Crime correlations - Criminal Justice Theoretical
Introduction
A number of counties in Oregon have realized the need for preventing crimes, particularly among youth violators. In order to achieve this objective, the Oregon Legislative had then gathered for an assembly so as to develop means of preventing juvenile crimes. The assembly had then decided to create a legislation containing guidelines developed by the Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory Committee (JCPAC), which will enable communities to deliver programs for juvenile crime prevention. In support of this legislation and the preventive plans, funds had been allocated for every county in Oregon (IVDB and NPC, 2003). The main objective of the JCP is to reduce juvenile arrests, reduce juvenile recidivism (new offenses by juvenile offenders), and reduce the need for beds in facilities operated by the Oregon Youth Authority. this paper attempts to analyse the Crime reduction programmed and provide some reviews about how this correlate of crime relating problem and crime reduction programs. Evaluation of the strategies used will also be conducted and the assessment of the effectiveness of this program to prevent or reduce crimes.
Crime Reduction Programmed
Crime rates at present are without a doubt increasing rapidly worldwide. Unfortunately, there are several reports and instances that juveniles are most likely to be involved. Hence, programs on how to prevent or reduce these crime incidents will not only create safer communities but also help in producing good and responsible youths. The evaluation of these programs, particularly the JCP initiative, will be helpful in determining the efficacy of such and in what ways can it still be enhanced.
According to IVDB and NPC (2003) it has been estimated that about 7.5% of the Oregon youth within the age range of 10 and 17 were brought to juvenile police departments for a criminal offense in 1998. In addition, identified juveniles have been reported to commit repeat crimes within 12 months only after committing their first offense. Worst, a considerable percentage of chronic youth offenders have committed about three or more crimes within 12 months during the same year. However, these chronic youth offenders had committed 75.5% of all new crimes (IVDB and NPC, 2003). This observation then implies that even the slight reduction in the number of chronic youth offenders could contribute substantially to the safety of the communities.
(1998, p. 17 in IVDB and NPC, 2003, p. 5) had noted that “the development of a chronic offender is typically the result of committing various criminal offences even at a young age”. As they are capable of committing violent acts, they are more than capable of doing heinous crimes in the future. Repeat offenders have certain similar characteristics. For instance, they have committed their first offence at age fifteen or younger; have a history of poor school performance and attendance; have significant problems at home; have records of drug and/or alcohol abuse; have a history or predelinquent behaviour; and commonly surrounded by delinquent peers (IVDB and NPC, 2003).
Due to this problem and the increasing number of crimes committed by juveniles, the Oregon County was then motivated to conduct policy research related to juvenile crime prevention. As at-risk youth are the target for this program, the plans for prevention are directed towards this population. For this program, teams were developed in every Oregon County. Members of these teams are made up of various representatives from local commissions, department of juvenile justice as well as people from health, education drug prevention sectors. Community members are also part of these planning teams. These teams are to submit their ideal plans for particular programs related to crime prevention.
Apply the program evaluation methodology to intervention strategies
The Oregon legislature discussed in the introduction had allocated funds to evaluate the Juvenile Crime Prevention Initiative, aside from the fund provided for the program development and implementation. For this purpose, “the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission had chosen the University of Oregon Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior (IVDB) in coordination with NPC Research, Inc., as a subcontractor to conduct the evaluation process” (IVDB and NPC, 2003, p. 4).
Primarily, this assessment was conducted for the purpose of determining whether the JCP program has been able to obtain its main objective, and that is the reduction of juvenile crimes. This evaluation procedure examined the degree to which JCP programs benefited the targeted youth population and provide interventions that were successful in reducing risk of future crimes and violations.
Aside from the fact that the assessment is part of the legislature, program evaluation was also conducted for the purpose of verifying the reported positive outcomes of the JCP initiative. These reports were derived from the benchmarks of Oregon, which includes the reduction of juvenile arrests, recidivism and maintenance of county caps on discretionary Oregon Youth Authority correctional bed allocations (IVDB and NPC, 2003). As these significant outcomes are considered as long term and can be influenced by a number of other factors, which can be outside the counties’ control, progress in every county and state in relation to the implementation of JCP has to be evaluated through intermediate outcome measures.
Evaluate the appropriateness of strategies used to address criminal justice
The approach of the Oregon County in youth crime reduction is consistent with the public health approach supported by the report on Youth Violence in 2001 of the recent Surgeon General. This report suggests that “risk factors are powerful tools for identifying and locating populations and individuals with a high potential for becoming violent, and they provide valuable targets for programs aimed at preventing or reducing violence” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001, p. 61 in IVDB and NPC, 2003, p. 5). Primarily, the decision to pursue the preventive program is to prevent the initiation and maintenance of crime committed in the county by the youth. Specifically, this main objective is envisioned to be fulfilled through the identification of the target groups in need of the intervention. This is particularly significant in the development of effective program plans that will directly benefit the targeted population. The identification of these youth can be done through the use of evaluation tools and indicators. After which, various preventive plans which can lessen causative factors of juvenile crime should be implemented. For this purpose, various practices or strategies may be used as part of the program plans.
The decision-making body of this program effort is initiated by the county administrators and legislators who have conducted various assemblies to discuss the identified problem as well as the ways on how each county can resolve it. The decision on how to design and implement the developed preventive plans is placed on the responsibility of the designated teams on every county. The planning process is conducted through daily meetings and conferences. The plans were made in conjunction to the status of the problem within the county as well as the resources available in the community. Through this individualized approach, every county will be able to come up with program plans that are appropriate and can be implemented to their respective communities. The planning process will then be followed by the implementation of the developed plans. As program outcomes need to be assessed for future enhancements or improvement, the evaluation team will then be in charge of this area. The evaluation effort involves the coordinated skills and ideas of both the professionals from established research groups as well as the people from community agencies. By having this joint effort, the evaluation work is distributed making the task easier and the output more efficient
0 comments:
Post a Comment