Criminology

Component 1 Topic Selection
Juvenile delinquency is ubiquitous in our society. Youths between the ages of 13-17, who make-up approximately 6 percent of the population, were involved in 17 percent of all arrests and 15 percent of all Violent Crime Index arrests (OJJDP, 2010). Although deterrence-based policies are ever-increasing in the juvenile justice system, many policymakers remain devoted to rehabilitating youths. One such means in doing this is to divert youths away from they system using a variety of programs. Coinciding with the emergence of the labeling movement, diversion programs began appearing throughout the nation to divert youths away from the juvenile justice system (Lilly et al., 2007).

Over the last forty years, various programs, both formal and informal have emerged to keep youths out of the system or minimize any damage caused by it. Adults Relating to Kids (ARK), a family-based program, is one example of a diversion program initiated in U.S. that attempts to minimize the effects of formal interaction with the juvenile justice system but also attempt to reduce subsequent delinquency by participants in the program (Swan et al, 2001). This program would be good example of innovative and progressive program of prevention or rehabilitation for juvenile offenders to examine in this paper.

Component 2 Theoretical Discussion Relevant to the Research Topic
During the 1960s, theorists began to question the traditional approach to criminological theory. Rather than asking why individuals commit deviant andor criminal acts, labeling theorists approached deviance and criminality from the perspective that deviance does not stem from the individual act alone but the reaction to the act by society. Behaviors considered abnormal by conventional society such as juvenile delinquency, homosexuality, and drug addiction lead to some of those participating in these acts to be defined as deviant (Traub and Little, 1994).

As noted by Edwin Schur (1971), the central principle of the labeling implies that deviance and social control constantly involve social definition and interaction processes. Hence, labeling theory explains deviant behavior, both criminal and non-criminal, proposing that individuals develop a deviant identity due to negative social reactions to behaviors deemed unacceptable in mainstream society. Deviant activities that are considered illegal lead social control agencies to process these non-conforming individuals within the criminal or juvenile justice system thus labeling them as outsiders (Einstader and Henry, 2006). In essence, labeling theorys primary focus lies in the interaction between the deviant and social control agents who attempt to sanction the accused (Traub  Little, 1994).

Programs such as Adults Relating to Kids (ARK), which will be discussed in further detail, attempts to reduce the effects of labeling by increasing self-esteem among program participants (Wilkerson, 1995). Although the reduction of the labeling process is an informal goal of the program, meaning that it is implied in the program literature, the theoretical foundation is laden in the labeling. By separating the child and behavior, the program purports that participants will not take on a deviant self-concept allowing them to avoid further contact with the justice system (ChildrensCenter, 2010).

Component 3 Theory and Topic Focused Literature Review
Labeling Theory
Before one can address labeling in detail, we must acknowledge the foundation in which the labeling theory is based. According to Edwin Schur (1971), the basic premise of labeling approach is an emphasis on process. He asserts that deviance is viewed not as a inert entity but rather as a constantly changing outcome of dynamic processes of social interaction. Thus, the labeling perspective is an extension of the social interactionist perspective applied to criminality and deviance. The basic premise of the labeling perspective can be traced to the work of Emile Durkheim (1897) where he maintained that some individuals are criminals since a collective characterization is attached to them (Traub  Little, 1994). The actions of those considered deviant are what determine how an individual is viewed rather than any preexisting condition albeit biological, psychological, or social (Void et al., 2002).

The main premise of the symbolic interactionist perspective centers around the idea of self-concept. According to Rosenberg (1989), self-concept is the sum of a persons thoughts and feelings about his or her sense of self. Stemming from the works of Charles Horton Cooley (1902) and George Herbert Mead (1934), this idea emerged as a means to examine the self as a social process (Einstadter and Henry, 2006). Cooley referred to this social process as the looking-glass self. He held that our self-concept is simply a reflection of others perceptions of us. In reaction to deviant behaviors, this mirror image that is reflected by others establishes our own self-concept. Simply put, we become what we determine others perceive us to be (Einstadter and Henry, 2006).

Like Cooley, Mead maintained that the self was merely a social construct. Mead held that the self is a dichotomous process divided between the I and the Me. We have the ability to construct images of ourselves and lead others to believe that this is reality while keeping the true image of ourselves in the backstage. However, others often respond to the constructed Me affecting the I, thus leading individuals to make objects out of themselves. (Einstadter and Henry, 2006).

This conception of the self is an amalgamation of three components how others actually see one (actual appraisals), how one perceives others as seeing him (reflected appraisals), and how one sees oneself (self-appraisals) (Matsueda, 1992). Hence, each antecedent variable directly influences the subsequent behavior, thus establishing a causal explanation for the continuation of deviance.

Schur (1971) determined that there are two basic arguments to labeling theory in relation to the creation of deviance. First, labeling theorys causal argument stems from the social interactionist perspective that a person will develop a deviant self-concept if others perceive ones behavior to be deviant. This causal argument treats the label as an independent variable (Akers  Sellers, 2009) in which labeling takes place in two ways. First, the label may catch the attention of the labeling audience, causing the audience to watch and continue the labeling of the individual. Second, the label may be internalized by the individual and lead to the acceptance of a deviant self-concept (Williams  McShane, 2004). Since deviance in not inherent in a person, it is the process in which others respond to the behavior, which establishes deviance (Becker, 1963). Many individuals commit deviant acts, but if the behavior goes unnoticed, this secret deviant remains accepted by society (Becker, 1963).

