research proposal about juvenile delinquency

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Community Med
• v.47(4); Oct-Dec 2022

Juvenile’s Delinquent Behavior, Risk Factors, and Quantitative Assessment Approach: A Systematic Review

Madhu kumari gupta.

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Subrajeet Mohapatra

Prakash kumar mahanta.

1 Department of Clinical Psychology, Ranchi Institute of Neuro-Psychiatry and Allied Science, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Background:

Not only in India but also worldwide, criminal activity has dramatically increasing day by day among youth, and it must be addressed properly to maintain a healthy society. This review is focused on risk factors and quantitative approach to determine delinquent behaviors of juveniles.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 15 research articles were identified through Google search as per inclusion and exclusion criteria, which were based on machine learning (ML) and statistical models to assess the delinquent behavior and risk factors of juveniles.

The result found ML is a new route for detecting delinquent behavioral patterns. However, statistical methods have used commonly as the quantitative approach for assessing delinquent behaviors and risk factors among juveniles.

Conclusions:

In the current scenario, ML is a new approach of computer-assisted techniques have potentiality to predict values of behavioral, psychological/mental, and associated risk factors for early diagnosis in teenagers in short of times, to prevent unwanted, maladaptive behaviors, and to provide appropriate intervention and build a safe peaceful society.

I NTRODUCTION

Juvenile delinquency is a habit of committing criminal offenses by an adolescent or young person who has not attained 18 years of age and can be held liable for his/her criminal acts. Clinically, it is described as persistent manners of antisocial behavior or conduct by a child/adolescent repeatedly denies following social rules and commits violent aggressive acts against the law and socially unacceptable. The word delinquency is derived from the Latin word “delinquere” which described as “de” means “away” and “linquere” as “to leaveor to abandon.” Minors who are involved in any kind of offense such as violence, gambling, sexual offenses, rape, bullying, stealing, burglary, murder, and other kinds of anti-social behaviors are known as juvenile delinquents. Santrock (2002) defined “an adolescent who breaks the law or engages in any criminal behavior which is considered as illegal is called juvenile delinquent.”[ 1 ] In India, Juvenile Justice (J. J.-Care and protection of Children) Act of 2000 stated that “an individual whether a boy/girl, who is under 18 years of age and has committed an offense, referred or convicted by the juvenile court have considered a juvenile delinquent.”

P REVALENCE R ATE : J UVENILE D ELINQUENCY IN I NDIA

According to the National Crime Records Bureau (India, 2019), statistical data of crimes in India show that overall, 38,685 juveniles were placed under arrest in 32,235 cases, among 35,214 juveniles were taken into custody under cases of IPC and 3471 juveniles were arrested under cases of special and local laws (SLL) during 2019. About 75.2% of the total convicted juveniles (29,084 out of 38,685) were apprehended under both IPC and SLL belonging to the age group 16–18 years. In 2019, 32,235 juvenile cases involving and recorded, indicating a slight increment of 2.0% over 2018 (31,591 cases). The rate of crime also indicates a slight increase from 7.1 (2018) to 7.2 (2019).[ 2 ] The total registered cases against juvenile delinquents are calculated as crime incidence rate per one Lakh population as shown in Figure 1 .

The graphical view of registered cases against Juveniles in conflict with law under Indian penal code and special and local laws crimes during 2014–2019 of all the State (s) and union territories of India Sources: Crime in India National (2014-2019), National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Ministry of Home Affairs, 2019

R ISK -F ACTORS A FFECTING D ELINQUENT B EHAVIOR

Studies identify that multiple risk factors are responsible for delinquent behavior categorized as individual, parental, family, community, society, schools/educational, financial, mental as well as psychological factors of the individual and the family shown in Table 1 . Adolescents involve themselves in various anti-social activities to fulfill their basic needs. Basically, “delinquency” is just a recreational activity for earning money. These risk factors differ from person to person during the early childhood period and very crucial because children, who are involved in any kind of deviant activity at an early stage, have a higher chance to adopt delinquent tendencies chronically.[ 33 ]

Developmental phases, risk-factors and developing delinquent behaviours of the child

Juvenile delinquency is caused by a wide range of factors, such as conflicts in the family, lack of proper family control, residential environmental effects, and movie influence, along with other factors are responsible for delinquent behavior.[ 3 ] Family and environmental factors, namely restrictive behaviors, improper supervision, negligence, criminal activities of parents, improper motivation by peers, fear of peer rejection, poverty, illiteracy, poor educational performance at school, lack of moral education may turn the individual personality into delinquents. Moreover, in the environment, deteriorated neighborhood, direct exposure to violence/fighting (or exposure to violence through media), violence-based movies are considered major risk factors.[ 4 ] In India, a higher level of permissive parenting in low-income families had so many family members and due to economic conditions, the adolescents had pressure to search various income sources to sustain the family, and it has affected parental behavior toward adolescents.[ 5 ] The children who belong to the lower middle-socio-economical class and are rejected by society showed more aggressive behavior.[ 6 ]

Juvenile gang members exhibit significantly higher rates of mental health issues such as conduct disorders, attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorders, antisocial personality disorder, posttraumatic-stress-disorders, and anxiety disorders.[ 7 ] As well as the intellectual level of young offenders is significantly different from nonoffenders. Emotional problems on adolescents are related to delinquent behavior and impulsivity directly associated with antisocial behavior among adolescents.[ 8 ] Poor self-control of adolescents involved them in substance use, affected harmfully, and increased involvements in anti-social activities.[ 9 ] Nonviolent people, who not involved in any gang, are less likely to utilize mental-health services, having lower levels of psychiatric morbidity, namely antisocial personality disorders, psychosis, and anxiety disorders, when compared with the group of violent offenders.[ 10 ]

M ACHINE L EARNING : A N EW Q UANTITATIVE E VALUATION A PPROACH

Machine learning (ML) is belonging to the multidisciplinary field that includes programming, math, and statistics, and as a new and dynamic field that necessitates more study. It is a branch of computer science that emerged through pattern recognition and computational learning theory of artificial intelligence. ML is exploring researches and development of algorithms that can learn and genera tea prediction besides a given set of data through the computer. It is a scope for the study that gives computers the capability to learn without being principally programmed.[ 11 ] Tom M. Mitchell explained ML as “a computer-based program to learn from action of “E” concerning any task of ‘T’s, and some performance evaluates “P,” if its performance on “T,” as assessed by “P,” improves with action of E.”[ 12 ] The goal of ML is to mimic human learning in computers.[ 13 ] Humans learn from their experiences and ML methods learn from data. The user provides a portion of a dataset designated to train by the algorithm. The algorithm creates a model based on the relationships among variables in the dataset, and the remaining dataset is used to validate the ML model. In simple words, ML approach is for risk indicator is meant to magnify the potential of current knowledge.[ 15 ] ML sits at the common frontier of many academic fields, including statistics, mathematics, computer science, and engineering.[ 14 , 17 ] ML models principally categorized into three categories, namely supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement based on their task which they are attempting to accomplish. Supervised learning is relying on a training set where some characteristics of data are known, typically labels or classes, and target to find out the universal rule that maps inputs to outputs. Unsupervised learning has no design to give to the learning algorithm, balance itself to find out the patterns through inputs. In reinforcement, interaction with a dynamic environment happens during which a particular target such as driving a vehicle is performed without a driver principally involved in any activities, namely comparison. In numerous studies, pattern classification approaches based on ML algorithms are used to forecast human beings into various categories by maximizing the distance among data groups. ML generally refers to all actions that train a computer algorithm to determine a complicated pattern of data that is conceivable used for forecast category of membership into a new theme (e.g., individual vs. controls).[ 32 ]

R ATIONAL OF THE S TUDY

In the last decade, various researchers have been attracted to the use of quantitative computer-based techniques for analyzing various psychological and clinical aspects, which have greatly contributed to the area of modern psychology. In this analysis, most of the works are devoted to the use of various quantitative analysis techniques, namely ML and statistical methods which has utilized by the researchers for evaluating various risk and protective factors of juveniles. Henceforth, studies on the application of the ML model for risk-assessment of delinquent behavior on juveniles are limited as compared to other techniques, namely logistic regression. Hence, this review paper may explore the utilization of ML to get an easy and quick assessment on juveniles and helpful for future studies. It may help to determine the most significant risk factors and establishment of a successful treatment program that prevents juveniles from delinquent activities and stops them from recidivism.

In this review, all these studies carried out which has used various quantitative techniques to detected juvenile delinquency with specially emphasis on ML and statistical approaches. The review is organized into four sections follows as: Section-I gives an overview of juvenile delinquency, prevalence rates in India, and various behavioral risk factors during the developmental period. It also provides general information about ML as a new approach and their application. Section-II included information about the methodology of the present review. Section-III explores the results and discusses which explore the ML and statistical methods for detecting juvenile behaviors and Section-IV concludes the extant research of the present review and the implications for future work.

M ETHODOLOGY

This review paper aim is to find the various quantitative techniques (computer-assisted techniques) ML and statistical approaches which have been used for assessing/predicting delinquent behaviors, traits, and risk factors among juveniles.

Sources of information

For this review article, a total of 15 research articles were identified and selected through Google-scholar, Web of Science, Academia, PubMed, and Research-Gate, using the keywords, namely juvenile-delinquency, ML, Risk-factors, and delinquent-behavior. All relevant studies were selected for review of the quantitative approaches for identifying delinquent behavior and risk factors of adolescents and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram for articles search process as shown in Figure 2 .[ 34 ]

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses flow diagram for search outcomes of quantitative assessment of juvenile delinquent behaviors

Inclusion criteria

Research studies published since 2011–2019, case studies, empirical, quantitative, qualitative, and cross-sectional studies published in English were included, which used ML and statistical models to analyze behaviors, risk and associated factors among juveniles.

