research questions about juvenile justice system

Advertisement

How Young Offenders’ Perceive Their Life Courses and the Juvenile Justice System: A Systematic Review of Recent Qualitative Research

• Systematic Review
• Published: 23 February 2022
• Volume 8 , pages 137–158, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Savannah De Boer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4028-9262 1 ,
• Benoit Testé 1 &
• Cinzia Guarnaccia 1  

1535 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Adolescence is a key period in shaping later delinquency trajectories. Qualitative studies provide a valuable complement to quantitative research by clarifying young offenders’ perceptions of risk and protective factors for delinquency. The present systematic review addresses a gap in the literature by summarizing the findings of recent qualitative studies of young offenders’ narratives concerning their life experiences and their contacts with the juvenile justice system. It also provides an overview of the various methodologies the 39 included studies used to collect and analyze these narratives. Results show that young people are capable of expressing and giving meaning to their life experiences. Although they frequently mentioned violent family backgrounds and difficulties in understanding criminal procedures as influencing their delinquent behaviors, they had varying opinions about the impact of substance abuse on these behaviors. This synthesis of research into young offenders’ perceptions of their experiences highlights the need to take into account these perceptions when designing interventions aimed at understanding, preventing, and responding to youth delinquency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

LGBTQI+ Youth and Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research

Labeling Theory

Risk and protective factors of drug abuse among adolescents: a systematic review

Abrams, L. S. (2006). From corrections to community: Youth offenders’ perceptions of the challenges of transition. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44 (2–3), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v44n02_02

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrams, L. S. (2012). Envisioning life “on the outs”: Exit narratives of incarcerated male youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56 (6), 877–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X11415042

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Apena, F. (2007). Being black and in trouble: The role of self-perception in the offending behaviour of black youth. Youth Justice, 7 (3), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225407082511

Arendt, J. (2011). [In]Subordination: Inmate photography and narrative elicitation in a youth incarceration facility. Cultural Studies ++ Critical Methodologies, 11 (3), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708611409543

Ashkar, P. J., & Kenny, D. T. (2008). Views from the inside: Young offenders’ subjective experiences of incarceration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52 (5), 584–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X08314181

Ashkar, P. J., & Kenny, D. T. (2009). Young offenders’ perceptions of school: An ecological analysis. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 16 (3), 355–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710902930283

Azad, A., Ginner Hau, H., & Karlsson, M. (2018). Adolescent female offenders’ subjective experiences of how peers influence norm-breaking behavior. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 35 (3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-017-0526-0

Baglivio, M. T., Wolff, K. T., Piquero, A. R., Bilchik, S., Jackowski, K., Greenwald, M. A., & Epps, N. (2016). Maltreatment, child welfare, and recidivism in a sample of deep-end crossover youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45 (4), 625–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0407-9

Bengtsson, T. T. (2016). Performing hypermasculinity: Experiences with confined young offenders. Men and Masculinities, 19 (4), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X15595083

Brown, C., Davis, L., & Shlafer, R. J. (2020). Are we meeting their needs? Well-child, dental, and mental health care for youth in Juvenile correctional facilities in Minnesota. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 31 (1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2020.0016

Cope, N. (2003). ‘It’s no time or high time’: Young offenders’ experiences of time and drug use in prison. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 42 (2), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2311.t01-1-00273

Corrado, R. R., McCuish, E. C., Hart, S. D., & DeLisi, M. (2015). The role of psychopathic traits and developmental risk factors on offending trajectories from early adolescence to adulthood: A prospective study of incarcerated youth. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43 (4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.04.007

Crane, S., & Broome, M. E. (2017). Understanding ethical issues of research participation from the perspective of participating children and adolescents: A systematic review: Research participation from the perspective of participating children and adolescents. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14 (3), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12209

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

De Ganck, J., & Vanheule, S. (2015). “Bad boys don’t cry”: A thematic analysis of interpersonal dynamics in interview narratives of young offenders with psychopathic traits. Frontiers in Psychology . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00960

Deuchar, R. (2012). The impact of curfews and electronic monitoring on the social strains, support and capital experienced by youth gang members and offenders in the west of Scotland. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 12 (2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895811425540

Douglas, N., & Plugge, E. (2008). The health needs of imprisoned female juvenile offenders: The views of the young women prisoners and youth justice professionals. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 4 (2), 66–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449200802038256

Feinstein, R. A. (2015). White privilege, juvenile justice, and criminal identities: A qualitative analysis of the perceptions and self-identification of incarcerated youth. Contemporary Justice Review, 18 (3), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2015.1057708

Forth, A., Kosson, D., & Hare, R. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version . Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems, inc.

Ginner Hau, H., & Azad, A. (2020). Swedish adolescent female offenders with limited delinquency: Exploring family-related narratives from a developmental perspective. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00719-8

Haigh, Y. (2009). Desistance from crime: Reflections on the transitional experiences of young people with a history of offending. Journal of Youth Studies, 12 (3), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676260902775077

Halsey, M. J. (2006). Negotiating conditional release: Juvenile narratives of repeat incarceration. Punishment & Society, 8 (2), 147–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474506062102

Hartwell, S., McMackin, R., Tansi, R., & Bartlett, N. (2010). “I grew up too fast for my age:” Postdischarge issues and experiences of male juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49 (7), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2010.510772

Heath, R. A., & Priest, H. M. (2016). Examining experiences of transition, instability and coping for young offenders in the community: A qualitative analysis. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 21 (2), 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104515581715

Herrenkohl, T. I., Maguin, E., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2000). Developmental risk factors for youth violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26 (3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(99)00065-8

Horstkötter, D., Berghmans, R., de Ruiter, C., Krumeich, A., & de Wert, G. (2012). “We are also normal humans, you know?” Views and attitudes of juvenile delinquents on antisocial behavior, neurobiology and prevention. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35 (4), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.04.006

Horstkötter, D., Berghmans, R., Feron, F., & De Wert, G. (2014). ‘One can always say no.’ Enriching the bioethical debate on antisocial behaviour, neurobiology and prevention: views of Juvenile delinquents: ‘One can always say no.’: Views of Juvenile delinquents. Bioethics, 28 (5), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01997.x

Jack, A., Lanskey, C., & Harvey, J. (2015). Young offenders ’ and their families ’ experiences of mental health interventions. Journal of Children’s Services, 10 (4), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-10-2014-0043

Jackson-Roe, K., Murray, C., & Brown, G. (2015). Understanding young offenders’ experiences of drinking alcohol: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 22 (1), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687637.2014.973371

James, N. (2013). Research on the ‘Inside’: The challenges of conducting research with young offenders. Sociological Research Online, 18 (4), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3129

King, E., Brown, D., Petch, V., & Wright, A. (2014). Perceptions of support-seeking in young people attending a youth offending team: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 19 (1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104512465739

Lambie, I., & Randell, I. (2013). The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33 (3), 448–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.007

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33 (1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Leonardi, R., Buchanan-Smith, H., McIvor, G., & Vick, S.-J. (2017). “You think you’re helping them, but they’re helping you too”: Experiences of Scottish male young offenders participating in a dog training program. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 (8), 945. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080945

Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., & Ponterotto, J. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4 (1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082

Lohmeyer, B. A. (2020). Keen as fuck’: Youth participation in qualitative research as ‘parallel projects. Qualitative Research, 20 (1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118816627

Lount, S. A., Hand, L., Purdy, S. C., & France, A. (2018). Tough talk: Youth offenders’ perceptions of communicating in the Youth Justice system in New Zealand. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51 (4), 593–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865817740404

Madden-Derdich, D. A., Leonard, S. A., & Gunnell, G. A. (2002). Parents’ and children’s perceptions of family processes in inner-city families with delinquent youths: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28 (3), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2002.tb01192.x

Meade, M. O., & Richardson. (1997). Selecting and appraising studies for a systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127 (7), 531. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-7-199710010-00005

Naidoo, L., & Sewpaul, V. (2014). THE life experiences of adolescent sexual offenders: Factors that contribute to offending behaviours. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk . https://doi.org/10.15270/50-1-17

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2012). Appendix H Quality appraisal checklist—qualitative studies. Retrieved May 28, 2021, from https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg4/chapter/appendix-h-quality-appraisal-checklist-qualitative-studies

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2018). Appendix H Appraisal checklists, evidence tables, GRADE and economic profiles . Retrieved July 5, 2021, from https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/resources/appendix-h-appraisal-checklists-evidence-tables-grade-and-economic-profiles-pdf-8779777885

Newbury, A., & Dingwall, G. (2013). ‘It lets out all my demons’: Female young offenders’ perceptions about the impact of alcohol on their offending behaviour. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 41 (4), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2013.07.004

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A Qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8 (3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800301

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA, 2020 statement : An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10 (1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Parker, A., Meek, R., & Lewis, G. (2014). Sport in a youth prison: Male young offenders’ experiences of a sporting intervention. Journal of Youth Studies, 17 (3), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2013.830699

Parker, A., & Tritter, J. (2006). Focus group method and methodology: Current practice and recent debate. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29 (1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500537304

Paton, J., Crouch, W., & Camic, P. (2009). Young offenders’ experiences of traumatic life events: A qualitative investigation. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 14 (1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359104508100135

Peterson-Badali, M., & Koegl, C. J. (2002). Juveniles’ experiences of incarceration. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30 (1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00121-0

Pinquart, M., & Pfeiffer, J. P. (2020). Longitudinal associations of the attainment of developmental tasks with psychological symptoms in adolescence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30 (S1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12462

Řezáč, P., Klečková, K., & Vaculík, M. (2013). Perception of Juvenile delinquents of group therapy approaches. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57 (8), 1009–1026. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12441334

Shannon, S. K. S., & Abrams, L. S. (2007). Juvenile offenders as fathers: Perceptions of fatherhood, crime, and becoming an adult. Families in Society: THe Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 88 (2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.3616

Shelton, D. (2004). Experiences of detained young offenders in need of mental health care. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36 (2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2004.04025.x

Suthers, A. (2011). What do ‘they’ think? Young offenders’ views of youth offender panels: A case study in one youth offending team. British Journal of Community Justice, 9 (3), 7–26.

