EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS IN REDUCING INCARCERATION AND
RECIDIVISM RATES OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Final Proposal
Diana Menna Kalkreuter December 2013 Soc. 327
Abstract
Current research findings indicate that specific programs which offer juvenile offenders alternatives to punitive action, such as functional family therapy, multisystemic therapy, and multidimensional treatment foster care, which are undertaken at the individual, familial and community levels, can be effective in reducing recidivism rates and mass incarceration. Hypothetically, programs aimed at juvenile justice reform are viable alternatives for the reformation of juvenile offenders and can be more effective in fostering prosocial behavior than incarceration. This study seeks to explore not only the effectiveness of alternative programs to incarceration of juvenile offenders, but the effectiveness of such programs at the community level in Oregon; after this exploration, it is expected that positive effectivity will be found.
INTRODUCTION The pendulum of juvenile justice reform has swung widely from left to right over the past century, beginning with a social welfare ideal to an opposing punitive ideal. While little thought was given to public safety when juvenile welfare took precedence, modern reform has led to ensuring public safety while remitting the importance of juvenile welfare in deference to punitive action. With accessibility of current news events at an all time high, American society is inundated with criminal acts committed by youth in the media as never before, creating a moral panic (Scott & Steinberg, 2008; ) at perceived threats to societal invulnerability. This modern paradox between society's desire for safer communities and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders becomes clear as the effectiveness of alternative programs versus incarceration is debated. With the looming reality that children as young as 7 can be prosecuted and tried in adult court in 22 states and the District of Columbia (www.juvenile-in-justice.com) and the acknowledgement that there is little or marginal benefit of reducing the future rate of offending by retaining an individual in institutional placement (www.juvenile-in-justice.com), in becomes clear that juvenile justice reform is necessary within American society where approximately 90,000 juvenile offenders are incarcerated each day (www.juvenile-in-justice.com). Alternative programs offering counseling and treatment typically reduce recidivism, while those focused on coercion and control tend to produce negative or null effects (www.juvenile-in-justice.com). Therefore, the reduction in recidivism rates and mass incarceration of juvenile offenders rests on the established effectiveness of alternative programs to incarceration. Before an in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of alternative programs in decreasing incarceration and recidivism of juvenile offenders can commence, however, a brief historical account of juvenile justice reformative measures is imperative to understand the impact that perceptual public safety has had on juvenile justice and mass incarceration of juvenile offenders.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Brief Historical Account of Juvenile Justice Reformative Measures Juvenile justice reform in the early twentieth century sought to decriminalize and absolve youth who were involved in criminal activity, with officials choosing to invest in a rehabilitative model aimed at protecting the welfare of juvenile offenders, thus forgoing conventional punitive punishments of the past (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). This progressive reform offered a new view of juvenile offenders as misguided children in need of rehabilitation under a supportive and loving father figure which could be found in the state (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Under the rehabilitative model, biological and psychological determinants of criminal behavior were emphasized and therapeutic measures were undertaken to cure juveniles of their delinquent behaviors (Aarons, Smith &Wagner, 2009; Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Juvenile offenders bore little to no responsibility for their criminal acts and restorative measures undertaken by the juveniles to their victims were yet to be established. (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Juvenile offenders under this rehabilitative model found themselves without the basic liberties afforded to adult offenders, and instead found themselves subject to non-adversarial procedures and indeterminate sentences given by judicial authorities who followed the legal regulation of children (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). This progressive reform model pervaded the juvenile justice system until a landmark case, In re Gault 1967, convinced the US Supreme Court that juvenile offenders deserved the same rights as adult offenders: the right to be notified of the charges against them, the right to counsel, the right to determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to a hearing before being transferred to and tried in the adult courts (Schwartz, 1989). Further reform came about under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, in which juvenile justice was found to be separate from adult corrections and the Department of Juvenile Justice was created within the federal Department of Justice (Aaron, Smith & Wagner, 2009). The use of adult correctional facilities in juvenile sentencing was prohibited and alternatives to incarceration with restorative justice as the platform was mandated (Schwartz, 1989; Aaron, Smith & Wagner, 2009; OJJDP, 1978). It was assumed that reforms made under the act could result in rendering public opinion regarding juvenile delinquency more positive. (OJJDP, 1978) During the latter part of the twentieth century, rates of serious and violent crime committed by youth escalated, shifting the view of juvenile offenders from that of misguided children to serious predators, or the equivalency of their adult counterparts. (Aarons, Smith & Wagner, 2009; Scott & Steinberg, 2008) Between the years 1985 and 1995, juvenile offenders arrested for murder more than doubled; public opinion, exacerbated by media coverage portraying youth not as children but as hardened and dangerous criminals during this period, elicited negative attention towards the current juvenile reform. (Scott & Steinberg, 2008; Hancock, 2000) Due to the magnified depiction of a criminalized youth induced frenzy, reformation within the juvenile justice system took a dramatic turn from being rehabilitative to punitive; the definition and age of adult reclassified in many states, with juveniles as young as fourteen tried, convicted and incarcerated as adults. (Aarons, Smith & Wagner, 2009; Scott & Steinberg, 2008)
Juvenile Offenders and Adult Corrections Punitive reforms, reinforced by overwrought fear for public safety and the desire to be harder on juvenile criminal behavior, have led to harsher sanctions in juvenile justice reform. (Aarons, Smith & Wagner, 2009; Scott & Steinberg, 2008) With the legality of age redefined and with mandatory sentencing and automatic transfer legislation in effect, juvenile offenders can be automatically placed into the adult correctional system for the adjudication of serious crimes, bypassing the juvenile justice system entirely (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). As of February 2013, it was estimated that approximately 93,000 juvenile offenders, or offenders under the age of 18, were incarcerated in adult jails, and more than 2,200 juvenile offenders were incarcerated in adult prisons within the United States (Parker, 2013).