However, if an individual is perceived as deviant, whether the individual be falsely accused or a pure deviant, they become labeled by society (Becker, 1963). Once an individual comes into contact with the criminal justice system, the identity of the juvenile will change significantly. Once the youth has been singled out, others react differently forcing the juvenile to reconsider hisher identity.

Rather than the act, in itself, being considered evil, others transfer this concept to the person, thus defining the individual as evil (Traub  Little, 1994). It is in this process that the labeled person becomes stigmatized as deviant and is now likely to adopt this new self-identity as his own (Becker, 1963). Thus, the individual will become more deviant than if he had not been labeled (Akers  Sellers, 2009).
Becker (1963) maintained that treating the individuals as though they were generally rather than particularly deviant produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. Merton (1968) coined the term, self-fulfilling prophecy as a means to explain how societal reaction leads to criminal activity (Lilly, Cullen  Ball, 2007). Merton (1968) initially defined the self-fulfilling prophecy as a false definition of a situation creating new behaviors in an Individual thus making the originally false definition come true.

Drawing upon the Thomas Theorem, Merton (1968) was able to determine that self-fulfilling prophecies are merely characterizations of a situation that, in turn, become part of the situation affecting the subsequent characterization of the situation and those involved. Simply, a label albeit untrue can become accepted by those who are willing to embrace it (Williams  McShane, 2004). Once an individual has embraced this falsified definition of himself, the person will cause this newly constructed designation to become true. By embracing the self-fulfilling prophecy, societal perceptions of the deviant individual will be substantiated by the behaviors that follow the labeling process.
Consistent with this logic, labeling theorists maintained that most labeled individuals defined as criminal are labeled incorrectly (Lilly et al., 2007). In this statement, the theorists did not mean that the deviants did not violate the law, but rather that an act, in itself, does not define the individual. In doing this, society makes assumptions about the deviant that are not accurate, which leads members of society to react to the labeled individual in a negative manner. In essence, by stereotyping the individual and leaving and reinforcing the belief in himself that he is criminal, the self-fulfilling prophecy will occur guaranteeing that the individual will recidivate.

This causal explanation of labeling, which social control leads to deviance, explains deviant and criminal behavior once an individual has been defined by society as such however, it has been argued that labeling fails to account for the initial deviant act in which the individual was involved. For instance, the first time a juvenile skips school there are rarely any sanctions against the student because the action goes unnoticed. However, once the student becomes identified as truant, a Class C Misdemeanor, the student becomes labeled as deviant by the school, the criminal justice system, and in many instances, the students parents.

Criticisms of labeling theory led criminologists to rethink their views toward crime and the labeling perspective. Although labeling has historically been criticized for its lack of empirical support, contemporary labeling theorists have suggested that it is too early to dismiss societal reaction as irrelevant to crime causation. Palamara, Cullen, and Gersten (1986) found that official intervention increased delinquency in juveniles. As noted by Akers  Sellers (2009), contemporary supporters of labeling have moved away from viewing labeling as deviance-causation and have began to emphasize the need to identify how the labeling process occurs. For instance, Felson (1992) determined that juveniles subjected to stressful life events were likely to cause them to act out. Other supporting research has focused on parental labeling and negative self-image (Bartusch  Matsueda, 1996).

Unlike the original studies on labeling, which based its findings on formal criminal sanctions, much of the supporting data has been based on analyses of informal sanctions. Perhaps, the most salient in the analysis is Matsuedas (1992) analysis of informal labeling by parents and the effect that this process has on youths self-concept. As noted earlier in the labeling overview, Matsueda argues delinquency is significantly affected by the mirrored appraisals of others or simply, how one perceives others as seeing them. Once the juvenile has engaged in delinquent behavior, the deviant youth is more likely to believe that others see himher as a rule violator. This coupling of actual and reflected appraisals leads the juvenile to embrace this conception of themselves as delinquent. Thus, the labeling process has created a delinquent self, which leads to further involvement in delinquent behavior. Unlike many of the past labeling theorists, Matsuedas conclusions have been supported by further research (Bartusch  Matsueda, 1996).

Component 4 Program Focused Literature Review
Adults Relating to Kids Program
The Adults Relating to Kids (ARK) program maintains that ones self-concept is based on a dichotomous relationship between how one feels about and sees oneself as well as the way one believes others perceive himher (Swan et al., 2001). Self-concept can be examined from two distinct perspectives self-esteem and self worth. Research conducted by the Childrens Center for Self-Esteem assessed that self-esteem and self-worth are two very distinct components within the self-concept (Wilkerson, 1995).

Historically, research on self-esteem and self-worth has been considered interchangeable in meaning. In essence, both terms have typically referred to how an individual feels about himherself. According to Wilkerson (1995), feelings of self-worth derive from ones personal achievement and performance. Ones self-worth is based on hisher ability to be proficient, creative, and successful. Simply put, self-worth is an assessment of what one does (Wilkerson, 1995).

In contrast, self-esteem is created through the process of unconditional love in which a child has been shown hisher value among family and friends. Regardless of ones imperfections, a person is accepted and valued by themselves and others on the basis of who the person is rather than what the person does (Swan et al., 2001). Wilkerson (1995) notes that theresearch has found that self-esteem contributes twice as much to a positive self-concept than self-worth (p. 8).

