Sample research paper on causes and treatments of juvenile crime
Violent Juvenile crimes have attracted the attention of media and policy makers alike. While a majority opinion veers on the thesis that juvenile delinquency results from socio-economic circumstances, a minority opinion still holds on stubbornly the biological basis
of crimes. Without entering into the debate, the paper analyzes the causes of violent juvenile crimes. The paper also goes on to focus on a range of measures aimed at addressing these crimes. Criticisms of Juvenile Justice Programs have led to demands for the change in the way young offenders are charged, punished and treated. Punishment and rehabilitation are the two extreme measures that have been sought to be balanced in various ways by the juvenile justice system over the last three decades.
The recent media reports have overwhelming content on Juvenile crime. A number of studies have also gone on to report upon the extent and nature of those crimes. The government and the reform agencies including the juvenile justice system have responded accordingly thereby moving juvenile justice policy to the center of public attention and political debate in recent years. We have also witnessed demands for the change in the way young offenders punished and treated largely owing to the criticisms against juvenile justice programs. According to Jeffrey M. Jenson , and Matthew O. Howard (1998):
Public concern about violent juvenile crime is at an unprecedented high (Butterfield, 1996). The increasingly violent nature of contemporary youth crime and the escalating number of young people involved with the juvenile justice system have challenged established beliefs guiding policy and practice with offenders. Traditionally, the juvenile court has striven to maintain a balance between rehabilitating and punishing offenders. The extent to which policy with young offenders has emphasized rehabilitation versus punishment has changed intermittently over the past 30 years. Influenced by principles of deinstitutionalization, practice in the 1970s and 1980s was based on an individual treatment model encouraging placement of offenders in nonsecure, community-based programs. Since 1990 these practice strategies have been de-emphasized in favor of strict sanctions and incarceration (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 1996).
Extent of the Problem
According to Nacro youth crime fact sheet, “Offending by young people is relatively common. Some 33 % of males aged 15-16 years in self report studies, for example, admit committing at least one offence within the past 12 months. At the same time, public perceptions tend to overstate the extent of crime which is attributable to young people: 28% believe that young people are responsible for more than half of all offences; and a further 55% consider that responsibility for crime is shared equally by adults and young people. In fact during 1999, 76% of detected crime was committed by persons over the age of 18. Offenders over 21 years were responsible for over 60% of detected offending” (NACRO 2001:1)
According to a survey carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published in 2002, based on the sample size of 14000 exposed some of the unknown facts on youth crime in the U.K. According to the survey, almost half of Britain’s secondary school children admitted breaking the law at some time; a third of 14-15 year olds admitted committing criminal damage and a quarter admitted shoplifting in the past year; one in five 15-16 year old boys admitted to attacking some one with the intention to cause serious harm; one in 10 boys in the age group 11-12 said they had carried a knife or other weapon in the past year and 8 percent admitted to having attacked someone with an intention to cause serious harm. One in 10 boys aged 15 and 16 said they had broken into a building to steal during the previous year including 4 percent who said they had done so three or four times; a quarter of 13 to 14 year olds indulged in binge drinking, consuming five or more alcoholic drinks in one session; serious drug problems were also identified (Colquhoun 18).
According to the Youth Lifestyle Survey (YLS) carried among 4848 respondents (aged between 12 and 30 yrs.) between October 1998 and January 1999 several youth offences were reported. Almost half of 12-30 year olds admitted committing at least one of the 27 offences at some stage of their lives (57% men and 37% women). The other reported findings were as follows:
- almost a fifth (19%) of 12 to 30 year olds admitted one or more offence in the last 12 months. Women were less likely to have offended (11%) as compared to men (26%).
- At the time of the reported offence, about half (48% of men and 59% of women) had committed only one or two offences.
- Among all offences in 12 to 30 year olds, those in the age 14-21 committed most while those in the youngest (12 to 13) and oldest (26 to 30) age groups committed the least.
- The offending began at an average age of 13 ½ for boys and 14 for girls
- The rates of offending are highest among men aged 18 – the peak age of offending; among women the peak age of offending is 14.
