Self-Collection Methods

hildren at risk for becoming delinquent. The programs are designed to deter participants from future offending by providing firsthand observations of prison life and interaction with adult inmates. We briefly summarize the results of a Campbell Collaboration review. Our review indicates that not only do these programs fail to deter crime, but they actually lead to more offending behavior. Government officials permitting this program need to adopt rigorous methods of evaluation to ensure that they are not causing more harm to the very citizens they've pledged to protect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Other organization think that Juvenile delinquency should receive more local, state, and national attention, they feel that there are no straightforward

“Dependent variables are the ones attempting to predict while independent variables are the causes, determines, or precedes in time, the dependent variable” (Hagan, 2010, p.16). The dependent variable in this particular study that Gottfredson and Soule were evaluating was juvenile delinquency. The independent variables in the study were broken down into three separate crimes: property offenses, violent crimes and substance abuse. According to Gottfredson and Soule (2005), juveniles were coded as having used drugs if they admitted to having smoked cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, drunk beer/wine/liquor, or smoked THC in the past year. Subsequently, juveniles were coded as having engaged in property crime if they admitted to damaging or destroying property not belonging to them, theft under and over $50, joyriding or breaking into a building and/or a car. Violent crimes were coded if the juvenile admitted to carrying a weapon, gang fighting, hitting or threatening to hit other peers, or using force to get money (Gottfredson & Soule, 2005, p.5). The hours during the day were broken down into six different categories: Before school, during school, when school let out to 6 PM, 6 PM to midnight, midnight and 6 AM and the weekends. By separating the times out along with the different types of offenses, the authors were able to come to a consensus on their findings, which

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), every year a survey called the National Crime Victimization Survey collects data on non-fatal crimes (BJS, 2015). The BJS conduct this survey every year to find out how many personal crimes are being committed and how many of those crimes are being reported or not reported. Personal crimes can range from rape to robbery to burglary to larceny. The last important thing to note here is that the survey gathers information about the offender, this includes sex, race, and age. Some discrepancy that my come up is that the information that this survey gathers is from a sample of only 90,000 household and approximately 160,000 people. One question to ask would be where were the houses chosen from,

(Vandiver, 2008). In my opinion, the research goal was explained pretty vaguely which could be the reason only nine respondents volunteered to participate in the interviews. “The cover letter for a mailed questionnaire and the introductory statement read by interviewers in telephone or in- person interviews are critical to the survey’s success”. (Bachman & Schutt, 2004 p.213). The mailed letter in this case lacked the characteristics of credibility, personalization, interest, and responsibility. After experiencing much negative stigma from their offenses, the respondent most likely would not have agreed to take part in the research without being informed of some sense of confidentiality they would receive. Personalization of the letter to each offender and credibility of the researcher would have possibly struck interest in the respondent and in return they may be inclined to participate. The reason for research could have been a bit more detailed and could have focused on the fact that the researcher wants to know the effects on the offender after being registered, putting the offenders best interest at hand may have persuaded them to take part in the research. ‘Without a personalized approach, the rate of response will be lower, and answers will be less thoughtful and potentially less valid’.

Bradley R. E. Wright, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt and Ray Paternoster Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 2004 41: 180 DOI: 10.1177/0022427803260263 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/41/2/180

Encouraged by Richard C. Cabot of the Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, the Gluecks undertook a detailed study of former inmates of the Massachusetts Reformatory, publishing their thoroughly documented findings as 500 Criminal Careers (1930), a pioneering work in the field. Follow-up studies of the same men were published as Later Criminal Careers (1937) and Criminal Careers in Retrospect (1943). The parallel study Five Hundred Delinquent Women (1934), conducted at the Massachusetts Reformatory for Women, together with One Thousand Juvenile Delinquents: Their Treatment by Court and Clinic (1934) and Juvenile Delinquents Grown Up (1940) rounded out a body of work that constituted virtually the whole of extant scientific literature on criminals, the efficacy of various penal and rehabilitative theories, and recidivism. (http://www.britannica.com/biography/Glueck-Sheldon-and-Glueck-Eleanor) They also claimed that deviants could be identified as young as six years of age.

