Full Cycle: Then and Now

-->

           Today’s criminal justice system has and continues to evolve into what we hope is more successful in reducing crime.  It seems as thought since time began, incarceration has been a form of punishment. Even when juveniles began to be incarcerated, the punishment was harsh. Over time, court systems and communities have changed their views on what should be done with young offenders. By the 20^th century, we had changed our idea about youth, and began to develop a different kind of punishment for them, prevention and deterrence. However, juveniles in our criminal justice system were not always allotted this opportunity.

In an article by Claire Shubic and Jessica Kendell, Rethinking Juvenile Status Offense Law: Considerations for Congressional Review of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention, they explain the history of the term “juvenile delinquent.” It was created in order to separate children from adults in the criminal justice system. Also, in 1961, California was the first state to create a special category for juvenile status offenders. The goals of these laws were to decrease the stigmatization of status offenders by being able to tell status offenders from delinquents. By the late 1960s, there was concern among juvenile representatives that the court-based status-offense system, created as a result of the juvenile delinquency system, often failed to act in the youth’s best interests. In 1967, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice released the Task Force Report on Juvenile Delinquency, which found that many status offenders were housed in jails and similar secure detention facilities. The Commission recommended that delinquent offenders be removed from secure custody, reasoning that families and community-based organizations should be responsible for these delinquent youth. Over time, our community being responsible for the delinquent youth, our criminal justice system has continued to develop programs that are aimed to keep juveniles out of the system.

Although all of those programs have not all been successful, some have, and they are continuing to evolve and become more successful. “The numbers have certainly reduced: a 21.6 per cent reduction against the 2005/06 baseline had been achieved nationally by 2008/09 with far greater falls in many parts of the country,” (Smyth). Although I would like to be able to say this was a statistic that was represented in California, it is not, this is a statistic that pertains to England. This article, “What Have We Done Right? Targets and Youth Crime Prevention,” takes a look into the strategies that England has developed over the years and what has made them so successful. It explains what their focus is on and how their system has also changed over the years. “We need to intervene as early as we can to stand the best chance of preventing such children from going down the wrong route,” (McVeigh). England, like the U.S, sees the importance of getting to the root of the cause of delinquent behavior.

According to Jerome Driessen, in Hennepin County, the daily population of juveniles in detention has decreased by 54% and the number of annual admission to the Juvenile Detention Center has decreased by 40%. “Focusing on Juvenile Justice Reform in Minnesota,” brings to light the affect that the newly developed prevention programs have had on the number of juveniles in detention centers. It goes on to explain that programs that are developing are creating a new opportunity for juveniles to be reintegrated into the community in a positive way, and it is decreasing the number of incarcerated youth. This was the plan from the beginning, as mentioned in before, delinquent offenders should are being released to the community in hopes for a push in the right direction.

As prevention and intervention programs evolve around the world, we all have a similar goal in mind. It is important that we can learn from each other when it comes to matters of the youth that are our future. Evidence based practices, restorative justice, and more evolving programs are just the beginning of the huge step towards the original goal of the Commission in 1967.

References

Driessen, Jerome. “Focusing on Juvenile Justice Reform in Minnesota.” American

Correctional Association. 2011: 38-42.

Smyth, Graham. “What Have We Done Right?” Targets and Youth Crime Prevention.”

Kendall. Jessica & Claire Shublk. “Rethinking Juvenile Status Offense Laws:

Considerations for Congression Review of the Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention Act.” Family Court Review.  2007. Vol. 45. Issue 3:

384-398.

McVeigh, T. (2010), Doncaster council faces snap inspection, Guardian, 24th January

2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/24/edlington-doncaster-

council-faces-snap-inspection.

