volume ii • number 1 spring/summer 1994 juvenilesingle pathway invariably leads to a life of...

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Volume II • Number 1

A Journal of theOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Spring/Summer 1994

Drugs, Delinquency,and Other Data

JUVENILEJUSTICE

Also

Disproportionate MinorityRepresentation

Permanency Planning for Children

◆

◆

DEP

ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OF

FI C

E

OF JUST I CE PRO

GR

AM

S

BJA

N

I JOJJ DP BJS

OV

C

From the Administrator

Serious problems call for serious solutions. The temptation of a quick-fix—which, in retrospect, rarely fixes anything for long—should be resisted in favor of realremedies based on sound analysis.

Longitudinal studies can play a key role in research that leads to effective solutions tojuvenile justice problems. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention’sProgram of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Juvenile Delinquency repre-sents, as Stuart Greenbaum notes, a “massive, groundbreaking study,” following4,000 juveniles for 5 years. Drugs, Delinquency, and Other Data describes the studyand highlights some of its significant findings.

A disturbing trend that has long concerned OJJDP is the overrepresentation of mi-nority juveniles in secure facilities. In keeping with our legislative mandate and ourcommitment to equal justice under the law, we are leading the effort to assess and ad-dress this problem. Our preliminary report by Eugene Rhoden, coordinator ofOJJDP’s Disproportionate Minority Confinement Program, is aptly titled Dispropor-tionate Minority Representation: First Steps to a Solution. Mr. Rhoden’s article providesan overview of OJJDP’s pilot program.

In Courting Disaster: Permanency Planning for Children, we encounter yet anotherchallenge facing juvenile and family courts: the placement of children in cases of pur-ported abuse or neglect. Such decisions—as tragic headlines have demonstrated—canbecome quite literally matters of life and death. Today’s judges require the wisdom ofSolomon as they seek to protect the best interests of children in cases where, asPatricia White observes, “There are no easy solutions.”

Serious problems do indeed call for serious solutions. I am convinced that effectivesolutions to the problems confronting our youth and our communities will only comefrom working together. We welcome your involvement and contributions.

John J. WilsonActing AdministratorOffice of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention

Volume II • Number 1 Spring/Summer 1994

Office ofJuvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

633 Indiana Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20531

(202) 307–0751

Acting AdministratorJohn J. Wilson

Executive EditorEarl E. Appleby, Jr.

Assistant EditorCatherine M. Doyle

Managing EditorJohn D. Kotler

Juvenile Justice StaffLynn Cothern

David L. SchmidtMarilyn Silver

Joellen M. Fritsche Talbot

FEATURES

Drugs, Delinquency, and Other Data by Stuart Greenbaum......................... 2

With crime the Nation’s number one concern, the implications of an OJJDP studyassume added significance.

Disproportionate Minority Representation:First Steps to a Solution by Eugene Rhoden .............................................. 9

Disproportionate minority representation in local juvenile justice systems must bedetermined objectively, assessed accurately, and addressed adequately.

Courting Disaster:Permanency Planning for Children by Patricia J. White .............................15

When a juvenile court judge decides whether a child can remain safely with thefamily, the decision may have lasting consequences for child and family alike.

IN BRIEFJustice Matters

Disproportionate Minority Representation .......................................................... 21

Gould-Wysinger Awards: Recognizing a Job Well Done ..................................... 23

Across Our Desk

Anger Management for Youth: Stemming Aggression and Violence ....................24

OJJDP Publications

New Titles Available in the OJJDP Summary Series ........................................... 25

Electronic Bulletin Board Offers Timely Information From OJJDP .................... 25

A New Resource for Remedies in International Child Abduction Cases ........... 26

Juvenile Justice is published bythe Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP) to advance its man-date to disseminate informa-tion regarding juveniledelinquency and preventionprograms (42 U.S.C. 5652).

Points of view or opinions ex-pressed in this publication arethose of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the offi-cial positions or policies ofOJJDP or of the U.S. Depart-ment of Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Preventionis a component of the Office ofJustice Programs, which alsoincludes the Bureau of JusticeAssistance, the Bureau of Jus-tice Statistics, the NationalInstitute of Justice, and theOffice for Victims of Crime.ORDER FORM ....................................................................................................... 27

JUVENILEJUSTICE

2

Juvenile Justice

Drugs, Delinquency,and Other Databy Stuart Greenbaum

According to a recent Gallup poll, crime is the Nation’s numberone concern. Law enforcement officials will attest to its growing domi-nance; crime victims can attest to its harsh impact on daily life. Accord-ingly, a new study with positive implications for delinquency and drugabuse prevention assumes added significance.

By studying some 4,000 youth over a 5-year period, researchers have identified apattern of causes or factors leading to de-linquency—some obvious, some not soobvious—involving drugs, guns, peers,school, and family. They were able tochart specific behavioral pathways to de-linquency. This massive, groundbreakingstudy, the Program of Research on theCauses and Correlates of Juvenile Delin-quency, was sponsored by the U.S. De-partment of Justice’s Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

The study began in 1986, drawing datafrom three distinct but coordinatedprojects:

◆ Denver Youth Survey, University ofColorado. Fifteen-hundred boys and girlsand their parents from high-risk Denverneighborhoods were interviewed once ayear. The children were 7, 9, 11, 13, and15 years of age when the study began.

◆ Pittsburgh Youth Study, University ofPittsburgh. This survey studied boys inthe first, fourth, and seventh grades inPittsburgh schools. Semiannual followupinterviews with the subjects, their teach-

ers, and their parents were conductedwith 1,500 of the original 2,550.

◆ Rochester Youth Development Study,State University of New York at Albany.The sample group consisted of 1,000 pub-lic school seventh and eighth graders,who were interviewed every 6 months.Parents were interviewed separately, alsoat 6-month intervals. In addition, datawere collected from Rochester schools,the police, and other agencies.

It is important to note that each surveyoversampled youngsters at high risk forserious delinquency and drug use. Thiswas done to obtain a sufficient number ofserious, chronic offenders for research.However, the results were weighted torepresent the general age-grade popula-tions in the three cities.

We should bear in mind the difficulty ofdetermining exact causes of any humanbehavior, including delinquent behavior.Nor can we presume that exposure to aparticular risk factor makes a child delin-quent automatically. Every child pos-sesses unique characteristics influencedby family, school, peers, and the commu-

A professional public relationscounselor with 17 years' experi-ence representing public safety,health, education, and environ-mental concerns, StuartGreenbaum has worked with theU.S. Department of Justice’s Na-tional School Safety Center, theCalifornia Attorney General, andthe California Office of CriminalJustice Planning.

Drugs, Delinquency, and Other Data

Spring/Summer 1994 3

nity that guide the child’s response to agiven risk factor. Social scientists con-tinue to caution that no single cause ac-counts for all delinquency. Likewise, nosingle pathway invariably leads to a lifeof crime.

Common MeasurementsThe three research teams launched theircollaborative study by devising a setof core measures for delinquencydevelopment:

◆ Delinquent behavior, as reported bythe subject and by officials.

◆ Drug use, as reported by the subject.

◆ Family demographic characteristics.

◆ Characteristics of the community andneighborhood.

◆ Parental attitudes and childrearingpractices.

◆ Subjects’ attitudes, performance inschool, and perceptions of the conse-quences of delinquency.

◆ Peers’ conventional and delinquentactivities.

The study’s longitudinal, shared-measurement approach has been de-scribed as a milestone in criminologicalresearch. More than 60,000 interviewswere conducted with test subjects andtheir caregivers during the 5 years of datacollection. The researchers reported thatthey were able to retain 90 percent oftheir subjects during the initial years ofthe research study. This is a noteworthyachievement in a population noted for itstransient families and crucial in a longi-tudinal study.

Drugs and DelinquencyThose who work with delinquent youthhave long known of the relationship be-

tween criminal behavior and the use ofdrugs. But to what extent does one influ-ence the other? This study found thatamong all age, gender, and ethnic groups,the more seriously involved in drugs ayouth was, the more seriously that juve-nile was involved in delinquency, andvice versa. In addition, when this rela-tionship was observed over time, it ap-peared that drug use stimulated morechanges in delinquency than the reverse.

This relationship takes on critical impor-tance when we consider another finding:substance use started at a young age. Re-searchers reported that the use of alcoholin this population began early. By age 16,half the study subjects were using alcoholregularly. Marijuana use began later. Byage 16 about one-quarter of the subjectswere using marijuana. The use of harderdrugs began even later in life and neverinvolved more than 10 percent of thesubjects. It is the high rate of alcohol usethat is noteworthy to the research teams,who say alcohol remains the drug ofchoice among American adolescents.

Street crimes also began at an early age.In the Pittsburgh and Denver studies,about 10 percent of 7-year-old boys re-ported having committed at least onestreet offense such as bicycle theft, bur-glary, or purse-snatching. By age 9, the

Each survey oversampled youth at highrisk of delinquency.

rate increased to nearly 20 percent. Asboys reached their teens, more had com-mitted crimes and gotten arrested, andthe crimes were more serious: car theft,robbery, rape, and illegal drug sales. Bythe time boys in all three studies were 17,about 40 percent of them had committedat least one crime.

If the reported rates of criminal activityand drug use among juveniles are

4

Juvenile Justice

alarming, there is further cause for alarmin regard to their sexual activities.Among subjects between the ages of 13and 17, well over half of the boys—andalmost half of the girls—had had sexualintercourse. The consequences of thisearly sexual activity were clearly re-flected: one-third of the oldest girls inthe Rochester study and nearly half ofthe oldest girls in the Denver study hadbeen pregnant at least once.

lying and shoplifting, usually aroundage 10. It progressed to acts of propertydamage, such as firestarting or vandalism,around age 11 or 12, followed by moder-ate and serious forms of delinquency.

◆ Overt pathway. Step one was markedby minor aggression—annoying othersand bullying—around age 11 or 12. Thisescalated to physical fighting and vio-lence as the juvenile progressed along thepathway.

The study teams found that most youngpeople entered a pathway via the firststep and progressed from there. Somewere in just one pathway, but others werein more than one. The most seriously de-linquent participated in all three.

Families, Guns,and PeersGreater risks exist for violent offendingwhen a child is physically abused or ne-glected early in life. Such a child is morelikely to begin violent offending earlierand to be more involved in such offend-ing than children who have not beenabused or neglected. Children who arevictims of or witnesses to multiple acts ofviolence in the home are two and one-half times more likely to commit subse-quent acts of violence than children whoare spared such domestic violence.

Although it remains difficult to deter-mine the causes of delinquency, thisstudy traced several explanatory factors.Two of these were family attachment andparenting behavior. Delinquency anddrug use were found to be related to poorfamily attachment—that is, a child didnot feel a strong emotional bond with hisparents. Poor parenting behavior, mani-fested in failure to communicate withand monitor children, related to both de-linquency and drug use as well.

Developmental pathways can lead toserious delinquency.

How do drugs and delinquency relate tothis? The findings showed that youthwho were sexually active or who had be-come pregnant were more likely to usealcohol or other drugs. They were alsomore likely to be involved in some formof delinquency.

DevelopmentalPathwaysPrevious research has shown that prob-lem behaviors among young people canaccumulate and lead to serious delin-quency. The longitudinal nature of thestudy allowed researchers to observe se-quences in disruptive behavior fromchildhood to adolescence. Studying thesesequences in boys, researchers were ableto distinguish three separate develop-mental pathways, each consisting ofthree successive stages:

◆ Authority conflict pathway. Subjectsstarted down this pathway quite young—some as young as 3 or 4 years of age. Thefirst step was stubborn behavior, followedby defiance—around age 11—and au-thority avoidance—truancy, staying outlate at night, or running away.

◆ Covert pathway. This pathway beganwith minor covert acts such as frequent



Poor family life was found to exacerbatedelinquent behavior and drug use. Andthe more delinquent and drug-using ayouth became, the worse family life be-came. Researchers point out, however,that the relationship between family fac-tors and delinquency/drug use was notparticularly strong in this study.

A stronger correlation existed betweendelinquency and illegal gun ownership.Seventy-four percent of illegal gun own-ers in the Rochester study had commit-ted street crimes. Forty-one percent ofthem used drugs. A striking finding ofthe study is the difference in the crimerate of those who owned guns illegallyand those who were legal owners of fire-arms. Compared with the 74 percent ofillegal gun owners who had committedstreet crimes in Rochester, only 14 per-cent of legal gun owners had committedstreet crimes. What accounts for the dif-ference? Researchers found that younglegal owners of firearms were likely tohave fathers who owned guns for huntingand sport, while illegal gun owners werelikely to be affiliated with street gangs.

Affiliation with street gangs was a factorin delinquency when the affiliation en-dured. Researchers found that althoughjuveniles in this age group frequentlymoved in and out of gangs, those whoremained in a street gang for a long pe-riod of time had high rates of delin-quency. In the Rochester study, forexample, 88 percent of those whose gangmembership was most stable committedserious offenses; 64 percent committedstreet crimes.

Gang members or not, peers who weredelinquent or used drugs had a great im-pact on youth, researchers found. Andthe impact became stronger over time.For example, subjects who associatedwith drug-using peers during a given yearshowed much higher rates of drug use thenext year. Moreover, those same subjects

were more likely to associate with drug-using peers the following year.

Education,Neighborhood, and JobsThe study revealed two educational fac-tors. The first concerned commitment toschool. Subjects who were not highlycommitted to school in one year hadhigher rates of street crime in the follow-ing year. The opposite influence was alsofound: youth who committed streetcrimes in one year showed less commit-ment to school the following year.

The second finding was the relationshipbetween delinquency and school perfor-mance, as measured by reading achieve-ment, teacher-rated reading performance,and failure to be promoted. The studyfound that children who were delinquenthad poorer reading skills than nonde-linquent children. A link was found be-tween delinquency and being held backin school. These associative factors ap-peared as early as the first grade.

The Causes and Correlates study ad-dressed the classic issue of nature versusnurture: is a person’s development influ-enced more by genetic code or by the en-vironment in which that person growsup? It is not too surprising that the datafrom the Pittsburgh study showed a rela-tionship between delinquency and livingin an underclass neighborhood. But

Poor family life exacerbates delinquencyand drug use.

when researchers considered only youthwho were more involved with their fami-lies and more closely supervised by theirparents (factors found to be positive in-fluences), youth from underclass neigh-borhoods were still more likely to be

6

Juvenile Justice

delinquent than those from more affluentneighborhoods. The researchers con-cluded that living in underclass areasseemed to increase the chances ofdelinquency.

Can improving employment opportuni-ties for young people help? Many youthjobs programs are predicated on that be-lief. But the study confirmed earlier find-ings that working at a job doesn’tnecessarily keep a youth from becomingdelinquent. In fact, a larger percentage ofworking adolescents in Denver were in-volved in street crimes compared withtheir nonworking counterparts. In Roch-ester there was little difference. Similarly,there was no evidence that working wasrelated to lower levels of drug use.

Help-SeekingCaregivers,Resilient YouthResearchers examined the extent towhich caregivers of delinquent youthsought professional help. They foundthat the more delinquency increased, themore caregivers tried to find help—mostoften from schools and professional coun-selors. But overall, only one-third ofcaregivers sought professional help fortheir delinquent youth.

discipline were the most important barri-ers to delinquency and drug use. Com-mitment to school and, in particular,avoidance of delinquent and drug-usingpeers were additional protective factors.

Program ImplicationsThe study can contribute to the improve-ment of delinquency prevention and in-tervention programs. The researchersrecommend:

◆ Get an earlier start. Intervention pro-grams should probably begin as early aselementary school. By the time many se-rious offenders reach high school, theircharacters are well established; they areresistant to changing their delinquentbehavior and can successfully thwart ef-forts to do so.

◆ Design programs based on pathwaymodels. As we have seen, delinquencyprogresses along a pathway from less seri-ous to more serious forms of behavior. Ifwe can identify a juvenile’s position on agiven pathway, we can attempt to short-circuit the progression. The effort shouldbe to prevent young people from enteringpathways in the first place, but failingthat, we should intercept them in a nega-tive pathway before the delinquent be-havior becomes ingrained.

◆ Make programs more comprehensive.First, provide services that deal with mul-tiple, co-occurring behaviors exhibitedby serious delinquents. These behaviorscan include using drugs, engaging in earlysexual activities, failing at school, joininggangs, and possessing illegal guns. Sec-ond, take into consideration the interre-lated nature of risk factors. An exampleprovided by the study is that youth whowere poorly supervised by their parentsand who associated with delinquent peershad higher rates of delinquency and druguse than youth with only one of theserisk factors.

By the time serious offenders reachhigh school, their characters are wellestablished.

A more encouraging finding is that someyouth who appeared to be at high risk fordelinquency and drug use managed toavoid both. Longitudinal observationsheds light on their resiliency. Research-ers found that parental supervision, at-tachment to family, and consistency of



◆ Design programs for the long range.High-risk adolescents generally requiresocial and psychological support foryears, not months, since the risk factorsin their lives have long-term behavioraleffects. The research demonstrated thatbehavior tended to improve while thejuveniles were in well-designed, well-organized treatment programs. But oncethey left them, delinquency reemerged—particularly if they returned to theiroriginal social environment. Increasingthe length of exposure to these programsis apt to produce better results.

A major conclusion of the study is thatdelinquency prevention and treatmentprograms need to emphasize attachmentto prosocial groups and activities. Suchattachment provides a shield against de-linquency and drug use. It involves posi-tive emotional ties, a sense of belonging,and a sense of doing well in the family,school, and community. It speaks tohealthy relationships with prosocialfriends. The challenge is figuring outways to create this attachment when itdoes not exist naturally.

Family life could be strengthened by bet-ter parental skills training and more com-prehensive support services for parents sothat children are more effectively moni-tored and disciplined. Schools could helpchildren become more attached and inte-grated into society by developing pro-grams in which every student cansucceed at something that is socially con-structive. Community leaders could takea similar tack in designing various activi-ties and processes.

In all the above, deterring the develop-ment of delinquent peer groups is crucial.The best strategy may be to mix delin-quency-prone youth into prosocial groupsthat provide positive influences. Suchgroups would require a good deal of adultinvolvement to monitor activities andensure a positive outcome.

Researchers conclude that involvingyouth in prosocial groups and activitieswhile addressing risk factors such as druguse, early sexual activity, and illegal gun

ownership can result in better delin-quency prevention and intervention pro-grams. Current and future generations ofat-risk youth—and a public rightfullyconcerned about crime—stand to benefitfrom the effort.

Supplemental ReadingAbram, K.M., and L.A. Teplin. “DrugDisorder, Mental Illness, and Violence.”In Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates,and Consequences, edited by M. De LaRosa and E.Y. Lambert et al. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1990. The role of mental illnessin drug-violence relations was exploredamong 728 male jail detainees to deter-mine whether drug use and psychopa-thology, alone and in combination,predicts violence.

