Home Uncategorized Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Strategy Presentation

Uncategorized

Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Strategy Presentation

Create an 4-slide Microsoft® PowerPoint® presentation with speaker notes that outlines and explains the modern comprehensive juvenile justice strategy, including the following:

Prevention
Institutional Programs

APTER ONE: Childhood and

Delinquency

CHAPTER OUTLINE

THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF ADOLESCENCE

Youth at Risk

What Does This Mean to Me?

FOCUS ON DELINQUENCY: Teen Risk Taking

Problems in Cyberspace

Is There Reason for Hope?

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDHOOD

Custom and Practice in the Middle Ages

The Development of Concern for Children

Childhood in America

Controlling Children

DEVELOPING JUVENILE JUSTICE

Juvenile Justice in the Nineteenth Century

Urbanization

The Child-Saving Movement

Were They Really Child Savers?

Development of Juvenile Institutions

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (SPCC)

The Illinois Juvenile Court Act and Its Legacy

Reforming the System

Delinquency and Parens Patriae

The Current Legal Status of Delinquency

Legal Responsibility of Youths

STATUS OFFENDERS

Origins of the Status Offense Concept

The Status Offender in the Juvenile Justice System

Reforming the Treatment of Status Offenders

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: Intervention: Family Keys Program

The Future of the Status Offense Concept

Curfews

Disciplining Parents

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter you should:

· 1. Be familiar with the risks faced by youth in American culture.

· 2. Develop an understanding of the history of childhood.

· 3. Be able to discuss development of the

juvenile justice system

· 4. Trace the history and purpose of the juvenile court.

· 5. Be able to describe the differences between delinquency and status offending.

REAL CASES/REAL PEOPLE: Aaliyah’s Story

Aaliyah Parker ran away from home at the age of 17. She struggled with family issues and felt she could no longer live with her mother, stepfather, and younger siblings in their California home. Arriving in Colorado with no family support, no money, and no place to live, she joined other runaway adolescents, homeless on the streets. Aaliyah began using drugs and was eventually arrested and detained at a juvenile detention center for possession of methamphetamines and providing false information to a police officer.

When Aaliyah entered the juvenile justice system she was a few months from turning 18. Due to issues of jurisdiction, budget concerns, and Aaliyah’s age, system administrators encouraged the case worker assigned to Aaliyah to make arrangements for her to return to her family in California. The case worker could see that Aaliyah had a strong desire to get her life back on track. She needed assistance, but the cost of her treatment would be over $3,000 per month, and the county agency’s budget was already stretched. She was transported from the juvenile detention center to a 90-day drug and alcohol treatment program where she was able to detoxify her body and engage in intensive counseling. The program also provided family therapy through phone counseling for Aaliyah’s mother, allowing the family to reconnect. Despite this renewed contact, returning home was not an option for Aaliyah.

Aaliyah contacted a group home run by a local church that takes runaway adolescents through county placements and provides a variety of services for clients and their families. Aaliyah entered the group home, was able to get her high school diploma, and eventually enrolled in an independent living program that assisted her in finding a job and getting her own apartment. Aaliyah has remained in contact with her juvenile case worker. Although she has struggled with her sobriety on occasion, she has been able to refrain from using methamphetamines. Her case worker continues to encourage Aaliyah and has been an ongoing source of support, despite the fact that the client file was closed several years ago. Aaliyah’s success can be credited to the initial advocacy of her case worker, the effective interventions, and to the strong determination demonstrated by this young woman.

There are now 75 million children in the United States under age

— about 37 percent of the population—many of whom share some of the same problems as Aaliyah.

Thousands become runaways and wind up on the streets where their safety is compromised, and they may turn to drugs, alcohol, and crime as street survival strategies. Simply spending time on the streets increases their likelihood for violence.

The present generation of adolescents faces many risks. They have been described as cynical, preoccupied with material acquisitions, and uninterested in creative expression.

By age 18, the average American adolescent has spent more time in front of a television set than in the classroom. In the 1950s, teenagers were reading comic books, but today they watch TV shows and movies that rely on graphic scenes of violence as their main theme; each year they may see up to 1,000 rapes, murders, and assaults. When they are not texting and tweeting, teens are listening to rap songs by Gucci Mane, V-Nasty, and Tyga, whose best-selling 2012 song “Rack City” includes these romantic lyrics:

· I’mma M—f— star

Look at the paint on the car

Too much rim make the ride too hard

Tell that bitch hop out, walk the boulevard

I need my money pronto

These artists’ explicit lyrics routinely describe substance abuse and promiscuity and glorify the gangsta lifestyle. How does exposure to this music affect young listeners? Should we be concerned? Maybe we should. Research has found that kids who listen to music with a sexual content are much more likely to engage in precocious sex than adolescents whose musical tastes run to Adele and Justin Bieber.

THE RISKS AND REWARDS OF ADOLESCENCE

The problems of American society have had a significant effect on our nation’s youth. Adolescence is a time of trial and uncertainty, a time when youths experience anxiety, humiliation, and mood swings. During this period, the personality is still developing and is vulnerable to a host of external factors. Adolescents also undergo a period of rapid biological development. During just a few years’ time, their height, weight, and sexual characteristics change dramatically. A hundred and fifty years ago girls matured sexually at age 16, but today they do so at 12.5 years of age. Although they may be capable of having children as early as 14, many youngsters remain emotionally immature long after reaching biological maturity. At age

, a significant number of teenagers are unable to meet the responsibilities of the workplace, the family, and the neighborhood. Many suffer from health problems, are underachievers in school, and are skeptical about their ability to enter the workforce and become productive members of society.

In later adolescence (ages

to 18), youths may experience a crisis that psychologist Erik Erikson described as a struggle between

ego identity

and

role diffusion

Ego identity

is formed when youths develop a firm sense of who they are and what they stand for;

role diffusion

occurs when youths experience uncertainty and place themselves at the mercy of leaders who promise to give them a sense of identity they cannot mold for themselves.

Psychologists also find that late adolescence is dominated by a yearning for independence from parental control.

Given this mixture of biological change and desire for autonomy, it isn’t surprising that the teenage years are a time of conflict with authority at home, at school, and in the community.

ego identity

According to Erik Erikson, ego identity is formed when persons develop a firm sense of who they are and what they stand for.

role diffusion

According to Erik Erikson, role diffusion occurs when youths spread themselves too thin, experience personal uncertainty, and place themselves at the mercy of leaders who promise to give them a sense of identity they cannot develop for themselves.

Youth at Risk

Problems in the home, the school, and the neighborhood have placed a significant portion of American youths at risk. Youths considered at risk are those who engage in dangerous conduct, such as drug abuse, alcohol use, and precocious sexuality. Although it is impossible to determine precisely the number of

at-risk youths

in the United States, one estimate is that 25 percent of the population under age 17, or about 18 million youths, are in this category. The teen years bring many new risks—including some that are life-threatening. Each year almost 14,000 Americans ages 15 to 19 lose their lives in such unexpected incidents as motor vehicle accidents, homicide, and suicide. It is estimated that three-quarters of teen deaths are due to preventable causes, yet little is being done to reduce the death rate.

The most pressing problems facing American youth revolve around five issues: poverty, health and mortality problems, family problems, substandard living conditions, and inadequate education.

at-risk youths

Young people who are extremely vulnerable to the negative consequences of school failure, substance abuse, and early sexuality.

Poverty.

Poverty in the United States is more prevalent now than in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and has escalated rapidly since 2000. While poverty problems have risen for nearly every age, gender, and race/ethnic group, the increases in poverty have been most severe among the nation’s youngest families (adults under 30), especially those with one or more children present in the home. Since 2007, the poverty rate has risen by 8 percent among these families, hitting 37 percent in 2010; in 1967 it stood at only 14 percent. Among young families with children residing in the home, 4 of every 9 were poor or near poor and close to 2 out of 3 were low income.

Working hard and playing by the rules is not enough to lift families out of poverty: even if parents work full-time at the federal minimum wage, the family still lives in poverty. Consequently, about 6 million children live in extreme poverty, which means less than $10,000 for a family of four; the younger the child, the more likely they are to live in extreme poverty.

Which kids live in poverty? Minority kids are much more likely than white, non-Hispanic children to experience poverty, though because of their numerical representation, there are actually a larger number of poor white children in the population. Nonetheless, proportionately, Hispanic and black children are about three times as likely to be poor than their white peers.

And as

Figure

1.1

shows, kids living in a single-parent female-headed household are significantly more likely to suffer poverty than those in two-parent families.

FIGURE 1.1: Percentage of Children Ages 0–17 Living in Poverty by Family Structure

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements,

www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/surveys2.asp

(accessed June 12, 2012).

Poverty hits kids especially hard, making it difficult for them to be part of the American Dream. Here Jalinh Vasquez holds her sister Jayshel Barthelemy in the FEMA Diamond trailer park in Port Sulphur, Louisiana, where they still live with five other children and four adults four years after Hurricane Katrina destroyed their home. They are still awaiting money from the federal Road Home program to purchase a new home. Approximately 2,000 families in the New Orleans metropolitan area live in FEMA trailers, and 80 percent of those still in trailers were homeowners who are unable to return to their storm-damaged houses.

Child poverty can exact a terrible lifelong burden and have long-lasting negative effects on the child’s cognitive achievement, educational attainment, nutrition, physical and mental health, and social behavior. Educational achievement scores between children in affluent and low-income families have been widening over the years, and the incomes and wealth of families have become increasingly important determinants of adolescents’ high school graduation, college attendance, and college persistence and graduation. The chances of an adolescent from a poor family with weak academic skills obtaining a bachelor’s degree by their mid-20s is now close to zero.

Health and Mortality Problems.

Receiving adequate health care is another significant concern for American youth. There are some troubling signs. Recent national estimates indicate that only about 18 percent of adolescents meet current physical activity recommendations of one hour of physical activity a day, and only about 22 percent eat five or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day.

Kids with health problems may only be helped if they have insurance. And while most kids now have health care coverage of some sort, about 10 percent or 7.5 million youth do not.

As might be expected, children who are not healthy, especially those who live in lower-income families and children from ethnic and minority backgrounds, are subject to illness and early mortality. Recently, the infant mortality rate rose for the first time in more than 40 years, and is now 7 per 1,000 births. The United States currently ranks 25th in the world among industrialized nations in preventing infant mortality, and the percent of children born at low birth weight has increased.

While infant mortality remains a problem, so does violent adolescent death. More than 3,000 children and teens are killed by firearms each year, the equivalent of 120 public school classrooms of 25 students each; more than half of these deaths were of white children and teens. Another 16,000 children and teens suffer nonfatal firearm injuries. Today, more preschoolers are killed by firearms than law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

Family Problems.

Family dissolution and disruption also plague American youth. Divorce has become an all too common occurrence in the United States; it is estimated that between 40 and 50 percent of first marriages end in divorce. Second and third marriages fare even worse: second marriages fail at a rate of 60 to 67 percent, and third marriages fail at a rate of 73 to 74 percent.

In 2010, 69 percent of children under age 17 lived with two parents (66 percent with two married parents—down from 77 percent in 1980—and 3 percent with two biological/ adoptive cohabiting parents), 23 percent lived with only their mothers, 3 percent with only their fathers, and 4 percent with neither of their parents.

Kids are often caught in the crossfire of marital strife and all too often become its innocent victims. Family friend Margaret Fischer holds up a picture of Amanda Peake and her two children in front of the family’s home in Red Bank, South Carolina. Peake’s estranged boyfriend, Chancey Smith, shot her, then her 9-year-old son Cameron, then her 6-year-old daughter Sarah inside the family’s home in the community of Red Bank. Smith then turned the gun on himself.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO ME? Older, but Wiser

“When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years” (Mark Twain, “Old Times on the Mississippi,” Atlantic Monthly, 1874).

Do you agree with Mark Twain? When you look back at your adolescence, are you surprised at how much you thought you knew then and how little you know now? Did you do anything that you now consider silly and immature? Of course, as they say, “Hindsight is always 20/20.” Maybe there is a benefit to teenage rebellion. For example, would it make you a better parent knowing firsthand about all the trouble your kids get into and why they do?

As families undergo divorce, separation, and breakup, kids are often placed in foster care. Among the 3 million children (4 percent of all children) not living with either parent, 54 percent (1.7 million) lived with grandparents, 21 percent lived with other relatives only, and 24 percent lived with nonrelatives. Of children in nonrelatives’ homes, 27 percent (200,000) lived with foster parents.

About 130,000 kids in foster care are waiting to be adopted, and 44 percent of them entered care before age 6. Each year, on their 18th birthday, more than 25,000 kids leave foster care without family support; these young adults share an elevated risk of becoming homeless, unemployed, and incarcerated. They are also at great risk at developing physical, developmental, and mental health challenges across their lifespan.

Focus on Delinquency: TEEN RISK TAKING

Teens are risk takers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsors an annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) that monitors health-risk behaviors among youth and young adults. Among the risky behaviors measured include dangerous driving habits, tobacco, alcohol and other drug use, and sexual behaviors that contribute to unintended pregnancy. The many findings of the most recent survey include the following:

· • 10 percent of students rarely or never wore a seat belt when riding in a car driven by someone else.

· • Among the 70 percent of students who had ridden a bicycle during the 12 months before the survey, 85 percent had rarely or never worn a bicycle helmet.

· • 28 percent of students rode in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol one or more times during the 30 days before the survey.

· • 10 percent of students had driven a car or other vehicle one or more times when they had been drinking alcohol during the 30 days before the survey.

· • 17 percent of students had carried a weapon (e.g., a gun, knife, or club) on at least one day during the 30 days before the survey.

· • 20 percent of students had been bullied on school property during the 12 months before the survey.

· • Almost 14 percent of students had seriously considered attempting suicide, and 6 percent of students had attempted suicide one or more times during the 12 months before the survey.

· • 19 percent of students smoked cigarettes on at least one day during the 30 days before the survey.

· • 72 percent of students had had at least one drink of alcohol on at least one day during their life, and 42 percent of students had had at least one drink of alcohol on at least one day during the 30 days before the survey.

· • 46 percent of students had had sexual intercourse.

· • 18 percent of students were physically active at least 60 minutes per day on each of the seven days before the survey.

· • 23 percent of students did not participate in at least 60 minutes of physical activity on at least one day during the seven days before the survey.

Why do youths take such chances? Research has shown that kids may be too immature to understand how dangerous risk taking can be and are unable to properly assess the chances they are taking. Criminologist Nanette Davis suggests there is a potential for risky behavior among youth in all facets of American life. Risky describes behavior that is emotionally edgy, dangerous, exciting, hazardous, challenging, volatile, and potentially emotionally, socially, and financially costly—even life threatening. Youths commonly become involved in risky behavior as they negotiate the hurdles of adolescent life, learning to drive, date, drink, work, relate, and live. Davis finds that social developments in the United States have increased the risks of growing up for all children. The social, economic, and political circumstances that increase adolescent risk taking include these:

· • The uncertainty of contemporary social life. Planning a future is problematic in a society where job elimination and corporate downsizing are accepted business practices, and divorce and family restructuring are epidemic.

· • Lack of legitimate opportunity. In some elements of society, kids believe they have no future, leaving them to experiment with risky alternatives, such as drug dealing or theft.

· • Emphasis on consumerism. In high school, peer respect is bought through the accumulation of material goods. For those kids whose families cannot afford to keep up, drug deals and theft may be a shortcut to getting coveted name-brand clothes and athletic shoes.

· • Racial, class, age, and ethnicity inequalities. These discourage kids from believing in a better future. Children are raised to be skeptical that they can receive social benefits from any institution beyond themselves or their immediate family.

· • The “cult of individualism.” This makes people self-centered and hurts collective and group identities. Children are taught to put their own interests above those of others.

