Mentoring Program to Reduce Juvenile Recidivism

Rehabilitation for at risk teens has been an ongoing issue that runs deep in certain communities. When kids at young ages are exposed to stress and have to cope early on with dysfunction they are denied the opportunity to mature and conditioned to commit thinking errors that perpetuate a young offender into an adult offender. To find ways to break this cycle John Hubner accounts his time on the Giddings State School Capital Offenders Program and how a group of counselors are able to combine many strategies in rehabilitating young offenders who have committed serious crimes. Young people convicted of serious crimes are often transferred to adult prisons that institutionalize young people to prison life only increasing the likely hood of

Clearly, there is a need to make communities safe and assist a population of African American male youth, that are headed towards a continued self destruction path, of criminal life. Causes such as lack of employment, lack of education, social disparities and an injustice justice system, leads to high recidivism rates among African-American juvenile offenders. It is imperative that programs are implemented in areas such as rehabilitation, intervention, job ready skills, substance abuse treatment, educational skills and anti-social behavior programs, to help move the African American male juvenile youth into a positive direction. In a direction of not having to make life criminal choices, from living in communities of disparities and

Youth choosing to engage in criminal behavior is not a new phenomenon. Youth who choose to do this repeatedly are referred to as re-offenders. The age and the sex of the offender also contribute to the recidivism rate and the types of consequences. Other contributing factors in recidivism include the relationship the youth has with peers or parents, whether they abuse substances, and the racial origins of the young offender. There is a wide spectrum of consequences and different ways in which treatment attempts to aid re-offenders. Re-offenders commit various crimes and differ greatly in their response to treatment.

Not only this but, “offenders who commit new offenses after court contact are at risk for a variety of poor developmental and life course outcomes, including school failure, out of home placements, occupational marginality, and long-term involvement in criminal activity” (Schwalbe 2004). As seen here, this is a downward spiral. Active reform has never before been at such a demand. As recidivism and juvenile delinquency continues to increase, not only will national crime rates and juvenile prison populations inflate, but the diminishing of an educated, safe, and economically stable society will also be affected regrettably. If juveniles whom continue to commit repeat criminal offenses lack school initiative, family support, and job exposure, than relatively as recidivism and juvenile criminal activity increases, our nation’s standard of living will consequently lower.

If offenders are incarcerated they cannot commit offenses in the community but incarceration does not guarantee the stop of delinquent behavior. The vast majority of youngsters incarcerated in juvenile and correctional facilities have been convicted of nonviolent offenses. Therefore, if policies mandated longer periods of incarceration then most likely minor offenders would have extended incarceration. And even if we focus on high risk juvenile offenders, they do not remain high risk forever, according to the text the peak of serious violent crime age is between 16 and 17. The likelihood that individuals will commit violent crimes during ages of 21-27 is approximately the same as for a child the age of 12 or 13. Studies of youths released by the CYA show that longer sentences for youthful offenders would have little to no impact on overall societal rates of violent

The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.

Currently to deal with juvenile offenders involved in the youth crime, there are two options available. The first option that prevails to a larger extent is known to us as incarceration while the second option that is slowly gaining trends is known to us as rehabilitation programs. This paper focuses on thorough analysis of both these options and the impact that they have on the offenders as well as the society as a whole. The paper also assesses the viability of these options in order to determine which of these will prove to be more effective and beneficial.

Measuring recidivism is vital not only to see what is working but also to show accountability to taxpayers for the funding that goes into operating these facilities. An article published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), defines recidivism and details how it is measured. In doing so, the article elaborates on the common and varying ways in which recidivism is measured. The OJJDP defines recidivism as being comprised of two elements: 1) the commission of an offense, and 2) by an individual already known to have committed at least one other offense. In order for recidivism to be measured successfully, one must clarify and qualify both parts (Measuring Recidivism in Juvenile Corrections, 2016). The varying ways that states record recidivism data makes it hard to distinguish what exactly is being measured and comparing the

This paper is a report of an analysis of the concept of working with young offenders to prevent them from reoffending. The aim of this paper is to learn about the experiences of individuals who have been released from prison into the community so as to make contributions into developing relevant interventions based on the difficulties/barriers faced by these individuals. To add to this, this paper will explore whether every one of these offenders experiences are different or similar from another. This paper aims to answer a number of questions, among them whether the offenders ever have the thought that by reoffending or breaching their conditions they would go back to prison. Whether they used drugs. Whether they had any children and if they did whether they had contact with them if they see them when they are released or when they last saw them and if they have not seen them the reason why. Where do the offenders consider to get more support; Community or prison?

