Running head: DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW               1                          Draft of Literature Review              ...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                            2                   ...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                               3period of child ...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                          4toward a more punitiv...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                        5between rehabilitation ...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                         6       Developmental p...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                          7should structure prog...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                             8facilities (Beneko...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                           92011). Based on thes...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                          10However, more recent...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                         11and social issues. Ju...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                         12                     ...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                      13                        ...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                       14Fagan, J. (1990). Socia...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                       15Jordan, K. L., & Myers,...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                         16Myers, D. L., & Kiehl...
DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW                                                                      17Teplin, L. A., Abram, K....
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

W7000 m7 a2_woods_k

379

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
379
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

W7000 m7 a2_woods_k

  1. 1. Running head: DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 1 Draft of Literature Review Kendra L. Woods Argosy University
  2. 2. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 2 Introduction Juvenile crime has continued to gain increasing attention over the last few decades.Fortunately, when a juvenile is convicted of an offense, it is not likely that they will remainincarcerated for the remainder of their lives. So what happens to a juvenile while they areserving out their sentence, whether in a juvenile facility or criminal detention facility? Do thesefacilities have programs and services structured to assist adolescents as they continue to growand develop? The purpose of this literaturereview will be to evaluate and compare the availability andeffectiveness of the programs and treatment services available to juvenile offenders incarceratedin both juvenile and adult facilities. The questions below are the research questions that thisproposed study is attempting to address: 1. Are the adult prisons providing the programs and services that juveniles need to become productive members of society? 2. Does trying juvenile offender in the criminal justice system help them become productive citizens in the future? The review will begin with a synthesis of literature pertaining to the history and purposeof the juvenile justice system as it relates to the psychological development of adolescents.Next, the origins of the criminal justice system will be assessed along with the effects that thissystem has on adolescent development and their ability to successfully returnhome upon release.Relevant studies related to this issue will be introduced, along with implications for furtherresearch based on the gaps in literature. The theoretical framework that will be used as a guide will be an integrated modelinvolving both adolescent and social development. Adolescent development occurs during that
  3. 3. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 3period of child development from 14 – 19 years of age. It tends to encompass three chronologicalstages: early adolescence, middle adolescence, and late adolescence. Social developmentinvolves relationships with peers, family, school, work, and community (APA, 2002).Unfortunately for the juvenile offender, those groups may be limited or expanded to includeinstitutional staff during their incarceration and the detention facility, jail, or prison becomes theplace where social development can take place (Steinberg, 2004). This model will be used tofocus on delinquency prevention and the reduction of recidivism. Juvenile Justice System The United States juvenile justice system has experienced some significant changessinceits inception in 1899 (Hinton, Sims, Adams, & West, 2007).Originally the juvenile justicesystem was formatted as an informal environment established to protect all children while alsoproviding punishment for their inappropriate or illegal acts (Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard,2011).In addition to punishment for criminal activity, juvenile court was established to look atways of rehabilitating juvenile offenders(Hinton et al., 2007). The juvenile justice system wasresponsible for issuing lenient sentences that would allow the juvenile to be rehabilitated(Kupchik, 2006).Juvenile correctional facilities were operating based on a mission to house andprovide the necessary supports to assist juvenile offenders in their rehabilitation (Caeti,Hemmens, Cullen, & Burton, 2003). The most appropriate way to handle juvenile offenders has changed over the yearsbecause society continues to go back and forth in their thoughts regarding the accountability ofthese offenders(Hinton, Sims, Adams, & West 2007). Juvenile crime rates were on the rise fromabout 1970 until the early 1990s, causing the public and policymakers to look for other optionsto help decrease juvenile crime. As a result the most recent public opinion has been to move
