Treatment Programs for Juvenile Delinquents - Essay Example

JUVENILE JUSTICE Treatment Programs for Juvenile Delinquents for the Most Effective Outcomes And Those Which Offer the Least Chance for Success Introduction The juvenile justice system is based on the concept that children are developmentally different from adults, hence juvenile delinquents are more receptive to treatment and rehabilitation than adult criminals. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) recommends that children and youth who enter the juvenile justice system should be treated appropriately through every stage of the program, including “prevention, early intervention, diversion, detention, probation, residential care, incarceration and post-release care”. Without an effective treatment program, children’s delinquency conditions worsen through time and develop into adult criminal behavior. A result oriented treatment plan consists of: “screening, assessment, treatment and aftercare protocol” (NASW, 2008). However, public demand for a tough retributive approach to juvenile crime such as the fatal shooting tragedies in schools, can compel the use of high levels of punishment by the justice system, thus undermining the possibilities of improvement in the youth’s delinquency conditions. This paper proposes to identify the treatment programs for juvenile delinquents that offer the best chances for success, and those programs that offer the least chances for success. Discussion In contrast to the punitive or correctional approach, treatment programs help offenders to understand the root causes of their misconduct, experience the rewards of positive or prosocial behavior, and assist youth in re-integrating into the family, school and community. Research reveals that recidivism or relapse rates among those delinquent youth who received some type of treatment was found to be 25% less than among untreated control groups. Further, evidence-based best treatment programs reduce recidivism to an extent of 80% (Gendreau & Goggin: 1). Since juvenile offenders are not identical to one another, individualized treatment for each young person works most effectively when certain common features essential for success of treatment programs are included. Characteristics common to all effective treatment programs: Effective programs change specific behaviors by using structured and intensive interventions Behavior modification techniques for improving interpersonal and basic social skills, self-control, anger management, and resistance to substance abuse have been found to reduce recidivism or relapse by as much as 50%. Behavioral modification techniques punish negative behaviors similar to the correctional model, but also reward positive behaviors (Abrams et al: 9). Those treatments which involve longer contact hours with the emotionally disturbed youth achieve better results, and in institutional settings, treatments given by mental health professionals reveal improved outcomes as compared to interventions by corrections staff. Further, individual counseling that directly addresses behavior, attitudes, and perceptions is also important (Factsheet, MHA). 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. The therapy teaches youth intensively about the thought-emotion-behavior link, and works with them to modify their thinking patterns towards improved, more adaptive behavior when faced with challenging situations. By teaching thought control, that is halting or changing thoughts to avoid impulsive or criminal behaviors, cognitive behavioral therapy is found to reduce recidivism and re-arrests for at least one year after the treatment (Abrams et al: 9-10). Community-based treatment programs are superior to institution-based program Intensive, community-based, and family centered interventions are found to be the most promising. Only some youth may need treatment in institutions; many more juvenile offenders can be appropriately treated in the community, where youth behavior can be addressed in its social context. Research on community based delinquency prevention programs worked on the principle that known risk factors for delinquency and substance abuse can be reduced by enhancing known protective factors. “Healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior in the family, school and community, which form the protective factors, directly promote healthy behaviors in children” (Welsh et al, 2005: 87). Hence, it is important to encourage bonding with the family, school and community that promote healthy beliefs and standards, to help youths to adopt similar beliefs and standards. It is crucial for justice authorities to involve family members in treatment and rehabilitation According to research conducted by Mulford & Redding (p.1), training parents is found to be effective in treating behavior problems among children. In high risk youth, parent training has to be used in combination with other corrective and treatment methods, for beneficial outcomes. Further, “family-focused interventions have shown positive impacts on child and family functioning, delinquent behavior, and recidivism” (Factsheet, MHA). An effective treatment model is the Multi-Systemic Therapy. 