Exclusion criteria

Protocol, dissertations, prototype studies, and studies which published in other languages were excluded.

Studies on machine learning and statistical methods among juvenile delinquency

In this review, we performed a rigorous search of the literature to provide a narrative description of the various quantitative computer-based approaches which are applicable to assess and identify the delinquent behaviors and risk factors on juveniles. Initially, the search identified 150 articles through various databases, search outcomes show in the PRISMA flow diagram [ Figure 2 ]. One hundred and thirty-five articles were removed by screening through the title, text, removal of duplicate articles and based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified 15 research articles in full text and these selected articles comprising through expert opinions. The findings of these articles tabulated the diverse approaches on the current state of knowledge about assessment of early diagnosis of delinquent behaviors and risk factors and tried to provide a summary which based on computer-based quantitative analysis [ Table 2 ].

Summary table of relevant studies which used quantitative approach to detect delinquent behaviors and risk factors among juvenile behaviors

GLM: Generalized linear model, ML: Machine learning, PEH: Probabilistic estimation hypothesis, CAPM: Categorization of anxiety predictor model, SES: Socioeconomic status, SEM: Structural equation model

D ISCUSSION

In this systematic review, we performed a rigorous search of the literature to provide a narrative picture of various methods used to identify juveniles’ behaviors. We identified 15 articles, with the objective to analyze the application of ML and other quantitative approaches to assess various delinquent behaviors and risk factors of juveniles. The studies revealed ML is a new quantitative method to identify the risk factors and delinquent behavior henceforth; there very few studies are conducted. In this study, we tried to provide a summary of selected articles on the current state of knowledge about quantitative analysis for assessment of delinquent behaviors of juveniles and there only few articles have used ML as quantitative analysis. The City Social Welfare Development Office of Butuan, Philippines, used a dataset to create predictive models for analyzing the minors at risk and children in conflict with poor financial status. And found children with age range 12–17 years are victims of maltreatment, and adolescents between the ages of 15–17 years commit severe crimes.[ 16 ] Kim et al .[ 18 ] used traditional regression, ML method and certified the predictive validity of the models in numerous ways, along with traditional hold-out validation k-fold cross-validation, and bootstrapping to examine the present practice and policy for assessment, treatment, and management of delinquents who have a history of sexual conviction in multiple jurisdictions from New York, Florida, Oregon, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Results revealed that important risk factors among juveniles had some criminal history, sexual offending experiences, and delinquent peers. Some dynamic factors viz. performance in school, peer connection, sorrowful feelings, impulsiveness, mental health, and substance abuse are important anticipating factors among sexual offenders for recidivism.

Rokven et al .[ 19 ] used multinomial logistic regression technique to compare four types of delinquent groups: online delinquents, offline delinquents, nondelinquents, and delinquents who belong to both online and offline categories and found juveniles who having both online and offline criminal records are more likely to commit crimes. Delinquency is indirectly linked with sleep deprivation, with poor self-control acting as a catalyst proved by regression models with latent factors.[ 20 ] Violent video games directly associated with anti-social behavior, even though several correlates, such as psychopathologies has present in youth analyzed by negative binomial regression (extended version of Poisson regression).[ 22 ]

Fernández et al . analyzed through multivariate logistic regression and found, school dropouts’ teenagers had a higher level of irresponsibility, substance, and illicit drug abuse compare then nondropouts.[ 23 ] In addition, lack of parental supervision plays a significant role in the prediction of deviant behaviors on school dropouts. School dropout teenagers have multi-dimensional problem that requires proper parental supervision and proactive school policies to reducing drug and alcohol abuse.[ 23 ] Fifty-two percent of juvenile offenders had issues with academic performance, 34% had family history of psychiatric disorders, 60% of juveniles involved in property crime and 54% of offenders involved in drugs and alcohol use-related offenses had some deficiency in academic achievement evaluated by multiple regression techniques.[ 24 ] Wu (2015) created a multidimensional scaling model and found students used a complex cognitive-mechanism measured and compared their position to friends and others.[ 25 ]

Sexually assaulted history has strongly associated and one of the most powerful variables associated with the intensity of psychoactive substances using by juveniles.[ 26 ] Parks[ 28 ] has used binary logistic regression and multivariate models revealed that no major variations in violent juveniles belong to cohabiting families and other families. However, teenagers of cohabiting families have marginally higher risk to involving in nonviolent forms of crime.[ 28 ] Economic conditions of the family has strongly linked to the influences of parents, siblings, and peers at risk and delinquency. Economic stress, having an active sibling aggression, harmful, and more destructive events affected seriously on adolescent delinquent behaviors who belongs to economically poor families.[ 29 ] Coercive parents are directly associated with violent delinquency of adolescents on both ways as explicitly and indirectly and transformed shame on adolescents. As opposed to articulated guilt, shame conversion is the major cause for more violence.[ 30 ]

It is very difficult to evaluate all possible outcomes and explain a single quantitative approach as ML to early identification of delinquent behaviors and risk-factors of juveniles for intervene in the affected factors. Our study has several limitations. First, other studies rather than the English language were we not included in the study. Second, counties like India have very less evidence-based studies in the field of early detection of juveniles and computer-based assessment approaches as ML for quantitative analysis. Third, only 15 articles were considered which fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

I MPLICATION

The modern world is fully based on computers and technology for making works easy and faster. ML model is an emerging future technology in the field of health and mental health. It has the potential to predictive ability to detect health/mental health-related problems as well as for early diagnosis of problems behaviors. This review is acknowledging the use of quantitative analysis focused on ML algorithm as a new research area for early identification of delinquent behaviors of children, to prevent the deviant behaviors and related risk-factors and may be beneficial for future studies and contribute to make a peaceful society and worthful young generation for the nation.

C ONCLUSION

This review showed that available literature based on ML and other quantitative methods to identify the risk factors and delinquent behaviors of juveniles. Young peoples are at a higher risk to learn maladaptive/deviant behaviors as violent, aggressive, hyperactive, and easily involved in criminal activities. According to studies, individual factors, family environment, family structure, size/type of the family, parental status (single/separate/divorces) are highly affected adolescent’s behaviors. In addition, social, environmental, and economic conditions are lead to adapt conductive and delinquent behaviors. There highly need to identify delinquent behaviors in the initial stage to prevent with affected risk factors. It is very crucial for early screening and intervention.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgment

Authors acknowledge to Department of Science and Technology- Cognitive Science Research Initiative (DST-CSRI) for sponsored the project in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, India, which explores the technology-based approach in multidisciplinary works. The authors also would like to thank Mr. Abhinash Jenasamanta and Mr. Devesh Upadhyay, Research Scholars, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, BIT, Mesra, Ranchi, for technical and motivational support.

R EFERENCES

Downloadable Content

Reducing juvenile delinquency and recidivism: Project 1H Proposal

• Masters Thesis
• Valdivia, Stephanie
• Martinez, Thomas
• Plane, Frederick A.
• Bakersfield
• Business and Public Administration
• Public Policy and Administration
• California State University, Bakersfield
• Juvenile delinquency
• Recidivism--Prevention
• http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12680/mk61rk43n

Relationships

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Christina Campbell

Project DC- Student Portfolio

• Research Proposal and Lit Review

I.  The Problem and Setting

The Statement of the Problem and Subproblem

Juvenile delinquency is a persistent and pervasive social problem in America. Juvenile crime represents over 40% of the total arrests for major crimes, including murder, rape, and burglary (Hawkins and Weis 1985).  The increasing rate of juvenile incarceration mirrors that of adult incarceration.  This disadvantaged population, which has been largely ignored by both the written law and society, creates great social and economic costs for the United States.  Juvenile delinquency and crime needs to be addressed and funds need to be allocated to research in order to control the increased rates of juvenile crime and, in addition, provide more programs for rehabilitation to this delinquent youth population.

The District of Columbia has the highest rates of juvenile delinquency in the country and, not surprisingly, there are far more crimes committed in minority and low-income neighborhoods than in the wealthy ones.  That said, much of the district consists of largely urban and disadvantaged areas.  With high rates of unemployment and poverty, and without family and neighborhood support, many juveniles turn to crime as a way of sustaining their lifestyles or surviving in an otherwise dangerous neighborhood. Prison time provides street credibility instead of alienation from society.

The juvenile justice system in the District of Columbia has followed the national trends — representing a transition from a rehabilitative focus, established by the creation of a separate juvenile legal system, to a more punitive focus, marked by stricter laws and harsher punishments. Recently, this has shifted back to a rehabilitative stance focused on community-based resources, counseling, and other mental health services. Society’s approach towards helping this population and eradicating youth crime has changed dramatically.

Various factors –media coverage; policy implementation, public opinion, and level of funding and resources — have influenced these transitions in the juvenile justice system. Although the juvenile justice system and crime rates is largely misunderstood by the public.

In order to better understand the underlying reasons for this transformation and evolution, specific factors will be researched and analyzed.  The problems faced by Oak Hill Detention Center represent many of the larger issues that plague the juvenile justice system.

• Thesis Statement

Using an exploratory and qualitative approach, this research project will generate a summary of the transitions in the juvenile justice system.  The researchers believe that factors, such as the media perception, policy implementation, and accessible funding and resources, play an influential role in how the system is implemented.  Through interviews and archival research, new factors and theoretical constructs may surface to be significant in our study.

The researchers believe that Oak Hill correctional facility mirrors the larger transformations in the juvenile justice system and acts as the focal point of this study.

