Current research indicates a disproportionate number of youth having an emotional disturbance within the juvenile justice system. The purpose of the present study was to examine if recidivism can be predicted in juvenile offenders based on the youths' emotional disturbance score as measured by the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2 (MAYSI-2) and severity of offense at their first physical arrest, as well as their age, gender, ethnicity, and median range of income by zip code (MRoI). Following Agnew's General Strain Theory, it was hypothesized that high scores on the MAYSI-2 scales, in addition to severity of offense and specific demographic variables would predict recidivism.Participants consisted of 863 records of juvenile offenders at a juvenile court detention center in Southern Arizona. The study consisted of 70% males and 30% females, with an age range of 12 to 16 years of age and ethnic breakdown consisting of 51% Hispanics, 36% Caucasians, 9% African Americans, and 4% Native Americans. This secondary data extraction included youths who were physically arrested for the first time during the 2008-year and their recidivism rate through the 2009-year. Results through logistic regression models indicated that two of the four MAYSI-2 scales significantly predicted recidivism. Specifically, youth who scored high versus low on the Alcohol/Drug Use scale had an increased factor of 1.83 times more likely to recidivate. Youth who answered "yes" on all five items on the Traumatic Experiences scale also predicted recidivism, with an increased factor of 4.37 times more likely to recidivate. Severity of offense also predicted recidivism, as well as age and MRoI. Results were also found to be significant within certain ethnic groups but not between the ethnic groups. Implications of these findings, limitations, and areas of future research are also discussed.

Criminogenic risk assessment, which was developed to predict recidivism, has risen to the status of “evidence-based practice” in corrections systems. As a result of its apparent success, proponents now claim that it captures the origins of criminal behavior, and can thus be leveraged to reduce correctional supervision rates and prevent crime. This dissertation investigates the validity of the these claims, by identifying and testing three assumptions requisite for the framework’s expansion: 1) the evidence base for the framework’s predictive performance is being interpreted correctly and appropriately, 2) the best causal models of recidivism are also the best causal models of the onset and duration of criminal behavior (and by extension, that interventions successful at reducing recidivism will be successful at reducing the onset, duration, and rate of criminal behavior); and 3) the causes of individual variation in criminal behavior are the same as causes of the population distribution, or incidence rate, of crime. This dissertation proceeds in three parts: a meta-review and critical analysis of the literature addresses the first assumption, and two empirical studies test the second and third assumptions, respectively. The meta-review determined that findings for the framework’s predictive performance are inconsistent, based on inadequate or insufficient statistical information, and often overstated. The first empirical study found that each arrest, and to a lesser extent conviction, an individual experienced increased their subsequent criminogenic risk levels, raising concerns about the framework’s applicability for crime prevention and etiology. The second empirical study found that criminogenic risks do not explain group differences in arrest and conviction rates, underscoring that researchers and policymakers should more cautiously communicate the scope of reform that the framework can deliver.

abstract: Recidivism occurs when an individual is released from prison and then, through a violation of parole or a new offense, ends up back in prison. Durose and colleagues (2014) cite that 55.4% of individuals go back to prison after a five-year post release. Considerable attention has been focused on reducing the cycle of these individuals going back to prison. One of the attempts to remedy this issue is through offering pre-release programs for prison inmates. These programs seek to provide individuals skills that will reduce their likelihood of reoffending. But existing research shows that the effectiveness of these programs is limited. Moreover, few attempts have been made to look at differences between individual’s dosage of program participation. This thesis aims to determine if participation in a pre-release program reduces recidivism. Using data from the state’s Department of Corrections, there is a comparison of previously imprisoned individuals who participated in a pre-release employment program and those who declined participation, to understand if participation influences recidivism. Additionally, dosage of the center will be analyzed to determine whether length of program participation influenced recidivism. Participating in the program and a longer dose of the program should allow more time for the individual to learn the material and fully absorb what the program is offering such as skills and training. The results show that participation in the pre-release employment program did not significantly affect recidivism as individuals who went through the program were no less likely to be reincarcerated. In addition, a longer dosage of the program did not significantly influence recidivism among those who went through the program. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Criminology and Criminal Justice 2019

ABSTRACT This study explored the perceived needs of ex-offenders. Empirical research reports that individuals who have been incarcerated are at risk of recidivism. This study used a qualitative research design and the data was collected from in-depth interviews with ten participants. The study found that lack of income and education has impacted the number of individuals who are failing to successfully reintegrate into society. This study also revealed that the lack of employment, housing, community resources, correctional rehabilitation, and vocational training have the ability to challenge successful reintegration. This study recommends that an increase in transitional services be rendered to ex-offends, as policy and practice. The types of services that the study recommends implementing are first, a greater amount of employment counseling and second, an increase in linkage between the ex-offends and support services in the ex-offender’s areas of need. It is recommended that there is further research of successful outcomes.

