1. Research on Juvenile Offender Careers: Implications for the PA JJSES James C. (Buddy) Howell, Ph.D. Pennsylvania SPEP Orientation and Rater’s Training July 15, 2013
Comprehensive Strategy Group©
All rights reserved

2. Goal: Bend the age-crime curve in PA
About 30-40% of juvenile offenders recidivate beyond age 18 into adulthood, while other offenders cease offending after adolescence (Loeber & Farrington, 2012)
PA definition of recidivism is: an ADJUDICATION of delinquency or criminal court conviction for a misdemeanor or felony offense within two years of case closing.
See “2010 Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Outcome Measures Report” in my folder for this conf. Keith says 2011 data will be added to the chart in the near future.
Source: Justine Fowler, PA Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission

3. First Study of Entire Juvenile Offender
Court Careers From Age 10 to 18 (Arizona )
Chronic
Serious
15%
34%
Non-Serious
Non-Violent
Non-Chronic
64%
C,S & V 4%
Violent 8%
Ages 8 to 18 are the ages of juvenile court jurisdiction in AZ
Source: Snyder (1998) Maricopa Co. Study (N=151,209)

4. AUTHORITY CONFLICT PATHWAY
Developmental Pathways to Serious and Violent Behavior
AGE OF ONSET:
LATE
EARLY
%BOYS/GIRLS:
FEW
MANY
SERIOUS
DELINQUENCY
(auto theft,
burglary)
VIOLENCE
(rape, attack,
strong-arm,
homicide)
MODERATELY
SERIOUS
DELINQUENCY
(fraud, pick-pocketing)
PHYSICAL FIGHTING
(physical fighting,
gang fighting)
PROPERTY DAMAGE
(vandalism, fire-setting)
AUTHORITY
AVOIDANCE
(truancy,
running away,
staying out late)
MINOR AGGRESSION
(bullying, annoying others)
Virtually all youth who progressed in either the overt or covert pathways had advanced through the three stages of the authority conflict pathway .
Researchers have discovered three main overlapping pathways in the development of delinquency from childhood to late adolescence. This figure illustrates the proportion of children who advance in the pathways, beginning with the relatively large group that engages in very minor misbehavior in preschool. The narrowing of the triangles represents the smaller and smaller group that advances in these pathways from childhood to adolescence.
All the offenses shown here are were charted by researchers from reports by parents and teachers, and self-reports of youth themselves.
The three main pathways are the authority conflict pathway, the covert pathway, and the overt pathway. The authority conflict pathway culminates in minor delinquent offenses, the covert pathway consists of concealing and serious property offenses, and the overt pathway consists of violent offenses. Advancing is a sequential process, and the offenders who advance in all three pathways to become serious, violent and chronic offenders.
The three pathways has been verified in four large cities, and in a nationally representative U.S. sample of adolescents, and they apply to girls as well as boys, although less consistently for girls.
The problem is that when a young offender is first referred to juvenile court, juvenile justice system officials have a very limited view, or snapshot, of that person’s entire offending career, often based solely on official records. Risk assessment instruments are key tools for helping juvenile justice officials make such distinctions.
MINOR COVERT BEHAVIOR
(shoplifting, frequent lying)
OVERT PATHWAY
COVERT PATHWAY
(before age 15)
Defiance/Disobedience
Stubborn Behavior
AUTHORITY CONFLICT PATHWAY
(before age 12)
© R. Loeber: Pittsburgh Youth Study

5. A larger percentage of very young offenders
have serious, violent, and chronic careers
Source: Snyder (1998) Maricopa Co. Study

6. A small proportion of delinquents is responsible for half of all youth crime
This figure illustrates the delinquency progression of proportions of disruptive children and child delinquents growing up in high crime areas of Pittsburgh (Loeber, Slott, van der Laan, & Hoeve, 2008; Van Domburgh et al., 2009).
About one-fourth of all children who engage in pre-delinquent disruptive behavior escalated to minor delinquent acts.
About one-third to half of child delinquents escalated to SVC delinquency.
About two-thirds of this group persists in moderate to serious offending during adolescence.
Nearly half of the persistent offender group (45%) offended at a high peak level of severity during adolescence, the serious persisters. The other half (55%) persisted offending at a minor to moderate peak level of severity.
About a fifth of the sample (20%) of child delinquents desisted offending during adolescence.
Altogether, the SVC offenders accounted for about half of all serious and violent offenses in adolescence and adulthood (Loeber, Slott et al., 2009).
Source: Loeber, Slot, Laan, & Hoeve, 2008

7. Timing of Delinquency and First Felony Court Contact
Minor
Problem Behavior
Moderately Serious
Problem Behavior
Serious
Problem Behavior
Age:
7.0
9.5
11.9
14.5
First Court Contact for an Index Offense
Source: Loeber: Pittsburgh Youth Study

8. Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders
Problem Behavior > Noncriminal Misbehavior > Delinquency > Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending
Prevention
Target Population: At-Risk Youth
Intervention & Graduated Sanctions
Target Population: Delinquent Youth
Programs for All Youth
>
Programs for Youth at Greatest Risk
>
Immediate Intervention
>
Intermediate Sanctions
>
Community Confinement
>
Training Schools
>
Aftercare
Improving the juvenile justice system response to delinquent offenders within a continuum of treatment options and system of graduated sanctions
Preventing youth from becoming
delinquent by focusing prevention
programs on at-risk youth
Source: Wilson & Howell (1993)

