Introduction
Department of justice for the juvenile in Fulton County, Georgia (FCDJJ) has embedded substitutes to detention and rehabilitation systems. This exercise follows fluctuations in juvenile arrest rate within the county from the national average of 3,283 for the years ranging from 2013 to 2017 to figures that are below the national average. Thus, the department for juvenile justice has resorted to school law enforcement with the intentions of maintaining below the national average the juvenile arrest rates. In addition, they have designed a coalition known as the Inter-Agency Governance Agreement (IGA) that the department intends to use in lowering the arrest rates within Fulton County, Georgia. Through the coalition with the school law enforcement, they have tabled proposals for additional school penalties to substitute arrests of youngsters (Kretschmar, Flannery, & Singer, 2016). The program is designed to separate the detention of hardened juvenile offenders with less violent offenders. This separation is based on the belief by the FCDJJ that the rehabilitation efforts are greatly impacted by the detention of hardened youngsters with less violent ones.
Thus, within Fulton County, the department of justice for juvenile may derive more achievements from the implementation of diversionary programs that rehabilitate juvenile offenders and assist them from reoffending through family inclusion. Henderson, Boustani, and Magyar (2019) research on family initiatives established for different aspects of the justice system for juveniles, and the findings support their efficiency in stimulating positive rehabilitation among youngsters. Thus, the rationale for this study is to investigate recidivism rates and arrests of juveniles to comprehend whether the rehabilitation programs introduced by the department of justice for the juvenile in Falcon County are effective in reducing recidivism and crime. Furthermore, the study is meant to investigate whether the rehabilitation programs are effective in preventing delinquency in juveniles as well as identifying extra means that the youngsters together with their families can access to help more in the rehabilitation process.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Research Objectives
The quantitative study employs factorial design to recognize aspects linked with recidivism rates and juvenile arrests. The study is based on the conviction that juvenile arrests are primarily caused by lack of parental intervention while recidivism is caused by lack of diversionary programs. Thus, the factorial design uses two non-manipulated independent variables where the initial independent non-manipulated variable is the arrest record for juveniles; this is where the research commences comprehending the rate of recidivism (Hirsch, Dierkhising, & Herz, 2018). The other independent non-manipulated variable is the rate of recidivism where recidivism is considered as youngsters who are arrested within twelve months after their release from a previous conviction. The forms of criminal activities the youngster engage are assessed as the covariates, for instance, delinquencies A and B both being crimes.
The objectives of the study comprise;
To identify the rate of juvenile recidivism in Fulton County, Georgia.
To investigate the arrest rates of youngsters within Fulton County, Georgia.
To comprehend whether the rehabilitation initiatives by the department of justice for juvenile within Fulton County are effective in reducing crime and recidivism.
To identify extra ways accessible by juveniles and their families to support the rehabilitation initiative.
Hypothesis Statement
The quantitative research question is, what are the frequencies of the juveniles’ detention within Fulton County, Georgia’s contribution to the rate of juvenile recidivism? Thus, to establish an appropriate response to the research question, the research predicted the null and alternative hypotheses. The null hypothesis states that there is a statistical significance in the rate of recidivism among youngsters based on the objective data from Fulton County, Georgia. On the other hand, the alternative hypothesis stipulates that there is no statistical significance in the rate of recidivism among youngsters based on the objective data derived from the county.
Methodology
To comprehend the delinquent behavior of juveniles, the social capital concept will be employed and most significantly to understand and research why the behavior happens. Benson (2017) proposed an association in the juvenile system comprising official and parental involvement. The explanation given was that parents are more exasperated about their children when the youngsters are engrossed more and more into crime. Thus, the parents are less involved in the process of rehabilitating their children as they become increasingly frustrated. Hence, a conceptual framework identified as the social capital principle has been formed by the impacts of criminal habits and social ties.
