This is an essay I wrote for Introduction to Justice Research. As our final assignment, we were asked to write a research proposal for a study to answer our research question. Throughout the semester, we learned the process of properly creating a research project and we were asked to design our own study at the end of the semester. Please read the full version below.
Final Research Proposal
Research Question: What are the most effective intervention programs for juvenile offenders in order to achieve the goal of reintegration into society and reduce overall recidivism rates?
Significance:
In the United States, sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders are limited and vary greatly from state to state. However, there is a general consensus that juvenile sentences should have a greater focus on rehabilitation rather than incapacitation and deterrence. Therefore, it is important to explore different sentencing methods or for juvenile offenders and examine which methods are most effective. Although some cases do require incapacitation for young offenders, many states are now using alternative methods to sentence juveniles. All in all, the juvenile justice system must find unique effective methods of sentencing, which meet the unique needs to juvenile offenders.
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework:
In the United States criminal justice system, there are many different systems of sentencing and punishments for criminal offenders. In fact, each state is given the power to develop their own laws and system to enforce laws. Additionally, the federal government is also charged with developing a system of holding those who commit a federal crime accountable. Therefore, the sentencing methods for criminal offenders in the U.S. is extremely complex and certainly in need of reform. Not only is the adult criminal justice system in desperate need of reform, but the juvenile justice system also needs critical reform. Specifically, the various sentencing methods for juvenile offenders across the country must be examined in order to determine the most effective methods of sentencing to reduce recidivism rates among juvenile delinquents.
In current times, the juvenile justice system has some protections for youth offenders and tends to have a more restorative approach to sentencing. However, there are also still some states that allow violent juvenile offenders to be tried as adults. With this being said, there are two important Supreme Court cases to note in regard to juvenile justice in the United States. First, in Roper v. Simmons, the United States Supreme Court declared that under the eighth and fourteenth amendment any person convicted of committing a capital offense as a juvenile could not be sentenced to the death penalty. In other words, “the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of offenders under the age of 18 at the time of their criminal offense was unconstitutional” (Flexon et all. 2009). In addition, in Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that regardless of the crime, juvenile offenders could not be sentenced to life imprisonment without the chance of parole. This means that every juvenile offender will be given the right to a parole hearing, potentially allowing them to return to society at some point in the future. These two Supreme Court cases were important milestones in the fight for juvenile justice reform and severely reduced the harsh punishments that could be given to juvenile offenders.
Although the two Supreme Court cases discussed above were great steps forward for the United States, they do not address the most effective sentencing methods to reduce recidivism rate among juvenile offenders. Over the past several years, there have been multiple studies conducted on various juvenile justice sentencing programs across the United States. In many published research articles, experts report that intervention programs are significantly more successful at preventing juvenile recidivism than incarceration. Additionally, some researchers have found that prevention programs may be the best investment for states in order to reduce juvenile delinquency and therefore, reduce recidivism rates.
Throughout the country, there are numerous of different juvenile justice programs, all of which are slightly different from another. For instance, there are intervention programs, which can include mandatory community service, a drug treatment program, or an extended stay at a Youth Development Center. All of these programs have the potential to have a long lasting, positive impact on a juvenile’s life, if they are implemented correctly and effectively. However, in the current system, many jurisdictions do not have these types of intervention programs available or do not effectively implement the program. Therefore, it is essential for researchers to determine which rehabilitation and intervention programs will be effective in reducing juvenile delinquency and researchers must develop an implementation method which will have a similar effective.
One study conducted at Princeton University examined prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. In this study, researchers argue that “it costs billions of dollars a year to arrest, prosecute, incarcerate, and treat juvenile offenders” (Greenwood 2008). Therefore, Greenwood argues that investing in successful delinquency-prevention programs would be more beneficial for the state. However, Greenwood also argues that this process is extremely slow and determining successful programs is the most difficult hurdle. However, he strongly believes that if meaningful prevention programs were implemented for youth, juvenile delinquency rates would significantly decrease. In the same study, Greenwood examined the effectiveness of intervention programs for juvenile delinquents. He found that implementing evidence-based reforms to current programs will be the best method of achieving successful intervention program. Although Greenwood does evaluate some current intervention programs available to juvenile offenders across the country, he does not provide an analysis of which program is the most beneficial to implement. He focuses more on providing suggestions for jurisdictions to evaluate their current systems. Therefore, Greenwood’s study is missing information about which specific intervention programs should be implemented to reduce juvenile delinquency recidivism rates.
