Predictors
of Crime
In order to determine how to prevent
crime, it is important to know what causes crime. Research has shown a
consistent set of factors that predict the likelihood that individuals
will commit crimes (Loeber & Farrington, 1998). These predictors, or
risk factors, are broad and include individual, family, and community factors.
Studies show that the strength of any
given predictor is dependent upon the age of the person exposed to the
predictor. (See Table 2.).
Some of the strongest
predictors of future offending for youth ages 6 to 11 include prior criminal
behavior,
substance use, low socioeconomic status, antisocial parents, and aggressive
behavior. In contrast, many of the strongest predictors of future offending
for youth ages 12 to 14 revolve around peers; these include a lack of strong
social ties, antisocial peers, poor school attitude and performance, psychological
conditions such as impulsiveness, and prior delinquency. Individuals with
these strong risk factors are 5 to 20 times more likely to engage in serious
offending than those without these risk factors (Loeber & Farrington,
1998).
Table 2.
Strongest Predictors of Crime by Age
of Individual Exposed to Factor and Strength (Ranking) of Factor
|
Ages
6 to 11 |
Ages
12 to 14 |
|
Rank 1 (Strongest
Predictors) |
|
Criminal history
Substance use
|
Social ties
Antisocial peers
|
|
Rank 2 |
|
Family poverty
Antisocial parents
|
Criminal history |
|
Rank 3 |
|
Aggression |
Aggression
School attitude/performance
Psychological condition
Parent-child relationship
Physical violence
|
|
Rank 4 |
|
Psychological condition
Parent-child relationship
Social ties
Problem behavior
School attitude/performance
Medical/physical
IQ
Other family characteristics
|
Antisocial parents
History of crimes against persons
Problem behavior
IQ
|
|
Rank 5 |
|
Broken home
Abusive parents
Antisocial peers
|
Broken home
Family poverty
Abusive parents
Other family characteristics
Substance use
|
Note: Ranking 1 includes the strongest predictors.
Source: Loeber & Farrington, 1998
In addition to the age of the child, the number
of risk factors to which an individual is exposed influences the probability
that (s)he will engage in criminal behavior. As Table
3 shows, the risk of offending is greatest among individuals with
multiple risk factors. In a 1990 study of Denver youth ages 11 to 17,
14% of children with one risk factor committed serious or violent offenses,
while 68% of children with four risk factors committed serious or violent
offenses.
Table 3.
Percentage of Juveniles with Risk Factors
Becoming Type of Offender
|
Number
of Risk Factors |
Serious/
Violent Offender |
Minor
Delinquent |
Non-Delinquent |
Percent
of Juveniles with Risk Factors |
|
0 |
5% |
13% |
83% |
22% |
|
1 |
14% |
25% |
62% |
39% |
|
2 |
26% |
32% |
43% |
27% |
|
3 |
44% |
32% |
25% |
10% |
|
4 |
68% |
20% |
13% |
3% |
Note: Due to rounding errors, some rows or
columns total more than 100%
Source: Loeber & Farrington, 1998
This research suggests that, when determining how
to prevent crime, it is important to provide services to youth with
multiple risk factors that affect the strongest predictors at the right ages.
Because many of the factors that predict criminal behavior are the
same
factors that predict substance abuse, dropping out of school, early
sexual involvement, and teen pregnancy (Loeber & Farrington, 1998), reducing
the prevalence of these factors in Travis County would have benefits
beyond crime reduction.
RETURN
TO TOP
INDIVIDUAL
RISK FACTORS
Prior Delinquency
At any age, often the best predictor
of future criminal behavior is past criminal behavior (Loeber & Dishion,
1983). In 1999, two of every three juveniles referred to Travis County
Juvenile Probation (TCJP) had at least one prior referral to Juvenile Probation.4
For first-time juvenile offenders,
the likelihood of re-offending depends upon the type of offense committed. Figure
1 shows that Travis County juveniles who committed the most serious
first offenses were the most likely to re-offend. For example, while only
12% of first-time offenders with status offenses re-offended, 23% with
felonies re-offended.
As with juveniles, the number of prior
offenses is a predictor for adult offending. Most adult offenders have
a history of offending that extends back into their youth. Almost all (94%)
of the adult offenders incarcerated in the Community Justice Center (Travis
County's state jail) from March 1998 to February 1999, for example, had
been arrested previously, and 80% had convictions prior to their state
jail felony conviction (Travis County Justice and Public Safety, January
2000).
