Juvenile Delinquency in Hidalgo County - Research Paper Example

Juvenile Delinquency in Hidalgo County, Texas Bowen Zhang CCJS350: Juvenile Delinquency, Fall Prof Engelmann “I pledge on my honor that I have not given or received any unauthorized assistance on this assignment/examination” Section 1 A. Introduction Hidalgo County, Texas has a population of 774,820 individuals. It is the 8th most populous county in Texas and 75th in the U.S. As for its racial and ethnic composition, Hispanics or Latinos make up 90.61%, Whites composed 86.13%, Blacks, 0.50%, Native Americans, 0.34%, Asians, 1.02%, other races, 11.23%, and two races, 90.62%. Hidalgo has higher Hispanic, White, and two races population percentages compared to 37.60% Hispanics, 74.06% whites, and 2.20% two races of the Texas state population. Furthermore, Hidalgo has lower Black, Native American, Asian and other races population percentages compared to Texas that has 11.79% Blacks, 0.51% Native Americans, 3.89% Asians, and 7.47% other races. Hidalgo also has more Hispanics and fewer whites compared to the U.S. in general (Local Labs, 2012). Hidalgo County has poorer economic conditions compared to Texas and the U.S. When referring the county’s median household income, it is $33,218. It places at 235th in Texas that has a median household income of $51,563 and 2,820th in the U.S. that has a median household income of $53,046. In Hidalgo, 35.03% have incomes below the poverty line, making it the 6th highest in Texas, where it has 17.35% of people who have incomes below poverty line. Hidalgo ranks 115th in the U.S. that has 14.88% people who have incomes below poverty line (Local Labs, 2012). Hidalgo has more females than males where it has 48.74% males and 51.26% females that reflect state and national percentages, although Hidalgo has a higher female percentage compared to the latter. Texas has 49.62% males and 50.37% females. The U.S. has 49.17% males and 50.82% females. Hidalgo follows the same state and national population gender rations with more females than males. Hidalgo has a younger population compared to Texas and the rest of the nation. The age breakdown for Hidalgo can be seen in exact numbers in Figure 1. Hidalgo has more children under 5 years old and more youth who are between 5 to 17 years old compared to the state of Texas and the U.S. It has a lower percentage of people 18 to 59 years old and people who are 60 years old and above. In Hidalgo, 9.78% are children under 5 years old, 24.76% are children 5 to 17 years old, 52.32% are people 18 to 59 years old, while 13.13% are 60 years old and above. In Texas, 7.65% are children below 5 years old, 19.52% are 5 to 17 years old, 57.63% are people 18 to 59 years old, while 15.20% are 60 years old and above. In the U.S., 6.51% are under 5 years old, 17.42% are children 5 to 17 years old, 57.44% are people 18 to 59 years old, while 18.63% are 60 years old and above (Local Labs, 2012). Figure 1: Age Breakdown for Hidalgo County, Texas, State of Texas, and the U.S. Source: Local Labs (2012). Retrieved from http://locallabs.org/hidalgocounty-texas-age Aside from having a younger population, Hidalgo has a lower percentage of those 25 and older who have at least a bachelor’s degree when compared to Texas and the country. Hidalgo has 14.69% people who are 25 and older who have at least a bachelors degree while Texas has a percentage of 24.75% and the country has 26.53% (Local Labs, 2012). B. Crime Rates and Gangs In calculating the crime rates for Hidalgo County, this paper uses the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The total crime rate for McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX M.S.A. is 8,175.70, which is higher compared to the state of Texas, which has 7,540.70, and the country, which has a total rate of 6,492.10. The property crime rate per 100,000 persons for Hidalgo as per its M.S.A. is 3,768.70, which is higher than the Texas rate of 3,361.8 and the country rate of 2,859.20. Violent crime rate is lower in the MSA where Hidalgo belongs because it is 319.20 compared to the Texas rate of 408.60 and the country rate of 386.9 (FBI, 2012). In other words, the total crime rate in Hidalgo County is higher than the state, particularly its property crime rate, although it has a lower violent crime rate than the latter. When discussing gang presence in the Hidalgo, the Texas Fusion Center Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety (2013) offers only a rough sketch of gang activities in the region where Hidalgo is in Texas Gang Threat Assessment 2012. This report stressed that there are approximately more than 2,500 gangs in Texas and Hidalgo County is in a region where gang activity is highest. See Figure 2 first for the location of Hidalgo in Texas. Figure 2: Hidalgo’s Location in Texas Source: Wikepedia, Hidalgo County, Texas. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidalgo_County,_Texas Figure 3 shows the concentration of gang activity in Texas. There are several parts of Texas that have the highest concentration, and Hidalgo is one of them. Hidalgo is in Region 3, based on this assessment. In Region 3, the most notable gangs are Tango Blast (Corpitos, Vallucos), Texas Syndicate, and Texas Mexican Mafia (Texas Fusion Center Intelligence, 2013, p. 17). Tango Blast engages in violence and Mexican cartels, Texas Syndicate commits violent crimes, as well as human and drug trafficking, while Texan Mexican Mafia is involved in organized crime, extortion, and distribution of black tar heroin (Texas Fusion Center Intelligence, 2013, p. 10). Figure 3: Concentration of Gang Activity in Texas Source: Texas Fusion Center Intelligence & Counterterrorism Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety (2013, p. 15) To deal with these gangs, the state and county offices use different initiatives to tap the resources and systems of local, state and federal law enforcement and state and federal prosecutors. In general, they integrate resources across intelligence, police, investigative, and prosecution agencies/individuals. For cell-like gangs, they use a dynamic proactive law enforcement approach, and for more organized crime groups, they perform long-run intensive criminal enterprise investigations that concentrate on middle- and upper-level gang officials. They investigate financial structures and flows to seize these gang’s assets and to cut ties to their financial resources (Texas Fusion Center Intelligence, 2013, p. 12). C. Juvenile Arrests and Trends The total arrest rates and property crime index for Hidalgo are higher compared to Texas and the country, wherein Hidalgo has a higher violent crime rate than Texas, but lower than the U.S. The total arrest rate of persons under age 18 (per 100,000 persons age 10 to 17) for Hidalgo is 6,540, while Texas has a rate of 4,455 and the country has 4,396. The violent crime index for juveniles in Hidalgo is 154, which is higher than Texas which has 124, but lower than the country’s violent crime index which is at 204. Hidalgo also has a higher property crime index compared to Texas and the country. This county has 1,129 property crime index, while Texas has 881 and the country has 1,001 (Puzzanchera & Kang, 2014). See Figure 4 for the comparison of arrest rates, and property crime and violent crime indices. 1 is for Hidalgo, 2 is for Texas, and 3 is for the U.S. Figure 4: Arrest Rates Comparison for Hidalgo County, States of Texas, and the U.S. Source: Puzzanchera & Kang (2014) Hidalgo County, Texass total juvenile arrest rate decreased from 11,379 in 1994 to 8,927 in 2000. The highest rate of arrest was 11,565 in 1997. The decline rate continued every year until 2003 where it reached 7,659, before it rose again in 2004 at 7,891, and then dropped again at 7,651 in 2005. The total arrest rate continued to decline up to its lowest rate of 6,210 in 2008, after which it rose again to 6,685 in 2009 and rising once more in 2010 at 7,226. In 2011, however, the total arrest rate dropped again to 6,540, which means that the arrest rate dropped by 42.52% since 1994. In comparison, the total juvenile arrest rate for the state of Texas was at its highest point in 1995 at 9,777. The state’s total arrest rate continued to fall until 2002, though there was a slight increase in 2003 from 6,785 in 2002 to 6,859 in 2003, and then another increase in 2004 at 7,062 total juvenile arrest rate. The arrest rate fell again with a slight increase from 6,127 in 2007 to 6,133 in 2008, while the rates dropped thereafter until it reached the lowest point of 4,455 in 2011. The decline in total arrest rates for Hidalgo and Texas did not follow the trends for the U.S. The country had a slightly rising total arrest rate from 9,146 in 1994 to 9,252 in 1996, its highest point. The rates dropped from 1997 up to 2005, then rose again in 2006, while dropping again from 2007 up to 2011, where the lowest rate is in 2011 at 4,396 (Puzzanchera & Kang, 2014). Therefore, Hidalgo Countys total juvenile arrest rate trend since 1994 followed the same decreasing trend, but it had changes in terms of years of increasing trend, particularly when it rose from 2009 to 2010, which happened only for 2009 in Texas and not at all in the country. Hidalgo County, Texas’s violent crime index decreased from the highest point of 375 in 1994 to 245 in 1999, before it rose again to 271 in 2000. Its violent crime index dropped until 2002, only to rise again to 232 in 2003 from 212 in 2002. It dropped to 203 in 2004, but rose again to 246 in 2005. It fell once more until it reached 143 in 2007, its lowest point, but by 2008, it climbed to 218 and to 222 in 2009. It declined once more from 2010 to 2011 where it reached 154. In comparison, the violent crime index for the state of Texas had its highest peak in 1994 at 418. It continued to decline up to 186 in 2005 before rising a little to 187 in 2006, but continued falling up to 124 in 2011, its lowest peak. The highest point of violent crime index for the U.S. is also in 1994 at 503 and continued to drop every year until it reached 267 in 2004, before it rose again to 279 in 2005 and 292 in 2006. Afterwards, it dropped again until it reached its lowest point of 204 in 2011 (Puzzanchera & Kang, 2014). Thus, Hidalgo County’s violent crime index also fell from 1994 to 2011, but was more erratic compared to that of Texas and the U.S. This county’s violent crime index is also lower during its highest point, although its lowest violent crime index rate is higher than Texas and the U.S. by 2011. Hidalgo County, Texas’s property crime index started from 2,519 in 1994 and continued to rise until 1997 when it reached the highest point of 2,934 and declined for the next few years, but rose again in 2000 and then it declined again until 2006. Property crime index rose once more by 2007 up to 2008, but fell from 2009 to 2011, until it reached the lowest