Whittle, N., Macdonald, W., & Bailey, S. (2012). A study of young offenders’ perceptions of health and health care services in custody and in the community. Journal of Correctional Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345811436110

Willoughby, A., & Nellis, M. (2016). “You cannot really hide”: Experiences of probation officers and young offenders with GPS tracking in Winnipeg, Canada. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 34 (1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2016.1139919

Young, S., Chesney, S., Sperlinger, D., Misch, P., & Collins, P. (2009). A qualitative study exploring the life-course experiences of young offenders with symptoms and signs of ADHD who were detained in a residential care setting. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19 (1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.721

Zoettl, P. A. (2017). Minor narratives: Extrajudicial punishment of youth offenders by police officers in Portugal. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 48 , 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2016.10.002

Zuchowski, I., Braidwood, L., d’Emden, C., Gair, S., Heyeres, M., Nicholls, L., Savuro, N., & O’Reilly, S. (2020). The voices of “At Risk” young people about services they received: A systematic literature review. Australian Social Work . https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2020.1776742

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Paul Henderson for his help in improving the quality of the English manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Laboratoire de Psychologie, Cognition, Comportement, Communication (LP3C), Department of Psychology, University of Rennes 2, Bâtiment S—Bureau S415, Place du Recteur Henri Le Moal, 35043, Rennes Cedex, France

Savannah De Boer, Benoit Testé & Cinzia Guarnaccia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SDB conceived of the systematic review, designed and conducted the study, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript; BT guided the data analysis and helped draft the manuscript; CG supervised the study, guided the data analysis, and helped draft the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Savannah De Boer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

De Boer, S., Testé, B. & Guarnaccia, C. How Young Offenders’ Perceive Their Life Courses and the Juvenile Justice System: A Systematic Review of Recent Qualitative Research. Adolescent Res Rev 8 , 137–158 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-022-00184-7

Download citation

Received : 07 November 2021

Accepted : 03 February 2022

Published : 23 February 2022

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-022-00184-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Young offenders
• Qualitative research
• Systematic review
• Juvenile justice
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Disclaimer » Advertising

• HealthyChildren.org

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Eligibility Criteria

Search strategy and information sources, study selection, data extraction and analysis, study characteristics, study quality, summary of findings, adverse childhood experiences and justice system contact: a systematic review.

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• CME Quiz Close Quiz
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Gloria Huei-Jong Graf , Stanford Chihuri , Melanie Blow , Guohua Li; Adverse Childhood Experiences and Justice System Contact: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics January 2021; 147 (1): e2020021030. 10.1542/peds.2020-021030

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Video Abstract

Given the wide-ranging health impacts of justice system involvement, we examined evidence for the association between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and justice system contact in the United States.

To synthesize epidemiological evidence for the association between ACEs and justice system contact.

We searched 5 databases for studies conducted through January 2020. The search term used for each database was as follows: (“aces” OR “childhood adversities”) AND (“delinquency” OR “crime” OR “juvenile” OR criminal* OR offend*).

We included all observational studies assessing the association between ACEs and justice system contact conducted in the United States.

Data extracted from each eligible study included information about the study design, study population, sample size, exposure and outcome measures, and key findings. Study quality was assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized trials.

In total, 10 of 11 studies reviewed were conducted in juvenile population groups. Elevated ACE scores were associated with increased risk of juvenile justice system contact. Estimates of the adjusted odds ratio of justice system contact per 1-point increase in ACE score ranged from 0.91 to 1.68. Results were consistent across multiple types of justice system contact and across geographic regions.

Most studies reviewed were conducted in juvenile justice-involved populations with follow-up limited to adolescence or early adulthood.

ACEs are positively associated with juvenile justice system contact in a dose-response fashion. ACE prevention programs may help reduce juvenile justice system contacts and improve child and adolescent health.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are a set of childhood adversities, including household dysfunction and various forms of abuse and neglect, occurring before the age of 18. 1   The original ACE study conducted by Kaiser Permanente and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included 7 predefined categories of childhood exposures, which have been expanded over time to include a greater number of categories and specific experiences, such as peer victimization and exposure to community violence. 2 , 3   The ACE pyramid provides a theoretical framework to understand the impact of ACEs on poor health: traumatic childhood experiences influence future health and well-being through a pathway of disrupted neurodevelopment and social, emotional, and cognitive impairment, leading to the adoption of health-risk behaviors and physical and mental health problems, and finally resulting in early death. 4  

Over the past 2 decades, ACEs have emerged as a strong and policy-relevant predictor of morbidity and health-risk behaviors across the life course. The original ACE study, conducted in 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente, found that ACEs are both common and associated with mortality and health-risk behaviors in the general population. 5   Since then, strong associations have continually been identified between ACEs and a wide range of adverse physical and mental health outcomes as well as health-risk behaviors. 6 – 8  

Childhood trauma has also been linked to excess contact with the justice system, especially among juvenile populations. 9 – 11   Although much of this work predates the widespread use of the ACEs questionnaire, research on the trauma-crime relationship is often relevant and applicable to the ACE framework. The frequent co-occurrence of delinquency and victimization has been documented, and justice-involved youth who have experienced poly-victimization are more likely to report being involved in delinquency than non–justice-involved youth. 12 , 13   In multiple studies, authors have estimated that ∼25% to 30% of incarcerated youth meet the criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder, 10 , 14   and children involved with the child welfare system are also overrepresented among justice-involved youth. 14 , 15   In their 2006 report to the National Bureau of Economic Research, Currie and Tekin 16   found that childhood maltreatment doubled the risk of engaging in self-reported criminal activity. More recently, Layne et al 17   identified graded relationships between the number of traumatic exposures in childhood and high-risk behaviors in later life.

The relationship between trauma and justice involvement is of particular interest to public health given the wide-ranging individual and community impacts of incarceration and policing. 18 , 19   At the individual level, involvement with the justice system may lead to and exacerbate health disparities in substance use, 20 , 21   infectious disease, 22 , 23   mental illness, 20 , 24   injury, 21 , 25   chronic disease, 26   and death. 27 – 29   At the community level, incarceration destabilizes family structures and hampers employment and economic opportunity, political participation, and community stability. 18 , 30   As such, justice system contact represents an important public health problem as both marker and predictor of poor individual and community well-being. Given the concentration of childhood trauma and justice system involvement in disadvantaged communities, as well as their associated public health impacts, evidence regarding the association of ACEs with justice system contact is potentially helpful for policy makers, those working with justice-involved persons, and public health practitioners alike. In this systematic review, we aim to synthesize epidemiological evidence for the association between ACEs and justice system contact (eg, arrest, conviction, recidivism, and incarceration)—specifically, the graded effects of cumulative ACE score on justice system contact in the United States.

We conducted a systematic review of observational studies examining the relationship between cumulative ACE score and justice system contact in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. 31 , 32   The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020169637).

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) exposure was or could be transformed to reflect cumulative ACE score, whether obtained directly from administration of the ACE questionnaire or extracted and calculated from secondary sources (eg, child protective services reports or institutional records); (2) the outcome was related to contact with the justice system (eg, arrest, incarceration, and felony charge) and was verified through third-party records or self-reported (see below); (3) the authors used an epidemiological design (cross sectional, cohort, or case control) and reported quantitative measures of association; and (4) the study was conducted in the United States. No restrictions based on participant incarceration status or publication date were applied. No restrictions on comparator group (or lack thereof) were applied because the primary effect of interest was the graded effect of each 1-point increase in ACE score. No restrictions were placed on the number or type of ACEs measured in each study. We restricted this systematic review to studies conducted in the United States to reduce heterogeneity resulting from (1) country-level differences in adult and juvenile justice systems 33   and (2) potential differences in ACE prevalence between the United States and other high-income countries, 34   both of which might represent important leverage points for law or policy intervention.

