DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 435 082 CG 029 553

AUTHOR Catalano, Richard F.; Loeber, Rolf; McKinney, Kay C.TITLE School and Community Interventions To Prevent Serious and

Violent Offending. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.INSTITUTION Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquent Prevention (Dept.

of Justice), Washington, DC.REPORT NO NCJ-177624PUB DATE 1999-10-00NOTE 13p.

PUB TYPE Reports Research (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS At Risk Persons; Behavior Modification; *Behavior Problems;

*Community Involvement; Community Needs; Community Services;Crime; *Crisis Intervention; *Delinquency; ElementarySecondary Education; Intervention; *Outreach Programs; PeerInfluence; Prevention; Public Health; School CommunityRelationship; *School Involvement; Substance Abuse;Violence; Youth Problems

IDENTIFIERS *Juvenile Crime; Risk Assessment

ABSTRACTRecent research indicates that children exposed to certain

risk factors in their families, at school, among their peers, and in theircommunities are at greater risk of becoming serious violent juvenile (SVJ)offenders. The Study Group on Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, a groupof 22 researchers convened by the Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention to study the population of SVJ offenders, implementing family,school, and community interventions is the best way to prevent children frombecoming SVJ offenders. Interventions include strategies that prevent problembehavior or that intervene to reduce future problem behavior. The Study Groupalso concluded that programs similar in philosophy to public healthapproaches (i.e., those that both address risk factors and introduceprotective factors) are the most promising prevention and early interventionprograms for SVJ offenders. The Study Group examined five types of schoolinterventions: structured playground activities, behavioral consultation,behavioral monitoring and reinforcement, metal detectors, and schoolwidereorganization. Programs monitoring student behavior and reinforcingattendance and academic progress increased positive school behavior andacademic achievement, and decreased delinquency. The Study Group alsoexamined eight types of community interventions: citizen mobilization,situational prevention, comprehensive citizen intervention, mentoring,afterschool recreation programs, policing strategies, policy changes, andmass media interventions. Several of these interventions showed positiveresults in reducing risk and enhancing protective factors. In studies withlong-term follow-up, certain programs were effective in reducing juvenilecrime and substance abuse. (Contains 89 references.) (GCP)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

7,

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCA I IONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu 1.111EMINment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy.

Shay Bilchik, Administrator October 19991

School and CommunityInterventions To PreventSerious and Violent OffendingRichard F. Catalano, Ph.D., Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., and Kay C. McKinney

cent research indicates that childrenexp sed to certain risk factors in theirfamilies, at school, among their peers, andin their communities are at greater risk of

-.becoming serious violent juvenile (SVJ)offenders. Multiple rather than single fac-tors place children at risk of becoming SVJoffenders. Therefore, intervention effortsdirected toward any single source of influ-ence (e.g., family, school, or peers) areunlikely to be successful. Rather, to be ef-fective, programs must target several riskfactors in a variety of settings.

According to the Study Group on Seriousand Violent Juvenile Offendersa group of22 researchers convened by the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion (OJJDP) to study the population of SVJoffendersimplementing family, school,and community interventions is the bestway to prevent children from developinginto SVJ offenders. Interventions includestrategies that prevent problem behavioror that intervene to reduce future prob-lem behavior. The Study Group also con-cluded that programs similar in philosophyto public health approaches (i.e., those thatboth address risk factors and introduceprotective factors) are the most promisingprevention and early intervention programsfoi.SVJ offenders.

'Many schools and communities havedesigned interventions to prevent or re-duce risk factors for SVJ offending and

drug abuse. The Study Group reviewed anumber of such programs that have shownpromising results in preventing adolescentantisocial behavior. Its findings, summa-rized in this Bulletin, are set forth ingreater detail in the group's final report,Never Too Early, Never Too Late: Risk Fac-tors and Successful Interventions for Seriousand Violent Juvenile Offenders (Loeber andFarrington, 1997).' The chapter of the finalreport summarized in this Bulletin, whichfocuses on comprehensive school andcommunity interventions to prevent seri-ous and violent juvenile offending, wasresearched and written by Richard F.Catalano, Michael W. Arthur, J. DavidHawkins, Lisa Berglund, and Jeffrey J.Olson. While few of the interventions de-scribed in this Bulletin have been evalu-ated to measure their impact on SVJ of-fending, all address multiple risk factors ina variety of settings, an approach that maybe one of the most effective at preventingproblem behaviors from developing.

The Study Group examined five typesof school interventions: structured play-ground activities, behavioral consultation,behavioral monitoring and reinforcement,

' The conclusions of the Study Group were subse-quently set forth in a book entitled Serious and ViolentJuvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interven-tions, edited by the Group's cochairs, Rolf Loeber andDavid P. Farrington, and published by Sage Publica-tions, Inc., in 1998.

BEST COPYAVAILABLE 2

From the AdministratorAlthough youth who commit seriousviolent crimes are small in number,they account for a disproportionateamount of juvenile crime. How thencan we best intervene with thisdifficulteven dangerouspopulation?A major study, funded by the Officeof Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention and conducted by itsStudy Group on Serious and ViolentJuvenile Offenders, sheds new lighton promising strategies to preventand control serious violent juvenileoffending.

The study concludes that timely compre-hensive school- and community-basedinterventions hold the greatestpotential for preventing such delin-quency and finds that programsinvolving a juvenile's family, school,and community are most effective inminimizing factors that contribute toserious violent juvenile offendingand maximizing those that preventdelinquency. A number of suchinterventions are described in thisBulletin.

I hope that school administrators andcommunity leaders will be able touse the information that this Bulletinprovides to help youth develop intolaw-abiding and productive citizens.Only by focusing on programs andstrategies that work will we be able tosucceed in preventing serious violentjuvenile offending and ensuringpublic safety.

Shay BilchikAdministrator

,f,cteiL 11.1k1444,411S4AORIPIL

metal detectors, and schoolwide reorgani-zation. These interventions varied in ef-fectiveness. Programs that monitored stu-dent behavior and reinforced attendanceand academic progress increased positiveschool behavior and academic achieve-ment and decreased delinquency. Whilemetal detectors reduced the number ofweapons brought into schools, they didnot seem to decrease weapon carrying orviolence outside schools.

The Study Group also examined eighttypes of community interventions: citizenmobilization, situational prevention, com-prehensive citizen intervention, mentor-ing, afterschool recreation programs,policing strategies, policy changes, andmass media interventions. Several ofthese interventions showed positive re-sults in reducing risk and enhancingprotective factors, and in studies withlong-term followup, certain programswere effective in reducing juvenile crimeand substance abuse.

School InterventionsAcademic failure is often associated

with the beginning of delinquency and theescalation of serious offending, and inter-ventions that improve a child's academicperformance have been shown to reducedelinquency (Maguin and Loeber, 1996).To assess the effectiveness of schoolwideinterventions, the Study Group examinedfive types of school interventions, whichtargeted a variety of risk factors (includingacademic failure, social alienation, lowcommitment to school, association withviolent and delinquent peers, and aggres-sive behavior) and introduced a number ofprotective factors (such as bonding toschool, social and cognitive competencies,

recognition of positive behavior, and posi-tive norms regarding behavior).

Structured PlaygroundActivities

A school playground program for boysand girls in kindergarten through secondgrade in Tallahassee, FL, significantly re-duced aggressive behavior on the play-ground (Murphy, Hutchinson, and Bailey,1983). The program offered organizedgames, such as jump rope and races, to 344children who arrived at the playground be-fore school began. Three aides supervisedthe activities and used a timeout procedurefor students who were particularly unruly.Most of the disruptive incidents involvedaggression, and the program showed a53-percent reduction in aggression as aresult of the structured activities.

Behavioral ConsultationTwo comprehensive school interven-

tion programs designed to reduce schoolvandalism illustrated that changing stu-dent behavior is one way to preventdelinquent behavior. In a 1-year program,graduate students trained in appliedbehavioral analysis and behavioral con-sultation helped Los Angeles Countyelementary schools develop classroomand schoolwide antivandalism programs(Mayer and Butterworth, 1979). Interven-tions included matching academic materi-als to students' skill levels, increasingpositive reinforcement for appropriateclassroom behavior and academic prog-ress, reducing the use of punishment,applying learning and behavioral manage-ment principles, and educating schoolcounselors and psychologists about be-havioral consultation methods. Vandalism

2q

costs and disruptive behavior at the ele-mentary schools where the program wasimplemented decreased, and on-taskclassroom behavior increased followingimplementation of the program.

A similar multiyear behavioral consulta-tion program for elementary and juniorhigh school students in Los Angeles Countywas found effective at reducing vandalism(Mayer et al.,1983). Vandalism costs anddisruptive behavior decreased significantlyin participating schools, and the effectswere maintained for several years followingthe project (Mayer et al., 1983).

Behavioral MonitoringClosely supervising student behavior

and rewarding positive conduct alsoappear to be effective interventions, ac-cording to an evaluation of a behavioralintervention program that focused onlow-achieving, disruptive seventh-gradestudents who had trouble bonding withtheir families (Bry, 1982). As part of the2-year program, intervention staff andteachers met weekly to discuss students'tardiness, class preparedness, perfor-mance, and behavior. Staff also met withstudents in small group sessions and re-viewed their school behavior. Studentsearned points (later redeemed for a spe-cial trip) for positive ratings from theteacher interviews, good attendance, lackof disciplinary referrals, and lack of inap-propriate behavior during the weeklymeetings. As part of the program, staffalso routinely informed parents of theirchildren's progress and continued to in-terview teachers and hold small "booster"review sessions for the students every2 weeks for 1 year after the intervention.

Monitored students had significantlyhigher grades, better attendance, and farfewer problem behaviors at school thanstudents in a nonintervention comparisongroup (Bry and George, 1980). The behaviorchanges continued after the program ended.One-and-a-half years later, students who hadparticipated in the program were found toreport less illegal drug use and criminal be-havior than youth who did not receive theintervention. The impact on delinquencywas long-term: 5 years after the programended, youth in the program were 66 per-cent less likely to have a juvenile record withthe county probation office than youth whohad not been in the program (Bry, 1982).

Metal Detectors in SchoolsMany schools use metal detectors to

reduce violence by making firearms un-available within school buildings. One

T...Wilkg.K.L:TiTgAtiulArziaira.taELATILia,r.T.Tla.T. , z±TsC

survey of a representative sample of NewYork City high school students foundthat juveniles who attended schools withmetal detectors were half as likely tocarry a gun, knife, or other weapon toor from school or inside a school building,as students who attended schools withoutmetal detectors (Ginsberg and Loffredo,1993). Both groups of students, however,reported similar experiences in terms ofbeing threatened or involved in fights ator away from school, and both wereequally likely to report carrying a gun,knife, or other weapon during the 30-dayperiod prior to the survey. Although theseresults imply that metal detector pro-grams may have an impact on specificsites (especially with respect to the num-ber of weapons brought to school), theStudy Group cautions that metal detec-tors do not appear to reduce the numberof weapons carried outside school.

Schoolwide ReorganizationSchool organization interventions (i.e.,

those that change or improve the waythat schools operate) are noteworthy fortheir comprehensive and systematic pre-vention approach. The Study Group's re-view of many such programs found thatseveral appear to reduce risk factorsincluding academic failure, dropping outof school, and rebelliousnessand in-crease protective factorssuch as com-mitment to school and good attendance.Certain school reorganization programsalso have significantly reduced violenceand delinquent behavior. However, thefact that none of the programs reviewedby the Study Group used a true experi-mental design and that several evalua-tions did not completely analyze outcomedata prevents a clear interpretation ofevaluation results. Individual programsare described below.

School development program, NewHaven, CT. One intervention programin New Haven, CT, which included paren-tal involvement and a multidisciplinarymental health team, helped studentsin two inner-city public elementaryschools improve academically (Cauce,Comer, and Schwartz, 1987; Comer,1988). Ninety-nine percent of the stu-dents receiving the intervention wereAfrican American, and most came fromlow-income families. The program in-cluded a social calendar that integratedarts and athletic programs into schoolactivities; a parent program that sup-ported academic and extracurricularactivities; a multidisciplinary mental

health team that helped staff managestudent behavior problems; and a teamof school administrators, teachers,support staff, and parents who over-saw program implementation.

Students from the two schools receiv-ing the intervention performed signifi-cantly better in middle school than acomparison group of students fromnonintervention elementary schools.Students receiving the interventionhad significantly higher grades, aca-demic achievement test scores, andself-perceived social competence.

* Norwegian intervention targeting bul-lying. A large-scale school interventionprogram that targeted bullying in Nor-wegian schools appears to have pre-vented violence by reducing aggressivebehavior and general delinquency(Olweus, 1991). The program providedan information and advice packetabout bullying and ways to combat itto all families in Norway with school-age children. In addition, it distributeda booklet for school personnel to allNorwegian comprehensive schools(grades 1 through 9). The booklet de-scribed bullying problems, providedsuggestions on what teachers andschools could do to counteract andprevent bullying problems, and dis-pelled myths about the nature andcauses of bullying. The program alsomade a video about bullying availableat a highly subsidized price.

4

Results of this program were encour-aging. Significantly fewer studentsalmost 50 percent lessreported beingvictims of bullies when surveyed 8 and20 months after the program began.Students also reported significantdecreases in their own delinquent be-havior (vandalism, theft, and truancy)8 and 20 months after the programstarted. Because bullying often in-volves repeated assaults on victimizedstudents, this program appears to havedirectly reduced the risk factors ofearly and persistent antisocial behav-ior and violent, assaultive behavior.

PATHE program. A comprehensiveschool organization intervention forsecondary school students in Charles-ton County, SC, the Positive ActionThrough Holistic Education (PATHE)program, similarly resulted in signifi-cant decreases in delinquent behavior(Gottfredson, 1986). The PATHEprogram included six components:(1) teams of teachers, school staff,students, and community memberswho planned and implemented schoolimprovement programs; (2) curricu-lum and discipline policies that werecontinually reviewed and revised, in-volved students, and provided ongoinginservice teacher training in instruc-tional and classroom managementpractices; (3) academic innovations,such as study skills programs and co-operative learning; (4) school climateinnovations, such as expanded extra-curricular activities and peer counsel-ing; (5) career-oriented innovations,including job skills and career explora-tion programs; and (6) special aca-demic and counseling services for low-achieving and disruptive students.High school students in the PATHE pro-gram reported significant decreases indelinquency and drug involvement andfewer school suspensions and punish-ment than the control group. Studentsin the program who received specialacademic and counseling services re-ported significantly higher grades andwere less likely to repeat a grade thanstudents who did not receive theseservices. High school seniors who re-ceived these services were also morelikely to graduate than those who didnot receive the services. For middleschool students in the intervention,there were declines in suspensions.

