After School Programming and Reduction of Juvenile Delinquency

Growing attention, reduced budgets, and high-profile cases around poor conditions in juvenile prisons has led to only the most serious offenses resulting in prison time for youth. Although this move has been cheered by child advocates, many teens display behavioral risk but are not detained due to dwindling state budgets. However, they remain at risk for further offending as adults. In fact, despite rates of juvenile delinquency decreasing, adult crime rates have increased. For example, the rate of homicides in Cleveland over the past 5 years has increased by 22% (Paliwal et al., 2016). Further, those ages 18-25 commit the highest rates of crimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014) and are also at greatest risk of mental illness when compared to individuals in other age groups (Paliwal et al., 2016).

One common source of support for youth, and a major player in national efforts to reduce behaviors that lead to juvenile crime, are neighborhood after school programs (Mahatmya & Lohman, 2011). There is mixed evidence on the true impact of after school programs on reducing risk behavior (Tahari & Walsh, 2016; Mahatmya & Lohman, 2011). However, there are a wide range of available programs with different efficacy in reducing juvenile delinquency, with four main characteristics empirically linked to reduced rates: 1) emphasis on drug use reduction, 2) focus on positive peer associations, 3) promotion of social skills, and 4) character development (Gottfredson et al., 2004). This project’s purpose was to better understand how after school programs develop a mission and vision, and what impacts their decisions to incorporate these four factors into their programming.

Researchers identified 75 after school programs aimed at working with youth at risk for involvement in juvenile delinquent behavior. Researchers conducted either face-to-face or telephone interviews to better understand program commitment to the above-mentioned four factors. To date, 13 interviews have been completed and 6 more are scheduled for this ongoing project.

Preliminary analyses of the data indicate that all programs have direct goals to support positive peer relationships, promote social skills, and teach character development. However, most program (85%) were either non-committal or denied any emphasis on drug use reduction. Reasons for not including this component included: a) wanting to focus on a more positive program message, b) emphasis on healthy behaviors (e.g., eating healthy foods, exercising), and c) program policies not permitting drug use for participation. Results of this study provide a foundation for better understanding how important community programs think about research based practices in program development for supporting youth at risk of incarceration.