Abstract
Purpose. The first purpose of this case study was to determine the importance of the number of treatment programs within a probation department to reducing juvenile recidivism as perceived by selected deputy probation officers in Los Angeles and Riverside counties. A second purpose was to identify and describe the components that most contribute to a reduction in recidivism as perceived by the officers. A third purpose was to identify and determine which juvenile treatment programs were perceived by the officers to be most effective. Methodology. This case study research used a descriptive—qualitative methodology with a narrative design. Interviews with deputy probation officers working with juvenile delinquents were conducted. The need for clarification and isolation of the essential workings of successful programs to reduce juvenile recidivism was discovered from the stories told. Findings. The researcher identified ten issues relevant to treatment programs and rehabilitative components effective in reducing juvenile recidivism: (a) A variety of treatment programs are important; (b) treatment programs help juveniles with personal issues; (c) family is an important component; (d) family reunification, therapy, and counseling are important components; (e) juvenile offenders who commit crimes are usually mentally unstable; (f) individual, group, family, drug, and sexual abuse counseling are used to offset juvenile delinquency; (g) anger could result in juvenile recidivism; (h) education is an important component; (i) an accurate assessment, a sound case plan, and appropriate intervention could help reduce juvenile recidivism; and (j) multisystemic therapy and the wraparound process correct juveniles' antisocial behavior. Conclusions. The programs studied have been effective in the reduction of recidivism in low-risk juvenile delinquents but not in high-risk delinquents, who normally reoffend. No one program or component can treat juvenile delinquency and reduce juvenile recidivism. Recommendations. The information in this case study was based on the findings and implications from the limited perspective of eight probation officers. It is recommended this study be replicated with a larger sample of probation officers. Furthermore, the data collected for this study represent exclusively the probation departments of Riverside and Los Angeles counties and not the juvenile justice system in the past or future.