Out with Reactive Methods and In with Prevention Programs

          Preventing crime before it happens may seem like something only plausible in the movies, like the Matrix; however the concept of prevention is much more realistic than some may think.  Law enforcement methods are transitioning from the traditional use of reactive measures to more proactive measures of crime control.  No longer are law enforcement waiting for 911 calls to begin addressing crime, delinquency, and investigation of criminal allegations.  Instead, law enforcement and the juvenile justice system are beginning to implement prevention programs that identify risk factors within individuals that increase the likelihood of delinquency, and begin providing protection factors that help to prevent delinquency through skills training.  Especially within the juvenile population, prevention programs are an excellent ways to provide at risk juveniles with the necessary skills to avoid delinquency, become productive members of society, and ultimately help keep delinquent juveniles from becoming adult criminal offenders.  The future of the juvenile justice system is shifting towards the use of more prevention methods rather than reactive methods, because of empirical evidence that supports the success of prevention programs in avoiding delinquency.

According to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 prevention programs are, “…any program or activity designed to reduce known risk factors for juvenile delinquent behavior, provides activities that build on protective factors for, and develop competencies in, juveniles to prevent, and reduce the rate of, delinquent juvenile behavior” (OJJDP)  Prevention programs are used to address the many risk factors that increase the likelihood of delinquency involvement and provide pro-social behavioral skills and examples to combat the risk factors.  The more common risk factors that have been linked to increased likelihood of delinquency include: dysfunctional home life, absent parents, substance abuse by juvenile or parents, examples of antisocial behavior, exposure to domestic violence, and examples of problem solving through use of violence.  Juvenile exposure to such risk factors dramatically increases the probability that a juvenile will become involved in delinquency.  Prevention programs focus on involving the family, communities, schools, and peers to help provide pro-social behavioral skills, educational skills, cognitive skills, and positive emotional management skills to the delinquent juvenile.  Providing these skills to all juveniles, especially those exposed to higher levels of risk factors, give juveniles the tools necessary to lead a productive and successful life all the while avoiding delinquency.  Prevention programs focus on those juveniles at risk for involvement in delinquency, and have much higher success rates for the correction of the delinquent behavior over those programs that are strictly reactive, or after the fact.

Several preventative programs have been implemented across the United States and have proven to be extremely successful.  As acknowledged by the journal of American Psychologist, “The science-based research and evaluation literature has consistently shown that a number of prevention programs are beneficial in helping youth avoid numerous problems.” (Davino, et al.)  One such program is The Juvenile Intervention and Prevention Program (JIPP).  This program was created in 2006 and focused on known at risk children in the Los Angeles Unified School District.  These children were taught pro social and cognitive behavioral skills, attention focusing, personal guidance, and how to communicate successfully without the use of violence. (Koffman, Ray, Berg, Covington, Albarran, & Vasquez)  The results of the prevention program were reviewed by the independent journal of Children and School, who concluded that improved outcomes were visible within the children who participated in the program.  The overwhelming majority of the students were successfully able to avoid delinquency, or further delinquency, after completing the program.

A Second Chance is another example of a youth prevention program.  The program addressed potential and established juvenile gang members and attempted to intervene and prevent youth gang involvement.  The prevention program recreated dramatizations of gunshot victims and had the participants observe.  The idea behind the program was to make the risk the juveniles were taking by being involved in a gang more realistic and comprehendible by creating a visual aid of the potential consequences.  The program experienced significant results of decreased gang involvement, improvement of grades and attendance at school, and improvement in behavior at home. (Hughes, Griner, Guarino, Drabik-Mederios, & Williams, 2012)

A subsequent prevention program that also proved successful in decreasing delinquency rates is Project Northland.  Project Northland:

…consisted of school-based curriculum in sixth through eighth grades, parental involvement and educational activities, peer leadership opportunities, and community-wide task force activities.  At the end of eighth grade, students in intervention communities had significantly reduced their alcohol use, and baseline nondrinkers (about two thirds of the sample) also reported significant reductions in cigarette and marijuana use.  Analyses demonstrated that the effects of Project Northland, … by change in peer norms toward more pro-social behaviors and less support for alcohol use. (Wandersman, Abraham, &Florin)

The goal of Project Northland was to decrease the use of tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol use amongst primary school students.  After implementation the program wheeled successful results in the dramatic decrease of substance abuse by about two-thirds.  The success is partly accredited to the involvement of school personal, parents, and community members.  This community oriented intervention and prevention program proved successful.