point of 1,129 in 2011. In comparison, the violent crime index for the state of Texas had its highest peak in 1994 at 2,566 and fell continuously until 2006, but rose again by 2007 until 2009. It declined once more until it reached its lowest peak of 811 in 2011. The U.S. had a similar highest point in 1999 at 2,525 and declined every year until 2006. It rose in 2007 and again in 2008, but fell down again thereafter and reached its lowest point at 1,001 in 2011 (Puzzanchera & Kang, 2014). Thus, Hidalgo County, Texas’s property crime index showed more increases throughout out the years compared to the state of Texas and the country. To understand the socio-economic circumstances and crimes of Hidalgo County, Texas’ juvenile delinquents, an example will be provided. KRGV.com (2012) reported the case of Belen Contreras’ fifteen-year-old son who was already involved in theft, burglary, and assault. He was sent to rehabilitation. Judge Contreras noted that teenagers and children in Hidalgo County are prone to crime because of their poverty, with Hidalgo County being the 8th poorest county in the country (KRGV.com, 2012). This troubled teen also comes from a poor family and his father is not living with them. Mrs. Contreras revealed that she worked 12 hours a day and had no companion to help her since the father of her kids is gone. The story shows the desperation of a mother in providing for her children economically and socially, where in both, she finds herself lacking. In addition, Mrs. Contreras talked about not getting enough government and social support. Her neighbors have extended families that help them, while she complained of not getting sufficient government welfare support (KRGV.com, 2012). This shows the importance of both money and social relations to the development of children. D. The “Who” in Delinquency Social class affects delinquency in Hidalgo County because the high incidence of poverty can explain why property crime and violent crime indices are higher and more erratic for juvenile delinquents in Hidalgo than in Texas as a whole and the U.S. Social strain theory explains that even the poor have socioeconomic goals and when they see that they cannot attain them because of various social and economic limitations, they become stressed and commit crimes (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 98). In going back to crime rates, the violent crime index for juveniles in Hidalgo is 154, which is higher than Texas at 124, but lower than the country’s violent crime index which is at 204 (Puzzanchera & Kang, 2014). Hidalgo also has a higher property crime index compared to Texas and the country (Puzzanchera & Kang, 2014). Property crime index are crimes of the poor because of the need to steal in order to sustain basic and other needs, as part of attaining social norms. Apart from social class, race and ethnicity can also impact delinquency in Hidalgo County. Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately involved in crimes compared to whites. Hidalgo has higher Hispanic, White, and two races population percentages compared to 37.60% Hispanics, 74.06% whites, and 2.20% two races of the Texas state population, so it is possible that race is also an important factor, not because race is a cause for crime, but because race/ethnicity and crimes are connected to these juvenile’s social class (Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi, 2011, p. 47). Aside from race and ethnicity, age composition is also a determinant. Hidalgo has a younger population compared to Texas and the rest of the nation. Hidalgo has more children under 5 years old and more youth who are between 5 to 17 years old compared to the state of Texas and the U.S. (Local Labs, 2012). Having more young people can increase delinquency if the parents are already poor and cannot provide for their children’s basic needs. Poverty and economic hardships can have increasing negative effects on the self-image of children and adolescents (Regoli et al., 2011, p. 187). Adolescents in a poor county like Hidalgo County, once in school, increasingly realize that they are poor, not only because of their family circumstances, but also because of their neighborhood’s squalid conditions (Regoli et al., 2011, p. 187). This results to social strain that increases risks for delinquency. Gender, however, does not seem to largely impact juvenile delinquency. Hidalgo County has more females than males where it has 48.74% males and 51.26% females that reflect state and national percentages, although Hidalgo has a higher female percentage compared to the latter. Texas has 49.62% males and 50.37% females. The U.S. has 49.17% males and 50.82% females. Boys are more often arrested for delinquency than girls (Regoli et al., 2011, p. 43). Nonetheless, delinquent girls may also be involved in property and violent crimes and having more women may mean more single women households that are also at risk for juvenile delinquency (Regoli et al., 2011, p. 362). The likelihood of the youth becoming involved in delinquency in Hidalgo County is high because of high poverty incidence, predominance of Hispanic and two-race groups, and young population that increase risk for delinquency. As shown in the case of Belen Contreras’ fifteen-year-old son who was already implicated in theft, burglary, and assault, this adolescent comes from a poor family who lives in a poor county. His father is not present in