Figure 1.
Re-Offense Rates for First-Time TCJP Offenders by First Offense, CY 1998
Source: Travis County Juvenile Probation Department
RETURN
TO TOP
Academic
Attitude and Performance
Academic failure, a low commitment
to schooling, truancy, and dropping out of school have consistently been
shown to predict later criminal behavior. A study by Farrington, for
example, showed that 20% of boys with poor performance in elementary school
were
convicted of violent offenses as adults (Loeber & Farrington, 1998).
Figure 2.
Percent of Students in Attendance, by School District, School Year (SY) 1998
Source: Texas Education Agency, AEIS reports
One measure of a child's commitment
to schooling, and a precursor to dropping out of school, is school attendance.
Attendance rates at all Travis County school districts improved from SY
1994 to 1997. From SY 1997 to SY 1998, however, attendance rates at Eanes,
Lago Vista, and Lake Travis Independent School Districts decreased slightly.
In SY 1998, Austin, Del Valle, and Lago Vista Independent School Districts
(ISDs) were below the State average on attendance rates. (See
Figure 2.) Districts with decreases may benefit from implementing truancy
prevention programs in their schools.
In addition to attendance rates, academic success can be measured by scores
on standardized tests. The percentage of students passing all parts of
the TAAS test increased from SY 1994 to SY 1998 at all Travis County
school districts. From SY 1998 to SY 1999, however, the percentage of
students passing the TAAS test decreased at Austin, Eanes, Lake Travis,
and Manor ISDs. In SY 1999, Austin and Manor ISDs were below the State
average in the percentage of students passing the TAAS.
RETURN
TO TOP
Substance Use
|
Studies show that substance use, especially
at a young age, is a predictor of future criminal behavior. After
years of steady increases, the use of illicit drugs among American
teenagers is decreasing (Yahoo! News, November 22, 1999). This national
trend is evident in Travis County, as well. From SY 1998 to SY 1999,
AISD 4th through 12th grade students reported
decreases in recent use of tobacco, alcohol, inhalants, and marijuana.
Despite these decreases, nearly one in two AISD 12th graders
report recent use of alcohol; over one in three report recent use
of tobacco; and over one in four report recent use of marijuana. (See
Figure 3.)
|
80%
of the adults in U.S. prisons are locked up because of criminal
activity linked to drug and alcohol abuse.
Superville, January 8, 1998
|
Figure 3.
Percent of AISD Students Reporting Recent Use of Substances by Grade
Level and Substance, SY 1999 
Source: Austin Independent School District, Title IV
Evaluation Report
Because similar data is not available for other school
districts, it is difficult to know whether rural areas of Travis County
have seen similar decreases in substance use. A study by the National Center
on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University suggests, however,
that young teens in rural areas are significantly more likely to smoke,
drink, and use illegal drugs than teens in urban areas (Yahoo! News, January
26, 2000). The study found that 8th graders in rural areas were
83% more likely to use crack cocaine, 50% likelier to use cocaine, 34%
likelier to smoke marijuana, 29% likelier to drink alcohol, 70% likelier
to get drunk, over 200% likelier to smoke cigarettes, and nearly 500% likelier
to use smokeless tobacco than were students in urban areas. This study
suggests that rural areas of Travis County may especially benefit from
increased substance abuse prevention programming.
RETURN
TO TOP
Psychological
Condition
Research shows that psychological characteristics,
such as hyperactivity, attention deficit, impulsivity, risk taking, aggressiveness,
antiestablishment and antisocial attitudes and behavior, learning problems,
and developmental disabilities are related to criminal behavior (Loeber & Farrington,
1998).
Figure 4.
Percentage of Juveniles Referred to TCJP with Mental Health Assessment Scores,
1999
Source: Travis County Juvenile Probation, SUS scores
The Texas Department
of Mental Health and Mental Retardation estimates the annual prevalence
of mental illness among adults in Texas to be about 20% (Heikes, February
2000). According to a state study, Texas prisons had about 15,700 inmates
and county jails had about 5,900 inmates receiving treatment and/or
drugs for mental illness. In addition, 40% of the juveniles in the
Texas Youth
Commission's residential population in 1998 were assessed as emotionally
disturbed. In Travis County, about 15% of county jail inmates have mental
health issues (Travis County Sheriff's Office), and about one-half
of juveniles referred to Juvenile Probation showed high to moderate
need
on a mental health assessment (Travis County Juvenile Probation Department).
