UNEVEN PROGRESS TOWARD JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM IN GUYANA: FINDINGS FROM A SURVEY OF JUSTICE-INVOLVED JUVENILES Final Report

June 2021 This publication was prepared independently by Kevin Barnes-Ceeney, Basab Dasgupta, Ben Morse, and Rachel Pizatella-Haswell of Social Impact. It was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development as part of the Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance – Learning, Evaluation, and Research activity. UNEVEN PROGRESS TOWARD JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM IN GUYANA: FINDINGS FROM A SURVEY OF JUSTICE-INVOLVED JUVENILES FINAL REPORT

June 2021 Contracted under AID-OAA-M-13-00011

DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... I INTRODUCTION ...... 1 BACKGROUND ...... 2 JUVENILE JUSTICE IN GUYANA ...... 2 JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORMS IN GUYANA ...... 2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT OF 2018 ...... 4 USAID JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMMING IN GUYANA ...... 5 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 6 DRIVERS OF RECIDIVISM AND REINTEGRATION ...... 6 STUDY PURPOSE, QUESTIONS, AND METHODOLOGY ...... 9 STUDY PURPOSE ...... 9 METHODOLOGY ...... 9 DATA SOURCES ...... 9 ESTIMATION STRATEGY ...... 10 MAIN OUTCOMES AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ...... 11 STUDY LIMITATIONS...... 13 FINDINGS ...... 16 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ...... 16 OFFENSE HISTORY ...... 17 TREATMENT BY POLICE AND JUSTICE SYSTEM ...... 17 RECIDIVISM ...... 19 REINTEGRATION ...... 19 CORRELATES OF RECIDIVISM ...... 20 CORRELATES OF REINTEGRATION ...... 27 DISCUSSION ...... 31 JUVENILES’ EXPERIENCES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ...... 31 RECIDIVISM ...... 31 REINTEGRATION ...... 33 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 34 PROTECTING JUVENILES’ RIGHTS ...... 34 IMPROVING DETENTION CONDITIONS ...... 34 REDUCING RECIDIVISM ...... 34 PROMOTING REINTEGRATION ...... 35 USING DATA TO MONITOR AND INFORM JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ...... 35 REFERENCES ...... 36 APPENDIX I: REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAMPLE ...... 40 APPENDIX II: SAMPLE SIZE AND MARGIN OF ERROR CALCULATIONS ...... 41 APPENDIX III: REGRESSION TABLES FOR MAIN FIGURES ...... 42 APPENDIX IV: DISAGGREGATED RESULTS ...... 44 CORRELATES OF RECIDIVISM DISAGGREGATED BY TYPE OF RECIDIVISM CRIME ...... 44 CORRELATES OF REINTEGRATION DISAGGREGATED BY TYPE OF REINTEGRATION ...... 46 APPENDIX V: CONSENT SCRIPT AND SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...... 47 CONSENT/ASSENT SCRIPTS ...... 47 SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...... 51 APPENDIX VI: SUMMARY STATISTICS ...... 73 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Sample Demographics and Background Characteristics ...... 16 Table 2: Offense History ...... 17 Table 3: Treatment by Police and Justice System ...... 18 Table 4: Rates of Recidivism ...... 19 Table 5: Reintegration Outcomes ...... 20 Table 6: Decomposition Group Variables ...... 26 Table 7: Drivers of Recidivism ...... 42 Table 8: Correlates of Reintegration ...... 43 Table 9: Correlates of recidivism disaggregated by type of recidivism ...... 44 Table 10: Correlates of recidivism disaggregated by type of recidivism (continued) ...... 45 Table 11: Correlates of reintegration disaggregated by type of reintegration ...... 46 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Correlates of Recidivism ...... 23 Figure 2: Drivers of Recidivism - Decomposition of Group Effects ...... 27 Figure 3: Correlates of Reintegration ...... 28 Figure 4: Drivers of Reintegration – Decomposition of Group Effects ...... 30 Figure 5: Population and sample comparisons across gender, ethnicity and region ...... 40

ACRONYMS ESC Eastern and Southern Caribbean GOG Government of Guyana GYD Guyanese Dollar NORC National Opinion Research Center OLS Ordinary Least Squares SKYE Skills and Knowledge for Youth Empowerment SSYDR Specialists in Sustained Youth Development and Research U.S. United States USAID United States Agency for International Development YES Youth Empowerment Systems EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Despite sustained economic growth over the past decade, Guyana continues to struggle to combat crime and violence (Sutton & Baxter, 2017). According to a 2016 nationally representative survey, crime and security is second only to the economy as the “most important problem” facing the country. 1 Recognizing the need for comprehensive reform, the Government of Guyana (GOG), the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have embarked on an ambitious effort to reform the country’s criminal justice system. 2 Central to this reform process is the transformation of the nation’s juvenile justice system, which experts widely view as placing excessive emphasis on punitive rather than rehabilitative policies. Through the Youth Empowerment Systems (YES) program, USAID is working to modernize youth justice and promote diversion programs over confinement. YES activities also focus on building capacity, fostering inter-agency cooperation, and improving monitoring and evaluation. The purpose of this study is to document how justice-involved juveniles are experiencing the criminal justice system in light of the recent and ongoing reforms described above. We focus on the following set of questions in particular. First, in light of recent reforms to the criminal justice system in Guyana, how are juveniles currently experiencing the criminal justice system in terms of procedural justice, police abuse, and detention in adult facilities? Second, what is the incidence of recidivism among justice-involved youth, and what are the primary risk factors for recidivism? Lastly, to what extent are youth in the juvenile justice system reintegrating into society? What are the most important barriers to such reintegration? Conversely, what factors support reintegration? To answer these questions, the research team conducted a survey (N=377) of justice-involved youth aged 15 to 21 in Guyana. The survey was conducted in November and December 2019, between one and three years after respondents’ first involvement with the justice system, and it collected information about respondents’ rehabilitation and reintegration into society; recidivism; factors associated with resilience and risk; and background information on education, employment, and family structures. We find little evidence of progress and considerable room for improvement concerning the impact of reforms on juveniles’ experiences with procedural justice, police abuse, and compliance with laws prohibiting detention in adult facilities. An alarming proportion of the justice-involved juveniles (32 percent) experienced police brutality at the hands of the police, defined as punching, kicking, or beating. Meanwhile, only a minority of respondents felt the police treated them with respect (46 percent). Furthermore, 16 percent of male juveniles (some as young as 15 years old at the time of incarceration) report they were held in detention centers with adults, a practice which not only violates Guyanese law but also increases the risk of recidivism. We find that current reforms have thus far failed to effectively reduce recidivism: 36 percent of respondents to our survey were rearrested or reappeared in court and 65 percent admitted to committing a crime since they were released or their original case was settled. Moreover, recidivism was high for serious offenses like aggravated assault (16 percent) and acquisitive

1 The Latin American Public Opinion Poll, available at: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/lapop/guyana.php. 22 percent of respondents ranked crime and security as the “most important problem” facing the country. By comparison, the economy was considered the most important problem among 39 percent of respondents. 2 For information on USAID’s work in Eastern and Southern Caribbean countries, visit: https://www.usaid.gov/barbados.

i | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV offenses (26 percent).3 Correlational analysis suggests these high rates of recidivism were driven by those who previously experienced police brutality, as well as by those who continued to associate with delinquent peer networks after their original offense was settled. In terms of progress toward successful reintegration of justice-involved youth back into mainstream society, we find that employment and educational opportunities for justice-involved youth continue to be limited; only 47 percent of respondents were either employed (36 percent) or in school (13 percent). The remaining 53 percent were either detained (16 percent) or unemployed (37 percent). Moreover, we find that access to education and counseling services while in detention falls well short of universal, in violation of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. These findings reflect the continued lack of reintegration and re-entry plans for recently released juveniles. Respondents who continued to associate with delinquent peer networks were the least likely to be employed, enrolled in school, or participating in prosocial community activities like volunteering, sports, or religious services. Education and employment opportunities were especially lacking for females, only 28 percent of whom were employed or enrolled in school. We offer three sets of recommendations for policymakers concerned with transforming Guyana’s juvenile justice system: • First, we recommend that the GOG and its international partners strengthen police accountability to ensure juveniles are protected from excessive use of force and are treated in a procedurally just manner, with dignity and respect. • Second, to reduce recidivism, the GOG, the Probation Department within the Ministry of Social Protection, and international donors should invest in programs that disrupt ties to delinquent peer groups once juveniles’ cases are settled or they are released from detention. These efforts must extend beyond promoting prosocial community engagement or the rebuilding of relationships with non-criminal peers or parent figures, as these activities alone do not deter recidivism. Policymakers should be careful to avoid inadvertently strengthening delinquent peer networks by placing delinquent adolescents with delinquent peers in group-based interventions for at-risk youth. • Lastly, to address the lack of employment and educational opportunities facing recently released juveniles, the GOG and its international partners should invest in vocational education, entrepreneurship training, job placement training, and aftercare support programs that are tailored to the needs of this population. The GOG and international partners should also consider investing in additional training and resources for social workers and probation officers, to enable them to play a greater role in aftercare support for young people leaving prison.

3 Acquisitive crimes occur when the offender stands to gain material from an offense; common examples include theft, robbery, armed robbery, and grand larceny.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | ii INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, alarmingly high homicide and crime rates in Eastern and Southern Caribbean (ESC) countries have led to a consensus among national and international stakeholders on the need for criminal justice system reform, particularly for young adult and juvenile populations who are at an especially high risk for involvement in crime. 4 Accordingly, the United Nations Development Programme has called for a transformation of status quo practices in order to both reduce crime rates and improve the wellbeing of young people who are involved in the juvenile justice system. Recognizing the need for juvenile justice system reform, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is working to support member states in the ESC region to reform their juvenile justice systems. 5 To evaluate the progress of reforms and help inform its programming, USAID contracted Social Impact to implement a longitudinal, mixed methods study of juvenile justice outcomes in Guyana, St. Lucia, and St. Kitts and Nevis. This report, a component of the broader study, presents results from a survey (N=377) of justice-involved youth in Guyana. Data were collected in November and December 2019, between one and three years after respondents’ first involvement with the justice system. The survey collected information about their rehabilitation and reintegration into society; recidivism; factors associated with resilience and risk; and background information on education, employment, and family structure. Our analysis focused on three overarching sets of questions. First, in light of recent reforms to the criminal justice system in Guyana, how are juveniles currently experiencing the criminal justice system in terms of procedural justice, police abuse, and compliance with laws prohibiting detention in adult facilities? Second, what is the incidence of recidivism among justice-involved youth, and what are the primary risk factors for recidivism? Lastly, to what extent are youth in the juvenile justice system reintegrating into society? What are the most important barriers to such reintegration? Conversely, what factors support reintegration? This particular study complements a longitudinal, qualitative study of justice sector reforms in Guyana, St. Lucia, and St. Kitts and Nevis which began in 2017. As part of this effort, we conducted 162 interviews with stakeholders, justice-involved juveniles, and front-line staff working in juvenile justice systems in the three countries in 2017 and 2019. The findings from the 2019 midline study were published in January 2020 and are used to inform the analysis reported here. 6 A final endline qualitative study is planned for Spring 2021 and will involve follow-up interviews with the same set of stakeholders interviewed in 2019.

In the following analysis we first review the literature on juvenile justice reform, discuss USAID’s efforts to promote reform, and explain the study methodology. We then report our main findings on this study’s core questions. The final section discusses the findings and provides recommendations for USAID and the Government of Guyana (GOG).

4 UNDP 2016 Human Development Report, http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2016; Gang violence takes rising toll on lives, threatens Caribbean economies, says UNDP. UNDP Latin America and the Caribbean. http://www.latinamerica.undp.org/content/rblac/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2012/02/08/gang-violence-takes-rising-toll- in-lives-threatens-caribbean-economies-says-undp.html. 5 For information on USAID’s work in the Eastern and Southern Caribbean region, visit https://www.usaid.gov/barbados. 6 Barnes-Ceeney, Kevin & Lily Hoffman. Evaluation of Juvenile Justice Sector Reform Implementation in St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Guyana. Midline Report. Social Impact for USAID (2020). https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00WHTP.pdf.

1 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV BACKGROUND

JUVENILE JUSTICE IN GUYANA High rates of crime and violence have proven to be an enduring challenge for Guyana and many countries in the ESC. 7 Although Guyana saw a drop in the overall homicide rate in recent years, from 20.4 homicides per 100,000 people in 2013 to 14.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 2018, the homicide rate remains a serious concern, being well above the current global average of 5.78 per 100,000 people. Robbery and burglary rates are also higher than the global average, at 191 per 100,000 and 278 per 100,000 respectively, with street robberies and home invasions described by the Overseas Security Advisor Council (2020) as “rampant.” Gangs and troublesome youth groups are widely viewed as core to Guyana’s crime problems (Katz et al., 2016). In the absence of gainful employment opportunities, many youth have elected to join criminal gangs organized around illicit economic activities such as drug selling, extortion, and theft (Hill & Morris, 2017). Other contributing factors include a police force that is corrupt, abusive, often absent from communities, and unable to effectively prevent or investigate crimes or build civilians’ trust (Sutton & Baxter, 2017). Corrupt and ineffective policing, in turn, contributes to low levels of trust (Zechmeister, 2014), potentially deterring cooperation and further exacerbating police ineffectiveness (Tyler, 2006). As a result of these dynamics, Guyana’s juvenile justice system has many youth who need help transitioning away from delinquent activities and support to reintegrate into mainstream, law-abiding society. Historically, Guyana’s juvenile justice system has adopted retributive and punitive sentencing practices rather than focusing on rehabilitation and restorative justice practices. This has slowly started to change as the negative effects of punitive policies on recidivism outcomes have become better understood and more widely documented (Wong et al., 2016). Research from the United States (U.S.) and other contexts has shown that punitive sentencing practices tend to increase, rather than decrease, recidivism (Wong et al., 2016). Conversely, sentencing practices grounded in restorative justice and rehabilitation have consistently been shown to reduce recidivism (Wilson and Hoge, 2013). 8 Reforming Guyana’s juvenile justice system to be more rehabilitative and less punitive has thus emerged as a central priority for the GOG, the Probation Department within the Ministry of Social Protection, and the international community. The hope is that a more rehabilitative and less punitive approach to juvenile justice can break the cycle of incarceration, recidivism, and further incarceration, and thereby help address Guyana’s high rates of crime and violence.

JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORMS IN GUYANA Given the promise of a more rehabilitative and less punitive approach, USAID and other donors have invested in promoting juvenile justice sector reform in Guyana. Nevertheless, diversionary programming and a rehabilitative approach to justice are relatively new in the ESC region. The 2015 USAID Status Report on the Juvenile Justice Sector in Selected Territories in the ESC concluded that: “Antiquated legislation with a punitive orientation, the low age of criminal responsibility, the absence of pre-trial diversionary measures, limited sentencing options, a lack of emphasis on

7 USAID/ESC. Youth Empowerment Services (YES) Project Appraisal Document. (Dec 2015). 8 Wilson and Hoge (2013) conducted a study of 73 pretrial diversion and alternative sentencing programs consisting of 14,573 youth offenders and compared them to 18,840 juveniles processed in the traditional justice system to assess the rate of recidivism in each group. The authors found that “in 60 of the 73 diversion programs, the recidivism rate of diverted youth was lower than that of youth processed by traditional justice system” (p. 504).

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 2 restorative justice practices, rehabilitation and reintegration are some of the notable 9 characteristics of the mostly archaic juvenile justice system of the Caribbean territories.” . In Guyana, this system changed in 2018 when the GOG enacted the Juvenile Justice Act, hereafter referred to as the Act, marking a significant milestone in its efforts toward juvenile justice reform. In the broadest sense, the Act stipulated that Guyana’s juvenile justice system should “further the wellbeing of juveniles” 10 and focus on encouraging their rehabilitation, education, and reintegration into law-abiding society. 11 The Act sought to accomplish this through several important changes. First, the Act raised the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years old to 14 years old and stipulated that no child under the age of 14 shall be capable of or guilty of committing an offense, unless the principle known as doli incapax can be rebutted. 12 If the presumption is not rebutted, children under the age of 14 are referred to the Childcare and Protection Agency and charges are withdrawn. Furthermore, young people who commit an offense as a juvenile but turn 18 by the time the offense is processed by the courts are processed as juveniles, not adults. Second, the juvenile justice reforms decriminalize wandering, a status offense that allows for the detention of youth left unsupervised in public spaces. This status offense was previously one of the most common charges leading to detention and a major concern among stakeholders because of the discretion it afforded police officers to arrest vulnerable, at-risk adolescents. Third, the Act created a Children’s Court in Georgetown, which opened in October 2018. The children’s courtroom is separated from the criminal court entrance and specific magistrates are designated with juvenile responsibilities. The hope was that these changes would develop the clear understanding that the justice system must treat children in conflict with the law differently than adults. 13 Fourth, the Act exempts children and juveniles from being sentenced to death 14 or imprisonment. 15 The courts’ response to a young person’s offending should be meaningful and proportionate, while recognizing the young person’s “greater dependency and reduced level of maturity.” 16 Detention should only be used “as a last resort” 17 and should be “safe, fair, and humane.” 18 Furthermore, if under the age of 18, the young person should be held “separate and apart from any adult who is detained or held in custody.” 19 Additionally, periods of custody should be served in an “open residential facility.” 20 Fifth, the Act encourages diversion, which it defines as “the diversion of a juvenile away from formal court procedures to informal court procedures.” 21 Diversion measures may include an oral or written apology, placement under the supervision and guidance of the Childcare and Protection Agency, referral to counseling or therapy, compulsory attendance at an educational or vocational establishment, restitution, community service, or service or compensation to a specified victim.

9 Forde, 2015, (p. 2). 10 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Part I, 3(a)i). 11 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Part I, 3(b)ii). 12 doli incapax refers to the presumption in law that a child is incapable of forming the criminal intent to commit an offence. 13 Juveniles charged with serious violent crimes (murder, manslaughter, sexual offenses, etc.) are still committed to the high court, so the ability for juvenile offenders to access a reformed court process is limited based on the charge. 14 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Part VI, 38(4)). 15 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Part VI, 41). 16 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Part I, 3(b)iii). 17 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Part I, 3(c)vi). 18 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Part VIII, 71 (1)(a)). 19 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Part VIII, 72). 20 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Part VI, 43(k). 21 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Cap. 1:01).

3 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Sixth, the Act established a Juvenile Justice Committee comprised of nine people: a Chairperson, a Deputy Chairperson, an attorney-at-law, a retired probation officer who previously served in a senior capacity, a retired head of a vocational institution, and four other people with “skills, knowledge, experience and training in matters relating to juveniles, sociology, social work, and psychology.” 22 The Juvenile Justice Committee appoints staff at juvenile justice facilities, investigates complaints from incarcerated juveniles, and makes recommendations about appropriate corrective actions.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT OF 2018 The passage of the Act had the potential to mark a significant improvement from the status quo ante in terms of restorative and rehabilitative justice in Guyana. Although several aspects of the Act were implemented quickly, including the classification of those under 14 as children, the development of the Children's Court, and the establishment of the Juvenile Justice Committee, several core aspects of the Act have yet to be fulfilled. These aspects include the establishment of open and closed facilities for housing juveniles in conflict with the law, the complete abolition of corporal punishment in detention facilities, the termination of punishment considered to be “cruel and unusual” (i.e., solitary confinement) in detention facilities, and the operationalization of diversionary programs. Several significant challenges have contributed to the incomplete enactment of these activities, including the lack of an ideological shift toward restorative justice principles among court, probation, and detention facility staff; economic resource constraints that have prevented the expansion of halfway houses and the development of diversion programs and alternative sentencing options; and inter-agency coordination challenges, in which the Department of Juvenile Justice has struggled to coordinate with other government agencies to incorporate their youth programs into its diversionary programming. As a result of these challenges, many of the problematic aspects of the juvenile justice system remain. Diversionary programming in Guyana is still in an embryonic stage. There is a critical lack of formal pre- or post-conviction diversion options once a juvenile is in the court system. For the courts, whose interests lie in programs to address key risk factors and bolster protective factors associated with juvenile delinquency, there is an almost total lack of programs that address one or more of the following: substance abuse, mental health problems, risk taking and impulsivity, anti-social attitudes and behavior, antisocial peers, and educational or employment needs. Another persistent problem has been limited support for young people leaving detention facilities and returning to the community. In the absence of a separate agency working with such young people, probation officers find themselves struggling to manage this critical gap in services with few resources or training to draw on. Finally, the conditions of confinement in the detention centers have improved little since the enactment of the Act. Solitary confinement and reports of physical abuse continue at alarming rates. A lack of access to comprehensive on-site medical and mental health care, family support, and formal education continue to jeopardize the facilities’ ability to rehabilitate young people. Fundamentally, the punishment methods (solitary confinement and corporal punishment) of children in the detention centers directly contradict the reform efforts in other areas of Guyana that are focused on rehabilitation.

22 Juvenile Justice Act, 2018, (Part VIII, 82(3)).

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 4 USAID JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMMING IN GUYANA In 2016, USAID launched its five-year Youth Empowerment Services (YES) initiative, which seeks to reduce juvenile crime and violence in the ESC by applying a public health framework to crime reduction and violence prevention. The public health model of crime prevention is a proactive approach to juvenile justice, which focuses on reducing risk and increasing resiliency for at-risk and justice-involved youth. 23 The framework offers an alternative to relying on the courts and incarceration by focusing on rehabilitation and the implementation of a practical, science-based approach to promote and maintain prosocial behavior. 24 The YES initiative seeks to improve the management of juveniles in conflict with the law. In Guyana, USAID funded the Skills and Knowledge for Youth Empowerment (SKYE) project, which concluded in December 2016. The SKYE project sought to reduce youth crime and violence through targeted alternative sentencing, work readiness training, entrepreneurship development, and livelihood coaching. SKYE originally targeted 2,000 youth who were identified as being ill-prepared for integration into the workforce, focusing on those who had dropped out of high school and/or were in conflict with the law. SKYE was also expected to build the capacities of local partner organizations, relevant government ministries, and the court system. 25 The current YES project aims to build on this previous initiative to ensure that youth in conflict with the law are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. YES’s juvenile justice initiatives aim to ensure that: 1. Model laws, regulations, policies, and protocols are implemented in target countries. 2. Youth in conflict with the law are placed in diversion programs. 3. Detention centers and diversion programs provide rehabilitative and support services sufficient to reduce recidivism. 4. Youth leaving diversion programs and detention facilities successfully reintegrate into communities. 26 To achieve these outcomes, USAID has supported implementation of the Act since 2018, which focuses on administrative reforms in key institutions that manage youth who are in conflict with the law and technical assistance to the Office of Director of Juvenile Justice. As described above, implementation of the Act remains incomplete, and many of its most important provisions have yet to be enacted.

23 Welsh, Brandon (2005). Public Health and the Prevention of Juvenile Criminal Violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 3 No. 1, January 2005 23-40; Office of the Surgeon General (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of the Surgeon General. Retrieved from www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence; Development Services Group, Inc. (2000). Prevention. Literature Review. Washington, DC.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Prevention.pdf 24 Hamburg, M. A. (1998). Youth Violence is A Public Health Concern. In D. S. Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, and K. R. Williams (eds.). Violence in American Schools: A New Perspective. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 25 EDC. Skills and Knowledge for Youth Employment (SKYE). (n.d.) http://www.edc.org/skills-and-knowledge-youth- employment-skye; USAID (2017). Citizen Security. https://www.usaid.gov/barbados/citizen-security. 26 USAID/ESC, 2015.

5 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this report is to document how justice-involved juveniles are experiencing the criminal justice system considering Guyana’s recent and ongoing reforms. We focus on youth perceptions of how they are treated and how their cases are handled by the police and courts. We also seek to document the strongest predictors of recidivism and reintegration with an eye toward identifying priorities for policy reforms moving forward.

DRIVERS OF RECIDIVISM AND REINTEGRATION This report evaluates the predictive influence of several broad categories of variables typically linked to recidivism and/or reintegration. The goal is to identify which of these categories is most important, and to help policymakers identify where reforms should be targeted. This section reviews relevant research from the fields of criminology, sociology, psychology, and other disciplines as appropriate.

