therapy for serious juvenile offenders, keeping them in the community with intensive intervention, can significantly reduce recidivism. When there is recidivism, it is less severe than in released incarcerated juveniles. Multisystemic Therapy provides 24 h available parental guidance, family therapy, individual therapy, group therapy, educational support and quite importantly a change of peer group. In New York City, there is the new mandate through the Juvenile Justice Initiative to implement interventions to keep juvenile offenders in the community rather than sending them to be incarcerated. However, this paper aims to examine how teaching prosocial values in early childhood can reduce the incidence of first-time juvenile delinquency. Programs such as the Perry School Project will be discussed to demonstrate that although somewhat expensive, these innovative programs nonetheless are quite cost-effective as the cost to society of adjudication, incarceration and victim damages are significantly greater. Along with teaching prosocial 0020 values, there has been renewed interest in early identification of youth at risk for developing Antisocial Personality Disorder. An update is given on the status of both promising approaches in early intervention to prevent serious juvenile delinquency and hence adult criminality.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Multisystemic Therapy for Serious Juvenile Offenders: From Development to Dissemination

Treatment of Juvenile Offenders: Toward Multisystemic Risk and Resource Management

The Role of Psychopathic Traits and Supportive Parental Practices in Long-Term Juvenile Recidivism: a 10-Year Follow-Up

Abram KM, Choe JY, Washburn JJ, Romero EG, Teplin LA. Functional Impairment in Youth Three Years after Detention. Journal of Adolescent Health 44(6):528–535, 2009.

Article   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bergseth KJ, Bouffard JA. Examining the effectiveness of a restorative justice program for various types of juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/07/16/0306624x12453551 . 2012.

Borduin CM, Mann BJ, Cone LT, Henggeler SW, Fucci BR, Blaske DM, Williams RA. Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile offenders: long-term prevention of criminiality and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63(4):569-–578, 1995.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Henggeler SW, Sheidow AJ. Empirically supported family-based treatments for conduct disorder and deliquency in adolesents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 38(1):30–58, 2012.

Hoeve M, Stams GJ, Van Der Put CE, Dubas JS, Van Der Laan PH, Gerris JRM. A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and deliquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 40:771–785, 2012.

Lipman EL, Kenny M, Brennan E, O’Grady S, Augimeri L. Helping boys at-risk of criminal activity: qualitative results of a multi-component intervention. BMC Public Health 11:364, 2011.

New York City Administration for Children’s Services. Juvenile justice initiative. NYC.gov. http://www.nyc.gov/html/acs/downloadsproviders_newsletter/2012Jan25/slides/JJI_Presentation.pdf . 2012.

Osher DM, Quinn MM, Poirer JM, Rutherford RB. Deconstructing the pipeline: using efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-benefit data to reduce minority youth incarceration. New Directions for Youth Development 99:91–120, 2003.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Petrosino A, Turpin-Petrosino C, Buehler J. Scared Straight’ and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2:CD002796, 2009.

Schweinhart LJ, Montie J, Xiang Z, Barnett WS, Belfield CR, Nores M. The high/scope perry preschool study through age 40 summary, conclusions, and frequently asked questions. High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, pp. 194–215, 2005.

Tighe A, Pistrang N, Casdagli L, Baruch G, Butler S. Multisystemic Therapy for young offenders: families’ experiences of therapeutic processes and outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology 26(2):187–197, 2012.

Yoshikawa H. Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and deliquency. The Future of Children 5(3):51–75, 1995.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Hofstra NSLIJ School of Medicine, Hempstead, NY, USA

Jessica May

Mt. Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

Kristina Osmond

NYU School of Medicine, 901 5th Avenue, New York, NY, 10021, USA

Stephen Billick

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Billick .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

May, J., Osmond, K. & Billick, S. Juvenile Delinquency Treatment and Prevention: A Literature Review. Psychiatr Q 85 , 295–301 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-014-9296-4

Download citation

Published : 09 March 2014

Issue Date : September 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-014-9296-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Juvenile delinquency
• Multisystemic Therapy
• Perry preschool project
• Early childhood intervention programs
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• BJPsych Bull
• v.41(1); 2017 Feb

Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic interventions: a global perspective

Susan young.

1 Imperial College London, London, UK

2 Broadmoor Hospital, Crowthorne, UK

Richard Church

3 South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK

This review considers juvenile delinquency and justice from an international perspective. Youth crime is a growing concern. Many young offenders are also victims with complex needs, leading to a public health approach that requires a balance of welfare and justice models. However, around the world there are variable and inadequate legal frameworks and a lack of a specialist workforce. The UK and other high-income countries worldwide have established forensic child and adolescent psychiatry, a multifaceted discipline incorporating legal, psychiatric and developmental fields. Its adoption of an evidence-based therapeutic intervention philosophy has been associated with greater reductions in recidivism compared with punitive approaches prevalent in some countries worldwide, and it is therefore a superior approach to dealing with the problem of juvenile delinquency.

Recent years have seen sustained public and academic interest in criminality and mental health, with attention often focused on antisocial behaviour by children and adolescents. The scale of the problem of juvenile delinquency has provoked mixed responses from governments and the media across the world, with calls for improved rehabilitation and support for juvenile offenders competing with voices advocating more punitive approaches. 1 Meanwhile, decades of rigorous academic scrutiny have shed light on the complex and diverse needs of children who come into conflict with the law. 2 – 5 Much of the growing body of literature on juvenile offenders shows considerable overlap between criminological, social and biomedical research, with a consensus emerging around the significance of a developmental understanding of the emergence of juvenile delinquency.

Importantly, juvenile offenders have consistently been identified as a population that suffers from a markedly elevated prevalence and severity of mental disorder compared with the general juvenile population. 6 , 7 Meeting the needs of these young offenders presents practical and ethical challenges concerning treatment and management, including liaison with other agencies.

What is juvenile delinquency?

Who counts as juvenile.

Juvenile delinquency is a term commonly used in academic literature for referring to a young person who has committed a criminal offence, although its precise definition can vary according to the local jurisdiction. The specific reasons underlying these differences are unclear, but they may arise from the lack of an agreed international standard. 8

A ‘juvenile’ in this context refers to an individual who is legally able to commit a criminal offence owing to being over the minimum age of criminal responsibility, but who is under the age of criminal majority, when a person is legally considered an adult. The minimum age of criminal responsibility varies internationally between 6 and 18 years, but the age of criminal majority is usually 18 years.

In some cases individuals older than 18 years may be heard in a juvenile court, and therefore will still be considered juveniles; indeed, the United Nations (UN) defines ‘youth’ as between 15 and 24 years of age. The term ‘child delinquents’ has been used in reference to children below the age of 13 who have committed a delinquent act, 9 although elsewhere ‘children’ are often defined as being under 18 years of age. The term ‘young offenders’ is broad, and can refer to offenders aged under 18 years or include young adults up to their mid-20s.

What is a crime?

A ‘delinquent’ is an individual who has committed a criminal offence. Delinquency therefore encompasses an enormous range of behaviours which are subject to legislation differing from one jurisdiction to another, and are subject to changes in law over time. Whereas acts of theft and serious interpersonal violence are commonly considered to constitute criminal offences, other acts including alcohol consumption and sexual behaviour in young people are tolerated to very differing degrees across the world. Sometimes these differences arise as a consequence of historical or cultural factors, and they may be underpinned by traditional religious laws, such as in some Middle Eastern countries. Some offences may be shared between jurisdictions but be enforced to differing standards – for instance, ‘unlawful assembly’, often used to prevent riots, is applied in Singapore to young people meeting in public in groups of five or more as part of police efforts to tackle youth gangs. Furthermore, ‘status offences’ – acts that would be permissible in adults but criminalised in children, such as consumption of alcohol or truancy – not only vary between jurisdictions, but contribute to discontinuity when comparing juvenile delinquency with adult populations in the same jurisdiction.

Lack of clarity can also arise in jurisdictions where a young offender is processed via a welfare system rather than a youth justice process. Countries with a high minimum age of criminal responsibility may not technically criminalise young people for behaviour that would normally be prosecuted and therefore classed as ‘delinquent’ elsewhere.

Not all incarcerated juveniles are ‘delinquent’, since some may be detained pre-trial and may not be convicted of an offence. Even if convicted, it would be wrong to assume that every ‘juvenile delinquent’ meets criteria for a diagnosis of conduct disorder; offences vary considerably and may not be associated with a broad repertoire of offending behaviour. Also, most ‘juvenile delinquents’ do not pose an immediate risk of violence to others, and the vast majority of convicted juveniles serve their sentences in the community.

To meet the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder requires evidence of a persistent pattern of dissocial or aggressive conduct, such that it defies age-appropriate social expectations. Behaviours may include cruelty to people or animals, truancy, frequent and severe temper tantrums, excessive fighting or bullying and fire-setting; diagnosis of conduct disorder can be made in the marked presence of one of these behaviours. 10

Overall, the term ‘juvenile delinquent’ is used extensively in academic literature, but requires some care. It can be a potentially problematic term, and in some contexts can strike a pejorative tone with misleading negative assumptions. For several years the UN has used the phrase ‘children in conflict with the law’ to describe the breadth of the heterogeneous group of individuals under the age of 18 who have broken the law or are at risk of doing so.

General principles of juvenile justice

Welfare v. justice models.

The sentencing of an individual convicted of a criminal offence is largely driven by three key considerations: retribution (punishment), deterrence and rehabilitation. In the case of juvenile offenders the principle of rehabilitation is often assigned the greatest weight. 11

Special consideration for juveniles within the criminal justice system is not a new concept. In Roman law, the principle of doli incapax protected young children from prosecution owing to the presumption of a lack of capacity and understanding required to be guilty of a criminal offence. Most countries have some provision for special treatment of children who come into conflict with the law, however, the degree to which this is provided varies across the world. 1 , 12 In some countries a ‘welfare’ model prevails, which focuses on the needs of the child, diagnosis, treatment and more informal procedures, whereas other countries favour a ‘justice’ model, which emphasises accountability, punishment and procedural formality.

Belgium is frequently cited as an example of a country with a strong welfare process, supported by a high minimum age of criminal responsibility of 18 years. Similarly, France built a strong welfare reputation by placing education and rehabilitation at the centre of youth justice reforms in the 1940s. New Zealand in 1989 established the widely praised system of Family Group Conferencing as an integral part of youth justice, with a focus on restoration of relationships and reduction of incarceration that would be considered part of a welfare approach. In contrast, the UK and the USA have traditionally been associated with a justice model and low age of criminal responsibility – 10 years in England and Wales, and as low as 6 years in several US states.

Within welfare or justice models, a young person may at some point be ‘deprived of liberty’ – defined as any form of detention under official authorities in a public or private location which the child is not permitted to leave. Locations in which children may be deprived of liberty include police stations, detention centres, juvenile or adult prisons, secure remand homes, work or boot camps, penitentiary colonies, locked specialised schools, educational or rehabilitation establishments, military camps and prisons, immigration detention centres, secure youth hostels and hospitals. 13

Between the less and more punitive systems

The UN supports the development of specialised systems for managing children in conflict with the law. When the first children's courts were set up in the USA in the 1930s, they were widely praised as a progressive system for serving the best interests of the child. Although informality was championed as a particular benefit, in the 1960s substantial concerns arose about due process and the protection of the legal rights of minors. The subsequent development of formal juvenile courts occurred in the context of a continuing ethos of rehabilitation of young people, with a move away from incarceration of juveniles in the 1970s, especially in Massachusetts and California. However, following a marked peak in juvenile offending statistics during the 1980s and 1990s, public and political opinion swung firmly in a more punitive direction. This was accompanied by legal reforms that increased the severity of penalties available to juvenile courts and lowered the age threshold for juveniles to be tried in adult criminal courts.

When the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child entered into force in 1990, the USA was not a signatory owing to 22 states permitting capital punishment of individuals who had committed their crimes as juveniles. It is reported that 19 juvenile offenders were executed in the USA between 1990 and 2005. Although this number may represent a small percentage of the total who faced the death penalty in the USA during that period, the practice was widely criticised by international bodies and organisations. 14 A landmark ruling in the US Supreme Court 15 outlawed the execution of juvenile offenders in the USA, but to date a small number of countries worldwide still implement this practice, sometimes as a result of religious laws.

However, it would be wrong to assume that welfare systems are automatically preferable to a juvenile justice approach, since welfare arrangements can be equally coercive in terms of deprivation of liberty of juveniles. They may lack due process, safeguards for obtaining reliable evidence from young people, processes for testing evidence, and procedures for scrutiny or appeal following disposal.

Trends in youth crime

The USA witnessed a dramatic increase in arrest rates of young people for homicide and other violent crimes in the 1980s and 1990s, sometimes referred to as the ‘violence epidemic’. 16 The ensuing moral panic led to harsh and punitive policy changes in juvenile justice and, although official statistics document a subsequent fall of 20% in court case-loads between 1997 and 2009, victimisation surveys have indicated a degree of continuity in high levels of offending, consistent with a reported increase in juvenile offending between 2000 and 2006. 17

In common with the USA and several other high-income countries, the UK also experienced a rise in juvenile offending in the 1980s and 1990s, but figures from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales appear to indicate a general improvement in recent years. Between 2009/2010 and 2014/2015 a 67% reduction has been observed in the number of young people entering the juvenile justice system for the first time, a 65% reduction in the number of young people receiving a caution or court disposal and a 57% reduction in the number of young people in custody. 18 These figures support an overall decrease in juvenile offending noted since the early 1990s. 19

Youth crime figures from Australia have documented a 4% reduction in the overall number of young offenders in 2013/2014, 20 although the number of violent offences committed by young people in the urbanised and densely populated region of Victoria has increased by 75% between 2000 and 2010. 21

The Nordic countries have witnessed an increase in the number of law-abiding youths from 1994 and 2008. 22 In Sweden, both objective levels of juvenile crime 23 and self-reported involvement in juvenile crime 24 have fallen between 1995 and 2005. Similarly in Finland, where, despite fluctuating trends in juvenile drug use, juvenile property and violent crime is reported to have decreased between 1992 and 2013. 25

To summarise, whereas regional and annual trends in juvenile offending are observed and expected, a global trend characterised by decreased juvenile offending appears to have emerged in recent years. Indeed, UN data from a sample of 40 countries lend support to this conclusion, indicating a decrease in the proportion of juveniles suspected (10.9% to 9.2%) and convicted (7.5% to 6%) of crime between 2004 and 2012, respectively. 26

Juvenile gang membership

Influence on crime involvement.

