EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS IN REDUCING INCARCERATION AND

RECIDIVISM RATES OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Final Proposal



Diana Menna Kalkreuter
December 2013
Soc. 327






Abstract

Current research findings indicate that specific programs which offer juvenile offenders
alternatives to punitive action, such as functional family therapy, multisystemic therapy, and
multidimensional treatment foster care, which are undertaken at the individual, familial and community
levels, can be effective in reducing recidivism rates and mass incarceration. Hypothetically, programs
aimed at juvenile justice reform are viable alternatives for the reformation of juvenile offenders and
can be more effective in fostering prosocial behavior than incarceration. This study seeks to explore not
only the effectiveness of alternative programs to incarceration of juvenile offenders, but the
effectiveness of such programs at the community level in Oregon; after this exploration, it is expected
that positive effectivity will be found.










INTRODUCTION
The pendulum of juvenile justice reform has swung widely from left to right over the past
century, beginning with a social welfare ideal to an opposing punitive ideal. While little thought was
given to public safety when juvenile welfare took precedence, modern reform has led to ensuring
public safety while remitting the importance of juvenile welfare in deference to punitive action.
With accessibility of current news events at an all time high, American society is inundated with
criminal acts committed by youth in the media as never before, creating a moral panic (Scott &
Steinberg, 2008; ) at perceived threats to societal invulnerability. This modern paradox between
society's desire for safer communities and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders becomes clear as the
effectiveness of alternative programs versus incarceration is debated.
With the looming reality that children as young as 7 can be prosecuted and tried in adult court
in 22 states and the District of Columbia (www.juvenile-in-justice.com) and the acknowledgement that
there is little or marginal benefit of reducing the future rate of offending by retaining an individual in
institutional placement (www.juvenile-in-justice.com), in becomes clear that juvenile justice reform is
necessary within American society where approximately 90,000 juvenile offenders are incarcerated
each day (www.juvenile-in-justice.com).
Alternative programs offering counseling and treatment typically reduce recidivism, while those
focused on coercion and control tend to produce negative or null effects (www.juvenile-in-justice.com).
Therefore, the reduction in recidivism rates and mass incarceration of juvenile offenders rests on the
established effectiveness of alternative programs to incarceration.
Before an in-depth analysis of the effectiveness of alternative programs in decreasing
incarceration and recidivism of juvenile offenders can commence, however, a brief historical account
of juvenile justice reformative measures is imperative to understand the impact that perceptual public
safety has had on juvenile justice and mass incarceration of juvenile offenders.


LITERATURE REVIEW

Brief Historical Account of Juvenile Justice Reformative Measures
Juvenile justice reform in the early twentieth century sought to decriminalize and absolve youth
who were involved in criminal activity, with officials choosing to invest in a rehabilitative model aimed
at protecting the welfare of juvenile offenders, thus forgoing conventional punitive punishments of the
past (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). This progressive reform offered a new view of juvenile offenders as
misguided children in need of rehabilitation under a supportive and loving father figure which could be
found in the state (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Under the rehabilitative model, biological and
psychological determinants of criminal behavior were emphasized and therapeutic measures were
undertaken to cure juveniles of their delinquent behaviors (Aarons, Smith &Wagner, 2009; Scott &
Steinberg, 2008). Juvenile offenders bore little to no responsibility for their criminal acts and
restorative measures undertaken by the juveniles to their victims were yet to be established. (Scott &
Steinberg, 2008).
Juvenile offenders under this rehabilitative model found themselves without the basic liberties
afforded to adult offenders, and instead found themselves subject to non-adversarial procedures and
indeterminate sentences given by judicial authorities who followed the legal regulation of children
(Scott & Steinberg, 2008). This progressive reform model pervaded the juvenile justice system until a
landmark case, In re Gault 1967, convinced the US Supreme Court that juvenile offenders deserved the
same rights as adult offenders: the right to be notified of the charges against them, the right to counsel,
the right to determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the right against self-incrimination, and
the right to a hearing before being transferred to and tried in the adult courts (Schwartz, 1989).
Further reform came about under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,
in which juvenile justice was found to be separate from adult corrections and the Department of
Juvenile Justice was created within the federal Department of Justice (Aaron, Smith & Wagner, 2009).
The use of adult correctional facilities in juvenile sentencing was prohibited and alternatives to
incarceration with restorative justice as the platform was mandated (Schwartz, 1989; Aaron, Smith &
Wagner, 2009; OJJDP, 1978). It was assumed that reforms made under the act could result in rendering
public opinion regarding juvenile delinquency more positive. (OJJDP, 1978)
During the latter part of the twentieth century, rates of serious and violent crime committed by
youth escalated, shifting the view of juvenile offenders from that of misguided children to serious
predators, or the equivalency of their adult counterparts. (Aarons, Smith & Wagner, 2009; Scott &
Steinberg, 2008) Between the years 1985 and 1995, juvenile offenders arrested for murder more than
doubled; public opinion, exacerbated by media coverage portraying youth not as children but as
hardened and dangerous criminals during this period, elicited negative attention towards the current
juvenile reform. (Scott & Steinberg, 2008; Hancock, 2000) Due to the magnified depiction of a
criminalized youth induced frenzy, reformation within the juvenile justice system took a dramatic turn
from being rehabilitative to punitive; the definition and age of adult reclassified in many states, with
juveniles as young as fourteen tried, convicted and incarcerated as adults. (Aarons, Smith & Wagner,
2009; Scott & Steinberg, 2008)

