What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of sending juveniles who have been in trouble with the law to delinquency prevention programs which are ethnic- or culture-specific? Ar they more successful than other, non-culturally-specific programs?
This is just a place to start - you don’t need necessarily to answer all the questions. I’ll be interested in seeing what you find on the topic.
I believe there would be more disadvantages than advantages to culture specific or ethnic programs for delinquent juveniles. As far as advantages, ethnic programs might help juveniles feel more comfortable and more willing to open up in group situations that have topics like abuse or alcoholism. It could also be an advantage if the program is trying to target a specific ethnic group that is seeing high recidivism rates to try and reduce those rates. Cincinnati was experiencing high recidivism rates for black juvenile felons. To try and combat the high recidivism rates Cincinnati created a program specifically for black male juveniles. The program was supposed to “culturally reground” them, improve their self-esteem and help them become more community oriented. Even thought the program was nationally recognized it was found that the program has not done any better helping decrease the recidivism rate than regular probation.
I believe there would be disadvantages with ethnic programs that dealt with gang members because that is one of the negative aspects with gangs.
Juveniles need to learn at an early age that they need to be culturally diverse so that it is easy for them to work and live in their professional and neighborhood communities.
References:
Wooldredge, John. Effectiveness of Culturally Specific Community Treatment for African American Juvenile Felons. Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 589-598.
To answer the question of what are some of the advantages of sending juveniles to ethnic or culturally specific delinquency prevention programs, one should look at Multnomah County, Oregon’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Program (JDAI). According to a report by the Juvenile Justice Project of the Correctional Association of New York, Multnomah County’s JDAI success in reducing the overrepresentation of minorities going to detention made this culturally specific detention program a national model (Faruqee, 2002).
The most obvious advantage for sending juveniles to culture-specific delinquency prevention programs is because there is a disproportionate percentage of minority youth representing this delinquent population. Schiraldi and Ziedenberg (2006) reveal that between 1983 and 1997 the percentage of minority juvenile delinquents increased by 76 percent, compared to only a 21 percent increase in white juveniles. This disparity is described as the “race effect” and any strategies aimed at lowering juvenile delinquency rates must address race as a priority.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Program in Multnomah County uses objective risk-based approaches in deciding which juveniles are admitted to detention or not. This detention reform diverts low to medium risk youth to community-based, non-secure options. Developing non-custodial sanctions, new warrant categories, and more efficient placement techniques decreases the number of colored or minority youths from entering juvenile detention facilities. This detention reform had the disadvantage, in other locations, of increasing the number of minorities in detention because white youths were the first to benefit (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2006).
JDAI developed 10 specific strategies to reduce minority detention. These were deliberate steps directed at helping the disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) throughout this detention reform. The strategies included formulating a vision, creating structures, collecting data and doing research, building coalitions, diversity, culture-sensitivity training for staff, using objective guidelines, improving legal representation, and altering other social services to prevent “youth dumping.” A disadvantage to these DMC strategies was the unavailability for the juvenile justice system because of the complex issues that cause racial disparity. (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2006).
Establishing detention alternatives for minorities at JDAI such as shelter care, foster homes, home detention, and day reporting centers located in minority neighborhoods was advantageous. In order to accomplish these detention alternatives a risk assessment instrument (RAI) guide was used for admission with a cross-agency team including public defenders, prosecutors, probation, detention personnel, and school officials (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2006).
Schiraldi and Ziedenberg (2006) pointed out that the advantage of evaluating juveniles “through the lens of race” by not considering such biased criteria as good family structure, gang affiliation by the neighborhood a youth lives in, and school attendance helped to reduce minority prejudice.
The advantage of the creation of a detention intake team at JDAI provided a level of quality control not found in other bureaucracies. This team was able to monitor staff within the agency and make sure they were basing their decisions according to the RAI criteria. Specific sanction options within a grid were also developed for parole violators to reduce the use of detention (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2006).
Schiraldi and Ziedenberg (2006) highlighted the advantage used by JDAI of hiring special legal representation for indigent minority youth to focus on strengths and resources a youth may have in their community, resulting in alternative detention decisions. The probation department was also diversified by including more minority staff to “make the department look like the community,” providing the advantage of parity for treatment of minorities. Local police officers were trained in utilizing the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, creating the advantage of diverting many of these minority youth from detention.