  4. 4. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 4toward a more punitive option (Jordan & Myers, 2011). Although historically, juvenile justicepolicymakers encouraged programs to address the rehabilitative needs of juveniles, over the last20 years, they have altered their beliefs and tend to lean more toward policies that sanctionjuveniles based on their offense(Hinton et al., 2007). Current Juvenile System Over the past few years there have numerous meetings regarding the inadequacies of thejuvenile system. The juvenile systems’ philosophy, structure and procedures are beingquestioned. It is because of these criticisms and the increased juvenile arrests that the traditionaljuvenile justice system is being altered. In contrast to the conventional system’s idea of savingor rehabilitating the children, the focus is now based on a philosophy of punishment (Myers,2003). Today, the United States juvenile justice system processes millions of juvenile arrests onan annual basis (Steinberg, Chung, & Little, 2004). By 2004, approximately 7% of the twomillion juvenile arrests were transferred to adult courts (Snyder, 2006).Reports show that in2008, there were 1,653,300 juvenile cases processed nationally and of that total 1,203,600 wereadolescent males (Puzzachera & Kang, 2011).The criminal system has seen an increase in thenumber of juvenile offenders in adult facilities. In June of 2009 there were 2,778 inmates underthe age of 18 in adult facilities (West, 2010). Recent studies have revealed that the number ofjuveniles prosecuted in criminal court rather than juvenile court continues to rise (Johnson,Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard, 2011). Public Response to Juvenile Crime The public’s response to juvenile crime had a huge impact on the changes made to policyrelated to juvenile offenders (Hinton, Sims, Adams, & West, 2007). The society’s view ofjuveniles and crime caused the policies regarding juvenile sanctions to go back and forth
  5. 5. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 5between rehabilitation and punishment. Most of the interventions used over the past 60 yearshave focused on both. Some of those interventions include community based and residentialprograms that are able to provide needed therapeutic services (Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, &Woolard, 2011). For those juveniles who commit serious, violent offenses the use of long termconsequences in adult jails and prisons is being used (Kupchik, 2007). It was the belief that many people believed that juvenile court was not issuingpunishment that was suitable for the offenses being committed compared to those that could beissued by criminal courts (Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard, 2011).The public believed thatthe use of the adult criminal court would ideally impose harsher sanctions that could increaseaccountability of the youth and reduce recidivism. However, they did not necessarily wantjuvenile offenders to be housed in the same facilities with adult offenders (Myers, Lee, Giever, &Gilliam, 2011).Today, all 50 states have policies in place that make it easier for juvenileoffenders to be tried in the criminal court based on varying criteria (Kupchik, 2006). Psychological Development of Juveniles Society began to look at childhood and adolescence as a developmental stage somewherebetween 1900 and 1980. Youth between early and late adolescence are said to endure numerouschanges related to physical development and cognitive development (Gutman & Eccles,2007).Mears and Travis (2004) report that generally, developmental psychologistsclassifyadolescents into three groups based on age. Each group is then distinguished by varying degreesof emotional, social, and physical development.It is the experiences that occur during ajuveniles’ adolescence that affect their development as an adult. The transition from adolescenceto adulthood is not an easy process and it involves the development of many skills (Steinberg,Chung, & Little, 2004).
  6. 6. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 6 Developmental psychology is a concept that believes adolescents need assistance inlearning how to live independently upon transitioning into adulthood. Juveniles or adolescentsundergo a process called psychosocial development. Psychosocial development is an importantaspect of maturing to adulthood (Mears & Travis, 2004). Steinberg, Chung, and Little (2004)state that psychosocial maturity is necessary for the appropriate transition from adolescence toadulthood. Reaching this level of maturity involves the development of mature thinking andreasoning, which are said to reduce the number of poor decisions made bylate adolescents(Fagan, 2008).Studies show that juvenile offenders have issues adjusting to becoming productiveadults and tend to have problems reaching normal adult milestones. Travis, Solomon, andWaul (2001) report that while adults have a difficult time attempting to transition fromincarceration to freedom, juveniles face even greater challenges. Steinberg et al. (2004) statethat in order for an adolescent to successfully achieve the adult role they must achieve athreshold level of psychosocial development. Based on what is known about former juvenileoffenders, it is not impossible to believe that many juveniles leave the juvenile justice system andbecome adults who are not equipped to handle the responsibility of adulthood. Whether or not ajuvenile offender positively develops this aspect of healthy development is determined by theinstitutional programming available during incarceration (Mears & Travis, 2004). By guidingthe focus of our juvenile facilities, jails and prisons, toward psychosocial development,intervention programs can be developed to assist juveniles develop the skills needed to beproductive citizens (Steinberg et al., 2004). Psychological Needs of Juveniles Determining whether incarcerated juvenile offenders in adult prisons and juvenilefacilities have similar mental health needs can be of assistance when deciding how adult facilities
