Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Summary
Recent research on adolescent development has underscored important
behavioral differences between adults and adolescents with direct bearing
on the design and operation of the justice system, raising doubts about the
core assumptions driving the criminalization of juvenile justice policy in
the last decades of the 20th century. It was in this context that the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) asked the National
Research Council to convene a committee to conduct a study of juvenile
justice reform. The committee’s charge was to review recent advances in
behavioral and neuroscience research and draw out the implications of this
knowledge for juvenile justice reform, to assess the new generation of
reform activities occurring in the United States, and to assess the perfor-
mance of OJJDP in carrying out its statutory mission as well as its potential
role in supporting scientifically based reform efforts.
ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT
Adolescence is a distinct, yet transient, period of development between
childhood and adulthood characterized by increased experimentation and
risk taking, a tendency to discount long-term consequences, and height-
ened sensitivity to peers and other social influences. A key function of
adolescence is developing an integrated sense of self, including individu-
ation, separation from parents, and personal identity. Experimentation
and novelty-seeking behavior, such as alcohol and drug use, unsafe sex,
and reckless driving, are thought to serve a number of adaptive functions
despite their risks. Research indicates that for most youth, the period of
1
OCR for page 2
2 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE
risky experimentation does not extend beyond adolescence, ceasing as
identity becomes settled with maturity. Much adolescent involvement in
illegal activity is an extension of the kind of risk taking that is part of the
developmental process of identity formation, and most adolescents mature
out of these tendencies.
Adolescents differ from adults and children in three important ways
that lead to differences in behavior. First, adolescents have less capacity for
self-regulation in emotionally charged contexts, relative to adults. Second,
adolescents have a heightened sensitivity to proximal external influences,
such as peer pressure and immediate incentives, relative to children and
adults. Third, adolescents show less ability than adults to make judgments
and decisions that require future orientation. The combination of these
three cognitive patterns accounts for the tendency of adolescents to prefer
and engage in risky behaviors that have a high probability of immediate
reward but can have harmful consequences.
Evidence of significant changes in brain structure and function during
adolescence strongly suggests that these cognitive tendencies characteristic
of adolescents are associated with biological immaturity of the brain and
with an imbalance among developing brain systems. This imbalance model
implies dual systems: one involved in cognitive and behavioral control and
one involved in socioemotional processes. Accordingly, adolescents lack
mature capacity for self-regulation because the brain system that influences
pleasure-seeking and emotional reactivity develops more rapidly than the
brain system that supports self-control.
Adolescent risk taking and delinquent behavior result from the interac-
tion between the normal developmental attributes of adolescents described
above and the environmental influences to which they are exposed before
and during this stage of development. Put simply, the brain plays an enor-
mous role in determining behavior, but individual development is affected
strongly by the interplay between the brain and an adolescent’s environ-
ment. In particular, the likelihood and seriousness of offending, as well as
the effects of interventions, are strongly affected by the adolescent’s interac-
tions with parents, peers, schools, communities, and other elements of his
or her social environment.
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
The vast majority of youth who are arrested or referred to juvenile
court have not committed serious offenses, and half of them appear in the
system only once. Regardless of how serious delinquency is defined, the
evidence indicates that youth who commit serious offenses constitute a
very small proportion of the overall delinquent population and that their
OCR for page 3
SUMMARY 3
behavior is driven by the same risk factors and developmental processes
that influence the behavior of other juvenile offenders.
During the past two decades, many youth have come to the attention
of the juvenile justice system from schools, child welfare agencies, and the
mental health system. Zero-tolerance policies are increasing the number
of suspensions and expulsions from schools, leading to increased risk of
drop-out and juvenile justice involvement. Crossover youth, who move
between the child welfare and juvenile justice systems, and youth with
mental health disorders are more likely to be treated harshly in the juvenile
justice system. Furthermore, black and ethnic minority youth make up a
disproportionate number of adolescents disciplined by the schools, man-
aged by the child welfare system, and diagnosed with the kinds of mental
disorders (e.g., emotional disturbances) that are less likely to make them
eligible for smaller, more specialized treatment programs.
The scientific literature shows that three conditions are critically impor-
tant to healthy psychological development in adolescence: (1) the pres-
ence of a parent or parent figure who is involved with the adolescent and
concerned about his or her successful development, (2) inclusion in a peer
group that values and models prosocial behavior and academic success, and
(3) activities that contribute to autonomous decision making and critical
thinking. Schools, extracurricular activities, and work settings can provide
opportunities for adolescents to learn to think for themselves, develop self-
reliance and self-efficacy, and improve reasoning skills.