Probably the most significant advantage to Multnomah’s detention success was the data analysis and data-driven solutions lead by a renowned expert, Professor William Feyerherm of Portland State University (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2006).
Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority confinement:
the multnomah county oregon success story and its implications. Center on
Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.cjcj.org/files/
There are measurable advantages to sending youth offenders to programs that are culturally relevant. With a system that currently over represents minority youth, many of the barriers to achieving reformation, such as language and religious beliefs, are overlooked or ignored all together. By acknowledging such issues exist and making a conscious effort to overcome them, treatment programs can become more effective in lowering recidivism. The youth advocacy coordinator in Lane county Oregon understands this reality and has implemented appropriate policies aimed at addressing this problem. Be it through employing professionals who speak additional languages to advance the communication between the youth and staff, or creating culturally specific diversion programs and activities that teach emotional health and awareness, this agency has taken serious steps to provide adequate treatment for those youth who do not understand the expectations or basic laws governing them.
There is no doubt to me that culturally specific delinquency prevention programs are needed. Before investigating the issue I would have said that they must be more successful than interventions that don’t account for cultural differences. It just intuitively makes sense. But of course one can’t stop there. That has been a problem in criminal justice policy. Many ideas make sense – but do they work?
In my modest experience working with detained juveniles in my county’s juvenile hall I found one thing that did not make sense: offering only Christian based faith programming to youth. Seeing all of the uninterested faces at every weekly bible reading was surreal. Now did that work, was that successful programming? I have no way of knowing, but to me it seemed insensitive, lazy-minded and hopelessly twentieth century.
In the area of family based interventions, it seems that professionals sensitive to this imbalance made their first steps toward acknowledging a need for culturally tuned programs by superficially modifying strategies rooted in western-based, melting-pot, middle-class, white values. Matching treatment staff and presentation materials to make an otherwise generic treatment appear culturally specific was as far as they went (Kumpfer, Alvarado, Smith & Bellamy, 2002). There are now programs that go beyond these superficial modifications in their relevance to various ethnic groups.
Kumpfer, Alvarado, Smith & Bellamy (2002) caution that the position of advocates of culturally specific therapies is, “based more on direct observations, limited quasi-experimental research, and a desire to be respectful of ethnic family values, rather than on hard science.” Apparently there isn’t a wealth of research proving the superiority of a culturally sensitive approach, though it seems to me a foregone conclusion that this is the right thing to do.
Nation, et al. (2003) notes that there are many facets to effective delinquency treatment: ”Programs were comprehensive, included varied teaching methods, provided sufficient dosage, were theory driven, provided opportunities for positive relationships, were appropriately timed, were socio-culturally relevant, included outcome evaluation, and involved well-trained staff.” Socio-cultural relevance was just one of many requirements.
After exploring the question of whether delinquency prevention programs that account for cultural differences are more successful than those that do not, I am left with a lingering doubt about our ability to define cultural differences. It seems that well trained staff that is considerate and knowledgeable of cultural differences could go far in being flexible in delivering effective treatment to juveniles with ever evolving ethnic and cultural identities.
Kumpfer, K., Alvarado, R., Smith, P. & Bellamy, N. (2002). Cultural Sensitivity and Adaptation in Family-Based Prevention Interventions. Prevention Science, Vol. 3, No. 3.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E. & Davino, K. (2003). What Works in Prevention – Principles of Effective Prevention Programs. American Psychologist. Vol. 58, No.6/7.
I understand from the article that there may be no significant difference however I believe that jurisdictions would be cautious in instituting such programs even with evidence backed research studies. While the findings are valid, I don’t believe that many areas of the country would risk the unwarranted perception that such programs would give. Programs such as these are proactive however, the public is reactive and the public has more influence on the expectation of prevention programs than evidence based research findings. It is unfortunate that that the public perception is based on what is in the media or other misinformed sources of information, however, until such a time arrives that the public is better informed, this bias against such prevention programs will not gain a foothold.