Through the course of the review, it became apparent that some samples of juvenile offenders had rather been adjudicated to alternative treatment facilities; we also included these studies if it was explicitly stated that the outcome of interest was equivalent to or an alternative to arrest or felony charge in a juvenile population. Additionally, there was one modification to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews protocol during the systematic review: whereas studies on criminal behavior (eg, sexual offending and gang involvement) were included only if verifiable through third-party records, contact with law enforcement via arrest or incarceration was deemed eligible if self-reported. The rationale for this modification was twofold: first, contact with law enforcement can theoretically be validated and may be less prone to response bias than criminal activity about which law enforcement is not yet aware; and second, community-based surveys must often rely on self-reported behavior because of practical constraints. Finally, single-item reports of arrest or incarceration are a commonly used outcome measure with acceptable test-retest reliability and validity. 35  

Studies were excluded if (1) the childhood trauma (exposure) measurement was not operationalized as a cumulative ACE score and could not be transformed to a cumulative ACE score; (2) the outcome measure was self-reported criminal behavior that was not verifiable through third-party records (eg, self-reported vandalism, violence, and other delinquent behaviors that did not result in contact with law enforcement); or (3) no quantitative data were reported, such as commentaries, opinion pieces, qualitative studies, letters, editorials, and reviews.

We searched the following 5 databases from January 24 to January 30: PubMed, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The Google Scholar search was limited to the first 200 results; this is consistent with previous literature on optimal search strategy 36   and seeks to balance the sensitivity of Google Scholar’s search strategy against the large number of false-positives generated. The search term used for each database was as follows: (“aces” OR “childhood adversities”) AND (“delinquency” OR “crime” OR “juvenile” OR criminal* OR offend*).

Initial literature search and screening was performed by a graduate student in epidemiology (G.G.), and a subsample of the screened articles were assessed for accuracy by 2 investigators (G.L. and S.C.) with extensive experience in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. All search results were collected in a central database and deduplicated. Study abstracts were first screened for eligibility; we then reviewed the full text of potentially eligible articles to make a final eligibility determination. Reference lists and related article links of eligible studies were searched to identify additional potential studies for inclusion; the studies were then reviewed and assessed for eligibility.

The following data were extracted from each eligible study independently by 2 of us (G.G. and S.C.): study authors, publication year, journal, sample size, study population, study design, exposure measurement, outcome definition, outcome ascertainment, covariates, subgroups, and measures of effect reported. Discrepancies in the abstracted data were resolved through discussion and consensus building led by the senior author (G.L.). The principal summary measure of interest was the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for justice system contact given a 1-point increase in ACE score. Where possible, estimates were obtained directly from published articles. Alternatively, estimates were transformed from data presented in the published article; if neither of these was possible, data necessary for these calculations were requested from study authors. When results were reported separately by subgroup (eg, race or sex), data were abstracted separately for each subgroup.

Study quality and risk of bias were assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies. 37   Cross-sectional studies were evaluated by using a modified NOS that is based on criteria developed by Modesti et al. 38   Given evidence of significant heterogeneity in the studies eligible for review, we present a qualitative synthesis of findings in the present report.

The initial search of 5 databases yielded 544 records; of them, 194 duplicate records were removed, and the remaining 350 titles and abstracts were screened for relevance by the first author. Of the 350 records, 257 were deemed not relevant; the full text of the remaining 93 records was reviewed for eligibility. Of these 93 records, 71 were excluded for (1) irrelevant study aim ( n = 37); (2) incompatible exposure measurement ( n = 14); (3) outcome self-reported or otherwise ineligible for inclusion ( n = 12); (4) non-US sample ( n = 6); and (5) commentaries and review ( n = 2). In addition, 11 studies were excluded because of overlapping samples with identical outcome measures. A total of 11 studies were selected for inclusion in the final systematic review ( Fig 1 ).

Flowchart: identification, review, and selection of studies related to the graded effect of ACEs on justice system contact. Adapted from Moher et al. 31  

Of the 11 studies evaluating the association between ACE score and justice system contact, 3 reported juvenile arrest as their primary outcome of interest, 39 – 41   2 examined sexual offending, 42 , 43   2 examined juvenile reoffending, 44 , 45   1 examined serious, violent, and chronic delinquency as a juvenile, 46   1 examined early juvenile offending, 47   1 examined juvenile gang involvement, 48   1 examined early adulthood felony charge, 40   and 1 examined adult incarceration. 49   A total of 15 results were included in our primary meta-analysis because of multiple outcomes being reported within a single study, 40   separate reporting of results by Black and white race, 39   and separate reporting of results by sex 42 , 45   ( Table 1 ).

Characteristics of Studies Included in Meta-analysis of Graded Effects of ACEs on Justice System Contact

BRFSS, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; CI, confidence interval; C-PACT, Community Positive Achievement Change Tool; FDJJ, Florida Department of Juvenile Justice; JJIS, xxx; LONGSCAN, Longitudinal Studies on Child Abuse and Neglect; PACT, Positive Achievement Change Tool; SES, socioeconomic status; SVC, serious, violent, and chronic.

Eight of the 11 eligible studies adjusted for important covariates including race, sex, community and neighborhood factors, and risk behaviors. Of the 3 studies that did not, the absence of covariate adjustment in 2 studies was explained by the need for data transformation to assess the primary relationship of interest. 42 , 43   The average Newcastle-Ottawa Score for cohort studies was 7.75 of 9 (range 7–8), with most studies losing 1 point because of a lack of sample representativeness. In the NOS adapted for cross-sectional studies, the average score was 7.2 of 10 (range 5–9). Among all studies, only 1 was performed in a representative state community sample 49   ; all other studies were conducted in juvenile populations ( n = 7), in samples of children at high risk for maltreatment ( n = 2), or in an adult population with a history or violent or sexual offenses ( n = 1). In 7 studies, researchers used comprehensive data from state juvenile justice populations; 1 study used a state community sample; 2 studies used “high-risk” samples in selected US cities; and 1 study used a sample drawn from an inpatient treatment facility. Notably, data from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice ( n = 6) were overrepresented among included studies. Ascertainment of exposure and outcome measurements were generally strong because of stringent inclusion criteria in the present review. Assessments of study quality are available in Supplemental Tables 2 and 3 .

Of the 15 results from 11 studies included in our primary analysis, 13 revealed statistically significant positive associations between ACE score and justice system contact, whereas 2 indicated no significant association 39 , 40   ( Fig 2 ). The estimated aORs for justice system involvement ranged from 0.91 to 1.68 per 1-point increase in ACE score. In most studies (10 of 11) included in our review, authors examined outcomes in youth and young adulthood. We found that a 1-point increase in ACE score is associated with 9% lower to 68% higher odds of juvenile justice system contact. Further research is needed to reliably summarize the relationship between ACE score and justice system contact in adulthood and later life.

Forest plot, estimated aORs, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the association between each 1-point increase in ACE scores and overall justice system contact. a Black participants. b White participants. c Outcome: juvenile arrest. d Outcome: adult felony charge. e Male participant. f Female participant.

In 7 out of the 10 studies examining juvenile outcomes, authors examined outcomes in statewide juvenile populations, 42 – 48   increasing confidence in the validity of our primary findings. Results were consistent in the direction of association and significance across geographic regions within the United States.

We found compelling and consistent epidemiological evidence for a graded relationship between ACE score and juvenile justice system contact in the United Status. However, estimates of the overall relationship between ACE score and justice system contact across the life course were limited by the lack of studies in which authors examined adult justice involvement and should be interpreted with caution. Because the ACE framework explicitly takes a life course perspective, the association between ACE score and justice system contact in adulthood and later life is a promising area for future investigation. An understanding of the life course impacts of ACEs on justice system contact is important for policy makers and pediatric providers alike given the potential long-ranging impacts of intervening on these exposures in childhood.

Our findings support previous research identifying links between childhood trauma and subsequent contact with the justice system. 14 , 16 , 17   Alongside previous literature linking both ACEs and incarceration to poor health, these findings provide empirical support for the relationship between ACE exposure and justice system contact. Further research is needed to assess the pathways through which victimization leads to justice system contact and how each of these in turn may contribute to poor health, including relationships between victimization and perpetration 12   and behavioral and mental health risks of victimization. 13  

Our findings in this review are particularly salient to pediatric providers for several reasons. First, given evidence of associations between ACEs and juvenile justice involvement, pediatric providers may oversee patients both at the time of exposure (experience of ACEs) and outcome (justice system contact). Thus, pediatric providers represent an important stakeholder in interventions targeting both exposure and subsequent risk of justice system involvement. Second, the ACE framework identifies childhood as a highly susceptible period, during which exposure to adverse experiences “gets under the skin” to affect outcomes across the life course. Thus, intervention or guidance by pediatric providers during this critical period can potentially have benefits far beyond childhood and adolescence.

In the course of our review, we identified evidence of publication bias and significant heterogeneity across the studies reviewed. The publication bias issue may be mitigated by characteristics of the studies included in this review: 8 of 11 studies were in large data sets (range: 13 803–104 266 participants), all of which were population samples of juvenile offenders at the state level. It is common to find significant heterogeneity in outcomes of observational studies partly because of differences in the study designs, study samples, analytical approaches, and confounding factors controlled for. As more evidence becomes available, quantitative synthesis of the association between ACE score and various forms of justice system involvement may be of particular interest.

There are several important considerations that should be raised in light of our findings. First, both ACEs and contact with the justice system in the United States are patterned by socioeconomic factors. 50 – 52   In the Fagan and Novak 39   study included in our review, results were significant for Black participants but not for white participants. Further research is needed to evaluate the consistency of effect-size differences by race and should consider whether and how overpolicing of economically disadvantaged areas may confound observed associations between ACEs and justice system contact. As the prevalence of ACEs in the United States changes over time, 34   it is also important to observe whether disparities in prevalence and associations with justice system context persist. Assessment of the ACE–justice system relationship by sociodemographic factors in other countries may also serve to identify US-specific drivers of observed disparities.