The Need of the Community Being Addressed in this Research

The majority of youth offenders in Washington live in minority, low-income neighborhoods.  They attend poor schools and have few educational or recreational resources.  These disadvantaged communities need to have their experiences, voices, and opinions heard by the government and the public.  The communities that seem to foster juvenile crime and delinquency do not have the resources to provide for their youth in constructive ways.  There is not the appropriate funding provided to programs and there are low levels of education, employment and opportunity.

In 2000, the District of Columbia reported that 20% of the population was in poverty (32% children in poverty), 22% did not have a high school diploma and 52% of families with children were headed by a single female.  It is important to note that in Ward 3, a traditionally affluent area of DC, only 7.5% of the population was in poverty (2.9% children in poverty), only 4% did not have a high school diploma, and there was only 12% female-headed families with children.  In Ward 8, a more dangerous area with a greater number of juvenile delinquents, 36% of the population was in poverty (47% children in poverty), 34% did not have a high school diploma, and 68% of the families with children were run by a single female.  These staggering statistics speak directly to the overwhelming need of these communities for funding and proper education, as well as opportunities to create stronger job markets and family structures (NeighborhoodInfo DC).

Delimitations and Definitions

This project is limited by the lack of research and resources that have previously gone into this topic.  It is a limited field and lacks the funding to promote greater participation and change within the system.

There are several definitions that are key to this research surrounding juvenile justice in the District of Columbia.

Oak Hill Youth Detention Center , opened in 1967 in Laurel, MD. This facility housed DC’s juvenile delinquents until the spring of 2009, when it was closed due to evidence that the youth population there was being treated in an inhumane way.

New Beginnings Youth Center , a new $46 million dollar facility, opened in Laurel, MD to replace Oak Hill. The facility encourages the delinquent youth to engage in education and counseling resources and helps the juvenile justice system move away from punishment and towards rehabilitation.

The Jerry M. lawsuit , filed in 1985 by the Public Defender Services and the American Civil Liberties Union, criticized the poor treatment and resources given to youth detained at the Oak Hill Youth Center. The complaint focuses on the ineffective education and job training, the incompetent medical and mental health treatment, and the poor recreational and community resources afforded to the delinquent youth population. In addition, the Jerry M. litigation notes the increasing violence in the facility, and the presence of unqualified staff – both factors that neglect the need for fair juvenile rights.

Importance of Work

This research is important because it may provide a forum for the juvenile justice system, and the subproblems and influences associated with it, to be recognized and understood.  It may allow various stakeholders in the system — from lawyers and politicians and non-profit leaders and academics to single mothers and delinquent youth — to voice their opinions and share their perspectives in a constructive manner.

In addition, juvenile crime, and detention center costs, is very expensive. It is possible that improving the system is not only a moral imperative, but it may save valuable resources for cities that face severe budget cuts. In other words, more money for rehabilitation would mean less money needed to incarcerate juvenile offenders.

This research will provide a theory of change.  It may outline the most important factors for change in the juvenile justice system as well as target the areas that are in most need of improvement.  The results could be used as an example for other jurisdictions that want to move towards juvenile rehabilitation.

II.  Review of Related Literature

Introduction

The juvenile justice system in America has been through several stages of development. In recent years, it has undergone substantial changes and, as a result, has moved in new directions.  These transitions have occurred as a result of reforms made to revive the original purpose of juvenile justice — the purpose of bringing “individual justice” and rehabilitation to the core of the system (Mennel 1983; Healy and Bronner 1930).  The juvenile justice system has evolved throughout history from focusing on rehabilitation to punishment.  While there is much historical literature outlining this evolution, there is very little research on the reasons behind this transformation.  This review of relevant literature looks specifically at the available research on juvenile detention centers in order to show the negative effects of taking a punitive approach in juvenile justice.  It begins with an historical review in order to put the rise of detention centers in context.  The paper then goes on to discuss specific issues within juvenile detention centers and outlines their impact on rehabilitation.  The aim is to use the available data on detention centers to demonstrate the transformation of juvenile justice, from rehabilitative aims to punitive aims, and call attention to specific factors that have hindered the rehabilitation process.

Changes in the juvenile justice system reflect national trends in juvenile delinquency and also trace America’s response to these trends.  In the past three decades, rates of juvenile delinquency have increased and, as a result, policymakers have established more severe punishments for juvenile offenders. Juvenile justice moved away from the original aim of rehabilitation toward a more punitive approach as a result of both a more conservative political environment and a lack of financial resources.  With the rise in juvenile delinquency, confinement of juveniles in detention centers increased; in the ten-year period between 1987 and 1997 the number of juveniles in detention centers increased five-fold (Steketee 1989).  The role of juvenile detention, which is defined as “the temporary and safe custody of juveniles who are accused of conduct subject to jurisdiction of the court who require a restricted environment for their own or the community’s protection while pending legal action” (Roush 1996, p.33), is one of the issues that causes the most conflict because it is not at all clear that juvenile detention centers are contributing in any way to the rehabilitation of America’s youth.

Research on juvenile detention centers, while scarce, provides information on the common problems of injustice within these centers.  Multiple studies have identified the issue of unsafe facilities and overcrowding (Snyder and Sickmund 1999; Barton and Schwartz 1994; Guarino-Ghezzi and Loughran 2004). Research has also recognized minority overrepresentation (Bolin and Jones 2005; Foster, Williamson, and Buchannon 2004; Styve et al 2000), inadequate healthcare (Bolin and Jones 2005), and lack of education services (Morrison and Epps 2002; Foster et al 2004) to be central concerns of the juvenile justice system. Finally, literature on the juvenile justice system often focuses on program implementation and effectiveness at addressing rehabilitation, as well as diversion techniques within the system (Greenwood 2008; Lipsey 2002; Simpson 1976; and Rojek and Erickson 1982; Zimring 2000; and Styve et al. 2000). This review examines these issues in greater detail and locates them within the larger struggle in the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate juvenile offenders.

Historical Context

Juvenile justice has proved to be as reactive as it is proactive.  Snyder and Sickmund (1999) found that as early as 1825, there was a significant push to establish a separate juvenile justice system focused on rehabilitation and treatment.  In the 1980s, in response to rising juvenile crime rates, more punitive laws were passed. In the 1990s, the United States legal system took further steps regarding transfer provisions which lowered the threshold at which juveniles could be tried in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison; enforced a sentencing authority which allowed prosecutors and judges more discretion in their sentencing options; and reduced confidentiality standards which made juvenile court proceedings and records more available to the public.  Although the juvenile justice system is focused on rehabilitation, Simpson (1976) found that recent reforms, such as increased procedural protections, right to treatment, and disposal of cases without judicial review, are important in the rights that they afford the juveniles. However, they also introduce the possibility that if rehabilitative programs are not introduced and these requirements are not met, the juvenile system will lose its significance.  The separate system was created to help decrease recidivism rates among juveniles, and instill them with the necessary values and education to advance in society.  Without these treatment options, juvenile and adult punishments merge, and the need for separate, and different, legal systems ceases to exist.

Kent v. United States (1966), In re Gault (1967), In re Winship (1970), and McKeiver vs. Pennsylvania (1971) are landmark court cases that addressed the role of due process and procedural rights in the juvenile system as they correspond to those in adult criminal court.  If the system is unable, or unwilling, to provide proper and significant treatment to the juveniles, the entire premise of rehabilitation will cease to exist.  While the legal implications of these Supreme Court decisions create a foundation for juvenile justice practices, it is important to understand the reality and consequent effects of their implementation.  Snyder and Sickmund (1999) outlined these cases and their significance — respectively, they created stricter guidelines for adult transfers, enforced basic constitutional rights, reaffirmed the right to innocence without proof of a reasonable doubt and made it so that trials by jury were not required in juvenile court.  These cases, and other U.S. Supreme Court cases around juvenile justice, made the juvenile court more similar to the adult criminal court in some important ways while still keeping their procedures and intent separate.

In their outline on the different perspectives and methods for dealing with juvenile offenders throughout history, Guarino-Ghezzi and Loughran (2004) discuss four viewpoints that help to explain the changes and progress made over time.  When the concept of juvenile justice was first introduced in America, the leading view was a liberal one, in which people believed rehabilitation could be achieved by the state.  This attitude guided the approach of juvenile justice reformers and created the idea of the state as the protector of juveniles.  This was a time when “detention centers” were homes and the juvenile court took on a mentoring approach to guiding at-risk youth (Mennel 1983).  In the 1960’s a Libertarian view was taken and a push for deinstitutionalization was started, as evidenced by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 which created community-based alternatives to detention.  Next came the combination of a Conservative and Fundamentalist view, which is one that still carries weight today.  This conservative view mirrored a belief that juveniles should be held accountable to their criminal behavior.  The Fundamentalist approach was popular during Reagan’s years in office and focused on promoting “family values”.  These four distinct viewpoints are parallel with the changes seen in juvenile justice over time.  Where juveniles were once sent to homes, they are now housed in large detention facilities, which is a result of taking a more punitive approach toward youthful offenders.

The issues regarding juvenile detention centers today are an outgrowth of increased incarceration in response to a Conservative approach.  This conservative approach came about as a response to the increase in juvenile delinquency in the 1970’s and 1980’s, which increased with the rise of gang affiliation and the crack epidemic. Conservatives in Congress claimed prevention programs were ineffective and called for more strict punishment of juveniles.  There was also a lack of financial resources available for use by the juvenile justice system and those with a conservative mindset were unwilling to dedicate funds to preventative programs.  This approach won and new policies were created to “punish” juveniles and make them accountable of their criminal behavior.

