An Empirical Evaluation of Juvenile Awareness Programs in the United States: Can Juveniles be “Scared Straight”? by Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010) seeks to determine the efficacy of organized visiting programs to prisons by juvenile delinquents or predelinquents in deterring them from committing a crime or engaging in criminal behavior. Juvenile offending is the illegal behavior committed by an individual before they become an adult. Although laws vary across jurisdictions, delinquents would be considered as those individuals who have been found guilty of breaking the law or committing a crime before attaining the age of 18 years old. Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010) assert that the purpose of scared straight programs is to have children at risk of becoming delinquent or juvenile delinquent is to interact with inmates confined in the criminal justice system. The advocates of such programs believe that interacting with prison life or experiencing prison life by adolescent offenders will prevent them from further involvement with crime. Previously inmate programs such as the New Jersey confrontation rap sessions and sometimes vulgar have now been abolished and designed to be more educational but with crime prevention as the goal.
The Scared Straight programs are based on the deterrence theory, which emphasizes that if the penalty is severe, sure, and swift, it will avert criminal and delinquent behavior. Through prison tours, interaction with the outcomes of criminal behavior, and the harsh realities of life in the prison, these activities are meant to scare the children and young adults into leading a respectable life without engaging in crime. Often than not, inmates employ the use of a confrontational tactic to describe the damaging and devastating effects of engaging in crime. Also, the inmates hold conversations about the atrocities they committed that led to their conviction and how wrongful choices led them to the painful and sometimes dangerous life in prison. From their study, Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010) conclude that juvenile awareness programs do not contain the intended deterrent effects that proponent advocate for. After conducting their analysis, Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010) claim that juvenile awareness programs may raise the probability of future offending by juvenile delinquents.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Discussion
Effective interventions play a critical role in any strategy that has been designed to reduce the rates of juvenile offending in any community. If most of these programs were highly successful, there would be no need for a juvenile justice system. In the United States, the juvenile justice system has been caught as crossroads between the role they play in administering justice or punishments to violations of the law and their role in advocating for behavioral change in juvenile delinquents or predelinquents. According to the research conducted by Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010), the juvenile justice system in the U.S. lacks the appropriate intervention programs that can result in lowered recidivism among youthful offenders. Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010) also found that little or no attention has been given to the effectiveness of these programs in deterring criminal behavior or offending.
Over the last decade, the American Criminal justice system has been treating juvenile offenders like adults who are responsible for their own actions, and they must be isolated, dealt with and punished for their crimes (Petrosino, Turpin‐Petrosino, Hollis‐Peel & Lavenberg, 2013) . This is a result of combined efforts between lawyers, psychologists, and researchers, increasing the numbers of mentally disturbed youth in juvenile detention facilities. This does not mean that I disagree with the findings of Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010), but I am convinced that the juvenile justice system has become a dumping ground for minority youth who come from impoverished families, with mental and learning disorders. This can be traced back to the 1980s, where there was a sharp increase in the number of murders committed by the youth. Sociologists, psychologists, and lawmakers resorted to enforcing stringent measures on teenagers who committed these crimes.
Every year, more than 1 million children and youth encounter the juvenile criminal justice system, and more than 60 percent have at least been diagnosed with a mental health need, and 20 percent are said to have severe emotional issues. More than two-thirds of the youths in contact with the criminal justice system as said to experience mental health issues that can effectively be treated at home or in a community setting other than the criminal justice system. Although Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010) claim that the guarantee of punishment acts as a deterrent than the professed reality of the punishment, the juvenile justice system in the U.S. must focus on other interventions such as addressing the mental health needs of children, youths and young adults who get into crime through community-based services and support (Petrosino, Turpin‐Petrosino, Hollis‐Peel & Lavenberg, 2013) . With this, the juvenile justice system, psychologists, lawyers, and sociologists can develop a more in-depth understanding of the unique challenge presented by this population and then develop comprehensive intervention programs through interagency collaboration and sustained funding to help avert these challenges.
Application of the Article in the Criminal Justice Profession
The juvenile justice system in the U.S. has developed different methods of controlling delinquent behavior, such as the scared straight programs, community-based supervision, and custodial care. However, most of these have not been effective in reducing recidivism. Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010) evaluated eight programs that were aimed at reducing recidivism, and they were found to be ineffective. From a criminal justice perspective, if the competencies of such programs cannot be proved, the evidence gathered should be used to improve the programs or terminate them. Based on the findings by Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010), a better approach would be not to determine the effectiveness of program-based evaluation in deterring crime amount the youth but the effectiveness of intervention programs with distinct types of offenders such as their effect on severe and low offenders (Petrosino, Turpin‐Petrosino, Hollis‐Peel & Lavenberg, 2013) . Criminal justice students are custodians of the law, and they must ensure that the youth are always protected from the unfairness of the juvenile justice system that can result in harmful outcomes for children and young adults.
An alternative approach would be to enhance the collaboration and coordination between interagency groups that encourage broader juvenile justice system reforms by guaranteeing the structural components of risk evaluations are fully implemented as a plan for action for evidence-based program improvements, accountability in the juvenile justice system and the reduction of recidivism (Petrosino, Turpin‐Petrosino, Hollis‐Peel & Lavenberg, 2013) . It will also be vital to address the overuse of confinement in juvenile delinquents irrespective of the offense committed and take into consideration the mental health issues that youths, children, and adults may be experiencing that lead them to commit a crime. There should also be the separation of juveniles from adults when disbursing justice.
Lastly, a comprehensive administrative model should be built to increase the decision-making capacity of the juvenile justice system in the United States to able to match offender treatment needs with exhaustive treatment plans and making enhancements in correctional programs across the entire continuum as well as targeting high-risk offenders.
Conclusion
Based on the research conducted by Klenowski, Bell & Dodson (2010), it is not guaranteed that every Scared Straight program will fail as research is not absolute. Some programs will fail, while others will lead to an increase in recidivism. However, there is a higher possibility that others will not be harmful, which prompts the need for more evidence-based programs with little funding. After their effectiveness has been realized, then funding can be increased for better outcomes.
References
Klenowski, P., Bell, K., & Dodson, K. (2010). An Empirical Evaluation of Juvenile Awareness Programs in the United States: Can Juveniles be “Scared Straight”?. Journal Of Offender Rehabilitation , 49 (4), 254-272. doi: 10.1080/10509671003716068
Petrosino, A., Turpin‐Petrosino, C., Hollis‐Peel, M., & Lavenberg, J. (2013). Scared Straight and Other Juvenile Awareness Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews , 9 (1), 1-55. doi: 10.4073/csr.2013.5