The Childrens Center for Self-Esteem established the Adults Relating to Kids (ARK) program to enhance participants, parent and child, self-concept by implementing the principles of unconditional love. Unconditional love allows individuals to separate negative behavior from the person enabling parents, teachers, and involved adults to love children not for what they do but for who they are. This process requires commitment on the part of parents and caring adults. Unconditional love forms the basis of all meaningful relationships and allows young people to love themselves and others. It means loving children in spite of their misbehavior. This gift of unearned love allows a child to value herself in spite of her imperfections and provides the basis for a childs positive self-concept. Through this program, ARK facilitators and parents work together to prevent misbehaving teens from being labeled by the community at large as deviant (Swan et al., 2001).

During this 10-week period, facilitators work with parents and teens in separate groups in an attempt to allow each individual to have a voice and be heard without criticism. It is in these sessions that participants will be counseled on various topics, which will be covered below, to refocus their attention thus, issues relevant to their needs will be addressed. Prior to the beginning and ending of each session, participants speak aloud the affirmations, promises, covenants, and agreements of the group. The 5-10 minute lesson plans are presented allowing time for discussion over the weekly topics (Swan et al., 2001).

Once the group lesson has been presented and discussed, a group sharing period or a situation circle begins in which the participants express specific problems that are occurring in their lives. Each issue serves as a catalyst for dialogue amongst the participants and the facilitators. No single individual, not even the facilitator, is considered to be an expert in dealing with the problems therefore, the participants are able to obtain feedback on issues in which they are attempting to deal with in their personal lives from others who are currently experiencing or have experienced similar problems. Hence, parents and teens alike can express their feeling without judgment and without having blame placed on themselves (Wilkerson, 1995).

It must be noted that this does not mean that they can place blame on others the situation circle is a problem solving tool not a gripe session. Although the parent and teen programs are structured in the same manner, the subject matter that is dealt with in each group differs quite dramatically. The reason for this is that even though parents and teens may be having problems within the same household and the problems they are facing may be rooted in the same psychological issuesnegative self-concept the world in which parents and teens are enmeshed is distinctly different (Wilkerson, 1995).

ARK For Parents
As noted above, unconditional love promotes total and complete acceptance of the child it does not promote permissive behavior. Hence, instead of punishment that often denigrates the misbehaving child, ARK promotes discipline that allows the child to learn from hisher mistakes (Swan et al., 2001). By separating the childs behavior from the person, parents, teachers, and the community at large are able to show their disapproval without degrading the misbehaving child. This understanding and implementation of unconditional love allows responsible adults to show children that everyone makes mistakes. Thus, even though youth make mistakes, they are instilled with the belief that they have value and are not worthless.

A fundamental principle in the ARK curriculum is its argument that parents must establish boundaries for children. The establishment of boundaries teaches children and teens responsibility by enabling parents to set age-appropriate consequences when established rules are violated. Drawing on the work of Rudolf Dreikurs (1987), ARK maintains that natural and logical consequences for rule-violating must be established because the authoritative methods of punishment and rewards no longer works with the modern family (Wilkerson, 1995). On one hand, punishment is only a temporary solution that often has dire consequences for the entire family while the rewards system only teaches children to think in terms of what is in it for me and not what is in it for the entire family or community.

Wilkerson (1995) defines natural consequences as a product of the natural flow of events that are a result of the childs behavior. For instance, if a teen becomes intoxicated, the likelihood of the youth feeling ill the next morning is simply a natural flow of events. However, adults must realize that it is not always appropriate for nature to take its course in many instances thus, logical consequences must be established. By using logical consequences, adults are able to establish a structured form of discipline that corrects the misbehavior. In the instance of underage drinking, rules regarding the issue must be previously set. One example might be that if caught illegally imbibing alcohol, the youth is no longer permitted to attend social functions without the supervision of an adult. Admittedly, this does not work in every situation however, it is an attempt to get parents to implement discipline while being respectful of the child. Proponents of the program argue that this method also teaches responsibility by allowing those involved to make and learn from their mistakes (ChildrenCentre, 2010).

ARK also holds that when teens are misbehaving, there is often a need that is not being met. According to Wilkerson (1995), the basic needs of a child include the need to be loved and to belong to be independent and free and the need for being to be meaningful and amusing. Hence, if these needs are not being met, youths and children will often seek attention in inappropriate ways, rebel, or initiate power struggles to assert their needs. Dependent on how an adult reacts to these behaviors is a key to which needs are not being met.

Even though these behaviors may often force adults to discipline, the ARK program also cautions parents and other adults to make sure that they allow youths to declare their personhood. Declaring ones personhood is a natural process in which youths will often reject the values of the parents while embracing the value system of their peers. This is often a difficult period and childs behavior become dramatic when the self-esteem worsens (Wilkerson, 1995). The only thing parents and adults can do during this phase is to let the teen know that we love them even though that we disapprove and must often discipline such behaviors.

Not only does the ARK program assist parents in dealing with troublesome youths, it also incorporates lessons on dealing with their own issues. The ARK handbook deals with issues that include changing parenting behaviors and dealing with anger (Wilkerson, 1995). Participants are forced to acknowledge the way their parents reacted to their behaviors. In many cases, the methods of punishment used are not acceptable in modern society. Historically, parents were not expected to deal appropriately with their anger. This emotion, which is neither good nor bad, can be destructive on the family unit when directed at or used improperly against another individual, especially a child. Since parenting behaviors tend to be passed on from generation to generation, it is often difficult to break away from cycles of violence (ChildrenCentre, 2010).