Modern Juvenile Justice Reform and Research Findings Advocates of reform within the juvenile justice system call for fair punishment and cost- effective crime reduction, as well as an impervious boundary between the juvenile and adult correctional systems (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Advocates of juvenile justice reform oppose the draconian campaign of the last few decades, believing instead that juveniles should be dealt with as a specific category of offender, different in needs from that of adult offenders and deserving of particular and antithetic treatment, meanwhile taking the concern of public safety into consideration (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Research indicates that detaining or confining youth may not be as effective as alternative community based programs in decreasing juvenile recidivism rates, largely due to the removal of youth from positive societal influences such as educational institutions and familial relations (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005). Conversely, research indicates that the rehabilitative effectiveness of incarcerating youths may have an opposing impact on the desired correction due to the negative influence deviant peers can have on delinquency (Scott & Steinberg, 2008: Osgood & O'Neill Briddell, 2006). The cost effectiveness of alternative programs when compared to the costliness of incarceration has been found to be highly favorable in light of the overcrowding and expensiveness of detention facilities (Dui Hua, 2008). Juvenile offenders confined in large detention centers have been found to have high recidivism rates, further increasing the costliness of incarceration (Austin, Johnson & Weitzer, 2005).
Effective Alternative Programs Functional family therapy operates on the belief that juvenile delinquency is a social disfunction that originates within familial relations; juvenile justice within this model focuses on correcting maladaptive behaviors at the family level as well as individually (Henggeler, Schoenwald, 2011). Studies conclude that functional family therapy can be effective in reducing antisocial behavior in juvenile offenders (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). Under multisystemic therapy, juvenile offenders are treated within a framework of not only familial relations, but community as well, and reform is rooted in the intervention of dysfunctional behaviors at multiple levels to include peer, school and community (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). Studies have shown this method of reform to be effective in decreasing recidivism of juvenile offenders engaged in it (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). Multidimensional treatment foster care provides juvenile offenders an alternative to incarceration and detention in state run facilities by providing community based foster care (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). Because the theoretical rationale of this model concludes that juveniles are strongly influenced at the familial relational level, whether it be prosocially or antisocially; as presumably disfunction has occurred within the familial level in their lives, the goal of treatment is then directed towards placing juvenile offenders in family homes who have been specially trained by the community to influence them positively and help create prosocial behaviors (Chamberlain, 2013) This approach has been found effective in reducing incarceration rates, subsequent arrests, running away from programs, and hard drug use (Chamberlain, 2013).
RESEARCH QUESTION
Research Question 1: Are alternative programs effective in reducing recidivism rates and mass incarceration of juvenile offenders in Oregon?
Current research indicates that alternative programs which employ restorative justice measures, community service, employment and labor, and other methods may significantly reduce recidivism and mass incarceration rates of juvenile offenders. Some alternative programs, such as Project Pooch which pairs abandoned dogs with juvenile offenders who are in the Oregon juvenile detention system, report low to zero percent recidivism rates of juvenile offenders who have participated in these programs.
Research Question 2: What is the perceived effectiveness of alternative programs from the viewpoint of those who operate alternative programs and former juvenile participants of them?
While statistical data can address the quantitative effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing recidivism rates and mass incarceration, personal interviews of individuals who participate in these programs either as operators or juvenile offenders can also speak of the effectiveness of these programs.
