Crime prevention is an essential set of activities of state legislatures, and its purpose is to implement and maintain special programs aimed at excluding deviant behavior among the population. Particular attention should be given to juvenile delinquency since early manifestations of a propensity for crime can have serious consequences in the future.
In order to find the way to deal with various forms of deviant behavior among children and adolescents, it is necessary to analyze several separate jurisdictions and draw conclusions about the success of the programs used. Also, it is required to consider a specific prevention system, expected outcomes, and the success that can be achieved. It is supposed that the proposed program can make a significant contribution to work on combating youth crime and can be applied in different jurisdictions.
Jurisdiction Description
As a specific jurisdiction that will serve as the basis for assessing and implementing the provisions of the crime prevention program, the District of Florida will be considered. According to Hay, Ladwig, and Campion (2018), “more than 75,000 juvenile cases are referred each year, with roughly 3,000 receiving a residential commitment” (p. 313). These figures indicate that urgent measures should be taken since such a high percentage of crimes committed by young people allows speaking about the inefficiency of the existing preventive system. Hay et al. (2018) also note that the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) cannot cope with the problem. Therefore, a new program should be implemented and maintained to achieve the improvement of indicators.
Analysis of Similar Jurisdictions Through the SARA Model and the Crime Analysis Triangle
In order to evaluate the current practices used to prevent youth crime, several similar jurisdictions can be considered. For this program, California, Texas, and Illinois will be used to determine the basic approaches to work in the chosen direction. The assessment will be focused on such techniques as the SARA model and the Crime Analysis Triangle. According to Clarke and Eck (2005), these methods allow understanding the causes of a specific problem and its possible consequences. All the three selected jurisdictions will be analyzed based on these two models.
Jurisdiction of California
The jurisdiction of California also provides for the need to counteract juvenile delinquency. As Liles, Blacker, Landini, and Urquiza (2016) remark, every year, a large percentage of young people become victims of violence and are later involved in crimes. The state program provides for the detection of cases of child abuse and their involvement in criminal cases. From the point of view of the SARA model, four main positions can be distinguished: scanning, analysis, response, and assessment (Clarke & Eck, 2005).
Based on the number of criminals, it can be noted that the existing legislation is not sufficiently effective. Analyzing the local protection program, its imperfection is evident because of the lack of a systematic approach. The response to this analysis may be the need to introduce a new program that can change the situation for the better. Evaluation will be conducted after the system manifests itself in practice.
From the point of view of the Crime Analysis Triangle, the activities of the handler, guardian, and manager are not well expressed. Due to the fact that local authorities are in urgent need to find new effective techniques to prevent child crimes, the system needs reorganizing. The positions of the Triangle should be observed in order for the entire mechanism to work effectively.
Jurisdiction of Texas
The jurisdiction of Texas can also feel the need for a new system to prevent child crimes. In the study conducted by Leve, Chamberlain, and Kim (2015), it is noted that the number of girls with deviations in behavior and involved in crimes exceeds the number of boys. Therefore, an appropriate assistance program should be implemented. The use of the SARA model helps to determine that the jurisdiction under consideration has difficulties in providing a gender approach to the solution of the problem, and appropriate measures should be taken. The Crime Analysis Triangle allows assessing the extent of involvement of government agencies and noting the inadequate state’s filling of specialists of an appropriate profile who could work to provide psychological assistance to juvenile offenders.
Jurisdiction of Illinois
When considering the jurisdiction of Illinois, it is possible to note its similarity with previous systems. According to Bowers and Johnson (2017), the state policy provides for the prosecution of juvenile offenders, which, nevertheless, is not always conducted successfully. Applying the SARA model for evaluation, it can be determined that the local government may not have enough proactive staff. A new program can correct the situation. A sufficient number of participants will cope with the tasks set. The Crime Analysis Triangle implies similar conclusions since there is no clear position in the current system regarding the roles of government officials. In order to correct this gap, the implementation of a new program should pass in accordance with an approved plan.
Appropriate Crime Prevention Strategy
When evaluating an appropriate crime prevention program for young people based on the analysis of previous jurisdictions, some valuable components are to be included. In particular, the system should imply a strategically thought-out approach so that all steps could be planned in advance and no unforeseen circumstances could arise. Also, it is necessary to take into account the gender factor since, as practice shows, the nature of crimes committed by boys and girls is different, and the percentage ratio also does not match. Finally, a proactive approach is to be encouraged in order possible innovations to contribute to the development of the program and to be useful for solving specific problems.