  7. 7. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 7should structure programs to meet the needs of their most vulnerable residents (Woolard,Odgers, Lanza-Kaduce, & Daglis, 2005).Limited research reveals that juvenile offenders tend tohave mental health and substance abuse issues at rate higher than adult offenders (Vaughn,Freedenthal, Jenson, & Howard, 2007).Unfortunately, the literature regarding the occurrence ofbehavioral health issues among this population is insufficient due to the lack of research(Sullivan, 2004). It is imperative that data regarding this population be collected in futurestudies due to the fact that a large number of juvenile offenders are being held in adult courts.Studies report that over 50% of incarcerated juveniles have been diagnosed with some type ofmental health disorder, with 20% being the more serious disorders (Cocozza & Skowyra, 2000;Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002). Juveniles in adult prison are said to havea large number of treatment needs compared to their peers (Murrie, Henderson, Vincent,Rockett, & Mundt, 2009). Research shows that many young offenders have serious issuesrelated to their mental health and educational attainment. These deficiencies have shown toaffect the offenders’ ability to achieve psychosocial maturity (Steinberg, Chung, & Little, 2004). Adult Prison Programs Beneros & Merlo (2008) report that most adult prison systems are not structured toeffectively house and treat juvenile offenders.Prison is not an environment with the purpose ofrehabilitating juveniles. The adult facilities tend to focus on punishment versus treatment whichis in conflict with the needs of juvenile offenders (Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard, 2011).When juvenile offenders enter adult prison they usually do not have the skill set or the copingskills to handle that type of environment (Benekos & Merlo, 2008). The juveniles’ lack of skillsand ability to sustain their self-respect and mental health causes additional concerns for adult
  8. 8. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 8facilities (Benekos & Merlo, 2008). Research shows that there is limited information availableabout juvenile programming in the adult criminal justice system. According to Altschuler and Brash(2004), emphasis on the concept of tougher penaltiesfor violent juveniles led to changes in policy that focused on incarceration by extendingsentences and allowing little or no emphasis to be placed on rehabilitation programs. The goal ofprogramming should be on providing the youth experiences that would promote positivedevelopment and assist in their future reentry to society. To effectively do this, attention needsto be given to the developmental stages of adolescents and programs should help the youthdevelop the necessary skills to transition to adulthood successfully (Mears & Travis, 2004). Effects of adult prison on juvenile offenders Processing juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system is seen as an extremeform of punishment (Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard, 2011). More juveniles are beingprocessed in the adult criminal court than in previous years due to the laws that now make iteasier to move violent juvenile offenders to adult courts (Washburn, Teplin, Voss, Simon,Abram, & McClelland, 2008). Juveniles in the adult criminal justice system tend to be viewedand treated differently than their adult counterparts (Myers, Lee, Giever, & Gilliam, 2011).Once a juvenile is transferred to adult court it is believed that the juvenile is culpable for theiractions and should be punished accordingly (Jordan & Freiburger, 2010).One of the majorreasons for transferring juveniles with serious or violent crimes to the adult court system was toincrease the severity of punishment in hopes of lower rates of recidivism. Comparative studiessuggest that juveniles processed in adult court are more likely to commit additional crimes in thefuture than those juveniles processed in juvenile court (Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard,
  9. 9. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 92011). Based on these studies the adult criminal justice system may not be the appropriatesystem to handle juvenile offenders (Myers, 2003). Relevant Studies Reports show that there have only been a few studies conducted that focused on theeffects of incarceration on juvenile offenders. The data from these studies were related toinstitutionalization, disciplinary issues and victimization (Bishop, Frazier, Lanza-Kaduce, &White, 2002; Forst, Fagan & Vivona, 1989; Singer, 1996). A study by Tunnell (1990), addressed how juvenile offenders perceive juvenile versusadult dispositions and how it affects them. The outcome of this study was that the juvenilesreported that the juvenile justice system through the use of counseling and life skill classes hadan effect on them when they felt that they had gained some type of life skill or positive outlookfor the future. The juveniles within the criminal system reported that they were affected bydispositions due to the feeling of loss, not because of any type of gain (Tunnell, 1990). Treating juvenile offenders as adults has become a common occurrence. Studies (Myers,2003; Myers, 2001; Myers & Kiehl, 2001) show that members of society believe juveniletransfers provide two advantages: harsher punishments and stricter public safety. Initially, it wascommon that juveniles processed in adult court were released sooner than those processed byjuvenile court, however due to policy changes the transferred offenders are now given harshersanctions. This study provided results that were distinct from some older studies that revealedsupport of reduced sanctions for juveniles processed in criminal court (Bortner, 1986; Champion,1989;Emerson, 1981; Gillespie & Norman, 1984; Hamparian, Estep, Muntean, Prestino,Swisher, & Wallace, 1982; Royscher & Edelman, 1981; Sagatun, McCullum, & Edwards, 1985).