Reference:
Wilson, S.J., Lipsey, M. W., & Soydan, H. (2003). Are mainstream programs for juvenile delinquency less effective for minority youth than majority youth? A meta-analysis of outcomes research. Research on Social Work Practice, 13 (3).
Preventing juveniles from committing crimes time and time again has been a challenge for the Juvenile Justice System.
In a study done by Walberg, Gee Yah and Paton (1974) concluded that when identifying the best way to prevent juveniles from re-offending society must consider: 1) family background (i.e. one parent/two parent home, parents education level and lifestyle); 2) social economic status; 3) how education is viewed in the home (i.e. the parent child relationship, educational expectations and goals).
John Worrall (2008) writes the most commonly used programs that have been proven effective include: Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP), Big Brothers and Big Sisters (BBBSA), Functional Family Therapy (FFT), and Multisystemic Therapy (MST). All of the previously mentioned programs include some of form of group or team interaction that in some ways resemble interactions with family members or include family involvement. Early intervention is the key to the success of these programs.
Based on the findings of the report by Walberg ET. Al. and John Worrall’s book one can conclude that yes, ethnicity plays an important role in combating juvenile delinquency. Failure to include ones up bringing can prove fruitless when preventing further delinquent acts.
Works Cited
Walberg, H., Gee Yeh, E., & Mooney-Paton, S. (1974). Family Background, Ethnicity, and Urban Deliquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Deliquency , 80-87.
Worrall, J. L. (2008). Juvenile Crime Control. In J. L. Worrall, Crime Control in America - What Works (pp. 315-338). Boston: Pearson Education.
Research evidence suggests that various types of delinquency interventions are successful in reducing delinquent behavior (NIH, 2004). The efficacy of school-based delinquency interventions is determined, in large part, by the school’s organizational culture and whether this culture promotes careful implementation of the program. According to the National Institute of Justice (NIH, 2004), “How well programs are implemented is as important as program design” (p.5). In addition to a well-developed program design, research evidence also suggests that, “program quality depends on school capacity—morale, focus, communication, [and] strong leadership” (NIH, 2004, p.15).
Research in the area of family interventions suggests a more individualized approach to preventing delinquency among adolescents (Loeber et al., 1984). The efficacy of therapeutic intervention greatly decreases with time, such that the most successful treatment occurs when the child is very young (Loeber et al., 1984).
Public policy, with its “get-tough” ideology, has attempted to eliminate sentencing disparity of juvenile offenders, mainly through the elimination of individualized sentencing (Kempf-Leonard and Peterson, n.d.) and the heavy reliance on privatized correctional facilities as a means of diversion. Diversion programs have not shown to be effective in reducing recidivism; they have been shown to exacerbate problems relating to social stratification:
“The working poor are frequently excluded from private care, and comprise most of the group of youths still officially detained in juvenile institutions. The racial division that occurs largely due to socioeconomic factors also means that minority youth are less able to
avoid the stigma of formal adjudication” (Kempf-Leonard and Peterson, n.d., p. 10)
Overall, school-based programs appear the most promising means of reducing juvenile crime. Schools can improve on currently-existing programs when they focus on “supervision, staff development, and overcoming organizational problems that have thwarted program implementation in the past” (NIH, 2004, p.15).
References
Kempf-Leonard, K. & Peterson, E. (n.d) Expanding the realms of the new penology: The advent of actuarial justice for Juveniles. Punishment and Corrections, 2 (1), 66-97.
Loeber, R., Dishion, T., & Patterson, G. (1984). Multiple gating: A multistage assessment procedure for identifying youths at risk for Delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. (21) 1, 7-32.
Debra Lindberg wrote,
What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of sending juveniles who have been in trouble with the law to delinquency prevention programs which are ethnic- or culture-specific? Ar they more successful than other, non-culturally-specific programs?
This is just a place to start - you don’t need necessarily to answer all the questions. I’ll be interested in seeing what you find on the topic.
