Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: AuntieEm2 on March 12, 2010, 07:33:17 PM
-
A juvenile justice study relevant to incarcerating youth in programs. Long-term study with more than 1300 youth.
Auntie Em
http://www.modelsforchange.net/reform-progress/57 (http://www.modelsforchange.net/reform-progress/57)
New Data on Sanctions and Services Supports the Use of Non-Institutional Alternatives
Mar 9, 2010, LaWanda Johnson
Does placing youth who commit offenses in expensive, out-of-home placements improve their chances of not reoffending? New preliminary data from the Pathways to Desistance study reported by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice suggests that, compared with probation, the answer may be “no” –even for youth who commit serious and sometimes violent offenses.
The data found that institutional placement – which includes both correctional and residential treatment facilities - appears to have no advantage over community-based services in addressing delinquency. For youth involved in ‘low-level’ offending, institutional placement raised their level of future offending by a statistically significant amount. The study also found that most youth with serious felony offenses ceased to re-offend after their contact with the system, regardless of the intervention.
“We see a lot of variability in these [youth], which means there are a lot of places for successful interventions and a lot of places where we can promote positive changes,” said University of Pittsburgh Professor Ed Mulvey, the Principal Investigator of the study. “But as long as we continue to create policies that say once a kid commits a certain kind of crime that they are on the road to adult criminality, that’s just a bad assumption from the start.”
The Pathways to Desistance study is a multi-site collaborative project which followed 1,354 juvenile offenders for seven years after their conviction. The research is the most intense look to date at the results of sanctions and services provided to youth who have committed serious offenses. Dr. Mulvey believes it can be used to dispel the commonly held beliefs that these youth are destined for a life of serious criminal offending.
“This study underscores the importance of taking into account individual and developmental differences—that adolescents change, they grow out of these behaviors that got them into trouble, and can turn their lives around. Youths who have committed serious offenses are not all the same, and not all headed for the same life of adult crime,” said Laurie Garduque, Director of Juvenile Justice for the MacArthur Foundation’s Program on Human and Community Development.
State advocates say the research supports many of their current reform efforts, and believe the study will help juvenile justice leaders steer systems struggling with conditions in juvenile institutions and help policymakers better manage dwindling public safety budgets towards better, more effective choices.
“We have been too heavy-handed with our use of out-of-home, institutional placements for youth,” stated Sarah Bryer, director of the National Juvenile Justice Network. “These findings support discontinuing the use of these types of placements in most cases, and provide political coverage to legislators who want to solve budget problems and help kids. They can be ‘tough on crime’ by supporting community-based alternatives.”
Reducing out of home placements: saving money and reducing re-offending in Illinois
States participating in the Models for Change Initiative have prioritized “right-sizing” their juvenile justice systems with innovative practices that have led to thousands of youth being diverted from out-of-home and institutional placements. This has had significant cost-saving benefits, and has contributed to reductions in recidivism.
Since 2005, Illinois has been decreasing the number of youth committed to its state facilities by providing fiscal incentives that encourage communities to treat and rehabilitate their youth in community-based settings. Through Redeploy Illinois, a program supported by Models for Change grantees, Illinois youth who have committed serious offenses - that would have otherwise landed them in one of the state’s juvenile facilities—have been diverted to programs in their home communities where they receive help, guidance and supervision. After years of being a successful pilot program, legislation enacted in January 2010 made it a permanent program and permitted all of the state's 102 counties to apply for Redeploy Illinois services.
Tailoring interventions: assessment helps direct expensive interventions where most appropriate
In line with one of the Pathways report’s key findings – that there is no “typical” justice-involved youth -- other Models for Change states have been adopting risk/needs assessment tools to help determine the risk level and criminogenic needs of youth who offend. One such tool, the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), is being used by probation officers and court officials in Louisiana to guide out-of-home placement decisions in hopes that use of these placements are restricted to those at highest risk for serious re-offending. According to Dr. Gina Vincent, co-director of the National Youth Screening and Assessment Project, tools like the SAVRY are needed to decrease subjectivity and increase the likelihood of successful community supervision and service delivery. She is conducting a study which examines if probation officers and court official are using SAVRY to its full advantage in Louisiana and to determine if this leads to lower placement and recidivism rates. She is conducting the same study in Pennsylvania using a similar tool, the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI).
“The SAVRY and YLS/CMI are not just risk assessment tools; the tools help probation officers to make objective decisions based on the research that we know about youthful re-offending. It is the quintessential example of translating research into practice,” says Dr. Vincent. “Research indicates that human judgment is not a good indicator of who is really at-risk of serious re-offending. This tool enhances one’s ability to tell who’s most likely to reoffend, who will need the most intensive level of intervention, and which types of services are most likely to decrease one’s chances of re-offending.”
Pathways research highlights need for more innovation
Several states and jurisdictions have already begun rethinking how they handle juvenile offenders, including New York City, which recently announced plans to merge the city’s Department of Juvenile Justice into its child welfare agency in hopes of having a more therapeutic approach toward delinquency that will send fewer youth to institutional placements. Campaign for Youth Justice executive director, Liz Ryan, believes more states should follow suit.
“Why are states continuing to invest millions in a strategy that simply doesn’t work?” said Ryan. “This study underscores the reasons why these large juvenile correctional institutions should be closed. It’s an abysmal failure, it’s a poor investment and it’s a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. Furthermore, it harms kids. States can and should do better.”
Funded in part by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pathways study, which includes more than 24,000 interviews, covers a wide range of topics including psychological development, mental health, behavior, attitudes, family and community context, and relationship. The study has produced several briefs on serious adolescent offenders intended to provide policymakers and practitioners with analyses to help in the development of a more rational, effective and developmentally appropriate juvenile justice system. For more information on Pathways to Desistance, please write to the project coordinator, Carol Schubert, at schubertca@upmc.edu.