Another study that was conducted in 2013, examined the impacts of juvenile probation programs on juvenile recidivism. This particular study evaluated training programs for probation officers who would be working directly with juvenile offenders. Additionally, researchers were looking to develop a training program that would reduce recidivism rates among juvenile delinquents. The study found that “one the most” effective training programs would “focus on service-oriented supervision, and on engaging youth and families in planning and behavior change” with an emphasis placed on skill-building exercises (Young et all. 2013). This study concluded that if these training programs were implemented and proper reforms to juvenile probation were applied, the juvenile recidivism rates would decline. Although this study provides an excellent program to reduce recidivism, it mainly focuses on juvenile offenders who have recently been released from an institution. Therefore, it does not provide information on what programs can be implemented before a young offender is released in order to reduce recidivism rates.
One interesting study examined the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts on reducing recidivism rates. In a 2014 study, Christopher Sullivan discovered that on the whole, the juvenile drug courts “were generally ineffective in reducing recidivism” (Sullivan 2014). This was an enlightening discovery because it highlighted that juvenile drug courts are not nearly as effective as they are intended. Sullivan found that juvenile drug courts only have approximately a 5% reduction in recidivism, compared to adult drug courts which have about a 10% reduction in recidivism. Therefore, it was recommended that juvenile drug courts do a comprehension evaluation of their services, in order to increase their reduction in juvenile recidivism rates.
With all of this being said, it is clear that the current juvenile justice system in the United States is in desperate need of reform. The first step is determining which sentencing methods will be the most effective in reducing recidivism rates, while continuing to protect public safety. Additionally, it is important for a study to examine what types of rehabilitation and intervention programs will yield the most success in reducing recidivism rates. Specifically, a study must examine the current rehabilitation programs available and how the most successful of those programs can be improved to help the juvenile justice system. All in all, in order to create meaningful change in the juvenile justice system, various potential sentences must be evaluated and implemented in jurisdictions around the country.
Methodology:
In the United States criminal justice system, there are various legal systems that can vary from state to state. Each state is given the liberty to create their own specific legal system, with a police force, court procedures, and corrections system. Although there are certain federal regulations that each state must implement within their own criminal justice systems, each state may create their own unique rules, regulations, and procedures. This means that there are more than 51 different criminal justice systems in the United States.
In addition to varying adult legal systems, there are also many different juvenile justice systems in the United States. Each state uses various regulations to protect the development of juvenile delinquents within their community. However, with many different systems, there are also many levels of success at the juvenile level. There are various programs in each state, which are designed to rehabilitate juvenile offenders in some manner. But each program has pros and cons, with some programs being much more effective than others. Therefore, it is important to examine which programs are most effective and how they can be implemented in many different systems throughout the country. Throughout this methodology paper, it will highlight how the legal system can determine the most effective intervention programs for juvenile offenders in order to achieve the goal of reintegration into society and reduce overall recidivism rates.
Before determining the research methodology, it is important to identify the conceptual and operational definitions of the key terms within the research. First, juvenile delinquents are individuals who present antisocial behavior during childhood or exhibit some type of lawbreaking behavior during their youth. Therefore, an offense committed by an individual under the age of 18 is typically funneled through the juvenile justice system. Within the juvenile justice system, there are many different forms of punishment or sentences that can be given to a young offender. Unlike the adult criminal justice system, the juvenile system typically has significantly different sentencing options available and really takes time to assess the situation before handing out a firm sentence. In many cases, the sentence given to a juvenile offender is enrollment in an intervention program. An effective intervention program would be defined as a program which provides support or punishment for the juvenile offender, but effectively keeps them from offending again or entering the adult criminal justice system. Overall, the goal of juvenile justice intervention programs should be to ensure that young offenders are prepared to reintegrate into society, while also reducing the chance that young offenders will enter the system again.