One of the features of urbanisation across the world has been the rise of youth gangs, groups of young people often defined by geographical area, ethnic identity or ideology; recent reports indicate a rise in groups with extremist views. Explanatory models for the rise in youth gangs include factors such as economic migration, loss of extended family networks, reduced supervision of children, globalisation and exposure to inaccessible lifestyle ‘ideals’ portrayed in modern media.

Authorities in Japan attributed a surge in serious youth crime in the 1990s primarily to juvenile bike gangs known as ‘bosozoku’, who were deemed responsible for over 80% of serious offences perpetrated by juveniles, putatively bolstered by a crackdown on yakuza organised crime syndicates. 27 Although difficult to quantify, gang involvement appears to feature in a large proportion of juvenile offences, and there is evidence that gang membership has a facilitating effect on perpetration of the most serious violence including homicide. 28

Mental health

Compared with general and juvenile offender populations, juvenile gang members exhibit significantly higher rates of mental health problems such as conduct disorder/antisocial personality disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorders and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). 29 Gang members, compared with non-violent men who do not belong to a gang, are far more likely to utilise mental health services and display significantly higher levels of psychiatric morbidity, most notably antisocial personality disorder, psychosis and anxiety disorders. 30 Gang membership has also been positively correlated with an increased incidence of depressed mood and suicidal ideation among younger gang members. 31 Prevalence of ADHD is significantly greater in incarcerated youth populations (30.1%) than in general youth population estimates (3–7%), 32 therefore it may be reasonable to expect a similarly increased prevalence in juvenile gang members. ADHD has also been associated with a significantly increased risk of comorbid mood/affective disorder. 33

Forensic child and adolescent psychiatric services

Increased awareness of constitutional and environmental factors that contribute to juvenile offending has strengthened a public health perspective towards the problem, and in the UK entry into the youth justice system has been adopted as an indicator of general public health. 34

Dictionaries frequently define ‘forensic’ as meaning ‘legal’, implying a relationship with any court of law. Indeed, many forensic psychiatrists, particularly in child and adolescent services, undertake roles that encompass multiple legal domains relevant to mental health, including criminal law, family and child custody proceedings, special educational tribunals, and immigration or extradition matters.

Specialist forensic psychiatric services vary considerably between countries, 35 but usually forensic psychiatrists assess and treat individuals in secure psychiatric hospitals, prisons, law courts, police stations and in the community under various levels of security, supervision and support. In some countries there has been a trend towards forensic psychiatrists working almost exclusively with courts of law, providing independent specialist opinion to assist the court.

In the UK, forensic child and adolescent psychiatry has emerged as a clinical subspecialty. Some services are based in specialist secure hospitals for young people and cater for the relatively small number of high-risk young offenders with the most severe mental disorders. In the absence of such specialist resources, young people may be managed in suboptimal environments such as juvenile prisons, secure residential placements or secure mental health wards for adults, or even fail to receive treatment at all.

In light of growing evidence-based interventions for juvenile offenders within a public health framework, 36 the role of child and family mental health services may increase over time. Aside from direct clinical roles, practitioners in forensic child and adolescent psychiatry are also well placed to work with a wide range of partner agencies on the planning and delivery of broader interventions for the primary and secondary prevention of juvenile delinquency.

Prevalence of mental health problems among juvenile offenders

Rates of mental health problems among juvenile offenders are significantly higher than in their non-offender peers, with two-thirds of male juvenile offenders in the USA suggested as meeting criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder. 37 One in five juvenile offenders is estimated to suffer severe functional impairment as a result of their mental health problems. 38 Paradoxically, these needs are often unmet, 39 , 40 despite evidence of increased contact with mental health services, particularly among first-time juvenile offenders. 41 , 42 Of additional concern are the reported associations between mental health problems and mortality in incarcerated juveniles, 43 including an elevated suicide rate for males. 44 Mental health problems must be a target in interventions for juvenile offenders; however, treatments which focus solely on clinical problems are unlikely to result in benefit for criminogenic outcomes. 45 There is therefore a clear need for effective interventions which address both the clinical and criminogenic needs of these individuals.

Evidence-based treatments for mental health problems

Treatment of ptsd.

Estimates regarding the prevalence of PTSD among juvenile offenders suggest that 20 to 23% meet the clinical criteria, 46 , 47 with prevalence rates significantly higher among females than males (40% v . 17%). 46 Moreover, with 62% experiencing trauma within the first 5 years of life 47 and up to 93% experiencing at least one traumatic event during childhood or adolescence, 48 this should be a target for intervention.

Cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is regarded as the most effective intervention for adults with PTSD 49 and also has demonstrated efficacy for juvenile non-offenders. 50 , 51 There is limited evidence suggesting a significant reduction in self-reported symptoms of PTSD following group-based CBT in male juvenile offenders, 52 and of an adapted version of CBT, cognitive processing therapy, 53 also resulting in a significant reduction in self-reported symptoms of PTSD and depression compared with waitlist controls. 54

A trauma-focused emotion regulation intervention (TARGET) has received preliminary empirical support for use in this population. TARGET resulted in nearly twice as much reduction in PTSD symptom severity as treatment as usual (TAU), 55 in addition to significant reductions in depression, behavioural disturbances and increased optimism. 56

Mood/anxiety disorders and self-harm

Juvenile offenders in the UK present with a high prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders (67% of females, 41% of males), self-harm (11% of females, 7% of males) and history of suicide attempts (33% of females, 20% of males). 57 Similarly high prevalence has also been observed cross-culturally, namely in the USA, 37 , 58 Switzerland 59 and Finland. 60

Despite such high prevalence, there appears to be a paucity of high-quality evaluations regarding the effectiveness of interventions for juvenile offenders with mood and/or anxiety disorders, or problems with self-harm. However, the limited evidence that is available suggests that group-based CBT may aid symptom reduction. 61 Recovery rates for major depressive disorder following group-based CBT are over double those for a life skills tutoring intervention (39% v . 19%, respectively), although no significant difference was noted at 6- or 12-month follow-up. CBT also resulted in significantly greater improvements in self- and observer-reported symptoms of depression and social functioning. 62

However, group-based CBT is not reported to be significantly different from TAU in reduction of self-harm, 63 whereas individual CBT is not significantly different from TAU in outcomes for depression, anxiety, conduct disorder or PTSD. 64 Yet recruitment to and retention in intervention seems good, suggesting that CBT is feasible to implement in juvenile offender populations. 64

Evaluations of alternative interventions have posited muscle relaxation as effective in improving juvenile offenders' tolerance of frustration. 65 Dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) has also been reported to significantly reduce incidences of physical aggression in a juvenile offender population 66 and among juvenile non-offenders expressing suicidal ideation. 67 It significantly reduced serious behavioural problems and staff punitive actions among juvenile offenders within a mental health unit, although no similar significant reductions were observed for those without mental health problems. 68

Evidence-based treatments for conduct disorder: family approaches

Relationships with family and peers are recognised as key factors in the criminogenic profile of juvenile offenders. 69 Multisystemic therapy (MST) is a family-focused intervention targeting characteristics related to antisocial behaviour, including family relationships and peer associations, 70 with evidence from US and UK studies suggesting MST is a beneficial intervention for juvenile offenders. When compared with conventional services offered by juvenile offending services, MST was associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of reoffending, 71 maintained 2 and 4 years post-treatment. 72 , 73 Offenders engaging in MST are reported to be significantly less likely to become involved in serious and violent offending. 73 , 74 Significant improvements have also been observed in both self- and parent-reported delinquency, 74 family relations and interactions, 73 and home, school, community and emotional functioning. 71 A cost offset analysis of MST among UK juvenile offenders suggested that combining MST and conventional services provides greater cost savings than conventional services alone, as a result of its positive effects on recidivism. 75 Qualitative impressions of MST from juvenile offenders and their parents indicate that key components of a successful delivery of MST include the quality of the therapeutic relationship and ability to re-engage the offender with educational systems. 76

Some evidence also exists regarding the efficacy of MST when delivered to non-offender antisocial juvenile populations outside the USA and the UK. Compared with TAU, MST resulted in a significantly greater increase in social competence and caregiver satisfaction, and a significant reduction in referrals for out-of-home placements, in Norwegian juveniles exhibiting serious behavioural problems. 77 However, no significant difference between MST and TAU was reported in outcomes for antisocial behaviour and psychiatric symptoms in Swedish juvenile offenders. 78 MST was also found to have no significant benefit over TAU in outcomes including recidivism in a sample of Canadian juvenile offenders. 79 These differing outcomes have been posited as the result of barriers in transferring MST from US and UK populations owing to differing approaches to juvenile justice between countries (i.e. a welfare v . justice approach). 78 The heterogeneous nature of studies concerning MST in juvenile offender populations prevent a firm conclusion being drawn as to its superiority over alternative interventions, although this does not diminish the positive outcomes which have been observed. 80

Substance misuse

Motivational interviewing represents a promising approach for juvenile offenders, particularly as a treatment for substance misuse. 81 Group-based motivational interviewing has received positive feedback from participants when implemented with first-time juvenile alcohol or drug offenders, 82 and compared with TAU, juvenile offenders in receipt of motivational interviewing have greater satisfaction and display lower, though not statistically significant, rates of recidivism at 12-months post-motivational interviewing. 83 There is therefore preliminary evidence for the acceptability and feasibility of motivational interviewing for substance-misusing juvenile offenders, but future research regarding long-term outcomes is warranted. To date, motivational interviewing for difficulties faced by juvenile offenders beyond that of substance misuse does not appear to have received much research attention. Juvenile offenders are known for their difficulty to engage in rehabilitative services, therefore further investigation of the effectiveness of motivational interviewing in encouraging engagement is warranted.

Preliminary investigations have also developed a conceptual framework for the delivery of mindfulness-based interventions (MBI) to incarcerated substance-misusing juveniles, with qualitative impressions suggesting this is a potentially feasible and efficacious intervention. 84 Although literature regarding the effectiveness of MBI in juvenile offenders is scarce, qualitative feedback has indicated positive reception of this style of intervention, with particular improvements in subjective well-being reported by juvenile participants. 85

Employment and education

Engaging juvenile offenders with education and skills-based training is an important component of successful rehabilitation, with positive engagement in meaningful activities associated with improvements in areas such as self-belief 86 and protection against future participation in criminal activities. 87 It is concerning therefore that an evaluation of the use of leisure time over a 1-week period by probationary juvenile offenders in Australia indicated only 10% of this time was spent engaging in productive activities, such as employment or education, with 57% used for passive leisure activities, a level 30% higher than that of their non-offender peers. 88

Efforts to engage juvenile offenders in vocational and/or occupational activities have shown benefits in a number of areas. A specialised vocational and employment training programme (CRAFT) emphasising practical skills was evaluated against conventional education provision to juvenile offenders in the USA. Over a 30-month follow-up period, those engaged in CRAFT were significantly more likely to be in employment, to have attended an educational diploma programme and to have attended for a significantly longer period of time. 89 Benefits have also been reported with regard to risk of reoffending, with an after-school programme in the USA incorporating practical community projects, educational sessions and family therapy resulting in a significant reduction in recidivism at 1-year follow-up. 90

Qualitative investigations of US juvenile offenders suggest there is not a lack of interest in pursuing education among this population, but rather a disconnection with educational systems when education providers are perceived not to care about students' progress. 91 Ensuring education providers are perceived as proactive and caring in this regard may therefore be an important consideration for efforts to engage juvenile offenders with educational systems. Significant barriers to engagement include difficulties in obtaining accurate information regarding the offender's educational history, in addition to identifying community-based education providers willing to accept previously incarcerated juveniles on their release. 92

Language and communication

Difficulties with language and communication skills appear to be prevalent among juvenile offenders, with estimates of those falling into the poor or very poor categories ranging from 46 to 67%; overall, up to 90% of juvenile offenders demonstrated language skills below average. 93 Specifically, high rates of illiteracy are reported in this population, 94 with evidence to suggest that an awareness of such problems among juvenile offenders themselves is associated with dissatisfaction and poor self-esteem. 95 These difficulties may act as barriers to engagement in therapeutic interventions, particularly those delivered in group settings, as well as re-engagement with educational systems. Awareness of the challenges these young people face with regard to confidence and ability to communicate is important, and potential involvement of a speech and language therapist could be considered. Preventing deficits in language and communication through effective schooling and appropriate support in the early years of life may serve as an aid to effective engagement in rehabilitative interventions, and may also mitigate the risk of engagement in criminal activities in the first instance.

Delivery of therapeutic services

Common challenges to a therapeutic youth justice pathway.

