Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Strategies - Essay Example

Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Strategies Introduction A relatively large proportion of kids, even those that live under dismal circumstances, refrain from delinquent behavior and criminal activities. Very few have run-ins with law enforcement and an equally limited number is adjudicated delinquent. It is this small percentage of youthful offenders that is responsible for the rise in juvenile crime, creating an apprehensive environment in schools and communities at large. These young lawbreakers are like a cancer, spreading their criminal tendencies among their peers and engaging in multiple crimes even after being punished. The latter, referred to as recidivism, is a setback for the juvenile correction system since it reverses any rehabilitative progress achieved over time (Siegel and Welsh 23-25). It is, therefore, imperative to have comprehensive juvenile delinquency mitigation measures. These corrective strategies should aim at not only holding delinquents accountable for their criminal actions, but also dissuading them from engaging in the negative acts in the first place. It is noteworthy to indicate that, majority of young reprobates come to the attention of parents, neighbors, school administrators, social services, and law enforcement agencies, at a very tender age. For this reason, innovative family, community, and school based early intervention measures should be implemented, since they would have higher efficacy in deterring delinquency, than punitive strategies like boot camps, prison visitations and increased supervision during probation. Potentially Effective Intervention Measures Research shows that the more effective delinquency prevention programs are those that facilitate intervention prior to the onset of wrongful behavior. These are essentially prevention programs that seek to shape children’s behavior from an early age. Through such involvement, prevention programs can efficiently reduce later crime (Zagar, Busch, and Hughes 282). Preventive programs call upon involvement of different societal stakeholders, meaning that they are comprehensive in nature and positively impact members of the general public, by entirely impeding children’s engagement in criminal activities. Remarkably successful delinquency prevention programs are the holistic ones that address all aspects of a kid’s life and not just a specific one. Programs likely to bear the most success in preventing juvenile criminal behavior are discussed in detail hereunder. Early Intervention Programs Just like the name suggests, early intervention strategies comprise of measures aimed at deterring criminal behavior from a tender age. Supported by extensive research, early intervention prevents the inception of bad behavior by encouraging development of a child’s positive attributes and resilience to achieve positive goals. This approach contravenes many previous intervention measures, which primarily focus on correcting longstanding or visible troublemaking behavior. Programs are deemed early interventions if they occur from birth to early teenage or adolescence. This period is instrumental to molding productive behavior, since it presents a crucial developmental phase, when children are receptive to advice and enrichment from people and activities around them (Welsh and Farrington 872). Excellent examples of these programs include head start and home visitation strategies. Head start strategies could involve ensuring that students engage in constructive activities, as soon as they acquire the ability to execute rational life actions. These efforts would ensure that a child learns to distinguish appropriate behavior from wrongful actions, from the onset of his or her life. Further, head start intervention measures, such as ensuring a child plays and works with well-behaved peers would mold his or her conduct. Consequently, such a child would be equipped to form and sustain constructive relations throughout his or her life. On the other hand, home visitation programs will serve to reshape a child’s behavior, in case of identified deviance. Early intervention strategies have a high likelihood of succeeding in preventing juvenile delinquency, since a child’s mind and behavior are malleable and can easily be transformed for the best. As a result, these programs are capable of alleviating risk factors linked to antisocial behavior and juvenile delinquency, while guaranteeing normal child development free of deviance. Establishment of Parental and Juvenile Accountability Programs Another potent strategy for preventing juvenile delinquency entails establishment of programs that hold juveniles and parents accountable for the former’s wrongdoings. Each delinquent adjudicated for illicit behavior should be held responsible by relevant factions of the juvenile system. Research reveals that presently, many juvenile wrongdoers are not punished after the first few offenses. This naturally exacerbates recidivism, since the young offenders start believing that they can get away with any criminal action they commit. Some even venture into violent crimes or offenses with greater adverse effects. Slightly restrictive punishments, therefore, would be necessary to prevent youngsters’ relapse into illicit behavior. For instance, enrollment in training schools or partial confinement in detention centers are alternatives that would deter nonviolent, first time offenders from aggravating their criminal tendency. In addition, programs that prompt offenders to apologize to crime victims and compensate them for inconvenience, through some form of service, would also foster reform and future crime prevention. Other accountability programs with potential for success include conflict resolution, peer mediation, anger management, performance of community service and participation in substance abuse programs, if necessary. Similar accountability programs should be availed to parents of the wrongdoers. This is primarily due to the fact that parents are the young offenders’ guardians, and should also take responsibility for