CHILDHOOD ABUSE EXPERIENCES The first set of factors relate to childhood abuse experiences, such as experiencing domestic violence, substance abuse or addiction by a caregiver, sexual abuse at the hands of a caregiver, incarceration of a caregiver, child abuse, or caregiver neglect. Research has consistently shown a link between these experiences and delinquency as an adolescent and young adult (Widom, 2017; Herrera & McCloskey, 2001; Kang & Burton, 2014). As Widom observes, “A serious consequence of child maltreatment is an increased risk for crime and violence” (p. 187). There are several potential explanations for why childhood abuse experiences may give rise to a so-called “cycle of violence.” One explanation advanced by proponents of social learning theory is that children who experience physical abuse learn that the use of violence is an acceptable way to respond to stress and resolve conflict, and subsequently use violence to resolve conflict situations later in life (Bandura, 1973). Social learning theory has also been invoked to explain the association between childhood abuse experiences and a wide range of aggressive behaviors, including domestic violence (Walker, 2016), crime (Agnew, 1992), bullying (Olweus, 1994), and personality disorders (Emmelkamp & Meyerbröker, 2019). Another explanation for the link between childhood abuse experiences and delinquency is that child maltreatment disrupts social bonds between the child and their parents that encourage positive behavior and set an example to be followed later in life (Hirschi, 1969). Young adolescents who lack strong social bonds with parental figures and positive, prosocial role models are at greater risk for impulsivity, risk- taking, and criminal behavior (Sampson & Laub, 1995; Zingraff et al., 1994). Others focus on family background and socio-economic status (Caspi et al., 2002), including the nexus between child neglect, educational attainment, and employment prospects as a young adult (Murray & Farrington, 2005). According to this literature, the link between child abuse experiences and juvenile delinquency is not casual, in the sense of the former causing the latter; rather, certain family background characteristics, such as poverty, make child abuse and delinquency more likely. While the literature on child abuse experiences and crime later in life is vast, few, if any, studies come from ESC countries and Guyana specifically. Thus, understanding whether there exists a connection between Guyanese experiences, as well as the connection’s strength, will be essential for policymakers concerned with addressing the root causes of youth delinquency and recidivism in the Guyanese context.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 6 TREATMENT BY THE POLICE AND COURTS According to Tom Tyler, people obey the law not because they fear punishment if they do not comply, but because they believe the law and the authorities that enforce it are legitimate (Tyler, 2006). This finding has emerged as one of the foremost findings in criminology and has since been replicated or supported by many influential studies (Murphy & Tyler, 2017; Peyton et al., 2019). Research also shows that how people are treated by the police and courts is a central determinant of their perceptions of police and court legitimacy (Tyler, 2006; Levi et al., 2009). According to Bradford et al. (2009), bad experiences with the police and courts can deeply influence people’s views of their performance and legitimacy. Skogan (2006) further shows that the link between police treatment and perceptions of legitimacy is asymmetrical in the sense that “the impact of having a bad experience is four to 14 times as great as that of having a positive experience” (p. 100). Thus, it therefore follows that mistreatment at the hands of the police and courts, whether in the form of disrespect, failure to follow appropriate procedures, excessive use of force, or outright police brutality, has the potential to seriously undermine police legitimacy and subsequent willingness to obey the law. Police abuse of civilians is endemic in Guyana, fueled in part by the legacy of a militarized policing model adopted during the colonial era (Mars, 2009). Despite longstanding efforts at reform and considerable investment from the international community (Gomes, 2007), abuse of power and weak police accountability persists. A 2020 assessment by Freedom House cited the continuation of practices such as bribe-taking, a lack of professionalism, excessive force, police violence, abuse of detainees, and harsh, overcrowded prison conditions (Freedom House, 2020). What remains uncertain, and what this report hopes to address, is the extent to which these practices may impact recidivism among juveniles and contribute to Guyana’s high rates of crime and violence.

NEGATIVE PEER INFLUENCES Peer influence has long been central to the study of delinquency among juveniles (Elliott and Menard, 1996: Elliott et al., 1982; Krohn et al., 1996). This is to be expected, given that adolescents spend much of their time with friends and are so strongly influenced by them in other domains of their life (Brown, 1993). Moreover, many criminal acts involve co-offenders and require coordination. In the realm of sociology, two theories have emerged as particularly influential in explaining the relationship between individual delinquency and delinquency among one’s peers. The first is socialization and normative influence, in which adolescents look to their peers to identify what types of activities are socially acceptable and likely to be met by positive social reinforcement (Haynie & Osgood, 2005). The second explanation centers on opportunities to engage in crime (Felson, 2010; Hawley, 1950). Opportunity theory posits that peer groups structure everyday life and thereby shape opportunities to engage in crime. Peers are often involved in generating ideas about which crimes to commit, and their companionship and participation opens opportunities that would not otherwise be possible. Some scholars have differentiated between structured and unstructured time with peers and note that delinquency is especially prevalent during unstructured time with peers, as it provides both social encouragement and rewards, and ample time and space for delinquency (Osgood et al., 1996). By contrast, structured time with peers (e.g., athletic activities) provides less free time for delinquency. An important exception to this pattern is structured involvement in gang activities, which can provide time, space, and encouragement to engage in (often serious) delinquency (Battin et al., 1998).

7 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV DEMOGRAPHICS This study also considers disparities in recidivism and reintegration across race and gender. Disparities across these demographic dimensions could arise for any number of reasons. Guyana has a long history of racial tension between the Indo-Guyanese and the Afro-Guyanese ethnic groups, dating to the colonial era (Glaskow, 2012). These tensions continue to influence class, politics, and society in Guyana today (Bissessar & La Guerre, 2013). Similar to observations from the U.S. (Rothstein, 2017; Fryer, 2020), this racial divide could potentially lead to structural racism against the politically marginalized Afro-Guyanese population, which diminishes their employment prospects, suppresses educational attainment, and elevates risk factors that contribute to crime or prevent successful reintegration (Kang & Burton, 2014). Gender may be expected to reduce recidivism for many reasons. Broadly speaking, women have been documented to be more “peaceful” than men across a range of domains, including their views on capital punishment (Applegate et al., 2002), interpersonal violence (Smith, 1984), and world politics (Fukuyama, 1998). Women are also less likely to become involved in crime (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). One reason for these patterns may be that social norms promoting violent behavior are much weaker among female adolescents than male adolescents (Mears et al., 1998); similarly, female adolescents may have different normative beliefs about what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997). Traditional gender norms may socialize women toward “nurture-oriented” tasks, leading them to oppose violence and/or crime (Gilligan, 1993). Females also tend to acquire social cognitive skills earlier in life than males, which helps to deter them from anti-social, criminal behavior (Bennet et al., 2005). While females may have certain advantages when it comes to lower recidivism, they may face unique challenges in reintegrating into mainstream society. Traditional gender norms in Guyana tend to favor domestic work over labor market participation, potentially preventing justice-involved female juveniles from finding gainful employment or participating in schooling (Blank, 2013).

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 8 STUDY PURPOSE, QUESTIONS, AND METHODOLOGY

STUDY PURPOSE This study aims to answer the following sets of questions: Q1: In light of ongoing juvenile justice system reforms in Guyana, how are juveniles currently experiencing the criminal justice system? Do they feel authorities treat them with respect? At what rate are they held in adult prisons versus juvenile detention centers? Do they experience abuse at the hands of authorities? Q2: What is the incidence of recidivism among justice-involved youth? What are the most important drivers of recidivism? Q3: To what extent are youth in the juvenile justice system reintegrating into society? What are the most important barriers to reintegration? Conversely, what factors support reintegration?

METHODOLOGY To answer the study questions, we conducted a quantitative analysis of an original survey of 377 justice- involved juveniles in Guyana from November to December 2019. The survey measured rates of self- reported recidivism and reintegration as well as a wide range of potential drivers of recidivism and reintegration, including demographics, childhood experiences, treatment by the police and justice system, education and employment, peer and social network characteristics, and family support structure. We draw on a series of descriptive analyses disaggregated by race and gender to answer questions about the incidence of recidivism and reintegration. Lastly, we use an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to identify the strongest drivers of recidivism and reintegration among the variables measured in our survey. Full details on our statistical approach, including limitations, are provided below. To inform and contextualize our analysis and interpretation, we draw on the literature review detailed above and on the qualitative analysis that was conducted as part of the midline component of this study.

DATA SOURCES The study draws on two sources of quantitative data: administrative and survey data.

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA To generate a sampling frame of justice-involved juveniles, we visited police stations, court houses, and detention centers throughout Guyana to identify juvenile cases that were active between 2015 and 2017. At these locations, we drew on ledgers, case files, and probation reports to digitize information on the individual(s) involved, their contact information, basic demographic information, and information about the nature of their offense and the status of their case. 27 This data collection exercise resulted in a sampling frame of 856 justice-involved youth that we used for the survey.

27 Data collected for this study was held on secure servers protected by strong passwords and accessible only to members of the research team. The data is currently being de-identified and will be posted on USAID’s Development Data Library, contingent upon USAID approval.

9 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV SURVEY DATA 28 We conducted an original survey of justice-involved juveniles in Guyana. Of the 856 justice-involved youth in our sampling frame, we successfully surveyed 44 percent, for a total sample size of 377. In Appendix II, we show that those who responded to the survey were similar to those who did not in terms of their gender, race, and region of origin, suggesting that the non-response was random and does not bias the results reported in this study. The margin of error for this sample size is five percentage points, meaning that we would expect the true mean of a given binary variable to fall within +/- five percentages points of the sample means reported in this report 95 times out of 100. For full details on our margin of error calculation, see Appendix III. The survey included questions that capture recidivism and reintegration rates and potential drivers of these phenomena. The instrument was revised, pre-tested, and piloted prior to implementation. High frequency checks were conducted throughout data collection to ensure high-quality, accurate data. The survey included the following modules (see Appendix V for the full instrument): • Demographic and background information • School enrollment and employment (historical and current) • Self-reported history of offenses • Self-reported involvement with and treatment by the justice system • Peer delinquency • Self-reported behavior related to risks and resilience • Self-reported delinquent behavior • Recent violence-related behaviors • Adverse childhood experiences • Perceived recidivism • Criminal record • Perceived reintegration

ESTIMATION STRATEGY

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS We first present descriptive statistics on the two main outcomes of interest (recidivism and reintegration), socio-demographic characteristics of our sample, and the potential drivers of recidivism and reintegration: childhood abuse experiences, treatment by the police and criminal justice system, negative peer influences, prosocial community engagement, education and employment and family, and social support network. For this analysis, we report simple sample means for the overall sample, as well as results disaggregated by gender, age at the time of the survey (juvenile versus young adult), and race. Figures for these summary statistics can be found in Appendix VI.

28 The original design proposed multiple waves of data collection to track youth over time. This required overcoming a host of logistical and political challenges and was an expensive proposition. As logistical/political challenges delayed the research and reforms failed to move forward as planned, and given the high cost, the decision was made to reduce the scope of the data collection activities. As a result, administrative data collection and a survey of justice involved juveniles was reduced to one wave of data collection.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 10 REGRESSION ANALYSIS We use OLS regression to estimate the association between recidivism and reintegration and their potential determinants. To account for potential geographic similarities, we cluster our standard errors by region. Formally, we estimate: = + + 𝑇𝑇 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Where denotes one of the recidivism or𝑌𝑌 reintegration𝛼𝛼 𝑋𝑋 𝛽𝛽 outcome𝜖𝜖 s described below for individual in region ; is a vector of the independent variables described below; and is an error term capturing 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 idiosyncratic,𝑌𝑌 individual, or region-specific factors that influence recidivism and reintegration. We estimate𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 this equation𝑟𝑟 𝑋𝑋 using OLS regression rather than logit regression because our𝜖𝜖 focus is on the strength of the association between the independent variables and our outcomes capturing recidivism and reintegration, rather than the predicted probability of the independent variables on the dependent variables for which logit might be more appropriate. Our use of OLS regression also allows for clear and straightforward interpretation of the regression coefficients as the change in for a one unit change in variable , as compared to the more complicated odds-ratio interpretation of logit coefficients. 𝑌𝑌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 DECOMPOSITION𝑥𝑥 ANALYSIS We use the Shapley decomposition technique to extrapolate the group effects driving recidivism and reintegration, which decomposes the variation of an outcome variable into the contributions of each group of explanatory variables and assesses their relative importance (Shorrocks, 2013). The technique does this by selectively removing each group of variables, re-running the analysis, and recording proportion of outcome variance explained by the model (R-squared value). This process is done repeatedly, removing one group of variables at a time, to determine the share of overall variance explained by each group. For our analysis, we aggregate our explanatory variables into six groups – childhood abuse experiences, treatment by the police and justice system, negative peer influences, reintegration measures, education and employment, and demographics – and assess their influence on each of our recidivism and reintegration outcome measures.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

DEPENDENT VARIABLES Our main dependent variables are recidivism and reintegration. We measure recidivism in two ways. The first is through a binary variable indicating whether the respondent has been arrested or called to court since the resolution of their original case. The second is a binary variable indicating whether the respondent has committed any of the following crimes since the resolution of their original case: simple assault, aggravated assault, sexual assault, drug use, drug selling, or a crime of acquisition (e.g., burglary, larceny, petty theft). The main advantage of this second measure of recidivism is that it has the potential to capture all of the crimes that an individual has committed, not just those that were detected by the police and prosecuted. In this sense, it is an important and valuable complement to the first. Both of our recidivism outcomes are self-reported measures from the survey. Reliance on self-reported measures of recidivism has several key advantages and some potential disadvantages, discussed in the Study Limitations section.

11 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV The second outcome in this study is reintegration, which we conceptualize as the rehabilitation of justice- involved youth and their reintegration into mainstream society through activities like work, school, sports, religious services, and other forms of prosocial community engagement. As documented in the literature on reintegration, these activities support law-abiding lifestyles and long-term life success, though they are distinct from a legalistic conceptualization of reintegration as the absence of recidivism. While our conceptualization of reintegration encompasses the extent to which an individual becomes involved in prosocial, community-based activities after their release, it does not capture whether an individual has gone through a formal reintegrative process in which psychosocial needs are understood and addressed in collaboration with support networks and under the guidance of counselors and/or probation officers. Accordingly, the findings in this report should not be viewed as indicative of effectiveness of these formal, structured reintegration programs. We measure reintegration through a composite index composed of three sets of variables: whether the individual is employed or in school, the strength of the individual’s prosocial support network, 29 and their level of engagement in prosocial activities. 30 To ensure each of these variables is weighted equally in the index, regardless of their scale, we standardize each variable to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of one before aggregating them additively into the composite index. We tested the internal consistency of this composite index using Cronbach's alpha test. The values of Cronbach's alpha suggest a high level of internal consistency and strong reliability across all three constitutive variables. Our findings are consistent with the literature on internal consistency that reliability above 0.70 is sufficient. 31 While we focus on the composite reintegration index in our main analysis, Appendix IV presents results for each of the constitutive variables.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES We assess the predictive power of four groups of variables: childhood abuse experiences, treatment by the police and justice system, negative peer influences, and demographics. In the descriptive statistics section of our findings, we also present statistics on access to services among probationers and juveniles in detention (however, we cannot examine the correlation between these outcomes and our measures of recidivism and reintegration, because they are defined only for the subset of respondents who were ever detained or assigned to probation).

CHILDHOOD ABUSE EXPERIENCES: We measure childhood abuse experiences through five variables. Maternal abuse is a binary indicator variable taking a value of one if the respondent’s mother was ever beaten during the respondent’s childhood. Emotional abuse is a binary indicator variable taking a value of one if the respondent’s caregiver often or very often swore at, insulted, humiliated, or threatened the respondent when they were a child. Physical abuse is a binary indicator taking a value of one if the

29 We measure prosocial support network as an index of three variables: whether the individual has a parent figure in their life, whether they have a significant other, and whether they have at least one close friend who is not engaged in criminal behavior. The resulting variable, the prosocial support index ranges from zero to three. 30 We measure participation in prosocial activities as the sum of four binary indicators: whether the individual does community service on a regular basis, plays sports, attends religious services, and participates in music or drama clubs. The resulting prosocial activities index ranges from zero to four. 31 Use of alpha requires some standard for judging its values. According to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994, p. 265), a modest reliability of 0.70 or higher would have sufficed in the early stages of research. However, where measurements on individuals are of interest, a reliability of 0.90 to 0.95 should be considered the desirable standard. [Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw–Hill.]

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 12 respondent’s caregiver often or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, hit, or threw objects at the respondent when they were a child. Sexual abuse is a binary indicator taking a value of one if someone at least five years older than the respondent ever touched or fondled the respondent when they were a child, attempted to have sex with them, or succeeded in doing so. Neglected as child is a binary indicator taking a value of one if the respondent often or very often experienced two or more of the following as a child: not feeling loved or supported, not feeling looked after, not having enough food to eat or enough clothes, not being taken to the doctor when sick, and having parents frequently intoxicated.

TREATMENT BY THE POLICE AND JUSTICE SYSTEM: We measure treatment by the police and justice system through four variables. The first, police treat with dignity, is a binary indicator taking a value of one if the respondent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “Police treat me with dignity and respect.” The second, courts treat with dignity, is constructed in the same manner, but with reference to the courts, rather than the police. Ever beaten by police is a binary indicator taking a value of one if the respondent answers affirmatively to the following question: “At any time, have the police ever hit or kicked you?” Detained in prison is an indicator variable for whether the respondent was detained in a prison for adults rather than a juvenile detention center.

NEGATIVE PEER INFLUENCES: We measure negative peer influences through three variables. High delinquency among peers was constructed from questions about how many of the respondent’s close friends committed the following types of crimes in the past year: petty theft, vandalism, threatening to harm others, burglary, drug use, drug selling, grand larceny, and gang membership. If, for three or more of these crimes, the respondent indicated they had one or more friends who participated, high delinquency among peers takes a value of one. High peer approval of delinquency is an indicator variable taking a value of one if the respondent indicates his peers would approve or strongly approve of participating in three or more of the following crimes: petty theft, grand larceny, drug dealing, threatening others, vandalism, and burglary. Lastly, member of a gang, takes a value of one if the respondent is a member of a gang.

DEMOGRAPHICS: We evaluate the predictive power of three demographic variables: under 18 years old at the time of our survey; female; and Black/Afro-Guyanese.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

DESCOPING THE STUDY Our study design requires that we first access administrative data on juvenile-involved youth to serve as a sampling frame for our follow-up survey on recidivism and reintegration outcomes. Originally, this administrative data collection exercise was planned for St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and Guyana. However, administrative records in these countries proved difficult to access due to resistance from authorities who were unwilling to share access to such information. 32 In addition, the limited records that we were able to access in St. Kitts and Nevis were incomplete, disorganized, and recorded on paper rather than digitized. Because of these issues, the original study design was de-scoped to only cover Guyana, where administrative records were sufficiently complete and well-organized to allow for the systematic collection of information on justice-involved youth.

32 In St. Lucia, authorities were originally cooperative and signed a memorandum of understanding to share the information; however, the courts ultimately did not agree to share personally identifying information.

13 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV RECORDS IN GUYANA Administrative data from Guyana are limited in two ways. First, at the time of data collection, youth were not tried in separate juvenile or family courts and the court data collection system did not include a systematic method of noting definitively if a youth was a juvenile. Court records do not always include the individual’s age and court justices appear to have discretion in determining if a youth is a juvenile. When individuals are deemed juveniles, the term “juvenile” appears next to the individual’s name in court records. 33 Given the court system and discretion of judges, it is possible that some juveniles have been excluded. Similarly, some individuals who were over the age of 18 at the time of their involvement with the law may appear in the records as juveniles. Second, we have reason to believe there were some gaps in the data from the court in District #4 in Georgetown. This includes files believed to be lost in the relocation of the probation department in 2015, and during flooding in 2017. Probation authorities were not able to provide concrete information on the number or percentage of cases that might be missing and limitations to the data (e.g., missing date and location information), which made it difficult for the study team to try to estimate what might be missing.

CORRELATION VERSUS CAUSATION Throughout this study, we examine the risk factors correlated with recidivism and reintegration. Correlation is not causation, however, and the associations we observe do not imply a relationship of cause and effect. It is possible that certain omitted factors drive the associations reported in this report. While we cannot entirely rule out this possibility, we have done our best to limit the influence of such omitted factors by controlling for a wide range of variables in our analysis, as listed in the regression tables in Appendix III. Nevertheless, we report our results using associational rather than causal language, with this important caveat in mind.

SELF-REPORTED OUTCOMES We rely entirely on self-reported variables from the survey. Self-reported outcomes have advantages and some potential disadvantages. The main advantage is that surveys can be tailored to measure precisely the concepts that are relevant in a given study. For recidivism, a key advantage is that survey data are not subject to the various sources of missing observations that plague administrative data (e.g., incomplete, disorganized, or missing records). Another key advantage is that whereas administrative data only captures the small subset of crimes that were detected and prosecuted by the police and courts, self-reported acts of crime have the potential to capture all of the delinquent acts committed by an individual. The main disadvantage of self-reported measures is that they are subject to response and recall bias. In the case of recidivism, an individual may not recall all of the delinquent acts they committed, exaggerate their previous offending behaviors, or lie to the enumerator. Similarly, they may misreport or mis-recall events about their childhood abuse experiences, peer group influences, or other key explanatory variables. We took several steps to limit misreporting and recall bias. First, we pretested our questions extensively to ensure that the questions we were asking were not making respondents uncomfortable and were likely to elicit truthful responses. Second, we trained our enumerators in survey best practices, including developing a rapport with respondents; conducting the interview in a quiet, private location; and carefully

33 In late 2018, Guyana established its first Children’s Court, which is housed in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts and handles juvenile cases. Moving forward, court records for juvenile cases would be available from this court; however, this court was not yet established at the time we collected administrative data for this study.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 14 explaining the purpose of the study, the independence of the research team, and the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. We believe these steps were successful in reassuring respondents, who had little incentive to lie to our enumerators knowing that their responses would not be shared with authorities or otherwise be used for anything but research purposes.

CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS The goals of this study are to assess how juveniles are currently experiencing the criminal justice system in terms of procedural justice, police abuse, and compliance with laws prohibiting detention in adult facilities; to determine the incidence of and primary risk factors for recidivism among justice-involved youth; and to assess the degree to which youth in the juvenile justice system are successfully reintegrating into society and what the barriers to successful reintegration might be. We do this through a correlational analysis of survey data collected in November and December 2019 among a sample of justice-involved youth. An important limitation of these data is that it only provides a “snapshot” of juveniles’ experiences at a single point in time. Accordingly, we cannot assess trends in juvenile justice outcomes overtime that may result from ongoing reform efforts. Instead, we are only able to document outcomes at the time of the survey. This type of descriptive analysis can answer the key questions in this study and identify areas for improvement, but it cannot determine whether progress or backsliding is happening over time.

15 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV FINDINGS

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Table 1 summarizes the demographic composition of our sample in terms of age, gender, and race. 51 percent of the sample were young adults (ages 18-20) compared to minors (ages 15-17) at the time the survey was administered. 34 The average age of a respondent in the sample was 18.3 years old. 71 percent of the sample was male, and 45 percent identified as Black or Afro-Guyanese. 47 percent of the sample was either currently enrolled in school (13 percent) or currently employed (36 percent); the remaining 53 percent was either detained (16 percent) or unemployed (37 percent). Rates of employment were higher for males than for females (45 percent versus 15 percent), possibly because males find it relatively easy to find employment as unskilled manual laborers and females face considerable discrimination in the labor market. Employment was slightly lower for Black/Afro-Guyanese than for other ethnicities (31 percent versus 39 percent), possibly due to discrimination in the labor market or other structural discrimination. Employment was predictably higher for adults than minors (42 percent versus 29 percent); however, enrollment in school was low, even for minors, at only 20 percent. A large proportion of respondents grew up in a home where domestic violence (41 percent), emotional abuse (46 percent), child abuse (46 percent), sexual abuse (25 percent), or child neglect (42 percent) were common. 35 Rates of abuse were generally 10 to 20 percentage points higher for females as compared to males, and about five to 15 percentage points higher for Black/Afro-Guyanese as compared to other ethnicities.

Table 1: Sample Demographics and Background Characteristics FULL YOUNG OTHER DEMOGRAPHICS MALE FEMALE MINOR BLACK SAMPLE ADULT RACE Demographics Under 18 years old 51% 44% 67% - - 49% 53% Female 31% - - 21% 40% 30% 31% Black/Afro-Guyanese 45% 46% 45% 47% 44% - -

Education and Employment Employed 36% 45% 15% 42% 29% 31% 39% Enrolled in school 13% 12% 14% 5% 20% 13% 13% Employed or in school 47% 56% 28% 47% 48% 43% 51% Currently detained 16% 22% 3% 22% 10% 12% 19%

Childhood abuse experiences Domestic violence 41% 38% 47% 38% 43% 41% 40% Emotional abuse 46% 39% 63% 43% 49% 55% 39% Child physical abuse 46% 41% 59% 40% 53% 56% 39% Sexual abuse 25% 16% 43% 22% 27% 26% 24% Neglected as child 42% 38% 50% 40% 44% 48% 37% Observations 377 261 116 184 193 171 206

34 Though most respondents were between the ages 15 and 20, a small number (14) were between the ages of 11 and 14 and a similarly small number (35) were between the ages of 21 and 24. 35 Child neglect is defined as often or very often experiencing two or more of the following as a child: one or both parents too high or intoxicated to provide care, not having enough to eat or enough clean clothes to wear, lacking love or attention from family, and not feeling close to other family members.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 16 OFFENSE HISTORY Table 2 reports descriptive characteristics of respondents’ original offense from 2015-2017, which entered them into the juvenile justice system and the case database from which our sample was drawn. A plurality of cases originated in 2015 (45 percent), followed by 2016 (31 percent), and 2017 (24 percent). Most offenses were for crimes against other people (39 percent), such as simple or aggravated assault. Property offenses and status offenses were also common, at 21 percent and 24 percent of cases, respectively. While in the juvenile justice system for their offense, 69 percent of respondents spent time in a police holding cell, 48 percent spent time in the Sophia Juvenile Detention Center, and 20 percent spent time in the New Opportunity Corps program. A further 12 percent were held in prisons for adults. 36 Only nine percent were never held in any type of facility.