Link | January 20th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Jon Flick wrote,
I believe there would be more disadvantages than advantages to culture specific or ethnic programs for delinquent juveniles. As far as advantages, ethnic programs might help juveniles feel more comfortable and more willing to open up in group situations that have topics like abuse or alcoholism. It could also be an advantage if the program is trying to target a specific ethnic group that is seeing high recidivism rates to try and reduce those rates. Cincinnati was experiencing high recidivism rates for black juvenile felons. To try and combat the high recidivism rates Cincinnati created a program specifically for black male juveniles. The program was supposed to “culturally reground” them, improve their self-esteem and help them become more community oriented. Even thought the program was nationally recognized it was found that the program has not done any better helping decrease the recidivism rate than regular probation.
I believe there would be disadvantages with ethnic programs that dealt with gang members because that is one of the negative aspects with gangs.
Juveniles need to learn at an early age that they need to be culturally diverse so that it is easy for them to work and live in their professional and neighborhood communities.
References:
Wooldredge, John. Effectiveness of Culturally Specific Community Treatment for African American Juvenile Felons. Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 589-598.
Link | January 21st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Lynn Webb/Team 3 wrote,
To answer the question of what are some of the advantages of sending juveniles to ethnic or culturally specific delinquency prevention programs, one should look at Multnomah County, Oregon’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Program (JDAI). According to a report by the Juvenile Justice Project of the Correctional Association of New York, Multnomah County’s JDAI success in reducing the overrepresentation of minorities going to detention made this culturally specific detention program a national model (Faruqee, 2002).
The most obvious advantage for sending juveniles to culture-specific delinquency prevention programs is because there is a disproportionate percentage of minority youth representing this delinquent population. Schiraldi and Ziedenberg (2006) reveal that between 1983 and 1997 the percentage of minority juvenile delinquents increased by 76 percent, compared to only a 21 percent increase in white juveniles. This disparity is described as the “race effect” and any strategies aimed at lowering juvenile delinquency rates must address race as a priority.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative Program in Multnomah County uses objective risk-based approaches in deciding which juveniles are admitted to detention or not. This detention reform diverts low to medium risk youth to community-based, non-secure options. Developing non-custodial sanctions, new warrant categories, and more efficient placement techniques decreases the number of colored or minority youths from entering juvenile detention facilities. This detention reform had the disadvantage, in other locations, of increasing the number of minorities in detention because white youths were the first to benefit (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2006).
JDAI developed 10 specific strategies to reduce minority detention. These were deliberate steps directed at helping the disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) throughout this detention reform. The strategies included formulating a vision, creating structures, collecting data and doing research, building coalitions, diversity, culture-sensitivity training for staff, using objective guidelines, improving legal representation, and altering other social services to prevent “youth dumping.” A disadvantage to these DMC strategies was the unavailability for the juvenile justice system because of the complex issues that cause racial disparity. (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2006).
Establishing detention alternatives for minorities at JDAI such as shelter care, foster homes, home detention, and day reporting centers located in minority neighborhoods was advantageous. In order to accomplish these detention alternatives a risk assessment instrument (RAI) guide was used for admission with a cross-agency team including public defenders, prosecutors, probation, detention personnel, and school officials (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2006).
Schiraldi and Ziedenberg (2006) pointed out that the advantage of evaluating juveniles “through the lens of race” by not considering such biased criteria as good family structure, gang affiliation by the neighborhood a youth lives in, and school attendance helped to reduce minority prejudice.
The advantage of the creation of a detention intake team at JDAI provided a level of quality control not found in other bureaucracies. This team was able to monitor staff within the agency and make sure they were basing their decisions according to the RAI criteria. Specific sanction options within a grid were also developed for parole violators to reduce the use of detention (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2006).
Schiraldi and Ziedenberg (2006) highlighted the advantage used by JDAI of hiring special legal representation for indigent minority youth to focus on strengths and resources a youth may have in their community, resulting in alternative detention decisions. The probation department was also diversified by including more minority staff to “make the department look like the community,” providing the advantage of parity for treatment of minorities. Local police officers were trained in utilizing the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, creating the advantage of diverting many of these minority youth from detention.
Probably the most significant advantage to Multnomah’s detention success was the data analysis and data-driven solutions lead by a renowned expert, Professor William Feyerherm of Portland State University (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 2006).