Overcrowding

The increased incarceration rates within juvenile detention facilities led to overcrowding — Snyder and Sickmund (1999) found that 40% of public facilities were overpopulated in 1995. In addition, Guarino-Ghezzi and Loughran found that in 1991 one-third of all public detention centers were housing populations that exceeded their design capacity.  The trend of overcrowding has been apparent for a while and has appeared to worsen recently (Schwartz and Barton 1994).  Many researchers feel that overcrowding is the most dangerous component of the overall ineffectiveness of America’s juvenile detention facilities.  Overcrowding contributes to other problems, such as a greater lack of individualized services and the increased risk of violent behavior, and takes away from a rehabilitative environment – in sum, it causes neglect of individual juveniles.  When facilities become overcrowded, juveniles are housed in increasingly smaller rooms, violent and non-violent offenders are housed together, and injury rates increase (Parent 1994).   There are several possible remedies to address overcrowding, such as changing policies that regulate juvenile confinement, the duration of confinement, and eliminating the use of large dormitories.

As juvenile justice has transformed and more juveniles are being detained, there is less focus being placed on the individual youth and rehabilitation has been inadequate as a result.

Minority Overrepresentation

Along with overcrowding, data collected from detention facilities showed issues of overrepresentation, disparity, and discrimination.  Overrepresentation is when a population that exists within the juvenile justice system is not proportionate with that in the general population.  For instance, 6 out of every 10 incarcerated juveniles are minorities.  Disparity is the probability of one population receiving an outcome that consistently differs from that of another population.  For example, females represent one out of every 17 juveniles in residential placement as compared with males who represent 16 out of every 17 juveniles in residential placement.  Judges and prosecutors seem to divert girls from the system and, although their crimes may be far less frequent and of a less violent nature, it is possible that their gender is considered in the sentencing procedures.  Lastly, discrimination occurs when the juvenile justice system treats a population differently based on their race, gender, ethnicity or socioeconomic status.  It is important to note that overrepresentation and disparity are not forms of discrimination.  Research has shown that there is a higher prevalence of youth crime in low-socioeconomic urban minority neighborhoods but there is no evidence that discrimination is a significant contributor to this data.

Guarino-Ghezzi and Loughran (2004) found an overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice system and felt that it was necessary to have comprehensive treatment programs to “serve the minority youth in the community and thereby reduce the over-reliance on state-run institutions” (84).  Bolin and Jones (2005) found that minorities were also overrepresented in areas of personal health problems — they comprised 84% of the youth sample with untreated tooth decay in their oral hygiene study.  Much literature surrounding juvenile justice acknowledges the high proportion of minority youth in the system.  As a result, the detention facilities and rehabilitation programs need to create programs that focus specifically on the needs of minority youth.

Minority youth constitute the largest population of detained youth. As the juvenile justice system has evolved, and more juveniles have been detained in secure facilities, the number of incarcerated minority youth has risen. In order for the juvenile justice system to return to a rehabilitative stance, there needs to be an increased awareness of the experiences and needs of these minority delinquents. Up to this point, the juvenile justice system has not had the resources to focus on this group within the larger population of detained youth. The juvenile justice system cannot move forward, and cannot provide rehabilitative resources to its youth, until individual and group needs are met within the system.

Healthcare services are woefully insufficient in juvenile detention centers.  Bolin and Jones (2005) studied adolescents in a large urban detention facility in order to assess oral health needs.  They found that untreated decay plagued 87% of the juveniles being detained, in comparison to a 20% national average.  In addition, one study found that only 43% of youth get health screening within their first hour of confinement Parent 1994).  Many of the youth who enter detention facilities come from impoverished or disadvantaged backgrounds, and therefore have never received proper healthcare. Having healthcare in detention centers creates an opportunity to improve the conditions of at-risk youth and teach them how to maintain their health.  Therefore, as a rehabilitative service, healthcare is necessary in detention centers, although the studies show these services are inadequate.

Other studies that have explored mental health and psychiatric care in detention centers have found the same distressing results (Mohr, Gelles, and Schwartz 1999; Costello 1949; Abram et al 2008).  Psychological disabilities are highly prevalent in detention centers and suicide rates for incarcerated youth are two to four times higher than in the community at large (Abram 2008).  Conditions associated with confinement, such as solitary confinement, crowding, and separation from friends and family, can increase the risk of suicidal behavior.  In general, literature shows that detained youth have a greater risk of suicidal behavior, and are plagued by mental and emotional disorders.  A study of conditions in juvenile detention facilities, conducted by Parent (1994), found that only half of confined juveniles are in a facility that monitors suicidal behavior at a rate compliant to national standards.   While few large-scale studies have examined mental healthcare in juvenile detention centers, the trends show an inadequate amount of mental health services by trained individuals.

Multiple recommendations on how to improve healthcare services for detained youth have been proposed by researchers and policymakers.  The first recommendation is to increase the amount of research on healthcare in juvenile detention centers as a way to assess the needs of detained youth and discover what is missing in the healthcare programs.  Abram et al (2008) also made the recommendation that psychiatric services in detention centers need to be increased and staff needs to be trained in how to deal with suicidal behavior.  Parent (1994) found that over one-third of the health screenings being conducted on intake at detention centers are by untrained staff, which again shows the importance of properly training staff of juvenile facilities.

Healthcare is a major problem in juvenile detention centers and the lack of adequate services prevents successful rehabilitation.  As the evolution to a more punitive approach has occurred, more youth have experienced the injustice of a failing healthcare system within detention centers, mainly as a result from lack of funding for these services.  If youth are not given adequate healthcare services their most basic needs are not meant.  Consequently, it cannot be expected that these same youth will be successfully rehabilitated as they will continue to have health and mental issues upon their release.     

In addition to the problems of overcrowding and insufficient healthcare, education within juvenile detention centers is unsatisfactory.  The intellectual functioning of youth in detention facilities is in the range of low to low-average (National Institute on Correctional Education study 2004).  In regards to special education, the services provided are not up to date and detained youth do not receive the services they are entitled to (Morrison and Epps 2002).  Morrison and Epps (2002) consider the idea of learning disabled youth being warehoused in detention facilities as a result of insufficient educational services.   They consider three case studies of individuals who have repeatedly been detained; each juvenile had a history of learning disabilities and was not receiving the educational services they needed to succeed.  Education is considered one of the main solutions to juvenile delinquency, but it does not receive the attention it warrants in detention centers.  Instead, because of the multiple issues that face juvenile detention centers, academic growth is often ignored.

In order to successfully rehabilitate youth in America’s juvenile justice system, those who are detained need to receive educational services that improve their academics.  While it is difficult to focus delinquents on schoolwork (Costello 1949), as they have often failed in school (Foster, Williamson, and Buchannon 2004), curriculum in juvenile detention facilities must incorporate basic subjects of reading and writing, with electives juveniles have strengths to address.  Foster, Williamson, and Buchannon (2004) reported on a successful reading program that was implemented at a juvenile detention.  The program resulted in quantitatively higher literacy rates and qualitatively greater like of reading.  This program recognized the learning disabilities of juveniles in the detention center, and designed a program to address those disabilities, which is an approach all juvenile detention centers should take.

Education continues to be a controversial issue within the juvenile justice system. Juvenile delinquents should not be ‘warehoused’ as some have suggested, but instead ‘rehabilitated’. The very center of rehabilitation rests in education because this youth population must learn how to navigate and succeed in the world without resorting to crime. However, like healthcare, funding is needed to have successful programs in education.  If the juvenile justice system does not have the necessary funding or does not feel that education programs are necessary, no changes can be made to the current unsatisfactory programs. As the juvenile justice system moves back towards rehabilitation, it will be interesting to see the impact of this shift on educational opportunities and resources afforded this detained population. Education is the foundation of rehabilitation.

Program Implementation and Effectiveness

There has been research aimed at understanding the success and failures of rehabilitation in juvenile detention centers and, more specifically, the prevention and intervention programs that are practiced and offered to at-risk youth and juvenile offenders.  Greenwood (2008) focused his research on delinquency-prevention programs and explored the problems that these programs face, such as the inaccuracy of measurement and inconsistency of analysis that affects the data.  He also examined the solutions to improve the effectiveness of these institutional programs, which are aimed at reducing delinquency and recidivism and promoting positive and social development as a contributing member of society.  The reason that research on these issues is so scarce is because there are differences in the methods used to evaluate them, which makes comparing the effectiveness of these programs impossible. Studies involving random assignment are difficult within the criminal justice system because research cannot determine where an offender is placed.  Instead of using statistical significance to report effectiveness, researchers compare outcomes that can be highly subjective and inaccurate.

Greenwood also wrote about the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado. This study created the Blueprints for Violence Prevention that certifies programs based on their effectiveness at addressing problem behaviors; addressing the development of long-term skills to be used after an individual’s time in the program; and demonstrating its ability to be replicated across detention facilities and staff.  Other organizations and individuals have also attempted to perform statistical meta-analysis evaluations in order to predict the level of effectiveness within a given program.  Mark Lipsey (1992) did not focus on specific programs but attempted to identify strategies and methods for successfully implementing programs.  Campbell Corporation also tried to be the “clearinghouse” of program effectiveness but has been unable to make any significant gains given the limited number of studies and programs. (Greenwood 2008).