Cernkovich, S.A., and P.C. Giordano.“School Bonding, Race, and Delin-quency.” Criminology, vol. 30, no. 2 (May1992), pp. 261–291. Data from inter-views with 942 adolescents aged 12 to 19in the Toledo, Ohio, metropolitan areaare analyzed with respect to racial varia-tions in the role of the school in involve-ment in juvenile delinquency, withemphasis on the delinquent involvementof black youth.

Huizinga, D., R. Loeber, and T. Thorn-berry. Urban Delinquency and SubstanceAbuse: Initial Findings (Research Sum-mary). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice

High-risk adolescents may require supportfor years.

8

Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, 1993. Re-searchers are conducting three longitudi-nal surveys in Denver, Colorado,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Rochester,New York, to examine the causes andcorrelates of juvenile delinquency andjuvenile drug use.

Kumpfer, K. Strengthening America’sFamilies: Promising Parenting and FamilyStrategies for Delinquency Prevention.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Juvenile Justice and De-linquency Prevention, 1993. This reporthelps program planners, policymakers,and service providers determine the mosteffective family and parenting interven-tion strategies to prevent juvenile delin-quency in high-risk youth.

Tittle, C.R., and D.A. Ward. “Interac-tion of Age With the Correlates andCauses of Crime.” Journal of QuantitativeCriminology, vol. 9, no. 1 (1993), pp. 3–53. A survey of persons aged 15 through94 tested the Hirschi-Gottfredson hy-

pothesis that the correlates and causes ofcrime do not interact with age.

Wright, K.N., and K.E. Wright. FamilyLife and Delinquency and Crime: APolicymakers’ Guide to the Literature (Re-search Summary). Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Ju-venile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion. This monograph reviews theresearch literature on the extent towhich family life may directly contributeto the development of delinquent andcriminal tendencies.

U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, National Institute on DrugAbuse. Drugs and Violence: Causes, Cor-relates, and Consequences. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1990. This monograph reports on a 1989meeting convened by the National Insti-tute on Drug Abuse in collaboration withthe National Institute of Justice to dis-cuss recent research in the study of drugsand violence.


Disproportionate Minority Representation

DisproportionateMinority Representation:First Steps to a Solutionby Eugene Rhoden

he Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP) has demonstrated a history of concern and action on the dispro-portionate representation of minority youth in secure correctional settings.

Deputy director of the SpecialEmphasis Division of OJJDP,Eugene Rhoden serves as coordi-nator of the Office’s Dispropor-tionate Minority ConfinementProgram.

In 1988 amendments were enacted to theJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Protec-tion Act to address minority representa-tion in the juvenile justice system.Section 261(A)(7) required OJJDP todevelop a program to establish a discre-tionary program to reduce the proportionof juveniles detained or confined in se-cure detention or correctional facilities,jails, and lockups if the proportion ex-ceeded the proportion such groups repre-sented in the general population. Underthe Disproportionate Minority Confine-ment Program, OJJDP—through a com-petitive process—identified five States toreceive financial aid, training, and tech-nical assistance to:

◆ Develop changes in policies and prac-tices in processing minority offenders.

◆ Implement programs that impact theincarceration trend.

◆ Establish a monitoring procedure thatadheres to uniform standards.

◆ Undertake an evaluation.

Two fundamental criteria were used inselecting the pilot sites.

◆ The State must have conducted anassessment that found a substantial oc-currence of disproportionate minorityrepresentation.

◆ The State must have expressed a will-ingness to commit formula grant funds tobe used in conjunction with discretionaryfunds to develop an appropriate plan ofcorrective action.

States successfully responding to the so-licitation were Arizona, Florida, Iowa,North Carolina, and Oregon. InitiallyPortland State University was selected astechnical assistance provider. Subse-quently Community Research Associateswas added as technical assistance andtraining provider. Caliber Associates waschosen to evaluate the effort.

Over the past 2 years, the sites have en-gaged in extensive and comprehensiveefforts to amass data on disproportionaterepresentation of minority youth in se-cure confinement and to analyze infor-mation detailing the decisions made asyouth are processed through the juvenilejustice system. When crucial data werenot readily available, the projects col-lected additional information through

T

Juvenile Justice

10

surveys, coding of manual files to facili-tate computer analysis, and integration ofdata files from disparate sources orthrough processes of qualitative researchsuch as conducting focus groups, struc-tured interviews, and observations. Thisanalytic process has produced five assess-ment reports documenting the extent ofdisproportionate minority representation

are in the best position to identify spe-cific needs of the minority juvenile com-munity. Moreover, analysis of juvenilejustice decisionmaking in the State sug-gests that disproportionate representationin large measure derives from a lack ofprogrammatic resources addressing theneeds of minority youth. Seven projectsare currently under development as a re-sult of Arizona’s RFP.

FloridaThe project in Florida provided an op-portunity for a significant breakthroughin consolidating data systems across Stateagencies. To gather the required informa-tion, the project arranged a merger ofState data files on education, health,welfare, social, and delinquency-relatedservices. Analysis of information sug-gested that several regions were likelytargets for intervention. In HillsboroughCounty (Tampa), a local agency, theChildren’s Service Board of HillsboroughCounty, expressed strong interest in col-laborating with the State project. Analy-sis of county data indicated thatsubstantial levels of postdispositionaloverrepresentation had their roots in de-cisions made earlier in the juvenile jus-tice system. The State agency responsiblefor delinquency services, Human Re-source Services (HRS), has developed amodel juvenile assessment and classifica-tion center in Hillsborough County. Thecenter provides a uniform receptionpoint for area law enforcement agenciesand has ties to the county’s principal so-cial and educational services. It acts as agatekeeper for juvenile detention facili-ties and serves as a broker in identifyingservices to which juveniles can be di-verted profitably. Together with theState overrepresentation project and thelocal HRS office managing the JuvenileAssessment Facility, the Children’s Ser-vice Board has developed a position in

The reports go beyond evaluating thedegree of overrepresentation. Theyidentify juvenile justice components thatmight benefit from intervention.

in each State. But the reports go beyondevaluating the degree of overrepresenta-tion. They identify juvenile justicecomponents that might benefit from in-tervention to reduce disproportionateminority representation.

In this article we summarize the conclu-sions reached in each State and describethe types of interventions used.

ArizonaThe Arizona project focused on severalmajor counties with the largest propor-tions of minority youth. Most of the mi-nority youth in Arizona’s training schoolsand detention centers were residents ofthese counties. Analysis of system pro-cessing data led the State MinorityYouth Concerns Subcommittee to con-clude that additional programmatic ser-vices targeted at minority youth wererequired.

Arizona issued a request for proposals(RFP) to service providers in the selectedcounties that encourage development ofprevention and intervention programsfor minority youth. Local service provid-ers in concert with local justice officials



the Assessment Center to address theneeds of minority youth, act as an advo-cate for minority youth, and identify ser-vice gaps for minority youth. It is theintent of the project, with the support ofthe Children’s Service Board and the lo-cal HRS unit, to develop services ad-dressing identified deficiencies. Becausethese services will provide an alternativeto detention and may provide usefultreatment alternatives for preventing in-carceration, it is anticipated that theseefforts will reduce the number of minor-ity youth who reach a stage of judicialdisposition and the proportion of minor-ity youth who receive a disposition re-lated to institutional placement.

IowaThe Iowa State Advisory Group commis-sioned a study by Dr. Michael Leiber ofthe University of Northern Iowa to re-view a 10-year history of juvenile courtactivities by examining court documents.Involvement with the OJJDP pilotproject enabled the State to expand thestudy to additional Iowa counties, collectadditional qualitative information, andintegrate that information with data re-ceived from existing programs. To in-volve local communities in the planningand intervention stages of the project, anRFP process was developed in whichcommunity consortiums could apply forsignificant levels of funding (a combina-tion of discretionary special emphasisand State formula grant funds).

As a result of the RFP process, a coalitionfrom the community of Cedar Rapids,headed by the Jane Boyd House, waschosen to implement strategies targetedto minority youth to prevent their in-volvement with the justice system andprovide additional programmatic optionsfor those involved in the system.

The Jane Boyd House provides a commu-nity center for the delivery of diverse so-cial services to families in Cedar Rapids.The project seeks to transcend bureau-cratic divisions by identifying social ser-vices that address the needs of youth andtheir families.

North CarolinaThere is no statewide information systemin North Carolina that can provide thedata needed to track disproportionate mi-nority representation adequately. Ac-cordingly, State project staff are readingand coding sample case files in 10 coun-ties. The counties selected represent thegeographic regions of the State, andwithin the regions counties were pairedto identify those with high and low levelsof overrepresentation. North Carolina’sproject began with several communityforums and has maintained its commu-

nity-based orientation. In each countythe primary activity has been to identifyinterested parties, convene these parties,and present information about the pro-cessing of juveniles and the issues identi-fied in the data review. The project hasnot undertaken State-directed interven-tions, but it has made overrepresentationa component of local consideration ofjuvenile justice decisionmaking and re-form issues. Major emphasis is placed onimproving collection of data.

There is no statewide information systemin North Carolina capable of providingthe data needed to track disproportionateminority representation adequately.

Juvenile Justice

12

Addressing Racial Issues in the Juvenile Justice SystemBy Timothy J. Johnson

to juvenile justice staff on conflict reso-lution, communication, use of force,cultural awareness, racial tension, com-munity involvement, and crisis assess-ment and response.

CRS has prepared a package on assess-ing institutional facilities for racial ten-sion. Written for institutionalmanagers, it describes the conditionsthat breed racial tension, identifies waysto measure those conditions, and pro-vides techniques for managing tensionwithin an institutional setting. Theprogram helps managers involve sev-eral levels of institutional staff in ad-dressing racial tensions.