ARK For Teens
The format of ARK for Teens is structured in the same manner as ARK for Parents however, the content and way the lessons are presented differ since the teen program revolves around dealing with not only their parents but life as well. Each lesson relates to establishing a positive self-concept. The first two class sessions focus on Being Yourself. Lesson 1, Whats cool, encourages teens to accept themselves as who they are rather than trying to be what they are not. Society puts a great amount of pressure on teenagers to be popular among ones peers. This need to be accepted often leads teens to break rules when attempting to exert their personhood. This often leads to strife within the household however, this can be averted, at least to some degree, if one simply chooses to be himselfherself (Swan et al., 2001).

However, it is often difficult to be yourself if there are those who harass you because you are who you are. During Week 2, the group covers Bully-Proofing Yourself, in an attempt to teach teens how to deal with bullying. ARK teaches that those who bully lack self-esteem and are looking for a way to feel powerful and in control of their lives. The lesson addresses how to deal with bullies and how to avoid such harassment. In addition, the participants are cautioned on the consequences if they have taken on the role of bully and how to change this behavior (Swan et al., 2001).

The next two lessons, Good Grief and Get a Grip, deals with handling tough emotions. Good Grief, lesson 5 in the workbook, addresses anger. The lesson counsels youths on dealing with anger appropriately. As in the adult class, ARK maintains that anger is neither good nor bad, and admits that in some instances, anger can be used in a positive way. However, youths cautioned about the ramifications of using anger inappropriately. The next lesson, Get a Grip, teaches teens to deal with grief. Although grief is a natural part of life, it is sometimes difficult to overcome. Individuals will go through a grieving process, which will include denial, bargaining, anger, depression, and acceptance. Although this is a natural process, teens are advised to seek out a caring adult during times of grief (ChildrenCentre, 2010).

Section 3, Making Good Decisions, addresses the issues of substance abuse and sex. In tackling the controversial issue of substance abuse, teens are cautioned on the dangers of substance abuse. ARK acknowledges that most youths will experiment with some form of drugs alcohol, cigarettes, or illegal substances. The lesson warns teens of the dangers of early drug use and the risks of becoming addicted. The next lesson, Sex, ETC., issues related to having sex at an early age are addressed. Topics such as peer pressure, abstinence, rape, sexually transmitted diseases, and other health risks are discussed to enable youths to make informed decisions. The lesson also discusses the effect that sex has on self-esteem. As noted by Swan et al. (2001), good sexwith the right person at the right timebuilds self-esteem while bad sexwithout commitment and lovedestroys it. Most importantly, sex is not vilified but presented as a wonderful experience when in a committed relationship such as marriage.
The final sessions of the ARK program involves learning to deal with adults. In Putting Up With Parents, teens are shown that their parents were once troublesome teens, too, but they have either forgotten what it was like to be a teenager or are afraid to address many of the issues facing teens. Since things have changed so much, they establish rules to protect their children what the unknown. In addition, what looks like frustration directed towards you, the teen, may be a result of outside factors such as work (Swan et al., 2001).

To avoid miscommunication and negative feeling toward the youths parents, ARK suggests that participants set down in a weekly meeting to rectify problems occurring both in and outside of the home. The next lesson in Section 4 deals with Rebelling. Although it is a natural part of life for teens to rebel and attempt to declare their personhood, teens must also be aware that there are consequences if they choose to break the rules. In addition, once trust is broken within the home, it is often difficult to get it back. Since trust and freedom go hand in hand, participants are taught in the final lesson, Trust me, to be honest with their parents (ChildrenCentre, 2010).

Component 5 Juvenile Justice Case Law
Juvenile Justice Education and the Law
Over the course of the last forty years legislation preventing crime and delinquency and protecting the educational rights of delinquent juveniles has become increasingly prescriptive. In 1961, the Presidents Commission on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime authorized agencies within the government to establish programs to discover new methods to prevent crime and delinquency (Bartol  Bartol, 1998). With the Presidents Crime Commission report acknowledging the growth in the juvenile crime rate, the movement to establish diversionary programs within the juvenile justice system began. The Commission recommended that more emphasis should be placed on the treatment of juvenile offenders. This stipulation was emphasized in an attempt to protect juvenile offenders from adopting negative or delinquent self-images due to their involvement in the juvenile justice system. Hence, diversion meant keeping delinquent youth from having any contact with the formal criminal justice system (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

The move toward a diversionary system was furthered with the passing of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act (JDPCA) of 1968 and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974. These Congressional statutes appropriated funding to aid state and local agencies in training staff and personnel in dealing with juveniles (Bartol  Bartol, 1998). However, it was the JJDPA of 1974 that had the greatest influence on reforms within the juvenile justice system. Not only did the statute provide additional funds to stale and local agencies to improve delinquency prevention programs, the act also was intended provide alternatives to imprisonment for trivial juvenile offenses.

In 1975, Congress passed the Comprehensive Education Law for Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142). This act was the first comprehensive law providing for equal education opportunities for children with disabilities. The intent of P.L.94-142 was to ensure that children with disabilities received special education services as provided for by law. The scope of the law also included juveniles up to the age of 21 who were incarcerated and often times not receiving adequate or appropriate educational services (Robinson  Rapport, 1999).

This law has been amended several times to address inadequacies and was subsequently renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (P.L. 10517) in 1990. IDEA mandated that delinquent and incarcerated juveniles had the right to a free and appropriate public education, including those youth with disabilities, in the least restrictive setting (Robinson  Rapport, 1999). In 1997 additional amendments were added to the law that contained significant revisions to the requirements for providing equal education for students with disabilities. Within IDEA are mandates that require local school systems to demonstrate to the United States Department of Education (USDOE) that policies and procedures are in place that meet the intent of the law and provide for the educational needs of students with disabilities.

