Laura H. Carnell Professor of Psychology

Temple University

Before the

Subcommittee on Crime of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee

March 11, 1999

I am Laura H. Carnell Professor of Psychology at Temple University in Philadelphia. I specialize in the study of psychological development during childhood and adolescence. I received my Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Cornell University and have held faculty positions at the University of California and the University of Wisconsin. I am a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and the current President of the Society for Research on Adolescence, the largest professional organization in the world of social scientists interested in psychological development between the ages of 10 and 20. In addition, I am the Director of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice.

I can think of very few topics that inspire more heated, or more misinformed, debate than that of juvenile crime. I would like to take this opportunity, as a social scientist who works with hard facts, and not inflamed rhetoric, to clarify a number of key issues for this committee.

The graduated sanctions proposal that is presently under consideration would represent a significant change in practice. As such, it warrants our very careful scrutiny and deliberation.

If there is one thing that research on effective responses to juvenile offending tells us, it is that there is no such thing as "one size fits all," even when we are talking about youngsters who have committed the very same offense. I agree that we should respond with celerity and certainty to all juvenile offenses, no matter how minor. But the best response - the one that is most likely to prevent future offending - depends on the offender and the circumstances of the offense. More than two-thirds of nonviolent offenders never reoffend at all, without any sanction or intervention whatsoever. For most first-time offenders, therefore, diversion out of the justice system is th best and least costly response, and the response that has the least likelihood of harming that child's life in a way that will have long-term repercussions. Other juveniles may need some sort of intensive intervention, either family-based or through a supervised community-based program. A smaller number will require some sort of longer-term residential placement. Some need treatment for substance abuse, while others need special education, and still others need psychological counseling. Some may need all of the above. Adolescence is a time of tremendous variability.

I am not opposed to sanctions for juvenile offenders. Indeed, there are some offenders for whom punishment is a very appropriate response. But there are other offenders who will be affected by the very same punishment in a way that will make them more likely, not less likely, to reoffend. We know that this is especially likely if the punishment brings the nonviolent offender into contact with violent and more serious delinquents, or with adult criminals. Adolescence is a critical period in development, a period during which many decisions and choices have long-term implications for the successful transition into adulthood. A young person whose educational or occupational development is interrupted when it need not be - for instance, if a juvenile who actually is not dangerous is forced to spend time in a correctional institution - will end up at greater risk for later unemployment mental health problems, and criminal activity. Surely none of us here wishes to respond to a juvenile offender in a way that is going to increase that juvenile's chances of becoming a danger to the community.

My point is that effective intervention requires the careful, individualized assessment of a juvenile's history and living circumstances, as well as the conditions surrounding the offense. I am concerned that any prescribed system of mandatory, graudated sanctions that is based soley on the nature and number of a juvenile's offenses, without taking into account the juvenile's history and stage of development, will impede the justice system's ability to respond intelligently and with appropriate flexibility. Moreover, the system's ability to respond effectively will be further compromised by implementing policies that will mandate that we process proportionately more nonviolent offenders through court, the majority of whom could be safely diverted from the system, at tremendous savings to taxpayers.

Hearings like today's rarely include testimony about the juvenile justice system's successes - young people who, through appropriate diversion or effective rehabilitation, return to their community and develop into productive, taxpaying citizens. Of course it is possible to recount stories of offenders who were not sanctioned initially and who later reoffended, perhaps even violently. But this is not evidence that the reoffending would not have occurred if these juveniles who were sanctioned, even harshly, and who, after their release, went on to reoffend - as research on youngsters who have been tried and incarcerated as adults indicates. As some of you know, reoffending is more likely among juveniles who have been sanctioned within the criminal justice system than it is among their counterparts who have been sanctioned and treated as juveniles.

It is tempting to think that if a given punishment has not worked, the sensible thing to do is to punish the person more, or more harshly. Bust more is not always better. When a drug that has been prescribed for an illness fails to work, the best responss is not always to give more of the same medicine. Indeed, quite often the best response is to change the course of treatment entirely. In the case of a juvenile who has offended more than once, the best response is to examine what was done initially, figure out why it was not effective, and respond in a way that is likely to be successful. We can easily make things worse by intervening in a way that is inappropriate for a given offender.

There is no scientific research indicating that increasing the severity of a juvenile's punishment lessens the chance of his or her reoffending, and there is even some evidence that severe sanctions actually increase the risk of reoffending. Nor is there any evidence that punitive strategies have a general deterrent effect on juvenile. In contrast, there is strong research showing that high-quality, developmentally-appropriate, adequately-funded, delinquency prevention and treatment programs work. States and local communities need the funding and freedom to develop and maintain effective prevention programs, high-quality comprehensive interventions for serious juvenile offenders, and secure residential facilities for the small proportion of offenders who pose a genuine risk to public safety.

The general principle of responding differently to repeat offenders than first offenders is a reasonable one, and one with which I concur. But insisting that all juvenile offenders be sanctioned punitively, and mandating that the severity of the punishment must increase with each offense in a rigid, predetermined fashion is both unwise and potentially dangerous. Forcing states to implement a mandatory graduated sanctions policy for nonviolent offenders will siphon money away from delinquency prevention and treatment programs that work. It will overburden an already overwhelmed and inadequately funded juvenile justice system. And it is likely to have the unintentional effect of increasing, no decreasing, violent juvenile offending.

Changes in juvenile justice policy need to be based on solid research evidence, not intuition or anecdote. In this case, the research evidence points conclusively to the benefits of individualized, developmentally-appropriate responses to juvenile offending. In order to promote public safety, Congress should support state and local initiatives to do just this.