Social work for all!

1. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
SOCIAL WORK
20TH EDITION

2. EDITORIAL BOARD
EDITORS IN CHIEF
Terry Mizrahi, Ph.D., MSW
Professor of Social Wark Hunter
College
Larry E. Davis, Ph.D., MSW Dean
of Social Wark University of
Pittsburgh
AREA EDITORS
Paula Allen-Meares, University of Michigan Darlyne
Bailey, University of Minnesota Diana M. DiNitto,
University of Texas at Austin Cynthia Franklin, University
of Texas at Austin Charles D. Garvin, University of
Michigan Lorraine Gutierrez, University of Michigan
Jan L. Hagen, University at Albany, State University of New York
Yeheskel Hasenfeld, University of California, Los Angeles Shanti K.
Khinduka, Washington University in St. Louis Ruth McRoy, University
of Texas at Austin
J ames Midgley, University of California, Berkeley John
G. Orme, University of Tennessee Enola Proctor,
Washingt~n University in St. Louis Frederic G. Reamer,
Rhode Island College Michael So sin, University of
Chicago

3. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
SOCIAL WORK
20TH
EDITION
Terry Mizrahi
Larry E. Davis
Editors in Chief
VOLUME 3
J-R
-
-
NASW PRESS
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
2008

4. - -
NASW PRESS
The NASW Press is a leading scholarly press in the social sciences. It serves faculty, practitioners,
agencies, libraries, clinicians, and researchers throughout the United States and abroad. Known for
attracting expert authors, the NASW Press delivers professional information to more than 250,000
readers through its scholarly journals, books, and reference works.
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further
Oxford University's objective of excellence
in research, scholarship, and education.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur
Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei
Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala
Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland
Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright © 2008 by NASW Press and Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by
NASW Press
750 First Street, NE • Suite 700 • Washington, DC 20002-4241 htrp:/
/www.socialworkers.org/
and
Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016
http://www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission
of Oxford University Press and NASW Press.
ISSN 0071-0237
ISBN 978-0-19-530661-3 (hardcover)
ISBN 978-0-19-531036-8 (paperback)

5. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
SOCIAL WORK
20TH EDITION

7. JAILS. See Criminal Justice: Corrections.
JAPANESE. See Asian Americans: Japanese.
JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICES
ABSTRACT: The form and character of communal ser-
vices provided under Jewish auspices have been shaped by
religious teachings and traditions. Righteousness is
achieved by fulfilling obligations to those less fortunate or
in need. Acts of tzedakah, translated as justice, are the
hallmark of Jewish philanthropy. The evolution, role,
functions, and organizational structure of services are
reflective of these obligations. While changing funding
patterns and managed care have blurred the sectarian nature
of many communal agencies, these agenci es remain as key
elements in the voluntary social services network of this
country.
KEY WORDS: Charity; Jewish; Nonprofit; Sectarian;
Mutual Aid
Foundation From Scripture and Teachings
The form and character of communal serVices provided
under Jewish auspices have been shaped by religious
teachings and tradition developed over a 4,OOO- year
period. In the Jewish tradition righteousness is achieved by
fulfilling obligations to those less fortunate or in need. The
evolution, role, functions, and organizational structure of
services are reflective of these obligations, and also of
historic models of Jewish communal organization.
Preservation and continuity of Jewish ideals and the Jewish
people are the centerpiece of refugee assis tance programs;
formal and informal education, family services; vocational
programs; services for the frail and elderly; and training for
Jewish communal professionals. While changing funding
patterns and managed care have blurred the sectarian nature
of many Jewish communal agencies, these agencies remain
as key elements in the voluntary social services network of
this country (Gelman & Schnall, 1997). Judaism not merely
posited a noble vision of a free, just, and compassionate
society, but also translated this vision in detailed legislation
of
obligatory moral behaviors and acts of loving kindness.
Contemporary Jewish communal service emerges from a
religious and social tradition rooted in Scripture, the
Talmud, and rabbinic dicta. Jewish religious practice is
defined by mitzvoth, which literally mean commandments.
The commandments are broadly separated into those that
are largely ritual and ecclesiastical and those that define a
vast array of social relations, including marriage, economic
pursuits, child rearing, and care for the widow, the orphan,
the poor, and the stranger. Thus, Judaism views personal
charity as motivated by the value of mutual responsibility
and part of a systematic network of social obligati ons,
rather than a voluntary act of kindness (Bernstein, 1965).
As an example, the Bible enjoins that crops forgot ten in
the field or inadvertently left standing after the harvest
remain for poor people. In addition, a corner of a farmer's
field must be purposefully left uncut so that needy people
may glean in private. Such prescriptions stand side by side
with those that require employers to pay workers
punctually and those that restrict creditors in their demands
epistemologies and to collaboOverall, two themes have
Overall, two themes have remained constant over the
years in both religious teaching and practice: First, one who
extends a hand for assistance must never be turned away,
and second, in helping someone else, the benefactor
follows in the paths of righteousness and sanctity that
characterize the Lord. In sum, although numerous Hebrew
terms connote philanthropy and voluntary service, tzeda-
kah, the most popular term used, derives from a word that is
more accurately. translated as justice or righteous giving.
This epitomizes the classic Jewish attitude to ward such an
undertaking (Gelman & Schnall, 1997).
Past and Current History Fundamental
sources regarding personal obligations to needy people
gave rise. to discussions of the organization and structure of
community services. This became especially important as
largely autonomous Jewish communities emerged, first as
part of a centralized monarchy in ancient Israel and later as
Jews were dispersed throughout the Near East, North
Africa, and Europe. By Talmudic times (that is, during the
first centuries of the Common Era), Jewish communities
were required to maintain systems of assessment and
collection, with detailed prescriptions for the oversight and
accountability of those who were trustees and
administrators.
1

8. 2 JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICES
dignity and self-respect of those who were re-
cipients of communal beneficence were given primacy.
Thus, the highest form of tzedakah, according to Mai-
monides (1965), a l Zth-century Jewish philosopher and
jurist, is that which provides poor people with the
wherewithal to become productive and self-s ufficient (for
example, extending loans or providing assistance in finding
ajob or beginning a business). Second is a system of
completely anonymous philanthropy in which nei ther
recipient nor donor can be directly identified. This
approach reduces embarrassment on one side and arro-
gance on the other. Maimonides suggested that the goal is
best facilitated through a central kupah in which the process
of donation is separated from, disbursement.
Given the heavy emphasis in Jewish texts on reli gious
education as equivalent to all other mitzvoth combined, it is
no surprise to find that public education also was an area of
special concern to early Jewish commu nities. Jewish
sources further established the communal obligation to
create local structures of governance and to provide for
refugee aid, hospitality for wayfarers, funeral and
bereavement assistance, and mediation of civil and
domestic disputes (Schnall, 1995). The schol arly literature
of the period recorded active debates about public
participation and the scope of the franchise in communal
decisions, including in the choice of leadership. This
dynamic continues to inform much of what has been
established in the United States over the past 350 years
(Elazar, 1995).
Although rooted in Scripture, the pattern of Jewish
welfare organizations is distinctively different frO"irliltiat'
of other sectarian groups. For the most part, Jewish social
services have developed apart from the synago gue.
Although the beginning of American Jewish philanthropy
took place at the synagogue, the sudden and massive influx
of Jewish immigrants created needs for which a synagogue
alone could not provide (Reid & Stimpson, 1987). Jewish
immigrants formed literary societies for recreation and
"landsmanchaften" for mutual aid and self- help. These
organizations facilitated the acculturation of emigres to
their new land and assisted in caring for those in need,
facilitating their independence and self-sufficiency.
It is estimated that 5.2 million Jews currently live in the
United States. Just as their numbers have increased since
the original 23 Jews debarked in New Amsterdam in 1654
with special permission from the Dutch West India
Company, so too has there been growth in the number of
social organizations that provide for heal th, welfare,
recreational, and spiritual needs (Berger, 1980).
Poverty is still a very real problem among Jews.
In New York City, the city with the largest Jewish
population in the United States, 226,000 individuals
have incomes that fall below 150 percent of the federal
poverty standard. The majority of these individuals are
older women and children. One-third of those in need who
are considered to be of working age work full or part-time.
More than half of working-age individuals have no
education beyond the high school level (Metropolitan New
York Coordinating Council on Jewish Poverty, 2004;
Rapfogel, 2004).
The Role of Communal Service
Agencies in the United States According to
Steinitz (1995, 1996), Jewish communal agencies through
much of their history have focused on four primary goals:
a. delivering basic social services to indigent members
of the J~,wish community,
b. resettling refugees and helping Americanize both the
immigrant and the second generations,
c. responding to international crises,
d. fighting anti-Semitism.
However, beginning in the 1960s, changing demo-
graphics, growing identification with the developing state
of Israel, newly established governmental funding streams
designed to expand service options and opportu nities, and
interest in specialized therapeutic interven tions delivered
by highly trained professional personnel led to a reordering
of organizational priorities. The overview provided by
Berger (1980) is enlightening:
These changes not only resulted in the dramatic
expansion of social services provided under Jewish aus-
pices (Blum & Naparstek, 1987; Gibelman, 1995; Smith &
Lipsky, 1993) but also led to a real blurring of what had
been the historical distinction between' sectarian an d
nonsectarian agencies (Levine, 1998; Ortiz, 1995). Jewish
agencies currently exhibit a great degree of auton omy from
religious authority and are largely nonsectarian in client
intake. Many Jewish agencies, particularly in large
metropolitan areas, have high percentages of non Jewish
clients and other service users.
The 1990 and 2001 population surveys produced
disturbing findings of an American Jewish community
with high intermarriage rates and growing levels of
alienation and disengagement, particularl y among the
younger population, from Jewish tradition and commit-
ments. The organized Jewish community, through its
federation network and a growing number of private
foundations, has mobilized to address these continuity
concerns through a dramatic shift in funding priorities
toward Jewish identity building and education services
(Edelsberg, 2004, 2005; Goldman, 2005; Schwager, 2005 ).

9. The Jewish Federations
The Jewish federations are the central fundraising orga-
nizations within individual Jewish communities, raising
and distributing hundreds of millions of dollars to local
community agencies, Israel, and Jewish communities
around the world. The 155 Jewish community federations
in the United States are autonomous, voluntary
organizations that engage in or provide a series of functions
for communal affiliates that include the following:
• Joint or coordinated annual fundraising
• Endowment development, planned giving, special
and emergency campaigns
• Allocations and central budgeting
• Centralized research and community planning
• Leadership development and training services
• Initiation of new sen>ices
Federations developed in the United States beginning in
Boston in 1895 and currently exist in communities where
there is a significant Jewish presence. The United Jewish
Communities, created in 1999 as a successor organization
to the United Jewish Appeal, Council of Jewish
Federations, and the United Israel Appeal, represents and
serves the local Jewish federations of the United States and
Canada on issues of public social policy, financial resource
development, community building, and Jewish
engagement across North America, Israel, and
internationally.
Jewish agencies increasingly apply for, receive, and use
public funding for the benefit of the Jewish and general
communities. Although one can debate the nature of the
change created by the acceptance of public funds by these
historically sectarian agencies, it is clear that the number of
units of services delivered to the Jewish community, as
well as to the general community, has increased
dramatically as a result of the acceptance of this support
(Solomon, 2005).
On average, federation network agencies receive more
than 40% of their total budget from federal, state, and local
government sources. UJA-Federation of New York, which
conducts the largest federation campaign in the world,
raised mote than $388 million from its annual campaign,
planned giving, endowments, and other sources in 2006
(UJA Federation of New York, 2007).
Communal Services
The following examples of Jewish communal services
agencies are presented to provide a sense of the mission,
scope, and program involvement of such agencies.
International and Refugee Services
The primary mission of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
(HIAS) is to help Jews whose lives and freedom
JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVlCES 3
are endangered. Since 1880, HIAS has been the worldwide
arm of the American Jewish community for rescue,
relocation, family reunification, and resettlement of
refugees and other migrants. Its mission is derived from the
biblical teaching "Kol Yisrael Arevim Ze Bazeh," which
means "all Jews are responsible, one for the other."
During 2004 HIAS resettled 41,445 immigrants,
including 7,565 Jewish refugees from the former Soviet
Union, into communities throughout the United States
(HIAS, 2004). Its 2004 budget exceeded $13 million, with
more than 53% of its funding coming from contracts with
the U.S. government (HIAS, 2006). Since the mid-1970s,
when barriers to immigration were eased in the former
nowledge. Familycentered care, child welfare teams,
rkforce issues, and
ental health, substancement of Jews from the former Soviet
Union to serving a more nonsectarian client base using
money from Jewish funders committed to the Jewish
resettlement tradition. During fiscal 2006 HIAS resettled
1,754 refugees in the United States, 713 from the Former
Soviet Union, 698 from Iran, 241 from Syria, and 102 from
Southeast Asia (HIAS, 2007).
The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee
was formed by a merger of three agencies in 1914 and
serves as the overseas arm of the American Jewish
community, sponsoring programs of relief, rescue, re-
newal, and helping Israel address its most urgent social
needs. Over the course of its history it has assisted
hundreds of thousands of jews and non-Jews in Europe,
Israel, the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, Asia, and
Africa through humanitarian and development efforts. Its
goal is to develop systematic solutions to social problems
through research and development, pilot demonstration
projects, and strategic interventions working
collaboratively with international organizations such as the
UN, the World Bank, and U.S. Agency for International
Development. For example The Joint provides basic life
sustaining services, including food assistance, medicine,
fuel, and social contact, to the large elderly Jewish
population in the former Soviet Union. It is also involved in
a variety of community-based activities in the former
Soviet Union ranging from educa tional programs for
children, college students, and adults, community outreach
and family camps, to leadership training seminars in Jewish
academic studies in universities (jdc.org).
Community Centers
Jewish community centers (JCC) and Young Men's and
Women's Hebrew Associations provide cultural, re-
creational, educational, and social opportunities for
members of the community. JCCs today are committed

10. 4 JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICES
to supporting Jewish cultural activities, Jewish identity-
building initiatives, and enabling Jews of all ages and
backgrounds to engage in the joys of Jewish living. Although
under Jewish auspices, these communitybased centers and
their affiliated camps serve populations that are ethnically
diverse, fall along a continuum of religious observance, and
vary by age from early childhood to senior citizens.
Local JCCs are affiliated nationally with the JCC
Association, the successor organization to the Jewish Welfare
Board, which came into being during World War I to provide
welfare, morale, and religious service to men and women in
the armed forces. JCC Association strives to strengthen
Jewish life in North America through research and
publications, human resources development, conferences,
<3irect service and consultation, and special continent-wide
programming. JCCs across the country are known for their
early childhood programs, health and wellness centers, teen
programming, senior adult services, adult Jewish learning,
special needs programming, camping programs, and cultural
enrichment activities. The Association has more than 350
affiliates (JCCA, 2006). Through its Jewish Chaplains
Council (formerly the Jewish Welfare Board), the Association
serves Jews in the armed force of the United States ..
Family Services
Jewish family service (JFS) agencies have been a mainstay of
the Jewish communal network since the 19th century. There
are more than 140 agencies affiliated nationally with the
Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies, which
employ trained social workers and other professional
personnel who specialize in clinical work and case
management (Association of Jewish Family and Children's
Agencies [AJFCA], 2006). JFS agencies are recognized for
their clinical expertise and innovative approaches to current
challenging mental health issues (Abramson, 1994). Many of
these agencies provide adoption services, foster care, group
homes for people with developmental disabilities, and
geriatric services under contract with government agencies.'
Services address individual and family concerns, . including
the mental health needs of recent immigrants. JFS agencies
provide the Jewish and non-Jewish communities with high-
quality mental health services sanctioned by the Jewish
community (Abramson, 1994). In 2003, Jewish Family and
Children's Services affiliates spent more than $530 million to
assist a broad range of children, adults, and the elderly
(AJFCA, 2006).
The New York-based Jewish Board of Family and
Children's Services, a UJA-Federation network agency, is one
of the largest nonprofit mental health and social
services organizations in the nation. It serves over 65,000 New
Yorkers annually from all religious, ethnic, and economic
backgrounds through 185 comprehensive community-based
programs, residential facilities, and day treatment centers
(jbfcs.org). This agency has taken a leadership role in
responding to the managed care environment and provides a
highly sophisticated training program for its professional and
line staff.
ospitals and Services for Elderly People
The development of sectarian hospitals, nursing homes, and
specialized geriatric utilities in American communities is a
tradition that dates back to the 19th century. Homes for elderly
people have been the primary source of service to Jewish older
people since the early 20th century. Since the 1930s, Jewish
geriatric facilities and JFS agencies have been innovative in
providing a range of community-based services. According to
Shore (1995/1996); these innovations include the provision of
meals to shut-ins; independent and assisted living
arrangements; and health services and the introduction of
outpatient physical, occupational, and speech therapies. The
Jewish community has also been instrumental in the
development of hospice-based care for patients in the final
stages of terminal illness.
In addition to serving a humanitarian purpose, these
facilities were established to provide kosher food for patients
or residents who observe traditional dietary laws. Although
these facilities have historically received support from
benefactors, self-pay and third party sources, and federation
subsidies, they are predominantly dependent on government
Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for the services they
provide. The services of these organizations are available to
all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religious
identification.
Vocational Services
Jewish vocational services (JVS) agencies were founded by
federations to address specific communal needs in the areas of
employment. "Founded on the concept of 'parnosah,' JVS
agencies had an obligation to help Jews secure a source of
income so they could raise a family, remain independent, live
in dignity, and continue to be a vital and productive part of the
Jewish community" (Miller, 1995/1996, p. 88). They
supplement the efforts of public employment services, with
special assistance being provided to physically and mentally
handicapped individuals and to recent emigres who are in need
of retraining. Services include vocational testing; individual
and group counseling; job placement; educational support;
training programs for people with developmental disabilities,
mental illness, and dual diagnoses; and

11. economic development services. These programs are
designed to assist individuals in becoming self-sufficient.
FEGS (Federation Employment Guidance Service) in New
York serves more than 100,000 people each year at 300
locations with an annual budget in excess of $200 million
(PEGS, 2005).
Community Relations
Community relations are an integral part of the Jewish
communal service agenda, something that is reflected in
the work of the Anti-Defamation League, the American
Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Con, gress, and
the national and local community relations councils. These
agencies are concerned with issues of church-state
separation, anti-Semitlsm, human and civil rights,
immigration,' equality of women, cultural relations, Jewish
identity and education, and relation, ships among various
religious and ethnic groups. These agencies are also
engaged in advocacy and education for Israel's security and
peace with its neighbors as well as the safety of Jewish
communities worldwide.
Jewish Communal Service Association
The current Jewish Communal Service Association was
originally founded in 1899 as the National Conference of
Jewish Charities and has evolved over the years in terms of
membership and functions. It is the primary professional
association for a wide range of professionals employed in
Jewish communal agencies. It conducts professional
development seminars and workshops and publishes the
Journal of Jewish Communal Service, the leading journal in
the field of Jewish communal services. Affiliated
professional associations include the Association of Jewish
Aging Services, the Association of Jewish Center
Professionals, the Association of Jewish Aging Services,
the North American Associ, ation of Synagogue
Executives, and the World Council of Jewish Communal
Service.
Education for Jewish Communal Service Jewish
communal service is not a unitary profession but a field of
practice bound by a series of shared attributes in which
workers are personally committed and responsible for the
following:
• Developing and deepening Jewish consciousness
based on knowledge and emotional commitment
• Excellence in professional competence, manage,
ment, interpretation, and planning
• Leadership through initiative and service as educators
and models for emulation and inspiration
• Participation of laypeople
• Effective use of human and financial community
resources (Goldman, 2005).
JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICES 5
The first Jewish school of social work was formally
established in 1913 by the Jewish Settlement, a social
agency affiliated with the Federation of Jewish Char, ities
in Cincinnati. This pioneering institution was abandoned 18
months later because it was unable to attract students. The
New York Kehillah, which opened its offices in the spring
of 1909, organized a school for Jewish communal work in
October 1916. This school closed in its third year, partly
because military conscription for World War I made it
difficult to find students. The Graduate School for Jewish
Social Work, sponsored by the National Conference of
jewish Charities, opened in 1925. It operated until 1940,
when lack of funds caused it to close its doors.
The first attempt to prepare Jewish communal work, ers
in a university setting occurred at Yeshiva University in
1957, with the founding of what was to become the
Wurzweiler School of Social Work. Wurzweiler has
continued to serve the Jewish and general communities in
the preparation of Master's level and doctoral level social.
workers.
There has been a continuing dialogue since the early
1970s as to whether Jewish communal service is a field
(Pins & Ginsburg, 1971), a profession (Reisman, 1972), or
both (Bubis, 1994; Bubis & Reisman, 1995/1996). More
recent writings have provided recommended steps to
develop consensus on the knowledge, values, and skills to
raise Jewish communal service to a professional status
orce issues, and
ealth, substanc North America with programs that
specifically train individuals for careers in Jewish
communal agencies; nine of these are linked to the
Federation Executive Recruitment and Education Program
of the UJc.
Jewish Population Studies
Since the 1960s, Jewish communal organizations have
attempted to better understand their constituencies and their
evolving needs, evaluate their services, and plan for future
service needs through a series of systematic statistical
profiles and local community surveys. The most ambitious
and influential of these surveys is the National Jewish
Population Survey (NJPS), sponsored by the United Jewish
ledge. Familycentered care, child welfare teamNJPS data
NJPS data are the most comprehensive and author'
itative and have the most traction in public discussion and
policy planning. The 2000-2001 Survey shows a U.S.
Jewish population of 5.2 million, a decline from the 5.5
million reported in 1990. Two new population studies
estimate the American Jewish population at over 6 million
(Saxe, Tighe, Phillips, & Kadushin, 2007; Sheshkin &
Dashefsky, 2006).

12. 6 JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICES
Most significant of all the findings for communal
policy makers and educators were data regarding
Jewish identity and engagement in Jewish life and
patterns of intermarriage. The intermarriage rate rose
slightly from the record high 1990 leve1. Rates of
intermarriage have increased by generation, with some
87% of those married before 1970 choosing a born or
converted Jew as a marital partner, compared with only
53% of those married between 1996 and 2001 (United
Jewish Communities, 2003).
Jewish Identity-Building Initiatives
The 1990 NJPS made it clear that most Jews in the United
States considered themselves well accepted in the general
society and integrated within a largely secular arena. The
community would have to prove "worthy" of their support
by providing initiatives that instill a sense of belonging,
affiliation, and inspiration independent from those of their
ancestors.
Against the backdrop of this finding and the alarm-
ing evidence of waning levels of Jewish affiliation and
dramatic increases in intermarriage rates, the federa-
tions declared "Jewish continuity" to be the primary and
foremost mission of Jewish communal and social
services efforts. The call was to "reinvent" community
and create a strategic vision of Jewish life that ac-
counted for the realities of its constituents, both actual
and potentia1.
In response, throughout the 1990s local Jewish fed-
erations, especially those from larger cities with a sub-
stantial Jewish population, established continuity
commissions and launched a slew of Jewish identity-
building initiatives targeting different groups, including
children, teens, young adults, and outreach to the inter-
married. These federations undertook to establish goals
and objectives for this mission, with particular focus on
Jewish education, the vitality of the Jewish community
including the educational offerings of synagogues and
temples, and individual Jewish identity building. Com-
munity endowments and other funding sources were
created to support new programs of outreach, family
education, professional training, and study or travel to
Israe1. Collaborations were encouraged between local
institutions already involved in such activities, and
efforts were made to win support from donors and
activists for this redirection of communal priorities
(Dashefsky & Bacon, 1994).
Beginning in the mid-1990s and accelerating in the
current decade, new funding partnerships spearheaded
by leading Jewish philanthropists and family
foundations have emerged to engage unaffiliated and
marginally affiliated young Jews in Jewish life through
ambitious and intensive Jewish experiences.
The following are among the most prominent of these
entrepreneurial initiatives:
• Taglit-birthright Israel-Inaugurated in 2000,
birthright Israel offers a free first-time lfl-day trip
to Israel for Jews around the world between the
ages of 18 and 26. Created by a handful of
megadonors in the American Jewish community
with matching support from the federations and
the State of Israel, the primary goal is to give
young people their first Israel experience. Over
100,000 young people from 40 countries have
participated in a birthright trip. Research has
,. - pointed to heightened positive feelings among
participants toward being Jewish and stronger
commitments to support and be involved with
Israel (Saxe et a1., 2004).
• Partnership for Excellence in Jewish Education
(PEJE)-Launched in 1997, PEJE is a collaborative
initiative of major philanthropic donors whose
goal is to strengthen the Jewish day school
movement by increasing enrollment in Jewish day
schools in North America. PEJE carries out its
mission through a Challenge Grant program with
schools, advocacy and conferences, and provision
of expertise to day schools.
In addition to the Jewish identity issues raised by the
NJPS and other surveys, other issues have become a
focus of concern and service of Jewish communal
agencies. These include spousal and child battering;
substance abuse; the changing role of women; serving
intermarried couples; abortion; and serving populations
at risk, including people with the human immunodefi-
ciency virus (HIV) or acquired immune deficiency
syndrome (AIDS) (Bayme & Rosen, 1994; Dubin,
1994; Linzer, 1996; Linzer, Levitz, & Schnall, 1995).
Although some of these concerns relate specifically to
the Jewish community, they are similar, if not identical,
to concerns being addressed by other sectarian organ-
izations and by social services agencies in genera1.
Trends in Jewish Communal Services
The future of Jewish communal service in the United
States is intertwined with efforts by Jewish communal
professionals, alongside their volunteer leadership, to
playa central role in helping shape the Jewish identity
and engagement of large number of America's Jews and
ensure the vitality of its traditional and emerging in-
stitutions. The contours of American Jewry have been
dramatically altered in the last 25 years, with high levels
of geographic mobility, significant changes in the
Jewish family, lesser attachment and connectedness to
Jewish life and full integration within the American

13. mainstream now the norms for the bulk of American Jewry.
Long-held notions of lifetime Jewish affiliation and
membership, once sin qua non for American Jewry and the
lifeline of its institutions, no longer hold the same meaning and
appeal for younger generation of Jews. However, the most
innovative and far-reaching initiatives to intensify Jewish
connectedness and engagement have been launched outside
the organized Jewish communal agency network. Most
prominent are the roles played by individual
megaphilanthropists and major private foundations that have
created new innovative approaches and launched bold and
ambitious identity-building programs with enormous impact
on Jewish life, particularly for American Jewish youth and
young adults (Bubis, 2005). Their undertakings have reshaped
the comm'unal world. Many of these megafunders and other
Jewish family foundations and independent funders are
affiliated with the Jewish Funders Network, an umbrella
organization dedicated to promote the quality and growth of
philanthropy rooted in Jewish values. This network provides
its members valuable information about philanthropic trends,
offers training in grant making skills and practices, and offers
innovative Matching Grant Initiatives to help foundations
effectively leverage their grant-making.
Simultaneously, there has been a growth of new Jewish
organizations and initiatives dedicated to translating the value
of Tikkun Oram(healing or repairing the world) into action by
mobilizing groups of Jews to provide material aid,
empowerment assistance, and advocacy for oppressed and
beleaguered populations in America and around the
developing world. The American Jewish World Service,
motivated by Judaism's imperative to pursue justice, is
engaged in a wide range of international development projects
in Africa, Asia, and South America. It promotes the values of
global citizenship within the American Jewish community
through strong advocacy and material assistance on behalf of
the endangered tribal populations in Darfur, Sudan.
The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life and local Hillel
chapters organize student missions to respond to natural
disasters in America (for example, rebuilding after Hurricane
Katrina) and to community development challenges in South
America and elsewhere. Avodah, the Jewish Service Corps,
launched in 1998, integrates work for social change, intensive
Jewish learning, and community-building. With programs in
New York, Washington, DC, and Chicago, Avodah provides
young, dedicated Jews internships to work for social change
with disadvantaged communities in inner-city neighborhoods,
within a Jewish framework.
Finally, there has been a proliferation of alternative Jewish
service providers to cater to the particular needs
ThompsonCOMMUNAL SERVICES 7
of specific populations within the Jewish community. From
experimental educational approaches, small and intimate
transdenominational prayer groups, spiritual and learning
retreats to creative outreach initiatives and service programs
for heretofore underserved groups such as special needs
children and adults, gay and lesbian groups, interfaith couples,
Orthodox Jews, young adults, and new immigrants, the Jewish
community has adopted more inclusive and targeted ap-
proaches to respond to the diverse service needs and interests
of American Jewry.
This more diversified landscape of both traditional
communal agencies and a host of new service providers and
funding sources provides a greater variety of opportunities for
professional practice. Many communal service professionals
who start their careers in traditional communal agencies have
later found more challenging opportunities in some of the
newer alternative service models. A growing number of young
professionals seek out these alternate agencies at the outset of
their careers, drawn to their more entrepreneurial approaches
and less bureaucratic organization (Bubis, 2005).
The Jewish community like all ethnic and religious
communities is faced with change. How the Jewish
community deals with issues of choice and diversity as well as
changing demographics are reflected in the organizations that
are created to meet these changes. Lessons learned can serve
as a model for responsive service delivery.
icknovvledgunent
I was given assistance by Rebecca Ackerman..
REFERENCES
Abramson, G. (1994). Doing the job in difficult times: An
appreciation of Jewish family service. Journal of Jewish Com-
munal Service, 70, 248-252.
Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies. http://
www.ajfca.org.
Bayme, S., & Rosen, G. (1994). The Jewish family and Jewish
continuity. Hoboken, NJ: KT A V.
Berger, G. (1980). The turbulent decades. New York: Conference of
Jewish Communal Service.
Bernstein, P. (1965). Jewish social services. In H. L. Lurie (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of social work (15th ed., pp. 418-428). New York:
National Association of Social Workers.
Blum, A, & Naparstek, A J. (1987). The changing environment
and Jewish communal services. Journal of Jewish Communal
Service, 63, 204-211.
Bubis, G. (1994). Jewish communal service today: Paradoxes and
problems. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 71,§-12.
Bubis, G. (2005, Fall/Winter). Canons and icons in search of a
Jewish communal service. Journal of Jewish Communal Service,
Vol. 81, Yl, 83-88.

