Alternative Evidence-Based Juvenile Interventions

Abstract

This review of an article on juvenile justices’ current methods of dealing with juvenile offenders (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011) notes the critical points of the piece. The points include the statistics of juvenile crime, how and why the current interventions for juvenile offenders do not work, an explaination of new evidence-based interventions for said offenders, how and why these interventions do work, and which agencies are responsible for the offenders. Another issue brought up is why the government might be slow to implimenting the new evidence-based interventions. Sociology: Application of key concepts of Culture, Socialization, Deviance/Crime, or Social Change

Alternative Evidence-Based Juvenile Interventions

When I first began my study of the juvenile justice system, one of the first things I learned was that, from the perspective of two sociologists (Bartollas & Miller, 2011), the system was broken. This was primarily due to the large percentage of juveniles who would, for a variety of reasons, return to their deliquent behavior after their release; some would end their behavior by adulthood, but many would go on to continue their deeds until they were stopped either with continued incarceration or an untimely death.

When I found the article on new evidence-based interventions  (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011), I became very intrigued. For a system that was not working, it looked like there might be hope on the horizon, but I wanted to learn more. I wanted to know what made those particular interventions better than the current interventions. In the end, I decided that I would use that particular article for my review.

As I began reading the article, it began by stating how many juveniles were arrested in 2008 (Puzzanchera & Kang, 2010). It then said that 25% of the crimes commited by juveniles were violent, as opposed to property. It continued with more statistics on the sex and race of the offenders, and the percentage of youths that were processed in juvenile courts rather than adult court. After this, the authors stated that the most costly result of a court referall was residential placement (e.g., group home, correctional institution, etc.). According to a report in 2006  (Snyder & Sickmond, 2006), the median stay for juveniles placed in residential programs was about 4 months. While the length of stay varied with the seriousness of the offense, crimes against persons were commited by 35% of the juveniles in residential programs, and violations of probation or parole (e.g., truancy, missing curfew, testing positive for illicit drugs) or status offenders (e.g., running away, ungovernability) were commited by 20% of the juveniles in residential programs. Sociology: Application of key concepts of Culture, Socialization, Deviance/Crime, or Social Change

After the authors gave these gloomy statistics, they proceeded to explain what the ineffective programs and policies were. They included critiques of: the processing in the juvenile justice system, the transfer of juveniles to adult court, surveillance, shock incarceration intervention, and residential placement. When they succeeded in giving an adequate picture of the programs and policies in the juvenile justice system, they gave statistics to indicate that the programs and policies did not reduce antisocial behavior, but rather exacerbate it.

The authors then proceeded to mention a program known as The Blueprints Initiative, a program based out of the University of Colorado’s Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (website information here). The Blueprints Initiative succeeded in identifying three juvenile intervention programs that were proven more effective than the current ones. They were: Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Multisystemic Therapy (MST), and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC).

Functional Family Therapy (Alexander & Parsons, 1982) was one of the first evidence-based theories to be developed. In this program, juvenile delinquency is viewed as a result of family dysfunction. To deal with the issues, interventions aim to improve family dynamics by using behavioral and cognitive approaches to develop and maintain relationships within the family structure.

Multisystemic Therapy (Henggeler S. W., Schoenwald, Borduin, Rowland, & Cunningham, 2009), in contrast with FFT, was focused on treating juveniles with more serious issues (e.g., violent offenders, substance abusing offenders, emotionally disturbed youths, etc.) whereas FFT might have been a treatment option used for juveniles who are less of a danger to themselves and others (e.g., juveniles who run away from home). The authors noted that MST is one of the most consistently substantiated and widely transported evidence-based treatments in the world.  The treatment gets its roots from the psychological perspective of social ecology (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) which states that human beings develop with numerous direct and indirect influences from multiple systems, and that all influences affect the behavior of the individual. The direct influences may be the individual’s interaction with his friends or coworkers, and indirect influences may be the friends’ parents or, in the case of the coworkers, the building which affects the functioning of the coworkers either negatively or positively. With this broad perspective of behavioral influences, MST is able to competently address multiple factors that may affect the youth’s delinquent behavior. These can range from the immediate factors (e.g., family dynamic issues like those addressed with FFT) as well as other influencing factors that may or may not be immediately apparent (e.g., school performance, peer interaction etc.). Sociology: Application of key concepts of Culture, Socialization, Deviance/Crime, or Social Change