There are other related legislative and legal requirements pertaining to the quality of educational services and a delinquent juveniles right to those services. Title II within the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-336) (ADA) mandates that delinquent juveniles with disabilities receive specialized services during the course of their confinement (Langelett  Zenz, 2004). The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution has also been utilized to ensure that delinquent youth receive their educational rights. Section 504 of the Rehabilitative Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) also assures delinquent juveniles of their right to a free and appropriate public education (Langelett  Zenz, 2004).

All providers of educational services in the juvenile justice system, be they public or private, are subject to the mandates of No Child Left Behind (P.L. 107-110) (NCLB). The intent of this law has been to require the delivery of the most promising instructional practices when providing education programs for delinquent juveniles with the ultimate goal of increasing their chances for success upon their release from incarceration (Gehring, 2005). Because practices differ so greatly among institutions providing educational programs for delinquent juveniles, there has been a consistent lack of policy directing how services should be offered (Blomberg, et al., 2006). NCLB requires that education programs demonstrate gains across a number of categories and service providers have found themselves struggling with how to meet these provisions with the limited financial resources they have available.
As with the other laws governing educational services for delinquent juveniles, NCLB places a great deal of importance on transition planning and providing for a youths return to public school. No Child Left Behind also requires that all juvenile justice schools be routinely evaluated, including the academic progress within the institution. The requirements of NCLB pertaining to demonstrating student progress also include acquiring high school credits, completing a degree, and planning for a return to school if appropriate (Blomberg, et al., 2006).

U.S. system of educating delinquent juveniles has consistently demonstrated that it does a credible job of meeting the major mandates of NCLB (Blomberg, et al., 2006). There are a number of states however, that have been reporting that they have not been able to determine if delinquent juveniles are meeting the standards pertaining to achieving yearly progress. There are states that have not collected all of the required information while still others have filed for exemptions from the mandates of No Child Left Behind as they pertain to educating delinquent juveniles (Gehring, 2005).

Related Juvenile Justice Case Law
Many juvenile justice programs, indeed the vast majority of them, have for a number of years ignored federal law relating to the educational rights of delinquent juveniles or have done a poor job of providing the required elements. The number of class action lawsuits over the past two decades alone testifies to this point (Chester, et al., 2002). Starting with P.L. 94-142, it has been a federal mandate that delinquent juveniles receive a free and appropriate education and treatment in the least restrictive environment.

The failure to provide such an education and treatment has far reaching implications including legal action as well as the possibility of losing federal funding. Green v. Johnson (1981) was part of a class action suit claiming that the state failed to provide the appropriate educational and treatment services for delinquent youth. The suit alleged that a youth was being denied his protected right to a free and appropriate public education and treatment. The court ruled in favor of the youth holding that being incarcerated did not take away his rights to a free public education as provided for in state and federal law (Robinson  Rapport, 1999).

In T.G. v. Board of Education of Piscataway (1983), the court was asked to rule on the rights of a juvenile who claimed he was entitled to counseling services. His contention was rooted in his belief that the counseling services would support and even enhance his educational and treatment program. The courts ruled that the youth was entitled to access counseling services so he could better benefit from his educational and treatment program. The court also ruled that the counseling services must be provided by qualified staff (Robinson  Rapport, 1999).

The disproportionate number of juveniles with disabilities in the juvenile justice system within South Carolina was addressed in Alexander v. Boyd (1995). In this case, the court found that the number of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system was inappropriately high. The court ordered the Department of Juvenile Justice to identify and evaluate all youth entitled to special education services (Robinson  Rapport, 1999). Other states were similarly forced to address and reduce its delinquent juvenile population through the Bobby M. consent decree which subsequently led to building larger and more secure facilities for these youth (Chester, et al., 2002).

The issue of what constitutes a free and appropriate public education and treatment for delinquent juveniles has also been the focal point of several legal actions. In Donnell v. Illinois Board of Education, a juvenile successfully claimed his rights to a free public education and treatment were being denied. He argued that restrictions placed on his access to classes violated his rights of due process and equal protection under the law (Robinson  Rapport, 1999).

There have been instances where the courts have upheld a decision to incarcerate a youth while somewhat limiting his access to a totally free and appropriate public education and treatment. In Christopher V. T. (1994) a juvenile with an emotional disability cited his right to a free and appropriate public education and treatment in the least restrictive environment in order to avoid serving his commitment. The youth wanted his hearing cancelled since it would adversely impact his access to a free education and treatment. The court denied his claim, citing that the hearing was to determine his level of incarceration while considering his right to an education and treatment in the least restrictive environment and the safety of the juveniles community (Robinson  Rapport, 1999).

The Integrative Paper
Introduction
During the 1960s and 1970s, the juvenile justice system was restructured to promote the diversion of juvenile offenders away from the system. The policy was supposed to redirect juveniles involved in minor law violations such as status offenses away from the courts using informal programs within the community (Lanier  Henry, 1998). Over the past two decades, reforms in the juvenile justice system have slowly been eroded and now, there is a movement to return to a more punitive system. In an attempt to ensure that juveniles are held accountable for their actions, no matter how minor the violation, state and federal legislation, alike, have begun to target status and first-time offenders (Fader, Harris, Jones,  Poulin, 2001). Hence, inordinately high numbers of juveniles are increasingly coming into contract with the juvenile justice system.