Table 2: Offense History

FULL YOUNG OTHER MALE FEMALE MINOR BLACK SAMPLE ADULT RACE Year of first offense 2015 45% 42% 50% 52% 38% 50% 41% 2016 31% 31% 31% 32% 31% 31% 32% 2017 24% 26% 19% 16% 32% 20% 27% First offense type Offense against a person 39% 47% 21% 45% 34% 34% 43% Offense against property 21% 28% 6% 24% 19% 24% 19% Drug offense 5% 6% 3% 9% 2% 6% 5% Status offense 24% 10% 56% 16% 33% 26% 23% Other (specify) 10% 8% 14% 7% 13% 10% 10% First offense detention Police station/police cell 69% 72% 63% 71% 66% 71% 67% Sophia Detention Center 48% 47% 49% 46% 49% 51% 45% New Opportunity Corps 20% 17% 29% 14% 27% 20% 20% Prison 12% 17% 0% 18% 6% 11% 13% None 9% 6% 18% 9% 10% 6% 12% Observations 377 261 116 184 193 171 206

TREATMENT BY POLICE AND COURTS Table 3 reports respondents’ perceptions of how they feel they have been treated by the police and courts. 46 percent of young people say the police have treated them with dignity and respect, 64 percent say the courts have treated them with dignity and respect, 39 percent believe the police help people like them with their problems, and 51 percent believe the courts help people with their problems. Given the traditionally adversarial relationship between the criminal justice system and delinquent youth, these mixed results are not entirely unexpected. Even the most professional police forces can be expected to

36 We examine the downstream association between juvenile incarceration in adult prison and recidivism later in this report.

17 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV receive mixed reviews from those they have arrested or prosecuted. Encouragingly, perceptions vary little across race, contrary to theories of race-based discrimination. 37 Notwithstanding these results, police brutality, defined as having ever been hit or kicked by police, occurred at an alarming rate of 32 percent. Though this high rate may capture some relatively minor incidents of abuse, it is nevertheless cause for concern. Table 3 also makes clear that males feel considerably less well-treated by the police as compared to females. Substantively, males were 14 percentage points less likely to say the police treated them with dignity and respect and 11 percentage points less likely to say the police helped them with their problems. Most worryingly, males were 35 percentage points more likely to say they were a victim of police brutality (43 percent versus 8 percent). Interestingly, this gap between males and females in how they were treated by the police reverses when it comes to treatment by the courts: males are seven percentage points more likely to say the courts treat them with respect, and nine percentage points more likely to say that the court helps them with their problems. By Guyanese law, juveniles who have committed serious offenses and cannot return home should be held or serve time in juvenile detention centers, of which there are two in Guyana: the Sophia Detention Center and the New Opportunity Corps. However, this law is frequently violated in practice, as seen in Table 3. 11 percent of respondents were held in prisons for convicted adults. No females reported being held in such facilities, but 16 percent of males said they had been held in these facilities. Detention in adult facilities was more likely among respondents who were adults at the time of our survey (18 percent), meaning they were juveniles aged 16 or 17 at the time of their detention. This suggests that older juveniles are routinely detained in prison, possibly because of capacity constraints in the juvenile facilities. Black/Afro-Guyanese and respondents of other ethnicities were equally likely to say they had been detained in an adult prison

Table 3: Treatment by Police and Justice System FULL YOUNG OTHER MALE FEMALE MINOR BLACK SAMPLE ADULT RACE Believes police Treated with dignity & respect 46% 41% 56% 43% 48% 43% 48% Helped with my problems 39% 36% 47% 38% 40% 37% 41% Believes courts Treated with dignity and respect 64% 66% 59% 58% 69% 64% 64% Helped with my problems 51% 54% 45% 48% 54% 50% 52% Police brutality Ever beaten by police 32% 43% 8% 36% 27% 33% 31% Illegal detention practices Detained in prison 11% 16% 0% 18% 5% 11% 12% Observations 377 261 116 184 193 171 206

37 This non-finding should be treated with caution. While Black/Afro-Guyanese respondents are no more or less likely to report being disrespected or abused once they enter the criminal justice system, evidence does suggest they are over- represented in the justice system relative to their share of Guyana’s population: whereas Black/Afro-Guyanese respondents make up 45 percent of our sample of justice-involved youth, they make up only 25 percent of Guyana’s population. This suggests that discrimination may manifest at an earlier stage, namely in decisions about who to target for enforcement and who to arrest. 38 For an overview of theories of discrimination, including race-based discrimination, see Fiske (1998). For an overview of racial bias in policing in the United States, see Fryer (2019).

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 18 RECIDIVISM Table 4 reports the rates of recidivism for each category of offense, disaggregated by gender, age, and ethnicity. Overall, rates of recidivism are fairly high. 39 percent of respondents were arrested or required to appear in court since their first offense, and 65 percent of respondents said they committed at least one type of crime since their first offense. These high levels of recidivism suggest that current justice- sector policies and reforms have failed to adequately divert at-risk youth from criminal activities.

The rate of arrest or court recidivism is higher among males than females (48 versus 19 percent) and higher among adults than minors (46 versus 33 percent), but lower among Black/Afro-Guyanese than other ethnicities (35 versus 42 percent). The incidence of committing crime is also higher among males than females (70 versus 53 percent) and higher among adults than minors (70 versus 61 percent). However, Black/Afro-Guyanese respondents are more likely to report committing a crime than other ethnicities (71 versus 60 percent).

The most common types of recidivism were using or selling drugs (46 percent), simple assault (40 percent), and crimes of acquisition (26 percent). Across all of these categories, rates of recidivism were higher among males, adults, and Black/Afro-Guyanese, as compared to females, minors, and other ethnicities.

Table 4: Rates of Recidivism FULL YOUNG OTHER MALE FEMALE MINOR BLACK SAMPLE ADULT RACE Recidivism Arrested or appeared in court 39% 48% 19% 46% 33% 35% 42% Committed any crime 65% 70% 53% 70% 61% 71% 60% Types of crime (self-reported) Aggravated assault 16% 21% 5% 18% 13% 21% 12% Simple assault 40% 43% 32% 39% 40% 43% 37% Crime of acquisition 26% 29% 19% 27% 25% 31% 22% Sexual assault 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 2% 2% Use or sell drugs 46% 52% 30% 54% 37% 50% 42% Observations 377 261 116 184 193 171 206

REINTEGRATION Table 5 summarizes two opposing dimensions of reintegration: the degree of negative influences in one’s peer group and pro-social participation in community activities. On the former, a small number of respondents (eight percent) report being a member of a gang. However, delinquency among respondents’ peer groups was high. A large number of respondents said that, in the past year, one or more of their close peers regularly sold drugs (38 percent), committed petty theft (36 percent), burglary (31 percent), grand larceny (38 percent), or were in a gang (64 percent). Overall, this high rate of delinquency among respondents’ peer groups is consistent with the relatively high rates of recidivism reported above and serves to underscore the need for programs to successfully rehabilitate juveniles and young adults who come into conflict with the law. Similarly, the types of delinquent acts committed in respondents’ peer groups gravitate strongly toward acquisitive offenses, suggesting an economic motive to commit delinquent acts and underscoring the need for gainful employment opportunities. Rates of delinquency among respondents’ peer groups were comparable across gender, age, and racial subgroups. In terms of reintegration as measured by community involvement, seven percent of respondents said they regularly do community service, 19 percent said they were involved in sports, and 20 percent said they

19 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV regularly attend religious services. The overwhelming majority of respondents have a close relationship with a responsible, law-abiding adult (89 percent) and 73 percent have a close friend who is not involved in crime. Rates of pro-social community integration are comparable across gender, age, and racial subgroups. However, rates of prosocial community engagement pale in comparison to rates of recidivism among respondents and their peer groups, again underscoring the need for programs and policies to rehabilitate juveniles who enter the criminal justice system. As we discuss in the Discussion and Recommendations sections, rehabilitation programming should be a priority both during an individual’s time in detention and after they are released.

Table 5: Reintegration Outcomes FULL YOUNG OTHER MALE FEMALE MINOR BLACK SAMPLE ADULT RACE Negative peer influences Member of a gang 8% 10% 4% 7% 10% 10% 7% In the past year, one or more friends Committed petty theft 36% 36% 35% 31% 40% 37% 34% Threatened to harm others 52% 47% 54% 49% 54% 51% 52% Committed burglary 31% 33% 30% 28% 34% 34% 29% Used drugs 59% 53% 61% 61% 56% 63% 56% Sold drugs 38% 30% 41% 42% 34% 39% 37% Committed grand larceny 38% 36% 39% 37% 40% 42% 35% Were in a gang 64% 62% 69% 67% 62% 60% 68% Reintegration Community service 7% 8% 4% 7% 7% 6% 8% Sports 19% 21% 16% 20% 19% 19% 20% Religious services 31% 38% 28% 34% 28% 29% 33% Social media 11% 11% 10% 14% 8% 11% 11% Has close relationship with adult 89% 88% 92% 91% 88% 92% 87% Has a significant other 74% 69% 86% 77% 71% 75% 73% Has friend not involved in crime 73% 75% 69% 70% 76% 78% 69% Observations 377 261 116 184 193 171 206

PROBATION SERVICES A central component of juvenile justice reforms in Guyana has been the provision of pre-trial diversion and alternative sentencing programs. In practice, formal diversion programs such as vocational education, job placement support, therapy, or community service are only just starting to get off the ground. Instead, the predominant form of pre-trial diversion and alternative sentencing in our sample was probation. With this background in mind, Table 6 summarizes experiences with probation services for the subset of respondents who report having ever been assigned to probation, whether as part of a pre or post trial diversion program or after having been released from a detention facility. Respondents’ perceptions of how they were treated and helped by probation officials are considerably higher than for police or court officials: 75 percent said probation officials treated them with respect, and 78 percent said they helped them with their problems. These encouraging results suggest that probation officers have a qualitatively different relationship with justice-involved juveniles than police and court officials, a relationship more centered around rehabilitation, reintegration, and accessing support services to help

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 20 youth address their problems. Male respondents report more positive experiences than females, but we otherwise do not observe meaningful differences across age or race.

Table 6 Probation Services ALL YOUNG OTHER PROBA- MALE FEMALE MINOR BLACK ADULT RACE TIONERS Believes probation officers: Treated with respect 77% 80% 72% 78% 76% 77% 76% Helped with problems 81% 86% 70% 75% 85% 79% 82% Probation services Group therapy 21% 27% 11% 16% 25% 23% 20% Counseling 78% 74% 84% 74% 80% 75% 80% Home visits 35% 36% 33% 37% 34% 30% 39% Support with personal problems 28% 27% 30% 32% 25% 23% 33% Parental meetings 54% 51% 60% 51% 57% 56% 53% Observations 160 103 57 68 92 71 89

In terms of access to probation services, Table 6 makes clear that the dominant form of probation services are counseling services provided by probation officers themselves (78 percent of probationers), followed by parental meetings (54 percent). By comparison, home visits, group therapy, and tailored support with personal problems were less common. One reason for this may be that probation officers don’t have the resources to provide these relatively resource-intensive services. Another plausible explanation could be a lack of effort or commitment by probation officers to provide these labor- intensive servicecs; however, the fact that probationers have overwhelmingly positive perceptions of their probation officers argues against this hypothesis.

DETENTION FACILITY SERVICES The central goal of Guyana’s juvenile detention facilities is rehabilitation. The results in Table 7 provide a mixed picture of Guyana’s progress on this dimension. While a majority of those reporting they had been detained report they felt treated with respect by detention facility officials and that these officials helped them with their problems, access to critical rehabilitation services was far from universal: only 61 percent said they had access to school classes, only 51 percent said they had access to counseling, and only 36 percent said they met regularly with a case worker or probation officer. The provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act make clear that these services are essential, and should be provided to all detained juveniles without exception. We return to this important point in the Recommendations section.

21 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Table 7 Detention Facility Services ALL YOUNG OTHER DETAIN- MALE FEMALE MINOR BLACK ADULT RACE EES Believes facility staff: Treated with respect 70% 72% 67% 69% 72% 71% 70% Helped with problems 65% 65% 65% 59% 71% 69% 62% Probation services Group therapy 70% 72% 67% 69% 72% 71% 70% Counseling 65% 65% 65% 59% 71% 69% 62% Home visits 70% 72% 67% 69% 72% 71% 70% Parental meetings 65% 65% 65% 59% 71% 69% 62% Observations 198 132 66 96 102 99 99

CORRELATES OF RECIDIVISM Figure 1 reports the results of our correlates of recidivism analysis. Panel A displays the correlation between the independent variables and an indicator for whether the respondent has been arrested or was required to appear in court since the resolution of their first offense. In Panel B, the outcome variable is an indicator for whether the respondent reported that they had committed any of the five main types of delinquent acts measured in our survey: aggravated assault, simple assault, acquisitive offending, sexual assault, and using or selling drugs. 39 As the independent variables are all binary indicators, the correlation coefficients reported in Figure 1 can be interpreted as the percentage point change in the likelihood of recidivating as measured by either rearrest or court appearance or committing a crime for a given characteristic relative to its counterpart (e.g., male versus female), holding all other variables fixed. For example, growing up in a household where emotional abuse was common is associated with an 11-percentage point increase in the likelihood of being rearrested or reappearing in court. Horizontal grey bars indicate 95 percent confidence intervals. Coefficients whose confidence intervals do not include zero are considered statistically significant at the .05 level.

39 We report results for each separate category of crime in Appendix IV.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 22 Figure 1: Correlates of Recidivism Panel A: Panel B:

Note: Figure 1 displays coefficient estimates (black dots) and 95 percent confidence intervals (grey bars) from an OLS regression with robust standard errors clustered by region. Coefficients can be interpreted as the percentage point change in the outcome associated with the given indicator variable. For results in regression table format, see Appendix III.

23 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV CHILDHOOD ABUSE EXPERIENCE Youth who “often or very often” experienced neglect as a child, or who witnessed domestic, physical, emotional, or sexual abuse in their childhood home are more likely to recidivate by committing crimes, and to a lesser degree, to be rearrested or to reappear in court. The magnitude of this association varies across the various types of abuse and the type of recidivism being measured, but generally ranges between a five to 10 percentage point increase in the likelihood of recidivism. Though not all associations are statistically significant, the direction and approximate magnitude are consistent across all types of child abuse experience, suggesting a strong underlying relationship. The finding that youth who experienced abuse in childhood and/or lacked support from their families are more likely to recidivate concurs with the work of Widom (2017) and Widom and Maxfield (1996), who found that children who were abused or neglected were more likely to be arrested as juveniles or adults and were more likely to be involved in violent crime.

TREATMENT BY POLICE AND JUSTICE SYSTEM Contrary to prior research suggesting a strong connection between perceptions of police and justice system treatment and compliance with the law (Tyler, 2006), we find no significant association between such perceptions and either measure of recidivism. Youth who said the police treated them with respect were only two percentage points less likely to be rearrested or to reappear in court, and only six percentage points less likely to commit a crime again in the future; neither of these associations rise to the level of statistical significance. Similarly, there is no statistically significant difference between youth who view the court system positively and those who do not across both measures of recidivism. By contrast, we find a strong and statistically significant association between experiencing police brutality (beating, punching, or kicking) and both measures of recidivism. Substantively, youth who experience abuse were 18 percentage points more likely to be rearrested again in the future and 11 percentage points more likely to commit a crime. Figure 1 also reports the association between recidivism and being detained in prison as compared to a juvenile detention center. By law, juveniles requiring detention in Guyana should be held or serve time in one of two juvenile detention centers in Guyana rather than in a prison for adults. Despite the well-known risks of housing juveniles with adults, we do not observe a strong or significant association between being detained in prison and either measure of recidivism. Youth who were held in prison were seven percentage points more likely to be rearrested or to reappear in court and four percentage points more likely to recommit a crime. However, because neither of these associations rises to the level of statistical significance, they should be treated as suggestive but not definitive; further research is needed to determine whether detaining juveniles in adult detention centers contributes to recidivism.

NEGATIVE PEER INFLUENCE Negative peer influence, as measured by levels of criminal delinquency among peers and peer approval of delinquency, is strongly associated with greater recidivism. Youth whose peers committed delinquent acts are 14 percentage points more likely to be rearrested or to reappear in court and 19 percentage points more likely to recommit a crime. Similarly, youth whose peers approve of delinquency are 10 percentage points more likely to be rearrested or to reappear in court and 11 percentage points more likely to

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 24 recommit a crime. Both findings are in line with prior research, which has found a strong association between peer group influence and behavior (Haynie & Osgood, 2005).40 We also find a positive association between gang membership and recidivism, though the relationship does not rise to the level of statistical significance and should be treated with caution.

REINTEGRATION MEASURES Overall, traditional measures of reintegration appear to have only a weak association with recidivism. Regular participation in community service and religious services are associated with lower recidivism, but the relationship is not statistically significant. An important exception is participation in sports, which is associated with an 18-percentage point reduction in the likelihood of recommitting a crime (p<0.05). Having a high degree of positive prosocial influence, which we operationalize as having a close relationship with a responsible adult, having a significant other, and having a close peer who is not involved in crime, is not significantly associated with either measure of recidivism. Neither enrollment in school nor employment are associated with recidivism, as expected based on opportunity-based theories of crime. Apart from participation in sports, these weak and generally null findings defy a growing body of research linking such reintegration measures to a lower likelihood of recidivism (Cheon, 2008). We return to these seemingly counterintuitive results in the Discussion section.

DEMOGRAPHICS The strongest finding from the demographic set of variables is that female youth are less likely to recidivate than males, consistent with our expectations and prior research on the non-aggressive tendencies of females as compared to males (Messersschmidt, 1997; Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Females were 18 percentage points less likely to recommit a crime and 23 percentage points less likely to be rearrested or to reappear in court as compared to males. To a lesser degree, being a juvenile under the age of 18 was also associated with less recidivism; specifically, there was a 12-percentage point reduction in the likelihood of committing a crime and a five-percentage point reduction in the likelihood of rearrest or reappearing in court, though the latter finding is not statistically significant. Black/Afro-Guyanese were 11 percentage points less likely to be rearrested or to reappear in court as compared to other ethnicities, though this result is not statistically significant.

CORRELATES OF RECIDIVISM DISAGGREGATED BY TYPE OF RECIDIVISM Table 9 in Appendix IV shows the results of our correlates of recidivism analysis disaggregated by arrest or court appearance and five types of crime: aggravated assault, simple assault, crimes of acquisition, sexual assault, and using or selling drugs. With a few notable exceptions, the strongest correlates of recidivism are consistent across the various types of crime. Being a victim of police brutality increases the likelihood of recidivism between seven and 20 percentage points for most types of crimes. Having a delinquent peer group increases the likelihood of recidivism by between nine and 22 percentage points for most crimes. Being female decreases the likelihood of recidivism by between 11 to 20 percentage points for most crimes.

40 Haynie & Osgood (2005) found that “adolescents engage in higher rates of delinquency if they have highly delinquent friends and if they spend a great deal of time in unstructured socializing with friends” (p. 1109). They interpret their findings as evidence that negative peer influence leads to delinquency through two mechanisms: socialization (promoting social norms supportive of crime) and opportunity (creating opportunities to engage in crime).

25 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV One exception to these patterns is sexual assault. Neither peer delinquency, police brutality, female gender, nor any other of our independent variables explains variation in sexual assault. Sexual assault was an exceedingly rare event according to our survey data, as only two percent of respondents admitted to involvement in this type of crime, though this could and likely is the result of under-reporting. This study thus yields little insight for this category of delinquency. Another important exception to the correlation patterns reported in this section is selling or using drugs. Whereas reintegration outcomes are poor predictors of most types of delinquency, they are strong predictors of lower drug use. Respondents who participated in community service, sports, or religious services were about 13, 14, and 14 percentage points less likely to use or sell drugs, respectively, relative to those who did not participate in these activities. These results suggest that these activities successfully draw at-risk juveniles away from using and selling drugs, but not other types of crime.

DECOMPOSITION OF GROUP EFFECTS ON RECIDIVISM This section presents the results of a Shapley decomposition analysis to determine the relative influence of each of the groups of variables in our analysis - childhood abuse experiences, treatment by the police and justice system, negative peer influences, reintegration measures, education and employment, and demographics - on the key outcome measures of recidivism. The results of this analysis are informative from a policy perspective because they point to the areas where policymakers should focus their reform efforts to target the strongest determinants of recidivism.

Table 8: Decomposition Group Variables

GROUP VARIABLES Childhood abuse Experiencing or witnessing domestic abuse against mother or caregiver, physical abuse, experience emotional abuse, or sexual abuse as a child; experiencing neglect as a child Regular participation in community service, sports, and/or religious services; social Reintegration media; close relationship with responsible adult; has a significant other; close relationship measures with peer not involved in crime Police and justice Whether treated with respect by police and courts; whether a victim of police brutality; system treatment whether enrolled in the New Opportunity Corps program Whether peers approve of petty theft, grand larceny, drug dealing, vandalism, and Negative peer burglary; whether five or more peers actively engage in these activities; whether in a influence gang Demographics Ethnicity; juvenile status; gender Education and Whether employed; whether currently in school Employment

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 26 Figure 2: Drivers of Recidivism - Decomposition of Group Effects

Committed any crime 34% 9% 27% 12% 14% 3%

Arrested or appeared in court 8% 25% 23% 8% 30% 6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Child abuse experience Police and justice system treatment Negative peer influence Reintegration measures Demographics Education and employment Negative peer influence explains the largest share of the variation in recommitting delinquent acts and the third largest share of the variation in being rearrested or reappearing in court. Substantively, these variables account for 27 percent and 23 percent of the variation in the two recidivism measures explained by our models. This finding serves to reinforce the results of the regression analysis presented above, which found that negative peer influences are among the strongest drivers of recidivism. After negative peer influences, basic demographics explain the largest share of variation in being rearrested or reappearing in court (30 percent), and the fourth largest share of the variation in recommitting a crime (14 percent). As indicated by the regression analysis above, being male and an adult are the strongest drivers of recidivism within this set of variables. From a policy perspective, efforts to reduce recidivism should focus primarily on young adult males. Variables capturing treatment by the police and justice system explain the second largest share of variation in being rearrested or reappearing in court (25 percent), and the fourth largest share of variation in recommitting a crime (nine percent). As the regression analysis above indicates, this variation is driven primarily by respondents experiencing police brutality, which is associated with large increases in recidivism. From a policy perspective, these findings provide another clear prescription: reforms should seek to strengthen police accountability and reduce acts of police abuse to reduce recidivism. Childhood abuse experiences also explained a large share of the variation in recommitting a crime (34 percent). However, childhood abuse experiences did not account for a large share of the overall variation in being rearrested or reappearing in court, possibly because arrests and court appearances only capture a relatively small subset of crimes that are committed. Reintegration measures and education and employment have comparatively smaller impacts on recidivism, suggesting they are not as influential as peer groups’ influence and demographic characteristics in predicting recidivism.

CORRELATES OF REINTEGRATION Figure 1’s regression analysis suggests that our reintegration measures are not strong predictors of recidivism. This finding implies it is possible to be both well-integrated into society and involved in crime. Conversely, it is also possible to be poorly integrated into society and yet refrain from committing crimes. Nevertheless, we view reintegration as an important independent outcome, even if it is not a strong predictor of recidivism. People who are well-integrated into society are likely to be happier and to live

27 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV healthier lives (Post, 2005; Argyle, 2003); therefore, reintegration is an outcome worth understanding and promoting for juveniles seeking to rehabilitate themselves and rebuild their lives after leaving the criminal justice system. Although reintegration does not appear to predict lower recidivism within the short, one- to three-year time span of our study, it may well lower recidivism in the medium- to long-term. Figure 3 reports the correlations between potential drivers of reintegration and our reintegration index, which ranges from zero to three. For ease of interpretation, we divide the coefficients and standard errors by the sample mean so that coefficients can be interpreted as the percent change in the outcome associated with a given indicator, relative to the sample mean. For example, Figure 3 indicates that high levels of delinquency among peers is associated with an 18 percent reduction in reintegration, all else equal. Table 11 in Appendix IV provides the results broken down by each component of the reintegration index: employed or in school, prosocial support network, and prosocial community participation.