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (Chamberlain, 2003) was the last theory to be discussed. This treatment option was developed as an alternative to state detention and group care facilities, and was reserved for delinquents who had tried in-home and out-of-home services. The treatment grew from the Social Learning Theory, which stated that learning is achieved through rewards and punishments, and the social context of those consequences. Like FFT and MST before it, MTFC also utilizes interventions that aim to improve behavior and cognitive function; similar to MST, MTFC also uses a social ecology perspective to successfully address issues within the family structure, peer interaction, school performance, etc. The youth addresses these issues within a foster home where the foster parents can successfully supervise and, if necessary, punish the youth if he or she becomes unruly.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

After the authors’ description of the alternative treatment, they proceeded to explain what made the various interventions for juveniles either triumphs or catastrophes. According to their perspective, a good intervention should:

1. Effectively address risk factors
2. Be rehabilitative in nature/use interventions within the youth’s environment
3. Be well specified and include intensive support for intervention fidelity

All of the treatment methods that were identified by the Blueprints Initiative fit these criteria. To back these criteria up as valid, the authors mention the work of Howell (Howell, 2003), who said that the work of Canadian and American researchers (Andrews, Bonta, Gendreau, Ross, Cullen, and Latessa) who concluded that effective programs should: Sociology: Application of key concepts of Culture, Socialization, Deviance/Crime, or Social Change

1. Target the known risk factors
2. Have interventions that are behavioral in nature
3. Be individualized to the strengths and weaknesses of the offender
4. Be delivered mainly to high-risk offenders

The authors also mention how the current options for juvenile offenders can contrast greatly with these criteria.

By this time, many readers have a good idea of how disappointing the system of today really is. It is now that it is pointed out that public policy is not driven by scientific evidence and fact, but by political ideas which may or may not be rational and can quickly change. Because science relies on valid answers to questions, it can be slower to coming to a solution than a politician. It is only until science is converted into resources and capital that it finally is implemented by society.

Because of this fact, the authors suggest ways in which the scientific community can help the political world become more interested in implementing the evidence-based treatments and disseminate the faulty treatment options. They remind that the goals of the juvenile justice system are to secure the safety of the community and to deter future delinquent behavior, while the goals of the evidence-based treatments are to reduce and eliminate the problems related to the at-risk youth. Since the new treatments fulfill both of the organizations’ goals, they should not find these options too hard to implement. However, there is also the problem of cost-efficiency; if, when it is first implemented, it does not produce measureable results, those who are stakeholders in that equation will likely lose hope, and support will be withdrawn. The authors suggest that prevention and treatment researchers should mention:

1. The extent of the public health benefits
2. The expected duration of intervention effects
3. Cost-related implications

However, the authors suggest that, while it will take perseverance to implement these treatments, it will be easier due to the fact that states and counties are searching for more cost-cutting solutions to social issues. Sociology: Application of key concepts of Culture, Socialization, Deviance/Crime, or Social Change

The authors then finish the article by showing how MST has been implemented in numerous states and countries. They stress the importance of maintaining program’s fidelity, particularly in the areas of service parameters, funding, and target population. They also emphasize how the factors of wide deployment and time can affect the program. MST Services, LLC, is referenced as an entity that can help maintain the program’s consistency. They end the piece by showing how several states have implemented MST.

Works Cited

Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. (1982). Functional Family Therapy: Principles and Procedures. Brooks/Cole.

Bartollas, C., & Miller, S. J. (2011). Juvenile Justice in America, 6th Edition. Pearson Education, Inc.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Design and Nature. Harvard University Press.

Chamberlain, P. (2003). Treating Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Advances Made Through the Oregon Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care Model. American Psychological Association.

Henggeler, S. W., & Schoenwald, S. K. (2011). Evidence-Based Interventions for Juvenile Offenders and Juvenile Justice Policies that Support Them. Social Policy Report , 1-20.

Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (2009). Multisystemic therapy for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents (2nd Edition). Guilford Press.

Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework. Sage.Sociology: Application of key concepts of Culture, Socialization, Deviance/Crime, or Social Change

Puzzanchera, C., & Kang, W. (2010). Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985-2007. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezajcs/

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmond, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.