Childrens Court in Preventing Juvenile Delinquency - Literature review Example

How Effective is the Children’s Court in Preventing Juvenile Delinquency? number] How Effective is the Children’s Court in Preventing Juvenile Delinquency? Introduction Juvenile delinquency is a complicated problem because there are many underlying and contributory factors that relate to this behavior. The various changes happening in the society – the reorganizing of the labor market, changing educational opportunities and choices, shifting leisure activities and lifestyles – add new pressures on young people who are undergoing transition from childhood to adulthood. Hence, it is no longer a surprise that juvenile crime levels have increased in almost every country in the world (United Nations, 2003, p. 189). In Australia, statistics show that juvenile offender rates are often twice as high as that of adults (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2009). Many first time youth offenders are male and are aged 15-19 years old. The most common type of offense is theft. An article by Karen Bogenschneider (2011) says that these late-bloomers often engage in a few delinquent acts, commit several serious crimes and then stop their criminal activities by the time they reach adulthood. Moreover, “late-blooming adolescents can be found in most communities, their families appear to be less advantaged than those of early occurring delinquents and the parents appear more skillful in family management practices” (Steinberg in Bogenschneider, 2011, p. 12). Meanwhile, early youth offenders (those who commit their first crime before the age of 15) exhibit psychological and social problems at an early age. They are often “aggressive, impulsive, and lacking in social skills and self control” (Bogenschneider, 2011, p. 13) and typically, they belong to families which have low socioeconomic status, whose parents are separated and are often unemployed. Studies also show that these young offenders are more susceptible to frequent and violent criminal activities in their later life. Through the profiles of youth offenders described above, one may say that delinquency is a symptom of social, economic and political problems. In order to address it effectively, governments have to utilize a multi-faceted approach. It must institute rehabilitative policies that will prevent recidivism among youth offenders. Peter Greenwood (2008) says in his article, “preventing delinquency…not only save young lives from being wasted, but also prevents the onset of adult criminal careers and thus reduces the burden of crime on its victims and society” (p. 185). In the U.S. alone, arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating and rehabilitating juvenile offenders costs states billions of dollars – money which can be used to bring about social development and prevent criminal activities from happening in the first place. In Australia, there are a number of policies already being instituted to prevent juvenile delinquency but there is little data to support their effectiveness. Hence, this research aims to address this knowledge gap. The main question which will be addressed in this study is: “How effective is the Children’s Court in preventing juvenile delinquency?” The audiences for this research are policy makers who are seeking to improve the different programs aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency. This research will perform a meta-analysis of various studies assessing the Australian Children’s court in order to create an overview of the effectiveness of the court in preventing juvenile delinquency. The meta-analysis will also be complimented with a structured interview of youth (offenders and non-offenders) in order to get an idea on their knowledge (and perhaps, experience) of the proceedings in the Children’s court and receive valuable insights (which are not often considered) in the assessment and redesign of such programs. Literature Review In a report published by the United Nations (UN), it said, “[t]he problem of delinquency is becoming more complicated and universal, and crime prevention programs are either unequipped with the present realities or do not exist” (United Nations, 2003, p. 190). Present trends of juvenile delinquency shows that it is no longer just an act of rebellion, but instead, it is a symptom of the social difficulties experienced by many families today. Researches show that it is those youths who live in difficult circumstances which are more prone to delinquent behaviors. Children exposed to parent alcoholism, poverty, abusive environments, etc., who have no means of subsistence or acquiring basic necessities have the greatest risk of falling into juvenile delinquency. Hence, it is important for the government to prioritize systemic action and enhance communications with organizations providing social services to both offenders and victims. This literature review will explore several American and British resources that evaluate the different approaches used to deter youth crimes. Through these previous works, one will be able to create a framework with which to assess the current juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention programs instituted in Australia. Moreover, such review will reveal whether the targeted population (youth offenders), are allowed to give their own input to enhance the different programs. Perhaps one of the biggest issues in delinquency prevention is whether individual control or social development should be prioritized. Robert Semmens (1991) provided an overview of the issue. In his conference report, Semmens says that for governments, individual control programs are more attractive because a single organization provides the service. Hence, it does not need to coordinate with other agencies, and it services can be delivered efficiently, with significant results. The down side is that its effects tend to be short term and does not prevent recidivism on a significant portion of the participants. Semmens says that this is an indication that individual control has to be used in combination with another approach in order to create lasting chance and make the greatest impact on society. Because of this, the author says that “long term welfare of the community is better served through social development strategies rather than through emphasising individual control strategies” (Semmens, 1991, p. 1). This approach requires the cooperation of various social institutions such as the family, peers, school, work and other community organisations. Through the participation of these institutions, Semmens believed that the youth will gain “important gratification and the understanding necessary to contribute positively to the wider political, cultural, and recreational arenas of the society” (Semmens, 1991, p. 2). To test the effectiveness of the social development model, Flavia Rivera and Timothy McCorry conducted an empirical study involving 23 adolescents who participated in an after-school program. The results showed that individuals who perceived more opportunities for involvement in the after school program are less likely to exhibit delinquent behavior. Moreover, those who actively interacted with the staff of the program are less likely to commit act of delinquency. Additionally, those individuals who are recognized for participating by the staff have lower tendency to engage in delinquent behavior. Through this research, it becomes clear that the social development model is effective, however, it is important that program staff to have the right