Figure 3: Correlates of Reintegration

Note: Figure 3 displays coefficients (black dots) and standard errors (grey bars) from an OLS regression with robust standard errors clustered by region. Coefficients can be interpreted as the percent change in reintegration relative to the mean level of reintegration.

CHILDHOOD ABUSE EXPERIENCE We do not observe a strong or significant relationship between childhood abuse experiences and reintegration after leaving the criminal justice system. None of the coefficients on the individual components of childhood abuse experiences rise to the level of statistical significance, and the signs of the coefficients do not point in a consistent direction. The absence of any strong or coherent relationship holds for each of the measures in the reintegration index, as described in Appendix IV.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 28 TREATMENT BY POLICE AND JUSTICE SYSTEM Variables measuring treatment by the police and justice system also do not associate significantly with the reintegration index. Relative to youth who were treated poorly by the police or courts, youth who were treated with respect were only about one to two percent more reintegrated into society at the time of our survey. Similarly, youth who were beaten by the police were only about four percent less integrated into society. These results suggest that treatment by the police and justice system does not have a significant impact on social reintegration; in contrast, the results reported in the previous section showed a strong and positive relationship between experiences of police brutality and both measures of recidivism. The results in Figure 3 do not show a clear relationship between being detained in prison rather than juvenile detention centers and lower levels of reintegration. Though those who were detained in prison score eight percent lower on the reintegration index, the result is not statistically significant. One reason for this is that a relatively small proportion of the sample was detained in prisons (16 percent), so our estimated association is relatively imprecise; were we to have more data or a larger sample size, this association could become statistically significant.

NEGATIVE PEER INFLUENCE Respondents whose peers engaged in criminal delinquency scored 16 percent lower on the reintegration index (p-value<0.001). Substantively, they were 10 percentage points less likely to be employed or enrolled in school; nine percentage points less likely to engage in a prosocial activity (i.e., community service, sports, religious services, music, or drama); and 19 percentage points less likely to have a strong, prosocial support network consisting of a parent figure, a significant other, and a close friend not involved in crime. 41 In contrast, gang membership and high peer approval of delinquency was associated with a modest two to four percent increase in reintegration. However, the result is not statistically significant and is much weaker than the large, highly significant, and negative relationship between actual peer delinquency and reintegration, and should be interpreted with some caution. Overall, the results reported in Figures 1 and 3 suggest that delinquency among one’s peers is a major contributor to recidivism and a major barrier to reintegration, highlighting the importance of policies and programs to help at-risk youth develop social networks where law abidance is the norm.

DEMOGRAPHICS Female respondents scored 21 percent lower on the reintegration index, as compared to male respondents (p-value<0.10). This difference is driven by differences in employment opportunities for females, as females are considerably less likely to be employed compared to males (15 percent versus 45 percent) but otherwise just as likely to be enrolled in school (14 percent versus 12 percent), engage in a prosocial activity (44 percent versus 42 percent), or have a prosocial support network (55 percent versus 53 percent). We do not observe any statistically or substantively significant associations with reintegration when comparing age group and ethnicities.

DECOMPOSITION OF GROUP EFFECTS ON REINTEGRATION As in the correlates of recidivism section, this section presents the results of a Shapley decomposition analysis to determine the relative influence on our reintegration index of each of the groups of variables

41 To see these results broken down by each of the three outcomes in our reintegration index, see Appendix IV Table 11.

29 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV in our analysis: childhood abuse experiences, treatment by the police and justice system, negative peer influences, and demographics. Our variable groupings are the same as for the decomposition analysis of the determinants of recidivism reported in Figure 4, except for reintegration and employment measures, as both are part of the reintegration index. The results confirm that negative peer influences are the strongest barrier to reintegration. To a lesser degree, child abuse experiences emerge as important, though the correlational analysis above did not suggest any clear systematic relationship. Demographics, driven by lower female labor force participation, was the third most influential set of variables in explaining variation in the reintegration index.

Figure 4: Drivers of Reintegration – Decomposition of Group Effects

26% 8% 48% 17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Child abuse experience Police and justice system treatment Negative peer influence Demographics

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 30 DISCUSSION In this section, we discuss and explicate the quantitative findings presented above, focusing on juveniles’ experiences with the criminal justice system, recidivism, and reintegration. We use this discussion to inform and substantiate the recommendations presented in the final section of this report.

JUVENILES’ EXPERIENCES IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Juveniles’ perceptions of how they were treated by the police and courts were mixed, with between 46 and 39 percent of respondents expressing satisfaction with the police when answering questions about the police’s respectfulness and helpfulness. Given that the relationship between police and juvenile offenders is inherently confrontational, we might expect perceptions to be mixed even for a highly professional police force. 42 However, an alarming proportion (32 percent) of the justice-involved juveniles in our sample experienced police brutality, defined as punching, kicking, or beating. This finding suggests that ongoing reforms to the police and criminal justice system have not adequately addressed police accountability, and that Guyana’s long history of militarized policing persists (Mars, 2009). These findings are even more worrisome considering the results from our correlates of recidivism analysis, which shows that police abuse experiences are strongly linked with recidivism. The results suggest the potential for a vicious cycle in which youth become involved in crime, experience militarized policing, and become more disillusioned with the legitimacy of authorities, which leads to further criminal involvement. An additional concern is the number of juveniles held in adult detention centers. This practice is most common among male juveniles, 16 percent of whom reported being held in adult detention centers. While resource constraints and capacity limits at juvenile centers may play a role in this practice, it is nonetheless troubling, not only because it represents a violation of defendants’ rights, but also due to its potential adverse effects on recidivism later in life as juveniles become exposed to and socialized among more serious, adult offenders. One important limitation of our study is that we only provide a “snapshot” of juveniles’ experiences at a single point in time. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine whether conditions are improving over time due to ongoing reforms. Instead, we are only able to show that there remained considerable room for improvement at the time of our survey.

RECIDIVISM Despite ongoing reforms and efforts to increase diversionary programming, rates of recidivism among our sample were high: 36 percent of respondents were rearrested or reappeared in court and 65 percent admitted to recommitting a delinquent act. Moreover, recidivism was high even for serious offenses like aggravated assault (16 percent) and acquisitive offenses (26 percent). These results suggest that current policies and programs to rehabilitate at-risk youth need considerable strengthening.

42 Predictably, levels of satisfaction are much lower among respondents who were a victim of police abuse: among this sub- sample (N=120), only 22 percent said the police treat them fairly and respectfully, and 19 percent said the police were helpful. While these numbers may still seem high for a sample of individuals who were physically abused by police, one explanation may be in the framing of the question: the question on police abuse was in reference to whether they had ever been beaten by the police, at any point in time. By contrast, the questions about police satisfaction were about their overall experience with police, which may be more positive, on average, than their victimization experiences.

31 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Our correlates analysis provides some insight into the potential drivers of recidivism and policy strategies that may help to address it. First, we find that being a victim of police brutality is strongly associated with greater recidivism. This pattern holds across all categories of crime recidivism. A potential explanation for this finding is that victimization at the hands of the police undermines their legitimacy (Levi et al., 2009), making juveniles less committed to compliance with the law and more receptive to criminal socialization with delinquent peers (Tyler, 2006). Another potential explanation is that juveniles who are victims of police abuse are more likely to be entrenched in delinquent lifestyles and are more likely to recidivate even without police brutality. The former explanation suggests that reforms to strengthen police accountability have the potential to reduce recidivism, in addition to their beneficial impacts on the protection of defendants’ rights. The second stand-out finding from our correlates of recidivism analysis is that having peers who engage in delinquent acts or who approve of delinquency are both strong predictors of recidivism. This finding is consistent with a vast body of research in criminology suggesting that peers play a critical role in socialization into violence (Battin et al., 1998; Dodge et al., 2006) and providing opportunities to engage in crime (Haynie & Osgood, 2005). While this literature is based largely on data from the U.S., our findings indicate the pattern extends to Guyana as well. From a policy perspective, these findings suggest a need to invest in programs and policies that aim to break juveniles’ connections to delinquent peer groups after they exit the juvenile justice system or move into probation. One approach to breaking bonds to delinquent peer groups would be to promote reintegration into mainstream society. This could include encouraging participation in community service, sports, and religious services; facilitating employment or enrollment in school; or helping recently released juveniles rebuild bonds with parent figures, non-delinquent friends, and romantic partners. Unfortunately, our analysis suggests these activities have little to no connection to lower recidivism. The most likely explanation for this seemingly counterintuitive finding is that participation in delinquency and association with delinquent peer groups are not mutually exclusive with prosocial community involvement. One can simultaneously be involved in delinquent acts and participate in activities like community service, sports, and religious services. Of the 65 percent of respondents who reported committing at least one crime in the past year, 56 percent were involved in prosocial community activities. Although advancing reintegration activities may be a normatively desirable end in and of itself, doing so is unlikely to have the additional benefit of reducing recidivism. This conclusion is tempered by the timeline of our study, which measured recidivism and reintegration between one and three years after the resolution of the respondents’ cases. It remains possible that reintegration promotes lower recidivism in the medium- to long-term, rather than in the short-term. In other words, the youth in our sample may have been in the process of transitioning from delinquency to a law-abiding lifestyle, but at the time of our survey, still exhibiting patterns of each. Indeed, this interpretation is consistent with research suggesting that reintegration is a long-term process, with setbacks and challenges along the way (Visher & Travis, 2003). Additional long-term follow-up surveys on this sample of youth are needed to evaluate this possibility. The strong association between delinquent peer group influence and delinquency also implies the need for interventions to avoid segregating unruly youth from mainstream society by placing them in groups composed primarily of delinquent peers. Research shows that these settings are often counterproductive precisely because they tend to socialize individuals to delinquent behavior through negative peer group influence. As Dodge, Dishion, and Lansford (2006) report, “placing a deviant adolescent with deviant peers can reduce the intended benefits of interventions and lead to less positive, sometimes even negative,

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 32 outcomes, especially under conditions of poor supervision and lack of structure” (p. 3). Alternatives to group-based programs, such as individual therapy or family-based interventions, should be pursued over segregated programming. In line with prior research and our expectations, males were at a much greater risk of recidivism than females. This pattern was observed across categories of recidivism, including aggravated assault, crimes of acquisition, and drug use. Programs to reduce recidivism should be targeted accordingly. Childhood abuse experiences were also positively correlated with recidivism. Although this finding is not directly actionable for those leaving the criminal justice system currently, it serves to emphasize the broader importance of ensuring a stable and safe home environment for children.

REINTEGRATION The correlates of recidivism analysis showed that reintegration outcomes like involvement in community activities and the rebuilding of relationships with non-delinquent peers do not necessarily lead to lower recidivism, at least in the short term. However, reintegration remains an end in and of itself, irrespective of its impact on recidivism. Research consistently shows that people with strong relationships, active engagement in community activities, and steady employment are likely to be happy and healthy (Hirschi, 1969). In the long-term, they are much more likely to be more law-abiding (Uggen & Wakefield, 2005). Our descriptive analysis indicates that employment and educational opportunities for justice-involved youth are limited: only 47 percent of respondents were either employed (36 percent) or in school (13 percent). The remaining 53 percent were either detained (16 percent) or unemployed (37 percent). These findings reflect the continued lack of reintegration and re-entry plans for recently released juveniles. Without the formulation of an aftercare plan that addresses the community, family, and socioeconomic factors that are driving the involvement of young people in the criminal justice system, the cycle of arrest and re-incarceration will likely continue. Robust community programming, housing initiatives, and re-entry work are needed to improve reintegration for justice-involved juveniles in Guyana, beginning with building strong relationships while they are still in custody. Education and employment opportunities were especially lacking for females, only 28 percent of whom were employed or enrolled in school. Re-entry programming targeted females is needed, even if this population is at a relatively low risk of recidivism. In addition to being the strongest risk factor for recidivism, delinquency among one’s peer network was strongly and robustly correlated with lower reintegration. The consequences of association with delinquent peers include greater involvement in delinquency, weaker relationships with family, and lower involvement in community activities. Dismantling connections to delinquent peers is thus critical to promoting both reintegration and lower rates of recidivism.

33 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV RECOMMENDATIONS

PROTECTING JUVENILES’ RIGHTS • To ensure the rights of justice-involved juveniles are protected, the GOG and its international partners must strengthen police accountability, particularly regarding excessive use of force. • Accountability reforms should focus on both “top-down” and “bottom-up” avenues of accountability. o “Top-down” reforms could include strengthening the role of internal review boards, providing training for commanders on how to monitor rank-and-file officers and sanction acts of abuse more effectively, and/or enacting harsher punishments for officers engaging in malfeasance. o “Bottom-up” accountability reforms could include programs that make it easier for civilians to hold police accountable for their actions, such as institutionalizing a police misconduct hotline and widely disseminating its existence through the media and other avenues. • The GOG and its international partners should invest in procedural justice training for officers and officials throughout the criminal justice system, to emphasize the importance of treating justice- involved juveniles fairly, respectfully, and in accordance with the law.

IMPROVING DETENTION FACILITY CONDITIONS AND STRENGTHENING DIVERSION • The GOG must hold the police and courts accountable when they detain juveniles in adult detention centers. • The GOG and its international partners should invest in increasing the bed capacity of juvenile facilities so that juveniles are not held in adult detention centers. At the same time, diversion and alternative sentencing options should be expanded, so that fewer juveniles need to be held in detention. • The GOG and its international partners must ensure that access to education, counseling, and meetings with case workers is universal for all juvenile detainees. • Juveniles assigned to probation rather than custodial supervision overwhelmingly report that probation helped them address their problems. The GOG should continue to invest in its probation program, equipping probation officers with the resources they need to proactively supervise and counsel probationers, and expanding opportunities for vocational training and job placement assistance.

REDUCING RECIDIVISM • Juveniles who experience police abuse are 10 to 15 percentage points more likely to recidivate. Although impossible to know whether this pattern represents a cause-and-effect relationship, it is sufficiently strong to raise alarm. Accordingly, the GOG and its international partners should invest in reforms to strengthen police accountability, particularly on excessive use of force. Reforms should focus on both “top-down” and “bottom-up” avenues of accountability. • The GOG and its international partners should invest in programs that disrupt ties to delinquent peer groups once juveniles are released from detention. These efforts must extend beyond simply promoting prosocial community engagement or rebuilding relationships with non-criminal peers or parent figures, as these activities alone do not deter recidivism. • Interventions designed to break connections to delinquent peer groups are essential to preventing juvenile recidivism. To this end, investments should be made in interventions that treat at-risk youth individually or at the family level, rather than in segregated groups of delinquent peers. Cognitive behavioral therapy, which aims to reorient a juvenile’s sense of self away from criminality toward

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 34 upstanding citizenship, in part by dismantling ties to delinquent peers, is one approach that has shown promise (Blattman et al., 2017; Heller et al., 2017). Family-based interventions oriented toward helping family members monitor for and deter association with delinquent peers, such as USAID’s Community, Family and Youth Resilience Family Matters program, is another (Diaz-Cayeros et al., 2020; Eddy & Chamberlain, 2000). • The GOG and its international partners should target programs to reduce recidivism toward males, as they face a much higher risk of recidivism than females.

PROMOTING REINTEGRATION • To address the lack of employment and educational opportunities facing recently released juveniles, the GOG and its international partners should invest in programs for vocational education, job placement, entrepreneurship training, and aftercare support that are customized to the needs of youth in the justice system and made accessible to this population. • The GOG and its international partners also should invest in additional training and resources for social workers and probation officers. These actors should then play a greater role in aftercare support for young people leaving prison by connecting them to community programming, housing initiatives, re-entry work, and education opportunities. Gender-focused programming to address labor market inequities should also be considered. • The GOG’s overall strategy to reintegrate and rehabilitate young people leaving prison should address two specific patterns identified in this study: first, that females face considerable disadvantages in accessing education and employment, and second, that association with delinquent peer groups is a critical barrier to successful reintegration. Investment in programs designed to dismantle ties to delinquent peer groups is essential.

USING DATA TO MONITOR AND INFORM JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM • The GOG and its international partners should invest in data systems to track, monitor, and inform juvenile justice reform outcomes. Central to this effort should be the systematic and digital collection of crime reports, court records, and probation case files, and the creation of a centralized electronic database where these records can be accessed and analyzed by authorized and trained officials. • Outside the realm of administrative police and court records, the GOG and its international partners should collect longitudinal data on justice-involved juveniles to track the progress of reforms over time. One way to do this would be to survey cohorts of justice-involved juveniles on an annual or semi-annual basis to ascertain whether they received procedurally just treatment, whether their cases were handled in accordance with the law, and whether they were able to access diversionary programming or reintegration support. Another valuable approach would be to track the same cohorts over time to understand their progress toward rehabilitation and reintegration into law- abiding society.

35 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV REFERENCES Agnew, Robert. "Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency." Criminology 30.1 (1992): 47-88. Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (2002). Public views toward crime and correctional policies: Is there a gender gap?. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(2), 89-100. Argyle, Michael. "18 causes and correlates of happiness." Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology 353 (2003). Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall. Barnes-Ceeney, Kevin & Lily Hoffman. (2020). Evaluation of Juvenile Justice Sector Reform Implementation in St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Guyana. Midline Report. Social Impact for USAID. Available at: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00WHTP.pdf Battin, S. R., Hill, K. G., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). The contribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends. Criminology, 36(1), 93-116. Bennett, S., Farrington, D. P., & Huesmann, L. R. (2005). Explaining gender differences in crime and violence: The importance of social cognitive skills. Aggression and violent behavior, 10(3), 263-288. Bissessar, Ann Marie, and John Gaffar La Guerre. Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana: Race and Politics in Two Plural Societies. Lexington Books, 2013. Blank, S. (2013). An historical and contemporary overview of gendered Caribbean relations. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2(4), 1-10. Blattman, Christopher, Julian C. Jamison, and Margaret Sheridan. "Reducing crime and violence: Experimental evidence from cognitive behavioral therapy in Liberia." American Economic Review 107.4 (2017): 1165-1206. Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Stanko, E. A. (2009). Contact and confidence: Revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Policing & society, 19(1), 20-46. Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child development, 64(2), 467-482. Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., ... & Poulton, R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851-854. Cheon, J. W. (2008). Best practices in community‐based prevention for youth substance reduction: towards strengths‐based positive development policy. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(6), 761-779. Diaz-Cayeros, Alberto, Stephanie Gimenez Stahlberg, Rachel Pizatella-Haswell, Daniel Sabet, and Julia Kresky (2020). Evaluation of Secondary Prevention in the Community, Family and Youth Resilience (CFYR) Program in St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis and Guyana. Arlington, VA: Social Impact, Inc. Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (2006). Deviant peer influences in intervention and public policy for youth. Social Policy Report, 20(1), 1-20. Eddy, J. M., & Chamberlain, P. (2000). Family management and deviant peer association as mediators of the impact of treatment condition on youth antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 857.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 36 Elliott, Delbert, and Scott Menard. "Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior." Delinquency and crime: Current theories (1996): 28-67. Elliott, Delbert S., Suzanne S. Ageton, and David Huizinga. Explaining delinquency and drug use. Behavioral Research Inst., 1982. Emmelkamp, Paul MG, and Katharina Meyerbröker. Personality disorders. Psychology Press, 2019. Felson, Marcus, and Rachel L. Boba, eds. Crime and everyday life. Sage, 2010. Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. The handbook of social psychology, 2(4), 357- 411. Forde, Y.C. 2015. Status Report on the Juvenile Justice Sector in Selected Territories USAID Eastern and Southern Caribbean. Freedom House. "Global freedom scores." (2020). Fryer Jr, R. G. (2019). An empirical analysis of racial differences in police use of force. Journal of Political Economy, 127(3), 1210-1261. Fryer Jr, R. G. (2020). An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force: A Response. Journal of Political Economy, 128(10), 4003-4008. Fukuyama, F. (1998). Women and the evolution of world politics. Foreign Affairs, 24-40. Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press. Glasgow, R. A. (2012). Guyana: race and politics among Africans and East Indians (Vol. 14). Springer Science & Business Media. Gomes, Carolyn. (2007) Police accountability in the Caribbean: where are the people. A paper presented at the workshop on Police Accountability at the Civicus World Assembly: 23. Vol. 27. Hawley, Amos H. "Human ecology; a theory of community structure." (1950). Haynie, D. L., & Osgood, D. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter?. Social Forces, 84(2), 1109-1130. Heller, S. B., Shah, A. K., Guryan, J., Ludwig, J., Mullainathan, S., & Pollack, H. A. (2017). Thinking, fast and slow? Some field experiments to reduce crime and dropout in Chicago. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(1), 1-54. Herrera, V. M., & McCloskey, L. A. (2001). Gender differences in the risk for delinquency among youth exposed to family violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(8), 1037-1051. Hill, S. M., & Morris, P. K. (2017). Drug Trafficking and Gang Violence in the Caribbean. Crime, Violence, and Public Safety in the Caribbean, 52-75. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California.. Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(2), 408.. Katz, C. M. et al. (2016). Prevalence and Patterns of Troublesome Youth Groups in the Caribbean: Implications for Policy and Practice. Report prepared for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

37 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Kang, H.-K., & Burton, D. L. (2014). Effects of racial discrimination, childhood trauma, and trauma symptoms on juvenile delinquency in African American incarcerated youth. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 23(10), 1109–1125. Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Thornberry, T. P., Smith, C., & McDowall, D. (1996). Reciprocal causal relationships among drug use, peers, and beliefs: A five-wave panel model. Journal of Drug Issues, 26(2), 405-428. Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 354-375.. Mars, J. (2009). Ethnic Diversity and Police–Community Relations in Guyana. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, 47(4), 506-516. Maxfield, M. G., & Widom, C. S. (1996). The cycle of violence: Revisited 6 years later. Archives of pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 150(4), 390-395. Mears, D. P., Ploeger, M., & Warr, M. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in delinquency: Peer influence and moral evaluations of behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(3), 251-266. Messerschmidt, J. (1997). Crime as structured action: Gender, race, class, and crime in the making. Sage. Murphy, K., & Tyler, T. R. (2017). Experimenting with procedural justice policing. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(3), 287-292. Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the life‐course. Journal of Child Psychology and psychiatry, 46(12), 1269-1278. Overseas Security Advisor Council, U.S. Department of State. Guyana Crime and Safety Report. 2020. Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school. In Aggressive behavior (pp. 97-130). Springer, Boston, MA. Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O'malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American sociological review, 635-655. Peyton, K., Sierra-Arévalo, M., & Rand, D. G. (2019). A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(40), 19894-19898. Post, S. G. (2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good to be good. International journal of behavioral medicine, 12(2), 66-77. Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright Publishing. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1995). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press. Skogan, W. G. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing & society, 16(02), 99- 126. Shorrocks, A. F. (2013). Decomposition procedures for distributional analysis: a unified framework based on the Shapley value. Journal of Economic Inequality, 11(1), 99. Smith, T. W. (1984). The polls: Gender and attitudes toward violence. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(1), 384-396.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 38 Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual review of sociology, 22(1), 459-487. Sutton, Heather, and Sasha Baxter. (2017). Understanding and Combatting Crime in Guyana. IDB Policy Brief No IDB-PB-271. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The annals of the American academy of political and social science, 593(1), 84-99. Uggen, Christopher, and Sara Wakefield. Young adults reentering the community from the criminal justice system: The challenge of becoming an adult. In On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations (2005): 114-144. University of Chicago Press. Visher, C. A., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual review of sociology, 29(1), 89-113. Walker, L. E. (2016). The battered woman syndrome. Springer publishing company. Widom, C. S. (2017). Long‐term impact of childhood abuse and neglect on crime and violence. Clinical psychology: science and practice, 24(2), 186-202. Wilson, H. A., & Hoge, R. D. (2013). The effect of youth diversion programs on recidivism: A meta-analytic review. Criminal justice and behavior, 40(5), 497-518. Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gravel, J., Bouchard, M., & Morselli, C. (2016). Can at-risk youth be diverted from crime? A meta-analysis of restorative diversion programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1310- 1329. Zechmeister, E. J. (Ed.). (2014). The political culture of democracy in the Americas, 2014: democratic governance across 10 years of the AmericasBarometer. LAPOP/Vanderbilt University. Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Johnsen, M. C., & Myers, K. A. (1994). The mediating effect of good school performance on the maltreatment-delinquency relationship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(1), 62-91.