Second, the generalizability of our findings may be limited because most studies in this review examined justice-involved or underresourced populations. Although the original ACE study was conducted in a predominantly white, college-educated sample with private health insurance, subsequent studies have established strong associations between trauma and poor health in minority and disadvantaged populations. 53 – 57   In a 2006 report, Currie and Tekin 16   found that the effects of trauma were found to be particularly harmful to children from low socioeconomic status families. Effect-size estimates from this review may therefore be larger than the true effects in the general population.

However, our findings are in line with a large body of literature identifying negative life course health consequences of ACE exposure across demographic characteristics and socioeconomic context. 5 , 6   Given unequal ACE distributions by race, sex, and sexual orientation 50   and strong gradients by childhood socioeconomic status, 58   research on ACEs alongside other markers of economic and social disadvantage is of particular importance. Particular attention should be paid to pathways through which these factors intersect with ACEs and justice system involvement in affecting health outcomes in adulthood and later life. Finally, in 9 of 11 studies included in this review, authors calculated the exposure of interest, ACE score, on the basis of a review of existing files or records. Further research is needed to confirm that these findings hold when ACEs are self-reported through the original ACE questionnaire.

Overall, we find epidemiological evidence to support the hypothesis that ACE score is positively and significantly associated with the risk of juvenile justice system contact. Although further research is needed to confirm these associations in older populations, study findings are in line with existing theory regarding the pathways through which ACEs affect health outcomes across the life course. Adding to the existing literature about the impact of ACEs on health and health behaviors across the life course, our findings indicate that targeting ACEs may have positive impacts on individual and community health through the reduction of contact with the justice system, particularly in adolescence and young adulthood.

Ms Graf helped to conceptualize and design the study, performed initial literature search and screening, performed data extraction and data analyses, and wrote an initial draft of the manuscript; Mr Chihuri helped to conceptualize and design the study, assessed a subsample of screened articles for accuracy, and performed data extraction and data analyses; Ms Blow helped to conceptualize and design the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, and revised and edited manuscript drafts for clarity and intellectual content; Dr Li conceptualized and designed the study, coordinated and supervised data collection, assessed a subsample of screened articles for accuracy, and revised and edited manuscript drafts for clarity and intellectual content; and all authors critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content, approved the final manuscript as submitted, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

This trial has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ) (identifier CRD42020169637).

FUNDING: Supported in part by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (grant 1 R49 CE002096) and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant R21 HD098522). The contents of the article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the funding agency. Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

adverse childhood experience

adjusted odds ratio

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

Competing Interests

Supplementary data, re: adverse childhood experiences and justice system contact.

The association between stressful experiences during early childhood and later contact with the justice system is not surprising. One should keep in mind that contact with the justice system is itself an adverse experience of childhood and adolescence.

Advertising Disclaimer »

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Affiliations

• Editorial Board
• Editorial Policies
• Journal Blogs
• Pediatrics On Call
• Online ISSN 1098-4275
• Print ISSN 0031-4005
• Pediatrics Open Science
• Hospital Pediatrics
• Pediatrics in Review
• AAP Grand Rounds
• Latest News
• Pediatric Care Online
• Red Book Online
• Pediatric Patient Education
• AAP Toolkits
• AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center

Institutions/librarians, group practices, licensing/permissions, integrations, advertising.

• Privacy Statement | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use | Support Center | Contact Us
• © Copyright American Academy of Pediatrics

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Equity in Focus

Centering Youth Voice in a Juvenile Justice Research Agenda

Posted on 01.03.2023

By Alexis Stern, Sarah Guckenburg, and Colleen Carter of the WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center. This article was originally published by George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy in the Fall 2022 edition of Translational Criminology.

Research ideas often reflect a combination of researchers’ interests and external sources, such as requests for proposals issued by government agencies, foundations, or other funders. In responding to these and other funding opportunities, researchers rely on prior research and information from program administrators to determine gaps in knowledge and how research questions, methods, and analyses can help fill those gaps. For these reasons, research topics and designs typically reflect funders’ or researchers’ agendas and biases (Chicago Beyond, 2018). Rarely is research informed by the voices of the people whose lives our work intends to affect.

However, when researchers do not engage individuals with lived experience in our partnerships and decision-making, we may reproduce inequities, miss out on critical expertise and guidance, and risk producing work that lacks value and relevance for communities. The problem is especially acute for the most vulnerable and systemically marginalized populations, including those whose lives have been directly impacted by the juvenile justice system. While young people who interact with the justice system may be recruited as participants in research, they are rarely sought out for their perspectives on what research should look like and what goals studies should meet.

Initiating and maintaining such partnerships can be challenging for researchers and evaluators. Too often, we work in isolation from local communities and lack the funding to support time spent initiating and maintaining authentic, responsive, and trusting relationships with people outside our professional worlds. However, some community groups and advocates have long recognized that sharing power and control over research with community members is a crucial component of—not an obstacle to—high-quality research.

In the juvenile justice field, community-driven research has generated important insights about young people’s and families’ experiences with the juvenile justice system and opportunities to improve outcomes for those most directly affected by it (examples include reports by Community Connections for Youth & United Playaz of New York, Justice for Families, and Leaders Organizing 2 Unite & Decriminalize). Research evidence also shows that the inclusion of community voices in evaluation efforts has improved interventions and saved countless dollars devoted toward strategies that would not otherwise be culturally responsive or relevant in those communities (Balazs & MorelloFrosch, 2013; Cook, 2008).

In recent years, a growing cohort of national funders and others (see the Equitable Evaluation Initiative) have built on that work to further promote the application of participatory and equitable research and evaluation.

Hearing From People Who Know the System Best

Eighteen months ago, WestEd’s Justice & Prevention Research Center began a needs-sensing project to inform our research and evaluation work in juvenile justice. Our goal was to build on existing work by communities around the country by talking with young people (ages 18–24) who have had personal experience interacting with the juvenile justice system and with practitioners who work with young people. In addition to collecting data, we hoped this project would be an opportunity to build relationships with young people interested in developing their own research skills and potentially partnering with us in future research.

Recruiting young people and practitioners to participate in this project involved multiple outreach strategies and continuous followups. Seven WestEd staff, including four outside the research team, helped identify and introduce us to contacts at organizations and agencies around the country that work with young people impacted by the juvenile justice system. In some cases, it took months, especially during the height of the COVID pandemic, to build relationships with those contacts, obtain buy-in from the organizational leadership at their respective agencies, connect with practitioners providing direct services, and then follow up with any young people they referred. In several cases, these contacts put in substantial time and effort to support the project. At least two young adult participants were referred by friends or relatives who also completed interviews.

Considering the trauma that many young people face in their interactions with the juvenile justice system, we did not ask the young adults who participated in this project to share anything about their personal lives or experiences, although some did voluntarily share personal stories. Instead, we asked participants to share their overall perspectives on the juvenile justice system, including what challenges exist and what improvements could be made to the system. We also asked participants to think about topics for research and how researchers might collaborate with them on future studies.

A total of 30 interviews were conducted in two rounds between October 2020 and August 2021. We used open-ended questions so participants could self-identify their gender, racial, and ethnic identity. In total, we interviewed 19 young adults of various ages, gender, racial, and ethnic identities. We also interviewed 11 practitioners, also of various identities.

All data was collected via phone, email, or virtually over Zoom. Each participant received a $25 gift card for their time speaking with us. In addition, interested participants were invited to review draft findings and were given an additional $25 gift card for reviewing or providing feedback on a draft report. Five young adults and three practitioners who participated in interviews also provided feedback on the findings. An additional focus group of young people who are members of a county-level juvenile justice youth advisory council and have personal experience with the juvenile justice system provided feedback on preliminary findings. Most participants said that they would be interested in participating in future studies.

What We Heard

Several clear themes emerged from the interviews with both youth and practitioners. Notably, they both largely agreed on their perspectives of the juvenile justice system and on the potential for young people to create positive changes in the system. Most consistently, we heard from participants about the importance of elevating young people’s voices as experts and advocates in the juvenile justice system.

Young adult participants particularly emphasized the system’s failure to recognize young people’s dignity and capacity for growth. Practitioners highlighted the ubiquity of racism and inequities in the juvenile justice system and the need for more investment in families, schools, and community-based services. Participants shared their perceptions of the deep and lasting impacts of interactions with the juvenile justice system on young people, families, and communities, as well as the value of education, counseling, and other supports for young people.

Young people and practitioners shared several recommendations for how researchers can effectively, meaningfully, and supportively engage young people in research. Many of the people who spoke with us had limited experience as participants, consumers, or producers of research. However, their recommendations reflect our own experiences of what was successful in this project and strategies for a participatory, equity-centered approach to research and evaluation.

Participants’ recommendations extended to recruitment, data collection, and dissemination strategies. For instance, participants emphasized the importance of making research relatable, meaningful, and accessible to young people, including respecting and actively accommodating their schedules, communication preferences, and personal interest in the work so they can be involved in research activities in the ways they prefer. They recommended soliciting feedback, providing fair compensation, and engaging outside a researcher’s typical working hours.

