Law Capstone Paper Sample

Law Capstone Paper Sample
By
http://www.capstoneproject.net/
The Missouri model of justice system

Running Head: THE MISSOURI MODEL OF JUSTICE SYSTEM
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Instructor:
Date of submission:
Introduction
For over 100 many US States had a common believe that the Juvenile Justice system was
the means by which the public would be protected from the children who are in transition to

adulthood. It was commonly agreed that children who engage in crimes were not in the same
class as the adults who committed the same crimes. It was believed that there was a higher
capacity among children to change that there is for adults. As a way of responding to these
changes, there is an establishment of a separate justice system for juveniles by the state. The
system is different, providing services related to the juvenile dissimilar to that of the adults.
Since 1899, there has been a substantial growth as well as changes in the juvenile justice system
since the establishment of the first US juvenile justice system in Illinois State. Initially, there was
an informal court system whereby the court proceedings entailed a conversation between the
judge and the youth, and the defendant did not have a legal representation. In order to separate
the juveniles’ jails from that of the adults, there was a creation of a probation system by the early
juvenile courts. At the same time, the probation system used a separate system of service
delivery to provide supervision, education, and guidance to the minors. All the US states, as well
as the District of Columbia, followed Illinois to establish the juvenile justice system (Bonnie &
National Research Council, 2013).
In 1967, a ruling in a case involving In re Gault determined that the US Constitution has a
provision for the same rights of the juveniles as well as the adults when it comes to the court
representation. These rights included that of an attorney as well as that of having a confrontation
with the witness. In 1971, the US supreme court held that there was no constitutional right for
the juveniles to have a jury trial. Today, the justice system of the youth has a primary goal of
maintaining rehabilitation and there is an important way in which this system has a distinction
from the criminal justice system. Unlike the proceedings of the crime by an adult, members of

the public are not allowed to access the hearings of the juvenile courts and the information
provided during the proceedings is usually confidential, offering protection to the child against
committing delinquency inadulthood. Some states offers therapeutic and education program, or
the child is put into the residential program. Since the 1990s, there is a steady decline in the
juvenile crime. However, when there was a rise in the rate of juvenile crime all over the US in
the late 1980s and early 1990s. There was an adoption of the “get tough” crime policies by the
states. Because of this, some youths were deprived off some of the protections offered by the
juvenile justice system. Ever since 1975, Juvenile Law Centre has make sure that there is the
involvement of the Juveniles in the Missouri justice system for the juveniles. The juveniles are
treated with dignity, given the right to acquire education and provided a chance to become
healthy as well as productive adults (Wilson & John F. Kennedy School of Government, 2013).
The US president and the Congress established the JJDP (Office of Juvenile and
Delinquency Prevention) Act of 1974, and its aim is to prevents well as control delinquency in
the US. Missouri State also developed its own Juvenile, who has atas tained success. Several
strategies make the juvenile justice system of Missouri attain this success, and these include its
location close to the homes of the juveniles. In addition, these facilities are small making their
management efficient. The facilities do not resemble the traditional cells but are more like
homes, making the juveniles be comfortable. In addition, the staffs of these facilities are well
trained to handle the juveniles. The juveniles also receive respectful as well as dignified
treatment while in these facilities. Unlike the traditional model, the Missouri juvenile justice
system uses a therapeutic as well as rehabilitative model. Its aim is to bring a positive impact to

the lives of the youths by teaching them how to be positive in life (Merlo & Benekos, 2013).
The Missouri juvenile model has achieved success because only 8 percent of the
juveniles go back to their old habits, and only 8 percent of these youths proceed to the adult
classes. A third of these juveniles receive their GED or high school diplomas while still in these
facilities, and approximately 50% go back to school. Over the last twenty years, there has been a
steady increase in the rate of juvenile incarceration. Each day, over 368 out of 100,000 juveniles
are serving their terms in correctional facilities, not to mention that all these people will be back
to their community. There is a need for a programming services continuum to assist the
population of the incarcerated juvenile to prepare them for release, go back to the community,
and leaving the prison. the aim is to ensure that there is an improvement of their success when it
comes to the adjustment to the community. In addition, such a programming service will ensure
that there is a reduction in the recidivism risk. The Missouri Model of Justice System for
Juvenile correction is hailed as being a leader in the juvenile reform area. Nevertheless, very
little empirical analysis on this program has been done. The governance of the tone and the
structure of the juvenile justice system is a periodical understanding of the delinquency and how
best the delinquency behaviour can be corrected. More focus is put on therapy as well as
education instead of punishment in the Missouri juvenile justice system. In 1980s, there was a
closure of the training schools as well as large facilities that were characterized by minimal
schooling. The aim of this paper is to conduct a policy analysis of Missouri model of the justice
system (Bonnie & National Research Council, 2013).