Restorative Justice: Examined

As Delinquency prevention programs have evolved over the years, one form of prevention that has developed and has been successful is restorative justice. Restorative justice has made its way though the Criminal justice system in many forms; juveniles, sex offenders, drug addicts, etc. Programs with restorative justice principles attempt to involve the community and the victims into the decision making process for proper punishment. According to Nancy Rodriguez’s article, Restorative Justice at work: Examining the Impact of Restorative Justice Resolutions on Juvenile Recidivism, official juvenile court data from both urban and metropolitan areas states that juveniles who participated in restorative justice programs were less likely to recidivate then the comparison juvenile groups. Restorative justice programs are another form of successful delinquency prevention programs that have over time become more successful and are continuing to lower recidivism rates in young offenders.
       According to G. Johnstone, in order for restorative justice to be successful there are a few key components that need to be involved. First, the crime must be one that is in violation of a person by another person. Johnstone claims that it should be much more serious and personal then someone just breaking legal rules. Secondly, he believes that when responding to the crime, the main focus should be on making sure the offender understands the full extent of the damage that he/she has caused. He hopes that this will prevent them from reoffending. Thirdly, he says that the idea of the repercussions and the offender, the victims and community should be allowed to decide prevention measures collectively. He also makes a very important point; there should be effort to improve the relationship that the offender has with the community and the victim so that he/she can be reintegrated in to the community. I chose this point of view because his simplicity of his expectations of restorative justice are right on point when looking at delinquency prevention.

As with most criminal justice concepts, restorative justice has many different meanings depending on the person. In the article, Restorative Justice in Theory, Lois Presser explains his view on restorative justice and how there are many different theories that contribute to making it successful. Presser emphasis that recidivism may reduce crime at different levels; individual levels (micro), and/or societal levels (macro). In his article he makes a strong point that there are three contributes to restorative justice, theories of crime reduction, where he explains the different theories that contribute significantly to crime reduction. Secondly, he explains theories of victim healing, where he explains how the process of emotional, physical, or mental healing for the victim is key in the affects of restorative justice. Lastly, he emphasizes on theories of community building and it's importance for the offender, the community, and the victim. Like many other prevention programs, restorative justice programs have their focus, strengths, and weaknesses.

In terms of delinquency prevention, restorative justice seems to have a strong effect on the minds of youth offenders. Young offenders often come from broken homes, doing all that they can to survive in society. These young offenders are easily influenced by the people around them, as was explained in social learning and social control theory. When looking at programs like restorative justice, as seen in Rodriguez’s research, it is fair to say that these programs seem to have a positive effect on the youth. An important question to ask is, why?

When analyzing the affects of programs such as these, like Johnstone and Presser have done, there are many underlining factors that go unnoticed. Johnstone explains that the more personal the crime and punishment, the more successful the outcome of restorative means will be. This is true for many reasons, relating back to what causes juveniles to commit crime. These children are seeking approval, acceptance, and understanding. When they are caught committing a crime unlawful or against a person, they are likely to rebel. However, if these youth offenders were to be given the opportunity to fix their wrong, and a chance to show the community that they are a better person then that, they are likely to take the acceptance and succeed with it. This is true because they are being acknowledged, not ignored and thrown in a cell. This makes it easier for them to fit back in to the community they live in, instead of being seen as an outcast, and in turn committing more crimes. Recidivism rates are dropping in young offenders who have been put through the restorative justice program.

Much like other juvenile delinquency programs, restorative justice has its strengths and weaknesses. However, when looked at from a perspective that understands how and why it may be successful, it is easy to adapt to fit the offenders needs, whether it be reintegration, or simply forgiveness. Much like Evidence Based Practice, there is research that shows that restorative justice is successful in dropping recidivism rates in young offenders. However, lack of resources and funds make it nearly impossible to keep facilitated. Once unsuccessful programs are eliminated, the hope is to continue to reinforce successful programs such as EBP and Restorative Justice Programs.

References

Johnstone, G. Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates, Cullompton, Devon:

Willan publishing. 2002.

Maguire, Mary & Dan Okada. “Restorative Justice in Theory.” Critical issues in

 Criminal Justice: Thoughts, Policy, and Practice. 2007: 321-333.

Omale, Don John O. “Justice in History: an Examination of ‘African Restorative

traditions’ and the Emerging ‘Restorative Justice’ Paradigm.” African Journal

of Criminology and Justice Studies. Nov. 2006: 33-63.

Rodriguez, Nancy. “Restorative Justice at Work: Examining the Impact of Restorative

Justice Resolutions on Juvenile Recidivism.” Crime and Delinquency. 2007. 

