The criminal justice system in the United States has undergone tremendous changes over the past few decades. Criticism of racial bias and unproportioned representation in correctional facilities have prompted the debate about diversity in the criminal judicial system which has resulted to reforms to introduce more fairness. These reforms though focused on diversity have ended up overwhelmingly dealing with other issues affecting the justice system; the financial cost of running correction facilities, the tension in between law enforcement and citizens and the long-term trauma associated with formerly incarcerated people. One major reform that has been instrumental in creating diversity in the criminal justice system is youth advocacy program also known as YAP. YAP aims to change the diversity outcomes in justice for the youth by providing alternate means to incarceration.
Instead of state detention, YAP offers community-based ways of correcting juveniles who have been adjudicated. The program having been founded 45 years ago changes frequently to meet the demands and needs of the time (yapinc, n.d.). Currently 20000 juveniles across 28 states in the United States of America have been included in the program with a goal of expanding to all the other states in the country. The program partners with other nongovernmental programs to come up with models that improve its objectives and outcomes. Juveniles are matched with mentors who share similar cultural background and identities to ensure ease of compliance and cooperation. The staff who are involved with the program dedicate several hours a week to ensure the program’s success in meeting its objectives. On average youths enrolled in the program are mentored for 20 hours a week for a period of six months. The program focuses on 4 main agendas; pre-adjudication, post-adjudication, diversion and re-entry.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Pre-adjudication process ensures youth who would otherwise be facing formal detention are prevented from it and directed to other programs. These alternative programs may include community service, treatment and therapy sessions. The process itself can happen at various points of decision making in a judicial proceeding. The juveniles involved are usually not yet entered the criminal justice system but they pose a risk of being charged in a court of law. Three categories of youths qualify for the pre-adjudication process; those referred for noncompliance with a sentence by a judge, first time juvenile offenders, youths charged with offences that are non-violent according to the law (ojjdp, 2017). It is important that a specific protocol is used to determine those youths that should be enrolled in a pre-adjudication program to ensure fairness. The program is very useful in minority populations, youths and families suffering from mental disorder, victims of drug abuse and youths from abusive homes. However, inclusion in the pre-adjudication program should be purely on voluntary basis and made available to all those who are eligible for participation in the program without any cultural bias.
Post-adjudication is another alternative to formal state incarceration that is closely related to the pre-adjudication process. Unlike pre-adjudication where the sentencing decision has not been made in post-adjudication the full legal process takes place and the defendant must plead guilty to the charge. The records of the conviction stay permanently even after the defendant completes the service of the program. Purpose of the program is to ensure safety of the public by holding the youths accountable for their offences and also provide alternative rehabilitative program to the formal detention by the state (Anglada, 2010). Youths that participate in the post-adjudication program are monitored closely by a professional officer to ensure they meet conditions set by the courts for the service are fully complied with. Certain conditions that may be set include participating in therapy and counselling, imposed curfew hours and mandatory attendance to school. Violation of the conditions of this program usually leads to a harsher sentencing to the youth by the courts.
Another important criminal justice reform agenda that is implemented by YAP is diversion. Diversion is diverse in its operation and implementation but the overall goal that cuts across it is prevention of offences in communities by youth. The program is implemented at the preliminary stages of the criminal justice system to identify potential high-risk offenders in a community and work to divert them from committing serious offences. Some youth that may be suitable to participate in diversion programs are those with history of substance abuse and those with mental disorders. It is very useful in populations with high risk of juvenile delinquency due social-economic factors affecting the community (ojjdp, 2017). The programs are designed to offer services to meet that needs of the youths at their homes, schools or communities. Some of these services include counselling on drug abuse, psychiatric treatments, training on job skills, encouraging building family relationships, organizing sports and recreation activities and offering education on parenting skills to community members.
The other key reform agenda that YAP handles re-entry which involves programs that are used to guide youth offenders who were detained or incarcerated to join their community again. The main goal of this program is to ensure that repeat offences by juvenile offenders does not occur. Former youth offenders that go through the program have proven to be less likely to undergo recidivism as compared to their counterparts that do not pass through re-entry programs. Re-entry programs typically starts while the juvenile is still in detention and they may be subjected to various therapies and coping strategies to equip them with skills to readjust to the society seamlessly. Traditional criminal justice system that has supervision programs for rejoining society is different from the YAP reentry program in that YAP offers its participants services while they undergo supervision (Youth.gov, n.d.). A typical re-entry program has 4 main phases; entry of the youth into placement, placement period in secure facility, transition from placement to exit of facility and community after care period. In the United States, the community aftercare phase of the re-entry lasts a minimum of 120 days.