14. 8 JEWISH COMMUNAL SERVICES
Bubis, G., & Reisman.' B. (1995/1996). Jewish communal service
training programs and the federation system. Journal of Jewish
Communal Service, 72, 102-109.
Dashefsky, A., & Bacon, A. (1994). The meaning of Jewish
continuity in the North American community: A preliminary
assessment. Agenda: Jewish Education, 4, 22-28.
Dubin, D. (1994). The liberation of the constituent agency.
Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 70, 226-231.
Edelsberg, e. (2004, Winter). Federation philanthropy for the
future. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 31-38.
Edelsberg, e. (2005, Fall/Winter). More than money a covenant of
federation philanthropic effectiveness. Journal of Jewish
Communal Service, 107-114.
Elazar, D. (1995). Community and polity. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society.
Federation Employment and Guidance Services. http://www.
fegs.org.
Gelman, S. R., & Schnall, D. (1997). Jewish communal service. In
R. L. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed.,
Supplement, pp. 45-60). Washington, DC:
NASW Press.
Gibelman, M. (1995). Purchasing social services. In R. L.
hen an (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work: Vo!' 3 (19th ed., pp.
1998-2007). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Goldman, R. (2005, Fall/Winter). The role of the professional in
developing and shaping Jewish communal policy and
strategies. Journal of JeWish Communal Service, 73-82.
Hebrew Immigration Aid Society [l-IIAS). http://www.hias.
org/news/Statistics/2004USarrivals.html.
IAS. (Fall, 2006). Passages: The magazine of the Hebrew Immigrant
Aid Society, p. 7.
HIAS. (Spring, 2007). Passages: The magazine of the Hebrew
Immigrant Aid Society, p. 5.
Jewish Board Family Children's Services. http://www.jbfcs.org.
Jewish Community Centers Association. http://www.jcca.org.
Levine, E. M. (1998). Church, state and social welfare: Purchase
of service and the sectarian agency. In M. Gibelman & H.
Demone (Eds.), Cases in the privatization of human services:
Perspectives and experiences in contracting (pp. 154-157). New
York: Springer.
Linzer, N. (1996). The Changing Nature of Jewish Identity.
Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 72(3), 142-150.
Linzer, N., Levitz, I., & Schnall, D. (1995). Crisis and continuity:
The Jewish family in the 21st century. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV.
Maimonides, M. (1965). Yad Hahazakah: Hilchot Matanot Le
Aniyim. New York: Monzaim Press.
Metropolitan New York Coordinating Council on Jewish Poverty.
(2004). Jewish poverty in New York City in the 1990's. New York:
Nova Institute.
Miller, A. P. (1995/1996). Jewish vocational service and the
federations. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 72, 87-90.
Ortiz, L. P. (1995). Sectarian agencies. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of social work: Vo!' 3 (19th ed., pp. 2109-2116).
Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Pins, A. M., & Ginsburg, L. (1971). New developments in social
work and their impact on Jewish center and communal service
workers. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 48,60-71.
Rapfogel, W. E. (2004). Combating poverty through action public
policy from the orthodox perspective. Tradition, 38(1),
112-122.
Reid, W. J., & Stimpson, P. K. (1987). Sectarian agencies. In A.
Minahan (Ed-In-Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (18th ed.,
Vol. 2, pp. 545-556). Silver Spring, MD: National Association
of Social Workers.
Reisman, B. (1972). Social work education and Jewish communal
service and JCCs: Time for a change. Journal ofJewish
Communal Service, 48, 384-395.
Saxe, L., Kadushin, e., Hecht, S., Rosen, M. I., Philips, B., &
Kellner, S. (2004). Evaluating birthright Israel: Long-tetm impact
and recent findings. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University,
Maurice and Marilyn COhen Center for Modem Jewish
Studies.
Saxe, L., Tighe, E., Phillips, B., & Kadushin, C. (2007).
Reconsidering the size and characteristics of the American Jewish
population. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Steinhardt
Social Research Institute.
Schnall, D. J. (1993). Exploratory notes on employee productivity
and accountability in classic Jewish sources. Journal ofBusiness
Ethics, 12,4.85-491.
Schnall, D. J. (1995). Faithfully occupied with the public need.
Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 71,315-324.
Schwager, S. (2005, Fall/Winter). Assuming Jewish responsibility
in a changing world. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 29-35.
Sheshkin, I. M., & Dashefsky, A. (2006). Jewish population in the
United States. In D. Singer & L. Grossman (Eds.), American
Jewish year book: The annual record of Jewish dvilization (VoL
106, pp. 133-158). New York: American Jewish Committee.
Shore, H. (1995-1996). Jewish homes and housing for the aging:
Relating to the federation. Journal of Jewish Communal Service,
72, 91-95.
Smith, R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare
state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Solomon, J. R. (2005, Fall/Winter). jewish foundations: An
introduction. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 101-105.
Steinitz, L. Y. (1995/1996).!t's all in the family: Jewish family
services and the federation. Journal of Jewish Communal Service,
72, 70-76.
UJA Federation of New York. http://www.ujafedny.org. United
Jewish Communities. (2003). National Jewish Population Survey.
New York: UJe.
FURTHER READING
AmericanJewish year book. (2006). New York: American Jewish
Committee.
Council ofJewish Federations. (1992). National Jewish population
survey. New York: CJF.
Joint Distribution Committee. http://www.jdc.org.
United Jewish Communities. (200l). Nationa!]ewish population
study. New York: UJe.
-SHELDON R. GELMAN,
SAUL ANDRON, AND DAVID J. SCHNALL

15. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
ABSTRACT: The article on juvenile delinquency has
three major objectives: First, it defines delinquency and
discusses its measurement and extent. Second, it re views
theory and risk factor data on causes of delin quency.
Third, it discusses current trends in juvenile justice
intervention and delinquency prevention, in cluding social
worker involvement.
KEY WORDS: delinquency; conduct disorder; juvenile
justice; status offender
Juvenile delinquency refers to behavior that violates the
law by persons who are minors, generally under age 18
(Agnew, 2005; Springer, 2006). The FBI, which collects
information on crime annually from police data, classifies
all offenses into Part 1 or "index" offenses, which include
serious violent or property crimes such as robbery and
arson, and Part 2 offenses, which include some status
offenses-acts that are only illegal for people with the status
of juveniles (U .S. Department of Justice, 2006 online).
Status offenses in the Part 2 category include running
away, violating curfew, and underage drinking. Other
status offenses such as incorrigibility and truancy are
nonindex offenses that are not part of police reports to the
FBI (Agnew, 2005). Status offenders are not now
classified as delinquents in most states but, rather, as
persons in need of supervision (PINS); yet status offenses
are still illegal, and the term "delinquency" is used to refer
to both status and other offenses by juveniles.
The juvenile justice system, including special courts
for juveniles, came into being at the end of the 19 th
century to handle offenses by developmentally immature
young persons with a less adversarial and less punitive
system and with more concern for rehabilit ation (Agnew,
2005; Siegel, Welsh, & Senna, 2006). The Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Act of 1974 established many changes in
the juvenile justice system, including
deinstitutionalization of status offenders, and created the
Office for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP), which continues to provide national leadership
for the current juvenile justice system.
Behavior that violates the law can also be a compo nent
of conduct disorder, a clinical mental health dis order
involving a pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of
others or societal norms or rules are violated (Henggeler &
Sheidow, 2003; Springer, 2006). Whereas delinquency
can involve a single act, conduct disorder involves a
pattern of antisocial behavior over time. Howev er, in
practice there is a great deal of
JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY 9
overlap in the research literatures. Societal reactions to
delinquency and conduct problems have changed over
time, and debate continues about whether antisocial
adolescents are responsible for their own behavior (and
thus need control and punishment, like adults), or are
subject to circumstances, including mental health
disorders, for which they need treatment (Hirschfield et al.,
2006; Mears Daniel, Hay, Gertz, & Mancini, 2007).
Mental health disorders other than conduct disorder are
quite prevalent among juvenile offenders, especially those
in detention. Common cooccurring problems include
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and
substance abuse disorders. Internalizing probl ems such as
anxiety, trauma, and depression are also
disproportionately present among delinquents compared to
nondelinquents (Cocozza & Skowyra, 2000; Hirschfield et
al., 2006).
Epidemiology
Estimates of the extent of juvenile delinquency come from
two major sources: "official" data from criminal justice
agencies (such as arrest data), and information on
offending and victimization based on self-report. All
sources of data are subject to various biases, and there is
substantial discrepancy between official and self- report
data. Arrest data, for example, only reflect a small
proportion of the delinquent behavior indicated in
self-report surveys, but include more serious crime.
Self-report data suggest that juvenile offending is fairly
widespread-for example, petty theft, underage alcohol use,
and truancy. For example, about half of high school
seniors report drinking alcohol-a status offense- in the past
30 days (CDC, 2006). Most delinquency is relatively
transient, although large scale surveys suggest that about
6-8% of adolescents are chronic and serious offenders
(Barton, 2006). Generally, data shows that violent crime in
particular is declining (Agnew, 2005). Juvenile arrests
dropped by one third in the decade following 1994 after a
long period of increase. In 2003, juveniles were 26% of the
population, and accounted for 22% of the arrests for index
crimes (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Compared with
adults, juveniles are overrepresented in crimes, including
arson, vandalism, burglary, larceny-theft, robber y,
weapons offenses, and liquor law violations, and
underrepresented in the most serious crime categories,
including murder and rape (Barton, 2006).
There are differences by demographic group in arrests
and delinquency. African American youth are more lik ely
to engage in and be arrested for violent delinquency
compared with white youth. Self-report data suggest
smaller race discrepancies than official data. However,
African American youth are