Data was collected for FCDJJ for juveniles who were on probation and assessed for recidivism for the period between 2013 and 2017, as indicated in Table 1. Therefore, the term was redefined for the sake of the study to new cases that emerge in a criminal judgment within 24 months of the juvenile’s placement date on probation (Kretschmar, Flannery, & Singer, 2016). Since the objective of the study is to identify the rate of recidivism and juvenile arrests, the data was rearranged, as shown in Table 2, caution taken not to manipulate any of the original values. Then a two-factor analysis of variance test was then conducted to measure the two independent variables and the results recorded.
| Year | Probation Records | Arrest Records | rate of recidivism |
| 2013 | 1,628 | 366 | 22.5% |
| 2014 | 1,381 | 231 | 16.7% |
| 2015 | 1,059 | 185 | 17.5% |
| 2016 | 892 | 191 | 21.4% |
| 2017 | 886 | 189 | 21.3% |
| Rehabilitation Program | |||
| 2013 | 1,373 | 117 | 8.5% |
| 2014 | 1,468 | 120 | 8.2% |
| 2015 | 1,494 | 124 | 8.3% |
| 2016 | 1185 | 94 | 7.9% |
| 2017 | 778 | 70 | 9.0% |
Table 1 : Probation, Arrest, and Recidivism Records for 2013 to 2017
| Arrest Records | Recidivism Rate | |
| Not Diverted | 366 | 22.5% |
| 231 | 16.7% | |
| 185 | 17.5% | |
| 191 | 21.4% | |
| 189 | 21.3% | |
| Diverted | 117 | 8.5% |
| 120 | 8.2% | |
| 124 | 8.3% | |
| 94 | 7.9% | |
| 70 | 9.0% |
Table 2 : Measurement of the Variables
In the statistical analysis, the two independent non-manipulated variables were measured, and the P-value was then used to test which of the predicted hypotheses best supports the given data. Additionally, the F value was also compared to the F critical value to test the null hypothesis which predicted that there is a statistical significance in the rate of recidivism among youngsters based on the objective data from Fulton County, Georgia (Hirsch, Dierkhising, & Herz, 2018). Thus, the P-value and F value are extremely crucial in determining whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis. The covariates were used in this study to investigate the interaction and major impact of definite variables on a continuous dependent variable. Thus, the covariates control the impact of the additional chosen continuous variables that co-vary with the dependent.
Findings
The P-value obtained of 0.002 showed a significant difference in the alpha value of 5% thus, the null hypothesis was accepted. The null hypothesis, which stated that there is statistical significance in the rate of recidivism among youngsters based on the objective data derived from Fulton County, Georgia, was accepted. This was further supported by the results from the F value (12.61879) that was compared to the F critical value (4.493998) also indicated a significant difference (Hirsch, Dierkhising, & Herz, 2018). Moreover, the averages showed a great difference between the arrest records of 232.4 and the recidivism rate of 0.1988 for the non-diverted youth. Similarly, there was a great significant difference in the variance of 5923.8 for the arrest records compared to the recidivism rate of 0.0006742 for the juvenile who was not diverted.
Therefore, the big differences between the averages and variances of the juvenile who were not diverted could have been the primary reason for the great variations in the P-value and between the F value and the F critical value. Furthermore, the average of the diverted youngsters showed a significant difference for the arrest records of 105 and the recidivism rate of 0.0838. Similarly, the variance also showed a marked difference between the arrested records of 519 and 0.0000167 for the recidivism rate, another factor that could have contributed to the large differences (Hirsch, Dierkhising, & Herz, 2018). The totals of the diverted and the non-diverted juveniles had similar marked differences with the average for the arrested records being 168.7 while the recidivism rate was 0.1413. Also, the variances showed the same trends with the arrested records having a total variance of 7372.01111 and the total recidivism rate being 0.003980678.
Chart 1 : Graph Showing Statistics for Non-Diverted Juvenile
Chart 2 : Graph Showing Statistics for Diverted Juvenile
From Chart 1, there is a sharp decline in the probation of juveniles adjudicated delinquencies while the arrest records show a slight decline and then a stabilization of the trends. Moreover, Chart 2 shows similar trends, but the arrest records are much lower than two hundred cases compared to Chart 1, where the trend stabilizes around two hundred cases. However, the trends for the probation records in Chart 1 is promising as the rate of decline is very sharp compared to the decline in Chart 2, which stalls at around 800 cases.