Yet the juvenile justice system’s heavy reliance on containment, con-
finement, and control removes youth from their families, peer groups, and
neighborhoods—the social context of their future lives—and deprives them
of the opportunity to learn to deal with life’s challenges. For many youth,
the lack of a positive social context during this important developmental
period is further compounded by collateral consequences of justice system
involvement, such as the public release of juvenile records that follow
them throughout their lives and limit future educational and employment
opportunities.
Economically disadvantaged and minority youth are particularly
affected by a juvenile justice system in which they are disproportionately
represented. There is evidence that “race matters” above and beyond the
characteristics of an offense. With few exceptions, data consistently show
that youth of color have been overrepresented at every stage of the juvenile
justice system. The evidence for race effects is greatest at the earlier stages
of the process, particularly at the stages of arrest, referral to court, and
placement in secure detention. And in nearly all juvenile justice systems,
youth of color also remain in the system longer than white youth.
During the past 15 years, substantial progress has been made by vari-
ous states and local jurisdictions in embracing and implementing a more
OCR for page 4
4 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE
d
evelopmentally appropriate way of handling youth who come to the
attention of the juvenile justice system. However, when viewed nationally,
the pace of reform has been sluggish. Many changes that have occurred
have not been evaluated in a sufficiently rigorous and systematic manner
to enable other reform-minded jurisdictions to undertake similar initiatives.
The lack of critical data on youth characteristics, including race/ethnicity,
processing at various stages of the system, and outcomes, significantly
impedes tracking and evaluation of reform activities. At the local level, a
lack of transparency regarding the decisions of police, prosecutors, and
judges makes it difficult to understand and improve system functioning.
Advances in information technology allow organizations to share data,
but the complex laws governing privacy and confidentiality, as well as
entrenched organizational practices, create barriers to collaboration and
efficiency.
TRANSFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE
The overarching goal of the juvenile justice system is to support pro
social development of youth who become involved in the system and thereby
ensure the safety of communities. The specific aims of juvenile courts and
affiliated agencies are to hold youth accountable for wrongdoing, prevent
further offending, and treat them fairly. It is often thought that these specific
aims are in tension with one another. However, when these aims and the
actions taken to achieve them are viewed from a developmental point of
view, the evidence shows that they are compatible with one another. This
evidence is summarized below, and guiding principles for implementing a
developmentally informed approach to juvenile justice reform are set forth
in Box S-1.
Accountability
Holding adolescents accountable for their offending vindicates the just
expectation of society that responsible offenders will be answerable for
wrongdoing, particularly for conduct that causes harm to identifiable vic-
tims, and that corrective action will be taken. It does not follow, however,
that the mechanisms of accountability for juveniles should mimic criminal
punishments. Condemnation, control, and lengthy confinement (“serving
time”), the identifying attributes of criminal punishment, are not necessary
features of accountability for juveniles. The research demonstrates that, if
designed and implemented in a developmentally informed way, procedures
specifically designed for holding adolescents accountable for their offending
can promote positive legal socialization, reinforce a prosocial identity, and
OCR for page 5
SUMMARY 5
facilitate compliance with the law. However, unduly harsh interventions
and negative interactions between youth and justice system officials can
undermine respect for the law and legal authority and reinforce a devi-
ant identity and social disaffection. A developmentally informed juvenile
justice system can promote accountability by providing a setting and an
opportunity for juveniles to accept responsibility for their actions, make
amends to individual victims and the community for any harm caused, and
to participate in community service or other kinds of programs. Restorative
justice programs involving victims and adjudication programs that involve
restitution and peers are examples of developmentally appropriate instru-
ments of accountability.
Preventing Reoffending
Assessing the risk of rearrest and the intervention needs of each youth is
the necessary first step in achieving the overall goal of a more rational and
developmentally appropriate array of preventive interventions in the juve-
nile justice system. Researchers have confirmed the validity of methods to
do this. The central challenge is to incorporate these risk/needs assessments
effectively into standard court and probation practice. Research is needed
on whether and how information generated in screens or assessments is
translated in the receipt of appropriate services and whether these services
tend to reduce criminal behavior and increase successful adjustment in the
community. Also, continued research is needed to eliminate racial/ethnic
and gender bias in the design and administration of these tools.