Should you desire the free and confi-dential assistance provided by CRS orsimply would like more information onthe services it offers, contact:

U.S. Department of JusticeCommunity Relations ServiceOffice of Technical Assistance and Support5550 Friendship BoulevardSuite 370KChevy Chase, MD 20815(301) 492–5969

Real or perceived discriminatory prac-tices can be disruptive at every level ofthe juvenile justice system. This is par-ticularly true when the system is dealingwith persons who do not have politicalor economic clout—such as youngpeople—and when the system’s ulti-mate sanction is the individual’s loss offreedom.

An agency of the U.S. Department ofJustice, the Community Relations Ser-vice (CRS) is charged with providingassistance to individuals; communityleaders and organizations; and Federal,State, and local government agencies.Matters of jurisdictional interest to CRScan be raised by juvenile justice admin-istrators, program employees, commu-nity leaders, parents, and others.

While disputes involving allegations ofdiscriminatory practices are most effec-tively addressed at the earliest stagesand at the lowest levels, CRS staff aretrained to provide an impartial perspec-tive on conflicts based on race, color, ornational origin. CRS’s conciliation spe-cialists can:

• Resolve racial conflicts.

• Assess and reduce racial tensionsand perceptions of disparity in thetreatment of minorities.

• Address problems associated withthe use of force.

Section 223(a)(23) of the JuvenileJustice and Delinquency PreventionAct requires States to reduce the pro-portion of minority youth detained orconfined in secure detention facili-ties, secure correctional facilities, jails,and lockups if such proportion ex-ceeds the proportion such groups rep-resent in the general population. Statesare encouraged to look at the decisionpoints in their juvenile justice systemsand examine the criteria used for eachdecision as well as other factors thatcontribute to disproportionate minor-ity confinement. To address this issue,CRS facilitates dialog between mi-nority communities and the juvenilejustice system.

CRS has developed tools for assess-ment, planning, and training thatmany jurisdictions find useful in deal-ing with the challenges and opportu-nities presented by the DMCrequirements. CRS provides training

OregonThe three most populous counties in Or-egon were studied. The State project as-sisted each county in assessingdisproportionate minority representation.Issues and problems differed in the threecounties, and the interventions thatemerged were adapted to each county. Astatewide need for more consistent infor-

Timothy J. Johnson is a CRS program specialist.

mation on overrepresentation wasidentified.

In Lane County overrepresentation atthe front end of the juvenile system re-sulted from a small number of minorityyouth being recycled in the system. Ac-cordingly, the county identified interven-tions at the beginning of the justicesystem to reduce the return of youth into



the juvenile justice system. Several con-sultants were hired to provide police andcourt intake staff with additional casemanagement, advocacy, and service ca-pacity for minority youth.

The issues identified in Marion Countywere also at the front end of the systembut were related to the capacity of serviceproviders to address a demographicallychanging youth population. The countyhas instituted a process for consideringthe cultural competency of providers as acomponent of the contracting process forcounty-funded youth services, providedtraining and technical assistance to ser-vice providers addressing diverse youthpopulations, and instituted a monitoringsystem to ensure delivery of services toculturally diverse populations.

In Multnomah County overrepresenta-tion became more serious as youth pen-etrated further into the justice system.The county has used pilot project fundsto create a parole transition positionwithin the county detention and juvenilecourt services to develop alternatives foryouth in State training schools and en-sure a smooth return to communityservices. This effort should reduce recidi-vism and provide an advocate for the de-velopment of additional communityservices for minority youth.

ConclusionEfforts to address disproportionate minor-ity representation are relatively new. Sixyears ago there were no programs de-signed to address this issue. Accordingly,each project was asked to assess the situa-tion in its State and to provide initialprogramming aimed at some over-representation issues. The assessment re-port process has been a valuable learningexperience for all involved—grantees,technical assistance providers, andOJJDP. The findings and lessons learned

are being used to provide the pilot siteswith the methodologies that will en-hance their ongoing progress and will im-prove the quality of assessment in otherStates significantly. An instructionalmanual will reflect methodologicallysound approaches targeted at specificconstituencies.

Review of the assessment reports and theinterventions developed suggests the fol-lowing lessons:

◆ Additional information sourcesshould be established and consistency ofinformation ensured within States.

◆ State research efforts should identifydecisionmaking processes and criteriathat foster overrepresentation.

◆ Linkages to specific interventionsneed to be drawn precisely.

◆ Reports must be structured to ensurethat all appropriate issues are addressed.

The initial initiatives continue to oper-ate in all five States. Individuals whoplayed major roles in the development ofthe demonstration site projects are being

The assessment report process has beena valuable learning experience for allinvolved.

identified as replication facilitators. Thetechnical assistance organizations are de-veloping manuals that will provide infor-mation, techniques, and strategies thatwill enable other States to benefit fromthe experience of the pilot sites.

Disproportionate minority representationin local juvenile justice systems must bedetermined. Where determined, it mustbe assessed. Once assessed, its causes andcorrelates must be addressed. We have

Juvenile Justice

14

taken some significant first steps, but ourjourney toward justice is far from over.

Supplemental ReadingBrown, W.K., W.A. Rhodes, T.P. Miller,and R.L. Jenkins. “Negative Effect of Ra-cial Discrimination on Minority Youth inthe Juvenile Justice System.” InternationalJournal of Offender Therapy and Compara-tive Criminology, vol. 34, no. 2 (Sep-tember 1990), pp. 87–93. The authordescribes how discriminatory treatmentof black adolescents in the juvenile jus-tice system contributes to an unfavorableadult outcome for such adolescents.

Iowa Criminal and Juvenile Justice Plan-ning Agency. Description and Discussionof Minority Overrepresentation in Iowa’sJuvenile Justice System. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Ju-venile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion, 1993. The Iowa Juvenile JusticeAdvisory Council studied ways to reducedisproportionate overrepresentation ofminority youth in the State juvenile jus-tice system.

Kaplan, S.L., and J. Busner. “Note onRacial Bias in the Admission of Childrenand Adolescents to State Mental HealthFacilities Versus Correctional Facilitiesin New York.” American Journal of Psy-chiatry, vol. 149, no. 6 (June 1992), pp.768–772. This study tests whether blackchildren and adolescents are under-represented in New York State’s mentalhealth facilities and overrepresented injuvenile correctional facilities when eth-nic distribution in the general populationis controlled.

McGarrell, E.F. “Trends in RacialDisproportionality in Juvenile Court Pro-cessing: 1985–1989.” Crime and Delin-quency, vol. 39, no. 1 (January 1993), pp.

29–48. As the population of juvenile cor-rectional facilities became increasinglyoverrepresented by nonwhite youth dur-ing the 1980’s, this study examined dataon juvenile court processing of whiteand nonwhite youth in a sample of 159counties.

Pope, C.E., and W. Feyerherm. Minoritiesand the Juvenile Justice System (ResearchSummary). Washington, D.C.: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention,1993. This 15-month study examines therole of minority status in the processingof youth by the juvenile justice system.

Towberman, D.B. “Racial Bias in theCriminal Justice System: Shifting the Fo-cus From Outcome to UnderlyingCauses.” Juvenile and Family Court Journal(1994), pp. 15–25. This inquiry goes be-yond the traditional emphasis on thesymptoms of racial disparity and askswhether differences exist between racialgroups in their exposure to psycho-social factors that are found to relate todelinquency.

Wells, E.A., D.M. Morrison, M.R.Gillmore, R.F. Catalano, B. Iritani, andJ.D. Hawkins. “Race Differences in Anti-social Behaviors and Attitudes and EarlyInitiation of Substance Use.” Journal ofDrug Education, vol. 22, no. 2 (1992), pp.115–130. This study explores racial dif-ferences in delinquency, school prob-lems, and antisocial attitudes amongfifth-grade black, white, and Asian-American students. The authors alsolook at substance use initiation withineach racial group.

The author gratefully acknowledges the con-tribution of William Feyerherm, Ph.D., ofthe Regional Institute for Human Services,Portland State University.



Courting Disaster:Permanency Planningfor Childrenby Patricia J. White

he decisions made by those who work in our Nation’s juvenileand family courts are inestimably difficult. During a recent lecture at theNational College of Juvenile and Family Law in Reno, Nevada, thespeaker asked if any of the judges present could recall rendering a deci-sion in a case in which a dependent child had suffered injury or died infoster care. Nearly half of the men and women in the audience raisedtheir hands. The speaker then asked who could recall a case in whichthey had ruled against substitute placement of an allegedly abused or ne-glected child, and the child had been further victimized or died whileremaining in the care of his or her parents. Again, hands went up.

The juvenile and family court is oftenthe last governmental resort for childrenand families in trouble. Children come tothe attention of the court in a number ofways. Allegedly abused, neglected, orabandoned children typically are the sub-ject of an initial investigation by law en-forcement or a child protection agency. Ifcircumstances warrant, a dependency pe-tition is filed with a juvenile or familycourt seeking legal intervention in thelife of the child and his or her family. Ju-venile and family court judges serve asgatekeepers to State child welfare sys-tems. It is judges who decide whether it isin the best interests of an abused or ne-glected child to remain with his or herparents or whether foster care or anothertype of substitute placement is necessary.

Each decision has long-term conse-quences for children and families.