- At the ages 12 and 13 there is little difference in boys and girls in offending including drug use and drinking. The difference becomes marked after the age of 14, and over the age of 17, male offenders outnumber the women by a ratio of about 3:1 (Flood-Page et al. 2000, pp7-8)
A number of reports have unanimously pointed out a perceptible decrease in youth crimes over the last 15 years. For instance, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, between 1983 and 1993 there was a drop of 42% among the 10 to 13 year old boys who were found guilty or cautioned for more serious “indictable” offences. The corresponding decline among 14-17 year old boys was 15%. However, it was also pointed out at the same time that the perceptible decrease was illusory, as the police-recorded crime statistics and the national surveys of the victims of crime together agree that within the same period there has been a dramatic increase in offences like burglary and vehicle thefts, the types of offences most often committed by the juveniles. The other probable reasons explaining the discrepancy could be a growing reluctance to take juveniles to court and an increasing tendency on the part of police to issue unrecorded warnings rather than formal cautions (Joseph Rawntree Foundation.1996 understanding and preventing youth crime, Available at:http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/SP93.asp)
Factors Responsible for Criminal Behavior
According to Joseph Rawntree Foundation, young offenders tend to be versatile and rarely specialize in specific crime or violence. “Longitudinal research has identified features in the childhood and adult lives of violent offenders and non-violent persistent offenders that are very similar, suggesting that violent offenders are essentially frequent offenders. Studies have also found that young offenders are versatile in committing other types of antisocial behavior, including heavy drinking, drug-taking, dangerous driving and promiscuous sex. Delinquency is, therefore, only one element in a much larger syndrome of antisocial behavior” (http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/SP93.asp>)
A large number of available researches on backgrounds, circumstances, and attitudes of future offenders have identified factors that point to an increased risk of future criminal behavior among children. Some of them as pointed out by the Home Office are troubled home life; poor attainment at school, truancy and school exclusion; drug or alcohol misuse and mental illness; deprivation such as poor housing and homelessness; peer group pressure (Home Office. What causes youth crime, Available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/youth-crime/).
More or less similar set of reasons have been identified by the studies on criminal behavior. Ian Colquhoun identifies major causes of youth crime as follows:
Low income and poor housing; Living in deteriorating inner city areas; A high degree of impulsiveness and hyperactivity; Low intelligence and low attainment; Poor prenatal discipline and harsh erratic discipline; Parental conflict and broken families (p.18).
The global report on human settlement points out that a wealth of international data suggests that crime and violence are strongly associated with the growth and proportions of youthful populations, and especially young males. Youth crimes and violence rates are also associated with such environmental factors as level of policing, conviction and imprisonment rates, drug cultures and a host of situational elements that condition people. Across countries, small arms survey and WHO data report that males aged 15-29 account for about half of all firearm related homicides. However, apart from the factors internal to the offenders, the planning and policy measures are significant determinants of crime. “From a planning and public policy standpoint, then, where crimes occur and how places are designed and managed are at least as important as who the perpetrators are…because crime and violence tends to reoccur in relatively limited number of places in cities…generally well known to citizens and police, and occurrences are therefore, reasonably predictable” (Global Report on Human Settlements 70).
Scholarly evidences distinctly demonstrate what is in fact at the root of crime explosion in America. It is the utter lack of responsibility on the part of parents to be responsible fathers and mothers. This loss of love and guidance at the intimate levels leads to adverse social consequences for the victimized children as well as the wider social connectivity. “The empirical evidence shows that too many young men and women from broken families tend to have a much weaker sense of connection with their neighborhood and are prone to exploit its members to satisfy their unmet needs or desires. This contributes to a loss of a sense of community and to the disintegration of neighborhoods into social chaos and violent crime. If policymakers are to deal with the root causes of crime, therefore, they must deal with the rapid rise of illegitimacy” (www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG1026.cfm)
A range of intervention measures are in place to check crime in the first place. These and similar other programs are aimed at a wider population of children at risk. These include:
Sure Start: aiming to improve the health and well being of families with children up to the age of 4 in the first place ensuring they are ready to flourish when they go to school.
On Track: is a small initiative aimed at older children who have been identified as at risk of getting involved in a crime.
Communities That Care: is an evidence based prevention program run by communities in partnership with local agencies.
Youth Inclusion Program (YIP) targets 50 of the most ‘at risk’ or ‘most disaffected’ 13 to 16 year olds in the most deprived neighborhoods.
