Juvenile Delinquency: Incarceration Type and Family Intervention - Research Proposal Example

Incarceration Type and Family Intervention as Determinants of Recidivism in Juvenile Delinquency The past two decades in our history saw a startling increase in juvenile crime. The 80's showcased a sharp spike in the number of juvenile criminal behavior, triggering the fear and concern of larger society. Before the 80's, for example, less than two-thirds of juvenile crimes were committed with the use of firearms. By 1994, 82% of juvenile crimes were committed with the use of firearms. (ojjdp.ncjrs.org). In response to this increase in juvenile violence, state legislators have enacted harsher statutes which seek to provide harsher penalties for juvenile offenders. Today's juvenile offender finds himself at risk of being charged and sentenced as an adult unlike in the past where juvenile offenders were relegated solely to the care of juvenile centers. The risk of facing harsher punishment through possible incarceration in adult prisons blossomed as a way to deter juveniles from engaging in violent crimes. Supporters of juvenile incarceration in adult prisons therefore rely on its supposed deterrent value. Despite the growing concern about juvenile violence, many opponents of the current system have continually pointed out that the risks involved in imposing adult penalties to juvenile offenders far outweigh the presumed benefits. Convicted juveniles are placed in adult correctional centers in the hope that the harsher environment would better rehabilitate them. The opposite seems to be the case. Many opponents of adult incarceration, for example, believe that it does not deter juvenile violence at all. This theory has is supported by several studies. Allard (2002), for example, found that adult correctional centers actually had a negative effect on juvenile delinquents. Compared to their counterparts who were retained in juvenile centers, transferred juvenile offenders released from adult correctional centers have been found to have a higher tendency for repeated criminal behavior. (Allard 2002) In the same study, recidivism was shown to be noticeably more significant among juvenile offenders who had been incarcerated in adult prisons. Such findings are diametrically opposed to the theory that adult punishment would lead to more effective rehabilitation for juvenile delinquents. This stand is further supported more recent work which revealed that the mental states of juveniles being sent to adult prisons did not significantly differ from those being sent to juvenile centers. This finding debunks the notion that juveniles sent to adult prisons are different from the regular juvenile delinquent, a wayward youth whose behavior already warrants harsher measures. Beyer's (2006) study of 50 juvenile delinquents that he had encountered in the course of several years as a psychologist rejected the notion of harsh punishment as the catch-all solution for juvenile crime. His study, instead, forwarded the conclusion that while juveniles sent to adult prisons have almost negligible differences from those retained in juvenile centers, the juveniles which are produced at such prisons come out harder and more prone to recidivism. We may thus logically entertain the existence of a relationship between incarceration type and recidivism or repeated criminal behavior. The truth of this statement would have weighty implications both on the juvenile criminal system as well as the legal policies that are currently being implemented in addressing juvenile violence and crime. Aside from asking ourselves whether harsher punishments are truly effective in curbing juvenile crime, we also encounter questions about alternative mechanisms. Grisso (1996), for one, points out the manifest challenges being faced today in the field of juvenile justice. New ways to discourage juvenile delinquency must be adequately examined. More importantly, Grisso (1996) offers the position that harsher prison conditions for juvenile offenders through incarceration in adult correctional facilities may actually be doing more harm than good. Social scientists interested in the reconstruction of the juvenile justice system thus face the task of determining how juvenile crime may be curbed. In response to the search for alternative strategies, social scientist have also embarked on studies geared towards exploring new mechanisms and alternatives in minimizing juvenile crime. Family interaction and intervention studies, for example, have forwarded the role of the juvenile's family in his rehabilitation. According to family intervention theory, therapy sessions conducted either professionally or non-professionally with the families of juvenile delinquents can be effective in curbing juvenile recidivism. The theory relies on the principle that juvenile delinquency is a product of family circumstances and inter-communication patterns within the family. In one research that tested whether family intervention can effectively curb juvenile recidivism and delinquency, for example, juvenile delinquents belonging to families who underwent family therapy, were shown to be less prone to repeated criminal behavior. . (Alexander and Parsons: 1973) A short-term behaviorally oriented family intervention program was designed and was found to significantly lower recidivism rates among juvenile offenders as compared to the participant juveniles whose families did not undergo therapy. A similar study conducted by Klein et al (1977) showcased practically the same results. After subjecting four experimental groups of families through varying degrees of family intervention programs, significant differences were measured in the recidivism rates of the juvenile delinquents from among these families. These studies thus lend credence to the viability of family intervention in addressing juvenile delinquency and recidivism. Objectives General Objective: To determine the effect of incarceration type and non-professional family intervention on the rate of recidivism among juvenile delinquents. Hypotheses It is the hypotheses of the proposed study that recidivism rates shall be significantly higher from within the population of juvenile delinquents who have been confined in adult correctional facilities as compared to those in juvenile centers. We also posit the hypotheses that apart from the said effect of incarceration type on recidivism rates, non-professional family intervention shall also factor in as a