Journal of the Institute

Community Risk Factors

In examining community risk factors, the assessor should look at episodes of documented violence, both prior offenses and acts that were not adjudicated. These should be supported by third party verification, whether this verification comes from police reports or school reports or another source. The examiner must take into account the nature of the instant offense, paying attention to any aggravating and mitigating factors.

Gerardin and Thibaut (2004) state that: “The assessment process typically includes a structured clinical interview and psychometric testing. The structured clinical interview obtains the following information: demographics, family background, criminal history, social history, peer relationships, school adjustment and performance, drug and alcohol history, sexual behavior and fantasy history, and history of physical or sexual abuse.” (p. 84)

Actuarial risk assessment instruments should be administered, for example: STATIC 99, VRAG, and SORAG. These instruments provide probability risk scores for sexual reoffending and are most commonly used with individuals 16-years-old and older. At least two of these instruments should be used and the results cross-referenced.

Treatment & Management Risk Factors

In determining treatment risk factors, amenability to treatment must be determined. If the offender is amenable to treatment and the risk factor score is low the offender should not be placed in a locked facility because further contact with the system can only harm the juvenile further. (If an actuarial risk assessment has not been done, these risk factors cannot be assessed.) If the juvenile is not placed in a locked facility, it is important that the supervising agent look for relapse indicators that are indicative of reoffending.

Management

Sexual offenders, more so than many other types of offenders, must be managed. This is not, as is commonly believed, because they have the highest rate of recidivism among all offender types, many studies contradict this (Garfinkle, 2003; Fritz, 2003; Wright, 2003). It is because the crimes they commit are so devastating in their effects. The harm level is very high for sexual reoffending (Broadhurst and Loh, 2003), not only in terms of direct victims and secondary victims but in terms of levels of fear of crime. While the criminal justice system does not want the drug user or the robber to reoffend, higher stakes are involved with sexual offenders.

Appropriate management of sexual offenders consists of putting into place both external and internal oversight to prevent future offending. Internal oversight comes through treatment. External oversight comes from supervision by the criminal justice system, focusing on community safety. This includes the work of probation and parole professionals and possibly electric monitoring.

Treatment

Treatment has been shown to reduce the risk of recidivism and therefore reduce the risk that these offenders pose to society in general (Jenuwine et al., 2003). Gerardin and Thibaut (2004) point out that treatment recommendations for juvenile offenders are extrapolations of what has been done with adult offenders. Research concerning the treatment of juvenile sexual offenders is in the early stages, with much of the literature trying to fully conceptualize the problem.

Three key mistakes are made in the treatment of juvenile sexual offenders. First, opportunities for early intervention are missed. Second, juvenile offenders are treated with a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Third, treatment is not as intensive or thorough as is necessary.

Early opportunities for treatment should not be missed. Early intervention saves victim suffering and reduces cost to the criminal justice system. Too often the system waits until a juvenile has committed a crime before intervention begins, but there are copious opportunites for intervention much earlier and there is no need to wait until a juvenile has crossed into full-blown sexual offending.

Early intervention can happen at several points. Children who have been victimized should be offered a full-range of services to help prevent them from becoming future offenders. Children and adolescents that engage in lower-level sexual offending behavior should be offered services as well. Also, juveniles who engage in sexual offending type behavior, but not as the instant offense, should not be overlooked. When the system does not pay attention until the offense behavior is very serious, rehabilitation becomes much more difficult.

When treating juvenile sexual offenders, it must be kept in mind that this offender group is not homogeneous (Fritz, 2003). There is a spectrum of offenses and a spectrum of offenders. Therefore, a spectrum of treatments must be offered. Sexual offenders require specialized, structured sexual offender treatment programs, conducted by registered, licensed/certified sex offender therapists. The treatment also must be intensive and thorough.

Treatment takes place in one of two settings: either within the community or in confinement. Only those juveniles that are deemed to be high-risk are confined. When the individual is not placed, treatment focuses on the key trigger mechanisms which set off offense behavior---the pathway to offending. Specific behaviors which trigger the sexual deviance are examined, along with the history of sexual deviance and how these relate to the instant offense. Treatment also focuses on dynamics of offender and family (family systems analysis). Family therapy is a key component, but there is often considerable resistance from the families of juvenile sex offenders, who wish to see the juvenile as the one who is “sick” and in need of “treatment.” This is the case in many situations where a juvenile is in therapy.

Other useful treatment components can include: electronic monitoring, wrap-around services, community service, drug and alcohol testing. Also, the use of initial and random polygraph testing in treatment to facilitate disclosure has been widely documented (Fritz, 2003). Of course, the treatment approach must be tailored to specifically fit the needs of the individual juvenile.

