Corrections in Community-Based Settings

Juvenile Community Corrections

Corrections in Community-Based Settings

Community-based corrections: Factors to consider when dealing with juvenile offenders

One seemingly self-evident truth regarding juvenile offenders might seem to be that socio-economic status will have a significant impact upon the individual's ability to find adequate treatment. The research does support the idea that individuals of higher socioeconomic status (SES) are less likely commit juvenile crimes. Also, it would seem that a wealthy, well-connected suburban family who is able to offer private counseling to their child is more likely to see the teen transition out of juvenile corrections than one who does not. An overall literature review suggests that lower SES is linked with the likelihood of perpetuating juvenile crimes. In another study of 420 urban youth comparing those from high SES neighborhoods vs. low SES neighborhoods, the high SES youth were half as likely to engage in serious delinquency (Atkins et al. 2007).

However, one longitudinal study of 531 youths in Oregon's juvenile justice system which characterized the participants as being of low or high socioeconomic status found no statistically significant difference between low and high SES youths in terms of recidivism. However, it did find that receiving community support services was associated with lower rates of recidivism for high SES but not low SES youths. Only 40% of the individuals in the survey received any community services at all (Atkins et al. 2007).

Atkins (et al. 2007) notes that the fact that offenders of high SES seemed to benefit more from social service programs should not necessarily be a surprise. The findings from the admittedly small study suggest that low SES background youth may need additional types of services if they are to benefit from community interventions. Current intervention programs seem better suited to the profiles of high SES delinquents, whose delinquency may be more due to personal mental health issues, substance abuse, and single-incident rebellions than being mired in the chronic conditions of poverty, as is the case of low SES youth.

Additional advantages associated with community-based services for high SES youth is they are not returning to communities where there are limited opportunities other than the life of crime. Juveniles from low SES backgrounds may have parents who have less flexibility in terms of how they alter the environments in which their children live -- the same conditions of drugs and poverty remain unchanged when the juveniles reenter their home environments. For some juveniles, it is not self-evident that there are other ways to make a living than selling drugs and providing vocational services may be necessary as part of a rehabilitative program, versus juveniles from higher SES (Mincey et al. 2008: 11). One small, qualitative study of nine young adults between the ages of 18 to 23 identified supportive family systems and positive role modeling as a component of juveniles who did make a successful transition out of the justice system (Mincey et al. 2008: 15).

The impact of SES upon juvenile recidivism highlights another component that must be a consideration of every juvenile treatment program, namely the need for an individualized approach. Many models exist to explain delinquency, spanning from the lack of social controls vs. modeling negative peer behaviors, and these models may not be universally applicable to all juveniles. Community-based programs have value because they are better able to view the offender in light of his or her social context, not in abstract and individualistic isolation from them and are often staffed by members of the community (Mincey et al. 2008: 10).

However, while it is important to keep the offender's particular situation in mind to ensure that justice is dispensed compassionately and effectively; it is just as important to avoid charges of discrimination when placing adolescents in rehabilitative community settings. For juvenile offenders with a strong sense of anticipatory injustice (AI), or an expectation of unfair treatment in the context of the legal system, the potential rehabilitative effects will be diminished of any intervention unless trust can be fostered. African-Americans for historical reasons have a higher sense of AI than other ethnic groups according to a survey conducted by Woolard (et al. 2008) of eleven to twenty-four-year-olds. There was a strong correlation between AI, negative interactions with the legal system, and being African-American. Even African-American without personal experiences with the justice system had higher perceptions of AI (Woolard et al. 2008: 222-223).