Chart 3 : Changes in the Rate of Recidivism for Non-Diverted Juvenile
In Chart 3, the rate of recidivism does not show any relationship to the sharp decline in the probation cases from 2013 to 2017. The rate of recidivism seems to fluctuate slightly with no indication of declining as it slightly decreased to slightly above 15% in 2014 and 2015 before increasing above 20% in 2016 and 2017. In Chart 4 however, the rate of recidivism for a diverted juvenile is also not stable but significantly low margins with the lowest rates in 2016 being slightly above 7.8% while the highest rates in 2017 being at 9%.
Chart 4 : Changes in the Rate of Recidivism for Diverted Juvenile
Implications
The study has statistical power as it shows from the data that the rehabilitation initiative had a positive social change leading to a remarkable decrease in the number recidivism. The result supports the initiative by FCDJJ in propelling change through their juvenile system, which focuses on the reduction of youngster exposure to trauma to those that have a low frequency of reoffending (Robst, 2017). In the capacity of organizations, Fulton County's department of justice for a juvenile is more successful as it has managed to achieve the purpose of the juvenile system which is the smooth transition of young lawbreakers after they leave the rehabilitation center. The research supports the data, which indicates that the youngsters who were introduced to the diversionary program had low rates of recidivism.
Therefore, to the society, the youngsters need to be appreciated as the support from the community gives more strength to the rehabilitation program, making it more effective. Thus, family members efforts are necessary to ensure that the less violent and petty offenders do not get arrested. The study is critical as its outcome is positive and indicates that when the petty offenders are mixed with hardcore offenders, they easily get influenced and end up being rearrested in more serious charges (Benson, 2017). When their chances of interacting with hardened offenders are reduced, they are easier to tame and influence them through diversionary means. Hence, society should learn to manage the less violent offenders as it is the beginning of fighting crime in general.
Limitations
The limitations of the research consist of the absence of data from the department of justice for juveniles in Fulton County that details how the diversionary initiatives are made compulsory for parental involvement. However, the department has made available alternatives to the apprehension of delinquents.
Conclusions
The findings in this study are extremely crucial as most of the youngsters upon leaving the rehabilitation centers are segregated by society as they are branded criminals. Thus, society can learn to appreciate them and assist by providing diversionary techniques that can change the juvenile for life (Kretschmar, Flannery, & Singer, 2016). With support from family members and the rehabilitation program initiated by FCDJJ, the recidivism rate can be much lower than the figures displayed in this research making the rehabilitation program more effective. Furthermore, schools also play a vital role in ensuring that the less violent offenders are given alternative punishments than allowing them to be arrested.
Through school law enforcement, it has become easier to prevent hardened offenders from interacting with petty offenders. Therefore, parents and teachers have a great role to play in shaping the lives of the juvenile by ensuring that they monitor them closely to ensure they do not get to be influenced by the more hardened youth offenders (Hirschfield, 2018). They also should not advocate for arresting of the offenders for slight offenses but rather find alternative means of punishing the youngsters. These collective responsibilities by Fulton County, the parents, teachers, and community, in general, will go a long way into reducing the rate of recidivism to far below the national averages as well as reduce overall crime rates.
References
Benson, C. (2017). Trauma-informed juvenile justice systems: A systematic review of definitions and core components. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(6), 635-646. http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/tra0000255
Henderson, C., Boustani, M., & Magyar, M. (2019). Applications and broad impact of family psychology. American Psychological Association, 2, 267-280. http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/0000100-017
Hirsch, R., Dierkhising, C., & Herz, D. (2018). Educational risk, recidivism, and service access among youth involved in both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Children and Youth Services Review, 85, 72-80. http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.12.001
Hirschfield, P. (2018). The Role of Schools in Sustaining Juvenile Justice System Inequality. Future of Children, 28(1), 11-35. doi: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1179204
Kretschmar, J., Flannery, F., & Singer, M. (2016). Diverting Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth With Behavioral Health Issues from Detention. Criminal Justice Policy Review., 27(3), 302-325. doi: https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1177/0887403414560885
Robst, J. (2017). Disposition of charges, out-of-home mental health treatment, and juvenile justice recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(11), 1195-1209. http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1177/0306624X15615383
