Juvenile Offenders Factors Influencing Recidivism

Factors Influencing Recidivism Among Juvenile Offenders

Name

SOCW 5513- Masters Research Project in the Department of Social Work.

Professor

Date

Table of Contents

Title Page………………………………………………………………………….

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………....

Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………...

Statement of the Problem.............................................................................

Scope of the Problem

Justification of the Proposed Research……………………………………

Purpose of the Proposed Research………………………………………...

Chapter Two: Literature Review………………………………………………….

Introduction……………………………………………………………….

Quality-of-Life Variables Influencing Recidivism…………………….….

The role of Unemployment in Fueling Recidivism……………………….

Knowledge Gaps………………………………………………………….

Chapter Three: Theoretical Framework…………………………………………...

Social Learning Theory……………………………………………………

Application in Research………………………………………………....

Justification …………………………………………………………….

Chapter Four: Methodology…………………………………………………………….

Sample Population

Data Collection Method

Conceptualization of Variables

Chapter Five: Conclusion………………………………………………………………...

Summary

Limitations

Implications for Social Work Practice

References……………………………………………………………………………….  

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………….

Appendix A – Questionnaire

Appendix B – CITI Results

Abstract

The American Civil Liberties Union reports that every day, nearly 60,000 youth under the age of 18 are incarcerated in the United States. Worryingly, 44 % of offenders are rearrested within the first year of their release, with juveniles making up 55 % of these rearrests. Incarceration negatively impacts the future of juveniles by interrupting their social systems. For this reason, it is prudent to bring more awareness to the issue by educating the public about factors that lead to incarceration and by extension, recidivism, among juvenile offenders. The proposed study seeks to determine the factors that exacerbate the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders and the therapeutic influences that could help minimize this risk.

Chapter One: Introduction

The American Civil Liberties Union reports that nearly 60,000 youth under the age of 18 are incarcerated in the United States every day. However, what is even more worrying is the number of juveniles who re-offend and are re-incarcerated within five years of their release. It is estimated that approximately 44 % of offenders are rearrested within the first year of their release, with juveniles making up 55 % of these rearrests (Alper, Durose & Markman, 2018). The high recidivism rates of juvenile offenders highlight the need to bring more awareness to the issue.

Studies have already shown that incarceration dramatically impacts juveniles\\\\\\\' future by interrupting their social systems (friendships, church) and disrupting their opportunities to receive an education (Chetty & Hendren, 2017; Mallett, 2013). At the macro-level, incarceration burdens the economy. Mukku and colleagues (2012) also found that averting incarceration would reduce the government\\\\\\\'s expenses by $17 billion annually, mainly for non-violent-related crimes. For these reasons, this study reinforces the need to educate the public about factors that lead to incarceration and, by extension, recidivism, among juvenile offenders.

Statement of the Problem

Recidivism presents a unique challenge for administrators and policymakers in the criminal justice system. In essence, very high recidivism rates signify the system’s inability to adequately rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into their communities. Worryingly, national recidivism rates in the US remain significantly high. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data released in 2018 showed that 5 in 6 (representing 83 percent) of offenders released in 2005 across 30 states had been re-arrested at least once between then and 2014 (Alper et al., 2018). Approximately 44 % of offenders are rearrested before the end of their first year after release (Alper et al., 2018).

Approximately 44 % of offenders are rearrested before the end of their first year after release (Alper et al., 2018). According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), juveniles make up approximately 55 % of offenders who are rearrested within their first year of release (OJJDP, 2017). National data on juvenile recidivism does not exist as juvenile justice is handled at the state level. All the same, state data points to a worrying trend. A 2018 report from the State of Indiana, for instance, puts juvenile recidivism at a rate of 33.3 % for offenders released in 2015 (Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC), 2018). Of the 688 juveniles released in 2015, 229 had been rearrested at least once by 2017. Also, 145 were rearrested as juveniles and 84 as adults (IDOC, 2018). Similarly, 2015 data from the State of California indicates a juvenile recidivism rate of 50.5 % in 2014-15, up from 49.1 % in 2013-14 (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), 2015). The highest juvenile recidivism rates have been reported in New Jersey. Other states\\\\\\\' data from 2010-11 indicates that 81 % of juvenile offenders had been rearrested at least once within three years of their release, with 71 % of these arrests resulting in a new conviction/adjudication (New Jersey Department of Corrections, 2016).

