Evaluation program

The evaluation proposed by the Chief Probation Officer was properly conducted and became successful in the long run. The youths were first removed from the normal processing system and thus shame associated with crime was reduced. The dishonor was reduced. The separation of the violent and nonviolent ensured that the weak ones were protected and the violent monitored. The separation as well reduced juvenile delinquency that might have existed among the offenders. This improved the images of the youths (self seen), social skills and the attitude that they had formerly. The random placement reduced the chances of interaction between close relatives or friends that could influence one another. This method yielded minimal result as the similar crimes were still being committed as far as in the detainment camps. The counseling program was effective as it ran for period of six months and this could ensure full counseling and guidance. This made sure that the offenders were monitored appropriately and were given counseling as required. When they were placed in probation for probation for two year, it is likely that the rate of crime reduced. The evaluation marked the standard procedure for handling juvenile criminals. The detainment made remarkably change in behavior and this aided in avoiding of further violations of law.

Offenders were treated in good and human way. The comparison with the control indicated the short comings of the system as well as the merits. The system was effective as when the two groups were compared, the success was evident. The number returned to the juvenile system was few as compared to the number detained. The control group was as a reference. It indicated the effectiveness of the program. Though successful, but the evaluation had some short comings. Convergent results that were taken thereafter stratifications revealed that the program had more but not 100% success. The original offenses are still committed even after detainment. The program did not well separate the closely related members and this increased the rate of crime. This was as a result of the random placement of the offenders. The close friends end up being together. The administrator then made up his mind not to separate them and all were assigned to the same place like treatment. The other limitation was the way they were returned home. All were removed within a day and then released to go home. The other disadvantage of this method was that, not all the youths committed similar offences. Some committed serious crimes but others and others little crimes and they may have not been appropriate to be diverted to the program.

A juvenile diversion program, originally proposed by the Chief Probation Officer, was evaluated. The objective was to remove the youths from processing by the official system and thereby decrease the stigma associated with the label of “juvenile delinquent.” The project administrators, who were two senior probation officers on the department’s promotion list for Assistant Chief, felt that the diversion program would ultimately result in decreased recidivism rates. All nonviolent juveniles, of both genders, who were detained by the police during a six-month period (about 300 juveniles), were placed either in the program (treatment) or in a control group. Placement was by random assignment to one of the two groups. In a substantial number of cases, the juveniles committed their original offenses with close friends who were also detained by the police. Project administrators decided not to split up these friends and, if any were assigned to the treatment group, all were assigned to treatment. The treatment group finished with 184 assignments and the control group with 117 assignments. Members of the treatment group were removed from the detention facility within one day, taken to a counseling center and then returned to their homes. They continued to receive counseling and other services for six months, at which point they were told to call the counseling center “if there were any problems.” The members of the control group received normal processing through the juvenile court system and, on average, were released from detention within 2 days, processed through the court within one month and placed on probation for two years. In order to assure that the controls were treated normally, the administrators briefed the supervising probation officers on the program so that they would be careful to treat the controls in the usual way. Data were collected on gender, age, race, and offense of the juveniles. After one year the evaluators compared the two groups and declared that the project had indeed been successful. Of the 184 juveniles who were diverted, 40 had been returned to the juvenile system. Of the 117 juveniles who were processed normally, 39 were returned to the system. When the evaluators looked at the experiences of the 21 females in the evaluation (spread across both treatment and control groups), they found that females were returned to the system by about 5 percent in the treatment group and by about 8 percent in the control group. With these results, the evaluators felt that the program would work particularly well for females.