YAP has impacted society where it has been applied in diverse number of ways from social to financial implications. The cost of running state correctional facilities in the United States is considerably high and takes a huge chunk of the states’ budget. YAP with its community-based approach offers less costly alternative. It has also been proven that approaches used by YAP led to less repeat offences by the youths that participate in the program. It can consequently be argued that YAP is more effective in rehabilitation delinquent youths that traditional state detention programs (Safiedine et al., 2018). This causes a positive effect in providing safety to the society and less crimes in the communities. The preventive approach of diversion is more beneficial to the lives of individuals and ensures youths lead responsible lives as law abiding citizens. Re-entry services that equip youths that have been subjected to facility placement with coping skills are useful in improving the lives and mental wellbeing of juvenile offenders and assist in avoiding recidivism which is 50% more likely to occur in juvenile offenders who have not participated in re-entry programs.
The positive outcomes of YAP have been documented and promoted widely in an attempt to get more states to adapt to the program. However, the needs of communities are dynamic in nature and keep changing regularly. For YAP to continue producing positive outcomes to the communities, the program needs to continually evolve. More skills and services should be provided to the close family’s members of the youth with high risk of committing offences to deter possibility of engaging in crime. The re-entry program also needs to be remodeled through evidence-based research and data to ensure the community fully accepts the former juvenile offenders as rehabilitated people. The government should emphasize the use of YAP program with the goal of replacing traditional rehabilitation methods
The YAP program has been instrumental in addressing diversity issues in juvenile justice system that affect certain populations in the community. Girls in minority communities are a vulnerable group that have been protected from sexual and violence offences through diversion mechanisms. Apart from preventing possible offenders from committing crimes, the program has also provided education to girls on how to defend against possible attack by perpetrators of violence (2019). Girls who have fallen victims of such violence have also been counselled to heal the trauma that arises from it. Minority overrepresentation in confinement is another issue that YAP deals with to create more diversity in the justice system. YAP has participated in efforts to address this issue through advocacy for legislations that ensure fairness in the judicial process and through formulation of strategies that combat the disproportionate minority contact (Safiedine et al., 2018). These strategies of dealing with disproportionate minority contact include provision of services to meet the needs of minority youths, provisions of education and training on overrepresentation of minorities in confinement and seeking the alteration of juvenile justice system to eliminate factors that contribute to minority overrepresentation.
YAP as juvenile justice reform program has been beneficial to both the society and the wellbeing of youths who have committed criminal offences. The program provides diversion services that work to improve the safety of the community by deterring crimes. At the same time, it focuses on the complete rehabilitation of youths who have committed offences or at a risk of committing offences. Given the rate of its success, the YAP program should be promoted and expanded with the overall goal of replacing the traditional detention facilities for juvenile offenders.
References
Diversity and Inclusion Fellowship Program. Criminal Justice. (2019). Chicago , 34 (3), 68–69.
Safiedine, Salma S, Chung, & Jeannie K. (2018). The price for justice: The Economic Barriers that Contribute to an Unfair and Unjust Criminal Justice System Criminal Justice. Chicago , 33 (4), 40–44.
Safiedine, Salma S, Chung, Jeannie K, Gokaslan, Hannah L. (2018). Policy reform in the juvenile justice arena: Nationwide Reform Highlighting the ABA CJS Racial Justice Improvement Project Criminal Justice. Chicago, 33 (2), 8-11.
Diversion from Formal Juvenile Court Processing. (2017). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Diversion_Programs.pdf
Formal, Post-Adjudication Juvenile Probation Services. (2017). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention . https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Probation_Services.pdf.
Anglada, E. (2010). Guide to Developing Pre-Adjudication Diversion Policy and Practice in Pennsylvania . https://jlc.org/resources/guide-developing-pre-adjudication-diversion-policy-and-practice-pennsylvania.
Youth Advocate Programs, Inc. > Who We Are . http://www.yapinc.org/who.
Reentry . Reentry | Youth.gov. https://youth.gov/youth-topics/juvenile-justice/reentry.