The first step in the court process is usu-ally an emergency protective hearing inwhich the allegations of abuse, neglect,or abandonment are examined. Judgesmust decide whether the child can re-main safely with the family or whetherout-of-home placement is in the child’sbest interest. Soon after an emergencyprotective hearing, juvenile and familycourt judges in most jurisdictions con-duct a comprehensive adjudicatory hear-ing, during which the court decides on adispositional plan. This plan sets theconditions for the care, custody, control,and conduct of the child. Review hear-ings are scheduled regularly to allowjudges to review parental progress toward

T

Patricia J. White is a senior Statetraining specialist with the Perma-nency Planning for ChildrenProject, National Council of Juve-nile and Family Court Judges,University of Nevada, Reno.

16

Juvenile Justice

reunification with the child, or if thechild remains at home, toward dismissalof the case. If family reunification is un-successful or impossible, the court mustestablish a permanent plan for the child.

crease exponentially as the close of themillennium nears.2

During the 1970’s Congress and the Na-tion became aware that children werebeing removed from their families toofrequently, sometimes unnecessarily, andwere being placed in foster homes or in-stitutions. Once removed, children wereseldom reunified with their biologicalfamilies. Children who could not returnto their families lingered in temporarycare rather than being provided with per-manent, adoptive families. Thousands ofchildren were caught for years in “fostercare drift,” being moved frequently fromone foster family to another.3

I stayed in foster care all my life—18 years. I went in, I guess, when Iwas about 3 weeks old, and as Igot older, I went into two otherfoster homes. . . . I just wanted toknow who my real family was,anything about my family Iwanted to know. I felt as if, youknow, where would I be if I werewith my natural parents. I wantedto figure out why, why. Whathappened? Why was I in a fosterhome? . . . At 16 or 17, I ran awayfrom home, and from then onwhen I came back to foster care, Iwas placed in another fosterhome. And I stayed there formaybe 6 or 7 months. Then I wasplaced back with the natural fam-ily I was with. When I went there,it felt like I was out of place be-cause I didn’t know any of themor any other people. So, basically,the family that I stayed with hasalways been like family to me. Be-ing in court I never knew if I wasgonna go home. I never knewwhat was gonna happen—if I wasgonna go home to a foster homeor if I was gonna be placed some-where or in a group home or—Ijust didn’t know.4

Thousands of children were caught foryears in “foster care drift.”

The preferable permanent plan for achild unable to be reunited with his orher parents is termination of parentalrights followed by adoption. Guardian-ship and long-term, out-of-home care aretwo alternatives.1

Finding a permanent solution for anabused or neglected child is a complex,costly, and time-consuming process. Theestimated number of abused and ne-glected children in the United States to-day stands at 500,000. If current trendscontinue, the number is expected to in-



when safety concerns make foster carenecessary, to ensure timely attempts toreunify families. For children unable tobe safely reunited with their families, ef-fective permanency planning serves toidentify adoptive placements as quicklyas possible.

It took me 3 or 4 years before Igot adopted. And it’s the pitsgoing from foster home to fosterhome. . . . It’s a killer. I wish kidsdidn’t have to go through that,but that’s life.8

One of the most significant develop-ments in child welfare law was passage ofthe Adoption Assistance and Child Wel-fare Act (AACWA) in 1980 [42 U.S.C.section 671(a)(15)(A)]. Among its manyprovisions, AACWA created fiscal in-centives requiring judges to determinewhether “reasonable efforts” were beingmade to enable children to remain safelywith their families before foster care wasconsidered.5 AACWA also mandatedincreased administrative and judicial re-view of all children in or at risk of substi-tute placement. Increased reviewrequirements were designed to promul-gate permanent plans for children’s fu-tures. The increased judicial review of allabuse and neglect cases was expected toimprove both the quality and timelinessof decisions on behalf of children.

Over the past decade, massive changes inboth Federal and State legislation re-quired juvenile and family courts to as-sume many additional tasks. Juvenile andfamily courts were required to promptlyreview decisions to remove children fromhome during emergencies, overseeagency efforts to prevent placement andreunify families, approve agency caseplans to rehabilitate families, reviewcases periodically, and decide whether toterminate parental rights in cases involv-ing children unable to be returnedhome.6 The new State and Federal legis-lation also required juvenile and familycourts to hold many more hearings thanwere conducted previously in depen-dency matters.

Judges nationwide supported this in-creased judicial review of abused and ne-glected children and strongly supportedthe efforts of allied child welfare organi-zations to increase “permanency plan-ning” for each dependent child under thejurisdiction of juvenile and familycourts.7 Permanency planning includesefforts to prevent the unnecessary re-moval of children from their families, or

Permanency planning includes effortsto prevent the unnecessary removal ofchildren from their families.

The National Council of Juvenile andFamily Court Judges (NCJFCJ) is a

18

Juvenile Justice

national membership organization thatprovides training and technical assis-tance for judges involved with children

judges involved in child abuse and ne-glect proceedings.

The importance of timely and appropri-ate decisions in dependency proceedingsis reinforced by research indicating thatchildhood abuse often leads to adolescentor adult criminal behavior.9 Effective per-manency planning for abused and ne-glected children is designed to halt theintergenerational cycle of family violenceand provide safe, permanent living situa-tions for children whenever possible.

Brother #1: When they put us ina home, it was scary because therewere all these people who werebigger and stronger than us. Andthey were like different peoplethat we had never been aroundbefore.

Brother #2: It’s bad becausewhen you get a bad education,you’re gonna grow up living in thestreets, and you’re gonna get usedto living in the streets. When it’stime for you to go inside, they’regonna start getting mad, and thenyou’re gonna give somebody—whoever you’re living with—ahard time.10

Another improvement in the govern-ment’s response to child abuse and ne-glect is the Court-Appointed SpecialAdvocate (CASA) program, which pro-vides volunteer advocates for child vic-tims. CASA programs have beenestablished in 50 States and the Districtof Columbia, representing more than28,000 volunteers in court systems na-tionwide. The Nation’s juvenile and fam-ily courts also have been instrumental ininitiating jurisdiction-specific improve-ments in family-based programs to reha-bilitate and reunite abusive or neglectfulfamilies, to identify learning-disabledchildren, to prevent juvenile delin-quency, and to coordinate public and

CASA programs have been establishedin 50 States and the District ofColumbia.

and families. Through its educational di-vision, the National College of Juvenileand Family Law, judges receive the spe-cialized legal training essential to makingthe best possible decisions in cases in-volving child victimization.

In the 1970’s members of NCJFCJ tookthe lead in developing policies that re-sulted in passage of AACWA and con-tinued their efforts to improve judicialreview of abused and neglected children.Fifteen years ago NCJFCJ established itsPermanency Planning Project to assist



private responses to the problems of chil-dren and families.11

Juvenile and family court judges arestruggling to plan not only for the futureof each individual child victim, but alsofor the future of the Nation’s child wel-fare system. There are no easy solutions.Few are as intimately aware as judgesof the impact of their decisions onchildren’s lives. Few also are aware of theneed to adapt the judicial review anddecisionmaking process to meet both theimmediate and long-term needs of chil-dren and families.

The National Council of Juvenile andFamily Court Judges and a wide array ofallied organizations will continue to mar-shal the resources and training programsneeded to educate and assist courts intheir quest for the best possible decisionson behalf of our Nation’s youngestvictims.

Notes1. Leonard P. Edwards. “The Juvenile Court andthe Role of the Juvenile Court Judge,” Juvenile andFamily Court Journal (1992).

2. Select Committee on Children, Youth, andFamilies. No Place To Call Home: Discarded Chil-dren in America (Washington, D.C.: U.S. House ofRepresentatives, November 1989).

3. Richard P. Kusserow. Barriers to Freeing Chil-dren for Adoption (Washington, D.C.: Office ofInspector General, Department of Health andHuman Services, February 1991).

4. “Kids Talking” (videotape). Reasonable EffortsTraining Video Notebook (Reno, Nevada: NationalCouncil of Juvenile and Family Court Judges,1991).

5. Howard Davidson. “Periodic Judicial Reviewof Children in Foster Care: Issues Related to Effec-tive Implementation,” Juvenile and Family CourtJournal (May 1981).

6. Mark Hardin. The Adoption Assistance andChild Welfare Act of 1980: Ten Years Later (Min-neapolis: North American Council on AdoptableChildren, 1990).

7. National Commission on Children. BeyondRhetoric: A New American Agenda for Children and

Families, final report. (Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office, 1991).

8. “Kids Talking.”

9. Cathy Spatz Widom. “The Cycle of Violence,”Research in Brief (Washington, D.C.: NationalInstitute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice,October 1992).

10.“Kids Talking.”

11. Edwards, “The Juvenile Court.”

Supplemental ReadingAbramson, S. “Use of Court-AppointedAdvocates To Assist in PermanencyPlanning for Minority Children.” ChildWelfare, vol. 70, no. 4 (July/August1991), pp. 477–487. Court-appointedspecial advocate programs, which usetrained lay volunteers, are an increas-ingly popular alternative for assisting per-manency planning in child abuse andneglect cases. The Fresno Amicus Pro-gram in Fresno County, California,

20

Juvenile Justice

Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-ment of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention, April1992. This article describes three com-munity-based programs that assist fami-lies of juveniles selected by OJJDP asexemplary and suitable for State and lo-cal replication.

Shotton, A.C. “Making Reasonable Ef-forts in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases:Ten Years Later.” California Western LawReview, vol. 26, no. 2 (1989–1990), pp.223–256. This article summarizes thestatutory, regulatory, judicial, and pro-grammatic steps taken in the last decadeto implement “reasonable efforts” tomaintain children with their families, orif this is not possible, to make reasonableefforts to reunify the child with the fam-ily as mandated under the Federal Adop-tion Assistance and Child Welfare Act.