METHODS
Design
Existing official statistics research will be carried out in order to compare rates of recidivism of juvenile offenders in Oregon in alternative programs versus incarceration for correlations of effectiveness. This data collection method will be employed to not only address the first research question, but to allow for the comparison of recidivism and incarceration rates over an extended period of time. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted in order to address the perceived effectiveness of alternative programs from the viewpoint of those who operate the programs and former participants of them.
Subjects
Official statistics regarding juvenile offenders and recidivism and incarceration rates are collected over time and will likely include a wide range of people who are not aware of the fact (Neuman, 2013) that they have been studied.
For qualitative interviews, I will use a purposive sample of individuals who are operational leaders of alternative programs for the judgement of an expert (Neuman, 2013), as well as individuals who were once juvenile participants in alternative programs for their prior knowledge (Neuman, 2013). I will use purposive sampling to find former juvenile offenders for in-depth investigation who might otherwise be difficult-to-reach (Neuman, 2013).
All data and subjects chosen will be in Oregon.
Measurement
Measurement of the effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing recidivism and incarceration rates can be conducted by analyzing and comparing official statistical data of juvenile offenders who have participated in alternative programs versus the occurrence of recidivism and incarceration after participation in these programs.
Measurement of the effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing recidivism and incarceration rates by qualitative interview is highly subjective and will be measured against the individual's perception versus personal statistical data related to them, conducted by utilizing official arrest data and post-incarceration treatment data recorded by Oregon Youth Authority (Chamberlain, 2013). Interview questions will be kept to a minimum and will examine questions such as How do you perceive the effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing recidivism and incarceration rates of juvenile offenders? and How do you perceive the effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing your recidivism and incarceration rates?
Procedures
I will be collecting and analyzing official statistical data regarding recidivism and incarceration rates of juvenile offenders from Oregon Youth Authority, as well as from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Statistical data can be found on their prospective websites and is freely accessed.
I will also individually interview operational leaders of alternative programs, as well as former participants in these programs by conducting interviews either in person, or by phone.
All data collection will be done by myself and within the time frame specified for this particular study.
Data Analyses
Data analysis will consist of comparing alternative programs and recidivism and incarceration rates of juvenile offenders in Oregon, as well as comparing the personal perception of the effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing recidivism and incarceration rates.
DISCUSSION
I expect to find that alternative programs are highly effective in mitigating recidivism and mass incarceration of juvenile offenders in Oregon when compared to incarceration; and with that statistical based effectiveness, I expect to find that individuals who are operational leaders or former participants will believe that alternative programs are a viable alternative to incarceration and effective in alleviating recidivism.
References Aarons, J., Smith, L., & Wagner, L. (2009). Dispatches from juvenile hall: fixing a failing system. New York: Penguin Books.
Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Weitzer, R. (2005). Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Program , Bulletin, 1-29.
Beale, S. S. (2007). The News Media's Influence on Criminal Justice Policy: How Market- Driven News Promotes Punitiveness. William and Mary Law Review, 48(2), 397-481.
Chamberlain, P. (n.d.). Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care. Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from http://www.blueprints.com.
DOC Research and Statistics Measure 11 Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. (n.d.). DOC Research and Statistics Measure 11 Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/RESRCH/Pages/measure_11.aspx
Hancock, L. (2000). Framing Children in the News: The Face and Color of Youth Crime in America. The Public Assault on America's Children (pp. 78-98). New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Henggeler, S. & Schoenwald, S. (2011). Evidence-Based Interventions for Juvenile Offenders and J uvenile Justice Policies that Support Them. Social Policy Report, 25, 1-26.
Mccombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176.
Neuman, W. Lawrence. 2013. Basics of Social Research: Pearson New International Edition Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Harlow: Pearson.
OJJDP, OJJDP. Restitution by juvenile offenders: an alternative to incarceration.. Washington: Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1978. Print.
Osgood, D. W., & Briddell, L. O. (2006). Peer Effects in Juvenile Justice. Deviant Peer Influences in Programs for Youth (pp. 141-161). New York and London: The Gulford Press.
Parker, A. (2013, February 26). Re: Thematic Hearing on the Incarceration of Youth in US Adult Prisons. Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch, 1-10.
Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2010). Public Preferences For Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration Of Juvenile Offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 1-6.
Quotes and Statistics. (n.d.). Juvenile in Justice. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from http://www.juvenile-in-justice.com/quotes-and-stats
Schwartz, I. M. (1989). (In)justice for juveniles: rethinking the best interests of the child. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Violent Crime Index arrests per 100,000 population, 1980, 1994, 2010. (n.d.). Violent Crime Index arrests per 100,000 population, 1980, 1994, 2010. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05301.asp?qaDate=2010
With Intent to Reform: Alternatives to Juvenile Detention, Incarceration. (n.d.). : The Dui Hua Foundation. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://duihua.org/wp/?p=2924