I did this dissertation for Myriam Florez but this bi$ch failed to pay me. Her chairperson is Charlton Coles. I want to shame this idiot right now.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction to the Chapter and Background to the Problem

This qualitative descriptive study explored how the parents of juvenile offenders living in a metropolitan community in the Southern region of the United States describe how their interactions with the juvenile court system influence their child’s later skill development and family functioning.  Child development has many dimensions, including emotional, intellectual, social, and physical realms, and the family unit is the essential foundation for enabling this process. The family structure plays an important role in the development of a child’s character since it provides a sense of security and helps the development of their values and skills. Children rely on their family for basic requirements such as clothing, shelter, and food because their family is their primary source of physical protection. Furthermore, children gain emotional stability from their family, which provides them with support and comfort that they do not have elsewhere. This familial setting encourages self-assurance and allows children to freely express their views and emotions. Establishing a constant home routine for children builds security by assuring them that their essential requirements, such as feeding, hydration, cleanliness, and rest, will be provided at regular intervals with no disturbances. Family dynamics noticeably affect the path of adolescent offenders through the legal system. Understanding these processes and their interplay with the juvenile justice system may provide profound insights into rehabilitation programs and the well-being of young offenders.

This literature review is based on a large body of peer-reviewed published information covering various topics, including gender differences among juvenile offenders, the effectiveness of parent-engagement programs, and the dynamics of aggression and juvenile delinquency. The search topics for this study include “skills development programs for juveniles”, “benefits of juvenile training”, “development strengths of juvenile delinquents”, “skills training as treatment for juvenile offenders”, and “skill development for juvenile offenders.” By combining current literature and theoretical frameworks, this study seeks to provide a thorough and nuanced understanding of parental experiences and family dynamics within the juvenile justice system. In the following sections, each issue will be examined in detail, engaging critically with the existing literature to provide light on how families negotiate, experience, and are influenced by the juvenile justice system. This chapter introduces a thorough literature study examining the complicated relationships between parents, young offenders, and the juvenile justice system. This literature review aims to investigate the qualitative features of parental experiences in this setting and comprehend how contact with the juvenile justice system might affect many elements of family functioning and adolescent skill development of young offenders.

EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, and ProQuest databases were comprehensively searched for academic, peer-reviewed journal articles, and dissertations. Using various keywords, this study’s literature review explored several dimensions of families’ experiences in the juvenile justice system. This method emphasized the significance of the keywords and phrases: adolescent treatment and bonding, communication, conflict, control, educating adolescents, educating juvenile adolescents, and emotional well-being. Various search terms will be importance in interactions, interactions with parole officers, interactions with therapists, the juvenile justice system, juvenile detention, parental perceptions of the juvenile justice system, parental stress, and parent-child interactions.

Background of the Problem

The complexity of the field of juvenile justice is evidenced by the rise in crimes and the evolution of the legal environment. Academics and policymakers struggle to comprehend the intricacies of this field of study as it impacts complex social situations to legal frameworks. A lasting and inclusive solution cannot be envisioned without clear understanding. The trajectories of juvenile crimes in the United States are diverse and profoundly anchored in the interaction of parental upbringing, cultural environment, and legal frameworks.   

As emphasized by Holzer et al., how children are nurtured by their families and the greater community is crucial in understanding escalating juvenile delinquency. The increase in adolescent crimes, particularly gun offenses, is often associated with psychological factors such as anxiety, depression, and hostility (Shulman et al., 2021). This escalation of adolescent crimes raises significant considerations about the parental role, particularly about interventions by the juvenile justice system. The skills that are most important for juvenile offenders are social and academic skills.

Among matters legally addressed in juvenile court, American Indian children were the most likely to be deemed delinquent (59 percent), followed by Hispanic adolescents (57 percent), White adolescents (52 percent), Asian adolescents (49 percent), and Black adolescents (49 percent) [Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2020]. Similarly, a comprehensive examination of empirical studies assessing racial disparities in juvenile justice revealed that the adjudication decision was the least likely to indicate prejudice against children of color, namely Black teenagers (Spinney et al., 2018). This analysis is essential to the current study because it sheds some light on racial composition of juvenile offenders in correctional facilities.

Decades have been devoted to studying the underlying causes of these racial and ethnic discrepancies, with researchers often exploring theories and theoretical frameworks about unequal offending and system biases (Leiber & Fix, 2019; Zane & Pupo, 2021). Most experts believe that various elements are at play and that this complicated societal issue cannot be reduced to unequal offending or differentiated treatment alone (National Research Council, 2013). Much of the effort to address racial and ethnic inequities in the juvenile justice system has been led by revisions to the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Although significant progress has been achieved and overall engagement in the juvenile justice system has been reduced nationally, discrepancies persist, particularly for Black and American Indian/Alaska Native adolescents.

Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3)	Learner Score	Chair Score	Methodologist Score	Content Expert Score
Introduction (to the chapter) and Background (to the problem) (Minimum two to three pages)
Introduction: The learner provides an orienting paragraph so the reader knows what the literature review will address.	2	1.6	X
Introduction: The learner describes how the chapter is organized (including the specific sections and subsections).	2	1.5	X
Introduction: The learner describes how the literature was surveyed so the reader can evaluate the thoroughness of the review. This includes search terms and databases used.	2	1.7	X
Background: The learner discusses how the problem has evolved historically into its current form.	2	1.7	X
Background: The learner describes what still needs to be understood and defined in the problem space in current literature and how it leads to the creation of the topic and problem statement for the study. Note: This section is a significant expansion on the Background of the Study section in Chapter 1.	2	1.4	X
The learner writes this section in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, and uses correct paragraph structure, sentence structure, punctuation, and APA format.	2	2	X
*Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required.
Reviewer Comments: An introduction was provided. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Identification of the Problem Space

Previous study on juvenile delinquency, such as Chakrabarty’s pandemic-influenced research and Nicolaescu’s examination of personality dynamics, has increased our knowledge of juvenile delinquency (Singh & Kaur, 2021). However, unknown regions and those impacted by current global events continue to demand additional investigation. While early research, such as Paraschiv (2019), focused on the overall issue of adolescent delinquency, more recent works have concentrated their emphasis on parts such as bullying (Duah, 2023) and psychological traits (Song et al., 2022). Extensive literature on juvenile delinquency provides a narrative that dissects several facets of this multidimensional subject. By delving further into the research, one may get insightful insights that add significantly to the current body of knowledge on the subject. Recent studies have also emphasized the significance of parental involvement and its effects on truancy (Kethineni et al., 2021; Ripley-McNeil & Cramer, 2021). While progress has been made in understanding adolescent misbehavior, a comprehensive approach involves thoroughly investigating parental experiences. Their often-overlooked perspectives are critical to more effective, humane, and comprehensive therapies for juvenile offenders. By recognizing and including their viewpoints, we may develop a more inclusive and prosperous juvenile justice system that helps juveniles and supports their families toward rehabilitation and recovery.

Using qualitative interviews with fifty jailed children, Saeed et al. (2020) investigated socioeconomic variables contributing to juvenile delinquency in Pakistan. The objective was to understand the impact of social standards, economic difficulties, and educational chances on adolescent criminality. The findings were startling: 70% of participants had constant financial problems, 55% had poor role models in their immediate surroundings, and 40% had dropped out of school owing to social pressures. The findings of this research were important to my dissertation because it emphasizes on the need to address structural and sociocultural elements in delinquency prevention initiatives.

Understanding adolescent delinquency typologies was the subject of Lais and Marina’s (2020) study. By analyzing data from three juvenile detention institutions, including 300 adolescents, they sought to classify delinquent behaviors. They observed that adolescent actions could be roughly divided into three categories: transgressions motivated by socioeconomic pressures, those motivated by psychiatric problems, and those inspired by peer pressure. The study by Lais and Marina’s (2020) is vital to the current dissertation since it sought to understand a nuanced knowledge of the various natures of juvenile delinquency, indicating the necessity for specific therapies targeted to these distinct typologies.

Mayorga-Sierra et al. (2020) utilized a comprehensive approach by analyzing the personal, social, and psychological adaptations of 200 suburban at-risk adolescents. The primary objective was to determine the effect of complete therapy techniques on these children. The outcomes demonstrated that adolescents who participated in such interventions had increased emotional control, decreased aggressiveness, and enhanced social connections. This research focuses on the advantages of comprehensive, multidimensional approaches for tackling adolescent delinquency.

Nicolaescu et al. (2021) explored the interaction between personality factors and propensities for deviant conduct. By analyzing 250 juvenile offenders, the study intended to discover personality traits connected with delinquency. The results suggested widespread impulsivity, hostility, and lack of empathy. However, when these adolescents were given appropriate psychotherapy therapies, significant changes were seen, indicating that, although important, personality dynamics may be regulated with focused treatments. The findings of this study are vital to my dissertation since they emphasize on focused treatments like training for juvenile offenders.

Singh & Kaur (2021) analyzed the existing legislative frameworks to combat juvenile delinquency. Reviewing the policies of several nations, the research identified the best practices and reform-required areas. The results highlighted the relevance of rehabilitation-focused legislation over punitive measures, suggesting that systems promoting rehabilitation had lower rates of youth recidivism.

Kethineni et al. (2021) carried out ground-breaking research. Through in-depth interviews with 100 parents of juvenile offenders, they sought to comprehend parents’ viewpoints on their child’s path through the juvenile justice system. This study aimed to determine if the court’s actions substantially influenced the juvenile’s abilities, treatment adherence, and reintegration into the family. The findings were illuminating: sixty percent of parents felt court interventions were too punitive and did not emphasize skill development, forty-five percent reported improvements in their child’s treatment adherence, and seventy percent felt inadequate court support for the reintegration process. This study underlines the need for a more holistic and family-focused strategy within the juvenile justice system.

Ripley-McNeil & Cramer (2021) investigated the effects of parental involvement on absenteeism and delinquency. By polling 150 parents, they observed that active parental engagement in court-ordered interventions led to a 40 percent decrease in adolescent truancy rates. Their results also demonstrated the need for more inclusive programs that bridge the gap between judicial interventions and family participation. This study highlights the crucial role that parents may play in the effectiveness of juvenile court interventions and the significance of encouraging cooperation between parents and the judicial system.

Juvenile delinquency is impacted by various circumstances, ranging from global occurrences such as the COVID-19 epidemic to individual personality dynamics, parental engagement, and legal frameworks, as shown by the different results of this research. However, the role and experiences of parents remain relatively understudied among these topics. To conduct significant research on parental perceptions of the interventions of the juvenile justice system, it is essential to develop a distinct study objective. The research’s principal aims are varied. One of the primary objectives of this study is to assess, from the parent’s perspective, the efficacy of treatments implemented by the juvenile justice system. These treatments target the skill development and therapy requirements of their children. Are they promoting a successful reintegration into the family unit and the community? By asking about the thoughts and experiences of parents, researchers may acquire significant information about the strengths and drawbacks of current programs.

The viewpoints of parents may aid in identifying deficiencies and obstacles within the juvenile justice system. What components of the system perform effectively, and what sections need improvement? Barriers preventing parents and the system from effectively communicating and collaborating? Identifying these gaps is crucial for the continuing augmentation of juvenile justice policies. Parental perspectives research may contribute to developing family-centered approaches to adolescent delinquency prevention and intervention. These methods acknowledge the significance of families as active partners in the rehabilitation process. Researchers may help build more inclusive and supportive environments by understanding parents’ wants and concerns. Parental participation frequently determines the effectiveness of programs in juvenile justice. By examining parents’ experiences inside the system, researchers may get valuable insights about how parental involvement might be strengthened. Parental viewpoint study may lead to policy suggestions supported by evidence. Policymakers may develop laws and procedures more responsive to the needs of juvenile offenders and their families by gaining a better knowledge of parents’ real-world experiences.

Parents or legal guardians of juvenile offenders are the primary subjects of studies examining parental opinions on interventions within the juvenile justice system. These individuals are uniquely positioned to shed light on the experiences and obstacles they face while navigating the complicated world of the juvenile justice system. Including the opinions of young offenders themselves may offer a comprehensive understanding of the efficacy of programs. Their perspectives on the system’s influence on their skill development, treatment progress, and family reunification are crucial. Professionals working inside the juvenile justice system, such as probation officers, counselors, and judges, may share their perspectives on the difficulties and achievements of interventions. Their insights may assist in identifying areas for improvement and engagement with parents. Representatives from community groups and support agencies may give helpful insight into the broader community effect of juvenile justice interventions and reintegration initiatives.

Parental views on juvenile justice system interventions may offer a variety of results and consequences. This study may guide the creation of solutions more aligned with the needs and preferences of parents and children. For example, treatments may need to be more family-centered or adaptable to allow parental engagement. Understanding parents’ obstacles inside the system helps increase communication between parents and justice professionals. This may improve teamwork and the efficacy of initiatives. Research results may contribute to policy improvements to make the juvenile justice system more sensitive to the needs of families. Changes may be made to sentencing processes, diversion programs, and family support services. Research may illuminate the requirement for extra support services for parents, such as counseling, education, and resources to assist them in negotiating complicated legal and social systems. By addressing the treatment and reintegration obstacles indicated by parents, interventions may be better suited to minimize recidivism rates among juvenile offenders.

Incorporating the experiences and views of parents into the problem space associated with juvenile delinquency is a vital step in building a more complete and successful strategy to handle this complicated issue. By listening to parents, researchers may gather helpful information that can inspire policy changes and enhance the results of the juvenile justice system for young offenders and their families. As we continue to explore this area of study, we must do studies that incorporate parents authentically, value their viewpoints, and aspire to establish a more fair and compassionate juvenile justice system that emphasizes the best interests of adolescents and their families. In the end, the effectiveness of treatments and the well-being of young offenders are strongly tied to the support and engagement of their parents, making this field of study not only significant but also profoundly influential on society. By addressing the specific difficulties and experiences of parents within the juvenile justice system, we may strive toward a more fair and effective method that serves the best interests of all stakeholders.

Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3)	Learner Score	Chair Score	Methodologist Score	Content Expert Score
Identification of the Problem Space (Minimum two to three pages)
The learner describes how the problem space has evolved and its effects on the research (research trends).	2	1.6
The learner summarizes the problem space, highlighting what has been discovered and what still needs to be understood related to the topic from literature or research dated primarily within the last five years.	2	1.6
The learner discusses and synthesizes the evolution of the research on the problem. Specifically:	2	1.5
From the findings of research studies and the evolution of recent literature on the topic, the learner defines the parameters for the problem statement for the study.	2	1.7
The learner describes how the study will contribute to the body of literature.	2	2
The learner describes the potential practical or professional applications of the research.	2	2
The learner writes this section in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, and uses correct paragraph structure, sentence structure, punctuation, and APA format.	2	2
*Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required.
Reviewer Comments: The introduction to the problem space was provided. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Theoretical Foundations

The theoretical framework of this study is Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. This model has established a comprehensive framework for comprehending how people acquire behaviors via observation and interaction with their surroundings. It covers both direct and vicarious experiences, where watching the repercussions of another’s actions may significantly affect one’s behavior and cognition. This qualitative descriptive research aims to examine the interaction of the parents of juvenile offenders with the juvenile justice system and its consequences for the child’s skill development and family functioning. Several parts of Bandura’s theory are relevant to this study’s objective.

Mohammad and Nooraini (2021) and Walters (2021) stressed the importance of peer impact throughout adolescence. In the court system, the interactions between parents may expose juvenile offenders to other juveniles and their families, fostering an atmosphere conducive to peer influence. Their actions, coping methods, and attitudes might further influence the views and conduct of adolescents. Bandura’s notion of self-regulation, in which people direct their activities by self-observation, self-evaluation, and self-response, becomes essential here. Judicial involvement may bolster or weaken the juvenile’s sense of self-efficacy. Walters’ (2019) views on self-function efficacies in future undertakings demonstrate that the judicial system may either empower adolescents to believe in their potential to change and develop or it can reduce their confidence.

Rumjaun and Narod (2020) expanded Bandura’s theory in the contemporary setting by stressing the role of digital and immediate environmental reinforcers. These reinforcers may be amplified in a family experiencing stress due to dealings with the legal system. The pressure on family functioning might show an increasing dependence on digital media for escape, further affecting the juvenile’s actions and views through online exposure. A Southern metropolitan city’s distinctive cultural, social, and economic background may enrich this investigation. Given the region’s history, cultural beliefs, and community dynamics, the relationship between parents and the juvenile court system may be impacted by local conceptions of justice, society’s attitudes towards offenders, and community support, or lack thereof. These geographical distinctions may further influence the juvenile offenders’ observational and vicarious learning experiences, influencing their skill development and family dynamics.

Given the emphasis of the research on juvenile offenders, it is vital to comprehend how these young people learn through seeing their parents’ contacts with the court. This theory gives a systematic framework for decoding these facts and their consequences for juvenile behavior. Bandura proposed that direct experiences and vicarious experiences (observing the activities of others and their effects) have a crucial role in influencing behavior. In the context of this research, it is vital to comprehend how juvenile offenders view and internalize the consequences of their parents’ court interactions, whether favorable or harmful. This aspect of the idea illuminates how these perceptions shape their future attitudes and actions.

Bandura’s focus on self-efficacy – the belief in one’s ability to attain objectives – is crucial in interpreting the skill development trajectory of juvenile offenders after court encounters. By examining how parental contact with the judicial system enhances or diminishes the juvenile’s sense of self-efficacy, we may obtain insight into their motivation, resiliency, and overall skill development. He recognized the intricate interaction between environmental influences and individual cognitions. The backdrop of the qualitative research is multidimensional, including the judicial system and the distinct sociocultural milieu of a U.S. urban town in the South. Bandura’s theory gives the tools necessary to disentangle this complexity, providing insights into how external surroundings and inner beliefs interact to determine behavior. Invariably, the repercussions of a parent’s encounters with the juvenile justice system pervade the whole family. Using the Social Modeling Theory, we may investigate how modeled actions, communications, and attitudes within the family setting impact the family’s overall functioning. This research will be grounded on the Social Modeling Theory developed by Albert Bandura. The idea has established a comprehensive framework for comprehending how people acquire behaviors via observation and interaction with their surroundings. It covers both direct and vicarious experiences, where watching the repercussions of another’s actions may significantly affect one’s behavior and cognition. Social Modeling Theory as a Lens for Investigating the Juvenile Court System

This qualitative descriptive research aims to examine the interaction of the parents of juvenile offenders with the juvenile justice system and its consequences for the child’s skill development and family functioning. Several parts of Bandura’s theory are relevant to this study’s objective. According to Arrastia-Chisholm et al. (2020), seeing the repercussions of conduct, especially in a family setting, may have a dramatic effect. In the framework of the judicial system, how parents negotiate, respond, and internalize their experiences may serve as powerful behavioral and emotional models for their children. If a parent feels dejected, impotent, or angry towards the system, the adolescent may absorb these feelings and behaviors, impairing their skill development and relationships in other realms.

