Abstract
Researchers have come up with several models and intervention strategies in bid to lower delinquencies and create social career developments. According to Peter Greenwood (2007), creating career development among offenders not only saves lives being wasted but also reduces societal burden created by criminal activities. The cost of untreated offenders can be measured into millions of dollars spent in prosecution, arrests, incarcerations and treatment of juvenile offenders (Greenwood & Zimring, 2007). Early prevention of onset of criminal activities has been shown to be the best approach in reducing these costs. In the end, this saves taxpayers millions of dollars through reduction in prisons spending (Greenberg, 2006). In achieving this, most researchers put emphasis over communal interactions through community based activities, family guidance, re-entry jail programs, residential programs, special programs, day treatments and special treatment focus programs (DJJ, 2007).
Introduction
This career intervention program is designed for first time female juvenile offenders. A lot of taxpayers’ money is annually being spent in the prisons but with limited change in the rate of crimes. Among the group, first time female victims have been neglected in most of the early research programs making their delinquencies more slow and vulnerable. This program is designed to develop a career program for this vulnerable group to aid in reduction of governments spending as well as improve the lives of female juvenile offenders. This program covers a three years program of two phases in a year. It is a multi-level approach that involves the female juvenile offenders, police force, counselors, community, courts, family, religious institutions and government bodies. The research was carried out through literature analysis of various career intervention programs in deferent states.
Program Design
For the three years, a comprehensive approach was developed which focuses on every stake holders that influences female juvenile offenders’ career development in the State of Ohio. In the first half of the year, teaching and counseling program were developed for the juvenile offenders. The program was aimed at enabling the victims develop sense of belonging, acceptance, identity and as well equip them with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The program was designed in a way to prepare the group for their career development and acceptance in their community (Pitts, 2009).
The second half of the first year was aimed at educating law enforcers. These group were equipped with skills that enable them conceptualize their work in multidimensional aspect. Police were trained on how to handle first time victims in rendering disciplinary measures. This program was carried out by creation of interaction programs among law enforcers and the offenders through games and discussions (Waller, 2008).
The second year program started with community involvement and government partnership. After realization that most offenses could be avoided from the causes of societal problems such as poverty, political disunity, lack of education, family break ups and lawlessness, governmental bodies and other non-governmental bodies were involved in promotional education programs and provision of essential needs to the vulnerable groups (WHO, 2008). Government programs encourage good citizenship behavior through national projects such as soil conservation and tree planting ceremonies (NCPC, 2008). Communities and governmental institution encouraged training seminars and workshops to the youth to mentor them in the right direction as well as make them self-reliant.
Third year was for strengthening by faith based organizations and family structure. In every society, these units were identified to play major roles in strengthening of offense victims as well as offering education backgrounds to the vulnerable groups (Henigan, 2007). Strong families impart good knowledge and skills to their members while religious institutions promote good values in the societies (Lipsey, Landenberger, & Sandra, 2007). Church seminars and workshops were identified as some of the best career mentoring programs and utilized. Families’ education programs were actively incorporated since they enabled the victims to feel secured and actively make positive choices in life (Allen, 2009).
Program Outcome and Evaluation
There were less female offenses such as drug consumption, violence, family problems and school dropouts (Morgan, 2003). Most of the female victims from corrective institutions could easily fit in the society and pull up jobs. Youths tried to show more focus on community building than wasteful activities. The taxpayers cost were highly reduced in maintaining prisons (Aos, 2004). Police roles changed from apprehensions of offenders to motivators and counselors to the victims, which positively changed most of the female victims (Sherman, Farrington, Welsh & Mackenzie, 2002). Conclusively, the program was a success in treating first time female offenders (Clarke, 2009).
Conclusion
Comprehensive career development among first time female offenders is a multidirectional approach. It needs multisectoral approach in the society. The first step calls for understanding of the female offender both individually and in a multicultural context that allows them to develop proper career decisions. Contextual multicultural career counseling has been identified as the best approach while dealing with female offenders under their first time offences in most institutions. Career development hence needs to be carried out through family, community, governmental and counselor’s programs educative programs.
References
Allen R. European Perspective on Prevention. (2009). Prevention and Youth Crime. Bristol United Kingdom: The Policy Press.
Aos S. (2004). Benefit and Cost of Preventing and Early Intervention Programs for Youth. Olympia, Wash: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Clarke K. (2009).Early Intervention and Prevention. Lesson from the Sure Start Programme. Prevention and Youth Crime. Bristol United Kingdom: The Policy Press. P. 55-56.
Henigan K. (2007). Phase 1. Survey of Intervention and Programs; A continuum of Graduated Responses for Juvenile Justice in California (Juvenile Justice Data Project. Centre for Research on Crime: University of Southern California.
Greenberg M., Kusché, C. & Mihalic, S. (2006). Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS): Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book Ten. Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.
Greenwood P. & Zimring F. (2007). Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime- Control Policy Adolescent Development and Legal Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lipsey M. Landenberger N. & Sandra J. (2007). Effects of Cognitive-Behavioural Programs for Criminal Offenders (Centre for Evaluating Research and Methodology).Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies: Campbell Collaboration).
National Crime Prevention Center (NCPC). (2008).Promising and Model Crime Prevention Program. Ottawa: NCPB. P.47-48.
Morgan B. (2003). Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programms. London: Morgan Harris Burrows.
Pitts J. (2009). Intervening in Gang Affected Neighbourhoods. Prevention and Youth Crime. Bristol United Kingdom: The Policy Press.
Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). (2007). Report of the Blueprint Commission. (Tallassee, Fla: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.
Sherman L., Farrington D. Welsh B. & Mackenzie D. (2002).Evidenced Based Crime Prevention. New York: Rutledge.
Waller I. (2008). Less Law More Order. Ontario: Manor House Publishing. Vol. 2.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2008).Violence Prevention the Evidence: Promoting Gender Equality to Prevent Violence Against Women. Switzerland: World Health Organization. Vol. 5.