Thornton, J.L. “Permanency Planningfor Children in Kinship Foster Homes.”Child Welfare, vol. 70, no. 5 (September/October 1991), pp. 593–601. Perma-nency planning for children in kinshipfoster homes differs sharply from that forchildren in nonrelative foster homes; thepractice of the former has increased rap-idly in New York City.

Copyright Juvenile and Family Court Judges Asso-ciation, 1994. Reprinted with permission from theJournal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, pub-lished by the National Education Service,Bloomington, Indiana 47402.

The art accompanying this article is from THEGORGEOUS MOSAIC PROJECT, directed byCharles Grossman, chair of the Children’s Atelier,a multicultural foundation in Cranston, RhodeIsland, which has authorized its reproduction.

recruits and trains minority and bilingualvolunteers who are then matched withfamilies from similar ethnic, cultural, andlanguage backgrounds.

Jimenez, M.A. “Permanency Planningand the Child Abuse Prevention andTreatment Act: The Paradox of ChildWelfare Policy.” Journal of Sociology andSocial Welfare, vol. 17, no. 3 (September1990), pp. 55–72. The Child Abuse Pre-vention and Treatment Act of 1974 andthe Adoptions Assistance and ChildWelfare Act of 1980 imposed conflictingmandates on the public child welfaresystem.

National Council of Juvenile and FamilyCourt Judges. Protocol for Making Reason-able Efforts in Drug-Related DependencyCases. Reno: National Council of Juve-nile and Family Court Judges, 1991. Thisdocument, prepared in response to theproblems of drug-exposed infants andchildren and their mothers, fathers, andfamilies, describes a protocol to keepfamilies together and to safely preventthe placement of children in foster careor other environments.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention. “CASA (Court-Ap-pointed Special Advocate for Children):A Child’s Voice in Court.” Juvenile Jus-tice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De-partment of Justice, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention,1988. The CASA program demonstratesthat volunteers can effectively and inex-pensively investigate the needs of chil-dren for placement and articulate thoseneeds to the court.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention. “Preserving FamiliesTo Prevent Delinquency.” Juvenile Justice


IN BRIEF

JUSTICE MATTERSDisproportionate Minority RepresentationYouth from racial or ethnic minorities become involved with the juvenile justice system in numbers sub-stantially exceeding their proportion in the general youth population. How extensive and how significantis this disproportionate representation? What, if anything, can we establish about the factors that contrib-ute to this disparity and about what happens to these youth once they enter the system?

John J. WilsonActing Administrator, OJJDP

The IssueNational data and research havedocumented disproportionate repre-sentation of minorities in secure ju-venile facilities across the country.Accordingly, States have been en-trusted with the responsibility of ex-amining race and ethnicity asfactors influencing decisions at vari-ous points within the juvenile jus-tice system (e.g., decisions to arrest,detain, commit to training school,etc.).

Research under OJJDP’s Causes andCorrelates Program indicates thatthe type of community in which ajuvenile lives has a stronger effecton the likelihood of becoming in-volved in delinquency than racialcharacteristics. African-Americansliving in nondisadvantaged areas donot have higher rates of delin-quency than whites living in non-disadvantaged areas.

African-American juveniles com-prise a disproportionately higherpercentage of juvenile arrests thanother races: 27 percent in 1992. Inparticular, African-American juve-niles accounted for 49 percent ofthe arrests for violent crimes.Data from the National JuvenileCourt Data Archive indicate that

African-American juveniles consti-tute a disproportionate proportionof the delinquency cases broughtbefore the court. In 1990, African-Americans were involved in 31 per-cent of such cases.

African-American and Hispanicyouth are disproportionately repre-sented in detention centers. In1991, 43 percent of juveniles in de-tention centers were black, 35 per-cent were white, and 19 percentwere Hispanic. In examining of-fenses with which detained youthwere charged, blacks were mostoverrepresented among drug offend-ers (64 percent) and person offend-ers (49 percent).

A youth who is detained in a securefacility prior to adjudication is morelikely to be subsequently incarcer-ated. Indeed, preadjudication deten-tion is one of the best predictors ofcommitment to a State juvenile cor-rections facility.

In 1991, about 44 percent of juve-niles in public juvenile facilitieswere black, 18 percent were His-panic, and 34 percent were white.In training schools—the most re-strictive environment—black juve-niles comprised 47 percent of thepopulation. In private facilities—

often less restrictive and crowded—black juveniles comprised 32 per-cent of the population and whitejuveniles 57 percent.

The States’ assessments of minorityoverrepresentation show higherrates of minority than white incar-ceration. In one State, it was esti-mated that 1 in 64 white maleswould be taken into State custodybefore his 18th birthday, comparedwith 1 in 13 African-Americanmales. In every State studied, mi-nority males had a higher probabil-ity rate of incarceration before age18 than their white peers.

The ResponseTo reduce disproportionate minorityconfinement, the community mustwork together to address the causesby enhancing prevention and diver-sion programs and expanding alter-natives to secure detention andcorrections, particularly in minorityneighborhoods. Local initiatives toinvolve families, neighborhoods,and community-based agencies serv-ing minority youth in this effortshould be developed and imple-mented. Policies, legislation, andpractices need to be reviewed and,as necessary, corrected to ensurethat race, ethnicity, and gender do

22

IN BRIEF

JUSTICE MATTERS

continued on page 23

not determine the decision to de-tain or incarcerate.

Strategies to reduce the dispropor-tionate confinement of minority ju-veniles include the use of risk andneed assessment instruments, cul-tural competency training for lawenforcement and other juvenile jus-tice professionals, individualizedhome-based care, mentors, thera-peutic foster care, community-basedfamily-oriented services, reintegra-tion services for juveniles placedoutside the home, independent liv-ing, job training, and increased ac-cessibility to treatment.

The LawSection 223 (a) (23) of the JuvenileJustice and Delinquency PreventionAct of 1974, as amended (PublicLaw 93–415), requires States tomake efforts to reduce the propor-tion of minority juveniles detainedor confined in secure detention fa-cilities, secure correctional facilities,jails, and lockups if such proportionexceeds the proportion minoritygroups represent in the generalpopulation.

Beginning with fiscal year 1994funds, as a condition of full partici-pation in the JJDP Act FormulaGrants Program, States must deter-mine whether disproportionate mi-nority confinement exists, identifythe causes, and develop and imple-ment corrective action. States fail-ing to address the overrepresen-tation of minority youth in confine-ment will be ineligible to receive 25

percent of their formula grant allo-cation for the year.

Pilot SitesIn 1988, the Coalition for JuvenileJustice (then the National Coali-tion of State Juvenile Justice Advi-sory Groups) focused nationalattention on disproportionate mi-nority confinement in its annualreport to Congress, A Delicate Bal-ance. That year, the Office of Juve-nile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention commissioned the Uni-versity of Wisconsin and PortlandState University to review researchliterature and program models ad-dressing this issue. Their report, Mi-norities and the Juvenile JusticeSystem, concluded that there wassubstantial evidence that race playsboth direct and indirect roles in theoutcome of many juvenile justicedecisions.

In 1991, OJJDP issued a request forproposals seeking the participationof States to analyze disproportionateminority confinement and developmodel programs to address itscauses. Arizona, Florida, Iowa,North Carolina, and Oregon wereselected. Over the past 2 years,these States have engaged in com-prehensive efforts to collect dataregarding the disproportionate rateof minorities in secure juvenile de-tention, to analyze the decision-making process at all steps in thejuvenile justice system, and to for-mulate specific strategies and pro-grams to address the problem.

Technical AssistanceTo facilitate and assist the fiveStates in these efforts, OJJDP con-tracted with Portland State Univer-sity (PSU)and CommunityResearch Associates (CRA) to pro-vide training and technical assis-tance on all aspects of the mandateto States upon request. PSU andCRA are developing a planningmanual to assist States in imple-menting the mandate. This publica-tion will include sections on datacollection and analysis, correctiveaction planning, program imple-mentation, monitoring, and evalua-tion. CRA can provide additionalinformation on innovative programsto address disproportionate minorityconfinement.

EvaluationOJJDP’s evaluation contractor,Caliber Associates, is conducting atwo-phased national evaluation onthe impact and outcomes of States’efforts to address the disproportion-ate representation of minorities insecure confinement. Caliber willassist pilot States in designing andconducting evaluations of the plan-ning and implementation of theirintervention programs. Caliber willconduct impact/outcome evalua-tions on interventions where a sig-nificant impact can be projectedand measured. The national evalua-tion will include intervention ef-forts in three nonpilot States in


IN BRIEF

JUSTICE MATTERSSince its establishment in 1974, theOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention (OJJDP) hasbeen committed to preventing de-linquency and enhancing the qual-ity of care in the juvenile justicesystem. Decades of experience havedemonstrated that these goals areaccomplished most effectively at theState and local levels. Yet, too oftenthe efforts of dedicated juvenile jus-tice professionals do not receive therecognition they merit. Moreover,the lack of public acknowledgementof outstanding local programs re-duces the likelihood that they willbe replicated in communities facingsimilar challenges.

Therefore, in 1992, OJJDP estab-lished the Gould-Wysinger Awards

mula Grants program agency, inconsultation with the State Advi-sory Group.

OJJDP is committed to spreadingthe word about exceptional localprograms by disseminating informa-tion about their accomplishmentsthrough Juvenile Justice, OJJDP bul-letins, and other media. In this wayour colleagues across the Nation canjoin us in recognizing a job welldone and in reflecting upon ways inwhich the principles and practicesembodied in these programs can beextended to young people and theirfamilies in other communities.