Juvenile Offenders and Adult Corrections
Punitive reforms, reinforced by overwrought fear for public safety and the desire to be harder
on juvenile criminal behavior, have led to harsher sanctions in juvenile justice reform. (Aarons, Smith
& Wagner, 2009; Scott & Steinberg, 2008) With the legality of age redefined and with mandatory
sentencing and automatic transfer legislation in effect, juvenile offenders can be automatically placed
into the adult correctional system for the adjudication of serious crimes, bypassing the juvenile justice
system entirely (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). As of February 2013, it was estimated that approximately
93,000 juvenile offenders, or offenders under the age of 18, were incarcerated in adult jails, and more
than 2,200 juvenile offenders were incarcerated in adult prisons within the United States (Parker,
2013).

Modern Juvenile Justice Reform and Research Findings
Advocates of reform within the juvenile justice system call for fair punishment and cost-
effective crime reduction, as well as an impervious boundary between the juvenile and adult
correctional systems (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Advocates of juvenile justice reform oppose the
draconian campaign of the last few decades, believing instead that juveniles should be dealt with as a
specific category of offender, different in needs from that of adult offenders and deserving of particular
and antithetic treatment, meanwhile taking the concern of public safety into consideration (Scott &
Steinberg, 2008).
Research indicates that detaining or confining youth may not be as effective as alternative
community based programs in decreasing juvenile recidivism rates, largely due to the removal of youth
from positive societal influences such as educational institutions and familial relations (Austin, Johnson
& Weitzer, 2005). Conversely, research indicates that the rehabilitative effectiveness of incarcerating
youths may have an opposing impact on the desired correction due to the negative influence deviant
peers can have on delinquency (Scott & Steinberg, 2008: Osgood & O'Neill Briddell, 2006).
The cost effectiveness of alternative programs when compared to the costliness of incarceration
has been found to be highly favorable in light of the overcrowding and expensiveness of detention
facilities (Dui Hua, 2008). Juvenile offenders confined in large detention centers have been found to
have high recidivism rates, further increasing the costliness of incarceration (Austin, Johnson &
Weitzer, 2005).

Effective Alternative Programs
Functional family therapy operates on the belief that juvenile delinquency is a social disfunction
that originates within familial relations; juvenile justice within this model focuses on correcting
maladaptive behaviors at the family level as well as individually (Henggeler, Schoenwald, 2011).
Studies conclude that functional family therapy can be effective in reducing antisocial behavior in
juvenile offenders (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011).
Under multisystemic therapy, juvenile offenders are treated within a framework of not only
familial relations, but community as well, and reform is rooted in the intervention of dysfunctional
behaviors at multiple levels to include peer, school and community (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011).
Studies have shown this method of reform to be effective in decreasing recidivism of juvenile offenders
engaged in it (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011).
Multidimensional treatment foster care provides juvenile offenders an alternative to
incarceration and detention in state run facilities by providing community based foster care (Henggeler
& Schoenwald, 2011). Because the theoretical rationale of this model concludes that juveniles are
strongly influenced at the familial relational level, whether it be prosocially or antisocially; as
presumably disfunction has occurred within the familial level in their lives, the goal of treatment is then
directed towards placing juvenile offenders in family homes who have been specially trained by the
community to influence them positively and help create prosocial behaviors (Chamberlain, 2013) This
approach has been found effective in reducing incarceration rates, subsequent arrests, running away
from programs, and hard drug use (Chamberlain, 2013).


RESEARCH QUESTION


Research Question 1: Are alternative programs effective in reducing recidivism rates and mass
incarceration of juvenile offenders in Oregon?

Current research indicates that alternative programs which employ restorative justice measures,
community service, employment and labor, and other methods may significantly reduce recidivism and
mass incarceration rates of juvenile offenders. Some alternative programs, such as Project Pooch which
pairs abandoned dogs with juvenile offenders who are in the Oregon juvenile detention system, report
low to zero percent recidivism rates of juvenile offenders who have participated in these programs.


Research Question 2: What is the perceived effectiveness of alternative programs from the viewpoint of
those who operate alternative programs and former juvenile participants of them?

While statistical data can address the quantitative effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing
recidivism rates and mass incarceration, personal interviews of individuals who participate in these
programs either as operators or juvenile offenders can also speak of the effectiveness of these
programs.


METHODS


Design

Existing official statistics research will be carried out in order to compare rates of recidivism of
juvenile offenders in Oregon in alternative programs versus incarceration for correlations of
effectiveness. This data collection method will be employed to not only address the first research
question, but to allow for the comparison of recidivism and incarceration rates over an extended period
of time. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted in order to address the perceived effectiveness of
alternative programs from the viewpoint of those who operate the programs and former participants of
them.