The reason that these programs, and their accurate measurements of effectiveness, are so important is because they are the future of rehabilitation. In order for rehabilitation to be achieved within the juvenile justice system, Greenwood (2008) suggests three crucial improvements.  First, there needs to be an increased focus on “dynamic or changeable risk factors;” which includes improving a juvenile’s skill set and deterring them from substance abuse.  Most importantly, incarcerated juveniles need to learn to manage their behavior and form positive relationships with friends and family through counseling and skills training.  Next, Greenwood urges rehabilitation-focused detention centers to focus on the individual needs of each youth offender.  Lastly, high-risk youth should be the focus of rehabilitative treatment.  Rehabilitation has to be about protecting all juveniles, not just the ones who can save themselves.  Simpson (1976) proposes increased family bonds through counseling, introduction to the job market, and participation in school-related activities.  However, Greenwood does understand that these goals face significant challenges — there is a widespread lack of accountability throughout the system, there is a lack of sufficient funds for these programs to survive, there is a lack of any standardized system, as explained above, to compare and rate the programs, and there is often a lack of support and motivation from detention staff.

These programs, and others like them, are crucial to the tenets of rehabilitative treatment for juvenile offenders. As the juvenile justice system became more punitive, these programs failed to achieve their original aims. In order to assure rehabilitation for youth offenders, these programs need the attention and resources to allow this delinquent population to succeed. These programs are controversial because they are under researched and under funded, but they are important because they lay the foundation for the transition back to rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system.

Diversion Techniques

Simpson (1976) concluded that rehabilitation would not succeed, given the present system and resources, because juvenile detention centers carry stigmas that brand this youth population as offenders and the informal and seemingly subjective process that incarcerated them promotes self-labeling.  In addition, there are inadequate resources such as personnel, facilities, and psychiatrists to create a treatment oriented setting for incarcerated juveniles.  Simpson found that the current system labels the offender, and not the “offending behavior”.  Rojek and Erickson (1982) preached the four D’s in their research — “decriminalization, diversion, due process, and deinstitutionalization”.  They found that diversion — which include programs like shelter care, educational alternatives, counseling, and medical treatment — help protect the youth but are only helpful if they decrease the rates of recidivism within the juvenile system, include a large community-wide referral and support network, and ensure lowered recidivism rates and improved social behavior.  Rojek and Erickson did not find that any of these diversion programs proved to be more effective, or ineffective, than traditional detention facilities.  Instead, they saw it as a means of transferring juveniles to alternate programs which do not have any significant effect given the lack of resources and attention to this population.  The increase in community-based programs may have brought more juveniles into the system, but it has not proven to have any long-term effects on this juvenile delinquent population.  While community programs can be very helpful, the court has to ensure that these programs have the resources to rehabilitate the juvenile instead of bringing them back into the community that likely contributed to their initial crime.

Zimring (2000) introduced two important ideas into his research — the diversionary rationale and the interventionist rationale.  Diversionary rationale explained that the juvenile court would help children by doing ‘less harm’ than the adult criminal court – even if diversionary techniques do not decrease recidivism rates, by keeping youth out of the adult system, the programs are still helping them by providing them with a safe place to spend their free time. The interventionist rationale believes that the diversion programs could help protect the community and ‘cure’ the child. While these two rationales have different beliefs about the effectiveness of rehabilitating the child, the blending seems to be the basis of the juvenile justice system’s rehabilitation efforts.  Zimring (2000) explained that the diversionary rationale more closely mirrors ‘institutional reality’ but interventionist techniques remain important as a preventative measure.

Boot camps have emerged as a popular replacement for juvenile detention centers.  Styve et al. (2000) found that boot camp facilities were perceived by the detained youth to be much more therapeutic, structured, active, controlled, just, safe, suited to preparing them for release, and likely to provide and demonstrate a better quality of life.  As a more transitional option, supporters feel that the boot camp environment is more suited to rehabilitation. Critics, however, feel that the militant style that pervades a ‘boot camp’ facility could negatively impact the youth and return them back to their communities with anger and resentment.  However, the “perceptions do not reflect the actual situation in regard to quality correctional programming” (Styve et al. 2000, 305) because the recidivism rates are not lower for youth detained in boot camps.  It is important to understand that those conditions, despite their results, felt more constructive to the offending youth and therefore, some boot camp policies should be incorporated into more traditional detentions.  It is also important to note that boot camps are a relatively new rehabilitation tactic, with newer staff and more accessible facilities. Better trained staff and nicer facilities might be the reason why these programs are perceived as being more constructive, as opposed to the methodology they promote.

While boot camps may not be the ideal rehabilitative means for detained youth, there are aspects of it that are crucial to the success of detention centers.  Styve et al. (2000) stated that the most important focus of any detention facility had to be rehabilitation but the youth need safe environments for therapy, access to family and friends to ease their reintegration into the community, and access to individualized treatment.  Rehabilitation is the most contested, and yet central, part of juvenile justice.  While some diversion techniques are successful, there needs to be a more uniform response to an increase in juvenile crime.  This youth population needs to engage with their communities and families.  There has not been much research conducted on intervention programs, and the methods of analysis are weak, but alternate programs could be very useful for many delinquent youth as long as there is funding and resources allocated to them.  Researchers need to demonstrate that these programs are effective, in order to justify additional funding, but they lack the research that could document an appropriate level of effectiveness.

Diversion programs have become increasingly popular as the atrocities of detention centers became more apparent to judges and probation officers. These programs will become less vital if the detention centers are able to rehabilitate offending youth but they are still important for community involvement. Simpson (1976) found that ‘control theory’ helped explain why juveniles commit crimes — since they often have little to no attachment to their neighborhoods or commitment to their families, there is no deterrence. The juveniles in the system need to feel connected and, in part, responsible for their communities and these programs often empower them in ways the detention center has not. It will be interesting to see if the number of diversion programs decrease as the rehabilitative focus of the detention center increases and delinquent youth are provided with the educational and emotional support that they need.

After reviewing relevant literature, it is apparent that there are many inadequacies in America’s juvenile detention centers.  There is a struggle for detention centers to find a balance between protecting the safety of the public and addressing the individual rights of youth by providing rehabilitative services.  The recent trends seem to show an increase in punishment and a diversion from rehabilitative services, especially evident in the significant increase of detained juveniles.  In addition to not providing rehabilitative services, detention as a “warehouse” can have further negative impacts on juveniles.  Leone, Zaremba, and Chapin (1995) mention the high correlation between detention and subsequent findings of delinquency; Healy and Bronner (1930) discuss the hardening of juveniles and mixing of violent and non-violent youth in detention facilities; and O’Connor (1970) mentions the feeling of alienation for youth after exiting the detention facilities.  It is clear that there are many injustices that face juvenile detention centers today.

Although these injustices are known, juvenile detention centers have received little research attention as compared to other aspects of juvenile justice.  There are several omissions in the literature that prevent further investigation into the complex system that detains and attempts to correct youth offenders. Some of these flaws in the literature include a lack of studies on detention facilities, outdated studies, and small sample sizes in studies.  Detention centers have been called the “hidden closets of juvenile justice” because there has not been substantial tracking of detention centers’ success and the research on the topic is limited.  More research needs to be done on this topic in order to better understand the current problems within detention centers so improvements can be made.  Detention centers are an important part of the juvenile justice system, especially as punitive sentencing guidelines increase juvenile incarceration rates, and the amount of research on detention needs to respond proportionately.  Injustices need to be recognized and solutions need to be developed before more youth are neglected in juvenile detention.

America’s juvenile justice system was created in order to separate youth from the punitive adult system and create a path through which youth could be given the services they need in order to be successful members of society.  Studies show that juvenile justice is not reaching its original goals with detention centers — the inadequacies in juvenile detention facilities provide little hope for youth’s successful transition back to society. Researchers, policy makers, and community members must work to create funding and resources for this large population in need. Minority and underprivileged neighborhoods must be targeted and approached, education and healthcare must become fundamental requirements within the detention facilities, and research must continue to be done to find the most effective way to punish, rehabilitate and ultimately protect, today’s, and tomorrow’s, youth.

As it has now become apparent, detention centers provide an excellent example of the changes that have occurred in the juvenile justice system; they mirror the transformation of rehabilitation to punishment well.  Juvenile detention centers are just one way in which a punitive approach has negatively effected the successful rehabilitation of juveniles within the system; they provide concrete examples of specific factors that have historically hindered rehabilitation.  While the juvenile justice system has evolved, it was the stray from its original focus of rehabilitation that created the many injustices reviewed in this paper.  As new reforms occur the transformation back to a rehabilitative approach begins, and these injustices within juvenile detention centers can be addressed.

III.  Data and Methodology

This study will be conducted through archival research and personal interviews.  Archival data will be gathered from newspaper and journal articles as well as political documents, such as policies and legislation.  Most of this data has been previously compiled by Dr. Woolard, co-investigator, and researchers will supplement that by accessing articles at DC’s public library.  In addition, interviews will be conducted with stakeholders in the juvenile justice system in DC.  Qualitative data gathered through interviews of stakeholders will include perspectives on juvenile justice reform in DC.  These stakeholders include lawyers, such as Samantha Sonnenburg and Jerry M. lawyers; community advocates, including Liz Ryan (Campaign for Youth Justice) and Joe Patterson (Parent Watch organization); and agency representatives, including Vincent Schiraldi and Mark Schindler (Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services).  These individuals are reliable sources as they have extensive experience with juvenile justice in DC.

All participants have been identified by Dr. Woolard, from her contacts, and will be asked to participate initially by Dr. Woolard.  Following their acceptance, researchers will contact them to arrange an appointment for an interview.  Further recruitment will be conducted through the snowball technique as researchers obtain more contacts from their participants.

Researchers will use a script during the interviews to prompt questions.  This script has been attached at the end of this proposal (see appendix A).

Researchers will read through the journal, newspaper, and political archives in order to generate a summary of relevant and available information.  Higher order themes and constructs pertaining to the research question will be identified for further analysis.

Interviews will be conducted at the interviewee’s place of work or an agreed upon location.  Before participating, interviewees will be given information on why the study is being done and will subsequently be debriefed on the possible implications of the study.  Interviews will be audio-taped (if given consent) for later transcription.

Upon completion of the interviews, researchers will transcribe the audio-taped interviews.  Researchers will analyze the transcripts by looking for common themes and content categories.  This data will then be compared to the analysis of the archival data.

This study uses an exploratory and qualitative approach and is designed to generate a summary.  Therefore, the project follows an inductive approach that prevents an experimental hypothesis.  However, the researchers have identified several factors believed to be associated with the evolution of juvenile justice in DC.  Those factors are considered subproblems, and are as follows:

Policies and policy reform related to juvenile justice and delinquency are believed

to effect the success of rehabilitation of juveniles and the ability to promote change.

The media’s portrayal of juvenile justice topics (reform, detention/correctional centers, delinquency, etc.) is believed to effect the public opinion regarding juvenile justice and potentially its reform or change.

3. Public Opinion

Public opinion is believed to effect juvenile justice by influencing the amount of importance given to juvenile justice issues.  Public opinion is also believed to play a role in the struggle to balance public safety and juvenile rehabilitation, which then has larger effects on juvenile justice.

4. Funding and Resources

The amount of funding and available resources is believed to effect the ability of the juvenile justice system to successfully rehabilitate youth.

For each of these subproblems data is needed on the perspectives of the stakeholders.  During interviews, each participant will be asked questions regarding these topics.

The researchers active in this study are experienced in the field of juvenile justice.  They have had significant experience interacting with juvenile offenders as a part of Oak Hill Outreach and the After School Kids Program through the Center for Social Justice. Through their work in the Center for Research on Adolescents, Women, and the Law (CRAWL) lab, both researchers have studied interrogation techniques of juveniles as part of a study done in collaboration with the FBI’s behavioral science unit. With extensive coursework focused on juvenile justice and community collaboration, the researchers have managed to translate their knowledge to their work with juveniles.  In addition, Dr. Woolard is a prominent figure in D.C.’s juvenile justice field as an academic researcher. She has worked with many other stakeholders in an effort to understand and improve the field and practice.

IV.  References

Abram, Karen M., Jeanne Y. Choe, Jason Washburn, Linda Teplin, Devon King, and Mina Dulcan.  2008. “Suicidal Ideation and Behaviors Among Youths in Juvenile Detention.”  Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 47:291-300.

Barton, William H. and Ira M. Schwartz.  1994.  “Juvenile Detention: No More Hidden Closets.”  Pp. 1-11 in Reforming Juvenile Detention, edited by William H. Barton and Ira M. Schwartz.  Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Bolin, Kenneth and Daniel Jones.  2005.  “Oral Health Needs of Adolescents in a Juvenile Detention Facility.”   Journal of Adolescent Health 38:755-757.

Costello, John B. 1949. “Institutions for Juvenile Delinquents.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 261:166-178.

Foster, Karen, Naomi Williamson, and Dawna Buchannon. 2004.  “Racing With Reading: Addressing Literacy at Juvenile Detention Center.”  Journal of the Institute Justice and International Studies 4:52-56.

Greenwood, Peter. 2008. “Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders.”  The Future of Children 18(2):185-210.

Guarino-Ghezzi, Susan and Edward J. Loughran.  2004.  Balancing Juvenile Justice.  New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Hawkins, J. David and Joseph G. Weis. 1985. “The Social Development Model: An Integrated Approach to Delinquency Prevention.” The Journal of Primary Prevention 6(2):73-97.

Healy, William and August F. Bronner. 1930. “Juvenile Detention Homes.”  Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 151;180-183.

Leone, Peter E., Barbara Zaremba, and Michelle Chapin. 1995. “Understanding the overrepresentation of Youths With Disabilities in Juvenile Detention.” District of Columbia Law Review 3:389-401.

Mennel, Robert M. 1983.  “Attitudes and Policies Toward Juvenile Delinquency in the United States: A Historiographical Review.”  Crime and Justice 4:191-224.

Mohr, Wanda, Richard J. Gelles, and Ira M. Schwartz. 1999. “Shackled in the Land of Liberty: No Rights for Children.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 564:37-55.

Morrison, Harriet R. and Beverly D. Epps.  2002.  “Warehousing or Rehabilitation?  Public Schooling in the Juvenile Justice System”.  The Journal of Negro Education 71:218-232.

Neighborhood Profiles. In NeighborhoodInfo DC. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from  http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/ .

National Institute for Correctional Education (NICE). (2004). “Correctional Education at a Glance” . Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Lipsey, Mark L. 1992.  Pp. 83-127 in “Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry into the Variability of Effects,” in Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

O’Connor, Gerald G. 1970. “The Impact of Initial Detention upon Male Delinquents.”  Social Problems 18(2):194-199.

Parent,  Dale G. 1994.  “Conditions of confinement: Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities”.  Washington, DC: United States Dept. of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Rojek, Dean G. and Maynard L. Erickson. 1981-1982. “Reforming the Juvenile Justice System: The Diversion of Status Offenders.” Law & Society Review 16(2):241-264.

Roush, David W.  1996.  Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice.  Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Simpson, Anna L. 1976. “Rehabilitation as the Justification of a Separate Juvenile Justice System.” California Law Review 64(4):984-1017.

Snyder, Howard N. and Melissa Sickmund. 1999. “Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report.” Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Steketee, M. W., D. A. Willis, and Ira M. Schwartz.  1989.   Juvenile Justice Trends 1977-1987 .  Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Styve, Gaylene J., Doris Layton MacKenzie, Angela R. Gover, and Oimarrh Mitchell. 2000. “Perceived Conditions of Confinement: A National Evaluation of Juvenile Boot Camps and Traditional Facilities.” Law and Human Behavior 24(3):297-308.

Zimring, Franklin E. 2000. “The Common Thread: Diversion in Juvenile Justice.”  California Law Review 88(6):2477-2495.

My project is entitled “Juvenile Justice in DC: The History of Rehabilitation”.  I am studying the evolution of the juvenile justice system in DC and its transformation from a rehabilitative approach to a punitive approach, and its recent efforts to transition back to rehabilitation

You can use the page links to the right –> to navigate the different components of the project.

Here are some links to related organizations:

Campaign for Youth Justice

Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services

Portfolio Pages

• Research Concerns
• Key Findings
• IRB Proposal
• Reflections
• Instruments/Protocol
• PowerPoint Presentations
• Tables and Appendices
• Related Links
• My Bio and Resume

Recent Journal Entries

• 07.09.09 Welcome
• 08.12.09 New Beginnings Movie
• 08.12.09 Updates

© 2024 Christina Campbell |  Georgetown University  |  GU Digital Commons  |  Terms of Use for Public Blogs

Entries RSS Comments RSS Log in

Research proposal on juvenile delinquency

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.

Any subject. Any type of essay. We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.

writers online

The research project aims at establishing the contributing factors to the outbreak of delinquency in juveniles. The study focuses on identifying some of the ways through which the criminal justice system can assist in intervening the juveniles before their graduation to the criminal justice system. The study will focus on three main issues: childhood mistreatment, neighbourhood disadvantage and the inefficient monitoring of the young adults. Prevention of the rise in delinquency in adolescents is possible from comprehending the causes of juvenile delinquency. Through this research, it is feasible to understand the causes of delinquency in young adults and ways in which the removal of such causes can result in awareness in the community.

Introduction and research question

Delinquency implies both the antisocial and criminal behaviours committed by individuals under the age of 18. However, when the people reach adulthood, such actions are identified as the crime. Some of the common delinquency committed by juveniles include murder, rape and burglary. The population of juveniles is largely ignored by the written law and society thus creating significant social and economic costs for the affected nations. Juvenile delinquency thus needs addressing and allocation of funds for their research to manage the increase in juvenile crime effectively. The presence of high rates of unemployment and poverty, several juveniles resort to crime as means of sustaining their lifestyles in their notably dangerous neighbourhoods.

Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page

The research question significant in this study is; ‘The factors that contribute to onset of delinquency in juveniles – childhood maltreatment, neighbourhood disadvantage and improper monitoring of the adolescents.’ The element of the study would focus on juvenile delinquency. The potential significance of this study is to enable the development of understanding to the prevention techniques concerning the factors causing the onset of delinquencies. The study is thus applicable to the public agencies, youth mentoring programs and the study of criminal justice. The study is essential to these groups in their role of improving the general policies for the delivery of necessary services to the youth members of the community as well as the family members in their involvement in the delinquency .

The study focuses on providing an indication to the factors of childhood maltreatment, neighbourhoods disadvantages and the lack of monitoring in adolescent for the prevention and intervention measures applicable to the onset of juvenile delinquencies. The successful prevention of juvenile delinquencies involves the application of policies provided by the community services and family units. Even though the criminal justice system provision for reformation for the juvenile delinquent it is less preferable. The study of juvenile delinquent onset prevention is thus significant in assisting the adolescents before their need for the criminal justice system.

Literature Review

The youth justice system in America has undergone several stages of development. The judicial system has undergone notable changes leading to its movement to a new direction. The transitions resulted from the reforms implemented to restore the primary purpose of the juvenile justice systems. The evolution of the juvenile justice system has seen it transform from focusing on rehabilitating the juvenile delinquents to delivering punishments. The changes in the administration of juvenile justice symbolise the national trends in the juvenile delinquencies and also trace ways through which America responds to such trends. However, the juvenile delinquencies are notably attributable to the maltreatments the individuals undergo during their childhood, adverse impacts of their neighbourhoods, and the lack of proper monitoring of the adolescents.