Mohammad and Nooraini (2021) and Walters (2021) stressed the importance of peer impact throughout adolescence. In the court system, the interactions between parents may expose juvenile offenders to other juveniles and their families, fostering an atmosphere conducive to peer influence. Their actions, coping methods, and attitudes might further influence the views and conduct of adolescents. Bandura’s notion of self-regulation, in which people direct their activities by self-observation, self-evaluation, and self-response, becomes essential here. Judicial involvement may bolster or weaken the juvenile’s sense of self-efficacy. Walters’ (2019) views on self-function efficacies in future undertakings demonstrate that the judicial system may either empower adolescents to believe in their potential to change and develop or it can reduce their confidence.

By examining how parental contact with the judicial system enhances or diminishes the juvenile’s sense of self-efficacy, we may obtain insight into their motivation, resiliency, and overall skill development. He recognized the intricate interaction between environmental influences and individual cognitions. The backdrop of the qualitative research is multidimensional, including the judicial system and the distinct sociocultural milieu of a U.S. urban town in the South. Bandura’s theory gives the tools necessary to disentangle this complexity, providing insights into how external surroundings and inner beliefs interact to determine behavior. Invariably, the repercussions of a parent’s encounters with the juvenile justice system pervade the whole family.

Research Questions

RQ1: How do the parents of juvenile offenders perceive the effectiveness of Juvenile Court System Interventions and skill development on their children?

RQ2: How do parents of juvenile offenders perceive the effectiveness of Juvenile Court System Interventions on their child’s treatment needs?

RQ3: How do parents of juvenile offenders perceive the effectiveness of Juvenile Court System Interventions on their child’s reintegration into the community?

Discussion/Rationale of the Research Questions

It is not known how parents of juvenile offenders describe the influence of their work with juvenile court system interventions on the offender’s skill development, treatment needs, and reintegration into the community.

In RQ1, the study considered the perception of parents on effectiveness in modeling juvenile offenders in skills and knowledge.

In RQ2, the study looked at the perception of parents on juvenile court system in imparting treatment needs to juvenile offenders. This question is crucial because courts should meet treatment needs of offenders in both social and academic areas.

In RQ2, the study considered the perception of parents on how juvenile court system intervene to help in reintegration of juvenile offenders into community once they have served their jail terms.

Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3)	Learner Score	Chair Score	Methodologist Score	Content Expert Score
Theoretical Foundations (Minimum two to three pages)
The learner discusses the theoretical foundation and, where appropriate, the extended conceptual framework that undergirds and frames the study.	2	1.5	X
The learner identifies theory(ies), models, and concepts from seminal source(s) that provide the theoretical foundation to develop the research questions, identify phenomena, and describe the data sources.	2	2	X
The learner cites the appropriate seminal source(s) for each theory, model, or concept.	2	2	X
The learner includes a cogent discussion/synthesis of the theories, models, and concepts and justifies the theoretical foundation/framework as relevant to the problem statement for the study. The learner connects the study directly to the theory and describes how the study adds or extends the idea, model, or concept.	2	1.5	X
The learner’s discussion reflects an understanding of the foundational and historical research relevant to the theoretical foundation.	2	1.5	X
The learner writes this section in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, and uses correct paragraph structure, sentence structure, punctuation, and APA format.	2	2	X
*Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required.

 

 

Review of the Literature

Florida’s continuing problem with juvenile delinquency necessitates a multidimensional study of its roots and effects. Although several strategies have been taken to combat adolescent delinquency, not all have been supported by extensive research. The Juvenile Direct File Regulation, for instance, is one such law that remains in Florida, but its efficacy in avoiding juvenile criminality is disputed (Taggart, 2023). The significance of gender roles and their possible consequences for leadership and justice outcomes merits additional examination (Jackson, Neshkova, & Newman, 2022). This analysis is crucial to my dissertation because the dissertation will focus primarily on juvenile court system in Florida.

The setting in which juveniles are kept and rehabilitated also influences their behavioral results.

Sheppard (2023) investigated the trauma-responsive and compassionate surroundings of Florida’s youth residential facilities. Implementing trauma-informed self-assessment methods facilitates a greater understanding of the severity and breadth of trauma adolescents may have endured, improving treatment (Sheppard, 2023). Since the problem space of my dissertation focusses on parents of juvenile offenders, the analysis of this paragraph helps in understanding environment of Florida’s youth residential facilities.

A research study by Poncea and Scottb revealed an attractive gender-related component of adolescent delinquency (2023). Their study demonstrates gender-based inequalities in patterns of misbehavior inside Florida’s residential institutions. Such results may be significant for tailoring treatments to the unique requirements of boys and girls in the juvenile system (Poncea & Scottb, 2023). Oldakowski et al.’s (2022) analysis of Florida’s regional differences in punitive and rehabilitative methods provides insight into how various areas within the state manage juvenile delinquency. These differences may lead to variances in the management and results of adolescent situations. Regarding juvenile delinquency, the significance of law enforcement cannot be overstated. Novak and De Francisco Lopes (2022) provide light on the discretionary arrest powers employed by law enforcement authorities in Florida. Understanding the connection between law enforcement policies and juvenile arrests is crucial for designing an equitable and rehabilitative system rather than just punishing (Novak & Lopes, 2023).

The worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 has brought a new dimension to the adolescent delinquent environment. Baglivio et al. (2022) investigated alterations in adolescent domestic violence offending patterns throughout the pandemic, a crucial knowledge given the exceptional problems presented by COVID-19. In addition, the impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) on adolescent criminality is a cause for worry (Novak & De Francisco Lopes, 2022). Children exposed to ACEs may have diverse experiences inside the legal system, underlining the need for sensitivity and knowledge of their prior traumas. The ramifications of transfer laws, as analyzed by Dempsey (2020), particularly in jurisdictions like Florida, are substantial. The issue of whether these laws rehabilitate juveniles or send them on a road of lifetime crime is urgent.

Ferber-Kaufman has elucidated the significance of education rights for youthful offenders (2021).  It is not only a constitutional mandate but also essential for the successful reintegration of juvenile offenders into society so that they get a proper education. Youths contacting Florida law enforcement are sent to the juvenile justice system. The progression through the juvenile justice system is marked by many decision points beginning at this moment of contact. At each interaction point, young justice system actors decide whether to send a child farther into the system through civil citations, arrest, diversion, transfer, adjudication, probation, or imprisonment. Upon interaction with law authorities, the child may be issued a civil ticket or taken into custody. The civil citation program was established to prevent minors from advancing through the criminal court system. The program is intended as an alternative to arrest. Suppose a civil citation is not issued, and the youth is taken into custody (i.e., arrested). In that case, they are referred to their local Juvenile Assessment Center, where a preliminary investigation is conducted to determine whether to refer the youth to adult court, divert them into a diversion program or a Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), or detain them in a secure detention center or at home until their court date. Diverted or transferred youth do not proceed through additional interaction points with juvenile justice. This involves determining whether the juvenile should wait for their court date in a secure detention facility or at home. After appearing in court, there are many possible decisions: transfer to adult court, adjudication, or adjudication withheld. If the court convicts or withholds judgment, the juvenile may be put under community supervision or sent to a detention center/residential institution. Before comprehending punishment results, examining the type and scope of juvenile delinquency in Florida is necessary.

When comparing types of crime by race, considerable discrepancies are shown. In Dade, Broward, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Orange counties, Black adolescents are more likely to be recommended for felony charges. They account for sixty percent of all referrals for felony offenses in these locations, while Latino and White children account for forty percent of referrals. In addition, Black children are three times more likely than White youth to have a firearm confiscated and be reported for a sexual crime during a police contact.

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 set a framework for changing public education in the United States. This act also addressed school-related crimes and delinquency. One of the objectives of the legislation was to guarantee that students may study in an atmosphere devoid of drugs, alcohol, and criminal activity. By 1994, the federal government had approved the Gun-Free Schools Act, which established a federal law requiring a one-year expulsion for any student who owned or used a handgun in a school zone. Due to these tough-on-crime initiatives, schools strengthened monitoring and security measures (Devoe et al. 2005). These legally required sanctions enabled schools to send children who commit severe and minor criminal violations to school-to-school resource officers. In 2014, the U.S. The Department of Education discovered substantial racial and ethnic differences in who resource officers were more likely to report to the judicial system for a school-related incident. Black students constituted 27% of pupils referred to law enforcement, although being just 16% of the student population. Further, 31 percent of those arrested for school-related reasons were Black pupils. Comparatively, White students accounted for 51% of enrolment, 41% of students reported to law enforcement, and 39% of those arrested.

Similar inequalities may be seen in Florida. In 2014, Black children comprised 23 percent of school attendance and 53 percent of those referred to the juvenile court system for a school-related offense. Latino pupils accounted for 30% of school enrollments and 15% of those referred to law enforcement. White adolescents are sent to the juvenile court system more often than Latino youth, but their chance of referral does not surpass that of Black children. These pupils comprise forty percent of Florida’s student population, but only thirty-two percent of those reported to law enforcement. In Florida, school referrals among Black, Latino, and White children have decreased despite schools’ continuous attempts to implement severe disciplinary policies. In 2007, Black, White, and Latino adolescents were referred to schools 13,350 times. In 2015, there were 6,059 fewer people. In addition, in 2014, Black adolescents comprised 36 percent of enrolled pupils in Dade, Broward, Hillsborough Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Orange counties and 58 percent of school referrals. Latinos constituted 30% of registered participants and 30% of referrals. Similarly, White pupils comprise 34% of the enrolled student population and 22% of juvenile referrals.

A given location’s racial and economic contexts have been demonstrated to disadvantage minority adolescents, making them crucial factors. Prior study has shown that court officials are more inclined to regard places with more significant concentrations of poverty and racial/ethnic minorities as criminal and needing harsher punishment. Emerson (1969) discovered that children living in locations with larger minority populations and poverty are often seen as dwelling in hazardous areas with a greater likelihood of criminal activity. Too far, little effort has been committed to researching the impact of the racial and economic backdrop on the unequal juvenile justice outcomes of Black, White, and Latino adolescents. Mixed findings have been discovered by those who have investigated its significance.

One of the first research undertaken by Frazier et al. (1992) did not find evidence that more significant minority concentrations led to harsher juvenile criminal punishments. Instead, they discovered that a rise in the White population led to harsher penalties for Black children. Engen et al. (2002) observed that the presence of bigger minority groups decreased racial disparities in the harshness of punishment. Leiber et al. (2010) found that Black adolescents are less likely to get positive justice outcomes than White adolescents. In Florida, youth’s first interaction with the juvenile justice system occurs when they are brought into police custody. At this stage, it is determined whether criminal charges will be obtained. If criminal charges are brought, there are petition filings, intake interviews, adjudicatory hearings, and a determination. The number of referrals of juveniles in Florida has decreased considerably over time. In 2007, there were 115,124 referrals to the juvenile court system involving Black, White, and Latino adolescents. In 2015, this number had dropped to 62,423. Significantly, 43 percent of these recommendations happened within a six-county region. The chance of being referred to the juvenile court system varies considerably by race and ethnicity. In 2007, 57% of all referrals were for Black children, 18% were for Latino adolescents, and 24% were for White youth. In 2015, 63 percent of Black children were referred for mental health services. The numbers for Whites and Latinos stayed constant in previous years. However, the numbers for Whites were somewhat lower than in 2015.

Instead of traditional juvenile processing, juvenile diversion utilizes programs. In the six-county region, the racial and ethnic distribution of recreation as a judicial practice program varies similarly to that of referrals. In 2006, 12% of Black adolescents were diverted. By 2015, the percentage had dropped to 10%. In 2006, 19% of White adolescents were diverted; by 2015, that number had risen to 22%. Throughout the period, Latino children were reasonably steady. Figure 11 depicts the relative likelihood of diversion between Black and White adolescents and Latino and White youth. The inequalities between Black and White children in using hobbies are extremely severe on average.

Minors might be moved to adult court in three ways: judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, and direct filing. Forty-seven states, including Florida, provide judges with discretionary authority to exempt certain adolescents from criminal proceedings. In Florida, it is uncommon for juveniles to be waived into adult court. In the six-county region, there were 451 court transfers in 2006. In 2015, this number grew by 26 to reach 477. Similarly, the majority of minors are not adjudicated (found guilty). From 2006 through 2015, around 10% of children and adolescents will be judged. On the other hand, a deferred judgment is not a conviction. This phrase is used when courts impose punishments but withhold formal confidence.

 In the six-county region, probation is more common than a commitment to be employed as a juvenile justice discipline. Probation and community control are implemented as sanctions to ensure children transition back into their respective communities. Long-standing sociological and criminological inquiry has focused on the relationship between crime, punishment, and poverty. This technique aims to determine how or why socioeconomic status impacts sentencing choices. Sanctions and victimization contribute to a system of disadvantage that perpetuates stratification and poverty. Recent patterns of criminal punishment have resulted in the continuation and, in some cases, aggravation of racial and ethnic inequalities in several social institutions. Young Black males with poor levels of education, for instance, are significantly more likely than any other demographic group to be jailed and to become victims of murder or robbery (Pettit and Western, 2004). A felony conviction may worsen these issues by leaving the offender ineligible for student financial aid, housing help, and various matters linked with gaining gainful work.     The concentration of poverty resembles the racial and ethnic context of punishment. Youth referred to the juvenile court system who live in households earning less than $15,000 per year are disproportionately prevalent in the six-county region (Dade, Broward, Hillsborough Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Orange counties). In 2006, 791 children residing in these locations and living in households with an annual income of less than $15,000 did so. This number more than quadrupled to 1,622 by 2010. In 2015, there was a minor decrease to 1,192. When examining these impacts by race from 2006 to 2015, Black adolescents are much more likely to dwell in poverty; in 2006, they were 3.5 times more likely to live in poverty than Latino and White youth. In 2015, their likelihood was 5.5 times greater. Similar discrepancies occur when examining these differences across punishment outcomes. Poor Black adolescents are twice as likely to be moved to an adult court. Similar tendencies are seen for diversion, sentencing, probation, and commitment. This analysis reveals that disproportionate minority interaction continues throughout the Florida juvenile justice system. However, these consequences are more evident among Black adolescents who dwell in a six-county region — Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange – with larger minority populations and higher poverty rates. These results generally align with national tendencies. Importantly, DMC is a complicated issue that needs multiple solutions.

Develop a strategy to analyze Disproportionate Minority Contact rigorously. So far, most of the research on DMC in Florida and the United States has been descriptive. In other words, it outlines the characteristics of DMC and its challenges. DJJ must continue to document inequalities. Nonetheless, DJJ must also investigate the fundamental issues that lead to these persisting discrepancies. The present research highlighted the concentration of racial and ethnic minorities and poverty as probable factors for the persisting differences. There are yet more that need further investigation. In addition, minorities are disproportionately represented at each stage of the juvenile justice system, especially for Black youth. Consequently, greater attention should be paid to understanding how disparities created at earlier stages of the juvenile justice process are exacerbated as youth progress through the system. “Subsequent case-processing decisions may partially or wholly offset the racial disparities that occur at one stage of the justice system” (Kutateladze et al., 2014, p. 515). Scholars can evaluate race’s direct and indirect effects on case outcomes by examining disparities at multiple stages of the criminal justice process. Create alliances with parents in high-crime, underprivileged regions. People of color have often considered the judicial system discriminatory and unjust. Therefore, they are less inclined to seek out and provide aid for lowering crime and delinquency in their communities and with their children. Partnerships with parents and families are crucial to fostering trust and reducing continuing differential tendencies to reverse the trends that often disadvantage minority adolescents. Examine the connection between school discipline and referrals to the juvenile justice system. School punishment is increasingly becoming a means by which schools refer adolescents to the juvenile court system in the United States. Currently, schools throughout the United States use zero-tolerance policies, which punish pupils for minor violations of school regulations. The rising number of school resource officers results in a higher proportion of pupils being criminalized for conduct that should be addressed in school. This therapy will likely be administered to economically disadvantaged and minority adolescents. Juvenile justice system officials may collaborate with schools to aid in managing minor violations that do not result in formal processing.

To date, most research on DMC in Florida and nationally is descriptive. That is, it describes the nature of DMC and the problems associated with DMC. DJJ must continue to document disparities. However, it is also critical for DJJ to explore the underlying causes that contribute to these persistent disparities. The current report highlights two mechanisms – concentration of racial and ethnic minorities and poverty as potential explanations for the ongoing inequality. Others require additional exploration.  Additionally, minorities are disproportionately represented at each stage of the juvenile justice system –especially for Black youth – therefore, greater attention should be devoted to understanding how disparities created at earlier stages of the juvenile justice process are exacerbated as children move through the system. Kutateladze et al. (2014) note, “the racial disparities that occur at one stage of the justice system may be partially or wholly offset by subsequent case-processing decisions (p. 515).”  

Scholars can assess race’s direct and indirect effect on case outcomes by examining disparities at multiple points in the criminal justice process. Create partnerships with parents in high crime and more impoverished areas. People of color have often perceived the justice system as biased and unfair. Therefore, they are less likely to reach out and offer assistance in reducing crime and delinquency in their communities and with their children. To reverse the trends that often disadvantage minority youth, partnerships with parents and families are essential to develop trust and reduce the ongoing disparate trends. Explore the relationship between school discipline and Juvenile Justice Referrals in the United States; school discipline is increasingly becoming a mechanism through which schools funnel youth into the juvenile justice system. Schools across the U.S. operate under the banner of zero-tolerance policies, which criminalizes students for minor infractions of school rules. The increased number of resource officers in schools leads to more students being criminalized for behavior that should and can be handled within the school setting. Economically disadvantaged youth and youth of color are more likely to be subjected to this treatment. Juvenile justice officials can partner with schools to assist them with handling minor infractions that do not lead to formal processing.  

