Download The Deterrent Effect of Curfew Enforcement and more Study notes Literature in PDF only on Docsity!
The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.
Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:
Document Title: The Deterrent Effect of Curfew Enforcement:
Operation Nightwatch in St. Louis
Author(s): Lynn S. Urban
Document No.: 210684
Date Received: July 2005
Award Number: 2004-IJ-CX-
This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.
To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally-
funded grant final report available electronically in addition to
traditional paper copies.
Opinions or points of view expressed are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.
The Deterrent Effect of Curfew Enforcement:
Operation Nightwatch in St. Louis
Lynn S. Urban Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Missouri at St. Louis 8001 Natural Bridge Road St. Louis, MO 63121
Scott H. Decker, Ph.D., Curator’s Professor Advisor
This project was supported by Grant No. 2004-IJ-CX-0008 awarded by the National Institute of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice.
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
iv
APPENDICES
Appendix A Risk Assessment—St. Louis City Family Court Appendix B Nightwatch Case Contact Form Appendix C Nightwatch Parent Satisfaction Survey Appendix D Nightwatch Contract Appendix E Intake Log—St. Louis City Family Court Appendix F Juvenile Questionnaire Appendix G Additional Comments During Questionnaire Administration
vi
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES
Table 5.1 Final Sample Composition……………………………………………… Table 5.2 Juvenile Time Available Between Surveys…………………………….. 112 Table 5.3 Component Loadings Certainty of Punishment………………………… 139 Table 5.4 Component Loadings Formal Severity…………………………………. 142 Table 5.5 Component Loadings Informal Severity……………………………….. 143 Table 5.6 Opportunities By Group………………………………………………… Table 6.1 Risk Score by Study Participant that Received Nightwatch Visits….…. 170 Table 6.2 Number of Visits by Risk Category…………………………………….. Table 6.3 Sanctions and Subsequent Referrals by Risk Category………………… 174 Table 6.4 Number of Visits Per Week by Risk Category…………………………. 175 Table 6.5 Breaks in Service……………………………………………………….. 177 Table 6.6 Rewards Received by Research Participants that Received Nightwatch Visits………………………………………………….. 188 Table 6.7 First Sanction by Research Participants that Received Nightwatch Visits…………….…………………………….………. Table 6.8 Descriptive Statistics by Sample Group (Demographics)……………… 195 Table 6.9 Descriptive Statistics by Sample Group (Current Offense)……………. 198 Table 6.10 Descriptive Statistics by Sample Groups (Prior Delinquency)……….. 200 Table 6.11 Frequency of Prior Official Delinquency……………………………… Table 6.12 Frequency of Self Reported Delinquency…………………………….. 202 Table 6.13 Descriptive Statistics by Sample Group (Theoretical Variables)……... 204 Table 6.14 Correlations Between All Variables for Offending Likelihood in Sample………………………………………………. 211 Table 6.15 Variable Means By Offending Likelihood……………………………. 207 Table 7.1 Bivariate Correlations Between Major Theoretical Variables at Time 1………………………………………………… 248 Table 7.2 Bivariate Correlations Between Major Theoretical Variables, All Time Points…………………………………………………….. 249 Table 7.3 Bivariate Correlations Between Major Nightwatch Program Variables…………………………………………………. 250 Table 7.4 Within Group Differences Between Time 1 and Time 2……………….. 222 Table 7.5 Within Group Differnces Between Time 2 and Time 3…………………226 Table 7.6 Within Group Differences Between Time 1 and Time 3……………….. 228 Table 7.7 Offense/Victim After 7 pm?……………………………………………. 229 Table 7.8 Logistic Regression Models: Impact of Theoretical and Program Variables on Subsequent Official Referrals………………. Table 7.9 Logistic Regression Models: Impact of Theoretical and Program Variables on Subsequent Self Report Delinquency……… 252 Table 7.10 Logistic Regression Models: Impact of Theoretical and Program Variables on Victimization………………………………………. Table 7.11 OLS Regressions for Full and Reduced Sample: Dependent Variable Is Offending Likelihood………………………
vii
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION Since its inception in 1899, the juvenile justice system in the United States has experienced significant changes. Variations in demographics, population density, and social issues have prompted changes in the court’s penal philosophy through time. Increasing juvenile crime and violence combined with calls for offender accountability and a balanced approach to juvenile justice have forced courts across the country to adopt new programs to deal with juvenile offenders. One program adopted in several cities across the country involves the monitoring of court-ordered curfew for juveniles on probation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the curfew check program in St. Louis, Missouri, known as Nightwatch, to determine whether the program meets its stated goals of reducing recidivism and victimization, as well as the mechanism by which this is accomplished. The program was implemented to address the issue of high rates of juvenile crime, including significant gang activity, in the city. Court, law enforcement, and city leaders took advantage of a new federal funding source to introduce several strategies for combating the problem. Nightwatch was one of these strategies, presented
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chapter One Introduction
with several stated goals and objectives, among them to reduce crime, reduce recidivism, and increase community safety through the enforcement of court-ordered curfew of juveniles on probation. Crews of police and deputy juvenile officers (DJOs) conduct home visits to check the curfew of juveniles, prompting sanctions for violations and rewards for compliance. The rationale behind these curfew checks is that the threat of formal controls by way of home visits and sanctions will elicit compliance with curfew and increase the perception of certainty of punishment, and that juveniles who must remain at home will have fewer opportunities for crime and victimization experiences. This rationale can be explained using two criminological theories, perceptual deterrence and lifestyle/routine activities, respectively. These theories will be used to frame the current evaluation, in order to theoretically link the stated program goals with written program operations. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess not only whether Nightwatch meets its stated goals of reducing recidivism and victimization of program participants, but also the process by which this is attempted. A key component of the evaluation is the process by which juveniles move through the program. This is actually the first issue that must be addressed. A program that has written guidelines but does not actually deliver services, or delivers them at a significantly different level than intended, may not support an outcome evaluation. Information was collected for individuals assigned to the program regarding the number of visits they received, any violations recorded, as well as subsequent sanctions or rewards given. This information was compared to written and stated policies and procedures, to determine whether Nightwatch is functioning according to its design.