RETURN
TO TOP
Social Ties
As was mentioned previously, social ties are important
predictors, especially for young adolescents. Low popularity and being
engaged in few positive social activities are predictors of criminal
behavior (Loeber & Farrington, 1998). In addition, a relationship exists between
having delinquent or antisocial friends or siblings during adolescence
and later violence. Not surprisingly, gang membership is also a predictor
of criminal behavior (Loeber & Farrington, 1998).
Table 4.
Number of Gang Members Referred to TCJP by Zip Code of Residence, CY 1999
|
Zip
Code |
Gang
Members Referred |
Percentage
of Total |
|
78702 |
35 |
11% |
|
78744 |
34 |
11% |
|
78723 |
32 |
10% |
|
78704 |
27 |
9% |
|
78741 |
25 |
8% |
|
Others |
163 |
51% |
|
Total |
316 |
100% |
Source: Travis County Juvenile Probation
Data from Juvenile Probation shows that the percentage
of juveniles referred that were affiliated with gangs decreased from 14%
in CY 1998 to 9% in CY 1999. As Table 4 shows, nearly
one in every three gang members referred to Juvenile Probation in 1999
lived in the 78702, 78723, and 78744 zip codes. This data suggests that
if gang reduction programs are implemented, they should be directed to
these areas of the County.
RETURN
TO TOP
FAMILY
RISK FACTORS
Family functioning factors are among the strongest
predictors of crime, especially for younger children. Household composition,
poor parental monitoring, poor discipline, a family history of criminality,
parental conflict, a lack of family cohesion, and low socioeconomic status
are general risk variables for criminal behavior.
Household Composition
Several studies have concluded that children from
single-parent families or stepfamilies are more likely to engage in criminal
behavior than are those from two-parent families. Nationally, the percentage
of children living in two-parent homes declined from 85% in 1970 to 68%
in 1997 (Snyder & Sickmund, September 1999). In the general Travis
County population, 22% of children live in single-parent families (Texas
Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, 1999). However,
55% of juveniles referred to Juvenile Probation in 1999 lived in single-parent
households. (See Figure 5.)
Some research suggests that low socioeconomic status
due to a single income, rather than single parenthood itself, may be
the primary reason for the increased risk of offending for children from single
parent families. In 1997, for example, almost one-half of American children
living in female-headed households lived in poverty (Snyder & Sickmund,
September 1999).
In addition to being a risk factor for committing
crime, household composition is related to child victimization. The National
Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect reported that children of single
parents were twice as likely to be neglected and marginally more likely
to be abused as children living with both parents. Again, low socioeconomic
status may be the primary reason for the increased risk.
Figure 5.
Referrals to Travis County Juvenile Probation by Household Type, CY 1999
Source: Travis County Juvenile Probation
The study also reported that children living in large
families with four or more children were more than twice as likely to
be neglected than those living in smaller families with two or three children
(Snyder & Sickmund, September 1999). Again, this increased risk may
be due to socioeconomic issues. Currently, the average family size in
Travis County is 3.1 people (Texas Association of Child Care Resource
and Referral
Agencies, 1999). National data shows that, in the last 30 years, the
percentage of small families (one or two people) has been increasing,
while the percentage
of large families (five or more people) has been decreasing (United States
Census Bureau).
In addition to family type and size, teen parenting
is a predictor of crime, not only for the child, but also for the parents,
particularly the father. According to the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), teenage fathers
are more likely than other youth to commit delinquent acts, be involved
in drug dealing, use alcohol, and drop out of school (Office
of Justice Programs, February 3, 2000).
The number of Travis County teens that became pregnant
decreased by 11.6%, from 942 in 1997 to 833 in 1998. Despite the decrease,
Travis County's teen pregnancy rate is among the highest in the state
(Texas Department of Health). (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6.
Number of Pregnant Teens (Ages 13 to 17) per 1,000 by County, 1998
Source: Texas Department of Health, Vital Statistics Bureau
RETURN
TO TOP
Parent-Child
Relationship
According to social control theory, children that
bond to their families are less likely to engage in delinquent behavior.