determinant of recidivism among the juveniles to be studied, with higher propensity for repeated criminal behavior to be expected from among juvenile offenders whose families did not undergo family intervention and therapy. II. METHODOLOGY Research Design A 2 X 2 Between Subjects Factorial Design will be employed for the proposed experiment. There are two independent variables to be examined in the experiment, incarceration type and non-professional intervention with families of juvenile delinquents. The dependent variable that is intended to be measured in the study is the recidivism rate among the four groups. As mentioned earlier, incarceration type will be composed of two different levels: imprisonment in adult prisons and confinement in regular juvenile centers. The second independent variable, non-professional family intervention, will also have two values or levels: non-intervention and with intervention. Only the second independent variable, non-professional intervention, will be directly manipulated in the proposed experiment. The first independent variable, incarceration type, shall not be manipulated in the proposed study but shall instead be injected through the random selection of participants from within the already existing pool of juvenile delinquents in adult prisons and juvenile centers. Participants Participants for the proposed experiment shall be randomly selected from among the existing pool of juvenile delinquents already situated in adult prisons and juvenile centers. A total of 100 participants aged 15 to 17, and composing four experimental groups, shall be included in the proposed study. Gender proportions shall be strictly observed so as to eliminate confounding factors stemming from gender-related behavioral differences. Equal number of males and females shall compose each experimental group, the number to be determined by the availability of males and females in the existing pool of juveniles currently situated in adult correctional facilities and juveniles centers. Tentative proportion is set at 10 females and 15 males for each group. A total of 100 student volunteers shall also be needed for the experiment to carry out the non-professional family intervention program. These volunteers, composed mostly of Psychology students, shall all be uniformly trained on behavior modification and intervention strategies and shall also be randomly assigned to their respective wards. Two professionals, a psychologist and a social worker shall also be assigned to oversee the volunteers in each experimental group. Procedure The families from half of each incarceration type shall be randomly selected to undergo non-professional family intervention for a period of one year. The families from one half of the participating juveniles in adult prisons shall undergo weekly 2-hr intervention meetings with their respective volunteers whereas the other half shall not be exposed to the said family intervention program. The same shall be applied for the group of juveniles confined in juvenile centers. The family intervention program shall largely follow the prevention and communication program developed by Alexander and Parsons (1973). Measurement of the dependent variable shall then be carried out in the course of three years through the perusal of court and criminal records of the 100 juvenile participants in the study. The rate of recidivism shall then be taken from these records based on the number of instances by which each participant from the four experimental groups has been arrested for similar criminal behavior in the three years since the intervention program was implemented. Statistical Analysis To reject the omnibus null hypothesis that there are no reliable differences in the recidivism rates between the four experimental groups, criterion or 'alpha' level was set at P = 0.05. The above criterion level was selected in order to provide standard reliability for the research results. Statistical testing to determine the statistical significance of any measured differences in recidivism rates shall also be undertaken. Said testing shall be carried out using the 2-way ANOVA test. III. DISCUSSION Based on the results of previous studies as detailed above in the review of related literature, there is a good chance that the results of the proposed experiment will confirm the proposed hypotheses. Higher recidivism rates are expected from within the pool of juveniles incarcerated in adult prisons. The highest recidivism rate is expected to be borne from the fourth experimental group (adult incarceration type, no intervention). The degree by which the recidivism rates differ among the four experimental groups provides greater interest since this would necessarily shed light on the extent by which incarceration type and family intervention therapy affect the propensity of juveniles offenders for repeated criminal behavior. The significance of the proposed study thus lies in the importance of determining whether or not the current juvenile system is making use of the proper mechanisms to curb juvenile violence and crime. The contemporary trend of increased retributive penalties for juvenile delinquents may actually be doing more harm than good in terms of addressing juvenile crime. IV. REFERENCES Alexander, J. and B. V. Parsons. (1973)"Short-term behavioral intervention with delinquent families: Impact on family process and recidivism." Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 81(3), 219-225. Allard, P.and M. C. Young. (2002) "Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court: The Practitioner's Perspective". Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice , 2,65-78. Beyer, M. (2006) "Fifty Delinquents in Juvenile and Adult Court" American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 76(2), 206-214 Bilchik, S. "Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States 1994-1996". ojjdp.ncjrs.org. 1997. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 26 February 2007. Klein, N. C., J. F. Alexander and B. V. Parsons (1977) "Impact of family systems intervention on recidivism and sibling delinquency: A model of primary prevention and program evaluation." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 45(3), 469-474. Lehman, R.S. (1991). Statistics and Research Design in the Behavioral Sciences. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. McGuigan, F.J. (1990). Experimental Psychology: Methods of Research. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Read More