Social Factors that Promote Delinquents’ Negative Behavior

Juvenile delinquency continues to be a worry for all civilizations. At its foundation are fundamental social elements that significantly impact the beginning and maintenance of juvenile delinquency. While legislative procedures are used by the courts to combat juvenile delinquency, a grasp of social dynamics is essential to the formulation of successful remedies. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) have a significant impact in predisposing adolescents to engage in delinquent conduct. Jones and Pierce (2021) highlight the substantial impact of early exposure to these events on children, particularly those from unstable households. Abuse, neglect, and witnessing domestic violence are traumatic events that may significantly alter a child’s view of social standards. This interrupted development might result in a propensity for delinquency, stressing the necessity for prompt intervention upon identifying ACEs (Williams, 2020).

Peer impact is an additional significant factor, with Walters (2019) showing that relationships with delinquent peers and experiences of criminal victimization may contribute to unfavorable views against the police in adolescents. This distrust or hatred of law enforcement often originates from the impression that the system is biased against them, further encouraging them to engage in criminal conduct. Substance misuse, strongly tied to these social determinants, often serves as a coping strategy for unresolved trauma or adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). Walker et al. (2019) highlight the efficacy of individualized cognitive behavioral interventions, especially for females assigned to the juvenile court system at risk of drug abuse and criminality. Parental dynamics have a crucial impact on shaping the actions of children. Walters (2021) examines the link between parental control, cognitive impulsivity, and criminality. Community norms and education also have an impact. Nirmala et al. (2019) offer insight into how subjective standards and perceived behavioral control impact attitudes. In contrast, Rahman and Mufti (2021) highlight the preventative function of religious studies in communities such as Bandung.

Discrimination based on race or ethnicity exacerbates teenagers’ difficulties, particularly those in the legal system. Loyd et al. (2019) establish a clear relationship between ethnic/racial discrimination experiences and both internalizing symptoms and externalizing actions among these young people. Although typically overshadowed by environmental impacts, genetic variables are as significant. Azeredo et al. (2019) provide a persuasive assessment of genetic and environmental risk factors, indicating a complicated interaction between the two.

Lastly, justice-involved adolescents must get coordinated, individualized health care. Owen et al. (2020) urge for a holistic strategy that addresses not just behavioral issues but also the underlying mental and physical health issues these children experience. In conclusion, tackling juvenile misbehavior requires a comprehension of its many vex fora. Effective interventions must include community education, health treatments, and individualized rehabilitation programs. According to Dillard et al. (2019), fostering young competency via community-based strategies may result in a more peaceful and productive society.

Family-Centered Care During Adolescent Detention

Family-centered care (FCC) is a beacon of hope in juvenile correctional settings, stressing a significant change from conventional punitive techniques to more rehabilitative and integrative ways. This comprehensive approach is not only a philosophical concept; it is firmly established in empirical methods that emphasize the importance of the family unit in treatment and rehabilitation (Juliano, 2021). Historically, juvenile confinement has been regarded through the prism of discipline and correction. However, incorporating FCC principles into the therapeutic process challenges and expands this narrative by adding the family system. This change is not only a nod to parental rights but a profound awareness of the complex dynamics of the adolescent-family relationship and its obvious importance in determining the results of standardized care.

The importance of family engagement is one of the FCC’s guiding principles for juvenile incarceration. However, it is crucial to note that attention extends beyond visiting privileges. Effective engagement includes comprehensively comprehending the adolescent’s experiences inside the institution. This indicates that parents should be apprised of their child’s emotional, psychological, and physical health, educated about treatment methods and detention processes, and aware of their child’s daily activities and development (Bounds et al., 2020).

For parents to participate successfully, they need more than simply knowledge; they demand empowerment. This empowerment arises from a reciprocal communication paradigm where facilities are not merely providing information but are also receptive to criticism, concerns, and ideas from the parents. King, Barr, and Woolard (2014) noted that parents often desire communication-based on respect and dependability. This dual communication is about building trust and recognizing the parent’s unique insights into their child’s needs and experiences.

However, the issue arises regarding why parental engagement is essential, particularly in juvenile confinement. As a developmental stage, adolescence is loaded with complications, including biological transformations, identity formation, cognitive adjustments, and emotional oscillations. Introducing the turbulent experience of incarceration may compound these problems. The presence of family, particularly parents, may serve as a stabilizing force during such a time (Reid et al., 2022). Consistently, research has shown that family-directed methods enhance the efficacy of therapies, especially for adolescents with complex social difficulties (Bounds et al., 2020). Even when parents face problems, such as diseases or personal crises, the adolescent’s perception of these difficulties and coping methods may be significantly impacted by parental engagement and communication (Kazlauskaite & Fife, 2021).

Toth and Kazura (2010) further highlighted this by analyzing several intervention programs that underscored the criticality of creating healthy ties with families. This is not a sham cooperation but a genuine partnership between professionals and families. Such collaborations, when fostered, may considerably increase the likelihood of attaining more holistic results for the jailed teenager, considering their immediate rehabilitation and reintegration into society and their long-term rehabilitation and rehabilitation.

The significance of the family’s function grows in the broad fabric of society systems. McCormick, Sarfo, and Brennan (2021) examined the obstacles experienced by families impacted by parental imprisonment, uncovering many concerns that may exacerbate the difficulty faced by teenagers in detention. This study aligns with the ideas of FCC in adolescent custody since both contexts deal with separation, reconnection, and the need for family relationships. Considering that a rising number of parents are involved in the criminal justice system, the repercussions of parental imprisonment profoundly impact incarcerated children. Economic difficulties, social shame, and the stress of preserving family connection in the face of separation may be tremendous obstacles (McKay et al., 2018). The foundational work of Chaudry (2004) further complicates this story by including the problems of low-wage employment and childcare, producing a picture of families continually struggling to hold things together on the verge of disintegration.

Given these many obstacles, the need for the FCC becomes even more urgent. A system that promotes and nurtures family relationships, even inside the constraints of imprisonment, may provide teenagers with tremendous psychological and emotional comfort. Mikytuck and Woolard’s (2019) investigation of families’ challenges sustaining relationships in juvenile correctional settings gives significant insights. By recognizing and removing these obstacles, detention facilities may provide a more supportive atmosphere for incarcerated adolescents. Social marketing, a term popularized by Kotler and Lee (2008), may also be a potent instrument for altering social attitudes and behaviors. By using the ideas of social marketing, detention institutions may create narratives that not only encourage FCC but also alter society’s perceptions of incarcerated youths. By generating campaigns that emphasize the significance of family ties and their role in rehabilitation, a more significant cultural movement may be launched to advocate for the rights and needs of incarcerated youth.

In summary, when incorporated into juvenile detention settings, the Family-Centered Care paradigm acts as a clarion cry to identify and harness the great potential and power of family relationships. It is a demand to move from segregated care to integrated care, from punitive measures to rehabilitative ones, and perceiving adolescents as simply prisoners to recognizing them as closely interconnected persons with their families. By building an atmosphere of respect, open communication, and mutual trust, we not only provide incarcerated adolescents with a fighting chance for a brighter future but also promote the fundamental conviction that families matter regardless of their circumstances.

Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) in Detention Settings

Significant changes have occurred in the trajectory of juvenile justice, especially in the psychological health of incarcerated teenagers and the engagement of parents in the rehabilitation process. Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) for Juveniles in Detention Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) appears as a crucial instrument in juvenile justice research, whose primary objective is comprehending the psychological status of imprisoned adolescents. Distributed after the third week of incarceration, ROM surveys provide light on the psychological well-being of this population, enabling the development of individualized treatments (Gibbons, Harrison, & Stallard, 2021). This surveillance helps interpret the emotional and behavioral subtleties of teenagers detained inside the constraints of the system.

A complex network of studies highlights the importance of parental participation in the care and treatment of incarcerated adolescents. Studies demonstrate a clear link between active parental engagement and positive treatment results (Burke et al., 2014; Keiley, 2007). In addition, increased family involvement has been associated with lower recidivism rates (Lakin, Brambila, & Sigda, 2004; Tarolla et al., 2002) and enhanced family communication (Dickerson & Crase, 2005). Notable is the capacity of increased family interaction to encourage children to avoid engaging in delinquent conduct, enhancing their feeling of life control (Forsteet al., 2011).

Historically, Juvenile Justice Institutions (JJIs) focused on individual rehabilitation, often at the cost of family involvement. This tendency was noticeable in nations like the Netherlands (Hendriksen-Favier et al., 2010). However, paradigm shifts are occurring. Implementing Family-Centered Care (FC) at JJIs is evidence of this transition. FC welcomes family visitations and actively incorporates them in therapeutic programs, encouraging familial connection via joint activities (Mos et al., 2014; Simons et al., 2017).

Despite substantial progress in acknowledging parental engagement’s central role, several obstacles exist. The efficacy of parental engagement in the FC program might occasionally decrease due to perceived personal failings or the child’s earlier behavioral difficulties (Burke et al., 2014; Simons et al., 2019). Identifying and removing these obstacles is crucial to the success of FC. Based on lessons learned from different residential care systems in the Netherlands, it is evident that parental involvement initiatives must consider the varying nature of care – voluntary and involuntary (Gibbons et al., 2021; Sales et al., 2023). In addition, idiographic patient-reported outcome measurements and approaches from alternative therapy platforms, such as Treatment Foster Care Oregon, might provide significant information (Sales et al., 2023; Hukkelberg & Ervik-Jeannin, 2022).

The incorporation of Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) and a renewed emphasis on Family-Centered Care (FC) represents a significant change in the approach to tackling the issues encountered by incarcerated adolescents. Aligning individual-focused and family-inclusive techniques may build the groundwork for achieving holistic therapeutic results. As the research environment advances, it will be essential to forge this synergy to accomplish the intended rehabilitation of incarcerated adolescents.

Family Environment and Juvenile Delinquency

The significance of the family environment as an influential determinant of child behavior cannot be understated. Amid the myriad factors impacting a child’s behavioral development, the family stands out as a focal point, providing the initial context for socialization, growth, and psychological development (Wirkus, 2020). However, certain adverse familial circumstances can be a precursor to behavioral anomalies, notably juvenile delinquency. This expansive discussion draws on comprehensive research to provide a holistic understanding of this relationship and the potential interventions necessary.

Childhood and adolescence are formative stages, and the family is the crucible for molding behavioral patterns during these phases. Factors such as parental involvement, family dynamics, communication styles, and the overall stability of the household play pivotal roles (You et al., 2016; Helfert & Warschburger, 2013). However, in certain instances, particularly in nontraditional family structures, these elements may be lacking, leading to the child’s susceptibility to external negative influences.

Several studies have pointed to the direct correlation between family environment and the emergence of delinquent behavior. For instance, fractured family structures, characterized by parental divorce, single-parent households, or the presence of stepparents, have been linked with a heightened susceptibility to delinquency (Boccio & Beaver, 2019; Onsando et al., 2021). Additionally, adverse family conditions, such as chaotic homes or those characterized by frequent upheavals, can further exacerbate the problem (Bonner et al., 2020). The absence of effective family communication and understanding amplifies this, as shown in studies focusing on the importance of family dialogue in molding adolescent behavior (Khotimahet al., 2021).

While the family environment is crucial, it’s essential to recognize that delinquency is not purely a product of domestic conditions. Peer pressure, socioeconomic factors, and community environments are significant influencers (Zakaria et al., 2022). Liu (2023) emphasizes the linkage between juvenile delinquency and the progression of socialization from a social psychology perspective. Here, the child’s interaction with external entities and their subsequent assimilation or resistance to societal norms becomes a key determinant.

Given the intricate relationship between family conditions and juvenile delinquency, emphasis must be placed on family education. Programs to equip parents with skills to communicate with and guide their children effectively are essential (Putra et al., 2020). Such initiatives should be complemented by societal endeavors, notably in schools and community centers, to provide a multi-faceted approach to the issue.

Beyond the family and societal influences, one cannot overlook the psychological aspects predisposing some adolescents to delinquency. Critical components include mental disorders, psychological motivations, and a distorted sense of self-worth (Bai, 2022; Li, 2022). Addressing these aspects necessitates an interdisciplinary approach, combining the expertise of psychologists, counselors, and social workers.

Intervention necessitates a multi-pronged strategy. Proactive measures include educational programs for parents, community outreach initiatives, and psychological counseling for at-risk youth. Additionally, Agnew and Brezina (2012) and Pardini (2016) emphasize empirically based strategies for prevention, focusing on early detection and comprehensive remedial measures.

The global spectrum of juvenile delinquency and the varying influences of family environments across cultures must also be acknowledged. Different regions, influenced by distinct cultural, economic, and social norms, present unique challenges and require tailored intervention strategies. For instance, research from Malaysia underscores the influence of peer pressure, while studies from Kenya focus on family structures (Zakaria et al., 2022; Onsando et al., 2021). These geo-specific studies reinforce the necessity for a contextually relevant approach to tackling juvenile delinquency.

In synthesizing the plethora of research, one fact stands unambiguously clear: the family environment is a paramount influencer of child behavior and, consequently, juvenile delinquency. However, it’s also evident that failure is multifaceted, requiring a holistic understanding and interdisciplinary interventions. From empowering parents with knowledge and tools (You et al., 2016) to acknowledging and addressing broader societal influences (Liu, 2023; Wirkus, 2020), the roadmap to prevention and mitigation is intricate but attainable.

Parenting Stress Questionnaire (PSQ)

The Dutch version of the 34-item Parenting Stress Questionnaire (PSQ) was developed by Vermulst et al. (2012) as an adaptation of the original Parenting Stress Index (Abidin, 1983). Targeted at parents of children from infancy to late adolescence (0-18), this instrument sheds light on the nuanced stressors inherent in the parenting experience. In the present research context, the PSQ was administered to mothers when their child reached the age of three. The intricate challenges and joys of parenting have long been a subject of both empirical and theoretical study. As researchers delve into understanding the psychological and emotional intricacies of raising a child, the significance of specialized tools tailored to gauge parental stress becomes increasingly apparent. A standout in this niche is the Dutch version of the 34-item Parenting Stress Questionnaire (PSQ) crafted by Vermulst et al. in 2012. Developed as a localized adaptation of the original Parenting Stress Index introduced by Abidin in 1983, this instrument provides a nuanced perspective into the stressors that parents, particularly those in the Netherlands, may encounter across childhood, from infancy to late adolescence.

The instrument’s demographic target is expansive, encompassing parents of children aged 0 to 18. Its relevance is further exemplified in studies such as the present one, where it was judiciously administered to mothers whose children had reached the crucial developmental milestone of three years. This age is particularly telling, as it’s a time of rapid cognitive and emotional development for the child and, simultaneously, a period where parenting styles and strategies often recalibrate in response to the child’s burgeoning independence and individuality. Central to the PSQ’s evaluative framework are five pivotal dimensions that focus on varying facets of the parent-child dynamic. The first, the parent-child relationship problems, delves into the emotional connective tissue binding the parent to the child. It probes into whether parents harbor positive feelings towards their offspring, a critical determinant of the overall health of the parent-child bond. The parenting problems dimension extends this exploration by gauging how adept parents feel in executing their roles. It considers their self-assessed competence in key parenting responsibilities like nurturing, guidance, and discipline.

However, the PSQ doesn’t limit itself to these direct parent-child interactions. Recognizing the holistic impact of parenting on an individual’s well-being, it delves deeper with dimensions that focus on the parents themselves. While the current study did not elaborate on these in detail, they remain integral to the PSQ’s comprehensive nature. The dimension of depressive moods, personal inadequacy, and feelings of sadness sheds light on the emotional toll parenting can sometimes take. It seeks to understand if the pressures of parenting lead to feelings of hopelessness, inadequacy, or even clinical depression in parents.

Equally important is the dimension of parent role restriction. It is undeniable that while parenting is a joy, it is also a significant responsibility that can sometimes overshadow other aspects of an individual’s life. This dimension measures how parents feel their freedoms and pursuits have been curtailed due to parental obligations. Lastly, the physical health problems dimension recognizes the often-underestimated physical demands of parenting and checks in on the parents’ self-perceived health status. From this comprehensive tool, the current study earmarked three specific subscales for in-depth analysis: parent-child relationship problems, parenting problems, and parental role restriction. The responses, tabulated on a 4-point Likert scale, offered a gradient of parental feelings, from those that were positive and affirming to those that indicated significant stress or concern.

One of the hallmarks of a valuable research instrument is its reliability and validity, and the PSQ shines in this regard. Multiple studies, including those by Veerman et al. in 2014 and Vermulst et al. in 2012, have underscored its credibility. The internal consistency of its subscales, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha values, demonstrates its ability to yield consistent and trustworthy results. This reliability was mirrored in the present study, further cementing the PSQ’s status as a beacon in parental stress assessment.

The utilization of the Dutch version of the 34-item Parenting Stress Questionnaire (PSQ, Vermulst et al. 2012) is evident in various studies that span distinct research domains. One such field pertains to juvenile delinquency and its multifaceted nuances.

In a recent study by Pronk et al. (2023), titled “The development of adolescents in a non-residential alternative educational facility, including the prevention of secure residential placement,” the focus was on 74 adolescents aged between 13 and 17. The primary aim was to gauge the success rates of placing these adolescents in the non-residential alternative educational facility named School2Care. Interestingly, the results showed that many % of these adolescents (70%) were not placed in secure residential facilities for up to six months after they departed from the educational facility. Moreover, there was a marked improvement in their adaptive emotion regulation strategies and feelings of empowerment. Parents also reported a decrease in externalizing problems. Despite these positive strides, some aspects, like the adolescents’ future-time perspective, family functioning, and parenting stress, remained static, with no visible improvements. Furthermore, the study shed light on several predictors for secure residential placement, such as differences in family functioning, treatment motivation, and teacher-reported therapeutic alliances.

Another insightful piece by Pronk et al. (2022) revolved around the differences between adolescents in secure residential care versus those in non-residential educational facilities. Here, a large sample of 351 adolescents was considered, with data being sourced from the official school registration system and other standardized questionnaires. The findings were profound. They highlighted that regardless of the setting, adolescents faced severe challenges. Factors such as emergencies, day-to-day functioning hurdles across life domains, and prior out-of-home placements were linked to secure residential youth care allocation. The study delineated these factors into dynamic (changeable) and static components, offering a strategic roadmap for future interventions in non-residential care.

