|
|
|
Treatment Works For Youth In The Juvenile Justice System
Treatment Works To Prevent Offenses
Treatment works to change the life course of young people
and deter them from juvenile justice involvement. Numerous
research studies point to the effectiveness of certain types
of treatment and services for youth involved in the juvenile
justice system. Generally speaking, regardless of type of
program or youth, recidivism rates among those who received
treatment are as much as 25% lower than those among
untreated, control groups.1
The best, research-based treatment programs can reduce
recidivism from 25 to 80%.2
Since juvenile offenders are not a single, homogenous
group, no one form of treatment is the most effective for
every youth. It is possible, however, to make some general
statements about effective treatment approaches-and what
does and does not seem to work.
Characteristics Of Effective Treatment Programs
|
| Effective treatment programs are
structured, intensive, and focus on changing specific
behaviors. The most effective programs typically involve
intensive training or behavior modification techniques aimed
at reducing risk factors for juvenile justice involvement.3
For example, programs which focus on improving interpersonal
skills, self-control, anger management, and substance abuse
resistance have been found to reduce recidivism by as much
as 50%.4 Treatments that
are longer in duration and involve more contact hours are
associated with better outcomes; for programs based in
institutional settings, better outcomes are associated with
the use of mental health professionals rather than
corrections staff as the treatment providers.5
In general, the most effective programs are highly
structured, emphasize the development of basic social
skills, and provide individual counseling that directly
addresses behavior, attitudes, and perceptions.6
Community-based treatment programs are superior to
institution-based programs. A number of researchers
support the view that programs in community settings are
more effective than those in institutional settings,7
with intensive, community-based, and family centered
interventions the most promising.8
Although some youth may need treatment in institutions, many
more can be appropriately served in the community, where
youth behavior can be addressed in its social context.
It is extremely important for justice authorities to
involve family members in the treatment and rehabilitation
of their children. Family-focused interventions have
shown positive impacts on child and family functioning,
delinquent behavior, and recidivism.9
As one parent points out, "Families socialize
children...Parents teach children their ways to control
their behavior and respect others rights."10
Juvenile justice programs should work to strengthen the
capacity of the family to live and work together and to care
for the child at home. Families have a wealth of information
about a youth's strengths and needs and should be involved
in developing treatment plans, individualized education
plans, and aftercare plans for their children. Families
should also be provided with regular progress reports on all
medical, mental health, and educational services their youth
receives.
Integrated, multi-modal treatment approaches are
essential. Many children in juvenile justice systems are
involved in other systems as well, such as mental health,
child welfare, or special education. These children are best
served when agencies coordinate care and wrap services,
supports, and supervision around a child and family in an
individualized way. Evaluations show reductions of up to 61%
in the number of crimes committed by youth on probation who
are involved in "systems of care" programs.11
Multi-modal or multi-component interventions are more
effective for youth involved in the justice system than
narrowly focused programs.12
Integrated substance abuse and mental health treatment is
also considered state-of-the-art for youth with co-occurring
disorders.13 |
| An Effective Model: Cognitive-behavioral
therapy Cognitive-behavioral approaches have
been shown to be particularly effective with youth
in the juvenile justice system, as well as for
children with anger or conduct problems more
generally. The cognitive-behavioral approach is
based on the theory that thoughts, beliefs, and
attitudes determine emotion and behavior. That is,
the way we perceive or evaluate a situation,
influences our emotional and behavioral response.
