NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY JUNE 10, 2019. ATTACHED ARE CHAPTERS TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT

05CH_Juvenile_Johnson.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >NO PLAGIARISM DUE MONDAY JUNE 10, 2019. ATTACHED ARE CHAPTERS TO ASSIST WITH ASSIGNMENT

Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

▪ Summarize the extent and nature of contacts between the police and juveniles. ▪ Analyze the legal rights of juveniles during interactions with the police. ▪ Explain how and why juvenile status shapes officer discretion. ▪ Explain how juveniles’ attitudes toward the police are shaped. ▪ Evaluate crime prevention strategies used by police to reduce crime and delinquency, particularly in school settings.

5Juveniles and the Police Kenneth J. Novak, University of Missouri-Kansas City

Tina Fineberg/Associated Press

Chapter Outline 5.1 Introduction

5.2 Contextualizing Police and Juveniles in America

▪ Frequency of Interactions ▪ Characteristics of Interactions ▪ Police Procedures During Interactions

5.3 Legal Rights of Juveniles When Interacting With Police

▪ Searches and Seizures ▪ Interrogations

5.4 Exercise of Discretion

5.5 Juveniles’ Views of the Police

5.6 Police Interventions and Prevention Strategies

▪ Gang-Based Interventions ▪ School Resource Officers ▪ D.A.R.E. ▪ G.R.E.A.T.

The Country Club Plaza is an upscale dining, shopping, and residential district in Kansas City, Missouri. Residents and nonresidents frequent the entertainment area, and foot traffic is par- ticularly heavy on Friday and Saturday evenings. The presence of juveniles on the Plaza grew considerably on summer weekends in 2010 and 2011, and carloads of youngsters streamed into the area seeking entertainment. Because of the Plaza’s reputation for safety, some parents would drop off their children (many as young as 13) and pick them up later. Kids would call, text, or use social media to get friends to join them at the Plaza.

The unintended consequence was the occurrence of “flash mobs” where large groups of teens would converge on the Plaza. As a result, the opportunity for spontaneous violence increased. Violent, apparently random outbursts occurred during the summer months of 2011 as police estimated between 700 and 900 kids suddenly appeared in the relatively small entertainment district. Business owners expressed frustration as these flash mobs deterred adult patrons from visiting the Plaza on weekend evenings. In response, the police increased the level of officer presence, diverting officers from regular assignments within the urban core and/or paying officers overtime to patrol the area on weekend evenings. This response put a strain on department resources, making it challenging to offer the same level of service to other parts of the city.

In August 2011, the mayor of Kansas City (along with other civic leaders) went to the Plaza on a Saturday night to get a sense of the atmosphere, to speak to people about public safety, and to encourage antiviolence. While the mayor was speaking with citizens, gunshots erupted less than 50 yards away. During the incident, which was unrelated to the mayor’s presence, three teenagers were shot. Shortly thereafter, a summertime curfew for youth was implemented on

Section 5.1Introduction

the Plaza and for other entertainment areas within the city. This example is not an isolated one or unique to Kansas City, as similar violent youth flash mob events have been reported in other urban areas (Houston, Seo, Kennedy, & Knight, 2012). For example, in 2017 a flash mob of over 100 teens descended on downtown Philadelphia and a year earlier one had gath- ered on the campus of Temple University. (For more on these incidents, see https://www .washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/10/26/f lash-mob-of-150-teens-attacks -temple-university-students-cops-in-philly and https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/03/06/ philly-police-more-than-100-kids-participated-in-f lash-mob-some-arrested/).

Hypothesized causes of the Plaza flash mobs of 2010 and 2011 are numerous (e.g., lack of safe, accessible alternative hangout spots for youth; kids wanting to express themselves and be seen where other teens are). The use of social media to create these mobs makes it challenging to prevent them, but like most violence in America, the police are typically the first element of the criminal justice system to intervene and often the group that is immediately held accountable for promoting public safety. This is not a new problem facing the police. In fact, Egon Bittner (1967) said that the role of the police is to address “something-that-ought-not-to-be-happen- ing-and-about-which-somebody-had-better-do-something-now,” and often the initial “some- thing” is to increase deterrent presence and/or increase enforcement action. But this also highlights the fact that the police-juvenile relationship is dynamic and historically strained. Juveniles represent a special population with which the police interact, and youth typically harbor less favorable attitudes toward and confidence in the police than their adult counter- parts. Understanding this relationship is critical to identifying crime prevention strategies to curb youth violence in America.

5.1 Introduction Why is it important to understand policing and juveniles? There are several reasons. First, juveniles make up a large proportion of the population with whom the police have contact. From officers’ perspective, the laws and policies that guide their interactions with juveniles are often different from those for adults. Second, police are typically the first (and only) offi- cials juveniles come into contact with in the criminal justice system. Police officers serve as gatekeepers, and so the criminal justice process does not proceed unless formally initiated by officers filing a report, issuing a ticket or summons, or making an arrest. Third, early life interactions with police officers can shape future relationships between kids and the criminal justice system (Brown, Novak & Frank, 2009; Goodrich, Anderson, & LaMotte, 2014). Finally, the roles and priorities of the police are different with juveniles. The police must balance their law enforcement role with the importance of helping children (Bazemore & Senjo, 1997).

For example, officers frequently intervene with youth to protect them from harm (such as in abusive family situations) or to prevent them from engaging in delinquency by placing them into child-related services (such as child protective services) (Withrow & Bolin, 2005). Police don’t have these same roles in their interactions with adults. As Robert Trojanowicz and Bonnie Bucqueroux (1990) noted, the police have greater responsibilities in protecting and enhancing “the lives of those who are most vulnerable—juveniles, the elderly, minori- ties, the poor, the disabled, the homeless” (p. xiv). The result is a variety of police procedures, strategies, and programs specifically focusing on juveniles. These include gang intervention, diversion programs, providing schools with resource officers, and early drug awareness and education, to name a few.

Section 5.2Contextualizing Police and Juveniles in America

Ultimately, when it comes to juveniles, the police need to balance the need for public safety with the need to do what is in the best interest of the child. Juveniles are a “special population” for the police, and often the police don’t know what to do about kids. Interestingly, responding to juvenile delinquency is among the priori- ties that led police departments to hire women officers. Lola Baldwin, the first female police officer, was initially hired to engage with juveniles and women in a social-work capacity. Historian and noted criminologist Samuel Walker (1977) said, “Once the police began to think in terms of preventing juvenile delinquency, they responded to the traditional argument that women had a special capacity for child care” (p. 85).

To help you better understand this rela- tionship, this chapter examines the nature and extent of police-juvenile interactions, highlights legal guardrails within which the police must operate when interact- ing with juveniles, explores officer deci- sion making and discretion, examines juveniles’ attitudes toward the police, and evaluates juvenile-focused strategies to prevent crime and delinquency.

5.2 Contextualizing Police and Juveniles in America How frequently do police and juveniles interact? What circumstances surround the interac- tions? And what actions do officers take during those interactions? We can get an idea of the answers to these questions by examining the Police-Public Contact Survey (PPCS). The survey is no longer administered and the most recent data are from 2008, but the trends reported are interesting. The PPCS was sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and was conducted periodically to better understand the context of police-citizen interactions in the previous year. This survey was repeated approximately every three years, allowing an examination of trends over time. A supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the PPCS utilized a nationally representative sample of residents ages 16 years and older.