References:
Faruqee, M. (2002). Rethinking juvenile detention in new york city. A report by the
Juvenile Justice Project of the Correctional Association of New York. Retrieved
January 20, 2009, from
http://www.correctionalassociation.org/publications/download/jjp/
Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2006). Reducing disproportionate minority confinement:
the multnomah county oregon success story and its implications. Center on
Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Retrieved January 20, 2009, from http://www.cjcj.org/files/
Link | January 22nd, 2009 at 3:21 am
Stacey Thompson Group 3 wrote,
There are measurable advantages to sending youth offenders to programs that are culturally relevant. With a system that currently over represents minority youth, many of the barriers to achieving reformation, such as language and religious beliefs, are overlooked or ignored all together. By acknowledging such issues exist and making a conscious effort to overcome them, treatment programs can become more effective in lowering recidivism. The youth advocacy coordinator in Lane county Oregon understands this reality and has implemented appropriate policies aimed at addressing this problem. Be it through employing professionals who speak additional languages to advance the communication between the youth and staff, or creating culturally specific diversion programs and activities that teach emotional health and awareness, this agency has taken serious steps to provide adequate treatment for those youth who do not understand the expectations or basic laws governing them.
Department of Youth Services-Lane County
Retrieved on January 19, 2009 from: http://www.co.lane.or.us/YS/default.htm
Link | January 23rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Theo Krause Group 2 wrote,
There is no doubt to me that culturally specific delinquency prevention programs are needed. Before investigating the issue I would have said that they must be more successful than interventions that don’t account for cultural differences. It just intuitively makes sense. But of course one can’t stop there. That has been a problem in criminal justice policy. Many ideas make sense – but do they work?
In my modest experience working with detained juveniles in my county’s juvenile hall I found one thing that did not make sense: offering only Christian based faith programming to youth. Seeing all of the uninterested faces at every weekly bible reading was surreal. Now did that work, was that successful programming? I have no way of knowing, but to me it seemed insensitive, lazy-minded and hopelessly twentieth century.
In the area of family based interventions, it seems that professionals sensitive to this imbalance made their first steps toward acknowledging a need for culturally tuned programs by superficially modifying strategies rooted in western-based, melting-pot, middle-class, white values. Matching treatment staff and presentation materials to make an otherwise generic treatment appear culturally specific was as far as they went (Kumpfer, Alvarado, Smith & Bellamy, 2002). There are now programs that go beyond these superficial modifications in their relevance to various ethnic groups.
Kumpfer, Alvarado, Smith & Bellamy (2002) caution that the position of advocates of culturally specific therapies is, “based more on direct observations, limited quasi-experimental research, and a desire to be respectful of ethnic family values, rather than on hard science.” Apparently there isn’t a wealth of research proving the superiority of a culturally sensitive approach, though it seems to me a foregone conclusion that this is the right thing to do.
Nation, et al. (2003) notes that there are many facets to effective delinquency treatment: ”Programs were comprehensive, included varied teaching methods, provided sufficient dosage, were theory driven, provided opportunities for positive relationships, were appropriately timed, were socio-culturally relevant, included outcome evaluation, and involved well-trained staff.” Socio-cultural relevance was just one of many requirements.
After exploring the question of whether delinquency prevention programs that account for cultural differences are more successful than those that do not, I am left with a lingering doubt about our ability to define cultural differences. It seems that well trained staff that is considerate and knowledgeable of cultural differences could go far in being flexible in delivering effective treatment to juveniles with ever evolving ethnic and cultural identities.
Kumpfer, K., Alvarado, R., Smith, P. & Bellamy, N. (2002). Cultural Sensitivity and Adaptation in Family-Based Prevention Interventions. Prevention Science, Vol. 3, No. 3.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E. & Davino, K. (2003). What Works in Prevention – Principles of Effective Prevention Programs. American Psychologist. Vol. 58, No.6/7.
Link | January 24th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Peter Burrell wrote,
I understand from the article that there may be no significant difference however I believe that jurisdictions would be cautious in instituting such programs even with evidence backed research studies. While the findings are valid, I don’t believe that many areas of the country would risk the unwarranted perception that such programs would give. Programs such as these are proactive however, the public is reactive and the public has more influence on the expectation of prevention programs than evidence based research findings. It is unfortunate that that the public perception is based on what is in the media or other misinformed sources of information, however, until such a time arrives that the public is better informed, this bias against such prevention programs will not gain a foothold.