          Decreased delinquency rates found after the implementation of prevention programs provide strong support for the success and use of such programing.  The most useful aspect of a prevention program is that the program can be implemented before, which is ideal, or after delinquency has already occurred and still successfully decreased delinquency rates.  However, the implementation of prevention programs as a new standard of treatment for juvenile delinquents may have some negative consequences.  Prevention programs tend to be very costly to create and implement.  Because prevention programs address large audiences including family, community, and peers the programs will require more staffing, larger budgets, and more time, all of which result in more cost.  The latent consequences of resulting to the use of prevention programs may be an increased financial burden on budgets that are already strained.  Financial strain could add to state deficits and possibly take resources away from other departments.  Although implementing prevention programs may prove costly, if effective, in the long run prevention programs will ultimately cost than incarceration or probation of juveniles.

          The future of the juvenile justice system will likely begin to heavily relying upon prevention programs to decrease delinquency rates of juveniles, especially considering the overwhelming empirical evidence in support of the increased success rates over the traditional approaches of reactive methods.  Although the prevention programs may prove to be initially more costly than reactive methods, in the long run prevention programs have the potential to decrease overall spending on incarceration, probation, and other aspects of the juvenile justice system.

                 

References:

DeLisi, M. (2006) Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

DOJCA, . Department of Justice Canada. Youth Justice. Police Discretion with Young Offenders. Department of Justice, 2012. Print.

Hughes, K., Griner, D., Guarino, M., Drabik-Mederios, B., & Williams, K. (2012). A Second’s Chance: Gang Violence Task Force Prevention Program. American Surgeon, 78(1), 89-93.

Katrina Davino, et al. "What Works In Prevention: Principles Of Effective Prevention Programs." American Psychologist 58.6-7 (2003): 449-456. PsycARTICLES. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.

Koffman, S., Ray, A., Berg, S., Covington, L., Albarran, N., & Vasquez, M. (2009). Impact of a comprehensive whole child intervention and prevention program among youths at risk of gang involvement and other forms of delinquency. Children & Schools, 31(4), 239-245.

Newburn, Tim. Handbook of Policing. 2nd. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2008. 434. eBook.

OJJDP. United States Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 1974. Washington, DC: United States Government, 2002. Web. <http://www.ojjdp.gov/about/jjdpa2002titlev.pdf>.

Slowikowski, J. (2009). How OJJDP is building a better future of America’s youth: annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Wandersman, Abraham, and Paul Florin. "Community Interventions And Effective Prevention." American Psychologist 58.6-7 (2003): 441-448. PsycARTICLES. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.

Weissberg, Roger P., Karol L. Kumpfer, and Martin E. P. Seligman. "Prevention That Works For Children And Youth: An Introduction." American Psychologist 58.6-7 (2003): 425-432. PsycARTICLES. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.

Theoretical Evaluation of Incarceration for Juvenile Delinquents

Juvenile incarceration has long been viewed as a deterrent to delinquent and juvenile populations.  Deterrence is a part of the theoretical framework that justifies the application of punishment.  By definition deterrence, “assumes that sanctions delivered in a certain, swift, and severe manner will serve to increase sanction risk perceptions and subsequently reduce criminal activity.” (Fagan, Losoya, Loughran, Mulvey, Piquero, and Schubert)  When punishment fails to produce deterrence, questions must be raised about the success of the application of punishment.  Research has proven through increasing juvenile recidivism rates that incarceration does not have a deterrence factor for juvenile delinquents.  Theoretical evaluations of incarceration acknowledge the severe implications of incarcerating juveniles.  Instead of having a reformation effect upon delinquent juveniles, adverse consequences including increased recidivism rates, negative labeling, and differential association problems are created through the application of incarceration.

          Incarceration has long been used as a form of punishment and a perceived reform of juvenile offenders; however closer examination of increasing recidivism rates suggests incarceration does not deter juvenile offenders from reoffending.  The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is unable to account for a national statistic because of the significant variation of juvenile detention programs from state to state; however close examination of several state level juvenile recidivism statistics provides irrefutable support that recidivism rates are increasing among juveniles.  For example, the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC) released a report on juvenile recidivism in 2011.  The report stated that in 2008, 40.9% of juvenile males released returned to IDOC within three years (Schelle, 1); additionally, 82% of the juveniles who recidivated were re-incarcerated for new crimes. (Schelle, 4)  Similar results were found by the Sentencing Guidelines Commission of the state of Washington.  For the fiscal year of 2007, it was reported that 52.81% of all male offenders and 45.53% of all female offenders recidivated. (SGC 1-4)  Some states show even higher recidivism rates.  According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the fiscal year of 2004 to 2005, 81.1% of juvenile offenders were re-arrested after release from the Division of Juvenile Justice. (Chapman, Carr, Grealish, Grassel, and et al)  Of that 81.1% recidivism rate, 56.5% returned to state-level incarceration, 33.8% returned to the Division of Juvenile Justice, and 32.3 % were committed to Division of Adult Institutions. (Chapman, Carr, Grealish, Grassel, and et al)  The shocking recidivism rates at state levels indicate that incarceration as punishment fails to create a deterrence effect among juvenile offenders.  The lack of deterrence is only the beginning of the negative implications incarceration has upon juvenile offenders.  Incarceration also adversely affects juveniles by stigmatizing and labeling them.

Juveniles who have been incarcerated face being labeled as a delinquent, a criminal, and a nuisance.  The Labeling theory is used by many criminologist and psychologists to help explain why offenders who are labeled as such continue committing crimes and even adopt the criminal label as their own personal identity.  According to labeling theorists, “criminal behavior may increase after sanctioning because formal sanctions attenuate legitimate life pathways, or because sanctioned criminals engage in a process of value identification with their label, and thus adopt norms and behavior patterns typical to that label.” (Lin)  In other words, those who are labeled as a criminal begin to act as a criminal because of their label.  Being labeled as a criminal or a delinquent often times can limit job opportunities, education opportunities, housing opportunities, and many other essential opportunities for a successful life.  When these options are limited the labeled individual will result to adopting the identification of the label.  Often, juvenile delinquents will experience different treatment from teachers, parents, friends, and potential employers because they have been labeled as delinquent or criminal.  When the juvenile is unable to break the stigma of the label they have a tendency to gravitate towards peers who also have been labeled as delinquent.  Association with delinquent peers only encourages the antisocial behavior and the delinquent behavior.  The negative effects of labeling caused by incarcerating juveniles are not the only negative theoretical consequences.  Differential association theory is another potential adversity to incarceration.

Differential Association is a theory created by Edward Sutherland who theorized that criminal behavior is learned through observation and interaction with others.  According to Differential Association Theorists, “…juveniles who are incarcerated, and thus surrounded by other juveniles who have committed crimes (including the most serious offenders), will be more likely to internalize these criminal definitions and that therefore, their propensity to commit crime after release will increase.” (Lin)  As juvenile delinquents associated with other delinquents during incarceration they are more likely to associate and adopt the delinquent label and learn more delinquent behavior.  The setting of incarceration increases the likelihood of criminal education, as explained by The United States Department of Justice: “Furthermore, prison has been characterized as a sort of “school for criminals,” where inmates become more deeply entrenched in criminal lifestyles, develop delinquent identities, acquire negative peers, and learn more sophisticated criminal techniques. “(Lin)  The association with delinquent peers in an incarceration environment increases the likelihood that criminal values will be learned and adopted through interaction with other delinquent juveniles.  Lastly, the incarceration environment is riddled with exposure to, “…bullying, substance use, violence, trauma, loneliness, and psychological distress.” (Ashkar, and Kenny)  The overwhelmingly negative influences from both delinquent peers within confinement and the negative influences from the incarceration setting itself, creates a likelihood that delinquent juveniles will adopt increasingly antisocial values, behaviors, and criminal advancements through differential association.

