Chat with us, powered by LiveChat The Impact of Mental Health on Juvenile Recidvism Rates I have uploaded the guidelines for the literature review. Please review and make sure it is something that can be accomplished. It ne | Wridemy

The Impact of Mental Health on Juvenile Recidvism Rates I have uploaded the guidelines for the literature review. Please review and make sure it is something that can be accomplished. It ne

The Impact of Mental Health on Juvenile Recidvism Rates I have uploaded the guidelines for the literature review. Please review and make sure it is something that can be accomplished. It ne



Literature Review Topic: The Impact of Mental Health on Juvenile Recidvism Rates

I have uploaded the guidelines for the literature review. Please review and make sure it is something that can be accomplished. It needs to follow APA 7th edition.   It will be about 10 pages in length once complete. It will be paraphrasing only.

The Format:
I. Title Page
II. Abstract Page
III. Literature Review
IV. References Page

I have uploaded all 8 articles that need to be in the literature review. 


Professional Writing for Social Work Literature Review Assignment (Due, Friday, Week 7, by 11:59 PM CT—50% of Letter Grade)

The Assignment: Using SocINDEX with Full Text and Social Work Reference Center—each hosted by EBSCO but offering different search results—locate 10 to 15 topically related, full-text journal articles or reports, published within the last three years, and analytically evaluate each work’s Introduction, Method, Evidence, Results, Discussion (IMRAD), Conclusion, References, Appendix and other Back Matter, as well as the document’s potential contributions to the field. Some articles not based on quantitative data and surveys or experimentation will be argumentative, and as such, will follow a thesis, evidence, and conclusion model. After doing so, choose eight articles with which you will construct your literature review. The document-wide formatting is APA, with a complete and properly formatted Title Page; the References page should use the Article in a Print Journal entry, with DOI, if included: Ramirez, B. (2016). The value of psychoanalysis. Sociology Experiments, 21(4), 76-115. Note the capitalization, the italics use, the punctuation, et cetera. (FYI, most journals use volume and issue numbers. The volume number is an annual number, while the issue number refers to each published issue. Thus, volume 25 is 2011, and volume 26 is 2012, and on. Most journals publish quarterly, so there are four issues per volume/year.) The document will be double spaced, with Paragraph After set at 0, with 1-inch margins, and will be composed in Times New Roman 12-point font. The document will include running page numbers and an abstract page. Properly formatted and properly written, the document will be approximately 10 pages long. See the sample Literature Reviews in APA Academic Writer for guidance when drafting the introductory and concluding paragraphs. The former introduces the document as a literature review and the cohesive theme among the documents reviewed, while the latter ties the reviewed documents together in theme or in importance or in another manner and then often looks forward after doing so. (APA Academic Writer is located in the library databases; open an account the first time you enter the site.) The academic-style body/review paragraphs—one for each or the eight articles reviewed—will be approximately 100-150 words long, with topic sentences, evaluation of IMRAD or Thesis, Evidence and Conclusion, in-text citation, overall assessment of the document, and concluding sentence. The document will utilize APA-style in-text citation—in paraphrases, not quotations.


(Paraphrasing and summary paraphrasing are skills that all sociology students must learn. So, let us start practicing proper APA-style paraphrasing now.) The Format: I. Title Page II. Abstract Page III. Literature Review IV. References Page The Submission: Please upload the completed, copyedited, proofread, correctly formatted Literature Review as a Word document to the Wk 7 Literature Review Assignment tab by 11:59 PM CT, Friday of Week 7 of the semester.


Skinner-Osei et al. Justice Policy Journal, Fall, 2019

Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions 1

Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions

Precious Skinner-Osei,1 Laura Mangan,2 Mara Liggett,3 Michelle Kerrigan,4 Jill S. Levenson5 Justice Policy Journal � Volume 16, Number 2 (Fall, 2019)

© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2019 �

Abstract Professionals working in the juvenile justice system must consider the impact of trauma on justice-involved youth when creating interventions and policies. Most youths involved with the justice system have a history of childhood adversity. Juvenile justice service systems should work to implement trauma-informed interventions that address the needs of youth with mental health and trauma- related disorders. The adoption of a trauma-informed approach throughout the juvenile justice system and the implementation of interventions for juvenile offenders with a history of trauma exposure has enormous potential benefits for justice-involved youth, the staff who work with them, their families, and the community at large.