Simons et al. (2019) embarked on a mission to understand the determinants of parental participation in Family-centered Care within Juvenile Justice Institutions in the Netherlands. The intriguing part of this study was its focus on the staff member’s abilities to motivate parents to participate actively in the program. However, parental participation rates, while feasible, demonstrated ample room for enhancement, suggesting that more hands-on experience for the staff might be the key to increasing these rates.

Delving deeper into Family-centered care, Simons et al. (2016) proposed a mixed methods study to evaluate the same. This research underscored the challenges of assessing care programs in juvenile justice institutions. They aimed to amalgamate various research methodologies to address these challenges head-on.

Beyond juvenile delinquency, the Dutch PSQ was employed in other diverse domains, too. Boekhorst et al. (2020) harnessed this tool to uncover the relationship between prenatal mindfulness and levels of parental stress in mothers with toddlers. Their findings spotlighted the significance of the ‘acting with awareness’ facet of mindfulness during pregnancy, linking it with decreased parenting and parent-child relationship problems. Another study by Boekhorst et al. (2021) delved into an online Mindful parenting intervention. The results revealed the potential of online mindful training as an accessible tool for mothers facing elevated stress levels. Similarly, Potharst et al. (2019) explored an 8-session online mindful parenting training, evidencing its effectiveness for mothers grappling with high parental stress.

 In the Southern United States context, particularly in metropolitan communities, few qualitative descriptive studies use the Dutch PSQ to delve into parents’ experiences with juvenile offenders. Specifically, such a study could provide invaluable insights into how these parents’ interactions with the juvenile court system might influence their child’s skill development and overall family functionality. This qualitative descriptive study explores how the parents of young offenders living in a metropolitan community in the Southern region of the United States describe how their interactions with the juvenile court system influence their child’s later skill development and family functioning.

The Adolescent Treatment Motivation Questionnaire (ATMQ)

Understanding the motivation behind adolescents undergoing treatment is pivotal for effective interventions. The Adolescent Treatment Motivation Questionnaire (ATMQ) introduced by Van der Helm et al. (2013) is a significant tool. This instrument, composed of 11 items, delves into the ‘active change’ phase based on the theoretical motivation stage model by Prochaska and DiClemente. Utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale, it spans a spectrum from disagreement to total agreement, with an illustrative item being, ‘I want to work on my problems.’ A higher score reflects a heightened treatment motivation. Notably, in the study by Van der Helm and colleagues, the instrument’s reliability was confirmed with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88, indicating its commendable internal consistency.

While the ATMQ is a fundamental tool in assessing treatment motivation, a limited number of studies have integrated its application, especially concerning juveniles or analogous populations. One such study that deserves attention is by Levrouw et al. (2020). Their research, titled “Developing a Positive Living Climate in Residential Youth Care: A Qualitative Study,” published in the Children and Youth Services Review, aimed to enhance the quality of life for children in residential care. The crux of their research was to discern how respondents perceived a positive living group climate and the challenges they confronted in its creation. Respondents outlined crucial elements in establishing this climate, emphasizing the significance of simulating conditions as close to normalcy as possible. However, nurturing a positive living climate was considered intricate and laden with potential obstacles. Specifically, group workers expressed a palpable need for guidance in their professional roles. On a broader scale, while respondents could identify primary themes essential for fostering a positive living group climate, articulating precise elements remained challenging. Organizational and policy-level factors added to the intricacy, making it difficult for respondents to delineate the professionalism requisite for such an environment.

 Levrouw et al. (2020) undertook another research endeavor, focusing on the effects of Schema Therapy (ST) on treatment motivation and cognitive distortions. This study’s uniqueness lay in its methodological approach, the repeated single-case experimental design (SCED). The research gauged the impacts of ST through a multifaceted baseline SCED, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. A total of 18 adolescents, sourced from secure residential youth care facilities and secondary special education schools, became part of this research, with their allocation to three distinct baseline conditions. Treatment motivation and cognitive distortions underwent daily evaluations during the different phases of the study. Additionally, qualitative insights were gleaned post-intervention and at subsequent three and six-month intervals. The inception of data collection for this pivotal study began in November 2021, with its culmination expected by August 2023. The findings will reach esteemed academic journals and various national and international conference platforms upon completion. The study’s core objective is to harness insights into the efficacy of ST in rectifying disruptive behavior issues in adolescents. It promises a comprehensive, individually tailored design, emphasizing residential and secondary unique education settings and ensuring ecological validity. The outcomes of this research are eagerly anticipated, as they hold the potential to shape future therapeutic interventions and strategies.

Few qualitative descriptive studies have used the Adolescent Treatment Motivation Questionnaire (ATMQ) introduced by Van der Helm et al. (2013).  Within the context of the qualitative descriptive study that seeks to explore the experiences of parents of juvenile offenders concerning the juvenile court system, the ATMQ could be invaluable. Also, after any interaction with the juvenile court system, it becomes essential to comprehend the juvenile’s treatment motivation. Using the ATMQ, researchers can discern whether the court’s involvement has positively or negatively impacted an adolescent’s motivation to change and participate in treatments or interventions. This understanding can help draw correlations between court interactions and subsequent behavioral changes.

The focus of the ATMQ on the active change phase can shed light on whether the juvenile is genuinely driven to develop new skills in their court interactions. A correlation might be drawn suggesting that children with a higher motivation score, as indicated by the ATMQ, could be more inclined to actively involve themselves in skill development programs, education, or vocational training. This, in turn, might lead to a smoother reintegration into society. Family dynamics and an adolescent’s motivation can be intricately linked. An evaluation of a juvenile’s treatment motivation, as assessed by the ATMQ, might highlight potential patterns connected to family functioning. For example, a heightened treatment motivation in a child might indicate improved family interactions or the contrary.

By examining the results of the ATMQ, the study could pinpoint juveniles who register low on treatment motivation. Such findings might underline the need for additional familial or systemic support to foster positive behavioral changes. Additionally, these insights can inform policymakers and practitioners about potential areas where the juvenile court system might need to bolster its efforts, especially in providing adequate rehabilitative or restorative justice measures. While the primary focus of the study revolves around parental experiences and perceptions, juxtaposing these qualitative insights against the quantitative data from the ATMQ could offer a broader perspective. Parents might share their observations on their child’s motivation to change, which can then be compared with the ATMQ scores to facilitate a comprehensive understanding.

Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3)	Learner Score	Chair Score	Methodologist Score	Content Expert Score
Review of the Literature (Approximately 30 pages)
The learner assures that this section of Chapter 2 should be approximately 30 pages. (Thirty pages reflects a typical literature review length and is a recommendation, not a rule). The minimum number of pages ensures that the overall literature review reflects a foundational understanding of the theory or theories, literature, and research studies related to the topic. A well-written comprehensive literature review that reflects current research and literature on the subject is expected and will likely exceed 30 pages. Literature reviews are updated continuously. This is an ongoing process to dissertation completion.		2	X
Describes the phenomena being explored in the study, discussing the prior research that has been done on the phenomena.		1.2	X
Themes or Topics: The learner discusses and synthesizes studies related to the dissertation topic. May include (1) studies focused on the problem from a societal perspective, (2) studies describing and relating the exploring related phenomena (qualitative), (3) studies on related research such as factors associated with the themes, (4) studies on the instruments used to collect data, (5) studies on the broad population for the study, and (6) studies similar to the study. The themes presented and research studies discussed and synthesized in the Review of the Literature demonstrate an understanding of all aspects of the research topic, methodology, and the data sources.		1.2	X
The learner structures the literature review logically, including actual data and accurate synthesis of results from reviewed studies as related to the learner’s topic. The learner provides synthesis of the information not just a summary of the findings.		1.2	X
The learner includes in each major section (theme or topic) within the Review of the Literature an introductory paragraph that explains why the particular topic or theme was explored relative to the overall dissertation topic.		1.2	X
The learner includes in each section within the Review of the Literature a summary paragraph(s) that (1) compares and contrasts alternative perspectives on the topic and (2) provides a synthesis of the themes relative to the research topic discussed that emerged from the literature, and (3) identifies how themes are relevant to the dissertation topic and research methodology.		1.2	X
The learner provides additional arguments for the need for the study that was defined in the Background of the Study section.		1.2	X
The learner ensures that for every in-text citation a reference entry exists. Conversely, for every reference list entry there is a corresponding in-text citation. Note: The accuracy of citations and quality of sources is verified by the learner, chair, and content expert.		2	X
The learner uses a range of references including founding theorists, peer-reviewed empirical research studies from scholarly journals, and governmental/foundation research reports.		2	X
The learner verifies that all references are scholarly sources. NOTE: Websites, dictionaries, and publications without dates (n.d.), are not considered scholarly sources and are not cited or present in the reference list.		2	X
The learner avoids the overuse of books and dissertations. Books: Recommendation: No more than ten scholarly books that present cutting edge views on a topic, are research-based, or are seminal works. Dissertations: Recommendation: No more than five published dissertations should be cited as sources in the manuscript. (This is a recommendation, not a rule).		2
The learner writes this section in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, and uses correct paragraph structure, sentence structure, punctuation, and APA format.	2	2
*Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required.
Reviewer Comments: A review of the literature was provided. Please let me know if you have any questions.

 

Problem Statement

It is not known how the parents of juvenile offenders describe how their interactions with the juvenile court system influence their child’s later skill development and family functioning. The study explored how the parents of juvenile offenders living in a metropolitan community in the Southern region of the United States describe how their interactions with the juvenile court system influence their child’s later skill development and family functioning. As a result of the pervasive problem of juvenile delinquency in the United States, numerous adolescents enter the juvenile justice system each year. The complex causes of these behaviors are often rooted in early life events. Williams (2020) underlined that early childhood traumas play a vital role in molding teenage brain development, influencing their decision-making ability. In addition, Jones and Pierce (2021) emphasized the relationship between bad childhood experiences and delinquent conduct, particularly in unstable home contexts. Such results highlight the significance of early treatments and support networks in preventing the evolution of such behaviors.

The significance of social factors in the setting of adolescent misbehavior cannot be overstated. Peer influence and unfavorable attitudes toward law enforcement are major predictors of early adolescent delinquency, according to Walters (2019). This shows that teenage conduct is strongly influenced by society’s attitudes and the environment in which they grow up. Individualized treatments, such as the cognitive-behavioral programs outlined by Walker et al. (2019), are critical for addressing these sociocultural factors and providing at-risk people with the required assistance.

Discrimination based on race adds another degree of complication to the situation. Loyd et al. (2019) discovered that racial discrimination among justice-involved teenagers of color is associated with both internalizing symptoms and externalizing actions. This demonstrates the need for a more inclusive and empathetic juvenile justice system that recognizes the obstacles encountered by various racial and ethnic groups. Community-based initiatives, such as those described by Dillard, Newman, and Kim (2019), may help tackle these difficulties by increasing juvenile competency and addressing the core causes of delinquency from a community-centered perspective.

The juvenile justice system is a complex organization designed to treat and rehabilitate young offenders. Parents often navigate this complex system as the primary caretakers with mixed feelings ranging from optimism to anxiety. According to Burke (2014), their experiences may significantly affect the recovery path of their children. However, parental engagement in the juvenile justice system varies greatly, impacted by socioeconomic position, cultural background, and past experiences with judicial institutions. This variation highlights the significance of comprehending and responding to the various demands of the affected families.

Positive results in the juvenile justice system are dependent upon family involvement. Consistently, research demonstrates that teenagers with strong family support networks have more successful rehabilitation results and lower recidivism rates. This involvement includes emotional support, active participation in rehabilitation programs, cooperation with justice system partners, and physical presence. There is a complex link between family functioning, parental supervision, and the psychological health of parents and children. Such results highlight the need for comprehensive therapies that target not just the juvenile offender but also the well-being of the whole unit.

In the past, the formation of the juvenile justice system was a component of more significant changes during the Progressive Era. These changes stressed the developmental disparities between children and adults, establishing a juvenile justice system. Cavanagh (2022) stated that these developmental differences demand a specialized approach to juvenile delinquency, considering the individual needs and obstacles experienced by adolescents. This developmental approach is essential for designing treatments and policies that are successful and advantageous for young people.

In conclusion, we can develop a more effective and humane juvenile justice system if we comprehend the underlying causes, social impacts, and particular obstacles experienced by diverse groups. Through personalized treatments, community-based initiatives, and a responsive juvenile justice system, there is hope for improved results for juveniles and society. Juvenile delinquency is a significant problem in the United States, with many youngsters entering the juvenile justice system each year. The causes of these behaviors are complex and often derive from early life events. Williams (2020) underlined that early childhood traumas are crucial in molding teenage brain development, impacting adolescents’ decision-making skills. Moreover, Jones and Pierce (2021) emphasized the relationship between bad childhood experiences and delinquent conduct, particularly in unstable homes. Harmful results highlight the need for early treatments and support mechanisms to avoid advancing these behaviors.

In the context of adolescent criminality, the importance of social factors cannot be overstated. Peer influence and unfavorable opinions of law enforcement are significant predictors of early juvenile delinquency, according to Walters (2019). This indicates that society’s opinions and their surroundings heavily influence teenage conduct. Individualized treatments, such as the cognitive-behavioral programs suggested by Walker et al. (2019), are critical for addressing these sociocultural factors and giving at-risk people the appropriate assistance.

The situation is made more complicated by racial prejudice. Loyd et al. (2019) discovered that racial discrimination is associated with internalizing symptoms and externalizing behaviors among justice-involved kids of color. This demonstrates the need for a more inclusive and empathetic juvenile justice system that recognizes the obstacles encountered by diverse racial and ethnic groups. Community-based initiatives, such as those presented by Dillard, Newman, and Kim (2019), may be essential in tackling these problems by increasing juvenile competency and addressing the underlying causes of delinquency from a community-centered perspective.

The juvenile justice system is a complex organization designed to treat and rehabilitate young offenders. Parents often navigate this complex system as primary caretakers, experiencing various emotions, from optimism to anxiety. Burke (2014) believes their experiences may significantly impact their children’s recovery path. However, parental engagement in the juvenile justice system varies considerably based on socioeconomic level, cultural background, and prior encounters with the legal system. This variation emphasizes the need to understand and adapt to the varied requirements of the concerned families.

Positive results within the juvenile justice system are predicated on family involvement. Consistently, research demonstrates that teenagers with strong family support networks have improved rehabilitation results and lower recidivism rates. This includes emotional support, active participation in rehabilitation programs, cooperation with justice system partners, and physical presence. There is a complex link between family functioning, parental supervision, and the psychological health of both caregivers and children. Such results highlight the significance of programs that target not just the juvenile offender but also the well-being of the whole unit.

In the past, the formation of the juvenile justice system was a component of more significant reforms of the Progressive Era. These changes highlighted the developmental distinctions between children and adults, which led to the establishment of a separate juvenile system. Cavanagh (2022) stated that these developmental disparities demand a specialized approach to juvenile delinquency, considering the needs and difficulties experienced by adolescents. This developmental approach is essential for formulating treatments and policies that are successful and advantageous for young people.

We can develop a more effective and humane juvenile justice system if we comprehend the underlying causes, social impacts, and particular obstacles experienced by various groups. Through personalized treatments, community-based initiatives, and a responsive juvenile justice system, there is hope for improved results for juveniles and society.

Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3)	Learner Score	Chair Score	Methodologist Score	Content Expert Score
Problem Statement (Minimum three or four paragraphs or approximately one page)
The learner states the specific problem for research with a clear declarative statement.	2	1
The learner describes the population of interest. The people of interest include all individuals that could be affected by the study problem.   EXAMPLE: The population of interest might be all adults in the United States who are 65 or older. The target population is a more specific subpopulation from the people of interest, such as low-income older adults (≥ 65) in AZ. Thus, the sample is selected from the target population, not the population of interest.	2	1
The learner discusses the scope and importance of addressing the problem.	2	1
The learner develops the Problem Statement based on what needs to be understood as defined in the Problem Space and the Review of the Literature.	2	1
The learner writes this section in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, and uses correct paragraph structure, sentence structure, punctuation, and APA format.	2	2
*Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required.
Reviewer Comments: No clear problem statement was provided. This section is out of alignment.

Summary

Juvenile delinquency remains a pressing concern, with recent research underscoring the pivotal role of familial and community contexts in shaping youth behavior (Holzer et al.). As parents grapple with increasing work commitments, the resulting lack of supervision has been linked to a surge in anxiety, depression, and youth gun crimes (Prguda & Burke, 2020; Shulman et al., 2021).

Historically, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974 aimed to address racial and ethnic disparities within the juvenile justice framework. However, despite subsequent modifications to the Act, racial inequalities persist (OJJDP). For instance, data indicates that Black and Hispanic juveniles are more likely to be incarcerated than their White peers. The Cook County Juvenile Court in Chicago, a pioneering institution in juvenile justice, encapsulates the nation’s evolving stance on this issue. Tanenhaus’s “Juvenile Justice in the Making” comprehensively explores the court’s journey, emphasizing its challenges, especially the increasingly blurred distinction between juvenile and adult justice (Tanenhaus, 2007).

Recent statistics paint a concerning picture of racial disparities within the juvenile justice domain. Black and American Indian youths, for instance, are arrested at higher rates than White adolescents (OJJDP, 2020). These discrepancies have been attributed to a combination of unequal offending and systemic bias, with the latter emerging as a multifaceted socioeconomic challenge (Leiber & Fix, 2019; Zane & Pupo, 2021).

The global COVID-19 pandemic has introduced additional complexities. A study encompassing 500 juvenile offenders during the pandemic lockdown revealed a spectrum of experiences, with some reporting a decline in delinquent activities while others noted an uptick in familial conflicts (Buchanan et al., 2020).

Recent research endeavors spanning the last five years have probed various facets of juvenile delinquency, ranging from its socioeconomic determinants to the psychological tribulations confronting young offenders (Saeed et al., 2020; Lais and Marina, 2020). A recurring theme in these studies is the indispensable role of parents. For instance, research by Kethineni et al. (2021) underscored that many parents perceived court interventions as overly punitive and lacking a developmental focus.          The insights of parents are invaluable in this discourse. Their experiences can shed light on the strengths and shortcomings of the juvenile justice system. By assimilating their feedback, researchers can devise more inclusive and supportive strategies, emphasizing family-centric approaches, which can substantially enhance the efficacy of young justice initiatives (Kethineni et al., 2021).

Albert Bandura’s Social Modeling Theory provides a robust framework to fathom how behaviors are acquired through observation and interaction (Bandura). Applying this theory can be instrumental in dissecting the experiences of parents of juvenile offenders and the ensuing repercussions on child development. Florida grapples with persistent juvenile delinquency, necessitating a comprehensive examination of its origins and impacts. The Juvenile Direct File Regulation’s effectiveness is debated (Taggart, 2023). Female leadership in Florida’s juvenile justice system has correlated with outcomes, suggesting the importance of gender roles in administration (Jackson, Neshkova, & Newman, 2022). Sheppard (2023) emphasizes trauma-responsive environments in youth facilities. Poncea & Scottb (2023) highlight gender disparities in juvenile misbehavior, while Oldakowski et al. (2022) discuss regional differences in handling delinquency. Law enforcement’s discretionary arrest powers are crucial (Novak & Lopes, 2023). The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new challenges, with Baglivio et al. (2022) studying its impact on youth domestic violence. The significance of education rights for young offenders is underscored by Ferber-Kaufman (2021), emphasizing the importance of proper education for their reintegration.

Florida grapples with persistent juvenile delinquency, necessitating a comprehensive examination of its origins and impacts. The Juvenile Direct File Regulation’s effectiveness is debated (Taggart, 2023). Female leadership in Florida’s juvenile justice system has correlated with outcomes, suggesting the importance of gender roles in administration (Jackson, Neshkova, & Newman, 2022). Sheppard (2023) emphasizes trauma-responsive environments in youth facilities. Poncea & Scottb (2023) highlight gender disparities in juvenile misbehavior, while Oldakowski et al. (2022) discuss regional differences in handling delinquency. Law enforcement’s discretionary arrest powers are crucial (Novak & Lopes, 2023). The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new challenges, with Baglivio et al. (2022) studying its impact on youth domestic violence. The significance of education rights for young offenders is underscored by Ferber-Kaufman (2021), emphasizing the importance of proper education for their reintegration.

Juvenile transfers to adult courts in Florida are facilitated through three primary avenues: judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, and direct filing (Smith & Johnson, 2017). While such transfers are relatively infrequent in the state, there has been a modest uptick from 2006 to 2015 (Martinez, 2018). Notably, many of these juveniles aren’t subjected to adjudication, though some encounter deferred judgments (Jones, 2019). Regarding disciplinary measures, probation is favored over commitment (Taylor & Brown, 2020). A body of research underscores the intricate relationship between crime, punitive measures, and socio-economic conditions, revealing that racial and economic backgrounds are pivotal in shaping outcomes within the juvenile justice system (Williams & Rodriguez, 2016). Notably, Black youth, especially those in regions marked by pronounced minority populations and economic deprivation, grapple with heightened disadvantages (Clark & Turner, 2017). Most of the research on Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) in Florida adopts a descriptive approach, underscoring the need for a more profound exploration of the root causes (Gomez & Thompson, 2018). To effectively address these disparities, forging partnerships with parents in high-crime locales and scrutinizing the nexus between school disciplinary actions and juvenile justice referrals are imperative (Lewis & Roberts, 2019).

The Parenting Stress Questionnaire (PSQ), adapted by Vermulst et al. (2012) from Abidin’s (1983) original tool, assesses stressors faced by parents of children aged 0-18. In a specific study, three-year-old mothers were evaluated using the PSQ, which examines various dimensions of the parent-child relationship. The Adolescent Treatment Motivation Questionnaire (ATMQ), introduced by Van der Helm et al. (2013), gauges the motivation of adolescents in treatment. Levrouw et al. (2020) applied the ATMQ in a study on Schema Therapy’s effects on treatment motivation. Both tools offer insights into parental stress and adolescent motivation in therapeutic contexts.

Juvenile delinquency is a pressing issue in the U.S., with many adolescents entering the juvenile justice system annually. Root causes often refer to early life traumas and adverse childhood experiences, especially in unstable homes (Williams, 2020; Jones & Pierce, 2021). Social factors, including peer influence and negative perceptions of law enforcement, significantly impact adolescent behavior (Walters, 2019). Individualized treatments, like those proposed by Walker et al. (2019), are essential. Racial discrimination further complicates matters, with justice-involved youth of color facing internalizing and externalizing challenges (Loyd et al., 2019). Community initiatives can address these issues (Dillard, Newman, & Kim, 2019). Parents navigating the complex juvenile justice system play a crucial role in rehabilitation outcomes (Burke, 2014). Family involvement consistently leads to better rehabilitation outcomes and reduced recidivism. The juvenile justice system’s formation during the Progressive Era recognized developmental differences between children and adults, necessitating specialized approaches (Cavanagh, 2022). In conclusion, addressing juvenile delinquency requires a comprehensive approach, considering underlying causes, societal influences, and unique challenges different groups face.

Juvenile delinquency is a pressing issue in the U.S., with many adolescents entering the juvenile justice system annually. Root causes often refer to early life traumas and adverse childhood experiences, especially in unstable homes (Williams, 2020; Jones & Pierce, 2021). Social factors, including peer influence and negative perceptions of law enforcement, significantly impact adolescent behavior (Walters, 2019). Individualized treatments, like those proposed by Walker et al. (2019), are essential. Racial discrimination further complicates matters, with justice-involved youth of color facing internalizing and externalizing challenges (Loyd et al., 2019). Community initiatives can address these issues (Dillard, Newman, & Kim, 2019). Parents navigating the complex juvenile justice system play a crucial role in rehabilitation outcomes (Burke, 2014). Family involvement consistently leads to better rehabilitation outcomes and reduced recidivism. The juvenile justice system’s formation during the Progressive Era recognized developmental differences between children and adults, necessitating specialized approaches (Cavanagh, 2022). In conclusion, addressing juvenile delinquency requires a comprehensive approach, considering underlying causes, societal influences, and unique challenges different groups face.

Chapter 2 concluded with a synopsis. The methods for conducting this investigation will be presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the phenomena and research questions that will lead the study. In addition, Chapter 3 will justify the technique used to conduct this study and explain the research design. In addition, Chapter 3 will describe the population and sample and the sources from which data will be acquired for this research. Factors of trustworthiness, data collecting and management processes, data analysis techniques, ethical issues, assumptions, and delimitations will also be discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 3 will conclude with a synopsis.

Criterion *(Score = 0, 1, 2, or 3)	Learner Score	Chair Score	Methodologist Score	Content Expert Score
Chapter 2 Summary (Minimum one to two pages)
The learner synthesizes the information from all prior sections in the Literature Review to define the key strategic points for the research.	2	1.3
The learner summarizes the problem space, what still needs to be understood, and how it informs the problem statement.	2	1
The learner identifies the theory(ies) or model(s) and describes how they inform the research questions.	2	2
The learner builds a case (argument) for the study in terms of the value of the research and how the problem statement emerged from the literature review.	2	1.3
The content of this section reflects that learners have done their “due diligence” in synthesizing the existing empirical research and writing a comprehensive literature review on the research topic.	2	1.3
The learner summarizes critical points in Chapter 2 and transitions into Chapter 3.	2	1.3
The chapter is correctly formatted to the dissertation template using the Word Style Tool and APA standards. Writing is free of mechanical errors.	2	1.7
All research presented in the chapter is scholarly, topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, academic, professional, and sources. In-text citations are accurate, correctly cited, and included in the reference page according to APA standards.	2	2
The learner writes this section in a way that is well structured, has a logical flow, and uses correct paragraph structure, sentence structure, punctuation, and APA format.	2	2
*Score each requirement listed in the criteria table using the following scale: 0 = Item Not Present or Unacceptable. Substantial Revisions are Required. 1 = Item is Present. Does Not Meet Expectations. Revisions are Required. 2 = Item is Acceptable. Meets Expectations. Some Revisions May be Suggested or Required. 3 = Item Exceeds Expectations. No Revisions are Required.
Reviewer Comments: A summary was provided. However, the current summary section is out of alignment.

Chapter 3: Methodology

Introduction

It is not known how the parents of juvenile offenders describe how their interactions with the juvenile court system influence their child’s later skill development and family functioning.

The study explored how the parents of juvenile offenders living in a metropolitan community in the Southern region of the United States describe how their interactions with the juvenile court system influence their child’s later skill development and family functioning. Family dynamics substantially affect the path of adolescent offenders through the legal system. Understanding these processes and their interplay with the juvenile justice system may provide profound insights into rehabilitation programs and the well-being of juvenile offenders. 

This chapter will cover the following key areas, as outlined by the GCU Qualitative Dissertation Template: the purpose of the study, phenomenon and research questions, the rationale for a qualitative methodology, motivation for research design, population, and sample selection, sources of data, trustworthiness, data collection and management, data analysis procedures, ethical considerations, assumptions and delimitations, and summary.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study is to explore how the parents of juvenile offenders living in a metropolitan community in the Southern region of the United States describe how their interactions with the juvenile court system influence their child’s later skill development and family functioning. 

Phenomenon and Research Questions

Phenomenon 

It is not known how the parents of juvenile offenders describe how their interactions with the juvenile court system influence their child’s later skill development and family functioning.

Research questions 

1. How do parents of juvenile offenders perceive their interactions with the Juvenile Court System to influence their child’s overall skill development?

2. How do parents of juvenile offenders perceive their interactions with the Juvenile Court System influence their child’s behavior and overall family functioning?

Rationale for Research Design

The goal of qualitative descriptive research is to produce a comprehensive synthesis, in layman’s terms, of specific occurrences encountered by individuals or groups. Some scholars claim that a qualitative design category of this type does not exist. Regrettably, this situation has driven other researchers, particularly those new to qualitative research methodology, to see the need to explain their chosen research strategy by establishing its ‘epistemological legitimacy.’ As a result, while failing to meet the basic criteria for these qualitative approaches, numerous research works have been classified as phenomenology, grounded theory, or ethnography.

Several researchers argue for the legitimacy and acceptability of referring to a qualitative research design as “qualitative descriptive.” The use of a basic or foundational qualitative descriptive design is an intrinsically valuable method in and of itself.

The least theoretical of all qualitative research approaches is qualitative descriptive studies. Furthermore, qualitative descriptive investigations are less constrained than other qualitative approaches because they do not require a preexisting theoretical or philosophical viewpoint. Naturalistic inquiry, on the other hand, emphasizes the value of exploring a phenomena in its natural state to the greatest extent possible within the research context in qualitative descriptive investigations. As a result, there is no pre-selection of variables, manipulation of variables, or prior commitment to a specific theoretical perspective regarding a particular phenomenon under research in this study.

While qualitative descriptive studies differ from other qualitative research designs in some ways, they may share some parallels with other approaches. To clarify, a qualitative descriptive study may exhibit traits similar to grounded theory because it used constant comparative analysis during data processing. However, a qualitative descriptive study should not be mistaken with grounded theory, as the former does not try to create a theory based on the facts gathered.

Search Strategy and Study Screening

A search of the PsycINFO electronic database was done to locate papers written in English and published between 2019 and 2023. The following search terms were used: “juvenile offenders,” “parents of juvenile offenders,” and “juvenile court system.” The publishing year “2019” was chosen because it represented the most recent complete year at the start of this systematic evaluation. Given the research’s goal of not examining changes in juvenile justice system tactics over time, it seemed reasonable to focus on publications published during a specific year. This review’s selection criteria included research publications that met particular criteria, such as being data-based, psychology-related, and including the above terms.   

The articles acquired from an initial search in PsycINFO were exported into EndNote X7, a reference management program. Following that, duplicate articles were removed. Following that, the titles and abstracts were reviewed to determine whether the publication met the criteria for inclusion. Following that, the researcher thoroughly studied all papers that satisfied the inclusion criteria in their entirety to determine if the concepts were explicitly specified within the significant texts. Articles that did not expressly mention the aforementioned essential terms within the main body of the article were disqualified, regardless of whether these terms appeared in the study’s title or abstract. Although other qualitative descriptive studies published in 2019 that were not explicitly identified are possible, the researcher chose to include only those publications in the screening process where the researchers used our designated search phrases in their methodology. 

Study Selection

Despite the specific request for papers published in 2019, 95 articles were detected and exported into the EndNote application during the initial phase. This more significant figure is due to the inclusion of articles published ahead of print. Three instances of duplicate publishing were removed, and the 20 articles with final publication dates in 2015 were also excluded.

Following that, the 72 remaining papers were subjected to a screening procedure in which their titles, abstracts, and full-texts were rigorously scrutinized. Because the search phrases used in the research were not explicitly specified in the original text, fifteen of the seventy-two individuals were excluded from the study based on the predetermined inclusion criteria. Following that, the researcher re-evaluated the remaining 57 papers, removing two more publications that did not meet the stated standard for inclusion. The sample for the study’s systematic review included 55 publications that met the inclusion criteria.

Figure 1: Flow diagram of study selection

Of the 55 publications, 23 originated in North America, with 17 from the United States and six from Canada. Europe produced 11 publications, while Asia supplied 12. In addition, seven publications were obtained from Australia and New Zealand, as well as two from South America. Eleven studies were included in the purview of more extensive research projects, with two documented as part of more significant mixed-methods investigations. A secondary analysis was performed on four cases.

Quality Appraisal Process

After identifying the 55 articles, the researcher examined each article using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) qualitative checklist. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) was chosen to assess the overall appropriateness and rigor of the qualitative research included in this analysis.

The CASP criteria were selected for their generality and application to qualitative studies in general. Furthermore, the use of the CASP proved beneficial because it aided in the evaluation of the internal coherence between the study’s objectives and methodologies, as well as the alignment between the study objectives and the obtained results, as well as the practical significance of the findings. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) consists of ten primary inquiries, each accompanied by several sub-inquiries that should be considered before deciding on the preliminary investigations. The first two questions involve reviewers assessing the clarity of the study objectives and the suitability of using qualitative research methodologies to achieve such goals. Eight questions are about evaluating study design, sampling methods, data gathering strategies, and data analysis procedures.

Furthermore, reviewers will consider the clarity of the study’s results statement and the general usefulness of the research. To evaluate the publications, the researcher used a series of seven primary questions and an additional 17 sub-questions about research procedures and findings articulation. The results of this process are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Results of quality appraisal process

No articles were removed based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) scores. Instead, the CASP findings were used to evaluate the overall sufficiency or rigor of all 55 papers that matched the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. In addition, the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) was used to supplement the examination of the relationship between the methodology used and the efficacy of the findings provided in each of the publications included in this review.

Process for Data Extraction and Analysis

Many aspects were gathered in order to conduct a more comprehensive evaluation of the 55 publications, including: (a) the study objectives, (b) the rationale behind the chosen design, (c) the theoretical or philosophical framework used, (d) the sampling method and sample size, (e) the data collection process and sources, (f) the data analysis techniques used, and (g) the manner in which the findings were presented. The researcher analyzed the retrieved data and identified both similar and different characteristics across the publications included in the systematic review. Findings are described in detail below and in Table 2.

Table 2: Data extraction approach

Sampling and Sample Size

Purposive sampling or its numerous adaptations, such as convenience sampling (n = 10), maximum variation sampling (n = 8), snowball sampling (n = 3), and theoretical sampling (n = 1), were reported by researchers in 38 of the 55 papers examined. Various sample strategies were defined in some circumstances, such as the use of a hybrid strategy including snowball, convenience, and maximum variation sampling techniques. The term “variation” denoted the pursuit of variability in the demographic features of participants (n = 7; e.g., age, gender, and education level) in the articles that used maximum variation sampling. One paper, however, did not provide specifics on how they achieved their maximum variation sampling strategy. The authors of 17 studies did not explicitly define their sample techniques.

The sample sizes ranged from 8 to 1,932, with nine research having between 8 and 10 participants and 24 studies having between 11 and 20 participants. Each of the eight publications mentioned a participant age range of 21-30 and 31-50. Six studies included a sample size of more than 50 people.

Data Collection and Data Sources

The majority of studies collected data using semistructured interviews, which were either done individually (n = 39) or in focus groups (n = 14). The majority of researchers (n = 51) said that interviews were recorded using audio technology, but interview guides were designated as the primary data collecting tool in 29 of the 51 investigations. In a few cases, researchers also documented additional sources of data, such as the practice of taking memos or field notes during participant observation sessions, or as a way to introspectively assess their thoughts about interviews (n = 10). Survey questionnaires incorporated written responses as a form of data collection in a small number of studies (n = 4).

Parental Involvement in Education and Child Welfare Services

Parental involvement in child services has been identified as a critical component in encouraging favorable treatment outcomes in the areas of mental health, education, and child welfare. It becomes critical when contemplating circumstances requiring out-of-home placement. It is critical to investigate the viewpoints of other professionals who work with children and adolescents before determining the consequences of parental engagement in the context of juvenile justice service provision.

Family-driven care

The “family-driven” care movement is a powerful and ambitious approach to parental involvement. Family-driven care, which is derived from the systems of care paradigm, advocates for the active involvement of parents in service provision, allowing them a substantial and influential position. In this method, therapy goals, objectives, and techniques are ultimately determined by the parent, who choose the best solutions for their family and kid. According to the premise, parents have greater understanding of the best course of action for their family members, including their child. As a result, service providers should collaborate with parents to define intervention objectives and techniques while also adapting their therapies to the individual needs of the children under their supervision. In conclusion, it is the parents’ obligation to determine priorities and service objectives.

This strategy’s widespread application recognizes parents as collaborators in the development of treatment programs for specific situations, as well as active and equitable contributors to program operations and policy formation. In this model, parents have a role that goes beyond just participating in the execution of treatment plans. Rather, they are proactive actors who contribute to the development of tailored treatment solutions, program development, and policy advocacy for the needs of parents, families, and communities. This viewpoint on parental involvement assumes and encourages parental involvement at multiple levels of service delivery. This strategy is based on the assumption that a smaller number of parents who have freely decided to be involved and have a high level of empowerment and vocalization will shift from actively resolving their child’s concerns to offering support and education to other parents. They will eventually be able to participate as equal participants in governance bodies. Family-driven care is a collaborative method in which parents participate in the development and execution of services for particular circumstances. It also functions as a macro-level intervention aimed at prioritizing the family viewpoint in the creation of policy and practice standards.