Incarceration dramatically impacts juveniles\\\\\\\' future by removing them from the safety and protection of their communities, interrupting their social systems (friendships, church), disrupting their opportunities to receive an education, and possibly exposing them to additional violence (Gilman, Hill & Hawkins, 2015). Re-incarceration has a much more significant impact on the individual as it minimizes the chances of ever making it out of the criminal justice system.

There is a rich body of literature analyzing the factors that exacerbate the risk of reoffending among previously incarcerated individuals. However, most existing studies adopt a general approach to recidivism, without focusing specifically on juveniles. Findings obtained from adult offender populations may not be generalizable to juvenile offenders as adults and juveniles behave differently towards societal influences. Further, most existing studies study the factors that influence recidivism outside the criminal justice system, and ignore the elements within the criminal justice system (experiences during the period of incarceration) that increase the risk of recidivism.

The proposed study seeks to address these knowledge gaps by analyzing the factors that exacerbate the risk of recidivism among juveniles. It also focuses on identifying exacerbating factors that increase the risk of recidivism during the period when one is incarcerated. It would be prudent to identify whether the factors that influence the risk of juvenile recidivism are the same factors that influence this risk for older offenders.

Justification for the Study

Studies have made several recommendations on potential programs that could enhance the rehabilitation of incarcerated juveniles to minimize their risk of recidivism. Elrod and Ryder (2020), for instance, advance the idea of restorative government and community collaborations through churches, Boys and Girls Clubs and other community organizations to address the justice component.

Other studies such as Gilman et al. (2015) have proposed the expansion of residential placement programs as an alternative to incarceration for juvenile offenders. Under residential placement programs, youth are placed in residential homes with families or facilities that have specialized training. Residential placement programs are considered more effective than incarceration in minimizing the risk of future reoffending as they employ a community-oriented approach (Brown & Smith (2018). However, opponents of the residential programs say that they only serve to increase aggression and violence among the youth since they are not physically secure, and often involve placement of liked-mind youth with similar behaviors and under-trained, and poorly-paid staff members (Brown & Smith, 2018). Moreover, critics argue that residential programs may not uphold strict disciplinary measures like juvenile incarceration facilities, which may defeat their overall purpose.

Amidst the ongoing debate on what may work or may not work in minimizing the risk of recidivism among delinquent juveniles, it is crucial to educate the public and policymakers on the factors that influence the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders. Understanding the factors that influence juvenile recidivism is the first step towards developing effective programs for minimize the same.

Purpose of the Research

The proposed study seeks to analyze the factors that influence recidivism among juvenile offenders. The findings will provide crucial insights for policymakers on the specific factors that drive juvenile recidivism and hence, the rehabilitation programs that would be most appropriate for this group of offenders. The research questions guiding the study are stated below:

RQ1: What factors exacerbate the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders outside the criminal justice system?

RQ2: What factors exacerbate the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders during their incarceration?

RQ3: What therapeutic influences could help reduce the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders?

Chapter Two: Literature Review

The proposed study seeks to identify and analyze the structural factors that influence recidivism among juvenile offenders. In line with the study’s objective, this chapter reviews literature on the factors exacerbating the risk of recidivism among former inmates. It is divided into three sections. The first section reviews literature on the effect of quality-of-life variables influencing the risk of recidivism among former inmates. The second section reviews literature on the role of unemployment in fueling recidivism among former inmates. The final section focuses on identifying the knowledge gaps evident in the reviewed literature and how the proposed study will address the same.