16. 10 JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
disproportionately likely to experience the most restrictive
sanctions, including residential placement (Siegel et al.,
2006; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). In general, boys start
delinquency earlier in the life course, and persist in having
much higher rates of serious delinquency and conduct
problems than do girls with a ratio of about 4: 1. While
young women are generally less likely to be arrested than
are males, the relative proportion of female delinquency
has been rising (Steffensmeier, Schwartz, Zhong, &
Ackerman, 2005). The percentage of girls arrested as a
proportion of all juvenile arrests rose from 20% in 1980 to
29% in 2003, a trend evident across all offense types,
including violent offenses (Snyder & Sickrnund, f006).
Differences in the prevalence of delinquency by
demographic group are thought to be due mainly to
differential exposure to risk, but there is debate about
whether race and gender differentials also involve bias in
juvenile justice processing (Agnew, 2005; Steffensmeier
etal., 2005).
Etiology
Juvenile delinquency and conduct problems, including
aggression, are predicted by a range of risk factors that are
replicated across many studies (Barton, 2006; Williams et
al., 2004). Individual factors include issues such as
impulsivity, hyperactivity, and difficult temperament, and
also include cognitive and neurological impairments.
Family system variables include family violence, harsh and
abusive parenting, lack of or inconsistent discipline, lack of
support and attachment, and family conflict. School-related
risk factors include early conduct problems in school, lack
of commitment to school and lack of school attainment, and
also ADHD and learning problems. Peer group factors are
the strongest known correlate of delinquent behavior.
Adolescents who spend time with delinquent friends or
those who approve of delinquency are much more likely to
be delinquent (Thornberry & Krohn, 2005). Community
risk factors include chronic violence and disorganization in
the neighborhood.
Criminological theories have employed a wide range of
individual and social or environmental processes to explain
differences in offending (see, for example, Agnew, 2005;
Siegel et al., 2006). A rapidly growing body of research
(also from several longitudinal studies) indicates that
delinquency is determined by multiple factors interacting
across multiple life domains. Development and life course
theori~s now incorporate information about developmental
changes in patterns of risk and delinquency and the impact
of life events, including cumulative adversity (Agnew,
2005; Farrington, 2005; Sampson & Laub, 1997;
Thornberry & Krohn, 2005).
Juvenile Justice Intervention,
Prevention, and Rehabilitation
Juvenile justice interventions involve formal control
through sanctions like juvenile placement and probation, as
well as informal strategies, including prevention and
rehabilitation or treatment. The balance of approaches has
shifted over time. Starting in the 1960s,
deinstitutionalization and diversion of juveniles from legal
proceedings and into prevention programs gained
momentum and an influx of federal funding for diversion
and other rehabilitation programs to improve the system
occurred. From the 1980s funding priorities shifted from
prevention and diversion to the identification of serious and
violent offenders (Siegel et a1., 2006). The shift from
rehabilitative to punitive treatment for delinquents toward
the end of the 20th century occurred in response to rising in
crime rates and pessimism about the impact of
rehabilitation as well as a more conservative mood in the
nation and legal system. The "get tough" approach has
included the use of waivers or transfers to adult courts for
children as young as 10 who committed serious crimes, and
increased use of confinement for serious offenders. Studies
indicate however that this approach has had little effect on
the rate of juvenile crime and may in fact lead to higher
reoffense rates and general maladjustment (Agnew, 2005;
Barton, 2006; Lanctot, Cernkovich, & Giordano, 2007).
Some communities have developed special court
systems such as truancy and drug courts to provide
assistance at early stages of law violation to teens in trouble
with the law to prevent further juvenile justice system
involvement. Identified youth are referred for supportive
and preventive services to prevent further law violation.
Research on the impact of alternative courts is still in its
early stages (Rodriguez & Webb, 2004). Counseling and
other services are integrated with judicial processing.. so
that teens who cooperate with program requirements avoid
more formal justice consequences and punishments. Youth
conferencing and mediation models are also used
increasingly with some promise (Nugent, Williams, &
Umbreit, 2004).
A wide range of other programs and services are
available to address juvenile delinquency, and in many
cases evidence about their effectiveness in deterring
delinquency is incomplete. However, information on a
wide range of promising prevention and intervention
strategies that target precursor behaviors and known risk
factors such as poor school adjustment, aggression, skills
deficits, and ineffective parental management is widely
available (for reviews, see Barton, 2006; Herrenkohl et al.,
2004; Williams et al., 2004). Databases describing
evidence-based programs include the Blueprints Violence
Prevention Program and the

17. Campbell Collaboration. Some comprehensive pre-
ventive intervention targets communities and schools
(Catalano et al., 1998). Evidence-based interventions for
those already exhibiting delinquency include
ecologically based comprehensive interventions such as
multisystemic treatment (Henggeler, Schoenwald,
Borduin, Rowland, & Cunningham, 1998). Treatment
foster care (Chamberlain, 2002) is effective for youth
needing temporary placement. Much more knowledge
about specific risk factors and effective program models
to combat delinquency and conduct problems have been
produced since the mid-1980s. Although the use of
evidence-based practice methods. and programs is
increasing due in part to demands for accountability in
program funding and reimbursement, challenges remain
in moving research knowledge to practice settings.
These challenges include slow dissemination of
research-based knowledge and organization barriers
such as lack of coordinated systems of care to deliver
programs. More research is needed, too, on interventions
tailored to specific cultural groups, to address
intervention dropout, and to promote positive youth
development, as well as on deconstructing practices in
common use among social workers (Allen-Meares &
Fraser, 2005; Burns & Hoagwood, 2002).
Social workers address delinquency and its precur-
sors within many agency settings and serve in multiple
roles. Social workers work in the public and not-for-
profit sectors in juvenile offender residential facilities
where they intervene with youth and families. They are
also heavily involved in prevention roles in
communitybased programs, including in schools. They
work with delinquent youth and their families in the
mental health service system. Less frequently, they
work directly in juvenile justice roles such as probation.
In macro practice roles, they contribute to youth
development through community developmental, and
through community action initiatives. Social workers
also conduct research on delinquency, write policy
briefs relevant to juvenile justice policy, and advocate
for improved services and policies for juvenile offenders
and youth at risk.
REFERENCES
Agnew, R. (2005). Juvenile delinquency: Causes and control, (2nd
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Allen-Meares, P., & Fraser, M. W. (2005). Intervention with
children and adolescents: New hope and enduring challenges.
In M. W. Fraser (Ed.), Risk and resilience in childhood: An
ecological perspective (2nd ed., pp. 385-402). Washington, DC:
NASW Press.
Barton, W. H. (2006). Juvenile justice policies and programs.
. M. Jenson & M. W. Fraser (Eds.), Social policy for
& families: A risk and resilience perspective (pp. 231264).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
JUVENIlE DELINQUENCY 11
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). National longitudinal survey of
youth, 1997 cohort, 1997-2001. Chicago, IL: National Opinion
Research Center, University of Chicago (producer).
Columbus, OH: Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio
State University (distributor).
ility to the & Hoagwood, K. (2002). Community treatmentfor youth:
youth: Evidence-based interventions for severe emotional and
behavioral disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.
Catalano, R. F., Arthur, M. W., Hawkins.J. D., Berglund, L., &
Olson, J. J. (1998). Comprehensive community and school
based interventions to prevent antisocial behavior. In R.
Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile
offenders: risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 248-283).
Report by the OnDP Study Group, prepared for the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Thousand Oaks,
WORK. See PCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2006).
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2005.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 55(SS-5), I-lOB.
Chamberlain, P. (2002). Treatment foster care. In B. J. Bums & K.
Hoagwood (Eds.), Community treatment for youth:
Evidence-based interventions for severe emotional and behavioral
disorders. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cocozza, J. J., & Skowyra, K. R. (2000). Youth with mental
health disorders: Issues and emerging responses. Juvenile
Justice, 7(1),3-13.
Farrington, D. P. (Ed.). (2005). Integrated developmental and
life-course theories of offending, Volume 14. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Henggeler, S. W., & Sheidow, A. J. (2003). Conduct disorder and
delinquency. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
29(4),505-522.
Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland,
M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (1998). MuItisystemic treatment of
antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Herrenkohl, T. I., Chung, I.-J., & Catalano, R. F. (2004).
Review of Research on predictors of youth violence and
school-based and community based prevention approaches. In
P. Allen-Meares & M. W. Fraser (Eds.), Intervention with
children and adolescents: New hope and enduring challenges [pp.
449-476). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hirschfield, P., Maschi, T., White, H. R., & Traub, L. G. (2006).
Mental health and juvenile arrests: Criminality,
criminalization, or compassion? Criminology, 44(3), 593-630.
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, Public
Law No. 93-415 42 u.s.c. 5601 et seq. Online at http://www
.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov /about/jjdpa2002titlev .pdf.
Lanctot, N., Cemkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2007).
Delinquent behavior, official delinquency, and gender:
Consequences for adulthood functioning and well-being.
Criminology, 45, 131-157.
Mears Daniel, P., Hay, c., Gertz, M., & Mancini, C. (2007).
Public opinion and the foundation of the Juvenile Court,
Criminology, 45, 233-257.
Nugent, W. R., Williams, M., & Umbreit, M. S. (2004).
Participation in victim offender mediation and the