The introduction of risk/needs assessment is a significant shift in how
juvenile justice agencies conceptualize the potential impact of court involve-
ment. This approach implies a dynamic view of juvenile justice nvolvement,
i
reflects a shift from predicting risk to managing risk, and puts less stock in
determining categories of offenders than on the malleable factors that might
contribute to criminal involvement.
Using risk/needs assessments at critical points can reduce idiosyncratic
decision making and maximize the impact of resources by targeting them
to the risk level of each offender. Whatever the specific mechanism, the
appropriate focusing of more intense (and costly) interventions on higher
risk adolescents produces a greater reduction in subsequent offending and
limits the negative effects of unwarranted intensive intervention on less
serious offenders.
No single risk marker is very strongly associated with serious delin-
quency. Risk for delinquency is generated across multiple developmental
stages from infancy to adolescence. Serious delinquents do commit more
offenses and in many cases more violent offenses, but that is because they
experience a greater accumulation of risk markers, in comparison with
OCR for page 6
6 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE
o
thers. Consequently, interventions targeted at just one “key” factor during
a limited period of development are likely to have little sustained impact on
reoffending. This does not mean that secondary prevention efforts to reduce
future offending are for naught. Multiple effective strategies for working
with troubled and troubling youth have been shown to have positive effects.
Whether conducted in institutions or in communities, programs are
more likely to have a positive impact when they focus on high-risk offenders,
connect sound risk/needs assessment with the treatment approach taken, use
a clearly specific program rooted in a theory of how adolescents change and
tailored to the particular offender, demonstrate program integrity, involve
the adolescent’s family, and take into account community context. Expand-
ing the role of families in juvenile justice appears to be a critical challenge,
and additional research regarding the processes of family involvement in
juvenile justice and methods for successfully involving parents in these pro-
cesses are urgently needed.
If implemented well, evidence-based programs in both institutions and
residential and nonresidential community placement reduce reoffending
and produce remarkably large economic returns relative to their costs. But
effective evidence-based practice cannot be achieved if service providers
alter program characteristics in a misguided effort to make them more
appropriate to the clients, culture, or resources of their communities. To
offset this tendency, service providers should increase efforts to ensure
model fidelity throughout the life of the intervention. A refinement of this
approach is to help programs move toward consistent use of practices that
have been shown to improve performance across a range of programs.
In general, multifaceted community-based interventions show greater
reductions in rearrests than institutional programs. Once they are in insti-
tutional care, adequate time (arguably up to about six months) is needed
to provide sufficiently intense services for adolescents to benefit from this
experience. There is no convincing evidence, however, that confinement of
juvenile offenders beyond the minimum amount needed for this purpose,
either in adult prisons or juvenile correctional institutions, appreciably
reduces the likelihood of subsequent offending.
Fairness
Treating youth fairly and ensuring that they perceive that they have
been treated fairly and with dignity contribute to positive outcomes in the
normal processes of social learning, moral development, and legal socializa-
tion during adolescence. Based on perceptions of procedural fairness as well
as constitutional requirements, juvenile courts should ensure that youth are
OCR for page 7
SUMMARY 7
represented by properly trained counsel, that adjudications do not occur
unless youth are able to understand the proceedings and assist counsel, and
that youth have an opportunity to participate. However, lawyers in juvenile
courts are often under-resourced and overburdened by high caseloads. To
improve the quality of representation and enhance the youth’s percep-
tion of justice, states should clarify the duties and obligations of juvenile
defense counsel at every stage of the case and should specify caseload limits
in accordance with recommended standards. Courts and juvenile justice
agencies should also collaborate to formulate and implement performance
measures for fairness (based on legal criteria and on perceptions of partici-
pants) during all phases of the juvenile justice process.
Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in the administration of juvenile jus-
tice is critical to achieving a fair juvenile justice system. The literature
reflects continuing uncertainty about the relative contribution of differential
offending, differential enforcement and processing, and structural inequali-
ties to these disparities. However, the current body of research suggests that
poverty, social disadvantage, neighborhood disorganization, constricted
opportunities, and other structural inequalities—which are strongly cor-
related with race/ethnicity—contribute to both differential offending and
differential selection, especially at the front end of juvenile justice deci-
sion making. Because bias (whether conscious or unconscious) also plays
some role, albeit of unknown magnitude, juvenile justice officials should
embrace activities designed to increase awareness of unconscious biases and
to counteract them, as well as to detect and respond to overt instances of
discrimination. Although the juvenile justice system itself cannot alter the
underlying structural causes of racial/ethnic disparities in juvenile justice,
many conventional practices in enforcement and administration magnify
these underlying disparities, and these contributors are within the reach of
justice system policy makers.