There are common obstacles to smooth care pathways between different parts of systems, such as in transitions between secure settings and the community, between prisons and secure psychiatric settings, and between child and adult services. In some jurisdictions individuals can only be treated pharmacologically against their will in a hospital setting, a safeguard which limits the extent to which individuals can be treated in prison, but there is still great scope for intervention by prison mental health teams in juvenile prisons.

Factors associated with good outcomes

A meta-analysis has revealed three primary factors associated with effective interventions for juvenile offenders: a ‘therapeutic’ intervention philosophy, serving high-risk offenders, and quality of implementation. 96 These findings are consistent with factors posited as correlating with good outcome in residential centres for troubled adolescents and juvenile offenders: good staff-adolescent relations, perception of staff as pro-social role models, positive peer pressure, an individualised therapeutic programme approach, developmentally appropriate programmes and activities, clear expectations and boundaries, and placement locations which allow for continued family contact. 97 , 98

In the community, coercive styles of engagement have been found to be less successful at achieving adherence among juvenile offenders than a client-centred approach. 99

Factors associated with poor outcomes

‘Scared Straight’ programmes expose juveniles who have begun to commit offences to inmates of high-security prisons, yet these approaches have been discredited due to evidence that risk of recidivism may in fact increase following such exposure. 100 Similarly poor outcomes have been observed in programmes modelled on military boot camps, in which harsh discipline is considered to be of therapeutic benefit, 101 and initiatives such as curfew, probation and hearing juvenile cases in adult court were also shown to be ineffective in reducing recidivism. 13

Over recent years it has been repeatedly demonstrated that exposure to juvenile court itself appears to have a detrimental effect on juvenile offending. 102 – 104 This may be partially explained by effects of labelling, stigma and negative self-image associated with a criminal conviction, but also the practical consequences of sentences, including assortment of delinquent peers in community or prison sentences. Incarceration presents several additional harms, including disturbance of care and pro-social relationships, discontinuity in education, association with delinquent peers, and exposure to violence. Half of detained young offenders in the UK reported victimisation during their current prison term, 57 while 12% of incarcerated youth in the USA reported sexual victimisation in the previous year. 105 International agreements state that deprivation of liberty (such as juvenile prison) should be used as a last resort and for the shortest time necessary, so should be reserved for the highest-risk offenders. The cost of juvenile antisocial behaviour is known to be high, and to fall on many agencies. 106 The current climate of austerity in public services demands that any interventions should be not only effective, but also cost-effective, raising a clear challenge – and opportunity – for the implementation of interventions for this population of vulnerable young people. For example, parenting programmes have demonstrated sustained benefits for this population, 107 , 108 with economic analysis indicating gross savings of £9288 per child over a 25 year period. 109 Considered together with wider costs of crime, these gross savings exceed the average cost of parenting programmes (£1177) by a factor of approximately 8 to 1.

Conclusions

Many argue that we have a long way to go before arriving at ‘child friendly’ juvenile justice. 110 Around the world there are variable and inadequate legal frameworks that are not age-appropriate, there is a lack of age-appropriate services and establishments, and a lack of a specialist workforce, leading to challenges around training and supervision to work with this vulnerable population. In the UK and other high-income countries worldwide, forensic child and adolescent psychiatry is a multifaceted discipline incorporating legal, psychiatric and developmental fields. This approach has navigated clinical and ethical challenges and made an important contribution to welfare and justice needs by its adoption of an evidence-based therapeutic intervention philosophy.

Declaration of interests S.Y. has received honoraria for consultancy, travel, educational talks and/or research from Janssen, Eli Lilly, Shire, Novartis, HB Pharma and Flynn Pharma.

Juvenile Delinquency Treatment and Prevention: A Literature Review

• Psychiatric Quarterly 85(3)

• University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

• MED HYPOTHESES

• Rayna Hutcherson
• Noemi Aguirre
• Eko Saktiono
• Arifah Uswatun Kossah
• Sidik Sunaryo

• Nuran Demir
• Cydney Schleidan

• CHILD YOUTH SERV REV

• DEVIANT BEHAV

• So-mang Son
• Kang-Sook Lee
• Aida Aazami
• Rebecca Valek
• Andrea N. Ponce
• Hossein Zare
• Marina Azôr Dib

• Muhammad Ansori Lubis
• Muhammad Yassid
• Novi Juli Rosani Zulkarnain
• My'Kayla Bowser
• Erin Kern Popejoy
• Ana Cláudia Ferreira

• Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira

• Cédric Baumann
• INT J LAW PSYCHIAT
• Glenn D. Walters

• Mahendra Ridwanul Ghoni
• Pujiyono Pujiyono

• J ORGAN CHANGE MANAG

• J ABNORM CHILD PSYCH

• BMC PUBLIC HEALTH

• Lynn T. Cone
• Robert A. Williams
• INT J OFFENDER THER
• Kathleen J. Bergseth

• John Buehler
• J MARITAL FAM THER
• Scott W. Henggeler

• Jeanne Y Choe
• Jason J. Washburn

• Jeffrey M. Poirier
• Robert B. Rutherford
• Schweinhart Lj
• Barnett Z Ws Xiang
• Belfield Cr
• L J Schweinhart
• W S Barnett
• C R Belfield
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Get new issue alerts Get alerts
• Submit a Manuscript

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

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

Abhishek, R; Balamurugan, J

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: 

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 

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

RESULTS: 

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

CONCLUSION: 

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

Introduction

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

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

Juvenile delinquency in India

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

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

Leading causes of juvenile delinquency

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

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

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

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

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

Materials and Methods

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

Social factors responsible for Juvenile Delinquency

Family, peers, school and neighborhood.

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

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

Mass media and substance use

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

Poverty and socioeconomic conditions

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

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

Psycho-social conditions

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestions and implications

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

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

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

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

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

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

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

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Acta Colombiana de Psicologia

The article presents a literature review on juvenile delinquency, aiming at discussing its concepts and etiology. It addresses both risk and protective factors which adolescent offenders are exposed to. Two theoretical models about the origin and development of juvenile delinquency are presented. Similarly, a discussion on socio-educational measures and life projects as protective factors that can promote greater social integration is carried out. It was possible to verify,, among other aspects, the need and importance for actions and programs driven both to prevention and treatment of these adolescents.

Related Papers

Artigo publicado no site Jusbrasil

Michele R Haddad

Quando se fala em delinquência juvenil normalmente se questiona sobre o que de fato leva uma criança ou adolescente a se envolver e adentrar no mundo da violência e baseado em respostas que obtive em entrevistas com os jovens do Centro Socioeducativo de Campos dos Goytacazes/RJ, as respostas para tal questionamento já que em muitos dos casos foge do alcance dos mecanismos que são utilizados no combate e na prevenção da marginalização destes infratores, principalmente quando estes problemas vêm sendo cometido no seio das famílias.

Psicologia.pt

Domingos Bombo Damião

RESUMO O presente estudo tem como objectivo explorar a opinião do jovem integrante de gangue de rua a respeito das consequências da delinquência e analisar as consequências da delinquência. Utilizou-se neste estudo a abordagem qualitativa, e como instrumento de recolha de dados a pesquisa bibliográfica e a entrevista. Participou do estudo, um adolescente do sexo masculino com 18 anos de idade, membro de um dos gangues de rua do bairro Rocha Pinto em Luanda. A pesquisa constatou que, é preciso haver um trabalho conjunto e multidisciplinar para que se resolva este problema. Concluiu-se que os indivíduos envolvidos à prática da delinquência juvenil como consequências estão propensos a mortes, prisões, desistência às aulas, rompimento com o pacto social e as leis da cultura. Palavras-chave: delinquência, conduta delinquente e consequências.

Maria da Luz Vale-Dias

ABSTRACT- Within Developmental Psychology there is a wide consensus on the complexity of antisocial behaviours, particularly during adolescence, a stage when multiple and important changes take place. Hence, we created a research project aimed at answering some questions about the antisocial phenomenon that still lack enlightening, especially regarding potential explaining variables such as social skills, self-concept, personality, family environment and socioeconomic status. We used a protocol including a sociodemographic questionnaire and the Portuguese versions of YSR (Fonseca & Monteiro, 1999); SSQ-Student Form (Mota, Matos, & Lemos, 2011); FES (Matos & Fontaine, 1992); PHCSCS-2 (Veiga, 2006), EPQ-J (Fonseca, 1989), and SPM-56 (Raven, Court & Raven, 1998). This was applied in five Educational Centres, to a sample of 121 boys between 14 and 20 years old (M=16.54). Results revealed some peculiarities in the sample, namely a strong prevalence of low socioeconomic status and of both overt and covert behavioural manifestations, with a higher frequency of theft and aggression. The predictive role of some personality, self-concept, family environment and self-control variables for the “Antisocial” and “Attention Problems/Hyperactivity” YSR scales was also evident. This research project makes evident that there are peculiarities in young delinquents as a specific group, that is, in what concerns their perceptions and individual, social, behavioural and familial characteristics. Therefore, we believe that considering our results for the design of new prevention and intervention programs may contribute for their efficacy. Keywords - development, delinquency, antisocial, behaviour, adolescence

José Edmilson de Souza-Lima

RESUMO: O presente artigo teve como intenção aproximar do campo jurídico as contribuições do escritor alemão Franz Kafka. Por intermédio de uma pesquisa bibliográficaa, analisou-se as concepções de identidade, mecanismos de dominação e burocratização do processo, todas inseridas no contexto kafkatino, trazendo ao Direito os pressupostos para a revaloração epistemológica. Assim, foi possível concluir que o desencanto jurídico em Kafka é também verificável no campo jurídico, uma vez que o mesmo é reflexo de fatores sociais. Logo, os distanciamentos entre sujeito o ordenamento podem se encurtar, uma vez que os fenômenos jurídicos sejam analisados sobre outros vieses, como, inclusive, pela Literatura. ABSTRACT: This article intends to bring the contributions of the German writer Franz Kafka to the legal field. Through a bibliographical research, the conceptions of identity, mechanisms of domination and bureaucratization of the process, all inserted in the kafkian context, were analyzed, bringing to the Law the presuppositions for the epistemological revaluation. Thus, it was possible to conclude that the legal disenchantment in Kafka is also verifiable in the legal field, since it is a reflection of social factors. Thus, the distances between subject and order can be shortened, once legal phenomena are analyzed over other biases, such as Literature.

PROTAGONISMO JUVENIL EM ENSINO DE INGLÊS: LEITURA CRÍTICA DE CANAL DO YOUTUBE

Ludmila Ameno

Fernando Barotti dos Santos

orientada pelo Professor Doutor Jorge Negreiros (FPCEUP)

Ana Paula Arrieira Simões

Miguel dos Santos Filho

Este texto discute algumas controvérsias que emergem em torno da categoria violénsia doméstika e das práticas de governo que visam combater tal fenômeno no Timor-Leste contemporâneo. Analisando práticas e discursos institucionais de agentes membros de ONGs, sediados sobretudo em Díli, capital do país, apresento alguns contrastes que se estabelecem entre estes e as representações e condutas de autoridades locais pelo interior do país (lideranças tradicionais, chefes de aldeia e chefes de suku). As investidas teóricas aqui propostas, voltam-se para a compreensão das relações e interações dissonantes estabelecidas entre diferentes agentes das esferas formais de justiça – e aqueles que as defendem, como as ONGs – e aqueles que advogam pelo funcionamento dos mecanismos locais de mediação de conflitos e que, ao mesmo tempo, defendem sensibilidades jurídicas (Geertz 1997) dissidentes das do direito positivo.

Gleidison Carvalho

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

EMILIO SARDE NETO

Ana Gabriela Ferreira

André Martins

Valmir Nascimento Milomem Santos

ANÁLISE DO DISCURSO DE TEXTOS DA ESFERA LITERÁRIA: REFLEXÕES E POSSIBILIDADES

Leonardo Soares

Revista Eletrônica Direito e Sociedade

Helidiony Barbosa

Fabiana Cajaíba

Gabriel Galil

Joao Mensurado

Luis Daniel Alves Lima

Bruno Boaventura

TUTELA JURÍDICA DA PESSOA COM DEFICIÊNCIA MENTAL OU INTELECTUAL: PROTEÇÃO DOS VULNERÁVEIS

Editora Thoth , Jussara Borges Ferreira

Eduardo J . S . Honorato

Stela Stafin

Cecilia Cintra Cavaleiro de Macedo

Márcia Cristina Ferreira Gonçalves , Márcia Cristina Ferreira Gonçalves

Caroline Alexandre

Augusto César Valle

Revista Da Estatistica Da Universidade Federal De Ouro Preto

JOSE ALBERTO CASTO NOGALES VERA

Jovanka C P I Leal

Guilherme Wilson

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

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

Here's how you know

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

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

NCJRS Virtual Library

Family-based approaches to juvenile delinquency: a review of the literature, additional details, availability, related topics.

Causes of Juvenile Delinquency. A Literature Review

Research Paper (postgraduate) , 2015 , 18 Pages , Grade: A

Autor:in: Louis Howell Jr (Author)

• eBook for only 13.99 € Download immediately. Incl. VAT Format: PDF and ePUB – for all devices
• Softcover for only 17.95 € Shipping worldwide

The causes of juvenile delinquency have being a field that many scholars have built their research on. In addition, causes leading to violent behavior especially among the youth has being widely studied aiming at intervention at an early stage (Schreck, Fisher, & Miller, 2012). In the vast field of psychology, human violence is a key element consequently; psychologists evaluate how the environment interacts with the individual to result in a violent act (Jessica, Osmond, & Ballick, 2014). Juvenile violence is a key issue in the corridors of justice on a global scale. However, juvenile violence focuses on the punishment rather than development of mechanisms that may be instrumental in prevention and intervention at early stage in life (Winterdyk, 2014). There are two outstanding themes in this literature review. First theme is that various life events and immediate environment including home, school, and neighborhood is essential in shaping ones trajectory as ones transit from childhood through adolescence to adulthood. The second theme is that identifying such life events is the determining factor of delinquent behavior. In summary, the pathway to crime for a child is greatly dependent on the social bonds that exist in the society.