abandoning their parental obligations. Such programs would serve to ensure that parents are more intent on remediating their children’s behavior and guiding them on how to avoid acts that cause harm or nuisance to other people. The essence of these programs is supported by the fact that, young offenders cannot adopt positive behavior if freed from accountability for their negative actions. Further, the comfort and safety of the community is not served if such offenders are not adequately shown that their actions contravene the fundamental nature of morality in mainstream society. This combinative intervention strategy would be effective since it acts as a preventive measure for repetitive offenses. In addition, by compelling offenders to be accountable for their actions, these programs would aid not only in reforming the individual toward betterment, but also in mitigating harm caused to victims and community at large. The latter is made possible by the fact that offenders are forced to work together with their parents and victims, to work out a restitution plan. Engagement of Offenders in After School Programs Recent data on juvenile crime reflect that crimes committed by youngsters are prevalent after school, usually between two and seven in the evening. During these hours, youths that are not engaged in structured spare time activities have a higher likelihood of getting involved in crime, than their counterparts with productive responsibilities to meet. Just like the maxim goes “an idle mind is the devil’s workshop”, unoccupied juveniles form the greatest percentage of youths implicated in gang activities, illegal drugs’ consumption or peddling and weapon smuggling, among other criminal acts (Peterson 15-18). Therefore, after school programs, which seek to keep youths busy, would go a long way towards preventing their involvement in crimes. These programs should be designed to harness youngsters’ recreational, life and vocational skills. Alternatively, they could build further on individuals’ academic and entrepreneurial skills, thus ensuring that they channel their spare energy toward constructive activities. The after-school programs have been proven successful in different areas, since they not only reduce crimes, but also diminish youths’ depravity. In addition, the programs have the potential to improve students’ grades and lessen their tendency to disrupt learning. Given the proven success record, these programs will be immensely triumphant. This is because they will dissuade youths from dropping out of school, abusing drugs and other harmful substances, engaging in violence or getting involved in other delinquent activities. Most importantly, youths will have a potent platform on which to build and develop their skills for future success. Potentially Ineffective Intervention Measures for juvenile delinquency There are several types of programs that contribute to high recidivism or propensity for multiple criminal offenses. This is due to the fact that programs that target youths during their early stages in their lives are normally more successful than those which onset is later in life. Some of the infamous external control methods for delinquency suppression fall under the category of intervention strategies that are unlikely to curb the vice. These programs are not efficient in dealing with juvenile delinquency. Some of the programs are discussed herein. Programs to orient discipline Programs to instill discipline like the paramilitary boot camps are ineffective in addressing juvenile delinquency. The techniques that are used in boot camp are different in very many countries. However, these methods are structured to be used in parallel military training facilities and not for kids who have behaviour issues. The staff members in these facilities usually act as the drilling sergeants, and the children who have been taken in the facilities are referred to as recruits. These children are usually taken under very intense physical challenge and routines. The Juvenile boot camp programs have been proven to less efficient at recidivism reduction and rehabilitation compared with other programs discussed above like community based programs. According to Drake, Steve and Marna (175-180), many studies conducted in juvenile delinquency and adult boot camps demonstrates their inefficiency in reducing recidivism compared to other prevention and intervention methods. In some cases, the reoffending rates after an individual has attended the boot camp program are higher compared to the others. This is attributable to the aggressive interaction that is experienced between the youth and the staff. As observed, boot camps have a high propensity to fail in modeling pro-social behavior as well as developing empathy which the youths need to learn. Another research conducted by (Drake, Steve and Marna 184-186 ), has found out that Boot Camps and other discipline oriented programs for juvenile delinquents have a zero effect on the participants. This means that there is no change in the re-offenders. This is due to the fact that staff members are not well equipped in dealing with juveniles and this usually resorts to physical and psychological cruelty in maintaining the captive or captor dynamic. Drake, Steve and Marna (189) also indicates that instead of positively affecting the behaviour of an individual, they ultimately change the behavior of the recruits. This is proven by statistics, as well as, government reports which indicate that boot camps fail in reforming the overwhelming majority of juvenile delinquents, whose recidivism rates are as high as 80 percent. Compared to other therapeutic services, like Restorative, Counseling, and Skill building, whose average re-offending is between a 10 percent to and 12 percent for participating youths. Scared Straight Programs This is a program that is aimed at creating awareness to deter delinquent children from future criminal acts. This program, referred to as “Scared Straight”, is aimed at bringing delinquent youths to prison so that they can participate in a more confrontational and realistic session run that are by prisoners who are