Safer Schools Partnerships (SSPs): place police officers in schools to reduce truancy, crime and victimization among young people, challenge unacceptable behavior, and provide a safe and secure learning environment, and
Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs): are multi agency panels set up by the Youth Justice Board to target children at risk of offending and those starting to offend (Youth Crime Prevention in England and Wales, Available at: http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/files/POLICE0001/Articles)
David Farrington, Professor of Psychological Criminology at Cambridge University, discusses a program that has been highly successful in America that could also be applied in Britain. The program he speaks of is ‘Communities that Care’ program aimed at reducing antisocial behavior among young people. It has been devised by researchers at the University of Washington, Seattle. It can be easily adapted in the United Kingdom for its flexibility and systematic approach. It is known as ‘a risk and protection focused program’, based on a social development strategy that can be tailored to the specific needs of a neighborhood, district or city. Its features include:
Community mobilization: key leaders together with a management board consisting of representatives from local agencies and the community work in close coordination. The board arranges a detailed assessment of local risks and resources and formulates an action plan.
Implementation: implementing techniques from a menu of strategies that research has shown to be effective, is aimed at addressing priority risk and protection factors
Evaluation: detailed monitoring is an inherent part of the program so as to evaluate program's progress and effectiveness (Joseph Rawntree Foundation.1996 understanding and preventing youth crime, Available at:http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/SP93.asp)
There are mentoring programs with the potential to be quite successful, but are unfortunately languishing for funds. One such project aimed at reducing the risk of criminal behavior amongst young people in cambridgeshire. “The plea for financial support from CSV Cambridge Mentors and Peers comes in the wake of national acclaim for one of its sister projects in Essex which was featured recently in The Independent newspaper and BBC1’s Breakfast news program. Both projects, plus a third one in Bedford aim to reduce the risk of criminal behavior amongst young people” (CSV Funds needed to save Cambridge youth crime project. 14 June 2004. Available at: http://www.csv.org.uk/News/Press+Releases/Press+Releases+Cambridge+Mentors.htm)
The research at the University of Luton Vauxhall, Centre for the Study of Crime has shown distinct positive impact that volunteer mentoring projects involving young offenders can lead to: “a reduction in offending behavior, a reduction in problems at school and an improvement in young people’s confidence, self-esteem and self-awareness. The young people involved highlight the significant value of the ‘volunteer mentor’ role - they say they value the friendship, trust, guidance and encouragement of the volunteer.” The editorial of The Independent has spoken eloquently about the mentoring schemes for young people. Its editorial says, “The Mentor and Peers (MAP) project, run by the Community Service Volunteers charity, is interesting because it aims to avoid the error of similar schemes: waiting for young people to fall foul of the law before offering them guidance” (http://www.csv.org.uk).
CSV Cambridgeshire Mentors and Peers was established in 2002. It expanded and grew to recruit and train 18 dedicated and enthusiastic volunteers that made a huge difference to the lives of young people in Cambridge and the surrounding areas. “Research shows how volunteers can help in the fight against crime in the UK, indicating that volunteering has an effect on reducing - and even preventing - crime. Unfortunately, in spite of its success and support from the local Youth Offending Service, CSV Cambridgeshire Mentors and Peers will no longer be able to offer mentoring to local young people due to a lack of funding” (http://www.csv.org.uk).
The government programs have not all been very successful. The Sure Start program was expected to be highly successful, but the evaluation’s interim findings were not quite encouraging (Melhuish et al, 2005). On Track Program is successful to the extent of reaching the high risk families in the deprived areas, use of these services is lower than anticipated. However, the program is being viewed favorably among parents and children where they are used (Finch et al 2006). This program runs the risk of stigmatizing the very children and families it intends to help, since it is an individual rather than area based study. An alternative model borrowed from the US, the Communities That Care, is now being rolled out in UK. The other government initiatives have also shown at best the mixed results. The Youth Inclusion Program aimed at 10 hours of intervention per person per week, but in practice very few young people ( less than 10 percent) achieved this level of attendance (Morgan Harris Burrows, 2003). SSP programs have shown a robust success in terms of reduced truancy, and improved exam pass rates. According to an assessment of offending data in three schools that adopted SSP model of a full time police officer plus support team, a before and after study found that 139 offences were prevented annually (YJB, 2005).
Another crucial initiative, Every Child Matters, is in response to the tragic death of Victoria Climbie in 2002, who was persistently abused, tortured and murdered by her own relative. The government responded by initiating a public inquiry that subsequently published a consultation document ‘Every Child Matters’ (DfES 2003). It offers a new initiative on securing the well being of children and young people up to the age of 19. It ensures intervention reaches children before the crisis point.