Table Of Contents

Introduction

History of Juvenile Justice System

Risk Factors Contributing to Juvenile Delinquency Physical Conditions Mental conditions Home conditions School conditions Neighborhood conditions Occupation conditions Substance abuse correlation with juvenile delinquency Mass media influence juvenile delinquency How television shows and movies influence juvenile behavior Effects of violent video games on juvenile behavior The relationship between juvenile delinquency and the use of the internet The relationship between music and juvenile delinquency

Phases of Prevention and Intervention Pre-natal intervention Early childhood School age Intervening with status offenders Child abuse

• Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.

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

Here's how you know

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

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

Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Juvenile Justice Processing

Data have shown that youths of color are more likely than white youths to be arrested and subsequently go deeper into the juvenile justice system (e.g., Puzzanchera, 2021; Puzzanchera and Hockenberry, 2013; Sickmund et al., 2021; Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2021). Researchers have examined the contributing factors to these racial and ethnic disparities for decades, often testing hypotheses and theoretical frameworks related to differential offending and system biases (Leiber and Fix, 2019; Pope and Feyerherm, 1990; Pope, Lovell, and Hsia, 2002; Zane and Pupo, 2021). Most scholars acknowledge there are numerous factors at work and that this complex social problem cannot be reduced to either differential offending or differential treatment alone ( National Research Council, 2013). Much of the work to address racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system has been driven by amendments to the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) through the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Although some progress has been made and overall involvement in the juvenile justice system has been decreasing nationally, disparities continue to exist today, especially for Black and American Indian/Alaska Native youths (see Figures 1, 2a, and 2c).

This literature review covers racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system. It begins with definitions related to racial and ethnic disparities, which are followed by how disparities can be measured and a description of the scope of the problem. A brief history of the Core Requirement to address racial and ethnic disproportionality in the JJDPA is then presented, followed by a description of a large body of empirical studies that attempt to explain why there are disparities in juvenile justice. A brief overview is provided on some of the efforts to address racial and ethnic disparities that have been captured by research literature, followed, finally, by examples of programs related to the reduction of these disparities.

Definitions 

Terminology related to racial and ethnic disparity has changed over time. According to the JJDPA, amended in 2018, racial and ethnic disparity means minority youth populations are involved at a decision point in the juvenile justice system at disproportionately higher rates than nonminority youth at that decision point (Pub. L. 115–385, title I, §   102) and is often written as R.E.D., RED, R/ED, or ERD. From 2002 to 2018, OJJDP referred to this as disproportionate minority contact ( DMC ). Before that, DMC stood for disproportionate minority confinement . Confinement was changed to contact in 2002 because of disproportionality throughout all stages of the juvenile justice system (e.g., arrest, diversion, probation), and not merely at confinement (OJJDP, 2009a). 

The terms disproportionality and disparity often are used interchangeably to refer to rates of contact with any point of the juvenile justice system that are not the same among different races or ethnicities, regardless of the cause. However, their meanings differ slightly: disproportionality refers to the state of being out of proportion, while disparity refers to a state of being unequal (Abrams, Mizel, and Barnert, 2021; Dettlaff et al., 2011).

The term minority overrepresentation is still used by some organizations but increasingly has been replaced by either the term disparity or disproportion since minority youths often are underrepresented in receiving more - lenient outcomes such as diversion from court and probation placement after a finding of delinquency.

Juvenile justice contact points or decision points are terms used to refer to different points where youths have “contact” with the juvenile justice system (e.g., arrest, detention, petition). These two terms are frequently used interchangeably but referring to these stages as decision points shifts greater attention on the juvenile justice system decisionmakers who determine whether the youths will become involved in the system at that point.

Discrimination denotes between-group differences in outcomes based on the consideration of extralegal or illegitimate factors (Bishop, 2005). T he terms discrimination and bias are used when disparities appear to be caused by some intent on the part of the decisionmaker or when a system’s design puts minority youth at a disadvantage. Both individual and system bias can be intentional but often are unintentional or implicit (Fix, 2020; Goff et al., 2014; Gove, 2011; Tomaskovic–Devey and Warren, 2009).

Measuring Racial and Ethnic Disparity and Disproportionality

Disproportionality can be measured using various approaches, such as comparing proportions or using rates. Each of these measures identifies levels of disproportionality in a specific way.

• Proportions . When using proportions, the racial breakdown of youths in the general population is usually compared with the racial breakdown of youths at a certain point in the juvenile justice system. For example, someone may explain that while only 15 percent of all youths in the United States are Black, 41 percent of juveniles in the population committed to residential placement are Black, indicating racial disparities (Rovner, 2021a). Proportions at one point can also be compared with the proportions in the preceding point (or points) to see incremental changes. For example, one publication compared the representation of Black youth in the general population with five stages of the justice system (arrests, referrals to court, detention, residential placement, admission to adult prison), demonstrating their increasing involvement in the justice system in Pennsylvania (Shoenberg, 2012). In this case, Black youths made up less than 20 percent of the youth population but more than 25 percent of the arrests, more than 30 percent of the referrals, slightly less than 40 percent of the detained and placed youths, and almost 60 percent of the youths admitted to adult prison. There are some limitations to using proportions. It can be difficult to use proportions to compare disparities in different jurisdictions or to examine trends over time when the composition of the youth population changes (Feyerherm and Butts, 2002; Feyerherm, Snyder, and Villarruel, 2009). Also, when minority groups are in the majority (i.e., when most youths in a population are nonwhite), disparities may appear less evident than when using rates.
• Relative Rates. Another approach to measuring disproportionality is to use the relative rate index (RRI). The RRI compares the rates of processing for minority youth with the rates of processing for white youth. The RRI method describes the volume of activity from one contact point to the next and how it differs between w hite and minority youths, thereby isolating disproportionality at a particular point (e.g., comparing secure detention rates among the population of youth referred to court) (Feyerherm and Butts, 2002; Feyerherm, Snyder, and Villarruel, 2009). The RRI can also be based on the general youth population (e.g., comparing the incarceration rate based on the general youth population). Thus, as with using proportions, the RRI can consider the rates of processing at the previous point or compare rates from the general youth population.
• Rates . Rates and relative rates can show different aspects of disproportionality. For example, the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement provides the counts, percentages, and rates of youths in custody per 100,000 in the population. In the most recent census, Massachusetts had one of the lowest rates of residential placement for Black juveniles (133 per 100,000). However, because the rate for white juveniles in Massachusetts (19 per 100,000) was much lower than the Black rate, the Massachusetts' RRI is higher than the national average of 4.4 (see Figure 2a), indicating high levels of disproportionality in the state. By contrast, Indiana had one of the lowest population-based RRIs for Black youth, even though they had higher residential placement rates for Black youth than Massachusetts. Since the residential placement rate for Black youths in Indiana (298 per 100,000) was closer to the rate for white youths in Indiana (138 per 100,000), it had a much lower RRI than Massachusetts (RRI of 2.2 in Indiana compared with 7.0 in Massachusetts) but still a higher placement rate for Black youths than Massachusetts (Sickmund et al., 2021).

Counts, rates, proportions, and RRIs all direct policymakers and practitioners to the points of the juvenile justice system that may need more examination, but none of these measures identifies contributing mechanisms for this disproportionality (Hsia et al., 2006). Each of these measurement approaches has been used at different times by OJJDP (Harp, 2018; Leiber and Fix, 2019) and within the research literature (e.g., Leiber and Fix, 2019; Abrams, Mizel, and Barnert, 2021; Rovner, 2021b), as each measure provides unique information that is valuable for recognizing and monitoring disproportionality. As of 2019, OJJDP no longer accepts RRI to demonstrate compliance with the Core Requirement (see "Federal Legislation" section below).

Scope of the Problem

National data show that Black youths and other youths of color are more likely than white youths to be arrested, referred to court, petitioned after referral (i.e., handled formally), and placed in an out-of-home facility after being adjudicated (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2020; Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2021.).

In 2019, compared to white youths, Black youths were 2.4 times more likely and American Indian youths were 1.5 times more likely to be arrested. On the other hand, Asian youths were less likely than white youths to be arrested (OJJDP, 2020).

Juvenile court data generally provide more detail than arrest data, including information for Hispanic youths. In 2018, 52 percent of delinquency cases involving white youths in juvenile court were handled formally (instead of being handled informally—that is, without filing a petition for adjudication, such as through diversion), compared with 64 percent of cases involving Black youths, 58 percent of cases involving American Indian youths, 55 percent of cases involving Hispanic youths, and 54 percent of cases involving Asian youths. Also, after being adjudicated delinquent, cases involving Black juveniles and Hispanic juveniles were more likely to result in out-of-home placements (32 percent each) than cases involving youth of all other races/ethnicities (27 percent of cases involving American Indian juveniles, 23 percent of cases involving white juveniles, 20 percent of cases involving Asian juveniles) (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2020:58–59).

However, although Black youths tend to be pushed further into the system at most juvenile justice decision points than youths of other races/ethnicities, this is not always the case. Among cases handled formally in juvenile court, American Indian youths were the most likely to be adjudicated delinquent (59 percent), followed by Hispanic youths (57 percent), white youths (52 percent), Asian youths (49 percent), and finally Black youths (49 percent) [Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2020]. Similarly, a systematic review of empirical studies examining racial disparities in juvenile justice found that the adjudication decision was the least likely to show disadvantage toward youth of color, including Black youth (Spinney et al., 2018).

The previous two paragraphs describe disparities at each point, as youths move from one juvenile justice contact point to another. Point-in-time estimates at the deep end of the system can also demonstrate the prevalence of disparities relative to the whole population. For example, in 2019, the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement showed a rate of 315 Black youths in custody per 100,000 in the population, compared with 72 white youths per 100,000—a ratio of approximately 4.4 to 1.0 (Sickmund et al., 2021), which is the same as a population-based RRI of 4.4 (see Figure 2a). Data collected for Hispanic and American Indian youths have also indicated higher levels of placement than white youth, although these disparities have lessened for Hispanic youths (see Figure 2b) over time (Sickmund et al. 2021).

Nationally, the rate of juveniles in residential placement decreased from 356 per 100,000 in 1997 to 114 per 100,000 in 2019 (Sickmund et al., 2021). During this time, the residential placement rates decreased for all youth races (see Figure 1). However, disparities have not decreased in the same way for all. While it appears that disproportionality in residential placement has decreased for Hispanic youths, compared with white youths (as measured with a decreasing RRI from 2.3 in 1997 to 1.3 in 2019; see Figure 2b), it has remained relatively steady for Black youths (ranging from 3.9 to 5.0 since 1997; see Figure 2a). Disproportionality for American Indian youths appears to be increasing (see Figure 2c). Asian youths were less likely than white youths to be in a residential placement each year from 1997 to 2019, and this relative rate has deceased consistently from almost 1.0 in 2007 to about 0.25 in 2017 and 2019 (see Figure 2d).

Although these national rates provide an important snapshot, disparities vary from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, among different offense types, and by other demographics. For example, the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement provides juvenile placement rates by state and race, which demonstrate large differences in disproportionality: the population-based RRI for Black youth in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin is over 10.0, while it is less than 3.0 in Alabama, Indiana, New Mexico, and Wyoming; the population-based RRI for Native American youth is more than 10.0 in Nebraska and less than 1.0 in New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas (Sickmund et al. 2021).

State studies also find differences in disproportionality by jurisdiction. For example, Michigan data collected by the Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice show that Black youths were statistically significantly less likely to be securely detained than white youths in Kent County, but there was no statistically significant difference in Oakland County (Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice, 2021). Similarly, a DMC assessment study of Tennessee found that two major metropolitan areas had statistically significantly higher levels of disparities for Black youth, compared with rural areas of the state (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, 2012:64).

In terms of gender, state and national data show some differences in levels of disparity, although consistent trends have not emerged. For example, data from Florida show that statewide racial disparities are greater for Black boys than for Black girls at the arrest stages (RRI of 3.3 for Black boys and 2.6 for Black girls) and at the diversion stage (RRI of 0.7 for Black boys and 0.9 for Black girls [ 1 ] ) [Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, n.d.]. But racial disparities were the same for boys and girls in Florida at detention (RRI of 1.4 for both genders). Also, a Virginia study found that gender composition of racial/ethnic groups in Norfolk County varied among youth referred to juvenile court: 46 percent of the Hispanic youths referred to court were girls, compared with 39 percent of white youths and 36 percent of Black youths (Harig et al., 2012). Finally, a Nebraska study found that for white, Black, and Hispanic youth, males were statistically significantly more likely to be taken into custody than females, but for Native American youth, females were more likely to be taken into custody than males (Hobbs et al., 2012).

National data showing racial and ethnic compositions at various points of the juvenile justice system also demonstrate some differences by gender. For example, in the population of boys in residential placement in 2019, 33 percent were white, and 42 percent were Black; in the population of girls, 38 percent were white, and 35 percent were Black (Sickmund et al., 2021). Similarly, juvenile court data demonstrate differences in gender composition for certain charges. For example, among girls with drug charges in 2019, 61 percent were white, while 39 percent were minority; among boys with drug charges, 51 percent were white, while 49 percent were minority (Sickmund, Sladky, and Kang, 2021). However, for person offenses, the portion of the sample that was minority was higher for the boys than for the girls (58 percent, compared with 61 percent).