As children mature into adults, the uncertainty of modern society may prolong their risk-taking behavior. Jobs have become unpredictable, and many undereducated and undertrained youths find themselves competing for the same low-paying job as hundreds of other applicants; they are a “surplus product.” They may find their only alternative for survival is to return to their childhood bedroom and live off their parents. Under these circumstances, risk taking may be a plausible alternative for fitting in in our consumer-oriented society.

CRITICAL THINKING

· 1. Davis calls for a major national effort to restore these troubled youths using a holistic, nonpunitive approach that recognizes the special needs of children. How would you convince kids to stop taking risks?

· 2. Do you agree that elements of contemporary society cause kids to take risks, or is it possible that teens are natural risk takers and their risky behavior is a biological reaction to “raging hormones”?

Writing Assignment Everyone has taken risks in their life and some of us have paid the consequences. Write an essay detailing one of your riskiest behaviors and what you learned from the experience

Sources: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), 2009,

www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/us_overview_yrbs

(accessed June 13, 2012); “Unintentional Strangulation Deaths from the ‘Choking Game’ Among Youths Aged 6–19 Years, United States, 1995–2007,” February 15, 2008,

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5706a1.htm

(accessed June 13, 2012); Patrick Nickoletti and Heather Taussig, “Outcome Expectancies and Risk Behaviors in Maltreated Adolescents,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 16:217–228 (2006); Nanette Davis, Youth Crisis: Growing Up in the High-Risk Society (New York: Praeger/Greenwood, 1998).

Substandard Living Conditions.

Many children continue to live in substandard housing—such as high-rise, multiple-family dwellings—which can have a negative influence on their long-term psychological health.

Adolescents living in deteriorated urban areas are prevented from having productive and happy lives. Many die from random bullets and drive-by shootings. Some adolescents are homeless and living on the street, where they are at risk of drug addiction and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including AIDS.

Looking Back to Aaliyah’s Story

Housing is a major issue for many teens “aging out” of the system. Often, children placed in alternative care settings, such as foster homes or residential treatment centers, are not prepared to live on their own when they turn 18 or are released from juvenile custody.

CRITICAL THINKING

Discuss what can be done to help kids in foster care be better prepared for adult life. Make a list of life skills that must be mastered.

Inadequate Education.

The U.S. educational system seems to be failing many young people. It is now estimated that about 70 percent of fourth graders in our public schools cannot read at grade level.

Because reading proficiency is an essential element for educational success, students who are problem readers are at high risk of grade repetition and dropping out of school. Educational problems are likely to hit minority kids the hardest. According to the nonprofit Children’s Defense Fund, African American children are:

· • Half as likely to be placed in a gifted and talented class.

· • More than one and a half times as likely to be placed in a class for students with emotional disturbances.

· • Almost twice as likely to be placed in a class for students with mental retardation.

· • Two and a half times as likely to be held back or retained in school.

· • Almost three times as likely to be suspended from school.

· • More than four times as likely to be expelled.

Formed in 1985, the Children’s Rights Council (CRC) is a national nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., that works to ensure children meaningful and continuing contact with both their parents and extended family, regardless of the parents’ marital status. Find this website by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at

CengageBrain.com

, then accessing the Web Links for this chapter.

Why the discrepancy? Poor minority-group children attend the most underfunded schools, receive inadequate educational opportunities, and have the fewest opportunities to achieve conventional success.

The problems faced by kids who do poorly in school do not end in adolescence.

Adults 25 years of age and older with less than a high school diploma earn 30 percent less than those who have earned a high school diploma. High school graduation is the single most effective preventive strategy against adult poverty; as

Table 1.1

shows, 13 percent of American adults age 25 to 34 are not high school graduates; only 31 percent have a college degree or more.

TABLE 1.1: Educational Attainment Among 25- to 34-Year-Olds

United States

Not a high school graduate

13%

High school diploma or GED

48%

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

22%

Graduate degree

Source: Anna E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Program, 2010 data,
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=6294
(accessed June 12, 2012).

Considering that youth are at risk during the most tumultuous time of their lives, it comes as no surprise that, as the

Focus on Delinquency

box entitled “

Teen Risk Taking

” suggests, they are willing to engage in risky, destructive behavior.

Problems in Cyberspace

Kids today are forced to deal with problems and issues that their parents could not even dream about. While the Internet and other technological advances have opened a new world of information gathering and sharing, they have brought with them a basketful of new problems ranging from sexting to cyberstalking.

Cyberbullying.

Phoebe Prince, a 15-year-old Massachusetts girl, hanged herself in a stairwell at her home after enduring months of torment by her fellow students at South Hadley High School. Prince, who had immigrated from Ireland, was taunted in the school’s hallways and bombarded with vulgar insults by a pack of kids led by the ex-girlfriend of a boy she had briefly dated. As she studied in the library on the last day of her life, she was openly hounded and threatened physically while other students and a teacher looked on and did nothing. In the aftermath of her death, prosecutors accused two boys of statutory rape and four girls of violating Prince’s civil rights and criminal harassment. Ironically, most of these students were still in school, and some continued to post nasty remarks on Prince’s memorial Facebook page after her death.

Experts define bullying among children as repeated, negative acts committed by one or more children against another.

These negative acts may be physical or verbal in nature—for example, hitting or kicking, teasing or taunting—or they may involve indirect actions such as manipulating friendships or purposely excluding other children from activities. While bullying is a problem that remains to be solved, it has now morphed from the physical to the virtual. Because of the creation of cyberspace, physical distance is no longer a barrier to the frequency and depth of harm doled out by a bully to his or her victim.

Cyberbullying is the willful and repeated harm inflicted through the medium of electronic text. Like their real-world counterparts, cyberbullies are malicious aggressors who seek implicit or explicit pleasure or profit through the mistreatment of other individuals. Although power in traditional bullying might be physical (stature) or social (competency or popularity), online power may simply stem from Internet proficiency.

Not only are kids at risk of real-time bullying, but they may be bullied in cyberspace by people they hardly know and whose identity is hard to discover. Here, John Halligan shows the web page devoted to his son. Ryan was bullied for months online. Classmates sent the 13-year-old Essex Junction, Vermont, boy instant messages calling him gay. He was threatened, taunted, and insulted incessantly by cyberbullies. Finally, Ryan killed himself. His father says he couldn’t take it anymore.

It is difficult to get an accurate count of the number of teens who have experienced cyberbullying. Published estimates range from 72 percent all the way down to less than 6 percent; the average found in published articles is about one quarter of all students have been cyberbully victims. A recent study by cyberbullying experts Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja found that about 21 percent of youth had been the target of cyberbullying; this means that one out of every five kids has been cyberbullied.

Figure 1.2

shows, adolescent girls are significantly more likely to have experienced cyberbullying in their lifetimes (25.8 percent vs. 16 percent) than boys. Girls are also more likely to report cyberbullying others during their lifetime (21.1 percent vs. 18.3 percent). The type of cyberbullying tends to differ by gender; girls are more likely to spread rumors while boys are more likely to post hurtful pictures.

FIGURE 1.2: Cyberbullying by Gender

Random sample of 10–18 year olds from large school district in the southern U.S.

Source: Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja, Cyberbullying Research Center,

http://cyberbullying.us/research.php

(accessed June 12, 2012). Used by permission.

Cyberbullies who are able to navigate the Net and utilize technology in a way that allows them to harass others are in a position of power relative to a victim. A bully can send harassing e-mails or instant messages; post obscene, insulting, and slanderous messages on social networking sites; develop websites to promote and disseminate defamatory content; or send harassing text messages via cell phone.

Cyberstalking.

Cyberstalking refers to the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Some predatory adults pursue minors through online chat rooms, establish a relationship with the child, and later make contact. Today, Internet predators are more likely to develop relationships with at-risk adolescents and beguile underage teenagers, rather than use coercion and violence.

Sexting.

Adolescents now have to worry that the compromising photos they send their boyfriends or girlfriends—a practice called sexting—can have terrible repercussions. In 2008, Jesse Logan, an 18-year-old Ohio high school girl, made the mistake of sending nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend. When they broke up, he sent them around to their schoolmates. As soon as the e-photos got into the hands of her classmates, they began harassing her, calling her names, and destroying her reputation. Jesse soon became depressed and reclusive, afraid to go to school, and in July 2008 she hanged herself in her bedroom.

There are, in fact, a number of organizations dedicated to improving educational standards in the United States. The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse’s mission is to identify effective curriculum resources, create high-quality professional development materials, and disseminate useful information and products to improve K-12 mathematics and science teaching and learning. Find this website by going to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then accessing the Web Links for this chapter.

The mission of the Children’s Defense Fund is to “leave no child behind” and ensure every child a healthy start, a head start, a fair start, a safe start, and a moral start in life and a successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. The CDF tries to provide a strong, effective voice for kids who cannot vote, lobby, or speak for themselves. Find this website by going to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then accessing the Web Links for this chapter.

While the sexting phenomenon has garnered national attention, there is some question of how often teens actually engage in the distribution of sexually compromising material. One recent survey of 1,560 Internet users ages 10 through 17 found that about 2.5 percent had appeared in or created nude or nearly nude pictures or videos and that 1 percent of these images contained sexually explicit nudity.

Of the youth who participated in the survey, 7 percent said they had received nude or nearly nude images of others; few youth distributed these images. It is possible that sexting is not as common as previously believed or that it was a fad that is quickly fading.

Is There Reason for Hope?

These social conditions have a significant impact on kids. Children are being polarized into two distinct economic groups: those in affluent, two-earner, married-couple households and those in poor, single-parent households.

Kids whose parents divorce may increase their involvement in delinquency, especially if they have a close bond with the parent who is forced to leave.

They may turn to risky behavior instead of traveling down a conventional life path.

Yet despite the many hazards faced by teens, there are some bright spots on the horizon. Teenage birthrates nationwide have declined substantially during the past decade, with the sharpest declines among African American girls. The teen abortion rate has also dropped significantly. These data indicate that more young girls are using birth control and practicing safe sex. Fewer children with health risks are being born today than in 1990. This probably means that fewer women are drinking or smoking during pregnancy and that fewer are receiving late or no prenatal care. In addition, since 1990 the number of children immunized against disease has increased.

Education is still a problem area, but more parents are reading to their children, and math achievement is rising in grades 4 through 12. And more kids are going to college. College enrollment is now about 18 million and is expected to continue setting new records for the next decade.

Almost 30 percent of the adult population in the United States now have college degrees.

There are also indications that youngsters may be rejecting hard drugs. Teen smoking and drinking rates remain high, but fewer kids are using heroin and crack cocaine and the numbers of teens who report cigarette use has been in decline since the mid-1990s.

Although these are encouraging signs, many problem areas remain, and the improvement of adolescent life continues to be a national goal.

CHECKPOINTS

· LO1 Be familiar with the risks faced by youth in American culture.

· The problems of American youth have become a national concern and an important subject of academic study.

· There are more than 75 million youths in the United States, and the number is expected to rise.

· American youth are under a great deal of stress. They face poverty, family problems, urban decay, inadequate education, teen pregnancy, and social conflict.

· Kids take risks that get them in trouble.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

The problems of youth in modern society have long been associated with

juvenile delinquency

, or criminal behavior engaged in by minors. The study of juvenile delinquency is important both because of the damage suffered by its victims and the problems faced by its perpetrators. About 1.7 million youths under age 18 are arrested each year for crimes ranging from loitering to murder.

Though most juvenile law violations are minor, some young offenders are extremely dangerous and violent. More than 800,000 youths belong to street gangs. Youths involved in multiple serious criminal acts, referred to as repeat or

chronic juvenile offenders

, are considered a serious social problem. State juvenile authorities must deal with these offenders while responding to a range of other social problems, including child abuse and neglect, school crime and vandalism, family crises, and drug abuse. The cost to society of these high-rate offenders can be immense. In a series of studies, Mark Cohen, Alex Piquero, and Wesley Jennings examined the costs to society of various groups of juvenile offenders, including high-rate chronic offenders who kept on committing serious crimes as adults.

They found that the average cost for each of these offenders was over $

1.5

million, and their cost to society increased as they grew older. The “worst of the worst” of these offenders, ones who committed more than 50 crimes, cost society about $1.7 million by the time they reached their mid-20s. In all, the high-rate offenders in the study had an annual cost to society of over half a billion dollars.

juvenile delinquency

Participation in illegal behavior by a minor who falls under a statutory age limit.

chronic juvenile offenders (also known as chronic

delinquent

offenders, chronic delinquents, or chronic recidivists)

Youths who have been arrested four or more times during their minority and perpetuate a striking majority of serious criminal acts. This small group, known as the “chronic 6 percent” is believed to engage in a significant portion of all delinquent behavior; these youths do not age out of crime but continue their criminal behavior into adulthood.

Looking Back to Aaliyah’s Story

Many juvenile delinquents commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or because they are addicted and need to support their habit. If this is the case, should these juveniles be court ordered into a treatment program?

CRITICAL THINKING Draw up a statement of activities that can be used to prevent alcohol and drug abuse in the teen population.

Clearly, there is an urgent need for strategies to combat juvenile delinquency. But formulating effective strategies demands a solid understanding of the causes of delinquency. Is it a function of psychological abnormality? A reaction against destructive social conditions? The product of a disturbed home life? Does serious delinquent behavior occur only in urban areas among lower-class youths? Or is it spread throughout the social structure? What are the effects of family life, substance abuse, school experiences, and peer relations?

The study of delinquency also involves the analysis of the

juvenile justice system

—the law enforcement, court, and correctional agencies designed to treat youthful offenders. How should police deal with minors who violate the law? What are the legal rights of children? What kinds of correctional programs are most effective with delinquent youths? How useful are educational, community, counseling, and vocational development programs? Is it true, as some critics claim, that most efforts to rehabilitate young offenders are doomed to failure? The reaction to juvenile delinquency frequently divides the public. While people favor policies that provide rehabilitation of violent offenders, other Americans are wary of teenage hoodlums and gangs, and believe that young offenders should be treated no differently than mature felons.

Should the juvenile justice system be more concerned about the long-term effects of punishment? Can even the most violent teenager one day be rehabilitated?

juvenile justice system

The segment of the justice system, including law enforcement officers, the courts, and correctional agencies, that is designed to treat youthful offenders.

In summary, the scientific study of delinquency requires understanding the nature, extent, and cause of youthful law violations and the methods devised for their control. We also need to study environmental and social issues, including substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, education, and peer relations. All of these aspects of juvenile delinquency will be discussed in this text. We begin, however, with a look back to the development of the concept of childhood, how children were first identified as a unique group with their own special needs and behaviors, and how a system of justice developed to treat and care for needy, at-risk youth.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDHOOD

Treating children as a distinct social group with special needs and behavior is a relatively new concept. Only for the past 350 years has any formal mechanism existed to care for even the neediest children. In Europe during the Middle Ages (C.E. 700–1500), the concept of childhood as we know it today did not exist. In the

paternalistic family

of the time, the father exercised complete control over his wife and children.

Children who did not obey were subject to severe physical punishment, even death.

paternalistic family

A family style wherein the father is the final authority on all family matters and exercises complete control over his wife and children.

Custom and Practice in the Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, as soon as they were physically capable, children of all classes were expected to take on adult roles. Boys learned farming or a skilled trade such as masonry or metalworking; girls aided in food preparation or household maintenance.

Some peasant youths went into domestic or agricultural service on the estates of powerful landowners or became apprenticed in trades or crafts.

Children of the landholding classes also assumed adult roles at an early age. At age 7 or 8, boys born to landholding families were either sent to a monastery or cathedral school or were sent to serve as squires, or assistants, to experienced knights. At age 21, young men of the knightly classes received their own knighthood and returned home to live with their parents. Girls were educated at home and married in their early teens. A few were taught to read, write, and do sufficient mathematics to handle household accounts in addition to typical female duties, such as supervising servants.

During the Middle Ages, children like those shown in this sixteenth-century woodcut were expected to be obedient and compliant or face the wrath of their parents, who would not hesitate to use corporal punishment.