  10. 10. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 10However, more recent studies support the idea of juveniles receiving harsher sanctions in adultcourt (Fagan, 1990; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996). Reentry Reentry refers to the process of offenders returning to their communities aftercompleting their term of incarceration. Reentry is an issue that has gained almost as much public attentionas the increase in juvenile crime; however there is little literature referencing this experiencefrom the juvenile perspective, although adolescent and young adults are almost one third of theindividuals returning home after incarceration (Mears & Travis, 2004). In America, there are hundreds of thousands of juveniles and young adults under the agewho are reintegrated into their communities on a yearly basis. The increased number ofindividuals leaving secure confinement and returning back home can create undue hardship onthose communities. Unfortunately during their incarceration, many former offenders did notreceive the necessary treatment and services to be productive upon their release. Many of the ex-offenders have limited education, little or no job skills, and undiagnosed mental health andsubstance abuse issues (Mears & Travis, 2004). Juveniles reentering society tend to haveproblems making a successful transition from a life of crime to a life without crime. There are many challenges that anyone returning to a community after being away for aperiod of time would face, such as locating a place to live, finding a job or attending school, andreestablishing former relationships with family and friends (Sullivan, 2004).Unfortunately,juvenile offenders also have a few other challenges that adults may not encounter. Juveniles havedevelopmental needs and concerns and because of their age they tend to play a different role intheir communities. Many of the challenges faced by adolescents are centered on developmental
  11. 11. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 11and social issues. Juvenile offenders are said to experience two transitions, incarceration toreentry and adolescence to adulthood (Sullivan, 2004). Research shows that the first six months after release is a very vital time in the life of anex-offender (Chung, Schubert, & Mulvey, 2007).It is during this initial period of time when thejuvenile experiences less structure and supervision that they may revert to prior behaviors if theydo not receive the appropriate guidance.The availability of aftercare services can be the one thingthat keeps a juvenile from re-offending. Therefore, it is imperative that well-establishedcommunity networks are accessible to help with the coordination of services (Sullivan, 2004).Inorder for the field to understand and appropriately address the challenges of reentry additionalresearch will be necessary (Mears & Travis, 2004). Implications for future research Juvenile treatment programs may be the better option when looking at how to help orrehabilitate all juvenile offenders. As many states move towards making laws that allow thelegal system to move the more serious juvenile offenders to adult court, researchers are findingthat the Juvenile programming toward rehabilitation has been very helpful (Lane, Lanza-Kaduce,Frazier & Bishop, 2002). An exploratory study by Lane et al, (2002),involved gathering datadirectly from juveniles who had lived this experience in order to gather real time data about whatthey encountered. This study did lead to several hypotheses that could be used for future study.They are (1) serious repeat offenders are affected more positively by long-term juveniletreatment programs than by adult punishments; (2) as youth in juvenile facilities mature and gainvarious skill sets they are able to more appropriately handle any issues that arise while beingincarcerated, whereas in adult prisons, youth tend to conform due to a loss; and (3) the statisticsfrom juvenile programs show that these programs have been successful in reducing recidivism.