his life, and crime rates are high, as well as gang activity. Essentially, he is growing up in an environment that may set him up for failure, unless the government steps in to help or other organizations and unless he finds a deep sense of motivation in himself to change his life (Regoli et al., 2011, p. 187). II. Theory A. Strain Theory Strain theory can be traced to Emile Durkheim who studied suicide and his concept of anomie and expanded later on by Robert Merton. Durkheim defined anomie as the condition of a group or a society where there are contradictions or confusions in fundamental social norms (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 92). Durkheim believed that unstable social and other environmental conditions create anomie for people that confuse them enough for their social norms and bonds to weaken (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 93). Merton developed the concept of anomie to explain more deviant behaviors. He argues that anomie develops when people become aware of the gap between their aspirations and the means to reach them (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 93). The American society, furthermore, presents cultural expectations, goals, and standards that define a good life, such as finishing college and having enough wealth to live a comfortable life (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 93). People from the lower class know that they cannot reach these goals for various reasons and this makes them feel hopeless and helpless, which results to anomie (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 93). Merton believes that people will deal with anomie in different ways and not all resort to criminality (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 94). Robert Agnew expanded the Social Strain Theory further through his General Strain Theory. He believes that strain comes more from the disconnection between goals and means (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 98). Losing something positive in life can contribute to strain too, as well as the presence of negative conditions (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 99). Juveniles cannot cope with strain in healthy ways, thus, they may engage in deviant behaviors, including crimes (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 99). Given social strain theories, this means that juvenile justice policy should consider the social environments of juvenile delinquent when analyzing juvenile behaviors and the right approaches to juveniles with social and economic limitations in their lives. Instead of punishing the youth as they would do with adults, the main approach should be rehabilitation and providing these delinquents the means to change their lives (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 99). For instance, if they cannot study because of poverty, the rehabilitation program must include helping them get back to education. If possible, they should be given mentors who can help them reconnect with social norms and aspirations and inspire them to live better lives by making better decisions. At the same time, the government can give them work, so that they can earn money legally and be trained for future workplace conditions. A juvenile justice policy that responds to social strain theories ensures that it is helping the youth have more means to achieve their social and economic ends. III. Social Context The social context of peers and gang affiliations in Hidalgo County indicates that these social connections can be connected to juvenile delinquency. The characteristics of these peers here are that they are involved in violent crimes, drugs, and property crimes. The total crime rate for McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX M.S.A. is 8,175.70, which is higher compared to the state of Texas, which has 7,540.70, and the country, which has a total rate of 6,492.10. The property crime rate per 100,000 persons for Hidalgo as per its M.S.A. is 3,768.70, which is higher than the Texas rate of 3,361.8 and the country rate of 2,859.20 (FBI, 2012). Violent crime rate is lower in the MSA where Hidalgo belongs because it is 319.20 compared to the Texas rate of 408.60 and the country rate of 386.9 (FBI, 2012). These conditions indicate the peers and gang associations are higher in Hidalgo County, as well as crime rates, which can be important influencing factors on at-risk teenagers who are already poor and fatherless. Peers can substantially affect involvement in delinquency if the teenagers do not have supportive family factors that could guide them in evading bad influences, offer alternative ways of dealing with hard socioeconomic realities, and are more present than family members. If peers become the main social support of the youth and they are engaged in delinquent behaviors, the youth are having poor role models. In addition, gangs and peers can offer alternative ways of dealing with difficult circumstances, such as drugs, property crime, and violent crimes. If the youth in Hidalgo do not have the legal means to attain their needs and wants, they may use these means that these gangs offer them. Moreover, peers may be more physically and emotionally present than parents. Single households are numerous in Hidalgo County signifying single mothers with absentee fathers. These teens may feel more at home with their peers, thereby increasing their risks of