Juvenile Recidivism Whither Goest? Recidivism

Juvenile Recidivism WHITHER GOEST? Recidivism means relapse into criminal behavior, often after receiving sanction or intervention for a previous offense or crime (OJP, 2010). Juvenile offenders are 18 years old or younger. Sanctions are punishments imposed by federal, State or local authorities in the form of fines, community supervision and imprisonment. Interventions are in the form of drug rehabilitation, employment training and cognitive therapies. Juvenile recidivism means a person 18 years old or younger who commits the same crime after being punished or receiving intervention.

Washington courts reported in 2005 (Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2008) that 76% of juvenile offenders were recidivists. Furthermore, data on juvenile recidivism are available only from 20 States. Approaches to the problem have so far not been very effective. Method This study used the descriptive-normative method of research in recording, describing, interpreting, analyzing and comparing data from updated and authoritative pertinent sources. Review of Literature Recidivism is a new criminal referral, alleging one or more offenses (OYA, 2004).

Up to 2002, recidivism was measured according to criminal offense level entered as a single incident and documented in a law enforcement referral. Every referral with at least one criminal offense was considered criminal and entered into the recidivist records. The 2004 report defined a chronic juvenile offender as one with 3 or more subsequent referrals within the next 12 months. Data showed that only a small group of juvenile offenders were new referrals (OYA). Most antisocial behavior peaks during adolescence, when offending behavior often develops (Goliath, 2004).

Offending behavior is considered the most important precursor of criminal behavior in adulthood (Farrington, 1995 & Robbins, 1966 as qtd in Goliath). Identifying the causes or contributing factors to offending behavior is necessary for reducing criminality. The identification of the theoretical basis for predicting offending behavior is, thus, necessary in creating effective interventions or solutions to this social problem. These are the criminal propensity, social control and social learning theories. Criminal propensity states that the inclination to commit offenses and crimes starts early in life and remains stable throughout life.

Social control points to social factors over individual stability as the source of criminal acts. These factors include the quality of family relationships, commitment to school and work, and engagement in structured recreation. Studies showed the applicability of these first two theories among juvenile offenders. Social learning, on the other hand, includes both individual and social factors (Andrews & Bonta, 1998 and Bandura, 1977 as qtd in goliath). Social learning theory states that criminal behavior depends on available rewards and the costs or consequences of the behavior.

Perception of rewards depends on both individual and social factors. Individual factors include learning and attitudes towards antisocial behavior. Social factors include reward and punishment from family and peers (Goliath). A review of 84 studies on the predictors of juvenile recidivism showed evidence of the applicability of the social learning theory (Goliath, 2004). These studies were gathered from the U.S., Canada, Australia, UK and Sweden. The respondents were 15.7 years old on the average. Approximately half of them were non-white and male at 88%.

The average rate of recidivism was higher among those released from custody at 60% than those tried in court at their first appearance at 41%. Juvenile recidivists were more likely to commit property offenses than violent or sexual crimes, whatever their earlier offenses. On the whole, antisocial peers and antisocial attitudes occurred consistently in most of the respondents. Those with more antisocial attitudes and deviant peers were more likely to repeat the offense than those with less of these attitudes and more conformist peers.

Results from family deviance and family contingencies were less consistent predictors of recidivism (Goliath). Some statistics show that the incidence of teen-age crime is not an increasing social problem, as commonly believed (Huston, 2008). Juvenile arrests in the Western suburbs account for only a small fraction in every town. The Illinois State Police reported less than one arrest every other month. They compile juvenile arrests for domestic violence, crimes against other young people, and attacks against school authorities.

Juvenile arrests at the Cook County Juvenile Detention Center went down from 4,893 in 2002 to 4,473 in 2003. Illinois had the highest incidence in the U.S. In 2006 at 1,029 arrests for ever 100,000 juveniles. This compares with the national rate of 315, as recorded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The issue is the approach to justice in the case of juvenile offenders. Juvenile courts are considered "miniature-adult" courts.

Supervisor Tom Bilyk of the Cook County State's Attorney juvenile justice bureau said that juvenile crime is handled according to the harm inflicted on the community more than the amount of punishment imposed. It is a more open-minded approach shown to young offenders. The people in the community and the law are more willing to give them a chance to change rather than impose harsh punishments. They provide more programs to prevent the young offenders from proceeding towards criminality and thus keep their cases out of court (Huston).

National crime incidence increased only slightly at 2% in 2008 (Rhyne et al., 2008). In the case of Multnomah County in Portland, Oregon, the drop was 11% compared with that of 2006. A research team reviewed information on juvenile offenders in the County from the Juvenile Justice Information System. The review showed decreases in person offenses by 11%, assaults by 16%, sex offenses by 5%, and drug offenses by 31%. It also showed increases in homicide by 167%, robberies by 12%, and weapons offenses by 18%.