18. 12 JUVENILE DEUNQUENCY
prevalence of subsequent delinquent behavior: A meta-
analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(6),408-416.
Rodriguez, N., & Webb, V. J. (2004). Multiple measures of
juvenile drug court effectiveness: Results of a quasi-
experimental design. Crime & Delinquency, 50(2), 292-314.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of
cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In
T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and
delinquency: Advances in criminological theory, Vol. 7 (pp.
133-162). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Siegel, L. J., Welsh, B. c, & Senna, J. J. (2006). Juvenile
delinquency: Theory, practice, and law(9th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and
victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Springer, D. W. (2006). Treating juvenile delinquents with
conduct disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and
oppositional defiant disorder. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager
(Eds.), Foundations of evidence based practice (pp. 231-246).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J., Zhong, H., & Ackerman, J.
(2005). An assessment of recent trends in girls' violence using
diverse longitudinal sources: Is the gender gap closing?
Criminology, 43(2), 355--406.
n and trry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2005). Applying interactional
theory to the explanation of continuity and change in antisocial
behavior. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental &
life-course theories of offending (Vol. 14) (pp. 183-209). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Williams, J. H., Ayers, C. D., Van Darn, R. A., & Arthur, M. W.
(2004). Risk and protective factors in the development of
delinquency and conduct disorder. In M. W. Fraser (Ed.), Risk
and resilience in chi/&wod: An ecological perspective (2nd ed.,
pp. 209-249). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
SUGGESTED LINKS Blueprints for
Violence Prevention. http://www ,colorado,
edu/cspv/blueprints/ Campbell Collaboration.
http://www .campbeUcollaboration. org/
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Crime in the United States.
http://www2 . fbi .gov/ucr/dus2006/index.html
-CAROLYN SMITH AND JEREMY DARMAN
JUVENILE JUSTICE. [This entry contains two
subentries: Overview; Juvenile and Family Courts.]
OVERVIEW
ABSTRACT: The juvenile justice system was established
with the founding of the Juvenile Court in Chicago in
1900, an institution that spread to all the states in a
short period of time. The history, organization, structure and
operations of the system are described along with its growth
along with increasing Among the key issues examined are:
gender, overrepresent at ion of children of color, placement of
mentally ill and abused or neglected children, human rights
and reintegration of juvenile offenders after their returning
home.
KEY WORDS: history; court processing; disposition and
placement; gender; overrepresentation; social justice
issues
The establishment of the juvenile court in Illinois in 1899 led
to the development of the United States juvenile justice
system, which - was mandated to provide for the processing,
adjudication, and rehabilitation of juveniles charged with
criminal violations, as well as for the care and treatment of
abused and neglected children. Social advocates such as Jane
Addams as well as crusading judges like Ben Lindsey
(Tanenhaus, 2002) established the system, emphasizing care
and treatment rather than punishment and control. The
response to this new social invention was rapid, and the
juvenile court spread throughout the United States in less than
25 years. Since that time it has become a model for the legal
processing of children in much of the developed world.
Although the juvenile court still retains jurisdiction over the
processing of abuse and neglect cases, most of the processing
care and supervision of those cases lie within the child welfare
system while the juvenile justice system focuses primarily on
youth charged with delinquency or status offenses. As of
2002, more than 3.1 million youth were under juvenile court
supervision annually with rv 1.6 million new cases processed
each year (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
History
The principles underlying the creation of this social institution
were that children were developmentally immature and
required protection; they weremalleable and could be
habilitated or rehabilitated, and the court should aid children
suffering from a broad range of problems different from
adults. Children were assumed to be dependent, developing
physically and psychologically, in need of care and
hotic drugs in patients ~ith chronic schizophrenia. New
England Journal of Medicine, 353(12), 1209-1223.
Ű
Floersch, ]., & Jenkins, J. (2003). Medication effect
interpretation and tmpact on court procedures, and resulted in
in a theory of state responsibility for children as represented in
the concept of parens patriae.

19. Prior to the establishment of the juvenile court,
juveniles charged with delinquent acts were p rimarily
tried in the criminal justice system, but even then age
played a role in presumptions of guilt because juveniles
below the age of 14 were presumed not to possess
sufficient criminal responsibility to commit a crime. The
creation of the juvenile court altered this pre' sumption in
part, providing almost exclusive jurisdiction over
individuals below the age of 18 who were charged with
violating criminal laws in most states. Hearings were to
be informal, private, "in the best interest of the child," and
civil rather than criminal. These tenets constituted a
separate system of justice that recognized the differences
between children and
adults (Zimring, 2002). '
State legislation permitted judges to use their discre-
tion in conducting hearing and prescribing inter, ventions.
To meet their statutory goals, the juvenile justice system
employed a range of programs and services-including
prevention, diversion, detention, probation, community
services, and residential treatment (Rosenheim, 2002 ).
For most of the 20th century, judges heard juvenile cases
and then diverted them to community services outside the
court, but substantial numbers were institutionalized'
even for extended periods.
1960-1980. In many communities, the court failed to
meet the goals of its founders to be responsible for the
provision of rehabilitation. Beginning in the 1960s, the
human rights movement influenced developments in
juvenile justice because of growing concern that juveniles
receive due process and protection of their civil liberties.
Decisions of the Supreme Court in cases such as Kent v.
U.S. 383U.S, 541 (1966), In re Gault 387 U.S.I (1967),
and In re Winship 397 U.S. 352 (1970) led to many new
social policy initiatives to protect children's rights to
challenge arbitrary dispositions. A series of national
commission reports (Presidential Commission on Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice and the Task Force on
Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, 1974) had
positive effects, extending human rights along with
policies of decriminalization, de institutionalization, and
diversion. By the 1970s passage of the first federal
juvenile justice legislation, the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Act of 1974, funded state efforts to reduce
institutionalization and increase local community- based
programming.
1980-2000. The progress of the 1960s and 1970s was
dramatically reversed in the 1980s and 1990s, with the
passage of federal and state legislation that emphasized
incarceration and punishment, along with withdrawal of
the distinction between juveniles and adults as far as
certain criminal behavior was concerned. As a century
tic drugs in patients ~ith ch13
of the juvenile court was celebrated in 2000, laws and
philosophy had returned to many practices in place before
the invention of the juvenile court. Thousands of
juveniles were held in adult prisons and jails, o ften under
very punitive conditions (Lerman, 2000). Feld (1999)
argues that judicial, administrative, and legisla tive
decisions transformed the court into a secondclass
criminal court that did not serve the interests of children.
Much of the transformation appeared to be "justified" by
the increase in juvenile crime between 1985 and 1995
(Bishop, 2000). However, after 1995 there was a dramatic
decline in juvenile crime that continued through 2005 ,
especially serious violent crime, but there has not been a
corresponding reduction in the numbers of juveniles
processed (Snyder & Sickmund,2006).
. Since 2000. Much of the discussion about the juvenile
justice system in the early 21st century neglects the
changes in the societal context in which it operates.
Garland (200l) and Beckett and Western (2000) point to
the increasing culture of control and the declining
provision of social welfare benefits for the population at
risk for involvement in the justice system. Family struc-
ture has undergone and is undergoing substantial changes
that affect children because single parents are unable to
provide the necessary supervision and support, especially
in critical adolescent years. The increas ing rates of
poverty, the decline of public school education, the lack
of physical and mental health care, and the changing
economic structure in which well-paying blue collar jobs
are unavailable for young adults have had a pronounced
ONS
Medication effect interpretation and t d control but little is
available to prepare the middle- and working- class youth
population for successful adulthood (Osgood, Foster,
Flanagan, & Ruth, 2005; Setterstein, Furstenberg, &
Rumbaut, 2005). All these factors affect juvenile crime in
the society and thereby the operation of the juvenile
justice system.
New England Journal of MedicThe
The juvenile justice system is composed of the statutes
and policies as well as organizations charged with re-
sponsibility for the processing of juveniles who violate
state laws and local ordinances (Roberts, 2004). The legal
d~finition of delinquency and crime varies from state to
state as to age of juvenile court jurisdiction and the roles
of the various court officials responsible for the
processing of juveniles into and through the court. The
processing typically includes the following:
1. Arrest and referral of a juvenile to the court for a law
violation; some police may have warning and
diversion alternatives.