Not surprisingly then, disruptions of the parent-child relationship are
often related to criminal behavior. The degree and quality to which parents
interact with their children and are involved in their lives have also
been shown to predict criminal behavior.
Table 5.
Likelihood of Arrest by Type of Child Abuse/Neglect Experienced
|
Type
of Abuses |
Juvenile
Arrest |
Adult
Arrest |
|
Any Sexual Abuse |
22.2% |
20.3% |
|
Any Physical Abuse |
19.9% |
27.4% |
|
Any Neglect |
28.4% |
30.7% |
|
All Cases of Abuse & Neglect |
26.0% |
28.6% |
|
Control Group |
16.8% |
21.0% |
Source: National
Institute of Justice, March 1995
Along these lines, research indicates that abuse or
neglect during childhood increases the risk of later criminal behavior.
The National Institute of Justice (March,
1995) conducted a study on victims of childhood sexual abuse and later
criminal consequences and found that children who were abused or neglected
were more likely than people who were not maltreated to be arrested later
in life. As Table 5 shows, the likelihood of arrest
was especially high in cases of neglect.
Travis County child abuse and neglect rates remained
relatively stable from 1996 to 1998, with about 1% of Travis County children
being confirmed victims of child abuse in 1998. However, according to the Texas
Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS), in 1998,
an estimated 27,830 children in Travis County, or one in every six or seven
children, were considered by TDPRS to be at risk for child abuse and/or
neglect. In addition, as Figure 7 shows, of the seven
highest child populated areas in the state, Travis County has the highest
rate of confirmed victims per 1,000 children.
Figure 7.
Confirmed Victims of Child Abuse/Neglect Per 1,000 Children, by County, FY
1998
Source: Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
Abuse or neglect is sometimes so severe that it results
in the death of a child. Homes in which children die from abuse or neglect
often include (Texas Department
of Protective and Regulatory Services):
- parents who are overwhelmed by care-giving responsibilities, and exhibit
a low tolerance for stress and hold unrealistic expectations for their
child's
behavior,
- emotionally immature parents, who are indifferent toward their
child and put adult needs first and repeatedly make choices that jeopardize
their
child's
safety,
- single mothers who make poor choices about their male partners
who consequently engage in behavior leading to the child's death,
- parents and
other household members with a history of violence and drug and alcohol
abuse,
- very young children or children who are otherwise vulnerable due to physical
or mental impairments, and
- a chaotic home invironment with minimal resources
and poor support systems.
In addition to abuse or neglect, a low level of
supervision, inconsistent discipline, and a low level of warmth or
a negative attitude towards a child increase the risk of engaging in
criminal behavior. Because these predictors are difficult to measure,
it is not currently possible to determine to what extent these predictors
are present in Travis County. However, research suggests that parenting
classes are an effective tool for addressing these family risk factors.
RETURN
TO TOP
Parent Characteristics
In addition to the way a parent interacts with or
disciplines a child, the attitudes and behaviors of parents can affect
the likelihood of criminal behavior. Criminal activity, negative attitudes,
and psychopathology of parents contribute to criminal behavior of their
children.
Parental attitudes favorable to violence, for example,
increase a child's risk of engaging in criminal behavior. A study of 8,000
middle school students in a large urban area found the strongest predictor
of aggressive behavior was the perception of parents' feelings about
fighting. Middle school students who say that their parents are against
fighting
are significantly less likely to fight or behave aggressively (Yahoo!
News, November 19, 1999).
Similarly, parents who engage in criminal behaviors
are more likely to have children who are delinquent (Yahoo! News, December
20, 1999). Between January 1998 to July 1999, approximately 60% of the
female and 46% of the male intakes into the Travis County Community Justice
Center had children (Wilkinson, et. al., January 2000).
National statistics also show that children who learn
about the risks of drug use from their parents are 36% less likely to smoke
marijuana, 50% less likely to use inhalants, 56% less likely to use cocaine,
and 65% less likely to use LSD than children whose parents do not teach
them about the dangers of drugs (Office of National Drug Control Policy).
RETURN
TO TOP
Family Stress
High family stress and marital discord are also predictors
of criminal behavior. Divorce is often a result of years of marital discord.
Despite the increase in the Travis County population, the number of divorces
decreased by 4% from 1997 to 1998.
Figure 8.