Even though several studies are examining the relationship between the childhood maltreatment and delinquency, the knowledge concerning the relation is limited because of the methodologic problems inherent in the prior studies. Such problems include the over-reliance on the retrospective designs and the absence of control or comparison groups of non-abused and non-neglected children. According to the strict interpretation of the ‘cycle of violence’ hypothesis, the children who underwent physical abuse in contract to other forms of ill-treatment or neglect tend to exhibit high risks of arrests for the violent criminal behaviours. The hypothesis thus implies that being direct victims of violence as children provide a model for the child to learn, imitate, and thus act in the similar way when the child grows.

In the research on childhood maltreatment, the assessment of the adults who experienced abuse revealed close relation to delinquency. Other notable topics of discussion include the connection between community and school that lead to the interpretation on whether the violent activities originated from the student and school characteristics and engagement in violent delinquency. The research methods implemented by the scholars include both qualitative and quantitative analysis of data collected through interviews and questionnaires. Additionally, the scholars found that the schools played a significant role in the delinquency.

Steuwig and McCloskey researched on the various forms of maltreatment in both the childhood and parenting during the childhood that results in delinquency. Their study focused on finding the relationship between the psychological problems in abused children to the onset of the delinquencies. The research, however, produced findings in different broad questions. Stuewig and McCloskey thus concluded in their research that emotions do not relate directly to delinquency but relate directly to depression, which is significant in inhibiting the onset of delinquency.

Adolescents who grow up in disadvantaged neighbourhoods associated with gangs and criminal activities are prone to delinquency. Dupere, Lacourse, Willim, Vitaro and Tremblay in their study of the affiliation of the adolescents in groups sampled the Canadian neighbourhood. Their aim was to discover the possibility of youths raised in neighbourhoods associated with gangs contributing to the onset of delinquency. Their methodology of their study was the survey of the potential gang members in the targeted neighbourhood. The findings of their study indicated the existence of the close relation of the youths growing up in unstable neighbourhoods to the onset of criminology.

Additionally, Dupere et al. found out in their study the presence of a close relation between the ineffective monitoring of adolescents to the onset of delinquency. For instance, the youths coming from families exhibiting less guardianship are likely to be deliquescent. These youths tend to interact with their guardians for less duration hence the lack of proper guidance from the parents. These study findings are significant to the moulding of the research hypothesis: neighbourhood disadvantage results in the onset of juvenile delinquency.

Research Questions and Research hypotheses

The objective of the study is to discuss the contributing factors to the onset of juvenile delinquency concerning maltreatment during childhood, neighbourhood disadvantage and the lack of proper monitoring of the young adults. Since the topic entails the wide range of factors, it is important to develop hypotheses significant to the analysis of the data relevant to the study.

First Hypothesis: Childhood maltreatment contributes to juvenile deliquescent.

Adolescents whose childhood was characterised by abuse and crime are likely to engage in criminal activities as a result. The research on this hypothesis aims at presenting questions concerning both the history and relationships of the abuse of the individual and violence within their families to the onset of the criminal activities. The execution of the questions, in this case, will thus be as the focus group and random sampling from the various targeted clusters. The measurement unit is based on how the abusive backgrounds relate to the various age groups and the onset of delinquency. Based on the history of the juveniles to their present tendency towards delinquency, the study data are essential in cross-referencing for the contribution of the childhood maltreatment to current delinquency.

Second Hypothesis: Neighborhood disadvantage results in the onset of juvenile delinquency.

The study on this hypothesis will focus on providing data based on the observations of disadvantage neighbourhood. An essential part of the analysis is to execute quantitative research on the juvenile detainee’s neighbourhood backgrounds. The qualitative study data on the disadvantaged neighbourhood and quantitative research data on the detainee’s childhood are essential in establishing the contribution of the disadvantaged neighbourhood to the onset of delinquency in adolescents.

Third hypothesis: Lack of monitoring of the adolescents contributes to the onset of juvenile delinquency.

The study aimed at achieving the objective of this hypothesis entails formation of clusters based on ages. The clusters thus form the units of analysis whereby the amount of lack of monitoring is classified into various stages. The study will focus on seeking out the primary caregivers to the clusters as well as the primary influencers based on the units; teachers, parents, family members or other non-family related person. The study will include the control group of children based on their ages, gender and approximate social class.

Sample Population and Methodology

Currently, in the US, there is a significant rise in juvenile delinquency. Consequently, the study targets the youth in the various states across the US. The reason for considering several states across the US is to ensure that the study is specific. It is important to consider the cultural differences in the various clusters across the neighbourhoods hence the need for focusing on selected clusters. The basis of choosing the research sites is the diverse range of respondents drawn from the various areas, culture, society and beliefs sampled across the various states.

The first sample was collected by visits to the high schools to conduct surveys and focus groups. The collection of the data is through handing the students questionnaires during break time and offering incentives to the students such as sweets as a token of appreciation. The presentation of stimuli is significant in encouraging the participation of the students in the survey. However, the incentives pose the challenge of affecting the outcome of the survey whereby the ethics of the research become questionable. It is thus necessary to emphasise to the participants well in advance that their involvement is voluntary.

The teachers, parent and youth workers will then be invited to attend the focus group sessions, which would be held in the various community centres across the states. The sessions are significant in allowing the students and the teachers to familiarise with the setting. It is important for the researcher to undergo training on the different techniques of handling the discussion groups to minimise the occurrence of errors.

Additionally, it is important to interview the youths, social workers. The execution of the interviews is a word for word using the prepared questionnaires to ensure consistency of data analysis. The interviews are essential in allowing the researcher to be more personal to the respondents and thus make the filling of the questionnaires engaging and more interactive.

To obtain more samples the researcher will visit the malls and skate parks. These sites are preferable because of their association with a large number of adolescents. The methods of obtaining samples are the presentation of interviews and questionnaires. Informal focus groups will also be held to the teens with some incentives to volunteer. It is important for the researcher to ensure the respondents comprehend their freedom of participating in the focus group voluntarily.

Stratified sampling is the applicable method for the various techniques of collecting data. The target audience for sampling include the teachers, social workers, family members and the students. The variables in the sampling population vary concerning the factors of the topic in discussion. For instance in the factor of ‘childhood maltreatment,’ better part of the community compose of the social workers. The factor of ‘neighborhood disadvantage’ the variable is the family members. The factor ‘lack of monitoring in adolescents’ majority of the data would come from the teachers. It is important to note that permission must be sought from the education and training departments of the state before the research in situations where the site for collecting the data is in schools.

The samples required for the study must be precise and free of bias. To ensure free of bias, the sampling must be specified, and the acceptance of the response results monitored to minimise the errors associated with sampling. The first approach of the survey would be the delivery of questionnaires. The questionnaires would be presented to the participants for self-administering. The participants would fill the questionnaires at their convenience and collected by the researcher on completion. Attachment of the informed consent form to the questionnaire will be ensured as part of the required response to the technique.

The execution face to face interviews with the individual juveniles in the private setting is essential in collecting the self-report information necessary assessing the causes of onset of delinquency in relation. The advantage of the use of information obtained from the self-report rather than the juvenile justice records is that the researcher can measure the actual violent behaviours and thus ascertain when the delinquency began. In addition to the interview data, the study collected a significant amount of data from the official records such as school, police and juvenile courts. The various necessary information regarding the development of the adolescents would be obtained from both the parents and teachers of the children.

In the collection and analysis of the data, the qualitative methods are applicable due to their flexible nature. The flexibility of the qualitative techniques enables the researcher to adapt and develop the applied methods whenever it is necessary. The inclusion of the qualitative methods in the study enables the collection of a wide range of responses to the topic of the study, which is significant to the amount of data collected for analysis. The application of the focus group is because it is an essential technique of data collection. Some of the questions to be presented to the focus group include:

• Is childhood maltreatments a contributing factor to juvenile delinquency? What activities composes the childhood maltreatment?
• Is neighbourhood disadvantage a factor to juvenile delinquency? What constitutes neighbourhood disadvantages?
• Is ineffective monitoring of the adolescents a contributing factor to the onset of juvenile delinquency?

The technique involves the delivery of open questions, which is essential in obtaining a large amount of responses from the sample population. The focus group technique applies to the sample that entails the teachers and social workers randomly selected from the various states.

Data Analysis

The credibility and validity of the data measurement technique applicable in the study are essential. It is also important for the researcher to perform the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data independently. On completion of the quantitative collection of the data, it is prudent to assemble the data in data matrix containing details whereby the information is sorted into columns, variables and values. The resulting data model are thus essential for both statistical and percentage calculations necessary for the data analysis. Mapping of the primary characteristics of the samples is achievable through the distribution of variables, which include age, gender, and location of the participants.

Additionally, proper coding of the variables is essential to allow for the analysis of the data by the use of a computer. The quantitative data analysis is achievable through the application of SPSS. SPSS is essential in the cleaning and transformation of the available data to ease the interpretation of the data. The analysis of the qualitative data is achievable through the application of various techniques. It is essential to perform simultaneous analysis of the qualitative when collected.

Anticipated Results

The expected results of the study will be essential to the policymakers, parents and the various organisations charged with the role of protecting the rights of juveniles. The outcome of the study is critical in making rational decisions regarding ways of preventing the adolescents from engaging in criminal activities. The procedures applied in the study emphasise the understanding of the roles that the maltreatment at childhood, improper monitoring of the youths and growing in disadvantaged communities play in the onset of juvenile delinquency. Analysis of the impact of the environment on the decisions made by the youths concerning delinquency is essential to the study. The significant organising principle and the end goal of this study are the provisions of clear roadmaps of policy options and consequences.