To obtain copies of the Gould-Wysinger Awards Model Programsbulletins for 1992 and 1993, pleaseuse the order form on page 27.

Gould-Wysinger Awards:Recognizing a Job Well Done

order to provide a broad overview ofState efforts to reduce minorityoverrepresentation.

Anticipated OutcomesAs John J. Wilson, Acting OJJDPAdministrator, has pointed out,“The goal of this unprecedented,concerted effort to address the issue

of disproportionate minority con-finement should be greater objectiv-ity in decisionmaking at each stepin the juvenile justice system andthe elimination of the unequal riskof confinement for minority youth.”

Disproportionate Minority Representationcontinued from page 22

to recognize exceptional achieve-ment in advancing juvenile justiceat the local level. The awards honorprograms that reflect the traditionof excellence embodied in the ca-reers of James Gould and DeborahWysinger, two OJJDP professionalswho devoted their lives to helpingyoung people.

In its inaugural year, OJJDPawarded this distinction to 18 ex-ceptional local programs in 13States. In the following year,OJJDP, working with the Coalitionfor Juvenile Justice, accorded thishonor to 20 programs in 20 States.

To expand the geographic and pro-grammatic diversity of the awards,the 1994 Gould-Wysinger Awardswill be selected by each State’s For-

For Further InformationTechnical assistance is availableto States and communities intheir efforts to address dispropor-tionate minority confinement.For further information, contact:

State Relations andAssistance DivisionOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention633 Indiana Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20531(202) 307–5924

24

IN BRIEF

Anger Management for Youth:Stemming Aggression and ViolenceLeona L. Eggert. Bloomington, Indiana: National Education Service, 1994.

General Reading List

ACROSS OUR DESK

“We can learn to be aware of ouranger, stress, and depression andpractice strategies to control it,” Dr.Eggert advises. The author definesanger as “a combination of discom-

fort, tenseness, resentment, andfrustration” and presents herstrategy to manage it in a series offive modules that:

◆ Describe the nature of angermanagement and detail its benefits.

◆ Review the anger sequence of“triggers, thoughts, feelings, behav-iors, and consequences.”

◆ Provide techniques to use in theinitial stages of anger control, such

as “inoculations” before “angerbuttons” are pushed and con-trol strategies when anger re-sponses are triggered.

◆ Offer additional means tocope when already aroused andangry and questions for reflec-tion after the event.

◆ Afford practice in applyingthese primary skills.

Written to help group leadersteach anger management tech-niques, the book includes a sec-tion on self-monitoring to helpparticipants assess theirprogress.

Drawing on cognitive behav-ioral theory and emphasizingbonding and cohesion amonggroup members, Dr. Eggert fur-

nishes educators, counselors, andother youth service professionalswith a valuable tool.

There is more stress at homethan I can manage. I’m theoldest, and right now every-one is totally out of control.We’re stealing from eachother and from our mother,and everyone is fighting andyelling.

There is so much stress rightnow. I know it’ll be better ina couple of weeks, but nowmy head keeps going blank,and I have this huge paininside of me.

Such vivid testimonials to emo-tional suffering and anger bystudents in her high school per-sonal growth class led Dr.Leona Eggert to address theneed for anger management foryouth.

An associate professor ofpsychosocial nursing at theUniversity of Washington, Dr.Eggert brings more than twodecades of counseling teenagers,parents, and teachers to this timelytopic. As Dr. Nicholas Long notesin the foreword, “This is the rightbook at the right time to deal withthe growing amount of aggression byadolescents.”


IN BRIEF

OJJDP PUBLICATIONSNew Titles Available in the OJJDP Summary SeriesInnovative Community Partner-ships: Working Together forChange (OJJDP Program Sum-mary)—Roberta C. Cronin

Describes how three cities—DadeCounty, Florida; Lansing, Michigan;and Norfolk, Virginia—are success-fully bringing together communitypolicing and human service initia-tives to reclaim troubled neighbor-hoods.

Family Life, Delinquency, andCrime: A Policymaker’s Guide(OJJDP Research Summary)—Kevin N. Wright and Karen E.Wright

Reviews research literature that ex-plores the development of delin-quent and criminal behaviors.Examines how positive parental in-volvement deters delinquency,while its absence—or worse, nega-tive parental involvement—fostersmisconduct.

Intensive Aftercare for High-RiskJuveniles: A Community CareModel (OJJDP Program Sum-mary)—David M. Altschuler andTroy L. Armstrong

Reports on the interim findings ofOJJDP’s initiative to assess inten-sive juvenile aftercare programmodels for serious, violent, andchronic juvenile offenders. De-scribes the framework for the pro-totype proposed for field testing.

Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Policies andProcedures (OJJDP ProgramSummary)—David M. Altschuler and Troy L.Armstrong

Explains the underlying principlesand program elements of the inten-sive aftercare program model, whichcan be applied in a variety of set-tings. Addresses organizational

Program SummaryProgram Summary

DE

PARTMENT OF JUSTIC

E

OF

FIC

E O

FJUST I CE PROGRA

MS

BJA

NI J

OJJDP BJS

OVC

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs


A Publication of the


II nnovative Community Partnerships: Working Together for Change

Today’s busy juvenile justice profes-sional needs immediate access toaccurate information on the latestissues, events, and ideas shaping thefield. The National Criminal Jus-tice Reference Service electronicbulletin board helps meet that needby enabling participants to networkquickly and easily to share news andviews regarding juvenile justice anddelinquency prevention.

A free public service, the electronicbulletin board is a 24-hour onlinesource of information and an-nouncements from the Office of Ju-

venile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention (OJJDP). By accessing thebulletin board through a personalcomputer, users may obtain infor-mation on OJJDP publications, pro-grams, research findings, statistics,conferences, and funding. New us-ers may register online to gain in-stant access to the bulletin boardmenu, send and receive messages,and upload and download files.

Call today to take advantage of thisimportant resource!

For further information on thebulletin board, contact:

Electronic Bulletin Board Offers Timely Information From OJJDP

Bulletin Board:(301) 738–8895Juvenile Justice ClearinghouseBox 6000Rockville, MD 20850800–638–8736

factors, case management, andprogram evaluation.

To obtain any of these OJJDP Summa-ries, complete the order form on page27 or call the Juvenile Justice Clearing-house at 800–638–8736.

26

IN BRIEF

OJJDP PUBLICATIONS

◆ U.S. passport policies relatingto children.

◆ Preliminary findings on riskfactors for family abductions.

◆ Enforcing foreign custodyorders in the United States.

An invaluable resource forthose called upon to pre-vent or resolve interna-tional child abductioncases, the Compendiumpapers examine indi-vidual aspects of thebroader topic areasaddressed in the Symposiumpanel discussions, including:

◆ Hague Convention and imple-menting legislation.

◆ The role of central authorities.

◆ Locating abducted children.

◆ Using the Hague Convention inthe United States.

◆ Non-Hague Conventionremedies.

◆ Criminal prosecution andextradition.

◆ Preventing abductions.

Included with the volume are fourcomputer disks of applicable case

The Compendium of the North Ameri-can Symposium on International ChildAbduction: How To Handle Interna-tional Child Abduction Cases, a com-prehensive resource for pursuinginternational child abduction cases,is now available from the JuvenileJustice Clearinghouse.

The 928-page Compendium providesa collection of papers presented bythe faculty of the North AmericanSymposium on International ChildAbduction held in fall 1993.Funded by the U.S. Department ofJustice's Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention andconducted by the American BarAssociation’s Center on Childrenand the Law, the Symposium wasconvened to give lawyers, judges,prosecutors, and other justice pro-fessionals indepth training on theHague Child Abduction Conven-tion and other assistance availablefor international child abductioncases.

The goal of the Compendium is tofoster more effective use of legalremedies available in internationalchild abduction cases. Examples ofinformation provided in the Com-pendium include:

◆ Attorney advice to parents fear-ful of child abductions.

A New Resource for Remedies inInternational Child Abduction Cases

law and informationabout how to access an elec-tronic bulletin board service oninternational child abduction law.

The Compendium and disks (NCJ148137) are available from the Ju-venile Justice Clearinghouse for$17.50 ($75.00 outside the UnitedStates). To obtain a copy, pleasecomplete the order form on page 27or call the Clearinghouse at800–638–8736.

North AmericanSymposium OnInternationalChild AbductionHow To HandleInternationalChild AbductionCases

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

SEPTEMBER 30 AND OCTOBER 1, 1993

SPONSORED BY THE ABA CENTER ON CHILDREN

AND THE LAW

SUPPORTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE

AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Juvenile Justice Order Form JUVENILEJUSTICE

Volume I I• Number 1Spring/Summer 1994

Check this box if the information onyour address label is incorrect and makecorrections on your mailing label.

Please print your name and mailing address or affix your mailinglabel here.

Name

Address

State ZIP

Deduct the total from my NCJRS Deposit Account.

Acct. No. _____________________________________

Charge my MasterCard VISA

Card No. _____________________________________

Exp. Date ____________________________________

Signature ____________________________________

Total $__________

Enclose payment or provide account number.

All payments must be in U.S. dollars and drawn on aU.S. bank.

Check or money order enclosed, payable toJuvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FREE. Indicate howmany copies of each item you wish to order.