References

American Psychiatric Association. 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.

Broadhurst, R. & Loh., N. 2003. “The probabilities of sex offender re-arrest,” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 13, 121-139.

Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports 2002 Section IV: Persons Arrested. Date retrieved: January 14, 2004. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/4sectionfour.pdf)

Fritz, G. 2003. “The juvenile sex offender: Forever a menace?” Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, Vol. 19, Issue 2, p.8.

Garfinkle, E. 2003. “Coming of Age in America: The Misapplication of Sex-Offender Registration and Community Notification Laws to Juveniles,” California Law Review, Vol. 91: 163-208

Gerardin, P. & Thibaut, F. 2004. “Epidemiology and Treatment of Juvenile Sexual Offending,” Pediatric Drugs, Vol. 6 Issue 2: 79-91

Jackson, M. & Knepper, P. 2003. Delinquency and Justice. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

KlassKids Foundation. 2002. “Megan’s Law by State,” (http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-legmeg.htm) Date retrieved: May 12, 2004.

Petrila, J. 2004. “Emerging issues in forensic mental health,” Psychiatric Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 1: 3-19.

Uniform Crime Reports. (www.fbi.gov/ucr). Date retrieved: May 12, 2004.

Uniform Crime Reports. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/pdf/4sectionfour.pdf). Date retrieved: May 12, 2004.

Witt, P., Bosley, J., and Hiscox, S. 2002. “Evaluation of juvenile sex offenders,” The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, Vol. 30, Winter: 569-592.

Wright, R. 2003. “Sex offender registration and notification: Public attention, political emphasis, and fear,” Criminology and Public Policy. Vol 3, No 1: 97-104.

The Relationship between a "Criminalgenic" Community and Continued Juvenile Crime Rates
Bruce Wilson^*
Juvenile criminality continues to be a major issue confronting American society. Synder (2002) indicates that juveniles under age 18 account for almost 2.4 million arrests annually in America. In fact, juveniles represent almost one out of every six arrests in America (Synder, 2002).

It is hypothesized, in this paper that in order for future crime rates to continue to be lowered, juvenile crime rates must be addressed. Juveniles are perceived as malleable and that under the right circumstances they can be dissuaded from criminality as opposed to their adult counterpart (Platt, 1969). Parens patriae indicates this philosophy by arguing that the state acting in the best interest of the delinquent child could intervene benevolently and protect juveniles from a life of crime (Synder, 2002). Wilson (1993) lists five general principles to prevent juvenile delinquency and criminality. Wilson (1993) argues that by strengthening the family, supporting core institutions, promoting delinquency prevention, intervening immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior occurs, and identifying and controlling the small group of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders, juvenile crime rates would be lowered.

This paper will address the variables that are found in one particular inner city community in Chicago. It is surmised that if these variables are not confronted, examined, and dealt with in a significant manner in this "criminalgenic" community juvenile crime strategies will fail to adequately lower juvenile crime rates over the long term in that particular community. In essence, by not addressing these social root causes we are simply adding a band-aid solution to a much deeper wound. Merlo (2000:657) indicates:
[We] are at a crossroads. We can either continue to move toward more punitive juvenile justice policies, greater intolerance for adolescents, growing racism, more costly and more inhumane policies, and an ever-widening gulf between poor children and the rest of us, or we can blaze a new path. As teachers, scholars, researchers, students, and practitioners, we have the opportunity to infuse the system with a new kind of thinking-thinking that is informed by research, by evaluation of programs, and by an understanding of the complex societal conditions that cannot be eliminated without substantial long-term investments.

All communities are not the same so different strategies tailored to a specific community must be devised. It is only by examining "criminalgenic" variables in a specific community can we expect to lower juvenile crime rates in that community.

