RESEARCH FINDINGS | (back)

Key Findings from “Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works—and What Doesn’t” by Richard A. Mendel.


In 1999, the Walter S. Johnson Foundation commissioned the American Youth Policy Forum to prepare a report of what works and what doesn’t in reducing juvenile crime and to explore what changes are necessary to ensure public policy is administered in accordance with best practice. The report, “Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works—and What Doesn’t,” prepared by independent writer and researcher Richard Mendel, found there is a glaring gap between current practice and best practice:

“America has the knowledge we need to reduce adolescent crime and violence without a substantial long-term increase in spending. Yet the policy and program reforms necessary to win the battle against juvenile crime are not being enacted,” Mendel concludes.

Research reveals that traditional methods of dealing with juvenile crime, such as putting offenders in a correctional facility, are not as effective as alternative solutions that work with the youth’s family and that reconnect the youth to the community. “More and more research shows that the family is the most important factor both in triggering the onset of delinquent behaviors and in bringing that behavior under control.” (p. 14) “For youth who do not pose and immediate threat to public safety, most of the winning strategies are those that work with juveniles in their own homes and communities, rather than in institutions, and that focus heavily on the family environment.” (p. 2)

Highlights of the report’s findings with respect to current practice are as follows:

• Research shows that juvenile offenders who are transferred to adult (criminal) courts recidivate more often, more quickly, and with more serious offenses than those who are retained under juvenile jurisdiction.” (p. 3)
• Transfer to adult courts can expose youth to grave risks. Compared with youth confined in the juvenile justice system, juvenile offenders housed in adult jails and prisons are eight times more likely to commit suicide, five times more likely to be sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and 50 percent more likely to be attacked with a weapon.” (p. 3)
• Despite a cost of $100 to $150 per youth per day, delinquents sentenced to youth correctional facilities typically suffer recidivism rates of 50 to 70 percent.” (p. 4)
• A 1993 study of 28 states found that only 14 percent of offenders confined in juvenile correctional institutions were committed for serious violent crimes.” (p. 3)

In contrast, the report cites several studies documenting the cost-effective, successful outcomes of alternative therapies:

• "Multisystemic Therapy (MST), in which trained therapists work with delinquent youth and their families, has cut recidivism rates of chronic juvenile offenders by 25 to 70 percent in a series of rigorous clinical trials and MST costs only $4,500 per youth, less than one-fourth the cost of an eight-month stay in juvenile corrections.”(p.2)
• "In rural South Carolina, violent and chronic offenders treated with MST had 43 percent fewer arrests, committed 66 percent fewer self-reported offenses, and spent 64 percent fewer weeks in youth prison or treatment centers than youth randomly assigned to usual court sanctions and treatments (such as court-ordered curfews and school attendance, referral to other community agencies).” (p.10)
• Functional Family Therapy, which is similar to MST, demonstrated its impact in 1973: “A randomized trial found that only 26 percent of delinquent youth assigned to FFT were arrested within 18 months of treatment, compared with 50 percent recidivism for youth in a no-treatment control group and 47 percent and 73 percent recidivism for youth assigned to two other modes of therapy.” (p.11)
• Multidimensional Family Therapy is another model that has shown a strong impact in reversing behavior problems, particularly among those who have substance abuse problems. “In one study, hard drug use declined from 53 percent of participating youth at the outset of the program, to nine percent at the end of the treatment period, to three percent at one-year follow-up.” (p.17)

Restorative programs, which strive to enable youth to address the causes of their delinquent behavior and/or repair the damage done by their offenses, are showing encouraging results. These programs frequently involve community volunteers.
Though there are limited long-term data measuring the efficacy of restorative justice programs, these initial results are promising and merit additional research.

• In Philadelphia, Youth Aid Panels, consisting of trained community volunteers review cases of 800 first-time juvenile offenders each year. Following a highly personalized hearing, panelists propose a three-month youth aid contract that might include restitution, community service, and/or counseling. Studies found that 80 percent of young people participating in Youth Aid Panels completed their contract successfully. The Assistant District Attorney reports recidivism rates of only 22 percent.” (p. 21)
• In Washington D.C., an evaluation of a restorative justice program revealed that participants had a 35 percent lower arrest rate than youth assigned to the existing juvenile court.” (p. 21)