Some experts, most notably Philippe Aries, have described the medieval child as a “miniature adult” who began to work and accept adult roles at an early age and was treated with great cruelty.

In many families, especially the highborn, newborns were handed over to wet nurses who fed and cared for them during the first two years of life; parents had little contact with their children. Discipline was severe. Young children of all classes were subjected to stringent rules and regulations. Children were beaten for any sign of disobedience or ill temper, and many would be considered abused by today’s standards. Children were expected to undertake responsibilities early in their lives, sharing in the work of siblings and parents. Those thought to be suffering from disease or retardation were often abandoned to churches, orphanages, or foundling homes.

The Development of Concern for Children

Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a number of developments in England heralded the march toward the recognition of children’s rights. Among them were changes in family style and childcare, the English

Poor Laws

, the apprenticeship movement, and the role of the chancery court.

Changes in Family Structure.

Family structure began to change after the Middle Ages. Extended families, which were created over centuries, gave way to the nuclear family structure with which we are familiar today. It became more common for marriage to be based on love rather than parental consent and paternal dominance. This changing concept of marriage from an economic arrangement to an emotional commitment also began to influence the way children were treated. Although parents still rigidly disciplined their children, they formed closer ties and had greater concern for the well-being of their offspring.

Toward the close of the eighteenth century, the work of such philosophers as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Locke launched a new age for childhood and the family.

Their vision produced a period known as the Enlightenment, which stressed a humanistic view of life, freedom, family, reason, and law. These new beliefs influenced the family. The father’s authority was tempered, discipline became more relaxed, and the expression of affection became more commonplace. Upper- and middle-class families began to devote attention to childrearing, and the status of children was advanced.

As a result of these changes, children began to emerge as a distinct group with independent needs and interests. Serious questions arose over the treatment of children in school. Restrictions were placed on the use of the whip, and in some schools academic assignments or the loss of privileges replaced corporal punishment. Despite such reforms, punishment was still primarily physical, and schools continued to mistreat children.

Poor Laws.

As early as 1535, the English passed statutes known as

Poor Laws

These laws allowed for the appointment of overseers to place destitute or neglected children as servants in the homes of the affluent, where they were trained in agricultural, trade, or domestic services. The Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601 created a system of church wardens and overseers who, with the consent of justices of the peace, identified vagrant, delinquent, and neglected children and put them to work. Often this meant placing them in poorhouses or workhouses or apprenticing them to masters.

Poor Laws

English statutes that allowed the courts to appoint overseers for destitute and neglected children, allowing placement of these children as servants in the homes of the affluent.

The Apprenticeship Movement.

Apprenticeship existed throughout almost the entire history of Great Britain.

Under this practice, children were placed in the care of adults who trained them in specific skills, such as being a blacksmith or a farrier (a shoer of horses). Voluntary apprentices were bound out by parents or guardians in exchange for a fee. Legal authority over the child was then transferred to the apprentice’s master. The system helped parents avoid the costs and responsibilities of childrearing. Involuntary apprentices were compelled by the legal authorities to serve a master until they were 21 or older. The master–apprentice relationship was similar to the parent–child relationship in that the master had complete authority over the apprentice and could have agreements enforced by local magistrates.

Chancery Court.

Throughout Great Britain in the Middle Ages,

chancery courts

were established to protect property rights and seek equitable solutions to disputes and conflicts. Eventually, their authority was extended to the welfare of children in cases involving the guardianship of orphans. This included safeguarding their property and inheritance rights and appointing a guardian to protect them until they reached the age of majority.

chancery courts

Court proceedings created in fifteenth-century England to oversee the lives of highborn minors who were orphaned or otherwise could not care for themselves.

The courts operated on the proposition that children were under the protective control of the king; thus, the Latin phrase

parens patriae

was used, which refers to the role of the king as the father of his country. The concept was first used by English kings to establish their right to intervene in the lives of the children of their vassals.

As time passed, the monarchy used parens patriae more and more to justify its intervention in the lives of families and children.

parens patriae

The power of the state to act on behalf of the child and provide care and protection equivalent to that of a parent.

Childhood in America

While England was using its chancery courts and Poor Laws to care for children in need, the American colonies were developing similar concepts. The colonies were a haven for people looking for opportunities denied them in England and Europe. Along with the adult early settlers, many children came not as citizens, but as indentured servants, apprentices, or agricultural workers. They were recruited from workhouses, orphanages, prisons, and asylums that housed vagrant and delinquent youths.

At the same time, the colonists themselves produced illegitimate, neglected, and delinquent children. The initial response to caring for such children was to adopt court and Poor Law systems similar to those in England. Poor Law legislation requiring poor and dependent children to serve apprenticeships was passed in Virginia in 1646 and in Massachusetts and Connecticut in 1673.

For more information on the early history of childhood and the development of education, read “Factors Influencing the Development of the Idea of Childhood in Europe and America” by Jim Vandergriff. Find the website by going to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then accessing the Web Links for this chapter.

It was also possible, as in England, for parents to voluntarily apprentice their children to a master for care and training. The master in colonial America acted as a surrogate parent, and in certain instances apprentices would actually become part of the family. If they disobeyed their masters, they were punished by local tribunals. If masters abused apprentices, courts would make them pay damages, return the children to the parents, or find new guardians for them. Maryland and Virginia developed an orphans’ court that supervised the treatment of youths placed with guardians. These courts did not supervise children living with their natural parents, leaving intact parents’ rights to care for their children.

Controlling Children

In the United States, as in England, moral discipline was rigidly enforced. Stubborn-child laws were passed that required children to obey their parents.

It was not uncommon for children to be whipped if they were disobedient or disrespectful to their families. Children were often required to attend public whippings and executions, because these events were thought to be important forms of moral instruction. Parents referred their children to published writings on behavior and expected them to follow their precepts carefully. The early colonists, however, viewed family violence as a sin, and child protection laws were passed as early as 1639 (in New Haven, Connecticut). These laws expressed the community’s commitment to God to oppose sin, but offenders usually received lenient sentences.

Although most colonies adopted a protectionist stance, few cases of child abuse were actually brought before the courts. CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO2 Develop an understanding of the history of childhood.

· The concept of a separate status of childhood has developed slowly over the centuries.

· Early family life was controlled by parents. Punishment was severe and children were expected to take on adult roles early in their lives.

· With the start of the seventeenth century came greater recognition of the needs of children. In Great Britain, the chancery court movement, the Poor Laws, and apprenticeship programs greatly affected the lives of children.

· In colonial America, many of the characteristics of English family living were adopted.

· In the nineteenth century, neglected, delinquent, and dependent or runaway children were treated no differently than criminal defendants. Children were often charged and convicted of crimes.

DEVELOPING JUVENILE JUSTICE

Though the personal rights of children slowly developed, until the twentieth century little distinction was made between adult and juvenile offenders who were brought before the law. Although judges considered the age of an offender when deciding on punishment, both adults and children were eligible for prison, corporal punishment, and even the death penalty. In fact, children were treated with extreme cruelty at home, at school, and by the law.

Over the years this treatment changed as society became sensitive to the special needs of children. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, there was official recognition that children formed a separate group with their own special needs. In New York, Boston, and Chicago, groups known as

child savers

were formed to assist children. They created community programs to service needy children and lobbied for a separate legal status for children, which ultimately led to development of a formal juvenile justice system.

Juvenile Justice in the Nineteenth Century

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, delinquent, neglected, and runaway children in the United States were treated in the same way as adult criminal offenders.

Like children in England, when convicted of crimes they received harsh sentences similar to those imposed on adults. The adult criminal code applied to children, and no juvenile court existed.

During the early nineteenth century, various pieces of legislation were introduced to humanize criminal procedures for children. The concept of probation, introduced in Massachusetts in 1841, was geared toward helping young people avoid imprisonment. Many books and reports written during this time heightened public interest in juvenile care.

Despite this interest, no special facilities existed for the care of youths in trouble with the law, nor were there separate laws or courts to control their behavior. Youths who committed petty crimes, such as stealing or vandalism, were viewed as wayward children or victims of neglect and were placed in community asylums or homes. Youths who were involved in more serious crimes were subject to the same punishments as adults—imprisonment, whipping, or death.

Several events led to reforms and nourished the eventual development of the juvenile justice system: urbanization, the child-saving movement and growing interest in the concept of parens patriae, and development of institutions for the care of delinquent and neglected children.

Urbanization

Especially during the first half of the nineteenth century, the United States experienced rapid population growth, primarily due to an increased birthrate and expanding immigration. The rural poor and immigrant groups were attracted to urban commercial centers that promised jobs in manufacturing.

Urbanization gave rise to increased numbers of young people at risk, who overwhelmed the existing system of work and training. To accommodate destitute youths, local jurisdictions developed poorhouses (almshouses) and workhouses. The poor, the insane, the diseased, and vagrant and destitute children were all housed there in crowded and unhealthy conditions.

To learn more about this era, go to the Library of Congress website devoted to American history; visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Urbanization and industrialization also generated the belief that certain segments of the population (youths in urban areas, immigrants) were susceptible to the influences of their decaying environment. The children of these classes were considered a group that might be “saved” by a combination of state and community intervention.

Intervention in the lives of these so-called dangerous classes became acceptable for wealthy, civic-minded citizens. Such efforts included settlement houses, a term used around the turn of the twentieth century to describe shelters, and nonsecure residential facilities for vagrant children.

The Child-Saving Movement

The problems generated by urban growth sparked interest in the welfare of the “new” Americans, whose arrival fueled this expansion. In 1817, prominent New Yorkers formed the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism. Although they concerned themselves with attacking taverns, brothels, and gambling parlors, they also were concerned that the moral training of children of the dangerous classes was inadequate. Soon other groups concerned with the plight of poor children began to form. Their focus was on extending government control over youthful activities (drinking, vagrancy, and delinquency) that had previously been left to private or family control.

These activists became known as

child savers

. Prominent among them were penologist Enoch Wines; Judge Richard Tuthill; Lucy Flowers, of the Chicago Women’s Association; Sara Cooper, of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections; and Sophia Minton, of the New York Committee on Children.

Poor children could become a financial burden, and the child savers believed these children presented a threat to the moral fabric of society. Child-saving organizations influenced state legislatures to enact laws giving courts the power to commit children who were runaways or criminal offenders to specialized institutions.

child savers

Nineteenth-century reformers who developed programs for troubled youth and influenced legislation creating the juvenile justice system; today some critics view them as being more concerned with control of the poor than with their welfare.

The most prominent of the care facilities developed by child savers was the

House of Refuge

, which opened in New York in 1825.

It was founded on the concept of protecting potential criminal youths by taking them off the streets and reforming them in a family-like environment. When the House of Refuge opened, the majority of children admitted were

status offender

s placed there because of vagrancy or neglect. Children were placed in the institution by court order, sometimes over their parents’ objections. Their length of stay depended on need, age, and skill. Once there, youths were required to do piecework provided by local manufacturers or to work part of the day in the community. The institution was run like a prison, with strict discipline and absolute separation of the sexes. Such a harsh program drove many children to run away, and the House of Refuge was forced to take a more lenient approach.

House of Refuge

A care facility developed by the child savers to protect potential criminal youths by taking them off the street and providing a family-like environment.

Despite criticism, the concept enjoyed expanding popularity. In 1826, the Boston City Council founded the House of Reformation for juvenile offenders. Similar institutions were opened elsewhere in Massachusetts and in New York in 1847.

The courts committed children found guilty of criminal violations, or found to be beyond the control of their parents, to these schools. Because the child savers considered parents of delinquent children to be as guilty as convicted offenders, they sought to have the reform schools establish control over the children. Refuge managers believed they were preventing poverty and crime by separating destitute and delinquent children from their parents and placing them in an institution.

Were They Really Child Savers?

Debate continues over the true objectives of the early child savers. Some historians conclude that they were what they seemed—concerned citizens motivated by humanitarian ideals.

Modern scholars, however, have reappraised the child-saving movement. In The Child Savers, Anthony Platt paints a picture of representatives of the ruling class who were galvanized by immigrants and the urban poor to take action to preserve their own way of life.

To read more about the
child savers
, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Contemporary scholars believe that the reformers applied the concept of parens patriae for their own purposes, including the continuance of middle- and upper-class values and the furtherance of a child labor system consisting of marginal and lower-class skilled workers.

In the course of “saving children” by turning them over to houses of refuge, the basic legal rights of children were violated: children were simply not granted the same constitutional protections as adults.

Development of Juvenile Institutions

State intervention in the lives of children continued well into the twentieth century. The child savers influenced state and local governments to create institutions, called reform schools, devoted to the care of vagrant and delinquent youths. State institutions opened in Westboro, Massachusetts, in 1848, and in Rochester, New York, in 1849.

Institutional programs began in Ohio in 1850, and in Maine, Rhode Island, and Michigan in 1906. Children spent their days working in the institution, learning a trade where possible, and receiving some basic education. They were racially and sexually segregated, discipline was harsh, and their physical care was poor. Most of these institutions received state support, unlike the privately funded houses of refuge and settlement houses.

Although some viewed reform schools as humanitarian answers to poorhouses and prisons, many were opposed to such programs. As an alternative, New York philanthropist Charles Loring Brace helped develop the

Children’s Aid Society

in 1853.

Brace’s formula for dealing with delinquent youths was to rescue them from the harsh environment of the city and provide them with temporary shelter.

Children’s Aid Society

Child-saving organization that took children from the streets of large cities and placed them with farm families on the prairie.

Deciding there were simply too many needy children to care for in New York City, and believing the urban environment was injurious to children, Brace devised what he called his placing-out plan to send these children to western farms where they could be cared for and find a home. They were placed on what became known as

orphan trains

, which made preannounced stops in western farming communities. Families wishing to take in children would meet the train, be briefly introduced to the passengers, and leave with one of the children. Brace’s plan was activated in 1854 and very soon copied by other child-care organizations. Though the majority of the children benefited from the plan and did find a new life, others were less successful and some were exploited and harmed by the experience. By 1930, political opposition to Brace’s plan, coupled with the negative effects of the Great Depression, spelled the end of the orphan trains, but not before 150,000 children were placed in rural homesteads. CHECKPOINTS

orphan trains

A practice of the Children’s Aid Society in which urban youths were sent west for adoption with local farm couples.

CHECKPOINTS

· LO3 Be able to discuss development of the juvenile justice system

· The movement to treat children in trouble with the law as a separate category began in the nineteenth century.

· Urbanization created a growing number of at-risk youth in the nation’s cities.

· The child savers sought to control children of the lower classes.

· The House of Refuge was developed to care for unwanted or abandoned youth.

· Some critics now believe the child savers were motivated by self-interest and not benevolence.

· Charles Loring Brace created the Children’s Aid Society to place urban kids with farm families.

Here, young boys are shown working in the machine shop of the Indiana Youth Reformatory, circa 1910.

To read more about Charles Loring Brace, and the Children’s Aid Society, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (SPCC)

In 1874, the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (SPCC) was established in New York; by 1900, there were 300 such societies in the United States.

Leaders of the SPCCs were concerned that abused boys would become lower-class criminals and that mistreated young girls might become sexually promiscuous women. A growing crime rate and concern about a rapidly changing population served to swell SPCC membership. In addition, these organizations protected children who had been subjected to cruelty and neglect at home and at school.

SPCC groups influenced state legislatures to pass statutes protecting children from parents who did not provide them with adequate food and clothing or made them beg or work in places where liquor was sold.

Criminal penalties were created for negligent parents, and provisions were established for removing children from the home. In some states, agents of the SPCC could actually arrest abusive parents; in others, they would inform the police about suspected abuse cases and accompany officers when they made an arrest.