           Incarceration is based on the believed theoretical framework of punishment as a deterrence factor; however after examining state level statistics that show incarceration has no deterrence, but rather increase the likelihood of continued delinquency through the labeling and differential association theories, it becomes apparent that incarceration is aiding in the perpetual cycle of juvenile delinquency.  Such a revelation requires alternative sanctioning that provides more positive results, lower recidivism rates, and a better environment for the juveniles.  One alternative that is being increasingly used within the juvenile justice system are prevention programs.   Prevention programs lower recidivism rates and provide an excelling alternative to incarceration.

References:

Arthur, Pat, and Tim Roche. Arkansas Department of Human Services. Arkansas Division of Youth Services. Juvenile Justice Reform in Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: JEHT Foundation, 2008. Print.

Ashkar, Peter, and Dianna Kenny. "International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 52.5 (2008): 584-597. Print.

Chapman, Stevem, L Carr, Brenda Grealish, Kevin Grassel, et al. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of Research, Juvenile Justice Research Branch. 2010 Juvenile Justice Evaluation and Outcome Report. Sacramento, CA: CDCR Office of Research, 2010. Print.

Fagan, Jeffrey, Sandra Losoya, Thomas Loughran, Edward Mulvey, Alex Piquero, and Carol Schubert. "Criminology." Criminology. 47.3 (2009):  Print.

Lin, Jeffrey. United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Exploring the Impact of Institutional Placement on the Recidivism of Delinquent Youth. New York: National Institute of Justice, 2007. Print.

Schelle, Sarah. Indiana Division of Youth Justice. Indiana Department of Correction. Juvenile Recidivism 2011. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Government, 2001. Print.

SGC,. State of Washington. Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Recidivism of Juvenile Offenders. Olympia, WA: Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2008. Print.

Science Offers Rational for Difference in Adult and Juvenile Sanctioning

The separation of adult and juveniles in the justice system was caused by a change in ideologies regarding juvenile offenders.  Through increased research spanning multidisciplinary scientific fields, it has become recognized that juveniles vary greatly in comparison to adults.  These variations demand and justify sentencing and correction treatment that is different for adult and juvenile offenders.  Juveniles differ mentally, psychological, and socially in comparison to adults.  Further examination of these aspects outlines the significant differences between juvenile and adult offenders, and the necessity to sentence each group accordingly. 

Significant neurological differences have been found between juvenile and adult offenders.  During adolescence the brain has yet to fully develop, unlike an adult’s.  More specifically the frontal lobe of the brain in adolescents remains underdeveloped; the frontal lobe of the brain is responsible for regulating decision making, problem solving, control of behavior, and emotions. (National Institute of Health) An underdeveloped frontal lobe prohibits juveniles from comprehending the gravity of their behavior, the consequences of risk, and disables them from establishing long term goals.  As a result of an underdeveloped frontal lobe:

… adolescents tend to use a part of the brain called the amygdala during their decision-making.  The amygdala is a locus for impulsive and aggressive behavior, and its dominance over the undeveloped frontal lobe makes adolescents ‘more prone to react with gut instincts.’ In adult brains, the frontal lobe offers a check on the emotions and impulses originating from the amygdala. (Parker 49)

The Amnesty International report provides a clear and obvious difference between the mental development of juveniles in contrast to adults.  In addition, research has recognized that juveniles undergo rapid neurological change and development during adolescents and these changes often times occur before competent decision making is developed. (Rigby 1-8)  Coinciding, according to an Amnesty International report on juvenile offender’s mental development, “Neurological studies show that children have physiologically less-developed means of controlling themselves.” (Parker 47) It becomes apparent through research that the juvenile cognition and neurological development is not fully complete during adolescents; therefore, it is unethical to hold juveniles to the same standards as adults when it has been proven that juveniles do not have the same mental competency as adults.

