JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAMS: HIGH-RISK YOUTH C HELSEY W A RNER - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
juvenile diversion programs high risk youth
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAMS: HIGH-RISK YOUTH C HELSEY W A RNER - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

May 03, 2023 165 likes •428 views

JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAMS: HIGH-RISK YOUTH C HELSEY W A RNER BACKGROUND Wha t is juve nile dive rsio n? Why do MN c o untie s ha ve dive rsio n? Juve nile Justic e a nd De linq ue nc y Pre ve ntio n Ac t Sta tute s Be

slide-1
SLIDE 1

C HELSEY W A RNER

JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAMS: HIGH-RISK YOUTH

slide-2
SLIDE 2

BACKGROUND

  • Wha t is juve nile dive rsio n?
  • Why do MN c o untie s ha ve

dive rsio n?

  • Juve nile Justic e a nd De linq ue nc y

Pre ve ntio n Ac t

  • Sta tute s
  • Be ne fits
  • Who e nfo rc e s pro g ra ms?
slide-3
SLIDE 3

LABELING THEORY

  • Wha t is it?
  • Whe n a yo uth is la b e le d a s a de linq ue nt, the y

a re mo re like ly to re pe a t de linq ue nt a c tio ns

  • De via nt a c ts a re fra me d b y the we a lthy fo r

the po o r, b y o lde r pe o ple fo r yo ung e r pe o ple , b y e thnic ma jo ritie s fo r mino rity g ro ups.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

RISK-RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE

  • L
  • we st-risk yo uth sho uld re c e ive the fe we st fo rma l

inte rve ntio ns a nd se rvic e s

  • Hig he st-risk yo uth sho uld re c e ive the mo st fo rma l

inte rve ntio ns

slide-5
SLIDE 5

HIGH-RISK YOUTH BEHAVIORS

  • Be ha vio rs:
  • Vio le nc e
  • Sub sta nc e Ab use
  • Risky Se xua l Be ha vio rs
  • I

ndividua l L e ve l:

  • L
  • w Se lf-E

ste e m

  • Ne g a tive Pe e r Gro ups
  • L
  • w Sc ho o l E

ng a g e me nt

  • F

a milia l:

  • L

a c k o f fa mily suppo rt

  • L
  • w pa re nta l mo nito ring
  • E

xtra fa milia l:

  • Ne g a tive sc ho o l c lima te
  • Po o r ne ig hb o rho o d

q ua lity

  • L
  • w so c io e c o no mic

sta tus

slide-6
SLIDE 6

HIGH-RISK YOUTH

  • Pa rtic ipa nts we re mo re like ly to :
  • Re pre se nt c o mmunitie s o f c o lo r
  • Re c e ive fre e o r re duc e d pric e d lunc h
  • L

ive in a ho use ho ld with just the ir mo the r o r o the r re la tive s

  • Re po rt fe e ling a ng ry, irrita b le
  • Ac ting witho ut thinking
  • Using a lc o ho l a nd drug s
  • Pa rtic ipa nts we re le ss like ly to :
  • Spe nd time do ing ho me wo rk o r studying
slide-7
SLIDE 7

DATA

  • Minne so ta De pa rtme nt o f Pub lic Sa fe ty Offic e o f

Justic e Pro g ra ms

  • “Minne so ta Juve nile Dive rsio n: A summa ry o f Sta te wide

Pra c tic e s a nd Pro g ra mming ”

  • Co unty le ve l
  • Unite d Sta te s Ce nsus Ame ric a n F

a c t F inde r

  • 2012 ACS 5-ye a r e stima te s
  • Po ve rty
  • Po pula tio n
  • Ra c e
slide-8
SLIDE 8

METHODS: OFFENSES (DEPENDENT)

Cla ss Offe nse s Drug Offe nse s Prope rty Offe nse s Viole nt Offe nse s

Smo king Ma rijua na Use Sho plifting Arso n Alc o ho l Ma rijua na Po sse ssio n T he ft Assa ult Curfe w Othe r drug s (no t ma rijua na ) use Che c ks/ F

  • rg e ry

Bullying Runa wa ys Othe r drug s (no t ma rijua na po sse ssio n) Diso rde rly Co nduc t T rua nc y DUI & DWI Anima l Crue lty Crimina l Se xua l Co nduc t L e a st Se ve re Offe nse s Mo st Se ve re Offe nse s

slide-9
SLIDE 9

CREATION OF HIGH-RISK YOUTH VARIABLE (INDEPENDENT)

  • (100 - % white ) x (% b e lo w po ve rty line ) x (10-19 po pula tio n)

1,000

  • T

his c re a te d a ra ng e fro m .17 a nd 19.4

  • Ho w do the se va ria b le s inte ra c t?
slide-10
SLIDE 10

HYPOTHESES

  • Hypothe sis One : Co untie s with a la rg e numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth

will not b e mo re like ly to ta rg e t c la ss o ffe nse s tha n c o untie s with a sma lle r numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth.