Throughout my research process, my hypothesis will be that rehabilitative intervention programs that focus on skills-based development are more effective than punitive measures or ridged programs for juvenile offenders. The independent variable in this research is the type of intervention program used by the juvenile justice system in any particular area and the resources available within a particular jurisdiction for juvenile justice related programs. The dependent variable is the effectiveness of these programs in lowering recidivism rates and successful reintegration into society. My independent variable will be measured on a nominal level and my dependent variable will be measured on a ratio level.
Relationship Between Variables:
In order to prove my hypothesis, I will compare official and secondary data from various juvenile justice programs around the country. Specifically, the two jurisdictions I will be focusing on are Washington D.C. and Chicago, Illinois. In order to collect tangible data, I will look in many different areas of the juvenile justice system. First, I will collect data on how many juvenile offenses are committed in yearlong time span. These can be any types of offenses that are reported to the police, including violent crimes and misdemeanors. From there I will track the next steps in the juvenile justice system, which may include an appearance in front of a judge, an immediate entrance into an intervention program, or simply allowing a parent to handle the situation. Finally, I will collect data on how many juvenile offenders are arrested or enter the criminal justice system after the completion of an intervention program. Once I have collected this baseline data, I can begin to see which programs yield the greatest success.
The first juvenile justice program that will be examined is the D.C. Juvenile Justice System. I will first determine what types of rehabilitation services and intervention programs are provided in Washington D.C. for juvenile offenders. For example, an intervention program could include being sentenced to a period at a detention center, working with a rehabilitation group in the community, or a unique sentencing program which focuses on teaching essential skills for a successful reintegration into society. Second, I will be comparing data collected in Washington D.C. with data collected in Chicago, Illinois. Both jurisdictions have widely different intervention programs for youth offenders and greatly different resources being funneled into the juvenile justice programs. By comparing the two different juvenile justice systems, I hope to determine which programs could easily be implemented into the juvenile justice system, while also yielding excellent success results.
For this study, mainly official and secondary data would be collected. No surveys would be conducted, which is especially important because this study focuses on young offenders, who have special protections in the United States. The largest amount of data collected in this study will come from government agencies. This can include police arrest records, data from the prosecutor’s office, or data from juvenile corrections centers. Additional data would come from secondary sources, such as government agencies and private intervention programs who partner with the legal system. On the whole, this data should be fairly easy to collect, since nearly all government agencies report statistics on a regular basis. Overall, this data will be collected on official websites or directly from government agencies, which keep public records or statistics.
Not only will government agencies be able to provide essential information for the research, but there are also secondary data resources available with important data on the success of juvenile justice intervention programs. Importantly, these secondary sources can often collect data from former juvenile offenders, which the government may not have important information on or may be restricted from sharing. One organization that I will collect data from is the National Archive for Criminal Justice Data. This database has information from all 50 states, plus the federal government, with data on specific intervention programs. Additionally, the NACJD has a database of most programs provided by different jurisdictions for juvenile offenders, which will streamline the process of discovering what types of programs are available in specific areas of the study. Finally, this information is open to the public, making it easy and legal to access.
Overall, this study will be conducted over a yearlong period. The data produced by intervention programs and the two jurisdictions will be continuously collected throughout the year. After that time frame has expired, a complete analysis will be conducted to determine the success of individual intervention programs. Finally, suggestions will be made on which intervention programs should be implemented in various jurisdictions, with note to how many resources are available.
Discussion:
After conducting yearlong research as outlined above, the expected results would support the hypothesis. First, I would expect that Washington D.C. has greater funding for juvenile justice intervention programs, allowing them to have greater success within their programs. I would expect to find that Washington D.C. has several programs that are adaptable for the needs of each child, which would offer a more individual experience with the juvenile justice system. Most likely, Chicago does not have the same funding as D.C., making it more difficult for that jurisdiction to implement effective and successful juvenile intervention programs. Therefore, I would predict that Washington D.C.’s intervention programs have greater success and lower recidivism rates than the programs in Chicago, Illinois.