Several intervention efforts and policy initiatives have been undertaken
to reduce disparities, but there is little scientific evidence bearing on their
effectiveness so far. Activities that have shown some promise for reducing
disparities include using periodic public reports as a tool for heightening
awareness and promoting accountability of state and local governments,
modifying policies and practices that tend to disadvantage minority youth,
concentrating efforts to reduce or structure discretionary decision making
at the arrest and detention stages, eliminating punitive and discretionary
school discipline practices likely to result in a referral to the juvenile justice
system, and initiating a comprehensive research and data program on the
causes and consequences of racial/ethnic disparities.
OCR for page 8
8 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
OJJDP is the federal agency that has responsibility for providing state,
local, and tribal jurisdictions with the scientific knowledge and program-
matic and technical support they need to improve their juvenile justice
systems.
OJJDP’s 1974 authorizing legislation reflects several basic understand-
ings that have set the nation on the path toward developmentally appro-
priate juvenile justice policies and practices. The guiding premises are that
youth who offend should be treated differently from adults who offend,
that juvenile offending is preventable, and that youthful offenders should
receive individualized treatment and services. The legislation’s core require-
ments reflect key normative principles underlying developmentally appro-
priate policies and practices: the prohibition against detaining offenders
whose offense (e.g., truancy, running away) would not be a crime if com-
mitted by an adult reflects the principle that youth who are not a risk to
society or themselves should not be detained or removed from existing
support systems; the requirements of “sight and sound separation” from
adults and removal from adult jails reflect the idea that youth are vulnerable
and should not be subject to punitive and potentially harmful conditions
of incarceration; and the obligation to address racial disparities reflects the
principle that youth should be treated fairly and equitably as a matter of
justice.
Congress envisioned a strong partnership between the federal govern-
ment, state juvenile justice agencies, and tribal governments as well as a
strong leadership role for OJJDP. However, OJJDP’s capacity to carry out
this role has dramatically declined over the past decade because of inad-
equate funding and a severe restriction of its discretion in determining how
its resources should be used. Its core requirements have been weakened by
exceptions and a lack of clarifying federal regulations. Although reduced
funding has continued, OJJDP’s authorizing legislation expired in 2007
and 2008, and there has been no presidentially appointed administrator
since 2009.
OJJDP’s weakened state comes at a time when the juvenile justice field
is moving toward a more developmentally appropriate system, but the
field needs technical assistance, training, and other kinds of consultative
services to help achieve that goal. OJJDP has the necessary congressional
mandate and the support of the juvenile justice field. However, the agency
will not be able to provide robust guidance and assistance to the juvenile
justice field unless Congress removes the budgetary and political roadblocks
that prevent it from doing so.
OCR for page 9
SUMMARY 9
RECOMMENDATIONS
Knowledge about the developmental stage of adolescence has impor-
tant implications for juvenile justice policy, providing the framework for a
system that is fair to young offenders and effective in reducing youth crime.
There are admittedly many gaps in this understanding. But the research is
sufficiently robust to provide a solid foundation for juvenile justice policy
and for general guidance about the design and operation of interven-
tions and programs as knowledge continues to develop.
The recommendations that follow set forth the core components of
a sustained process for reforming the nation’s juvenile justice systems in a
developmentally informed manner, for incorporating new evidence into
policy and practice on a continuing basis, and for solidifying and sustain-
ing these changes.
Political Commitment to Reform by
State, Local, and Tribal Governments
Given the current fiscal realities regarding the role of OJJDP and the
role of the federal government in general, the immediate momentum for
change will need to come from state, local, and tribal governments. Numer-
ous state and local jurisdictions appear to be making progress toward
more developmentally appropriate juvenile justice policies and practices.
But many jurisdictions lack political support for reforms or the readiness
to take the first necessary steps. Even among reform-minded jurisdictions,
many have not yet undertaken system-wide improvements; they appear to
be progressing on some fronts and backsliding on others. Moreover, some
specific reforms, such as reducing racial/ethnic disparities and improving
access to counsel, are being addressed at a very slow pace and by relatively
few jurisdictions.