When created, the PPCS focused on understanding interactions during traffic stops (which is the most frequent way in which the police encounter citizens), but important information

BlueMoon Stock/SuperStock The police force first considered hiring women officers to address juvenile cases based on the classic assumption that women are better suited than men to take care of children.

Section 5.2Contextualizing Police and Juveniles in America

was provided on other types of contacts between these groups. The survey was not designed to examine police interactions with juveniles under age 16, which represents a limitation given that juveniles below that age also had interactions with the police. Nevertheless, results are still informative because juveniles aged 16–18 are of driving age and are within the age- crime curve, and these interactions help us better understand the nature of police-juvenile interactions.

Frequency of Interactions According to the 2008 survey (Eith & Durose, 2011), approximately 16.9% of all U.S. residents aged 16 or older (approxi- mately 40 million people) reported having had a face-to-face encounter with a police officer in the previous year. Within these contacts, approximately 331,000 interac- tions involved an officer and a juvenile (age 16 or 17) during a traffic stop, and another 182,000 interactions involved juveniles reporting a crime or a problem to the police. Another way to think about this is that in 2008, of all U.S. residents aged 16 or older who had contact with police, 13.2% were aged 16–17—an esti- mate that was down from over 20% in 2002 and 2005. More than 1 in 10 drivers aged 16–19 were pulled over by the police in 2007. Also, of those juveniles who did have contact with the police, 31% had more than one interaction in 2007. Juveniles were more likely to have multiple contacts with the police than all other age groups, other than those aged 18–24, which are historically the high crime-prone years for individuals (Eith & Durose, 2011).

Characteristics of Interactions It is also important to examine what happens during police-juvenile contacts. A more detailed description of dispositions follows later in this chapter, but it appears that police act more informally (meaning warning, advising, or consulting rather than arresting or ticketing) with juveniles than adults. For example, consider the following findings from Eith and Durose (2011):

• Juveniles were half as likely as those aged 20–29 to be arrested (2.1% vs. 4.4%) but just as likely to receive a ticket (56.7% vs. 57.1%).

• Juveniles were slightly more likely to receive a written warning (21.2% vs. 15.5%) but just as likely to be given a verbal warning (9.2% vs. 9.3%).

Doug Menuez/Thinkstock Officers are just as likely to hand out tickets during police-juvenile interactions as they are when they interact with those aged 20–29, but they are half as likely to arrest juveniles as they are to arrest those in the older age group.

Section 5.2Contextualizing Police and Juveniles in America

• During traffic stops, juveniles were slightly less likely to be searched by the police than were those aged 20–29 years (7.0% vs. 9.0%).

• Juveniles were searched far more frequently than were those aged 30–39 (4.5%) or 40–59 (2.5%).

The use of force is another area that receives quite a bit of attention. Despite portrayals of the police in popular culture, officers rarely use or threaten to use force during encounters with the public. However, though still rare, youthful suspects are often at greater risk for being involved with police use of force (Terrill & Reisig, 2003). A study that examined use of force between 2002 and 2011 found that an average of nearly 44 million people had face-to-face contact with the police each year. As seen in Figure 5.1, of those people, 32.9 million were white, followed by 4.6 million black and 4.4 Hispanic (Hyland, Langton, & Davis, 2015). Per- haps more illustrative, however, is the percentage of people who experienced use of force dur- ing the most recent encounter (see Figure 5.2). According to Hyland and colleagues (2015), “blacks (3.5%) experienced force at higher rates than whites (1.4%) and Hispanics (2.1%). Whites were slightly less likely than Hispanics to experience force” (p. 2).

Figure 5.1: Residents who experienced police contact (in millions) by race or Hispanic origin, 2002–2011

This graph depicts the number of residents with contact with the police who also experienced threat or use of force. Rates of contact involving threat or use of force was highest among whites when examining just the number of incidents.

From “Figure 1: Residents with police contact who experienced threat or use of force, by race or Hispanic origin, 2002–2011,” in Police use of nonfatal force, 2002–11, by S. Hyland, L. Langton, and E. Davis, November 2015, Retrieved from https://www.bjs .gov/content/pub/pdf/punf0211.pdf

White 0

Black Hispanic

Section 5.2Contextualizing Police and Juveniles in America

Figure 5.2: Residents with police contact who experienced force, either threatened or used, by race or Hispanic origin, 2002–2011

Of the total number of residents who had contact with police, black residents had proportionately higher experiences of force, either threatened or used, than either white or Hispanic residents.

Police Procedures During Interactions As a result, police organizations often create policies or procedures designed to produce consistency during their interactions with juveniles. In fact, about 90% of all police depart- ments have formal written policies on how officers should interact with juveniles in specific situations (Eith & Durose, 2011). Police organizations are more likely to have formal policies to guide officers’ behavior during encounters with juveniles than with other special popula- tions, including homeless persons, persons with limited English proficiency, or immigrants. For example, police departments commonly have separate policies regarding interrogations involving juvenile suspects or policies on interacting with status offenders (i.e., those arrested for drinking, curfew violations, or running away) where the acts, if committed by an adult, would not be criminal. Police departments enact policies specifically to divert status offend- ers away from criminal processing, instead guiding officers to release juveniles to the care of a parent or guardian and file a report rather than taking the status offenders into custody and booking them into a facility.

When police officers arrest individuals and take them into custody, typically they are booked into a county or regional jail. Jails are commonly a county-level function (run by sheriffs’ offices); however, according to Hickman and Reaves (2006), 25% of police departments also have tem- porary lockup facilities for overnight detention. Adult and juvenile detainees are separated from each other during lockup. Thirteen percent of all police departments also have a lockup facility for juveniles, with a median holding time of up to 16 hours. Interestingly, larger proportions of medium-sized police departments have the capacity to lock up juveniles, whereas very small police departments and very large departments are less likely to have such accommodations

White 0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

Black

Experienced force

Hispanic

Section 5.3Legal Rights of Juveniles When Interacting With Police

(Hickman & Reaves, 2006). This is likely the result of larger jurisdictions immediately transport- ing juveniles to separate juvenile-only facilities. Larger jurisdictions have a larger infrastructure for such facilities, thus having lockup facilities set aside for juveniles is less necessary in those larger jurisdictions. In contrast, medium-sized police departments have less access to such facil- ities and operate their own temporary lockups for juveniles. This may suggest, among other things, that the propensity to take juveniles into physical custody may be influenced by the avail- ability of separate facilities in which to house this special population.

5.3 Legal Rights of Juveniles When Interacting With Police

The police occupy a critical role within society in that their activities and decisions must care- fully balance the need for public safety and law enforcement with the equally important need to preserve individual freedom and rights. Criminal procedure is the method by which the accused is processed through the criminal justice system (Worrall, 2010). It consists of the rules the government must follow to ensure rights are not violated during this process. All citizens, regardless of age, enjoy certain fundamental rights—freedom from unreasonable searches or seizures, freedom from being compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against themselves, the right to assistance of counsel among them—and these rights are outlined pri- marily in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Interpreta- tion and application of these rights are typically found in decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, so understanding the opinion of the Court is critical to understanding criminal procedure.

As a rule of thumb, police interactions with juveniles are similar to their interactions with adults. However, two important aspects specifically related to juveniles are discussed in greater detail here: searches and seizures of juveniles (particularly within public school set- tings) and interrogations of juveniles after they are taken into custody.

