Are Diversional Programs within the Probation process successful?

by

Are Diversional Programs within the Probation process successful?

Background of the Study

Many state legislatures passed laws with strict juvenile codes almost about a decade back pertaining to the treatment of juveniles; that treated juveniles as young delinquent adults, in an attempt to minimize and subside the rough attitude that is adopted by the correctional facilities' staffs towards young delinquents, and in turn foster healthy correction and development of the prisoners (Davidson-Arad, Benbenishty and Golan, 2009; Caeti et. al, 2000). As a result of the passing of the mandate pertaining to stringent juvenile codes by the state legislatures, Juvenile Justice Agencies adopted the paramilitary adult correctional models of discipline to ensure that correctional facilities implement the newer laws and treat the delinquents abiding by them, while the offenders do not thwart the safety and security of the correctional staff (Davidson-Arad, Benbenishty, & Golan, 2009; Caeti et. al, 2000). This step was necessary to be taken by the Juvenile Justice Agencies considering the behaviour that was demonstrated by the delinquents as a result of which the correctional facility staff had to be harsh for the control to be exuded.

Although the prevalence of such attitudes as demonstrated by the imprisoned delinquents could most appropriately be attributed in the first place, to the mismanagement of the correctional facilities and correctional officers, which became the impetus of the rising assaultive incidents to which not only fellow convicts were subjected but also the officers in supervising correctional facilities in addition to the majority of the entire staff. Yet the threat posited by the detainees imprisoned at the correctional facilities created a resistance in the complete implementation by the correctional facilities of the codes and rules mandated by the state legislatures for treating young delinquents, for which the Juvenile Justice Agencies were mobilized.

The Department of Justice notified 17 state juvenile justice agencies of the violation of youth rights and the need to correct these matters prior to receiving heavy fines and/or Department of Justice (DOJ) stabilization teams within their department, for the matter to be looked after with greater efficiency to ensure profound results (Puritz and Scali, 1998). Department of Justice cited these states under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) of 1997 (Puritz and Scali, 1998). The violations, as reflected above were in absolute alignment to the topic of the research study, incorporating the provision of unsafe environment to the delinquents detained at the correctional facilities, thereby being more inclined towards punitive and hence non-rehabilitative (Rosenbloom, 2010; Davidson-Arad et al., 2009).

Direct-care staff development and implementation for punitive purposes as a disciplinary measure is one of the leading factors that is behind the creation and promotion of unsafe and non-rehabilitative culture at correctional facilities (Rosenbloom, 2010; Caeti et al., 2003). For instance, a correctional officer will redirect a youth only a certain times towards the class. However after the second or at most third redirection, the officer possesses the authority to send the young delinquent to the ...