Project CARE. Project CARE, a schoolintervention program in Baltimore,MD, used classroom management

3

techniques and cooperative learningto decrease delinquent behavioramong junior high school students(Gottfredson, 1987). The program,planned and implemented by a teamof teachers, administrators, and otherschool staff, also included a parent vol-unteer component and a communitysupport and advocacy program. Overthe course of the 2-year program, stu-dents' self-reports of delinquencydecreased significantly. Teachers alsoreported significant improvement inclassroom orderliness.Charleston, SC, middle school pro-gram. Two evaluations of a program toimprove the classroom environmentand student behavior in several middleschools with high levels of studentmisbehavior in Charleston County,SC, showed mixed results. The inter-vention included a revised school dis-cipline policy, a behavior trackingsystem, consistent classroom organi-zation and management, and behaviormodification techniques. The firstevaluation of this program found thatstudents in participating schools per-ceived significant increases in class-room order, organization, and ruleclarity (Gottfredson, Karweit, andGottfredson, 1989). The secondevaluationwhich examined the pro-gram's impact on the classroom envi-ronment and student behaviorfoundthat the program generally had a posi-tive effect on student behavior onlyin schools where the intervention hadbeen fully implemented (Gottfredson,Gottfredson, and Hybl, 1993). Rule clar-ity, however, improved in high- andmedium-implementation schools.Teachers in high-implementationschools reported that on-task behaviorincreased significantly and disruptivebehavior decreased significantly. Teach-ers in schools with medium and lowimplementation, on the other hand,noted little or negative change instudents' on-task behavior.Multimodal School-Based PreventionDemonstration program. AnotherCharleston, SC, middle school inter-vention, the Multimodal School-BasedPrevention Demonstration program,was designed to reduce problembehaviors by improving academicachievement, social competency,and social bonding (Gottfredson,Gottfredson, and Skroban, 1996). Aca-demic interventions included coopera-tive learning techniques, a career and

educational decision skills program,and one-on-one tutoring. The programaddressed social competency witha life skills training course for sixthgraders, a cognitive self-managementcourse for seventh graders, and acognitive self-instruction course anda violence prevention curriculum forall students. The program tried to in-crease social bonding through a men-toring program and through adultmodels who taught appropriate skillsand behaviors. It also included organi-zational development strategies de-signed to strengthen the quality ofprogram implementation. Evaluationresults indicate that the program im-proved students' grade point averagesand decreased their susceptibility topeer pressure to use drugs.

CommunityInterventions

Many recent community interventionsparticularly those that target risk factorsand introduce protective factors to pre-vent antisocial behaviorhave beenheavily influenced by public health ap-proaches (Hyndman et al., 1992; Perry,Klepp, and Sillers, 1989). While manyof the programs reviewed by the StudyGroup did not specifically target SVJ of-fenders, they nonetheless suggest thatcomprehensive prevention strategies thatinvolve more than one entity (e.g., policeand neighborhoods), take place in a vari-ety of settings (e.g., home and school),and are maintained for several years havethe potential to positively affect thatpopulation. This is especially true forcommunitywide programs targeting riskand protective factors for alcohol, to-bacco, and drug use. Examples of thefollowing eight types of community

Protective FactorsPeer groups, schools, and com-munities that emphasize posi-tive social norms.

Warm, supportive relationshipsand bonding with adults.

Opportunities to become in-volved in positive activities.

Recognition and support for par-ticipating in positive activities.

Cognitive, social, and emotionalcompetence.

interventions are described below: citi-zen mobilization, situational prevention,comprehensive community interven-tions, mentoring, afterschool recreationprograms, policing strategies, policychange interventions, and mediainterventions.

The eight types of communitywide in-terventions examined by the Study Groupfocused on several risk factors, includingeasy access to firearms and drugs, com-munity disorganization, and communitynorms or attitudes favoring antisocialbehavior. The interventions also focusedon such protective factors as social bond-ing and clear community norms againstantisocial behavior. According to thestudies and evaluations of these interven-tions examined by the Study Group, pre-vention strategies that cross multiple do-mains and that are mutually reinforcingand maintained for several years producethe greatest impact.

Citizen MobilizationPrograms that mobilize citizens to pre-

vent crime and violence have the potentialto reduce serious juvenile crime becausethey often address risk factors and offerthe protective factors necessary to deteror intervene with serious juvenile offend-ers. The most common citizen mobiliza-tion programs are neighborhood blockwatch programs and citizen patrols.

Neighborhood block watch programsare based on the premise that residentsare in the best position to monitor suspi-cious activities and individuals in theirneighborhoods. Evaluations of three suchprograms, however, found little evidencethat the programs have a significant effecton neighborhood crime. An evaluation ofa citizen patrol program similarly foundno significant effect on crime. Specificcommunity mobilization programs aredescribed below.

Seattle, WA, and Chicago, IL, neigh-borhood watch programs. A neigh-borhood watch program in Seattle,initiated by professional communityorganizers affiliated with the citypolice department, focused on neigh-borhood burglary problems (Lindsayand Mc Gillis, 1986). Following recruit-ment, organizers of the program heldplanning meetings in which they dis-cussed prevention techniques, dis-tributed information about homesecurity, inspected participatingresidents' homes for security, andhad residents select block watch

54

BEST COPY & &A o. LE

captains and exchange phone num-bers. While the number of burglariesin the program area declined, the re-ductions were not statistically signifi-cant. A similar neighborhood watchprogram in middle-class and lowermiddle-class neighborhoods in Chi-cago did not produce any consistentchanges in residents' crime preven-tion activities or neighborhood socialcohesion, according to evaluators(Rosenbaum, Lewis, and Grant, 1986).Nor did the program have an effecton victimization or perceived disorder.

Police-initiated program in Houston,TX. Evaluation findings were similar fora program in Houston that was initi-ated by police (Wycoff et al., 1985b).Assisted by local police officers and anurban planner who organized commu-nity meetings, a neighborhood taskforce sponsored a drug informationseminar, designated "safe houses"where children could go for assistance,organized a trash and junk cleanup ef-fort, and promoted property markingand resident ride-alongs with policeofficers. Although a survey found thatresidents in the program area per-ceived a decrease in crime and socialdisorder and an increase in policeservice, actual victimization did notdecrease and satisfaction among resi-dents in the program area did notimprove (Wycoff et al., 1985b).

Guardian Angels. Another popularcommunity mobilization strategy usescitizens who are not sworn law enforce-ment officers to patrol neighborhoods.One of the most well-known programsusing this strategy is the GuardianAngels, a racially diverse group of un-armed individuals who patrol neigh-borhoods by foot. The group, whichoperates in cities across the Nation,specifically seeks to prevent crimesinvolving force or personal injury. Eval-uators who compared two areas in SanDiego, CA, one that was patrolled byGuardian Angels and one that was not,found that crime rates in the two areasdid not differ (Pennell et al., 1989).

Situational PreventionMany police agencies and communities

attempt to reduce antisocial and criminalbehavior by making it more difficult for anoffense to occur and easier for an offenderto get caught. Such situational preventionefforts, which may include a variety of dif-ferent strategies, have been shown to beeffective (Clarke, 1995; Farrington, 1995).

One such strategy, target hardening, re-duces the opportunity for crime to occurby implementing physical barriers such assteering locks. Studies in West Germanyfound that the country's rate of car theftsdeclined substantially after the locks wereintroduced there (Webb, 1994; Webb andLaycock, 1992).

Another situational prevention strat-egy, access control, uses sophisticatedcomputer technology, such as electronicpersonal identification numbers (P1N's),to control and limit access to buildingsor other areas. Vandalism and thefts de-creased significantly in a London publichousing project when a combination ofaccess controls, including entry phones,strategic fencing, and electronic garageaccess, was introduced (Poyner andWebb, 1987).

Another effective situational preven-tion strategy attempts to deter offendersby channeling their behavior in sociallyappropriate directions, thereby minimiz-ing the potential for violent behavior.Examples of this technique include sepa-rating rival soccer fans into differentenclosures in sports stadiums (Clarke,1983) and controlling crowds in amuse-ment parks through pavement markings,signs, physical barriers, or vocal direc-tions from park staff (Shearing andStenning, 1984).

Programs that screen or track indivi-duals' entry and exit from buildings areanother type of situational preventionintervention used to prevent crime. Re-tail stores use numerous surveillancetechniques, such as merchandise tag-ging, that prevent shoppers from leavingwithout paying for merchandise (Hope,1991). Other screening techniques in-clude formal surveillance by police orsecurity personnel, surveillance by em-ployees in specific business settings, andnatural surveillance in which an area isdesigned to have few isolated spotswhere crimes could be committedwithout detection by people goingabout their daily business (Meredithand Paquette, 1992).