Policy statement
The term juvenile does not have a clear definition. Some states perceive a juvenile as
being an 18-year-old while others see a juvenile as being a 15-year-old. In Missouri, a juvenile is
a person whose age does not exceed 17 years. Nevertheless, the juvenile system of justice serves
a vulnerable as well as a marginalized population of youths guilt of a crime. The funding for this
system is mainly from the state. Various issues such as perception of events, perceptions issues, a
shift in population, and program changes have affected the Juvenile judicial system of Missouri
in immeasurable ways. Today, five referral categories do exist in Missouri, and these are status
offense, law violation, municipal/juvenile violation, abuse/negligence/custody matters, and law
violations. The focus of this study would be juvenile justice system of Missouri with the focus
being the juvenile population (Missouri Bar, 2011).
The Missouri model of the justice system is an intervention program targeting the
juvenile offenders, and it aims at reducing recidivism. Though there is a causal influences
understanding variations, the model of Missouri juvenile justice system has ensured that certain
identifiable cycles are followed. The legal thinking on delinquency and juvenile justice has
strongly influenced the state of Missouri. Many states across the US including Missouri held
their juveniles in training facilities with each gender being kept in different facilities. In 1889,
Missouri State opened tow juvenile facilities, one in Chillicothe to house female and another one
in Boonville to house the male juveniles. In 1948, there was a killing of two youth in the
Boonville facility and following this incidence, the courts became more active in influencing the

processes of the juvenile justice. In 1967, the Act of the Unified Juvenile Court was passed by
Missouri legislature and under this act; the court assumed the jurisdiction over all the adoption,
delinquency, abuse, and the status offense related cases. The law gave the provision to the court
that they should make a consideration of having the least punishment alternatives as well as
reduce the placements of out-of-home. Whereas there is an extensive criticism of the Juvenile
system of the US for its involvement in abuse as well corruption, the juvenile system of Missouri
is however transformative. It ensures that the offenders are not repeating their offense once they
go through the system (Bonnie & National Research Council, 2013).
Many offenders are passing through the Missouri facilities where they are receiving a
national commendation. Through this system, a caseworker is assigned to a group of 10-15
offenders and during the day, the offenders are allowed to go to school. In addition, the offenders
are also allowed to engage in co-curriculum activities such as sports and play production. The
offenders are also taught how to work as a team, and this is through mingling together through
mountain climbing and camping. Through this system, many teenagers are becoming better
citizens. There is an emulation of this system by several states including Virginia, New Mexico,
California, and Louisiana. Washington State, for instance, closed its troubled juvenile centre of
detention namely Oak Hill Youth Centre in 2009 and rebuilt it to look like the model of
Missouri. There has been a change in the Missouri system from its traditional punitive system
that was characterized by harsh conditions such as rape, beatings, and sometimes death.
Tremendous improvement in the model took place in the 1970s. Under the model, the juveniles
whose crimes are minor such as trespassing or skipping classes are placed in cottages or low-

security houses in a group of 10 kids. The small size is essential as it ensure that there is efficacy
among the staff members when it comes to working with the individual offenders. The system
also provides that delinquencies with violent crimes are put into gated facility with a capacity of
holding about 50 offenders. It offers the same atmosphere of the group as well as ensure that its
focus is on rehabilitation. Having been placed in small groups, the offenders are also provided
counselling services as well as allowed to go to school. Once a juvenile is found to have acquired
good behaviour as well as demonstrated progress, he or she can e released after a short time.
Critics stipulate that the Missouri juvenile system is too lenient on juvenile delinquency and that
it may contribute to the youth not becoming law abiding. However, studies done on this system
indicates that very few people who have gone through the juvenile system of Missouri tend to get
into the trouble compared to high number of juveniles in other systems (Merlo & Benekos,
2013).
The laws and policies direct the direct the juvenile justice system and they (the laws and
policies) are guided by parens doctrine. It requires that the state to act as the parent to ensure that
the interests of juveniles whom they serve are met. The Missouri system of Juvenile was
established and improved so that it would respond to the numerous needs of the youths, running
simultaneously with the teachers, caregivers, protectors, and ensuring that the community safety
is a priority. The objectives of parens patriae also necessitate the tailoring of the administrative
decisions to individual children. The operations of the Missouri juvenile justice system take
place with limited resources as well as with more obscure goals than the criminal justice does
(Merlo & Benekos, 2013). The juvenile justice system in Missouri has undergone numerous

