Combatting Recidivism in Juvenile Offenders
About 100 years ago, the United States established a separate juvenile justice system to divert young offenders away from the more punitive adult criminal courts. Rather than punishment, this system was focused on rehabilitation, and saw child offenders as those in need of help rather than outright criminals. The goal was to prevent children from reoffending through reintegration with society.
“Adult Time for Adult Crime”
Overtime, many states have since eroded the boundary separating the juvenile and adult justice system, shifting focus to a more punitive approach. In many states, minors can now be tried as adults, and preventative programs have been de-funded. As of 2016, there were more than 50,000 people aged 21 and younger in juvenile justice facilities on any given day, according to the US Department of Education[1]. And, while crime rates have fallen in the recent years, the recidivism rate among youth remains high, with some estimates as high as 84% five years after release[2]. What is it about these young that makes them so prone to reoffend? Were they not “scared straight” enough the first time?
Passing Through the Revolving Door
Research into this “revolving door” phenomenon within the juvenile justice system has identified several factors that predict the likelihood of reoffending. In a 2013 study, researchers identified 7 factors that significantly contributed to the chance of reoffending[3]. For example, children with diagnosed conduct disorders were 10 times more likely to reoffend. Self-reported previous suicide attempts, older age, and number of court offenses were also associated with higher rates.
Race was also a predictor, with black children twice as likely to reoffend than their white counterparts. This race discrepancy is probably the most consistent finding across several studies and serves as a bitter reminder of the inequities embedded into the criminal justice system as a whole.
The Promise of a Second Chance
Several organizations and public agencies have created programs to keep children from re-entering the juvenile justice system. These programs differ slightly in terms of methodology, but all are designed to re-integrate the child into society and promote healing between the victim and offender.
Some programs focus on community engagement. For example, the Adolescent Diversion Project (ADP), founded in 1976, partners adolescent offenders with supportive role models (typically student volunteers from a local college) to spend time together every week. This program has been shown to reduce cases of recidivism in this population[4].
Another method focuses more on addressing the emotional and social factors which lead to aggressive behavior. Aggression replacement training (ART) teaches anger management techniques and how to handle anti-social behavior. Research by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy revealed that this program decreased recidivism by 16%[5].
Additionally, setting in place a strong community-based re-entry program can help youth exiting the justice system reintegrate into society. The National Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition, a coalition of more than 50 national and state-based organizations working to reform the juvenile justice system, identified a set of guiding principles for a successful re-entry, including providing access to address mental health and substance abuse services; housing support; vocational training; and community-based activities[6].
Punishment Without Detention
Perhaps the biggest factor involved in recidivism is, unsurprisingly, being incarcerated in the first place. In fact, prior detention has been found to outweigh other factors, such as gang affiliation or poor parental relationships in predicting recidivism[7]. Thus, the best strategy for preventing recidivism is really to prevent initial detention. Alternatives to detention, such as community service, probation, or house arrest could save children from the potential harms of imprisonment while still holding them accountable for their actions. Fortunately, many state and local juvenile justice programs are starting to come around to exploring these alternative options, but more will need to be done before we can truly break the cycle of reoffending.
Citation:
[1] https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-reducing-recidivism-justice-involved-youth (Accessed February 24, 2021)
[2] https://info.mstservices.com/blog/juvenile-recidivism-rates (Accessed February 21, 2021)
[3] Mallett, Christopher A., “Factors Related to Recidivism for Youthful Offenders” (2013). Social Work Faculty Publications. 30. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clsowo_facpub/30
[4] Smith, E.P. et al., (2004) The Adolescent Diversion Project, Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 27:2, 29-47, DOI: 10.1300/J005v27n02_03
[5] Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2004). Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/852/Wsipp_Outcome-Evaluation-of-Washington-States-Research-Based-Programs-for-Juvenile-Offenders_Full-Report.pdf
[6] Nellis, A., & Hooks Wayman, R. (2009). Back on track: Supporting youth reentry from out-of-home placement to the community. Washington, DC: Youth Reentry Task Force of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition.
[7] Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Justice Policy Institute. Available online at http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/06-11_rep_dangersofdetention_jj.pdf