The Illinois Juvenile Court Act and Its Legacy

Although reform groups continued to lobby for government control over children, the committing of children under the doctrine of parens patriae without due process of law began to be questioned by members of the child-saving movement. This concern and consequent political activity culminated in passage of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1899. The principles motivating the Illinois reformers were these:

· 1. Children should not be held as accountable as adult transgressors.

· 2. The objective of the juvenile justice system is to treat and rehabilitate rather than punish.

· 3. Disposition should be predicated on analysis of the youth’s special circumstances and needs.

· 4. The system should avoid the trappings of the adult criminal process with all its confusing rules and procedures.

The Illinois Juvenile Court Act was a major event in the juvenile justice movement. Just what were the ramifications of passage of this act? The traditional interpretation is that the reformers were genuinely motivated to pass legislation that would serve the

best interests of the child

Interpretations of its intentions differ, but unquestionably the Illinois Juvenile Court Act established juvenile delinquency as a legal concept. For the first time the distinction was made between children who were neglected and those who were delinquent. Most important, the act established a court and a probation program specifically for children. In addition, the legislation allowed children to be committed to institutions and reform programs under the control of the state. The key provisions of the act were these:

· • A separate court was established for delinquent and neglected children.

· • Special procedures were developed to govern the adjudication of juvenile matters.

· • Children were to be separated from adults in courts and in institutional programs.

· •

Probation

programs were to be developed to assist the court in making decisions in the best interests of the state and the child.

Following passage of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, similar legislation was enacted throughout the nation; by 1917, juvenile courts had been established in all but three states. Attorneys were not required, and hearsay evidence, inadmissible in criminal trials, was admissible in the adjudication of juvenile offenders. The major functions of the juvenile justice system were to prevent juvenile crime and to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. The roles of the judge and the probation staff were to diagnose the child’s condition and prescribe programs to alleviate it. Until 1967, judgments about children’s actions and consideration for their constitutional rights were secondary.

By the 1920s, noncriminal behavior, in the form of incorrigibility and truancy from school, was added to the jurisdiction of many juvenile court systems. Of particular interest was the sexual behavior of young girls, and the juvenile court enforced a strict moral code on working-class girls, not hesitating to incarcerate those who were sexually active.

Programs of all kinds, including individualized counseling and institutional care, were used to cure juvenile criminality.

Great diversity also marked juvenile institutions. Some maintained a lenient orientation, but others relied on harsh punishments, including beatings, straitjacket restraints, immersion in cold water, and solitary confinement with a diet of bread and water.

Reforming the System

Reform of this system was slow in coming. In 1912, the U.S. Children’s Bureau was formed as the first federal child welfare agency. By the 1930s, the bureau began to investigate the state of juvenile institutions and tried to expose some of their more repressive aspects.

From its origin, the juvenile court system denied children procedural rights normally available to adult offenders. Due process rights, such as representation by counsel, a jury trial, freedom from self-incrimination, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, were not considered essential for the juvenile court system, because its primary purpose was not punishment but rehabilitation. However, the dream of trying to rehabilitate children was not achieved. Individual treatment approaches failed, and delinquency rates soared.

Reform efforts, begun in earnest in the 1960s, changed the face of the juvenile justice system. In 1962, New York passed legislation creating a family court system.

The new court assumed responsibility for all matters involving family life, with emphasis on delinquent and neglected children. In addition, the legislation established the PINS classification (person in need of supervision). This category included individuals involved in such actions as truancy and incorrigibility. By using labels like PINS and CHINS (children in need of supervision) to establish jurisdiction over children, juvenile courts expanded their role as social agencies. Because noncriminal children were now involved in the juvenile court system to a greater degree, many juvenile courts had to improve their social services. Efforts were made to personalize the system of justice for children. These reforms were soon followed by a due process revolution, which ushered in an era of procedural rights for court-adjudicated youth.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court radically altered the juvenile justice system when it issued a series of decisions that established the right of juveniles to receive due process of law.

The Court established that juveniles had the same rights as adults in important areas of trial process, including the right to confront witnesses, notice of charges, and the right to counsel.

Federal Commissions.

In addition to the legal revolution brought about by the Supreme Court, a series of national commissions sponsored by the federal government helped change the shape of juvenile justice. In 1967, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, organized by President Lyndon Johnson, suggested that the juvenile justice system must provide underprivileged youths with opportunities for success, including jobs and education. The commission also recognized the need to develop effective law enforcement procedures to control hard-core offenders while also granting them due process. The commission’s report acted as a catalyst for passage of the federal Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control (JDP) Act of 1968. This law created a Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Administration, which concentrated on helping states develop new juvenile justice programs, particularly programs involving diversion of youth, decriminalization, and decarceration. In 1968, Congress also passed the Omnibus Safe Streets and Crime Control Act.

Title I of this law established the

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)

to provide federal funds for improving the adult and juvenile justice systems. In 1972, Congress amended the JDP to allow the LEAA to focus its funding on juvenile justice and delinquency-prevention programs. State and local governments were required to develop and adopt comprehensive plans to obtain federal assistance.

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)

Unit in the U.S. Department of Justice established by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to administer grants and provide guidance for crime prevention policy and programs.

Because crime continued to receive much publicity, a second effort called the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals was established in 1973 by the Nixon administration.

Its report identified such strategies as preventing delinquent behavior, developing diversion activities, establishing dispositional alternatives, providing due process for all juveniles, and controlling violent and chronic delinquents. This commission’s recommendations formed the basis for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.

This act eliminated the Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Administration and replaced it with the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

within the LEAA. In 1980, the LEAA was phased out, and the OJJDP became an independent agency in the Department of Justice. Throughout the 1970s, its two most important goals were removing juveniles from detention in adult jails, and eliminating the incarceration together of delinquents and status offenders. During this period, the OJJDP stressed the creation of formal diversion and restitution programs. CHECKPOINTS

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

Branch of the U.S. Justice Department charged with shaping national juvenile justice policy through disbursement of federal aid and research funds.

CHECKPOINTS

· LO4 Trace the history and purpose of the juvenile court

· The juvenile court movement spread rapidly around the nation.

· Separate courts and correctional systems were created for youths. However, children were not given the same legal rights as adults.

· Reformers helped bring due process rights to minors and create specialized family courts.

· Federal commissions focused attention on juvenile justice and helped revise the system.

To read about the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Delinquency and Parens Patriae

The current treatment of juvenile delinquents is a by-product of this developing national consciousness of children’s needs. The designation

delinquent

became popular at the onset of the twentieth century when the first separate juvenile courts were instituted. The child savers believed that treating minors and adults equally violated the humanitarian ideals of American society. Consequently, the emerging juvenile justice system operated under the parens patriae philosophy. Minors who engaged in illegal behavior were viewed as victims of improper care at home. Illegal behavior was a sign that the state should step in and take control of the youths before they committed more serious crimes. The state should act in the

best interests of the child

. Children should not be punished for their misdeeds, but instead should be given the care necessary to control wayward behavior. It makes no sense to find children guilty of specific crimes, such as burglary or petty larceny, because that stigmatizes them as thieves or burglars. Instead, the catchall term juvenile delinquency should be used, because it indicates that the child needs the care and custody of the state.

delinquent

Juvenile who has been adjudicated by a judicial officer of a juvenile court as having committed a delinquent act.

best interests of the child

A philosophical viewpoint that encourages the state to take control of wayward children and provide care, custody, and treatment to remedy delinquent behavior.

The Current Legal Status of Delinquency

The child savers fought hard for a legal status of juvenile delinquent, but the concept that children could be treated differently before the law can actually be traced to the British legal tradition. Early British jurisprudence held that children under the age of 7 were legally incapable of committing crimes. Children between the ages of 7 and 14 were responsible for their actions, but their age might be used to excuse or lighten their punishment. Our legal system still recognizes that many young people are incapable of making mature judgments and that responsibility for their acts should be limited. Children can intentionally steal cars and know that the act is illegal, but they may be incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their behavior. Therefore, the law does not punish a youth as it would an adult, and it sees youthful misconduct as evidence of impaired judgment.

Today, the legal status of juvenile delinquent refers to a minor child who has been found to have violated the penal code. Most states define minor child as an individual who falls under a statutory age limit, most commonly 17 years of age.

Juveniles are usually kept separate from adults and receive different treatment under the law. Most large police departments employ officers whose sole responsibility is delinquency. Every state has some form of juvenile court with its own judges, probation department, and other facilities. Terminology is also different. Adults are tried in court; children are adjudicated. Adults can be punished; children are treated. If treatment is mandated, children can be sent to secure detention facilities, but they cannot normally be committed to adult prisons.

Children also have a unique legal status. A minor apprehended for a criminal act is usually charged with being a juvenile delinquent, regardless of the offense. These charges are confidential, and trial records are kept secret. The purpose of these safeguards is to shield children from the stigma of a criminal conviction and to prevent youthful misdeeds from becoming a lifelong burden.

Looking Back to Aaliyah’s Story

Teens close to the age of 18 like Aaliyah may be too old for the juvenile justice system, but too young for the adult system.

CRITICAL THINKING What should be done with juveniles who are close to 18 years when they receive a delinquency charge? Come up with a proposal to help them bridge the gap between the juvenile justice system and the adult criminal justice system.

Each state defines juvenile delinquency differently, setting its own age limits and boundaries. The federal government also has a delinquency category for youngsters who violate federal laws, but typically allows the states to handle delinquency matters.

Legal Responsibility of Youths

In our society the actions of adults are controlled by two types of law: criminal law and civil law. Criminal laws prohibit activities that are injurious to the well-being of society, such as drug use, theft, and rape; criminal legal actions are brought by state authorities against private citizens. In contrast, civil laws control interpersonal or private activities, and legal actions are usually initiated by individual citizens. Contractual relationships and personal conflicts (torts) are subjects of civil law. Also covered under civil law are provisions for the care of people who cannot care for themselves—for example, the mentally ill, the incompetent, and the infirm.

Today juvenile delinquency falls somewhere between criminal and civil law. Under parens patriae, delinquent acts are not considered criminal violations. The legal action against them is similar (though not identical) to a civil action that, in an ideal situation, is based on their

need for treatment

. This legal theory recognizes that children who violate the law are in need of the same treatment as are law-abiding citizens who cannot care for themselves.

need for treatment

The criteria on which juvenile sentencing is based. Ideally, juveniles are treated according to their need for treatment and not for the seriousness of the delinquent act they committed.

Delinquent behavior is treated more leniently than adult misbehavior, because the law considers juveniles to be less responsible for their behavior than adults. Compared with adults, adolescents are believed to:

· • Have a stronger preference for risk and novelty

· • Be less accurate in assessing the potential consequences of risky conduct

· • Be more impulsive and more concerned with short-term consequences

· • Have a different appreciation of time and self-control

· • Be more susceptible to peer pressure

Even though youths have a lesser degree of legal responsibility, like adults they are subject to arrest, trial, and incarceration. Their legal predicament has prompted the courts to grant children many of the same legal protections conferred on adults accused of criminal offenses. These include the right to consult an attorney, to be free from self-incrimination, and to be protected from illegal searches and seizures.

Although most children who break the law are considered salvageable and worthy of community treatment efforts, there are also violent juvenile offenders whose behavior requires a firmer response. Some state authorities have declared that these hard-core offenders cannot be treated as children and must be given more secure treatment that is beyond the resources of the juvenile justice system. This recognition has prompted the policy of

waiver

—also known as bindover or removal— that is, transferring legal jurisdiction over the most serious juvenile offenders to the adult court for criminal prosecution. And while punishment is no more certain or swift once they are tried as adults, kids transferred to adult courts are often punished more severely than they would have been if treated as the minors they really are.

To the chagrin of reformers, waived youth may find themselves serving time in adult prisons.

So although the parens patriae concept is still applied to children whose law violations are considered not to be serious, the more serious juvenile offenders can be treated in a manner similar to adults.

waiver (also known as bindover or removal)

Transferring legal jurisdiction over the most serious and experienced juvenile offenders to the adult court for criminal prosecution.

STATUS OFFENDERS

The Juvenile Court Act recognized a second classification of youthful offender, the wayward minor or

status offender

, a child who is subject to state authority by reason of having committed an act forbidden to youth and illegal solely because the child is underage (e.g., underage drinking, underage smoking, etc.).

Exhibit 1.1

, showing the status offense law of Maryland, describes typical status offenses. Eleven states classify these youths using the term child in need of supervision, whereas the remainder use terms such as unruly child, incorrigible child, or minor in need of supervision. The court can also exercise control over dependent children who are not being properly cared for by their parents or guardians.

EXHIBIT 1.1: Status Offense Law: Maryland

(d) Child. “Child” means an individual under the age of 18 years.

(e) Child in need of supervision. “Child in need of supervision” is a child who requires guidance, treatment, or rehabilitation and: (1) Is required by law to attend school and is habitually truant; (2) Is habitually disobedient, ungovernable, and beyond the control of the person having custody of him; (3) Deports himself so as to injure or endanger himself or others; or (4) Has committed an offense applicable only to children.

Source: Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Ann. § 3–8A-01 (2002).

status offender

A child who is subject to state authority by reason of having committed an act forbidden to youth and illegal solely because the child is underage.

State control over a child’s noncriminal behavior supports the parens patriae philosophy, because it is assumed to be in the best interests of the child. Usually, a status offender is directed to the juvenile court when it is determined that his parents are unable or unwilling to care for or control him and that the adolescent’s behavior is self-destructive or harmful to society. More than 250,000 juveniles are arrested each year for such status-type offenses as running away from home, breaking curfew, and violating liquor laws.

About 160,000 of these status offenders are petitioned to juvenile court.

Girls are more likely than boys to be petitioned for running away, while a majority of curfew violators are males.

Origins of the Status Offense Concept

A historical basis exists for status offense statutes. It was common practice early in the nation’s history to place disobedient or runaway youths in orphan asylums, residential homes, or houses of refuge.

When the first juvenile courts were established in Illinois, the Chicago Bar Association described part of their purpose as follows:

· The whole trend and spirit of the [1889 Juvenile Court Act] is that the State, acting through the Juvenile Court, exercises that tender solicitude and care over its neglected, dependent wards that a wise and loving parent would exercise with reference to his own children under similar circumstances.

When the juvenile court was first created, status offenders and juvenile delinquents were treated in a similar fashion. Both could be arrested, taken into custody, tried in the same courts and placed in the same institutions. A trend begun about 50 years ago has resulted in the creation of separate status offense categories that vary from state to state: children, minors, persons, youths, or juveniles in need of supervision (CHINS, MINS, PINS, YINS, or JINS). The purpose is to shield noncriminal youths from the stigma attached to the juvenile delinquent label and to signify that they have special needs and problems (see

Concept Summary 1.1

). But even where there are separate legal categories for delinquents and status offenders, the distinction between them can sometimes become blurred. Some noncriminal conduct may be included in the definition of delinquency, and some less serious criminal offenses occasionally may be labeled as status offenses.

In some states the juvenile court judge may substitute a status offense for a delinquency charge.

This possibility can be used to encourage youths to admit to the charges against them in return for less punitive treatment.

CONCEPT

SUMMARY

1.1: Treatment of Juveniles

Yes

		Juvenile Delinquents	Status Offenders
Act	Burglary, shoplifting, robbery	Truancy , running away, disobedient
Injured party	Crime victim	Themselves, their family
Philosophy	Parens patriae	Best interests of the child
Legal status	Can be detained in secure confinement	Must be kept in nonsecure shelter
Is there resulting stigma?		Yes

The Status Offender in the Juvenile Justice System

Separate status offense categories may avoid some of the stigma associated with the delinquency label, but they have little effect on treatment. Youths in either category can be picked up by the police and brought to a police station. They can be petitioned to the same juvenile court, where they have a hearing before the same judge and come under the supervision of the probation department, the court clinic, and the treatment staff. At a hearing, status offenders may see little difference between the treatment they receive and the treatment of the delinquent offenders sitting across the room. Although status offenders are usually not detained or incarcerated with delinquents, they can be transferred to secure facilities if they are considered uncontrollable. The toll this treatment takes on status offenders can be significant. A recent study by Wesley Jennings found that the effect of formal processing on status offenders’ can increase the likelihood that they will get involved in subsequent delinquency. Half of the status offenders he studied in Florida, both males and females, accumulated delinquent arrests in adolescence following their initial referral for a status offense.