___ Preserving Families To Prevent Delinquency (OJJDPModel Programs). NCJ 136397.

___ Gould-Wysinger Awards: Mark of Achievement(OJJDP Model Programs 1992). NCJ 142730.

___ Gould-Wysinger Awards: A Tradition of Excellence(OJJDP Model Programs 1993). NCJ 146840.

From the OJJDP Summary Series

___ Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Find-ings (OJJDP Research Summary). NCJ 143454.

___ Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System (OJJDP Re-search Summary). NCJ 145849.

___ Innovative Community Partnerships: Working Togetherfor Change (OJJDP Program Summary). NCJ147483.

___ Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: A Policymaker’sGuide (OJJDP Research Summary). NCJ 140517.

___ Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Commu-nity Care Model (OJJDP Program Summary). NCJ147574.

___ Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Policies andProcedures (OJJDP Program Summary). NCJ 147712.

PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR A FEE. Indi-cate how many copies of each item you wish to order andtotal the cost in the payment section at the bottom of theform.

___ Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System (Full Re-port). NCJ 139556. $11.50 (U.S.), $13.65(Canada), $17.75 (other countries).

___ Strengthening America’s Families: Promising ParentingStrategies for Delinquency Prevention. NCJ 140781.$9.15 (U.S.), $10.80 (Canada), $14.00 (othercountries).

___ The Compendium of the North American Symposium onInternational Child Abduction: How To Handle Interna-tional Child Abduction Cases. NCJ 148137. $17.50(U.S.), $75.00 (Canada and other countries).

___ Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: TechnicalReport and Appendices. NCJ 146416. $25.60 (U.S.),$29.90 (Canada), $36.90 (other countries).

To order other publications listed on the inside backcover, please complete the following:

Qty. NCJ No. Title Price

To add your name to the Juvenile Justice mailing list,please complete the following:

Name

Organization

Address

City State ZIP

PLACEFIRST CLASS

STAMPHERE

FOLD, TAPE, BUT DO NOT STAPLE

Juvenile JusticeJuvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRSP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20850

Please provide a daytime telephone number in case we need to contact you regarding your order.(_____) ______________________

Allow 6 to 9 weeks for delivery. You will be notified by mail within 30 days if your paid ordercannot be filled.

Fee orders are shipped UPS. Because UPS cannot deliver to post office boxes, please provide astreet address for shipment of orders requiring payment.

JUVENILEJUSTICE

Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:Policies and Procedures. 1994, NCJ 147712.Juvenile Correctional Education: A Time forChange. 1994, NCJ 150309.Juvenile Intensive Supervision: An Assess-ment (Full Report). 1994, NCJ 150064,$13.00.Juvenile Intensive Supervision: PlanningGuide. 1994, NCJ 150065.Juveniles Taken Into Custody: Fiscal Year1991 Report. 1993, NCJ 145746.National Juvenile Custody Trends: 1978–1989. 1992, NCJ 131649.National Survey of Reading Programs forIncarcerated Juvenile Offenders. 1993,NCJ 144017, $6.75.OJJDP: Conditions of Confinement Telecon-ference (Video). 1993, NCJ 147531, $14.00.Privatizing Juvenile Probation Services: FiveLocal Experiences. 1989, NCJ 121507.Public Juvenile Facilities: Children in Custody1989. 1991, NCJ 127189.Reduced Recidivism and Increased Employ-ment Opportunity Through Research-BasedReading Instruction. 1993, NCJ 141324,$7.70.

General Juvenile JusticeBalanced and Restorative Justice. 1994,NCJ 149727.Breaking the Code (Video). 1993, NCJ146604, $20.65.Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. 1993,NCJ 143453.Gould-Wysinger Awards (1993): A Traditionof Excellence. 1994, NCJ 146840.Gun Acquisition and Possession in SelectedJuvenile Samples. 1993, NCJ 145326.Habitual Juvenile Offenders: Guidelines forCitizen Action and Public Responses. 1991,NCJ 141235.Innovative Community Partnerships:Working Together for Change. 1994,NCJ 147483.Juvenile Justice. Volume 1, Number 1,Spring/Summer 1993, NCJ 141870.Juvenile Justice. Volume 2, Number 1,Spring/Summer 1994, NCJ 148407.Law-Related Education For Juvenile JusticeSettings. 1993, NCJ 147063, $13.20.Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System.1993, NCJ 145849.Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System(Full Report). 1993, NCJ 139556, $11.50.Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention Brochure. 1993, NCJ 144527.Retarding America—The Imprisonment ofPotential (Video). 1993, NCJ 146605,$12.95.Study of Tribal and Alaska Native JuvenileJustice Systems. 1992, NCJ 148217, $17.20.Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse:Initial Findings. 1994, NCJ 143454.Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse:Technical Report and Appendices. 1993,NCJ 146416, $25.60.Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology.1984, NCJ 095108, $28.00.

Publications From OJJDPInnovative Law Enforcement Training Pro-grams: Meeting State and Local Needs.1991, NCJ 131735.Law Enforcement Custody of Juveniles(Video). 1992, NCJ 137387, $13.50.Law Enforcement Policies and PracticesRegarding Missing Children and HomelessYouth. 1993, NCJ 145644.Law Enforcement Policies and PracticesRegarding Missing Children and HomelessYouth (Full Report). 1993, NCJ 143397,$13.00.

CourtsThe Child Victim as a Witness, ResearchReport. 1994, NCJ 149172.Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders. 1988,NCJ 110854, $8.40.Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juve-nile Justice System: A Program Handbook.1991, NCJ 139731, $15.00.How Juveniles Get to Criminal Court. 1994,NCJ 150309.Juvenile Court Property Cases. 1990,NCJ 125625.Juvenile Court Statistics, 1991. 1994,NCJ 147487.Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1992. 1994,NCJ 150039.

GangsGang Suppression and Intervention: AnAssessment (Full Report). 1994, NCJ146494, $15.00.Gang Suppression and Intervention: Com-munity Models. 1994, NCJ 148202.Gang Suppression and Intervention: Prob-lem and Response. 1994, NCJ 149629.

RestitutionGuide to Juvenile Restitution. 1985,NCJ 098466, $12.50.Liability and Legal Issues in JuvenileRestitution. 1990, NCJ 115405.Victim-Offender Mediation in the JuvenileJustice System. 1990, NCJ 120976.

CorrectionsAmerican Probation and Parole Assoc-iation’s Drug Testing Guidelines and Prac-tices for Juvenile Probation and ParoleAgencies. 1992, NCJ 136450.Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Deten-tion and Corrections Facilities. 1994, NCJ141873.Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Deten-tion and Corrections Facilities (Full Report).1994, NCJ 145793.Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile ProbationPractice. 1991, NCJ 128218.Effective Practices in Juvenile CorrectionalEducation: A Study of the Literature andResearch 1980–1992. 1994, NCJ 150066,$15.00.Improving Literacy Skills of Juvenile Detain-ees. 1994, NCJ 150707.Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:An Assessment (Full Report). 1994, NCJ144018, $15.00.Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:A Community Care Model. 1994, NCJ147575.

The following OJJDP publications are avail-able from the Juvenile Justice Clearing-house. To obtain copies, call or write:Juvenile Justice ClearinghouseP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20850800–638–8736Internet Address:[email protected] OJJDP publications are available freeof charge from the Clearinghouse; requestsfor more than 10 documents or those fromindividuals outside the United States requirepayment for postage and handling. To ob-tain information on payment procedures orto speak to a juvenile justice informationspecialist about additional services offered,contact the Juvenile Justice ClearinghouseMonday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:00p.m., e.t.

Delinquency PreventionEducation in the Law: Promoting Citizenshipin the Schools. 1990, NCJ 125548.Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: APolicymaker’s Guide. 1994, NCJ 140517.Family Strengthening in Preventing Delin-quency—A Literature Review. 1994, NCJ150222, $13.00.Mobilizing Community Support for Law-Related Education. 1989, NCJ 118217,$9.75.OJJDP and Boys and Girls Clubs ofAmerica: Public Housing and High-RiskYouth. 1991, NCJ 128412.Strengthening America’s Families: Promis-ing Parenting Strategies for DelinquencyPrevention. 1993, NCJ 140781, $9.15.

Missing and Exploited ChildrenAmerica’s Missing and Exploited Children—Their Safety and Their Future. 1986,NCJ 100581.Child Abuse: Prelude to Delinquency?1985, NCJ 104275, $7.10.The Compendium of the North AmericanSymposium on International Child Abduc-tion: How To Handle International ChildAbduction Cases. 1993, NCJ 148137,$17.50.Missing, Abducted, Runaway, andThrownaway Children in America, FirstReport: Numbers and Characteristics,National Incidence Studies (Full Report).1990, NCJ 123668, $14.40.Missing Children: Found Facts. 1990,NCJ 130916.Obstacles to the Recovery and Return ofParentally Abducted Children. 1994,NCJ 143458.Obstacles to the Recovery and Return ofParentally Abducted Children (Full Report).1993, NCJ 144535, $22.80.Parental Abductors: Four Interviews(Video). 1993, NCJ 147866, $12.50.Stranger Abduction Homicides of Children.1989, NCJ 115213.

Law EnforcementDrug Recognition Techniques: A TrainingProgram for Juvenile Justice Professionals.1990, NCJ 128795.

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs


BULK RATEPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPermit No. G–91

A System Outof Balance

Minorities constitute 31 percent of the U.S. juvenile population.

Minorities comprise 63 percent of juveniles held in securedetention or corrections facilities.

To learn more about issues relating to minoritiesin the juvenile justice system, call the JuvenileJustice Clearinghouse toll free:

800–638–8736Research Publications • Program Descriptions • Literature SearchesCurrent Statistics • Referral Organizations • Funding Information

Of critical concern to today’s policy officialsand OJJDP is the disproportionate number ofminority youth represented in the juvenilejustice system.

Minority Youth in theJuvenile Justice System—

NCJ 148407

volume ii • number 1 spring/summer 1994 juvenilesingle pathway invariably leads to a life of...

Documents