Assessing the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: An Evaluation of a Court‐Based Delinquency Prevention Program

Abstract

In 2002, the State of Ohio mandated juvenile courts to provide prevention for at-risk youth. This study examined official court records to evaluate the effectiveness of a prevention program administered by the Greene County Juvenile Court. A sample of 362 youth referred to the program for the years 2002 to 2009 by concerned caretakers, teachers, and police was analyzed. Consistent with intake goals, 81.7% of clients were referred for at-risk but not actually delinquent behaviors. Completion of the prevention program did not predict future court referrals, but neither did seriousness of referral behavior. Children with two biological parents were significantly more likely to complete the program, whereas referrals to Strengthening Families Program and substance abuse screening significantly predicted program noncompletion. Implications for policy and research are discussed. Key Points for the Family Court Community:This article highlights efforts by county juvenile court to implement a secondary prevention program for at-risk but not officially court-referred youth. Delinquency prevention research depends on good juvenile court data and adequate comparison groups. Evidence-based predelinquent interventions with external process and outcome evaluations should be the standard.

Recidivism in a juvenile court‐sponsored delinquency prevention program

“…In general, delinquency prevention refers to intervening in the lives of young people before they first engage in juvenile delinquency (Agnew & Brezina, 2012). This differs from prevention control or delinquency repression, which typically means that the police or juvenile court takes some action after a delinquent act has occurred (Agnew & Brezina, 2012). Both kinds of delinquency prevention have similar goals -the prevention of any further law violations (Agnew & Brezina, 2012).…”

“…This differs from prevention control or delinquency repression, which typically means that the police or juvenile court takes some action after a delinquent act has occurred (Agnew & Brezina, 2012). Both kinds of delinquency prevention have similar goals -the prevention of any further law violations (Agnew & Brezina, 2012). The distinguishing feature between the two types of delinquency prevention has to do with the involvement of the justice system.…”

“…However, in more recent decades other programs have been found to be quite successful in preventing future delinquency. While discussing these programs is beyond the scope of this introduction, some key features of the most successful programs include focusing on the early family environment, focusing on school factors, focusing on individual traits, and focusing on delinquent peers and gangs (Agnew & Brezina, 2012).…”

“…Some court‐based delinquency prevention programs, such as the OCYA program and Greene County (Ohio) Juvenile Court's prevention program (GCJC), incorporate some of the key features mentioned above. The GCJC utilizes efforts to expand community support to children, empowering families and educating children (Bergdahl, Twill, Norris & Ream, 2015). OCYA, on the other hand, uses both volunteers and paid casework staff to offer direct counseling services as well as various skill building, mentoring, recreation, and parent training programs in the community (Howitt, Moore & Gaulier, 1998).…”

“…A study on GCJC found that more than half (55.2%) of those referred youngsters who completed a prevention program had no later court involvement during the study period, from 2002 to 2009 (Bergdahl, Twill, Norris & Ream, 2015). This result was compared to 51.8% of those who did not complete the program, a finding that shows a very slight benefit of the program in reducing recidivism.…”