These and other recommendations resonated with our own experiences. A notable example was the participants’ recommendation that researchers invest in and leverage relationships to connect with young people impacted by the juvenile justice system. Outreach for this project depended heavily on our relationships with practitioners and practitioners’ relationships with young people. Without these trusting relationships, this project would not have been possible.

A New Agenda for Juvenile Justice Research and Evaluation

Insights shared by participants provided a valuable framework for how researchers can approach partnerships with young people—and with all stakeholders—in our work. This includes engaging interested young people earlier in the design process and supporting their ability to collect and analyze data, interpret findings, co-author reports and presentations, and authentically drive these and other aspects of the research process. Unfortunately, the pandemic limited this project to virtual interactions. Still, future work in which researchers and young people can work together in person to collaborate, share ideas, and reflect on findings would strengthen this approach.

Participants’ recommendations have also helped us identify future research directions to improve the juvenile justice system. These included studying how young people are treated inside the system, evaluating the effectiveness of programs to heal and stabilize youth, documenting inequities and causes of inequities in the system, and including young people in guiding system reforms.

We want to thank all the participants who contributed to this project and our WestEd colleagues for their support, introductions to their networks, advice, and feedback. As we reflect on how this work can improve the juvenile justice system, we know this is only the beginning. Researchers, community organizations, and system leaders need to move toward deeper collaborations with young people to shift the power dynamic and change how the system works.

While research alone cannot produce systems change, it can create pathways for new voices to join public conversations about issues that matter to all of us. We hope that in this project and our future work, we can offer a platform for young people and others with lived experience in the juvenile justice system to have their voices heard.

The WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center collaborates with partners in funding, implementing, and evaluating programs that promote positive youth development, physical health and well-being, and prevention of risk behaviors, including violence. Learn more.

Subscribe to the E-Bulletin for regular updates on research, free resources, services, and job postings from WestEd.

Related Resources

Youth Voice in Juvenile Justice Research

This research captures interviews about the juvenile justice system from young people aged 18 to 24 years old who have lived experience with the system and provides valuable ...

Formal System Processing of Juveniles: Effects on Delinquency

The objective of this paper is to answer an important policy question: Does juvenile system processing reduce subsequent delinquency? Cowritten by WestEd's Anthony Petrosino ...

Ask a question, request information, make a suggestion, or sign up for our newsletter.

• WestEd Bulletin
• Insights & Impact
• Areas of Work
• Charters & School Choice
• Comprehensive Assessment Solutions
• Culturally Responsive & Equitable Systems
• Early Childhood Development, Learning, and Well-Being
• Economic Mobility, Postsecondary, and Workforce Systems
• English Learner & Migrant Education Services
• Justice & Prevention
• Learning & Technology
• Mathematics Education
• Resilient and Healthy Schools and Communities
• School and District Transformation
• Special Education Policy and Practice
• Strategic Resource Allocation and Systems Planning
• Supporting and Sustaining Teachers
• Professional Development
• Research & Evaluation
• How We Can Help
• Reports & Publications
• Technical Assistance
• Technical Assistance Services
• Policy Analysis and Other Support
• New Releases
• Top Downloads
• R&D Alert
• Best Sellers
• Board of Directors
• Equity at WestEd
• WestEd Pressroom
• WestEd Offices
• Work with WestEd

Work at WestEd

132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best juvenile delinquency topic ideas & essay examples, 💡 interesting topics to write about juvenile delinquency, 📌 simple & easy juvenile delinquency essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on juvenile delinquency, ❓ research questions on juvenile delinquency.