Reported Incidents of Family Violence in Travis County, 1996 to 1998
Source: Texas Department of Public Safety
When marital discord escalates into violence, children,
as well as spouses, suffer. Studies show that children who witness violence
are more likely to display future aggressive or violent behavior than
are children who do not (Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Similarly, children
who witness domestic violence are more likely to become violent offenders
than are children who do not. In studies of men's batterer treatment
programs, 63%-75% of men had either experienced physical abuse or had
witnessed physical
abuse involving their parents (Maryland Family Violence Coalition, 1991).
Figure 8 shows the reported incidents
of family violence in Travis County. After a 7% increase from 1996 to 1997,
reports of domestic violence decreased by 16% from 1997 to 1998.
RETURN
TO TOP
COMMUNITY
RISK FACTORS
Socioeconomic
Status
Community-level analyses have linked neighborhood
poverty to violent crime (Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Farrington
found that low socioeconomic status as a child was predictive of teen
violence.
While 8.8% of the boys in his study that did not suffer from poverty
were convicted of violent offenses, 23% of the boys living in poverty
were convicted
of violent offenses.
Travis County, like the rest of the nation, is currently
experiencing an economic boom. The percentage of Travis County residents
living in households with incomes below the federal poverty threshold decreased
from 15.4% in 1996 to 13.1% in 1999. In addition, the Travis County unemployment
rate has been steadily decreasing for the last decade and is now a low
1.9%, the second lowest rate in Texas (Texas
Workforce Commission, April 2000).
Figure 9.
Percent of Travis County Students Who Are Economically Disadvantaged, by School
District, SY 1999
Source: Texas Education Agency, AEIS reports
Despite the good economy, not all Travis County residents
are experiencing prosperity. It is estimated that over 87,000 residents
live in poverty (United States Census Bureau, February 1999). In addition,
in SY 1999, approximately two in three Del Valle Independent School District
(ISD) students and one in two Austin ISD and Manor ISD students were economically
disadvantaged. (See Figure 9.)
Likewise, while the unemployment rate of the general
Travis County population is around 2%, the unemployment rate of parents
of juveniles referred to Travis County Juvenile Probation (TCJP) is 14%. (See
Figure 10.)
Figure 10.
Juveniles Referred to TCJP by Parents' Employment Status, 1999
Source: Travis County Juvenile Probation
RETURN
TO TOP
Community Disorder
For decades, research has confirmed what most people
intuitively know: there is a relationship between crime, fear of crime,
and disorderly conditions in communities. As far back as 1967, research
presented to the President's Commission on Law Enforcement clearly stated
this conclusion (Biderman, et. al, 1967). This relationship between disorder
and crime is known as the "broken windows" theory and is described in Figure
11.
Following the theory, "broken windows" can refer to
both physical decay and social incivilities. Examples of physical decay
include abandoned buildings, graffiti, litter, vacant and trash-filled
lots, unkempt yards and housing exteriors, and abandoned cars. Examples
of social incivilities include public drinking or drunkenness, rowdy
and unsupervised teen groups, sexual harassment on the street, and fighting
among neighbors.
Figure 11.
"Broken Windows" Theory
Source: Taylor & Harrell, January 1996
One of the most readily identifiable and quantifiable
indicators of physical decay and neglect is graffiti. Since 1995, the
City of Austin has operated a Graffiti Abatement Program that has maintained
both a hotline for citizen reports of graffiti and patrols by clean-up
crews to remove graffiti. From a peak of close to 5,000 in 1997-98, reported
graffiti has declined the past two years as the backlog of existing graffiti
was finally eliminated and the rate of new "tagging" has declined. Over
the life of the program, response time (from report to cleanup) has improved
from over a month (38 days in 1996-97) to under a week (5.5 days in 1999-00)
(City of Austin, February 2000).
In general, Austin residents surveyed in 1999 indicated
a high level of satisfaction with the physical appearance of their neighborhoods.
Of all respondents, 81% had a favorable opinion of their neighborhood appearance.
Even the least positive response, from Southeast Austin, was 65% positive
(City of Austin, 1999).
RETURN
TO TOP
Community Cohesiveness
While the discussion of community disorder focuses
largely on the tangible and visible indicators of community, another
closely related line of research focuses on the intangible indicators of community
cohesion. These intangibles capture the feelings of safety and security
that result from "collective efficacy", such as mutual trust, a willingness
to intervene in the supervision of children, a willingness to help neighbors,
and the general maintenance of public order. When the level of collective
efficacy is low, feelings of danger and fear are likely to rise. This
approach has been used to explain variation in violence and criminal
victimization
across otherwise comparable neighborhoods (Sampson, et. al., 1997).