All of the juveniles included in the sample were repeat offenders and were either sent to restorative justice programs or were processed through the court. Juveniles in the restorative justice group were given terms of agreement from victims or the community while juveniles processed through the court were given terms of agreement by probation officers. Results show that within a twenty-four month period of completing their settlements, juveniles in the restorative justice group who were given life skill training were less likely to recidivate than the juveniles who were given a settlement by a probation officer. These findings show that restorative justice programs are more specifically geared towards rehabilitating the juvenile by teaching them necessary skills to desist from committing crime in the future. If juveniles who are repeat offenders are given terms of probation rather than being enrolled into training programs, they do not have the opportunity to learn the life skills that are necessary to successfully reintegrate back into the community. Therefore, restorative justice programs allow individuals to learn from their mistakes and improve upon necessary skills that will keep them away from crime (Rodriguez,

The mentoring program is used as way to help juvenile offenders change their behavior and maladaptive thought. Attendance of the mentoring program is dependent on the judge that is adjudicating the child, the probation officer handling the case or the guardian of the juvenile offender. Most of the time, the judge or probation officer look at the needs of the child and the distress of the family to determine if the child would benefit from the program. If a child exhibits poor coping skills or poor decision-making skills, a mentor may be useful so that the child can experience being around someone of more positive regard. When a child is having family issues; for instance an

As previously stated studies indicate that almost all inmates will eventually be released and are expected to reintegrate back into the community (Davis et al., 2015; Ray et al., 2015). Education is another central factor that contributes to recidivism. Studies reveal that many offenders have difficulty finding employment, typically due to limited or lack of education and have few job skills (Bender et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2012). As indicated in previous research in order to reduce crime and recidivism, ex- offenders need assistance in gaining access to opportunities such as education and training, as well as employment, housing, insurance, and medical care (Bender et al., 2016; Davis et al., 2012; Keena & Simmons, 2015; Pogrebin

Throughout an adolescent’s life, they are exposed to different socialization changes (such as changes in family and friends), biological changes (such as changes in their body composition), psychological changes (in psychological maturation), and opportunity changes (in how they spend their time, as well as how readily available crime is to them) (Siegel & McCormick, 2016). All of these factors play an important role in shaping one’s life, especially when transitioning from an adolescent into an adult, and as one grows up, these factors will continuously change. In an article written by Sampson and Laub in 1990, they claim that as a youth continues to age, they will experience different “… salient life events and socialization experiences … also known as “turning points” [which] are capable of modifying trajectories of crime” (as cited in Sampson & Laub, 2016, p. 326). This suggests that as one goes through these various social experiences, it may be enough to cause their criminal behaviour to discontinue. As one proceeds through the stages of socialization, biological, psychological, and opportunity changes, their thoughts and feelings will morph, and therefore they will grow out of crime. Youth’s “… general desistance processes are at work across the

Abrams and Bridget Freisthler published a study, A Spatial Analysis of Risks and Resources for Reentry Youth in Los Angeles County, to examine how neighborhood contexts effects youth offenders reentry in a large urban area. They wanted to know what neighborhood risks are associated with rates of reentry youth as well as what neighborhood or area resources are associated with rates of reentry youth (Abrams & Freisthler, 2010). In order to find an explanation they collected data from the Los Angeles County Department of Probation, Data Management Unit and obtained 272 Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP) codes of 4,398 juvenile offenders released from Los Angeles probation camps in 2007. The youth were ages 10 through 19 and served on average 5 months at the probation

As a result, most people, especially the young, resume criminal activity once they are released from these institutions. The failure of these institutions to produce rehabilitated individuals has been blamed on systemic flaws that inhibit proper functioning of the correctional institutions (Latessa, Listwan and Koetzle, 2014). These failures may be addressed when the capacity of the institutions is boosted. There is need for the employment of personnel who are qualified to guide incarcerated individuals in their transition into normal life. These personnel include probation officers who are required to monitor the movements and activities of individuals released from correctional institutions. The revamping of the correctional institutions needs to focus on training such individuals as probation officers to enable them better serve released convicts (Latessa, Listwan and Koetzle, 2014).