Juvenile Female Incarceration in California - Coursework Example

?Running head: Effect of recidivism rates for juvenile females of color in the division of juvenile justice in California Outline Introduction Juvenile female incarceration in California Social work intervention into the problem of juvenile female incarceration Diversion programs for reducing recidivism Conclusion Introduction This research paper is to explore the problem of female juvenile incarceration in California. This is in line with the fact that California has continually been recording increasing levels of female juvenile delinquency as compared to other states in America. Still, it is going to look at the effect of recidivism on the incarceration of female juveniles in California. Having conducted a thorough search on the extent to which female incarceration has spread in that state, the paper will address the social intervention measures that have been effected as a result. It will analyze how effective these intervention measures have been over the long period in history in which they have been in operation. This will be done through an analysis of the records that have been kept regarding intervention measures and their effect on recidivism rates. Juvenile female incarceration in California Statistics show that California holds the largest number of young female prisoners when compared to all the other states in America. The country has the two largest prisons for women in the world that are located in Chowchilla. The largest number of incarcerated females is juveniles as they have a higher tendency to engage in crime as opposed to those advanced in age. As it would least be expected, most of the prisons in that state have a very high percentage of males working in female prisons. This poses a very big threat on the welfare and wellbeing of the female juveniles. In fact, this percentage of male workers in female prisons is higher than any other in the world. Out of the 30 million people incarcerated in that state, 11,250 are women as compared to a country like Germany which has 80 million incarcerated and holds only 800 women. The question that now comes to mind is what has led to such a high number of women being imprisoned? According to credible sources, most of the females were arrested as victims of property or drug related crimes which were mostly meant for survival (Carlifornia Prison Focus, 2005). About 33% of these women are able to participate in any educational activity as they were still very young and full of potential. This problem of female incarceration mainly affects African American as well as Latino women more than it does the white. Probably this is because these women are more exposed to harsh conditions that push them into participating in crime for survival. Social work intervention into the problem of juvenile female incarceration Many meta-analyses have been conducted in a bid to gauge the effect of programs on the recidivism of juvenile offenders (Cullen, 2007). However, most of these studies were conducted in a limited scope, whereby each of them specialized on one single topic. This made their findings to be very accurate and refined as an exhaustive study was successfully conducted. The range of topics covered among the juvenile offenders included sex offences, drug involvement and other offenses of the same family. During the study, instead of focusing on a predefined kind of a program, an alternate approach was used through collection and meta-analysis of all the available research on the effect of interventions with juvenile offenders, sorting it according to the type of interventions found. The extreme nature of this task makes it possible to investigate certain very important issues that are otherwise very difficult to address. For instance, a meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioral programs may demonstrate that they have positive effects on recidivism while other meta-analysis shows that family counseling has positive effects. The database for Lipsey’s (2009) comprehensive meta-analysis consists of the effects of delinquency interventions that were collected in 548 studies that spanned from 1958 through 2002. The research was produced and published, and met the following criteria. Findings are based on research conducted in an English speaking country and the reporting was done in English too Young people of about 12-21 years old were studied The program’s effect was measured on at least one delinquency outcome variable (for instance re-arrest conviction). The outcomes of the direct intervention program were directly compared to those of the control group of similar juveniles who did not receive the intervention. The study was read by trained coders who used a very high computerized scheme and came up with the information that illustrated each study on large set of variables that were categorized as below: Characteristics of the study methods Characteristics of juvenile samples Level of juvenile justice intervention Type of intervention program applied Amount of quality service Statistical effect of size for the extent of the intervention effect on subsequent offending In this study, the key variable in the analysis was the effect size. It helped to identify whether the study found the intervention as reducing the subsequent offending, and if so, by how much. All through the studies done, it was recorded that intervention bore positive fruits most of the times. This effect had a moderate magnitude, representing a one year re-arrest rate about six percentage points lower for the treated juveniles relative to the control juveniles. From this we can learn only very little about the effectiveness of the interventions since there was enormous variability in the observed effect across the studies. Looking deeper, we find that one of the set variables related to the magnitude of the intervention is that representing the methodological characteristics of the studies. An example could be the way recidivism was measured and the quality of the design for creating comparable treatment and control groups. The methodological characteristics were statistically controlled in all analysis in order to minimize the confusion between the influence of these differences and those of substantive characteristics. Still, further analysis was done to isolate as much as possible the relationships between the recidivism effects. After the careful conducting of this intensive study, four programmatic characteristics were found to be the most relevant when considering what works best for reducing subsequent offenses rates: Risk level of juveniles whereby some juveniles were found to be more responsive to intervention programs Either therapeutic or control treatment was found to have the possibility to work depending on the case being handled. Generic Program Types and Embedded Model Programs whereunder activities such as counseling services