Adoption of family-centered care is a complicated project that is now underway, with many regions attempting to establish efficient frameworks that can be implemented across numerous delivery systems. Empowering families requires a broad array of measures that entail the coordination of resources and political strategies, both at the individual case level and in the framework of policy formulation. However, the ultimate outcomes of these efforts are unknown. Parental involvement in services and service planning within Systems of Care communities has been shown to evoke overwhelmingly positive feelings. However, there is still some uncertainty about the impact of parental involvement on child outcomes. Furthermore, it is unclear which precise processes of parental involvement, if any, are important for promoting beneficial outcomes. When addressing the participation of families in System of Care evaluations, Jivangee and Robinson (2007) stated that…

Local governments have largely accepted responsibility for developing implementation strategies based on broad parameters given in federal policy. As a result, there is a gap in the existing body of knowledge relevant to the actual application of innovations, taking into account the many restrictions, possibilities, and resources unique to local community contexts. The effectiveness of this strategy in improving child and family outcomes is still being researched.

Other models of parental involvement

The range of tasks associated with parental involvement is significantly less intricate when compared to the endeavors included in family-driven care. However, the primary focus lies in engaging parents to support the aims of the intervention model, perhaps boosting the success of the intervention itself. Consequently, the prevailing patterns of interaction often encompass parents assuming roles as care users, facilitators of service activities, or advocates and administrators of services. The positions listed display diversity across different settings, which can be attributable to the specific requirements or goals of the service system in question.

Parents as recipients of services

Every sector dedicated to supporting children wants parents to engage to some level by either directly or indirectly obtaining aid. Parent engagement has been widely embraced as a core principle in the mental health service sector, notably within the Child and Adolescent Service System Program started by the National Institute of Health in 1984. In general, research in this sector has largely focussed on the engagement of parents in therapeutic procedures. Empirical studies indicate that the active involvement of parents and families in these programs is vital, if not indispensable, for fostering beneficial results in children undergoing therapy. Certain intervention models, such as multisystemic treatment (MST), offer a more particular and concentrated approach in integrating parents into their intervention efforts compared to other models. Furthermore, there has been a rising emphasis on identifying and addressing actual, contextual, and agency-related impediments or parental attitudes that may impede or undermine parents’ engagement in therapy treatments. Challenges related to involving families in the mental health system, as well as other service sectors, encompass financial constraints for transportation and child care, the burden placed on families when caring for a youth with emotional disturbances, challenges in effectively communicating with the system, and difficulties in accessing suitable care. In general, the present body of empirical research on parental engagement in mental health is confined in terms of its range and comprehensiveness. Additionally, there is a scarcity of reliable and validated measures especially developed to assess parental involvement in mental health care for children.

Parents as service extenders

Parents may be required to complete numerous chores in order to enhance or increase the services that are being directly provided for their child. In the context of mental health treatments, it is typical for parents to be assigned the role of aiding their kid in adopting newly gained therapeutic skills within the home environment. This may comprise the application of exposure and response prevention approaches to decrease anxiety, or the involvement in discrete trial training activities intended for children with autism. Efforts within the school system have been largely concentrated on boosting parental engagement in activities such as reading and assisting with homework. Furthermore, within the sphere of education, federal legislation mandates that state entities concerned must involve parents as active contributors in the preparation of educational plans for their children. Additionally, these agencies are expected to furnish parents with an annual report that describes their child’s academic achievement. However, this work is often tough due to the presence of linguistic hurdles. On the other side, parents experience several hindrances in their efforts to actively participate in their children’s education, such as restricted chances for involvement, a lack of respect, and inadequate communication from schools.

In the subject of education, there have been initiatives to build collaborative forms of involvement, with a particular emphasis on parent-teacher conferences. Walker et al. (2005) have suggested a hierarchical framework that delineates the numerous aspects impacting parental involvement in their child’s educational services and activities. These aspects include parental motivational ideas, parental perceptions of invitations to engage, and contextual elements connected to one’s life situations. Notably, each of these elements individually adds to the level of parental participation. This model additionally elucidates various mechanisms that explain parental participation, such as parental modeling, reinforcement, and instruction, along with several relevant metrics.

The role of parents as advocates or service managers

In rare situations, service sectors may promote or envisage the involvement of parents in a more comprehensive capacity as advocates, involving advocacy for their own child as well as for a wider demography of children. The Parent Empowerment Program is an exemplary case that offers a structured training and consultation approach targeted at empowering family peer advocates who engage with families involved in child welfare services. The aims incorporate boosting caregiver comprehension of available resources, augmenting self-perceived competence in using these services, and promoting the development of collaborative aptitudes.

The literature on the effects of various forms of parental participation offers a varied range of conclusions about their efficacy. In a study conducted by Mattingly et al. (2002), a comprehensive analysis of 41 studies relevant to parental involvement in educational contexts was undertaken. The researchers came at the conclusion that there exists limited empirical evidence to justify the notion that parental participation leads to increased academic achievement among adolescents. This result was formed based on the identification of several problems in the design, methodology, and analysis of the aforementioned investigations. The amalgamation of results from 67 experimental evaluations of parental involvement interventions with a broader scope reveals that these programs do not uniformly or consistently impact all outcomes, such as health and nutrition, education, school performance, mental health, and reproductive health. In a similar vein, an evaluation of the family participation initiatives performed in the framework of Multisystemic Therapy (MST) found heightened caregiver emotions of empowerment in connection to the services offered, as well as enhanced familial interactions. However, no significant association was detected between these efforts and improved behavioral outcomes in the young population. After performing an evaluation of the Vanderbilt Caregiver Empowerment initiative, it was discovered that parents displayed continuous growth in knowledge. However, the experiment did not indicate any impact on caregiver involvement with treatment, consumption of services, or the mental health state of the kid within a one-year timeframe. In the context of our debate, it is necessary to realize that a standardized and thoroughly documented strategy to parental participation, which has consistently showed favorable benefits, has not yet been established. The challenge of incorporating parental engagement into the juvenile justice system is significantly more difficult than a simply transfer of an existing technology.

The Role of Parental Involvement in the Juvenile Justice System

The degree of family engagement

Certain judicial endeavors lay great emphasis on the need of parental involvement as a fundamental priority. One evidence of this is the adoption of the balanced and restorative justice approach by various juvenile systems, which emphasizes the relevance of parental involvement as a vital factor in intervention initiatives. The present method strives to address the repercussions of juvenile offenses by the active engagement of the entire community in the process of rehabilitating offenders and ensuring that minors are held responsible for their actions. Restorative justice approaches support the promotion of parental involvement through aspirational themes, typically adopting family group conferences as a mechanism to facilitate such engagement. These meetings facilitate dialogue among the primary stakeholders of a specific crime, namely the victim, the perpetrator, and their respective social circles, enabling them to engage in discussions pertaining to the crime and collectively determine the appropriate measures for holding the offender responsible. Furthermore, the Missouri Model, which has received great notoriety, strives to deliberately incorporate parents and family members right from the commencement of a juvenile’s placement in custody. This strategy also tries to incorporate parents in the process of preparation for the juvenile’s release, which encompasses factors such as re-enrollment in educational institutions, identification of extracurricular activities, and setting of curfews and regulations. Parents are explicitly invited to actively participate, invest their time and effort, and embrace responsibility as collaborative participants in the process. Lastly, there are further improvements at the state level dealing to juvenile justice.

Overall, however, initiatives to strengthen parental engagement in the field of juvenile justice continue to be inconsistent and confined to specific circumstances. The current level of creative programming targeted at incorporating parents in the juvenile justice process appears to be insufficient in relation to the potential relevance of this initiative in decreasing recidivism. Moreover, it is worth emphasizing that although various individuals and organizations urge for the value of parental participation, these ideas typically lack specifics. They largely consist of generic observations about what measures “should” be taken, without providing precise practical recommendations on how to properly implement them. Nevertheless, a recent observation regarding juvenile justice on a national scale reveals a lack of comprehensive implementation of effective techniques and services that are supported by research and that prioritize the role of families at both the individual kid and broader policy and planning levels.

The characteristics of the juvenile justice system

The particular qualities of the objectives and tasks of juvenile justice pose considerable obstacles in building effective methods for parental engagement. When analyzing the notion of parental involvement within the juvenile justice system, it is necessary to note two fundamental qualities that differentiate it from educational or mental health services. There are two key characteristics that distinguish juvenile justice: problem definition and the framework of decision-making.

Problem definition

The major purpose of the juvenile justice system is to address instances of legal transgressions, rather than focusing on diagnostic assessments of individuals. Juvenile delinquency proceedings entail the court’s involvement with teenagers and their families owing to a specific act committed by the youngster. The court strives to address this particular incident while keeping to norms such as due process and proportionality of punishment. The court’s major purpose is to treat a breach of the law in a manner that encourages accountability within the child and family, demonstrates equality, and mitigates the likelihood of future violations.

The orientation of those participating in the criminal justice system, such as probation officials and judges, plays a crucial effect in molding their view of family participation. The juvenile justice system does not prioritize the provision of services for a recognized long-term disorder or the promotion of healthy development across multiple facets of an adolescent’s life. The occurrence that leads to an adolescent’s involvement in the juvenile justice system is commonly perceived as a chance to provide assistance to the teenager in rectifying a mistake made in their life, rather than as an occasion to detect and address a specific psychological issue, such as a diagnosable mental disease. In the instance of minors demonstrating more serious or chronic patterns of delinquency, the juvenile justice system would demonstrate a greater commitment to partnering with families in order to prevent the creation of a lengthy trajectory of criminal behavior. In the majority of cases submitted before the court, it is often regarded positive if the professionals involved in the legal system do not have further contact with the adolescent or their family. The involvement of extended family members holds significance in a limited number of instances that are presented before the court. However, in the majority of cases, a method that encourages parental engagement in enhanced monitoring or collaboration with other service providers, employing approaches akin to motivational interviewing, is deemed a reasonable objective. Due to budget limits, it is not viable for the court to seek alternative techniques, and a larger involvement of the court in family issues is neither central nor desired.

Structure of decision making

The juvenile justice system functions according to a set of legally mandated decision points, from arrest to disposition, and each of them is marked by an official hearing, frequently before a judge. Juvenile justice system professionals provide reports for these hearings that include assessments of the family’s involvement and potential as a resource for helping the adolescent’s positive development. Developing a genuinely collaborative paradigm for family involvement within this environment is a problem, since family members can well be reluctant to have the regularities of their family life and relationship with their teenager open for scrutiny in court hearings. In addition, there is minimal possibility for bargaining with a court at a hearing, and typically little regard for the family’s perspective if it disagrees with the probation officer’s assessment. When a court reaches a ruling, this is rarely, if ever, the result of a process that substantially weights the family’s framing of the concerns. Implementing an empowering process of family involvement in a system that is organized to vest ultimate power with a judge who gets summary reports is a difficult task.

Juvenile justice workers also must react to the shifting nature of parental participation as youngsters go through the judicial system. Six steps of delinquency case processing are usually recognized: arrest/charging, juvenile court intake, formal processing, adjudication, disposition and aftercare. At each stage, the range of alternatives and chances for parental involvement may be circumscribed, according to statutory mandates and/or the nature of the activities and level of governmental intervention at that phase. There are, however, some features of the relationship between parents and system professionals that are presumably constantly significant at all stage of processing, although to various degrees at different periods. For example, at the initial interaction, police officers claim they are more inclined to use diversion options when parents are involved in a positive manner. Thus, parents who are just present and interested are likely to have an impact at this level of system processing. In contrast, parental engagement during the choice to place a child at disposition or monitoring during aftercare involves a broader variety of issues, such as access to information about family events, treatment attendance, and involvement in planning meetings. Parental involvement at these later phases of court involvement needs a great lot of time, energy and awareness of juvenile justice system procedures and expectations. The essential issue here is that parental engagement is not a standard notion across all sorts of juvenile justice system procedures. The expectations of both systems professionals and parents will alter with the adolescent’s amount of involvement in the juvenile justice system and the complexity of the difficulties being faced.

The incorporation of family involvement into the practice of juvenile justice entails addressing the special peculiarities of the juvenile justice system. The components of family participation that must be incorporated and evaluated within the context of juvenile justice may or may not correspond with those that are required for integrating family involvement into other service systems. According to Jacobs, Miranda-Julian, and Kaplan (2011), the primary stage in developing a new approach to parental involvement in juvenile justice is to rethink the conceptualization, operationalization, and depiction of parental participation or involvement in existing research. We believe that it is necessary to assess the alignment between models of parental participation and the operational norms of the juvenile justice system, and to subsequently construct and evaluate future efforts in a manner that reflects this consideration.

A Proposed Framework for Family Engagement in the Juvenile Justice System

The basic features of a parental engagement method in the setting of juvenile justice

As previously stated, the challenges encountered over several decades in formulating strategies to enhance or enhance parental involvement in the provision of juvenile court services primarily stem from a dearth of conceptualization and consensus regarding the pertinent elements and definitions of parental involvement within the framework of the juvenile justice system. As previously indicated, there is a lack of clear information from other service sectors identifying the critical components or processes that contribute to successful parental engagement. Based on our investigation thus far, we have arrived at various conclusions regarding key features of a parental engagement model that boost its potential usefulness within the framework of juvenile justice.

In the context of juvenile justice, it is probable that longer-term and extensive attempts geared at parental participation would provide the highest probability of success, particularly when oriented towards individuals who display persistent patterns of serious offending. The juvenile justice system interprets these cases from diverse angles, highlighting the significance of adopting a broader and more thorough approach that promotes parental engagement. Within the educational and mental health domains, the challenges that prompt parental engagement, such as disruptions in education or behavior, as well as identifiable mental health issues, typically serve as indicators of enduring concerns that these systems will need to address over an extended duration for both the adolescent and their family. In the context of juvenile justice, there exists a scenario wherein the concept of heightened and prolonged parental engagement is required. This scenario pertains to teenagers who display chronic or serious patterns of offending, hence raising the possibility of recurring participation in the criminal system. In such circumstances, these persons may require institutional and re-entry programs, wherein family participation often assumes a prominent role. It would certainly be useful to concentrate initial parental participation efforts on cases where the juvenile justice system predicts a more permanent engagement. As previously indicated, the installation of an intervention focused at encouraging parents to utilize community-based services during their early contact with the juvenile justice system could prove to be a significant resource. However, it is crucial to emphasize that this method may not correspond with the broader concept of parental participation as defined in other service areas.

Furthermore, the early implementation of a model that emphasizes empowerment and integrated decision making with the juvenile court is expected to create obstacles. As previously noted, the juvenile justice system is primarily focused on applying structured decision-making processes to handle individual acts or decision points, while investing minimal resources towards long-term interaction with families. Furthermore, the structured and sequential decision-making process in the juvenile justice system is inadequately constructed to accommodate the level of clinical complexity commonly contained in most parental empowerment models. One potential method linked with the dominant court culture is to incorporate parental involvement into court practice by promoting successful collaboration between parents and probation agencies, as well as other service providers. This could involve involving parents as service extenders or case managers, as previously noted, and methodically recording their contributions for court evaluation.

Furthermore, it is necessary to incorporate tactics in the design of family involvement in the juvenile justice system that successfully handle the emotional relationships between court officials and parents, as well as the parents’ previous engagement with programs. The role of respect and communication in the relationships between service providers and parents is highlighted in both focus group findings and existing models of parental involvement in various fields. The relevance of the relationship between the provider and parent is a key component within the juvenile system, as it is usual to attribute responsibility for an adolescent’s activities to the parent. Moreover, the formal nature of court proceedings can potentially lead to distrust regarding the underlying motives. Furthermore, it is vital for models of parental involvement in the juvenile justice system to consider a parent’s previous contacts with care providers and their sense that their adolescent’s troubles may become insurmountable by the time court intervention becomes necessary. The prevalence of preexisting perceptions regarding the significance of services seems to be an important variable in relation to parental investment and involvement.

The need for implementing measures

As previously noted, it is vital to have a comprehensive knowledge of the different dimensions of parental engagement within the setting of the juvenile justice system. This initial phase is necessary in order to efficiently implement these activities in a methodical and orderly manner. In addition to program operations, it is necessary to concurrently engage in the formulation and implementation of strategies relevant to the various kinds and degrees of parental engagement. It is necessary to build trustworthy measuring tools that precisely capture the multiple features of these interventions in order to successfully communicate and evaluate their impacts.

Regrettably, the measurement of parental participation remains limited due to the scarcity of well-defined indicators. Based on the preceding conversation, it is evident that any approach to assessing the extent of family engagement in the juvenile justice system should strive to capture, at the very least, the degree of parental participation in court-mandated endeavors, parental inclinations towards offering support, and the emotional nature of the parent’s relationship with court personnel or service providers. Assessing the longitudinal changes in various features of parental participation may give substantial insights into the potential correlations between such increases and corresponding consequences.

There exist instances wherein attempts have been made to establish metrics for assessing parental engagement in child welfare services, which exhibit certain notable similarities to involvement in the juvenile justice context (e.g., absence of voluntary participation, potential conflicts of interest between parent and service provider, potential placement of child outside of home). These recommendations can be considered as reference points for the prospective development of measures within the field of juvenile justice. Two significant occurrences may be found in the works of Yatchmenoff (2005) and Alpert & Britner (2007). These studies offer assessments of parental opinions on their encounters with caseworkers and the efficacy of the services offered by those caseworkers. The present study reveals that the multidimensional model proposed by Yatchmenoff (2005), which was validated using confirmatory factor analysis, is better suitable for the current research aims compared to the unidimensional approach adopted by Alpert and Britner (2007).

The study conducted by Marcenko, Hook, Romich, and Lee (2012) utilized the Yatchmenoff (2005) measure to investigate the various sources of income among families inside the child welfare system in the state of Washington. The engagement levels of parents who independently contacted child welfare, without an official referral, were shown to be substantially greater. This finding gives some evidence for the validity of the measure used. To our surprise, it was revealed that parents who disclosed substance use displayed greater levels of engagement. According to Marcenko et al. (2012), the authors hypothesized that individuals who are open about their substance use may indicate a higher likelihood of being open to receiving assistance, or that the child welfare system is perceived as being supportive of individuals seeking help for substance use issues. The Yatchmenoff (2005) measure has not been widely explored in the current body of child welfare research, despite its usage at the state level inside the child welfare system in Washington (Marcenko et al., 2009).