Every state should undertake a comprehensive, sustained and transpar-
ent process for achieving juvenile justice reform guided by the developmen-
tally informed principles enunciated in this report (see Box S-1).
A key element in building and sustaining organizational and constituent
support for reform has been the willingness of policy makers at all levels to
be engaged in the process and to be transparent regarding the effectiveness
and costs of their current programs and policies. Two strategies have been
helpful: (1) the use of bipartisan, multistakeholder task forces or commis-
sions to promote consensus and long-term follow-through and (2) collabo-
ration with foundations, OJJDP, and other youth-serving organizations to
leverage resources.
Many reform activities have not been adequately documented or evalu-
ated, particularly those aimed at reducing racial/ethnic disparities. System-
OCR for page 10
10 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE
BOX S-1
Guiding Principles for Juvenile Justice Reform
The overarching goal of the juvenile justice system is to support
prosocial development of youth who become involved in the system and
thereby ensure the safety of communities. Juvenile courts and affiliated
agencies specifically aim to hold youth accountable for wrongdoing,
prevent further offending, and treat youth fairly. Actions taken to achieve
these aims should be designed and carried out in a developmentally
informed manner.
Accountability
• Use the justice system to communicate the message that society
expects youth to take responsibility for their actions and the foresee-
able consequences of their actions.
• Encourage youth to accept responsibility for admitted or proven
wrongdoing, consistent with protecting their legal rights.
• Facilitate constructive involvement of family members in the pro-
ceedings to assist youth to accept responsibility and carry out the
obligations set by the court.
• Use restitution and community service as instruments of account-
ability to victims and the community.
• Use confinement sparingly and only when needed to respond to and
prevent serious reoffending.
• Avoid collateral consequences of adjudication, such as public
release of juvenile records, that reduce opportunities for a success-
ful transition to a prosocial adult life.
Preventing Reoffending
• Use structured risk/needs assessment instruments to identify low-
risk youth who can be handled less formally in community-based
wide reform efforts as well as individual programs should have clearly
stated goals and objectives that can be measured scientifically, either on an
individual site basis or across many sites. A plan for collecting and analyz-
ing the necessary data should also be developed and the assessment made
public.
Recommendation 1: State and tribal governments should establish a
bipartisan, multistakeholder task force or commission, under the aus-
OCR for page 11
SUMMARY 11
settings, to match youth with specialized treatment, and to target
more intensive and expensive interventions on high-risk youth.
• Use clearly specified interventions rooted in knowledge about ado-
lescent development and tailored to the particular adolescent’s
needs and social environment.
• Engage the adolescent’s family as much as possible and draw on
neighborhood resources to foster positive activities, prosocial devel-
opment, and law-abiding behavior.
• Eliminate interventions that rigorous evaluation research has shown
to be ineffective or harmful.
• Keep accurate data on the type and intensity of interventions pro-
vided and the results achieved.
Fairness
• Ensure that youth are represented throughout the process by prop-
erly trained counsel unless the right is voluntarily and intelligently
waived by the youth.
• Ensure that youth are adjudicated only if they are competent to
understand the proceedings and assist counsel.
• Facilitate participation by youth in all proceedings.
• Intensify efforts to reduce racial/ethnic disparities, as well as other
patterns of unequal treatment, in the administration of juvenile
justice.
• Ensure that youth perceive that they have been treated fairly and
with dignity.
• Establish and implement evidence-based measures for fairness
based on both legal criteria and perceptions of youth, families, and
other participants.
pices of the governor, the legislature, or the highest state court, charged
with designing and overseeing a long-term process of juvenile justice
reform. This body should
a. Undertake a formal, authoritative, and transparent review of its
juvenile justice system aiming to align laws, policies, and practices
at every stage of the process with evolving knowledge regarding
OCR for page 12
12 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE
adolescent development and the effects of specific juvenile justice
interventions and programs.
b. Develop a strategy for modifying current laws, policies, and prac-
tices, for implementing and evaluating necessary changes on an
ongoing basis, and for reviewing any proposed juvenile justice
legislation.
c. Intensify efforts to identify and then modify policies and practices
that tend to disadvantage racial/ethnic minorities at various stages
of the juvenile justice process and publish periodic reports on the
nature and extent of disparities and the effects of specific interven-
tions undertaken to reduce them.
