W7000 m7 a2_woods_k

Running head: DRAFT OF LITERATURE REVIEW 1

Draft of Literature Review

Kendra L. Woods

Argosy University

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 remain

incarcerated for the remainder of their lives. So what happens to a juvenile while they are

serving out their sentence, whether in a juvenile facility or criminal detention facility? Do these

facilities have programs and services structured to assist adolescents as they continue to grow

and develop?

The purpose of this literature review will be to evaluate and compare the availability and

effectiveness of the programs and treatment services available to juvenile offenders incarcerated

in both juvenile and adult facilities. The questions below are the research questions that this

proposed 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 purpose

of 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 this

system has on adolescent development and their ability to successfully return home upon release.

Relevant studies related to this issue will be introduced, along with implications for further

research based on the gaps in literature.

The theoretical framework that will be used as a guide will be an integrated model

involving both adolescent and social development. Adolescent development occurs during that


period of child development from 14 – 19 years of age. It tends to encompass three

chronological stages: early adolescence, middle adolescence, and late adolescence. Social

development involves relationships with peers, family, school, work, and community (APA,

2002). Unfortunately for the juvenile offender, those groups may be limited or expanded to

include institutional staff during their incarceration and the detention facility, jail, or prison

becomes the place where social development can take place (Steinberg, 2004). This model will

be used to focus on delinquency prevention and the reduction of recidivism.

Juvenile Justice System

The United States juvenile justice system has experienced some significant changes since

its inception in 1899 (Hinton, Sims, Adams, & West, 2007). Originally the juvenile justice

system was formatted as an informal environment established to protect all children while also

providing 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 at

ways of rehabilitating juvenile offenders (Hinton et al., 2007). The juvenile justice system was

responsible 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 and

provide 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 years

because society continues to go back and forth in their thoughts regarding the accountability of

these offenders (Hinton, Sims, Adams, & West 2007). Juvenile crime rates were on the rise from

about 1970 until the early 1990s, causing the public and policymakers to look for other options

to help decrease juvenile crime. As a result the most recent public opinion has been to move


toward a more punitive option (Jordan & Myers, 2011). Although historically, juvenile justice

policymakers encouraged programs to address the rehabilitative needs of juveniles, over the last

20 years, they have altered their beliefs and tend to lean more toward policies that sanction

juveniles based on their offense (Hinton et al., 2007).

Current Juvenile System

Over the past few years there have numerous meetings regarding the inadequacies of the

juvenile system. The juvenile systems’ philosophy, structure and procedures are being

questioned. It is because of these criticisms and the increased juvenile arrests that the traditional

juvenile justice system is being altered. In contrast to the conventional system’s idea of saving

or 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 on

an annual basis (Steinberg, Chung, & Little, 2004). By 2004, approximately 7% of the two

million juvenile arrests were transferred to adult courts (Snyder, 2006). Reports show that in

2008, there were 1,653,300 juvenile cases processed nationally and of that total 1,203,600 were

adolescent males (Puzzachera & Kang, 2011). The criminal system has seen an increase in the

number of juvenile offenders in adult facilities. In June of 2009 there were 2,778 inmates under

the age of 18 in adult facilities (West, 2010). Recent studies have revealed that the number of

juveniles 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 policy

related to juvenile offenders (Hinton, Sims, Adams, & West, 2007). The society’s view of

juveniles and crime caused the policies regarding juvenile sanctions to go back and forth


between rehabilitation and punishment. Most of the interventions used over the past 60 years

have focused on both. Some of those interventions include community based and residential

programs 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 term

consequences in adult jails and prisons is being used (Kupchik, 2007).

It was the belief that many people believed that juvenile court was not issuing

punishment that was suitable for the offenses being committed compared to those that could be

issued by criminal courts (Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard, 2011). The public believed that

the use of the adult criminal court would ideally impose harsher sanctions that could increase

accountability of the youth and reduce recidivism. However, they did not necessarily want

juvenile 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 juvenile

offenders 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 somewhere

between 1900 and 1980. Youth between early and late adolescence are said to endure numerous

changes related to physical development and cognitive development (Gutman & Eccles, 2007).

Mears and Travis (2004) report that generally, developmental psychologists classify adolescents

into three groups based on age. Each group is then distinguished by varying degrees of

emotional, social, and physical development. It is the experiences that occur during a juveniles’

adolescence that affect their development as an adult. The transition from adolescence to

adulthood is not an easy process and it involves the development of many skills (Steinberg,

Chung, & Little, 2004).