9. Strongest Risk Factors for Later Delinquent or Criminal Offending
The single strongest risk factor : Prior delinquent or criminal behavior
Early problem behavior: School failure, violent, aggressive, & impulsive during childhood
Family risk factors measured during childhood
Other key risk factors within the individual, family, peer, and school risk domains vary in strength across the developmental stages in adolescence and early adulthood.
Source: Tanner-Smith, Wilson, & Lipsey, in press

10. Two Poorly Served Offender Groups that Impede Successful Bending of the Age-Crime Curve
Girls
Gang Members

11. Why are girls important?
Potential serious, violent, chronic offenders
Do delinquent boys and girls have the same risk and protective factors? Yes.
But the cumulative effects of risk factors may be worse for girls than for boys; requiring multimodal services.
And girls also have higher levels of co-occurring problems than boys.
Do delinquent boys and girls have the same risk and protective factors? Yes,Both static and dynamic factors predict crime in girls and boys (Tanner-Smith, Wilson, & Lipsey, In press) but base rates and risk factors for recidivism differ by gender (Johnson, national analysis).
But the cumulative effects of risk factors may be worse for girls than for boys; requiring multimodal services (Hipwell et al., 2002; Hipwell & Loeber, 2006).
And girls also have higher levels of co-occurring problems than boys (McReynolds et al., 2010).
Two examples: Girls’ rates of anxiety and affective disorders are higher than boys, and violent girls are more likely than other groups to have anxiety disorders (Wasserman et al., 2005).
White youth, repeat offenders, and those with further justice system penetration reported higher rates of most disorders; girls reported higher rates of internalizing conditions (affective and anxiety disorders) (Wasserman et al 2010). Affective disorders: mental illnesses which predominantly affect mood and also have an effect on thoughts, behaviors, and emotions.

12. Girls Unique Treatment Needs
Delinquent girls are more impaired across a range of co-occurring domains; and uniquely, anxiety and affective disorders..
Delinquent girls have more severe family problems, especially in disadvantaged areas.
Although boys are more likely to report some type of assault victimization, females are 10 times more likely to experience sexual assault than boys.
Sources: Augimeri et al., 2013, Hipwell & Loeber, 2006, Wasserman et al., 2005
Delinquent girls also appear to have more severe family problems, especially in disadvantaged areas (Hipwell et al., 2002).
Antisocial females are more impaired across a range of co-occurring social, health, or educational domains than are antisocial males (McReynolds et al., 2008).
Although boys are more likely to report some type of assault victimization, females are 10 times more likely to experience sexual assault than boys (McReynolds et al., 2010).

13. Pittsburgh, Seattle, Denver, Rochester
Juvenile Self-reported Violence Rates Before, During, and After Gang Membership
Pittsburgh, Seattle, Denver, Rochester 8
Mean Number 4 4
Before
During
After
Source: Howell, 2012

14. Levels of Gang Involvement
Level I—Fantasy Level II—At-risk Level III—Associate Level IV—Active Gang Member Level V—Core Member of Gang
Source: Johnson, 1987

15. Comprehensive Gang Prevention, Intervention, and Suppression Model
National Gang Center:

16. Key Statewide Delinquency Intervention Strategies for Bending the Age-Crime Curve
Forestall progression to serious, violent, and chronic (SVC) offender careers
Intervene early with potential SVCs
Serve girls intensively as well as boys
Target gang members
Promote desistance

17. A goal within reach: Bend the age-crime curve in Pennsylvania with JJSES tools and the SPEP
This figure shows a simulation of treatment effects. Researchers pulled out the top third of high risk offenders in three birth cohorts and simulated the effects of effective services Mark Lipsey had identified in his meta-analyses, and applied an average effect of 30% reduction for the best programs. What is shown here is the change that would have occurred in the three birth cohorts’ criminal careers had the evidence-based services been applied beginning years ago. The top line is what transpired without any intervention services. The bottom line is projected outcomes had the high risk youth received the evidence-based services that Mark identified during adolescence.
The percentage reduction in serious delinquents at age is about 25%. Other results (not shown in this figure) indicate that the intervention was also associated with a 20% decrease in arrests, a 35% lower prevalence of homicide offenders and victims, and a 29% reduction in the weeks of incarceration. (Loeber, Farrington, Howell, & Hoeve, 2012, p What a huge impact these outcomes represent! But it’s not a modest goal: changing the age-crime curve.
In the state of Washington: “Approximately 6% of the drop in crime rates can be explained from the investments in evidence-based programs. In addition, we estimated that there are approximately 1,000 fewer people in prison as a result of the cumulative effective of Washington’s evidence-based program portfolio” (Drake, 2012, pp ). “In 2010, approximately 30% of youth who were eligible [for an evidence-based program], according to the juvenile court assessment, participated in a state-funded evidence-based program” (p. 112). 17