In addition, sanctions are handed down by their peers, a method that reintegrative shaming
theory states will positively affect youth if it is “reintegrative rather than stigmatizing” where the act
is labeled as delinquent and the youth is separated from poor choices and welcomed back into the
community by becoming a TC jury member for the next hearing (Stickle et al., 2008). The separation
of the youth from their delinquent act is explicitly stated to the youth during the hearings (Stickle et
al., 2008). Furthermore, when the offender later serves as a jury member, (s)he is able to assist in
reducing the misconduct of other offenders, which helps this offender to perceive themselves as
valued members of the community and disassociate themselves with delinquent peer groups (Stickle
et al., 2008).
Stickle evaluated four Maryland TC programs (107 youth) using surveys, where all
offenders were between the ages of 11 and 17, committed misdemeanors, and took responsibility for
their crimes (Stickle et al., 2008). Stickle found that all programs were “well-implemented”, where
“over 85% of participants completed each component of the TC process, including successful
completion of their assigned sanctions” with one exception (Stickle et al., 2008). Stickle noted that
despite coordinator specifications that 75% of youth participants charged with substance and alcohol
abuse would receive substance abuse evaluation or counseling as part of their sanctions, only 23% of
these youth actually did (Stickle et al., 2008). Given the plethora of research out on the likelihood of
recidivism for juveniles who have alcohol or substance abuse issues, the lack of follow-through on
this vital aspect of the program is alarming. Drugs and alcohol are known gateways that lead to
crime for youth, as drug and alcohol consumption before and during criminal acts are often
common occurrences for juvenile crime. The avoidance of proper substance abuse counseling puts
youth completing the program at a disadvantage during a crucial time when the youth need every
resource available to them for rehabilitation.
This is a likely explanation for Stickle’s findings, which are remarkably high recidivism rates,
especially for that of first-time misdemeanor juvenile offenders. Stickle evaluated TC programs on
implementation by the stages: “referral, intake, hearing, and closeout” (Stickle et al., 2008). After
18 months from the time of referral, thirty youth reoffended during the follow-up period out of a
sample of 107, where 18 were TC youth and 12 were youth who were traditionally processed by the
Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) (Stickle et al., 2008).
Stickle found that the TC youth, “offended at a higher rate than the DJS sample (32.1% versus
25.5%, respectively) and had a higher average number of total re-arrests than the DJS sample”
(Stickle et al., 2008). Despite this, Stickle still concluded that, “few concrete conclusions can be
drawn…concerning the efficacy of TC. While some of this literature certainly casts doubt upon the
efficacy of the program, the methodological flaws [attrition and small sample size] limit our ability
to draw confident conclusions based on the results” (Stickle et al., 2008). The most interesting part
of the study was Stickle’s conclusion that the DJS approach of little or no action is likely the most
appropriate option for minor first-time offending; stating that, “intake, informal probation, and no
continued interactions with the official system is a better way of dealing with this early delinquency
than scrutiny of the offense in front of peers…the program was more successful with the serious
offenders than with the minor offenders” (Stickle et al., 2008). One issue could be that the cases
being sent to diversion might be cases that did not have enough evidence to hold up in court, where
the prosecutor decides to send the child to diversion instead of dropping the case. Though this is
seemingly harmless, it has the potential to unnecessarily send a child into the JJS when they possibly
would not have had any further contact with the system, otherwise.
43