The authors readily admit that this is a difficult task for several reasons. The first difficulty is in a study like this, they were not able to keep all of the other variables constant. For example, the authors note that over the decade, the juvenile population increased by 27% in California. They cite demographic shifts due to increases immigration from Latin America that caused a 30% increase in Hispanic juveniles and an 8% and 14% decrease in the white and black juvenile population. Added to this was a fluctuating unemployment rate. As a result, the authors make it very clear that they are not attempting to establish causality in this paper. They are simply comparing initiatives and examining data sources that reveal statewide trends in the areas those initiatives were designed to influence. This study was conducted using data collected between 1993 and 2003. The authors explained that some data sets, such as high school graduation rates, were not available within this span of time, so they used some data that went slightly beyond this timeframe. The method of the study was largely descriptive. Each initiative was introduced by giving the background of legislative action and a description on how the program was intended to work. An emphasis on the importance and necessity for juvenile probation was included in many of the descriptions. After the initiative was described, data was presented that showed decades long trends in data categories such as teen pregnancy rates, incarceration rate for juveniles, high school graduation rates and juvenile arrest rates. The authors were true to their word in that they never suggested causality in the article. No mention was made of specific ethnic groups being the focus of any study or statistic. They appear to be using largely aggregate data from state sources. For example, several studies simply point to the increase or decline in total juvenile offenders in alternative educational facilities or the total number of juveniles arrested. There was one study that disaggregated data according to males and females. But even this information was vague because subjective terms such as “older juveniles” were used in the analysis. Youth that are maltreated early in life have a greater risk of becoming delinquent juveniles as they grow older. These children are often referred to as crossover youth because they are involved with more than one social agency. There may be some sort of dual or shared jurisdiction over these youth. While it is recognized that this population becomes engaged in one form of delinquency or another more often than most other populations, what is not well known about them is how they are treated once they cross into the juvenile justice system in California. This study tried to determine whether these crossover youth are treated more harshly youth that enter the juvenile justice system and if they have a greater rate of recidivism than other juvenile offenders. The data for this study was collected between April 1st 2004 and December 31st 2004. The sample included 581 youth offenders in the Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice System. The independent variables that were isolated were Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Legal Representation, and Risk Assessment (using the Los Angeles Risk
Cite this document
(“Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention in California Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/sociology/54699-juvenile-delincency-in-calinfornia
(Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention in California Essay)
“Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention in California Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/sociology/54699-juvenile-delincency-in-calinfornia.
Cited: 0 times
In 1993, Title IV A-Ea was rewritten to take the focus off of suppression and monitoring of juvenile offenders to a focus on family services and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Many initiatives were introduced in the State of California during the next decade in an effort to change the entire approach of the juvenile justice system…
The researcher states that it is not necessary that multiagency partnerships are always formed domestically. In some cases, multiagency partnerships are formed between international agencies for crime prevention. For example, many of the American crime prevention agencies have multiagency partnerships with similar agencies in overseas countries to fight against terrorism.
The juvenile justice system, which works hand in hand with the juvenile justice process, was established in order to handle such cases. The system has faced many challenges due to the rise in crime rates in recent years, and the fact that some crimes are too serious to be treated in nonadversarial ways.
Though these programs and programs like these are in place to prevent juvenile crimes and drug abuse, they continuously prove to be ineffective on a large percentage of youth. The inadequate results of prevention programs can be derived organizations lacking quality implementation for prevention programs and the absence of strong adult reinforcement at home.
The program is aimed at lowering recidivism of high-risk juvenile offenders. As it provides concentrated reintegration during incarceration and a highly structured gradual process of transition, IAP considers three overlapping phases of treatment – (1) pre-release and preparatory planning; (2) structured transition in which participation of both institutional and aftercare staff prior to and after release is involved; and (3) long-term follow-up for supervision and service delivery (Altschuler, D.M., et al., 1999).
The present legal systems treat crimes committed by the minors in a different way from the crime committed by those who have attained the age of majority. The main difference between the juvenile and adult court system is that, adult court system focuses on the avoidance and justice as the underlying principle for prosecuting offenders whereas the juvenile system is committed to rehabilitate delinquent youths into upstanding citizens with good morals (Tanenhaus 68).
By 1994, 82% of juvenile crimes were committed with the use of firearms. (ojjdp.ncjrs.org). In response to this increase in juvenile violence, state legislators have enacted harsher statutes which seek to provide harsher penalties for juvenile offenders. Today's juvenile offender finds himself at risk of being charged and sentenced as an adult unlike in the past where juvenile offenders were relegated solely to the care of juvenile centers.
ren and youth who enter the juvenile justice system should be treated appropriately through every stage of the program, including “prevention, early intervention, diversion, detention, probation, residential care, incarceration and post-release care”. Without an effective
Differently treated from adult offenders, juveniles are not accused of crimes but with misbehaviors; they are considered innocent and adjudicated offenders; they do not go to prison but to a reformatory or
According to (Males,2009)“The 2008 figures show California’s crime index (key offenses reported to police) stands at its lowest level since 1963, including the lowest rates of homicide in 40 years”. Since young people are at a tender age, they