reforms including the construction of the juvenile correction centres with a dormitory style. The
focus of the Missouri juvenile justice system is in therapy as well as comfortable conditions of
living with a great emphasis on job training as well as on education (Wilson & John F. Kennedy
School of Government, 2013).
Prior to the 1970s reform, the Missouri juvenile justice system was littered with poor
strategies that led to the rise of crime rate, endangered the juveniles, wasted a lot of money, and
damaged the bright future of the youths. The policy also violated the profound meaning of the
equal rights provided for in the law. Despite numerous scholars as well as juvenile practitioners
providing the direction on how the juvenile justice system should be done, there was a consistent
failure of this system in many states. However, the Missouri system has achieved success in the
last 20 years, and many states are already reconstituting their system to resemble that of
Missouri. The primary function of the juvenile system of justice is the preventing a juvenile from
recommitting the offense. Although the court plays the role of preventing the breaking of the
laws by the community, it will continue to respond to the adolescents who continue to engage in
delinquency within the community. While providing services or imposing sanctions, the court
will have the final say concerning the type as well as the intensity of the interventions for the
juveniles. The knowledge about the adolescent development is essential when it comes to the
making of the decision with the aim of preventing the reoffending among the adolescents (Merlo
& Benekos, 2013).

The justice system of the juveniles in the US has struggled for a long a long time with the innate
tension between the role of the system in ensuring that the punishment for the violation of the
law is met and the role of the system to ensure that the juveniles are attaining a constructive
behaviour. The juvenile justice system should ensure that the public is protected from the harm
brought about by the juvenile offenders, and it should ensure that these juveniles are leading a
productive life in future. To attain these goals, it is important to control the short-term behaviour
as well as having a means to induce a behaviour change that will continue even after the juvenile
is not supervised by the court. Missouri juvenile justice system uses various methods to control
the acts of the juveniles and among the old methods included the use of the community
supervision as well as custodial care (Merlo & Benekos, 2013).
Approximately93,000 youthsare placedin the facilitiesof juvenile justice acrossthe US.The state-
funded,residential andthe post-adjudicationfacilitiesholdsapproximately70% of these youths.Each
day,each youthheldinthese facilitiesspendsabout$240.99 eachday. Since moststatesare spendinga
lotof budgetaryconstraint,there isaneedforthe statesto reconsiderwaysthatwouldreduce the
spendingonthe juvenile justice system.The state of Missouri isalsospendingalottokeepthe youthsin
the facilities,anditfallsunderthiscategory.The rate of recidivismishigheramongthe adolescentswho
are imprisonedthatthe youthswhoserve inthe community.Policieswhose aimistoconfine children
do notguarantee publicsafety.Accordingtostudies,statesthatraisedthe youthnumberinthe facilities
didnot have a reductioninthe crime rate.Accordingto studies,recidivismratescanbestbe reducedby
the use of the community-basedprograms.Suchprogramsalsopromote positiveoutcomesof life.
Studieshave indicatedthatthe rate of recidivismcanbe reducedbyabout22% usingthese programs.
Low cost isincurredbyusingthe community-basedprogramsthanbyusingincarceration.There is

efficacyincommunity-basedprogramandat the same time,the programshave beenshowntoproduce
more benefitsintermsof publicsafetythanputtingthe youthsintothe detentionorincarceratingthem.
There isan existence of numeroustheoriestogive anexplanationwhythere isarise inthe
youthnumbersthatare placedunderthe juvenile justice system.Amongthesetheoriesincludethe idea
that there is a rise of youngmembersof the gang.The Missouri model of the juvenilejustice hasbeen
embracednationallyasthe model toemulate.The Missouri model hasagreatemphasisonsmall
facilities,anditsfocusison rehabilitationaswellassupportforthe youths.The model hasbeenshown
to influencepositivelythe youthsandtoimprove the safetyof the public.While inthe facilities,the
youthscan attainthe educational benchmarksata rate similartothe youthswhoserve theirtermsat
the prisons.Althoughthe bestpractice totreatthe youthswhohave brokenthe law,if there isa needto
confine ayoungperson,the bestmodel toemulate isthe Missouri model.However,there isaneedfor
more focuson the community-basedprogramsinsteadof confinement.Intermsof cost,the
community-basedprogramsare inexpensive comparedtothe confinement.Researchinvestigatingthe
effectsof community-basedversusthe institutionalinterventionshasshownthatmore positive
outcomesare achievedbyyouthswhoundergotreatmentincommunity-basedprograms.Accordingto
research,the bestwayto enhance publicsafetyistoensure thatthere ismore investmentinthe
community-basedyouthprogramsasthiswill alsosave money.Anotherrecommendationistoensure
the rate of employmentamongthe youthsisimproved.Accordingtostudies,there isalesslikelihood
for an employedyouthtoengage incrime thanan unemployedyouth.Anotherstrategywillinvolve
establishingprogramswithinthe communitythatthatwill addressissuessuchdrugandsubstance
abuse,mental illnesses,aswell asthe emotional distressthatoccuras a resultof trauma. Subsequently,
it isimportantforthe jurisdictiontoensure thatthe confinedyouthsare receivingcare evenafterthey