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chapter One Introduction
an evaluation that is theoretically based may provide a contribution to theory as well as to policy. Theoretical assumptions can be tested and previous methods replicated, with results ideally contributing to the literature and informing future research. Nightwatch can be placed in a much broader context in regards to the juvenile justice system in general, and previous attempts at juvenile program interventions in particular. The current juvenile justice system, including sentencing practices and program implementation has been influenced by changes in the structure and function of the court over time. This chapter will provide background information about the origins of the juvenile court, trends in juvenile justice sentencing and probation through time, and how these philosophies relate to St. Louis and the Nightwatch program. In addition, information regarding the generalizability of the present study will be presented, as well as an overview of subsequent chapters. ORIGINS OF THE J UVENILE J USTICE SYSTEM The idea of a separate court system for juvenile offenders in the United States developed in the early 1800s out of a number of complex issues. Judges were faced with the choice of sentencing a child to the adult penitentiary or releasing him with no sanction whatsoever (Mack, 1909; Feld, 1999b; Bernard, 1992). In addition, Progressive reformers recognized that many youthful offenders came from poor, immigrant families, and were optimistic that a positive change in the child’s environment would eliminate any future offending (Mack, 1909; Bernard, 1992). These dual concerns with public safety and care for the underprivileged prompted the creation of the first juvenile court in Chicago, Illinois in 1899 (Bernard, 1992; Platt, 1977). The legal basis of the new juvenile system was parens patriae , which empowered the court to have jurisdiction over
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chapter One Introduction
all dependent, neglected and delinquent youth, under the assumption that the court was looking out for the “best interests” of the child. These interests were evident in procedures used by the first court to differentiate juvenile from adult proceedings. Wording was changed, procedures emphasized informality, and the stated mission changed from punishing to helping (Bernard, 1992). The idea of a separate juvenile justice system spread quickly across the country and became well established (Moore and Wakeling, 1997). The Missouri State Legislature established a juvenile court system in 1903, founded on the same principles of parens patriae recognized by previous juvenile courts (St. Louis City Family Court, 2001). The circumstances surrounding the emergence of the juvenile court are complex and related to important social dynamics present at the time. The late 1800s and early 1900s were a time of great economic and social change for the country, with the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution and a flood of immigrants, particularly from Europe. Capitalism flourished, and middle and upper classes of businessmen and industrialists became well established in this booming new economy. Conversely, European immigrants provided the means of manual labor, with conflicting cultural norms from the capitalist elite (Feld, 1999a; Platt, 1977). These differences in social class and culture set the stage for the emergence of the first juvenile institutions in the United States. The rise of capitalism created both economic and social circumstances to which American society was not accustomed. The rise of industrialism focused labor in the big cities rather than on labor-intensive rural farms. The factory created divisions in the day not found on the farm, and introduced the concept of leisure time (Feld, 1999a). Changes
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chapter One Introduction
to the causes of crime, and early in the nineteenth century a new rationale for dealing with deviants emerged. By examining the social history of offenders, it was determined that offenders, both children and adults, were victims of their upbringing. Inattentive or inefficient parents were usually to blame, failing to protect their family from the corruptions of drinking and other vices. Crime was blamed solely on the environment; therefore reformers believed that if a deviant was removed from the sinful environment and placed in an institution that focused on discipline, the individual would be healed and could be returned to society (Rothman, 1971; Pisciotta, 1994; Platt, 1977). The advance of the social work movement encouraged the idea that environment and parental involvement played a key role in behavior. This idea that environment influences behavior became one of the leading rationales of the Progressive movement, with the assumption that removing a child from a bad environment would reshape his behavior (Rothman, 1971; Bernard, 1992; Platt, 1977). During this period, conditions of all kinds were considered curable. Almshouses were designed to cure the poor, insane asylums cured the mentally ill, and the House of Refuge cured juvenile delinquents (Pisciotta, 1994). Armed with a vision that a juvenile will behave properly in the proper environment and the knowledge that fear of crime was increasing, reformers set the wheels of establishing a juvenile institution in motion. A precursor to the juvenile court was the House of Refuge opened in New York in
- The opening of this institution lead to issues that would later be significant in beginning the separate justice system for adolescents. The House of Refuge was also founded on the principles of environmental influence and social class, particularly the problem of the chronic poor, or paupers (Rothman, 1971). The middle and upper classes