Various Crime Prevention Programs
In order to successfully combat juvenile delinquency, it is possible to consider various programs aimed at crime prevention and implying the use of different approaches. Farrington, Gaffney, Lösel, and Ttofi (2017) offer a large list of strategies that can be of use in solving the problem under consideration. The authors advise paying attention, for example, to a parent-training program with cultural adaptation when children with deviant behavior and their parents are involved in joint studies and the process socialization (Farrington et al., 2017).
Also, according to Farrington et al. (2017), violence prevention programs can be useful when psychologists deal with problem children and identify the causes of aggression in relation to other people. Finally, it is possible to pay attention to special mentor programs when a number of characteristics are controlled by responsible persons – social, behavioral, educational, and other outcomes (Farrington et al., 2017). All these systems can be valuable for the intervention aimed at combating juvenile delinquency.
Using Programs in Comparable Jurisdictions
When applying the reviewed programs to the comparable jurisdictions, it is possible to draw certain conclusions about their relevance. A parent-training program with a cultural adaptation will be suitable for the jurisdiction of California. The insufficient effectiveness of local policies regarding crime prevention among young people can be improved through joint work with children and their parents. A violence prevention program can be valuable for the state of Texas where an initiative group does not work actively. Special measures of influence on juvenile offenders can have a significant impact on their behavior. Also, a mentor program can organically fit into the jurisdiction of Illinois because there are problems with a gender approach. A new course will include a full set of controls by the relevant authorities.
Funding Strategy
A financing strategy for a specific prevention program can be based on attracting budgetary funds allocated by the government to fight crime. Also, the relevant rationale should be drawn up in order to prove the effectiveness of the proposed system and its relevance in a particular region. Meetings with legislators will make it possible to convey in detail to them the need for urgent measures and the specific type of work that is planned to be carried out to improve the current indicators of juvenile delinquency.
Anticipated Outcomes
In terms of short-term anticipated outcomes, a new concrete strategy to combat youth crime has an opportunity to significantly reduce the percentage of offenses committed within a short period of time. According to Romo and Ortiz (2018), new systems can help to exclude resources for crimes, for example, by banning the sale of specific products to young people. When talking about long-term prospects, the introduction of a new program may allow changing the attitude of juvenile offenders to the law and making the region one of the most law-abiding in the country.
Impact of the Program on Social Justice
If the new program is successfully implemented, it will certainly have a positive effect on social justice. As Romo and Ortiz (2018) remark, changing the approach to control over the level of crime can be one of the mechanisms to prevent it. The possibilities of the new system help provide legislative bodies with an opportunity to take a fresh look at the measures to combat juvenile offenders and assess the situation from a different angle. If positive dynamics is traced, it will mean that the program is successfully realized.
References
Bowers, K., & Johnson, S. D. (2017). Burglary prevention in practice. In N. Tilley & A. Sidebottom (Eds.), Handbook of crime prevention and community safety (2nd ed.) (pp. 338-372). New York, NY: Routledge.
Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice.
Farrington, D. P., Gaffney, H., Lösel, F., & Ttofi, M. M. (2017). Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of developmental prevention programs in reducing delinquency, aggression, and bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 91-106.
Hay, C., Ladwig, S., & Campion, B. (2018). Tracing the rise of evidence-based juvenile justice in Florida. Victims & Offenders, 13(3), 312-335.
Leve, L. D., Chamberlain, P., & Kim, H. K. (2015). Risks, outcomes, and evidence-based interventions for girls in the US juvenile justice system. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 18(3), 252-279.
Liles, B. D., Blacker, D. M., Landini, J. L., & Urquiza, A. J. (2016). A California multidisciplinary juvenile court: Serving sexually exploited and at-risk youth. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34(1), 234-245.
Romo, H. D., & Ortiz, S. M. (2018). Supportive housing contexts and educational opportunities for foster youth transitioning out of care. In E. Trejos-Castillo & N. Trevino-Schafer (Eds.), Handbook of foster youth (pp. 258-281). New York, NY: Routledge.