WASHINGTON, DC—Demonstrating that trying youthful offenders in adult courts—"adult time for adult crime"—is a counterproductive fad that actually exacerbates juvenile crime, a groundbreaking new report unveils alternative approaches that are far more effective in preventing teens from committing crimes—and in protecting the communities in which they live.

Based on nine months of research, data analysis and investigation into dozens of successful programs around the nation, Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works--and What Doesn’t shows that America has the knowledge to substantially reduce youth crime and violence without a substantial increase in spending. Unfortunately, the research also shows, the reforms that will solve the problem are not being widely used.

Supported by the Walter S. Johnson Foundation, and written by Richard Mendel, the report was released by the American Youth Policy Forum in partnership with a broad coalition including the National Urban League, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Crime Prevention Council, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the National League of Cities and the National Collaboration for Youth.

At today’s news conference the groups joined together in a Call-to-Action for citizens, communities, and the media to "hold lawmakers accountable" by challenging officials to match their tough rhetoric about crime with sound policies and programs that really work to reduce adolescent crime.

"The good news from our research is that we really do know what works for stopping most young people from becoming adult criminals," said American Youth Policy Forum project director Samuel Halperin. "The bad news is that taxpayers continue throwing good money into approaches that sound good but don’t work. No matter how you look at it, ‘adult time’ is nothing but a catchy rhyme with no basis either in reason or research."

Focused largely on the real-life success of early intervention and family counseling programs, and backed by solid research and analysis, the approaches that do work have proven enormously effective in areas such as Orange County and San Francisco, CA;

Boston, MA; Charleston, SC; Milwaukee, WI; Eugene, OR; Salt Lake City, UT; Philadelphia, PA; Everglades and Fort Lauderdale, FL; Giddings, TX; and Seattle, WA. The replication of their success is hindered, however, by a fixation on the politically expedient strategy of putting young offenders into adult courts – an approach which has, in study after study, been proven both costly and ineffective.

"It really doesn’t matter whether you’re right, left, or center on the philosophy of treating juvenile offenders; everyone shares the overarching goal to stop young people from committing crimes," said National Urban League President Hugh Price. "Most people would be outraged—and frightened—to know that much of the $10 to $15 billion being spent every year fighting juvenile crime is not paying off in making our communities safer and, in many cases, actually increases the risks of juvenile offenses."

Obstacles to Progress

In the 1990s, virtually every state passed laws to transfer more youths to adult courts. These "adult time for adult crime" solutions sound tough, Less Hype, More Help finds, but they do nothing to reduce crime. The report cites the following facts:

• Transfer to the adult justice system increases criminality. Youth offenders transferred to criminal court re-offend more often, and with more serious offenses, than those retained under juvenile jurisdiction. A Florida study of more than 5,000 offenders found that transferred youth were rearrested more than 50 percent more often and had a shorter time to re-arrest. Studies in Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania report similar findings.

• The threat of adult time does not make communities safer. States which have moved most aggressively to use the threat of adult court to deter youths from committing crime have not seen noticeable improvements. New York State changed its waiver law in 1978 to allow youths as young as 14 to be charged for violent offenses, but violent crime rates among New York City youths did not decline in comparison to Philadelphia, which had no such transfer law. When Idaho passed a new law in 1981 requiring transfer for all violent offenders ages 14 and above, the state’s juvenile crime rate increased. The rate decreased in both Montana and Wyoming, where the juvenile courts retained jurisdiction over most violent juvenile offenders.

• Confining youths with adults is dangerous and counterproductive. Compared with youth in juvenile institutions, youths in adult institutions are eight times more likely to commit suicide, five times more likely to be sexually assaulted and 50 percent more likely to be attacked by a weapon. Prisons are, however, excellent places for troubled youths to learn tricks of the crime trade from grizzled veteran criminals.

• Transfer to adult court is expensive, and wastes funds needed to implement what works. The majority of youths transferred to criminal court spend months awaiting trial—with a cost to taxpayers of up to $200 per day. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that "get-tough" transfer provisions enacted in March 2000 could cost taxpayers $100 million per year in added operating costs, plus $200-300 million for new jail construction.

Some Juvenile Approaches Are Also Part of the Problem

Experts agree that the best opportunity to reduce juvenile crime lies in effective juvenile justice programming and aggressive delinquency prevention. Unfortunately, current efforts often fail in these areas. Most of the funds now spent on juvenile justice pay for incarcerating young people. Yet three-fourths of the young people removed from their homes by juvenile courts are not serious violent offenders, and despite a cost of $100 to $150 per day, recidivism studies routinely find that 50 to 70 percent of youth incarcerated in juvenile institutions go on to commit additional crimes. A follow-up study on youth released from Minnesota’s correctional "training schools" in 1991 found that 91 percent were re-arrested within five years of release. In Maryland, a study of 947 youths released from correctional facilities in 1994 found that 82 percent were referred to juvenile or criminal courts within two years.