delinquency (Thompson & Bynum, 2013, p. 99). Three prevention and intervention strategies include programs that coordinate activities that will reduce gang recidivism, ensuring that the youth stay in school, and offering employment and other livelihood programs for the youth. An example of an intervention is a gang reduction program that provides various activities to help the youth develop positive attitudes and skills in life (Regoli et al., 2011, p. 368). They could get into drug rehabilitation if they have drug problems, while also preparing them for going back to their studies. A prevention program is helping the youth stay in school. The school and the community can work in providing for social support in school and basic school and other needs. Furthermore, the county can offer employment and other livelihood programs that respond to the talents and aspirations of the youth. I would recommend that, in order to reduce the effect of peers and gangs on juvenile delinquency, the entire village must act together in raising the youth. When families are poor, they need social and economic support from the government, not to make them welfare-dependent, but to prepare them for economic independence. For those youth in fatherless households, the county should offer youth support services and mentoring programs that can make the youth feel less socially alienated. In addition, as they grow older, they should be given access to trainings and educational programs that are responsive to their personal career aspirations. IV. Juvenile Courts, Corrections, & Delinquency Prevention Measures A. Juvenile Courts The U.S. juvenile justice system has rehabilitation as its main goal and is different from the criminal justice system. Juvenile delinquency refers to children who commit criminal acts and are under 18 years old during their criminal activities (Regoli et al., 2011, p. 377). Juvenile court hearings are also not open to the public and diverse non-imprisonment options are made available to these youth once adjudicated or convicted (Regoli et al., 2011, p. 377). In the state of Texas, a “juvenile” is much younger, wherein he/she must be 10 to 17 years old (lower age 10, upper age 16) (Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2014). Hidalgo County follows the same juvenile court process as the state of Texas. If the county has opted to charge the juvenile with delinquent conduct, the juvenile will have access to an adult’s legal rights. Some possible options for youth that are “adjudicated” for delinquent behavior are: probation, being sent to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department with an indeterminate sentence if charged with felony offenses, or being sent to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department with a determinate sentence. The county has a Juvenile Probation Department. It receives, processes referrals, and subsequently assigns cases to the appropriate unit for disposition. The court, however, can have a delinquent be categorized as an adult, thereby charging him/her as an adult (Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2014). The minimum age for judicial waiver to criminal court in Texas is 14 years old. The juvenile court may waive its exclusive jurisdiction over a child who can fit the age/offense criteria. The conditions are: “(1) there is probable cause to believe the child committed the offense alleged and (2) because of the offenses seriousness or the childs background the welfare of the community requires a transfer for criminal proceedings” (OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, 2012). After the juvenile court transfers jurisdiction, the adult criminal court may not repeal it. There are no specific transfers and related mandates that apply specifically to Hidalgo County only. An example of a juvenile transferred to the criminal court is Napoleon Beazley, who was sentenced to die. He fatally shot John Luttig during his carjacking of the latter’s Mercedes Benz (Graczyk, 2001). Amnesty International wants these executions of juvenile delinquents to stop (Graczyk, 2001). Others believe that teenagers do not need a punitive punishment but a protective and rehabilitating solution (Graczyk, 2001). I believe that the youth need more guidance once they engage in criminality, not harsh punishment. As long as they do not have severe mental problems that require additional psychological services, they can be put on rehabilitation programs instead of being tried as adults. They must not face social stigma when they are labeled as adult criminals. They should be able to access social, educational, and economic resources that can improve their ability to use legal means in attaining their aspirations in life. B. Juvenile Corrections Juvenile detention centers are the places where the court detains young offenders sentenced by a juvenile court and those who are also waiting for their trial (Regoli et al., 2011, p. 377). The juvenile custody rate is 7,662 in Texas in 2003 compared to 2,451 in Georgia and 2,715 in Illinois (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006, p. 201). Hidalgo County has a juvenile detention facility that provides short-term residential care for juvenile offenders who are put into custody. There is only one juvenile detention facility in the county which already suffers from overcrowding. Hidalgo County has 110 juvenile offenders in its facility made for 