• The Impact of Media on Juvenile Delinquency Besides, the media have been at the forefront of the fight against juvenile-related crimes. In this view, this document aims at critically evaluating the role of various forms of media in escalating juvenile delinquency, and […]
• Social Learning Theory and juvenile delinquency The empirical studies of the Social Learning Theory on juvenile delinquency helps to provide an insight on the past, present as well as the future of criminology i.e.the study sheds light on the future directions […] We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Methodologies Used to Measure Acts of Juvenile Delinquency Before moving into the aspects of measurement of actions of juvenile delinquents, it is necessary to define and know what a juvenile delinquent is, and what actions fall within the ambit of juvenile delinquency.
• Poverty Areas and Effects on Juvenile Delinquency The desire to live a better life contributes to the youths engaging in crimes, thus the increase in cases of juvenile delinquencies amid low-income families. The studies indicate that the fear of poverty is the […]
• The Broken Homes and Juvenile Delinquency The level of measurement in this study will be to assess the frequency of involvement in crime by the children from the broken homes as well as those from the two parent families.
• The Issue of Juvenile Delinquency At the onset of the industrial revolution, public awareness concerning the fair and ethical treatment of children in workplaces emerged. The role of supervising and guiding children is left to other children, grandparents, or hired […]
• Juvenile Delinquency in Ancient and Modern Times The only policy related to juvenile delinquency existing in ancient Greece was the law that prohibited the youth in ancient Greece from beating their parents.
• Single Parenthood and Juvenile Delinquency in Modern Society The proposal seeks to establish the relationship between single parenthood and the increase in juvenile delinquency. I propose addressing child delinquency from the perspective of social and family background to understand the risks associated with […]
• Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Intervention The role of the family and parents cannot be discounted in the causes of juvenile delinquency. The courts and the lawyers are involved in the trial and sentencing of juvenile offenders.
• Developing Solutions to the Juvenile Delinquency Problem These include the creation of a creative activity center, the mandatory introduction of art classes in schools, and the implementation of urban sports programs.
• Problems of Juvenile Delinquency The main aim of writing this paper is to carry out an examination of a juvenile delinquent in order to understand what pushes them into doing the act and applicable solutions which can be applied […]
• The Cognitive Theory in Juvenile Delinquency At this stage, a child can perform certain actions repeatedly and also be able to differentiate the means of doing actions.
• The Problem of Juvenile Delinquency The addition of family context to the existing perception of adolescent crimes could be used to explore the core reasons for the crimes and to define possible methods for the prevention of juvenile crimes. The […]
• The Relationship Between Parental Influence and Juvenile Delinquency Parents that do not allow their children to play with their neighbors, or discourage their children from associating with particular families lead to the children developing a negative attitude towards the families.
• Juvenile Delinquency The defenders of the system on the other hand appreciate the marked role of juvenile justice system in rehabilitating juvenile delinquents and are advocating for the conservation of the system and reforming critical structures that […]
• Adolescent Diversion Project in Juvenile Delinquency Treatment in Michigan The focus of the program is to prevent future delinquency by creating social attachments to family and other prosocial youth by providing community resources and keeping individuals away from the juvenile justice system which can […]
• Juvenile Delinquency: Social Disorganization Theory Hence, according to Lopez and Gillespie, tenets of the social disorganization theory have been resourceful in the present-day juvenile delinquency system.
• Juvenile Delinquency and Affecting Factors The information gathered, synthesized, and analyzed in the research with the help of the proposed question has future value as it identifies factors that can be impacted by the society representatives.
• Juvenile Delinquency: Impact of Collective Efficacy and Mental Illnesses The perception of collective efficacy can be defined as the consideration that the people in a neighborhood are trustable and can do their part to partake in social control to benefit a specific community.
• Juvenile Delinquency: a Case Analysis The tracking of the juvenile from juvenile court to adult court and then through the system is shown in the outline below: Arrest.
• Implementing an Arts Program to Help Curb Juvenile Delinquency and Reduce Recidivism Therefore, the pieces of art will be customized to rhyme with society needs of the targeted children and the adolescents. Some of the enrollees to this program will be delinquents.
• Role of Family in Reducing Juvenile Delinquency Players in the criminal justice system recognize the contribution of family and familial factors to the development of criminal and delinquent tendencies and their potential to minimize minors’ engagement in illegal and socially unacceptable behaviors.
• Juvenile Delinquency is a Product of Nurture These criminals have been exposed to unfavorable conditions in their lives such as violence and poverty and turn to criminal behavior as a coping mechanism.
• Gangs and Juvenile Delinquency Hallsworth and Silverstone argues that although there have been a lot of violence, the main source is not quite clear and people live by speculations that the violence is linked to the emergence of a […]
• Juvenile Delinquency: Three Levels of Prevention It is made up of programs and ideals which are effective in treatment of the offender, reintegrating them in the society and limiting them from committing similar offenses. In conclusion, though most prevention programs are […]
• Day Treatment Centers and Juvenile Delinquency One of the core aspects that should not be disregarded is that such programs may be used as a particular assessment tool that would help to identify needs of a juvenile, and this approach may […]
• Court Unification and Juvenile Delinquency Speaking about the given issue, it is important to give the clear definition of this category and determine who could be judged by the juvenile court.
• Prevent Juvenile Delinquency in the USA Due to this fact, it is possible to describe the existing problem as the increase in the number of crimes that children commit.
• Juvenile Delinquency: Risk Assessment The investigatory processes to know the individual’s character and personality involve the use of complex and simple approaches, and these serve to provide organizations or institutions dealing with child welfare with important information that would […]
• Life Without Parole and Juvenile Delinquency The United States is one of the few countries which recognize the necessity of sentencing juveniles to life without parole. This is the main and only advantage of this approach.
• Juvenile Delinquency and Reasons That Lead to It Irrespective of the cause of juvenile delinquency, juvenile drug abuse is certainly most commonly related directly to either an increase or a decrease in any form of juvenile delinquency. This correlates to the increase in […]
• Drugs Influence on Juvenile Delinquency Additionally, parents are the ones who know the strengths and weaknesses of the children since they spend most of their time together, their suggestions and views towards the crime committed should be handled with a […]
• The Concepts of Nature and Nurture in Modern Psychologist to Explain Juvenile Delinquency Hence any behavior exhibited by a juvenile that is in total contrast with the value demands of the larger society can be termed as Juvenile Delinquency. On the one hand, it is believed that Juvenile […]
• Theories of Juvenile Delinquency Research showed individuals’ attitudes toward crime may herald their criminal behavior, in agreement with criminological theories such as control theory, learning theory and psychological theories like the theory of reasoned action.
• Criminology Theories and Juvenile Delinquency From the point of view of labeling theory, the initial drinking and the first fight at the party is John’s primary deviance.
• Juvenile Delinquency in the United States According to Pennsylvania laws, children at the age of 10 and above can be trialed as adults for first- and second-degree murders.
• Juvenile Delinquency and the Importance of Socialization At the time of the incident, according to the authors of the article, twenty students out of a total of thirty had arrived for the lecture.
• Theories and Suggestions on Juvenile Delinquency The other factor is that the norms that governed relationships in the different family and societal set-ups such as in the school and the workplace are being challenged.
• The Phenomenon of Juvenile Delinquency They are very important in the proceedings and even have additional authority to propose a waiver of the subject. The judges are the other officials in a juvenile court system.
• The Juvenile Delinquency Rate In order to reduce the rate of crime committed by young people in my community, there is a need to educate the youth in matters of drug and substance abuse.
• Juvenile Delinquency Recidivism Prevention Many studies have been carried out to examine the rates of recidivism among juveniles and the ineffectiveness of the juvenile prison.
• Juvenile Delinquency: The Columbine Shootings This paper seeks to discuss and analyze the casual theory of juvenile delinquency by describing an instance of juvenile delinquency as highlighted in the mass media, by describing the casual theory of juvenile delinquency with […]
• Juvenile Delinquency Theories in the United States School and family are extremely important to juveniles regarding their worldview, and the failure of those communities to guide them may result in turning to questionable ideals and morals.
• Crime Prevention and Juvenile Delinquency As a specific jurisdiction that will serve as the basis for assessing and implementing the provisions of the crime prevention program, the District of Florida will be considered.
• Adolescent Psychology and Juvenile Delinquency I will also promote the idea that when it comes to identifying the factors that contribute to the development of delinquency in youth, one must be willing to consider the effects of the combination of […]
• Juvenile Delinquency, Its Factors and Theories Under the individual risk factors, it is prudent to note that a lack of proper education coupled with lower intelligence might pose a serious risk to a minor in terms of engaging in criminal activities […]
• Factors Associated With Juvenile Delinquency Further, the authors propose that the family should be the main focus of prevention and clinical interventions and that establishment of social policy and programs should be directed to the family.
• Combating Juvenile Delinquency: Projects Management In order to prevent and reduce juvenile violence, the City of Hampton develops and implements various activities that were mentioned above, promoting the importance of moral standards.
• The Issue of Juvenile Delinquency: Recent Trends Violence and other criminal actions attract the attention of the government and the general public, as they affect the life of the society adversely.
• Juvenile Delinquency Investigation The social learning theory that is a part of it suggests that children observe the behavior of others and replicate it.
• Juvenile Delinquency’ Causes and Possible Treatments They investigated the issue in different perspectives but came up to the decision that the best way to treat young offenders is to utilize multisystemic therapy.
• Juvenile Delinquency: Criminological Theories These include the broken windows theory, the culture of the gang theory and the social disorganization theory. Cohen developed the culture of the gang theory to explain the origin of juvenile delinquency.
• Juvenile Delinquency and Criminal Gangs The proliferation of criminal gangs in my area of jurisdiction, as director of the county juvenile court, represents a nationwide problem. In the 1990s, the rate of crime rose in most parts of the world.
• Juvenile Delinquency, Treatment, and Interventions The performance of the child in school is one of the individual factors that are likely to cause the child to get involved in violent behaviors.
• Poverty and Juvenile Delinquency in the United States
• Roles of Family, School, and Church in Juvenile Delinquency
• Understanding Juvenile Delinquency and the Different Ways to Stop the Problem in Our Society
• Juvenile Delinquency and Crime as an Integral Part of the American Society
• Impact of Television Violence In Relation To Juvenile Delinquency
• The Vicious Circle of Child Abuse, Juvenile Delinquency, and Future Abuse
• Juvenile Delinquency, Domestic Violence, and the Effects of Substance Abuse
• The Explorers Program as a Preventative Measure in Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency, Youth Culture, and Renegade Kids, Suburban Outlaws by Wooden
• The Alarming Rate of Juvenile Delinquency and Cases of Teenage Suicides in the U.S
• The Line Between Juvenile Delinquency And Adult Penalties
• Home Social Environment and Juvenile Delinquency
• The Effects of Neighborhood Crime on the Level of Juvenile Delinquency
• Interpersonal Learning Theory Plus Juvenile Delinquency
• How to Prevent Juvenile Delinquency in the U.S
• Relationship Between Juvenile Delinquency and Learning Disabilities
• The Impact of Television Violence and Its Relation to Juvenile Delinquency
• The Lack of Strong Parental Figures Causes Juvenile Delinquency
• Theories of Juvenile Delinquency: Why Young Individuals Commit Crimes
• Using Drugs and Juvenile Delinquency
• Theory of Social Disorganization and Juvenile Delinquency
• What Is the Best Way to Combat Juvenile Delinquency?
• The Marxist Crime Perspective On Juvenile Delinquency Of African Americans
• The Failures of the Act of Juvenile Delinquency in the United States
• Juvenile Delinquency And Its Effects On The Adult Justice System
• Juvenile Delinquency Contributing Factors Current Research and Intervention
• Impact Of Single Parents On Juvenile Delinquency Rates
• Video Game Violence Leading to Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency: Exploring Factors of Gender and Family
• The Psychological Aspect of Juvenile Delinquency
• The Antisocial Behavior Leading to Juvenile Delinquency
• Lead and Juvenile Delinquency: New Evidence from Linked Birth, School and Juvenile Detention Records
• The Role of Family in Preventing Juvenile Delinquency and Behavioural Patterns of Children
• The Relationship Between Poverty and Juvenile Delinquency
• The Importance of Family in the Behavior of Children and in Preventing Juvenile Delinquency
• Preventing and Dealing with Juvenile Delinquency
• How Family Structures Can Play a Role in Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency and A Child’s Emotional Needs
• Family Structural Changes and Juvenile Delinquency
• The Causes of the Problem of Juvenile Delinquency in the United States
• Juvenile Delinquency And The Juvenile Justice System
• The Curfew: Issues On Juvenile Delinquency And Constitutional Rights
• The Socioeconomic Triggers of Juvenile Delinquency: Analysis of “The Outsiders”
• Exploring the Root Causes of the Problem of Juvenile Delinquency
• The Rise of Juvenile Delinquency and the Flaws of the Juvenile Justice System
• The Causes And Possible Solutions Of Juvenile Delinquency
• The History of the Juvenile Delinquency and the Process of the Juvenile Justice System in Malaysia
• The Issue of Juvenile Delinquency Among Girls in the United States
• What Is the Importance of Studying Juvenile Delinquency?
• Does Authoritative Parenting Impact Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Are the Factors of Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Are Juvenile Delinquency Causes and Solutions?
• What Type of Problem Is Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Can Family Structures Play a Role in Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Is the Concept of Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Do You Explain Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Does Poverty and the Environment Cause or Contribute to Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Are the Leading Causes of Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Does Family Contribute to Juvenile Delinquency?
• How the Juvenile Delinquency Impact Society?
• Why Is Juvenile Delinquency a Problem?
• What Factors Cause Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Is the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Are the Types of Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Is an Example of a Juvenile Delinquent?
• How Can We Prevent Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Does Juvenile Delinquency Affect the Community?
• How Does Juvenile Delinquency Affect Education?
• Why Is Juvenile Delinquency a Problem in Our Society?
• How Does Juvenile Delinquency Affect the Individual?
• What Is Another Name for Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Causes Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Does Birth Order Affect Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Is the Main Problem in Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Is the Difference Between Crime and Juvenile Delinquency?
• What Are Some Effects of Juvenile Delinquency?
• How Does Juvenile Delinquency Affect Social Life?
• What Is the Nature of Juvenile Delinquency?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 9). 132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/juvenile-delinquency-essay-topics/

"132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/juvenile-delinquency-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/juvenile-delinquency-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/juvenile-delinquency-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "132 Juvenile Delinquency Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/juvenile-delinquency-essay-topics/.