Assisting in a research study, “BSCC Study of Intermediate Criminal Justice Outcomes,” I was responsible for identifying, collecting, and analyzing data to be used in describing a set 6 to 12 recommended performance metrics that were commonly available and could be used to provide information about the results of a county’s community corrections system. I identified data sources by searching criminal justice web sites and web pages containing crime data and demographic data comparable to data found in County reports and on their web sites. To determine defensible and usable data, I checked the data sources and data sets by crosschecking variables with other data sets to identify consistent collection methods and sources, variable definitions

21. How do self-reports of delinquency differ from reported delinquency in the Uniform Crime Reports? A) Self-reports disclose lower delinquency than that reported by the UCR

Offenders would be given a survey using the Likert scale (1-Poor, 2- Below Average, 3- Average, 4-Above average, and 5- Excellent) upon entering the program. Anything rated as a 3 or higher will be considered satisfactory. The survey is part of the intake and discharge process therefore mandatory to complete. This will guarantee a 100% participation rate. The offender would not be informed of the survey being part of an experiment to discourage any biases. The purpose of this survey is to gather offender’s experiences with staff, to see how offenders feel about the staff, what they think about staff attitudes, if they feel staff have an impact on their success in the program, and what do they think about the program.

Most people have preconceived notions regarding the relationship between social class and delinquency. A common assumption is that lower-class juveniles are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior than their higher-class counterparts. Criminologists have performed a large number of studies examining the socio-demographic characteristics of delinquents, which often yielded contradictory results. When analyzing the extent and trend of juvenile delinquency in the United States conclusions can be drawn from estimates derived from arrest records, self-reports, and victimization data. Arrest estimates, self-reported information, and victimization data provide different estimates of the extent of delinquency in the United States (Maxfield et

The need for risk/ needs assessment is to help predict the productive validity rate of juvenile offenders. There are many different instruments used to help classify delinquent youths and their likelihood of reoffending. Risk / needs assessment were primarily designed to the male population. Many researchers have examined gendered differences and feel as if there should be a “different need” approach that should be in place for women (Stephane M. Shepherd, 2012). Further researchers have found that females commit crime just as harsh and harmful as male juvenile offenders. By examining research conducted further research was able to be conducted to determine if the risk/ needs assessment instruments used to predict productive validity are as effective for female juvenile offenders.

of the time. They offer their insight on effective corrections and individualizing treatments based on predictors for crime and behavioral knowledge, as well as conclude that recidivism is reduced by rehabilitation.

Another professor who had an influence on Hirschi’s development was Hanan C. Selvin. Appointed as a research assistant at UC Berkley, Hirschi had the job of reviewing and critiquing what was known about delinquency statistics at that time. That led him to delinquency theories and the work of Jackson Toby, Albert Reiss, and F. Ivan Nye (Schreck, 2014). But the research Hirschi conducted on delinquency led to his book – a collaboration between he and Selvin entitled “Delinquency Research: An Appraisal of Analytic Methods”

The National Institute Justice states that juvenile crime rates have fallen over 55% than its peak in 1994, but it still a cause for public concern. Actual reasons for this decline are elusive, but there is debate over the facilitation of jail time, or long-term therapy sessions as punishment for the juveniles for their crimes. According to an executive summary by Alex Piquiero and Laurence Steinberg, “Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Public Preferences in Four Models for Change States”, the public has expressed more favor for rehabilitation efforts. Piquiero and Steinberg, who are professors in criminal justice and psychology, surveyed a random sample with questions that pertained to

Research on recidivism reveals a variety of different ways to define and measure its effectiveness on the outcome. One instrument widely used in assessing offenders is the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). The LSI-R was developed with short-term offenders and community supervisees. It assesses largely risk factor for recidivism and is designed to inform parole management decisions (Manchak et al., 2008). The 54 items of the LSI-R assess ten “risk-needs” factors: criminal history, education/employment, financial, family/marital, accommodation, leisure/recreation, peers/companions, alcohol/drug problems, emotional/personal, and attitude/orientation (p. 478). Results indicate that the LSI-R moderately predicts general, but not necessarily violent recidivism (p. 477). The utility of the LSI-R in predicting community recidivism is well established for probationers and minor offenders.