  12. 12. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 12 Summary The number of juvenile offenders in adult facilities does not make up a large percentageof the total prison inmates; however they tend to pose special challenges with respect to facilitypolicies and treatment programs. Juveniles in adult facilities are more likely to experiencesituations that would cause psychologically harm than those in juvenile facilities; and they aremore likely to be denied access to other services because adult facilities tend to be less concernedwith rehabilitation than juvenile correctional facilities (Hinton, Sims, Adams & West, 2007).There have been numerous questions about the ability of the criminal justice system toappropriately handle adolescents due tothe distinct differences between adult and juvenileoffenders (Trulson, Caudill, Belshaw, & DeLisi, 2011). Studies suggest that there is a need foradult facilities to provide developmentally appropriate treatment programs for juvenile offenders(Murrie, Henderson, Vincent, Rockett, & Mundt, 2009).The purpose of this research will be todetermine whether or not the adult facilities in Tennessee are lacking the programs needed toassist with the proper development of juvenile offenders.
  13. 13. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 13 ReferencesAltschuler, D. M., & Brash, R. (2004). Adolescent & teenage offenders confronting the challenges and opportunities of reentry. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 21(1), 72-87. doi:10.1177/1541204003260048American Psychological Association. (2002). Developing Adolescents: A Reference for Professionals [Handbook]. Washington, DC: Author.Beneros, P. J., & Merlo, A. V. (2008). Juvenile justice: The legacy of punitive policy. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(1), 28-46. doi:10.1177/1541204007308423Bishop, D. M., Frazier, C. E., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & White, H. G. (2002).Juvenile transfers to criminal court study: Phase 1 final report (DJJ mgmt report number 02-02). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice.Bortner, M. A. (1986). Traditional rhetoric, organizational realities: Remand of juveniles to adult court. Crime and Delinquency, 32(1), 53-73.Caeti, T., Hemmens, C., Cullen, F., & Burton, V. (2003). Management of juvenile correctional facilities. The Prison Journal, 83, 383-405.Champion, D. J. (1989). Teenage felons and waiver hearings: Some recent trends, 1980- 1988. Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 577-585.Chung, H. L., Shubert, C. A., &Mulvey, E. P. (2007).An empirical portrait of community reentry among serious juvenile offenders in two metropolitan cities.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(11), 1402-1426. doi:10.1177/0093854807307170Cocozza, J. J., & Skowyra, K. (2000). Youth with mental health disorders, issues and emerging responses. Juvenile Justice, 7(1), 3-13.Emerson, R. (1981). On last resorts. American Journal of Sociology, 87(1), 1-22.
  14. 14. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 14Fagan, J. (1990). Social and legal policy dimensions of violent juvenile. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(1), 93-133.Fagan, J. (2008). Juvenile crime and criminal justice: Resolving border disputes. Juvenile Justice, 18(2), 81-119.Forst M., Fagan., J., &Vivona, S. (1989). Youth in prisons and training schools: Perceptions and consequences of the treatment custody dichotomy. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 39, 1-14.Gillespie, L. K., & Norman, M. D. (1984). Does certification mean prison: Some preliminary findings from Utah. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 35, 23-34.Gutman, L. M., &Eccles, J. S. (2007). Stage-environment fit during adolescence: Trajectories of family relations and adolescent outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 43(2), 522-537. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.522Hamparian, D., Estep, L. K., Muntean, S. M., Prestino, R., Swisher, R. G., & Wallace, P. L. (1982).Youth in adult court: Between two worlds. Columbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems.Hinton, W. J., Sims, P. L., Adams, M. A., & West, C. (2007). Juvenile Justice: A system divided. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(4), 466-484. doi:10.1177/0887403407304578Johnson, K., Lanza-Kaduce, L., &Woolard, J. (2011). Disregarding graduated treatment: Why transfer aggravates recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 57(5), 756-777. doi:10.1177/ 0011128708328867Jordan, K. L., &Freiburger, T. L. (2010).Examining the impact of race and ethnicity on sentencing of juveniles in the adult court.Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(2), 185-201. doi:10.1177/0887403409354738