serving life sentences. Since it’s the inmates who lead these sessions, it graphically depicts the prison life, which includes stories of murder and rape. The intended outcome of the program is to frighten the youths by spending time in the prison thus avoid delinquent behavior. For instance, a rigorous evaluation program that was carried out showed that people who participated in this program do not change their way of life (Petrosino, Carolyn and James 360-67). Instead, they like to experiment on stories that they heard from the people in jail. Additionally, very few people have participated in the experiments which have taken place. This also shows that this program is considered unhealthy for kids. It is interpreted that the program is more discouraging which is evidence that rigorous evaluations are extremely rare and that their use is not fruitful. According to Petrosino, Carolyn and James (370-372), findings have indicated that despite the good intensions of this program, little evidence exist which suggests that it effectively deters subsequent juvenile delinquency. In fact, this evidence stoutly suggests that the program leads to more active criminal activities by the program participants. The other major issue is that the participants are different and one will learn from the experience in very dissimilar ways. Therefore, not all people experience the threat of correctional punishment in the same manner. This is because some individuals pay attention to future consequences while others do not. Additionally, some other individuals are more short-sighted, impulsive, and inebriated. This means that instead of paying attention to future consequences of delinquent behaviour they will want to gain experience from the inmates and become like them. Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) Strategies This is a program that is usually used in learning institutions. In this program, surveillance cameras and metal detectors, as well as, other target hardening strategies like access restriction are utilized. Some of the used in this program emphasize on surveillance in order to detect bad behavior like parole supervision or intensive probation. A transition from assisting, as well as, counseling offenders to one that takes risk surveillance is extremely offensive. This supervision method is less individualized which means it is based on risk instead of need, because it set supervision levels primarily based on the history of the offenders and not how they have changed. This means that the parolees and probationers live in fear of this system since they can be accused of an offence any time. Additionally, the freedom of such people is conditional, because their mistakes are likely to lead to imprisonment. This program fails because among the numerous internal barriers it inhibits success in treatment for offenders (Lipsey 130-135). For instance, failure history is one of the major issues that affect the success of the program. Additionally, alienation of such people from cynicism in the social structures as well as governmental agencies has basically had major impacts on their lives. This gives them a sense of hopelessness which is a negative aspect in these people’s way of life. Delinquents have a cultural believe that treatment is for weak individuals which mean that they take it as a mode of punishment instead of a way to change their lives. In this program, delinquents’ treatment is impeded when the counselors have a negative insight on the client’s desire to change. There is a belief that there is a poor prognosis to recovery or reluctance in offenders in general. When people are always monitored, they do not work hard to change their ways f life. This is because they believe that the people around them do not trust them thus continues to act in delinquent ways. Therefore, they easily pick up negative attitude, which usually confirms their own feelings on delinquent behavior and if they can give up the behaviour (Lipsey 140-143). Conclusion As discussed above, some of the programs introduced to deal with juvenile delinquencies only focus on individuals’ academic achievement instead of changing their way of life. Additionally, other programs’ main focus is solely on the parents instead of the children. However, these programs seem to work and the best ones are those that incorporate numerous aspects of their lives in the curriculum. This is due to the fact that the risk factors that are associated with delinquent behavior are based in numerous dissimilar systems, and comprehensive prevention approaches bound to be more efficient than others. Therefore, by targeting various programs instead of a few of them or just one, a program is able to change the life of a delinquent into an appropriate behaved child. It is therefore imperative to implement better programs which will effectively deal with juvenile delinquency. Works Cited Petrosino, Anthony, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino and James Finckenauer. Well-Meaning Programs Can Have Harmful Effects! Lessons From Experiments of Programs Such as Scared Straight. Crime and Delinquency, 46.3(2000): 354-379. Drake, Elizabeth, Steve Aos and Marna, Miller. Evidence-based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders, 4(2009): 170-196. Lipsey, Mark. The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview. Victims and Offenders, 4(2009): 124-147. Siegel, Larry and Welsh, Brandon. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. 11th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Inc. 2012. Peterson, Rebecca. Understanding Contemporary Gangs in America: An Interdisciplinary Approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 2004. Howell, James. Diffusing Research into Practice Using the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1.3 (2003), 219–245. Welsh, Brandon and David Farrington. Save Children From a Life of Crime. Criminology & Public Policy 6.4 (2007): 871-879. Zagar, Robert, Kenneth Busch, and John Hughes. Empirical Risk Factors for Delinquency and Best Treatments: Where Do We Go from Here? Psychological Reports 104.1 (2009): 279-308. Read More