Searches and Seizures The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affir- mation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This amendment indicates that searches (such as for evidence of criminal wrongdoing) and seizures (such as taking evidence or “seizing” an individual through arrest) may not be unrea- sonable. An arrest is the act of depriving a person of liberty by legal authority, such as by tak- ing a person into custody. The amendment goes on to say that warrants (such as search war- rants or arrest warrants) must be based on probable cause. Probable cause exists when “the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge, and of which they have reasonably

Section 5.3Legal Rights of Juveniles When Interacting With Police

trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reason- able caution that a crime is being committed” (Brinegar v. U.S., 1949). In other words, prob- able cause means it is more likely that a crime has been committed by a particular person or that a person or place has evidence that a crime occurred. Cases are continually brought before the courts due to the complexity surrounding the “reasonableness clause” and the “warrant clause”; however, the Fourth Amendment implies that all searches and seizures are reasonable only if based on a warrant supported by probable cause. Evidence seized unrea- sonably (e.g., without a warrant) may be excluded from court.

A few notable exceptions to the probable cause requirement are unique to juveniles. This is particularly true for searches within schools. For example, school offi- cials may search lockers assigned to stu- dents without cause, even if the lockers are closed and locked, because the lockers are school property. However, personal effects carried by the student in pockets, purses, or backpacks are a little different. Let’s consider a court case to illustrate this point.

In New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), the Court was asked to consider the admissibility of evidence seized within a school. T.L.O. was a 14-year-old girl who was suspected of violating a school policy (smoking in the girls’ bathroom). She denied doing so when confronted by the vice principal. Unconvinced, the vice principal searched the girl’s purse and found cigarettes, plus evidence indicating the student was involved in drug dealing, such as rolling papers, cash, and a list of students who owed her money. This evidence was turned over to the police and used against her in juvenile court.

At the time of the search, the vice principal did not have probable cause to believe evidence was in T.L.O.’s purse, which according to the Fourth Amendment should have made the search unreasonable and the evidence excluded from court. However, the Supreme Court viewed this differently, saying that searches by school officials need to be based on “reasonable grounds” that they will uncover evidence. Probable cause or search warrants are not appropriate in these circumstances. Kids in school have a legitimate expectation of privacy, but the school also has a need to maintain a healthy environment in which learning can occur. The legality of a search is based on balancing these two competing needs. In short, school officials do not need probable cause to search students in public schools as long as they adhere to this balance. Had T.L.O. been searched by a police officer on the street with the same type of evi- dence found, this search would have likely been considered unreasonable and the evidence excluded.

Blend Images/SuperStock If a teacher has reason to believe a student is in possession of illegal or dangerous items, the student can be searched without notice. On campus, students must understand that everything is, or can be made, public.

Section 5.3Legal Rights of Juveniles When Interacting With Police

But some searches of students may be unreasonable. Remember that the Fourth Amendment highlights searches of “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” T.L.O.’s purse would be consid- ered an “effect,” but searches of a “person” may be held to a slightly different standard. A vice principal in the Safford Unified School District #1 received reports that Savana Redding, a 13-year-old middle school student, gave prescription pain pills and over-the-counter drugs to other students at school, which was against school policy. When confronted, Redding denied the allegation and denied having pills on her. As in T.L.O., the vice principal searched her back- pack but found no pills. Redding was then taken to the school nurse, who performed a strip search, having Redding remove her clothes and pull aside undergarments and shake them out to see if any pills were being concealed. No pills were found.

Redding’s parents sued the school district for submitting their daughter to the potentially embarrassing strip search. The Court held that the nature of the strip search requires the school to demonstrate a higher standard than what was outlined in T.L.O. Although the search of Redding’s backpack was permissible, the school had no reason to believe she was hiding pills in her underwear at the time they conducted the strip search. The Court ruled that the search was intrusive and invasive, and because it required Redding to expose private parts of her body, it was unreasonable (Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 2009). Such searches are not legal.

The Supreme Court also indicated that school districts may require students to submit to drug testing as a condition of participating in extracurricular activities. In Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995), the Court ruled that schools may enact a policy requiring all stu- dents who go out for athletics to submit to a urinalysis (testing of urine to determine whether drugs are in the person’s system). They considered that the privacy interests that students have in this circumstance are quite limited and that the school district had a real concern to make sure students were not using drugs that could harm them during their athletic training and events. They went on to say that students could choose whether to participate in school- sponsored athletics—if they didn’t want to be drug tested, they simply could avoid this by not going out for sports. Further, the school district ensured that the results of the drug tests would be confidential and used only to determine whether a student was eligible for sports, and that the results would not be turned over to the police. With this in mind, the Court fur- ther extended drug testing in a follow-up case of Board of Education v. Earls (2002), which is covered in the feature Spotlight: Drug Testing in Schools.

Spotlight: Drug Testing in Schools

In 1998, the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County (Oklahoma) enacted a similar policy as in Vernonia. The policy required all middle and high school students to consent to a drug test as a condition for participating in school- sponsored activities but didn’t limit testing to athletes. Students who wanted to participate in activities such as the Academic Team, National Honor Society, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, band, choir, pom pom, or cheerleading would be required to complete a drug screening. The policy did not require individualized suspicion, meaning that the school did not need to suspect that any particular student who was being tested was doing drugs.

(continued on next page)

Section 5.3Legal Rights of Juveniles When Interacting With Police

Interrogations When the police take a juvenile into custody (such as through an arrest), officers commonly question the young person about his or her involvement in criminal activity. Those being questioned while in custody may reasonably assume they are not at liberty to terminate the interview and leave. Interrogations are circumstances when the police ask questions that tend to incriminate the citizen (del Carmen, 2001). When the police interrogate a person in custody, there is a very real possibility of violating someone’s rights, so the Court has put procedures in place to make sure people are aware of their rights and have the ability to knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive them. One of the best-known cases in the his- tory of the Supreme Court is Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and the Miranda decision safeguards people’s rights. This section briefly describes Miranda warnings and relates them to interro- gations between officers and juveniles.

Ernesto Miranda was a poor immigrant who, during a 2-hour interrogation by the police after he was arrested, admitted to raping and kidnapping a 17-year-old girl. After his conviction, he appealed the case, arguing that his Fifth Amendment protection from self-incrimination was violated. Eventually the Supreme Court considered his case and ruled that the police must take active safeguards to ensure a defendant’s rights are not violated during custodial interrogations. The infamous Miranda warnings require the police to advise suspects that (1) they have the right to remain silent, (2) any statement made may be used against the defendant in court, (3) the defendant has the right to have an attorney present during ques- tioning, and (4) if the defendant cannot afford an attorney, then the government will provide one prior to questioning. This is necessary because custodial interrogations are potentially psychologically coercive and deemed unfair. The government must demonstrate that waivers were granted knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, or testimony may not be used in court. In the decision, the Court was particularly sensitive to the fact that Miranda was poor and likely unfamiliar with criminal justice processing. This is true too for juveniles, who may have limited experience with the police; be unfamiliar with the law, their rights, or how to exercise their rights; and be particularly susceptible to psychological coercion.

Spotlight: Drug Testing in Schools (continued)

Students Lindsey Earls and Daniel James, who wanted to participate in activities including show choir, marching band, and academic teams, challenged this policy as being unconstitu- tional under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches. The Court again ruled in favor of the school district and said that the policy did not violate the students’ rights. The Court again noted that students’ expectations of privacy are diminished within a school setting, permitting schools to require students to submit to a urinalysis as a condition for participation in any extracurricular activity. Extracurricular activities are “extra”—stu- dents are not compelled to participate and thus could avoid drug testing by simply choosing not to participate in activities. The probable cause requirement is unnecessary in public, and schools have demonstrated that searches like this are “special needs” given their interests in maintaining a drug-free school environment. When balancing these interests with the mini- mal intrusion of the search, the Court deemed this policy to be reasonably balanced.

The decisions in Vernonia and Earls illustrate that although students in public schools have some privacy, the school district has a compelling interest in maintaining a drug-free envi- ronment such that suspicion searches like these are reasonable.

Section 5.3Legal Rights of Juveniles When Interacting With Police

All people who are in custody and being interrogated must be advised of these rights. Sus- pects may choose to exercise their rights, and in that circumstance all questioning must stop. After having been informed of their rights, however, they may choose to waive them. This is particularly important during custodial interrogations involving juveniles. Youthful offenders may not appreciate the consequences of their actions the same way an adult does, and they may not be in the same position as adults to voluntarily waive their rights. As a result, the Court has sought to clarify procedures the police must follow during custodial interrogations with juveniles. Let’s examine another case to illustrate this point.

Michael C. was 16 years old when he was taken into custody on suspicion of murder. The police properly advised him of his Miranda rights, at which point Michael C. requested to speak with his probation officer. The police denied this request, and he proceeded to make incriminating statements that were later used as evidence against him at trial. Michael C. argued that the denial of his request to speak with his probation officer compromised his Fifth Amendment rights. The Court disagreed, noting that probation officers are not in a posi- tion to offer legal advice the way an attorney does. Requesting to speak with a probation officer is not equivalent to requesting to remain silent, and the incriminating statements were made after a voluntary waiver (Fare v. Michael C., 1979). Although juveniles and their proba- tion officers may have a bond and have formed trust between each other, a request to speak with a probation officer is not the same as requesting to speak with an attorney. The police may deny such a request.

There has been recent debate over whether and under what circumstances a juvenile’s age must be taken into consideration when determining whether Miranda warnings must be pro- vided. Let’s consider another example. The 17-year-old defendant, named Michael Alvarado, was interviewed at a police department about his involvement in a crime. Alvarado was brought to the police station by his parents, but his parents were not permitted in the room during the interview. He was not under arrest at the time, and, after a 2-hour interview, he was permitted to leave with his parents. At no point was he provided Miranda warnings, but he was later arrested in part because of the testimony he provided. Alvarado argued that the police should have taken his age and lack of previous experience with the criminal justice sys- tem into consideration to determine whether he believed he was in custody at the time—the police contend that he was never in custody, thus Miranda was not necessary or required.

The Court ruled that the police were not required to take Alvarado’s age into consideration. Miranda warnings are required for all interrogations in which a suspect (regardless of age) is in custody—the fact that Alvarado may have, because of his age, thought he was in custody is irrelevant. The Court was concerned that requiring the police to take a suspect’s age and experience into consideration would create a less objective standard than the current cus- tody/not in custody standard (Yarborough v. Alvarado, 2004). The Court’s decision suggests that a reasonable person in Alvarado’s position would have known he could stop the inter- view and leave the police station.

But this decision was reconsidered in the more recent case of J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011). J.D.B. was a 13-year-old middle school student who was removed from class, taken to another classroom, and interviewed by four police officers for 30 minutes about his involvement in home break-ins in his neighborhood. He was not advised of his Miranda rights and made incriminating statements during the interview. In an apparent reconsideration of Yarborough

Section 5.3Legal Rights of Juveniles When Interacting With Police

v. Alvarado, the Court ruled that indeed the child’s age could be taken into consideration. In the Court’s decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made the following statement:

It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that com- monsense reality, we hold that a child’s age properly informs the Miranda cus- tody analysis. (J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 2011)

While these cases appear to be somewhat contradictory, it is important to remember that the police have a heavy burden to determine whether interviews with suspects are psycho- logically coercive and could yield violations of criminal procedure. A reasonable 13-year-old being interrogated by adults in a closed classroom may not have realized that he was “free to leave” regardless of whether he was in fact free to do so. To avoid constitutional problems, the police would need to keep things like this in mind when interviewing juveniles about their involvement in crimes because youth could challenge the interrogation based on the logic of J.D.B. v. North Carolina.

To review, it is the burden of the government to ensure that suspects in police custody are aware of their rights as outlined in the Miranda decision prior to interrogation. The govern- ment must demonstrate that a person knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived these rights in order to use information from the interrogation in criminal court. The mental and emotional immaturity of many juveniles complicates this, as it cannot be assumed that a juvenile appreciates and understands the consequences of his or her waiver. In other words, how does the government demonstrate a knowing and intelligent waiver when juveniles are involved? Additionally, because these activities can be psychologically coercive for anyone, they may be particularly coercive when juveniles are involved. This presents a paradox for police officers: On the one hand, they are responsible for ensuring public safety and pursu- ing justice. On the other hand, they must also be guardians of individuals’ rights. As a result, many police departments have developed specific procedures for officers to follow during interrogations with juveniles.

Perhaps examining a policy from the Kansas City (Missouri) Police Department (KCPD) is illustrative. The KCPD enacted a specific policy for interrogations involving juveniles (Kansas City Missouri Police Department, 2011). This policy indicates that the family courts (which handle crimes involving juvenile offenders) will accept statements from juveniles only if a deputy juvenile officer (DJO) is present during the interview. Further, these interviews are conducted only in the presence of a DJO and a parent or legal guardian or attorney. If the juvenile does not want to be interviewed, but the parent or legal guardian wants the juvenile to answer questions, then the parent or legal guardian may compel the juvenile to participate. Testimony in this circumstance is admissible in court. However, if the parent or legal guardian does not want the juvenile to answer questions, then the interview must stop—regardless of the juvenile’s wishes.

This policy demonstrates several important things. First, it clearly indicates that interroga- tions of juveniles require the presence of a third party; the officer may not interrogate a juve- nile outside the presence of a court representative and a parent, legal guardian, or attorney. This underscores the importance of parental involvement in this critical stage of the criminal

Section 5.4Exercise of Discretion

justice process. Second, the parent or legal guardian has greater influence on the decision to waive or enact the juvenile’s rights. Parents or guardians may actually compel cooperation of an uncooperative juvenile, but they may also stop the process even if the juvenile wants to continue. This policy clearly articulates the parental role during custodial interrogations and also guides officers to take additional steps (beyond what may be required by Miranda and its progeny) to ensure fair and equal treatment of suspects.

5.4 Exercise of Discretion How officers interact with juveniles has been the focus of inquiry for decades (Piliavin & Briar, 1964). The actions of police officers are guided by the law and by department policies. How- ever, legal and organizational guidelines are limited in that they cannot possibly anticipate the range of situations officers will encounter or the spectrum of responses available to officers. The police, like all actors in the criminal justice system, enjoy a considerable amount of discretion in their day-to-day dealings with the public. Discretion is the ability of the police to make choices regarding whether they should intervene with citizens and how they should intervene. Discretion has been described as “whenever the effective limits on his power leave him free to make a choice among courses of action or inac- tion” (Davis, 1969, p. 4). Officers may choose to act informally (such as making requests of citizens, instructing them to do something, negotiating, peacekeeping, advising, warning, or threatening), or they may act formally (filing a report, making a referral to the court, arresting a suspect, issuing a summons or a ticket, or using force). Despite their portrayals in popular culture and TV dra- mas, police do not exercise their arrest authority that often, even when they are legally able to do so.

Because police are gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, researchers have focused heav- ily on understanding whether and under what circumstances officers act in a formal man- ner and exploring whether the police exercise their authority in a fair and consistent man- ner. Every interaction between the public and officers is significant because the manner in which the officers act (in addition to their decisions) leaves an impression on citizens. Some researchers have attempted to quantify the amount of authority officers exercise within citi- zen interactions. Though the discussion in the rest of this section focuses on factors identified as related to the level of formality or “vigor” (Klinger, 1997) during police-citizen interac- tions, it is also important to highlight the various discretionary choices that officers have.

Each police-citizen interaction is unique in its own respect, and no two are identical. How- ever, some generalizations can be made regarding how different factors influence street-level

Blend Images/SuperStock Depending on the seriousness of the case at hand, an officer must apply discretion when dealing with the public and suspects.

Section 5.4Exercise of Discretion

officer behavior. There is evidence that officers’ use of authority is shaped heavily by legal factors, such as seriousness of the crime or the weight of the evidence that a person commit- ted a crime (National Research Council, 2004). This makes sense because officers are more likely to arrest a person that they suspect committed a more serious offense. But officers have considerably more latitude when enforcing the law for relatively minor offenses. For minor offenses, such as traffic violations, disturbing the peace, trespassing, curfew violations, tru- ancy, and so forth, officers feel freer to act informally. Recall the flash mob story at the begin- ning of this chapter. Before implementation of curfews, the police had few formal options to deal with kids who were just “hanging out.” The response was often informal and emphasized peacekeeping—to make sure nothing escalated to violence. After the curfews were enacted, police could arrest juveniles, albeit for a relatively minor offense.

Additionally, discretionary choices may be influenced by extralegal factors, such as citizens’ race, social class, gender, demeanor or hostility, level of intoxication, perceived mental status, relationship to the victim, and so forth. Juvenile status is among these extralegal factors. Lay- ered into this may also be the characteristics of the neighborhood’s level of disadvantage (e.g., high-crime vs. low-crime area), time of day, whether there is a complainant, whether bystand- ers are present, and characteristics of the officer (e.g., race, gender, rank, level of education, length of service, personal orientation). Many different factors shape all decision making, and how discretion is influenced can be a complicated discussion. Although some controversy and debate remain among researchers and policing scholars on how and why certain factors shape behavior, it appears that a person’s age does shape decision making.

Why does officer decision making differ for juveniles? Donald Black (1976) argued that youth occupy a lower social status than adults within American society. This lower social status would tend to suggest that, all else being equal, officers would act more formally and enact the law with greater vigor during encounters with juveniles than they would with adults. Officers may feel free to treat juveniles with more punitive sanctions (e.g., arrest) than they would with adults.

For example, according to Jerome Skolnick (1966), officers identify “symbolic assailants” as those who represent potential danger to officers, and thus may elicit a more vigorous or puni- tive response from officers. Skolnick argued that in addition to a person’s actual observed behavior, officers take cues from their dress, language, community characteristics, gender, race, and age. Each of these may be a risk factor that can influence an officer’s conscious or subconscious decision making. Citizens who have multiple extralegal risk factors (e.g., young, black males) may differentially experience police authority. Additionally, juveniles may be more prone to be noncompliant with officer requests (McCluskey, Mastrofski, & Parks, 1999) and less fearful of officer authority (Muir, 1977). Implicit bias among police officers as a prediction of their interactions with minorities has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate lately.

Robert Brown and colleagues (2009) examined whether officers make different discretionary decisions during encounters with juveniles compared to adults. To do this, they used informa- tion gathered from over 440 observations (i.e., ride-alongs) of officers in a large urban city to examine the influence of factors that shape decision making, including the ones just outlined. Of citizens who were identified as suspects, a larger proportion of juveniles were arrested (22%) than adults (15%), causing the researchers to conclude that juvenile status was sig- nificantly related to the exercise of police authority. Juveniles encountered in communities

Section 5.5Juveniles’ Views of the Police

with greater levels of distress and disadvantage (e.g., high levels of poverty, racial heterogene- ity, rental units, and single-parent households) were significantly more likely to be arrested, meaning it is important to know that where juveniles and police interact does influence the juvenile’s disposition. Brown and colleagues also reported an interesting but complicated result regarding what happens when juveniles are disrespectful toward officers.

Most research suggests that disrespectful and hostile citizens are met with more authorita- tive officer responses. Disrespectful juveniles are in fact not more likely to be arrested; how- ever, they do experience higher levels of police authority (e.g., verbal confrontation, threats). Brown and colleagues (2009) explained, “Disrespectful behavior from a juvenile may, in an officer’s opinion, warrant some limited corrective action, but arrest may be too severe. This finding may also be an indication of some form of leniency towards juveniles” and officers “did engage in greater levels of authority. It is likely the case that officers recognize juveniles may be less able to appreciate the consequences of their disrespectful actions, [and] thus are less willing to sanction the juvenile with a formal arrest” (p. 206). In this way, juveniles are still held responsible for their disrespectful behavior; however, officers are “sanctioning” juveniles in a more informal manner. Officers do not ignore or condone disrespectful behavior and seek to correct the wayward youth through their discretionary decisions to apply greater levels of informal authority. All of these dynamics are different for interactions with juveniles than with adults, which strongly indicates that street-level officers engage juveniles in subtle but significantly different ways than they do adults.

5.5 Juveniles’ Views of the Police It is particularly important to understand juveniles’ attitudes toward the police. Maintain- ing positive relationships with citizens is important for police departments for at least three reasons: First, people with negative attitudes toward the police are less likely to collaborate with the police and will be generally distrustful of them. This distrust makes it difficult for citizens and police to come together on public safety priorities and strategies. Second, when people who have negative attitudes come into contact with the police, there is a greater likeli- hood of conflict. Citizens approach individual interactions with the police with cynicism and mistrust and will be more likely to be hostile and uncooperative, leading to more physical conflict. Third, unfavorable attitudes toward the police can compromise public safety. People with negative beliefs are less likely to call the police when problems occur, less likely to serve as witnesses at court, and less likely to contact police even when they are the victims. This is particularly true for juveniles, who typically have less favorable attitudes toward and are less supportive of the police than are adults.

What influences citizens’ attitudes toward the police? Decades of research have identified four consistent factors:

• The nature of previous contact with the police (negative contacts produce less favor- able attitudes)

• Race (racial or ethnic minorities express less favorable attitudes) • Neighborhood (citizens in disorganized communities have less favorable attitudes) • Age (youth have less favorable attitudes) (Brown & Benedict, 2002)

Section 5.6Police Interventions and Prevention Strategies

Youths’ personal characteristics, environ- ment, and previous experiences with the police heavily shape their attitudes toward the police (Geistman & Smith, 2007). One study surveyed middle school kids and found that those who did not feel safe in their neighborhoods were more likely to hold negative views of the police, as were those who had contact with law enforce- ment (Sanden & Wentz, 2017). Whether juveniles feel they are treated fairly by the police is critical.

Procedural justice is the feeling of being treated fairly by officers and being treated in an even-handed manner by officers who are doing their law enforcement duties. It makes sense that positive experi- ences with officers promote positive atti- tudes, and negative interactions exert the opposite effect. But negative experiences are more influential; a negative encoun- ter with an officer is far more damaging than a positive encounter is beneficial. It takes many good experiences with an offi- cer to undo the damage done by a single bad experience. Additionally, Hurst and Frank (2000) noted that observing inter- actions between the police and others has a strong influence on juveniles’ attitudes as well. This means that the police need to be aware of how they interact with juveniles or in the presence of juveniles in order to improve (or at least not damage) relationships and to enhance police legitimacy. This also means that police training needs to include how their actions are being interpreted during encounters with (or in the presence of ) juveniles.

5.6 Police Interventions and Prevention Strategies Street gangs, drugs, and violence often go hand in hand, and gangs represent an important focus for the police. In 2012, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention esti- mated there were over 30,700 gangs with 850,000 members in the United States. Though the prevalence of gang-related problems has decreased since the mid-1990s, gang-related homicides increased 20% from 2011 to 2012. The National Gang Center estimates that about 41.4% of all gang members are under 18 years old, thus a disproportionate number of gang members are juveniles. Gangs are not just an urban problem; in fact, gangs in smaller cities and rural areas are more likely to be composed of juveniles than gangs in big cities (Egley, Howell, & Harris, 2014).

Don Tremain/Photodisc/Getty Images The juvenile often represents a perplexing, difficult case for the officer. Teenagers often view police with more suspicion and negativity than adults, making it imperative that the officer presents a positive image of authority to youth.

Section 5.6Police Interventions and Prevention Strategies

What is a gang? Criminologist Malcom Klein (1995a) offered this commonly recognized defi- nition: Gangs have a commitment to a criminal orientation, members identify themselves as a gang, there is group cohesion, and the group maintains a sense of territoriality. A common response to the gang problem has been to create a special unit within the police department that focuses specifically on gang violence suppression (Katz & Webb, 2006).

Gang-Based Interventions It’s important to see how a gang-based intervention works. Boston’s Operation Ceasefire pro- gram sought to address youth and gang-related violence using a focused deterrence strategy. This strategy was innovative for at least three reasons. First, implementation involved not only the police but also other criminal justice agencies (including probation, prosecutors, federal law enforcement, and juvenile corrections), community representatives, and school officials. These groups often need to work together to identify and address the common prob- lem of gang violence. Second, Boston’s Operation Ceasefire relied on focused deterrence, through which police and others contact people who are most at risk for violence, commu- nicate the consequences of criminal actions, and offer incentives to avoid criminal behavior (Braga & Weisburd, 2012). Third, Operation Ceasefire involved problem solving and crime analysis. This approach is necessary to fully understand the nature of youth gang violence in Boston or anywhere gangs are present, as well as to identify those who are likely to engage in violence and intercept them with the deterrence message early. Often those youth identi- fied as being at risk for violence are also identified as gang members. This focused strategy resulted in reductions in youth homicides, calls for shots fired, and gun assaults (Braga, Ken- nedy, Waring, & Piehl, 2001). This program’s structure is a model for programs implemented elsewhere and not just for crimes involving youth gang violence.

Another gang suppression strategy involves strategic deployment of officers in high-crime areas, where they actively enforce truancy and curfew laws. The police traditionally ignore such minor offenses because they are not serious in nature. However, the Dallas police, led by their gang unit, use these minor offenses as leverage to target youth and gang members in specific locations. Studies found that this antigang strategy reduced gang-related offenses and violence (Fritsch, Caeti, & Taylor, 1999). The High Point Drug Market Intervention pro- vides another example of a program dedicated to reducing gang-related crime (see the Fea- tured Program box).

Featured Program: High Point Drug Market Initiative https://www.highpointnc.gov/450/Drug-Market-Initiative

Mission: To reduce drug-related crime in the most violent section of the city of High Point, North Carolina.

The Intervention: This focused deterrence intervention works to identify the highest risk people, notifying them that they are at risk for arrest, and then deliver services as needed. The High Point Drug Market Initiative allows for a select group of offenders to receive a “sec- ond chance” with assistance from their family and the community. The assistance takes many forms, including the following:

(continued on next page)

Section 5.6Police Interventions and Prevention Strategies

Effective strategies for reducing gang-related crime typically involve a variety of approaches. Police strategies that rely on a single approach (like making more arrests or increasing the number of officers on patrol) typically do not impact crime. However, using multiple approaches, using multiple agencies, and strategically focusing resources on at-risk individu- als or in at-risk locations appears to produce more crime prevention. This is possible only through careful planning, crime analysis, understanding local youth and gang violence prob- lems, and implementing police strategies accordingly.

School Resource Officers Street-level officers come into frequent contact with juveniles, and the nature of these con- tacts plays an important part in shaping kids’ views of policing and the criminal justice sys- tem. Encounters that happen on the street can be dynamic, unpredictable, and uncontrolla- ble. Officers and juveniles are frequently thrown into contact when, as Bittner said, something ought not to be happening (see the chapter opening). In an effort to bring officers and juve- niles into contact in a more controlled and nonconfrontational environment, police depart- ments and schools districts continue partnering to address crime and delinquency among America’s youth (see Figure 5.3). The idea is that cops and kids can form positive bonds in a school-based setting, and officers encourage crime prevention and divert juveniles from delinquency. School resource officers (SROs) “employ a community policing approach and work in collaboration with school and community-based organizations” to deliver law enforcement, counseling, mentoring, teaching, and advising within school settings (Reaves, 2010, p. 28). Over 13,000 officers were assigned as SROs in 2007, and 38% of all police departments in America have full-time sworn officers assigned as SROs (Reeves, 2010). In 2007, the Department of Justice stopped collecting data on the number of SROs in schools; however, the National Association of School Resource Officers (n.d.) estimates that between 14,000 and 20,000 SROs are currently in service nationwide. SROs pay particular attention to curbing activities that are of greatest importance to schools and juveniles, including bullying, drugs, gangs, and violence.

Featured Program: High Point Drug Market Initiative (continued)

• Day care • Employment • Family assistance • Housing • Job training • Parenting skills • Substance abuse treatment • Transportation

Studies of the initiative showed a significant reduction in violent crime in the areas targeted with this intervention (Corsaro, Hunt, Hipple, & McGarrell, 2012).

Section 5.6Police Interventions and Prevention Strategies

Figure 5.3: Percentage of public schools with security staff present at school at least once a week, by school level, type of security staff, and enrollment size, 2015–2016

1Primary schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not higher than grade 3 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 8. 2Secondary schools include both middle and high schools as well as combined schools. Middle schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 4 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 9. High schools are defined as schools in which the lowest grade is not lower than grade 9 and the highest grade is not higher than grade 12. Combined schools have any combination of grades (including K–12) that is not defined specifically as primary, middle, or high school.

From “Figure S1.2: Percentage of public schools with security staff present at school at least once a week, by school level, type of security staff, and enrollment size: School year 2015–16,” in Indicators of school crime and safety: 2017, by L. Musu- Gillette, A. Zhang, K. Wang, J. Zhang, J. Kemp, M. Diliberti, and B. A. Oudekerk, March 2018, Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2018/2018036.pdf

Any security staff

P e rc e n t

100

Any sworn law enforcement

officer

At least one officer who is an SRO

Enrollment size

Primary1

Less than 300

At least one officer who

is not an SRO

Security guards or other security personnel who are not sworn

law enforcement officers

300 to 400 500 to 999

30.7

41.8

18.9

30.5

10.0 8.6 9 12.5

17.3

8.1

36.5

24.9

35.3

44.1

53.7

Any security staff

P e rc e n t

100

Any sworn law enforcement

officer

At least one officer who is an SRO

Enrollment size

Secondary2

Less than 300

At least one officer who

is not an SRO

Security guards or other security personnel who are not sworn

law enforcement officers

300 to 400 500 to 999 1000 or more

40.3

72.3

90.0

29.9

50.6

11.4

28.3

57.8

8.5

65.4

83.9

33.8

59.0 64.6

82.5

95.9

16.2 16.9 14.8 10.6

Section 5.6Police Interventions and Prevention Strategies

To accomplish this goal, SROs engage in a variety of tasks. Typically SROs spend their time on three general tasks. First is law enforcement, including patrolling school grounds to issue citations or gener- ally deter delinquency and violation of school rules. Most SRO programs report that law enforcement is their primary responsibility, and typically SROs spend half their time on law enforcement (approximately 20 hours per week). Sec- ond, SROs engage in advising or mentor- ing. SROs can serve as positive role models for young students. This includes provid- ing information to students and school faculty and staff, and SROs spend about 10 hours per week doing this. Third, SROs engage in teaching. This can include offer- ing popular prevention programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) or Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T); however, they may also teach topics such as sexual harassment policy, babysitting, criteria and consequences for driving under the influence, and other aspects of law. Though some teachers initially expressed reservations about having officers teach curriculum beyond these programs, over time many have become increasingly com- fortable with the officers carrying out a teaching function. SROs typically spend about 5 hours per week on teaching (Finn & McDevitt, 2005).

But there is also great variation in SRO responsibilities across different schools and differ- ent environments. It also seems that programs evolve by focusing on one role but then shift- ing toward a different emphasis. A national assessment of SRO programs reported that some SROs spent nearly all of their efforts on law enforcement, while other SROs spent a consider- able amount of time on mentoring. Each of the surveyed locations differed in terms of which of the core SRO roles they emphasized. This variation is likely influenced by the level of crime and disorder in the school and surrounding neighborhood, the personality skills of the SRO, the wishes and culture of the school, the level of the school (i.e., middle vs. high school), and the level and quality of training the SRO has received (Finn & McDevitt, 2005). There may be no one ideal balance across these three roles, and police departments and schools may need to figure out for themselves through trial and error which should be emphasized.

John Wickline/Associated Press School resource officers may spend half of their time maintaining security on school campuses, but the rest of their time is dedicated to mentoring and teaching youth in the school system.

Section 5.6Police Interventions and Prevention Strategies

Are SRO programs effective? Answering this question is difficult, but SROs in general seem to yield positive results. Some research suggests that the level of trust in the police increases over time because of the SRO program. Results indicate that smoking and possession of ciga- rettes as well as gang activity decrease over time too. Students report more favorable atti- tudes toward the police in general because of the SRO program, and this trust is related to both the individual officer and the police department in general. Students and parents alike report less fear of crime because of the SRO. Students who have more frequent conversations with SROs are also more likely to feel comfortable reporting crime to the police. In fact, stu- dents who have positive opinions of the SRO are two and one-half times more likely to feel comfortable reporting crime. Students with positive opinions of the SRO feel safer at school (Finn & McDevitt, 2005). Additionally, Theriot (2009) noted that schools with SROs had lower arrest rates for serious crimes like assault or weapons charges but higher arrest rates for minor offenses such as disorderly conduct. It may be that while the SRO deters students from engaging in serious delinquency, their constant presence at schools puts them in a position to “catch” students engaged in more petty activities. It is unlikely that the SRO “causes” students to engage in more disorderly conduct; rather, this behavior previously went undetected and therefore unpunished.

School resource officers often coordinate resistance skills training, which “involves a set of ideas dealing with recognizing problematic situations and issues, dealing with peer pressure, recognizing pressure from media presentations, knowing proper responses to temptations, building self-esteem and assertiveness, and knowing how and when to take a stand” (Lab, 2010, p. 245). Two of the most widely implemented resistance skills training curriculums are D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T. Much more research has been conducted on these two programs for a few reasons. First, D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T. are nationally implemented programs, and local jurisdictions apply and compete for funding to support programs in their schools. One condition for continued funding is that local jurisdictions must demonstrate not only what activities they are performing but also the impact of their program. This encourages local schools and police departments to track and monitor progress, in part to leverage ongoing support but also to learn what works (and what doesn’t) locally. Second, because D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T. are implemented nationally, criminologists have been particularly interested in determining the impact of these efforts overall and understanding whether goals are achieved in some locations (but not others) and among some youth (but not others) with an eye to continually improving the resistance skills training everywhere.

D.A.R.E. Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) was created in 1983 by Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates. It is a school-based drug-education program led by police officers that focuses on awareness of drugs and teaches students how to resist drugs and violence. It is the most popular program of its kind. Millions of students have completed D.A.R.E. training since its inception, and nationally D.A.R.E. receives over $200 million of public funding annu- ally and is delivered in over 70% of America’s school districts as well as 44 other nations. Its curriculum is delivered to students from kindergarten through high school. Though initially designed to address illegal drug use (including tobacco and alcohol), some programs have been enhanced to include bullying, cyberbullying, gangs, and Internet safety (D.A.R.E. 2009 Annual Report, n.d.).

Section 5.6Police Interventions and Prevention Strategies

D.A.R.E. is very popular; however, rigor- ous evaluations call into question the pro- gram’s effectiveness (West & O’Neal, 2004). Criminologist Dennis Rosenbaum has conducted many of the evaluations of D.A.R.E. and draws the following conclu- sions: D.A.R.E. has some positive effects on students’ knowledge of drugs, attitudes toward drug use, social skills, and atti- tudes toward the police. However, these positive effects are relatively short-lived— they are typically gone in 1 or 2 years, sug- gesting D.A.R.E. is not a long-term strategy to prevent students’ drug abuse. Moving beyond attitudes, D.A.R.E. has little impact on actual drug resistance. Rosenbaum (2007) concludes:

[The] D.A.R.E. program does not prevent drug use in the short term, nor does it prevent drug use when students are ready to enter high school or college. Students who receive D.A.R.E. are indistinguishable from students who did not participate in the program. (p. 817)

Why, despite the evidence that suggests D.A.R.E. does not accomplish its stated goals, does it remain so popular? Unlike many crime prevention or treatment programs, D.A.R.E. has a large national organization behind it, which has been very successful in leveraging political and financial support for the initiative. D.A.R.E. minimally intervenes into the lives of stu- dents: Since the 17-week D.A.R.E. curriculum is delivered during school hours, students do not have to partake in any programming outside of school. There is an attractive component to bringing cops and kids together in nonconfrontational ways that should foster positive relationships between these groups. D.A.R.E. is positioned to promote a positive and healthy school environment, which parents and administrators appreciate. There is recognition too that the preceding benefits are worthwhile pursuits even if the stated goals of D.A.R.E. are not achieved; in fact, many people acknowledge that they never really expected D.A.R.E. to “work” as claimed, because the problem of drug use in America is so complex. Furthermore, many observers dismiss the research findings as not being relevant for their school districts, noting that their D.A.R.E. officers are more skilled or more involved than similar programs nationally (Birkeland, Murphy-Graham, & Weiss, 2005; Lab, 2010). Perhaps D.A.R.E.’s persistent popu- larity is the result of the program’s being subjectively perceived by stakeholders and clients (like parents and school administrators) to be effective, which is more influential than the objective empirical research findings about its effectiveness.