Variables Influencing the Risk of Recidivism

Recidivism is defined as the act of returning to prison within three years of one’s release (Chetty & Hendren, 2017). Multiple studies have been conducted to identify factors that exacerbate the risk of recidivism among former inmates. There is contention across the literature that an individual’s quality of life upon release influences their likelihood of repeat offending in young adulthood (Mallett, 2013). Pereira and Maia (2017) conducted a study to analyze the relationship between an individual’s criminal history and reoffending rate among Portuguese prisoners. The researchers concluded that an individual’s quality of life was a significant influencer of criminal thinking among former inmates, with those surrounded by low quality-of-life indicators running higher risks of recidivism. These findings were replicated by another study by Barett and Karsiyannis (2015), who analyzed the effect of demographic elements, particularly race, on recidivism rates among juveniles in South Carolina. Like Pereira and Maia (2017), the study found a significant likelihood of recidivism in young adults with a history of juvenile delinquency as well as African Americans. Police presence, crime, and poverty were shown to be significant factors in this case. Although both studies adopt the same approach, Barett and Karsiyannis (2015) analyze the effect of demographic variables in predicting the risk of recidivism, which Perreira and Maia (2017) ignore.

A different study by Grunwald et al. (2010) also reported a strong association between quality-of-life indicators, specifically neighborhood characteristics, and the risk of recidivism. Like Barett and Karsiyannis (2015), Grunwald et al. (2010) found a positive correlation between neighborhood disorganization, childhood poverty, drugs use, mental illness, socioeconomic status, and negative family dynamics and the risk of reoffending upon release from incarceration. However, unlike Barett and Karsiyannis (2015), Grunwald et al. (2010) found no significant relationship between police presence and the risk of recidivism.

The study by Grunwald et al. (2010) introduced the aspect of environmental factors in influencing criminal behavior – a finding replicated in another study by Mulder et al (2010), who established that based on the social control theory, child neglect, family breakdown, and high neighborhood crime rates significantly impact the chances of a juvenile repeating an offence upon release from incarceration. Ryan et al. (2013), also analyzed the effect of parental attachment (child neglect) on the risk of recidivism based on statewide data of youth involved in the childcare system. The study findings showed a significant positive correlation between the risk of repeat offense and child neglect, particularly being in foster care. Based on this evidence, future research might focus on early interventions for children in foster care, and supportive services for parents who have been accused of parental neglect or abuse.

The study by Ryan et al. (2013), however, introduced the important aspect of time, establishing that approximately 61% of the convicted youths that recidivated did so within 18 months of their initial arrest. Studies focused on the aspect of time between release and re-arrest among juvenile offenders are limited, making this a consideration for future research. However, this finding presentsan intriguing perspective as it established that the time between recidivism is relatively short; that youth are released and immediately re-offend and are re-incarcerated. This could be linked to the finding by Mulder et al. (2010) that the environment in which a juvenile is placed immediately upon their release from incarceration has a significant impact on their risk of recidivism.

Unemployment and Recidivism

Studies contend that most offenders have difficulty obtaining employment upon release from incarceration, which increases their risk of reoffending (Ramakers et al., 2017; Nally et al., 2014). However, researchers have differed on the question of whether post-incarceration employment, in fact, reduces the risk of recidivism. A study by Tripodi, Kim and Bender (2009), exploring the relationship between employment and recidivism for parolees found that post-incarceration employment did not significantly decrease the likelihood of recidivism, but only increased the time before re- incarceration. Thus, parolees who secure employment as spend more time crime-free in the community before ultimately returning to prison (Tripodi et al., 2009).

In sharp contrast, more recent studies have found a positive association between unemployment and the risk of recidivism. In their five-year follow up study geared at exploring the relationship between post-release employment and recidivism, Nally et al. (2014) found a negative association between a post-release employment and recidivism, although employment rates varied with the nature of the crime for which one was incarcerated. The study findings place drug and sex offenders at the highest risk of post-incarceration unemployment, and non-violent offenders at the lowest risk (Nally et al., 2014). However, the findings conflict Bhuller et al.’s (2016), findings, however, which showed a significant association between post-incarceration employment and recidivism; but found no significant association between the nature of crime and employment rate. However, both studies found evidence of a negative association between incarceration and employment.