1 Florida Atlantic University 2 Florida Atlantic University 3 Florida Atlantic University 4 Florida Atlantic University 5 Barry University Corresponding Author: Precious Skinner-Osei [email protected]

2 Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions

Introduction The United States leads the industrialized world in the rate at which young people are incarcerated (Annie E. Casey Foundation [AECF], 2013). Approximately 45,000- 60,000 youth under age 18 are incarcerated in juvenile correctional facilities and adult prisons on any given day (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU], 2018; Hockenberry & Sladky, 2018). In 2014, an estimated one million children were arrested (Children’s Defense Fund, 2018). In 2015, 48,043 children were detained overnight (Children’s Defense Fund, 2018). Although the numbers were declining in 2016, an estimated 856,000 children were arrested that year (Children’s Defense Fund, 2018). Incarcerating youth poses lifelong consequences by cutting them off from their families, compromising their education, disrupting their social relationships, possibly increasing their chance of recidivating, and often exposing them to further trauma and violence (AECF, 2013; OJJDP, 2016; Hancock, 2017; ACLU, 2018).

One out of every 14 children in the United States has had an incarcerated parent (Murphey & Cooper, 2015; Zoukis, 2017). Although a precise number is difficult to ascertain, it is estimated that half of justice-involved youth [JIY] in custody have or had a parent or close relative in custody (Butterfield, 1999). Delinquent behavior is often a learned behavior and an inherited consequence of their parent’s incarceration. Research has shown that having a parent in jail or prison has produced severe trauma in some children, and parental incarceration is one of the ten primary adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) identified by the Centers for Disease Control (Skinner-Osei & Levenson, 2018). Exposure to parental incarceration has shown a significant relationship with delinquency and other maladaptive behaviors (Felitti, Anda, Nordenberg, Williamson, Spitz, Edwards, & Marks, 1998; Baglivio, Epps, Swartz, Huq, Sheer, & Hardt, 2014; Skinner-Osei, 2018). Parental incarceration can create profound shame and stigma for children and their families. When a parent is incarcerated, children are locked behind metaphorical bars, and they must cope with erroneous and damaging assumptions from their peers, teachers, and even other family members (Skinner-Osei & Levenson, 2018). For many children, parental incarceration is an intergenerational family legacy, mainly because they are at risk of repeating what has been modeled to them (Skinner-Osei & Levenson, 2018; Levenson, 2019).

Children in the justice system are often viewed as beyond hope and uncontrollable. They may appear angry and defiant when, in actuality, they are stricken with loneliness, depression, abandonment, powerlessness, and fear (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 2012). What masquerades as intentional defiance and aggression is often a defense against the despair and

Skinner-Osei et al. Justice Policy Journal, Fall, 2019

Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions 3

hopelessness that traumatic events have caused in their lives (Skinner-Osei & Levenson, 2018). These characteristics are exacerbated by the use of the outdated and harmful “training school” model that punishes JIY by placing them in remote prison-like settings (ACLU, 2018). Many youths are incarcerated for non-violent offenses; primarily low-level property offenses, public order offenses, and status offenses, such as possession of alcohol and truancy (OJJDP, 2012; AECF, 2013; Campaign for Youth Justice [CFYJ], 2016).

The consequences are far-reaching. Many of these youths are offending due to pre-existing trauma stemming from some form of maltreatment and/or family dysfunction. Moreover, abused or neglected children have an increased likelihood of running away from home (Kaufman & Widom, 1999). Many who run away are between the ages of 12-17 and have suffered some form physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional abuse inflicted by relatives or close family friends (Kaufman & Widom, 1999; Kunz, 2017; Dowshen, 2018; Bryan, 2019). Other reasons involve family conflict and dynamics, personal crisis, sexual orientation, divorce, death, school problems, and addiction (Dowshen, 2018; Congressional Research Service, 2019). Runaways are at increased risk for arrest, and when they are thrust into the juvenile justice system [JJS], it serves as further abuse and may re-trigger or worsen their trauma.