G.R.E.A.T. The Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program, typically delivered by SROs within school settings, focuses on gang and delinquency prevention. It was created in 1991 by Phoenix-area police departments and was adopted on a national level shortly

iStockphoto/Thinkstock Research indicates that antidrug and antibullying programs, like the ever-popular D.A.R.E., do increase students’ prevention awareness, but the effects of the programs are hardly long lasting. The average retention span is 1–2 years.

Summary of Learning Objectives

thereafter. The curriculum is directed primarily toward middle school students. Focusing on skill development to recognize and resist high-risk situations for violence and resisting get- ting involved with gangs or gang-related activities, the program encourages nonviolent con- flict resolution. The stated goals of G.R.E.A.T. are to help kids avoid gang membership and violence and criminal activity, and to develop positive relationships between kids and police (Esbensen, Peterson, & Taylor, 2009; Lab, 2010).

Early evaluations of G.R.E.A.T. yielded modest long-term results, and in 1999–2000 the pro- gram underwent significant revision. The curriculum was expanded from 9 to 13 weeks, and interactive teaching techniques in a skill-building, strengths-based approach were incorpo- rated along with lessons that focused on known risk factors for gang membership (Esbensen et al., 2011). The revised program is referred to as G.R.E.A.T. II.

Criminologist Finn-Aage Esbensen has led or been involved in the most extensive and rigor- ous evaluations of whether G.R.E.A.T. works. Unlike research on other school-based programs such as D.A.R.E., his research has demonstrated encouraging results. Among other things, stu- dents in G.R.E.A.T. were 39% less likely to join a gang one year after completing the program, and G.R.E.A.T. significantly improved juveniles’ attitudes toward the police. Students complet- ing G.R.E.A.T. were less likely to be influenced by peer pressure, had better refusal skills, were less involved with delinquent peers, had less favorable attitudes toward gangs, and expressed lower levels of self-centeredness and anger (Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor, & Osgood, 2012). This is important because, along with achieving some of its stated goals, G.R.E.A.T. also influ- enced known risk factors associated with gang membership and violence. However, G.R.E.A.T. students did not demonstrate lower levels of violent offending. These results are more posi- tive than those reported for D.A.R.E., though there has not been as much time and opportunity to closely examine the G.R.E.A.T. program. Evaluations are ongoing.

More recently the role of the SRO in schools generally has been called into question. A number of studies have suggested that having police officers in school could increase the chance that youth will experience formal processing in the juvenile justice system. For example, although programs like D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T are used to provide education and training, the presence of SROs to monitor school safety and behavior has led to an increase in referrals for formal processing. This has led to concern that SROs create a school-to-prison pipeline. Studies sug- gest that the presence of SROs led to feelings of safety among some students and families but at the same time increased arrest rates for minor offenses like disorderly conduct (The- riot, 2009). The concern is exacerbated by a disproportionate increase in arrest rates among minority youth and those with disabilities (see Petteruti, 2011). At the same time, in the wake of school shootings, others have called for an increase in SRO presence on school campuses. These two approaches to managing school safety are at the heart of the current debate on how to keep students safe from harm.

Summary of Learning Objectives Summarize the extent and nature of contacts between the police and juveniles.

• Juveniles present a special population with whom the police interact frequently. • Police must balance their law enforcement role with their role in helping children.

Summary of Learning Objectives

• Despite portrayals in popular culture, officers rarely use or threaten to use force during encounters with the public. Even so, youth are at a greater risk for being treated with force by police.

• Police organizations often create policies and procedures designed to produce con- sistency during their interactions with juveniles.

Analyze the legal rights of juveniles during interactions with the police.

• The legal rights of juveniles are very similar to adults’; however, some differences exist related to searches and seizures and interrogations.

• The Fourth Amendment does not apply to juveniles to the same extent as it does adults.

Explain how and why juvenile status shapes officer discretion.

• Evidence indicates that officers make discretionary decisions when interacting with youth.

• Officers’ use of discretion is shaped heavily by legal factors, such as seriousness of the crime or the weight of the evidence that a person committed a crime.

• Discretionary choices may also be influenced by a number of extralegal factors, including citizens’ race, social class, gender, demeanor, perceived mental status, and juvenile status.

• Juvenile status has been found to be significantly related to the exercise of police authority, and often harsher treatment. One explanation for this finding is that juve- niles typically hold a lower status in society.

Explain how juveniles’ attitudes toward the police are shaped.

• Factors that shape perception of law enforcement are the nature of previous contact with the police, race, the neighborhood in which one resides, and age.

• Juveniles tend to have less favorable attitudes toward the police than do adults.

Evaluate crime prevention strategies used by police to reduce crime and delinquency, par- ticularly in school settings.

• Gang-based interventions tend to work best when using multiple approaches, using multiple agencies, and strategically focusing resources on at-risk individuals or in at-risk locations.

• Student resource officers in general seem to yield positive results, though the results depend on many factors and are not conclusive.

• Resistance training programs, such as D.A.R.E. and G.R.E.A.T., are popular collabora- tions between police and schools. These programs are used to provide education and training to resist delinquent behavior. Thus far, G.R.E.A.T has reported better overall results than D.A.R.E.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Do you think juveniles should have different legal rights than adults? If the Supreme

Court relaxes some Fourth Amendment protections because it believes that schools

Summary of Learning Objectives

have a compelling interest to maintain drug-free environments, then shouldn’t drug testing be extended to all public school students? Why or why not?

2. Under what circumstances should officers favor their law enforcement role over their helping role?

3. What steps should police administrators take to improve attitudes of juveniles toward officers?

4. Why has D.A.R.E. not reduced drug resistance among participants? How can D.A.R.E. be improved?

Key Terms arrest The act of depriving a person of his or her liberty by legal authority, such as tak- ing a person into custody.

criminal procedure The method by which the accused is processed through the crimi- nal justice system.

custody The situation where those being questioned by police would reasonably assume they are not at liberty to terminate the interview and leave.

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) A nationally implemented pro- gram in which police departments part- ner with local school districts and officers encourage crime prevention and divert juveniles from delinquency.

discretion The ability of the police to make choices regarding whether they should intervene with citizens and how they should intervene.

focused deterrence A situation in which police and others contact people who are most at risk for violence and communicate the consequences of their actions and offer incentives to avoid criminal behavior.

gangs Groups in which members have a commitment to a criminal orientation, mem- bers identify themselves as a gang, there is group cohesion, and the group maintains a sense of territoriality.

Gang Resistance Education and Train- ing (G.R.E.A.T.) A nationally implemented program similar to D.A.R.E. that focuses on gang activity.

interrogations Circumstances in which the police ask questions that tend to incriminate the citizen.

probable cause A situation in which the facts and circumstances within police offi- cers’ knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief that a crime is being committed.

procedural justice The feeling of being treated fairly by police officers and being treated in an even-handed manner by offi- cers who are doing their law enforcement duties.

resistance skills training A set of ideas dealing with recognizing problematic situa- tions and issues, dealing with peer pressure, recognizing pressure from media presenta- tions, knowing proper responses to tempta- tions, building self-esteem and assertiveness, and knowing how and when to take a stand.

school resource officers (SROs) Police representatives assigned to provide educa- tion and other services within particular schools; a component of partnerships between police departments and school dis- tricts intended to address crime and delin- quency among America’s youth.