The percentage of juvenile offenders in the overall juvenile population has remained largely constant and continues to fall to its lowest level since 2000 at 33%. Chronic juvenile offenders were typically African-American and over-represented among recidivists at 52%. They also continue to be younger with 58% of them at age 15 or younger. Records showed an increase in non-violent offenses among Hispanic and African-American youth and a decrease among Hispanic youth for violent offenses. The rate of violent offenses among both white and African-American youth increased in the County.

Overall findings of the research pointed to the disproportionate representation of African-American youth in the juvenile offenders' population, specifically recidivists. This hinted at conditions, which create the disparity and must be unraveled to provide direction for effective intervention programs (Rhyne et al.). A survey conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on 108,580 released prisoners between 1983 and 1994 revealed that 63% of them were re-arrested within 3 years (OJP, 2010). These prisoners came from 11 States. Of their total number, 47 were convicted of a new crime and 41% were jailed again.

Of the almost 300,000 released prisoners in 15 States in 1994, 68% were re-arrested within3 years, 47% convicted of a new crime, and 23% were reconvicted and returned to jail. Of these released prisoners in 1994, 52% were back in jail for a new crime of a parole violation within 3 years from release. Post-prison recidivism is associated with arrest history. Those with one previous arrest, 41% were re-arrested. But those with more than 15 previous arrests had higher recidivism rates at 82%. The latter ones comprised 18% of all released prisoners (OJP).

A comprehensive analysis of juvenile recidivism in Pennsylvania showed that it was highest in urban counties and lowest in rural counties (Kalist & Lee, 2009). Pennsylvania is among the few States, which do not report on juvenile recidivism. The investigation was conducted among 190,000 previously convicted juveniles between 1997 and 2000. It was aimed at measuring the success of intervention programs and to determine factors leading to recidivism. Young recidivists in the rural areas were mostly male blacks who had previous violations and convictions.

They recommitted new crimes 3 to 30% longer than those in urban counties (Kalist & Lee). This analysis discovered the factors linked with increased recidivism among young offenders (Kalist & Lee, 2009). These were living in an urban county, male gender, Hispanic race, living with a single mother, at least one deceased parent, a previous felony and attending alternative education course. The study also found that increased police presence tended to slightly discourage and decrease recidivism. Another discovery was that juveniles whose family had a higher per capita income somewhat decreased recidivism.

Proportionately, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program observed that the socio-economic status of a county influenced the increase or decrease of recidivism (Kalist & Lee). The researchers suggested that Pennsylvania authorities should record juvenile recidivism formally and regularly (Kalist & Lee, 2009). Reports should cover recidivism rates from specific placement settings, like group homes, detention facilities, drug and alcohol treatment programs and outward-bound type of programs.

The research also invited attention to young offenders living with single mothers or with at least one deceased parent, and more frequent contact with probation officers. It suggested closer court supervision towards juveniles in single-parent families and connecting juvenile records with adult records. The connection between juvenile and adult records can hint at probable crimes juveniles will commit and the programs, which will effectively reduce juvenile recidivism (Kalist & Lee). Washington courts registered 13,127 juvenile offenses in 2005, of whom 77% were boys and 76% of them had previous offenses and imprisonments (SGC, 2008).

Of the total rate of recidivists, 72% were girls. Those convicted are given dispositions rather than sentenced. Information on race and ethnicity appeared inaccurate. While only 3.94% of the Washington population was African-American, African-American accounted for 13.11% of all recorded juvenile dispositions. This was a disproportionately high rate of 78.07%. Hispanic recidivists had a higher rate of 82.29%. Asian-Pacific Islanders had the lowest rate at 65.08%. Caucasians tallied at 69.23% and had a recidivist rate of 75.14%. First-time offenders were mostly aged 15, and younger than repeat offenders.

Girls tended to commit the same violations at a younger age, also around 15, than boys. Juvenile recidivism was recorded highest between 15 and 17 (SGC). The 11 primary categories of juvenile offenses in Washington courts were assault, drug, gross misdemeanor, manslaughter, misdemeanor, murder, property, robbery, sex, and other felonies (SG, 2008). Gross misdemeanors were the most common type of offense. Property crimes came in second for first-time offenders. These same offenders committed more serious violations previously, like robbery and drug offenses.

Gross misdemeanors, misdemeanors and property offenses were also the most commonly committed crimes among juvenile recidivists. Lowest crime rates committed by them were the serious ones, such as murder and sex crimes (SGC). In some cases, adult criminal courts exercise jurisdiction over violent criminal offenses by those 16 or 17 years old (SGC, 2008). In 2005, about 78 juveniles were automatically referred or declined to adult courts. These adult courts are given this jurisdiction when juvenile courts exercise the discretion to decline that jurisdiction. About 64 discretionary declines were records in 2005.

In such cases, juvenile offenders are tried as adults and not processed in juvenile courts (SGC). Reducing juvenile recidivism has clear advantages. It will promote public safety and eliminate or reduce social, economic and personal costs (Wilson, 2007). Would-be recidivists will become economic assets to the community. Governments can save or direct saved expenses from recidivism programs to the needs of other sectors, such as education. And a reduced rate will communicate the government's concern for the welfare of adolescents and prisoners (Wilson).