skills to ensure continued success. River and McCorry’s study is important not only because it proves that governments have to provide greater opportunities for the youth to engage in productive activities, it also important because it provided operational definitions of delinquency which can be used for this study. Such definitions can be used to design an interview of youth offenders which aims to determine the effectiveness of specific crime prevention programs. According to Peter Greenwood, in the United States alone, there are dozens of delinquency-prevention programs which are “proven” effective and another twenty to thirty which are “promising”. He then proceeds to review the methods used to identify the best programs. Unfortunately, he did not expound on how the methods can be used but instead, created a scale by which programs can be classified against. To characterize the effectiveness of a program, Greenwood used the following seven-level scale: (a) Preferred strategies refer to those programs which were proven effective based on statistical analysis. Because of their effectiveness, they are also more expensive to implement. (b) Proven programs are tested through rigorous meta-analysis. (c) Provisional programs are supported by one evaluation through a strong research design and shows potential for crime-prevention. (d) Promising strategies are not yet studied but logical analysis shows a possible positive effects. (e) Potentially promising programs are not supported by evidence but whose design shows promising results. (f) Ineffective programs are those which have no effect or may potentially lead to negative effects. (g) Unproven programs include those which cannot be classified in the other five categories. This scale will be used in the rating of Australian programs relating to juvenile delinquency and will facilitate improved communication between this researcher and the reader. Other important points from the Greenwood study includes the discovery that the best programs are those which prevent the youth from engaging in crime in the first place. Home-visit programs to pregnant teenagers and young mothers, and school-based programs that corrects anti-social behaviors and prevent early school drop-outs (Greenwood, 2008, p. 185) are especially effective while programs like Scared Straight, Boot Camps, DARE or transferring offenders to adult courts were counterproductive and served only to increase the risk for recidivism. His review showed that by improving the quality of parenting, enhancing school involvement and peer group associations and fulfilling skill requirements all help reduce the likelihood of committing delinquency. The Scared Straight program was first established in the 1970s at a New Jersey prison. It’s main goal was to “scare” delinquent youths through an inflated presentation of prison facilities. The underlying theory behind this practice is that “realistic depictions of life in prison and presentations by inmates will deter juvenile offenders (or children at risk of becoming delinquent) from further involvement with crime” (Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, & Buehler, 2003, p. 42). According to Anthony Petrosino, et.al., the Scared Straight program was an inexpensive way to reduce juvenile crime and it allowed incarcerated offenders to contribute to societal wellbeing by provide a motivation for the youth to lead their lives away from criminal activities. Despite the initial success, several studies have shown that Scared Straight-type programs are ineffective in that they do not deter crimes and many participants to the programs have higher arrest rates. Australia uses a similar scheme, the “day in prison” or “day in gaol” and has been the subject of different criticisms (White, 1999). Petrosino, et.al.’s study is important because it provides the specific steps on how to perform systematic reviews of policies. It specified parameters on how to select cases, as well as how to extract and organize data. While the study focused only on researches about the Scared Straight program, the methodology in used will be helpful for this research to assess crime prevention strategies utilizes in Australia. Through Petrosino, et.al.’s work, one does not need to gather his/her own data in order to assess programs. Research Questions The main question that will be addressed in this study is: How effective is the Children’s Court in preventing juvenile recidivism? In order to address this question, the researchers have formulated the following sub-questions: 1. Are adolescents referred to the Children’s Court treated better than those youths referred to regular courts? 2. What are the actual experiences of youth who were referred to Children’s Courts? 3. What strategies in the Children’s Courts can be used to rehabilitate the offending youth? Three hypotheses have been formulated to address the questions above: 1. Children’s courts can dis-empower the juvenile delinquents because they have little to no knowledge of court proceedings. 2. Children’s courts have a potential for preventing delinquent behaviors but its procedures must be assessed based on the feedback from the target population. 3. The life conditions of offending youths must be considered in order to create a meaningful court system. Research Subjects This study is focused on the knowledge of the youth about the Children’s Court and its goals. By interviewing a sample of adolescents and asking them to provide feedback about the Court, the researchers can gain an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the program. Moreover, the respondents will provide valuable feedback on how the Children’s Court operation can be revised so that it can serve the needs of offending youths better. To meet the objectives for this study, respondents will be chosen through stratified random sampling. A list of youth offenders serving their sentences will be acquired from the Children’s Court. Moreover, non-offending youths will also be included in the sample so as to create a comparison. Works Cited Australian Institute of Criminology. (2009). Juvenile offenders. Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved December 8, 2011, from http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/criminaljustice/juveniles.aspx Bogenschneider, K. (2011). Do we know enough to prevent youth crime? Retrieved from http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_wifis04c03.pdf Greenwood, P. (2008). Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offender. The Future of Children, 18(2), 185-210. Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2003). Scared straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review of the randomized experimental evidence. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589(Misleading Evidence and Evidence-Led Policy: Making Social Science More Experimental), 41-62. Semmens, R. (1991). Delinquency prevention: Individual control or social development? Proceedings of a Conference held 17-19 July 1989. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/previous series/proceedings/1-27/~/media/publications/proceedings/09/semmens.pdf United Nations. (2003). Juvenile Delinquency. World Youth Report. United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unyin/documents/ch07.pdf White, R. (1999). Curtailing youth: A critique of coercive crime prevention. In L. G. Mazerolle & J. Roehl (Eds.), Civil Remediies and Crime Prevention (pp. 117-137). Lynne Rienner Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/volume_09/Curtailing_Youth.pdf Read More