Evidence-Based Practices: Examined

-->

            According to Peter Greenwood in Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime Control Policy, evidence-based practice involves the use of scientific principles and research to determine the evidence of program effectiveness and to develop a set of principles for the best program success. In delinquency prevention, this process includes many important components that need to be assessed. Including assessment of community and individual’s needs, the selection of successful programs, the development and evolving of programs, and the placement of at risk youth to particular programs, (2006).

Evidence-based practice can also assess a community. This involves determining strength and needs of the population, and of the programs that are in place in that community. The focus on how evidence-based practice can be implemented into these communities is an important subject because if the community does not approve of the practices then it will not be successful in that community.

            In an article by Peter Greenwood and Brandon Welsh, Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in Delinquency Prevention at State Level, it is expressed that although there are many positives to implementing Evidence-based practices there are also obstacles that are creating a delay in the enforcement of these successful practices, (2012). One of the obstacles that Greenwood and Welsh bring up is the funding stream on state levels. This is an obvious problem at the state level when it comes to the changing of policy. This is such a hardship because there are programs that have gained the support of the political and local communities. They have been supporting them and they do not want to stop the funding because they believe that they are working, when in fact they are not. An example of a non-successful program would be ones such as “Scared Straight.” If the funding were to go to the evidence-based practices they would see a much bigger success rate in juvenile delinquency prevention.

            Evidence-based practices are highly involved and complex. This can create another problem when trying to implement the programs into already developed in institutions. “Some communities get steered away from adopting some of the more complex models because the trainers of these models do not believe there is sufficient support or understanding of the tasks involved among key stakeholders,” (Greenwood and Welsh, 2012). It is obvious that this can be a dilemma because the if the training for these practices are not sufficient then the desired outcome will not be the same. Therefore it is extremely important to have capable facilitators to develop these institutions. This is what the authors are suggesting when they say that the models must have sufficient support. Though complex, the evidence-based practices will produce successful outcomes.

            In another article by Greenwood, Preventing and Reducing Youth Crime and Violence: Using Evidence-Based Practices, he explains how different jurisdictions who have put funding into the proven practices were not fully prepared for the challenges that the implementation of evidence-based practices would bring. However, now receiving the help at state level and developers of the programs, they have a better understanding of what it takes to make the program successful (2010). He also mentions that over time the program facilitators have become much better at coaching communities through the implementation process, in turn making the programs more successfully ran. Although the Evidenced based programming may be challenging and have obstacles that need to be worked around, with the correct funding, program developers and state level support the programs will continue to be successful, eventually eliminating unsuccessful programs.

           

            The hope for these evidence-based practices is to receive and for state funding to become more available and to use these practices more frequently in delinquency prevention. Even more importantly, for the programs to be accepted into communities and for them to become successful.  In the near future, these programs will continue to become more successful and will eventually eliminate the programs that are not successful.

References

Greenwood, Peter W. 2006. Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime-

Control Policy. Chicago ,IL : University of Chicago Press.

Greenwood, Peter W. 2010. Preventing and Reducing Youth Crime and Violence:

            Using Evidence-Based Practices. Sacramento , CA : Governor's Office of Gang

            and Youth Violence Policy.

Greenwood, Peter W. 2012. Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in Delinquency

            Prevention at State Level. Criminology & Public Policy. Vol. 11. Issue 3. 

Evidence- Based Practices: Supporting Theories

-->

“Your Children who have ridiculed me, who have chosen not to accept me, who treated me like I am not worth their time, are dead,” (Harris). Littleton, Colorado was a Midwestern city that went relatively unheard of until that day. It was on that Tuesday morning that Littleton became the site of the worst school shooting in American history. On April 20^th, 1999, two boys came to Columbine High School with the intentions to kill over 500 of their fellow classmates and teachers. Dylan Klebold, 17, and Eric Harris, 18 were two of the most talked about teenagers in recent history, their names and faces will be stamped in the memories of Americans forever.

What made these two young men, who seemed to have no threatening or violent tendencies, arm themselves to the teeth and blow away twelve classmates and a teacher, before each taking a bullet themselves? To understand what went on the day of the Columbine High School shooting, we must look at what went on that Tuesday, and what went on before. In today’s society there are many different ways that teens affiliate themselves with different groups, whether it be a positive or negative influence can determine why juveniles commit violent acts.