transitintothe community.Suchcare wouldinclude arrangingforhousing,employments,andother
supportfor the youthonce theyare releasedfromthe confinement.
The policywill discussthe juvenile justice systemandwill lookathow the efficacyof the
Missouri justice systeminpreventingcrime.The recommendationsprovidedbythispolicywill assistthe
lawenforcersandthe people involvedinthe youthrehabilitative efforts,tobe effective intheirwork.
The policywill strengthenthe currentreformsmade tothe juvenile system, assistingotherpolicymakers
indevelopingbetterpoliciesandthisintermwill helpthemtoavoiddiscrimination.Inaddition,the
policywill be essentialinassistinginpredictingthe juvenile justice system’sfuture.The policyintendsto
give the descriptionof the juvenile justice systeminMissouri State.
Literature review
The primary purpose of the criminological theory is to assist an individual in
understanding criminal justice as well as a crime. Through the theories, we are able to learn
about how the laws are made as well as how they are broken, deviant, and criminal behaviours,
and the criminal activities pattern. Theories are also essential as they are used in guiding the
policy making. Several theories would conduct this study, and they include the following:
Absolute deterrence: this entails any form of crime that is being prevented due to the presence of

formal system to ensure that a person is receiving punishment for committing a criminal act.
Deterrent theory: the theory indicates that there can be the control of a crime through the
utilization of punishment that brings together a proper degree of severity, celerity, and certainty.
Expected utility principle: it states that individuals’ acts in a way that would benefit them as well
as reduce loss. Through this theory, individuals are willing to increase their pleasure as well as
reduce their pain.
Social learning theory:RobertMerton developedthistheorywiththe anomie concept,whichinvolvesa
splitbetweenthe goal of an individual andthe impedimentpossessedbythe societytoattainingthese
goals.In 1992, RobertAgnewindicatedthatworryandstressis a criminal behaviorimpetusandthatthe
source of these emotionsisanomies.Thereexistthree mainformsof strainnamelylackof capacityto
attaina goal,positive motivations’loss,andthe quantityof negativityinthe life of anindividual.There
are twowaysof measuringstrainnamelythe identificationof the life aspectsbythe subject orthe
predeterminationof the straincausesbya researcherandaskingthe respondentswhetherthere is
existence of suchstrainintheirlife.AccordingtoAgnew’sresearch,there isaconnectionbetweenthe
negativityandthe life of apersonthatis thenconnectedtothe criminal behavior.
According to the experts of juvenile justice, the Missouri model is a potential reform
movement that is emulated by many states to reduce youth confinement cost. California, whose
annual spending on every incarcerated juvenile stands at $200,000 had a reallocation of $93
million in the expenses of the prison by sinking state confinement. Facilities like Missouri Hills

near St. Louis do not have the barbed wire that characterized the traditional prison. The Missouri
model limits the number of youths living in a wooden cottage style dormitory to 10, and each of
these facilities has two facilitators. The majority of the other states do not have such an
arrangement and most of them maintain the traditional juvenile justice system of putting the
juveniles in the same cells with the adults. The most impressive thing about the Missouri model
is that it has lowest rate of recidivism in the nation. Other states for instance Illinois, Louisiana,
and Florida are focussing on bringing improving the facilities to prevent the juveniles from
running. In order to avoid confinement, some states works at the level of the country to ensure
that the youths remain in their community while they are been rehabilitated. According to the
advocates, this option is cheaper compared to the residential care. The two largest systems of the
state namely the California and Texas cut long-term confinement of the juveniles, requiring that
each county would use detention halls to house offenders of low-level.
Each year, one-half over a period of two years cut the youth population in Texas while
the state of California reduced its youth population from 10,000 in 1997 to 2,500 presently.
However, many critics see county and city detention programs as uneven and indicate that there
is an inadequate monitoring of these facilities by the states. Using the Missouri model
techniques, Missouri was able to cut the population of the adults from 2005 to the first half of
2007. Through the Missouri model reform, there is a nationwide impact for instance a 12%
decline in the number of the juvenile offenders from 105,000 juveniles to 93,000 youths from
1997 to 2006.

A study done by Krisberg, Vuong, Hartlney, and Marchionna (2010) looked at the means
that can be used to reduce the correction system of the state. According to the study, the creation
of the state-wide correction centres for the juveniles took place in 1941. The initiation of the
juvenile system was the creation of the CYA (California Youth Authority). For three decades,
the CYA population did not go beyond 7,000. Towards the end of 1970s as well as at the
beginning of 1980s, the CYA population began to rise. CYA was later changed into Division of
the juvenile facilities. There was however a decline in the population of the youth offenders in
1997. The data for this study was from various agencies of the state as well as from the interview
that was conducted with individuals who had knowledge of the declining trend of the CYA
population. There was also a review of the media coverage regarding the youth crime. The data
showed the change of the numbers and the media review as well as the interview provided the
changing numbers’ context. Just like the Missouri justice system, there is a declining trend of the
juvenile offenders in the California State. The rate of the arrest of the Juvenile felony was 2,902
in 1991 to 1,345 in every 100,000 youths of ages 10 to 17 in 2009. The two systems show a drop
in the number of the juvenile arrest. In California, the reduced arrest has led to a decline in the
custody of CYA since fewer arrests will translate into fewer youths in the facilities.
One of the focuses of the California juvenile justice systems is the public safety. The
primary goal of the California model of the juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate as well as
treat the juveniles. The Missouri model shares the same goal of restoring as well as treating the
juveniles, preventing them from returning to their old habits. There are numerous methods as
well as programs used by the California model for addressing the crimes committed by the
juvenile, ensuring that the severity of the crime is considered, as well as regarding the offender’s

background. The California models run a number of programs such as treatment, incarceration,
detention, as well as community supervision. In addition, the system offers increasing response
to the increasing severity for instance the formal probation, informal probation, incarceration,
and detention. Since the primary goal of the California juvenile justice system is to ensure that
the juveniles are being rehabilitated, they system works with other agencies to achieve this goal
and these agencies include the schools, agencies of the social services, as well as community-
based organizations. Following the arrest of the juvenile offender, a law enforcer has a right to
take the juvenile either to the juvenile hall or to the offender’s parents. Since there is
overcrowding in most of the juvenile halls, only violent offenders are taken into these rooms, and
the rest of the arrestees are released. If there is a placement of the juvenile into the juvenile hall,
the department of the probation or the attorney of the district may take the youth to the juvenile
court and file a petition there, a move similar to the filing of charges in the adult courts. The
district attorney in the California state may also opt to ask for the remanding of the juvenile to
the courts of the adults. Once the minor is proved guilty, he or she is placed on community
probation, placed in a group home or foster care, or incarcerated in the juvenile camp within the
county. Consequently, the judge may opt to send the juvenile to the authority of the youth. The
California juvenile system ensures that 97% of the of the juvenile offenders are supervised by the
county department, and the remaining 3% are submitted to the Youth Authority and the state
become their primary responsibility.
The California system has identified numerous treatment services for the juvenile
offenders. The policy has identified several factors that may put the youth at the risk of

committing a crime, and they include the family dysfunction, school failure, mental disorder, and
substance abuse. Among the intervention services proposed by the system include the school
services, social services of the county, as well as the community-based organizations. The
California’s Division of Juvenile Justice provide academic, vocational education, and treatment
programs that addresses criminal and violent behaviour, substance abuse, medical care, problems
of the mental health, as well as maintaining secure as well as safe learning environment. The
assignment of the living units is based on the age, institution violence risk, gender, as well as
their needs for the specialized treatment. Unlike the Missouri model, the integrated behaviour
treatment model forms the framework for the programs of DJJ of California. The aim of this
model (integrated action treatment model) is to ensure that there is a reduction in the institution
violence as well instilling anti-criminal attitude to the juveniles. In addition, the model provides
skills to the youth on how they can manage their environment. There is thus some similarities
among the California model and the Missouri model in that they both serve the purpose of
rehabilitating the youths. Just like the Missouri model, there California model ensures that the
youths are attending schools to attain a diploma of the high school. Since the year 2004, the
number of the youths who have achieved academic success through this model stands at 5,632.
The number of juveniles who completed the high school education rose to 300%.
Whenthere isa recommendationforaninterventionforthe youth,there isefficacywhenitcomesto
the reduction of the recidivismrate.Inaddition,thereisthe promotionof the positive outcomesof life
usingthe communityadministeredinterventionorthose administeredoutsidethe juvenile justice
system.Suchprogramsappearto reduce the rate of recidivismby about22 percentandat a lowercost
than the cost incurredthroughimprisonment.Accordingtoresearchers,youthstreatedinanoutside

secure environmenthave positiveoutcomes.Recentstudiesindicate thatwhileappropriatetreatment
improvesthe outcomesinboththe communityandthe institutionsettings,highsuccessoccursin
communitysettingthaninthe institutionsetting.Comparingthe large residential andthe community
programsare compared;researchshowsthatthere isthe dampeningof the appropriate services
positive effectbythe residentialfacilities.AccordingtoWSIPP(WashingtonInstituteforPublicPolicy),
more taxpayers’moneywouldbe savedif there isaninvestmentof alternativeapproachotherthan
incarceration.
In Colorado,there isthe decentralizationof the juvenilejustice system.ColoradoState hasthree
mainlawenforcementagenciesnamelythe municipal police department,ColoradoState Patrol,andthe
Sheriff’sdepartment.Eachcountyof the ColoradoState hasa sheriff whose termlastsforfouryears.
The main role of the sheriff istomaintainthe jailswithinthe county,provide criminal andcivil paper
service,aswell asinvestigatingcasesinvolvingcrimes.The countyfundsthe Departmentof the sheriff.
The departmentof Coloradomunicipal police primaryrole isansweringthe service callsandtemporary
housingprisonerspriortotheirtransfertothe countyjailsor while pendingtobe released.The
ColoradoState Patrol turnsthe casesinvolvingthe juvenilestothe sheriff departmentorthe local
police.Ingeneral,the mainrole of the juvenilelaw enforcersincludesputtingthe juvenile intocustody
temporarilywithoutacourt orderwhenthere isa strong groundthat a juvenilehascommitteda
delinquencyact.In Colorado,a juvenile isonlytakenintothe custodyonce there isaninsurance of a
court order.There isan appointmentof anagencyor an individual toperformscreeningorintake
functionfora juvenilewhoistakenintothe temporarycustody.

The ColoradoIntensive AftermathProgramisrunbyDYC (ColoradoDivisionof Youth
Corrections),itsoperatingareaisthe DenverMetropolitan,andthese areasincludeJefferson,Denver,
and Arapahoe counties.Varioustechniquessuchasthe education,psychological,andstandardbattery
instrumentsdothe assessmentof the juvenilesinthisprogram.Otherassessmenttechniquesinclude
the youthoffenderservicelevel aswell asthe adolescentswhoare livingindependently,andthisis
throughemploymentandeducation.The Coloradoprogramensuresthatthere isservice delivery
continuity.The model alsooffersindividual counseling,vocationaltrainingof skills,experiential activities
of learning,parentorientation,survival skills,andangermanagementskills. Apartfromthat,the youths
inthe Coloradofamilyare engagedinnumerouscounselinggroups.The majorityof the youthinthe
program spendsseveral monthsundergoingprogramminginthe daytreatmentthatoffersahigh
structure level duringthe day.Several otheractivitiesof monitoringthe youthsinclude the random
urinalysisandcurfews.Throughthe Coloradoprogram, the youthare requiredtobe reportingtothe
supervisorteamonce perweek.
Numerousstudiesindicate thatthere isahighlikelihood forthe incarceratedyouthstorecidivismthan
youthswhoundergosupervisionthroughthe settingsthatare community-based.
A studyof the incarcerationof youthsinArkansasfoundthatthere wasa highrate of recidivism
and apart fromthat, the incarcerationexperience isanimportantfactorinincreasingthe recidivism
odds.The studyalso foundthatapproximately60% of the studiedyouthswentbacktothe DYS
(departmentof youthservices) inaperiodof three yearsaftertheirrelease.The studyfurtherindicated
that there wasan increase inthe possibilityof goingbacktothe DYS fora priorcommitmentyouthsby

13.5 timesthanfor youthspossessingaweapon(3.5times),poorrelationshipwiththe parents(0.6
times),organg membership(2times).
Similarfindingswere foundinTexaswhere there waslesslikelihoodforthe youthswhowere
placedundera community-basedprogramtocommittee delinquencybehaviorthanincarcerated
youths.63.4% of the 443 studiesaboutthe justice systemsof the juvenilesshow thatyouthwho
receivedinterventionsthatputmore emphasisonthe community-basedtreatment,aswell asother
alternativesparalleltoincarceration,hadalesslikelihoodtorecidivismthanthose withnointervention.
In addition,the study showedthat32 to 37% of youthswhoare providedwiththe employmentaswell
as behavioural programswere likelytorecidivatecomparedtoahigherrate of recidivism(50%) for
youthswhodidnot receive anyformof intervention.
Recidivismstudiesfromlarge residential facilitiesof correction,suchasthe trainingschools
showa highpercentage.A studydone byyouthsdischargedfromthe twotrainingschoolsof Minnesota
in1991 indicatedthatthere wasa re-arrestingof 91% of these youthsfive yearsaftertheywere
released.The similarstudyinMarylandsampled947 youthswhose releasefromthe correctional
facilitieswasin1994. Accordingto the study,82% of the youthswere referredtothe criminal orjuvenile
court ina periodof twoand a half yearsfollowingtheirrelease.Inthe state of Washington,59% of the
youthswhowere incarceratedwere returnedtothe incarcerationcenterfora periodof one yearwhile
68% intwo years.
Numerousotherstudiesshow asimilarpatternof ahighpercentage of youthsbeingre-arrested
fewyearsaftertheirrelease.Incarcerationisnotthe wayto handle the youthswhoare involvedin
delinquencybehavior.There isaneedtoalternate incarcerationwithotherprogramsasthese programs