20. 14 JUVENILE JUSTICE: OVERVIEW
2. Juvenile court intake includes referral for trial,
diversion of minor offenders, detention, and
preliminary assessment.
3. Filing of a formal petition and deciding to try the
youth in juvenile court or transfer the youth to
adult court for criminal processing.
4. Hearing or trial by the court and determination of
innocence or guilt.
5. Disposition decision making by the judge and
placement in a program for those adjudicated as
delinquent for an indeterminate or specific period
of time, depending upon state laws or judicial
discretion, and release or special sanctions for the
others.
6. Reintegration or reentry programming, which is
formalized as parole, but may also be informally
and unevenly provided;'
Demographics
COURT PROCESSING More than 2.2 million youth
below the age of 18 were arrested in 2003, but only 25 %
were arrested for serious person or property crimes or
"index" crimes as these are defined (Snyder &
Sickrnund, 2006). The remaining offenses were mis-
demeanors, drug offenses, and public order or status
offenses. Juvenile crime increased substantially in the
late 1980s, but by 2003 most violent crime had fallen
below that observed in 1980 (Stahl et al., 2005). Of
those arrested 1.615 million cases were referred to the
juvenile court in 2002. Cases not referred may be
diverted to other agencies, particularly "status offenses;"
those behaviors that are included in the jurisdiction of
the juvenile court in many states but are not classified as
crimes. Status offenses include running away, incor-
rigibility, truancy, and liquor law violations.
ps ty-eight percent of the all cases are formally peti-
tioned and 42% are dismissed or referred to a variety of
social agencies for services. If petitioned 67% can be
expected to be adjudicated delinquent and subsequently
62% are placed on probation and 22% receive an
out-of-the-home placement, most often in a residential
institution. Even at the final disposition stage, juvenile
cases are dismissed, and youth are released or given
other sanctions outside the. formal justice system.
Waiver to adult court will result for about 1% of the
cases, but that number declined since 2002 (Bishop,
2000). However, it varies widely among the states re-
flecting the differences in state statutes. Overall, fewer
than 10% of the youth who enter the court ultimately end
up in a correctional institution.
Delinquency case rates overall were 51.6 per 1,000
youth aged 10-17 years in 2002, but there were marked
variations by age from 4.6 per 1,000 for 10-year-old
youth ·to 109.1 per 1,000 for those 17 years old. The
overall rate was far lower than the rate of81.6 in 1994, a
reflection of the decline in crime by juveniles during a
period of substantial population growth (Snyder &
Sickmund, 2006). There are sex differences by age in
that female crime peaks at 16 years while the peak age
for males is 17.
As Table 1 indicates, the largest number of youth
held in custody out of their homes is held in detention.
The rate of 10.2 per 1,000 youth is nearly 3 times the
rate of those in placement following adjudication.
Placement in detention is important because it is pre-
dictive of subsequent adjudication and referral to an
institution. The numbers in detention increased sub-
stantiallyafter 1985, with drug cases explaining most of
the increase (140%). Frequently arrested for drug viola-
tions, African American males are 37% of all detainees
and their detention is a key factor in their overall
disproportionate representation in the juvenile justice
system (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
In the decade between 1990 and 2000 formal hand-
ling of juvenile court cases increased from 49.8% to
57.7% (McNeece & Jackson, 2004). Not surprisingly,
there were subsequent increases in adjudications, waiv-
ers, and placements as formalization increased.
DISPOSITIONS On a given day in 2004,96,655 youth
were held in public and private correctional facilities
(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Annually more than
145,000 youth adjudicated for delinquency are sent to an
out-of-home placement for a specified period or an
indefinite stay. This is a small percentage of the more
than 2.2 million. youth arrested, and the numbers in
placement declined after 2000, following the increases
in most states during the 1990s when the juvenile crime
rate was substantially higher.
TABLE 1
Youth Population and Processing Rates
NUMBER
33,352,224
2,202,000
1,620,800
RATE
Population, 10-17 years
Juvenile arrests (2004)
Referrals to juvenile
court-delinquency
Petitions to-juvenile court
Detention
Adj udications
Assigned to probation
Placed out of home
Waived to adult criminal court
66.2
48.8
934,900
339,800
634,500
385,400
144,000
6,900
28.1
10.2
19.1
11.6
4.3
0.21
Rates are calculated at the numbers per 1,000 youth processed
during the year 2002.

21. JUVENILE JUSTICE: OVERVIEW 15
TABLE 2
Delinquency Offense and Placement Profile, 2002
TYPE OF CRIME
Person
Property
Drugs
Public Order
Status
REFERRAL TO COURT
MALE FEMALE
23% 26%
34 39
13 8
25 27
POSTADJUDICATION PLACEMENT
MALE FEMALE PuBLIC
35% 14% 35%
29 12 28
uality as10 12 26
10 12 26
4 40 3
PRIVATE
32%
27
10
20
11
From Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report, by Snyder, H. N., and Sickmund, M., 2006, Washington, OC:
OJjDP, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Copyright 2006 by the U.S. Department of Justice. Reprinted with
permission.
Females account for 15% of the Juveniles in custody in
public and private facilities, but of that total 40% are
placed for status offenses as their most serious offense. As
Table 2 indicates, male youth in custody have a more
serious crime profile than do females, and they tend to
remain longer in placement. The majority of youth are held
in public facilities, but one-third is placed in private
institutions.
Youth charged with person crimes have a higher
probability of postadjudication placement than those
charged with property or public order crimes. Among the
person crimes, there has been a substantial increase in
processing and institutionalization of juveniles as sexual
offenders for extended periods followed by placement of
their names on a public registry. Zimring (2004) strongly
criticizes the punitiveness of some of these practices.
Although a relatively small percentage of youth are
charged with drug crimes, they are likely to be placed out
of the home because of the lack of drug treatment facilities
in many communities. The profile of offenders in public
versus private facilities does not vary significantly.
Out-of-home placement rose by 44% during the late 1990s
but since 2000 has declined by 12%, primarily among
property and person offenders. Increases in placement on
probation appear to be the explanation.
Gender
Young females' rising rates of involvement with the
juvenile justice system now receive increased attention.
Their rate of arrest rose to 29% of total juvenile arrests in
2002, and the involvement of young women in certain
crimes (larceny, drugs and simple assault) has risen more
sharply than that of males (Snyder, 2006). Because the
number of male offenders is so much larger, percentage
comparisons are misleading. It is less clear that female
crime has increased commensurate to their involvement in
the justice system, for example, their detention and
placement in residential programs
for status offenses, primarily involving family conflict.
The rising rate of their involvement may be partly the
result of changing policies and practices that serve to bring
more young women under the care and control of the
justice system, for example, the referral of girls in need of
mental health services to the justice system. It has been
noted that 60-70% of the youth in juvenile justice have a
diagnosable mental health problem with more females
than males so diagnosed (Coalition for Juvenile Justice,
2000; Grisso, 2004).
EVIDENCE~ BASED MODELS OF INTERVENTION Because it
has been shown that there is a wide range of factors that
cause or are associated with delinquency, it is not
surprising that there are many programs for prevention,
early intervention, alternatives to incarceration,
community-based intervention, and residential treatment.
Using meta-analysis techniques, Lipsey and Wilson
(1998) found the following characteristics to be associated
with greater effectiveness:
• The integrity of the treatment model implementation.
• Longer duration of treatment produces better results.
• Results from well-established programs exceed new
programs.
• Treatment administered by mental health pro-
fessionals.
• Emphasis on interpersonal skills training.
• Use of the teaching family home methods.
Overall, they found community-based programs to be
more effective than programs in custodial settings, so the
context for the treatment is important. Voluntary
participation was shown to be more effective than that
which is coerced, and there are ways by which voluntary
assent can be achieved. Greenwood (2006) shows that
balanced and restorative justice (BAR}) programs can
integrate restitution and community service by

22. 16 JUVENILE JUSTICE: OVERVIEW
which an offender can repair the harm he or she may
have caused. A report of the U.S. Surgeon General on
Youth Violence (2001) concurs that many programs are
effective with delinquent youth, but they emphasize the
importance of the quality of implementation.
Elliot and his colleagues at the Center for the Study
and Prevention of Youth Violence have developed
"Blueprints" of 10 programs meeting rigorous criteria
that include demonstrated positive outcomes on problem
behavior that persists beyond a youth's involvement in a
program. They can be consulted at www.
colorado.edu/cspu/blueprints for technical assistance
regarding the programs that they regard as effective.
(Michalic, Fagan, Irwin, Ballard, & Elliot, 2002).
Greenwood (2006) has identified a large number of
programs that have been shown to be effective for
working with youth from preschool age through ado-
lescence. For example, the Perry School Pre-School
program was shown to reduce delinquency when the
participants reached adulthood in contrast with a com-
parable control group. Programs targeting the youth and
his or her family have been shown to be effective,
including functional family therapy, multisystemic
therapy, the Seattle Social Development Program, and
Big Brothers/Big Sisters. If cost benefit issues are of
concern, Greenwood (2006) shows that cost-effective
programs ultimately reduce crime..
Because of the lack of systematic evaluation the
effectiveness of most juvenile justice program is un-
known. However, residential programs that include only
delinquent youth are seldom effective in reducing
recidivism. Other popular programs that have been
shown not to be effective include boot camps, substance
abuse programs such as DARE, and "scared straight"
programs.
ocial Justice Issues
Some important social justice issues include overrepre-
sentation of youth of color, prosecution of juveniles as
adults, child welfare and juvenile justice, mental health
of offenders, reintegration, and human rights.
urthREPRESENT A TION OF YOUTH OF COLOR One of the
the most critical issues facing the entire justice sys tem
in the United States in the disproportionate repre-
sentation of persons of color in all phases of the
system, despite the fact that the United States has
ratified the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all
Forms of Racial Discrimination. The juvenile justice
system is not an exception in that youth of color are
disproportionately represented in all phases of the
justice, child welfare, and public assista nce systems,
particularly African American youth. The Juvenile
Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 was amended
in 1988 to mandate that states who participate in its
programs make "every effort" to achieve proportional
representation of youth of color in the juvenile justice
system. As of 2003, youth of color comprised 36% of
the total juvenile population, but 62 % of those in
detention and 67% of those in other types of residential
facilities. The overrepresentation of youth of color in
the early stages of processing has profound effects,
because if a youth is detained, there is an increased
probability of being found guilty and sentenced to an
out-of-home placement. As youth of color move
through the justice system there are amplification
effects in the subsequent processing that add to the
overrepresentation (Kempf-Leonard & Sontheirner,
1995).
A variety of factors have been identified as causes of
this disproportionality, including:
• Crime rates are higher in neighborhood of high
levels of deterioration and segregation where
youth of color reside and where police are likely to
do more surveillance (Sampson, Morenoff, &
Raudenbush, 2005).
• Juvenile justice agencies treat youth of color more
severely than white youth, particularly early in
processing (Bishop & Frazier, 2000; Bridges &
Steen, 1998).
• Nunn (2002) argues that the oppression of African
American youth (especially males) appears
normal because decision makers have been
socialized to undervalue the lives of these youth.
• Diversion and other alternatives to incarceration
are more available in suburban areas with lower
proportions of youth of color (Sarri, Shook, &
Ward, 2001).
The highest rates of incarceration of youth of color are
found in public residential facilities reaching 90% in
some states (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Overall, as of
2004, 754 African American, 496 American Indian/
Native American, 348 Hispanic, 190 white, and 113
Asian youth per 100,000 were incarcerated.
PROSECUTING AND INCARCERATING JUVENILES AS
ADULTS The shift toward the punitive handling of
children and youth in the justice systems is best
exemplified by the increased transfer of juveniles to
adult criminal courts and their subsequent incar-
ceration in adult prisons. During the 1990s, there was
a proliferation of transfer legislation: 44 states and the
District of Columbia enacted at least one change
easing the processing of juveniles as adults (T orbet &
Szymanski, 1998). By the end of the decade, all 50
states permitted the transfer to adult courts. Although