Making crime targets less accessible isanother effective situational preventiontechnique. When locked safes, for exam-ple, were installed in Australian bettingshops, the number of robberies droppedsubstantially (Clarke and McGrath, 1990).The New York Transit Authority has foundthat its policy of immediately removinggraffiti from subway cars is an effectiveprevention tool because it removes the

6

Risk Factors for l i ealthand ehavior Problems

CommunityAvailability of drugs.

Availability of firearms.

Community laws and normsfavorable toward drug use,firearms, and crime.

Media portrayals of violence.

Transitions and mobility.

Low neighborhood attachmentand community disorganization.

Extreme economic deprivation.

FamilyFamily history of problembehavior.

Family management problems.

* Family conflict.

Favorable parental attitudesand involvement in the problembehavior.

SchoolO Early and persistent antisocial

behavior.

Academic failure beginning inlate elementary school.

Lack of commitment to school.

Individual/PeerAlienation and rebelliousness.

Friends who engage in theproblem behavior.

* Favorable attitudes toward theproblem behavior.

Early initiation of the problembehavior.

Constitutional factors.

Source: Catalano, R., and J.D. Hawkins.1995. Communities That Care: Risk-Focused Prevention Using the SocialDevelopment Strategy. Seattle, WA: Devel-opmental Research and Programs, Inc.,p. 10. Reprinted with the permission of theauthors and of Developmental Researchand Programs, Inc.

5

LICCT r. p v AVAILABLE

inducement for further illegal activity(Sloan-Howitt and Kelling, 1990).

While researchers found that someof these strategies work well in certainconditions, they still need to determinewhich measures work best, in whichcombination, against which kind ofcrime, and under what conditions. Al-

though altering features of the physicalenvironment has been the major focus ofsituational prevention strategies, a num-ber of researchers are emphasizing theneed to focus on "resident dynamics"(i.e., individual characteristics and so-cial interaction) as the key mediatorof the environment-crime link.

Comprehensive CommunityInterventions

Comprehensive community interven-tions hold promise for preventing SVJ of-

fending because they address multiplerisk factors in the community, schools,family, and the media by mounting a coor-dinated set of mutually reinforcing preven-tive interventions throughout the commu-nity. Given the scarcity of evaluationscompleted in this area, the only compre-hensive community programs summarizedin the Study Group's report are ones thathave focused on reducing alcohol and sub-stance abuse, including smoking. Three ofthem are described below.

Midwestern Prevention Project. TheMidwestern Prevention Project was acommunity intervention program de-signed to prevent substance abuse in42 public middle and junior highschools in the Kansas City area (inboth Kansas and Missouri) (Pentz etal., 1989c). The project included a me-dia campaign, education curriculums,parent education, community organiza-tion, and changes in local health policyto support the goals of the interven-tion. These components were intro-duced sequentially into communitiesover a period of 4 years (Pentz et al.,1989a). For evaluation purposes, re-searchers introduced both the mediacampaign and the school-based inter-vention in some schools the first year,and only the media intervention inother schools that year. Results indi-cate that the comprehensive approachwas more effective than the media in-tervention alone at preventing the on-set of substance abuse among bothhigh-risk and general population stu-dents (Pentz et al., 1989b; Johnson etal., 1990).

Class of 1989 study. A comprehensivecommunity intervention to preventadolescent smoking and alcohol use inMinnesota also was successful (Perryet al., 1992, 1993, 1996; Williams et al.,in press). The Class of 1989 study waspart of the Minnesota Heart HealthProgram (MHHP), a research and dem-onstration project carried out between1980 and 1993 that was designed toreduce cardiovascular disease in threecommunities. A study examining thisintervention evaluated the combinedimpact of a classroom-based smokingprevention curriculum delivered to thestudents in the class of 1989 duringsixth, seventh, and eighth grades andthe communitywide heart health activi-ties of MHHP (Luepker et al., 1994;Perry et al., 1992). At the end of the7-year period, when the students werehigh school seniors, 14.6 percent ofthose in the intervention programsmoked, compared with 24.1 percentof the students in the reference com-munity (who received neither theclassroom-based nor the community-wide intervention) (Perry et al., 1992).The finding suggests that the com-bined school and community interven-tions produced a significant reductionin smoking among middle and highschool youth.Project Northland. Project North-land used a similar combination ofcommunity-based and classroom inter-ventions, along with a parent interven-tion component, to prevent alcoholuse among adolescents in six north-eastern Minnesota counties (Perry et al.,1993). The program, which began whenstudents were in sixth grade, includeda social-behavioral classroom-basedcurriculum, peer leadership, parentinvolvement, and communitywidetask force activities. After 3 years,students who received the interven-tion scored lower on a tendency-to-use-alcohol scale and showed aconsiderably lower rate of monthlyand weekly alcohol use. Significantdifferences in risk factors for drug usealso were found. Survey measures ofpeer influences to use alcohol, per-ceived norms regarding teen alcoholuse, parents' communication of sanc-tions for alcohol use, and reasons forteens not to use alcohol also demon-strated a lower likelihood of usingalcohol among Project Northlandstudents. These positive effects onalcohol-related attitudes and behaviors

7

are noteworthy given the prevalenceof alcohol use among adolescents.

MentoringMany communities have initiated

mentoring programs in which adultmentors spend time with and act as rolemodels for individual youth. Mentoringinterventions may address several riskfactors (including alienation, academicfailure, low commitment to school, andassociation with delinquent and violentpeers), while introducing protective fac-tors (including opportunities for pro-social involvement and development ofskills for and recognition of prosocialinvolvement, bonds with adults, healthybeliefs, and clear standards for behavior).

Evidence from 10 evaluations of men-toring programs consistently indicatesthat noncontingent, supportive mentoringrelationships have not had the desiredeffect on academic achievement, schoolattendance, decisions to drop out, variousaspects of child behavior (includingmisconduct), and employment (Dicken,Bryson, and Kass, 1977; Goodman, 1972;Green, 1980; McPartland and Nettles, 1991;

Poorkaj and Bockelman, 1973; Rowland,1991; Slicker and Palmer, 1993; Stanwyckand Anson, 1989). The outcome of theseprograms is the same, evaluations havefound, regardless of whether mentors arepaid or unpaid and regardless of whethermentors are college students, communityvolunteers, members of the businesscommunity, or school personnel.2

Notwithstanding these evaluations,one study found that when mentors usedbehavior management techniques, students'school attendance improved (Fo andO'Donnell, 1975). The Buddy Systemmentoring program implemented in twoHawaiian cities, for example, assignedethnically and socioeconomically diversementors from a different socioeconomiclevel to work with youth who had behav-ior management problems. The mentorswere paid to make weekly contact withyouth, submit data about the youth'sbehavior, complete weekly assignmentswith the youth, submit weekly log sheets,and attend biweekly meetings. BuddySystem mentors received 18 hours of

2 OJJDP's 1998 Report to Congress: Juvenile Mentoring

Program (JUMP) indicates that youth involved inmentoring programs are less likely to experiment withdrugs, less likely to be physically aggressive, and lesslikely to skip school than those not involved in suchprograms (Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, 1998).

6

training before the program began andbiweekly training sessions on behaviormanagement throughout the program.The evaluation showed a reduction intruancy when mentoring relationshipsincluded several different types of rein-forcement based on appropriate behavior,but no such reduction when mentoringrelationships did not reward good behav-ior (Fo and O'Donnell, 1975).

Afterschool RecreationPrograms

Programs that provide supervised rec-reation after school address the SVJ riskfactors of alienation and association withdelinquent or violent peers and introduceseveral protective factors, including skillsfor leisure activities and opportunities tobecome involved with prosocial youthand adults.