Cognitive-behavioral therapy is a didactic approach
that involves teaching youth about the
thought-emotion-behavior link and working with them
to modify their thinking patterns in a way that will
lead to better, more adaptive behavior in
challenging situations. The cognitive-behavioral
approach is effective for youth in the juvenile
justice system because it is highly structured and
focuses on the triggers for their disruptive or
aggressive behavior. |
An Effective Model: Multi-Systemic Therapy
(MST)
In MST, the therapist collaborates with the family
to determine the factors in the youth's "social
ecology"-including peers, school, and community-that
are contributing to the identified problems and to
design interventions to address these factors. The
therapist is responsible for removing barriers to
service access and for drawing upon youth and family
strengths to achieve sustainable outcomes in every
case. The ultimate goals of MST are to empower
families to cope with the challenges of raising
children with behavioral and emotional problems and
to empower youth to cope with family, peer, school,
and neighborhood difficulties. MST has been
demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism
by up to 70% and out-of-home placements by up to 64%
in comparison with control groups in a number of
randomized clinical trials. Moreover, MST is cost
effective; one study estimated that implementing MST
would result in a net gain for a community of over
$21,000 per participant (based on criminal justice
system and crime victim savings). |
An Effective Model: Integrated Systems of
Care
Integrated systems of care typically involve
collaboration across a number of public agencies,
such as juvenile justice and mental health, with the
goal of developing coordinated plans for
family-centered, community-based services, building
upon youth and family strengths. Often youth with
emotional or behavioral problems are involved in
more than one system, but a "wrap-around" model
ensures that a family formulates a single,
individualized treatment plan. The model also makes
it possible for families to receive a wide array of
services and supports, as part of that coordinated
plan. Examples of wrap-around programs are the DAWN
Project in Indianapolis and Wraparound Milwaukee. In
addition to significant improvements in children's
behavior and functioning, Wraparound Milwaukee has
demonstrated a 42% drop in the number of residential
placements over the first two years of the program,
which represents a savings of $5.2 million.
|
|
| Ineffective Programs
Research and evaluation have provided us with
considerable knowledge about what works, as well as what
doesn't work, in the treatment of juvenile offenders. A
number of studies, for example, have found that punishment
is not effective as a deterrent and does not reduce
recidivism in the long run. One review of the literature
concluded that various types of punishment-including regular
incarceration and "scared straight" programs-actually
produced higher recidivism rates than no punishment.14
Other programs found to be ineffective by themselves at
reducing recidivism are increased surveillance,
psychodynamic or unstructured counseling, home confinement,
regular probation services, frequent drug testing,
wilderness / survival programs, electronic monitoring, and
boot camps.15
Conclusions
Children with emotional and behavioral disorders present
a unique set of challenges to the juvenile justice system.
Unfortunately, many communities and states are failing to
meet these challenges in effective ways. Good model programs
exist around the country to identify, treat, and
rehabilitate emotionally disturbed children who commit
offenses. By learning more about the needs of emotionally
disturbed children and the treatments that work, communities
can bring about better outcomes for these youth and their
families.
Additional Resources
1Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C.
(1996). Principles of effective correctional programming.
Forum on Correctional Research, 3, 1-6.
2Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of
effective intervention with offenders. In A. Harland (Ed.),
Choosing Correctional Options That Work. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
3Lipsey, M. (1992). Juvenile delinquency
treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of
effects. In Thomas Cook et al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for
explanation: A casebook. Russell Sage Foundation: New
York.
4Greenwood, P. (1994). What works with
juvenile offenders: A synthesis of the literature and
experience. Federal Probation, 58(4), 63-67.
5Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (1998). Effective
intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of
research. In R. Loeber & D. Farrington (Eds.), Serious
and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks, CA.
6Altschuler, D. (1998). Intermediate sanctions
and community treatment for serious and violent juvenile
offenders. In R. Loeber & D. Farrington (Eds.), Serious
and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks, CA.
7Palmer, T. (1996). Programmatic and
non-programmatic aspects of successful intervention. In A.
Harland (Ed.), Choosing Correctional Options That Work.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
8Mulvey, E., Arthur, M., & Repucci, D. (1993).
The prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquents: A
review of the research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13,
133-167.
9Sherman, L., et al. (1997). Preventing
Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising?
Office of Justice Programs: Washington, DC.
10Adams, J. (June, 1996). Juvenile justice
from the inside out. Claiming Children.
11Center for Mental Health Services. (Summer,
1998). Ten key findings. Family Matters.
12Lipsey, M. (1992).
13Riggs, P. (1998). Clinical approach to
treatment of ADHD in adolescents with substance use
disorders and conduct disorder. Journal of American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(3),
331-333.
14Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1996)
15Sherman, L. (1997). |
|
|