            Why are adolescents committing robberies, assault, murder, and sexual offences? The question has been present for decades yet nobody knows the correct answer. There has been speculation from many but it remains an open-ended question, meaning there is no one correct answer but many perspectives on the matter. What events play a factor in the development of an individual and what is the possible end result? On one hand, it could be because of the way s/he was raised, ones personality, or ones lack of self-esteem. However, on the other hand it could be the influence of his/her peers that motivate s/he to do the things they do. These are the questions that were asked when the understanding and development of evidence-based practices were developed.

There are numerous theories and possibilities that aid in the end result of adolescents committing violent crimes. One of them fits the circumstances the best, Social Control Theory. The Social Control theory depends on ones social factors to describe his/her actions.  In “Criminological Theories,” written by Frank P. Williams and Marilyn D. McShane (2010), the theorist, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. suggest that there are three factors that explain the connection between personality and socialization. First, is a lack of proper internal controls developed in early childhood. So a child’s ability to control their emotions or lack there of can affect their socialization skills. The second, a breakdown of those lacking controls. Last, the lack or absence of social rules in important social groups. If the Columbine shooters, or any other juvenile violent offenders, are lacking in these areas it could be the cause of their low self-control and low self-esteem and lead to lack of socialization skills that make h/she feel important.           

Williams and McShane also talk about the Containment Theory, which contributes to the Social control theory. It focuses on the idea that delinquency is a fight between two types of controls; internal and external.

“The components in ones internal control is a combination of self-

control, self- concept, ego strength, goal orientation, and ability to

   find substitute satisfactions. The components of the external control 

       consists of family and school reinforcement of social norms and vales, 

       reasonable opportunity for social activity, opportunity for acceptance, 

identity, and belongingness,” (p.152)

If a young person doesn’t have the ability to feel like they belong to a group or a family, having social bonds, often they might feel left out and over a long period of time its understandable for them to be angry, just like what happened to Dylan and Erick during the years that lead up to the Columbine shooting. 

            Another theorist in McShane and Williams book, Travis Hirschi, believes that there are four important elements of social control that are the basis for ones social bonds. These strength or weaknesses of these elements are what determine ones social bond. The first is attachment to peers and partners. Having the element of attachment is important to the conformity of social relationships. If juveniles have the attachment and ties to their society they are less likely to participate in delinquent behavior. The second element is involvement in their society or family. If these violent teens had been more involved in their school, families, and community their behavior may not have been so negative. The next element is commitment. Most teens that are committed to school or outside activities are less likely to become a part of the other negative groups that require commitment, such as gangs.  The last element is belief; it involves the awareness of society and rules. The rules of ones society can play a big part in their decision-making. If they don’t believe that they need to follow those rules then they are likely to participate in activities that go against those rules. These are all elements that if worked on can be used to prevent youth from becoming a part of the criminal population. Understanding elements like these are where the foundation for evidence-based practices evolved.

            Evidence based practices (EBP) are a newly developed way of looking at contributes of juvenile delinquency.  All of the theories I have discussed are a big contribution to the conclusion that EBP works. Looking at the motivation behind young delinquents behavior is extremely important, especially when we are trying to reduce the amount of delinquency. Creating these elements of attachment, involvement, commitment and belief in prevention programs will get these youth on the right track will continue to drop crime rates in Juveniles. That is what EBP have discovered and are pushing for.

References

Bishop, Donna M., “Evidence-Based Practices and Juvenile Justice.” Criminology &

Publoc Policy. 11.3 (2012):483-489.

Church, Westly, Tracy Wharton, and Julie Taylor. "An Examination of Differential Association and Social Control Theory: Family Syatems and Delinquency." Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 7.1 (2008).

Frymer, Benjamin. "The Media Spctacle of Columbine: Alienated Youth as an Object of Fear." American Behavioral Scientist. (2009): 1387-1405.

Williams, Frank, and Marilyn McShane. "Criminological Theory, Fifth Edition." New Jersey 07458. (2010): 154-158.

