The dissertation examines treatment services received by youth on probation in the Maricopa County, Arizona. The project focuses on three primary issues: 1) the factors associated with receiving treatment services while on probation, 2) the factors associated with receiving treatment services through different funding streams, and 3) whether treatment services and specific characteristics of treatment services, particularly the funding source, influence recidivism outcomes of youth. To answer these questions the research used data obtained from the Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department from July 2012 thru August 2014. Multivariate regression, along with statistical techniques to control for selection bias, were used to identify the factors associated with receiving treatment services, the factors associated with the funding source of treatment services, and the effect of treatment services on recidivism. The findings from the current dissertation suggest that the receipt of treatment services is not equal across groups, and particularly that minorities are less likely to receive treatment services compared to their White counterparts. Additionally, the findings reveal that certain characteristics of youth and the type of treatment service received influence the funding source, but the source of funding does not influence the effectiveness of the treatment services. Finally, using propensity score matching, the current dissertation found that treatment services were effective in reducing recidivism while under probation supervision and 6 months after probation supervision has ended. Implications for policy and research are discussed in light of these findings.

Since Gottfredson and Hirschi proposed the general theory of crime, the direct link between self-control and delinquency has gained strong empirical support, and low self-control is now considered as a significant predictor of individual delinquent behaviors. However, the indirect link between self-control and delinquency still remains understudied. This study fills this void by introducing thoughtfully reflective decision making (TRDM), an important factor intimated by rational choice theory, as the mediator of the relationship between low self-control and delinquency. Using self-reported data from the city of Changzhi, China, this study finds that self-control is closely related to TRDM, low self-control is a significant predictor of general and non-violent delinquency, and TRDM does not mediate the effect of low self-control on delinquency. Findings from this study largely support the generalizability of self-control theory under the Chinese cultural environment, and also suggest that it might be fruitful to test other criminological theories in the Chinese context. The study's findings and their implications for theory and research are discussed.

The presence of drug cartels within Mexico impacts U.S. national security, foreign policy, U.S. crime rates, and public health policy. Due to the direct and indirect effects that the cartels have on the United States, this paper examines the Mérida Initiative, the current U.S. anti-cartel policy, and makes several recommendations for future policy directions. Using official documents as well as current academic research, this paper examines the outcomes of past comparable policies that the United States has implemented in Colombia and Afghanistan to address the issue of drug trafficking. The paper then builds on the present successes of the Mérida Initiative by recommending several policies in the areas of international cooperation, agricultural development, Mexican targeting and enforcement, and U.S. law enforcement. This paper recommends that information sharing between countries should be increased to reduce the likelihood that pressure place on cartels will cause displacement; crop eradication cease and alternative crop development be implemented to reduce illicit crop growth; the joint Mexican-U.S. enforcement focus should move from high-value targets to more highly connected members; the United States should increase vetting for gun purchases to help keep guns out of the hands of cartel members; and domestic drug policies should shift toward treatment and demand-focused policies. By implementing the recommended policies, this paper suggests that the influence of cartels within Mexico as well as the United States may be reduced.

The study of non-U.S. citizens in criminal justice system outcomes has often been neglected in the sentencing literature. When citizenship is considered, there are generally no distinctions made within this group. The research fails to consider differences according to legal status, race/ethnicity, nationality and other distinctive markers that might play a role in sentencing outcomes. Using federal sentencing data collected by the United States Sentencing Commission for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2008, this study examines the effect of offender citizenship status, legal status, and national origin on the likelihood of imprisonment and length of imprisonment for offenders convicted of drug offenses. The current study considers differences among foreign-born and Latino immigrant subgroups (e.g., Colombian, Cuban, Dominican, and Mexican nationals). The key findings in this dissertation include: (1) non-U.S. citizens have greater odds of imprisonment than U.S. citizens. However, non-U.S. citizen offenders receive significantly shorter prison terms relative to U.S. citizen offenders; (2) undocumented immigrants are more likely to be incarcerated compared to similarly situated authorized immigrants and U.S. citizens. However, legal status does not have an effect on sentence length; and (3) with respect to national origin, Mexican nationals are significantly more likely than Colombians to be incarcerated and are given significantly longer prison sentences than Dominican nationals. The implications of these findings and future research are addressed in the concluding chapter.

Prior research has found links between family environment and criminal outcomes, but research is lacking on why these factors often occur together within families. Parental criminality, family size, and family disruption have been analyzed as risk factors for juvenile delinquency, but their relationships with each other have gone largely unexplored. This thesis explores the relationship between parental criminality, having children, number of children, and patterns of residence with children. Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth '97 are used to associate likelihood of having children, likelihood of having any children out of residence, percent of children in residence, and number of children with arrest prevalence and self-reported offending. Results were generally supportive. Moderate effect sizes were found for likelihood of having children, with large effects on likelihood of having any children out of residence. Moderate effects were found for percentage of children in residence, and large effects were found for number of children.