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, Multi-Systemic Therapy is cost effective; implementing this intervention would result in a net gain for a community of over $21,000 per participant, from savings in the criminal justice system and in protection against crime. Integrated, multimodal treatment approaches are essential This approach is a collaboration across a number of public agencies, such as juvenile justice and mental health, towards developing coordinated plans for family-centered, community-based services based on youth and family strengths. The “wrap-around” model for the treatment of juvenile delinquency, ensures that a family conceptualizes a single, individualized treatment plan, and receives a wide range of services and supports as part of that coordinated plan. Examples of wrap-around programs are the DAWN Project in Indianapolis and Wraparound Milwaukee. Wraparound Milwaukee has demonstrated a significant improvement in juvenile behavior, and 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. “In some communities Wraparound has served as a comprehensive systems reform to coordinate all agencies working with emotionally troubled youth: including child welfare, mental health, special education and juvenile justice” (Mendel: 18). Some other important common factors in effective treatment programs Recognizing the developmental stage of each youth and building on the individual strengths of each youth; restorative restitution of victim directly by the juvenile offender through a combination of victim input, community service and other approaches; helping the young offenders to understand how their actions have affected their victim, discouraging them from viewing other people as potential targets, and teaching the youth to make positive choices, resolving disputes without aggression; understanding the futility of intensive punishment measures, and using flexible and graduated degrees of sanctions; empowering families to support their child’s positive activities and efforts to succeed academically; encouraging youth to forge links with prosocial peers; and conducting activity programs in the communities in which youth under treatment live, and also for youth returning to the community after confinement, with supportive programs to help in continued improvement and avoid recidivism (JAIBG: 10). Graduated sanctions are applied as follows: secure institutionalization for repeat serious, violent offenders; intermediate sanctions such as probation and electronic monitoring for first time serious offenders and repeat minor offenders; and immediate sanctions for non-violent offenders consisting of community-based diversion and day treatment (Siegel & Welsh: 277). Ineffective treatment programs: some common characteristics The Correctional Approach As in the adult penal system, the basic principle of correctional programs is punishment, relying on “systems of harsh penalties to correct offenders’ attitudes and behaviors” (Abrams et al: 8). Although punishment when applied in the right amount and at the right time, can be effective, a strictly punitive environment does not help to improve the delinquency conditions of youth. It has the negative aspect of correctional staff tending to look out for even minor rule breaking offences, while overlooking positive actions by the youth. Further, the correctional approach does not focus on equipping youth offenders with skills and resources to prevent future criminal behavior. From evidence based on research studies, it is clear that punishment is not an effective deterrent and does not reduce recidivism in the long run. Different types of punishment including regular incarceration and “scared straight” programs, actually produced higher recidivism rates than when no punishment was given (Gendreau & Goggin: 5). Programs found to be ineffective at reducing recidivism when used alone, are “increased surveillance, psychodynamic or unstructured counseling, home confinement, regular probation services, frequent drug testing, wilderness / survival programs, electronic monitoring, and boot camps” (Factsheet, MHA). However, in the case of high risk youths, an integrated approach that blends corrective methods with appropriate treatment programs, is now acknowledged as most effective in correctional institutions (Abrams et al: 10). Conclusion This paper has highlighted the treatment programs for juvenile delinquents, in the justice system. The treatment programs which offer the best chances for success as against those that offer the least possibilities for improvement in the offenders’ behaviors, have been discussed. 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. Whereas the correctional approach in juvenile justice “focuses on the punishment of residents’ criminality, treatment approaches focus on rehabilitation through self-awareness and personal growth” (Abrams et al: 10). An integrated treatment approach utilizing a combination of correctional with behavioral and other therapies is now being adopted, for best outcomes. Further research studies with high risk youths on the competing ideologies and practices of correctional and treatment programs, will help to gain increasing insights into the balanced use of methodologies. References Abrams, Laura S., Kim, Kyoungho & Anderson-Nathe, Ben. Paradoxes of treatment in juvenile corrections. Child and Youth Care Forum, 34.1, (February 2005): 7-25. Factsheet, MHA. Treatment works for youth in the juvenile justice system. Mental Health America (MHA). 2008. Available at http://www1.nmha.org/children/justjuv/treatment.cfm Gendreau, P. & Goggin, C. Principles of effective correctional programming. Forum on Correctional Research, 3 (1996): 1-6. JAIBG (Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program) Bulletin. Best practices in juvenile accountability: overview. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2003. Mendel, Richard A. Less hype, more help: reducing juvenile crime, what works – and what doesn’t. The United States of America: Diane Publishing. 2002. Mulford, Carrie, F. & Redding, Richard E. Training the parents of juvenile offenders: state of the art and recommendations for service delivery. Journal of Child and Family Studies, Research Review (2007): 1-20. NASW (National Association of Social Workers). Juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. 2008. Available at: http://www.naswdc.org/resources/abstracts/abstracts/juvenile.asp Siegel, Larry J. & Welsh, Brandon C. Juvenile delinquency: the core. California: Thomson Wadsworth. 2004. Welsh, Wayne N., Jenkins, Patricia H. & Harris, Philip W. Reducing minority overrepresentation in juvenile justice: results of community-based delinquency prevention in Harrisburg. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 36 (1999): 87-111. Read More