are effective whenitcomestopublicsafety.Accordingtoresearch,the majorityof the youthsdesist
fromillegal aswell asdelinquencybehaviorontheirownwithoutthe criminal orjuvenile justice system
interventions.However,whenthereisthe involvementthe twosystemsorone of them, sucha move
wouldimpede the youth’sdevelopment.Inaddition,involvingotherof the systemwouldderail the
chancesof the youthto successfullytransitintoadulthood.There isthe disruptionof the youthengaging
naturallywiththe membersof the family,work,andschool.Recentstudieshave shownthat
confinementhasa highlikelihoodof reinforcingdelinquencybehaviorinthe at-riskgroupthan
individualtreatmentinthe community.Inaddition,confiningayoungpersonina confinedfacilitywould
make him/herfeel thatthe societyhassociallyisolatedhim/her.Becauseof this,the youtharemore
likelytoassociate withhisorherpeersas theyfeel thattheyare isolatedsocially.
A studydone bythe Juvenile Justice andDelinquency PreventionOffice indicatedthatthe
likelihoodof the youthreturningtotheiroldbehaviorishighif theyhave adirectcontact withthe
juvenilecourt.Inaddition,the percentageof the youthslikelytorepeatthe same delinquencybehavior
followingtheirreferral standsat41. Incarcerationcanalso hinderthe processof natural developmentof
gettingeducatedandbeingemployedasthe youthdoesnothave equal opportunitieslikesthe youths
whoremaininthe community.Whena youthdoesnotdevelopthese attachments,he/sheislikelyto
have reducedrecidivism.The study,however,failstorecognizethe role playedbythe confinement
facilities.Althoughthe confinementfacilitiesare associatedwithsomanysetbacks,manyyouthschange
theirbehaviorsthroughthese facilities.Accordingtoa studydone in1993, the rate of crime among the
youthsislowamong the youthswhohave stable jobs.Due tothe education,opportunitiesof
employment,andnatural processesof life,researchindicatesthatthe incarcerationprocesscouldmake
a personto an unstable employee.However,nosample size orthe methodologyiswell establishedin

the study.The studyalso failstorecognize the youthswhosucceedineducationandemploymentafter
the incarceration.
References
Champion, D. J., Merlo, A. V., & Benekos, P. J. (2013). The juvenile justice system:
Delinquency, processing, and the law. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education.
Bonnie, R. J., & National Research Council (U.S.). (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A
developmental approach.
Missouri Bar. (2011). Missouri juvenile law. Jefferson City, Mo. (326 Monroe St.,
Jefferson City 65101: Missouri Bar.
Wilson, J. B. & John F. Kennedy School of Government. (2013). Cross-branch
collaboration: What can we learn from the collaboration between courts and the division
of youth services in Missouri?. Williamsburg, Va.: National Center for State Courts.
Recommendations

As the yearsgoes,several programsonthe comprehensive aftercare have beengenerated.
Amongthese programsinclude the Maryland’sjuvenile aftercare programfordrugtreatment,
the MichiganNokomisChallenge program, aswell asthe PIPAP(PhiladelphiaIntensive
ProbationAftercare Program).Suchprogramsare not presentnMissouri,anditis importantfor
the model toinclude themtoensure thatthere isefficacyinthe juvenile service delivery.
However,the programsshouldbe propertoavoidproblemsduringthe program
implementation.Inaddition,suchprogramsshouldbe inclusive of all the groups,bow the low
and the highrecidivismriskgroups.There isaneedtofocusmore on the criminologyfactors
and more componentsof treatmentshouldbe involved.Althoughthe Missouri model isamong
the bestin the US, there isa need formore,and there isa needto monitorthe youthonce
he/she isreleasedbackintothe community.Suchayouthshouldreceive supportfromanother
program forinstance supportforeducationonce he/she islivinginthe community.Inaddition,
anotherprogramwherebythe youthwhohave made a change while inthe juvenile custody
shouldbe implementedwiththe aimof positivelyinfluencingthe youthswithinthe community
to change.The Missouri model shouldalsoincorporate some of the interventionsprovidedin
the intensive aftercare program(IAP).The aimof IAPisthe reductionof the recidivismamong
the paroleeswithhighriskbypreparingthemtobetterpriorto theirrelease intothe
community.A highlystructuredaswell asanenhancedtransitionfromthe livesinconfinement
to the life inthe communitywouldmake the paroleetobenefitinmanyareassuchas peer
relations,education,mentalhealth,andfamilyrelations.The aftercare modelsbyArmstrong
and Altschulerintegratesthe theoriesof criminologynamelythe social learning,socialcontrol,
and the straintheoryto offeranexplanationforaserious,aswell asa chronicdelinquency.