  • Hypothe sis T

wo: Co untie s with a la rg e numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth

will b e mo re like ly to ta rg e t drug o ffe nse s tha n c o untie s with a sma lle r numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth.

  • Hypothe sis T

hre e : Co untie s with a la rg e r numb e r o f hig h-risk

yo uth will b e mo re like ly to ta rg e t pro pe rty o ffe nse s tha n c o untie s with a sma lle r numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth.

  • Hypothe sis F
  • ur: Co untie s with a la rg e numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth

will b e mo re like ly to ta rg e t vio le nt o ffe nse s tha n c o untie s with a sma ll numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

HYPOTHESIS ONE

HIG H-RISK YO UTH & C LA SS O FFENSES

slide-12
SLIDE 12

HIGH-RISK YOUTH & CLASS OFFENSES

slide-13
SLIDE 13

HIGH-RISK YOUTH & CLASS OFFENSES

High-Risk Youth

Class Offenses

slide-14
SLIDE 14

HYPOTHESIS TWO

HIG H-RISK YO UTH & DRUG O FFENSES

slide-15
SLIDE 15

HIGH-RISK YOUTH & DRUG OFFENSES

slide-16
SLIDE 16

HIGH-RISK YOUTH & DRUG OFFENSES

High-Risk Youth Drug Offenses

slide-17
SLIDE 17

HYPOTHESIS THREE

HIG H-RISK YO UTH & PRO PERTY O FFENSES

slide-18
SLIDE 18

HIGH-RISK YOUTH & PROPERTY OFFENSES

slide-19
SLIDE 19

HIGH-RISK YOUTH & PROPERTY OFFENSES

Hig h- Risk Youth Prope rty Offe nse s

slide-20
SLIDE 20

HYPOTHESIS FOUR

HIG H-RISK YO UTH & VIO LENT O FFENSES

slide-21
SLIDE 21

HIGH-RISK YOUTH & VIOLENT OFFENSES

slide-22
SLIDE 22

HIGH-RISK YOUTH & VIOLENT OFFENSES

Hig h- Risk Youth Viole nt Offe nse s

slide-23
SLIDE 23

CONCLUSIONS

  • Co untie s with a la rg e numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth a re not mo re

like ly to ta rg e t c la ss o ffe nse s tha n c o untie s with a sma lle r numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth.

  • Co untie s with a la rg e numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth a re not mo re

like ly to ta rg e t drug o ffe nse s tha n c o untie s with a sma lle r numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth.

  • Co untie s with a la rg e r numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth a re mo re

like ly to ta rg e t pro pe rty o ffe nse s tha n c o untie s with a sma lle r numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth.

  • Co untie s with a la rg e numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth a re mo re like ly

to ta rg e t vio le nt o ffe nse s tha n c o untie s with a sma ll numb e r o f hig h-risk yo uth.

slide-24
SLIDE 24

QUESTIONS?

slide-25
SLIDE 25

WORKS CITED

Abrams, L. S., Umbreit, M., & Gordon, A. (2003). Youthful Offenders Response to Victim Offender Conferencing in Washington County, Minnesota. Center for Restorative Justice & Peacemaking, 1‐10. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. New Providence: Anderson. Fischer, D. G., & Jeune, R. (1987). Juvenile Diversion: A Process Analysis. Canadian Psychology, 60‐70. Hoge, R. D., & Wilson, H. A. (2012). The Effect of Youth Diversion Programs on Recidivism: A Meta‐ Analytic Review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 497‐518. Kreager, C. M. (2011). Minnesota Diversion Guidebook. Juvenile Justice Coalition, 1‐14. Lundman, R. J. (1976). Will Diversion Reduce Recidivism? Crime & Delinquency, 428‐437. Minnesota Statute, 388.24 (Minnesota Legislature July 1, 1995). Schwalbe, C. S., Gearing, R. E., MacKenzie, M. J., Brewer, K. B., & Ibrahim, R. (2012). A Meta‐Analysis of Experimental Studies of Diversion Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 26‐33. Swayze, D., & Buskovick, D. (2012). Minnesota Juvenile Diversion: A Summary of Statewide Practices and

  • Programming. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Public Safety.

Swayze, D., & Buskovick, D. (2012). The Minnesota Youth Intervention Program. Minnesota Department

  • f Public Safety Office of Justice Programs, 1‐55.

Thomas, W. I. (1928). The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. In The Methodology of Behavior Study (pp. 553‐576). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.