-
Great find, em. Here is my first take on it. I will read it again in more detail.
Those holding the purse strings are going to jump on this study. The study couldn’t seem to find a coloration between the length of time an offender spends locked up and the frequency (or odds) of them becoming a repeat offender. So the study has determined that long term incarceration is not effective and therefore see shorter stays as equally effective.
The study has followed a sample of juveniles who committed major offenses when they were 14 to 17 years old. Their crimes were the most serious felonies that come before the court, including murder, robbery, aggravated assault, sex offenses, and kidnapping. About 70 percent of the subjects have had one or more prior petitions to court. Nearly one-fifth were processed in the adult system.
The study seems to have concluded that it would be more beneficial to focus on the offenders substance problems and work with their family to help reintroduce them back into the community.
It’s one of the clearest examples. Substance use is strongly related to continued criminal activity in this group, and it makes sense to focus on this behavior for intervention. In fact, the study shows that treatment for substance use can reduce offending.
Levels of substance use and associated problems are very high in these young offenders.
They didn’t come right out and say it because they cannot recommend any one organization or practice because the offenders are so diverse, but, they seem to see an intervention like AA or a similar type of program to be the target of getting these people turned around and successfully reintroduced into society.
Moreover, the level of substance use walks in lockstep with illegal activity over the follow-up period: more substance use, more criminal offending.
If we can get the tax payers or feds to back new alternatives which would address the substance and behavior issues that are driving these criminals many of these state run institutions could be shuttered and the money could be better spent on local community-based interventions or residential treatment which would focus on their substance issues and reduce their time off the streets to months instead of years.
...
-
It’s one of the clearest examples. Substance use is strongly related to continued criminal activity in this group, and it makes sense to focus on this behavior for intervention. In fact, the study shows that treatment for substance use can reduce offending.
Levels of substance use and associated problems are very high in these young offenders.
Point 1: Drugs are illegal. Of course if drug use goes down, crime will go down. Drug use is a crime in itself and Illegal drug users are criminals by definition. Does the study bother to mention which crimes? Are they related to drugs, and how is "drug-related" defined? Drug related often means "while under the influence of a drug". Well. I drink iced tea all day. If I rob a convenience store, that's not a "caffeine related" crime. Drugs don't do crimes. People do crimes.
Point 2: They claim substance use is strongly related to criminal activity. Point one applies as well, but something else worth considering is the notion that people who already commit crimes might be more likely to use drugs than those who do not break the law (and thus would not be using illegal drugs). If you're robbing convenience stores and stealing cars, you're probably not going to worry about getting busted for smoking pot. Coincidence is not causation. Drug use could be blamed on criminal pastimes just as easily as you could blame criminal pastimes on drugs. I admit it could go the other way, not because of the drugs themselves, but because the action of taking drugs is a crime, and once a person thinks of himself as a criminal he's likely to commit more crimes.
Side note: Either way. If you legalize drugs, the crime surrounding it disappear. Drugs by themselves in society don't cause crime. Drug Prohibition causes crime, just as alcohol prohibition created the mob. People who smuggle drugs kill and maim and so forth because that is the nature of an illegal business. People who use drugs regularly are excluded from legitimate jobs they could otherwise do by draconian "drug free" workplace laws. As a result, some choose to commit crimes to support their habits. It doesn't justify it, But it does explain it. Excluding them from jobs on the basis of what they choose to put in their bodies, rather than their performance, is also wrong. Drug usage, even drug abuse, does not make a person automatically immoral in other areas of their lives. It's a choice, and like the choice of a religion, it's unjust to be prejudiced against. Would they be criminals if society didn't treat them like it? I don't think so. Were drugs (even heroin) legal, pure (many poisonings are mislabeled "overdoses"), cheap, and freely available to users, I believe the worst harm surrounding drug use could be stopped. Drug use can never be eradicated. It's a constant, illegal or not. What we can do is get rid of the worst of the harm surrounding it.
And here's an article about legal heroin in Switzerland you might want to consider:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/2 ... 47023.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/28/switzerland-likely-to-app_n_147023.html)
"The aim is that the patients learn how to function in society," he said, adding that after two to three years in the program, one-third of the patients start abstinence-programs and one-third change to methadone treatment..
-
Point 1: Drugs are illegal. Of course if drug use goes down, crime will go down. Drug use is a crime in itself and Illegal drug users are criminals by definition. Does the study bother to mention which crimes? Are they related to drugs, and how is "drug-related" defined? Drug related often means "while under the influence of a drug". Well. I drink iced tea all day. If I rob a convenience store, that's not a "caffeine related" crime. Drugs don't do crimes. People do crimes.
Their crimes were the most serious felonies that come before the court, including murder, robbery, aggravated assault, sex offenses, and kidnapping (They may possibly be referring to escorts).
The study wasn’t clear if the offenders were under the influence of drugs during the crimes and fueling them or if the crimes were helping them obtain drugs or whether they were just "normal" drug users like you or I.
Point 2: They claim substance use is strongly related to criminal activity. Point one applies as well, but something else worth considering is the notion that people who already commit crimes might be more likely to use drugs than those who do not break the law (and thus would not be using illegal drugs). If you're robbing convenience stores and stealing cars, you're probably not going to worry about getting busted for smoking pot. Coincidence is not causation. Drug use could be blamed on criminal pastimes just as easily as you could blame criminal pastimes on drugs. I admit it could go the other way, not because of the drugs themselves, but because the action of taking drugs is a crime, and once a person thinks of himself as a criminal he's likely to commit more crimes.
I would have to see more of the study, myself, to understand the connection that they are drawing to drug use.
A study of people who drink Diet Sodas concluded that the overwhelming majority of them have gained weight since switching to the diet drinks. Does this mean that diet drinks cause the weight gain? The researchers noted that many people who order a diet drink feel they are being responsible and therefore reward themselves with an extra hamburger or dessert which they otherwise may not have ordered. So I do think that studies can be misleading and we need to be careful how conclusions are drawn
(I saw this on the news, so I don’t have a link to provide)
Side note: Either way. If you legalize drugs, the crime surrounding it disappear. Drugs by themselves in society don't cause crime. Drug Prohibition causes crime, just as alcohol prohibition created the mob. People who smuggle drugs kill and maim and so forth because that is the nature of an illegal business. People who use drugs regularly are excluded from legitimate jobs they could otherwise do by draconian "drug free" workplace laws. As a result, some choose to commit crimes to support their habits. It doesn't justify it, But it does explain it. Excluding them from jobs on the basis of what they choose to put in their bodies, rather than their performance, is also wrong. Drug usage, even drug abuse, does not make a person automatically immoral in other areas of their lives. It's a choice, and like the choice of a religion, it's unjust to be prejudiced against. Would they be criminals if society didn't treat them like it? I don't think so. Were drugs (even heroin) legal, pure (many poisonings are mislabeled "overdoses"), cheap, and freely available to users, I believe the worst harm surrounding drug use could be stopped. Drug use can never be eradicated. It's a constant, illegal or not. What we can do is get rid of the worst of the harm surrounding it.
The study did touch upon the point that these kids were otherwise very good kids and not immoral at all.
One way to clear up your question would be to rehabilitate a control group by having them abstain from drugs and then supply (Decriminalize) another control group with the drug of their choice and see how they do in their lives. Which group would be more likely to go back to a life of crime.?
Would they still have a need to steal so they wouldn’t have to work because that is what they know and were successful at? Or would the whole pressure surrounding the drug issue alleviate itself and the need to steal, rape, assault etc….. although I think rape is driven by a different motive and don’t see how it is drug related at all unless it is date rape.
The link to the Swiss study was interesting and a great study in itself. This will go a long way in answering the questions about the relationship between crimes and drugs.
...
-
It’s one of the clearest examples. Substance use is strongly related to continued criminal activity in this group, and it makes sense to focus on this behavior for intervention. In fact, the study shows that treatment for substance use can reduce offending.
Levels of substance use and associated problems are very high in these young offenders.
Point 1: Drugs are illegal. Of course if drug use goes down, crime will go down. Drug use is a crime in itself and Illegal drug users are criminals by definition. Does the study bother to mention which crimes? Are they related to drugs, and how is "drug-related" defined? Drug related often means "while under the influence of a drug". Well. I drink iced tea all day. If I rob a convenience store, that's not a "caffeine related" crime. Drugs don't do crimes. People do crimes.
Point 2: They claim substance use is strongly related to criminal activity. Point one applies as well, but something else worth considering is the notion that people who already commit crimes might be more likely to use drugs than those who do not break the law (and thus would not be using illegal drugs). If you're robbing convenience stores and stealing cars, you're probably not going to worry about getting busted for smoking pot. Coincidence is not causation. Drug use could be blamed on criminal pastimes just as easily as you could blame criminal pastimes on drugs. I admit it could go the other way, not because of the drugs themselves, but because the action of taking drugs is a crime, and once a person thinks of himself as a criminal he's likely to commit more crimes.
Side note: Either way. If you legalize drugs, the crime surrounding it disappear. Drugs by themselves in society don't cause crime. Drug Prohibition causes crime, just as alcohol prohibition created the mob. People who smuggle drugs kill and maim and so forth because that is the nature of an illegal business. People who use drugs regularly are excluded from legitimate jobs they could otherwise do by draconian "drug free" workplace laws. As a result, some choose to commit crimes to support their habits. It doesn't justify it, But it does explain it. Excluding them from jobs on the basis of what they choose to put in their bodies, rather than their performance, is also wrong. Drug usage, even drug abuse, does not make a person automatically immoral in other areas of their lives. It's a choice, and like the choice of a religion, it's unjust to be prejudiced against. Would they be criminals if society didn't treat them like it? I don't think so. Were drugs (even heroin) legal, pure (many poisonings are mislabeled "overdoses"), cheap, and freely available to users, I believe the worst harm surrounding drug use could be stopped. Drug use can never be eradicated. It's a constant, illegal or not. What we can do is get rid of the worst of the harm surrounding it.
And here's an article about legal heroin in Switzerland you might want to consider:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/2 ... 47023.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/28/switzerland-likely-to-app_n_147023.html)
"The aim is that the patients learn how to function in society," he said, adding that after two to three years in the program, one-third of the patients start abstinence-programs and one-third change to methadone treatment..
[/quote;
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Psy,
In your two points I agree there is much politicizing (manipulation) going on concerning drugs and crimes. Looking at the big picture as you are I agree. But you are talking about smoking pot really as your example above. I think. Because you can't be talking about a Crack Addict, Meth Addict and other narcotic addicts. Look at your prescription drug addicts and the felonies they commit to get it. As for alcohol, try getting in the way of a Wino trying to find his first drink of the day. He would slice your throat to get it. So drugs and Alcohol do make a person "become" immoral at times.
Drugs and or Alcohol don't do crimes they sure do??? Your under the influence of a drug (lost control of mind and body). Now of course we are talking about a small % of folks who abandon (abuse) themselves with drugs and alcohol. Do you know that there are studies showing that 75% of all felonies that are committed were done by people who had drugs or alcohol in their system. Rapes in this country that are committed by men a large % were done while alcohol was in their system. This is just a fact without passing judgment. (Sorry I did not produce facts(links) to back up what I'm saying but the info is common knowledge not hard to find)
Danny
-
If prohibition creates crime, then why are there so many DUI arrests and deaths? What about all the drunken fights that lead to deaths? Or drunks who take out their rage on their family? So when crack is made available for 99 cents at Walmart, suddenly a utopian society will appear? That's not a world I want to live in.
-
Thanks for posting this. Great to have data on any long term studies of this nature. More evidence of what we have known all along.
It is not clear what "community based services/alternatives" are being referred to in this piece. This is a very important factor when considering these findings.
Drugs, legalization, decriminalization, taxation, prohibition, etc.... that is a complicated discussion that I don't have the energy for right now. It has thrown me off subject before and I would rather pay attention to this awesome new data that AuntieEm 2 has provided us with.
How will the TTI respond to this? I mean, how will they attempt to discredit the data or pretend to really be the"community based alternative" mentioned? Time will tell.
-
How will the TTI respond to this? I mean, how will they attempt to discredit the data or pretend to really be the"community based alternative" mentioned? Time will tell.
Well, I think you have a sneak preview based on Whooter's response. Even though this a SEVEN YEAR, LONGITUDINAL, CLICAL STUDY, Whooter "needs more data" to form an opinion. However, when a parental survey is passed off as a "study" and it paints the TTI in a positive light, well, then THAT'S all people like Whooter need to "prove programs work."
So, because TTI people aren't interested in science or facts, only politics and money, this will be their stock response: "Not enough data to draw conclusions." or the old standard "Apples to oranges."
This study, anyway, for all of those interested in this vein of clinical research, dovetails with the Surgeon General's study on aggregating "troubled teens." Putting themn all together (like in a program) makes their problems worse and residential treatement or inpatient settings show less promise than local outpatient services and generally make patients worse off in the end.
Keep in mind there has NEVER BEEN A CLINICAL STUDY OF "PROGRAMS" and there likely never will be, considering an honest broker would likely draw the same conclusions as these two previous clinical studies. Therefore "programs" will never subject themselves to scientific studies. If they did, they'd invalidate their own existence, period.
-
Thanks for posting this. Great to have data on any long term studies of this nature. More evidence of what we have known all along.
It is not clear what "community based services/alternatives" are being referred to in this piece. This is a very important factor when considering these findings.
Drugs, legalization, decriminalization, taxation, prohibition, etc.... that is a complicated discussion that I don't have the energy for right now. It has thrown me off subject before and I would rather pay attention to this awesome new data that AuntieEm 2 has provided us with.
How will the TTI respond to this? I mean, how will they attempt to discredit the data or pretend to really be the"community based alternative" mentioned? Time will tell.
I think in the long run this study will help to reshape the present Juvy/prison system. With the conclusion that tossing a kid into prison for 3 years or more just isn’t beneficial, they have an opportunity to really help turn these kids around and reduce cost at the same time.
The study points to two issues that jumped out at me. One, Focus on the underlying problem (which they see as substance abuse) and Two, shorten the time these kids are locked up.
So if they could design a local service set up which could address their substance issue and include the entire family that seems to be ideal. Although, local, would be expensive because there would have to be many locations set up within each state.
As far as the TTI industry goes, I don’t see this study as having a direct effect. Most programs today are already short term (under 18 months) and they don’t deal with the same types of kids (i.e. most serious offenders, kidnapping, murder, sex offenders etc.). Most of the kids within the TTI community are from a different population and are designed to address different problems.
I do think that the federal correctional industry will be taking a look at how the TTI industry integrates drug rehabilitation services into their present models and maybe walk away with ideas from some of the more successful programs. It will be interesting to see how this evolves. The feedback on this thread has been interesting so far and I agree with you that it is a major topic.
...
-
How will the TTI respond to this? I mean, how will they attempt to discredit the data or pretend to really be the"community based alternative" mentioned? Time will tell.
Well, I think you have a sneak preview based on Whooter's response. Even though this a SEVEN YEAR, LONGITUDINAL, CLICAL STUDY, Whooter "needs more data" to form an opinion. However, when a parental survey is passed off as a "study" and it paints the TTI in a positive light, well, then THAT'S all people like Whooter need to "prove programs work."
So, because TTI people aren't interested in science or facts, only politics and money, this will be their stock response: "Not enough data to draw conclusions." or the old standard "Apples to oranges."
This study, anyway, for all of those interested in this vein of clinical research, dovetails with the Surgeon General's study on aggregating "troubled teens." Putting themn all together (like in a program) makes their problems worse and residential treatement or inpatient settings show less promise than local outpatient services and generally make patients worse off in the end.
Keep in mind there has NEVER BEEN A CLINICAL STUDY OF "PROGRAMS" and there likely never will be, considering an honest broker would likely draw the same conclusions as these two previous clinical studies. Therefore "programs" will never subject themselves to scientific studies. If they did, they'd invalidate their own existence, period.
:notworthy: :notworthy: :tup:
-
It is not clear what "community-based services/alternatives" are being referred to in this piece. This is a very important factor when considering these findings.
Yup. But the site to which the OP links, Models For Change (http://http://www.modelsforchange.net/), appears not overly concerned with the actual nature of those community-based services. Rather, they appear interested in interrupting the pipeline from court to juvie or other institution. Perhaps there's an economic incentive involved?
Worth keeping in mind when interpreting all this is the fact that folks have been talking up those community based alternatives to institutionalization for over fifty years. This is not exactly breaking new ground.
One of the first such programs was the Highfields Treatment Center, located in Charles Lindbergh's old home in Hopewell, NJ. The "group counseling" method used was called Guided Group Interaction, originally developed by Lloyd McCorkle for use in military prisons, and based directly on his experience utilizing therapeutic community methodologies during World War II. GGI was the forerunner to Positive Peer Culture.
Programs like The Seed, Straight, Inc., KHK, etc. were also considered community based alternatives to institutionalization. As were Layne Meacham's programs, etc. etc.
-
I strongly doubt, as Whooter suggests, that any government agency or entity will be studying TTI programs and adopting anything from them. Why? Because the government must rely upon CLINICAL DATA, as all agencies and professionals must when making treatment recommendations. Since the TTI is, by definition, NOT CLINICAL and since there has never been a clinical study to assess program effectiveness, the government cannot and will not rely upon any programs as a model until such a time they produce a clinical trial of their methods, which, I think we can all agree, will never happen.