39 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV APPENDIX I: REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAMPLE To test whether the survey sample is representative of our sampling frame population of justice-involved youth, we compare key characteristics across the population and sample. Figure 5 compares the population of justice-involved youth, utilizing the administrative data, to our sample of justice involved youth, utilizing the survey data across gender, ethnicity, and region. Population averages from the administrative data are captured by the blue bars, and sample averages from the survey data are captured by the red bars. Error bands represent a 95 percent confidence interval, meaning if the population and survey sample error bands overlap, the differences between the population and survey sample are not statistically different at the 95 percent level. The results show that our sample is similar to the population of justice-involved youth in terms of gender, region of origin, and all race categories except for Black/Afro-Guyanese. For this category, 28 percent of the population of justice involved youth are Black/Afro-Guyanese, whereas 45 percent of our respondents were Black/Afro-Guyanese. However, given the balance on other variables and the fact that our analysis controls for race, we believe any bias induced by this sample selection to be minimal. Figure 5: Population and sample comparisons across gender, ethnicity and region

100% Population 69% 75% 66% Sample 48%51% 50% 45% 35% 31% 32% 28% 25% 28% 15% 25% 18% 15% 18% 12% 10% 12% 5%5% 7% 4%5% 0% 3%2% 2%3% 1%1% 3%1% 2%0% 0% Male Mixed Other Female Amerindian Barima Waini Barima Potaro-Siparuni Mahaiza- Berbice Cuyuni- Mazaruni Demerara- Mahaica Black/Afro-Guyanese Pomeroon-Supenaam East Berbice -Corentyne Upper Demerara-BerbiceUpper EastIndian/Indo-Guyanese Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo Takutu-Upper Upper Essequibo Islands-West Demerara Essequibo Islands-West

Gender Ethnicity Region

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 40 APPENDIX II: SAMPLE SIZE AND MARGIN OF ERROR CALCULATIONS Despite our intention to survey all 856 youth from the administrative records, only 377 youth responded to the survey, resulting in a response rate of 44 percent. However, as shown in Appendix I, this sample is very similar to the overall population in terms of gender, ethnicity, and region of origin, suggesting that non-response bias is unlikely to confound our results. The margin of error of our survey is given by the formula:

Where denotes the sample size, denotes the variance of the outcome variable, and / denotes Z-score corresponding to the specified2 level of significance . In our case, = 377, = 0.05, and / = 𝑁𝑁 𝜎𝜎 𝑍𝑍𝛼𝛼 2 1.96. For Bernoulli distributed variables (i.e., binary variables such as Yes/No), is highest when , the 𝛼𝛼 𝑁𝑁 𝛼𝛼 𝑍𝑍𝛼𝛼 2 proportion of respondents responding affirmatively, is equal to = 0.5. At =2 0.5, the variance of a Bernoulli distributed random variable is = (1 ) = 0.25. This gives us a maximum𝜎𝜎 margin of 𝑝𝑝error of five percent, meaning that we would expect2 the true mean of a given𝑝𝑝 binary variable𝑝𝑝 to fall within +/- five percentages points of the sample means 𝜎𝜎reported𝑝𝑝 in− 𝑝𝑝this report 95 times out of 100.

41 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV APPENDIX III: REGRESSION TABLES FOR MAIN FIGURES Table 7 presents the results of our correlates of recidivism analysis, as reported in Figure 1 in the main report.

Table 9: Drivers of Recidivism

ARRESTED OR APPEARED COMMITTED ONE OR IN COURT SINCE FIRST MORE CRIMES SINCE CONVICTION FIRST CONVICTION Childhood abuse experiences Domestic violence in household -0.06 (0.03) -0.06 (0.06) Emotional abuse in household 0.11*** (0.03) 0.09** (0.04) Physical abuse in household -0.04 (0.06) 0.16*** (0.03) Sexual abuse in household 0.12 (0.07) 0.11 (0.06) Neglected as child -0.01 (0.03) 0.09*** (0.08) Treatment by police and justice system Police treat me with dignity -0.02 (0.04) -0.06 (0.06) Court treats me with dignity -0.07 (0.04) -0.03 (0.03) Ever beaten by police 0.18** (0.06) 0.11** (0.05) Detained in prison -0.04 (0.04) -0.09 (0.05) Negative Peer Influence High delinquency among peers 0.14** (0.03) 0.19** (0.04) High peer approval of delinquency 0.10** (0.04) 0.11** (0.04) Member of a gang 0.07 (0.09) 0.04 (0.06) Reintegration Measures Community service -0.09 (0.05) -0.06 (0.06) Sports 0.10 (0.07) -0.18** (0.07) Religious services -0.05 (0.03) -0.05 (0.04) Social media 0.01 (0.06) 0.00 (0.03) Prosocial peer influence 0.04 (0.04) 0.01 (0.04) Employed -0.02 (0.11) 0.03 (0.04) Enrolled in school -0.14 (0.11) -0.07 (0.04) Demographics Under 18 years old -0.05 (0.07) -0.12** (0.05) Female -0.23*** (0.06) -0.18** (0.07) Black/Afro-Guyanese -0.11 (0.09) 0.03 (0.04) Constant 0.58*** (0.11) 0.64*** (0.11) Observations 377 377 R-squared 0.22 0.29 OLS regression with robust standard errors in parentheses, clustered by region; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 42 Table 8 presents the results of our correlates of reintegration analysis, as reported in Figure 3 in the main report. However, whereas Figure 3 reports results as the percent change relative to the sample mean, Table 8 reports results on the standardized reintegration index, with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. Accordingly, the coefficients can be interpreted as the standard deviation change reintegration associated with the given indicator variable.

Table 10: Correlates of Reintegration

REINTEGRATION INDEX Childhood abuse experiences Domestic violence 0.21 (0.12) Emotional abuse 0.05 (0.11) Physical abuse -0.10 (0.09) Sexual abuse -0.06 (0.10) Neglected as child -0.19 (0.15) Treatment by police and justice system Police treat with dignity 0.08 (0.06) Court treats with dignity 0.07 (0.08) Ever beaten by police -0.04 (0.16) Detained in prison -0.21 (0.19) Negative Peer Influence High delinquency among peers -0.39*** (0.04) High peer approval of delinquency 0.16* (0.08) Member of a gang 0.15 (0.21) Demographics Under 18 years old 0.03 (0.12) Female -0.27* (0.13) Black/Afro-Guyanese 0.05 (0.15) Constant 0.16 (0.12) Observations 377 R-squared 0.08 OLS regression with robust standard errors in parentheses, clustered by region; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

43 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV APPENDIX IV: DISAGGREGATED RESULTS

CORRELATES OF RECIDIVISM DISAGGREGATED BY TYPE OF RECIDIVISM CRIME Table 9 and Table 10 display the correlates of recidivism disaggregated by type of recidivism.

Table 11: Correlates of recidivism disaggregated by type of recidivism

(2) (1) COURT (3) (4) ARREST REAPPEARANCE AGGRAVATED SIMPLE RECIDIVISM RECIDIVISM ASSAULT ASSAULT Domestic violence -0.06 (0.04) -0.05 (0.04) -0.02 (0.01) -0.01 (0.05) Emotional abuse 0.08** (0.03) 0.02 (0.04) 0.10** (0.04) 0.02 (0.04) Physical abuse -0.03 (0.07) 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.04) 0.20*** (0.03) Sexual abuse 0.06 (0.04) 0.14** (0.06) 0.12*** (0.03) -0.00 (0.04) Neglected as child -0.03 (0.04) -0.01 (0.04) 0.03 (0.02) 0.07** (0.03) Police treat me with dignity and respect -0.07 (0.05) -0.05 (0.07) -0.05* (0.03) -0.04 (0.04) Courts treat me with dignity and -0.01 (0.03) 0.09** (0.03) -0.03 (0.02) 0.05* (0.03) respect Ever beaten by police 0.20*** (0.02) 0.18* (0.08) 0.13*** (0.04) 0.08* (0.04) Held in prison -0.09* (0.05) 0.01 (0.05) 0.08 (0.05) -0.09 (0.06) High delinquency among peers 0.09* (0.05) 0.09** (0.04) 0.07 (0.07) 0.22*** (0.04) High peer approval of delinquency 0.06*** (0.02) 0.08 (0.05) 0.09*** (0.02) 0.15** (0.05) Member of a gang -0.06 (0.07) 0.06 (0.06) 0.04 (0.08) 0.04 (0.07) Community service past year 0.11 (0.06) -0.15** (0.06) 0.01 (0.05) 0.05 (0.04) Did sports regularly past year 0.01 (0.03) 0.06 (0.07) -0.09 (0.05) -0.17** (0.06) Attended religious services regularly -0.13** (0.04) 0.02 (0.03) 0.02 (0.06) -0.03 (0.06) past year Used social media regularly past year 0.04 (0.03) -0.01 (0.06) 0.12*** (0.03) 0.06 (0.06) Prosocial support network 0.07** (0.03) 0.02 (0.05) 0.02 (0.02) 0.11* (0.06) Under 18 -0.07** (0.03) -0.12* (0.06) -0.01 (0.03) -0.01 (0.02) Female -0.11*** (0.03) -0.16* (0.08) -0.18*** (0.04) -0.14*** (0.04) Black/Afro-Guyanese -0.07* (0.03) -0.08 (0.10) 0.04** (0.01) -0.05* (0.03) Employed -0.02 (0.02) -0.09 (0.13) -0.04 (0.03) -0.05 (0.04) Enrolled in school -0.07 (0.04) -0.12 (0.08) -0.06*** (0.01) -0.11** (0.05) Constant 0.21** (0.08) 0.30** (0.11) -0.01 (0.04) 0.09* (0.05) Observations 377 376 377 377 R-squared 0.20 0.19 0.26 0.27

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 44 Table 12: Correlates of recidivism disaggregated by type of recidivism (continued)

(5) (6) (7) CRIME OF SEXUAL USE OR SELL ACQUISITION ASSAULT DRUGS Domestic violence 0.05 (0.06) -0.01 (0.01) -0.08** (0.03) Emotional abuse -0.04 (0.05) 0.03 (0.02) 0.02 (0.03) Physical abuse 0.19*** (0.05) 0.02** (0.01) 0.13*** (0.04) Sexual abuse 0.18*** (0.02) 0.01* (0.01) 0.16*** (0.03) Neglected as child 0.03 (0.03) -0.01 (0.01) 0.09** (0.04) Police treat me with dignity and respect 0.06 (0.03) 0.01 (0.01) -0.04 (0.03) Courts treat me with dignity and respect 0.01 (0.04) -0.01 (0.01) 0.04 (0.05) Ever beaten by police 0.12*** (0.03) -0.02 (0.01) 0.07*** (0.02) Held in prison -0.12 (0.08) -0.02 (0.01) 0.05 (0.06) High delinquency among peers 0.11*** (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) 0.13** (0.04) High peer approval of delinquency 0.03 (0.04) -0.02 (0.03) 0.06 (0.06) Member of a gang 0.01 (0.09) 0.04 (0.04) 0.16*** (0.05) Community service past year -0.09 (0.07) 0.00 (0.01) -0.13** (0.05) Did sports regularly past year -0.01 (0.03) -0.01 (0.02) -0.14* (0.06) Attended religious services regularly past year 0.02 (0.02) 0.00 (0.01) -0.14** (0.05) Used social media regularly past year 0.02 (0.05) 0.04 (0.02) 0.01 (0.03) Prosocial support network -0.08* (0.04) -0.01 (0.02) 0.08** (0.03) Under 18 -0.05** (0.02) -0.03 (0.03) -0.15** (0.06) Female 0.16*** (0.02) -0.04 (0.03) 0.20*** (0.06) Black/Afro-Guyanese 0.04 (0.08) -0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.04) Employed 0.00 (0.04) -0.03 (0.03) 0.00 (0.05) Enrolled in school -0.05 (0.08) -0.00 (0.02) -0.10** (0.04) Constant 0.09 (0.05) 0.05 (0.03) 0.36*** (0.07) Observations 377 377 377 R-squared 0.17 0.08 0.26

45 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV CORRELATES OF REINTEGRATION DISAGGREGATED BY TYPE OF REINTEGRATION Table 11 displays the correlates of reintegration disaggregated by type of reintegration outcome.

Table 13: Correlates of reintegration disaggregated by type of reintegration (2) INVOLVED IN (3) (1) ONE OR MORE PROSOCIAL EMPLOYED OR PROSOCIAL SUPPORT IN SCHOOL ACTIVITIES NETWORK Childhood abuse experiences Domestic violence 0.07 (0.06) 0.11* (0.06) -0.00 (0.03) Emotional abuse 0.06 (0.04) 0.08* (0.04) -0.04 (0.09) Physical abuse -0.04 (0.03) -0.11 (0.07) 0.02 (0.06) Sexual abuse -0.13*** (0.03) 0.04 (0.05) 0.13*** (0.03) Neglected as child -0.06 (0.07) -0.13*** (0.04) -0.00 (0.05) Treatment by police and justice system Police treat me with dignity and respect -0.00 (0.02) -0.01 (0.06) 0.08 (0.05) Courts treat me with dignity and respect -0.03 (0.04) 0.02 (0.05) 0.09** (0.03) Ever beaten by police -0.13 (0.11) 0.00 (0.04) 0.18*** (0.04) Held in prison -0.02 (0.03) -0.17* (0.08) -0.05 (0.09) Negative Peer Influence High delinquency among peers -0.10*** (0.03) -0.09*** (0.02) -0.19*** (0.04) High peer approval of delinquency -0.05* (0.03) -0.08 (0.06) 0.20*** (0.04) Member of a gang -0.03 (0.07) -0.08 (0.09) 0.16 (0.10) Demographics Under 18 0.08** (0.03) 0.02 (0.03) -0.08 (0.06) Female -0.35*** (0.07) -0.09 (0.06) 0.08 (0.07) Black/Afro-Guyanese -0.06 (0.06) -0.01 (0.05) 0.07** (0.03) Constant 0.74*** (0.06) 0.60*** (0.10) 0.37*** (0.06) Observations 377 377 377 R-squared 0.13 0.06 0.13

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 46 APPENDIX V: CONSENT SCRIPT AND SURVEY INSTRUMENT

CONSENT/ASSENT SCRIPTS

INFORMED ASSENT (YOUTH)

Hello, my name is _____ and I work with Specialists in Sustained Youth Development and Research (SSYDR). I would like to interview you to find out more about you, your friends and your family. We’ll also talk about your attendance at school and any times you were involved with police, a probation office, or a court in the past. Lastly, we’ll be asking you about your safety and if anyone has ever made you afraid or hurt you and whether you have ever used drugs or stolen anything. Any information you give me is confidential. This means I am not allowed to tell your parents, teachers or anyone the information we discuss. However, if you tell me anything that I think is harmful to you or places you or anyone in danger, then I will have to protect you or them. If this happens, I may need to share some information you told me with other people whose job it is to protect children. Do you understand? Keep in mind that there are no wrong or right answers and I want you to be as honest as you can. It will take about forty-five minutes to answer these questions. You can stop the interview at any time you choose. You can also skip any question that you don’t want to answer. If you feel upset when answering some of the questions, you can pause and rest, or you can stop the interview. Do you understand? Do you have any questions for me? Do you agree to this interview?

INFORMED ASSENT (DETAINED YOUTH) Hello, my name is _____ .and I work with Specialists in Sustained Youth Development and Research (SSYDR). I would like to interview you to find out more about you, your friends and your family. We’ll also talk about your attendance at school and any times you were involved with police, a probation office, or a court in the past. Lastly, we’ll be asking you about your safety and if anyone has ever made you afraid or hurt you and whether you have ever used drugs or stolen anything. Any information you give me is confidential. This means I am not allowed to tell your parents, teachers or anyone the information we discuss. However, if you tell me anything that I think is harmful to you or places you or anyone in danger, then I will have to protect you or them. If this happens, I may need to share some information you told me with other people whose job it is to protect children. Do you understand? Keep in mind that there are no wrong or right answers and I want you to be as honest as you can. It will take about forty-five minutes to answer these questions. You can stop the interview at any time you choose. You can also skip any question that you don’t want to answer. If you feel upset when answering some of the questions, you can pause and rest, or you can stop the interview. Do you understand? Do you have any questions for me?

47 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV The amount of time you are required to spend at [site where individual is detained] won’t change depending on whether you agree to this interview or not. Do you agree to this interview?

INFORMED CONSENT (GUARDIAN) Hello, my name is _____ .and I work with Specialists in Sustained Youth Development and Research (SSYDR), a local survey company. We are working with our United States-based partners Social Impact and NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct a survey on the juvenile justice system in Guyana. This work was commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of their efforts to improve juvenile justice in the country. We would like to interview your child as they have interacted with the juvenile justice system in Guyana in the past. As part of this interview, we’ll be asking your child about themselves, their friends and their family. We’ll also talk about their attendance at school in the past and any times they were involved with police, a probation office, a court, or a detention facility. In addition, we’ll be asking them some questions about their safety, including some questions that are sexual in nature, and whether anyone has ever hurt them or whether they have ever used drugs or stolen anything. These questions will take about 45 minutes to complete. We do not anticipate any risks from participating in this interview. Any information your child gives to me is confidential. This means I am not allowed to tell anyone the information we discuss. However, if your child tells me anything that places them or others in danger, then I will have to share some information with the Childcare and Protection Agency, whose job it is to protect children. This interview is completely voluntary, and we’d like to speak with your child privately, without you or other family members or friends present. He/she can stop the interview at any time, and he/she can refuse to answer any questions. Do you have any questions for me? Do we have your permission to interview this individual? If you have any questions or concerns you may contact Magda Fiona Wills, Executive Director of SSYDR, at 592-684-4444 or 592-227-0923. By signing the document below, I declare that I consent for my child/ward to participate in SSYDR’s interview. ______Name of child/ward Name of parent or legal guardian ______Signature of parent or legal guardian Date Contact Information Sheet (to be provided by the parent/legal guardian) Street address: ______Do you have an alternative address? If so please provide it here: ______Landline ______Cell phone 1: ______Cell phone 2: ______

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 48 INFORMED CONSENT (ADULT) Hello, my name is _____ and I work with Specialists in Sustained Youth Development and Research (SSYDR). We are working with our United States-based partners Social Impact and NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct a survey on the juvenile justice system in Guyana. This work was commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of their efforts to improve juvenile justice in the country. You were selected for this interview because you have interacted with the juvenile justice system in Guyana in the past. As part of this interview, I would like to find out more about you, your friends and your family. We’ll also talk about your attendance at school in the past and any times you were involved with police, a probation office, a court, or a detention facility in the past. In addition, we’ll be asking you some questions about your safety, including some questions that are sexual in nature, and whether anyone has ever hurt you or whether you have ever used drugs or stolen anything. These questions will take about 45 minutes to complete. We do not anticipate any risks from participating in this interview. Any information you give me is completely confidential. This means I am not allowed to tell anyone the information we discuss. Your participation is voluntary. If you don’t want to participate or if you don’t want to answer specific questions you don’t have to. You may also stop the interview or cease to participate at any time. If you feel upset when answering some of the questions, you can pause and rest, or you can stop the interview. There are no consequences for not participating. Your choice to participate or not participate will have no bearing on your treatment by the justice system. Do you understand? Do you have any questions for me? Do you agree to this interview? If you have any questions or concerns you may contact Magda Fiona Wills, Executive Director of SSYDR, at 592-684-4444 or 592-227-0923.

INFORMED CONSENT (DETAINED ADULT) Hello, my name is _____ and I work with Specialists in Sustained Youth Development and Research (SSYDR). We are working with our United States-based partners Social Impact and NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct a survey on the juvenile justice system in Guyana. This work was commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of their efforts to improve juvenile justice in the country. You were selected for this interview because you have interacted with the juvenile justice system in Guyana in the past. As part of this interview, I would like to find out more about you, your friends and your family. We’ll also talk about your attendance at school in the past and any times you were involved with police, a probation office, a court, or a detention facility in the past. In addition, we’ll be asking you some questions about your safety, including some questions that are sexual in nature, and whether anyone has ever hurt you or whether you have ever used drugs or stolen anything. These questions will take about 45 minutes to complete. We do not anticipate any risks from participating in this interview. Any information you give me is completely confidential. This means I am not allowed to tell anyone the information we discuss. Your participation is voluntary. If you don’t want to participate or if you don’t want to answer specific questions you don’t have to. You may also stop the interview or cease to participate at any time. If you feel upset when answering some of the questions, you can pause and rest, or you can stop the interview.

49 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV There are no consequences for not participating. Your choice to participate or not participate will have no bearing on your treatment by the justice system. Do you understand? Do you have any questions for me? The amount of time you are required to spend at [site where individual is detained] won’t change depending on whether you agree to this interview or not. Do you agree to this interview? If you have any questions or concerns you may contact Magda Fiona Wills, Executive Director of SSYDR, at 592-684-4444 or 592-227-0923.

INFORMED CONSENT FOR DETAINED INDIVIDUALS (GOVERNMENT) Hello, my name is _____ and I work with Specialists in Sustained Youth Development and Research (SSYDR), a local survey company. We are working with our United States-based partners Social Impact and NORC at the University of Chicago to conduct a survey on the juvenile justice system in Guyana. This work was commissioned by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of their efforts to improve juvenile justice in the country. We would like to interview the individuals from our sample who are detained at this facility as they have interacted with the juvenile justice system in Guyana in the past. As part of this interview, we’ll be asking these individuals about themselves, their friends and their family. We’ll also talk about their attendance at school in the past and any times they were involved with police, a probation office, a court, or a detention facility. In addition, we’ll be asking them some questions about their safety, including some questions that are sexual in nature, and whether anyone has ever hurt them or whether they have ever used drugs or stolen anything. These questions will take about 45 minutes to complete. We do not anticipate any risks from participating in this interview. Any information these individuals give to me is confidential. This means I am not allowed to tell anyone the information we discuss. However, if a juvenile tells me anything that places them or others in danger, then I will have to share some information with the Childcare and Protection Agency, whose job it is to protect children. This interview is completely voluntary, and we’d like to speak with each individual privately, without you or the facility’s staff present. He/she can stop the interview at any time, and he/she can refuse to answer any questions. Do you have any questions for me? Do we have your permission to interview the individuals from our sample who are detained at this facility? If you have any questions or concerns you may contact Magda Fiona Wills, Executive Director of SSYDR, at 592-684-4444 or 592-227-0923. By signing the document below, I declare that I consent for the individuals from SSYDR’s sample, who are detained at this facility, to participate in this interview. ______Name of government official ______Signature of government official ______Date

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 50 SURVEY INSTRUMENT

MODULE A: DEMOGRAPHICS

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS Thank you for agreeing to participate. To start, I just want to get some basic information about you. A1 What is your gender? [1] Female [2] Male A2 What is your age? #: ____ A3 In what region do you currently live? [1] 1. Barima Waini [2] 2. Pomeroon-Supenaam [3] 3. Essequibo Islands-West Demerara [4] 4. Demerara- Mahaica, [5] 5. Mahaica-Berbice, [6] 6. East Berbice - Corentyne [7] 7. Cuyuni-Mazaruni [8] 8. Potaro-Siparuni [9] 9. Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo [10] 10. Upper Demerara-Berbice A4 What is your neighborhood democratic council? [preloaded data] A5 In what city or village do you currently live? [preloaded data] A6 What is your ethnicity? [1] Amerindian [2] Black/Afro-Guyanese [3] East Indian/Indo-Guyanese [4] Chinese [5] Latino/Hispanic [6] White/European/Portuguese [7] Mixed [-96] Other (specify)

MODULE B: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS Here we would like to know a little bit about your experiences at school or in employment. B1 Are you currently going to school? [1] Yes [2] No  B4 B2 Overall, do you enjoy school? [1] Yes [2] No

51 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Q# QUESTION OPTIONS B3 In the past year, how many times have you skipped school? [0] 0 times [1] A couple times as a year [2] A couple times a month [3] A couple times a week [4] Most days B4 What is the highest level of school you have attended? [1] No school  B8 [2] Primary school (grades 1 – 6) [3] Secondary school (grades 7 -13)  B6 [4] Vocational school  B7 [5] Tertiary education (college or university)  B7 B5 What was the last class of primary school you completed? [1] Prep A - Grade 1  B8 [2] Prep B - Grade 2  B8 [3] Primary 1 - Grade 3  B8 [4] Primary 2 - Grade 4  B8 [5] Primary 3 - Grade 5  B8 [6] Primary 4 - Grade 6  B8 B6 Which was the last form you completed at secondary [1] Form 1 - Grade 7  B8 school? [2] Form 2 - Grade 8  B8 [3] Form 3 - Grade 9  B8 [4] Form 4 - Grade 10  B8 [5] Form 5 - Grade 11  B8 [6] Grade 12  B8 [7] Grade 13  B8 B7 Did you complete your degree or certificate? [1] Yes [2] No B8 Are you currently employed? [1] Yes [2] No  B10 B9 Is your current employment part time or full time? [1] Part time (less than 35 hours per week)  C1 [2] Full-time (more than 35 hours per week)  C1 B10 Have you been employed in the last year? [1] Yes [2] No  C1 B11 Was your employment part time or full time? [1] Part time (less than 35 hours per week) [2] Full-time (more than 35 hours per week)

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 52 MODULE C: OFFENSE HISTORY

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS We are interested in talking with you today because you were involved with the juvenile justice system at some point in 2015, 2016, or 2017. You may have been arrested by the police, held in detention, you may have appeared in court, or engaged with probation services. Take a couple of minutes to remember what your first juvenile justice system involvement was in 2015, 2016, or 2017. C1_1 When was your first offense during this period? [1] 2015 [2] 2016 [3] 2017 C1_2 What category best describes the offence that led to your [1] Offense against a person first involvement with the juvenile justice system in [insert [2] Offense against property C1_1]? [3] Drug offense [4] Status offense [-96] Other (specify) C1_3 What was the offense that led to your first involvement with ______the juvenile justice system in [insert C1_1]? C2 What type of detention institution were you detained in for [1] Police station/police cell your first involvement with the juvenile justice system in [2] Sophia Juvenile Detention [insert C1_1]? Select all that apply Center [3] New Opportunity Corps [4] Prison (detention facility housing both children and adults) [5] None C3 Are you on remand (waiting to go to court) or are you [1] Remand convicted? (Only asked if Location—from Admin section at [2] Convicted start of survey—is a detention facility) C4 [if location=3, 4, 5, or 6] What was the length of your #: ______sentence for your most recent offence? Not applicable C5 What was the date you were sentenced for your most #: ______recent offence? (Always asked) Not applicable C6 Thinking back over your entire lifetime, how many times have #: ______you been arrested? C7 Thinking back over your entire lifetime, how many times have #: ______you been in detention?