Strong Supporting Role for OJJDP
The policies and principles reflected in OJJDP’s legislation are now
buttressed by a strong body of scientific knowledge regarding adolescent
development as well as an impressive array of research on juvenile offend-
ing. Strengthening the legislation will send a strong message regarding the
need for state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to assume greater responsibil-
ity for complying with the requirements and achieving a developmentally
appropriate juvenile justice system. It will also enable OJJDP to redirect its
resources in a way that best supports the efforts of state, local, and tribal
jurisdictions.
Recommendation 2: The role of OJJDP in preventing delinquency and
supporting juvenile justice improvement should be strengthened.
a. OJJDP’s capacity to carry out its core mission should be restored
through reauthorization, appropriations, and funding flexibility.
Assisting state, local, and tribal jurisdictions to align their juvenile
justice systems with evolving knowledge about adolescent devel-
opment and implementing evidence-based and developmentally
informed policies, programs, and practices should be among the
agency’s top priorities. Any additional responsibilities and uthority
a
conferred on the agency should be amply funded so as not to erode
the funds needed to carry out the core mission.
b. OJJDP’s legislative mandate to provide core protections should
be strengthened through reauthorizing legislation that defines
s
tatus offenses to include offenses such as possession of alcohol
or tobacco that apply only to youth under 21; precludes without
exception the detention of youth who commit offenses that would
not be punishable by confinement if committed by an adult; modi-
fies the definition of an adult inmate to give states flexibility to
OCR for page 13
SUMMARY 13
keep youth in juvenile facilities until they reach the age of extended
juvenile court jurisdiction; and expands the protections to all youth
under age 18 in pretrial detention, whether charged in juvenile or
in adult courts.
c. OJJDP should prioritize its research, training, and technical assis-
tance resources to promote the adoption of developmentally
appropriate policies and practices by jurisdictions throughout the
country, particularly helping those that have not yet achieved a
state of readiness to undertake reform.
d. OJJDP should support state and local efforts to reduce racial/ethnic
disparities by using its technical and financial resources to expand
the number of local jurisdictions currently participating in activi-
ties aimed at reducing disproportionate minority contact (DMC);
support efforts to design and implement programs and policies
aiming to reduce disparities; support scientifically valid methods
for understanding the causes of racial/ethnic disparities and for
evaluating the impact of DMC interventions; and enhance the
transparency of its oversight activities by identifying impediments
being encountered and assisting localities to overcome them.
Federal Support for Research
Traditionally, OJJDP has been the primary funder of research on juve-
nile crime and juvenile justice, but its capacity is limited. It is essential that
OJJDP and other funding agencies continue to support research that has
far-reaching implications beyond that of juvenile justice. But it is critical
that the research agenda, outlined in Chapter 11 of our report, adhere to the
highest standards of scientific rigor. The evidence-based movement in treat-
ment and prevention did not gain traction until the programs were evalu-
ated with experimental designs and benefit-cost analyses were undertaken.
Recommendation 3: Federal research agencies, including the National
Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
and the National Institutes of Health, as well as OJJDP, should support
research that continues to advance the science of adolescent develop-
ment and expands our understanding of the ways in which devel
opmental processes influence juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice
responses.
Data Improvement
State, local, and tribal jurisdictions are dependent on a variety of data
sources from the federal government and from various agencies within
OCR for page 14
14 REFORMING JUVENILE JUSTICE
their own jurisdictions, including law enforcement and juvenile justice
agencies and courts, as well as education, social services, and health and
mental health agencies. They often lack the clout to influence the providers
of relevant juvenile justice and other systems’ data. This challenge must be
pursued at the federal level, and OJJDP is the logical agency to lead the
effort and provide the training and technical assistance on automated data
systems and support for data analysis activities to assess reform initiatives.
Recommendation 4: Under OJJDP’s leadership, the Bureau of Justice
Statistics and other governmental and private statistical organizations
should develop a data improvement program on juvenile crime and
juvenile justice system processing that provides greater insight into
state, local, and tribal variations. OJJDP should also be involved in
any effort undertaken by other U.S. Department of Justice agencies
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to improve the federal collec-
tion of juvenile arrest and incident data. At the state, local, and tribal
levels, data should be collected on the gender, age, race/ethnicity of
offenders as well as the offense charged or committed; arrest, detention,
and disposition practices; and recidivism. OJJDP should provide train-
ing and technical assistance on data collection, automated data systems,
and methods of protecting the confidentiality of juvenile records.