Finally, racial disparities vary by offense type. Arrest data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) show that both arrest rates and relative rates differ by offense. For example, Black youths were eight times more likely than white youths to be arrested for stolen property (buying, receiving, possessing) and seven times more likely to be arrested for robbery. However, they were less likely than white youths to be arrested for drunkenness, liquor laws, and driving under the influence. American Indian youths were six times more likely than white youths to be arrested for offenses against the family and children and five times more likely to be arrested for drunkenness, but they were less likely than white youths to be arrested for gambling, robbery, embezzlement, prostitution and commercialized vice, and forgery and counterfeiting. Offense types among the residential population also differ by race. Further, according to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement , although all races/ethnicities were most likely to be in residential placement for a person offense (35.7 percent) or a property offense (26.0 percent), white and Native American youths were overrepresented among status offenders (Sickmund et al., 2021).

[1] At the diversion stage, an RRI lower than 1 indicates disproportionality disadvantaging minority youth, since being diverted is a positive option.

Federal Legislation

Over the years, amendments to the federal  JJDPA of 1974 and OJJDP compliance requirements for states applying for and/or receiving JJDPA Formula Grant funding have provided direction on how states address racial and ethnic disparities. These amendments occurred in 1988, 1992, 2002, and 2018. 

First, the 1988 JJDP Act amendment contained a requirement that states address DMC (which at this point meant disproportionate minority confinement ) in their state plans. Then, in the 1992 amendment, the identification of DMC became a C ore R equirement, tying state compliance to future funding through the Formula Grants Program (OJJDP, 2013; OJJDP, n .d.a; OJJDP, n.d.b). Requirements in subsequent amendments were also tied to Formula Grant funding. 

Amendments in 2002 resulted in a requirement that states, "address juvenile delinquency prevention efforts and system improvement efforts designed to reduce, without establishing or requiring numerical standards or quotas, the disproportionate number of juvenile members of minority groups, who come into contact with the juvenile justice system" ( Pub. L. No. 107–273, 116 Stat. 1878 (23)). Between 2002 and 2018, states were required to submit data to OJJDP on the numbers of youths by race/ethnicity who came into contact with nine juvenile justice system points statewide , and for at least three targeted counties in the state. The nine juvenile justice points were 1) a rrest (law enforcement referral), 2) referral to court, 3) diversion, 4) secure detention, 5) petition filed (charged), 6) adjudication (delinquent, guilty finding), 7) probation supervision, 8) secure confinement, and 9) transfer to adult court (waiver).

OJJDP outlined a five-stage process for states to follow: 1) identify the extent to which DMC exists, 2) assess the reasons for DMC, 3) develop an intervention plan to address DMC, 4) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and 5) monitor DMC trends (OJJDP, 2009a). During this time, DMC was measured using the RRI.

In December 2018, the Juvenile Justice Reform Act was signed into law, again reauthorizing the JJDPA and amending certain parts of the Act. The amendments became effective on Oct. 1, 2019 (OJJDP, 2019b). The requirement to "address DMC" was changed to "identifying and reducing racial and ethnic disparities" (OJJDP, 2019a).  Other changes included a reduction in the number of decision points where states are required to track data, from 9 points to 5 points (OJJDP, 2019c), "where research has shown that potential disparity may occur":

• Diversion [filing of charges]
• Pretrial detention
• Disposition commitments
• Adult transfer [OJJDP, n.d.c]

OJJDP also began requiring that states measure disparities by using proportions instead of relative rates and that they submit plans with three-pronged strategies. The three prongs are to 1) submit statewide data for at least four of the five juvenile justice contact points (indicated above), by providing the percentage distribution of race or ethnic groups compared with the general population distribution, 2) develop an action plan to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, and 3) conduct an outcome-based evaluation by tracking changes in numbers, addressing whether goals were met, indicating what worked and what drove that success, identifying barriers to success, indicating how OJJDP can help, explaining how they will protect the public and hold offenders accountable, and forming goals for the following year ( OJJDP, n.d.c ).

Empirical Studies of Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Numerous national and jurisdiction-specific studies on racial and ethnic disparities have been conducted. These empirical studies differ from those that focus solely on rates, counts, and proportions because empirical studies attempt to better understand why the disproportionality is occurring. Between 2002 and 2018, OJJDP distinguished between these two stages, with the former being the "identification stage" and the latter being the "assessment stage."

Many of these empirical studies examine whether race had an effect on one or more juvenile justice decision points after controlling for other variables (e.g., offense severity, prior record, age, gender). Many of these studies are guided by research interests and are published in scholarly journals (e.g., Abrams, Mizel, and Barnert, 2021; Rodriguez, 2007; Leiber, Brubaker, and Fox, 2009; Freiburger and Burke, 2010; Zane, Mears, and Welsh, 2020), while another group of studies resulted from the OJJDP mandate for states to conduct DMC assessment studies and are generally published as reports available to the public (Donnelly and Asiedu, 2021).

Several large-scale, comprehensive efforts have been conducted that analyzed the body of research literature on racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice (Pope and Feyerherm, 1990; Pope, Lovell, and Hsia, 2002; Engen, Steen, and Bridges, 2002; Bishop, 2005; Bishop and Leiber, 2012; Spinney et al., 2018; Zane and Pupo, 2021). For example, one of these reviews (Spinney et al., 2018) was an OJJDP–funded review of articles from 2002 to 2014 evaluating the percentage of studies that found disparities, by decision point and by race/ethnicity. This study found that, while the picture that emerges collectively is complex, effects of race that disadvantage minority youths were found to exist at all decision points. This finding is similar to the results of other reviews, which found that race affects decisionmaking to some extent but also that other legal variables (such as prior offense and offense seriousness) and extralegal variables (such as age) also play key roles (Pope and Feyerherm, 1990; Pope, Lovell, and Hsia, 2002; Engen, Steen, and Bridges, 2002; Bishop, 2005; Bishop and Leiber, 2012; Zane and Pupo, 2021). The degree of these disparities can vary considerably by both decision point and race/ethnicity.

First, the extent of disparity varies across points in the process. For example, in the 2018 review by Spinney and colleagues described above, studies that included analysis of earlier decision points in the juvenile justice system (e.g., arrest, secure detention, and referral to court) overwhelmingly found there was some disadvantage to minority youths. However, fewer studies of later decision points (e.g., adjudication, probation, secure confinement, and disposition in adult court for transferred youths) found racial disadvantage to minority youths.

Second, levels of disparity at each point in the system vary by racial and ethnic group. A more-recent systematic review used meta-analytic techniques to analyze the data from studies of racial disparities. This review found there was a small average effect for some outcomes (e.g., detention) and no discernible average effect on others (e.g., petition, waiver, adjudication). Specifically, the authors found that

• For Black/white comparisons, there was evidence of small average race effects on detention and placement, a slight average effect on intake, and no average effects on petition, waiver, or adjudication.
• For Hispanic/white comparisons, there was evidence of a small average race effect on detention; slight average effects on petition, adjudication, and placement; and no average effects on intake or waiver.
• For nonwhite/white comparisons, there was evidence of small average effects on detention, intake, and waiver; a slight average effect on placement; and no average effect on petition or adjudication. [Zane and Pupo, 2021]

However, even small average race effects can make a large impact over the course of the many decisions in the juvenile justice system through cumulative disadvantage (Kurlychek and Johnson, 2019; Pope and Feyerherm, 1990; Zane, 2018). Cumulative disadvantage can be displayed in at least two different ways. First, simple accumulation occurs when a higher rate of arrest for minority youth is subsequently followed by a lower rate of diversion, higher rates of formal processing as delinquent, and so forth (Pope and Feyerherm, 1990; Spinney et al., 2018). Thus, although the differential treatment at any particular stage may appear "small," the cumulative impact across the entire juvenile justice system may be relatively large. Second, decisions made at earlier stages, such as detention, can affect outcomes at later stages—in particular, judicial disposition (Leiber and Fox, 2005; Mendel, 2014; Rodriguez, 2010). For example, one study of predictors of formal disposition in a large southern state found that the number of days spent in secure detention predicted formal disposition even after controlling for offense type, gang affiliation, weapon carrying, and extralegal factors (Caudill et al., 2013). However, minority youths are more likely to be detained than their white counterparts. Thus, although minority youths and white youths who have been detained may be treated similarly, because the minority youths are more likely to be detained, they are also more likely than to receive more severe dispositions than do their white counterparts.

An emerging body of literature has examined additional discretionary decisions. For example, a systematic review of 26 studies examining racial disparities among referrals to mental health and substance misuse services from within the juvenile justice system found that the majority of studies showed at least some race effects in the decision to refer youths (Spinney et al., 2016). Another study (Ogle, 2019) examined whether there were racial and ethnic disparities in the use of solitary confinement among pre-adjudicatory youth in juvenile detention centers in Florida, finding that Black youths had 68.8 percent greater odds of being placed in solitary confinement than white youths, even after incorporating statistical controls for relevant factors such as risk to reoffend. Researchers also have examined other decision points, including failure to appear for court hearings (Walker et al., 2019), probation violations ( Gale–Bentz, 2019; Leiber and Peck, 2013), and being written up for new offenses while institutionalized (Oglesby–Neal and Peterson, 2021). Similarly, some researchers have examined racial disparities in pathways into the juvenile justice system, specifically in referrals from schools (Blad and Harwin, 2017; Hughes, Raines, and Malone, 2020).

Contributing Factors to Racial and Ethnic Disparities

Often racial and ethnic disparity is presented as being caused by differential offending (i.e., youths of color commit more crimes or commit more serious crimes) or differential treatment (i.e., the juvenile justice system treats youths of color differently). Differential offending is also referred to as differential involvement or differential behavior , and differential treatment is also referred to as differential selection or systems factors . These two theoretical frameworks have largely helped frame discussions and studies (Bishop, 2005), for these key theoretical distinctions suggest independent causal mechanisms that account for racial and ethnic disparities (Zane and Pupo, 2021). 

The differential offending framework centers on the individual and refers to differing rates at which youths from various racial and ethnic subgroups are involved in delinquent activity. Differential behavior results when minority youths are involved in more serious crime, participate more deeply in gang activity, begin delinquent activity at earlier ages, and are involved in other social service– or justice-related systems such as the child welfare system (Leiber, Richetelli, and Feyerherm, 2009). This perspective requires that causes of differential involvement be sought outside the court system by looking at individual, family, and neighborhood factors that are related to offending (e.g., Piquero, Moffitt, and Lawton, 2005; Tracy, 2005). For example, Fite, Wynn, and Pardini (2009) found that much of the difference in arrest rates between white and Black boys was attributable to higher levels of both individual and contextual risk factors for Black boys across multiple domains.

In this framework, legal factors are often related to "minority-centered contexts of risk" (National Research Council, 2013:224), such as

• Economically disadvantaged and unstable communities and neighborhood social contexts (Fite, Wynn, and Pardini, 2009; Sampson, Morenoff, and Raudenbush, 2005; Moak et al., 2012)
• Low-performing institutions, especially public schools ( Hirschfield, 2018; Sharkey and Sampson, 2010)
• Delinquent peers (Fite, Wynn, and Pardini, 2009; Haynie and Payne, 2006)
• Family risk factors such as unmarried or single parents, incarcerated parents, poor parent– child communication, death of a parent, and harsh, lax, or inconsistent discipline (Fite, Wynn, and Pardini, 2009; Jarjoura et al., 2013; Maguire–Jack, Lanier, and Lombardi, 2020; Sampson, Morenoff, and Raudenbush, 2005; Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider, 2013)
• Greater exposure to violence (Kilpatrick, Saunders, and Smith, 2003; Maguire–Jack, Lanier, and Lombardi, 2020) 

Further, the allocation of prevention and treatment resources within communities is seldom uniform or universally accessible across an entire community. In some instances, those allocations create a disadvantage for minority youth (Leiber, Richetelli, and Feyerherm, 2009). For example, effective programs may be geographically inaccessible to minority youth in a jurisdiction, or existing programs may be designed for white, suburban youth. Thus, retention and outcomes for minority urban youth are weak. The National Research Council concluded that the “totality of these risk factors is such that minority youths are born into and raised in severely compromised familial, community, and educational environments that set the stage for a range of adverse behaviors and outcomes, including problems in school, relationships, and engaging in prosocial behavior” (2013:224). 

The differential treatment framework perspective, by contrast, generally concentrates on the structure of justice decisionmaking acts that can disadvantage minority youth (e.g., Leiber, 2003; Pope and Feyerherm, 1990). This perspective, also known as bias theory , argues that minority youths are more likely than w hite youths to suffer harsher consequences at each stage of the juvenile justice decisionmaking process because the system treats minority youths differently (and more punitively). This theoretical orientation expects to find differential treatment of minority youth even after accounting for legal, and often extralegal (e.g., age, socioeconomic status, school status), factors (e.g., Mallett and Stoddard–Dare, 2010). The differential treatment framework centers on the juvenile justice system to explain disparities and is the approach that most frequently characterizes empirical studies of racial and ethnic disparities (e.g., Leiber, 2003; Leiber, Brubaker, and Fox, 2009; Richetelli, Hartstone, and Murphy, 2009). 