Until recently due to limited empirical evidence, evaluation of youth crime program was restricted to two main programs- Dalston Youth Project (DYP) and CHANCE. Another program Youth At Risk (YAR) gained publicity but it has not been subject to independent published research. The DYP runs programs for 11-14 year olds and 15-18 year-olds, the disaffected youths from one of the most deprived boroughs in England and Wales. Research on the older age group suggests some possible impact on self-reported offending and truancy (though not drug use). DYP worked successfully with about half those involved. However, about half did not engage with the project in any meaningful way. The overall impact on offending behavior was disappointing and gains in other areas such as behavior, attitudes and learning were modest (Tilley 376).
CHANCE was another significant mentoring program established in 1996 to work with primary school children with behavioral problems. The evaluation was extremely small scale with very limited number of children. Another significant study evaluated 10 mentoring programs focusing on highly disadvantaged young people (Newburn and Shinger 2005). The study found crucial and significant impacts of mentoring in the lives of disaffected young people in context of engagement with education, training and employment (Tilley 376).
Conclusion: Youth crime is a sensitive topic. Although available data on youth offenses indicate a decline in crimes committed by the young people in age group 12-30 over the last decade and a half, some experts are of the opinion that the data needs to be examined carefully. Media and politics too have debated enthusiastically on the juvenile crime losing the focus on the topic. While politicians and people by and large displayed a knee-jerk reaction to youth offending by favoring harsher punitive measures, a number of studies have gone on to point that there is little understanding and appreciation of juvenile offending among the masses. The studies have pointed that a majority of the juvenile offences are in the nature of minor offences or even childhood pranks. However, the researches on the topic have identified a number of risk factor associated with youth offences that almost makes it predictable. Therefore, it is now almost unanimously contended that approaches that deal with early intervention in offence prevention can be quite successful, while the traditional approaches of punitive, penal and retributive justice not only entail a huge cost to the exchequer but hardly account for reduction in offences. The government and the voluntary agencies run a number of programs aimed at identifying the risk group among the population and intervening in a timely manner. Earlier, quite a few case studies came to light that further reinforces the faith in early intervention approaches. The programs have shown a mixed result largely due to the apathy of the target groups. Some of the programs based on community and neighborhood approaches have shown better results.
Colquhoun, Ian. (2004) Design Out Crime: Creating Safe and Sustainable Communities,Elsevier
CSAS Youth, Crime and Community Safety Overview, Available at: http://www.csas.org.uk
CSV Funds needed to save Cambridge youth crime project. 14 June 2004. Available at: http://www.csv.org.uk/News/Press+Releases/Press+Releases+Cambridge+Mentors.htm
DfES (2003) Every Child Matters: Change for Children. London: Department of Education and Science
Finch, S. et al (2006) The National Evaluation of On Track, Phase Two: Interim Findings from the first wave of the longitudinal cohort study, London: Department for Education and Science
Flood-Page, Claire., Campbell, Siobhan., Harrington, Victoria., and Miller, Joel. 2000 Youth Crime: Findings from the 1998/1999 Youth Lifestyles Survey, Home Office Research Study 209
Jenson, Jeffrey M; Howard, Matthew O. (1998) Youth crime, public policy, and practice in the juvenile justice system: recent trends and needed reforms, Social Work, Vol. 43.
Joseph Rawntree Foundation.1996 understanding and preventing youth crime, Available at:http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/SP93.asp
Melhuish, E., Belsky, J., and Leyland, A. et al (2005) Early Impacts of SSLPs on Children and Families, London: DfES
Morgan Harris Burrows (2003) Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme: end of phase one report, London: Youth Justice Board
Nacro Youth Crime (2001) “Some facts about young people who offend” Nacro, London
Omaji, Paul Omojo (2003) Responding to Youth Crime: Towards radical criminal justice partnerships, Hawkins Press
“The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community” Fagan, Patrick F. March 17, 1995 Available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG1026.cfm
Tilley, Nick (2005) Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Willan Publishing
Youth Crime Available at: http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk
Youth Crime Prevention in England and Wales, Available at: http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/files/POLICE0001/Articles
Youth Justice Board (2005) Monitoring and Evaluating the Safer School Partnership Programme, London: YJB.
UN-HABITAT, United Nations Human Settlements Program (2007). Enhancing Urban Safety and Security: Global Report on Human Settlements, Earthscan