MODULE D: JUSTICE SYSTEM AND TREATMENT INVOLVEMENT

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS D2_1 Since your first involvement with the juvenile justice system in [1] Yes [insert C1_1], have you been stopped or questioned by the [2] No  D2_3 police? D2_2 [If D1_1=1] How many times? #______D2_1 [If D1_1=1] Since your first involvement with the juvenile [1] Yes justice system in [insert C1_1], have you been arrested by [2] No  D2_3 the police?

53 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Q# QUESTION OPTIONS D2_2 [If D2_1=1] How many times? #______D2_3 Instead of arresting you, have the police EVER referred you to [1] Yes a program for youth. For example, one such program is called [2] No  D3_1 Cops and Faith and is run by religious leaders. Another example is probation.) D2_4 [If D2_3=1] What was the name of the program? (select all [1] Cops and Faith that apply) [2] Probation [-96] Other D2_5 [If D2_3=1] In that case, which of the following types of [1] Offense against a person offenses did the police allege you had committed? [2] Offense against property [3] Drug offense [4] Status offense [-96] Other (specify) D2_6 [If D2_3=1] In that case, what was the offense? ______D2_7 [If D2_3=1] In that case, when were you referred to [1] When I was first involved with [Answer from D2_4]? the juvenile justice system in [insert C1_1] [2] After I was first involved with the juvenile justice system in [insert C1_1] [3] Both [1] and [2] [-96] Other (specify) D3_1 Since your first involvement with the juvenile justice system in [1] Yes [insert C1_1], have you ever appeared in court for a new [2] No  D4_1 alleged offense? D3_2 [If D3_1=1] How many times have you appeared in court #: ______since your first involvement with the juvenile justice system in [insert C1_1]? D3_3 [If D3_1=1] Was this as a result of one incident or multiple [1] One incident incidents? [2] Multiple incidents D3_4 [If D3_1=1] In [this case if D3_3 == 1; these cases if [1] Offense against a person D3_3 == 2], which of the following offenses did the court say [2] Offense against property you committed? (Select all) [3] Drug offense [4] Status offense [-96] Other (specify) D3_5 In [this case if D3_3 == 1; these cases if D3_3 == 2], ______what was the main offense? D4_1 Has a court EVER ordered you to participate in a program for [1] Yes youth as an alternative to detention? [2] No  D4_3

D4_2 [If D4_1=1] What was the name of the program? ______[-98] Don’t know D4_3 Has a court EVER ordered you to probation as an alternative [1] Yes to detention? [2] No

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 54 Q# QUESTION OPTIONS D5_1 Have you EVER worked with a probation officer that wasn’t [1] Yes ordered by the court? (Note: This could be voluntarily or based [2] No  if D4_3=0 and on a referral from the police or school) D5_1=0, skip to D6_1 D5_2 [If D5_1=1] What did probation entail? (Select all that apply) [1] Group work [2] One on one sessions [3] Home visits [4] Support with personal problems [5] Meetings with parents [6] Other (specify) D6_1 [if location!=3, 4, 5, or 6] Have you EVER spent any time in [1] Yes a detention facility? [2] No  E1 D6_2 [if D6_1=1 OR location=3, 4, 5, or 6] What type of [1] Police station/police cell detention facility? (Select all that apply) [2] Sophia Holding Center [3] New Opportunity Corps [4] Prison (detention facility housing both children and adults) [5] None D6_3 [if D6_1=1 OR location=3, 4, 5, or 6] Which of the [1] School classes/education following services are/were provided in detention? [2] Group work (specify) [3] Counseling [4] Meeting with a probation officer [5] Other (specify) [6] None In thinking about all your interactions with the juvenile justice system, throughout your lifetime, would you agree or disagree with the following statement… D7_1 The police treat me with dignity and respect (Always asked) [1] Strongly disagree [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable D7_2 The police help me with my difficulties or problems (Always [1] Strongly disagree asked) [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable

55 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Q# QUESTION OPTIONS D7_3 [If D2_3 == 1] [Insert answer from D2_4] staff treated [1] Strongly disagree me with dignity and respect [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable D7_4 [If D2_3 == 1] [Insert answer from D2_4] helped me [1] Strongly disagree with my difficulties or problems. [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable D7_5 The court treated me with dignity and respect [1] Strongly disagree [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable D7_6 The court helped me with my difficulties or problems [1] Strongly disagree [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable D7_7 [If D4_1 == 1] [Insert answer from D4_2] treated me [1] Strongly disagree with dignity and respect [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 56 Q# QUESTION OPTIONS D7_8 [If D4_1 == 1] [Insert answer from D4_2] helped me [1] Strongly disagree with my difficulties or problems [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable D7_9 [If D4_3==1 or D5_1=1] Probation staff treated me with [1] Strongly disagree dignity and respect [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable D7_10 [If D4_3=1 or D5_1=1] Probation helped me with my [1] Strongly disagree difficulties or problems [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable D7_11 [if D6_1=1 OR location=3, 4, 5, or 6] Detention facility [1] Strongly disagree staff treated me with dignity and respect [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable D7_12 [if D6_1=1 OR location=3, 4, 5, or 6] The detention [1] Strongly disagree facility staff helped me with my difficulties or problems [2] Disagree [3] Neutral [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable D7_13 At any time have the police ever hit or kicked you? (Always [1] Yes asked) [2] No [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused [-97] Not applicable

57 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV MODULE E: PEER DELINQUENCY

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS EI Now I’d like to find out a little about your close friends or the people you hang out with. Remember—we are not interested in asking you their names. E1_1 How many close friends do you have? [0] 0 [1] 1 [2] 2 [3] 3 [4] 4 [5] 5 or more E1_1_conf Many people have a group of friends that they spend time [1] Yes  Module F with, doing things together, hanging out or kicking it. Are [2] No you sure you don’t have any close friends? E1_2 In the last year, how many of your close friends have [0] 0 destroyed property? Hint: property is anything that isn’t a [1] 1 person [2] 2 [3] 3 [4] 4 [5] 5 or more E1_3 In the last year, how many of your close friends have stolen [0] 0 something worth less than 1,000 Guyanese dollars (GYD)? [1] 1 [2] 2 [3] 3 [4] 4 [5] 5 or more E1_4 In the last year, how many of your close friends have hit or [0] 0 threatened to hit someone? [1] 1 [2] 2 [3] 3 [4] 4 [5] 5 or more E1_5 In the last year, how many of your close friends have broken [0] 0 into a vehicle or building to steal something? [1] 1 [2] 2 [3] 3 [4] 4 [5] 5 or more E1_6 In the last year, how many of your close friends have used [0] 0 illegal drugs? [1] 1 [2] 2 [3] 3 [4] 4 [5] 5 or more

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 58 Q# QUESTION OPTIONS E1_7 In the last year, how many of your close friends have sold [0] 0 illegal drugs? [1] 1 [2] 2 [3] 3 J7[4] 4 [5] 5 or more E1_8 In the last year, how many of your close friends have stolen [0] 0 something worth more than 1,000 GYD? [1] 1 [2] 2 [3] 3 [4] 4 [5] 5 or more E1_9 In the last year, how many of your close friends are in a [0] 0 gang? [1] 1 [2] 2 [3] 3 [4] 4 [5] 5 or more E1_10 How would your close friends react if you stole something [1] Strongly disapprove worth less than 1,000 GYD? [2] Disapprove [3] Neutral [4] Approve [5] Strongly approve E1_11 How would your close friends react if you stole something [1] Strongly disapprove worth more than 1,000 GYD? [2] Disapprove [3] Neutral [4] Approve [5] Strongly approve E1_12 How would your close friends react if you sold drugs? [1] Strongly disapprove [2] Disapprove [3] Neutral [4] Approve [5] Strongly approve E1_13 How would your close friends react if you hit or threatened [1] Strongly disapprove to hit someone? [2] Disapprove [3] Neutral [4] Approve [5] Strongly approve E1_14 How would your close friends react if you destroyed [1] Strongly disapprove property? Hint: property is anything that isn’t a person [2] Disapprove [3] Neutral [4] Approve [5] Strongly approve

59 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Q# QUESTION OPTIONS E1_15 How would your close friends react if you broke into a [1] Strongly disapprove building or vehicle to steal something? [2] Disapprove [3] Neutral [4] Approve [5] Strongly approve

MODULE F: SELF-REPORTED BEHAVIOR RELATED TO RISKS AND RESILIENCE

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS Many young people experiment with drugs. I’d like to know about any drugs you may have tried. Remember this is completely confidential. F1 Have you ever tried cigarette smoking, even one or two puffs? [1] Yes [2] No  F5 F2 How old were you when you smoked a whole cigarette for [0] I have never smoked a whole the first time? cigarette.  F5 [1] 8 years old or younger [2] 9 or 10 years old [3] 11 or 12 years old [4] 13 or 14 years old [5] 15 or 16 years old [6] 17 years old or older F3 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke [0] 0 days  F5 cigarettes? [1] 1 to 2 days [2] 3 to 5 days [3] 6 to 9 days [4] 10 to 19 days [5] 20 to 29 days [6] All 30 days F4 During the past 30 days, on the days you smoked, how many [1] Less than 1 cigarette per day cigarettes did you smoke per day? [2] 1 cigarette per day [3] 2 to 5 cigarettes per day [4] 6 to 10 cigarettes per day [5] 11 to 20 cigarettes per day [6] More than 20 cigarettes per day F5 Have you ever drank alcohol? [1] Yes [2] No  F10 F6 During your life, on how many days have you had at least one [1] 1 or 2 days drink of alcohol? [2] 3 to 9 days [3] 10 to 19 days [4] 20 to 39 days [5] 40 to 99 days [6] 100 or more days

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 60 Q# QUESTION OPTIONS F7 How old were you when you had your first drink of alcohol [1] 8 years or younger other than a few sips? [2] 9 or 10 years old [3] 11 or 12 years old [4] 13 or 14 years old [5] 15 or 16 years old [6] 17 years old or older F8 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at [0] 0 days  F10 least one drink of alcohol? [1] 1 to 2 days [2] 3 to 5 days [3] 6 to 9 days [4] 10 to 19 days [5] 20 to 29 days [6] All 30 days F9 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have 5 or [0] 0 days more drinks of alcohol in a row, that is, within a couple of [1] 1 to 2 days hours? [2] 3 to 5 days [3] 6 to 9 days [4] 10 to 19 days [5] 20 to 29 days [6] All 30 days F10 Have you ever used marijuana? [1] Yes [2] No  F14 F11 During your life, how many times have you used marijuana? [1] 1 or 2 times [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 to 99 times [6] 100 or more times F12 How old were you when you tried marijuana for the first [1] 8 years or younger time? [2] 9 or 10 years old [3] 11 or 12 years old [4] 13 or 14 years old [5] 15 or 16 years old [6] 17 years old or older F13 During the past 30 days, how many times did you use [0] 0 times marijuana? [1] 1 or 2 times [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F14 Have you ever used any form of cocaine, including powder, [1] Yes crack or purified cocaine like freebase? [2] No  F17

61 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Q# QUESTION OPTIONS F15 During your life, how many times have you used any form of [1] 1 or 2 times cocaine, including powder, crack, or purified cocaine like [2] 3 to 9 times freebase? [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F16 During the past 30 days, how many times have you used any [0] 0 times form of cocaine, including powder, crack, or purified cocaine [1] 1 or 2 times like freebase? [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F17 Have you ever sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol [1] Yes spray cans, or inhaled any paints, sprays or gas to get high? [2] No  F20 F18 During your life, how many times have you sniffed glue, [1] 1 or 2 times breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled any [2] 3 to 9 times paints, sprays or gas to get high? [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F19 During the past 30 days, how many times have you sniffed [0] 0 times glue, breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled [1] 1 or 2 times any paints, sprays or gas to get high? [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F20 Have you ever use phenoxydine? [1] Yes [2] No  F23 F21 During your life, how many times have you used [1] 1 or 2 times phenoxydine? [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F22 During the past 30 days, how many times have you used [0] 0 times phenoxydine? [1] 1 or 2 times [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F23 Have you ever used sedatives? [1] Yes [2] No  F26 F24 During your life, how many times have you used sedatives? [1] 1 or 2 times [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 62 Q# QUESTION OPTIONS F25 During the past 30 days, how many times have you used [0] 0 times sedatives? [1] 1 or 2 times [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F26 Have you ever used amphetamines (speed, whiz)? [1] Yes [2] No  F29 F27 During your life, how many times have you used [1] 1 or 2 times amphetamines (speed, whiz)? [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F28 During the past 30 days, how many times have you used [0] 0 times amphetamines (speed, whiz)? [1] 1 or 2 times [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F29 Have you ever used ecstasy (MDMA)? [1] Yes [2] No  F32 F30 During your life, how many times have you used ecstasy [1] 1 or 2 times (MDMA)? [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F31 During the past 30 days, how many times have you used [0] 0 times ecstasy (MDMA)? [1] 1 or 2 times [2] 3 to 9 times [3] 10 to 19 times [4] 20 to 39 times [5] 40 or more times F32 Are you a member of a gang/group? [1] Yes  F34 [2] No F33 Have you ever been a member of a gang/group? [1] Yes [2] No  G1 F34 How old were you when you first joined a gang/group? ______[constrained by A2]

MODULE G: SELF-REPORTED DELINQUENCY HISTORY

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS You are doing great. I’d like to now ask you a little bit about stuff you may have done in the past.

63 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Q# QUESTION OPTIONS G1 Before your involvement with the juvenile justice system in [insert C1_1] did you ever…. G1_1 Hit someone with whom you live, with the idea of hurting [1] Yes them? [2] No G1_2 Hit someone with whom you do not live, with the idea of [1] Yes hurting them? [2] No G1_3 Throw objects such as bottles or rocks at people? [1] Yes [2] No G1_4 Carry a hidden weapon? [1] Yes [2] No G1_5 Set fire to personal property or a building? [1] Yes [2] No G1_6 Snatch something from someone or pick a pocket? [1] Yes [2] No) G1_7 Attack anyone with a weapon? [1] Yes [2] No) G1_8 Use a weapon to rob someone? [1] Yes [2] No G1_9 Get involved in a gang fight? [1] Yes [2] No G1_10 Damage property on purpose? [1] Yes [2] No G1_11 Break into a building to steal? [1] Yes [2] No G1_12 Steal from a store? [1] Yes [2] No G1_13 Steal from a family member? [1] Yes [2] No G1_14 Steal from a car? [1] Yes [2] No G1_15 Knowingly buy or sell stolen goods? [1] Yes [2] No G1_16 Use any illegal drugs? [1] Yes [2] No G1_17 Sell any illegal drugs? [1] Yes [2] No G1_18 Touch anyone in a sexual manner without their consent? [1] Yes [2] No G1_19 Assault anyone in a sexual manner? [1] Yes [2] No G1_20 Verbally abuse anyone in a threatening manner? [1] Yes [2] No G1_21 Engage in any activities or behaviors that are against the law? [1] Yes [2] No  H1

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 64 Q# QUESTION OPTIONS G1_22 If yes, please identify the behavior(s) ______

MODULE H: SELF-REPORTED HISTORY OF RECENT DELINQUENCY

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS Now I’d like to ask you a few questions about some stuff you may have done more recently. H1 After your first juvenile justice involvement in [insert C1_1], did you ever…. H1_1 Hit someone with whom you live, with the idea of hurting [1] Yes them? [2] No H1_2 Hit someone with whom you do not live, with the idea of [1] Yes hurting them? [2] No H1_3 Throw objects such as bottles or rocks at people? [1] Yes [2] No H1_4 Carry a hidden weapon? [1] Yes [2] No H1_5 Set fire to personal property or a building? [1] Yes [2] No H1_6 Snatch something from someone or pick a pocket? [1] Yes [2] No H1_7 Attack anyone with a weapon? [1] Yes [2] No H1_8 Use a weapon to rob someone? [1] Yes [2] No H1_9 Get involved in a gang fight? [1] Yes [2] No H1_10 Damage property on purpose? [1] Yes [2] No H1_11 Break into a building to steal? [1] Yes [2] No H1_12 Steal from a store? [1] Yes [2] No H1_13 Steal from a family member? [1] Yes [2] No H1_14 Steal from a car? [1] Yes [2] No H1_15 Knowingly buy or sell stolen goods? [1] Yes [2] No H1_16 Use any illegal drugs? [1] Yes [2] No H1_17 Sell any illegal drugs? [1] Yes [2] No

65 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Q# QUESTION OPTIONS H1_18 Touch anyone in a sexual manner without their consent? [1] Yes [2] No H1_19 Assault anyone in a sexual manner? [1] Yes [2] No H1_20 Verbally abuse anyone in a threatening manner? [1] Yes [2] No H1_21 Engage in any activities or behaviors that are against the law? [1] Yes [2] No  I1 H1_22 If yes, please identify the activities or behavior(s) ______

MODULE I: RECENT VIOLENCE RELATED BEHAVIORS

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS This section is a really important section—we’d like to ask you about more violent behaviors. Remember—this is confidential and no one will know it is you who is saying this. I1 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a [0] 0 days gun? [1] 1 - 2 days [2] 3 - 5 days [3] 6 - 10 days [4] 11 – 15 days [5] 15 or more days I2 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a [0] 0 days sharp or blunt object other than for employment? (Hint: bat, [1] 1 - 2 days [2] 3 - 5 days knife, cutlass) [3] 6 - 10 days [4] 11 – 15 days [5] 15 or more days I3 During the past 12 months, on how many days has someone [0] 0 days threatened or injured you with a weapon such as a gun, knife, [1] 1 - 2 days [2] 3 - 5 days cutlass, or other blunt or sharp object? [3] 6 - 10 days [4] 11 – 15 days [5] 15 or more days I4 During the past 12 months, on how many days were you in a [0] 0 days  J1 physical fight? [1] 1 - 2 days [2] 3 - 5 days [3] 6 - 10 days [4] 11 – 15 days [5] 15 or more days I5 During the past 12 months, on how many days were you in a [0] 0 days physical fight in which you were injured and had to be treated [1] 1 - 2 days [2] 3 - 5 days by a doctor or nurse? [3] 6 - 10 days [4] 11 – 15 days [5] 15 or more days

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 66 MODULE J: ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS This next section asks questions about things that may have happened to you during your childhood or teenage years. Some of these questions are very sensitive and may be uncomfortable to answer. Please answer honestly and take the time you need to answer. As a reminder, your specific answers will not be shared outside of the evaluation team. Here we are looking at the events before your 18th birthday. J1 Were your parents ever separated or divorced? [1] Yes [2] No J2_1 Sometimes physical fights can occur between parents and other [1] Yes adults. Was your mother, stepmother or other female [2] No caregiver ever pushed, grabbed, slapped or had something thrown at her J2_2 Was your mother, stepmother or other female caregiver ever [1] Yes kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard? [2] No J2_3 Was your mother, stepmother, or other female caregiver [1] Yes ever repeatedly hit at least for a few minutes or threatened [2] No with a gun or knife? J3 Was a household member ever a problem drinker or [1] Yes alcoholic or used street drugs? [2] No J4 Was a household member depressed or mentally ill, or did a [1] Yes household member attempt suicide? [2] No J5 Did a household member go to prison? [1] Yes [2] No Sometimes parents or other adults hurt children. Under 18: “this next section ask questions about things that may have happened to you.”

Over 18: “this next section ask questions about things that may have happened to you before you turned 18.” J6_1 Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very [1] Yes often…Swear at you, insult you, put you down, or humiliate [2] No you? J6_2 Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very [1] Yes often… Act in way that made you afraid that you might be [2] No physically hurt? J7_1 Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very [1] Yes often push grab, slap, or throw something at you? [2] No J7_2 Did a parent or other adult in the household often or very [1] Yes often ever hit you so hard that you had marks or were [2] No injured?

67 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Q# QUESTION OPTIONS Some people, while growing up, have a sexual experience with an adult or someone at least five years older than them. The next couple of questions ask about these occurrences. Before you were 18… J8_1 Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever [1] Yes touch or fondle you or have you touch their body in a sexual [2] No way? J8_2 Did an adult or person at least 5 years older than you ever [1] Yes attempt or actually have oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with [2] No you? Sometimes when growing up, people have difficult relationships with their parents, or people caring for them. The next few questions are about how those relationships may have made you feel. J9_1 Did you often or very often feel that no one in your family [1] Yes loved you or thought you were important or special? [2] No J9_2 Did you often or very often feel that your family didn’t look [1] Yes out for each other, feel close to each other, or support each [2] No other? J10_1 Did you often or very often feel that you didn’t have enough [1] Yes to eat, had to wear dirty clothes, and/or had noone to [2] No protect you? J10_2 Did you often or very often feel that one or both of your [1] Yes parents were too drunk or high to take care of you or take [2] No you to the doctor if you needed it?

MODULE K: PERCEIVED RECIDIVISM

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS K0 [If Administrative Location of Interview == 3 | 4 | 5 | [1] Yes 6] Will your current detention be ending within the next [2] No year? [-98] Don’t know [-99] Refused K1 Thinking ahead, how likely is it that you will commit a new [1] Likely offense over the next year? [2] Somewhat Likely [3] Neutral [4] Somewhat Unlikely [5] Unlikely [-97] Not applicable K2 Thinking ahead, how likely is it that you will be arrested over [1] Likely the next year? [2] Somewhat Likely [3] Neutral [4] Somewhat Unlikely [5] Unlikely [-97] Not applicable

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 68 Q# QUESTION OPTIONS K3 [If Administrative Location of Interview == 1 | 2 OR [1] Likely K0 == 1] Thinking ahead, how likely is it that you will be in [2] Somewhat Likely detention or prison over the next year? [3] Neutral [4] Somewhat Unlikely [5] Unlikely K4 Thinking ahead, how likely is it that your home life will help [1] Likely you avoid trouble over the next year? [2] Somewhat Likely [3] Neutral [4] Somewhat Unlikely [5] Unlikely [-97] Not applicable K5 Thinking ahead, how likely is it that your family will help you [1] Likely avoid trouble over the next year? [2] Somewhat Likely [3] Neutral [4] Somewhat Unlikely [5] Unlikely [-97] Not applicable K6 Thinking ahead, how likely is it that your close friends will [1] Likely help you avoid trouble over the next year? [2] Somewhat Likely [3] Neutral [4] Somewhat Unlikely [5] Unlikely [-97] Not applicable K7 Thinking ahead, how likely is it that you will complete a year [1] Likely of school, or find or maintain part-time or full-time [2] Somewhat Likely employment? [3] Neutral [4] Somewhat Unlikely [5] Unlikely

MODULE L: PERCEIVED REINTEGRATION

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS L1 During the last year… L1_1 Is there an adult who you are very close to, and who is always [1] Yes there to support you? [2] No L1_2 Did you have a boyfriend or girlfriend? [1] Yes [2] No L1_3 Did you have a close friend (not a boyfriend or girlfriend) who [1] Yes is not getting into trouble with the police? [2] No

69 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Q# QUESTION OPTIONS L1_4 With whom do you spend most of your free time? [1] On my own [2] Family [3] Friends from before my contact with the justice system [4] Friends I met during my contact with the justice system (for example: in detention) [5] New friends I have met after my contact with the justice system [6] Other (specify) L2 During the last year did you participate in any of the following activities… L2_1 Voluntary community service [1] Very frequently [2] Frequently [3] Occasionally [4] Rarely [5] Very Rarely [6] Never L2_2 Organized sports team [1] Very frequently [2] Frequently [3] Occasionally [4] Rarely [5] Very Rarely [6] Never L2_3 Playing sports with friends [1] Very frequently [2] Frequently [3] Occasionally [4] Rarely [5] Very Rarely [6] Never L2_4 Playing a musical instrument [1] Very frequently [2] Frequently [3] Occasionally [4] Rarely [5] Very Rarely [6] Never L2_5 Playing in a band [1] Very frequently [2] Frequently [3] Occasionally [4] Rarely [5] Very Rarely [6] Never

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 70 Q# QUESTION OPTIONS L2_6 Participating in a play, drama production, or musical [1] Very frequently [2] Frequently [3] Occasionally [4] Rarely [5] Very Rarely [6] Never L2_7 Reading a book [1] Very frequently [2] Frequently [3] Occasionally [4] Rarely [5] Very Rarely [6] Never L2_8 Attended a religious service [1] Very frequently [2] Frequently [3] Occasionally [4] Rarely [5] Very Rarely [6] Never L2_9 Used social media (such as Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook…) [1] Very frequently [2] Frequently [3] Occasionally [4] Rarely [5] Very Rarely [6] Never L2_10 Played video games [1] Very frequently [2] Frequently [3] Occasionally [4] Rarely [5] Very Rarely [6] Never

MODULE M: KNOWN YOUTH

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS M1 Finally, we are hoping to interview other youth that were also [1] Yes involved in the justice system as a juvenile. Is there anyone [2] No  N1 else that you know that was also involved in the justice system as a juvenile and you still stay in touch with? M2 What are their names? Select names from list of youth M2_1 Do you know ${known_name }’s phone number? [1] Yes [2] No M3_1 M3 What is ${known_name}’s phone number? M3_1 Do you know ${known_ name}’s address? [1] Yes [2] No M4_1

71 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Q# QUESTION OPTIONS M4 What is ${known_name}’s address? M4_1 What landmarks are near their home?