A contributing factor related to differential treatment is justice by geography (Leiber, Richetelli, and Feyerherm, 2009) . Minority youths may live in jurisdictions that have stricter law enforcement or harsher judges, compared with jurisdictions where white youths live (Bray, Sample, and Kempf–Leonard, 2005; Leiber, Richetelli, and Feyerherm, 2009; Taylor et al., 2012). For example, a Massachusetts DMC assessment study found that police tend to patrol urban minority neighborhoods more aggressively than suburban areas where fewer minorities reside. Thus, the likelihood of arrest is much higher for minority youth than white youth in this state (Kaufman, 1997). 

Another explanation for differential treatment includes legislation, policies, and legal factors (Leiber, Richetelli, and Feyerherm, 2009). Policies enacted through legislation or administrative action may sometimes contain elements that create a disadvantage for minority youth. For example, statutes that define drug offenses tend to treat crack cocaine more seriously than powdered cocaine, which, given the usage patterns for the two forms of cocaine, creates a disadvantage for minority youth (Birckhead, 2017; Leiber, Richetelli, and Feyerherm, 2009). Zero-tolerance policies and other harsh discipline practices in school also adversely affect students of color (Dunbar and Villarruel, 2004; Hirschfield, 2018). 

Differential processing or inappropriate decisionmaking is another contributing mechanism that can explain differential treatment . Differential processing or inappropriate decisionmaking results when the criteria used to make decisions in the system are either not applied consistently across all groups of youth or when the criteria are structured in a manner that disadvantages some groups. One example of differential processing or inappropriate decisionmaking is the use of the term gang related , which is cited frequently as a factor in decisions about how to handle juveniles. To assess gang-related impact, it is important to know how a jurisdiction defines the term and whether the “gang related” question is asked only of youth from certain communities. If so, then use of this criterion likely will place minority youth at some disadvantage relative to white youth—especially w hite youth from community areas not believed to be gang affiliated (Birckhead, 2017; Leiber, Richetelli, and Feyerherm, 2009). Another example is related to parenting structure. Some courts, fearing lack of supervision, may be more likely to use secure detention if the child is from a single-parent home. If minority youths are more likely to live in single-parent homes (Vespa, Lewis, and Kreider, 2013), these decisions will contribute to disparities (Leiber, Richetelli, and Feyerherm, 2009), regardless of the family’s ability to supervise their child. 

Another contributing factor that has increasingly gotten more attention is implicit bias and its role in the many decisions made about juveniles as they move through (or are diverted from) the juvenile justice system (Darling–Hammond, 2017; Glenn, 2019; Marsh, 2009; National Juvenile Justice Network, 2017). Whereas explicit bias is a conscious preference (positive or negative) for a social category, implicit bias is a preference (positive or negative) for a social category that operates outside of awareness (Marsh, 2009). Although the research focused on exploring the link between implicit bias and racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice is limited (Glenn, 2019), many of the interventions aimed at reducing discretion in judicial decisionmaking are based on the belief that this discretion is influenced by bias, and more specifically by implicit bias. These interventions include two main approaches: 1) the use of risk assessment instruments (see below) and 2) trainings designed to reduce implicit bias among justice system decisionmakers by targeting implicit bias itself (e.g., Fix, 2020; Worden et al., 2020). 

In addition to these examples of how differential treatment may occur, there are several related academic theories that may also explain differential treatment. The racial or symbolic threat theory (Ousey and Lee, 2008; Moak et al., 2012), within the differential treatment framework, focuses on the social–psychological processes behind decisions that disadvantage one or more racial/ethnic groups compared with others (Kurtz, Linnemann, and Spohn, 2008). In this framework, decisionmakers are influenced by emotions driven by the perception of minority youth as threatening to middle-class standards and public safety (Leiber and Fox, 2005). Reference is often made to the work of scholars such as Tittle and Curran (1988), who explored how negative perceptions of Black youth and stereotypes affect decisionmakers. A recent study expanded the definition of “threat” and found that higher rates of county-level homicide prosecutions and racial differences in unemployment were associated with secure detention and placement of youth (Fix et al., 2021). The authors concluded that racial threat and other theories aiming to explain racial disparities should be reexamined and modified to include markers of violent and sexual offenses. 

Similarly, labeling theory posits that dominant groups maintain their status by using labels to define deviant or criminal behavior and disenfranchise certain other groups (Tapia, 2010). One example of labeling theory is when youths who experience police stops align their identities with the delinquent label and subsequently engage in illegal activities (McGlynn–Wright et al., 2020). For example, one recent study found that being stopped or arrested not only increased future delinquency but also amplified deviant attitudes (Wiley and Esbensen, 2016). 

Other theories from the differential treatment framework include individual-level approaches such as attribution theory , which posits that decisionmakers may rely on internal and external factors they perceive to be linked to blameworthiness and delinquent behavior (Lowery and Burrow, 2019; Rodriguez, 2007:633), and focal concerns theory , which examines the factors that guide actors’ decisions in the justice system and the mechanisms by which these focal concerns shape final case outcomes (Harris, 2009). 

In terms of attribution theory, researchers have demonstrated that juvenile justice decisionmakers are more likely to assign negative internal attributes (e.g., personality, attitude, cooperativeness) to youths of color and negative external attributes (e.g., delinquent peers, family conflict, school issues) to white juveniles; this is an important finding, for researchers have found that decisions are influenced more by negative internal attributes than by negative external attributes (Bridges and Steen, 1998; Beckman and Rodriguez, 2021). To empirically test the negative attributions theory, a recent study of diversion decisions found that youths of color were more likely to be linked to negative internal attributions in their files, in comparison with white youths, and that negative internal attributions in turn decreased the probability of receiving diversion (Beckman and Rodriguez, 2021). Another recent study examined the effects and intersections of race, legal characteristics, and macro-level community characteristics on juvenile institutionalization through the lens of attribution theory, concluding that race does influence confinement decisions (Lowery and Burrow, 2019). 

Several studies have applied a focal-concerns framework to explain racial disparities in juvenile justice by examining the differences in the focal concerns of decisionmakers at different points of the system (Bishop, Leiber, and Johnson, 2010; Ericson and Eckberg, 2016). A key assertion of the focal concerns framework is that decisionmakers have limited time and information to make decisions, so they develop “perceptual shorthand,” which is often conditioned by stereotypes, extralegal factors, and legal cues (Hartley, Maddan, and Spohn 2007; Hawkins 1981; Ishoy and Dabney, 2018). The juvenile system consists of a several different independent bureaucracies that are responsible for decisions at different points of the process, and each set of bureaucracies contributes some outcome or information that pertains to the next point. Bishop, Leiber, and Johnson (2010) hypothesized that focal concerns would influence outcomes at loosely coupled points (intake, detention, disposition), but not at tightly coupled points (petition, adjudication), and found that their findings were generally consistent with these expectations. 

Another explanation under the differential treatment framework is the liberation hypothesis ( Guevara et al., 2011; Spohn and Cederblom, 1991). This hypothesis posits that in less-serious cases and when evidence is less conclusive, there is more ambiguity for decisionmakers, thus decisions are more likely to be influenced by race or other extralegal factors. In other words, the decisionmakers are “liberated” from legal constraints and therefore individualize the decision on a variety of factors, including racial and ethnic biases. Though limiting decisionmaker discretion using culturally competent, standardized decisionmaking tools is a main component of most approaches designed to reduce racial and ethnic disparities (e.g., Cabaniss et al., 2007; Center for Children’s Law and Policy, 2015; Hinton Hoytt et al., 2003; Nellis, 2005), some studies have failed to find support for the liberation hypothesis, which posits that this discretion is a contributing factor to disparities. In their study of juvenile court referrals in a northeastern state, Beaudry–Cyr and colleagues (2020) failed to find support for their hypothesis that extralegal factors would have a diminishing effect on case outcomes as the severity of the case increased. Similarly, in their study of factors that influence pre-adjudication and disposition outcomes between an urban and suburban county, Taylor and colleagues (2012) found there were more varying effects of legal and extralegal factors across race in the urban county than in the suburban county. Their interpretation of the liberation hypothesis was that there would be more of a due-process orientation in the urban locations, which would result in greater reliance on legal factors; their findings did not support this hypothesis. 

Various scholars have identified shortcomings in looking exclusively at either the differential offending framework or the differential treatment framework (e.g., Tracy, 2005; Pope and Feyerherm, 1990; Bishop, 2005). With a complex social problem such as racial and ethnic disparity, numerous factors are likely at work, including poverty, segregation, educational challenges, residential instability, and the broader “racialized society” in which many institutional practices, public policies, and cultural representations operate (National Research Council, 2013). Thus, racial/ethnic disparities are “not reducible to either differential offending or differential selection” (National Research Council, 2013). 

In addition to differential involvement and differential treatment, Engen and colleagues (2002) proposed two other perspectives: macro-contextual explanations and structural–processual explanations. Both mention that differential treatment may take place in some contexts but not in others (Zane and Pupo, 2021). The key issue for the structural–processual perspective is the separate and interrelated decisions of system processing, while the macro-contextual explanations focus on larger societal and community-levels factors (Rodriguez, 2007; Sampson and Wilson, 1995).

Outcome Evidence

The current literature measuring the effectiveness of interventions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities generally involves comparing numbers, percentages, rates, or relative rates before and after the implementation of an intervention. Changes in disparities can happen at the local, state, or federal level. Thus, researchers must be clear on how and where changes in disparities are targeted and measured.

Several frameworks and strategies for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice have been developed, promoted, implemented, and evaluated. Leiber and Fix (2019) examined the effect of three of these large-scale initiatives: 1) the OJJDP requirement to address racial disparities in the JJDPA, 2) the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) model (often implemented in partnership with the W. Haywood Burns Institute), and 3) the MacArthur Foundation's Models for Change initiative. Overall, the study found that these three efforts were often ineffective, though some practices had mixed support. They concluded that the common factors found to effectively reduce racial and ethnic disparities included

• Access to data collection and utilization.
• Stability in terms of employment for those receiving services.
• Collaboration among various agencies.
• Affiliation with other efforts to prevent delinquency and racial and ethnic disparities.
• System change (most notably in the form of developing and implementing racially and ethnically neutral objective decisionmaking tools).
• Cultural competence training.
• Commitment to disparity reduction in the short and long terms.
• State and local leadership.
• Long-term partnerships with universities and/or people trained in methodologies to aid in the study, implementation, and evaluation of strategies and interventions.

Before the Leiber and Fix study, an OJJDP–funded study identified nine jurisdictions that were able to decrease racial disparities as measured by the RRI and conducted case study research to describe the interventions that led to these reductions (Spinney et al., 2014). The researchers found that jurisdictions that successfully reduced disparities in their systems used nine primary strategies, several of which were identified by Leiber and Fix (above). In addition to the strategies identified by Leiber and Fix, the Spinney and colleagues (2014) case study research identified the following additional strategies: shifting the institutional culture from a punitive or procedural focus toward a focus on what was best for the youths and the community; creation of alternatives to secure detention, secure confinement, and formal system involvement; directing reduction interventions at the system (and not at the youths); and changing policies, procedures, and laws.

One example of a successful jurisdiction in the Spinney and colleagues (2014) study was Bernalillo County, NM, a jurisdiction that was able to decrease disproportionality (as measured by the RRI) in arrests, [ 2 ] referrals to court, and diversions from the juvenile justice system for Black, Hispanic, and Native American youths. For example, in 2004, the arrest rate for Black youth was 16.4 per 100 youths while the white arrest rate was 8.8 per 100 youths, resulting in an RRI of 1.9. By 2010, the Black arrest rate had declined to 7.1, while the white arrest rate declined to 6.6, resulting in an RRI of 1.1. [ 3 ] Bernalillo County’s sustained reductions in racial disparities at multiple stages of the juvenile justice system for Black, Hispanic, and Native American youths was likely a result of multiple strategies designed primarily around systems reform, attention to data, and increasing community-based services for court-involved youth. Strategies included implementation of the JDAI framework, emphasis on reducing the number of youths in secure detention, enhanced services for detained youths after returning to the community, establishment of a unit to increase access to diversion, and involvement of multiple partners over long periods of time in their efforts, even when individuals moved to new positions.

Several other publications describe reductions in racial and ethnic disparities (Hinton Hoytt et al., 2003; Nellis and Richardson, 2010; Shoenberg, 2012; Spinney et al., 2014). For example, a study of an intervention to reduce failures to appear in court in one jurisdiction was evaluated to identify whether there was a reduction in disparities as a result (Walker et al., 2019). The authors found that although the program significantly reduced the likelihood of youths failing to appear in court at the first court hearing following a summons (arraignment), it did not affect subsequent hearings and had no effect on reducing racial disparities. Another study that examined the use of a risk assessment instrument (RAI) in a midsized county in the Midwest found that the instrument did not eliminate racial and ethnic disparity in secure detention placements; however, that study suggested that the use of an RAI may reduce the effect of race on detention placement decisions (Mallett and Stoddard–Dare, 2010).

At least two evaluations examined the effect of multifaceted juvenile justice reforms at the state level. Donnelly (2019) examined changes in racial and ethnic disparities at secure detention and placement decisions in three Pennsylvania counties after the implementation of several juvenile justice reforms. Reforms included development of alternatives to secure detention and placement, revision of a RAI to inform detention proceedings, modification of the placement decisionmaking guidelines and process, and partnership with the Models for Change initiative. The author of the study found that the reforms resulted in a greater reliance on legal factors in decisionmaking, which should moderate the effect of race on processing outcomes.