According to the Central
Texas Indicators 2000 report, 72% of Travis County residents reported
being "very" or "somewhat comfortable" asking a nearby neighbor for
help or a small favor. Analyses showed a positive relationship between
the
number of years that the individual lived in the same neighborhood
and comfort levels (City of Austin, March 2000).
Figure 12.
Percent of Austin Residents Who Felt Safe Walking Alone, 1995 to 1999
Source: City of Austin, November 1999
The citizen survey conducted by the City of Austin
in early 1999 shows generally high feelings of safety across the community. (See
Figure 12.) The data does, however, indicate some notable exceptions
to this finding. First, there are marked differences in feelings of security
during the day compared to after dark, especially in downtown Austin.
Figure 13.
Percent of Residents Who Rated Neighborhood Safety as Favorable, 1999
Note: Rating options for neighborhood safety included "favorable", "unfavorable",
and "neutral".
Source: City of Austin, November 1999
In addition, perceptions of general neighborhood safety
vary depending upon the location of residence. While almost all residents
living in western areas of Austin reported favorable levels of neighborhood
safety, this was not true for residents of eastern areas of the city (City
of Austin, November 1999). (See Figure 13.)
RETURN
TO TOP
PROTECTIVE
FACTORS
In addition to negative factors that put individuals
at risk for criminal behavior, there are protective factors, or assets,
that, if in place, act as buffers and help reduce the likelihood of criminal
behavior. Research by the Search Institute, among others, identified protective
factors that have a positive affect on the lives of youth. These factors
include characteristics of the child, their family, and their community
and are listed in Table 6.
Table 6.
Internal and External Protective Factors
|
Category |
Asset |
Description |
|
Internal Assets |
Commitment to Learning |
Motivation to achieve; Engagement in school; Involvement
in homework, Bonding to school, Reading for pleasure |
|
Positive Values |
Caring, honest, & responsible; Believes in equality & social
justice, Shows integrity & restraint |
|
Social Competencies |
Planning & decision making skills, Interpersonal & cultural
competence, Resistance skills, Peaceful conflict resolution |
|
Positive Identity |
Personal power, Self-esteem, Sense of purpose, Positive
view of personal future |
|
External Assets |
Support |
Support from family & other adults, Caring neighborhood & school,
Parent involvement in schooling, Positive family communications |
|
Empowerment |
Youth as resources to community, Service to others |
|
Boundaries & Expectations |
Family, school, & neighborhood boundaries, Adult
role models, High expectations from others, Positive peer influence |
|
Constructive Use of Time |
Creative activities, Youth programs, Spiritual community,
Time at home |
Source: Search Institute, 1997
Similarly, the Travis County Community Justice Council
and the University of Texas School of Social Work helped local neighborhoods
identify protective factors in their communities. They held focus groups
in various neighborhoods in Travis County to determine what makes neighborhoods
safe and healthy. As Table 7 shows, community members
listed community cohesiveness, positive relationships, and community order
as the top indicators of safe and healthy neighborhoods.
Table 7.
Top Indicators of a Safe and Healthy Neighborhood by Neighborhood
|
Indicators |
Northeast
Austin |
Southeast
Austin |
Dawson/
S. Congress |
Del
Valle Community |
|
Knowing your neighbors |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Little street crime |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Diversity of residents |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Businesses to support neighborhood |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
Activities for youth and elderly; prevention programs |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
Good schools in the neighborhood |
X |
X |
|
|
|
Opportunities for learning |
X |
|
X |
|
|
Community pride; clean neighborhoods |
|
X |
|
X |
|
Relationship with police |
|
X |
|
X |
|
Government investment in community: access to services,
library, transportation |
|
|
X |
X |
|
Most residents employed or retired |
X |
|
|
|
|
Parents active in schools |
X |
|
|
|
|
Kids and people visible in yards/outdoors |
X |
|
|
|
|
Natural areas preserved |
|
|
X |
|
Source: Travis County Community Justice Council
Assessment Home
4. While one in three juveniles had
at least one prior referrals, on average, only 30% of juveniles referred
to Juvenile Probation offend more than once in any given calendar year (Travis
County Juvenile Probation)
