Chronic Serious Juvenile Offenders

by Wolfgang Pindur, Ph.D. and Donna K. Wells

Bill (fictitious name) is a juvenile who was arrested in connection with the stabbing death of an 18-year-old male during a fight. At the time of his arrest, Bill had already been involved with the juvenile justice system a number of times yet he had never been adjudicated on any offense. Instead, all of his prior offenses had been resolved at the intake level.

When Bill was just 11 years old, he was charged with petty theft; the next day the offense was settled at intake. Three years later Bill was arrested and charged with burglary and conspiracy and also with possession of a switchblade. Less than a week later the case was settled at intake. Two days after being charged with burglary and conspiracy, Bill was picked up and charged with being drunk in public. The case was handled informally. A month later he was charged with disturbing the peace; again the case was handled informally.

At the age of 15, Bill was charged with possession of alcohol, possession of mari- juana, and possession of a dangerous weapon. Two weeks later, Bill was again charged with those offenses. He was placed on informal supervision which was then dismissed three months later. During the period of supervision, Bill was once charged

with violation of the informal supervision. The incident was handled at intake.

Six months after his informal supervision was dismissed, when Bill was 16, he was charged with school trespass, possession of a knife, and possession of alcohol. Again the matter was handled at intake. Five months later, Bill was again charged with school trespass. One week later the matter was settled at intake. Less than three months later, Bill stabbed two young men. One of them died a few hours later.

Bill’s case provides an example of some of the difficulties associated with chronic juvenile offenders. Although he was appre- hended nine times on 16 charges, until he was charged with homicide, there was never a sustained petition against him.

Serious Juvenile Crime

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan appointed the National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- vention (NAC) and charged the members to review the “federal response to the growing problem of juvenile crime.” The NAC studied the problem for the greater part of the year, examining programs and consult- ing with various judges, law enforcement

19861 Juvenile & Farnib Court Journal 27

Wolfgang Pindur, Ph.D. and Donna K. Wells

officers, program administrators and juve- nile offenders. They concluded that the major juvenile justice problem facing the U.S. today is the serious, chronic, violent juvenile offender. Further, they noted that few, if any, federal programs focused their efforts on this type of offender.

When the NAC published its report to the President in March, 1984, one of the four major recommendations was that a federal initiative was needed in the fight against serious juvenile crime. This would allow for both meaningful research and also centralized dissemination of information through training and technical assistance. Another recommendation stressed the im- portance of diversity noting the federal initiative should be designed to assist local governments rather than imposing the “latest beliefs about best practice.” This approach would encourage both diversity and innovation rather than limiting localities through federal mandates. This type of thinking was reflected in the research, test and demonstration approach of the Serious Habitual Offender/ Drug Involved Program (SHO/DI).

During the same period of time, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges met in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to endorse 38 recommendations relating to the chronic juvenile offender. The recommendations of the National Council will have far-reaching implications for all professionals in the field of juvenile justice.

A growing concern with the chronic juvenile offender was also shown by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) when it initiated a research, test and demonstration program which focused on chronic, serious offenders. SHO/DI was begun in May, 1983, in police departments in five cities across the country: Colorado Springs, Colorado; Jacksonville, Florida; Oxnard, California; Portsmouth, Virginia; and San Jose, California.

Program Goals

SHO/ DI has two primary objectives. The first is to identify and respond quickly to

chronic, serious juvenile delinquents. In conjunction with this, the second major objective of the program is to build greater cooperation, coordination, and appropriate information sharing among all juvenile justice-related agencies. This includes not only police, prosecution, the courts, and probation, but also schools and social services.

The SHO/DI program is designed, at least in part, to respond to the charge that the chronic, serious offenders “fall through the cracks of the system.” Although it has been alleged that juvenile courts are too lenient with this type of delinquent, the fact is that most of these juveniles do not even make it into court. Rather, they are diverted out of the juvenile justice system, early in the process, often before they ever get to court. According to Paul Strasburg,

“Between 80 and 90 percent of arrested children are diverted or dropped from the judicial process with little or no supervision. Half are diverted by the police themselves. And up to two-thirds of the cases left may be withdrawn, dismissed, or adjourned in contem- plation of dismissal.”

It took nearly 18 months for the SHO/ DI program to be developed, tested, and implemented in each of the sites. Their actual chronic serious offender population is very small. In each city they represent less than one percent of the entire juvenile population.

Serious Juvenile Offender Population

Currently there are approximately 268 identified chronic serious offenders in the five SHO/ DI sites. They are overwhelmingly male and are disproportionately black and Hispanic as compared to their proportion in the population. Table I illustrates their arrest history. Although one juvenile has a total of 35 arrests, the average number of past arrests is 9.5.

Typically, these juveniles begin offending at a very young age (see Table 11). Two of the current population were first arrested at age six. They provide an insight into the illegal activity of these identified delinquents.

28 Juvenile & Family Court Journal/ 1986

Chronic Serious Juvenile Offenders

Table I

Arrest History

Number of Arrests 1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17+

Percentage of Serious Offender Population 7.8 41.5 30.8 12.2 7.9

One of these two boys is now 11 years old. He has accumulated a total of 12 arrests. The current charge against him is for burglary/ grand theft. The other juvenile, first arrested at age six, is currently nine years of age. He has been arrested 10 times. He has only one formal adjudication. Overall, over half (52.4%) of the population had been arrested at least once by the time they were 12 years old.

Presently the average age of the chronic serious offender is 15.9 years. This has remained fairly constant since the program began. The youngest juvenile to qualify as a chronic serious delinquent was just eight years of age. He is now nine years old and was recently arrested on burglary/ battery charges. Table I11 indicates the current age range of these juveniles.

School attendance among habitual of- fenders is rather low. Only about half (49%) are now enrolled in school and very few

actually attend on a regular basis. Similarly, those who do attend are frequently truant.

It is also interesting to note that most of these offenders commit crimes within a 1.5 mile radius of their homes. They also usually commit crimes with associates rather than alone.

It is already apparent that the information being collected on habitual, serious offenders will have implications for not only juvenile justice agencies, but also for social services, mental health agencies, schools, and com- munity groups. As detailed data is analyzed, it is being used by these agencies in the five sites to formulate policy and procedures.

It is important to remember that the chronic, serious juvenile offender population is very, very small. Overall they represent less than one percent of the entire juvenile population. They are, however, responsible for a good deal of criminal activity. Research has shown that juveniles commit

Table I1 Age at First Arrest

Age (in Years) 6-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16

Percentage of the Identified Population 4.9 11.5 36.0 35.7 11.9

Table 111

Current Age of Serious Offender Population

Age (in Years) 9-1 1 12-14 15-16 17-18

Percentage of the Identified Population 1.9 12.2 41.3 44.7

19861 Juvenile & Family Court Journal 29

Wolfgang Pindur, Ph. D. and Donna K. Wells

about one-third of the serious crime in the juvenile accountable for his activity, it also United States. further enhances the safety of the

Many critics of the juvenile justice system community. argue that juvenile court is ineffective in dealing with serious offenders. In truth, Authors’ Addresses many times juvenile judges never see these Professor Pindur

National Field Manager SHO/DI Program kids. As the profile of Bill illustrates, such juveniles may be diverted out of the system Old Dominion University time and time again, never making it Norfolk, VA 23508-8529 through the adjudication process. The

Donna K. Wells SHO/DI program, on the other hand, SHO/DI Program recommends that all such chronic offenders be petitioned to Court for every provable offense. Not only does this make the Norfolk, VA 23508-8529

of the Executive Director

of the Executive Director Old Dominion University

30 Juvenile & Family Court Journal/ 1986