Literature Review and Conceptyal Framework

Running head writings appraise 1 Literature polish up and abstract Framework Juvenile recreation Programs/IPS Julie I Carter Capella University PSF8374-Currenr Research on Violent Behavior Dr.Rob Hanser publications REVIEW 2 Literature Review and Conceptual Framework History The history of amusing arrested upstarts from formal bear on began with the birth of the modern person costs. Conceived in the late 19th century, teen legal expert provided for a rehabilitation-based response to youthfuls prohibited behavior.Punitive sanctions being received by young personfulness in sad courts were being designate aside in the juvenile courts. Thus, in its infancy, juvenile justice could be construed as a refreshment architectural plan. Considered to be in the best interest of the juvenile and bon ton, juvenile justice turn y prohibitedh from malefactor proceedings by providing dispositions that were more attuned to the potency to change the young wrongdoers behavio r, and lives through clinical work, special rehabilitation course of instructions, and tight educational guidance. (Models, 2010) number 1 adopted by the adult fell justice system, was the idea of enjoyment.This idea became the base of discussion within the juvenile justice system in the 1960s. The Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and face of Justice recommended exploring alternatives for addressing the quests of troubled juveniles extracurricular of the court system in 1967. In 76, the Office of Juvenile Justice and guilt Prevention Special Emphasis break supplied 10 million dollars in keep specific each(prenominal)y for the development of cheer computer curriculums. These efforts were stringently driven by the belief that these types of course of studys would pay up many an(prenominal) enefits, such as allowing juveniles the preference to choose an alternative to court, providing more give-and-take at the community level, increasing family participat ion, and about authorized, reducing the stigma associated with the formal juvenile justice system. (Models, 2010) As enjoyment has been secure and even discussed for nearly four decades, slightly would contend that there is little unity in the hurt of what actually constitutes a pastime puzzle out or program, they do however agree on the ordinary end among these programs which is to minimize the juveniles involvement in the juvenile justice system.LITERATURE REVIEW 3 Theoretical Concepts As measured by program evaluations and follow-up studies, the effectiveness of diversion programs has varied greatly from maven program to the next. The successful programs, such as the intensifier Prevention Services (IPS) initiative in Philadelphia, provide very direct function that include precisely be non limited to pargonnting education, intensive family counseling, and behavioral contracting.One of the primary(prenominal) concepts that gave birth to the development of this program was the labeling perspective. This guess or perspective, if you will, asks that juveniles who commit minor offences conk habitual offenders due to being singled out for negative recognition. This has been noted as creating and reinforcing the juveniles, as well as societys view, that they are shepherds crooks. entertainment computer scheduling then is designed to assist in avoiding these negative labels that accompany formal wooing processing. Roberts, 2004) In 1979, Paternoster, et al. explored the extent to which juveniles discriminate in the midst of formal court processing that resultant roles in incarceration and informal diversion processing with reference to perceptions of accrued stigma and/or liabilities. The perception of the juveniles was measured in stipulations of school performance parental relationships, relationships with peers want employment, and future involvement with the law. (Blomberg, n. d. The findings indicated only in the peer relations hips area was there a notable remnant between the perceptions of turn and incarcerated juveniles. When control was made for the effects of prior amicable liabilities, such as brotherly class or race, the results remained constant. Therefore one could conclude that to the extent perceptions of stigma grant implications for subsequent behavior, it exercises little difference whether or not juveniles receive diversion or formally chatterd jail time.In unanalyzable terms, the type of treatment would appear to not be significant in organization self-perceptions. (Blomberg, n. d. ) LITERATURE REVIEW 4 Supporters of diversion continue to argue that programs are little stigmatizing than formal court involvement, provide juveniles with services that they would not gather in otherwise received, and result in reductions in the rate of recidivism.In contrast, opponents argue that diversion programs bind extended social control to juveniles who would ordinarily be released spinal column to the community, may actually plus recidivism, do not prevent stigmatation, and can excrete to the disproportionate representation of minorities. As Akers (1994) explains, the labeling hypothesis pushes forward the thesis that persons who are tagged and/or dramatically stigmatized as deviant, are more than probably to take on a deviant self-identity and become more, sooner than less deviant than if they had not been so labeled.Theoretically, a label of deviant, juvenile offender or delinquent can stir the way that a juvenile comes to restrain him/herself which influences future criminal behaviors, and dictates the social roles the juvenile is allowed to assume. (Dick, Pence, Jones & Geertsen, 2004) With that noted, some interrogation has also suggested that diversion actually increases recidivism, however early studies fix little or no difference in the recidivism rates between entertained and non- turn youth.Yet sedate others have base that, heedless of the sett ing, interventions can as well increase perceived labeling and self-reported delinquency among youth. (Elliott, Dunford & K outrightles, 1978) What was found to be consistent with the last group of finding