Youths who would previously have been diverted from the criminal justice system are now being processed through the courts in greater numbers. Many states have passed legislation leading to an increase in juveniles charged with less severe offenses and an increase in minor offenders placed under supervision (Chester et al., 2002). Under the guise of community-based corrections and diversion policies, social control agencies have extended their grasp to encapsulate those who have historically been truly diverted from the system. As noted by labeling theorists, this net widening approach has brought youths into the system that would not have otherwise been engaged in the adjudication process. With the plethora of youths being thrust into the system, the juvenile courts began scrambling to find programs to sentence juveniles.

Theoretical Overview
During the 1960s and 1970s, labeling theory emerged during a time when the nation was facing the revelation that the government was abusing its power (Williams  McShane, 2004). Although labeling theory became popular with academics and practitioners, this trendy practice began to lose its acceptance among criminal justice agencies. From the theories inception, theorists and practitioners alike began to criticize the theory. The earliest critique of labeling objected to the idea that the theory failed to explain why people engage in primary deviance and why some continuously engage in unacceptable behaviors more than others (Lanier  Henry, 1998). Critics of the perspective argue that labeling theorists ignored the actual behavior of the individual and overemphasized the behavior after the labeled individual became the focus of the system. Hence, proponents of labeling failed to notice that the label does not create the behavior but the behavior creates the label (Akers  Sellers, 2009).

Akers (2000) argues that labeling theorists assume that an individuals behavior is not as important as the actual person. Although there have been injustices against individuals, most deviants are labeled as such based upon their own actions. Akers  Sellers (2009) maintains that the labeling process is not arbitrary but is appropriately placed on those individuals who have violated societal rules. Citizens are not arrested unless the police have probable cause to do so, and the courts are not likely to convict an innocent person (Akers  Sellers, 2009).

For instance, individuals are not likely to be labeled sexual predators unless there is sufficient evidence to arrest, prosecute, and convict the individual. Thus, the individual does not have any other option than to be deviant (Einstadter  Henry, 2006). Critics of labeling theory refuse to accept this ideology. Akers  Sellers (2009) add that individuals are labeled on the basis of evident acts they have committed. Deviants, in essence, must be held somewhat responsible for the label that they receive.

Many labeling theorists have begun to look at the labeling perspective in the context of the social structure (Akers  Sellers, 2009). Braithwaite (1989) looks at the stigmatizing labels as an indirect cause of deviant behavior. Consistent with labeling theory, stigmatization is responsible for an increase in criminal behavior however, unlike labeling theorists, Braithwaite draws upon traditional criminological theories to expand and give credence to his reformulation of labeling.

The stigmatizing effect is at the heart of labeling theory however, Braithwaite integrates aspects of subcultural, social control, differential association, and learning to explain the process in which individuals become involved in criminal careers. Braithwaite (1989) argues that there are varying consequences in sanctioning delinquent and criminal behavior. Dependent upon the type of societal reaction experienced, both formal and informal, determines whether criminality will become more or less prevalent (Cullen  Agnew, 1999).

Theory is a systematic attempt to explain a particular phenomenon through observations (Einstadter  Henry, 2006). For instance, labeling theory attempts to explain deviance not from the initial criminal act but the reaction to the act by society. Labeling theory is just one of many theories used to explain why individuals engage in criminal activity. Although theories are prevalent and widely accepted within the academic world, these loose explanations are often dismissed by society, in general, as worthless ideas in regard to practical application. This cynical perception of theory fails to recognize the importance in doing just that, theorizing.

It is often unclear as to whether theory affects policy or vice versa however, it has been observed that criminal justice policies change along with theories (Lilly et al., 2007, p. 7). Akers  Sellers (2009) maintains the every changes in criminal justice system has been based on certain fundamental theory that explains why regulations have been enacted and why the system functions as it does. Polices and program established by criminal justice agencies and their affiliates may not always reflect the true propositions of the theory however, the theoretical basis remains an important piece of the founding principles established to enact change in society.

Diversion
Reformers established the juvenile system to divert juvenile offenders from the criminal court however, during the 1960s, diversion emerged as a means to shift youths away from the juvenile justice system in an attempt to provide rehabilitative services on an informal level (Feld, 1993). It is not coincidental that the juvenile diversion movement emerged during the same era in which the labeling perspectives popularity peaked the diversion movements theoretical foundation is based on the labeling principle that involvement within the criminal justice system may lead to an increase in future delinquency. Within the literature, diversion and diversion programs are often used interchangeably even though diversion refers to a process while a diversion program is an intervening technique used to offer services to youth in an attempt to prevent recidivism. As noted by Bartol and Bartol (1998), juvenile diversion can be defined in numerous ways.

Typically, diversion is defined as an attempt to route cases of delinquency to non-court alternatives rather than formally processing the youth though an adjudicatory hearing by the court (Bartol and Bartol, 1998). Lilly et al. (2007) assert that juvenile diversion might entail taking provincial youth of the juvenile court and placing them under the patronage of various service bureaus, agencies, or special schools. Diversion can also be considered as a substitution of less severe interventions to avoid further penetration within the system (Akers  Sellers, 2009). Diversion attempts can come at any stage during criminal processing. However, the further the juvenile is processed within the juvenile justice system, the less the process is a representation of true diversion (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