In nine states running away is considered a low-level status offense meaning that youth may be fined, given probation, have their driver license suspended, required to have a drug screening, or be forced to return to the chaotic home life that they were fleeing. The combination of running away and childhood victimization increases the likelihood that these youths will be arrested (Kaufman & Widom, 1999). Runaway and homeless youth have higher rates of involvement in the JJS (Youth.Gov, 2019). At least half of runaway and homeless youth had been arrested at least once since they first ran away, and many others had been arrested multiple times (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCLS], 2019; Youth.Gov, 2019). Many of their arrests can be attributed to the activities that they must endure to survive, such as survival sex, substance use, and physical abuse (NCLS, 2019).

Over the last decade, a significant amount of attention has been given to criminal justice reform, and notably, the reduction of juvenile offenses and the effectiveness of the front-line staff who work with them. However, there is still a substantial need for more evidenced-based trauma-informed interventions and rigorous training protocols for professionals working in juvenile correctional facilities. Also, other variables, such as trauma-informed understanding of criminality, mental health, and neurophysiological development, need to be

4 Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions

considered. The consideration of these variables has amplified the U.S. Department of Justice's mission to create and support more trauma-informed interventions (Branson, Baetz, Horwitz, & Hoagwood, 2017). This paper will outline a history of the JJS, provide evidence supporting trauma-informed interventions, and conclude with implications for education and training, policy, and advocacy, and prevention.

History of the Juvenile Justice System The purpose of the JJS is to increase safety in the community, bring about justice for crimes committed, and rehabilitate troubled youth (McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001; Downey, 2011; Russell & Manske, 2017; Troutman, 2018). Over the last 170 years, the juvenile justice paradigm has shifted continuously concerning age, nature of the crime committed, punitive accountability, rehabilitation, and sustainable community safety (Russell & Manske, 2017). Before 1899, the United States operated under the old British system of justice, which considered the ages of seven to fourteen a gray zone (Dialogue on Youth and Justice, 2007). Although many presumed a child so young was incapable of knowingly committing a crime, if it was determined that the child understood the difference between right and wrong, they could receive the same punishment as an adult offender (McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001; Dialogue on Youth and Justice, 2007; Taylor & Fritsch, 2015).

During the nineteenth century, institutions such as the Chicago Reform School, Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, and the New York House of Refuge were created to address the treatment of JIY (Dialogue on Youth and Justice, 2007; Troutman, 2018). This system of juvenile social reform led to the first juvenile justice court in Cook County, Illinois in 1899 (Mears, Pickett, & Mancini, 2014; Russell & Manske, 2017). The focus was on the child, the approach was informal, non-adversarial, flexible, and the cases were treated as civil actions instead of criminal (Dialogue on Youth and Justice, 2007).

Although the American JJS claimed to be rehabilitative, it actually became more punitive for several reasons: (1) Inconsistencies in policy and procedure. Initially, there were fifty-one individual JJS across the U.S. that operated independently of one another (McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001); (2) Out of consideration for victims, there was an increasing demand for JIY to be held accountable (McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001); and, (3) The number of violent crimes committed by juveniles consistently increased (McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001). Although the causes and consequences of crime seemed to justify increasingly punitive measures, the constitutional rights of JIY were violated for decades in the early part of the 20th

Skinner-Osei et al. Justice Policy Journal, Fall, 2019

Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions 5

century. In the 1960s two controversial court cases, Kent v. the U.S. (1966), and In re Gault (1967), changed how juvenile cases proceeded through the court system (McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001; Downey, 2011). The outcomes led to increased constitutional protections for minors, and they were given the same due process rights as adults (Downey, 2011).