fall are all applicable in different circumstances The amount and quality of service Diversion programs for reducing recidivism The formulation of diversion programs includes putting in place policies that are aimed at preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency. They are aimed at rehabilitating juvenile offenders so as to reduce recidivism rates (Austin, Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders, 2005). These diversion programs offer alternative to the common way of detaining suspects. These programs are composed of tasks such as treatment programs, restorative justice services, and community service opportunities. These programs can either be mandated by a judge or assigned in lieu of the juvenile undergoing court proceedings. Recidivism is also a key concept that cannot be ignored when talking about diversion programs. It refers to the re-arrest, re-conviction, or re-incarceration of a juvenile. Diversion takes place when law enforcement and court personnel exercise their discretion to keep individual youth from entering a court’s jurisdiction (Feld, 2000). They tend to guard the youth from the traditional forms of detention (Austin, Alternatives to the Secure Detention and Confinement of Juvenile Offenders, 2005). It was during the 1960s that Diversion programs were formalized as a result of the growing juvenile justice populations and critics of the systems ineffectiveness in bringing down the levels of crime and rehabilitating juvenile offenders (Pogrebin, 1984). The old system was not able to change the juveniles so that they refrain from crime. In any case, those who were convicted through the system as juvenile ended up as the worst criminals of the future and some became serial killers. The criminal justice was also criticized for not affording constitutional protection for the youth. These critiques were expressed in the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, which proposed that no stone should be left unturned until an alternative way was found to treat youth juveniles rather than the traditional way. This was the move that birthed such programs as community service. How effective are diversion programs? The main objectives of diversion programs include: Cutting down delinquency and recidivism rates Raising the efficiency of the systems Reduction of the level of involvement in the juvenile justice system Cost reduction (Cocozza, 2004) Over time, the effectiveness of diversion programs has been gauged. Different results have been found, some claiming that it is effective in reduction of recidivism while others just saying the opposite. There indeed has been evidence that diversion programs do not reduce recidivism. However, with intensive community services and support, they can reduce recidivism. In terms of increasing system efficiency and reducing the level of involvement in the juvenile justice system, diversion programs have been effective (Martinson, 1974). This is because there has been a reduction of court cases processed and the level of penetration by the juvenile into the traditional juvenile system (Ezell, 1992). It appears, therefore, that the most effective diversion programs are those that are holistic, intensive, in-home, and family focused. In a nut shell, there are those factors that make a diversion program effective. These are as listed below: They should be very systematic and offer a screening assessment of youth There should be a reduction of the depth of entry into the juvenile justice system There should be utilization of holistic, family centered diversion programs Development and use of a wide network of community based service providers (Schmeidler, 2002). During the undertaking of a diversion program, screening and assessments are very necessary to ensure that each juvenile is provided with equal opportunity to improve. It is also very crucial that diversion minimizes the extent of association with the traditional criminal justice program and instead redirect the juveniles to alternative forms of treatment (Davidson, 1990). The juveniles should be categorized in accordance with the different problems they are facing in order for them to be addressed thoroughly. These problems could range from substance abuse, mental health issues, poor academic performance, difficulty in family life and other such problems that so affect the youth daily. In short, there should a wide variety of diversion programs in every community so as to make sure each juvenile is placed in the appropriate program to meet their needs. Conclusion In a nut shell, it has been noted with seriousness that recidivism rates are very high in California among female juveniles. Digging deeper into the matter, it has been noted that the problem springs from various conditions such as wrong family upbringing, economic hardships, and peer influence among others. The female juveniles are from time to time convicted and after serving a sentence and being released, they fall back into crime. This automatically leads to re-arrest and re-conviction. It is totally different from what would be expected because people are supposed to learn from their mistakes and improve. Therefore, this problem must be tackled from the roots. The real causes should be addressed so that the trend can reduce. Still on the same, alternate measures to the juvenile justice programs should be set up in order to have more rehabilitation of juveniles. The diversion programs and other intervention measures such as counseling services should be applied. By so doing, the rates of recidivism will remarkably go down, and subsequently lead to a better society and a better California at large. References Austin, J. J. (2005). Alternatives to the secure detention and confinement of juvenile offenders. U.S. Department of Justice-Office of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Austin, J. J. (2005). Alternatives to the secure detention and confinement of juvenile offenders. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention . Carlifornia Prison Focus. (2005, June 19). Retrieved March 30, 2012, from http://www.prisons.org/dignity/womenprisonerfactsheet.htm Cocozza, J. V. (2004). Arrest diversion program. Substance Use ans Misuse , 40, 935-951. Cullen, M. L. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science . Davidson, W. A. (1990). Alternative treatments for troubled youth. New York: Plenum Press. Ezell, M. (1992). Juvenile diversion: The ongoing search for alternatives. New York: Lexington. Feld, B. (2000). Cases and materials on juvenile justice. Journal of Policy Analysis , 197-214. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 22-54. Pogrebin, M. P. (1984). Constructing and implementing a model juvenile diversion. Youth and Society , 15(3), 305-324. Schmeidler, R. D. (2002). Family empowerment intervention: An innovative service for high-risk. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Read More