23. the legislative changes were made to address growing youth
violence, by 2000 the majority of youth sentenced to the
adult system were there for property, drug, and public order
offenses. This legislation also decreased the power of the
juvenile court judge and expanded that of the prosecutor.
This change represented a significant shift in the role of the
judge that had existed since 1900, about when the court was
founded.
There are three procedures by which juveniles are
transferred for trial as adults: judicial discretion, prose-
cutorial discretion, and statutory exclusion of certain youth
from the juvenile court based on offense and age. Some
states do not maintain minimum age limits for trying
juveniles as adults while other states set the lower age limi t
between 10 and 16 years: Some states allow for a case to be
designated for trial in the juvenile court with adult court
rules. The juvenile may receive a "blended sentence" that
permits a youth to remain in the juvenile system, provided
he or she commits no subsequent crime.
Accurate information on the numbers of youth pro-
cessed as adults is not available. Bishop (2000) re viewed a
large number of studies and was unablb to arrive at a sound
estimate. Conservative estimates placed the number
processed under the age of 18 at 200,000 per year, but the
numbers convicted were far smaller (Sickrnund, Snyder, &
Poe-Yamagata, 2000). There has been a decline since 2000
because of the dramatic decline in serious and violent crime
by juveniles, but the amount of the decline remains
unknown. The U.S. Justice Department reported that as of
2004 there were 2,800 youth under 18 in adult prisons;
however, this number excludes adults who were sentenced
as juveniles, often with long sentences, so nationally the
number may well exceed 100,000 individuals (Harrison &
Beck, 2006). In 1997 there were 7,400 juveniles below 18 in
state and federal prisons; so there has been a substantial
decline as of 2004.
Juveniles of color and males are the overwhelm ing
majority of those tried as adults (Bortner, Zatz, & Hawkins,
2000). Most of the youth in adult prisons will be released in
their mid-20, but they will be illequipped to meet the
demands of society for successful adulthood and parenting
because of the stigma of incarcerati on and because of the
lack of education, health care, and social services while
incarcerated. Moreover, charges of human rights violations
have been and are being made with respect to the conditions
of incarceration (Human Rights Watch, 2005). Studies of
recidivism indicate that juveniles released from adult
facilities have higher rates of recidivism than similar youth
released from juvenile facilities (Bishop & Frazier, 2000;
Fagan, 1996). Thus, the transfer of juvenile s to
JUVENILE JUSTICE: OVERVIEW 17
he adult criminal justice system is counterproductive as a
crime control policy.
CHILD WELFARE AND JUVENILE JUSTICE The juvenile
court serves both abused and neglected children as well as
those charged with delinquency, but it was expected that
the two areas would be separately addressed since child
welfare clients are initially victims of parental abuse or
neglect while juvenile delinquents are viewed as primarily
responsible for their behavior as perpetrators of crime.
to be refined through furth increasingly ambiguous as
studies have shown the "drift" of child welfare clients to
the juvenile justice system (jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000;
Kaufman & Widom, 1999; Smith & Thornberry, 1995). A
large study by Kelly (2002) in the Cook County, Illinois,
juvenile court, observed that more than a third of
maltreated children ended up in the juvenile justice
system as delinquents.
4), New York: Macmillan. and Hispanic youth with
experience in foster care have been shown to be at high risk
for subsequent transfer to the justice system. Although the
numbers of male victims are greater than those of females,
most of those who "drift" to the justice system are reported
to be female, largely for status offenses and property crime.
With a large sample in California, jonson-Reld and Barth
(2000) followed youth from child welfare to entrance into
the California Youth Authority. They observed that if
youth were transferred to probation, the risk for subsequent
transfer to the CY A for a serious felony increased
significantly. Having multiple placements was correlated
with transfer to the justice system.
A recent study in Michigan of adolescents who aged out
of foster care reported several negative outcomes:
homelessness, inadequate education, lack of employ ment,
mental health problems, substance abuse, and experience in
the justice system (Fowler & T oro, 2006). These youth
also reported being physically and sexually abused. To
delineate the process by which child welfare youth "drift"
to the justice system, youth frequently run away from
placements, more often from congregate care than
individual foster care or kin care. Some of these youth may
engage in delinquent behavior as they attem pt to survive
"on the street." When they are apprehended by police, they
may be taken to a detention facility pending a hearing by
the court. Depending upon the outcome of that placement a
juvenile may then be moved to juvenile justice system
through furthhe child welfare system may cease involve-
with the case. Because a youth may be an older adolescent
at this point, there is a tendency to view them more as a
delinquent than a victim of abuse or neglect.

24. 18 JUVENILE JUSTICE: OVERVIEW
MENTAL HEALTH AND JUVENILE COMPETENCY The
collapse of the mental health system serving chil dren
and youth in the 1990s resulted in a gradual move ment
of mentally ill juveniles into the justice system. The
inappropriateness of these placements was exacer bated
by the lack of adequate legislation in many states for the
assessment of competency for trial as a delinquent or as
an adult. Prior to the 1990s, the issues of juvenile
competence were seldom raised, but findings from
research on brain development and developmen tal
maturity, as well as concerns about due process
protection of youth, raised concerns in both the mental
health and legal professions (Scott & Grisso, 1997).
Findings from brain development research are directly
relevant to the criminal justice processing of juveniles
for both the individual's culpability and ability to par-
ticipate effectively in his or her defense. Recent neu-
roimaging studies indicate that the brain, specifically
the pre-frontal lobe (PFC) , continues to grow and
change throughout adolescence and into the 20s. The
PFC controls higher-order cognitive processes, which
include motivation, inhibition, logical decision making,
risk taking, problem solving, planning, emotional
regulation, sexual urges,. and anticipation ~f conse-
quences (Spear, 2000). Past and current trauma and
stress have detrimental effects on adolescent brain
functioning, and delinquent adolescents are signifi-
cantly more at risk for limited cognitive development
(Arnsten & Shansky, 2004).
ugh furth to estimate the number of juveniles with a
diagnosable mental disorder, Grisso (2004) reported that
findings from several studies indicated that 6070% of
juveniles in correctional facilities have at least one
disorder. Relatively few receive professional eva luations
or treatment in most settings. Grisso (2004) suggests
reasons for attention to these youth: (a) agencies have a
ving hope or reasonable expectations, and finding
ng in life apart from mental illness, a concept to be refined
through furthqual protection under the law, including
determination of their competency to partici pate in their
own defense; and (c) protection of the public requires that
juveniles with mental disorders be treated and managed in
ways that maintains protection.
REINTEGRA nON AND AFTERCARE Each year nearly
100,000 juvenile offenders in correctional facilities are
returned to their home communities, and an even lar ger
number are released from probation, but reintegra tion
services are poorly developed and reach a small
proportion of returning youth (Griffin, 2005). In many
states juveniles are released from correctional facilities
under state supervised parole, and so there is little
adaptation to the circumstances of the youth or the
community.
Griffin (2005) describes three court-directed pro grams
for aftercare and reintegration in Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Indiana, which offered comprehen sive
services for education, employment, and treatment as
needed along with mentoring and monitoring. Altschuler,
Armstrong, & MacKenzie (1999) developed a model for
intensive aftercare by institutional and parole staff that is
ETRICS
), Educational Measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-104), New
ork: Macmillan.
being in a correctional program is a life-changing
experience; They present a cognitive behavioral approach
that addresses the individual's environment as well as their
personal characteristics. Their research and that of Barton
(2006) found very low rates of recidivism among youth
who completed programs that promoted competency, a
positive sense of self, and transition programming with
strong social support necessary for the youth to achieve
success and stability.
HUMAN RIGHTS The United States strongly advocates
for the extension of human rights enforcement
throughout the world, but when it relates directly to the
United States, there is resistance not only to the adop-
tion but also to enforcement of those rights by United
Nations agencies. Nowhere are the principles of human
rights more at risk than in the U.S. processing of juve-
niles in the justice system. The International Conven-
tion on the Rights of the Child has not been ratified and
several of its provisions were ignored. The United
States has signed and ratified four other conventions,
which are often negated by our practices of processing
juveniles as adults, in the conditions of confinement in
many facilities, in the incarceration of juveniles when
community services would be more effective, and in the
overrepresentation of youth of color in all levels of the
juvenile justice system. The four other conventions
include the following: Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racism, the Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, and
the Convention on Human Rights. The relevance and
importance of international law and customs was
acknowledged by Justice Arthur Kennedy of the U.S.
Supreme Court in his decision in the Roper v. Simmons
case 543 U.S., in which the Court acknowledged that the
juvenile death penalty was unconstitutional. In 2005 writing
for the majority Justice Kennedy stated that international law
provided guidance for the Supreme Court because execution
of juveniles was