Since the founding of the juvenile justice system, minimal attention or research effort has been contributed to the understanding of factors affecting the rates of juvenile arrests, detainment, and return to community. Over time, studies have seen juvenile recidivism rise and fall. Counties and states do not keep solid empirical data on recidivism because minors are constantly reentering juvenile detention centers. States and counties only keep compacted empirical data on arrest of minors. It makes it hard for counties and states to differentiate who has been arrested multiply times. The following study investigates the juvenile justice and questions the rehabilitative function and ability of the system. Various methods of rehabilitation have been used and have been deemed null or effective. If certain practices have been deemed ineffective, are they still in practice, and why? Also, if other practices have been deemed effective in rehabilitation, at what rates are they being used and why? Studies that have focused on the contributing factors of youth at risk of recidivating or becoming offenders have birthed interventions that could potentially decrease juvenile recidivism significantly. This study will look into those interventions and analyze the results. Multisystemic therapy, as well as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has been deemed valid therapy methods that have impacts on juvenile recidivism. We will delve into the science of juvenile detention and society’s efforts on decreasing rates of incarceration as well as recidivism.

Many adolescents with substance use disorders have ongoing problems with abuse and/or dependence throughout their lives. Little research has been conducted examining the differences among adolescents who do and do not continue to have difficulties. This study compared adolescents who recidivate versus those who do not recidivate after receiving treatment for substance abuse. Adolescents were compared on four categories of variables: (a) demographic variables, (c) delinquency /substance use history, ( c) social/educational support, and ( d) treatment history. It was found that the most powerful predictors of recidivism within these categories were criminal history severity, age at intake, and treatment completion. The implication of this finding is discussed. It may be possible in the future for treatment providers to identify adolescents most at risk for recidivism, as these teens should perhaps receive more intensive treatment, a different type of treatment, and/or more intensive monitoring during and after treatment.

In a wide range of counselling situations, including those involving offenders, researchers have bemoaned the lack of consensus about outcome. Some researchers have argued that a lack of consensus is due to the fact that the different sources retain unique points of view, which can never be amalgamated into a common outcome. The current paper argues that, while sources will have their own unique perspective, it is possible to develop a meaningful consensus, if it is done very carefully. The factors which need to be taken into consideration are: measuring different outcomes; the different interpretation of the question by each source; and bias. An important outcome in correctional settings is an offender's current level of criminality, or likelihood of reoffending. It was hypothesised that the 12 Probation and Parole Officers' predictions about the likelihood of recidivism of 368 offenders would correlate with fresh charges recorded within 12 months by the Magistrates Court. This hypothesis was supported. It was also hypothesised that the Level of Service Inventory - Revised (LSI-R) would also correlate with fresh charges and that the former correlation would be different to the latter. While the LSI-R did correlate significantly with fresh charges, the predictions of the Probation and Parole Officers were not significantly different. The use of correlation coefficients to assess predictive validity has been criticised as they are affected by base rates of offending and selection ratios of offenders to high and low risk categories. However when a more appropriate statistical tool, the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (ROC) was employed, the results were not substantially different. The predictive abilities of offenders was also tested against the same criterion and Intersource Agreement on the Prediction Recidivism were found sorely wanting, failing to correlate with fresh charges or any of the other predictive measures. It is argued that the offenders failed to predict accurately because of bias and/or poor ability to predict their own behaviour. The ability of the Probation and Parole Officers to predict reoffending to a much greater level than usually recorded in the criminological literature was ascribed to the higher level of information about their own predictive abilities, through a natural feedback mechanism which does not usually apply to professionals making clinical predictions about recidivism, and to training in predictors of reoffending which they received when they were trained in the administration of the LSI-R. It was also found that the ability of the LSI-R to predict recidivism was improved by incorporating offender age through linear regression. Suggestions were made for improving consensus among sources in counselling outcome studies. In particular, it was noted that sources do not necessarily interpret the question in the manner the researcher desires and it may be necessary to test the subjects' ability to distinguish between similar questions when this distinction is important.

Thesis (M.S.)--Youngstown State University, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 115-124). Also available via the World Wide Web in PDF format.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2000. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 220-234). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

published_or_final_version / Sociology / Master / Master of Social Sciences