  15. 15. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 15Jordan, K. L., & Myers, D. L. (2011). Juvenile transfer and deterrence: Reexamining the effectiveness of a "get-tough" policy. Crime and Delinquency, 57(2), 247-270. doi:10.1177/0011128708319111Kupchick, A. (2006). The decision to incarcerate in juvenile and criminal courts.Criminal Justice Review, 31(4), 309-336. doi:10.1177/0734016806295584Kupchik, A. (2007). The Correctional Experiences of Youth in Adult and Juvenile Prisons. Justice Quarterly, 24(2), 247-270. doi:10.1080/07418820701294805Lane, J., Lanza-Kaduce, L. Frazier., C., & Bishop, D. (2002). Adult versus juvenile sanctions: Voices of incarcerated youths. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 431-455. doi:10.1177/ 0011128702048003004Mears, D. P., & Travis, J. (2004). Youth development and reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 3-20. doi:10.1177/1541204003260044Murrie, D. C., Henderson, C. E., Vincent, G. M., Rockett, J. L., & Mundt, C. (2009). Psychiatric symptoms among juveniles incarcerated in adult prison. Psychiatric Services, 60(8), 1092-1097.Myers, D. L. (2001). Excluding violent youth from juvenile court: The effectiveness of legislative waiver. New York: LFB Scholarly.Myers, D. L. (2003). Adult crime, adult time: Punishing violent youth in the adult criminal justice system. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(2), 173-197. doi:10.1177/ 1541204002250878Myers, D. L. (2003). Controversies in criminal justice. In The house of last resort: Incarcerating juveniles in adult prisons (pp. 321-329). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
  16. 16. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 16Myers, D. L., & Kiehl, K. (2001). The pre-dispositional status of violent youthful offenders: Is there a "custody gap" in adult criminal court? Justice Research and Policy, 3, 115-143.Myers, D. L., Lee, D., Giever, D., & Gilliam, J. (2011). Practitioner perceptions of juvenile transfers in Pennsylvania.Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9(3), 222-240. doi:10,1177/1541204010391216Podkopacz, M., & Feld, B. (1996). The end of the line: An empirical study of judicial waiver. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(1), 449-492.Puzzachera, C. & Kang, W. (2011).Easy assess to juvenile court statistics: 1985-2008. Retrieved from http:/www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/Royscher, M., & Edelman, P. (1981). Major issues in juvenile justice information and training: Readings in public policy. In J. C. Hall, D. M. Hamparian, J. M. Pettibone, & J. L. White (Eds.), Treating juveniles as adults in New York: What does it mean and how is it working (pp. 265-293). Columbus, OH: Academy for Contemporary Problems.Sagatum, I., McCullum, L. L., & Edwards, L. (1985). The effect of transfers from juvenile to criminal court: A log linear analysis. Journal of Crime and Justice, 8, 65-92.Singer, S. I. (1996). Recriminalizing delinquency: Violent juvenile crime and juvenile justice reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.Steinberg, L., Chung, H. L., & Little, M. (2004). Reentry of young offenders from the justice system; A developmental perspective. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 2(1), 21-38. doi:10.1177/1541204003260045Sullivan, M. L. (2004). Youth perspectives on the experience of reentry. Youth Violence and Journal Justice, 2, 56-71. doi:10.1177/1541204003260047
  17. 17. DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 17Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(12), 1133-1143.Travis, J., Solomon, A. L., & Waul, M. (2001).From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner entry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Tunnell, K. D. (1990). Choosing crime: Close your eyes and take your chances. Justice Quarterly, 7, 673-690.Vaughn, M. G., Freedenthal, S., Jenson, J. M., & Howard, M. O. (2007). Psychiatric symptoms and substance abuse among juvenile offenders: A latent investigation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(10), 1296-1312. doi:10.1177/0093854807304624Washburn, J. J., Teplin, L. A., Voss, L. S., Simon, C. D., Abram, K. M., & McClelland, G. M. (2008). Psychiatric disorders among detained youths: A comparison of youths processed in juvenile court and adult criminal court. Psychiatric Services, 59(9), 965-973.West, H. (June 2010). Prison inmates at midyear 2009 (Report No. NCJ 230113). Bureau of Justice Statistics: Statistical Tables website: http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcsWiebush, R., Wagner, D., McNulty, B., & Wang, Y. Le. (2005). Implementation and outcome evaluation of the intensive aftercare program. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Prevention, OJJDP.Woolard, J., Odgers, C., Lanz-Kaduce, L., & Daglis, H. (2005). Juveniles within adult correctional settings: Legal pathways and developmental considerations. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 4, 1-18.

×