Developmental psychology is a concept that believes adolescents need assistance in

learning how to live independently upon transitioning into adulthood. Juveniles or adolescents

undergo a process called psychosocial development. Psychosocial development is an important

aspect of maturing to adulthood (Mears & Travis, 2004). Steinberg, Chung, and Little (2004)

state that psychosocial maturity is necessary for the appropriate transition from adolescence to

adulthood. Reaching this level of maturity involves the development of mature thinking and

reasoning, which are said to reduce the number of poor decisions made by late adolescents

(Fagan, 2008). Studies show that juvenile offenders have issues adjusting to becoming

productive adults and tend to have problems reaching normal adult milestones. Travis,

Solomon, and Waul (2001) report that while adults have a difficult time attempting to transition

from incarceration to freedom, juveniles face even greater challenges. Steinberg et al. (2004)

state that in order for an adolescent to successfully achieve the adult role they must achieve a

threshold level of psychosocial development. Based on what is known about former juvenile

offenders, it is not impossible to believe that many juveniles leave the juvenile justice system and

become adults who are not equipped to handle the responsibility of adulthood. Whether or not a

juvenile offender positively develops this aspect of healthy development is determined by the

institutional programming available during incarceration (Mears & Travis, 2004). By guiding

the focus of our juvenile facilities, jails and prisons, toward psychosocial development,

intervention programs can be developed to assist juveniles develop the skills needed to be

productive citizens (Steinberg et al., 2004).

Psychological Needs of Juveniles

Determining whether incarcerated juvenile offenders in adult prisons and juvenile

facilities have similar mental health needs can be of assistance when deciding how adult facilities


should structure programs to meet the needs of their most vulnerable residents (Woolard,

Odgers, Lanza-Kaduce, & Daglis, 2005). Limited research reveals that juvenile offenders tend

to have mental health and substance abuse issues at rate higher than adult offenders (Vaughn,

Freedenthal, Jenson, & Howard, 2007). Unfortunately, the literature regarding the occurrence of

behavioral 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 future

studies 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 of

mental 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 have

a large number of treatment needs compared to their peers (Murrie, Henderson, Vincent,

Rockett, & Mundt, 2009). Research shows that many young offenders have serious issues

related to their mental health and educational attainment. These deficiencies have shown to

affect 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 to

effectively house and treat juvenile offenders. Prison is not an environment with the purpose of

rehabilitating juveniles. The adult facilities tend to focus on punishment versus treatment which

is 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 coping

skills to handle that type of environment (Benekos & Merlo, 2008). The juveniles’ lack of skills

and ability to sustain their self-respect and mental health causes additional concerns for adult


facilities (Benekos & Merlo, 2008). Research shows that there is limited information available

about juvenile programming in the adult criminal justice system.

According to Altschuler and Brash (2004), emphasis on the concept of tougher penalties

for violent juveniles led to changes in policy that focused on incarceration by extending

sentences and allowing little or no emphasis to be placed on rehabilitation programs. The goal of

programming should be on providing the youth experiences that would promote positive

development and assist in their future reentry to society. To effectively do this, attention needs

to be given to the developmental stages of adolescents and programs should help the youth

develop 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 extreme

form of punishment (Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard, 2011). More juveniles are being

processed in the adult criminal court than in previous years due to the laws that now make it

easier 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 viewed

and 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 their

actions and should be punished accordingly (Jordan & Freiburger, 2010). One of the major

reasons for transferring juveniles with serious or violent crimes to the adult court system was to

increase the severity of punishment in hopes of lower rates of recidivism. Comparative studies

suggest that juveniles processed in adult court are more likely to commit additional crimes in the

future than those juveniles processed in juvenile court (Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce, & Woolard,


2011). Based on these studies the adult criminal justice system may not be the appropriate

system to handle juvenile offenders (Myers, 2003).

Relevant Studies

Reports show that there have only been a few studies conducted that focused on the

effects of incarceration on juvenile offenders. The data from these studies were related to

institutionalization, 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 versus

adult dispositions and how it affects them. The outcome of this study was that the juveniles

reported that the juvenile justice system through the use of counseling and life skill classes had

an effect on them when they felt that they had gained some type of life skill or positive outlook

for the future. The juveniles within the criminal system reported that they were affected by

dispositions 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 juvenile

transfers provide two advantages: harsher punishments and stricter public safety. Initially, it was

common that juveniles processed in adult court were released sooner than those processed by

juvenile court, however due to policy changes the transferred offenders are now given harsher

sanctions. This study provided results that were distinct from some older studies that revealed

support 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).


However, more recent studies support the idea of juveniles receiving harsher sanctions in adult

court (Fagan, 1990; Podkopacz & Feld, 1996).

Reentry

Reentry refers to the process of offenders returning to their communities after completing

their term of incarceration. Reentry is an issue that has gained almost as much public attention

as the increase in juvenile crime; however there is little literature referencing this experience

from the juvenile perspective, although adolescent and young adults are almost one third of the

individuals returning home after incarceration (Mears & Travis, 2004).