The study expects to determine whether there is a relationship between the abuse and mistreatment adolescents undergo in their early life with the inception of delinquency in juveniles. The study also intends to assess the extent to which the disadvantaged neighbourhoods characterised by criminal activities lead to the start of delinquency of minors. Additionally, the study aims at determining the onset of delinquency in adolescents concerning improper monitoring of the lives of young adults. These outcomes are essential in developing clearer understanding the youth’s response to their surroundings and thus be able to develop practical solutions to minimise the onset of delinquency in youths.

Before delivering the questionnaires to the participants, its contents will be discussed with the study’s supervisor. The supervisor will also attend the discussions involving the educators and student participants.

Delinquency, drug use and other problems associated with the juveniles usually commence much earlier in their lives. For most children, these behaviours begin before becoming teenagers. The co-occurrence of the problem behaviours tends to be common. However, only serious delinquents are likely to be involved in serious offences such as drug abuse, juvenile gangs and gun ownership. There is a significant shift in the demographic characteristics of youth offenders. Older males and females reported greater involvement in the serious violence beyond expectations.

The development of the delinquent behaviours in boys usually follows procedural fashion whereby less severe problems are often preceded by problems that are more serious. Individuals often proceed along the single developmental paths towards serious antisocial behaviours. The childhood maltreatment increases the risk of juveniles engaging in adolescent problem behaviours. Furthermore, the history of abuse elevates the risk that teens will experience significant problems during adolescence.

The significance of the study lies in the applicability of the results to understanding the root causes of juvenile delinquency. The findings of this study are essential in proving that delinquency is attributable to several other factors that lead teenagers into taking different paths in life.

Implication for Criminal Justice Policy

The results of the study are relevant to the organisations charged with the role of enhancing the juvenile delinquency prevention programs which in most cases have limited funds and staff. Through identification of the roles played by the various conditions to the onset of delinquency, it becomes easier to establish programs that target their efforts in more efficient and cost-effective manner. The study is also essential in enhancing understanding of the problem of juvenile delinquency. The study results are critical in understanding the criminal severity of the consequences attributed to the various offences, which is significant in advocating for the personal accountability of the juvenile’s actions. The analysed data of the study are as well critical in helping in the understanding of the baseline requirements of the system necessary for shaping the juvenile criminal justice’s ability to work efficiently.

By proper implementation of the appropriate preventive measures by the various agencies to the juveniles towards limiting juvenile delinquency is economically efficient. The trials involving juveniles are usually many hence; the juvenile justice system spends a significant amount of time-solving the cases, and there is the need for hiring more individuals to the juvenile judicial system as well. Therefore, by implementing necessary techniques for avoiding the creation of environments favouring the onset of delinquency in juveniles the cost of solving the minor crimes can reduce to manageable levels. The study results are essential in devising policies necessary for limiting the occurrence of juvenile delinquencies.

Limitations

Although the study reached its objective, there were some unavoidable constraints. The first limitation arose from the sample size. The sample size is significant as it involves individuals from various states in the US. Therefore, the delivery of the questionnaires and delivery of the interviews is time costly. The presentation of incentives to the students influences significantly to the credibility of the responses given by the students. Some of the results could be out of the interest for the encouragement and please the researcher rather than provide truthful information. Giving the participants questionnaires for them to fill at their convenience also resulted in a significant amount of surveys remaining uncollected. The responses obtained were thus from a fraction of the intended sample size. The qualitative study questions limited the possible responses submitted by the respondents. The participants are likely to fill the questionnaires inappropriately.

The responses obtained from interviewing the parents regarding the improper monitoring of the children are likely to be biased. Most parents are usually protective of their children hence few would admit that the delinquency of their children is attributable to their improper parenting.

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers.

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NIJ FY24 Field-Initiated Action Research Partnerships

Download PDF, 386.62 KB

With this solicitation, NIJ seeks research partnership proposals that meet the needs and missions of local justice and service provider entities — including police, corrections, courts, victim services, forensic science service providers, and community safety and adult and juvenile justice entities — and the communities they serve. These partnerships should apply a data-driven, problem-solving approach to challenges prioritized by agency partners; identify actionable and measurable responses; implement changes; and employ an action research evaluation approach to assessing the impact of interventions on desired outcomes that emphasizes scientific rigor and meaningful stakeholder engagement. These partnerships should also focus on developing the entity’s capacity to adopt data-driven, problem-solving approaches to sustain effective practices and ongoing improvement in relevant safety and justice outcomes.

Similar Opportunities

• NIJ FY24 Research and Evaluation on Youth Justice Topics
• NIJ FY24 Measurement of Community Perceptions
• NIJ FY24 Research and Evaluation on Hate Crimes

Commentary | Gov. Moore, veto Maryland’s juvenile justice…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

Baltimore Sun eNewspaper

• Readers Respond

Commentary | Gov. Moore, veto Maryland’s juvenile justice reform bill | GUEST COMMENTARY

Last week, amid concerns about certain crimes increasing among young people, Maryland lawmakers passed significant legislation affecting the state’s juvenile justice system. This response — which will bring more kids into the juvenile legal system — will make no one safer, and it will exacerbate the system’s shameful, longstanding racial disparities. 

This is a sad moment in Maryland, and we need to talk about where we go from here.

Only two elements of House Bill 814 warrant Gov. Wes Moore’s signature. One codifies the Thrive Academy, a new program from the state’s Department of Juvenile Services that focuses on reducing gun violence among youth under its supervision who present the highest risk of being victims or perpetrators of gun violence. The other would create a permanent Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform and Emerging and Best Practices to study how the juvenile legal system is operating and make consensus-based recommendations for improvements based on facts and national best practices — rather than on anecdotes, outliers and media-driven anxieties, as is currently the case.

The rest of the bill reflects a disturbing and unjustified, nationwide trend of reactionary public safety policymaking. People are certainly entitled to their own opinions, and especially to any very real fears of crime that they may have based on their own experiences. But no one is entitled to their own facts regarding crime data and crime trends — no matter how often these alternatives are broadcast on television or show up in social media feeds. 

On this point the authoritative statistical evidence could not be clearer: Despite an already-receding spike in some violent offenses that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, most crimes committed by young people in Maryland , as in the rest of the nation , remain below pre-pandemic levels and very far from the peaks of the early 1990s. Moreover, of the crime rates that did rise between 2018 and 2020, arrest rates were higher among those in their 20s, not among those in their teens. 

For nearly two decades prior to the pandemic, crime and victimization rates among young people declined steadily, alongside similarly decreasing rates of incarceration. At the same time, research repeatedly showed that drawing kids deeper into the system, especially for nonviolent offenses, increased their chances of being arrested again on new charges. Evidence from rounds of research on youth decision-making also showed that their brains, especially the part that governs self-control, continue developing into the early-to-mid 20s. The U.S. Supreme Court pointed to this knowledge repeatedly when it issued decisions that upended draconian sentencing policies.

The governor has repeatedly committed to being data-driven and heart-led, and no one in Maryland deserves this more than our kids.

Despite this compelling evidence, however, nearly all the provisions of H.B. 814 will expand the net of incarceration. By making more kids eligible for detention, doubling probation times and lowering the threshold for technical violations — including, incredibly, making kids detention-eligible for being 15 minutes late to school — the legislation will see more kids end up incarcerated. 

It is similarly disappointing that in a state that claims the nation’s highest over-incarceration of its Black population , little attention has been paid to the likely racial disparities of this legislation . A lackluster racial impact study on a provision that will cause more 10-, 11-, and 12-year-olds to be referred to the Department of Juvenile Services claimed there was no existing evidence on which to draw any conclusions. Yet, for three of the four charges that will apply to these children if the bill is signed into law, one could easily extrapolate the likelihood from data about the 13- to 17-year-olds already subject to these provisions. In 2023 , more than nine out of 10 intakes for handgun violations and auto theft were children of color, as were 79% of intakes for deadly weapon charges.  

Like any system devised by human beings, Maryland’s juvenile justice system is imperfect; there will always be room for improvement. Unfortunately, as we are seeing today, making changes to this complex system when the problem is one of “perception” exacerbated by media narratives that highlight individual cases rather than overall trends can result in a process that prioritizes political solutions over public safety goals, equity or better outcomes for system-involved youth. 

Our legislative leaders were right to recognize that there is a permanent need for ways to make improvements to the juvenile legal system. But based on a reliable body of evidence spanning decades, only the eight brave legislators who voted “no” were right on this bill. It is too late to strip this legislation of its potentially harmful proposals, which do not align with evidence or best practices. However, it is not too late for the governor to veto this bill and instead take executive action on the creation of the two positive solutions. The governor has repeatedly committed to being data-driven and heart-led, and no one in Maryland deserves this more than our kids.  

Alex R. Piquero ([email protected]) is a professor of sociology and criminology, and an arts and sciences distinguished scholar at the University of Miami. He is also the former director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the United States Department of Justice (appointed by President Joe Biden). Heather Warnken ([email protected]) is executive director at the University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Criminal Justice Reform, and a former fellow at the Office of Justice Programs, within the United States Department of Justice.  

More in Commentary

Commentary | Why it’s hard to get services for children who have autism | GUEST COMMENTARY

Commentary | Dissatisfied with the current candidates? Soon, we could choose an AI president | GUEST COMMENTARY

Commentary | Why do U.S. media outlets say so little about ISIS-K? | GUEST COMMENTARY

Commentary | Rehabbing Baltimore neighborhoods through a vacancy tax | GUEST COMMENTARY