The criminalgenic community that was examined is Englewood, which is a neighborhood that is part of the inner city of Chicago. The statistics gathered from these criminalgenic variables were taken from the City of Chicago DataBase on Chicago Neighborhoods. The criminalgenic variables examined are as follows: (1) Segregated Schools, (2) Educational Attainment, (3) Birth Rates, (4) Legitimate Employment, (5) Home Ownership, and (6) Crime Violent Risk.
Englewood Community
Englewood is considered one of the poorest and high crime ridden areas in Chicago. The population of Chicago (based on the 2000 census) was reported at 2,896,016. African-Americans in Chicago accounted for 1,065,009 of the population. Englewood consists of a population of 40,248 people that are 99% African-American, therefore for all intents and purposes it is a truly a segregated community.
Segregated Schools
The elementary schools and high schools in Englewood represent a mirror reflection of its population. The Education School Achievement Index in Englewood rated 2 out of a 10 possible points (1 being the lowest in terms of education achievement and 10 being the highest in Education Achievement). In Brown v Board of Education (1954) the United States Supreme Court indicated that segregated schools were found to be unconstitutional, because it created inferiority in African-American students. Yet, 50 years later after the Brown decision juveniles in Englewood find themselves in the same predicament prior to 1954. Education is one of the most important functions of the state and local governments. It serves as the catalyst for change, teaching youngsters to think openly and formulate thoughts. A diverse educational background is important because it teaches each child tolerance and acceptance of the differences between each culture, race and groups. If a child is not exposed to difference and is unaware of others, that child has been robbed of a rich and diverse life. Brown v Board of Education (1954) suggested that even in these days, it was doubtful that any child could reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity was a right that was made available to all people on equal terms. In the field of education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” still has no place. As we are still aware, separate schools are increasingly, and inherently unequal. A child that is subjected to attending a segregated school is doomed to a life of inferior education, jobs, and cannot compete on a global scale. They are doomed forever to continue the cycle of poverty that has plagued this community for years. Statistics have continued to suggest that the prosperous 1990s bypassed this little community in Chicago. You have but to visit a school in this area, to be reminded why it was necessary to fight for integration. It would be in any child’s best interest to find an area that emulates the population of the majority of people in Chicago that is where you will find better schools, with many more resources. There must begin to be a change otherwise this area or its residents will never move past the cycle of poverty, violence, and mis-education.
Educational Attainment
The residents of Englewood (age 25+) on average have completed the eighth grade level. This variable is important in that we live and compete in a global economy, where educational and technical skills are a must for legitimate opportunity. Merton (1938) indicated that the American dream was to make money. The legitimate way to make money is through education, however if an individual is unable to receive an education, they may pursue illegitimate means to make money. Browning (1999) conducted a study that sampled youngsters who were at high risk for serious delinquency and drug use and found that (1) the amount of involvement in drugs was indicative of the amount of delinquency, (2) a child that is abused or neglected at an early age, is more at risk for delinquency, (3) the less committed to school you are the higher the level of delinquency, (4) poor family life causes more delinquency, and (5) “you are known by the company that you keep”, if you are around street-thugs and drug-dealers that will be who you learn to emulate.
Birth Rates
In Englewood, the Teen Birth rate was 30 per 1,000. A study that was conducted by Niskanen indicates that the percentage of births to single mothers, increased to 5 percent in 1960 and to 28% in 1991, and then to astronomical numbers in 1999. This is indicative of a much deeper problem. According to the Illinois Department of Public Health, Chicago teenagers that gave birth in 2002 made up 6,906 as opposed to 47,958 of other live births to mother that were over the age of 19. The majority of these births are to single, uneducated mothers. The fathers are non-custodial, non-caring and are causing a generation of children, to be more criminalgenic in nature. The fatherless youth suffer a depressing fate. Kopel (2000) indicated that a study written by M. Anne Hill, from the Department of Health and Human Services and June O’Neill of Baruch College, indicated that young black males from single-parent families are twice as likely to engage in crime as young black males from two-parent families. If the single-parent family is in a neighborhood with a large number of other single parent families the odds of that child becoming involved in crime are tripled.

Statistics indicate that teenage mothers are less likely to get prenatal care throughout their pregnancies and are more likely to have a child with a low birth weight.

Henderson (1994) states that women who do not receive prenatal care are three times more likely to have low birth weight infants. Leveno et. al. (1985) found that indigent women seeking prenatal care had a significant reduced incidence of low birth weight infants compared to those without care. Leveno et. al. (1985) identify that the initiation of early care identifies women at risk, which can offer interventions that can improve birth and pregnancy outcomes. Low birth weight cases indicates that of every 1,000 cases 17 suffered with this issue. This is extremely high for a neighborhood in Chicago. Low birth weight is important because it raises the probabilities of blindness, deafness, chronic respiratory problems, mental retardation, and other developmental disabilities (Hack, 1991). These developmental disabilities often go underreported and are not readily discernable to a community that basically concentrates on surviving on a day-to-day basis.

The U.S. infant mortality has declined in the past 40 years; despite these reductions there continues to be considerable racial/ethnic disparities. According to Singh & Yu (1995), the downward trends in the U.S. infant mortality rate has not been evidenced in the black/white numbers. These authors found that in 1991 while prematurity and low birth weight were the third leading cause of death among white infants, they were the leading cause of death among black infants. The trend from 1981 through 1991 found that black infant deaths resulting from prematurely and low birth weight increased by almost 9% and the risk of infant mortality for black infants was 2.2 times higher than for white infants (Singh & Yu, 1995). Although black infants are 17% of all births, they account for 33% of all low birth weight and 38% of very low birth weight (Shiono & Behrman, 1995).

