وضعیت فعلی برنامه ریزی بزهکاری خاص جنسیتی

Abstract Few attempts to identify “what works” in the crime prevention and offender rehabilitation research specifically address gender. The 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, however, called for new research that would improve the processing and treatment of delinquent girls. This article reviews the relevant theoretical and empirical research that both informed the new legislation and took place in response to it. This is followed by an empirical study conducted to: (1) identify gender-specific programs (GSPs), (2) determine the extent to which GSPs utilize applicable research in their design and implementation, and (3) assess the evidence of GSPs' impact on targeted outcomes. The findings from the current study suggested that, in addition to strengthening program evaluation methodology, gender-specific programs for girls need to more meaningfully incorporate relevant theories and gender-specific risk and protective factors into their curriculum.

Introduction In the past fifteen years, the field of criminology has taken a closer look at delinquent girls and their experiences prior to, during, and after their involvement in the juvenile justice system. The focal point of the practical research has been the design, implementation, and evaluation of gender-specific programs (“GSPs”) for “at-risk” and delinquent girls. GSPs developed during a time characterized by a call for more detailed information on how delinquency prevention and treatment programs work. The 1992 reauthorization of the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act specifically requested research to determine the needs of delinquent girls and to develop strategies to address these needs. In this reauthorization, gender-specific services were defined as those “designed to address the needs unique to the gender of the individual to whom such services are provided” (Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Appropriations Authorization, 1992). Although the term “gender-specific” could (and should) be interpreted to be relevant for boys as well as girls, it has become a reference solely to reflect programming for delinquent girls (Goodkind, 2005). This is largely explained by the recognition that women and girls have historically been ignored in studies of crime and the detention and institutionalization of female offenders (e.g., Acoca, 1999, Arnold, 1990, Belknap, 2007, Chesney-Lind and Rodriguez, 1983 and Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 1998) and the professional testimony given to the legislature advocating for the need to address the unique programmatic needs of delinquent girls (Belknap, Winter, & Cady, 2003). To this end, a report from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention stated that “gender-specific programming for girls is a comprehensive approach to female delinquency rooted in the experience of girls” (Greene, Peters, & Associates, 1998, p. v). Scholars responded to the challenge for research-driven information regarding what “works” for preventing and treating girls' delinquency, advancing both theoretical and applied empirical research to provide a foundation for a better understanding of the risk-factors for girls' delinquency and the types and evaluations of GSPs for such girls. This article will provide a brief summary of the research assessing the tenuous role of theory in delinquent girls' programming, before reviewing the current study, which attempted to identify existing programs and examine their design and evidence of effect.

Conclusions The analysis in the current study indicated that the GSPs that have documented evidence of effectiveness might not appropriately target and provide services to adolescent females involved in the juvenile justice system. Indeed, the field appears to be more appropriately developed as it operates outside the justice system. There is a clear focus on relationship-building in evaluated programs and several others target and serve minority adolescent girls exclusively. They also target known risk factors for adolescent girls, such as interpersonal skills, antisocial attitudes and behaviors, substance use, and academic failure. With the exception of self-esteem building, the risk factors most commonly targeted by the reviewed programs are also risk factors for males. In that sense, GSPs could do more to incorporate risk factors that have more impact on the lives of females than males. Some, however, do just this, in their incorporation of meaningful discussions and deconstructions of gender, femininity, and race into their curriculum. The evidence of GSP effectiveness varies by the strength of the methods used to evaluate programs. The most meaningful evidence, resulting from the strongest evaluation designs, comes from Friendly PEERsuasion and Project Chrysalis. The remaining programs reviewed here have evidence of effect on only one or two of many outcome measures. Further evaluation and analysis is needed to discover what the programs can do to better meet their targeted goals. Further development of program curriculum and theoretical orientation will benefit the ongoing GSP research. The programs reviewed in this study do provide information on curriculum, but the descriptions tend to be brief, providing no indication of internally-developed program manuals that assist in implementation. Several reports do provide detailed descriptions of their programs, which is valuable, as it can otherwise be difficult to understand how the programs actually work, what specific things they are teaching through their lessons, and what the program experience will be like for those who participate. Additionally, many of the programs reviewed here under-utilized criminological and psychological theories of development, especially those relevant and specific to females. These theories can guide program development as well as program change, as ongoing research often identifies new causes and correlates of delinquency over time. Future work will benefit from a more clear description of how program curricula and designs align with the tenets of the theories guiding the specific programs. None of the reviewed programs were informed by feminist pathways theory. Programs based in relational-cultural theory, on the other hand, appeared to do well in incorporating important theoretical concepts. In sum, RCT programs are appropriately incorporating relationship- and identity-building and substance use components into GSPs, but have not yet been widely used as a foundation for programming for delinquent girls. The RCT programs reviewed here do not address two issues of central importance in feminist pathways theory—abuse and mental health. Adding these components could provide GSPs an even more effective method for transforming delinquent girls. The tenets of the two theories are not inconsistent with each other. Rather, they would likely work very effectively if used together. There are literally hundreds of programs available for use with youth of both genders and various ethnicities and social positions. These programs target a wide range of risk and protective factors and are implemented in numerous settings and in a variety of manners. Hundreds of program evaluations have been conducted on these programs as well, but very few specifically target adolescent females. Advocates of gender-specific approaches have a great deal of work to do in order to develop, implement, and evaluate programs that will positively impact the lives of delinquent adolescent girls. One group, the Girl's Study Group (Brumbaugh, 2005), is working to this end. They have created a group of experts to review a range of programs that target female delinquency, including those that also target male delinquency. This research will also examine gender-specific risk and protective factors, fill gaps in theory on girls and delinquency, and analyze outcome measures and assessment tools that work specifically for girls. Overall, this research can be presented to the public and the research community to enhance the services delinquent girls receive and positively impact their lives. Meanwhile, researchers and practitioners alike can work to evaluate existing programs in meaningful ways, learning from the shortfalls in both program design and methodology that this study revealed. Expanding research and development to boys can also be an important step to take in the future, as boys have gender as well and are certainly influenced by cultural norms and values surrounding masculinity. The utility of intervening with youth in ways that stimulate their development as females or males likely interacts with race, class, sexuality, and religion as well as with age and degree of risk. Examining such relationships in ongoing evaluations can illuminate the most beneficial aspects of gender-specific programming and guide future program development and implementation.