Reforming the Treatment of Status Offenders

For more than 30 years, national crime commissions have called for limiting control over status offenders.

In 1974, the U.S. Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which provides the major source of federal funding to improve states’ juvenile justice systems. Under the JJDPA and its subsequent reauthorizations, in order to receive federal funds, states were and are required to remove status offenders from secure detention and lockups in order to insulate them from more serious delinquent offenders. The act created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),which was authorized to distribute grants and provide support to those states that developed alternate procedural methods.

Title III of the JJDPA, referred to as the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA) of 1974, provides funds for nonsecure facilities where status offenders who need protection can receive safe shelter, counseling, and education until an effective family reunion can be realized.

Looking Back to Aaliyah’s Story

What should happen with teens who run away from home? This is considered a status offense, but many communities do not charge runaways or require them to be involved in the juvenile justice system.

CRITICAL THINKING Can you propose a program that would effectively help runaways adjust to society?

This has been a highly successful policy, and the number of status offenders kept in secure pretrial detention has dropped significantly during the past three decades. The act that created the OJJDP was amended in 1987 to allow status offenders to be detained for violations of valid court orders.

School programs have been designed to keep kids away from the lure of the streets and status offending. Here, medals are presented to successful students at the Oakland Military Institute, a public school funded by the Pentagon and the National Guard and administered by the California State Board of Education. Its mission is to tame unruly youngsters through discipline and military-style conformity. Parents see the school as a way out of a crumbling public education system that, in Oakland and other urban centers, is woefully underfunded and understaffed.

To learn more about the efforts to remove status offenders from secure lockups, read Gwen A. Holden and Robert A. Kapler, “Deinstitutionalizing Status Offenders: A Record of Progress” by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then accessing the Web Links for this chapter.

The Effects of Reform.

What has been the effect of this reform effort? It has become routine for treatment dispensing agencies other than juvenile courts to be given responsibility for processing status offense cases. In some communities, for example, family crisis units and social service agencies have assumed this responsibility. When a juvenile charged with a status offense is referred to juvenile court, the court may divert the juvenile away from the formal justice system to other agencies for service rather than include them in the formal

juvenile justice process

A number of states have changed the way they handle status offense cases. Kentucky, for example, has amended its status offense law in order to eliminate vague terms and language. Instead of labeling a child who is “beyond control of school” as a status offender, the state is now required to show that the student has repeatedly violated “lawful regulations for the government of the school,” with the petition describing the behaviors “and all intervention strategies attempted by the school.”

A few states, including Maine, Delaware, and Idaho, have attempted to eliminate status offense laws and treat these youths as neglected or dependent children, giving child protective services the primary responsibility for their care. Addressing the special needs of status offenders, several states now require that they and their families receive precourt diversion services in an effort to prevent them from being placed out-of-home by strengthening family relations and reducing parent–teen conflicts. They also identify which agency must respond to status offenses, how they are to respond, who will pay, and/or who will evaluate the process to assure positive and cost-effective outcomes. In Florida, all status offense cases are handled by a special agency that refers them to precourt prevention services; only if these services fail will court intervention be contemplated. New York’s status offense statute prohibits family courts from considering a status offense petition unless the adolescent has already participated in diversion services. New York requires that an agency filing a status offense petition to convene a conference with the individuals involved discuss providing diversion services and attempt to engage the family in targeted community-based services before the juvenile court can become involved. A status offense petition can only be filed if the lead agency states it terminated diversion services because there was “no substantial likelihood that youth and his or her family will benefit from further attempts” at getting help.

The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention/Intervention/Treatment feature describes one program designed to maintain control over at risk status offenders.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: Family Keys Program

In 2003, officials in Orange County, New York, became concerned about the projected impact of the state’s increasing number of at-risk kids, and therefore wanted to increase its jurisdiction over status offenders to age 18. After much study, and with the legislature’s backing, the community-based Family Keys program was officially launched. Under the program, the county probation department receives inquiries from parents about PINS (persons in need of supervision). If, after a brief screening, the intake officer finds sufficient allegations to support a PINS complaint, the officer refers the case to Family Keys rather than to probation intake. Depending on the severity of the case, Family Keys dispatches counselors to assess the family’s situation 2 to 48 hours after receiving a referral. Based on the assessment, the agency develops an appropriate short-term intervention plan for the youth and family and provides links to community-based programs. Family Keys works with the family for up to three weeks to ensure that the family is engaged in the service plan.

The Family Keys intervention takes place in lieu of filing a PINS complaint, provides intensive, short-term crisis intervention to families, and diverts PINS cases from the court system. When these short-term interventions do not suffice, cases are referred to an interagency team operated through the mental health department’s Network program. Following a family conferencing model, the Network team performs an in-depth assessment and serves as the gateway to the county’s most high-end services, such as multisystemic therapy or family functional therapy. Under Orange County’s system, a PINS case is referred to court only as a last resort.

Evaluation of the Family Keys program has been very promising. The time between a parent’s first contact with probation and subsequent follow-up has decreased dramatically, from as long as six weeks under the previous system to as low as two hours through the Family Keys process. The number of PINS cases referred to court and the number of PINS placements have also been sharply reduced. The evaluation showed that between April and September 2009, 184 young people and their families were offered services. The program served both males and females ages 10 to 17; the majority of youths were 15 or 16 years old:

· • 93 percent of youths were living at home in the community with their parents/guardians. None had been placed in out-of-home care. This is a 7 percent increase from intake to exit of youths living at home and a 3 percent decrease in the number of youths whose living arrangement was categorized as “‘runaway.”

· • There was a 25 percent increase in the number of youths who improved “connectedness” with parents/ guardians and a 24 percent increase in the number of youths who improved “connectedness” with a sibling or other family members.

· • School attendance remained the same, with 100 percent of the program youths regularly attending school.

· • There was an 18 percent increase in the number of youths who improved their health-protecting skills, which includes reducing use of alcohol and drugs.

Since its inception, almost 99 percent of the 2,500 children enrolled in the program have avoided residential, out-of-home placement.

Critical Thinking

How would you answer a critic who argues that all social programs should be cut and that social programs are a waste of time? Does the Orange County success story influence your thinking about intervening with troubled youth?

Sources: Tina Chiu and Sara Mogulescu, Changing the Status Quo for Status Offenders: New York State’s Efforts to SupportTroubled Teens (Vera Foundation, New York, 2004),

www.vera.org/content/changing-status-quo-status-offenders-new-york-states-efforts-support-troubled-teens

(accessed June 14, 2012); Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Family Keys PINS Diversion Program, 2010”

www2.dsgonline.com/dso2/dso_program_detail.aspx?ID=757&title=Family+Keys+PINS+Diversion+Program

(accessed June 14, 2012).

The Future of the Status Offense Concept

Changes in the treatment of status offenders reflect the current attitude toward children who violate the law. On the one hand, there appears to be a movement to severely sanction youths who commit serious offenses and transfer them to the adult court. On the other hand, a great effort has been made to remove nonserious cases from the official agencies of justice and place these youths in community-based treatment programs.

Do curfew laws work in reducing the rate of youth crime? To find out, visit the website of the Justice Policy Institute by going to the Criminal Justice Course-Mate at
CengageBrain.com
, then accessing the Web Links for this chapter.

This movement is not without its critics. Some juvenile court judges believe that reducing judicial authority over children will limit juvenile court jurisdiction to hard-core offenders and constrain its ability to help youths before they commit serious antisocial acts.

Their concerns are fueled by research that shows that many status offenders, especially those who are runaways living on the streets, often have serious emotional problems and engage in self-destructive behaviors ranging from substance abuse to self-mutilation; they have high rates of suicide.

There is evidence that kids who engage in status offending are significantly more likely than nonstatus offenders to later engage in delinquent behaviors such as drug abuse.

Consequently, some jurisdictions have resisted weakening status offense laws and gone in the opposite direction by mandating that habitual truants and runaways be placed in secure detention facilities, and if found to be in need of supervision, placed in secure treatment facilities. CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO5 Be able to describe the differences between delinquency and status offending.

· The separate status of juvenile delinquency is based on the parens patriae philosophy, which holds that children have the right to care and custody and that if parents are not capable of providing that care, the state must step in to take control.

· Delinquents are given greater legal protection than adult criminals and are shielded from stigma and labels.

· More serious juvenile cases may be waived to the adult court.

· Juvenile courts also have jurisdiction over noncriminal status offenders.

· Status offenses are illegal only because of the minority status of the offender.

Curfews

One way jurisdictions have attempted to maintain greater control over wayward youth has been the implementation of curfew laws. The thought is that the opportunity to commit crimes will be reduced if troubled kids are given a curfew.

The first curfew law was created in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1880, and today about 500 U.S. cities have curfews for teenage youth. Curfews typically prohibit children under 18 from being on the streets after 11:00 P.M. during the week and after midnight on weekends. About 100 cities also have daytime curfews designed to keep children off the streets and in school.

Each year about 60,000 youths are arrested for curfew violations, and their number is considered responsible for the decade-long increase in the status offender population in juvenile court. As yet there is little conclusive evidence that curfews have a significant impact on youth crime rates. While surveys find that police favor curfews as an effective tool to control vandalism, graffiti, nighttime burglary, and auto theft, empirical studies found that both juvenile arrests and juvenile crime do not seem to decrease significantly during curfew hours.

Some research efforts have even found that after curfews were implemented victimizations increased significantly during no curfew hours. This indicates that, rather than suppressing delinquency, curfews merely shift the time of occurrence of the offenses. Some studies have found that strict enforcement of curfew laws actually increases juvenile crime rates.

The failure of curfews to control crime coupled with their infringement on civil rights prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to condemn the practice.

100

Other civil libertarians maintain that curfews are an overreaction to juvenile crime, are ineffective, and give the police too much power to control citizens who being punished merely because of their age.

101

There are a number of ongoing legal challenges to curfew laws, arguing that they are violations of the constitutional right to assembly, and some have been successful. A challenge to the Rochester, New York, law (Anonymous v. City of Rochester) found that the ordinance enabled police to arrest and interrogate a disproportionate percentage of minority youth; 94 percent of youths picked up on curfew violations were black or Hispanic. On June 9, 2009, New York’s State Court of Appeals invalidated Rochester’s curfew, finding that the ordinance gives parents too little flexibility and autonomy in supervising their children, while violating children’s rights to freedom of movement, freedom of expression and association, and equal protection under the law. Influencing the court was data showing that young people in Rochester were more likely to be involved in a crime—either as a victim or offender—when the curfew was not in effect.

102

Similarly, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down provisions of a local curfew law that made it a crime for youth under 17 to be on the streets after 11 P.M. unless accompanied by a parent or a guardian. While they left in place civil penalties that allowed individuals convicted of violating the curfew to be fined up to $300, it is no longer permissible to charge curfew violators with a crime.

103

Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter walks with community leaders and several teens in the Center City neighborhood in an effort to combat marauding groups of teenagers and preteens known as “flash mobs.” The mayor ordered a curfew requiring anyone under 18 to be off the streets by 9 P.M. on Friday and Saturday nights in problem-plagued areas of the city.

Disciplining Parents

So what happens if kids repeatedly break curfew and get into trouble and their parents refuse or are incapable of doing anything about it? Since the early twentieth century, there have been laws aimed at disciplining parents for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The first of these was enacted in Colorado in 1903, and today all states have some form of statute requiring parents to take some responsibility for their children’s misbehavior.

104

All states make it either mandatory or discretionary for the juvenile court to require a parent or guardian to pay at least part of the support costs for a child who is adjudicated delinquent and placed out of the home. Even when the payment is required, however, payment is based on the parent’s financial ability to make such payments. During the past decade, approximately one-half of the states enacted or strengthened existing parental liability statutes that make parents criminally liable for the actions of their delinquent children. These laws can generally fall into one of three categories:

· • Civil liability. An injured party may bring a case against the parents for property damage or personal injury caused by one of their children.

· • Criminal liability. The guardian or other adult may be held criminally responsible for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. These laws apply when an adult does some action that encourages delinquent behavior by a child.

· • General involvement. These statutes are based upon legislative efforts to make parents more involved in the juvenile court process and include such things as requiring the parents to pay for court costs, restitution, and treatment, and to participate in the juvenile’s case. Failure to comply with the parental involvement requirements can lead to more punitive sanctions.

105

Within this general framework there is a great deal of variation in responsibility laws. Some states (Florida, Idaho, Virginia) require parents to reimburse the government for the costs of detention or care of their children. Others (Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma) demand that parents make restitution payments—for example, paying for damage caused by their children who vandalized a school. All states have incorporated parental liability laws in their statutes, although most recent legislation places limits on recovery; in some states, such as Texas, the upward boundary can be as much as $25,000.

Parents may also be held civilly liable, under the concept of vicarious liability, for the damages caused by their child. In some states, parents are responsible for up to $300,000 in damages; in others the liability cap is $3,500 (sometimes homeowner’s insurance covers at least some of liability). Parents can also be charged with civil negligence if they should have known of the damage a child was about to inflict but did nothing to stop them—for example, when they give a weapon to an emotionally unstable youth. Juries have levied awards of up to $500,000 in such cases. During the past two decades, parents have been ordered to serve time in jail because their children have been truant from school.

Some critics charge that these laws contravene the right to due process, because they are unfairly used only against lower-class and minority parents. As legal scholar Elena Laskin points out, imposing penalties on these parents may actually be detrimental.

106

Forcing a delinquent’s mother to pay a fine removes money from someone who is already among society’s poorest people. If a single mother is sent to jail, it leaves her children, including those who are not delinquent, with no parent to raise them; the kids may become depressed, and lose concentration and sleep. Even if punishment encourages the parent to take action, it may be too late, because by the time a parent is charged with violating the statute, the child has already committed a crime, indicating that any damaging socialization by the parent has already occurred. Finally, responsibility laws may not take the age of the child into account,

107

leaving an important question unanswered: are parents of older offenders equally responsible as those whose much younger children violate the law? Does an adolescent’s personal share of responsibility increase with age? Despite these problems, surveys indicate that the public favors parental responsibility laws.

108

SUMMARY

The study of delinquency is concerned with the nature and extent of the criminal behavior of youths, the causes of youthful law violations, the legal rights of juveniles, and prevention and treatment.

The problems of American youths have become an important subject of academic study. Many children live in poverty, have inadequate health care, and suffer family problems. Kids today are also at risk from threats that are on the Internet, ranging from cyberbullying to sexting. Consequently, adolescence is a time of taking risks, which can get kids into trouble with the law.

Our modern concept of a separate status for children is quite different than in the past. In earlier times, relationships between children and parents were remote. Punishment was severe, and children were expected to take on adult roles early in their lives. With the start of the seventeenth century came greater recognition of the needs of children. In Great Britain, the chancery court movement, Poor Laws, and apprenticeship programs helped reinforce the idea of children as a distinct social group. In colonial America, many of the characteristics of English family living were adopted. In the nineteenth century, delinquent and runaway children were treated no differently than criminal defendants. During this time, however, increased support for the parens patriae concept resulted in steps to reduce the responsibility of children under the criminal law.

The concept of delinquency was developed in the early twentieth century. Before that time, criminal youths and adults were treated in almost the same fashion. A group of reformers, referred to as child savers, helped create a separate delinquency category to insulate juvenile offenders from the influence of adult criminals. The status of juvenile delinquency is still based on the parens patriae philosophy, which holds that children have the right to care and custody and that if parents are not capable of providing that care, the state must step in to take control. Juvenile courts also have jurisdiction over noncriminal status offenders, whose offenses (truancy, running away, sexual misconduct) are illegal only because of their minority status.