Legitimate Employment
Chicago is a global economic city that contains many high paid legal opportunities; however for the residents in Englewood who are legally employed age 16+ over 70% are employed in service, sales, and retail. These types of jobs ensure a continuation of the poor working class with little opportunity for advancement on the social economic ladder (Wilson, 1987). The median income (the regional average) for the city of Chicago is $27,619. In Englewood, the median income is $8,022 and the percent of the population below the poverty level is 43.8%.
Home Ownership
Almost 73% of the residents of Englewood rent verses home ownership. As the literature indicates home ownership gives you pride, a feeling of self-worth, and belonging (Rohe, 2001). Several studies have confirmed that homebuyers have higher self-esteem and contribute to a person’s self worth (Rossi and Weber, 1996). Incidentally, the median home purchase costs were $70,000 in Englewood as compared to $181,966 for the regional average for the city of Chicago. This differentiation found in Englewood as compared to other regional average of other Chicago areas, ensures that even if homeowners sell their homes they can only move to other criminalgenic communities.
Crime Violent Risk
Lastly, the violent crime risk rated 8 out of 10 in Englewood (1 is the lowest in terms of violent crime risk and 10 being the highest). Chicago is divided into 25 Districts. District 07 (Englewood), District 10, and District 11 accounted for over 25% of all murders in Chicago in 2003. Chicago had a total of 598 murders in 2003. In Chicago, over 40% of murder victims were between the ages of 17 and 24. Englewood accounted for 50 of those murders even though their population was only 40,238 people.

In summation, Englewood is a segregated community with inferior schools. The Englewood community continues to be a criminalgenic community that consists of high birth rates, limited legal job opportunities, high murder rates, and no hope for long term economic success. Even though, the crime rate in Chicago, has decreased in every major category since 2003, in the aggregate, when you look at individual neighborhoods such as Englewood that is just not the case. Englewood and other criminalgenic communities in Chicago continue to produce high levels of juvenile crime and is a time bomb waiting to explode.

In reality, the economic boom of the 1990s bypassed poor segregated minority communities like Englewood and continued the cycle of the intersection of criminalgenic variables. The Englewood community represents the forgotten communities that exist in America. An understanding of these negative criminalgenic variables and its intersection must be addressed in that particular area or it will simply ensure high rates of continued juvenile crime with little hope for the future. Preventive strategies must be geared towards the elimination of criminalgenic variables that intersect and continue to fuel juvenile crime.

References
Browning, K. (1999) Causes and Correlates of Delinquency Program Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Fact Sheet

Brown Foundations for Educational Equality, Excellence and Research (2004)

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483

City of Chicago DataBase on Chicago Neighborhoods (2000)

Hack, M, Wilson-Costello, D, Friedman, H, and et.al (1991) Very Low Birth Weight Outcomes of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Network. Pediatrics 87(5): 587-97.

Henderson, J.W. (1994). The Cost Effectiveness of Prenatal Care. Health Care Finance Review, 15(4), 12-32

Illinois Department of Public Health (2002) Illinois Teen Births by County

Kopel, D. (2000) Fatherlessness: The Root Causes National Review, Inc, National Review Online

Leveno, K.J., Cunningham, F.G., Roarch, M.L., Nelson, S.D. & Williams, M.L. (1995) Prenatal care and the low birth weight infant. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 66(5), 599-604

Merlo, A. (2000) Juvenile Justice at the Crossroads: Presidential Address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Justice Quarterly, 17(4), 639-661.

Merton, R (1938) "Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-678

Platt, A. (1969) The Rise of the Child-Saving Movement: A Study in Social Policy and Correctional Reform. The Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 381, 21-38.

Rohe, W, Van Zandt, S, and McCarthy, G. (2001) The Social Benefits and Costs of Homeownership: A Critical Assessment of the Research. Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University.

Shiono, G.K. & Behrman, R.E. (1995). Low birth weight: An analysis and Recommendations. The Future of Children, 51(1). Retrieved February 13, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.futureofchildren.org

Singh, G.K. & Yu, S.M. (1995). Infant mortality in the United States: Trends, Differentials, and Projections, 1950 through 2010. American Journal of Public Health, 85(7), 957-964.

Synder, H, and Sickmund, M. (2002) Juvenile Offenders and Victims National Report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Wilson, J and Howell, J. (1993) Comprehensives Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Wilson, W. J. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner-City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.