Juvenile arrest rates, particularly violent crime index rates, increased in 2005 and again in 2006, causing fear that the nation was on the brink of another juvenile crime wave. But according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (OJJDP) in their April 2009 Juvenile Justice Bulletin, overall, there were 2% fewer juveniles arrested in 2007 than in 2006, and juvenile violent crime arrests declined 3%, reversing the recent upward trend.
Juvenile arrests for violent crimes such as murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault decreased between 2006 and 2007, while juvenile arrests for property crimes such as burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson increased for the first time in 13 years.
Even with the property crimes increase, the 2.18 million juvenile arrests in 2007 were 20% fewer than in 1998.
Juveniles enter the juvenile justice system most often through law enforcement (e.g., arrest). Often, law enforcement statistics are used as a proxy for examining trends in juvenile crime and offending. Accurate information is important to be proactive and even reactive when trying to establish and or fund programs that will be effective in curbing criminal behavior.
Throughout my tenure as juvenile officer for a rural sheriff's department, underage drinking, drug use, assault, thefts and status offenses e.g., runaways and incorrigible kids, were the most common problems I dealt with on a daily basis. Our department like many others became involved with the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program and started our version of a day boot camp as a deterrence program for these types of offenders. Although we had no real way to track our DARE program, we did track our boot camp attendees for up to one year after their attendance. Contrary to national and state surveys and opinion, we found our program to be beneficial in deterring further criminal behavior in those under 18 years of age.
It's hard to come up with a plan of attack when no one truly has a clear picture of what is going on in the juvenile system. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention report, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report, "there is no national recidivism rate for juveniles. Such a rate would not have much meaning since juvenile justice systems vary so much across states."
Although current statistics are showing a slight decrease in juvenile arrests researchers are still being asked, "What can be done in the future to continue this trend? Where should we focus our resources and what programs and what incentives should we fund?"
According to Jeff Butts, Ph.D., Executive Vice President for Research at Public/Private Ventures in Philadelphia, he is often asked to comment on juvenile justice policy. "The question I hear the most is, 'should we send more youth to criminal (adult) court?' However, there are many more important policy questions. Criminal court transfer is just one issue, and it affects relatively few youth. What about all the other policies and practices used in juvenile justice? What about curfew laws, detention alternatives, and restorative justice? Which of these are most effective? Unfortunately, the most common answer to these questions is 'we don't know yet.' There are surprisingly few studies on the impact and effectiveness of juvenile justice policies. It is expensive and complicated to carry out good evaluation studies in the politicized and chaotic environment of juvenile justice. Thus, we really don't have many good answers and we never will without new investments in research."
In lieu of waiting on this research, Butts collaborated with several of his former colleagues at the Urban Institute in a study that asked juvenile justice professionals in the 300 largest U.S. counties to assess the relative value of various policies and practices used to combat juvenile crime. They surveyed a representative sample of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and court administrators. More than 500 professionals answered a battery of questions about which policies they believed to be most effective and why.
The top five ranked policies were
- substance abuse treatment,
- sex offender treatment,
- mental health treatment,
- reentry services and planning, and
- coordination with social services.
According to Butts, policies to reduce court confidentiality, to transfer juveniles to criminal court, juvenile curfews, and parental accountability laws (e.g., prosecuting parents for the behavior of their children) received the lowest rankings.
"Of course, these ineffective policies are still very popular with elected officials and media commentators," Butts said.