MODULE N: FINAL VALIDITY CHECK

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS Time stamp for Module N N1 How honest were you in filling out this survey? [1] Honest [2] Somewhat honest [3] Not honest N2 Thank you very much for your time. The survey is now finished. I’d like to thank you again for all the information you shared, as it’s really helpful for understanding more about the juvenile justice system.

ADMINISTRATIVE POST-INTERVIEW

Q# QUESTION OPTIONS 1 Was the interview…. [1] Fully private – nobody else but the respondent was in attendance  End [2] Partially private - other person(s) sometimes within earshot [3] Respondent was accompanied by other person(s). 2 Was the other person(s) present a caregiver? [1] Yes [2] No 3 What is the disposition code for this survey? [1] Interview completed [2] Interview partially completed [3] Respondent not available and interview now started. Revisit needed. [4] Interview was refused by parent/gatekeeper [5 Interview was refused by respondent [6] Could not locate household [7] Respondent has moved away and new address is known [8] Respondent has moved away and new address is unknown [99] Other (specify) ENUMERATOR: Include any additional notes regarding this survey, especially any details relevant to the quality of the data or details if the respondent often refused or replied “don’t know” to the questions.

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 72 APPENDIX VI: SUMMARY STATISTICS What was the last class of primary school you completed? MODULE B: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT Black/Afro-Guyanese 100% Percent of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Are you currently going to school?" Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 9% 9% 18% 64%

Black/Afro-Guyanese 13% Juvenile 14% 86% Age

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 13% Adult 20% 20% 20% 40% Juvenile 20% Age Adult 5% Female 100%

Female 14% Gender Male 10% 10% 20% 60%

Gender Male 12% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% Primary 1 - Grade 3 Primary 2 - Grade 4 Primary 3 - Grade 5 Primary 4 - Grade 6

Percent of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Overall, do you In the past year, how many times have you skipped school? enjoy school?" Black/Afro-Guyanese 27% 50% 14% 9% Black/Afro-Guyanese 100%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 38% 42% 8% 12%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 92% Juvenile 34% 39% 13% 13%

Juvenile 95% Age Adult 30% 70% Age Adult 100% Female 25% 50% 13% 13%

Female 94% Gender Male 38% 44% 9% 9% Gender Male 97% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Times A Couple Times A Year A Couple Times A Month A Couple Times A Week 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

73 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV What is the highest level of school you have attended? Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Did you complete your degree or certificate?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 93% 2% 4% Black/Afro-Guyanese 36%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 90% 3% 1%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 50% Juvenile 91% 2% 3% Juvenile 40% Age Adult 91% 4% 2% Age Adult 45% Female 93% 3% 3% Female 33%

Gender Male 90% 3% 3%

Gender Male 47% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Primary School (Grades 1-6) Secondary School (Grades 7-13) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Vocational School Tertiary Education (College Or University) Which was the last form you completed at secondary school? Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Are you currently employed?" Black/Afro-Guyanese 8% 14% 31% 30% 16% Black/Afro-Guyanese 31%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 11% 15% 28% 30% 16%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 39% Juvenile 11% 16% 30% 28% 15% Age Adult 9% 13% 29% 32% 17% Juvenile 29%

Female 4%6% 29% 32% 30% Age Adult 42%

Gender Male 13% 19% 30% 29% 10% Female 15% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Gender Male 45% Form 1 - Grade 7 Form 2 - Grade 8 Form 3 - Grade 9

Form 4 - Grade 10 Form 5 - Grade 11 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 74 Is your current employment part time or full time? Was your employment part time or full time?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 63% 37% Black/Afro-Guyanese 38% 62%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 63% 37% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 46% 54%

Juvenile 66% 34% Juvenile 46% 54% Age Age Adult 60% 40% Adult 40% 60%

Female 24% 76% Female 60% 40% Gender Gender Male 45% 55% Male 64% 36%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Part Time (<35 Hours/week) Full Time (>35 Hours/week) Part Time (<35 Hours/week) Full Time (>35 Hours/week) Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you MODULE C: OFFENSE HISTORY been employed in the last year?" When was your first offense in this period?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 39% Black/Afro-Guyanese 48% 31% 20% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 34% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 41% 31% 28%

Juvenile 30% Juvenile 37% 31% 32% Age Age Adult 45% Adult 52% 32% 16%

Female 49% 31% 20% Female 25%

Gender Male 42% 31% 26% Gender Male 44% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 2015 2016 2017

75 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV What category best describes the offense that led to your first involvement in What type of detention institution were you detained in for your first the juvenile justice system? involvement with the juvenile justice system? (by age) 80% 70% Black/Afro-Guyanese 10% 36% 22% 5% 26% 66%

60% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 9% 43% 19% 5% 24% 49% 45% Juvenile 12% 34% 18% 2% 34% 40% Age Adult 7% 46% 23% 8% 16% 25% 18% 20% 14% Female 13% 23% 5%3% 55% 10% 11% 5%

Gender Male 8% 47% 27% 6% 12% 0% 1. Police 2. Sophia 3. New 4. Prison 5. None 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Station/Police Juvenile Opportunity Other (Specify) Offense Against A Person Cell Detention Corps Center Adult Juvenile Offense Against Property Drug Offense What type of detention institution were you detained in for your first What type of detention institution were you detained in for your first involvement with the juvenile justice system? (by gender) involvement with the juvenile justice system? (by ethnicity) 80% 80% 70% 70% 66% 61% 60% 60% 51% 46% 48% 44% 40% 40% 28% 19% 20% 16% 17% 20% 16% 20% 14% 12% 11% 8% 6% 0% 0% 0% 1. Police 2. Sophia 3. New 4. Prison 5. None 1. Police 2. Sophia 3. New 4. Prison 5. None Station/Police Juvenile Opportunity Station/Police Juvenile Opportunity Cell Detention Corps Cell Detention Corps All Other Ethnicities Center Male Female Center Black/Afro-Guyanese

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 76 Total Length of Sentence in Months (Mean) Thinking back over your entire lifetime, how many times have you been in detention? (Mean) Black/Afro-Guyanese 29 Black/Afro-Guyanese 3.0

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 38 Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 2.1

Juvenile 30 Juvenile 2.0 Age Adult 37 Age Adult 3.1

Female 62 Female 1.4 Gender Male 34 Gender Male 3.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Thinking back over your entire lifetime, how many times have you been MODULE D: JUSTICE SYSTEM & TREATMENT INVOLVEMENT arrested? (Mean) Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “Since your first involvement with the juvenile justice system, have you been stopped or Black/Afro-Guyanese 4.8 questioned by the police?” Black/Afro-Guyanese 31%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 3.2

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 31% Juvenile 3.1 Juvenile 30% Age

Adult 4.8 Age Adult 32%

Female 2.0 Female 17%

Gender Male 4.8 Gender Male 37%

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

77 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Mean number of times respondent has been stopped or questioned by the Mean number of times respondent has been arrested by the police police Black/Afro-Guyanese 6.5 Black/Afro-Guyanese 7.8

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 3.2 Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 3.9

Juvenile 3.4 Juvenile 3.7 Age Age Adult 7.5 Adult 5.4

Female 2.7 Female 2.2 Gender Gender Male 6.2 Male 4.9

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “Since your Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “Instead of first involvement with the juvenile justice system, have you been arrested by arresting you, have the police EVER referred you to a program for youth?” the police?”

Black/Afro-Guyanese 24% Black/Afro-Guyanese 19%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities

Ethnicity 17% All Other Ethnicities 22%

Juvenile 16% Juvenile 26% Age Age Adult 26% Adult 14%

Female 8% Female 25% Gender Gender Male 26% Male 18%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 78 What was the name of the program? Select all. In that case, when were you referred to this program for youth?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 5% 85% 13% Black/Afro-Guyanese 13% 54% 31% 3% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 83% 14% All Other Ethnicities 6% 34% 37% 23%

Juvenile 6% 50% 27% 17% Juvenile 86% 10% Age

Age Adult 15% 35% 46% 4% Adult 81% 19% Female 10% 45% 21% 24% Female 10% 86% 10% Gender Male 9% 44% 42% 4%

Gender Male 83% 15% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other (Specify) When I Was First Involved With The Juvenile Justice System 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% After I Was First Involved With The Juvenile Justice System Cops And Faith Probation Other Both Before And After I Was First Involved With The Juvenile Justice System In that case, which of the following types of offenses did the police allege you Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “Since your had committed? first involvement with the juvenile justice system, have you ever appeared in court for a new alleged offense?” Black/Afro-Guyanese 32% 19% 14% 35% Black/Afro-Guyanese 31%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 32% 24% 6% 38% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 35% Juvenile 21% 23% 6% 49% Juvenile 27% Age Adult 54% 17% 17% 13% Age Adult 41% Female 15% 4%8% 73% Female 17% Gender Male 42% 31% 11% 16%

Gender Male 41% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Offense Against A Person Offense Against Property Drug Offense Status Offense 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

79 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Mean number of times respondent has appeared in court since first involvement with the juvenile justice system?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 2.9

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 2.8

Juvenile 2.8 Age Adult 2.9

Female 2.0

Gender Male 3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 In this case, which of the following offenses did the court say you committed? Select all that apply. 100%

80% 71% 70% 65% 61% 60% 49% 51% 37% 40% 35% 30% 32% 25% 27% 22% 19% 20% 10% 10% 8% 7% 7% 7% 4% 5% 6% 0% 0% Male Female Adult Juvenile All Other Ethnicities Black/Afro-Guyanese Gender Age Ethnicity Offense Against A Person Offense Against Property Drug Offense Status Offense

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 80 Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “Has a court Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you EVER ordered you to participate in a program for youth as an alternative to EVER worked with a probation officer that wasn't ordered by the court?" detention?” Black/Afro-Guyanese 27% Black/Afro-Guyanese 14.0%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 29% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 7.8%

Juvenile 32% Juvenile 11.5% Age Age Adult 24% Adult 9.8%

Female 8.6% Female 36% Gender Gender Male 11.6% Male 24%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “"Has a court Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you EVER ordered you to probation as an alternative to detention?” ever spent any time in a detention facility? " Black/Afro-Guyanese 24% Black/Afro-Guyanese 78% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 25% All Other Ethnicities 69%

Juvenile 28% Juvenile 71% Age Age Adult 21% Adult 75%

Female 69% Female 26% Gender

Gender Male 75% Male 24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

81 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV What did probation entail? 100% 84% 80% 80% 80% 74% 74% 75%

60% 57% 56% 60% 51% 51% 53%

39% 36% 37% 40% 33% 32% 34% 33% 30% 30% 27% 27% 25% 25% 20% 23% 23% 20% 16% 11% 4% 3% 2% 2% 0% 1% 0% Male Female Adult Juvenile All Other Ethnicities Black/Afro-Guyanese Gender Age Ethnicity Group Work One On One Sessions Home Visits Support With Personal Problems Meetings With Parents Other

What types of detention facilitates have you ever spent time in? Select all that apply. 80% 67% 65% 66% 63% 62% 63% 60% 59% 60% 59% 59% 60% 57%

39% 39% 40% 35% 32% 30% 28% 25% 20% 21% 19% 20% 6% 0% 0% Male Female Adult Juvenile All Other Ethnicities Black/Afro-Guyanese Gender Age Ethnicity Police Station/Police Cell Sophia Juvenile Detention Center New Opportunity Corps Prison

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 82 Which of the following services are/were provided in detention? Select all that apply. 70% 60% 59% 60% 53% 51% 51% 48% 50% 46% 46% 43% 43% 42% 38% 39% 38% 40% 34% 31% 28% 27% 28% 30% 26% 25% 21% 20% 21% 20%

9% 8% 7% 7% 8% 10% 5%

0% Male Female Adult Juvenile All Other Ethnicities Black/Afro-Guyanese Gender Age Ethnicity School Classes/Education Group Work Counseling Meeting With A Probation Officer Other Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: The police treat Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: The police help me with dignity and respect. me with my difficulties or problems.

Black/Afro-Guyanese 16% 40% 7% 35% Black/Afro-Guyanese 20% 29% 7% 38% 7% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 17% 32% 8% 33% 10% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 19% 24% 7% 37% 13%

Juvenile 14% 35% 10% 34% 7% Juvenile 18% 25% 7% 38% 12% Age Age Adult 18% 36% 6% 34% 6% Adult 21% 28% 6% 36% 8%

Female 12% 33% 6% 41% 8% Female 15% 19% 7% 43% 15% Gender Male 18% 37% 8% 31% 6% Gender Male 21% 30% 6% 35% 8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

83 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: The program staff Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: The court treated treat me with dignity and respect. me with dignity and respect.

Black/Afro-Guyanese 5%5% 66% 21% Black/Afro-Guyanese 6% 15% 7% 53% 18% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 6% 14% 53% 28% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 7% 16% 7% 53% 18%

Juvenile 6% 8% 64% 20% Juvenile 5% 11% 56% 23% Age Age Adult 4% 13% 50% 33% Adult 7% 20% 10% 50% 14%

Female 7% 18% 50% 25% Female 9% 14% 5% 48% 23% Gender Male 4%4% 65% 24% Gender Male 5% 16% 8% 55% 17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: This program Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: The court helped helped me with my difficulties or problems. me with my difficulties or problems.

Black/Afro-Guyanese 5% 11% 13% 61% 11% Black/Afro-Guyanese 9% 24% 10% 49% 7% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 8% 8% 53% 28% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 5% 27% 8% 46% 13%

Juvenile 6% 10% 12% 56% 16% Juvenile 5% 25% 7% 51% 13% Age Age Adult 8% 8% 58% 25% Adult 10% 27% 11% 44% 8%

Female 14% 25% 46% 11% Female 12% 28% 7% 42% 11% Gender Male 7% 63% 24% Gender Male 5% 25% 10% 50% 10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 84 Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: The [alternative Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: Probation staff program for youth] treated me with dignity and respect. treated me with dignity and respect.

Black/Afro-Guyanese 5%5% 55% 35% Black/Afro-Guyanese 6% 10% 58% 22% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 6% 63% 31% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 9% 9% 49% 29%

Juvenile 5%5% 53% 37% Juvenile 9% 10% 48% 30% Age Age Adult 6% 65% 29% Adult 6% 9% 61% 20%

Female 10% 50% 40% Female 9% 7% 12% 49% 23% Gender Male 62% 31% Gender Male 8% 8% 56% 27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: The [alternative Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: Probation helped program for youth] helped me with my difficulties or problems. me with my difficulties or problems.

Black/Afro-Guyanese 5% 10% 50% 35% Black/Afro-Guyanese 10% 6% 62% 19% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 13% 6% 56% 25% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 6% 8% 51% 32%

Juvenile 5%5% 58% 32% Juvenile 7% 5% 57% 29% Age Age Adult 12% 12% 47% 29% Adult 9% 9% 55% 23%

Female 10% 50% 40% Female 7% 12% 11% 49% 21% Gender Male 8% 12% 54% 27% Gender Male 5%5% 60% 29%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

85 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: Detention facility Percentage of respondents who answered yes to "At any time have the police staff treated me with dignity and respect. ever hit or kicked you?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 9% 18% 11% 52% 10% Black/Afro-Guyanese 33% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 8% 18% 14% 47% 14% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 31%

Juvenile 8% 14% 13% 49% 15% Juvenile 27% Age Age Adult 9% 21% 11% 50% 9% Adult 36%

Female 9% 14% 11% 53% 14% Female 8% Gender Male 9% 19% 13% 48% 11% Gender Male 43%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: The detention MODULE E: PEER DELINQUENCY facility staff helped me with my difficulties or problems. In the last year, how many of your close friends have destroyed property? Black/Afro-Guyanese 8% 23% 12% 47% 10% Black/Afro-Guyanese 81% 9%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 6% 23% 14% 45% 12%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 88% 5%

Juvenile 7% 20% 11% 49% 13% Juvenile 82% 7% Age

Adult 7% 26% 15% 43% 10% Age Adult 87% 7%

Female 6% 22% 10% 49% 12% Female 89% 6% Gender Male 7% 23% 14% 45% 11% Gender Male 82% 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Or More Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 86 In the last year, how many of your close friends have stolen something worth In the last year, how many of your close friends have broken into a vehicle? less than 1,000 GYD? Black/Afro-Guyanese 87% 6% Black/Afro-Guyanese 81% 8%4%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 95%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 87% 6%

Juvenile 88% 8% Juvenile 79% 8% 5% Age

Age Adult 95% Adult 89% 6%

Female 94% Female 88% 6%

Gender Male 90% Gender Male 82% 7% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Or More 0 1 2 3 4 5 Or More In the last year, how many of your close friends have used illegal drugs? In the last year, how many of your close friends have hit or threatened to hit someone? Black/Afro-Guyanese 47% 16% 10% 7% 16% Black/Afro-Guyanese 62% 13% 11% 6%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 58% 20% 7%4% 10%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 61% 23% 7% Juvenile 56% 17% 8% 5% 11% Juvenile 58% 20% 12% Age

Age Adult 50% 18% 8% 6% 14% Adult 66% 16% 6%5%

Female Female 74% 15% 8% 65% 22% 7% Gender Gender Male 57% 19% 9% 6% Male 48% 16% 9% 7% 16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Or More 0 1 2 3 4 5 Or More

87 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV In the last year, how many of your close friends have used illegal drugs? How many of your close friends are in a gang?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 79% 6% 8% Black/Afro-Guyanese 75% 7% 8% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 84% 8% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 86% 5%

Juvenile 86% 4% 5% Juvenile 78% 6% 6% Age Age Adult 76% 10% 6% Adult 84% 6%

Female 98% Female 92% Gender Male 75% 9% 7% Gender Male 77% 6% 8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Or More 0 1 2 3 4 5 Or More In the last year, how many of your close friends have stolen something worth How would your close friends react if you stole something worth less than more than 1,000 GYD? 1,000 GYD?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 77% 8% 5% 5% Black/Afro-Guyanese 38% 43% 13% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 88% 6% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 37% 48% 10%

Juvenile 82% 7% Juvenile 41% 41% 11% Age Age Adult 84% 7% 5% Adult 33% 50% 12%

Female 91% 5% Female 49% 39% 10% Gender Gender Male 80% 8% 6% Male 33% 49% 13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 Or More Strongly Disapprove Disapprove Neutral Approve Strongly Approve

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 88 How would your close friends react if you stole something worth less than How would your close friends react if you hit or threatened to hit someone? 1,000 GYD? Black/Afro-Guyanese 18% 44% 20% 13% Black/Afro-Guyanese 30% 46% 11% 12% Ethnicity

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 22% 38% 21% 16% All Other Ethnicities 41% 41% 6% 8%

Juvenile 25% 35% 19% 18% Juvenile 42% 38% 9% 9% Age Age Adult 15% 47% 22% 12% Adult 29% 50% 8% 10%

Female 26% 39% 17% 17% Female 49% 42% Gender

Gender Male Male 30% 44% 10% 12% 18% 41% 22% 14%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Disapprove Disapprove Neutral Approve Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Disapprove Neutral Approve Strongly Approve How would your close friends react if you sold drugs? How would your close friends react if you destroyed property?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 32% 43% 11% 11% Black/Afro-Guyanese 26% 59% 9% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 39% 36% 11% 8% 6% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 28% 53% 12% 6%

Juvenile 41% 35% 7% 11% 5% Juvenile 30% 48% 11% 11% Age Age Adult 29% 44% 15% 8% Adult 23% 65% 6%

Female 55% 38% Female 38% 46% 7% 9% Gender Male 28% 40% 14% 13% 6% Gender Male 23% 60% 9% 6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Disapprove Disapprove Neutral Approve Strongly Approve Strongly Disapprove Disapprove Neutral Approve Strongly Approve

89 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV How would your close friends react if you broke into a building or vehicle? How old were you when you smoked a whole cigarette for the first time?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 32% 53% Black/Afro-Guyanese 13% 8% 11% 21% 27% 20% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 39% 50% All Other Ethnicities 7% 12% 26% 31% 21%

Juvenile 13% 6% 16% 22% 29% 14% Juvenile 38% 48% Age Age Adult 6% 8% 26% 30% 26% Adult 34% 56%

Female 12% 16% 27% 27% 18% Female 49% 46%

Gender Male 9% 7% 10% 23% 30% 21% Gender Male 31% 54% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% I Have Never Smoked A Whole Cigarette 9 Or 10 Years Old Strongly Disapprove Disapprove Neutral Approve Strongly Approve 11 Or 12 Years Old 13 Or 14 Years Old MODULE F: SELF-REPORTED BEHAVIOR RELATED TO RISKS 15 Or 16 Years Old 17 Years Old Or Older AND RESILIENCE During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes? Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you ever tried cigarette smoking, even one or two puffs?" Black/Afro-Guyanese 49% 16% 7% 6% 14%

Black/Afro-Guyanese 61% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 35% 21% 9% 8% 19%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 64% Juvenile 46% 24% 9% 7% 9%

Juvenile 54% Age Adult 38% 15% 7% 7% 23% Age Adult 71% Female 62% 13% 7% 4% 11%

Female 44% Gender Male 35% 20% 8% 8% 19%

Gender Male 70% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Days 1 To 2 Days 3 To 5 Days 6 To 9 Days 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 10 To 19 Days 20 To 29 Days All 30 Days

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 90 During the past 30 days, on the days that you smoked, how many cigarettes During your life, on how many days have you had at least one drink of did you smoke alcohol?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 11% 28% 49% 6% Black/Afro-Guyanese 24% 14% 13% 12% 10% 28% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 8% 28% 47% 9% 6% All Other Ethnicities 23% 12% 10% 17% 13% 25%

Juvenile 10% 40% 40% 4% Juvenile 27% 13% 9% 15% 12% 23% Age Age Adult 8% 20% 53% 9% 8% Adult 19% 12% 14% 14% 11% 30%

Female 6% 29% 35% 12% 6% 12% Female 31% 12% 7% 15% 8% 27%

Gender Male 9% 28% 50% 6%6% Gender Male 20% 13% 13% 15% 13% 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% <1 Cigarette/day 1 Cigarette/day 2-5 Cigarettes/day 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1-2 Days 3-9 Days 10-19 Days 20-39 Days 40-99 Days >=100 Days 6-10 Cigarettes/day 11-20 Cigarettes/day >20 Cigarettes/day Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you How old were you when you had your first drink of alcohol other than a few ever drank alcohol?" sips?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 10% 9% 17% 42% 19% Black/Afro-Guyanese 83%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 5% 8% 25% 34% 28% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 84%

Juvenile 7% 11% 25% 37% 18% Juvenile 80% Age

Age Adult 7% 6% 17% 39% 29% Adult 87%

Female 6% 8% 20% 49% 18% Female 78%

Gender Male 8% 8% 21% 33% 26% Gender Male 86% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 8 Years or younger 9-10 Years Old 11-12 Years Old 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 13-14 Years Old 15-16 Years Old 17 Years Old or older