Reference:
Wilson, S.J., Lipsey, M. W., & Soydan, H. (2003). Are mainstream programs for juvenile delinquency less effective for minority youth than majority youth? A meta-analysis of outcomes research. Research on Social Work Practice, 13 (3).
Link | January 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Tashema Eubanks wrote,
Preventing juveniles from committing crimes time and time again has been a challenge for the Juvenile Justice System.
In a study done by Walberg, Gee Yah and Paton (1974) concluded that when identifying the best way to prevent juveniles from re-offending society must consider: 1) family background (i.e. one parent/two parent home, parents education level and lifestyle); 2) social economic status; 3) how education is viewed in the home (i.e. the parent child relationship, educational expectations and goals).
John Worrall (2008) writes the most commonly used programs that have been proven effective include: Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP), Big Brothers and Big Sisters (BBBSA), Functional Family Therapy (FFT), and Multisystemic Therapy (MST). All of the previously mentioned programs include some of form of group or team interaction that in some ways resemble interactions with family members or include family involvement. Early intervention is the key to the success of these programs.
Based on the findings of the report by Walberg ET. Al. and John Worrall’s book one can conclude that yes, ethnicity plays an important role in combating juvenile delinquency. Failure to include ones up bringing can prove fruitless when preventing further delinquent acts.
Works Cited
Walberg, H., Gee Yeh, E., & Mooney-Paton, S. (1974). Family Background, Ethnicity, and Urban Deliquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Deliquency , 80-87.
Worrall, J. L. (2008). Juvenile Crime Control. In J. L. Worrall, Crime Control in America - What Works (pp. 315-338). Boston: Pearson Education.
Link | January 25th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Maria Ochoa wrote,
Research evidence suggests that various types of delinquency interventions are successful in reducing delinquent behavior (NIH, 2004). The efficacy of school-based delinquency interventions is determined, in large part, by the school’s organizational culture and whether this culture promotes careful implementation of the program. According to the National Institute of Justice (NIH, 2004), “How well programs are implemented is as important as program design” (p.5). In addition to a well-developed program design, research evidence also suggests that, “program quality depends on school capacity—morale, focus, communication, [and] strong leadership” (NIH, 2004, p.15).
Research in the area of family interventions suggests a more individualized approach to preventing delinquency among adolescents (Loeber et al., 1984). The efficacy of therapeutic intervention greatly decreases with time, such that the most successful treatment occurs when the child is very young (Loeber et al., 1984).
Public policy, with its “get-tough” ideology, has attempted to eliminate sentencing disparity of juvenile offenders, mainly through the elimination of individualized sentencing (Kempf-Leonard and Peterson, n.d.) and the heavy reliance on privatized correctional facilities as a means of diversion. Diversion programs have not shown to be effective in reducing recidivism; they have been shown to exacerbate problems relating to social stratification:
“The working poor are frequently excluded from private care, and comprise most of the group of youths still officially detained in juvenile institutions. The racial division that occurs largely due to socioeconomic factors also means that minority youth are less able to
avoid the stigma of formal adjudication” (Kempf-Leonard and Peterson, n.d., p. 10)
Overall, school-based programs appear the most promising means of reducing juvenile crime. Schools can improve on currently-existing programs when they focus on “supervision, staff development, and overcoming organizational problems that have thwarted program implementation in the past” (NIH, 2004, p.15).
References
Kempf-Leonard, K. & Peterson, E. (n.d) Expanding the realms of the new penology: The advent of actuarial justice for Juveniles. Punishment and Corrections, 2 (1), 66-97.
Loeber, R., Dishion, T., & Patterson, G. (1984). Multiple gating: A multistage assessment procedure for identifying youths at risk for Delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. (21) 1, 7-32.
National Institute of Health (NIH).(2004). Toward safe and orderly schools- The national study of delinquency prevention in Schools. Retrieved January 25, 2009, from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime-prevention/delinquency-prevention/welcome.htm
Link | January 25th, 2009 at 11:20 pm