was the work done latter by Lemet (1981) that suggest that these treatment interventions can impose stigma on juveniles which leads to secondary deviance. This chew over would be responsible for raising the porta that diversion programs may widen the cabbage of the separate system by taking in juveniles who otherwise may have not come into contact with the system.What is important to point out here is that many of these studies were flawed due to the difficulties researchers encountered when constructing comparison groups for the target of evaluation. LITERATURE REVIEW 5 contemporaneous Research There have been so many different policies called diversion that the term has come to cover polices as versatile as doing nothing to programs indistinguishable from the living pr actices of juvenile justice.While these policies have produced better procedural justice for juveniles, reduced the detained and institutionalized world of juveniles placing them under the jurisdiction of state and/or local family service agencies, these polices have not resulted in the intended changes in the behaviors of the diverted youth. (Akers & Sellers, 2009) Recent studies on diversion programs have produced more positive results. In fact, in a study of the Detention sport Advocacy Project it was found that juveniles that were diverted to diversion programs were less likely than their counterparts to be referred to out-of-home placement. Sheldon, 1999) In Michigan an evaluation of their state diversion project yielded that juveniles that were randomly delegate to one of the several(prenominal) diversion program strategy groups were significantly less likely to have any court petitions filed against them during the dickens years following release from the program compared to the control group. The results shown here cannot help but suggest that the active hands on intervention provided by diversion programming whole caboodle better that the normal process of court processing juvenile offenders. The catch, it works best if they have been thoroughly degage from the system. Davidson, Redner, Blakely, Mitchell & Emshoff, 1987) There is a wealth of evaluations of pretrial conference conference diversionary programs, and more comprehensive books about the pretrial diversion guinea pig is dated. One of the critical challenges noted for the criminal justice field is developing and cataloging an steal research design for diversion programs. Researchers in the field need to actively act this challenge in order to steady down the scope, as well as the worthy of diversion programming in the criminal justice community. (Bellassai, Galloway.Hubbard, Oeller & Sayler, 2006) LITERATURE REVIEW 6 In Philadelphia, there are several emerging practices in the d iversion program initiative. First they have implemented scripted policies and procedures for diversion programs that are backed by a formal mission statement. This is deemed as critical as a distinctly defined and articulated mission statement, goals, and objectives are the cornerstone of effective programs.In a mickle conducted by the National Association of pretrial Services Agencies, nearly 90% of all respondents in their study had written policies and procedures in place. (Bellassai et al. , 2006) Nationwide, pretrial diversion concepts have found increased legitimacy. Nearly all states now have pretrial statues that have every been enacted or updated since 2000, and are as divers(prenominal) as diversion programs themselves. pastime program today tend to feature a wider array of programs that are more versatile than their predecessors in practice, and administrative location.However, these programs are still united by the ultimate goal of offering viable alternatives to j uveniles whose criminal behaviors are addressed much more effectively outside the realm of traditional incase processing. (Bellassai, 2006) Recommendations The biggest challenge to pretrial diversion programs and criminal justice planners is the lack of the strong research that is needed in the field.One accomplishment of such a broad-based study would be the query of the nature of the relationship with the theory of labeling and the potential synergy within the current problem-solving court model. The benefit here would come as such a study would be enumerable and provide an evidenced-based foundation for communities to make sound decisions about diversion programming. (Bellassai. 2006) LITERATURE REVIEW 7 References Akers, R.L. & Sellers, C. S. (2009) Criminological Theories. crude York, NY Oxford University Press Bellassai, J. , Galloway, K. , Hubbard, A. , Oeller, C. & Sayler, J. (2006) Promising practices in pretrial diversion. Retrieved November 10, 2012 from http//www. ojp. usdoj. gov/BJA/about/index. html Blomberg, T. G. (n. d. ) Widening the lettuce An anomaly in the evaluation of diversion programs. Retrieved November, 9, 2012 from http//www. criminology. fsu. edu/crimtheory/blomberg/netwidening. html Davidson, W. S. , Redner, R. , Blakely, C. H. Mitchell, C. M. & Emshoff, J. G. (1987) Diversion of juvenile Offenders An experimental comparison. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55(1) 68-75 Dick, A. J. , Pence, D. J. , Jones, R. M. & Geertsen, H. R. (2004) The need for theory in assessing peer courts. American Scientist 471448-61 Elliot, D. S. , Dunford, F. W. & Knowles, B. A. (1978) A Study of substitute Processing Practices An Overview of Initial Study Findings. Boulder, CO B. R. Institute Models for Change Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice, July 2010.Retrieved from http//www. modelsforchange. net Paternoster, R. , Waldo, G. , Chiricos, T. & Anderson, L. (1979) The Stigma of Diversion Labeling in the Juvenile Justice System. Be verly Hills. CA Sage Publications Roberts, A. R. (2004) Emergence and proliferation of juvenile diversion programs. New York, NY Oxford University Press Sheldon, R. G. (1999) Detention Diversion Advocacy An Evaluation. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D. C. U. S. incision of Justice, Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention.