Community Receptivity to Juvenile Justice Program Planning

• NCJ Number: 81867
• Journal: Evaluation Review Volume: 6 Issue: 1 Dated: (February 1982) Pages: 25-46
• Author(s): L J Severy; P Houlden; G H Wilmoth; S Silver
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 22 pages
• Grant Number(s): STAR-78-1141
• Sponsoring Agency: Florida State University
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Community support for juvenile treatment programs in Florida -- restitution, volunteer counseling, family counseling, victim negotiation, arbitration, and secure facilities -- was assessed by surveying 572 persons representing 10 different influence positions.

Abstract

The Florida Division of Youth Services Programs decided that information on relative community support would be the most pertinent data for deciding what federally funded demonstration programs would be continued by the State. Interviews with juvenile justice system personnel and members of local civic groups along with a sample survey yielded 15 usable program attributes relevant to community acceptance. The final questionnaire was completed by 572 persons in the following groups: Federal and State legislators; city and county commissioners; members of Kiwanis, Chamber of Commerce, and League of Women Voters organizations; State juvenile service providers; juvenile judges; State attorneys; public defenders; law enforcement personnel; providers of alternative juvenile programs not affiliated with the State; and parents of youths treated by State juvenile programs. Data analysis indicated that all community groups preferred nonincarceration programs to incarceration. Attitudes toward restitution were significantly more positive than the average of attitudes toward the other four programs. Judges and commissioners while State attorneys held the least positive attitudes. The relatively low support for counseling programs suggests that they would gain greater acceptance when combined with restitution or negotiation projects. The evaluation concluded that no group would fail to support restitution programs and that State attorneys' attitudes could be improved by altering certain program characteristics. Differences in attitudes among the respondent groups are detailed. Tables, 1 note, and 11 references are included.