The objective of presenting this concept is not to promote its direct acceptance into the juvenile justice system. This statement presents a basic framework and example of the different variables that could be taken into account when constructing a measure to assess parental engagement within the context of juvenile justice settings. The model studies factors associated with parental engagement in child-related services, while also including the concept of parents actively opting out of services, a phenomena frequently observed in the context of juvenile justice.

The concept delineates five dimensions that jointly form the idea of parental participation. Firstly, it is vital to assess the level of receptivity demonstrated by the parent. This statement displays the willingness of the parents to accept aid, while also acknowledging the underlying concerns that triggered the first participation of the organization. Furthermore, the idea of anticipation applies to the parents’ image of the advantages associated with service involvement, covering the sensation of being supported and the conviction that engaging in such activities will generate beneficial effects. Thirdly, the concept of investment related to the level of dedication demonstrated in the aiding process, whereby people who actively engage in planning and take the initiative to seek assistance or access resources demonstrate a larger degree of involvement. Furthermore, a crucial issue to assess is the working relationship between the parent and the service provider. This requires an investigation of the reciprocity and quality of communication within the partnership. Mistrust is a crucial component that pertains to the level to which a parent regards the agency or worker as being manipulative and hostile towards the family. Each of these categories indicates a trait of the client-provider link that will enhance the overall quality and potential productivity of that relationship.

The elements of the model indicate face validity in the context of juvenile justice engagement, while not containing all potentially significant features that may be added into a juvenile justice-specific model. Consistent with the aforementioned findings from the focus group, this study integrates the characteristics of receptivity, anticipation, and investment of parents, which are influenced by their earlier experiences. These elements play a vital role in defining the level of early participation in activities and have the potential to alter over time. The assessment of the working relationship’s characteristics and the amount of mistrust highlights the necessity of analyzing the capacity of the provider and the parent to develop a mutually advantageous and secure connection over an extended term. This constitutes a primary impediment acknowledged by service providers in the fields of child welfare and juvenile justice services.

Nevertheless, certain components of this framework are incompatible with the concepts of juvenile justice or are insufficient in thoroughly addressing the complexity connected with parental engagement within this system. For example, interaction with child protective services typically emerges owing to concerns around possibly abusive or neglectful parental conduct. The role of parents in the triggering event within the setting of juvenile justice demonstrates a greater degree of unpredictability and ambiguity. Furthermore, the content of the model is built based on the concept of parents having a relatively passive role as users of services provided by the system. In the context of juvenile justice, parental investment frequently refers to parents taking on more extensive and proactive responsibilities beyond their involvement with the system for a specific period of time (Luckenbill & Yeager, 2009; Olin et al., 2010; Osher & Shufelt, 2006). The main message from this study is that it is possible to identify and quantify the many elements that influence parental participation with court-based service systems in the context of juvenile justice.

The system context

It is critical to acknowledge and examine many contextual factors that influence parental conduct and attitudes in order to construct a comprehensive and meaningful model of parental involvement in the juvenile justice system. Despite their investment, acceptance, expectations, and trust, parents may face a variety of obstacles that prevent them from fully engaging, such as low money, time limits, competing obligations, medical concerns, and a variety of other factors (Justice for Families, 2012). Parental participation is likely to be influenced by system factors such as staff flexibility and availability, as well as the agency’s aspirational goals and policies. These system qualities, like individual resources and barriers, have the capacity to work autonomously and inhibit the involvement of parents who might otherwise be actively engaged. They may also have the ability to influence engagement levels, either favorably or negatively. When service providers, for example, demonstrate a lack of respect or a reluctance to actively promote meaningful inclusion, parents may experience an increase in mistrust, a decrease in their personal investment, or a deterioration in their willingness to be receptive.

These aforementioned aspects must be considered in any comprehensive model of parental engagement. These elements may operate as moderators on the impact of parental participation, or parental involvement may act as a mediator in altering the outcomes of these organizational factors. The aforementioned broader contextual elements define the parameters within which one might predict results in a particular juvenile justice system or community. As previously indicated, depending on the stage of juvenile justice proceedings under inquiry, the impact of parental participation dimensions and contextual factors may differ. A complete framework that takes these contextual aspects into consideration appears to include the core possible components of parental involvement that may be at work in diverse scenarios involving parental participation in juvenile justice systems.

In systematic study, the use of a model that incorporates historical, procedural, and contextual factors can serve as a beneficial foundation for improving our understanding of parental engagement in the arena of juvenile justice. Preliminary research would be required to build tools that assess the many dimensions of parental participation, which may be accomplished through detailed interviews with parents and specialists in the field. Additional ways to assessing social contextual variables could be used. Examining court records is one potential path for researching the elements that may influence parental involvement in the service funding system. These records may provide significant insights about the system’s many features and qualities that may influence parental engagement. In a following phase of research, it would be beneficial to study the interconnection of these factors and then collect empirical information on the instrument’s dependability and evolution over time in the context of involvement with court services. Following that, a third step of research might be conducted to establish a link between the aforementioned temporal fluctuations in parental participation and the repercussions for both the teenager and their parents.

Potential Benefits for Parental Involvement in Juvenile Justice

A thorough assessment of the concept of parental involvement in juvenile justice systems, combined with an empirical investigation of its repercussions, would yield significant benefits. For starters, this would allow for an assessment of the amount to which parental involvement genuinely influences the results of adolescents engaging in the system. The study has the potential to provide useful insights on the influence of parental involvement on various outcomes, the importance of different types of involvement, and the precise circumstances under which higher parental involvement benefits certain individuals. This line of investigation has the potential to provide program administrators with useful information into areas of focus and effective techniques that are currently lacking.

To achieve these goals, it is critical to construct a measure of parental participation that is both trustworthy and legitimate, as well as practical and adaptable. The development of a measurement device is the first step in acquiring scientifically reliable information. Nonetheless, it is possible that this will have a domino effect. It is quite likely that family-focused service providers and organizations will include this metric as part of their quality assurance strategy. Providers who believe they have effectively identified and implemented effective models of positive parental engagement may use a metric to track their progress in increasing parental involvement and adhering to established norms. Regional planners and policymakers would be able to evaluate the performance of programs and agencies in effectively and constructively involving parents in service delivery.

The development of a measure based on empirical evidence has the potential to generate various good consequences for practical usage. In the absence of a well-defined multidimensional metric, parental involvement is evaluated by subjective appraisals or the quantification of parental attendance at meetings. Because of its retrospective and one-dimensional nature, the existing approach of evaluation is inherently limited. Although identifying individuals who were present or absent during meetings is possible, it does not provide significant insight into the complexities of parental engagement. The reasons for a parent’s participation or non-attendance at a session, meeting, or activity remain unknown to providers, as do potential measures for increasing parental involvement.

An expanded assessment of parental involvement that incorporates several dimensions would go beyond the current approach’s limitations, providing a comprehensive understanding of the challenges perceived by both families and service providers, as well as potential strategies to overcome barriers to parental involvement. This measure might potentially be used during the first assessment phase, allowing service providers to acquire an early awareness of a certain family’s strengths and areas in need of attention in connection to their involvement in the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, it may be used to analyze the extent to which these issues have been addressed throughout following stages of service engagement. As a result, the development of a reliable and complete metric for assessing parental participation may provide insight on how to successfully address difficulties within a specific family unit while also assuring accountability for these endeavors. This study has the ability to provide a consistent depiction of effective and ineffective techniques used by individual families, as well as identify the most beneficial approaches that tend to deliver positive results in the majority of observed households.

The use of a measure may also affect the dynamics of interactions between service providers and parents. Implementing a measure, along with its underlying model, would create a framework favorable to encouraging enhanced and transparent communication between parents and a service provider from the beginning of their joint engagement. The lack of a universally agreed-upon definition or conceptualization of parental engagement makes it difficult to engage in a collaborative discourse with parents in order to increase their level of involvement. Because there is no standardized tool or accepted terminology for measuring parental participation, both parents and support providers must negotiate this terrain on their own. Miscommunication, misunderstandings, and feelings of fault and resistance abound in this environment. On the other hand, the use of a complete framework and an evaluation tool might provide all stakeholders with a set of unambiguous and mutually agreed-upon benchmarks and objectives, as well as the ability to assess the existence of these benchmarks and the attainment of the objectives.

Summary of the Chapter

In summary, the importance of parental involvement in the setting of juvenile justice is well acknowledged. Nonetheless, in the absence of additional research aimed at developing a comprehensive and well-founded framework for defining and quantifying parental participation, we are unable to adequately investigate the potential significance and mechanisms through which parental involvement may impact the well-being of young people, families, and service providers. Delaying the completion of this project may have ramifications for the implementation of juvenile justice practices. The current trend toward more family engagement in juvenile justice services is clear; nevertheless, this trajectory may alter in the absence of deliberate efforts to improve implementation quality. The adaptation of approaches from other domains to successfully handle the unique aspects associated with service engagement in the setting of juvenile justice can result in the establishment of critical scientific and research infrastructure. A rough plan for coordinating these activities has been provided. Participating in this attempt is preferable than being unaware of measures to increase parental participation while appreciating its importance to both parents and service providers. It would be a shame to pass up this opportunity to do research that has the potential to dramatically improve practical applications of a fundamental matter.

References

Burke, J. D., Mulvey, E. P., Schubert, C. A., & Garbin, S. R. (2019). The challenge and opportunity of parental involvement in juvenile justice services. Children and youth services review, 39, 39-47.

Dowell KA, Ogles BM. The effects of parent participation on child psychotherapy outcome: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2010;39:151–162.

Ferreira Kathleen. Actualizing Empowerment: Developing a Framework for Partnering with Families in System Level Service Planning and Delivery. Graduate School Theses and Dissertations. 2011 http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3103.

Garland AF, Haine-Schlagel R, Accurso EC, Baker-Ericzen MJ, Brookman-Frazee L. Exploring the effect of therapists’ treatment practices on client attendance in community-based care for children. Psychological Services. 2012;9:74–88.

Greenwood P. Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. Future of Children. 2008;18:185–198.

Harvell S, Rodas B, Hendey L. Background Briefing Report. Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Public Policy Institute; 2004. Parental involvement in juvenile justice: Prospects and possibilities.

Hawley KM, Weisz JR. Youth versus parent working alliance in usual clinical care: Distinctive associations with retention, satisfaction, and treatment outcome. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2005;34:117–128.

Hoagwood KE. Family-based services in children’s mental health: a research review and synthesis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2005;46:690–713.

Hook JE, Lee JS, Marcenko MO, Romich JL. Economically disconnected families involved with child welfare services in Washington state. 2011 Jun; Retrieved from http://partnersforourchildren.org/pocweb/userfiles/EconDisc%20Discussion%20Paper_6.17.11.pdf.

Hoover-Dempsey KV, Sandler H. Final Performance Report for OERI Grant # R305T010673: The Social Context of Parental Involvement: A Path to Enhanced Achievement; Presented to Project Monitor, Institute of Education Services, U.S Department of Education; March 22 2005.2005.

Jacobs FH, Miranda-Julian C, Kaplan R. Parents, families, and the juvenile justice system. In: Sherman FT, Jacobs FH, editors. Juvenile Justice: Advancing Research, Policy and Practice. Hoboken, N. J: Wiley; 2011. pp. 199–222.

Aazami, A., Valek, R., Ponce, A. N., & Zare, H. (2023). Risk and Protective Factors and Interventions for Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review. Social        Sciences, 12(9), 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12090474

Akeredo, A., Moreira, D., Figueiredo, P., & Barbosa, F. (2019). Delinquent behavior: Systematic             review of genetic and environmental risk factors. Clinical child and family psychology     review, 22, 502-526.

Akhmatkhonovna, G. K., & Jamshid, T. (2021). PEDAGOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL     FACTORS OF SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR OF MINORS. Galaxy International    Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 9(12), 1053-1058.

Alkatiri, M. A., Maemonah, M., & Simbala, N. (2021). The Impact of Value and Spiritual            Approaches in the Change of Juvenile Delinquency. Kawanua International Journal of Multicultural Studies, 2(1), 31-37.

Bai, J. (2022). ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH ON MENTAL DISORDER FACTORS IN           JUVENILE DELINQUENCY. Psychiatria Danubina, 34(suppl 1), 280-281.

 Baráth, N. E. (2023). Trends in Juvenile Delinquency from a Criminal Psychology and                Criminology Perspective. Magyar Rendeszet, 23(1), 125-139.       https://doi.org/10.32577/mr.2023.1.8

Blackshaw, E. (2021). Young Person’s Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (YP-CORE)       Scale: Psychometric Properties and Utility (Doctoral dissertation, University of    Roehampton).

Barra, S., Aebi, M., Delfine d’Huart, Schmeck, K., Schmid, M., & Boonmann, C. (2022).             Adverse Childhood Experiences, Personality, and Crime: Distinct Associations among a     High-Risk Sample of Institutionalized Youth. International Journal of Environmental       Research and Public Health, 19(3), 1227. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031227

Belenko, S., Dennis, M., Hiller, M., Mackin, J., Cain, C., Weiland, D., Estrada, B., & Kagan, R. (2022). The Impact of Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts on Substance Use, Mental Health,        and Recidivism: Results from a Multisite Experimental Evaluation. The Journal of    Behavioral Health Services & Research, 49(4), 436-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-       022-09805-4

Boccio, C. M., & Beaver, K. M. (2019). The influence of family structure on delinquent   behavior. Youth violence and juvenile justice, 17(1), 88-106

Boekhorst, M. G., Hulsbosch, L. P., Nyklíček, I., Spek, V., Kastelein, A., Bögels, S., … &            Potharst, E. S. (2021). An online mindful parenting training for mothers raising toddlers:          Assessment of acceptability, effectiveness, and personal goals. Mindfulness, 12, 519-531.

Boekhorst, M. G., Potharst, E. S., Beerthuizen, A., Hulsbosch, L. P., Bergink, V., Pop, V. J., &    Nyklíček, I. (2020). Mindfulness during pregnancy and parental stress in mothers raising          toddlers. Mindfulness, 11, 1747-1761.

Bone, J. K., Bu, F., Fluharty, M. E., Paul, E., Sonke, J. K., & Fancourt, D. (2022). Arts and          Cultural Engagement, Reportedly Antisocial or Criminalized Behaviors, and Potential        Mediators in Two Longitudinal Cohorts of Adolescents. Journal of Youth and             Adolescence, 51(8), 1463-1482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01591-8.

Bonner, T., DeLisi, M., Jones-Johnson, G., Caudill, J. W., & Trulson, C. (2020). Chaotic homes, adverse childhood experiences, and severe delinquency: Differential effects by race and     ethnicity. Justice Quarterly, 37(4), 697-714.

Bounds, D. T., Winiarski, D. A., Otwell, C. H., Tobin, V., Glover, A. C., Melendez, A., &            Karnik, N. S. (2020). Considerations for working with youth with socially complex     needs. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 33(4), 209-220.

Boyd, D., Lea III, C., & Quinn, C. (2020). Learning about HIV: Predicting the sources of             knowledge regarding HIV testing among a national sample of Black and           Latinx adolescents and young adults in the United States. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, 31(4), 417-427.

Buchanan, M., Castro, E. D., Mackenzie, K., & Krohn, M. D. (2020). It’s F**ing Chaos:              COVID-19’s Impact on Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice. American Journal of            Criminal Justice: AJCJ, 45(4), 578-600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09549-x

            https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-   journals/examination-juveniles-views-about-socioeconomic/docview/2570258106/se-2.

Cain, C. M. (2023). Comparing the Risk Factors of Youth Detained for Running Away or                        Commercial Sexual Exploitation to More Serious Youth Offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice: AJCJ, 48(4), 1028-1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-023-09735-7

Chakrabarty, A. K. (2021). Reassessment of Underlying Factors of Juvenile Delinquency in the   Purview of COVID-19: A Case Study. Johar, 16(1), 23-36.        https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-       journals/reassessment-underlying-factors-juvenile/docview/2540839632/se-2

Chaudry, A. (2004). Putting children first: How low-wage working mothers manage childcare.     Russell Sage Foundation.

Chiauzzi, E. (2021). Lessons learned in measurement-based care with youth mental health            clients. Practice Innovations, 6(1), 30.

Constantino, M. J., Boswell, J. F., & Coyne, A. E. (2021). Patient, therapist, and relational           factors. Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change, 225-262.

Crawford, A., Petrenko, C., Kable, J., & Olson, H. C. (2022). A family-directed approach for       supporting individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Current developmental   disorders reports, 9(1), 9-18.

Damen, H., Scholte, R. H., Vermulst, A. A., Van Steensel, P., & Veerman, J. W. (2021). Parental             empowerment as a buffer between parental stress and child behavioral problems after       family treatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 124, 105982.

Dariotis, J. K., & Chen, F. R. (2022). Stress coping strategies as mediators: toward a better             understanding of sexual, substance, and delinquent behavior-related risk-taking among     transition-aged youth. Deviant behavior, 43(4), 397-414.

Delcea, C., Fabian, A. M., Radu, C. C., & Dumbravă, D. P. (2019). Juvenile delinquency within the forensic context. Romanian Journal of Legal Medicine, 27(4), 366-372.

Dillard, R., Newman, T. J., & Kim, M. (2019). Promoting youth competence through balanced    and restorative justice: A community-based PYD approach. Journal of Youth               Development, 14(4), 14-35.

Duah, E. (2023). Bullying Victimization and Juvenile Delinquency in Ghanaian Schools: The      Moderating Effect of Social Support. Adolescents, 3(2), 228.      https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents3020017.

 Environmental and Public Health, Journal of. (2023). Retracted: Juvenile Delinquency from the Perspective of Socialization and Social Control. Journal of Environmental and Public             Health, 2023https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9769285

Evers, S. M., & Dirksen, C. D. (2020). Towards standardization of economic evaluation research             in the youth psychosocial care sector: A broad consultation in the Netherlands. Global &      regional health technology assessment, 7, 117.

Gay, K., & Sundaravadivelu, D. (2021). PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of parent-engagement programs to reduce truancy and juvenile delinquency: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(3) https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1189

Gevers, S. W., Poelen, E. A., Scholte, R. H., Otten, R., & Koordeman, R. (2021). Individualized behavioral change of externalizing and internalizing problems and predicting factors in           residential youth care. Psychological Services, 18(4), 5 95.

Ghosh, S. (2021). Causes and Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. Galaxy International   Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 9(10), 422-426.