In regard to the possible reasons why former inmates run lower risks of obtaining employment upon release; researchers contend that unemployment among ex-convicts is largely due to a lack of skills, selection issues, and social barriers. According to Bhuller et al. (2016), selection has the greatest influence on unemployment, with most employers unwilling to hire former inmates for fear of ruining on the company’s reputation (Bhuller et al., 2016).

However, other studies have shown that the risk of recidivism not only depends on the likelihood of securing a job, but on the nature of the job as well. For instance, in their longitudinal study examining the rates of recidivism among Dutch prisoners, Ramakers et al. (2017), found that former inmates were less likely to be employed in jobs with higher occupational levels (stable jobs). The researchers contend with Bhuller et al. (2016) that owing to their time in prison, most ex-prisoners lack the skills required for such jobs and have to opt for the less stable jobs. However, the two studies differ in relation to the impact of skills in the unemployment debate - Bhuller et al. (2016) found that selection, and not lack of skills, was the primary reason why ex-prisoners find it difficult to obtain jobs.

Bhuller et al. (2016) and Ramakers et al. (2017) contend that post-incarceration unemployment increases the risk of recidivism. However, according to Ramakers et al. (2017), the risk of recidivism is not just influenced by unemployment alone, but also the nature of employment. Study findings have shown that jobs with higher occupational levels (stable jobs) are associated with lower risks of recidivism than less stable jobs (Ramakers et al., 2017). This finding was replicated in Schnepel (2018), who found that jobs in manufacturing and construction industries helped to reduce recidivism, while other types of jobs characterized by low wages had no effect on recidivism. More research is needed to accurately analyze the role of job stability in influencing recidivism. However, these findings point to the need to enhance opportunities for offenders to obtain stable job opportunities upon release as a way of minimizing the risk of recidivism.

Thus, while there is consensus across studies that post-incarceration unemployment increases the risk of recidivism; studies give conflicting results on why ex-prisoners find it difficult to secure jobs, and how the nature of crime influences post-incarceration unemployment. There is contention in the literature, however, that the nature of post-incarceration employment also influences the risk of recidivism.

Gaps in Research

There is consensus across the literature that juvenile delinquency is associated with a high risk of future reoffending. There is rich literature on recidivism, including the factors that exacerbate its occurrence and those that control it. Studies have shown a negative correlation between quality-of-life indicators and the risk of recidivism. Further, there is evidence of a significant relationship between the nature of the offence for which one was incarcerated and the risk of recidivism, with offenders involved in violent crime reporting higher reoffending rates. Notably, however, most of these studies adopt a general approach, without specifically focusing on juveniles. Findings obtained from adult offender populations may not be generalizable to juvenile offenders given that juveniles and adult offenders are likely to behave differently towards societal influences. Further, most existing studies focus on exacerbating influences of recidivism outside the criminal justice system, with little focus on the factors that influence recidivism during incarceration. The proposed study seeks to address these gaps by examining these research questions: What factors exacerbate the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders outside the criminal justice system? What therapeutic influences could help reduce the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders?

Chapter Three: Theoretical Framework

Social Learning Theory

Albert Bandura’s social learning theory will be employed as the guiding framework for the proposed study. The theory suggests that individuals learn by observing the actions of others and the negative/positive consequences associated with the same (Hunter-Reel, 2013). The theory is based on two fundamental assumptions. The first is that humans are naturally social. As such, they learn through social interactions such as reciprocal teaching, apprenticeships, and collaborations (Hunter-Reel, 2013). The theory also assumes that human beings have significant control over their actions and environments and can, therefore, adequately control their ability to learn (Hunter-Reel, 2013). The proposed study will use the assumption of the social learning theory to determine how juvenile intervention programs need to be structured to enhance learning among juveniles, reduce criminal inclinations, and hence, minimize their risk of reoffending. The study will compare recidivism rates across selected states to determine whether there are significant differences in recidivism between states with offender interventions that emphasize interactions/learning and those that limit such interactions.