• Crime Ideas
• Youth Titles
• Criminal Justice Essay Topics
• Youth Violence Research Topics
• CyberCrime Topics
• Adolescence Questions
• Childhood Essay Topics
• Hacking Essay Topics
• Child Development Research Ideas
• Parenting Research Topics
• Crime Prevention Research Topics
• Video Game Topics
• Cyber Bullying Essay Ideas
• Serial Killer Paper Topics
• Criminal Procedure Titles

FHSU Scholars Repository

Home > Graduate School > OSSP > SACAD > Vol. 2024 (2024)

The relationship between parenting practices and juvenile delinquency

Megan E. Bechtold , Fort Hays State University Follow April Terry , Fort Hays State University Follow

Delinquency may take on many definitions, but the most widely accepted definition is a minor crime committed by a young person, generally under the age of 18. Youth may also deal with legal trouble in response to status offending. These are behaviors that are age-based and would not be charged if committed by an adult. Examples include truancy, running away, drinking alcohol and using tobacco, and being incorrigible. Offending is a term that can be used to describe the actions of adults and youth, with definitions extending beyond just a “minor” crime (e.g., homicides and rapes). Many factors may contribute to delinquency, status offending, and criminal offending, with parenting and parental attachment commonly cited amongst correctional research. Studies show that parental attachment and parenting styles have a direct effect on youth and their subsequent delinquent or offending behavior(s). This poster outlines the research on associations between parenting styles and justice system involvement as well as policy implications.

Faculty Advisor

April Terry

Department/Program

Criminal Justice

Submission Type

in-person poster

Copyright the Author(s)

Recommended Citation

Bechtold, Megan E. and Terry, April (2024) "The relationship between parenting practices and juvenile delinquency," SACAD: John Heinrichs Scholarly and Creative Activity Days : Vol. 2024, Article 67. Available at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/sacad/vol2024/iss2024/67

Since April 27, 2024

Included in

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons

• About SACAD
• SACAD Online Exhibit
• Most Popular Papers
• Receive Email Notices or RSS

Search the Site

Advanced Search

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Adolescent Child Custody Loss and Substance Use Treatment as Predictors of Young Adult Substance use Trajectories Among Females with Foster Care and Juvenile Justice Involvement

This article describes a research study, presenting the authors’ methodology and findings in the context of three research goals: to specify substance use trajectories among females with dual-system involvement; to examine child custody status as a predictor of substance use trajectories; and to examine substance use treatment services as a predictor of substance use trajectories.

This study aimed to identify trajectories of substance use from adolescence to young adulthood among 166 females with dual child welfare and juvenile justice system involvement, and to explore the influence of adolescent child custody status and substance use treatment on substance use trajectories. Results identified four substance use trajectory groups (stable moderate substance use, decreasing substance use, increasing substance use, stable high substance use). Custody loss during adolescence predicted membership in the stable high substance use trajectory group (log odds estimate = 2.99, p = < 0.01). No significant associations were found with adolescent substance use treatment. The findings can inform policymakers, foster care professionals, and law enforcement officers to promote the delivery of timely and appropriate substance use services that respond to the unique needs of females across the child welfare and juvenile justice system populations. (Published Abstract Provided)

Additional Details

Related topics, similar publications.

• Too Sensitive or Not Sensitive Enough? Sensitivity to Context and Justice-involved Youths' Response to Violence Exposure
• Understanding the Trafficking of Children for the Purposes of Labor in the United States
• Application of a Modified 3D-PCSI-MS Ion Source to On-Site, Trace Evidence Processing via Integrated Vacuum Collection

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What the data says about crime in the U.S.

A growing share of Americans say reducing crime should be a top priority for the president and Congress to address this year. Around six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) hold that view today, up from 47% at the beginning of Joe Biden’s presidency in 2021.

We conducted this analysis to learn more about U.S. crime patterns and how those patterns have changed over time.

The analysis relies on statistics published by the FBI, which we accessed through the Crime Data Explorer , and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which we accessed through the  National Crime Victimization Survey data analysis tool .

To measure public attitudes about crime in the U.S., we relied on survey data from Pew Research Center and Gallup.

Additional details about each data source, including survey methodologies, are available by following the links in the text of this analysis.

With the issue likely to come up in this year’s presidential election, here’s what we know about crime in the United States, based on the latest available data from the federal government and other sources.

How much crime is there in the U.S.?

It’s difficult to say for certain. The  two primary sources of government crime statistics  – the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) – paint an incomplete picture.

The FBI publishes  annual data  on crimes that have been reported to law enforcement, but not crimes that haven’t been reported. Historically, the FBI has also only published statistics about a handful of specific violent and property crimes, but not many other types of crime, such as drug crime. And while the FBI’s data is based on information from thousands of federal, state, county, city and other police departments, not all law enforcement agencies participate every year. In 2022, the most recent full year with available statistics, the FBI received data from 83% of participating agencies .

BJS, for its part, tracks crime by fielding a  large annual survey of Americans ages 12 and older and asking them whether they were the victim of certain types of crime in the past six months. One advantage of this approach is that it captures both reported and unreported crimes. But the BJS survey has limitations of its own. Like the FBI, it focuses mainly on a handful of violent and property crimes. And since the BJS data is based on after-the-fact interviews with crime victims, it cannot provide information about one especially high-profile type of offense: murder.

All those caveats aside, looking at the FBI and BJS statistics side-by-side  does  give researchers a good picture of U.S. violent and property crime rates and how they have changed over time. In addition, the FBI is transitioning to a new data collection system – known as the National Incident-Based Reporting System – that eventually will provide national information on a much larger set of crimes , as well as details such as the time and place they occur and the types of weapons involved, if applicable.

Which kinds of crime are most and least common?

Property crime in the U.S. is much more common than violent crime. In 2022, the FBI reported a total of 1,954.4 property crimes per 100,000 people, compared with 380.7 violent crimes per 100,000 people.  

By far the most common form of property crime in 2022 was larceny/theft, followed by motor vehicle theft and burglary. Among violent crimes, aggravated assault was the most common offense, followed by robbery, rape, and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter.

BJS tracks a slightly different set of offenses from the FBI, but it finds the same overall patterns, with theft the most common form of property crime in 2022 and assault the most common form of violent crime.

How have crime rates in the U.S. changed over time?

Both the FBI and BJS data show dramatic declines in U.S. violent and property crime rates since the early 1990s, when crime spiked across much of the nation.

Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery (-74%), aggravated assault (-39%) and murder/nonnegligent manslaughter (-34%). It’s not possible to calculate the change in the rape rate during this period because the FBI  revised its definition of the offense in 2013 .

The FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in the U.S. property crime rate between 1993 and 2022, with big declines in the rates of burglary (-75%), larceny/theft (-54%) and motor vehicle theft (-53%).

Using the BJS statistics, the declines in the violent and property crime rates are even steeper than those captured in the FBI data. Per BJS, the U.S. violent and property crime rates each fell 71% between 1993 and 2022.

While crime rates have fallen sharply over the long term, the decline hasn’t always been steady. There have been notable increases in certain kinds of crime in some years, including recently.

In 2020, for example, the U.S. murder rate saw its largest single-year increase on record – and by 2022, it remained considerably higher than before the coronavirus pandemic. Preliminary data for 2023, however, suggests that the murder rate fell substantially last year .

How do Americans perceive crime in their country?

Americans tend to believe crime is up, even when official data shows it is down.

In 23 of 27 Gallup surveys conducted since 1993 , at least 60% of U.S. adults have said there is more crime nationally than there was the year before, despite the downward trend in crime rates during most of that period.

While perceptions of rising crime at the national level are common, fewer Americans believe crime is up in their own communities. In every Gallup crime survey since the 1990s, Americans have been much less likely to say crime is up in their area than to say the same about crime nationally.

Public attitudes about crime differ widely by Americans’ party affiliation, race and ethnicity, and other factors . For example, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are much more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to say reducing crime should be a top priority for the president and Congress this year (68% vs. 47%), according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

How does crime in the U.S. differ by demographic characteristics?

Some groups of Americans are more likely than others to be victims of crime. In the  2022 BJS survey , for example, younger people and those with lower incomes were far more likely to report being the victim of a violent crime than older and higher-income people.

There were no major differences in violent crime victimization rates between male and female respondents or between those who identified as White, Black or Hispanic. But the victimization rate among Asian Americans (a category that includes Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders) was substantially lower than among other racial and ethnic groups.

The same BJS survey asks victims about the demographic characteristics of the offenders in the incidents they experienced.

In 2022, those who are male, younger people and those who are Black accounted for considerably larger shares of perceived offenders in violent incidents than their respective shares of the U.S. population. Men, for instance, accounted for 79% of perceived offenders in violent incidents, compared with 49% of the nation’s 12-and-older population that year. Black Americans accounted for 25% of perceived offenders in violent incidents, about twice their share of the 12-and-older population (12%).

As with all surveys, however, there are several potential sources of error, including the possibility that crime victims’ perceptions about offenders are incorrect.

How does crime in the U.S. differ geographically?

There are big geographic differences in violent and property crime rates.

For example, in 2022, there were more than 700 violent crimes per 100,000 residents in New Mexico and Alaska. That compares with fewer than 200 per 100,000 people in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Maine, according to the FBI.

The FBI notes that various factors might influence an area’s crime rate, including its population density and economic conditions.

What percentage of crimes are reported to police? What percentage are solved?

Most violent and property crimes in the U.S. are not reported to police, and most of the crimes that  are  reported are not solved.