91 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have at least one drink of Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you alcohol? ever used marijuana?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 39% 31% 18% 6%5% Black/Afro-Guyanese 66% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 49% 22% 13% 9% All Other Ethnicities 58%

Juvenile 48% 25% 14% 10% Juvenile 53% Age Adult 41% 28% 17% 7% 5% Age Adult 71%

Female 46% 26% 16% 5% Female 41%

Gender Male 44% 26% 15% 8% Gender Male 71% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Days 1-2 Days 3-5 Days 6-9 Days 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% During the past 30 days, on how many days did you have five or more drinks During your life, how many times have you used marijuana? of alcohol? Black/Afro-Guyanese 18% 5% 9% 5% 62% Black/Afro-Guyanese 43% 32% 16% 6%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 19% 11% 10% 7% 53%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 34% 34% 17% 9%

Juvenile 25% 10% 8% 6% 51% Juvenile 35% 41% 18% 5% Age Age Adult 40% 27% 16% 10% Adult 14% 7% 10% 6% 62%

Female 40% 38% 21% 0% Female 32% 11% 9% 4% 45% Gender Male 38% 31% 15% 10% Gender Male 15% 8% 10% 7% 60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Days 1 To 2 Days 3 To 5 Days 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 6 To 9 Days 10 To 19 Days 20 To 29 Days 1-2 Days 3-9 Days 10-19 Days 20-39 Days 40 Or More Times

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 92 How old were you when you tried marijuana for the first time? Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you ever used any form of cocaine, including powder, crack, or purified cocaine Black/Afro-Guyanese 6% 10% 23% 34% 24% like freebase?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 1.8% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 9% 28% 30% 29%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 2.0% Juvenile 8% 9% 31% 31% 20%

Age Juvenile 1.6% Adult 10% 21% 32% 32% Age Adult 2.2% Female 6% 21% 42% 27%

Female 1.7% Gender Male 10% 27% 29% 26%

Gender Male 1.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 8 Years or younger 9-10 Years Old 11-12 Years Old 13-14 Years Old 15-16 Years Old 17 Years Old or older 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% During the past 30 days, how many times did you use marijuana? During your life, how many times have you used any form of cocaine, including powder, crack, or purified cocaine like freebase? Black/Afro-Guyanese 26% 9% 15% 7% 19% 24% Black/Afro-Guyanese 67% 33%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 38% 17% 13% 8% 9% 17%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 25% 50% 25%

Juvenile 42% 16% 8% 7% 9% 19% Juvenile 33% 67% Age

Adult 25% 11% 18% 8% 18% 21% Age Adult 50% 0% 50%

Female 53% 9% 13% 2%9% 15% Female 50% 50% Gender Male 27% 14% 14% 9% 15% 21% Gender Male 40% 20% 40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Times 1-2 Times 3-9 Times 10-19 Times 20-39 Times 40 Or More Times 3-9 Days 10-19 Days 40 Or More Times

93 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV During the last 30 days, how many times have you used any form of cocaine, During your life, how many times have you sniffed glue, breathed the contents including powder, crack, or purified cocaine like freebase? of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled any paints, sprays or gas to get high?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 33% 33% 33% Black/Afro-Guyanese 50% 50% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 75% 25% All Other Ethnicities 20% 40% 40%

Juvenile 33% 33% 33% Juvenile 33% 33% 33% Age Age Adult 50% 25% 25% Adult 100%

Female 50% 50% Female 100% Gender Male 60% 20% 20% Gender Male 17% 33% 50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Times 1-2 Times 3-9 Times 40 Or More Times 1-2 Days 3-9 Days Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you During the past 30 days, how many times have you sniffed glue, breathed the ever sniffed glue, breathed the contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled any contents of aerosol spray cans, or inhaled any paints, sprays or gas to get high? paints, sprays or gas to get high?" Black/Afro-Guyanese 50% 50% Black/Afro-Guyanese 1.2%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 60% 20% 20%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 2.4%

Juvenile 50% 33% 17% Juvenile 3.1% Age

Age Adult 100% Adult 0.5%

Female 100% Female 0.9%

Gender Male 50% 33% 17% Gender Male 2.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Times 3-9 Times 10-19 Times 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 94 Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you During the past 30 days, how many times have you used sedatives? ever used sedatives?" Black/Afro-Guyanese 67% 33% Black/Afro-Guyanese 3.5%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 75% 25% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 2.0%

Juvenile 83% 17% Juvenile 3.1% Age

Age Adult 50% 50% Adult 2.2%

Female 0% Female 0.0%

Gender Male 70% 30% Gender Male 3.8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Times 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% During your life, how many times have you used sedatives? Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you ever used amphetamines (speed, whiz)?" Black/Afro-Guyanese 67% 33% Black/Afro-Guyanese 0.6%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 75% 25%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 2.0%

Juvenile 100% Juvenile 1.0% Age Adult 25% 50% 25% Age Adult 1.6% Female 0% Female 0.9%

Gender Male 70% 20% 10%

Gender Male 1.6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1-2 Days 3-9 Days 10-19 Days 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5%

95 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV During your life, how many times have you used amphetamines (speed, whiz)? Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Have you ever used ecstasy (MDMA)?" Black/Afro-Guyanese 100% Black/Afro-Guyanese 15%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 25% 25% 50% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 14%

Juvenile 50% 50% Juvenile 12% Age

Adult 33% 67% Age Adult 16%

Female 100% Female 10%

Gender Male 25% 50% 25% Gender Male 16%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1-2 Days 10-19 Days 20-39 Days 40 Or More Times 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 18%

During the past 30 days, how many times have you used amphetamines During your life, how many times have you used ecstasy (MDMA)? (speed, whiz)?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 60% 12% 16% 8% Black/Afro-Guyanese 100%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 54% 18% 25% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 25% 25% 50%

Juvenile 54% 8% 8% 8% 21% Juvenile 50% 50% Age Age Adult 59% 21% 7% 14% Adult 33% 67%

Female 67% 8% 8% 8% 8% Female 100% Gender

Gender Male 54% 17% 7% 20% Male 50% 50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1-2 Days 3-9 Days 10-19 Days 20-39 Days 40 Or More Times 0 Times 1-2 Times 3-9 Times

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 96 During the past 30 days, how many times have you used ecstasy (MDMA)? How old were you when you first joined a gang/group? (Mean)

Black/Afro-Guyanese 52% 32% 12% Black/Afro-Guyanese 13.5 Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 75% 25% All Other Ethnicities 13.6

Juvenile 75% 21% 4% Juvenile 13.3 Age Age Adult 55% 34% 7% Adult 13.8

Female 75% 17% 8% Female 13.4 Gender Male 61% 32% 5% Gender Male 13.6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.6 13.8 14.0 0 Times 1-2 Times 3-9 Times 40 Or More Times MODULE G: SELF-REPORTED DELINQUENCY HISTORY Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Are you a member of a gang/group?" Before your involvement with the juvenile justice system did you ever…. Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Hit someone Black/Afro-Guyanese 10.0% with whom you live, with the idea of hurting them?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 19%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 7.3%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 16% Juvenile 9.8% Juvenile 21% Age

Adult 7.1% Age Adult 13%

Female 4.3% Female 22% Gender Male 10.4% Gender Male 15%

0.0% 3.0% 6.0% 9.0% 12.0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

97 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Hit someone Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Carry a with whom you do not live, with the idea of hurting them?" hidden weapon?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 46% Black/Afro-Guyanese 19% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 38% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 26%

Juvenile 43% Juvenile 21% Age Age Adult 40% Adult 24%

Female 30% Female 15% Gender Male 46% Gender Male 26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Throw Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Set fire to objects such as bottles or rocks at people?" personal property or a building?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 33% Black/Afro-Guyanese 3.5% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 21% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 1.9%

Juvenile 28% Juvenile 1.0% Age Age Adult 25% Adult 4.3%

Female 25% Female 2.6% Gender Male 27% Gender Male 2.7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0%

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 98 Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Snatch Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Use a something from someone or pick a pocket?" weapon to rob someone?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 8% Black/Afro-Guyanese 6% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 5% All Other Ethnicities 5%

Juvenile 3% Juvenile 2% Age Age Adult 10% Adult 10%

Female 1% Female 0% Gender Gender Male 9% Male 8%

0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 0% 3% 6% 9% 12% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Attack Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Get involved anyone with a weapon?" in a gang fight?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 22% Black/Afro-Guyanese 19% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 18% All Other Ethnicities 13%

Juvenile 19% Juvenile 18% Age Age Adult 20% Adult 14%

Female 11% Female 10% Gender Gender Male 23% Male 18%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

99 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Damage Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question property on purpose?" "Steal from a store?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 7.6% Black/Afro-Guyanese 7.0% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 6.3% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 4.4%

Juvenile 7.3% Juvenile 5.2% Age Age Adult 6.5% Adult 6.0%

Female 6.0% Female 1.7% Gender Male 7.3% Gender Male 7.3%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Break into a Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Steal from a building to steal?" family member?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 10.5% Black/Afro-Guyanese 31% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 9.2% All Other Ethnicities 20%

Juvenile 8.3% Juvenile 26% Age Age Adult 11.4% Adult 24%

Female 0.0% Female 23% Gender Gender Male 14.2% Male 26%

0.0% 3.0% 6.0% 9.0% 12.0% 15.0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 100 Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Steal from a Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Use any family member? illegal drugs?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 7% Black/Afro-Guyanese 37% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 3% All Other Ethnicities 38%

Juvenile 4% Juvenile 33% Age Age Adult 5% Adult 43%

Female 2% Female 20% Gender Gender Male 6% Male 46%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Knowingly Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Sell any buy or sell stolen goods?" illegal drugs?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 14% Black/Afro-Guyanese 13% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 14% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 10%

Juvenile 14% Juvenile 10% Age Age Adult 15% Adult 13%

Female 3% Female 4% Gender Male 19% Gender Male 14%

0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

101 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Touch Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Verbally anyone in a sexual manner without their consent?" abuse anyone in a threatening manner?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 3.5% Black/Afro-Guyanese 29.8% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 1.5% All Other Ethnicities 25.2%

Juvenile 1.6% Juvenile 25.4% Age Age Adult 3.3% Adult 29.3%

Female 0.9% Female 23.3% Gender Gender Male 3.1% Male 29.1%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Assault Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Engage in anyone in a sexual manner?" any other activities or behaviors that are against the law?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 0.0% Black/Afro-Guyanese 11.2% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 0.5% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 7.8%

Juvenile 0.0% Juvenile 9.4% Age Age Adult 0.5% Adult 9.2%

Female 0.0% Female 6.9% Gender Male 0.4% Gender Male 10.4%

0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 3.0% 6.0% 9.0% 12.0%

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 102 MODULE H: SELF-REPORTED HISTORY OF RECENT Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Throw DELINQUENCY objects such as bottles or rocks at people?" After your first juvenile justice involvement, did you ever…. Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Hit someone Black/Afro-Guyanese 26% with whom you live, with the idea of hurting them?"

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 12% Black/Afro-Guyanese 13%

Juvenile 18% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 13% Age Juvenile 15% Adult 19% Age Adult 11% Female 13%

Female 15% Gender Male 21%

Gender Male 12% 0% 10% 20% 30% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Carry a 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% hidden weapon?" Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Hit someone with whom you do not live, with the idea of hurting them?" Black/Afro-Guyanese 25% Black/Afro-Guyanese 39%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 21%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 28%

Juvenile 20% Juvenile 35% Age

Age Adult 25% Adult 31%

Female 27% Female 11% Gender Gender Male 36% Male 28%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30%

103 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Set fire to Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Attack personal property or a building?" anyone with a weapon?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 1.8% Black/Afro-Guyanese 22% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 1.5% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 18%

Juvenile 2.1% Juvenile 19% Age Age Adult 1.1% Adult 20%

Female 1.7% Female 11% Gender Male 1.5% Gender Male 23%

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Snatch Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Use a something from someone or pick a pocket?" weapon to rob someone?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 6.5% Black/Afro-Guyanese 8% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 3.9% All Other Ethnicities 5%

Juvenile 3.6% Juvenile 3% Age Age Adult 6.5% Adult 10%

Female 0.9% Female 0% Gender Gender Male 6.9% Male 9%

0.0% 3.0% 6.0% 9.0% 0% 3% 6% 9% 12%

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 104 Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Get involved Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Break into a in a gang fight?" building to steal?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 12% Black/Afro-Guyanese 9% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 8% All Other Ethnicities 5%

Juvenile 10% Juvenile 6% Age Age Adult 9% Adult 8%

Female 3% Female 2% Gender Gender Male 13% Male 10%

0% 3% 6% 9% 12% 15% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Damage Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Steal from a property on Purpose?" store?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 6.4% Black/Afro-Guyanese 5.3% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 2.4% All Other Ethnicities 1.0%

Juvenile 4.1% Juvenile 1.6% Age Age Adult 4.3% Adult 4.3%

Female 3.4% Female 0.0% Gender Gender Male 4.6% Male 4.2%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0%

105 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Steal from a Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Knowingly family member?" buy or sell stolen goods?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 18.7% Black/Afro-Guyanese 14.0% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 12.1% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 8.7%

Juvenile 16.6% Juvenile 8.8% Age Age Adult 13.6% Adult 13.6%

Female 14.7% Female 4.3% Gender Gender Male 15.3% Male 14.2%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Steal from a Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Use any car?" illegal drugs?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 4.7% Black/Afro-Guyanese 49% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 1.5% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 41%

Juvenile 2.1% Juvenile 37% Age Age Adult 3.8% Adult 53%

Female 0.9% Female 29% Gender Gender Male 3.8% Male 52%

0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 106 Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Sell any Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Assault illegal drugs?" anyone in a sexual manner?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 13% Black/Afro-Guyanese 0.6% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 6% All Other Ethnicities 0.0%

Juvenile 8% Juvenile 0.5% Age Age Adult 10% Adult 0.0%

Female 2% Female 0.0% Gender Male 12% Gender Male 0.4%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% % of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Touch anyone in a Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Verbally sexual manner without their consent?" abuse anyone in a threatening manner?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 1.2% Black/Afro-Guyanese 25% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 1.9% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 19%

Juvenile 0.0% Juvenile 21% Age Age Adult 3.3% Adult 22%

Female 0.9% Female 16% Gender Male 1.9% Gender Male 24%

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

107 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Engage in During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a sharp or blunt any other activities or behaviors that are against the law?" object other than for employment?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 11.9% Black/Afro-Guyanese 77% 12% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 6.8% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 86% 5%

Juvenile 6.3% Juvenile 82% 9% Age Age Adult 12.1% Adult 82% 7%

Female 92% 4% Female 3.4%

Gender Male 77% 10% Gender Male 11.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 0 Days 1-2 Days 3-5 Days 6-10 Days 11-15 Days 15 Or More Days MODULE I: RECENT VIOLENCE RELATED BEHAVIORS During the past 12 months, on how many days has someone threatened or injured you with a weapon such as a gun, knife, cutlass, or other blunt or During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a gun? sharp object?

Black/Afro-Guyanese 96% Black/Afro-Guyanese 70% 22% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 98% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 74% 14% 6%

Juvenile 97% Juvenile 74% 17% Age Age Adult 97% Adult 70% 19% 7%

Female 98% Female 81% 12% Gender Male 97% Gender Male 68% 20% 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Days 1-2 Days 3-5 Days 6-10 Days 15 Or More Days 0 Days 1-2 Days 3-5 Days 6-10 Days 11-15 Days 15 Or More Days

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 108 During the past 12 months, on how many days were you in a physical fight? MODULE J: ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Were your Black/Afro-Guyanese 65% 25% 5% parents ever separated or divorced?"

Ethnicity Black/Afro-Guyanese 70.8% All Other Ethnicities 67% 21% 6%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 59.8% Juvenile 65% 23% 6%

Age Juvenile 64.6% Adult 67% 22% 5% Age Adult 65.0% Female 77% 16% 4% Female 71.1%

Gender Male 61% 26% 6%

Gender Male 62.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 Days 1-2 Days 3-5 Days 6-10 Days 11-15 Days 15 Or More Days 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% During the past 12 months, on how many days were you in a physical fight in Percentage of respondents who said their maternal figure experienced some which you were injured and had to be treated by a doctor or nurse? form of physical abuse

Black/Afro-Guyanese 64% 31% Black/Afro-Guyanese 41%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 66% 29% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 40%

Juvenile 62% 33% Juvenile 43% Age

Adult 68% 27% Age Adult 38%

Female 64% 36% Female 47% Gender

Male 65% 29% Gender Male 38%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0 Days 1-2 Days 3-5 Days 6-10 Days 11-15 Days 15 Or More Days

109 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Was a Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Did a household member ever a problem drinker or alcoholic or used street drugs?" household member go to prison?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 32% Black/Afro-Guyanese 31.0% Ethnicity

All Other Ethnicities 35% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 30.6%

Juvenile 41% Juvenile 32.6% Age

Adult 26% Age Adult 28.8%

Female 48% Female 32.2%

Gender Male 28% Gender Male 30.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Was a household member depressed or mentally ill, or did a household member Percentage of respondents who said they experienced some form of attempt suicide?" emotional abuse

Black/Afro-Guyanese Black/Afro-Guyanese 12% 55% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 16% All Other Ethnicities 39%

Juvenile 18% Juvenile 49% Age Age Adult 10% Adult 43%

Female 17% Female 63% Gender Male 13% Gender Male 39%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 110 Percentage of respondents who said they experienced some form of physical Percentage of respondents who said they did not feel supported by their abuse family in some way

Black/Afro-Guyanese 56% Black/Afro-Guyanese 67% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 39% All Other Ethnicities 53%

Juvenile 53% Juvenile 62% Age Age Adult 40% Adult 57%

Female 59% Female 69% Gender Gender Male 41% Male 55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percentage of respondents who said they experienced some form of sexual Percentage of respondents who said they felt neglected by their family in some abuse way

Black/Afro-Guyanese 26% Black/Afro-Guyanese 35% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 24% All Other Ethnicities 27%

Juvenile 27% Juvenile 30% Age Age Adult 22% Adult 32%

Female 43% Female 27% Gender Gender Male 16% Male 32%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

111 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV MODULE K: PERCEIVED RECIDIVISM Likelihood that you will be in detention or prison over the next year Likelihood that you will commit a new offense over the next year Black/Afro-Guyanese 91% Black/Afro-Guyanese 5% 85%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 93%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 7% 85% Juvenile 92% Juvenile

6% 81% Age Adult 92% Age Adult 6% 89% Female 90% Female 7% 86%

Gender Male 93%

Gender Male 6% 84% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not Applicable Likely Somewhat Likely Neutral Somewhat Unlikely Unlikely 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Likelihood it that your home life will help you avoid trouble over the next Not Applicable Likely Somewhat Likely Neutral Somewhat Unlikely Unlikely year Likelihood that you will be arrested in the next year

Black/Afro-Guyanese 5% 88% Black/Afro-Guyanese 74% 5%6% 11% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 6% 89% All Other Ethnicities 69% 6% 7% 13%

Juvenile 7% 85% Juvenile 67% 7% 7% 13% Age Age Adult 4% 92% Adult 76% 4%6% 11%

Female 6% 90% Female 64% 6% 11% 16% Gender Gender Male 5% 88% Male 75% 5%5% 11%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not Applicable Likely Somewhat Likely Neutral Somewhat Unlikely Unlikely Not Applicable Likely Somewhat Likely Neutral Somewhat Unlikely Unlikely

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 112 Likelihood that that your home life will help you avoid trouble over the next Likelihood that you will complete a year of school, or find or maintain part- year time or full-time employment

Black/Afro-Guyanese 78% 5% 8% 7% Black/Afro-Guyanese 85% 5% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 78% 8% 5% 8% All Other Ethnicities 81% 8%

Juvenile 76% 8% 6% 7% Juvenile 80% 7% Age Age Adult 80% 5%7% 8% Adult 85% 6%

Female 72% 7% 9% 10% Female 79% 7% Gender

Gender Male 84% 7% Male 80% 7%5%6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not Applicable Likely Somewhat Likely Not Applicable Likely Somewhat Likely Neutral Somewhat Unlikely Unlikely MODULE L: PERCEIVED REINTEGRATION Likelihood that that your close friends will help you avoid trouble over the next year Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Is there an adult who you are very close to?”

Black/Afro-Guyanese 13% 59% 7% 14% Black/Afro-Guyanese 92%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 14% 63% 6% 12% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 87%

Juvenile 11% 61% 5% 17% Juvenile 89% Age

Adult 15% 62% 7% 9% Age Adult 91%

Female 16% 63% 6% 13% Female 92%

Gender Male 12% 61% 6% 13% Gender Male 88% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not Applicable Likely Somewhat Likely Neutral Somewhat Unlikely Unlikely

113 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Did you With whom do you spend most of your free time? have a boyfriend or girlfriend?" Black/Afro-Guyanese 32% 42% 9% 5% 11% Black/Afro-Guyanese 75%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 23% 53% 9%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 73% Juvenile 26% 48% 8% 5% 9% Juvenile 71% Age Adult 28% 48% 5% 10% Age Adult 77% Female 28% 53% 9%

Female 86% Gender Male 26% 46% 8% 5%10%

Gender Male 69% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other On My Own Family 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Friends From Before Friends from During New Friends from After Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "Did you Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "During the have a close friend (not a boyfriend or girlfriend) who is not getting into last year did you participate in voluntary community service?" trouble with the police?" Black/Afro-Guyanese 8% 78% Black/Afro-Guyanese 79%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 8% 78%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 70%

Juvenile 7% 79% Juvenile 77% Age

Age Adult 8% 77% Adult 71%

Female 3% 87% Female 71%

Gender Male 10% 74% Gender Male 75% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Very Frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Very Rarely Never

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 114 Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question "During the Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “During the last year did you participate in an organized sports team?" last year did you play a musical instrument?”

Black/Afro-Guyanese 7% 13% 12% 5% 58% Black/Afro-Guyanese 5%7% 8% 74% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 8% 10% 10% 9% 60% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 7%4% 5% 78%

Juvenile 8% 9% 10% 9% 59% Juvenile 8% 6%5%6% 72% Age Age Adult 7% 14% 12% 5% 59% Adult 5%5% 80%

Female 7% 5% 78% Female 8% 5% 80% Gender Male 8% 14% 14% 9% 51% Gender Male 8% 5%6%5% 74%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Frequently Frequently Occasionally Very Frequently Frequently Occasionally Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question " During the Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question " During the last year did you play sports with friends?” last year did you play in a band?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 8% 18% 27% 14% 31% Black/Afro-Guyanese 89% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 11% 20% 19% 15% 32% All Other Ethnicities 93%

Juvenile 10% 18% 22% 17% 33% Juvenile 91% Age Age Adult 9% 21% 24% 13% 29% Adult 92%

Female 9% 12% 8% 6% 64% Female 95% Gender Male 10% 23% 30% 18% 17% Gender Male 90%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Frequently Frequently Occasionally Very Frequently Frequently Occasionally

115 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “During the Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “During the last year did you participate in a play, drama production, or musical?” last year did you attend a religious service?"

Black/Afro-Guyanese 6%6%6% 77% Black/Afro-Guyanese 11% 8% 17% 18% 12% 35% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 85% Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 8% 12% 20% 22% 11% 27%

Juvenile 6% 7% 77% Juvenile 9% 10% 21% 19% 10% 31% Age Age Adult 86% Adult 10% 11% 15% 21% 13% 30%

Female 5% 81% Female 8% 10% 19% 26% 12% 24% Gender Male 5%6% 82% Gender Male 10% 10% 18% 17% 11% 33%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Frequently Frequently Occasionally Very Frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Very Rarely Never Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “During the Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “During the last year did you read a book? last year did you use social media?”

Black/Afro-Guyanese 8% 16% 18% 22% 18% 18% Black/Afro-Guyanese 6% 10% 19% 30% 29% Ethnicity Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 13% 16% 16% 17% 17% 20% All Other Ethnicities 7% 11% 17% 27% 34%

Juvenile 12% 13% 19% 18% 19% 20% Juvenile 5% 8% 18% 31% 35% Age Age Adult 10% 18% 15% 22% 16% 19% Adult 9% 14% 18% 26% 29%

Female 8% 12% 18% 18% 33% 11% Female 9% 13% 22% 41% 14% Gender Gender Male 12% 18% 16% 20% 11% 23% Male 6% 10% 16% 23% 40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Frequently Frequently Occasionally Very Frequently Frequently Occasionally

USAID.GOV GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT | 116 Percentage of respondents who answered "Yes" to the question “During the last year did you play video games?”

Black/Afro-Guyanese 7% 10% 22% 20% 37%

Ethnicity All Other Ethnicities 8% 12% 17% 16% 43%

Juvenile 9% 10% 23% 19% 33% Age Adult 6% 11% 15% 16% 48%

Female 9% 8% 16% 14% 49%

Gender Male 7% 12% 21% 20% 36%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Frequently Frequently Occasionally

117 | GUYANA JUVENILE JUSTICE: FINAL REPORT USAID.GOV U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20523