-
I dont know about studies,stats,symposiums or any of that anylitical shit. All I know about is me.
Wound up in psyciatric ward at 12,state school for boys at 13,foster care at 14,psyc ward at 15, straight at 15,detox at 19,jail at 20,detox at 21(x2) and again at 23. Outside of the medical need for detox,none of it did a godamn thing fo me but beat the fuck out of what miniscule amount of self esteem I had left.
I cant see being locked up as positive,sorry. Some thing dont belong in a cage.
-
I strongly doubt, as Whooter suggests, that any government agency or entity will be studying TTI programs and adopting anything from them. Why? Because the government must rely upon CLINICAL DATA, as all agencies and professionals must when making treatment recommendations. Since the TTI is, by definition, NOT CLINICAL and since there has never been a clinical study to assess program effectiveness, the government cannot and will not rely upon any programs as a model until such a time they produce a clinical trial of their methods, which, I think we can all agree, will never happen.
You seem to place an awful lot of faith in our government, DJ. I'm afraid I cannot be half so sanguine. Just what kind of "clinical data" was the government relying on when it was underwriting Pathway Family Center?
Seems to me PFC was just the kind of "community-based alternative" that would appear to fit the bill, according to recommended parameters... Or, maybe I'm just reading them wrong.
It also seems to me the government has been up to their eyeballs in exploring, promoting and perpetrating TC methodologies in both community-based as well as institutional programs from the get go. TC-based methodologies are at the core of much, if not most of the programs featured on fornits. Well, at least the ones which rely on the coercive persuasion of group think.
Finally, with all due respect, what exactly do you mean by the TTI being "by definition, not clinical?" How many folk here have been stashed in a short-term psych unit when juvie proved inconvenient and/or illegal in certain cases? Not to mention long-term psych units? In fact, there's even a forum (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=71) on fornits for that kinda stuff.
-
I think in the long run this study will help to reshape the present Juvy/prison system. With the conclusion that tossing a kid into prison for 3 years or more just isn’t beneficial, they have an opportunity to really help turn these kids around and reduce cost at the same time.
The study points to two issues that jumped out at me. One, Focus on the underlying problem (which they see as substance abuse) and Two, shorten the time these kids are locked up.
What the study actually said was that the kids shouldn't be locked up. Locking them up, even for short durations increases criminality.
So if they could design a local service set up which could address their substance issue and include the entire family that seems to be ideal. Although, local, would be expensive because there would have to be many locations set up within each state.
These are already in place in most communities. There are local therapists and social workers offering outpatient treatment and local clinics offering outpatient treatment. The idea here is that all patients should be treated in the least restrictive environment which is NOT RESIDENTIAL. The study also points out this is more effective and less expensive than RTCs. This is a knockout of the TTI in its entirety. Why pay such egregious sums for results that make your kid worse and not better?
As far as the TTI industry goes, I don’t see this study as having a direct effect. Most programs today are already short term (under 18 months) and they don’t deal with the same types of kids (i.e. most serious offenders, kidnapping, murder, sex offenders etc.). Most of the kids within the TTI community are from a different population and are designed to address different problems.
Most kids in the TTI share the same problems as "low-level offenders." Here's what the study said: "For youth involved in ‘low-level’ offending, institutional placement raised their level of future offending by a statistically significant amount." Therefore, logic dictates that we can conclude that institutionalizing of "program kids" hurts them, not helps them.
Also, Whooter's idea of what "short-term" and "long-term" mean in the context of treatment shines a glaring spotlight on his utter lack of education or understanding of these matters. "Short-term" treatment is generally considered to be 90 days or fewer. "Long-term" treatment is generally considered to be longer than 90 days. While there is some variability in the way these concepts are defined, I'd challenge anyone to find any scholarly article that defines "short-term" treatment as "less than 18 months." That's farcical.
I do think that the federal correctional industry will be taking a look at how the TTI industry integrates drug rehabilitation services into their present models and maybe walk away with ideas from some of the more successful programs. It will be interesting to see how this evolves. The feedback on this thread has been interesting so far and I agree with you that it is a major topic.
...
How are programs that have never been scientifically examined be divided into "more successful" and "less successful" I wonder? Considering nary a study has ever been completed on program efficacy, how on earth can anyone begin to classify program effectiveness? They should all be labeled "Experimental" and "Unproven" until such a time they are proven to be otherwise.
You have to parse what Whooter writes, because it's almost entirely untrue, but almost entirely "truthy." Either his mind functions at an extrememly low level or he is purposefully misleading. Or both ; )
-
I strongly doubt, as Whooter suggests, that any government agency or entity will be studying TTI programs and adopting anything from them. Why? Because the government must rely upon CLINICAL DATA, as all agencies and professionals must when making treatment recommendations. Since the TTI is, by definition, NOT CLINICAL and since there has never been a clinical study to assess program effectiveness, the government cannot and will not rely upon any programs as a model until such a time they produce a clinical trial of their methods, which, I think we can all agree, will never happen.
You seem to place an awful lot of faith in our government, DJ. I'm afraid I cannot be half so sanguine. Just what kind of "clinical data" was the government relying on when it was underwriting Pathway Family Center?
Seems to me PFC was just the kind of "community-based alternative" that would appear to fit the bill, according to recommended parameters... Or, maybe I'm just reading them wrong.
It also seems to me the government has been up to their eyeballs in exploring, promoting and perpetrating TC methodologies in both community-based as well as institutional programs from the get go. TC-based methodologies are at the core of much, if not most of the programs featured on fornits. Well, at least the ones which rely on the coercive persuasion of group think.