Following In re Gault, Congress passed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act in 1968. The premise of the act relied on emerging research that suggested that when pursuing punishment, courts should consider the social and behavioral environment of youth. Courts were encouraged to take into account a youth’s history of abuse and trauma, family cohesiveness, social connections, education, and, more importantly, the likelihood of successful rehabilitation (Downey, 2011). The act sought to prevent juvenile delinquency, deinstitutionalize youth in the system, and keep JIY separate from adult offenders, which was significant because evidence had long shown that juvenile crimes became more extreme after they were confined with adults. Additionally, to better serve JIY, the act created three entities: 1) The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]; 2) The Runaway Youth Program; and, 3) The National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [NIJJDP] (Impact Law, 2019).

The intentions of the act were short-lived and contradictory. The act was amended and abandoned its original goal of rehabilitation. Similar to the adult system, it reverted to punitive measures. It was amended to include provisions that allowed some states to try JIY as adults for some violent crimes and weapons violations (Impact Law, 2019). The new provisions were fueled by prison administrators, justice practitioners, policymakers, and the public. All parties cohesively insinuated that rehabilitative measures were not effective, mainly because juvenile crime continued to rise. A plethora of research about the needs and well-being of JIY was minimized or ignored, while the publication of Robert Martinson’s 1974 study concluding that “Nothing Works” was used as evidence and reason to support increased punitive measures. The Nothing Works Doctrine analyzed programs that were designed to reduce recidivism to determine if they were effective, and furthered questioned if rehabilitation was possible (Martinson, 1974). The most detrimental consequence derived from the doctrine is that it inspired mandatory minimum sentences and the removal of judicial discretion (Levenson & Willis, 2018).

Even with the new extreme punitive measures, crime continued to rise in the juvenile and adult systems. From 1980-1994 there was a significant surge in the number of violent criminal offenses committed by JIY, which motivated states to adopt even more aggressive policing, which bled into the school system (McCord,

6 Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions

Widom, & Crowell, 2001; Wald & Losen, 2003; Backstrom & Walker, 2006; Bryer & Levin, 2013). This get-tough approach, including what became known as the “school to prison pipeline” (Wald & Losen, 2003), propelled more stringent legislation that immediately increased the number of youths incarcerated. Tens of thousands of youth were placed in correctional facilities that offered little if any rehabilitative programming (Bryer & Levin, 2013).

Although these increasingly punitive measures yielded results that illustrated the tough on crime tactics were ineffective, there was a reluctance to consider reasons why youth were committing crimes and how to intervene early and preventively. Instead, politicians used the media to support a tough-on-crime agenda, characterizing JIY as violent and irredeemable instilling fear in the public. In 1996 John Delulio informed policymakers and the public of a dire threat of super- predators, whom he defined and described as "radically impulsive, brutally remorseless, rapists, murders, burglars drug dealers, and gang members” (Kelly, 2016, p.1; Fair Punishment Project, 2016). Instantly, politicians and most notably First Lady Hillary Clinton, begin to use the label to help generate support for tougher crime policies (Fair Punishment Project, 2016). As labeling theory infers, the power of labels, particularly shaming and stigmatizing labels, further separates justice-involved persons from society and reinforces deviant identity and criminal behavior (Levenson & Willis, 2018). As Charles Cooley theorized, our impressions of ourselves are shaped by how others treat us, which in return helps to shape our constructions of social identity (Cooley, 1983 revision).

This cruel and unjust label helped to rapidly increase the number of JIY transferred into adult prisons. Moreover, the label made it easier for the public to endorse harsh policies such as the elimination of transfer restrictions and the ease of thrusting JIY into adult courts even if they were younger and accused of lesser offenses (Kelly, 2016). A study in Maryland found that the average sentence for a 17-year-old in adult court is approximately 41% longer than the 18-year-olds (Gulstad, 2016). In 1996, the Department of Justice found that JIY in adult court were more likely to be sentenced to prison (Gulstad, 2016).

Another culprit was racial disparities. Development Services Group, Inc. 2017 [OJJDP] stated that youths of color are more likely to be referred to the JJS than whites. Although Delulio (1996) was not specific about the race of the super- predators, society assumed that they were black and brown. In 1998 Frank Gilliam published the Superpredator Script, finding that when people were shown a mug shot of an African-American or Hispanic youth for just five seconds, they were more afraid and more likely to support harsher punishments for youth (Gilliam & Iyengar,

Skinner-Osei et al. Justice Policy Journal, Fall, 2019

Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions 7

1998). Sadly, this was not surprising because the criminal justice system was idealized out of oppression and discrimination (Alexander, 2012).