An evaluation of an afterschool recre-ation program in Ottawa, Ontario, indi-cated that this type of program may bea promising intervention for preventingdelinquency and violence (Jones andOfford, 1989). The program actively re-cruited children ages 5 to 15 from low-income families who lived in an Ontariopublic housing project to participate instructured afterschool courses designedto improve students' skills in sports andin music, dance, scouting, and other non-athletic areas. After the children reacheda certain skill level, they were encouragedto participate in ongoing leagues or othercompetitive activities in the community.The number of arrests for juvenilesparticipating in the program was signifi-cantly lower than the number of arrestsfor the same number of juveniles 2 yearsbefore the intervention and for the samenumber of juveniles in a different housingproject. The number of security reportson juveniles in the program also declinedsignificantly after the intervention began.However, when the program was discon-tinued, these positive changes in neigh-borhood rates of crime diminishedsignificantly, demonstrating that someprevention programs may require con-tinuous operation to remain effective.

Policing StrategiesPolice departments around the coun-

try are trying innovative new policies toreduce crime. Many address the risk fac-tors of community disorganization, lowneighborhood attachment, and neighbor-hood tolerance of crime and violence.Others introduce protective factors,

including neanny pellets, clear oenaviorstandards, and citizen involvement withpolice. Evaluations of three policing strat-egies show mixed results.

One strategy, intensifying the use ofmarked police cars, appears to preventcertain types of serious crime in high-crime areas during high-crime periods(Kelling et al., 1974). Some jurisdictionsuse another technique known as field in-terrogation in which police officers stoppersons they believe to be suspiciousbased on "reasonable cause," questionthem about their activities, and sometimessearch the individuals and their vehicles.These tactics often are considered con-troversial because it is hard to define"reasonable cause" and sometimes havebeen challenged as unconstitutional(Skolnick and Bayley, 1988). An evaluationof a program in San Diego, CA, however,indicates that field interrogation is a poten-tially promising crime prevention tactic,especially when carried out in a respectfulmanner (Boydstun, 1975). The evaluationfound that reported crime increased signifi-cantly when police discontinued field inter-rogation and decreased significantly whenthe tactic was reintroduced.

Evaluations of these two strategiessuggest that increased police presencemust be directed judiciously (in terms oftimes, areas, and people targeted) to de-ter crime. Simply increasing the numberof police is not likely to prevent crime(Wycoff, 1982).

Community policing is a third popularpolicing strategy. In this approach, policedepartments, other government agencies,and members of the community worktogether to solve crime issues. Three

a

stuaies or community policing naveshown a reduction in physical and socialdisorder; two of these reported positiveeffects on resident satisfaction in areasusing community policing (Pate et al.,1985; Skogan and Wycoff, 1986; Wycoff etal., 1985a). Only one of the three studies,however, showed a reduction in victimiza-tion rates as a result of community polic-ing. In general, community policing pro-grams result in a decrease in residents'perceptions of and fear of crime and, inmany cases, result in more positive evalu-ations of police by residents. Crime re-ductions reported in these studies arebased on differences in all reportedcrime, and the portion of crime reduc-tions that is due to juveniles is unknown.

Policy Change interventionsMany communities and States have

changed policies and laws governing thesale and use of alcohol, cigarettes, andfirearms. Although certain policy changeshave shown evidence of preventing anti-social behavior by juveniles, results havebeen uneven.

Policies governing the availability andlegal use of tobacco and alcohol have hadan impact on juveniles' use of these sub-stances. Prevalence of alcohol use, forexample, appears to decline when Statesraise their minimum drinking age to 21(O'Malley and Wagenaar, 1991). Studies(Cook and Tauchen, 1982; Grossman,Coate, and Arluck, 1987; Levy and Sheflin,1985) of taxes on alcohol and the licens-ing of establishments that sell alcohol(Holder and Blose, 1987; Wagenaar andHolder, 1991) also indicate that policieslimiting the availability of alcohol reduce

BEST COPY MAILABLE

OJJDP Study GroupIn 1995, the Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)convened a Study Group on Serious andViolent Juvenile Offenders, a distin-guished panel brought together to build aresearch base for policymakers andpractitioners who deal with juveniles whoengage in serious and violent conduct.The group, chaired by Drs. Rolf Loeberand David P. Farrington, included 22leading juvenile justice and criminologyscholars selected on the basis of theirexpert knowledge of different aspects ofserious and violent juvenile offenders.The OJJDP Study Group documentedexisting information about SVJ offenders,examined programs for SVJ offenders,evaluated the programs' performance,and recommended further research andevaluation efforts needed to prevent andcontrol SVJ offending.

The Study Group's final report, NeverToo Early, Never Too Late: Risk Factorsand Successful Interventions for Seriousand Violent Juvenile Offenders, was com-pleted in 1997 under grant number 95JDFX-0018. The conclusions of theStudy Group were subsequently set forthin a volume entitled Serious and ViolentJuvenile Offenders: Risk Factors andSuccessful Interventions, edited by theStudy Group's cochairs, Rolf Loeber andDavid P. Farrington, and published by SagePublications, Inc., in 1998. Chapter 11 ofthe book, "Comprehensive Community-and School-Based Interventions to Pre-vent Antisocial Behavior" (by Richard F.Catalano, Michael W. Arthur, J. DavidHawkins, Lisa Berglund, and Jeffrey J.Olson), is the subject of this Bulletin.

the consumption of alcohol and problemsassociated with alcohol use (George etal., 1989; O'Malley and Wagenaar, 1991).None of these studies, however, has ex-amined the impact of policy changes onSVJ offending.

Studies (Brewer et al., 1995) of lawsregulating the purchase and sale of fire-arms have similarly revealed some posi-tive results. Two studies comparing ratesof violent crime (Sloan et al., 1988; Loftinet al., 1991), for example, suggest thatlaws restricting the sale and purchaseof handguns prevent gun-related crime.Another study (McDowall, Lizotte, andWiersema, 1991) reports no change inassault rates, but a significant decrease

in the number of reported burglaries,as a result of these laws. A fourth study(Jung and Jason, 1988) found that firearmassaults decreased significantly in thedays before new regulations went intoeffect but showed no change after thelaw became effective. The results of thatstudy were attributed to intensive mediacoverage of the new law prior to enact-ment. Findings are similar for studiesof laws governing where and in whatmanner firearms may be carried. Thesemixed findings suggest that local com-munity support and enforcement of lawsinfluence their effectiveness (Brewer etal., 1995).

In contrast, mandatory sentencing lawsfor felonies involving firearms appear toprevent homicides involving firearms(McDowall, Loftin, and Wiersema, 1992;Loftin, McDowall, and Wiersema, 1993).Such laws may also prevent other types ofviolent crime involving firearms, but evalu-ations on this issue are not yet available.

A study of the effects of New Jersey's1981 Graves Act, which mandated a mini-mum prison sentence for anyone con-victed of one of several serious crimeswhile using or carrying a firearm, foundthat the proportion of New Jersey homi-cides involving firearms decreased sig-nificantly between 1980 and 1986 (Fifeand Abrams, 1989). Another study exam-ined the impact of sentencing laws onhomicides, aggravated assaults, and rob-beries in six cities (Loftin, Heumann, andMcDowall, 1983; Loftin and McDowall,1984). Gun homicides, the study found,decreased significantly in all six citiesafter mandatory sentencing laws wereenacted. Assaults and armed robberiesdecreased somewhat in certain cities.

Media InterventionsA final community-based prevention

strategy that has shown positive effectsis the use of media campaigns that at-tempt to change public attitudes andstandards, educate community residents,or support other community interven-tions. One of the best known media inter-ventions is the Partnership for a Drug-FreeAmerica, a national advertising campaignagainst drugs. One survey revealed theeffectiveness of this campaign, showingthat markets where the Partnership cam-paign was intensively waged saw signifi-cant increases in knowledge about theeffects of marijuana and cocaine use,compared with other markets (Black,1989).