Finally, with all due respect, what exactly do you mean by the TTI being "by definition, not clinical?" How many folk here have been stashed in a short-term psych unit when juvie proved inconvenient and/or illegal in certain cases? Not to mention long-term psych units? In fact, there's even a forum (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=71) on fornits for that kinda stuff.
I'm not sure about PFC or what it does, but I thought it was an RTC?? If so, it fails the test of community based outpatient services. And when you say the govt was "underwriting PFC" what does that mean?
And when you start talking about "TC methodology" I'm not so sure you are speaking about ALL TC's, are you? I'm familiar with many TC's that don't use any of the methods you describe. Maybe our definitions of "TC" are different. Mine is "treatement center," but I suspect you might mean "treatment community," which is an entirely different, utterly quackified ballgame, my friend.
I also agree there are many abuses of the existing systems where kids are "misplaced" or locked up for no real reason. That shouldn't be allowed to happen. By "not clinical" I mean generally "don't use accepted data-driven clinical practices."
-
And when you start talking about "TC methodology" I'm not so sure you are speaking about ALL TC's, are you? I'm familiar with many TC's that don't use any of the methods you describe. Maybe our definitions of "TC" are different. Mine is "treatement center," but I suspect you might mean "treatment community," which is an entirely different, utterly quackified ballgame, my friend.
TC = therapeutic community, that is, neither "therapeutic" nor a "community," lol.
Incidentally... to my knowledge, "community-based" does not necessarily equate with out-patient, at least according to some practitioners...
I'm thinking in particular of Layne Meacham's description of his programs, neither of which lasted very long due in part to a number of abuse claims (and this in Utah). I'm also thinking of the way Jerome Miller characterized some of his recommended proctoring programs when he closed down all of Massachusetts' reform schools in the early 1970s. These programs, along with some study of Miller Newton's KHK program in New Jersey, were essentially what Meacham's programs were based on. Basically a Straight, Inc. model: at program during the day, sleep at an oldcomer's house at night. These were described as "community-based" programs. Could one really consider them "outpatient?" There was 'round the clock, 24/7 intensive behavior modification going on.
-
All good points, Ursus and a good illustration of how the waters are muddied. It's sometimes difficult to explore the lexicon of therapy because so many quacksters have perverted so many terms that nobody is really sure what they mean anymore.
Then again, whenever I read program literature, at least to me, it's always a Word Salad Deluxe with Fact-Free Dressing. But this is also my area of expertise and education and I can see how laypeople get roped in by the truthiness.
-
I am not familiar with the "Highfields Treatment Center". It sounds interesting.
Taking a look at the state of Illinois the cost of one youth was about $6,000 a month in 2005 (Which is in line with the present day cost of a TBS). The average length of stay for a delinquency commitment was 8.8 months with a mean court eval placed at 3.5 months.
They subsequently adopted a system they called “redeploy” (I believe the "Model for Change" study mentioned this also) which moved these kids from the large state run facilities to local community sites so that the kids would remain in their own county. These community based facilities were able to show a “reduced cost” and better results (although I haven’t seen a completed study). So I believe it is doable to shift the lower level offenders to these community sites but they haven’t tried the same thing with the more serious felonies as the “Models for Change” study has suggested, (Yet?)
These community based programs combine therapy with behavior modification, social skills training, cognitive behavioral interventions.
These community based facilities are important for delinquents and their families because it enables the families without access to transportation, on the lower income level, to more easily visit. Many of the family members could not afford to travel the distances required to be involved with family therapy if the child were placed hundreds of miles away like centrally located state facilities and many of the private institutions.
...
-
Reading through all of this is all really excellent information/opinions but it has got my head swimming. It's hard to follow in different directions but I will try to keep up.
First, Whooter said that most programs were already short term / under 18 months. When I was in KHK, short term meant a month or less. 18 months was always considered long term and actually anything longer than a month or two was also. So I agree with DJ on this part.
@Ursus, yes, although I don't know exactly what is meant by "community based", I would say that PFC would probably be able to sell itself to the public as a "family oriented program" and try to pretend to be the better alternative due to its weird host-home component.
If "community based alternative" equals "therapeutic community" then that would be a terrible misuse of terminology. But I am not sure that is the case. All of this data reminds me of how KHK/PFC programs as well as many others have claimed an 80 or 90 percent success rate for years without any real data to back up those claims. And we all know that TC's are institutions regardless of what they claim to be. If "you can check out any time you like but you can never leave", then you are not free.
@Ursus, "community based" should ALWAYS equate with outpatient. In my opinion, if a kid can't leave, they are institutionalized which is what this study suggests is a negative. If a kid is out in the wilderness and can't leave or so far away from civilization that leaving is impossible then they are essentially imprisoned. The theme of the study suggests that "locking kids up" doesn't work and isn't effective. If community based alternatives include those that essentially lock kids up, how can we differentiate what is beneficient and what is not?
@ Whooter: Why is it that you seem so very gung-ho with sending kids away. I don't think this is in any way a good idea. I can honestly say that I could have used some time "away" from my family when I went into KHK, BUT I don't think it would have been healthy to have been taken out of my school district or so far away that I couldn't speak with my siblings, parents or friends. What I needed was a little space but I also needed to work things out within my family. I am absolutely certain that I did not need to be extracted or separated from my world at the time. If I had been taken out of state that would have been a huge mistake.
And an interesting bit of info about Illinois: PFC tried to start a program in Illinois but was denied by the state government because they couldn't meet the required criteria for that type of program. In other words, Illinois saw PFC as an illegitimate program and wouldn't let them do in Illinois " what they were doing" in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. Props to the state of Illinois for stopping the PFC scammers.
@DJ: Fact free dressing = classic.
