|
Policy Implications The findings reported here have broad implications in terms of national and local policies. The past few decades have witnessed the emergence of a punitive attitude toward juvenile offenders. These "overapplied" policies (e.g., increased waivers of juveniles to the adult system and mandatory sentencing of juveniles) put some youth in facilities who could be served successfully in the community. Such policies have had a negligible effect on crime and have contributed to overcrowding in prisons, jails, and juvenile institutions. Some believe that such policies have also helped to expand an already large crime control "industry" (Shelden and Brown, 1997; Reiman, 1995; Donziger, 1996; Irwin and Austin, 1997). Many policymakers continue to view the problems of crime and delinquency (and related problems such as drug and alcohol abuse) first and foremost as legal problems rather than as public health or social problems (Prothrow-Stith, 1991). Some progress has been made in shifting this view, but further progress is needed. Rarely does a purely legalistic approach address major root causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of educational opportunities, unemployment, and racial inequality. In fact, it can be argued that such policies have exacerbated these problems (Miller, 1996). One reason for the success of alternative programs such as DDAP may be that they tend to stress the strengths of at-risk youth rather than the weaknesses. The more traditional punitive approaches tend to emphasize the negative aspects of at-risk youth and focus on their faults and negative behaviors. Programs that focus on building strengths add to the resiliency of at-risk youth (Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992; Hawkins and Weis, 1985). The program described in this Bulletin is not the solution to all juvenile justice problems, nor is it a quick fix. Additional research is required on this type of program—a diversion program operated by a separate agency—under varying conditions and in different geographic locations. Ideally, a longitudinal study should be undertaken that will use a true experimental design in which youth would be randomly assigned to DDAP or to regular juvenile justice programming. Such extensive and long-term followups will shed more light on a complex issue.
| ||||