Current solutions to the problem include government-sponsored programs and non-profit programs (Wilson, 2007). Government-sponsored programs conduct general programs and residential programs, provide multi-systemic therapy or MST, and perform community supervision. Examples of non-profit programs are the Children's Defense Fund, Street Law Reentry Program, and the Andrew Glover Youth Foundation. These programs have not reduced juvenile recidivism in a nationwide scale. The national rate has remained the same for the last two decades.

Policy reforms are needed to avoid detaining juveniles unless absolutely necessary; restrict the transfer of juvenile cases to adult criminal courts; and stop Medicaid from requiring juvenile recidivists to reapply for services (Wilson). A study found the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale or CAFAS as a significant tool in the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders (Quist & Matshazi, 2000). CAFAS is a mental health assessment tool, which can predict recidivism among young violators.

In a test, it was compared with other factors insensitive to rehabilitation, such as age, ethnicity, sex and the number of previous offenses. Higher scores predicted future offenses. Policy makers should use it to improve the allocation of resources. Both clinical and actuarial decision-making models have been used in studying adult recidivism. Clinically, a parole or probation officer uses personal past experience in dealing with offenders. The actuarial model has been found superior to the clinical model (Quist & Matshazi).

Although high CAFAS scores indicate higher probability of future offenses, low scores do not guarantee that re-offense would not be committed (Quist & Matshazi, 2000). Experts recommend a score of 60 as the minimum in determining which minors were higher risks than others. In addition, probation officers and judges make the primary decisions over juvenile offenders. This study points to mental health assessment techniques as useful and effective in targeting at-risk youth offenders.

Consequent sharing of information with program developers and implementers will likely bring about accurate decisions in addressing the needs of juvenile offenders (Quist & Matshazi). Even the most difficult and chronic released juvenile offenders can be helped by a long-term residential approach under the right conditions McMackin et al., 2004). This was the finding of an investigation undertaken with 162 delinquent youth who were discharged from a Massachusetts residential treatment center between 1976 and 1995. The research team used the data provided by the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services.

These data said that a stay with the program for more than 11 months did not result in future convictions among all the released offenders (McMackin et al.). About 59% of the released young offender-respondents were chronic violators (McMackin et al., 2004). Chronic offenders have 4 or more arrests before allowed to join the program. Chronic offenders tend to repeat their crimes. Yet results of this study revealed that those who stayed with the program for 11 months or more had lower rate of recidivism than those who stayed for less than 11 months.

A cost analysis can realize a saving of almost $19 million if chronic offenders can be remained in placement for more than 11 months (McMackin et al.). Even the most difficult and chronic juvenile offenders can benefit from a long-term residential program with the right conditions (McMackin et al., 2004). It must directly address the offending behavior in a supportive environment and strong family support.

The young offenders under this residential program require safety and sufficient time to allow them to form healthy and strong attachments; academic or vocational success; review and analyze criminal history; develop proper social values; and establish family relationships. All these need time to develop or perform. Every juvenile offender possesses a range of vulnerabilities -- psychiatric, neurological, cognitive and environmental. These combine and contribute to social mal-adaptation.

The costs incurred in entering a long-term residential care with this multifaceted environment can be recovered when future crime costs are prevented (McMackin et al.). Juvenile offenders have mixed feelings and attitudes towards institutional confinement, according to another study (Abrams, 2006).But many of them attested to benefiting from the rigid structure and intensive cognitive requirements of the confinement. These were the results of a study recently conducted on the perception of 19 male juvenile recidivists at the Wildwood House and Cottage Grove. Their ages ranged from 14 to 18.

They said they gained useful skills and information from the program. They also had the time to think. Interviewed Cottage Grove residents found the institution rules confining and strict but not deterrent to the benefits derived. They left Cottage Grove without adequately preparing for smooth transition to their respective homes. The treatment model and structure in both residences had some influence on the offenders' experiences. Wildwood House's less strict and more family-focused program conduced to positive relationships with adult family members and allowed for some "faking it" behavior.

The individualistic and very strict program at Cottage Grove gave limited room for "faking it. However, it did not help the offenders to develop a personal sense of purpose in the program. Overall findings disclosed that environment and type of program affected the young offenders' experience and perception of residential care. However, few of them left without clear strategies to refrain from committing crime (Abrams). Three concepts evolved from these findings, which can make institutions more effective in the task (Abrams, 2006).

The first concept states that youth offenders experience confusion when dealing with adult intents towards their delinquent conduct. The staff of both institutions presented concepts without adequately explaining their meanings and relevance to the residents. Staff clinicians, social workers and others should first interpret clients' problems and situations before imposing a particular viewpoint about delinquency or its causes. The second concept states that security is not a significant deterrent to offenders, who are used to troubles and imprisonment. Only a few of surveyed juvenile offenders express apprehension towards future imprisonment.

Almost all of those who resided in structured facilities sad they did not experience deterrence effects in the environment. Most of them had long histories of arrests for.