Some experts have called for an end to juvenile court control over status offenders, charging that it further stigmatizes already troubled youths. Some research indicates that status offenders are harmed by juvenile court processing. Other research indicates that status offenders and delinquents are quite similar. There has been a successful effort to separate status offenders from delinquents and to maintain separate facilities for those who need to be placed in a shelter care program. Some jurisdictions have implemented curfew and parental laws, but so far there is little evidence that they work as intended. Research indicates that neither attempt at controlling youthful misbehavior works as planned. Consequently, the treatment of juveniles is an ongoing dilemma. Still uncertain is whether young law violators respond better to harsh punishments or to benevolent treatment.

KEY TERMS

ego identity,

p. 3

role diffusion,
p. 3

at-risk youths,
p. 3

juvenile delinquency,

p. 10

chronic juvenile offenders,

p. 11

juvenile justice system,
p. 11

paternalistic family,
p. 11

Poor Laws,

p. 13

chancery courts,
p. 13

parens patriae,
p. 13

child savers,

p. 15

House of Refuge,
p. 15

Children’s Aid Society,

p. 16

orphan trains,
p. 16

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA),

p. 19

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),
p. 19

delinquent,

p. 20

best interests of the child,
p. 20

need for treatment,

p. 21

waiver (bindover, removal),
p. 21

status offender,
p. 21

REVIEW QUESTIONS

· 1. What are the effects of poverty, family problems, urban decay, inadequate education, teen pregnancy, and social conflict on American youth?

· 2. Compare early and contemporary family life. What are the differences in such issues as parental controls, punishment, and role taking?

· 3. What is meant by the term “parens patriae philosophy”? How is this manifested in modern society?

· 4. In what ways are delinquents given greater legal protection than adult criminals, and how they are shielded from stigma and labels?

· 5. What is meant by the concept of waiver and how is it being used today?

· 6. What are examples of status offenses?

· 7. What are the pros and cons of parental responsibility laws?

· 8. Discuss the trends in juvenile curfews.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

· 1. Is it fair to have a separate legal category for youths? Considering how dangerous young people can be, does it make more sense to group offenders on the basis of what they have done rather than on their age?

· 2. At what age are juveniles truly capable of understanding the seriousness of their actions? Should juvenile court jurisdiction be raised or lowered?

· 3. Is it fair to institutionalize a minor simply for being truant or running away from home? Should the jurisdiction of status offenders be removed from juvenile court and placed with the state’s department of social services or some other welfare organization?

· 4. Should delinquency proceedings be secret? Does the public have a right to know who juvenile criminals are?

· 5. Can a “get tough” policy help control juvenile misbehavior, or should parens patriae remain the standard?

· 6. Should juveniles who commit felonies such as rape or robbery be treated as adults?

APPLYING WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED

You have just been appointed by the governor as chairperson of a newly formed group charged with overhauling the state’s juvenile justice system. One primary concern is the treatment of status offenders—kids who have been picked up and charged with being runaways, sexually active, truant from school, or unmanageable at home. Under existing status offense statutes, these youth can be sent to juvenile court and stand trial for their misbehaviors. If the allegations against them are proven valid, they may be removed from the home and placed in foster care or even in a state or private custodial institution.

Recently, a great deal of media attention has been given to the plight of runaway children who live on the streets, take drugs, and engage in prostitution. At an open hearing, advocates of the current system argue that many families cannot provide the care and control needed to keep kids out of trouble and that the state must maintain control of at-risk youth. They contend that many status offenders have histories of drug and delinquency problems and are little different from kids arrested on criminal charges; control by the juvenile court is necessary if the youths are ever to get needed treatment.

Another vocal group argues that it is a mistake for a system that deals with criminal youth to also handle troubled adolescents, whose problems usually are the result of child abuse and neglect. They believe that the current statute should be amended to give the state’s department of social welfare (DSW) jurisdiction over all noncriminal youths who are in need of assistance. These opponents of the current law point out that, even though status offenders and delinquents are held in separate facilities, those who run away or are unmanageable can be transferred to more secure correctional facilities that house criminal youths. Furthermore, the current court-based process, where troubled youths are involved with lawyers, trials, and court proceedings, helps convince them that they are “bad kids” and social outcasts.

Writing Assignment: Write a policy statement setting out the recommendations you would make to the governor. In your statement, address the issues raised by those who believe that status offenders and delinquents have similar issues, and those who maintain they are two separate categories of youth and should be dealt with by different state agencies. Finally, give your assessment of the issue and what course of treatment you would choose.

GROUPWORK

Divide the class into equal number groups and have each group identify an aspect of childhood that is still controlled by the court system and governed by the parens patriae philosophy.

Each group should choose a single behavior pattern such as sex, substance use, running away, truancy, and so on. Have them gather laws that govern these activities in the “best interests of the child.”

CHAPTER ELEVEN: Delinquency Prevention and Juvenile Justice Today

CHAPTER OUTLINE

DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Classifying Delinquency Prevention

EARLY PREVENTION OF DELINQUENCY

FOCUS ON DELINQUENCY: Public Support for Delinquency Prevention

Home-Based Programs

Improving Parenting Skills

Preschool

PREVENTION OF DELINQUENCY IN THE TEENAGE YEARS

Mentoring

School Programs

Job Training

JUVENILE JUSTICE TODAY

The Juvenile Justice Process

PROFESSIONAL SPOTLIGHT: Carla Stalnaker

Criminal Justice versus Juvenile Justice

A COMPREHENSIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE STRATEGY

Prevention

Intervention

Graduated Sanctions

Institutional Programs

Alternative Courts

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: Intervention: Teen Courts

THE FUTURE OF DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After reading this chapter you should:

· 1. Understand key features of

delinquency prevention

· 2. Be familiar with effective delinquency prevention programs for children.

· 3. Be familiar with effective delinquency prevention programs for teens.

· 4. Know how children are processed by the juvenile justice system.

· 5. Understand the key elements of a comprehensive juvenile justice strategy.

REAL CASES/REAL PEOPLE: Martin’s Story

Martin was a 13-year-old male who was in eighth grade. He was the youngest of four boys and lived with his mother and father. Martin’s mother worked very long hours and his father had been laid off and was not able to find work for some time. His father was depressed and irritable most of the time. Finances were a huge struggle for the family and a source of constant stress and verbal fighting between the parents. Martin was described as a smart young man in terms of academics, but a follower in terms of friends and social life. He tried many sports and activities, but showed little interest. During the second semester of school Martin’s grades significantly declined. Martin also started sleeping more than usual and had a difficult time getting up for school on most days. His parents tried to talk with Martin and the school, but nothing proved helpful. His mother felt her time at home was very limited when she began working to support the family.

During this time, Martin was arrested for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. He explained to his parents that he was only “helping out his friends” by carrying the duffel bag full of drugs to another location. He also received a drug screen and tested positive for marijuana use, but he denied he ever used. Martin seemed concerned about the arrest and exhibited signs of depression.

At Martin’s dispositional hearing at the juvenile court, he was ordered to complete a drug and alcohol assessment as well as participate in individual and family therapy. Additionally, he was required to complete 50 hours of community service and participate in a local community supervision program for teens involved in criminal activity. Martin struggled with many of the court-ordered requirements, as did the family. Martin’s drug use and poor school achievement continued and he was not cooperative with the assigned social workers and juvenile justice authorities. As a result, Martin received a series of weekend incarcerations in the juvenile correctional facility as well as stricter curfews and more intensive supervision. While Martin’s struggles continued, his parents were encouraged to seek support from involved systems and utilize counseling.

During the summer, Martin’s parents separated for a short period of time. This prompted the father to get help for his depression, and he also received additional support in finding a job, which he successfully did. Eventually, the parents got back together with a renewed vision for their family and were better able to focus on the needs of Martin and their other children. During the second semester of Martin’s freshman year, things began to turn around. Martin has begun a new program where he receives tutoring, attends a weekly support meeting, and is linked with a mentor. He is also beginning to more actively engage in his drug treatment program and improve his grades; he has hopes of attending a local technical school upon graduation.

Public officials faced with the problem of juvenile delinquency in their cities have many options. For some, it will be a clear choice of getting tough on juvenile delinquency and implementing punitive or justice-oriented measures. For others, it will be a matter of getting tough on the causes of juvenile delinquency and implementing prevention programs to ward off delinquency before it takes place. Still others will combine justice and nonjustice measures to combat the problem. Ideally, decisions about which approach or which combination of measures to use will be based on the needs of the community and the highest quality available evidence on what works best in preventing juvenile delinquency.

This chapter looks at the role of prevention programs and juvenile justice in contemporary American society. It begins with an overview of key features of delinquency prevention and reviews the effectiveness of delinquency prevention programs for children and adolescents. This is followed with a description of the juvenile justice process, beginning with arrest and concluding with reentry into society. A comprehensive juvenile justice strategy, which combines elements of delinquency prevention and intervention and justice approaches, is discussed in the next section. The chapter concludes with a look at key issues facing the future of delinquency prevention and juvenile justice.

DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Preventing juvenile delinquency means many different things to many different people. Programs or policies designed to prevent juvenile delinquency can include the police making an arrest as part of an operation to address gang problems, a juvenile court sanction to a secure correctional facility, or, in the extreme case, a death penalty sentence. These measures are often referred to as

delinquency control

delinquency repression

. More often, though,

delinquency prevention

refers to intervening in young people’s lives before they engage in delinquency in the first place—that is, preventing the first delinquent act. Both forms of delinquency prevention have a common goal of trying to prevent the occurrence of a future delinquent act, but what distinguishes delinquency prevention from delinquency control is that prevention typically does not involve the juvenile justice system. Instead, programs or policies designed to prevent delinquency involve day care providers, nurses, teachers, social workers, recreation staff at the YMCA, counselors at Boys and Girls Clubs of America, other young people in school, and parents. This form of delinquency prevention is sometimes referred to as nonjustice delinquency prevention or alternative delinquency prevention.

Exhibit 11.1

lists examples of programs to prevent and control delinquency.

delinquency control or delinquency repression

Involves any justice program or policy designed to prevent the occurrence of a future delinquent act.

delinquency prevention

Involves any nonjustice program or policy designed to prevent the occurrence of a future delinquent act.

EXHIBIT 11.1: Delinquency Prevention vs. Control

Prevention

Control

Home visitation

Antigang police task force

Preschool

Boot camps

Child skills training

Wilderness programs

Mentoring

Probation

After-school recreation

Electronic monitoring

Job training

Secure confinement

Delinquency prevention programs are not designed with the intention of excluding juvenile justice personnel. Many types of delinquency prevention programs, especially those that focus on adolescents, involve juvenile justice personnel such as the police. In these cases, the juvenile justice personnel work in close collaboration with those from such areas as education, health care, recreation, and social services.

Classifying Delinquency Prevention

Just as there are a number of different ways to define delinquency prevention and very little agreement on the best way to do so,
1
the organization or classification of delinquency prevention is equally diverse, and there is very little agreement on the most effective way to do this.

Public Health Approach.

One of the first efforts to classify the many different types of delinquency prevention activities drew upon the public health approach to preventing diseases and injuries.
2
This method divided delinquency prevention activities into three categories: primary prevention, secondary prevention, and tertiary prevention.

· • Primary prevention focuses on improving the general well-being of individuals through such measures as access to health care services and general prevention education, and modifying conditions in the physical environment that are conducive to delinquency through such measures as removing abandoned vehicles and improving the appearance of buildings.

· • Secondary prevention focuses on intervening with children and young people who are potentially at risk for becoming offenders, as well as the provision of neighborhood programs to deter known delinquent activity.

CONCEPT SUMMARY 11.1:Developmental Perspective on Delinquency Prevention

· • Informed by human development theories and longitudinal studies

· • Designed to prevent the development of criminal potential in individuals

· • Targets at-

risk factor

s for delinquency and

protective factor

s against delinquency

· • Provided to children and families

· • Implemented at different stages over the life course: childhood, early school years, adolescence, and transition to work

· • Tertiary prevention focuses on intervening with adjudicated juvenile offenders through such measures as substance abuse treatment and imprisonment. Here, the goal is to reduce repeat offending or recidivism.
3

Developmental Perspective.

Another popular approach to classifying delinquency prevention activities is the developmental perspective. Developmental prevention refers to interventions, especially those targeting

risk

and

protective factors

, designed to prevent the development of criminal potential in individuals.
4
Developmental prevention of juvenile delinquency is informed generally by motivational or human development theories on juvenile delinquency, and specifically by longitudinal studies that follow samples of young persons from their early childhood experiences to the peak of their involvement with delinquency in their teens and crime in their 20s.
5
The developmental perspective claims that delinquency in adolescence (and later criminal offending in adulthood) is influenced by “behavioral and attitudinal patterns that have been learned during an individual’s development.”
6

Concept Summary 11.1

lists key features of the developmental perspective. From this perspective, prevention activities are organized around different stages of the life course. We divide our discussion of developmental prevention of juvenile delinquency into two stages: childhood and adolescence.

risk factor

A negative prior factor in an individual’s life that increases the risk of occurrence of a future delinquent act.

protective factor

A positive prior factor in an individual’s life that decreases the risk of occurrence of a future delinquent act.

For the most part, we have adopted the developmental perspective in discussing the effectiveness of different types of delinquency prevention programs in the next two sections. This approach has several advantages: it allows for assessing the success of programs at different life-course stages; its coverage of the types of delinquency prevention programs that have been implemented is vast; and it is a well-recognized approach that has been used by other social scientists in reviews of the effectiveness of delinquency prevention.
7
CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO1 Understand key features of delinquency prevention.

· Delinquency prevention is distinguished from delinquency control.

· Delinquency prevention involves intervening before the first delinquent act.

· Key ways to classify delinquency prevention programs include the public health approach and developmental perspective.

EARLY PREVENTION OF DELINQUENCY

In the effort to address juvenile delinquency, early childhood interventions—initiated before delinquency occurs—have received much interest and have come to be seen as an important part of an overall strategy to reduce the harm caused by juvenile delinquency. Recent research shows that the general public is highly supportive of delinquency prevention programs and is even willing to pay more in taxes for these programs compared to more punitive options like military-style boot camps and prison. (This is discussed in the
Focus on Delinquency
box entitled “

Public Support for Delinquency Prevention

.”) Early childhood delinquency prevention programs aim at positively influencing the early risk factors or “root causes” of delinquency and criminal offending that may continue into the adult years. These early risk factors are many, some of which include growing up in poverty, a high level of hyperactivity or impulsiveness, inadequate parental supervision, and harsh or inconsistent discipline. Early childhood interventions are often multidimensional, targeted at more than one risk factor, because they take a variety of different forms, including cognitive development, child skills training, and family support. The following examines early childhood delinquency prevention programs that have been implemented in influential settings. Most of the programs have been carried out in the United States.

Focus on Delinquency: PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR DELINQUENCY PREVENTION

Politicians who support “get-tough” responses to juvenile offenders have long claimed to have the full backing of the general public, and that it is indeed the public that demands tougher dispositions (or sentences) such as military-style boot camps and longer terms in institutions to hold youth accountable for their transgressions. To be sure, there is public support for get-tough responses to juvenile delinquency, especially violent acts. But this support is not at the levels often claimed and, more importantly, not as high when compared to alternatives such as rehabilitation or treatment for juvenile offenders or early childhood or youth prevention programs. This overestimate of the punitiveness of the general public on the part of politicians and others has become known as the “mythical punitive public.”

New, cutting-edge research provides more evidence to substantiate the mythical punitive public—that is, that citizens are highly supportive of delinquency prevention and are even willing to pay more in taxes to support these programs compared to other responses. In a review of the public opinion literature, criminologist Frank Cullen and his colleagues found that the American public is generally supportive of delinquency prevention programs, especially for at-risk children and youth. They also found that public opinion is no longer a barrier—as it once was perceived to be—to the implementation of delinquency prevention programs in communities across the country.