Zane (2021) examined whether racial and ethnic disparities declined in Connecticut between 2000 and 2010, after the state had made substantial reforms, which included police training for working effectively with youth, development of a model memorandum of understanding for police officers and schools to use to reduce school-based arrests and referrals to court, funding for projects to build relationships between youth and police in local jurisdictions, and establishing two informational campaigns: Just.Start, which focused on addressing disparities in the juvenile justice system, and Right Response CT, which concentrated on schools and police knowing the “right response” to youth misbehavior. During this period, there was steady leadership from the Juvenile Justice Specialist, and the State Advisory Group later contributed to developing and executing these strategies (Spinney et al, 2014). Zane (2021) found that Black–white disparities in detention decreased over time. However, Black–white disparities increased for petition, adjudication, and waiver, and Hispanic–white disparities increased for adjudication (while not changing for other outcomes). Another analysis of changes in racial disparities in Connecticut found that during 2006–12 the RRI values at referral to court declined from 2.9 to 1.6 for Hispanic youth and from 6.3 to 4.7 for African American youth (Spinney et al., 2014).

Given the methodological challenges of evaluating comprehensive interventions to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, most of the more rigorous program evaluations examine the effect of specific, direct services to reduce differential offending among youths of color, which is just one of many plausible contributing factors.

A few programs are designed specifically for youths of color. For example, Protecting Strong African American Families (ProSAAF) is designed to improve family functioning and enhance youth development by targeting parents’ relationships and parenting skills. One study found that families who participated in ProSAAF saw statistically significant improvements in parental monitoring, self-concept, conduct problems, and substance-use initiation (Beach et al., 2016). Project Venture is a prevention program designed for at-risk Native American youths. This outdoor experiential program resulted in statistically significant reductions in the growth of substance use, including alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit substances (Carter, Straits, and Hall, 2007).

In addition to programs designed specifically for youths of color, mainstream programs can also result in positive outcomes. A meta-analysis of 350 studies of programs addressing juvenile delinquency found no evidence that mainstream delinquency intervention programs yield poorer outcomes for minority youth than for white youth (Wilson, Lipsey, and Soydan, 2003). Thus, targeting those interventions to youths of color may reduce disparities in a jurisdiction. Some examples of evidence-based intervention programs from the Model Programs Guide include the following:

The Child–Parent Center Program is a school- and family-based early intervention program that provides comprehensive educational and family support services to economically disadvantaged children. A longitudinal study that followed more than 1,500 predominantly Black children growing up in a high-poverty area of Chicago, IL, found that this intervention resulted in statistically significant declines in substance use, incarceration rates, and felony arrest rates at age 24 (Reynolds and Ou, 2011).

The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project is a comprehensive gang violence reduction program with five core elements: 1) community mobilization, 2) social intervention, 3) provision of social opportunities, 4) suppression, and 5) organization change and development of local agencies and groups. An evaluation of the project in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago, which is predominantly Hispanic, found that the intervention resulted in statistically significant reductions in total violent crime, serious violent crime, and drug crime arrests (Spergel et al., 2003).

Project BUILD (Broader Urban Involvement and Leadership Development, now the BUILD Violence Intervention Curriculum), is a violence prevention curriculum designed to help youths in detention overcome problems they may face in their communities, such as gangs, drugs, and crime. The program is designed to intervene in the lives of youths who have come into contact with the juvenile justice system to reduce recidivism and diminish the prospects that they will become adult offenders. A 2000 study by Lurigio and colleagues found that youths who participated in Project BUILD had statistically significantly lower rates of recidivism, compared with nonparticipants.

However, these interventions do not address community-level and systems-level contributing factors to racial disparities, which many practitioners, policymakers, and advocates identify as the most important to address.

[2] Bernalillo County refers to arrests as "law enforcement referrals to probation."

[3] An RRI of 1.0 would indicate no disproportionality.

The existence of racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. juvenile justice system is a complex issue. Its causes are multifaceted, and methodologically rigorous studies linking interventions to systemwide decreases in these disparities are not available (National Research Council, 2013:234–235). The evaluations that do exist find mixed results. Exacerbating the difficulty of addressing this issue is the fact that disparities exist well before contact with the juvenile justice system has occurred—in child welfare, the foster care system, school readiness, school performance, and school suspensions and expulsions (HHS, 2021; Knott and Giwa, 2012; Morris and Perry, 2016). Youths of color are more likely to live in single-parent families, in poverty, in disadvantaged communities with low performing schools, and in high-crime areas (Hirschfield, 2018; Moak et al., 2012; National Research Council, 2013). Given the problem’s extent and complexity, this issue is difficult to address. 

The 2013 National Research Council report on reforming juvenile justice summarized the continued need to address this complex issue: 1) the existence of racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system raises questions of bias, fairness, and legitimacy regarding its functioning; and 2) these disparities raise questions about the larger life-course trajectories of many youths in minority communities who may become marked by criminal records early in life (2013:211). 

Since 1988, OJJDP has mandated that states participating in the federal Title II Formula Grant Program address racial and ethnic disparities, and jurisdictions across the United States have made attempts to reduce these disparities. Although there is no conclusive evidence of what works to eliminate racial disparities, appropriate responses most likely require a multifaceted approach (Cabaniss et al., 2007; Center for Children’s Law and Policy, 2015; Donnelly, 2019; OJJDP, 2009b; Pope, Lovell, and Hsia, 2002; Spinney et al., 2014; Spinney et al., 2018).

Abrams, L.S., Mizel, M.L., and Barnert, E.S. 2021. The criminalization of young children and overrepresentation of Black youth in the juvenile justice system. Race and Social Problems 13(1):73–84.

Beach, S.R.H., Barton, A.W., Lei, M.K., Mandara, J. Wells, A.C., Kogan, S.M., and Brody, G.H. 2016. Decreasing substance use risk among African American youth: Parent-based mechanisms of change. Prevention Science  17:572–83.

Beaudry–Cyr, M., Leiber, M., Brubaker, S.J., and Jaynes, C. 2020. The liberation hypothesis perspective and juvenile court outcomes: Implications for an understanding of the interplay between offender and offense characteristics. Crime & Delinquency 66(6–7):806–836.

Beckman, L., and Rodriguez, N. 2021. Race, ethnicity, and official perceptions in the juvenile justice system: Extending the role of negative attributional stereotypes.  Criminal Justice and Behavior 00938548211004672.

Birckhead, T.R. 2017. The racialization of juvenile justice and the role of the defense attorney. Boston College Law Review 58(2):379–461.

Bishop, D.M. 2005. The role of r ace and ethnicity in juvenile justice processing. In D.F. Hawkins and K. Kempf–Leonard, eds. Our Children, Their Children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bishop, D.M., and Leiber, M. 2012. Race, ethnicity, and juvenile justice: Racial and ethnic differences in delinquency and justice system responses. In D. Bishop and B. Feld, eds. Juvenile Justice . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bishop, D.M., Leiber, M., and Johnson, J. 2010. Contexts of decision making in the juvenile justice system: An organizational approach to understanding minority overrepresentation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8:213–233.

Blad, E., and Harwin, A. 2017. Black students more likely to be arrested at school. Education Week (January 24). Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/leadership/black-students-more-likely-to-be-arrested-at-school/2017/01

Bray, T.M., Sample, L.L., and Kempf–Leonard, K. 2005. Justice by geography: Racial disparity and juvenile courts. In D.F. Hawkins and K. Kempf–Leonard, eds. Our Children, Their Children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bridges, G.S., and Steen, S. 1998. Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review 63:554–570.

Cabaniss, E.R., Frabutt, J.M., Kendrick, M.H., and Arbuckle, M.B. 2007. Reducing disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system: Promising practices.  Aggression and Violent Behavior 12(4):393–401.

Carter, S.L., Straits, K.J.E., and Hall, M. 2007.  Project Venture: Evaluation of a Positive, Culture-Based Approach to Substance Abuse Prevention With American Indian Youth . Technical Report. Gallup, N.M.: National Indian Youth Leadership Project.

Caudill, J.W., Morris, R.G., Sayed, S.E., Yun, M., and DeLisi, M. 2013. Pathways through the juvenile justice system: Predictors of formal disposition.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 11(3):183–195.

Center for Children’s Law and Policy. 2015. Racial and Ethnic Disparities Reduction Practice Manual . Washington, DC: Center for Children’s Law and Policy.

Darling–Hammond, S. 2017. Designed to fail: Implicit bias in our nation’s juvenile courts . Juvenile Law and Policy 21:169.

Dettlaff, A.J., Rolock, N., Cryer, Q., and Thomas, K. 2011. Identifying and Describing Disproportionality and Disparities in Child Welfare: A Critical Discussion of Race and Research Methods. Presentation to Child Welfare Collaborative. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Jane Addams College of Social Work.

Donnelly, E.A. 2019. Do disproportionate minority contact (DMC) mandate reforms change decisionmaking? Decomposing disparities in the juvenile justice system.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 17(3):288–308.

Donnelly, E.A., and Asiedu, C.O. 2021. Meeting the disproportionate minority contact (DMC) mandate: Lessons from state assessments of minority overrepresentation and racial/ethnic disparities in juvenile justice systems.  Journal of Crime and Justice , DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2021.1952102

Dunbar, C. Jr., and Villarruel, F.A. 2004. What a difference the community makes: Zero tolerance policy interpretation and implementation. Equity and Excellence in Education 37(4):351–359.

Engen, R.L., Steen, S., and Bridges, G.S. 2002. Racial disparities in the punishment of youth: A theoretical and empirical assessment of the literature. Social Problems 49(2):194–220.

Ericson, R.D., and Eckberg, D.A. 2016. Racial disparity in juvenile diversion: The impact of focal concerns and organizational coupling.  Race and Justice 6(1):35–56.

Feyerherm, W., and Butts, J. 2002. Proposed Methods for Measuring Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). Presentation sponsored by U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).

Feyerherm, W., Snyder, H.N., and Villarruel, F. 2009. Identification. Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Manual, Fourth Edition . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP.

Fite, P.J., Wynn, P., and Pardini, D.A. 2009. Explaining d iscrepancies in a rrest rates between Black and White male juveniles. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(5):916–927.

Fix, R.L. 2020. Justice is not blind: A preliminary evaluation of an implicit bias training for justice professionals. Race and Social Problems  12(4):362–374.

Fix, R.L., Fanniff, A.M., Kline, J.L., and Letourneau, E.J. 2021. Disproportionate minority contact: An expanded examination of how threat of violent and sexual offending impacts court outcomes. Race and Justice : 21533687211032315.

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. n.d. Disproportionate minority contact/racial ethnic disparities benchmark report FY 2019–20. DMC RED Profile FY2019–20 . Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. https://www.djj.state.fl.us/research/reports-and-data/interactive-data-reports/disproportionate-minority-contact-reports/dmc-red-profile-fy2019-20

Freiburger, T.L., and Burke, A.S. 2010. Adjudication of Black, White, Hispanic, and Native American y outh in j uvenile c ourt. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 8(4):231–247.

Gale–Bentz, E.W. 2019.  Do Juvenile Probation Officer Recommendations Mediate the Relationship Between Youth Behaviors and Supervision Review Hearing Outcomes? Dissertation. Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University.

Glenn, J.W. 2019. Beyond skin deep: Understanding disproportionate minority contact through ethnocultural implicit bias and the decision-making process among juvenile system gatekeepers. Journal of Applied Juvenile Justice Services 32–46.

Goff, P.A., Jackson, M.C., Lewis Di Leone, B.A., Culotta, C.M., and DiTomasso, N.A. 2014. The e ssence of i nnocence: Consequences of d ehumanizing Black c hildren. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106(4):526–545.

Gove, T.G. 2011. Implicit b ias and l aw e nforcement. Police Chief ( October).

Guevara, L., Boyd, L.M., Taylor, A.P., and Brown, R.A. 2011. Racial disparities in juvenile court outcomes: A test of the liberation hypothesis.  Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 9(3):200–217.

Harig, T., Feyerherm, W., Cohen, M.I., Stephenson, R., and Spinney, E. 2012. Statewide Assessment of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in the Virginia Juvenile Justice System: Final Report . Bethesda, MD: Development Services Group.

Harp, C. 2018, June 19. OJJDP Is Simplifying Title II Work to Focus on DMC Reduction, Not Process. Op–Ed Blog Post. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/news/blogs/Simplifying-Title-II-Work-to-Focus-on-DMC-Reduction

Harris, A. 2009. Attributions and institutional processing: How focal concerns guide decision-making in the juvenile court.  Race and Social Problems  1(4):243–256.

Hartley, Richard D., Maddan, S., and Spohn, C.C. 2007. Concerning conceptualization and operationalization: sentencing data and the focal concerns perspective: A research note. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice 4(1):58–78.

Hawkins, D. 1981. Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior 1:207–230.

Haynie, D.L., and Payne, D.C. 2006. Race, friendship networks, and violent delinquency. Criminology 44(4):775–805.

[HHS] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Children’s Bureau. 2021.  Child Maltreatment 2019 . Washington, DC: HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children's Bureau.

Hinton Hoytt, E., Schiraldi, V., Smith, B.V., and Ziedenberg, J. 2003. Reducing r acial d isparities in the j uvenile j ustice s ystem. Chapter 8. Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform. Baltimore, Md.: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Hirschfield, P.J. 2018. The role of schools in sustaining juvenile justice system inequality. The Future of Children 28(1):11–36.

Hobbs, A., Neeley, E., Behrens, C., and Wulf–Ludden, T. 2012. Nebraska State DMC Assessment. Lincoln, NE: UNO Juvenile Justice Institute.

