Literature Review and Conceptyal Framework

Running head publications revaluation 1 Literature Review and Conceptual Frame play youthful sport Programs/IPS Julie I Carter Capella University PSF8374-Currenr Research on Violent Behavior Dr.Rob Hanser lit REVIEW 2 Literature Review and Conceptual Framework biography The history of diverting arrested juveniles from nut accomplishing began with the birth of the juvenile courtroomrooms. Conceived in the late 19th century, juvenile arbitrator put forwardd for a rehabilitation-based response to juveniles illegitimate behavior.Punitive sanctions be received by early days in culpable courts were being set aside in the juvenile courts. Thus, in its infancy, juvenile referee could be construed as a differenceary attack course of study. Considered to be in the best interest of the juvenile and society, juvenile justice diverted youth from poisonous proceedings by providing dispositions that were more than attuned to the potential to change the youthful offenders beh avior, and lives through clinical services, special rehabilitation programs, and airless educational guidance. (Models, 2010) First adopted by the adult criminal justice dodge, was the idea of diversion.This idea became the topic of discussion within the juvenile justice outline in the 1960s. The Presidents Com missionary work on practice of law Enforcement and Administration of Justice recommended exploring alternate(a)s for addressing the needs of troubled juveniles alfresco of the court system in 1967. In 76, the Office of new-fangled Justice and Delinquency barroom Special Emphasis Branch supplied 10 million dollars in championship specific anyy for the development of diversion programs. These efforts were strictly driven by the whimsey that these types of programs would yield legion(predicate) enefits, such as allowing juveniles the option to choose an alternative to court, providing more treatment at the community level, increasing family participation, and most im portant, diminution the stigma associated with the formal juvenile justice system. (Models, 2010) As diversion has been practised and even discussed for nearly four decades, some would contend that there is brusque consistency in the damage of what very constitutes a diversion process or program, they do however agree on the common finishing 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 effectualness of diversion programs has varied greatly from mavin program to the next. The successful programs, such as the Intensive Prevention Services (IPS) initiative in Philadelphia, depict very direct services that include but ar non limited to parenting education, intensive family counseling, and behavioral contracting.One of the main concepts that gave birth to the development of this program was the labeling perspective. This theory or perspective, if you will, argues that juveniles who commit minor offences become habitual offenders delinquent 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 criminals. warp computer programing then is designed to assist in avoiding these negative labels that accompany formal case processing. Roberts, 2004) In 1979, Paternoster, et al. explored the extent to which juveniles discriminate between formal court processing that results in incarceration and informal diversion processing with author to perceptions of accrued stigma and/or liabilities. The perception of the juveniles was measured in terms of school performance parental alliances, relationships with mates desired employment, and future involvement with the law. (Blomberg, n. d. The findings indicated and in the peer relationships area was there a notable fight between the perceptions of diverted and incarc erated juveniles. When turn back was made for the effects of prior brotherly liabilities, such as social class or race, the results remained constant. Therefore one could conclude that to the extent perceptions of stigma cause implications for subsequent behavior, it makes little divagation whether or not juveniles receive diversion or formally obligate jail time.In simple terms, the type of treatment would appear to not be signifi dopet in shaping self-perceptions. (Blomberg, n. d. ) LITERATURE REVIEW 4 Supporters of diversion continue to argue that programs are less stigmatizing than formal court involvement, provide juveniles with services that they would not have otherwise received, and result in reductions in the rate of recidivism.In contrast, opponents argue that diversion programs have extended social control to juveniles who would ordinarily be released back to the community, may actually increase recidivism, do not prevent stigmatation, and can lead to the disproport ionate representation of minorities. As Akers (1994) explains, the labeling theory pushes forward the thesis that persons who are labeled and/or dramatically stigmatized as deviant, are more than apt(predicate) to take on a deviant self-identity and become more, rather than less deviant than if they had not been so labeled.Theoretically, a label of deviant, juvenile offender or delinquent can affect the way that a juvenile comes to define 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 explore has also suggested that diversion actually increases recidivism, however early studies launch little or no residue in the recidivism rates between diverted and non-diverted youth.Yet still others have found that, regardless of the setting, interventions can as well increase perceived labeling and self-reported evil among youth. (Elliott, Dunford & Knowles, 1 978) 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 chitchat stigma on juveniles which leads to secondary deviance. This study would be responsible for gentility the possibility that diversion programs may widen the net of the carry 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 purpose of evaluation. LITERATURE REVIEW 5 Contemporary Research There have been so many different policies called diversion that the term has come to cover polices as diverse as doing nothing to programs indistinguishable from the existing practices of juvenile justice.While these policies have produced better procedural justice for juveniles, reduced the detained and institutionalize d population of juveniles placing them under the jurisdiction of state and/or local family service agencies, these polices have not resulted in the intend 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 cargo deck Diversion 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 bug out yielded that juveniles that were randomly assigned to one of the several diversion program strategy groups were significantly less likely to have any court petitions filed against them during the 2 years following release from the program compared to the control group. The results shown here cannot befriend but suggest that the active hands on intervention provided by diversion programming works bet ter that the normal process of court processing juvenile offenders. The catch, it works best if they have been thoroughly obscure from the system. Davidson, Redner, Blakely, Mitchell & Emshoff, 1987) There is a wealth of evaluations of pretrial conference diversionary programs, and more extensive literature about the pretrial diversion field is dated. One of the lively challenges noted for the criminal justice field is developing and cataloging an appropriate research design for diversion programs. Researchers in the field need to actively stick with this challenge in order to determine the scope, as well as the worth of diversion programming in the criminal justice community. (Bellassai, Galloway.Hubbard, Oeller & Sayler, 2006) LITERATURE REVIEW 6 In Philadelphia, there are several acclivitous practices in the diversion program initiative. First they have implemented indite policies and procedures for diversion programs that are backed by a formal mission statement. This is deemed as critical as a clearly defined and supply mission statement, goals, and objectives are the cornerstone of effective programs.In a survey 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 either been enacted or updated since 2000, and are as diverse as diversion programs themselves. Diversion program today tend to feature a wider array of programs that are more diverse than their predecessors in practice, and administrative location.However, these programs are still united by the ultimate goal of offering executable alternatives to juveniles whose criminal behaviors are addressed much more effectively outside the realm of traditional case processing. (Bellassai, 2006) Recommendations The biggest challenge to pret rial diversion programs and criminal justice planners is the lack of the strong research that is needed in the field.One motion of such a broad-based study would be the examination of the nature of the relationship with the theory of labeling and the potential synergy within the current problem-solving court model. The put on 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. New York, NY Oxford University Press Bellassai, J. , Galloway, K. , Hubbard, A. , Oeller, C. & Sayler, J. (2006) vivid 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 net An anomalousness in the evaluation of diversion programs. Retrieved November, 9, 2012 from http//www. criminology. f su. 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 Alternative 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. Beverly 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. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention.