In response to the upraise in juvenile delinquency in Orange County, California, Jones and Harris from Temple University conducted research and performed surveys in order to find some solutions and explore intervention programs. Upon seeing the success of the programs developed from this research Fader and Grubstein from the Crime and Justice Research Center, Philadelphia decided to implement the same programs into the juvenile system in Philadelphia. This article reflects the few successes and failures when Philadelphia did not alter the research to reflect the different region with all the variables.
The focus of the research was on the repeat or chronic offenders to form a successful approach for policy making in different areas. Although the study had many conflicting outcomes depending on the variables offered, it has allowed over one hundred (100) different programs for juveniles. These programs incorporate family and outside activities to prevent recidivism. The rehabilitation programs took an individualized approach with the juvenile offenders to intervene the juvenile delinquency before he/she becomes a chronic offender. After studying certain juveniles for a number of years, identifying the chronic offenders was not a difficult task. Some of the categories within the model in their research were gender, age, exposure to delinquent peers, degree of family involvement, school problems, and substance abuse, past offending, race, and gang involvement, size of household, child abuse, and social isolation (Jones 485). The results of using these categories did not provide distinct descriptions of what would predict the chronic juvenile delinquent but allowed for generalized categories based on a group of juveniles. Problems occurred in being able to look at the juveniles once they had gone through the justice system, which ultimately did not focus on intervention. The object then becomes to determine what characteristics or circumstances contributed to these juveniles becoming chronic offenders.