9

Media interventions have been usedprimarily (either alone or in combinationwith other strategies) to prevent and re-duce the use of cigarettes and alcohol.Evaluations show that media interventionsare especially effective when used in con-junction with school intervention cur-riculums to prevent smoking or othersubstance abuse (Flynn et al., 1992; Flynnet al., 1995; Goodstadt, 1989; Pentz et al.,1989a; Perry et al., 1992; Vartiainen et al.,1986, 1990). Although few evaluations ofmedia interventions targeting delinquencyor violence have been conducted, suchinterventions provide a promising direc-tion for future research related to chang-ing community antiviolence norms andbehaviors.

SummaryThe Study Group's review of school-

and community-based interventions offersviable examples of the types of programsnecessary to tackle the troubling issueof SVJ offending. Results of many of theinterventions are encouraging. Programsadapted from the public health modelone that has traditionally addressed riskfactors while also enhancing protectivefactorscan make a difference.

According to the Study Group, the fol-lowing interventions have shown positiveeffects in reducing risk and enhancingprotection against adolescent antisocialbehavior:

Behavioral consultation for schools.Schoolwide mentoring.

Behavioral modification and reinforce-ment of prosocial behavior, goodattendance, and strong academicperformance.

School organization interventions.Situational crime prevention.

Comprehensive community interven-tion that incorporates communitymobilization, parent involvement andeducation, and classroom-based socialand behavioral skills curriculums.

Policing strategies including commu-nity policing and intensive policepatrolling, especially in "hot spots."

Policy and law changes that affect theavailability and use of guns, tobacco,and alcoholic beverages.

Mandatory sentencing laws for crimesinvolving firearms.

8

REST COPY AVM-ABLE

Seattle Study EncouragingRecently released findings from theSeattle Social Development Projectemphasize even further that imple-menting school-based interventionswhen children are young can help re-duce violent behavior during their ado-lescent years. The project providedsocial competence training for childrenand taught teachers and parents howto encourage young children's interestin school and help them learn to inter-act with others. The interventions tookplace in elementary schools (grades 1to 6) in Seattle's most crime-riddenneighborhoods.

A study of the long-term effects ofthe project found improved academicachievement, greater commitment andattachment to school, and reducedschool misbehavior among participants6 years after the interventions. Theproject appeared particularly effectivewith poor children. Researchers alsofound that the interventions success-fully reduced violent behavior, heavydrinking, and sexual activity amongadolescents who had participated inthe program (Hawkins et al., 1999).

Media interventions to change publicattitudes and enhance the effects ofother community- and school-basedprevention strategies.However, in order to be more useful

to communities, intervention researchneeds to focus less on "what works" andmore on determining "what works forwhom" and "under what circumstancesand in what settings." As discussed above,multiple risk factorsrather than anysingle factorplace children at risk of be-coming SVJ offenders. Given the multitudeof risk factors, the differential impacts ofthese factors at different developmentalstages, and the widely varying social con-texts that children are exposed to, it is dif-ficult to identify the specific effects of inter-ventions. Effects, in fact, are highly likelyto be the result of interactions among avariety of factors and conditionsratherthan a single isolated change. It is now upto school and community leaders, policy-makers, and concerned citizens to designand implement their own interventionstargeting SVJ offending. The most effectiveway to reduce SVJ offending is to beginprevention efforts as early as possible

with high-risk youth and to interveneaggressively with those who are alreadySVJ offenders, regardless of how old theyare or how long they have been offending.

For Further InformationThe following publications are

available from the Juvenile JusticeClearinghouse (JJC). For more infor-mation or to order a copy, contact JJC,800-638-8736 (phone), 301-519-5212(fax), puborder@ncjrs.org (e-mail),www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org (Internet).

* Summary of Study Group's Final Re-port. To help communities and practi-tioners learn more about serious andviolent juvenile offenders, OJJDP re-leased a Bulletin that summarizes theStudy Group's final report. The 8-pageBulletin, Serious and Violent JuvenileOffenders (May 1998), is available (freeof charge) from JJC.

* Final Study Group Report. The StudyGroup's final report, Never Too Early,Never Too Late: Risk Factors and Suc-cessful Interventions for Serious andViolent Juvenile Offenders (Loeber andFarrington, 1997), is also available (fora fee) from JJC.

ReferencesBlack, G.S. 1989. Changing Attitudes

Toward Drug Use. Rochester, NY: GordonS. Black Corp.

Boydstun, J.E. 1975. San Francisco FieldInterrogation Final Report. Washington,DC: Police Foundation.

Brewer, D.D., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano,R.F., and Neckerman, H. 1995. Preventingserious, violent and chronic juvenile offend-ing: A review of evaluations of selectedstrategies in childhood, adolescence, andthe community. In A Sourcebook: Serious,Violent, & Chronic Juvenile Offenders, editedby J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins,and J.J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc.

Bry, B.H. 1982. Reducing the incidenceof adolescent problems through preventiveintervention: One- and five-year follow-up. American Journal of CommunityPsychology 10:265-276.

Bry, B.H., and George, F.E. 1980. Evalu-ating and improving prevention programs:A strategy from drug abuse. Evaluationand Program Planning 2:127-136.

10

9

Catalano, R.F., Arthur, M.W., Hawkins,J.D., Berglund, L., and Olson, J.J. 1998.Comprehensive community- and school-based interventions to prevent antisocialbehavior. In Serious and Violent JuvenileOffenders: Risk Factors and SuccessfulInterventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P.Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc.

Cauce, A.M., Comer, J.P., and Schwartz, D.1987. Long-term effects of a systems-orientedschool prevention program. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry 57:127-131.

Clarke, R.V. 1983. Situational crime pre-vention: Its theoretical basis and practicalscope. In Crime and Justice, vol. 4, editedby M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press, pp. 225-256.

Clarke, R.V. 1995. Situational crime pre-vention: Building a safer society: Strate-gic approaches to crime prevention. InCrime and Justice: A Review of Research,vol. 29, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Clarke, R., and McGrath, G. 1990. Cashreduction and robbery prevention in Aus-tralian betting shops. Security Journal1:160-163.

Comer, J.P. 1988. Educating poorminority children. Scientific American259:42-48.

Cook, P.J., and Tauchen, G. 1982. Theeffect of liquor taxes on heavy drinking.Bell Journal of Economics 13:379-390.

Dicken, C., Bryson, R., and Kass, N.1977. Companionship therapy: A replica-tion in experimental community psychol-ogy. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology 45:637-646.

Farrington, D.P. 1995. Key issues in theintegration of motivational and opportunity-reducing crime prevention strategies. InIntegrating Crime Prevention Strategies: Pro-pensity and Opportunity, edited by P-O.H.Wikstrom, R.V. Clarke, and J. McCord.Stockholm, Sweden: National Council forCrime Prevention, pp. 333-357.

Fife, D., and Abrams, W.R. 1989. Fire-arms' decreased role in New Jersey homi-cides after a mandatory sentencing law.Journal of Trauma 29:1548-1551.

Flynn, B.S., Worden, J.K., Secker-Walker,R.H., Badger, G.J., and Geller, B.M. 1995.Cigarette smoking prevention effects ofmass media and school interventions tar-geted to gender and age groups. Journalof Health Education 26:S-45-S-51.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Flynn, B.S., Worden, J.K., Secker-Walker,R.H., Badger, G.J., Geller, B.M., andCostanza, M.C. 1992. Prevention of ciga-rette smoking through mass media inter-vention and school programs. AmericanJournal of Public Health 82(6):827-834.

Fo, WS., and O'Donnell, C.R. 1975. TheBuddy System: Effect of community inter-vention on delinquent offenses. BehaviorTherapy 6:522-524.

George, W.H., Crowe, L.C., Abwender,D., and Skinner, J.B. 1989. Effects of rais-ing the drinking age to 21 years in NewYork State on self-reported consumptionby college students. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology 19:623-635.

Ginsberg, C., and Loffredo, L. 1993.Violence-related attitudes and behaviorsof high school students-New York City1992. Journal of School Health 63:438-439.

Goodman, G. 1972. CompanionshipTherapy: Studies in Structured Intimacy.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Goodstadt, M.S. 1989. Substance abusecurricula vs. school drug policies. Journalof School Health 59:249-250.