In a study of public preferences of responses to juvenile offending, criminologist Daniel Nagin and his colleagues found that the public values early prevention and offender rehabilitation or treatment more than increased incarceration. As shown in

Table 11-A

, households were willing to pay an average of

$125.71

in additional taxes on nurse home visitation programs to prevent delinquency compared to

$80.97

on longer sentences, a difference of $44.74 per year. Support for paying more in taxes for rehabilitation was also higher than for longer sentences:

$98.10

versus $80.97. At the state level, public support for the prevention option translated into

$601 million

that hypothetically could be used to prevent delinquency, compared to

$387 million

for longer sentences for juvenile offenders.

TABLE 11.A: Public Willingness to Pay for Delinquency Prevention versus Other Measures

Program	Average WTP per Household per Year	Statewide WTP per Year
Longer sentence	$80.97	$387 million
Rehabilitation	$98.10	$468 million
Nurse visitation	$125.71	$601 million
Note: WTP = willingness to pay. Source: Adapted from Daniel S. Nagin, Alex R. Piquero, Elizabeth S. Scott, and Laurence Steinberg, “Public Preferences for Rehabilitation versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey” Criminology and Public Policy 5:627–652 (2006), Table 2.

This study was based on a large sample of residents in Pennsylvania and used a highly rigorous methodology of public opinion polling known as contingent valuation (CV), which has many advantages over conventional polling methods. The contingent valuation approach allows for the “comparison of respondents’ willingness to pay for competing policy alternatives.”

In another innovative study to gauge the public’s preferences for a range of alternative responses to crime, Mark Cohen, Ronald Rust, and Sara Steen found the public overwhelmingly supported increased spending of tax dollars on youth prevention programs compared to building more prisons. Public support for spending more taxes on drug treatment for nonviolent offenders as well as police also ranked higher than support for building more prisons, but not as high as for youth prevention programs.

While the mythical punitive public appears to be just that, there is no denying that the general public do see some value in get-tough policies to tackle juvenile crime. But this new crop of public opinion research reveals—even more convincingly than past research—that there is a growing demand for early prevention programs and little demand for increased use of incarceration.

CRITICAL THINKING

· 1. If you were a politician, would these research findings influence your decision on the policy positions you take on juvenile crime? Explain.

· 2. Public opinion is one important consideration in implementing delinquency prevention programs. What are some other key factors?

Writing Assignment Write an essay about the strengths and limitations of using public opinion research as the basis for supporting a strategy that emphasizes prevention over punishment. Make sure to consider your answers to the Critical Thinking questions.

Sources: Francis T. Cullen, Brenda A. Vose, Cheryl N. Lero, and James D. Unnever, “Public Support for Early Intervention: Is Child Saving a ‘Habit of the Heart’?” Victims and Offenders 2:108–124 (2007); Mark A. Cohen, Ronald T. Rust, and Sara Steen, “Prevention, Crime Control or Cash? Public Preferences Toward Criminal Justice Spending Priorities,” Justice Quarterly 23:317–335 (2006); Daniel S. Nagin, Alex R. Piquero, Elizabeth S. Scott, and Laurence Steinberg, “Public Preferences for Rehabilitation versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey,” Criminology and Public Policy 5:627–652 (2006); Julian V. Roberts, “Public Opinion and Youth Justice,” in Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 31, ed. Michael Tonry and Anthony N. Doob (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

Home-Based Programs

In a supportive and loving home environment, parents care for their children’s health and general well-being, help instill in their children positive values such as honesty and respect for others, and nurture prosocial behaviors. One of the most important types of home-based programs to prevent juvenile delinquency involves the provision of support for families. Support for families in their homes can take many different forms. A popular and effective form of family support is home visitation.
8

Home Visitation.

The best-known home visitation program is the Nurse-Family Partnership (formerly Prenatal/Early Infancy Project) that was started in Elmira, New York.
9
This program was designed with three broad objectives:

· 1. To improve the outcomes of pregnancy

· 2. To improve the quality of care that parents provide to their children (and their children’s subsequent health and development)

· 3. To improve women’s own personal life-course development (completing their education, finding work, and planning future pregnancies)
10

The program targeted first-time mothers-to-be who were under 19 years of age, unmarried, or poor. In all, 400 women were enrolled in the program. The mothers-to-be received home visits from nurses during pregnancy and during the first two years of the child’s life. Each home visit lasted about one and one-quarter hours, and the mothers were visited on average every two weeks. The home visitors gave advice to the mothers about care of the child, infant development, and the importance of proper nutrition and avoiding smoking and drinking during pregnancy. Fifteen years after the program started, children of the mothers who received home visits had half as many arrests as children of mothers who received no home visits (the control group).
11
It was also found that these children, compared to those in the control group, had fewer convictions and violations of probation, were less likely to run away from home, and were less likely to drink alcohol. In addition to the program’s success in preventing juvenile crime and other delinquent activities, it also produced a number of improvements in the lives of the mothers, such as lower rates of child abuse and neglect, crime in general, and substance abuse, as well as less reliance on welfare and social services.
12

A Rand study found that the program’s desirable effects, for both the children and the mothers, translated into substantial financial benefits for government and taxpayers, and that the total amount of these benefits was more than four times the cost of the program (see

Figure 11.1

).
13
In the latest follow-up of the program, when the children were 19 years old, girls incurred significantly fewer arrests and convictions compared to their control counterparts, while few program effects were observed for the boys.
14

FIGURE 11.1: Costs and Benefits of Home Visits for High-Risk Families

Source: Adapted from Peter W. Greenwood et al., “Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions: Nurse Home Visits and the Perry Preschool” (table 4.3).

Nurse-Family Partnership, a maternal and early childhood health program, fosters long-term success for first-time moms, their babies, and society. To read more, visit the Criminal Justice Course-Mate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Two other experiments of the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) program in Memphis, Tennessee, and Denver, Colorado, have produced similar benefits for the mothers and their children, including a reduction in child abuse and neglect. The success of the program has resulted in its use in almost 400 counties in 32 states across the country, serving more than 21,000 families each year.
15
In Colorado, the program was established in law, and in its first year of operation served almost 1,400 families in 49 of the state’s 64 counties.
16
It is also now being replicated throughout England.
17
The use of nurses instead of paraprofessionals, its intensity (a minimum of two years), and its targeted nature (for first time, disadvantaged mothers only) are critical features that distinguish it from other, less effective home visitation programs such as Hawaii Healthy Start.
18

Early prevention programs that stress family support can reduce child abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency. The most effective early family support programs provide infants with regular pediatrician checkups and provide parents with advice about care for the child, infant development, and local services. Here, Molly Walters watches her sister, Billie Joe Walters, swaddle Billie Joe’s month-old son, Hayden, with the help of “coach” Janet DeBolt, director of the Nurse-Family Partnership in Uniontown, Pennsylvania.

Improving Parenting Skills

Another form of family support that has shown some success in preventing juvenile delinquency is improving parenting skills. Although the main focus of parent training programs is on the parents, many of these programs also involve children, with the aim of improving the parent–child bond.

Two reviews capture the broad-scale effectiveness of family-based prevention programs. The first one involved a meta-analysis of the effects of early prevention programs that included parents and children up to age 5.
19
Eleven high-quality studies were included that covered a variety of program modalities, including home visitation, family support services, and parental education (improvement of core parenting skills). Results showed significant effects across a number of important domain outcomes, including educational success, delinquency, cognitive development, involvement in the justice system, and family well-being. Program duration and intensity were associated with larger effects, but not multicomponent programs. This latter finding goes against much past research, including the latest results on the effectiveness of the Fast Track multicomponent, multisite prevention program.
20

The second one involved a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of early family/parent training programs for children up to age 5 years on antisocial behavior and delinquency.
21
It included 55

randomized controlled experiment

s
and investigated the full range of these programs, including home visits, parent education plus daycare, and parent training. Results indicated that early family/parent training is an effective intervention for reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency. These programs also produce a wide range of other important benefits for families, including improved school readiness and school performance on the part of children and greater employment and educational opportunities for parents. Significant differences were not detected across program type, such as traditional parent training versus home visiting.

randomized controlled experiment

Considered the “gold standard” of evaluation designs to measure the effect of a program on delinquency or other outcomes. Involves randomly assigning subjects either to receive the program (the experimental group) or not receive it (the control group).

Oregon Social Learning Center.

The most widely cited parenting skills program is one created at the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) by Gerald Patterson and his colleagues.
22
Patterson’s research convinced him that poor parenting skills were associated with antisocial behavior in the home and at school. Family disruption and coercive exchanges between parents and children led to increased family tension, poor academic performance, and negative peer relations. The primary cause of the problem seemed to be that parents did not know how to deal effectively with their children. Parents sometimes ignored their children’s behavior, but at other times the same actions would trigger explosive rage. Some parents would discipline their children for reasons that had little to do with the children’s behavior, instead reflecting their own frustrations.

The children reacted in a regular progression, from learning to be noncompliant to learning to be assaultive. Their coercive behavior, which included whining, yelling, and temper tantrums, would sometimes be acquired by other family members. Eventually family conflict would flow out of the home and into the school and social environment.

The OSLC program uses behavior modification techniques to help parents acquire proper disciplinary methods. Parents are asked to select several behaviors for change and to count the frequency of their occurrence. OSLC personnel teach social skills to reinforce positive behaviors, and constructive disciplinary methods to discourage negative ones. Incentive programs are initiated in which a child can earn points for desirable behaviors. Points can be exchanged for allowance, prizes, or privileges. Parents are also taught disciplinary techniques that stress firmness and consistency rather than “nattering” (low-intensity behaviors, such as scowling or scolding) or explosive discipline, such as hitting or screaming. One important technique is the “time out,” in which the child is removed for brief isolation in a quiet room. Parents are taught the importance of setting rules and sticking to them. A number of evaluation studies carried out by Patterson and his colleagues showed that improving parenting skills can lead to reductions in juvenile delinquency.
23

The parent training method used by the OSLC may be the most cost-effective method of early intervention. A Rand study found that parent training costs about one-twentieth what a home visit program costs and is more effective in preventing serious crimes. The study estimates that 501 serious crimes could be prevented for every million dollars spent on parent training (or $2,000 per crime), a far cheaper solution than long-term incarceration, which would cost about $16,000 to prevent a single crime.
24

For more information on the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC), visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Preschool

Typically provided to children ages 3 to 5, preschool programs are geared toward preparing children for grade school. These are the formative years of brain development; more learning takes place during this developmental stage than at any other stage over the life course. Low intelligence and school failure are important risk factors for juvenile delinquency.
25
(See

Chapter 5

for why these are risk factors for juvenile delinquency.) For these reasons, highly structured, cognitive-based preschool programs give young children a positive start in life. Some of the key features of preschool programs include the provision of:

· • Developmentally appropriate learning curricula

· • A wide array of cognitive-based enriching activities

· • Activities for parents, usually of a less intensive nature, so that they may be able to support the school experience at home
26

A preschool program in Michigan and another in Chicago provide some positive findings on the benefits of early prevention of delinquency.

Started in the mid-1960s, the Perry Preschool in Ypsilanti, Michigan, provided disadvantaged children with a program of educational enrichment supplemented with weekly home visits. The main hypothesis of the program was that “good preschool programs can help children in poverty make a better start in their transition from home to community and thereby set more of them on paths to becoming economically self-sufficient, socially responsible adults.”
27
The main intervention was high-quality, active-learning preschool programming administered by professional teachers for two years. Preschool sessions were half a day long and were provided five days a week for the duration of the 30-week school year. The educational approach focused on supporting the development of the children’s cognitive and social skills through individualized teaching and learning.

A number of assessments were made of the program at important stages of development. The first assessment of juvenile delinquency, when the participants were age 15, found that those who received the program reported one-third fewer offenses than a control group.
28
By the age of 27, program participants had accumulated half the arrests of the control group. The researchers also found that the preschoolers had achieved many other significant benefits compared to their control group counterparts, including higher monthly earnings, higher percentages of home ownership and second car ownership, a higher level of schooling completed, and a lower percentage receiving welfare benefits.
29
All of these benefits translated into substantial dollar cost savings. It was estimated that for each dollar it cost to run and administer the program, more than $7 was saved to taxpayers, potential crime victims, and program participants.
30
An independent study by Rand also found that Perry Preschool was a very worthwhile investment.
31

The most recent assessment of the effectiveness of Perry Preschool—when the subjects were age 40—found that it continues to make an important difference in the lives of those who were enrolled in the program. Compared to the control group, program group members had achieved many significant benefits, including:

· • Fewer lifetime arrests for violent crimes (32 percent vs. 48 percent), property crimes (36 percent vs. 58 percent), and drug crimes (14 percent vs. 34 percent)

· • Higher levels of schooling completed (77 percent vs. 60 percent graduated from high school)

· • Higher annual earnings (57 percent vs. 43 percent had earnings in the top half of the sample)
32

An assessment of the costs and benefits at age 40 found that for every dollar spent on the program, more than $17 was returned to society—in the form of savings in crime, education, welfare, and increased tax revenue.

The Child-Parent Center (CPC) program in Chicago, like Perry Preschool, provided disadvantaged children ages 3 to 4 years with high-quality, active-learning preschool supplemented with family support. However, unlike Perry, CPC continued to provide the children with the educational enrichment component into elementary school, up to the age of 9 years. Just focusing on the effect of the preschool, it was found that, compared to a control group, those who received the program were less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses (17 percent vs. 25 percent) and violent offenses (9 percent vs. 15 percent) by the time they were 18. Preschool participants, compared to a control group, were also less likely to be arrested more than once (10 percent vs. 13 percent). Other significant benefits realized by the preschool participants compared to the control group included:

· • A higher rate of high school completion (50 percent vs. 39 percent)

· • More years of completed education (11 vs. 10)

· • A lower rate of dropping out of school (47 percent vs. 55 percent)
33

A more recent evaluation when participants were age 24 found that the experimental group, compared to the control group members, had significantly lower rates of felony arrest (17 percent vs. 21 percent) and lower rates of incarceration (21 percent vs. 26 percent).
34
Positive results were found for official justice contact in a follow-up at age 28 as well.
35
The success of the CPC program in preventing juvenile delinquency and improving other life-course outcomes produced substantial cost savings. For each dollar spent on the program, $7.14 was saved to taxpayers, potential crime victims, and program participants.
36

Overall, high-quality, intensive preschool programs show strong support for preventing delinquency and improving the lives of young people.
37
The provision of family support services combined with preschool programming likely adds to the strength of the Perry and CPC programs in preventing delinquency, but it is clear that preschool was the most important element. The intellectual enrichment component of preschool helps prepare children for the academic challenges of elementary and later grades; reducing the chances of school failure is a significant factor in reducing delinquency. Another notable point about the positive findings of Perry and CPC is that these two programs were implemented many years apart, yet the CPC, as a semi-replication of Perry, demonstrates that preschool programs today can still be effective in preventing delinquency. CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO2 Be familiar with effective delinquency prevention programs for children.

· There is widespread public support for early delinquency prevention programs.

· The Nurse-Family Partnership is an effective home visitation program that is used extensively across the country.

· Parent training programs show evidence of preventing delinquency.

· Cognitive-based preschool programs can provide a wide range of benefits, from improved educational achievement to lower delinquency rates.

Looking Back to Martin’s Story

It may be that an early prevention program could have helped Martin avoid some of his problems in adolescence.

CRITICAL THINKING Discuss the most appropriate early intervention for Martin. Make sure to assess the potential benefits over both the short and long term and consider the role of his family.

