Director of State Juvenile Bureau: Roles, Responsibilities, and Rehabilitation of Youthful Offenders

In this report we will discuss about criminal justice adminsitration and below are the summaries point:- The Director of State Juvenile Bureau plays a crucial role in maintaining order and ensuring the well-being of incarcerated minors. Improving the effectiveness of the juvenile justice system requires understanding the history and rehabilitation needs of youthful offenders. Intervention and prevention programs are essential in managing risky behaviors and addressing juvenile delinquency.

Running Head: CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINSITRATION 1
Director of State Juvenile Bureau
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Director of State Juvenile Bureau 2
Director of State Juvenile Bureau
A director of a State Juvenile Bureau acts as a correctional officer. As such, he ensures
that security of the facility with incarcerated minors follow the rules and maintain order. Thus,
the director works with juveniles who have been found guilty of criminal activities- for instance,
providing the minors with proper education helps in ensuring correcting their morals, which
makes them adorable people in the society. Moreover, the director is responsible for the
juvenile’s health, and effective measures need to be taken in recording and reporting any health
issues a juvenile may face. It is vital to note that some of the youth involved in a juvenile justice
system occasionally face difficulties in transitioning into adulthood. Thus, the director may need
to help such juveniles in developing a self-direction sense, autonomy, and social competence.
Unfortunately, the juvenile justice system often exposes these youth to a negative environment,
which prevents their progressive growth (Jannetta & Okeke, 2017). Therefore, the essay focuses
on the Bureau’s responsibilities in decision making regarding youthful offenders.
Improving the Effectiveness of a Juvenile Justice
Understanding the Cycle History of the Juveniles
According to Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman & Carver (2010), it is vital to improving
the evaluation and rehabilitation techniques that the Juvenile facility uses in correcting the
children. As such, treatment should be prioritized instead of punishing them as a form of
correction to juvenile offenders. Moreover, the get-tough movement increases emphasis on the
decline and deterrence in the rehabilitative techniques. For instance, youth offenders suffering
from Dilulio’s characterizations such as predators have been thought for long to be beyond
redemption. Fortunately, the director uses rehabilitation programs that assist in improving the

Director of State Juvenile Bureau 3
state of youth offenders through continuous analysis of history regarding the rehabilitation of
such children. Hence, progressive research by the bureau on electronic monitoring, longer
sentences, shock incarceration, and drug testing is recommended to improve the juvenile justice
system. Also, the director may utilize a revised approach such as JJSIP in recommending the
youth to be transferred from adult State courts to a juvenile one. This will ensure that the young
offenders are not criminalized, but assisted in rehabilitating.
Intervention and Prevention Programs for the Juvenile Facility
The prevention programs are primarily developed and implemented by social service
agencies, schools, public and mental health agencies. As such, the director works along with law
enforcement to focus on the prevention measures, which would manage the risky behaviors of
some juvenile offenders. Alternatively, the Bureau’s director may use prevention as a practical
approach meant to address juvenile delinquency in any society (Lipsey et al., 2010). Thus, it
would assist in achieving better outcomes in the behaviors of the affected youths. Moreover, the
Bureau’s director may recommend a supervisory component comprising some structures such as
controlling and monitoring the behavior of the youths. For instance, day reporting, electronic
monitoring, securing custodial institutions, and non-residential facilities.
Model Programs with Certified Evidence through Credible Sources
The Bureau’s director may need to develop model programs that are selected based on a
recommendation from research that is supported by previous programs implemented. It is crucial
to note that research based on effective model programs in specific individual programs that have
improved outcomes in juvenile offenders. Additionally, the director may develop some programs

Director of State Juvenile Bureau 4
such as training and technical assistance to the Bureau that wishes to implement an identified
program.
Types of Models Implemented to Enhance the Organizational Effectiveness
Logic Model Schematic
This model includes formatting and discussions that are developed by the JJEC, and
maintained online by the JRSA. The model uses a goal that represents the measurable statement
that explains the desired long-term impact of the selected program. As such, it is vital to
understand the expected long-term outcomes from the program, which will assist in determining
the general objective of the program (Bja Guide Program Evaluation, n.d). Below is a JJEC
model:
Figure 1: the JJEC Logic model

Director of State Juvenile Bureau 5
Prevalent Culture of the State Juvenile Bureau and Formulation Plan
Delinquents and delinquency are some of the prevalent acts committed by young
offenders, which would be a crime if an adult commits them. In 2011, there were more than one
million people younger than 18 years who were arrested in American. This accounted for 20
percent of all arrests being property crimes, while 13 percent were associated with violent
crimes. This means that the number of young offenders has drastically increased making juvenile
correction centers a destination for many of these offenders (Braton, 2016). Alternatively, the
NCSL (2005 to 2007) summarized the juvenile laws enacted by various States, and provided
commentary on measures about juvenile protection. Most of the policies created only focused on
rehabilitation of the juvenile offenders, but failed to provide them with a system that will enable
a smooth transition from being youths to adults. As such, the Bureau’s director may recommend
the policymakers to develop strategies that consider the transformation of these juveniles
(Willison, Mears, Shollenberger, Owens & Butts, 2010).
Mission and Goals of the Bureau
The Bureau’s director maintains consistency of juvenile sentencing by controlling,
condemning, and identifying the attributes of criminal punishment, which should not be lengthy
as per the requirements governing juvenile sentencing. Thus effective interventions that are
available in the juvenile system prevents recidivism (Bonnie, Johnson, Chemers and Schuck,
2013). It is worth noting that the mission of the Bureau is to ensure that policymakers support
rehabilitation, and identify alternative methods to secure detention. The director may recommend
the establishment of counseling programs, which effectively defends the juveniles (Willison et
al., 2010)