In the late 1990s, the criminal justice pendulum swung back a bit, and policymakers agreed that reform was warranted. They encouraged research, evidence-based interventions, mental health evaluations, and education and training for professionals working with JIY (National Research Council, 2014). Although these goals were well-intentioned and pragmatic, many politicians ignored suggestions from research findings and continued to perpetuate fear even when their insinuations were falsified by empirical evidence. Although minimal changes were being made or suggested, many JIY were warehoused in horrific conditions that created or worsened their conditions (Shields, 2011). They were further abused and traumatized, and their mental health needs were ignored.

Mental health disorders are prevalent in the JJS (Development Service Group, Inc. [OJJDP], 2017). An estimated two-thirds of JIY have a diagnosable mental health disorder compared to an estimated 9 to 22 percent of the general youth population (Teplin et al., 2005; Schubert & Mulvey 2014; Development Service Group, Inc. [OJJDP], 2017; National Conference of State Legislatures [NCLS], 2019). In 2014 The National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimated that 11.4 percent of adolescents aged 11 to 17 had a major depressive episode in the past year (Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, 2015). Fazel, Doll, and Langstrom (2008) also found that youths in detention and correctional facilities were almost ten times more likely to suffer from psychosis than youths in the general population.

The Pathways to Desistance Study followed more than 1,300 youths for 7 years and found that the most common mental health problem was substance use disorder (76 percent), high anxiety (33 percent), ADHD (14 percent), depression (12 percent), PTSD (12 percent, and mania (7 percent) (Development Service Group, Inc. [OJJDP], 2017). As cited in Development Service Group, Inc. [OJJDP], (2017, p. 3) Wasserman et al. (2010) conducted a multisite study that analyzed system intake, detention, and secure post-adjudication and found that 51 percent of the youth met the criteria for one or more psychiatric disorders. Furthermore, the Northwestern Juvenile Project found that 46 percent of males and 57 percent of females had two or more psychiatric disorders (Development Service Group, Inc. [OJJDP], 2017). Also, a study in Texas, Louisiana, and Washington found that 79 percent of the youths diagnosed for one mental health disorder also met the criteria for two or more diagnoses (Teplin et al., 2005; Development Service Group, Inc. [OJJDP], 2017). Research shows that many of behavioral health disorders are related to, and symptomatic of, early childhood trauma such as abuse, neglect, family dysfunction, poverty, and violent communities (Fox, Perez, Cass, Baglivio, &

8 Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions

Epps, 2015; Baglivio, Wolff, Piquero, Greenwald, & Epps, 2017; Levenson & Willis, 2018).

Even with this knowledge, there is still a significant lack of services pre and post- release in correctional facilities and communities. Instead of receiving adequate treatment, many are warehoused in correctional facilities that lack psychotherapy and other health services (Shields, 2011). The lack of services, or in many cases, the non-existence of services, violates JIY’s 8th and 14th Constitutional rights, which state that JIY with severe mental disorders must receive treatment while confined in a secure public or private state correctional facility (Grisso & Underwood, 2004; Teplin et al., 2005). The United States has a history of warehousing the mentally ill and favoring institutionalization over rehabilitation. An example is the California Youth Authority [CYA], who has a reputation for being dangerous for JIY (Kita, 2011). CYA once housed an estimated 10,000 JIY (Kita, 2011). CYA was not set up to house JIY, especially those with minor offenses (Kita, 2011). Like most correctional facilities, CYA was made with the perpetrator in mind, with strong potential for re- traumatization for youth with a history of childhood adversities (Levenson & Willis, 2018). At CYA, there was no separation of JIY based on age and severity of the crime (Ulloa, 2019). So those with non-violent, low-level offenses were housed with violent gang members, sexual offenders, and repeat offenders. Additionally, many endured 23-hour lockdowns, beatings by staff, and being caged (Ulloa, 2019). A Grand Jury found that the children received their schooling while in cages, and they were frequently drugged and improperly cared for (Kita, 2011). The Grand Jury also found that CYA used excessive chemical restraints (Kita, 2011). The CYA medical staff admitted to the Superintendent that their workload was too large, which prohibited them from adequately providing mental health care services (Kita, 2011). At the time, there was only one full-time psychologist and one part-time psychiatrist to serve 750 wards (Kita, 2011).

