Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders

• Author: Mark A. Greenwald,Michael T. Baglivio,Katherine Jackowski,James C. Howell
• Published date: 01 February 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12064
• Date: 01 February 2014

RESEARCH ARTICLE

SERIOUS, VIOLENT, AND CHRONIC

JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders

A Statewide Analysis of Prevalence and Prediction of

Subsequent Recidivism Using Risk and Protective Factors

Michael T.Baglivio

Katherine Jackowski

Mark A. Greenwald

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

Bureau of Research and Planning

JamesC.Howell

National Gang Center

Research Summary

The prevalence of serious, violent, and chronic offenders is assessed across 5 years of

delinquency referrals to a centralized juvenile justice agency. Differences in prevalence

by gender and race/ethnicity and by age at first referral are compared for these youth

with the other juveniles referred. Analyses examine whether subsequent official reof-

fending of these juveniles is predicted by similar risk and protective factors as with

other youth. Stability in the proportion of youth meeting the serious, violent, and

chronic classification was found. Males were more than twice as likely to be serious,

violent, and chronic offenders. Serious, violent, and chronic offenders were almost three

times more likely to have been first referred when 12 years old or younger. Predictive

risk and protective factors are substantively different for these serious, violent, and

chronic youth. Policy implications regarding appropriate delinquency interventions

to address significant risk and protective factors for different subgroups of youth are

discussed.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Florida

Department of Juvenile Justice. Direct correspondence to Michael T. Baglivio, Florida Department of Juvenile

Justice, Bureau of Research and Planning, 2737 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, FL, 32399 (e-mail:

Michael.Baglivio@djj.state.fl.us).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12064 C2014 American Society of Criminology 83

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 13 rIssue 1

Research Article Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders

Policy Implications

Our study examines the prevalence rates of juvenile offenders classified as serious,

violent, and chronic, thereby necessitating an analysis of resource allocation strategies

for a juvenile justice agency.In light of this and other empirical findings, agency policies

have been adjusted and new policies implemented, including a reduction in the number

of residential beds by more than 50% in the last 3 years and reallocation of “deep-end”

resources to prevention and community-based programming.

Keywords

juvenile offender,offending career types,serious,violent,chronic offending

Criminologists have repeatedly demonstrated that a small segment of juvenile

offenders commits most of all juvenile offenses, including those crimes categorized

as serious and violent (DeLisi and Piquero, 2011; Hawkins, Catalano, and Brewer,

1995; Howell, Krisberg, and Jones, 1995; Vaughn, Salas-Wright, DeLisi, and Maynard,

2013; Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin, 1972). Similar findings have accrued when we broaden

the scope to examine the general population, finding fewer than 10% of the general

population believed to account for more than 50% of all crimes (Barnes, 2013; Gottfredson

and Hirschi, 1986; Nagin and Farrington, 1992; Piquero, 2011). This small group can

be distinguished from other offenders and from nonoffenders in not only the harm to

individuals and society they inflict but also the age of onset of criminal behavior, the

likelihood of longer “criminal careers,” and the likelihood of increasing seriousness of

involvement (DeLisi and Piquero, 2011; Farrington et al., 1990; Loeber and Farrington,

1998a; Moffitt, 1993).

Research consistently has shown a clear relationship between (a) serious, violent, and

chronic (SVC) delinquency and (b) a variety of problems and deficits, including sub-

stance use, mental health (including psychopathy) and externalizing behavior problems,

low self-control, problems at school, and victimization histories (DeLisi and Vaughn,2008;

Huizinga, Loeber, Thornberry, and Cothern, 2000; Jonkman, van Yperen, and Prinsen,

2008; Moffitt, 1993; Piquero, Moffitt, and Wright, 2007; Vaughn and Howard, 2005;

Vaughn et al., 2013). The consistent findings in criminal career research of a small life-

course-persistent group have led to several recent empirical explorations into this “severe

5%” and into the uniqueness of this group (Vaughn et al., 2011, 2013).

This article examines the prevalence of SVC offenders in a statewide diverse sample of

juvenile offenders across a 5-year period of referrals (juvenile arrests). In addition, this article

examines subsequent offending and the factors predictive of subsequent offending of youth

classified as SVC and non-SVC. Because of the paucity of inclusion of protective factors

in prior research, we include both risk and protective factors, as assessed by a risk/needs

assessment administered to all youth, in predictive models.

84 Criminology & Public Policy

Baglivio et al.

The research reported in this article relies on juvenile court records to describe juve-

nile offender careers. Pittsburgh Youth Study researchers compared SVC offender careers

from childhood onward as reflected in arrest and self-report data (Stouthamer-Loeber and

Loeber, 2002). Almost two thirds (60%) of the SVC group had a court petition by age 18.

Although gaps remain, juvenile court data provide useful databases for an examination of

distinctive features of offender careers. Because the adjudication process in juvenile courts

is nonadversarial, court findings of delinquency often come from youth self-confessions, as

well as from parent and teacher reports. Thus, juvenile offenders rarely are in a position

to deny guilt for adjudicated offenses. Still, juvenile court data do not provide a complete

history of offending careers. For one thing a lag in initial court referrals often occurs, and

not all offenses are brought to the attention of authorities (Stouthamer-Loeber and Loeber,

2002).

Serious, Violent, and Chronic Oenders

One of the first analyses classifying offenders as SVC was undertaken in 1998 to pro-

vide support for implementing the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

(OJJDP) Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

Snyder (1998) conducted this pioneering analysis on 16 birth cohorts (youth who turned

18 years of age from 1980 through 1995) in Maricopa County (Phoenix), AZ. Snyder

(1998) found that most of the 151,209 offending careers examined (64%) were not serious,

violent, or chronic. Thirty-four percent contained a serious offense; 15% met criteria for

chronic (four or more court referrals); 8% contained a violent offense; and only 3% met

criteria for all three being serious, violent, and chronic.

Loeber, Farrington, and Waschbusch (1998) replicated the Snyder analysis using the

Pittsburgh Youth Study finding similar subgroup sizes. A separate analysis used an older,

1958, birth cohort and examined gender differences in SVC prevalence (Kempf-Leonard,

Tracy, and Howell, 2001). Kempf-Leonard et al. found a much higher prevalence of SVC

(14.2%) for males and a lower (2%) prevalence for females; however, this study measured

delinquency in terms of officially recorded police encounters, including police contacts that

did not result in arrests. The question remains whether these prevalence rates hold true

today for youth born in 1989 or later, and how they differ by gender and race/ethnicity.

Although it is not classified into the SVC groupings, research examining criminal

careers and the severe 5% has shed light on these questions. Priorcriminal career research has

identified the male-to-female ratio of career offenders to be between 9:1 and 12:1, whereas

less is known of race/ethnicity differences (DeLisi and Piquero, 2011). In a nationally

representative sample of more than 40,000 adults (ages 18 and older), Vaughnet al. (2011),

using latent class analysis, found a 5.3% severe class characterized by high levels of both

antisocial behavior and substance use. They found both Blacks and Hispanics less likely than

Whites to be in the severe 5%; gender differences were not reported. Vaughn et al. (2013)

Volume 13 rIssue 1 85