Gottfredson, D.C. 1986. An empiricaltest of school based environmental andindividual interventions to reduce therisk of delinquent behavior. Criminology24:705-731.

Gottfredson, D.C. 1987. An evaluationof an organization development approachto reducing school disorder. EvaluationReview 11:739-763.

Gottfredson, D.C., Gottfredson, G.D.,and Hybl, L.G. 1993. Managing adolescentbehavior: A multiyear, multischool study.American Educational Research Journal30:179-215.

Gottfredson, D.C., Gottfredson, G.D.,and Skroban, S. 1996. A multimodelschool based prevention demonstration.Journal of Adolescent Research 11:97-115.

Gottfredson, D.C., Karweit, N.L., andGottfredson, G.D. 1989. Reducing Disor-derly Behavior in Middle Schools. ReportNo. 47. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni-versity, Center for Research on Elemen-tary and Middle Schools.

Green, B.C. 1980. An evaluation of a BigBrothers' program for father-absent boys:An eco-behavioral analysis. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. New York, NY: NewYork University.

Grossman, M., Coate, D., and Arluck,G.M. 1987. Price sensitivity of alcoholicbeverages in the United States: Youth

alcohol consumption. Advances in Sub-stance Abuse: Behavioral and BiologicalResearch,. Supplement I. Control Issues inAlcohol Abuse Prevention: Strategies ForState and Communities. Greenwick, CT:JAI Press.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., Kosterman,R., Abbott, R., and Hill, K.G. 1999. Prevent-ing adolescent health-risk behaviors bystrengthening protection during child-hood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adoles-cent Medicine 153:226-234.

Hingson, R., Herren, T., Howland, J.,and Winter, M. 1983. Reduced BAC limitsfor young people: Impact on night fatalcrashes. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving7(2):117-127.

Holder, H.D., and Blose, .1.0.1987. Im-pact of changes in distilled spirits avail-ability on apparent consumption: A timeseries analysis of liquor-by-the-drink.British Journal of Addiction 82:623-631.

Hope, T. 1991. Crime information inretailing: Prevention through analysis.Security Journal 2:240-245.

Hyndman, B., Giesbrecht, N., Bernardi,D.R., Coston, N., Douglas, R.R., Ferrence,R.G., Gliksman, L., Godstadt, M.S., Graham,D.G., and Loranger, P.D. 1992. Preventingsubstance abuse through multicompo-nent community action research projects:Lessons from past experiences and chal-lenges for future initiatives. ContemporaryDrug Problems 19:133-164.

Johnson, C.A., Pentz, M.A., Weber,M.D., Dwyer, J.H., Baer, N.A., MacKinnon,D.P., Hansen, W.B., and Flay, B.R. 1990.Relative effectiveness of comprehensivecommunity programming for drug abuseprevention with high-risk and low-riskadolescents. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology 58:447-456.

Jones, M.B., and Offord, D.R. 1989. Re-duction of antisocial behavior in poorchildren by nonschool skill development.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatryand Allied Disciplines 30:737-750.

Jung, R.S., and Jason, L.A. 1988. Fire-arm violence and the effects of guncontrol legislation. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology 16:515-524.

Kelling, G.L., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., andBrown, C.E. 1974. The Kansas City Preven-tion Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report.Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

Levy, D., and Sheflin, N. 1985. The de-mand for alcoholic beverages: An aggre-gate time-series analysis. Journal of PublicPolicy and Marketing 4:47-54.

1011

)41113191_5011,1._

Lindsay, B., and McGillis, D. 1986. City-wide community crime prevention: Anassessment of the Seattle program. InCommunity Crime Prevention: Does It Work?edited by D.P. Rosenbaum. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 46-67.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds.1997. Never Too Early, Never Too Late:Risk Factors and Successful Interventionsfor Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders.Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds.1998. Serious and Violent JuvenileOffenders: Risk Factors and SuccessfulInterventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications, Inc.

Loftin, C., Heumann, M., and McDowall,D. 1983. Mandatory sentencing and fire-arms violence: Evaluating an alternativeto gun control. Law and Society Review17:287-318.

Loftin, C., and McDowall, D. 1984. Thedeterrent effects of the Florida FelonyFirearm law. Journal of Criminal Law andCriminology 75:250-259.

Loftin, C., McDowall, D., and Wiersema,B. 1993. Evaluating effects of changes ingun laws. American Journal of PreventiveMedicine 9 (Supplement): 39-43.

Loftin, C., McDowall, D., Wiersema, B.,and Cottey, T.I. 1991. Effects of restrictivelicensing of handguns on homicide andsuicide in the District of Columbia. NewEngland Journal of Medicine 325:1615-1620.

Luepker, R.V., Murray, D.M., Jacobs,D.R., Mittelmark, M.B., Bracht, N., Carlaw,R., Crow, R., Elmer, P., Finnegan, J., Fol-som, A.R., Grimm, R., Hannan, P.J., Jeffrey,R., Lando, H., McGovern, P., Mullis, R.,Perry, C.L., Pechacek, T., Pirie, P., Sprafka,M., Weisbrod, R., and Blackburn, H. 1994.Community education for cardiovas-cular disease prevention: Risk factorchanges in the Minnesota Heart HealthProgram. American Journal of PublicHealth 84:1383-1393.

Maguin, E., and Loeber, R. 1996. Aca-demic performance and delinquency. InCrime and Justice: A Review of Research,vol. 20, edited by M. Tonry. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press, pp. 145-264.

Mayer, G.R., and Butterworth, T.W.1979. A preventive approach to schoolviolence and vandalism: An experimentalstudy. Personnel and Guidance Journal57:463-441.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Mayer, G.R., Butterworth, T.W.,Nafpaktitis, M., and Sulzer-Azaroff, B.1983. Preventing school vandalism andimproving discipline: A three-year study.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis16:355-369.

McDowall, D., Lizotte, A.J., andWiersema, B. 1991. General deterrencethrough civilian gun ownership: An evalu-ation of the quasi-experimental evidence.Criminology 29:541-559.

McDowall, D., Loftin, C., and Wiersema,B. 1992. A comparative study of the pre-ventive effects of mandatory sentencinglaws for gun crimes. Journal of CriminalLaw and Criminology 83:378-394.

McPartland, J.M., and Nettles, S.M.1991. Using community adults as advo-cates or mentors for at-risk middle schoolstudents: A two-year evaluation of ProjectRAISE. American Journal of Education99:568-586.

Meredith, C., and Paquette, C. 1992.Crime prevention in high rise rental apart-ments: Findings of a demonstrationproject. Security Journal 3:161-169.

Murphy, H.A., Hutchinson, J.M., andBailey, J.S. 1983. Behavioral school psy-chology goes outdoors: The effect of orga-nized games on playground aggression.Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis16:29-35.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention. 1998.1998 Report toCongress: Juvenile Mentoring Program(JUMP). Program Report. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Olweus, D. 1991. Bully/victim problemsamong schoolchildren: Basic facts andeffects of a school based interventionprogram. In The Development and Treat-ment of Childhood Aggression, edited byD.J. Pepler and K.H. Rubin. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum, pp. 411-448.

O'Malley, P.M., and Wagenaar, A.C.1991. Effects of minimum drinking agelaws on alcohol use, related behaviorsand traffic crash involvement amongAmerican youth: 1976-1987. Journal ofStudies on Alcohol 52:478-491.

Pate, A.M., Skogan, W.G., Wycoff, M.A.,and Sherman, L.W. (With Annan, S., andthe Newark Police Department). 1985. Re-ducing the Signs of Crime: The Network Ex-perience, Executive Summary. Washington,DC: Police Foundation.

Pennell, S., Curtis, C., Henderson, J.,and Tayman, J. 1989. Guardian Angels: Aunique approach to crime prevention.Crime & Delinquency 35:378-400.