As with other components of the criminal justice system, racial disparities also exist when it comes down to those who receive mental health services (Baglivio et al., 2017). African American JIY are less likely to receive substance use or mental health treatment (Development Services Group, Inc. 2017, [OJJDP]). Spinney et al. (2016) completed a systematic review that analyzed articles published from 1995- 2014 that examined racial disparities in the JJS and concluded that there was some race effect in deciding who received services. Aalsma et al. (2014) also concluded that whites were more likely to see a mental health clinician within the first 24 hours of detention intake and to receive a referral for mental health services after discharge.

Skinner-Osei et al. Justice Policy Journal, Fall, 2019

Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions 9

Childhood Trauma and Justice-Involved Youth At the turn of the millennium, the focus shifted again from confinement to

understanding why youth commit crimes. This time around was different because some policymakers had expanded their views and were interested in discussing what reform would entail. Also, there was a surge of research on adolescent behavior, co-occurring disorders, and neurodevelopment. The research implied that many youths offended because they were faced with a multiplicity of psychosocial challenges, complicated family situations, and co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders (Thomas & Penn, 2002). Further research emerged concerning adolescent development and behavior, explicitly illustrating that neurodevelopment in the prefrontal cortex of the brain is not fully developed until people reach their mid-20s; these areas are responsible for cognitive processing as well as the ability to inhibit impulses and weigh consequences before acting (OJJDP, 2012). The way JIY internalize and externalize problems might be related to their deficient emotional and behavioral regulation skills, supporting the notion that children and adolescents may not be criminally responsible for their actions because developmentally they are different from adults (McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2001; Marrow, Knudsen, Olafson, & Bucher, 2012).

Neurocognitive functioning is further compromised for children exposed to traumatic incidents, chronic abuse, or neglect. Cognitive processing and self- regulation can be under-developed when daily survival skills become prioritized in a traumagenic environment (van der Kolk, 2006). The quickly expanding research literature has informed the understanding of the impacts of chronic toxic stress on the developing brain, and the relationships between early trauma, self-regulation, and criminality (Wolff & Baglivio, 2016; Holley, Ewing, Stiver, & Bloch, 2017). Many JIY experienced trauma-related neurodevelopmental changes in the brain that manifest in disrupted cognitive and psychosocial development (Marrow et al., 2012). The threat of childhood trauma is so severe that it is considered a public health concern (Branson et al., 2017; Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). More than half of young children ages 0-5 experience a traumatic event such as physical trauma, abuse or neglect, and exposure to domestic and or community violence (Marrow et al., 2012; Buss, Warren, & Horton, 2015). Traumatic events may include exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, sexual abuse, physical abuse, domestic violence, community and school violence, medical trauma, motor vehicle accidents, acts of terrorism, war experiences, natural and human- made disasters or the physical integrity of self or others (American Psychological Association, 2008; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV and V, 2013; De Bellis & Zisk, 2014).

10 Justice-Involved Youth and Trauma-Informed Interventions

In the United States, approximately 50% to 80% of JIY report some form of victimization (Ford, Grasso, Hawke, & Chapman, 2013). The risk for posttraumatic stress and mental health disorders is increased by at least twofold and could be as far upward as tenfold for youth exposed to traumatic events such as emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, intimate partner, family, or community violence (OJJDP, 2012). In 2009, one in ten children experienced poly-victimization, which increases the risk of academic disengagement, gang affiliation, depression, suicidality, relationship volatility, substance abuse, and participation in behaviors that increase criminogenic risk (Finklehor,

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?

About Wridemy

We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.

How It Works

To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Are there Discounts?

All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

Hire a tutor today CLICK HERE to make your first order

Related Tags

Academic APA Writing College Course Discussion Management English Finance General Graduate History Information Justify Literature MLA