In America, there are hundreds of thousands of juveniles and young adults under the age

who are reintegrated into their communities on a yearly basis. The increased number of

individuals leaving secure confinement and returning back home can create undue hardship on

those communities. Unfortunately during their incarceration, many former offenders did not

receive 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 and

substance abuse issues (Mears & Travis, 2004). Juveniles reentering society tend to have

problems 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 a

period of time would face, such as locating a place to live, finding a job or attending school, and

reestablishing former relationships with family and friends (Sullivan, 2004). Unfortunately,

juvenile offenders also have a few other challenges that adults may not encounter. Juveniles

have developmental needs and concerns and because of their age they tend to play a different

role in their communities. Many of the challenges faced by adolescents are centered on


developmental and social issues. Juvenile offenders are said to experience two transitions,

incarceration to reentry and adolescence to adulthood (Sullivan, 2004).

Research shows that the first six months after release is a very vital time in the life of an

ex-offender (Chung, Schubert, & Mulvey, 2007). It is during this initial period of time when the

juvenile experiences less structure and supervision that they may revert to prior behaviors if they

do not receive the appropriate guidance. The availability of aftercare services can be the one

thing that keeps a juvenile from re-offending. Therefore, it is imperative that well-established

community networks are accessible to help with the coordination of services (Sullivan, 2004). In

order for the field to understand and appropriately address the challenges of reentry additional

research will be necessary (Mears & Travis, 2004).

Implications for future research

Juvenile treatment programs may be the better option when looking at how to help or

rehabilitate all juvenile offenders. As many states move towards making laws that allow the

legal system to move the more serious juvenile offenders to adult court, researchers are finding

that 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 data

directly from juveniles who had lived this experience in order to gather real time data about what

they 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 juvenile

treatment programs than by adult punishments; (2) as youth in juvenile facilities mature and gain

various skill sets they are able to more appropriately handle any issues that arise while being

incarcerated, whereas in adult prisons, youth tend to conform due to a loss; and (3) the statistics

from juvenile programs show that these programs have been successful in reducing recidivism.


Summary

The number of juvenile offenders in adult facilities does not make up a large percentage

of the total prison inmates; however they tend to pose special challenges with respect to facility

policies and treatment programs. Juveniles in adult facilities are more likely to experience

situations that would cause psychologically harm than those in juvenile facilities; and they are

more likely to be denied access to other services because adult facilities tend to be less concerned

with rehabilitation than juvenile correctional facilities (Hinton, Sims, Adams & West, 2007).

There have been numerous questions about the ability of the criminal justice system to

appropriately handle adolescents due to the distinct differences between adult and juvenile

offenders (Trulson, Caudill, Belshaw, & DeLisi, 2011). Studies suggest that there is a need for

adult facilities to provide developmentally appropriate treatment programs for juvenile offenders

(Murrie, Henderson, Vincent, Rockett, & Mundt, 2009). The purpose of this research will be to

determine whether or not the adult facilities in Tennessee are lacking the programs needed to

assist with the proper development of juvenile offenders.


References

Altschuler, D. M., & Brash, R. (2004). Adolescent & teenage offenders confronting the

challenges and opportunities of reentry. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 21(1), 72-87.

doi:10.1177/1541204003260048

American 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:10.1177/1541204007308423

Bishop, 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:10.1177/0093854807307170

Cocozza, 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.


Fagan, 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:10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.522

Hamparian, 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:10.1177/0887403407304578

Johnson, K., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Woolard, J. (2011). Disregarding graduated treatment: Why

transfer aggravates recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 57(5), 756-777. doi:10.1177/

0011128708328867

Jordan, 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


Jordan, 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:10.1177/0011128708319111

Kupchick, A. (2006). The decision to incarcerate in juvenile and criminal courts. Criminal

Justice Review, 31(4), 309-336. doi:10.1177/0734016806295584

Kupchik, A. (2007). The Correctional Experiences of Youth in Adult and Juvenile Prisons.

Justice Quarterly, 24(2), 247-270. doi:10.1080/07418820701294805

Lane, 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/

0011128702048003004

Mears, D. P., & Travis, J. (2004). Youth development and reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile

Justice, 2, 3-20. doi:10.1177/1541204003260044

Murrie, 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/

1541204002250878

Myers, D. L. (2003). Controversies in criminal justice. In The house of last resort: Incarcerating

juveniles in adult prisons (pp. 321-329). Los Angeles: Roxbury.


Myers, 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:10,1177/1541204010391216

Podkopacz, 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:10.1177/1541204003260045

Sullivan, M. L. (2004). Youth perspectives on the experience of reentry. Youth Violence and

Journal Justice, 2, 56-71. doi:10.1177/1541204003260047


Teplin, 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:10.1177/0093854807304624

Washburn, 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/ezajcs

Wiebush, 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.

W7000 m7 a2_woods_k

Education

Transcript of W7000 m7 a2_woods_k