Subjects

Official statistics regarding juvenile offenders and recidivism and incarceration rates are collected over
time and will likely include a wide range of people who are not aware of the fact (Neuman, 2013) that
they have been studied.

For qualitative interviews, I will use a purposive sample of individuals who are operational leaders of
alternative programs for the judgement of an expert (Neuman, 2013), as well as individuals who were
once juvenile participants in alternative programs for their prior knowledge (Neuman, 2013). I will use
purposive sampling to find former juvenile offenders for in-depth investigation who might otherwise be
difficult-to-reach (Neuman, 2013).

All data and subjects chosen will be in Oregon.




Measurement

Measurement of the effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing recidivism and incarceration
rates can be conducted by analyzing and comparing official statistical data of juvenile offenders who
have participated in alternative programs versus the occurrence of recidivism and incarceration after
participation in these programs.

Measurement of the effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing recidivism and incarceration
rates by qualitative interview is highly subjective and will be measured against the individual's
perception versus personal statistical data related to them, conducted by utilizing official arrest data and
post-incarceration treatment data recorded by Oregon Youth Authority (Chamberlain, 2013). Interview
questions will be kept to a minimum and will examine questions such as How do you perceive the
effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing recidivism and incarceration rates of juvenile
offenders? and How do you perceive the effectiveness of alternative programs in reducing your
recidivism and incarceration rates?


Procedures

I will be collecting and analyzing official statistical data regarding recidivism and incarceration rates of
juvenile offenders from Oregon Youth Authority, as well as from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. Statistical data can be found on their prospective websites and is freely
accessed.

I will also individually interview operational leaders of alternative programs, as well as former
participants in these programs by conducting interviews either in person, or by phone.

All data collection will be done by myself and within the time frame specified for this particular study.


Data Analyses

Data analysis will consist of comparing alternative programs and recidivism and incarceration rates of
juvenile offenders in Oregon, as well as comparing the personal perception of the effectiveness of
alternative programs in reducing recidivism and incarceration rates.



DISCUSSION

I expect to find that alternative programs are highly effective in mitigating recidivism and mass
incarceration of juvenile offenders in Oregon when compared to incarceration; and with that statistical
based effectiveness, I expect to find that individuals who are operational leaders or former participants
will believe that alternative programs are a viable alternative to incarceration and effective in
alleviating recidivism.






References
Aarons, J., Smith, L., & Wagner, L. (2009). Dispatches from juvenile hall: fixing a failing system. New
York: Penguin Books.


Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Weitzer, R. (2005). Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement
of Juvenile Offenders. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Program , Bulletin, 1-29.

Beale, S. S. (2007). The News Media's Influence on Criminal Justice Policy: How Market-
Driven News Promotes Punitiveness. William and Mary Law Review, 48(2), 397-481.


Chamberlain, P. (n.d.). Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care. Blueprints for Healthy Youth
Development. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from http://www.blueprints.com.

DOC Research and Statistics Measure 11 Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. (n.d.). DOC
Research and Statistics Measure 11 Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. Retrieved March 2,
2014, from http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/RESRCH/Pages/measure_11.aspx

Hancock, L. (2000). Framing Children in the News: The Face and Color of Youth Crime in America.
The Public Assault on America's Children (pp. 78-98). New York and London: Teachers College
Press.

Henggeler, S. & Schoenwald, S. (2011). Evidence-Based Interventions for Juvenile Offenders and J
uvenile Justice Policies that Support Them. Social Policy Report, 25, 1-26.

Mccombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176.

Neuman, W. Lawrence. 2013. Basics of Social Research: Pearson New International Edition
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Harlow: Pearson.

OJJDP, OJJDP. Restitution by juvenile offenders: an alternative to incarceration.. Washington: Dept. of
Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, 1978. Print.

Osgood, D. W., & Briddell, L. O. (2006). Peer Effects in Juvenile Justice. Deviant Peer Influences in
Programs for Youth (pp. 141-161). New York and London: The Gulford Press.


Parker, A. (2013, February 26). Re: Thematic Hearing on the Incarceration of Youth in US Adult
Prisons. Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch, 1-10.

Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2010). Public Preferences For Rehabilitation Versus
Incarceration Of Juvenile Offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 1-6.

Quotes and Statistics. (n.d.). Juvenile in Justice. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from
http://www.juvenile-in-justice.com/quotes-and-stats


Schwartz, I. M. (1989). (In)justice for juveniles: rethinking the best interests of the child. Lexington,
Mass.: Lexington Books.

Scott, E.S., & Steinberg, L.D. (2008). Rethinking Juvenile Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Havard
University Press.

Violent Crime Index arrests per 100,000 population, 1980, 1994, 2010. (n.d.). Violent Crime
Index arrests per 100,000 population, 1980, 1994, 2010. Retrieved March 2, 2014, from
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/qa05301.asp?qaDate=2010


With Intent to Reform: Alternatives to Juvenile Detention, Incarceration. (n.d.). : The Dui Hua
Foundation. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://duihua.org/wp/?p=2924