Unlike true diversion in which those who have committed delinquent offenses never enter the system, most diversion programs are aimed at preventing reoffending among youth. Instead of ignoring the delinquent behavior in an attempt to divert youths from the system, these programs often place juveniles on informal probation requiring them to participate in various programs throughout the community (Akers  Sellers, 2009). These programs range in services from family counseling to mandatory attendance at boot camp. Rather than truly being diverted away from the system, youths are brought before the court where they admit their guilt for the offense in which they have been charged, sign a contract, and are left with no record once the terms of the contract have been met (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

Issues Facing Diversion Programs
Diversion programs have been successful in rerouting juveniles involved in minor and status offenses and placing them under appropriate jurisdiction. This effort has decreased the number of juveniles housed in correctional facilities. However, evaluations of these programs have shown little support for their effectiveness (Feld, 2001). Since diversion is based on the labeling tradition, one would suspect that participation in such programs would reduce the stigmatization of labeling however, studies have suggested that the diversion program in itself labels the youth in a negative manner (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

Moreover, these programs have failed to alter the behavioral changes predicted by the programs (Akers  Sellers, 2009). Research conducted on juvenile diversion programs has also indicated that there is little difference in the recidivism rates between those who participate in diversion programs and those who are processed through the juvenile justice system (Akers  Sellers, 2009 Bartol  Bartol, 1998). In addition, research has shown that diversion is effective in reducing the number of youths in detention, but the research has failed to show that participants in diversion programs are less likely to reoffend than those who do not participate in the programs (Jensen  Rojek, 1998).

Diversion programs were initially regarded as alternatives to involvement within the criminal justice system however, the programs are becoming widely viewed as simply add-ons to the system (Lilly et al., 2007). These net widening programs have, in essence, expanded the reach of the juvenile justice system. An increasing number of youths are involuntarily being brought under governmental control, which would have historically been released without formal prosecution (Akers  Sellers, 2009).

Lilly et al. (2007) assert that participants in programs are rather individuals with recidivist behavior. Hence, research has indicated that diversion programs have placed more juveniles under the control of the criminal justice system. For instance, Ezell (1989) found youths placed in diversion programs were more likely to be sentenced to probation or a residential treatment facility than a juvenile who had not participated in the program if they did not successfully complete the program (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

Rather than decreasing state intervention and juvenile interaction with the criminal justice system, diversion programs have accomplished just the opposite. However, Binder and Geis (1984) argue that diversion often offers services to youths, who would not have otherwise had access. Without these programs, these juveniles might become immersed deeper into the system. Hence, this redirection does not necessarily have negative effects on the juveniles participating in diversion programs (Bartol  Bartol, 1998).

Assessment of Family-Based Diversion Programs
Historically, the criminal justice system has focused on juveniles who have already become immersed in criminality however, this has not been shown to be effective with ever-burgeoning prison population. The initial labeling by the criminal justice system might induce a negative self-image leading to an acceptance of the criminal label. Therefore, the juvenile will internalize the negative label and participate in secondary deviance. In an attempt to avoid this stigmatization, studies have advocated diverting first-time and early offenders away from the juvenile justice court (Gavazzi et al., 2000).

As noted by Gavazzi et al. (2000), the 20th century has been saturated with programs attempting to divert first time, early, and status offenders away from the juvenile justice system. Throughout the United States, a plethora of diversion programs exist. The problem with these programs is that there is often no consistency in the development and evaluation of these programs. Diversion covers everything from peer courts to family preservation programs to intensive supervision programs to sex offender programs. In addition, many programs are a combination of services, as with the ARK program, made up of early intervention and family-based diversion techniques.

In an attempt to divert youths away from the juvenile justice system, an increasing number of diversion programs have established family-based designs. The inclusion of the family in the treatment of juveniles has been shown to be effective. Research has revealed that the family plays a major role in delinquency (Gavazzi et al., 2000). Family factors such as attachment, communication, supervision, and discipline have been shown to be variables associated with juvenile delinquency (Simons et al., 1996).

Family-based diversion programs not only focus on issues relating to juveniles but to their parents as well. Tolan, Cromwell, and Braswell (1986) conducted an analysis of 34 family-based programs and determined that family therapy had a positive effect on family functioning. In addition, the analysis determined that family-based treatment reduced delinquent behavior in participating youths (Gavazzi et al., 2000). Moreover, studies have shown that family-based treatment programs have a greater rate of recidivism reduction than those of traditional juvenile justice programs (Gordon et al., 1995).

For instance, the goal of the Services to At-Risk (STAR) Youth Program is to decrease and prevent various issues related to runaway, absence, abandonment, family conflict, and other delinquent behaviors. This is achieved through the provision of correct and appropriate treatments to youth and their families (Swan et al., 2001). These services focus on communication, conflict resolution, and parentyouth skills building. Swan et al. (2001) reported more than 80 of all participant groups showed an increase in improvement over a three-month follow-up period (p. 28). In addition, 83 of the program participants were not refereed to juvenile probation within a year after program completion. Those who were referred to juvenile probation were there for a misdemeanor or status offense (Swan et al., 2001, p. 27).

In January of 1992, the Adults Relating to Kids (ARK) program was established in Houston, Texas by Dr. Glen Wilkerson as a parenting program designed to teach parents appropriate skills to use when raising their children. The initial purpose of the program was to end the cycle of violence perpetuated by an individuals inability to adopt parenting skills different from those they learned from their own experiences in childhood (Swan, 2001 Wilkerson, 1995). Over the past years, the ARK program has evolved to meet the needs of the surrounding community. Today, the program has been implemented in churches, schools, jails, and other organizations working to help parents and youths.