-
@ Whooter: Why is it that you seem so very gung-ho with sending kids away. I don't think this is in any way a good idea. I can honestly say that I could have used some time "away" from my family when I went into KHK, BUT I don't think it would have been healthy to have been taken out of my school district or so far away that I couldn't speak with my siblings, parents or friends. What I needed was a little space but I also needed to work things out within my family. I am absolutely certain that I did not need to be extracted or separated from my world at the time. If I had been taken out of state that would have been a huge mistake.
wdtony, your recap was nicely done. Here is a response to my piece:
I don’t see myself as gung-ho at sending kids away. I just finished a post on the benefits of Illinois ”Redeploy” program where they have moved these delinquent kids back into their community for rehabilitation. I see this as being successful and a model to other states and communities.
If you read enough of my posts know I am for local services as a first step. If local services are unsuccessful I don’t think that parents should just throw in the towel and let the child continue down a destructive path,(I realize there are many who disagree with me and would tell parents to give up at this point). But I am a firm believer that when local services fail then the child needs to helped off site. This thinking is what separates my thinking from many of those on fornits and places me as a proprogram poster ... (or as the enemy lol).
Many of the TBS’s are far away but the expense includes having the family involved as well. A trip across the country can be just as difficult as a trip across town if you don’t have the proper funding or transportation, so distance is relative. If a child isn’t even attending school anymore and has broken off any constructive communication with their family then what is the difference if they are 10 feet away or 1,000 miles away? As long as they are receiving help.
Is there a risk associated with sending your child away to a TBS? Absolutely. Is there a risk at throwing your hands up and saying we reached the end of the line and decide to do nothing more for your child? Yes, for sure. Have kids been abused in Programs? Yes they have. Do kids get abused in our public schools? We all watch the evening news and know they do every day. So a parent has to make a choice for their child. Some make a more informed choice than others, but they still need to decide and 100% of the parents do decide either by their action or their inaction.
...
-
@ Whooter: Why is it that you seem so very gung-ho with sending kids away. I don't think this is in any way a good idea. I can honestly say that I could have used some time "away" from my family when I went into KHK, BUT I don't think it would have been healthy to have been taken out of my school district or so far away that I couldn't speak with my siblings, parents or friends. What I needed was a little space but I also needed to work things out within my family. I am absolutely certain that I did not need to be extracted or separated from my world at the time. If I had been taken out of state that would have been a huge mistake.
wdtony, your recap was nicely done. Here is a response to my piece:
I don’t see myself as gung-ho at sending kids away. I just finished a post on the benefits of Illinois ”Redeploy” program where they have moved these delinquent kids back into their community for rehabilitation. I see this as being successful and a model to other states and communities.
If you read enough of my posts know I am for local services as a first step. If local services are unsuccessful I don’t think that parents should just throw in the towel and let the child continue down a destructive path,(I realize there are many who disagree with me and would tell parents to give up at this point). But I am a firm believer that when local services fail then the child needs to helped off site. This thinking is what separates my thinking from many of those on fornits and places me as a proprogram poster ... (or as the enemy lol).
Many of the TBS’s are far away but the expense includes having the family involved as well. A trip across the country can be just as difficult as a trip across town if you don’t have the proper funding or transportation, so distance is relative. If a child isn’t even attending school anymore and has broken off any constructive communication with their family then what is the difference if they are 10 feet away or 1,000 miles away? As long as they are receiving help.
Is there a risk associated with sending your child away to a TBS? Absolutely. Is there a risk at throwing your hands up and saying we reached the end of the line and decide to do nothing more for your child? Yes, for sure. Have kids been abused in Programs? Yes they have. Do kids get abused in our public schools? We all watch the evening news and know they do every day. So a parent has to make a choice for their child. Some make a more informed choice than others, but they still need to decide and 100% of the parents do decide either by their action or their inaction.
...
Thanks, I try to keep up at times.
We obviously don't agree on many points and I don't want to waste any time arguing points that are moot.
I would like to bring up another point that you are probably familiar with. You speak about delinquent youth as if they are solely to blame. I don't share this view. When you speak about parents throwing in the towel, you don't mention anything about the parents seeking help for their own failure at parenting. Something that is more widespread and "normal" than teens behaving badly. I don't fault parents for their failure at properly raising their children and needing help. What I do hold them responsible for is dodging responsibility by placing the blame for all problems surrounding the kid's action on the kid. This is a myopic view of the problems that arise in the family when problems should be viewed as a family dynamic issue.
"Kick the dog...The dog bites...Blame the dog for it's behavior" seems to be the troubled teen industry mantra.
I don't see many parents sending themselves away for treatment or even accepting responsibility for family troubles. It is this denial of accountability that probably led to some of the problems with the kid in the first place. But I am being speculative. Of course every situation is different but I think the real "meat and potatoes" of the subject still stands. Family problems ought to be solved with a "family problem solution" which doesn't include the incarceration of only one family member.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
If "community based alternative" equals "therapeutic community" then that would be a terrible misuse of terminology.
Wha??? Where do you read that? I was talking about the TC underpinnings of the TTI. As far as I have been able to make out, therapeutic communities got their start in this country as group counseling or psychodrama programs in jails, thence to reformatories, thence to programs dealing with addiction treatment and behavioral issues. TC-based modalities can be used in institutions and in community-based programs.
"Community based" programs refer primarily to access and scale. That is, they are smaller, more accessible, and generally less restrictive. The Highfields Treatment Center could have been considered to be a community based program and it was an alternative to ending up at Annandale Reformatory. Highfields had a couple of dozen boys, Annandale was one of these monster blocks of concrete with hundreds of cells. Now, that was an institution.
@Ursus, "community based" should ALWAYS equate with outpatient. In my opinion, if a kid can't leave, they are institutionalized which is what this study suggests is a negative. If a kid is out in the wilderness and can't leave or so far away from civilization that leaving is impossible then they are essentially imprisoned. The theme of the study suggests that "locking kids up" doesn't work and isn't effective.
Again, I have no clue where you come up with that. There are both residential as well as nonresidential community based programs. "Outpatient" is a descriptive qualifier and not an equivalency to "community based" here.