Hockenberry, S., and Puzzanchera, C. 2020. Juvenile Court Statistics 2018. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

Hsia, H., Feyerherm, W., Snyder, H., Soler, M., Leiber, M., Cohen, M.I., Gies, S., and Nellis, A. 2006. Reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact. Presentation at the Disproportionate Minority Contact Conference. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJD P.

Hughes, T., Raines, T., and Malone, C. 2020. School pathways to the juvenile justice system. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences  7(1):72–79.

Ishoy, G.A., and Dabney, D.A. 2018. Policing and the focal concerns framework: Exploring how its core components apply to the discretionary enforcement decisions of police officers. Deviant Behavior 39(7):878–895.

Jarjoura, G.R., DuBois, D.L., Shlafer, R.J., and Haight, K.A. 2013. Mentoring Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Synthesis of Research and Input from the Listening Session Held by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the White House Domestic Policy Council and Office of Public Engagement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP.  http://www.ojjdp.gov/about/MentoringCOIP2013.pdf

Kaufmann, C.F. 1997. Disproportionate Minority Confinement in Massachusetts . Boston, MA: Statistical Analysis Center.

Kilpatrick, D.G., Saunders, B.E., and Smith, D.W. 2003. Youth Victimization: Prevalence and Implications. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, National Institute of Justice.

Knott, T., and Giwa, S. 2012. African American disproportionality within CPS and disparate access to support services: Review and critical analysis of the literature. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth  29(3):219–230.

Kurlychek, M.C., and Johnson, B.D. 2019. Cumulative disadvantage in the American criminal justice system. Annual Review of Criminology 2:291–319.

Kurtz, D.L., Linnemann, T., and Spohn, R. 2008. Investigating racial disparity at the detention decision: The role of respectability. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice 5(2):140–157.

Leiber, M. J. 2003. The Contexts of Juvenile Justice Decision Making: When Race Matters. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Leiber, M.J., Brubaker, S.J., and Fox, K.C. 2009. A closer look at the individual and joint effects of gender and r ace on j uvenile j ustice decisionmaking. Feminist Criminology 4(4):333–358.

Leiber, M.J., and Fix, R. 2019. Reflections on the impact of race and ethnicity on juvenile court outcomes and efforts to enact change.  American Journal of Criminal Justice 44(4):581–608.

Leiber, M.J., and Fox, K.C. 2005. Race and the impact of detention on juvenile justice decision making. Crime & Delinquency 51(4):470–497.

Leiber, M.J., and Peck, J.H. 2013. Probation violations and juvenile justice decisionmaking: Implications for Blacks and Hispanics.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice  11(1):60–78.

Leiber, M.J., Richetelli, D.M., and Feyerherm, W. 2009. Assessment. In Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Manual, Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP.

Lowery, P.G., and Burrow, J.D. 2019. Concentrated disadvantage, racial disparities, and juvenile institutionalization within the context of attribution theory.  Criminal Justice Studies  32(4):330–355.

Lurigio, A., Bensinger, G., Thompson, S.R., Elling, K., Poucis, D., Selvaggio, J., and Spooner, M. 2000. A Process and Outcome Evaluation of Project BUILD: Years 5 and 6 . Unpublished report. Chicago, IL: Loyola University.

Maguire–Jack, K., Lanier, P., and Lombardi, B. 2020. Investigating racial differences in clusters of adverse childhood experiences.  American Journal of Orthopsychiatry  90(1):106.

Mallett, C.A., and Stoddard–Dare, P. 2010. Predicting secure detention placement for African American juvenile offenders: Addressing the disproportionate minority confinement problem. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 8(2):91–103.

Marsh, S.C. 2009. The lens of implicit bias.  Juvenile and Family Justice Today  (Summer):16–19.

McGlynn–Wright, A., Crutchfield, R.D., Skinner, M.L., and Haggerty, K.P. 2020. The usual, racialized, suspects: The consequence of police contacts with Black and White youth on adult arrest.  Social Problems 00:1–17.

Mendel, D. 2014. Analysis: Coming s oon… a w atershed m oment on DMC. Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. Kennesaw, GA: Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, Kennesaw State University . http://jjie.org/analysis-coming-soon-a-watershed-moment-on-dmc/

Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice. 2021. Michigan Racial and Ethnic Disparities Data Web page . Fiscal Year 2020. Lansing, MI: Michigan Committee on Juvenile Justice.  https://michigancommitteeonjuvenilejustice.com/michigan-data/michigan-racial-and-ethnic-disparities-data/

Moak, S.C., Shaun, T.A., Walker, J.T., and Gann, S.M. 2012. The influence of race on p readjudication d etention: Applying the s ymbolic t hreat hypothesis to d isproportionate m inority c ontact. OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice 2(1):73–89.

Morris, E.W., and Perry, B.L. 2016. The punishment gap: School suspension and racial disparities in achievement.  Social Problems 63(1):68 – 86.

National Juvenile Justice Network. 2017. Implicit Bias: Why It Matters for Youth Justice. Washington, DC: National Juvenile Justice Network. https://www.njjn.org/our-work/implicit-bias-snapshot

National Research Council. 2013. Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nellis, A. 2005. Seven Steps to Develop and Evaluate Strategies to Reduce Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC). Guidebook series. Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association.

Nellis, A., and Richardson, B. 2010. Getting beyond failure: Promising approaches for reducing DMC.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8(3):266–276.

OJJDP. 2009a. Disproportionate minority contact. In Focus. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228306.pdf

OJJDP. 2009b. Disproportionate Minority Contact Technical Assistance Manual, Fourth Edition . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP.

OJJDP, 2013. Juvenile Justice System Structure & Process: JJDPA Core Requirements: JJDPA Timeline. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP.  https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04302.asp?qaDate=2013

OJJDP. 2019a. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Reauthorization 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP.

OJJDP. 2019b. Key Amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Made by the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018. Fact Sheet, NCJ 252961. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP.

OJJDP. 2019c. New Approach to Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/programs/racial-and-ethnic-disparities

OJJDP. 2020. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/special_topics/qa11501.asp?qaDate=2019

OJJDP, n.d.a. About OJJDP: Legislation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/about/legislation

OJJDP, n.d.b. Core Requirements: Compliance With the Core Requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/about/core-requirements#hgi9g

OJJDP. n.d.c. OJJDP FY 2020 Title II Compliance Data Submission and RED Plans. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP.

Ogle, M. 2019.  The Role of Race and Ethnicity in Determining Solitary Confinement Experiences in Juvenile Detention Facilities . Dissertation. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.

Oglesby–Neal, A., and Peterson, B.E. 2021. Influence of race in the deep end of the juvenile justice system.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice  19(2):186–205.

Ousey, G.C., and Lee, M.R. 2008. Racial disparity in formal social control: An investigation of alternative explanations of arrest rate inequality. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 45(3):322–355.

Pope, C.E., and Feyerherm, W. 1990. Minority status and juvenile justice processing. Criminal Justice Abstracts 22(2):327–336 (part 1); 22(3):527–542 (part 2).

Pope, C.E., Lovell, R. and Hsia, H.M. 2002. Disproportionate Minority Confinement: A Review of the Research Literature From 1989 Through 2001. Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Piquero, A.R., Moffitt, T.E., and Lawton, B. 2005. Race and crime: The contributions of individual, familial, and neighborhood-level risk factors to life-course-persistent offending. In D.F. Hawkins and K. Kempf–Leonard, eds. Our Children, Their Children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Pub. L. No. 107–273, 116 Stat. 1878 (23). 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ273/html/PLAW-107publ273.htm

Pub. L. 115–385, title I, §   102. 2018. Ithaca, NY: Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/11103

Puzzanchera, C. 2021. Juvenile arrests, 2019. Juvenile Justice Statistics. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, National Institute of Justice.

Puzzanchera, C., and Hockenberry, S. 2013. National Disproportionate Minority Contact Databook . Washington, DC, and Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Justice, OJP, OJJDP, and National Center for Juvenile Justice. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/

Reynolds, A.J., and Ou, S.R. 2011. Paths of effects from preschool to adult well-being: A confirmatory analysis of the child–parent center program.  Child Development  82(2):555–582.

Richetelli, D.M., Hartstone, E.C. and Murphy, K.L. 2009. A Second Reassessment of Disproportionate Minority Contact in Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System. Avon, CT: Spectrum Associates Market Research.

Rodriguez, N. 2007. Juvenile court context and detention decisions: Reconsidering the role of r ace, ethnicity, and community characteristics in juvenile court processes. Justice Quarterly 24(4):629–656.

Rodriguez, N. 2010. The cumulative effect of race and ethnicity in juvenile court outcomes and why preadjudication detention matters. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(3):391–413

Rovner, J. 2021a. Black Disparities in Youth Incarceration. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

Rovner, J. 2021b. Racial Disparities in Youth Incarceration Persists . Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

Sampson, R.J., Morenoff, J.D., and Raudenbush, S. 2005. Social anatomy of racial and e thnic d isparities in v iolence. American Journal of Public Health 95(2):224–232.

Sampson, R.J., and Wilson, W.J. 1995. Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban i nequality. In J. Hagan and R.D. Peterson, eds. Crime and Inequality Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 37–54.

Sharkey, P., and Sampson, R.J. 2010. Destination effects: Residential mobility and trajectories of a dolescent v iolence in a s tratified m etropolis. Criminology 48(3):639–681.

Shoenberg, D. 2012. Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Pennsylvania. Innovation brief. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation, Models for Change.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., and Kang, W. 2021. Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics: 1985–2019. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/

Sickmund, M., Sladky T.J., Puzzanchera, C., and Kang, W. 2021. Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/

Spergel, I.A., Wa, K.M., Grossman, S.F., Jacob, A., Choi, S.E., Sosa, R.V., Barrios, E.M., and Spergel, A. 2003.  The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project in Chicago . Chicago, Ill.: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

Spinney, E., Cohen, M.I., Feyerherm, W., Stephenson, R., Yeide, M., and Hopps, M. 2014. Case Studies of Nine Jurisdictions That Reduced Disproportionate Minority Contact in Their Juvenile Justice Systems. Bethesda, Md.: Development Services Group, Inc.

Spinney, E., Yeide, M., Feyerherm, W., Cohen, M.I., Stephenson, R., and Thomas, C. 2016. Racial disparities in referrals to mental health and substance abuse services from the juvenile justice system: A review of the literature.  Journal of Crime and Justice 41(5):573–595.

Spinney, E., Yeide, M., Feyerherm, W., Cohen, M.I., Stephenson, R., and Thomas, C. 2018. Disproportionate minority contact in the U.S. juvenile justice system: A review of the DMC literature, 2001–14, part 1 and part 2.  Journal of Crime and Justice , 39(1):153–173 (part 1); 39(1):596–626 (part 2).

Spohn, C., and Cederblom, J. 1991. Race and disparities in sentencing: A test of the liberation hypothesis.  Justice Quarterly  8(3):305–327.

Tapia, M.A. 2010. Untangling r ace and c lass e ffects on j uvenile a rrests. Journal of Criminal Justice 38(3):255–265.

Taylor, A., Guevara, L., Boyd, L.M., and Brown, R.A. 2012. Race, geography, and juvenile justice: An exploration of the liberation hypothesis.  Race and Justice 2(2):114–137.

Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth. 2012. Study of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in the Tennessee Juvenile Justice System. Nashville, TN.

Tittle, C . R., and Curran, D.A. 1988. Contingencies for d ispositional d isparities in j uvenile j ustice. Social Forces 67:23–58.

Tomaskovic–Devey, D., and Warren, P. 2009. Explaining and e liminating r acial p rofiling. Contexts 8(2).

Tracy, P.E. 2005. Race, e thnicity, and j uvenile j ustice: Is t here b ias in p ostarrest d ecisionmaking? In D.F. Hawkins and K. Kempf–Leonard, eds. Our Children, Their Children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Vespa, J., Lewis, J.M., and Kreider, R.M. 2013. America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.  https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2013/demo/p20-570.pdf

Walker, S.C., Bishop, A.S., Catena, J., and Haumann, E. 2019. Deploying street outreach workers to reduce failure to appear in juvenile court for youth of color: A randomized study.  Crime & Delinquency  65(12):1740–1762.

Wiley, S.A., and Esbensen, F.A. 2016. The effect of police contact: Does official intervention result in deviance amplification?  Crime & Delinquency 62(3):283–307.

Wilson, S.J., Lipsey, M.W., and Soydan, H. 2003. Are mainstream programs for juvenile delinquency less effective with minority youth than majority youth? A meta-analysis of outcomes research. Research on Social Work Practice 13(1):3–26.

Worden, R.E., McLean, S.J., Engel, R.S., Cochran, H., Corsaro, H., Reynolds, D., Najdowski, C.J., and Isaza, G.T. 2020. The impacts of implicit bias awareness training in the NYPD. Albany, N.Y.: John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety, Inc.

Zane, S.N. 2018. Disproportionate Minority Contact and Cumulative Disadvantage: Does the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Juvenile Court Outcomes Vary Across Macro-Social Context? Dissertation. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.

Zane, S.N. 2021. Have racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice declined over time? An empirical assessment of the DMC mandate.  Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice  19(2):163–185.

Zane, S.N., Mears, D.P., and Welsh, B.C. 2020. How universal is disproportionate minority contact? An examination of racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice processing across four states.  Justice Quarterly  37(5):817–841.

Zane, S.N., and Pupo, J.A. 2021. Disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  Justice Quarterly 38(7):1–26.

About this Literature Review

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2022. "Racial and Ethnic Disparity (R/ED) in Juvenile Justice Processing."  Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.  https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/racial-and-ethnic-disparity

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract Number: 47QRAA20D002V.

Last Update: March 2022