Application of Theory in Research

Several studies have employed the social learning theory within the context of offender rehabilitation in correction facilities. In one study, Sundnt et al. (2014) sought to determine the extent to which prison-chaplain rehabilitation programs employed precepts of the social learning theory. The study is based on the findings of Andrews and Kiessling, which showed that correctional counseling interventions rooted in the social learning theory are associated with lower rates of offender recidivism (Sundnt et al., 2014). The study sought to evaluate the extent to which prison chaplains employ rehabilitation techniques rooted in the social learning theory in their interactions with offenders. Sampled prison chaplains were interviewed on the extent to which they used education, changed values through religion, taught vocational skills, or helped with emotional problems. The researchers also sought to identify how frequently chaplains offered support in form of reality therapy, group counseling, client-centered counseling, and behavioral methods. The study concluded that most prison chaplains who employ rehabilitation interventions rooted in the assumptions of social learning theory face lower risks of reoffending as compared to those who do not emphasize the same (Sundnt et al., 2014).

Other studies such as that by Phipps et al. (2001) have adopted a different approach, using offenders as participants to determine the effect of selected rehabilitation interventions on crime outcomes. The study was based on the assumption that programs rooted on the social learning theory are likely to have a more significant effect on offenders’ crime outcomes (Phipps et al., 2001). The study found that programs that promote effective interaction between offenders are more effective than those that limit the extent of interactions. In regard to drug-involved offenders, for instance, the study found that drug treatment programs in the community were more effective than adult drug courts, in-prison therapeutic communities with/without aftercare, and cognitive-behavioral therapy in reducing offender criminal outcomes upon release (Phipps et al., 2001). Therapeutic community programs were also found to be more effective than jail diversion programs (post and pre-booking programs) in reducing criminal outcomes among offenders with mental illness (Phipps et al., 2001). In regard to sex offenders, the study established that programs that encourage circles of accountability and support (faith-based supervision) had the greatest impact in reducing criminal outcomes as compared to other interventions such as psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioral treatment, behavioral therapy, and behavioral treatment (Phipps et al., 2001). Finally, a comparison of intermediate sanctions found treatment-oriented approaches to be more effective than surveillance-based approaches, regular supervision, boot camps, and electronic monitoring (Phipps et al., 2001). Though it does not directly cite the social learning theory, the study findings indicate greater efficacy for interventions that promote learning and enhance interactions (Phipps et al., 2001).

Another study by Davis et al. (2013) sought to determine whether correctional education had a significant effect on the risk of recidivism upon release. The study found that correctional education programs reduced the risk of re-arrest within three years of release by 12.9 percentage points (Davis et al., 2013). Further, the researchers found that the impact of these programs depends on the type of instruction method used. The study found a significant effect for instructional techniques that promote learning through interaction with instructors and college instructors external to the correctional facility (Davis et al., 2013). The researchers explain their findings using the social learning theory, pointing out that since the theory argues that learning takes place through observing and learning from the experiences of others; offenders develop an admiration for the freedom that people outside the facility enjoy and the knowledge they possess. This admiration reduces their inclination to recidivate (Davis et al., 2013).

Justification for Selected Theory

Although they chose the social learning theory as the guiding theory for their study, the researchers acknowledge the relevance of other theories such as the social bonds and social disorganization theories. In essence, the social bonds theory was eliminated because of the assumption that human beings are naturally self-interested and do not require any external motivation to commit crime. The proposed study, by its very nature, seeks to establish the impact of intervention programs, which are external stimuli. As such, the assumption that external stimuli do not influence criminal behavior may not suffice in the context of the proposed study. Further, the social disorganization theory was rejected for the proposed study because it emphasizes changes in ecological structures such as racial composition, which are beyond the scope of the proposed study.

Chapter Four: Methodology

This study seeks to identify the factors that influence recidivism among juvenile offenders. This chapter discusses the project deliverable, project design, sample participants, and the data collection procedures. The first section covers the project deliverable and the underlying rationale, the second section summarizes the project design, while the third section provides a view of the population to be included in the sample. The fourth section provides information on the data collection procedures and the final section covers the conceptualization of variables.

Project Deliverable

The project seeks to develop an intervention manual containing specific interventions that stakeholders could use to minimize the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders. Towards this end, the researcher will carry out interviews with selected stakeholders to identify the factors that influence the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders. It is from the identified factors that possible interventions will be developed.