In its annual survey, BJS asks crime victims whether they reported their crime to police. It found that in 2022, only 41.5% of violent crimes and 31.8% of household property crimes were reported to authorities. BJS notes that there are many reasons why crime might not be reported, including fear of reprisal or of “getting the offender in trouble,” a feeling that police “would not or could not do anything to help,” or a belief that the crime is “a personal issue or too trivial to report.”

Most of the crimes that are reported to police, meanwhile,  are not solved , at least based on an FBI measure known as the clearance rate . That’s the share of cases each year that are closed, or “cleared,” through the arrest, charging and referral of a suspect for prosecution, or due to “exceptional” circumstances such as the death of a suspect or a victim’s refusal to cooperate with a prosecution. In 2022, police nationwide cleared 36.7% of violent crimes that were reported to them and 12.1% of the property crimes that came to their attention.

Which crimes are most likely to be reported to police? Which are most likely to be solved?

Around eight-in-ten motor vehicle thefts (80.9%) were reported to police in 2022, making them by far the most commonly reported property crime tracked by BJS. Household burglaries and trespassing offenses were reported to police at much lower rates (44.9% and 41.2%, respectively), while personal theft/larceny and other types of theft were only reported around a quarter of the time.

Among violent crimes – excluding homicide, which BJS doesn’t track – robbery was the most likely to be reported to law enforcement in 2022 (64.0%). It was followed by aggravated assault (49.9%), simple assault (36.8%) and rape/sexual assault (21.4%).

The list of crimes  cleared  by police in 2022 looks different from the list of crimes reported. Law enforcement officers were generally much more likely to solve violent crimes than property crimes, according to the FBI.

The most frequently solved violent crime tends to be homicide. Police cleared around half of murders and nonnegligent manslaughters (52.3%) in 2022. The clearance rates were lower for aggravated assault (41.4%), rape (26.1%) and robbery (23.2%).

When it comes to property crime, law enforcement agencies cleared 13.0% of burglaries, 12.4% of larcenies/thefts and 9.3% of motor vehicle thefts in 2022.

Are police solving more or fewer crimes than they used to?

Nationwide clearance rates for both violent and property crime are at their lowest levels since at least 1993, the FBI data shows.

Police cleared a little over a third (36.7%) of the violent crimes that came to their attention in 2022, down from nearly half (48.1%) as recently as 2013. During the same period, there were decreases for each of the four types of violent crime the FBI tracks:

• Police cleared 52.3% of reported murders and nonnegligent homicides in 2022, down from 64.1% in 2013.
• They cleared 41.4% of aggravated assaults, down from 57.7%.
• They cleared 26.1% of rapes, down from 40.6%.
• They cleared 23.2% of robberies, down from 29.4%.

The pattern is less pronounced for property crime. Overall, law enforcement agencies cleared 12.1% of reported property crimes in 2022, down from 19.7% in 2013. The clearance rate for burglary didn’t change much, but it fell for larceny/theft (to 12.4% in 2022 from 22.4% in 2013) and motor vehicle theft (to 9.3% from 14.2%).

Note: This is an update of a post originally published on Nov. 20, 2020.

• Criminal Justice

John Gramlich is an associate director at Pew Research Center

8 facts about Black Lives Matter

#blacklivesmatter turns 10, support for the black lives matter movement has dropped considerably from its peak in 2020, fewer than 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted in 2022, before release of video showing tyre nichols’ beating, public views of police conduct had improved modestly, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Sustainability planning for your juvenile healing to wellness court.

In this podcast episode, Chaniel Grant discusses the establishment of the Blackfeet Tribal Healing to Wellness Court, including efforts to initiate the community engagement and get the programs started within the local court system.

In this episode of the Tribal Youth Resource Center (TYRC) Podcast, hosts Jacob Metoxen and Veronica Willeto DeCrane, speak with Chaniel Grant, the coordinator of the Blackfeet Tribal Courts. Metoxen is the training and technical assistance (TTA) manager at TYRC, and DeCrane is the TTA assistant manager at the National Native Children's Trauma Center. Grant talks about her professional background that led to her role with the Blackfeet Tribal Healing to Wellness Court; she goes on to discuss the Court's history, development, and effective strategies including planning steps, staff development, and trainings, and highlights positive outcomes in her community resulting from implementation of the Healing to Wellness Court.

Additional Details

810 Seventh Street NW , Washington , DC 20531 , United States

• All Podcast Episodes (Spotify)

Related Topics

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Statistical Briefing Book

Statistical briefing book menu.

• Statistical Briefing Book Home
• Publications
• Youth Population Characteristics
• Youth as Victims
• Offending by Youth

Juvenile Justice System Structure & Process

• Law Enforcement & Youth Crime
• Youth in Court
• Youth on Probation
• Youth in Corrections
• Special Topic: Hispanic Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
• Special Topic: Racial and Ethnic Fairness
• Special Topic: State Juvenile Justice Profiles

Data Analysis Tools

• Easy Access to Juvenile Populations
• Easy Access to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports
• Easy Access to NIBRS Victims
• Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics
• Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics
• Easy Access to State and County Juvenile Court Case Counts
• Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement
• Juvenile Residential Facility Census Databook
• National Racial and Ethnic Fairness Databook

This section describes the juvenile justice system, focusing on structure and process features that relate to delinquency and status offense matters. Topics covered in this section include jurisdictional age boundaries for delinquency and status offense matters, the organization and administration of delinquency services (e.g., probation, detention, aftercare and corrections), and trying youth as adults in criminal court.

Juvenile Justice System Structure & Process: Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) provide the latest answers to commonly asked questions about Juvenile Justice System Structure and Process. Here you will find information on the jurisdictional boundaries for delinquency and status offenses, the organization and administration of delinquency services, and State provisions for trying certain youth as adults in criminal court.

Jurisdictional Boundaries

• What is a juvenile? [ Answer ]
• What are the upper and lower ages of delinquency and status offense jurisdiction? [ Answer ]
• Do juvenile courts lose jurisdiction over youth when they turn 18? [ Answer ]
• What types of violations constitute a status offense in each state? [ Answer ]
• How are status offenders classified in each state? [ Answer ]
• Are delinquency cases and status offenses handled by the same court? [ Answer ]

Organization & Administration of Delinquency Services

• How do states define the purpose of their juvenile justice system? [ Answer ]
• How do states operate delinquency services (detention, community supervision, and reentry)? [ Answer ]
• How are detention services operated in each state? [ Answer ]
• How are supervision (probation) services operated in each state? [ Answer ]
• What type of agency controls the operation of state commitment facilities? [ Answer ]
• How are aftercare services operated in each state? [ Answer ]
• Are adjudicated youth ever committed to public detention centers? [ Answer ]   Updated
• What are the most commonly used residential placement options for committed youth? [ Answer ]   Updated

Youth Tried as Adults

• Are transfer (waiver) laws the only laws that enable states to impose adult sanctions on minors? [ Answer ]
• How do judicial waiver criteria vary by state? [ Answer ]
• How do prosecutorial discretion (concurrent jurisdiction) provisions vary by state? [ Answer ]
• How do statutory exclusion provisions vary by state? [ Answer ]
• How do juvenile court blended sentencing provisions vary by state? [ Answer ]
• What is the youngest age that a minor can be transferred to criminal court for trial as an adult? [ Answer ]
• Have states made it easier for youth to be tried as adults in criminal court? [ Answer ]

Case Flow Diagram

See a visual depiction of how cases typically move through the juvenile justice system. 

Food Literacy and Justice in the United States and Italy

Scholars and activists in the fields of food justice and policy believe that our food system needs changing because it is unjust, unhealthy, and incapable of addressing the needs of consumers, especially poorer and more vulnerable consumers. But policy change has been halting at every level, from local to global. The emerging concept of food literacy is a promising avenue to improve health equity and achieve food justice. Food movements around the world have played a key role in organizing education campaigns for children and adults to improve food-related knowledge and behavior. However, political scientists have yet to fully explore 1) what strategies successful food movements use to get food literacy initiatives adopted, and 2) how adoption strategies and food literacy initiatives vary across countries with different food practices, policy processes, and cultural expectations about food and dining practices. This dissertation seeks to answer these questions through a comparative study of local-level youth food literacy initiatives inspired by Farm to School and Slow Food, leading food movements in the U.S. and Italy. Through qualitative interviews with key actors involved in food education and procurement, I explore the meaning of food literacy and how actors in the U.S. and Italy are using food education to expand knowledge of local food systems and, ultimately, to change those food systems. I find that to actors in both countries, food literacy means the knowledge that can help us understand and judge the complex interdependence between the processes, resources, and actors involved in producing and marketing the food we eat every day. Food literacy also empowers civic engagement: it can transform food consumers who want to see change into citizens who feel entitled to demand institutional change. The forms of governance usually seen in this context consist in voluntary, decentralized, local-level partnerships between local government and schools, civil society, food movement activists/volunteers, and local farmers.

Bilsland Dissertation Fellowship

Ross-lynn research scholar fund, degree type.

• Doctor of Philosophy
• Political Science

Campus location

• West Lafayette

Advisor/Supervisor/Committee Chair

Additional committee member 2, additional committee member 3, additional committee member 4, usage metrics.

• Public policy

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.