Social Learning Theory: Delinquent Behavior to Success

-->

All it took was for someone to believe in her; someone to help her believe in herself. In my five years of working with youth in Delinquency Prevention Programs, the few success stories were well worth the effort. 

“I have learned that if I believe in myself then I can do anything I set myself to. You helped me start a new life and I can’t wait to be like you when I am in College” Shea, age 16.  Shea was a young lady that I worked with last year in a local delinquency prevention program. Coming from a single parent home, where abuse and drug use was normal, Shea had learned to express her anger through violent outlets such as fighting, vandalizing, yelling, or bullying. Shea and I spent about a year working together. By the end of the year, she had grown into a well-rounded young lady.

Everyday we are pushed to do things in order to better our lives, work, school, shop, etc. Just like many adults, young deviants have the same goals, but different means. The question is, where are societies young deviants getting that their means of success come from committing crime?

According to Goldberg (2007) , “Homicide is the second leading cause of death in 15 to 10 year-olds in the United States. An estimated 72% of all homicide ages 12 and older are due to firearm-related injuries.” Thisr study analyzed a group of juvenile delinquents who had been exposed to violence, victimized, and committed acts of violence themselves. When asked if they would shoot at someone in a “rival gangs territory”, the juveniles agreed that ; “It’s O.K. to hurt or shoot someone: to get what you want; to get respect; in self defense; because he’s from a rival gang, and or because he doesn’t belong in your neighborhood.” From their responses, it was apparent the juveniles had learned this behavior from their peers, friends, or neighborhood they grew up in. This study proved that youth who grow up in a violent environment are more likely to become violent themselves. The Social Learning Theory has a good explanation for what the effect of learned behavior has on delinquent behavior.

The Social Learning theory focuses on how behavior can be learned at the cognitive level through observing other people’s actions. According to Ronald L. Akers, el at, the social learning theory  explains people learn from interaction with significant groups in their lives, both positive or  negative. . The more individuals who define their interactions as positive, the more likely they are to engage in it (1979).These individuals believe they are gaining from the deviant behavior so they don’t see it as bad. They have learned  it is easier to get what he/she wants if they are part of these behaviors. These juveniles are learning how to live a life style of a criminal, however, they see it as a positive course of action. If our society can change the view of what is a positive reward then we may have a chance keeping these delinquents out of trouble.

The Delinquency Prevention Program has been one organization that has continued to evolve over the years and has had a huge impact on the positive learning of deviant youth. Like mine, many success stories have come from these programs.These programs originated in the early 1970’s. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency and Prevention Act of 1974 provided states and localities with money, training and technical assistance for delinquency prevention programs and expanded protections for children who ended up in custody, (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, press release, November 1999). Today, high-risk youth are getting support from delinquency programs that are funded by this Act. There are many different programs that have been developed with the same goal in mind, to keep or restart today’s youth on the path to success.

The newest forms of delinquency prevention programs are Evidence-based practices. These programs are based on scientific facts that assess the evidence of the program’s effectiveness. From there it develops principles that work best for each program dynamic, (Greenwood, 2006). The hope for these evidence-based practices is to make prevention programs more successful and eliminate the programs that are not successful and are still receiving funding. In the near future, these programs will be the most successful of the prevention programs because they are based more on research then assumption.

As long as there are delinquents that are learning from their criminal up bringing, there will be delinquent behavior. If we have the chance to step into that learning experience and place a positive influence on deviant behavior we will make a difference in their lives. The number one hands on way of doing so is to continue evolving the delinquency prevention programs.

References: 

-->

Akers, Ronald, Marvin Krohn, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Marcia Radosevich. "Social 

Learning and Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory." American Sociological Review. 44.(1979): 636-655.           

Greenwood, Peter W. 2006. Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime-Control.

 Chicago , IL : University of Chicago Press.

Goldberg, Julie. "Worldview of High-risk Juvenile Delinquents: Relationships to

Decisions to Shoot." Criminal Justice and Behavior. (2007): 846-861.

Maschi, Tina, Carolyn Bradley, and Keith Morgen. "Unraveling the Link Between Trauma
       and Delinquency: The Mediationg Role of Negative Affect and Delinquent Peer 
       Exposure." Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 6.2 (2008): 136-157.

 

---