The improvement in parental reflected-appraisals might contribute to an improvement in the parentchild relationship. Moreover, the perceived change in parental reflected-appraisals may be a consequence of the significant increase in the parents self-concept. As parents self-concept improves, they might be more willing to listen to their children and confident in their ability to parent in general.

Increases in a parents self-concept might also help them better try to understand the needs of their teens even when those needs are different from their own. It is also likely that increases in parents self-concept will influence the juveniles perceptions of what their parents think about them. Since ARK is a family-based program, it was important to obtain this positive change in parent self-concept and parental reflected-appraisals. This suggests that, in time, juvenile self-concept may increase since they are no longer perceive themselves as being viewed as bad by their parents. As noted by Bartusch  Matsueda (1996), the idea of the self is simply a construct of reflected appraisals.

Reintegration Through ARK
Diversion programs are common throughout the United States however, many of these fail to incorporate family-based counseling into their curriculum. Without this necessary component, programs only treat one aspect of delinquency, the act, and fail to address the underlying issues stemming from problems at home, school, or other areas of ones informal world. ARK allows families to come together and work on the confounding issues that have led them to involvement within the justice system.

The key principle of the ARK program is instilling the belief in unconditional love. ARK maintains that unconditional love allows individuals to separate negative behavior from the person enabling parents, teachers, and involved adults to love children for who they are rather than for what they do (Wilkerson, 1995). It means loving children in spite of their misbehavior. By separating the childs behavior from the person, parents, teachers, and the community at large are able to show their disapproval without degrading the misbehaving child.

Instead of punishment that denigrates the misbehaving child, ARK promotes discipline that allows the child to learn from hisher mistakes and be reintegrated back into the community. Braitwaite (1989) maintains that parents who combine parental control, setting clear standards and enforcing them, with nurture and encouragement are more successful in dealing with unacceptable behavior than those who are simply controlling (authoritarian) or permissive.

This understanding and implementation of unconditional love allows responsible adults to show children that everyone makes mistakes. Even though youth make mistakes, they are instilled with the belief that they have value and are not worthless. By encouraging participating youths that they have value and are not defined by a single deviant act, the program attempts to reverse the stigma of formal contact with the justice system. Thus, ARK endeavors to impede the labeling process.

Even though ARK did not appear to have a direct impact on recidivism, it did have a positive impact on the juveniles and their families. Since many issues facing juveniles stem from actual or perceived problems at home, assignment to a family-based program that attempts to rectify these problems is beneficial.

Discussion and Conclusion
Throughout the past century, the criminal justice system has shifted from individualistic deterrence-based policies to society-based policies and back again. Today, our criminal and juvenile justice system is caught between get tough and social activist policies. These deterrence-based policies have manifested themselves in strategies such as anti-drug legislation and three-strikes-and-youre-out laws (Lilly et al., 2007). In addition, the juvenile justice system has increasingly implemented punitive policies toward youths.

For example, violent offenders are increasingly being transferred to adult court (Feld, 1999) while, minor and status offenders who have historically been diverted from any contact with the system are being placed under formal supervision. Ironically, as criminal and juvenile justice polices bring unprecedented numbers into the system, programs are consistently being established by agencies working with the criminal justice system to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders.

Over the course of recent years the need to provide quality educational services for incarcerated juveniles continues to garner greater attention. Accountability for the quality of educational services for incarcerated juveniles also continues to be a high priority (Hamilton, et. al, 2007). Because of high recidivism rates, and lack of success as students return to school, law makers are demanding results on the behalf of taxpayers. Building collaboration across all entities involved with a youth being released from incarceration is becoming increasingly important, and is in fact mandated through legislation in many instances. Collaboration is a key component to ensuring juveniles can successfully return to society and not commit additional crimes (Quinn  Nelson, 2005).

Recent legal litigation has served notice that providers of juvenile justice programs, including educational services are expected to meet the mandates of federal legislation such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and No Child Left Behind. The laws and standards utilized by the states to evaluate juvenile justice educational programs focus on the delivery of appropriate services for youth with learning disabilities. They also address the need for programs to be using trained and certified staff to deliver instruction in the residential setting (Hamilton, et. al., 2007).

Although policies have been implemented to target minor offenders, programs are continuously being created to divert youth away from the system. The diversion programs are not uncommon within the criminal justice system however, the phenomenon of sentencing youths to these programs after involvement with the court is becoming more prevalent since an inordinate amount of juveniles are being brought before the juvenile court. As a result, the new policies and case law have established an increased need for diversion programs.

Successfully returning delinquent juveniles to mainstream society after trying to meet their educational and social needs during their time of incarceration is a significant challenge. With diversion programs such as ARK showing an alarming degree of ineffectiveness in preventing juvenile crime, the importance of a quality and positive educational experience of delinquent juvenile is paramount to reducing further involvement with law enforcement (Rasmussen, 2004). Despite increased efforts to improve the educational services to delinquent juveniles, the fact remains that they eventually return to their home communities, become involved with negative peers and have not as yet acquired the necessary skills to make appropriate choices under pressure (Evans, Brown  Killian, 2002).

Because of the high rate at which juveniles re-offend, developing effective intervention strategies that are aimed at mitigating the factors that influence negative behavior is critical to ensuring a youths successful return to their home community (Sheperd, Green  Omobien, 2005). Identifying a youths driving issues while he or she is still in their juvenile justice education program is an essential component in planning for their transition. When planning for follow-up or aftercare services, identifying the individual factors placing a youth at risk for further delinquent behavior significantly reduces the chances of recidivism.