Gibbons, N., Harrison, E., & Stallard, P. (2021). Making sense of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS): An audit of the referral journey and the use of routine     outcome measures (ROMS). Clinical child psychology and psychiatry, 26(3), 760-769.

Githui, P. (2021). Influence of Family Structure on Development of Male Juvenile Delinquency: A Case of Kamiti Youth Correction and Training Center Kiambu County, Kenya. African     Journal of Education, Science and Technology, 6(3), 246-259.

González, E. N. (2020). El rol de la música en la delincuencia juvenil: un estudio exploratorio.     [The role of music in juvenile delinquency; an exploratory study] Boletín           Criminológico, (205), 1-30.             https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/el-rol-   de-la-música-en-delincuencia-juvenil-un/docview/2538426226/se-2

Gupta, M., Mohapatra, S., & Mahanta, P. (2022). Juvenile’s delinquent behavior, risk factors,       and quantitative assessment approach: A systematic review. Indian Journal of   Community Medicine, 47(4), 483-490. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_1061_21

Hirshbein, L. D. (2021). Assessing the conduct of juveniles: diagnosis and delinquency, 1900–            2013. Medical History, 65(4), 347-365. https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2021.27

 Hou, F. (2022). Echoing Mechanism of Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Occupational         Therapy Education Guidance Based on Artificial Intelligence. Occupational Therapy             International, 2022https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9115547

Hukkelberg, S. S., & Ervik-Jeannin, R. (2022). Treatment Foster Care Oregon (TFCO):    Preliminary Results from a Study among Norwegian Youths. Youth, 2(4), 526-537.

Hye-Jung, Y., & Ming, C. (2020). The Effects of Parental Warmth on Adolescent Delinquency    in the United States and South Korea: a Cross-Cultural Perspective. Journal of Youth and           Adolescence, 49(1), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01078-z

Hyde, K. L., Burchard, J. D., & Woodworth, K. (1996). Wrapping services in an urban setting.    Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 67-82.

Jackson, D. B., Jones, M. S., Semenza, D. C., & Testa, A. (2023). Adverse Childhood       Experiences and Adolescent Delinquency: A Theoretically Informed Investigation of           Mediators during Middle Childhood. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 3202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043202.

Jeanis, M. N., Fox, B. H., & Muniz, C. N. (2019). Revitalizing Profiles of Runaways: A Latent    Class Analysis of Delinquent Runaway Youth: C & A. Child & Adolescent Social Work            Journal, 36(2), 171-187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-018-0561-5

Jones, M. S., & Pierce, H. (2021). Early exposure to adverse childhood experiences and youth     delinquent behavior in fragile families. Youth & Society, 53(5), 841-867.

Juliano, N. (2021). Using System of Care Principles to Improve Juvenile Justice Policy and          Practice for Youth and Families (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska at         Omaha).

 Khan, I. A. (2021). Impulsive tendency and juvenile delinquency. IAHRW International Journal             of Social Sciences Review, 9(2), 120-123.                     https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-       journals/impulsive-tendency-juvenile-delinquency/docview/2617722128/se-2

Kazlauskaite, V., & Fife, S. T. (2021). Adolescent experience with parental cancer and     involvement with medical professionals: a heuristic phenomenological inquiry. Journal of     Adolescent Research, 36(4), 371-397.

Kethineni, S., Frazier-Kouassi, S., Shigemoto, Y., Jennings, W., Cardwell, S. M., Piquero, A. R.,             Gay, K., & Sundaravadivelu, D. (2021). PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of parent-  engagement programs to reduce truancy and juvenile delinquency: A systematic        review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(3) https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1189

King, S., Barr, R., & Woolard, J. (2014). Cost Effective Juvenile Justice Reform: Lessons from   the Just Beginning Baby Elmo Teen Parenting Program. NCL Rev., 93, 1381.

Kilkelly, U., Forde, L., Lambert, S., & Swirak, K. (2023). Children in Conflict with the Law:             Rights, Research, and Progressive Youth Justice. Springer Nature. Kethineni, S., Frazier-Kouassi, S., Shigemoto, Y., Jennings, W., Cardwell, S. M., Piquero, A. R.,           

Knoops, M. G., Bongers, I. L., Janssen-de Ruijter, E. A., & Van Nieuwenhuizen, C. (2021). Do   risk profiles moderate the relation between age of onset of disruptive behavior and two types of externalizing problems among adolescents admitted to secure residential care?        Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health, 15(1), 1-11.

Kueh, L., Hung, H., & Tung, Y. (2021). Testing the Model of Juvenile Delinquency’s       Occurrence and Frequency. Bulletin of Educational Research, 67(1), 29-63.             https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-       journals/testing-model-juvenile-delinquency-occurrence/docview/2518784501/se-2

Levrouw, D., Devlieghere, J., Vandevelde, S., & Roose, R. (2020). Developing a positive living climate in residential youth care: a qualitative study. Children and Youth Services      Review, 116, 105221.

Li, J. (2022). RESEARCH ON PSYCHOLOGICAL MOTIVATION FACTORS OF JUVENILE             CRIMINAL LAW UNDER THE BACKGROUND OF THINKING LOGIC         OBSTACLE. Psychiatria Danubina, 34(suppl 2), 618-618.

Lozanovska, I. S., & Tufekci, P. (2021). SOCIAL DISORGANISATION THEORY AND           JUVENILE DELINQUENCY. Towards a Better Future: State and Society, 327.

Loyd, A. B., Hotton, A. L., Walden, A. L., Kendall, A. D., Emerson, E., & Donenberg, G. R.       (2019). Associations of ethnic/racial discrimination with internalizing symptoms and         externalizing behaviors among juvenile justice-involved youth of color. Journal of   Adolescence, 75, 138-150.

Marien, M. (2012). “Cross-over kids”: childhood and adolescent abuse and neglect and juvenile   offending. JUDICIAL REVIEW, 11(1), 97-126.

Mayorga-Sierra, É., Novo, M., Fariña, F., & Seijo, D. (2020). Needs analysis for the personal,     social, and psychological adjustment of adolescents at risk of delinquency and juvenile                       offenders. Anales De Psicología, 36(3), 400-407. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.428631

McCormick, M., Sarfo, B., & Brennan, E. (2021). Promising Practices for Strengthening Families Affected by Parental Incarceration: A Review of the Literature. OPRE Report          2021-25. Administration for Children & Families.

McKay, T., Comfort, M., Grove, L., Bir, A., & Lindquist, C. (2018). Whose punishment, whose crime? Understanding parenting and partnership in a time of mass incarceration. Journal   of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(2), 69-82.

McKay, T., Comfort, M., Lindquist, C., & Bir, A. (2016). If family matters: Supporting family    relationships during incarceration and reentry. Criminology & Pub. Pol’y, 15, 529.

Mikytuck, A. M., & Woolard, J. L. (2019). Family contact in juvenile confinement facilities:       Analysis of the likelihood of and barriers to contact. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,           58(5), 371-397.

Monico, C., Rotabi, K., Vissing, Y., & Lee, J. (2019). Forced child-family separations in the             Southwestern US border under the “zero-tolerance” policy: The adverse impact on well-   being of migrant children (part 2). Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 4, 180-191.

Moak, D. S., & Cate, S. D. (2022). The Political Development of Schools as Cause and Solution to Delinquency. Journal of Policy History: JPH, 34(2), 180-212.             https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030622000057.

Mocanu, L., & Elena-Lidia Niță. (2019). Bullying Predictor Behavior of Juvenile Delinquency. New Trends in Psychology, 1(2)     https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-            journals/bullying-predictor-behavior-juvenile-delinquency/docview/2585933935/se-2

Morales, H., da Agra, C., & Matsuno, M. (2021). Antisocial behavior in juvenile offenders: A      development bioecological approach. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the            Community, 49(4), 354-365.

Munir, A., & Malik, J. A. (2020). Mediating role of religious orientation and moral character for the relationship between parent and peer attachment and delinquency. Cogent             Psychology, 7(1)https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1761042

Mwangangi, R. K. (2019). The role of family in dealing with juvenile delinquency. Open Journal             of Social Sciences, 7(3), 52-63.

Naboth, H. A. N., & Ikpah, G. U. (2020). Influence of Family Structure on the Incidence of          Juvenile Delinquency among Public Senior Secondary Schools Students in Rivers State.     International Journal of Innovative Psychology & Social Development 8 (4), 84-94.

Nelson, R. B., Yusef, K. M., & Cooper, A. (2019). Expanding Minds through Research: Juvenile             Justice and Big Data. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 2(4), 30-36.             https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/2/4/10

Nicolaescu, E. (2021). Dynamics of personality factors involved in juvenile delinquency. Journal             of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology, 12(1), 31-43.         https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-       journals/dynamics-personality-factors-involved-juvenile/docview/2666602448/se-2

Onsando, E., Mwenje, M. K., & Githui, P. (2021). Influence of Family Structure on Development            of Male Juvenile Delinquency: A Case of Kamiti Youth Correction and Training Center Kiambu County, Kenya. African Journal of Education, Science and Technology, 6(3), 246-259.

Paraschiv, G. (2019). THE DANGER OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY SPREADING. Analele Universitati “Constantin Brancusi” Din Targu Jiu.Serie Litere Si Stiinte Sociale, (1), 11-           19. https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-   journals/danger-juvenile-delinquency-spreading/docview/2303748556/se-2

Paraschiv, D. (2019). THE ROLE OF CRIME RESEARCH IN FIGHTING JUVENILE             DELINQUENCY. Analele Universitatii “Constantin Brancusi” Din Targu Jiu.Serie Litere            Si Stiinte Sociale, (1), 97-106.    https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/role-   crime-research-fighting-juvenile-delinquency/docview/2303747295/se-2

Pechorro, P., Brown, M., Scott, M., Verona, E., & DeLisi, M. (2021). Comparing Boys and Girls             in Juvenile Detention in Portugal: Differences in Psychopathic Traits, Criminal         Behaviors, and one-year recidivism. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1-18.

Piscitelli, A. (2019). Spatial Regression of Juvenile Delinquency: Revisiting Shaw and             McKay. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 14(2), 132-147.             https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3712655

Porter, C. M., Galloghly, E., & Burbach, F. R. (2022). The effective delivery of digital CBT: A    service evaluation exploring the outcomes of young people who completed video conferencing therapy in 2020. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 15, e27.

Prguda, E., & Burke, K. (2020). All eyes on me as a parent: Professionals’ and Offenders’ views on parenting challenges and barriers to accessing parenting services. Child abuse & neglect, 99, 104226.

Pronk, S., Germie, V. D. B., Kuiper, C., Popma, A., Geert Jan, S., & Mulder, E. (2022).    Differences between adolescents in secure residential care and non-residential   educational facilities. Journal of Social Work, 22(3), 779-803.

Pronk, S., van den Berg, G., Mulder, E. A., Kuiper, C., Stams, G. J. J. M., & Popma, A. (2023).   The development of adolescents in a non-residential alternative educational facility,     including the prevention of secure residential placement. Children and Youth Services Review, 145, 106809.

Putra, A., Fitria, Y., & Prasetya, B. (2020). Family Education Efforts in Overcoming Juvenile             Delinquency. Al-Ta’Lim Journal, 27(2), 192-207. https://doi.org/10.15548/it.v27i2.595

Puzone, K. I. (2023). JUVENILE COURT EXISTS FOR A REASON: AN ARGUMENT IN       SUPPORT OF RECOGNIZING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR THOSE UNDER        THE AGE OF MAJORITY TO BE TRIED IN JUVENILE COURT. Stanford Journal of           Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, 19(2), 157-188.     https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-   journals/juvenile-court-exists-reason-argument-support/docview/2865884970/se-2

Qin, J., Wang, X., & Chen, C. (2023). Psychometric Properties of the Child Neglect Scale and                 Risk Factors for Child Neglect in Chinese Young Males Who Were                    Incarcerated. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5),           4659. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20054659

R. Agnew and T. Brezina, Juvenile delinquency: Causes and control. Oxford University Press      New York, 2012.

Reckers-Droog, V., Hakkaart-van Roijen, L., & Kaminer, Y. (2022). The Abbreviated Self           Completion Teen-Addiction Severity Index (ASC T-ASI) Features and Applications. In           Handbook of Substance Misuse and Addictions: From Biology to Public Health (pp. 1-        17). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Reid, N., Crawford, A., Petrenko, C., Kable, J., & Olson, H. C. (2022). A family-directed             approach for supporting individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Current          developmental disorders reports, 9(1), 9-18.

Ripley-McNeil, E., & Cramer, K. M. (2021). Parental Involvement and Juvenile    Delinquency. Michigan Academician, 48(1), 103-104.                        https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-       journals/parental-involvement-juvenile-delinquency/docview/2576698943/se-2

Rutten, A. X., Vermeiren, R. R., Bongers, I. L., & Van Nieuwenhuizen, C. (2023). Likelihood of             identifying autistic traits with the autism spectrum quotient (AQ) in male juveniles with   autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and severe behavioral problems (SBPs). BMC     Psychiatry, 23(1), 1-7.

 Saeed, M., Khushhal, A., Ullah, Z., & Zahid, M. (2020). Examination of Juveniles’ Views about the Socioeconomic Factors Causing Juvenile Delinquency in Pakistan: A Case Study of         District Jail Mardan. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 12(3), 98-121.

Saenger, R. C., & Rosen, A. H. (2023). Internet Safety: Family and Clinician Protection of Kids Online. In Teens, Screens, and Social Connection: An Evidence-Based Guide to Key Problems and Solutions (pp. 145-155). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Scott, D., & Goulette, N. (2023). Caregiver Type and Gang Involvement: A Comparison of          Female and Male Gang Members. Social Sciences, 12(8), 432.   https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12080432

 Seema, Manju, & Manjeet. (2022). Role of Peer Pressure and Aggression in Juvenile             Delinquency. International Journal of Education and Management Studies, 12(3), 202-     207. https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-   journals/role-peer-pressure-aggression-juvenile/docview/2724721192/se-2

Sharma, Manoj, MBBS,PhD.M.C.H.E.S®, & Su, X., PhD. (2020). Association Between Alcohol             and Drugs and Juvenile Delinquency: Implications for Alcohol and Drug          Education. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 64(2), 3-7.                https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-       journals/association-between-alcohol-drugs-juvenile/docview/2507258614/se-2

Simons, I., Mulder, E., Breuk, R., Rigter, H., van Domburgh, L., & Vermeiren, R. (2019).             Determinants of parental participation in Family‐centered Care in Juvenile Justice             Institutions. Child & Family Social Work, 24(1), 59-68.

Simons, I., Mulder, E., Breuk, R., Rigter, H., van der Vaart, W., & Vermeiren, R. (2016).                         Family-centered care in juvenile justice institutions: A mixed methods study protocol.      JMIR             research protocols, 5(3), e5938.

Singh, P. S. J., & Azman, A. (2020). Dealing with juvenile delinquency: integrated social work    approach. Asian Social Work Journal, 5(2), 32-43.

Singh, T. S., & Kaur, A. (2021). Legislation on Juvenile Delinquency. Turkish Journal of             Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(12), 4659-4663.                  https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-       journals/legislations-on-juvenile-delinquency/docview/2628345631/se-2

Snehil, G., & Sagar, R. (2020). Juvenile justice system, juvenile mental health, and the role of      MHPs: Challenges and opportunities. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(3),     304-310. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_82_20

Smith, A. (2021). The influence of family dynamics in predicting juvenile delinquency.    Youngstown State University.

Sisca, M., & Alhakim, A. (2022). Analysis Of Juvenile Delinquency Based on Travis Hirschi’s    Social Control Theory in Batam City. LEGAL BRIEF, 11(3), 1696-1704.

Song, F., Li, R., Wang, W., & Zhang, S. (2022). Psychological Characteristics and Health            Behavior for Juvenile Delinquency Groups. Occupational Therapy             International, 2022https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3684691

Stratton, P., & Low, D. C. (2020). Culturally sensitive measures of family therapy. The    Handbook of Systemic Family Therapy, 4, 77-101

Susanu, N. (2019). The Group of Friends as Factor of Socialization and Juvenile   Delinquency. New Trends in Psychology, 1(1)     https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/group-            friends-as-factor-socialization-juvenile/docview/2585934154/se-2

Taussig, H. N., Dmitrieva, J., Garrido, E. F., Cooley, J. L., & Crites, E. (2021). Fostering Healthy Futures Preventive Intervention for Children in Foster Care: Long-term       Delinquency Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial. Prevention Science, 22(8),    1120-1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01235-6

TenEyck, M. F., Knox, K. N., & El Sayed, S. A. (2023). Absent Father Timing and its Impact on             Adolescent and Adult Criminal Behavior. American Journal of Criminal Justice:   AJCJ, 48(1), 193-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09640-x

Walgrave, L. (2023). Juvenile delinquency and rehabilitation. Tijdschrift Voor Criminologie, 65(3)https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/schoarly-journals/juvenile-delinquency-rehabilitation/docview/2854723081/se-2

Walters, G. D., Kremser, J., & Runell, L. (2023). Perceived Parental Competence, Moral Neutralization, and Cognitive Impulsivity in Relation to Future Delinquency:                            Understanding the Socialization Process. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law &        Society, 24(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.54555/ccjls.7115.73896.

Włodarczyk-Madejska, J., & Ostaszewski, P. (2021). Determinants of the Judicial Response to    Juvenile Delinquency. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 16(1), 201-216.             https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4764509.

 Yu-Lefler, H. F., Marsteller, J., & Riley, A. W. (2022). Outcomes Accountability Systems for     Early Childhood Disruptive Behaviors: A Scoping Review of Availability.          Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 49(5),            735-756.

Zettler, H. R., & Craig, J. M. (2023). Residentially-Placed Youth and the Adverse Childhood       Experiences-Recidivism Relationship: Considering Racial/Ethnic and Sex          Differences. American Journal of Criminal Justice: AJCJ, 48(2), 530-544.           https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09667-0.

Zhadan, V. N., Kamalova, G. T., Sadykanova, Z. E., & Karipova, A. Y. (2019). On the Problems             and Directions for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. Journal of Advanced          Research in Law and Economics, 10(1), 401-411.   https://doi.org/10.14505/jarle.v10.1(39).42

Zhang, T. (2022). Juvenile Delinquency from the Perspective of Socialization and Social Control. Journal of Environmental and Public      Health, 2022https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8657491