In order to prove the hypothesis, the results would have to highlight an individual or several different programs which yield greater success in rehabilitating the lives of juvenile offenders. Additionally, there would need to be data that proves that intervention programs are improving the lives of young offenders, which is directly reducing recidivism rates and aiding in the reintegration process. Without substantial proof of lower recidivism, improved reintegration, and general overall success, it would be extremely difficult to prove the hypothesis accurate. Therefore, the study must examine tangible data which can advocate for specific intervention programs offered to juvenile offenders in various jurisdictions.
Although there are procedures to lower the risk of threats to validity, there are always some types of threat to internal and external validity. In this particular study, one threat to internal validity is testing and time. One important note about juvenile offenders is that no individual offender has the same needs; therefore, finding intervention programs that address individual needs is essential. However, this quasi-experiment will only be conducted over a yearlong period. Therefore, the test results may be unique to the individuals directly being studied, rather than providing data for all juvenile offenders. Therefore, the lack of time could certainly be a threat to internal validity.
One important note is that the threat to external validity is relatively low in this experiment. However, juvenile offenders are very unpredictable. Therefore, one threat to external validity could be that a major event occurs for one program, impacting their results for the year. This could severely impact the positive or negative results of the particular program, which would also impact the study. Finally, with juvenile offenders, it is difficult to guarantee that a study could be conducted again and achieve the same results. Therefore, this study would most likely need to be conducted several times to gain a true understanding of the effectiveness of intervention programs for juvenile offenders.
Currently in the juvenile justice system, there are hundreds of different intervention programs, with each jurisdiction using a slightly different variation. Therefore, many studies have focused on the significance or impact of a single intervention program. However, studies have not been conducted to determine which programs are the most successful. This study would compile data from Chicago and Washington D.C., in order to determine which intervention programs, provide the most success and effectiveness for juvenile offenders. Overall, the goal is to determine which intervention programs are the most effective in reducing recidivism rates, in order to make suggestions to local jurisdictions on which juvenile offender programs should be implemented.
Works Cited:
Bolin, R., Applegate, B., & Ouellette, H. (2021). Americans’ Opinions on Juvenile Justice: Preferred Aims, Beliefs About Juveniles, and Blended Sentencing. Crime and Delinquency, 67(2), 262–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719890273.
Caudill, J., & Trulson, C. (2016). The hazards of premature release: Recidivism outcomes of blended-sentenced juvenile homicide offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.05.009.
Flexon, J., Stolzenberg, L., & D’Alessio, S. (2011). Cheating the Hangman: The Effect of the Roper v. Simmons Decision on Homicides Committed by Juveniles. Crime and Delinquency, 57(6), 928–949. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128709333726.
Kretschmar, J., Tossone, K., Butcher, F., & Marsh, B. (2018). Examining the impact of a juvenile justice diversion program for youth with behavioral health concerns on early adulthood recidivism. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.010.
KURLYCHEK, M., & JOHNSON, B. (2004). THE JUVENILE PENALTY: A COMPARISON OF JUVENILE AND YOUNG ADULT SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN CRIMINAL COURT. Criminology (Beverly Hills), 42(2), 485–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00527.x.
Parag Dharmavarapu. (2019). Categorically Redeeming Graham v Florida and Miller v Alabama: Why the Eighth Amendment Guarantees All Juvenile Defendants a Constitutional Right to a Parole Hearing. The University of Chicago Law Review, 86(5), 1439–1495.
Peter Greenwood. (2008). Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders. The Future of Children, 18(2), 185–210. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0018.
Roman, J., Butts, J., & Roman, C. (2011). Evaluating systems change in a juvenile justice reform initiative. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), S41–S53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.06.012.
Sullivan, C., Blair, L., Latessa, E., & Sullivan, C. (2016). “Juvenile Drug Courts and Recidivism: Results from a Multisite Outcome Study.” Justice Quarterly, 33(2), 291–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.908937.
Underwood, L. A., & Washington, A. (2016). Mental illness and juvenile offenders. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(2), 1-14. doi: http://dx.doi.org.proxyau.wrlc.org/10.3390/ijerph13020228.
Young, D., Farrell, J., & Taxman, F. (2013). Impacts of Juvenile Probation Training Models on Youth Recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 30(6), 1068–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.673633.