Meanwhile, most juvenile justice agencies suffer other serious problems that sap their effectiveness:

• overwhelmed with cases, many juvenile courts cannot provide individualized justice
• many probation agencies are understaffed and devote few resources to community-based treatment and supervision of youth at risk of becoming serious chronic offenders
• many juvenile justice agencies pay little attention to research and results, and instead continue funding politically appealing programs that don’t work; and
• disproportionate treatment of minority youth is rampant.

For youth who do not pose an immediate threat to public safety, most of the winning strategies work with young people in their own homes and communities, rather than institutions. They focus heavily on the family environment, both in responding to, and preventing, juvenile crime.

Focus on Families

The Less Hype, More Help report highlights two home-based, family-focused intervention models that have demonstrated dramatic success in stopping young people from committing crimes. In South Carolina, youth who took part in Multisystemic Therapy had 43 percent fewer arrests than youth receiving conventional juvenile court treatment services. In Missouri, youth who participated in this approach had a five-year re-arrest rate of 22.1 percent compared with 71.4 percent for those treated independently of their families. Multisystemic Therapy, widely used in Memphis, TN, costs only $4,500 per month – less than one-sixth the cost of one year of incarceration or residential treatment.

Like Multisystemic Therapy, Functional Family Therapy works with youths and families in their homes—employing tactics that reverse the negative dynamics that produce criminal behavior. In nine clinical trials dating back to 1973, Functional Family Therapy reduced re-offending by 25 to 80 percent in comparison to groups receiving alternative treatments. It costs only $2,000 per youth.

Another family-oriented approach is Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, an Oregon-based model that provides an alternative to incarceration or placement in a group home. In addition to placing chronic juvenile offenders into closely-monitored foster care, the program works with the youths’ permanent guardians to prepare for their return. In a recent clinical trial of this approach, chronic offenders were arrested less than half as often as youth sent to group homes. They spent less than half as many days incarcerated, and were seven times as likely to remain arrest-free after treatment.

Early Treatment of Conduct Problems

Virtually all youth who become chronic delinquents exhibit behavior problems in early childhood. Fortunately, several intervention models have demonstrated strong success in reducing troublesome behavior among children with conduct problems. For instance, a Seattle-based approach called the "Incredible Years" uses a combination of parent training and direct treatment of children to reduce conduct problems by 30 percent or more for 95 percent of troubled youths served. Other studies have found that positive impacts from such programs remained for 10-14 years after treatment.

Positive Youth Development

The Less Hype, More Help report cites several youth development programs that have proven successful in limiting delinquency. An after-school recreation program targeting all children in an Ottawa, Canada public housing project led to a 75 percent drop in arrests—while the arrest rate at a nearby housing project without such a program rose by 67 percent. A study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters project found that youth assigned a mentor were 46 percent less likely to take drugs and one-third less likely to strike another person.

Early Childhood Intervention

Of all the strategies tested, by far the most promising for preventing delinquency are those aimed at children in the first four years of life. In Syracuse, NY, a program targeted 108 low-income families with pre-natal home visits and quality pre-school-age child care. When these children were 13 to 16 years-old, only 1.5 percent had records for delinquency problems, compared with 17 percent of youth not receiving the services. Carefully-studied early childhood programs in Houston, TX, New Haven, CT, Elmira, NY and Memphis,TN have also produced significant long-term reductions in conduct problems. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The seven diverse and nationally-respected organizations co-publishing Less Hype, More Help urge policymakers to heed the overwhelming evidence that transferring youth to adult courts exacerbates the criminality of individuals, and fails to deter other youth from crime. The groups urge policymakers to consider more effective approaches and to overcome entrenched barriers to implementing reforms that truly work. Specifically, the report recommends:

1. End over-reliance on corrections and other out-of-home placements. In most states, local juvenile courts face strong financial incentives to commit youth to state correctional institutions instead of treating them locally. The costs to retain youth at home and provide community-based supervision are paid entirely by the locality in most states. States should financially assist communities that treat youthful offenders locally and require them to share the costs when they commit non-dangerous offenders to state correctional institutions.
2. Invest in research-driven interventions for juvenile offenders. Research-based evidence proves today’s common practices are often ineffective and sometimes counterproductive. The federal government and juvenile justice agencies should invest in programs proven effective by research and solid evaluation.
3. Measure results, and cut-off funds for programs that don’t work. The federal government should require all states and localities receiving federal funds to measure and report their results. Juvenile justice agencies nationwide should create outcome databases to measure the effectiveness of programs.
4. Engage community partners. Two of the characteristics found almost uniformly in delinquent youth are lack of attachment to caring adults and lack of involvement in positive activities. States should encourage juvenile courts and probation agencies to strengthen partnerships with residents and community based organizations.
5. Mobilize communities to implement comprehensive strategies. Since 1994, the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has provided funding for more than 600 communities to undertake comprehensive planning and action to address juvenile crime. Despite promising results, proposals pending in Congress threaten to eliminate the program. Congress should reject these proposals.

The groups ended today’s event with a Call-to-Action for the public to "take a hard line" by holding policymakers accountable to back up tough-talking rhetoric with strong policies rooted in the evidence of what works to reduce juvenile crime. The Less Hype, More Help partners outlined Hard Questions for Communities seeking to reduce juvenile crime and called on citizens and the media to demand answers to these searching questions from their public officials.