96 offenders (Hendricks, 2013). The Texas Administrative Code may pull out funding if Hidalgo continues keeping more teenagers in its overcrowded facility. Judge Contreras asserts that the problem is expanding the facility that the code does not allow yet and he cannot just release violent juveniles to streets that can increase violent and property crime indices (Hendricks, 2013). This problem shows that detention is not feasible for a county with limited corrections facility. In Hidalgo and Texas, probation and monitoring are not enough for juveniles who have conducted violent crimes (Hendricks, 2013). C. Prevention and Intervention Hidalgo County has a Juvenile Probation Department. It administers the probation and support staff needed to deliver services to juvenile offenders and their parent(s) (Hidalgo County, 2014). It offers two kinds of supervision. Deferred Prosecution supervision is on a volunteer basis and informal, while Formal Judicial Probation means that the child has committed offenses and put into probation (Hidalgo County, 2014). Hidalgo’s Juvenile Probation Department also has a boot camp and transitional facility for intervention measures. The Judge Mario E. Ramirez, Jr., Juvenile Justice Center’s Boot Camp Facility serves non-violent at-risk males between the ages of thirteen (13) to seventeen (17) years old for nine (9) months (Hidalgo County, 2014). They are adjudicated by a State District Judge in Hidalgo County and get into a military structured program (Hidalgo County, 2014). The Judge Mario E. Ramirez, Jr. Juvenile Justice Center Transitional Program offers continued rehabilitation of Boot Camp graduates (Hidalgo County, 2014). It addresses substance abuse recovery topics and re-integration (Hidalgo County, 2014). I believe that there are not enough prevention and intervention strategies because even the corrections are already overcrowded and crime rates are still high in Hidalgo County. It is important for the government to address poverty and gang presence to reduce juvenile delinquency. The County must expand its prevention services because its youth are at high-risk for being male, fatherless, poor, and in neighborhoods where gangs are prevalent. Social strain theories can help understand these social strains and how they can resolved. Systemic reforms should focus on prevention and early intervention when kids are already showing juvenile delinquent behaviors at the youngest ages. This includes providing early child health care and education programs and day care centers to support single mothers and struggling parents and offering continued social support from the government and nongovernment offices. Intervention strategies must also help children get back to realizing that they can still attain their individual dreams, as long as they can reintegrate into the community. Social strain theories offer an important foundation in designing prevention and intervention strategies that are centered on making social changes that can remove anomie and improve the youth’s coping mechanisms and abilities and in reforming a juvenile justice system into one that sees juvenile delinquents as potential productive adults who can lead meaningful lives through the right interventions that fit their personalities and socioeconomic conditions. Bibliography Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2012). Crime in the United States by Metropolitan Statistical Area, 2012. Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime Graczyk, M. (2001, July 31). Group decries pending Texas execution. Retrieved from http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/group_decries.html Hendricks, D. (2013, November 16). Jail overcrowding forces Hidalgo County’s juvenile offenders to sleep on the floor. The Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_2b9b9fa0-4f33-11e3-ad62-0019bb30f31a.html Hidalgo County, Texas. (2014). Programs and units within the Juvenile Probation Department. Retrieved from http://www.co.hidalgo.tx.us/index.aspx?NID=1072 KRGV.com. (2012, November 9). Crime and poverty a problem for valley teens. KRGV.com. Retrieved from http://www.krgv.com/news/crime-and-poverty-a-problem-for-valley-teens/ Local Labs. (2012). Hidalgo County. Retrieved from http://locallabs.org/hidalgocounty-texas OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. (2012). Texas. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/tryingjuvasadult/states/tx.html Puzzanchera, C., & Kang, W. (2014). Easy access to FBI arrest statistics 1994-2011. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezaucr/ Regoli, R., Hewitt, J., & DeLisi, M. (2011). Delinquency in society: The essentials. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Snyder, H.N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and Victims: 2006 national report. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/nr2006.pdf Texas Fusion Center Intelligence & Counterterrorism Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety. (2013). Texas Gang Threat Assessment 2012. Retrieved from https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/media_and_communications/TXGangThreatAssessment.pdf Texas Juvenile Justice Department. (2014). Overview of the juvenile justice system in Texas. Retrieved from http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/about/overview.aspx Thompson, W.E., & Bynum, J.E. (2013). Juvenile delinquency (9th ed.). Boston: Pearson. Read More