In addition to neurological differences, science has proven great psychological differences between juveniles and adults.  The most noticeable psychological difference is juveniles’ inability to reason with logic.  Instead, juveniles’ emotions are the main influence in decision making.  Especially in stressful situations juveniles are more likely to reasons with emotions, such as fear, then with a logical though process. (Parker 47)  Another psychological difference is juveniles’ inability to form and appreciate long term goals.  Instead, juveniles focus on more short term goals, which greatly influences their decision making process. (Parker 45)  Psychological differences are extremely similar to neurological difference because the brain is not fully developed (neurological), therefore it is not capable of using logical reasoning to make a decision (psychological).  However, these are not the only significant difference found between juveniles and adults.

Another significant area of difference between juveniles and adults is the social development and environment.  The lack of mental development results in a lessened ability to logically reason, leads juveniles to be high influenced by peer groups and peer pressure.  Juveniles are more likely to engage in criminal activity in a group than by themselves. (Rigby 5)  While engaging in criminal activity in groups, the level of criminality is easily escalated due to the lack of understanding and inability to stop the situation with reason.  According to the Prison Journal:

Juveniles are thus more likely than adults to react with unplanned violence under the extreme duress of a crime that goes awry—to fight rather than flee.  For juveniles, it would be more accurate to see the majority of these crimes as situations that have gotten beyond their control and even full comprehension.” (Johnson and Sonia 198-206)

Tied into the underdeveloped neurological and psychological aspects of juveniles is the inability for juveniles to control and comprehend social situations when facing pressure from peers.  In such cases, rational adults are less likely to be influences by peer pressure, and more likely to be able to stop and correct inappropriate behavior caused by peer groups.

          Neurological, psychological, and social research combined proves the vast differences between juvenile and adult development.  These differences ethically demand that juveniles be treated differently with the justice system, especially considering that juveniles have been proven to respond well and benefit from therapeutic treatment avenues over harsh sentencing.   However, research also has acknowledged a core group of juvenile offenders that are disproportionately responsible for the majority of juvenile crime.  This core group, upon repeat offending, loses the defense of competence and underdevelopment.  After juveniles offenders within this core group continue offending, they are usually charged with harsher sentences resembling those of adults.  At this point, once all other therapeutic avenues have been exhausted and no sign of reform is apparent within the juvenile, should juveniles be subject to adult sanctioning.  In all other cases, the obvious differences between juveniles and adults portray the need to sanction and treat juveniles differently within the justice system.

References:

Grisso, Thomas. "Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents' and Adults' Capacities as Trial Defendants." Law and human behavior 27.4 (2003): 333-63. ABI/INFORM Complete; ProQuest Criminal Justice. Web. 18 Oct. 2012.

Johnson, Robert, and Tabriz Sonia. "Sentencing Children to Death by Incarceration: A deadly Denial of Social Responsibility." Prison Journal. 91.2 (2011): 198-206. Print.

National Institute of Health, . "The Brain- Lesson 1- What goes on in there?." The Brain: Understanding Neurobiology. BSCS and Videodiscovery, Inc., n.d. Web. 19 Oct 2012. <http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih2/addiction/activities/lesson1_brainparts.htm

Rigby, K. What makes juvenile offender different from adult offenders?. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2011. 1-8. Web.

Parker. Alison,. The Rest Of Their Lives, Life Without Parole For Child Offenders In The United States. New York: Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International., 2005. eBook.