PREVENTION OF DELINQUENCY IN THE TEENAGE YEARS

Like early childhood interventions, delinquency prevention programs started in the teenage years also play an important role in an overall strategy to reduce juvenile delinquency. A wide range of non-juvenile justice delinquency prevention programs attempt to address such risk factors as parental conflict and separation, poor housing, dropping out of high school, and antisocial peers. The following sections examine a number of key delinquency prevention approaches targeted at teenagers: mentoring, school-based programs, and job training.

Mentoring

Mentoring programs usually involve nonprofessional volunteers spending time with young people at risk for delinquency, dropping out of school, school failure, and other social problems. Mentors behave in a supportive, nonjudgmental manner while acting as role models.
38
In recent years, there has been a large increase in the number of mentoring programs, many of which are aimed at preventing delinquency.
39

Federal Mentoring Programs.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has supported mentoring for many years in all parts of the United States, most notably through the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), now called the Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth (MISIY). The new initiative provides funding to faith- and community-based agencies to mentor youth involved in the juvenile justice system, foster care, and reentry programs.
40
Under JUMP, thousands of at-risk youths were provided with mentors. The mentors were responsible and caring adults who volunteered their time to work with young people exposed to one or more risk factors, including delinquency, dropping out of school, and problems in school.

The most common areas of increased risk, based on a large number of male and female youths enrolled in the program, are school and social/family domains. (See

Table 11.1

.) Mentors work one-on-one with young people.
41
Research has shown that mentoring and other types of delinquency prevention programs offered in group settings, particularly for high-risk youths, may end up causing more harm than good. By participating in these types of programs in groups, young people who are more chronically involved in delinquency may negatively affect those who are marginally involved in delinquency.
42
An evaluation of JUMP found significant reductions in risk in three critical areas: aggressive behavior/delinquency, peer relationships, and mental health.
43

TABLE 11.1: Risk Factors of Young People in the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP)

1.5

Percentage of Enrolled Youth *
Risk Domain	Male (n = 3,592)	Female (n = 3,807)
School problems	74.6%	6 3.0 %
School behavior	39.5	23.5
Poor grades	53.6	45.9
Truancy	1 0.4	9.1
Social/family problems	51.7	56.4
Delinquency	17.7	8.5
Fighting	1 2.8	6.3
Property crime	2.8	0.5
Gang activity	3.0	1.0
Weapons	1.1	0.4
Alcohol use	3.2		1.5
Drug use	4.0	1.8
Tobacco use	2.3	1.9
Pregnancy/early parenting	0.2
Source: Laurence C. Novotney, Elizabeth Mertinko, James Lange, and Tara Kelly Baker, Juvenile Mentoring Program: A Progress Review (Washington, DC: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2000), p. 5.

* Percentage of total JUMP enrollment for each gender. For 23 youths, no gender was reported in the database.

Effectiveness of Mentoring.

The overall effectiveness of mentoring in preventing delinquency is reported in two comprehensive reviews of the literature. In one systematic review and meta-analysis that included 18 mentoring programs, British criminologists Darrick Jolliffe and David Farrington found that the average effect across the studies corresponded to a significant 10 percent reduction in delinquency.
44
The authors also found that mentoring was more effective in reducing delinquency when the average duration of each contact between mentor and mentee was greater, in smaller scale studies, and when mentoring was combined with other interventions. A second systematic review and meta-analysis by Patrick Tolan and his colleagues examined the effects of mentoring on a wide range of areas, including delinquency, academic achievement, drug use, and aggression.
45
The review included 39 programs, some of which were included in the first review. The authors found that mentoring had a positive effect in all four areas, but the largest effects involved reductions in delinquency and aggression.

Mentoring is one of many types of interventions that have been used with teens considered to be at high risk for engaging in delinquent acts. These two juniors at North High School in Evansville, Indiana, are part of a mentor program to help incoming freshmen.

It is important to note that not all mentoring programs are effective in preventing delinquency. Why is it that some work and not others? The biggest issue has to do with what the mentors actually do and how they do it. Mentors should be a source of support and guidance to help young people deal with a broad range of issues that have to do with their family, school, and future career. They work one-on-one with young people, in many cases forming strong bonds. Care is taken in matching the mentor and young person. Other research on effective mentoring relationships between adults and teens points to the need for the mentors to display empathy, pay particular attention to and nurture the strengths of the young person, and treat them “as a person of equal worth and value.”
46

School Programs

Schools are a critical social context for delinquency prevention efforts, from the early to later grades.
47
(See

Chapter 9

.) All schools work to produce vibrant and productive members of society. The school’s role in preventing delinquency in general, which is the focus of this section, differs from measures taken to make the school a safer place. In this case, a school may adopt a greater security orientation and implement such measures as metal detectors, police in school, and closed-circuit television cameras.

Schools may not be able to reduce delinquency single-handedly, but a number of viable alternatives to their present operations could aid a communitywide effort to reduce the problem of juvenile crime. A comprehensive review of school-based programs was conducted by Denise Gottfredson and her colleagues as part of a study to determine the best methods of delinquency prevention. Some of their findings are contained in

Exhibit 11.2

. The main difference between the programs that work and those that do not is that successful programs target an array of important risk factors.

EXHIBIT 11.2: School-Based Delinquency Prevention Programs

What Works?

· • Programs aimed at building school capacity to initiate and sustain innovation

· • Programs aimed at clarifying and communicating norms about behaviors by establishing school rules, improving the consistency of their enforcement (particularly when they emphasize positive reinforcement of appropriate behavior), or communicating norms through school-wide campaigns (for example, anti-bullying campaigns) or ceremonies

· • Comprehensive instructional programs that focus on a range of social competency skills (such as developing self-control and skills in stress management, responsible decision making, social problem solving, and communication) and that are delivered over a long period of time to continually reinforce skills

What Does Not Work?

· • Instructional programs that do not focus on social competency skills or do not make use of cognitive–behavioral teaching methods

What Is Promising?

· • Programs that group youths into smaller “schools within schools” to create smaller units, more supportive interactions, or greater flexibility in instruction

· • Classroom or instructional management

Source: Denise C. Gottfredson, David B. Wilson, and Stacy Skroban Najaka, “School-Based Crime Prevention” in Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, ed. Lawrence W. Sherman, David P Farrington, Brandon C. Welsh, and Doris Layton MacKenzie (New York: Routledge, 2006, rev. ed.).

Often it is not enough to improve only the school environment or only the family environment; for example, a youth who has a troubled family life may find it more difficult to do well at school, regardless of the improvements made at school. Some effective school-based delinquency prevention programs also show that greater gains are made with those who are at the highest risk for future delinquency. An evaluation of Peace-Builders, a school-based violence prevention program for young and older children, found that decreases in aggression and improvements in social competence were larger for the highest-risk kids compared to those at medium and low levels of risk.
48
School-based programs also need to be intensive; two or three sessions a semester often does not cut it. Two additional components of successful school-based delinquency prevention programs—especially in the later grades—are improving the family environment by engaging parents in helping the student to learn, and reducing negative peer influences through information about the downsides of gun carrying, drug use, and gang involvement.

Job Training

The effects of having an after-school job can be problematic (see

Chapter 3

). Some research indicates that it may be associated with delinquency and substance abuse. However, helping kids to prepare for the adult workforce is an important aspect of delinquency prevention. Job training programs play an important role in improving the chances of young people obtaining jobs in the legal economy and thereby may reduce delinquency.
49
The developmental stage of transition to work is difficult for many young people.
50
Coming from a disadvantaged background, having poor grades in school or perhaps dropping out of school, and having some involvement in delinquency can all pose difficulties in securing a steady, well-paying job in early adulthood. Programs like the two described here are concerned not only with providing young people with employable skills, but also with helping them overcome some of these immediate obstacles.

Job Corps.

The best-known and largest job training program in the United States is Job Corps, which was established in 1964 as a federal training program for disadvantaged, unemployed youths. The designers of the national program, the Department of Labor, were hopeful that spin-off benefits in the form of reduced dependence on social assistance and a reduction in delinquency would occur as a result of empowering at-risk youth to achieve stable, long-term employment opportunities. The program is still active today, operating out of 124 centers across the nation, and each year provides services to more than 100,000 young people at a cost of over $1.5 billion.
51

The main goal of Job Corps is to improve the employability of participants by offering a comprehensive set of services that largely includes vocational skills training, basic education (the ability to obtain graduate equivalent degrees), and health care. Job Corps is provided to young people between the ages of 16 and 24 years. Most of the young people enrolled in the program are at high risk for delinquency, substance abuse, and social assistance dependency. Almost all of the Job Corps centers require the participants to live there while taking the program.

A large-scale evaluation of Job Corps, involving 15,400 young people, found that participation in the program resulted in significant reductions in criminal activity, improvements in educational attainment, and greater earnings. Program participants had an average arrest rate of 29 percent compared to 33 percent for their control counterparts. An analysis of tax data showed that earnings gains were sustained for the oldest participants eight years after they had left the program.
52
An earlier evaluation of Job Corps found it to be a worthwhile investment of public resources: for each dollar that was spent on the program, $1.45 was saved to government or taxpayers, crime victims, and program participants.
53
A later analysis of the program’s costs and benefits also found it to be a worthwhile investment of public resources, saving society at large $2 for each dollar spent on the program.
54

Job Corps is a national program serving more than 100,000 at-risk young people each year. It seeks to help them improve their vocational skills and education, find sustainable jobs, serve their communities, and avoid lives of crime. Pictured here are teen Job Corps students removing graffiti from the Tatum Waterway near Biscayne, Florida.

To learn more about Job Corps, visit the Criminal Justice Course-Mate at
CengageBrain.com
, then access the Web Links for this chapter.

YouthBuild U.S.A.

Another job training program for disadvantaged, unemployed youths is YouthBuild U.S.A. Started in 1978 by a group of young people in New York City, YouthBuild has become a national program with offices in 45 states, Washington, D.C., and the Virgin Islands. Since 1994, it has helped more than 100,000 youths between the ages of 16 and 24 years in the 273 programs across the country.
55
The program’s focus is on building or renovating affordable housing— more than 20,000 units have been built since 1994—and through this young people learn skills in carpentry and construction. YouthBuild also provides educational services—for example, to achieve a high school diploma or prepare for college— and promotes the development of leadership skills. The program’s impact on delinquency varies from site to site, with some sites reporting reductions as high as 40 percent among youths enrolled in the program compared to similar youths who did not receive the program.
56
The latest, most rigorous evaluation of YouthBuild so far, which involved an 18-month follow-up after the completion of the program, reports significant reductions in offending and improvements in educational attainment (graduating from high school or obtaining a GED) for those who graduated from the program compared to those who dropped out.
57
CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO3 Be familiar with effective delinquency prevention programs for teens.

· Mentoring programs are playing an increasingly important role in preventing delinquency in the community.

· There are a number of effective school programs for elementary, middle, and high school students.

· Job Corps is an effective job training program for youths that has also shown reductions in juvenile crime.

JUVENILE JUSTICE TODAY

Today the juvenile justice system exercises jurisdiction over two distinct categories of offenders—delinquents and status offenders.
58
Delinquent children are those who fall under a jurisdictional age limit, which varies from state to state, and who commit an act in violation of the penal code. Status offenders are commonly characterized in state statutes as persons or children in need of supervision (PINS or CHINS). Most states distinguish such behavior from delinquent conduct to lessen the effect of any stigma on children as a result of their involvement with the juvenile court. In addition, juvenile courts generally have jurisdiction over situations involving conduct directed at (rather than committed by) juveniles, such as parental neglect, deprivation, abandonment, and abuse.

The states have also set different maximum ages below which children fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Most states (and the District of Columbia) include all children under 18, others set the upper limit at 17, and still others include children under 16 (see

Table 11.2

TABLE 11.2: Oldest Age for Juvenile Court Jurisdiction in Delinquency Cases

Age	State (Total Number)
New York, North Carolina (2)
Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin (10)
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming (38 and the District of Columbia)
Source: Linda Szymanski, “Upper and Lower Age of Delinquency Jurisdiction” NCJJ Snapshot, 16(7) (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2011).

Today’s juvenile justice system exists in all states by statute. Each jurisdiction has a juvenile code and a special court structure to accommodate children in trouble. Nationwide, the juvenile justice system consists of thousands of public and private agencies, with a total budget amounting to billions of dollars. Most of the nation’s police agencies have juvenile components, and there are more than 3,000 juvenile courts and about an equal number of juvenile correctional facilities.

Figure 11.2

depicts the numbers of juvenile offenders removed at various stages of the juvenile justice process. These figures do not take into account the large number of children who are referred to community diversion and mental health programs. There are thousands of these programs throughout the nation. This multitude of agencies and people dealing with juvenile delinquency has led to the development of what professionals view as an incredibly expansive and complex system.

FIGURE 11.2: Case Processing of Typical Violent Crimes in the Juvenile Justice System

Note: Cases are categorized by their most severe or restrictive sanction. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.

Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, May 1, 2012,

http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/court/JC-SCF_Display.asp?ID=qa06603

(accessed August 17, 2012).

The Juvenile Justice Process

How are children processed by the juvenile justice system?
59
Most children come into the justice system as a result of contact with a police officer. When a juvenile commits a serious crime, the police are empowered to make an arrest. Less serious offenses may also require police action, but in these instances, instead of being arrested, the child may be warned or a referral may be made to a social service program. About two-thirds (68 percent) of all children arrested are referred to the juvenile court.
60

Figure 11.3

outlines the

juvenile justice process

and a detailed analysis of this process is presented in the next sections.

FIGURE 11.3: Case Flow Through the Juvenile Justice Process

Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/case.html

(accessed August 17, 2012).

juvenile justice process

Under the parens patriae philosophy, juvenile justice procedures are informal and nonadversarial, invoked for juvenile offenders rather than against them. A petition instead of a complaint is filed, courts make findings of involvement or adjudication of delinquency instead of convictions, and juvenile offenders receive dispositions instead of sentences.

Police Investigation.

When youths commit a crime, police have the authority to investigate the incident and decide whether to release the youths or commit them to the juvenile court. This is often a discretionary decision, based not only on the nature of the offense, but also on conditions existing at the time of the arrest. Such factors as the seriousness of the offense, the child’s past contacts with the police, and whether the child denies committing the crime determine whether a petition is filed. As you may recall, juveniles in custody today have constitutional rights similar to those of adult offenders. They are protected against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment places limitations on police interrogation procedures.

Detention.

If the police decide to file a petition, the child is referred to juvenile court. The primary decision at this point is whether the child should remain in the community or be placed in a detention facility or in shelter care (temporary foster homes, detention boarding homes, programs of neighborhood supervision). In the past, children were routinely held in detention facilities to await court appearances. Normally, a

detention hearing

is held to determine whether to remand the child to a shelter. At this point, the child has a right to counsel and other procedural safeguards. A child who is not detained is usually released to a parent or guardian. Most state juvenile court acts provide for a child to return home to await further court action, except when it is necessary to protect the child, when the child presents a serious danger to the public, or when it is not certain that the child will return to court. In many cases, the police will refer the child to a community service program instead of filing a formal charge.

detention hearing

A hearing by a judicial officer of a juvenile court to determine whether a juvenile is to be detained or released while proceedings are pending in the case.

Pretrial Procedures.

In most jurisdictions, the adjudication process begins with some sort of hearing. At this hearing, juvenile court rules normally require that juveniles be informed of their right to a trial, that the plea or admission be voluntary, and that they understand the charges and consequences of the plea. The case will often not be further adjudicated if a child admits to the crime at the initial h

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Comprehensive Juvenile Justice Strategy Presentation ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Hire a Writer

Client Reviews

4.9

Sitejabber

4.6

Trustpilot

4.8

Our Guarantees

100% Confidentiality

Information about customers is confidential and never disclosed to third parties.

Original Writing

We complete all papers from scratch. You can get a plagiarism report.

Timely Delivery

No missed deadlines – 97% of assignments are completed in time.

Money Back

If you're confident that a writer didn't follow your order details, ask for a refund.

New to Your Trusted Assignment Help Service? Sign up & Save

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now