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chapter One Introduction
saw paupers as lazy and undeserving of assistance, but excluded children from responsibility for their lot in life, by admitting them to the House of Refuge where a proper work ethic could be taught (Rothman, 1971; Bernard, 1992). Admissions criteria for the House of Refuge were very flexible, so that judges, parents, or other concerned parties could remove the child from a corrupt environment (Rothman 1971), even if the child had not committed any offense (Bernard, 1992). Legal issues concerning due process called attention to the arbitrary nature by which children were admitted to the institution. Administrators claimed the purpose of the institution was to treat children rather than punish them, so due process protections were unnecessary (Bernard, 1992). The United States Supreme Court disagreed, and ruled that it was illegal to send a child to reform school without committing a felony offense (Bernard, 1992). Supporters still felt that children needed to be handled differently from adults, however, so the middle and upper classes redefined the admissions procedures to officially establish the first separate juvenile court system. The rationale for creating a separate court system for adolescents was based on the differentiation between children and adults, as well as the moral superiority of the reformers themselves. Adolescents were seen as not capable of forming intent for criminal action, as well as being malleable and amenable to reform with the proper treatment and intervention (Bernard, 1992; Feld, 1999a). The middle and upper classes dictated what this proper treatment would be. Reformers were optimistic that treating poor immigrant children would decrease their chances of becoming criminals, and justified creating the separate court based on these benevolent motives. The new court was based on the concept of parens patriae , whereby the state could intervene and act in
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chapter One Introduction
the scope of the juvenile court shifted emphasis from treatment toward the punitive nature of proceedings that persists today. The introduction of a separate court system for juveniles came about because of social and economic changes present in American society. The middle and upper classes sought to control lower class immigrants and their children, and insure they positively contributed to the blossoming capitalist economy (Rothman, 1971; Platt, 1977). The original philosophy of the court was to treat the child and prevent future criminal offending, by focusing on negative influences in the child’s environment. Intended and actual outcomes proved to be different, however, with the actual function of the court proving to be that of punishment rather than treatment. This prompted the introduction of legal protections for juveniles that were not present at the original inception of the court, and shifted the focus toward the punitive nature of court proceedings. Current juvenile justice practice is both similar to and different from the original directive for the “best interests” of the child. The current juvenile court has evolved as a result of political and public pressures, with individual jurisdictions responding in unique ways. TRENDS IN J UVENILE J USTICE SENTENCING Just as the structure and function of the juvenile court changed through time, so did sentencing practices, dependent upon whether the treatment or punishment model dominated decision making. Under the original rationale for the court, the treatment of each individual juvenile was indeterminate, as the amount of time needed for rehabilitation was unknown (Mack, 1909; Feld, 1999a, 1998). Judges held vast amounts of discretion over the sentencing of an offender, with decisions rooted in the rehabilitative ideal, and focused on the best interests of the child. Sentencing was
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Chapter One Introduction
concerned primarily with the real needs of the child, and the actual offense was seen as secondary (Feld, 1999b). These original plans became confused with actual practices, however, and disillusionment about the actual functioning of the court has caused significant changes in sentencing practices over time. Sentencing trends. A fundamental shift in sentencing practices has taken place in the United States since this original idea of rehabilitation and the best interests of the child. The original philosophy of the court was to treat each child individually, but beginning in the 1960s the focus of juvenile sentencing became the offense rather than the offender. The goal changed from identification of needs to accountability for transgressions. Instead of concentrating on how best to rehabilitate the young offender, courts used the current offense, age of the offender, and prior record to determine what sentence to impose (Feld, 1999a, 1999b, 1998; Ainsworth, 1993). Concern for the juvenile was directed not on his future and how to prevent further offending, but on his past and how to punish inappropriate behavior. This shift occurred because of a lack of faith in rehabilitation, prompted by a realization that the juvenile court was not functioning according to its original plan (Feld, 1999a, 1999b; Moore and Wakeling, 1997, Ashworth, 1992). The original goals of healing the offender and returning him to society went unfulfilled, and legal challenges to the lack of procedural safeguards began to arise. As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court decisions involving Gault and McKeiver proved to be a turning point for the American juvenile justice system. While Gault provided some protections for juvenile offenders, such as the rights to notice of the charges and counsel, McKeiver failed to provide juveniles with the right to a jury trial
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