Pentz, M.A., Brannon, B.R., Charlin,V.L., Barrett, E.J., MacKinnon, D.P., andFlay, B.R. 1989a. The power of policy: Therelationship of smoking policy to adoles-cent smoking. American Journal of PublicHealth 79:857-862.

Pentz, M.A., Dwyer, J.H., MacKinnon,D.P., Flay, B.R., Hansen, W.B., Wang,E.Y.I., and Johnson, C.A. 1989b. A multi-community trial for primary preventionof adolescent drug abuse: Effects on druguse prevalence. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 261:3256-3266.

Pentz, M.A.,.MaeKinnon, D.P., Flay, B.R.,Hansen, W.B., Johnson, C.A., and Dwyer,J.H. 1989c. Primary prevention of chro-nic diseases in adolescence: Effects ofthe Midwestern Prevention Project ontobacco use. American Journal ofEpidemiology 130:713-724.

Perry, C.L., Kelder, S.H., Murray, D.M.,and Klepp, K.-I. 1992. Communitywidesmoking prevention: Long-term outcomesof the Minnesota Heart Health Programand Class of 1989 Study. American Journalof Public Health 82:1210-1216.

Perry, C.L., Klepp, K.-1., and Sillers, C.1989. Community-wide strategies for car-diovascular health: The Minnesota HeartHealth Program youth program. HealthEducation Research 4:87-101.

Perry, C.L., Williams, C.L., Forster, J.L.,Wolfson, M., Wagenaar, A.C., Finnegan, J.R.,McGovern, P.G., Veblen-Mortenson, S.,Komro, K.A., and Anstine, P.S. 1993. Back-ground, conceptualization and design of acommunity-wide research program on ado-lescent alcohol use: Project Northland.Health Education Research 8:125-136.

Perry, C.L., Williams, C.L., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Tommey, T.L., Komro, K.A.,Anstine, P.S., McGovern, P.G., Finnegan,J.R., Forster, J.L., Wagenaar, A.C., andWolfson, M. 1996. Outcomes of acommunity-wide alcohol use preventionprogram during early adolescence. Ameri-can Journal of Public Health 86:956-965.

Poorkaj, H., and Bockelman, C. 1973.Impact of community volunteers anddelinquency prevention. Sociology andSociological Research 57:335-341.

Poyner, B., and Webb, B. 1987. Success-ful crime prevention: Case studies. London,England: Tavistock Institute of HumanRelations.

12

Rosenbaum, D., Lewis, D.A., and Grant,J.A. 1986. Neighborhood-based crime pre-vention: Assessing the efficacy of commu-nity organizing in Chicago. In CommunityCrime Prevention: Does It Work?, edited byD.P. Rosenbaum. Beverly Hills, CA: SagePublications, Inc.

Rowland, R.N.G. 1991. An evaluationof the effects of a mentoring program on at-risk students in selected elementary schoolsin the North East Independent school dis-trict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.

Saffer, H., and Grossman, M. 1987. Beertaxes, the legal drinking age, and youthmotor vehicle fatalities. Journal of LegalStudies 16:351-374.

Shearing, C.D., and Stenning, P.C. 1984. Fromthe panoptican to Disney World: The develop-ment of discipline. In Perspectives in CriminalLaw: Essays in Honor of John L.J. Edwards, ed-ited by A. Doob and E. Greenspen. Aurora,Canada: Canada Law Book.

Skogan, W.G., and Wycoff, M.A. 1986.Storefront police officers: The Houstonfield test. In Community Crime Prevention:Does it Work? edited by D.P. Rosenbaum.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Skolnick, J.H., and Bayley, D.H. 1988.Theme and variation in community polic-ing. In Crime and Justice, vol. 10, editedby M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-37.

Slicker, E.K., and Palmer, D.J. 1993.Mentoring at-risk high school students:Evaluation of a school-based program.School Counselor 40:327-334.

Sloan, J.H., Kellerman, A.I., Reay, D.T.,Ferris, J.A., Koepsell, T., Rivara, ER, Rice,C., Gray, L., and LoGerfo, J. 1988. Handgunregulations, crime, assaults, and homicide:A tale of two cities. New England Journal ofMedicine 319:1256-1262.

Sloan-Howltt, M., and Kelling, G. 1990.Subway graffiti in New York City: `Gettin'Up' vs. `Meanin' It and Cleanin' It.' SecurityJournal 1:131-136.

Stanwyck, D.J., and Anson, C.A. 1989. TheAdopt-A-Student Evaluation Project. Final re-port submitted to the W.T. Grant Foundation.Atlanta, GA: Georgia State University.

Vartiainen, E., Pallonen, U., McAlister, A.,Koskela, K., and Puska, P. 1986. Four-yearfollow-up results of the smoking preventionprogram in the North Karelia Youth Project.Preventive Medicine 15:692-698.

Vartiainen, E., Pallonen, U., McAlister, A.,and Puska, R 1990. Eight-year follow-up re-sults of an adolescent smoking prevention

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

L% 1

program: The North Karelia YouthProject. American Journal of Public Health80:78-79.

Wagenaar, A.C., and Holder, H.D. 1991.A change from public to private sale ofwine: Results from natural experiments inIowa and West Virginia. Journal of Studieson Alcohol 52:162-173.

Webb, B. 1994. Steering column locksand motor vehicle theft: Evaluations fromthree countries. In Crime Prevention Stud-ies, vol. 2, edited by R.V. Clarke. Monsey,NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Webb, B., and Laycock, G. 1992. Tack-ling car crime: The nature and extent ofthe problem. Crime Prevention Unit Paper32. London, England: Home Office.

Williams, C.L., Perry, C.L., Dudovitz,B., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Anstine, P.S.,Komro, K.A., and Toomey, T.L. In press. Ahome-based prevention program for sixthgrade alcohol use: Results from ProjectNorthland. Journal of Primary Prevention.

Williams, T.P., and Lillis, R.P. 1986.Changes in alcohol consumption by 18-year -olds following an increase in NewYork State's purchase age to 19. Journalof Studies on Alcohol 47:290-296.

Wycoff, M.A. 1982. Evaluating thecrime-effectiveness of municipal police. In

111)111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

x*AUTOxxxxxxv.3:3:3:3-0 IGIT 207CHR I ST IN ROWSOMESECURITY OFFICERERIC PROCESSING & REF FAC2ND FL

.1 .100 NEST STLAUREL MD 20707-3587

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPERMIT NO. G-91

SS Pi32788

AcknowledgmentsThis Bulletin was written by Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D., Rolf Loeber, Ph.D., andKay C. McKinney. Dr. Catalano is a Professor and the Associate Director of theSocial Development Research Group at the University of Washington's School ofSocial Work in Seattle, WA. His work focuses on discovering risk and protectivefactors for positive and problem behavior, and designing and evaluating programsto address these factors. Dr. Loeber is a Professor in the Life History StudiesProgram at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Western PsychiatricInstitute and Clinic. His research interests concern developmental psychopathol-ogy, antisocial and delinquent behavior from childhood to early adulthood, crimi-nology, juvenile substance use and abuse, juvenile mental health problems, familyand neighborhood risk processes, protective factors, and public health interven-tions. Ms. McKinney is a Writer-Editor in OJJDP's Information Dissemination Unit.

Photograph on page 2 © 1998 Corbis Corporation; photographs on pages 3 and 7©1998 PhotoDisc, Inc.

Managing Police Work: Issues and Analysis,edited by J.R. Greene. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.

Wycoff, M.A., Skogan, W.G., Pate, A.M.,and Sherman, L.W. (With Annan, S.).1985a. Citizen Contact Patrol: The HoustonField Test, Executive Summary. Washing-ton, DC: Police Foundation.

Wycoff, M.A., Skogan, W.G., Pate, A.M.,and Sherman, L.W. (With Annan, S.).1985b. Police As Community Organizers:The Houston Field Test, Executive Sum-mary. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

13

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includesthe Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureauof Justice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

IC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)