Director of State Juvenile Bureau 6
Influencing the External and Internal Politics Affecting the Bureau
The “Stubborn Child Act was created by the American government to develop juvenile
courts, which prevented juveniles from being sentenced just like adults. As such, the courts
provided a legal sanction area for decision making regarding a young offender. This directly
affected the Bureau because they were not in charge of the sentencing allocated to a juvenile.
Thus, the Bureau focuses on lightening the standards of sentencing for young offenders. This
influenced the “U.S Supreme Court” to rule that mandatory life sentencing without the
possibility of parole on young offenders was unconstitutional (Lyons, 2015). However, youthful
offenders are still to be held accountable if found guilty, and may be transferred to adult courts if
their crimes are heinous.
Improving the Decision Making in the Bureau
Equity
According to Lipsey, Conly, Chapman and Bilchik (2017), the Bureau’s director may use new
jurisdictions; for instance JJRRI and JJSIP, which translates extensive research on what works
for juvenile offenders. This creates a platform for making an improved decision regarding
juvenile justice.
Accuracy
This often affects the decision-making process regarding the risk levels for recidivism, and
reliability of risk assessment. As such, an accurate approach to risk assessment would assist in
improving the decision making of the Bureau (Baird et al., 2013).
Consistency with Theory

Director of State Juvenile Bureau 7
Most juvenile justice systems often have a philosophy that young offenders are designated as
delinquents instead of criminals. As such, it is the primary course for the juvenile system to not
punish but rehabilitate youthful offenders (Lawrence, 2008).
Consistency with Resources
Bonnie et al. (2013) assert that the resources available to the OJJDP help the staff in funding the
programs of the Bureau. Hence, OJJDP acts as a partnership with various national organizations
and federal agencies.
Making Decisions That Influence Future Decisions
Policymakers are often at a crossroad regarding making suitable strategies in managing youthful
offenders. Fortunately, research indicates that the legal policies that apply during decision
making on juvenile offenders are just like for adults. Thus, the Bureau’s director may develop
empirical and theoretical research that assists in making decisions, which influence future
decisions. This creates an understanding of the legal competence of youthful offenders.
Conclusion
The director at the Bureau is responsible for the juvenile’s health, and effective measures
need to be taken in recording and reporting any health issues a juvenile may face. Consequently,
the Bureau may need to develop model programs perspectives that are selected based on a
recommendation from research that is supported by previous programs implemented. Therefore,
the juvenile system is often tasked with making a vital decision regarding young offenders
because of its core purpose.

Director of State Juvenile Bureau 8
References
Baird, C., Healy, T., Johnson, K., Bogie, A., Dankert, E. W., & Scharenbroch, C. (2013). A
comparison of risk assessment instruments in juvenile justice. Madison, WI: National
Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Bja Guide Program Evaluation. (n.d). Guide to Program Evaluation. Bja Guide Program
Evaluation. Available from: https://www.bja.gov/evaluation/guide/bja-guide-program-
evaluation.pdf
Bonnie, R.J., Johnson, R.L., Chemers, B.M., and Schuck, J.A. (2013). Reforming Juvenile
Justice: A Development Approach. The National Academies Press. Available from:
https://www.nap.edu/read/14685/chapter/1
Braton, W.H. (2016). Juvenile Justice Policies and Programs. SAGE Publications,Inc. Available
from:
https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/67664_Jenson_Chapter_9.pdf
Jannetta, J., & Okeke, C. (2017). Strategies for Reducing Criminal and Juvenile Justice
Involvement. Building Ladders of Opportunity for Young People in the Great Lakes
States, brief, 4.
Lawrence. (2008). History and Development of the Juvenile Court and Justice Process. SAGE
Publications. Available from:
https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/19434_Section_I.pdf
Lyons, C.L. (2015). Reforming Juvenile Justice. CQ Researcher. Available from:
https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2015091100

Director of State Juvenile Bureau 9
Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., Kelly, M. R., Chapman, G., & Carver, D. (2010). Improving the
effectiveness of juvenile justice programs. Washington DC: Center for Juvenile Justice
Reform at Georgetown University.
Lipsey. M.W., Conly, C.H., Chapman, G., and Bilchik, S. (2017). Juvenile Justice System
Improvement: Implementing an Evidence-Based Decision-Making Platform. Center for
Juvenile Justice Reform. Available from:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250443.pdf
Willison, J. B., Mears, D. P., Shollenberger, T., Owens, C., & Butts, J. A. (2010). Past, present,
and future of juvenile justice: Assessing the policy options (APO). Washington DC: The
Urban Institute.