Accordingto ArmstrongandAltschuler,aseriousaswell asa chronicdelinquencyhasaclose
relationshipwithsocial disorganization,weakcontrol generatedbythe inadequate control,the
strainthat is generatedbythe disorganizationamongothers.Accordingtothem, aneffective
interventionneedsintensive supervision,aswell asservicesbothafterthe youth,isreleasedas
well asduringthe reintegrationandincarceration.The model of IAPalsoentailsacorrectional
continuumcomprisingof three segmentsnamelythe pre-releaseaswell aspreparationplanning
for the periodof incarceration,structural transitionrequiringthe participationof the aftercare
and the institutional staffspriortoaswell asfollowingthe re-entryintothe community.In
addition,the model alsoentailsthe reintegrationof the activitiestoensure thatthere isan
adequate deliveryof the services,aswell asanecessarysocial control level.Thisshouldbe the
alternative model forthe currentMissouri model.The IAP’scentral componentisthe systemof
the overarchingcase management.The IAPmodel isamechanismthatattains coordinated
planningaswell asconsistentandcontinuousprovisionof services,referral,aswell asobserving
juvenileoffenderswhoare placedinasecure confinementawaitingtransitionintothe statusof
the aftercare inthe community.There are several elementof the model,andtheyare as
follows:
Riskassessmentaswell asclassification:tomaximize itscapacityforthe reductionof the crime,
the focusof IAPishigh-riskoffenders.Sometimes,the youthswhopassesthroughthe Missouri
model tendtogo back to theiroldways.WithIAP,there isthe utilizationof the authenticated
riskscreeninginstrumenttoidentifyclearlythe youthswhoare at a higherrisk.

Individualizedcase planningincorporatingfamilyaswell ascommunity:thiscomponentgives
the specificationforthe needforthe institutional aswell asaftercare staff toidentifythe service
needaswell astreatmentof an offendersoonaftercommitmentaswell asplanthe meansof
addressingthose needsduringthe incarceration,communityaftercare andthe transition.The
componentalsoaimsat addressingthe youthproblemsinrelationtotheirpeers,families,
schools,aswell asothersocial networks.
Intensive scrutinyandservices:Althoughthe model of IAPoffersaclose supervisionaswell as
control the offendersof highriskswithinthe community,the model alsonecessitate treatment
and service.Suchanapproach requiresadequatenumberof staffstoensure thatthe caseloadis
small.Italsorequiresfundstoensure there isthe provisionof services.Ideally,the services
providedbyIAPare parallel tothose offeredinthe institution.
Graduatedincentivesbalance andconsequences:The model of IAPrequiresthatsanctionsare
usedto chastise inappropriatebehaviorandthe use of rewardsto markprogressor to
encourage.Since the programsonintensivesupervisionare intrusive,there isalikelihoodof the
occurrence of many technical violations,forinstance,the curfew violation.Unlike the Missouri
model thatrelieson cottage andsupervisionof youthsinsmall groups,the IAPmodelcreatesa
partnershipwithandworkingrelationshipswithfamilies,agencies,andorganizationstoensure
that the program issuccessful.There hasbeenasuccessful implementationof the IAPprogram
inNevada,Virginia,andColoradoStates.

Anotherrecommendationwouldbe increasingthe numberof MTFC(Multidimensional
TreatmentFosterCare) asan alternative tothe Missouri model.Insteadof puttingthe youthsin
small groups,the bestalternative wouldbe toplace these youthsintofosterhomeswhere a
familywouldbe givenaresponsibilityof one youth.Individual treatmentisessential,asitwill
enable close monitoringof the child.The firststepwouldentail retainingthe youthwith the
fosterparentwithtotal restriction,butwiththe improvementof the youth’sbehaviour,there is
the looseningof the restrictionandmore freedomisaccordedtothe youth.Althoughthere isa
close monitoringof the youthbythe fosterparent,the youthalsoreceivestrainingonthe social
and jobskill froma therapist.The birthparentsalsoreceive trainingonhow theycandiscipline
the childproperly.Onaverage the rate of recidivismreductionbyMTFC standsat 22 and the
methodandunlike othermodels,itiscost-effective.

Law Capstone Paper Sample

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Law Capstone Paper Sample

Ähnlich wie Law Capstone Paper Sample (9)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Law Capstone Paper Sample