Moreover, do I understand you correctly... in that you're saying that... being out in wilderness is equivalent to being institutionalized because, for all intents and purposes, you can't leave? This would be a most erroneous statement to make, IMHO... :D
If community based alternatives include those that essentially lock kids up, how can we differentiate what is beneficient and what is not?
By researching them and holding them accountable. Community based programs are not necessarily benign alternatives, although many of them are a saner option. They are simply not institutional programs.
-
Thanks, I try to keep up at times.
We obviously don't agree on many points and I don't want to waste any time arguing points that are moot.
I would like to bring up another point that you are probably familiar with. You speak about delinquent youth as if they are solely to blame. I don't share this view.
Delinquent youth is not my term. I don’t think I have ever used it until this thread. It’s a term used in the Study referenced by auntie Em in the OP. The study looked at very severe law offenders and therefore referred to them as Delinquents.
When you speak about parents throwing in the towel, you don't mention anything about the parents seeking help for their own failure at parenting. Something that is more widespread and "normal" than teens behaving badly. I don't fault parents for their failure at properly raising their children and needing help. What I do hold them responsible for is dodging responsibility by placing the blame for all problems surrounding the kid's action on the kid. This is a myopic view of the problems that arise in the family when problems should be viewed as a family dynamic issue.
I think we both agree here. I have always viewed problems within the family as "family issues", its not just one person or solely the child that is receiving treatment. Many of the TBS’s see family dynamic change as the solution and look to the family to work on their issues while the child is in the program. That’s why programs bring the family into the therapeutic process.
"Kick the dog...The dog bites...Blame the dog for it's behavior" seems to be the troubled teen industry mantra.
I don't see many parents sending themselves away for treatment or even accepting responsibility for family troubles. It is this denial of accountability that probably led to some of the problems with the kid in the first place.
I understand completely and this probably happens. But when a child isn’t responding to local services and has dropped out of school and heading down a bad path then it is a moot point where the blame should be placed. The child needs to get help and the root cause needs to be identified for sure and changes need to be put in place. Maybe it is the parents fault in some cases. But pulling the parents out of the work force and sending them off to a program isn’t going to result in the child going back to school and heading them down a safer path. I think if it would than that may be suggested in some cases, but we all know this wouldn’t work too well.
I have seen many families change the dynamics at home based on the discussions and findings while the child was in the program to make the home life healthier for everyone. Change occurs on every facet,not just the child that is in the program.
But I am being speculative. Of course every situation is different but I think the real "meat and potatoes" of the subject still stands. Family problems ought to be solved with a "family problem solution" which doesn't include the incarceration of only one family member.
Agreed, but if local services and family counseling are not affective and the child is still not responding or attending school, and still placing their siblings and themselves at risk then other solutions need to be looked at. If the whole family could attend for the duration of the stay I think that would result in a better outcome. I just dont see how many families could afford it.
...
-
I would like to bring up another point that you are probably familiar with. You speak about delinquent youth as if they are solely to blame. I don't share this view.
I speak from work experience. The children I worked with at Eckerd had their problems to deal with. I can honestly say some of the parents did not have a clue how to raise their child. The parents I saw, from my perspective, were not consistent with enforcing rules in the household. They let little things slide and problems became bigger. There were parents who were more interested in drugs than raising their child. A child often learns some behaviors from his or her parents. Obviously some parents pass on bad habits.
I can second that.....
Danny
-
I would like to bring up another point that you are probably familiar with. You speak about delinquent youth as if they are solely to blame. I don't share this view.
I speak from work experience. The children I worked with at Eckerd had their problems to deal with. I can honestly say some of the parents did not have a clue how to raise their child. The parents I saw, from my perspective, were not consistent with enforcing rules in the household. They let little things slide and problems became bigger. There were parents who were more interested in drugs than raising their child. A child often learns some behaviors from his or her parents. Obviously some parents pass on bad habits.
I agree 100%, Joel,just like there are kids who are suffering from emphysema and lung cancer because their parents smoke(d) around them. But just focusing on getting the parents the help and support they need to quit smoking isn’t going to solve the childs immediate problem. The main thing is to get the child the help they need and then try to look at the "root cause" and work on the child’s home life before he/she returns.
...
-
The main thing is to get the child the help they need
|
|
|
V
-
If "community based alternative" equals "therapeutic community" then that would be a terrible misuse of terminology.
Wha??? Where do you read that? I was talking about the TC underpinnings of the TTI. As far as I have been able to make out, therapeutic communities got their start in this country as group counseling or psychodrama programs in jails, thence to reformatories, thence to programs dealing with addiction treatment and behavioral issues. TC-based modalities can be used in institutions and in community-based programs.
"Community based" programs refer primarily to access and scale. That is, they are smaller, more accessible, and generally less restrictive. The Highfields Treatment Center could have been considered to be a community based program and it was an alternative to ending up at Annandale Reformatory. Highfields had a couple of dozen boys, Annandale was one of these monster blocks of concrete with hundreds of cells. Now, that was an institution.
@Ursus, "community based" should ALWAYS equate with outpatient. In my opinion, if a kid can't leave, they are institutionalized which is what this study suggests is a negative. If a kid is out in the wilderness and can't leave or so far away from civilization that leaving is impossible then they are essentially imprisoned. The theme of the study suggests that "locking kids up" doesn't work and isn't effective.
Again, I have no clue where you come up with that. There are both residential as well as nonresidential community based programs. "Outpatient" is a descriptive qualifier and not an equivalency to "community based" here.
Moreover, do I understand you correctly... in that you're saying that... being out in wilderness is equivalent to being institutionalized because, for all intents and purposes, you can't leave? This would be a most erroneous statement to make, IMHO... :D
If community based alternatives include those that essentially lock kids up, how can we differentiate what is beneficient and what is not?
By researching them and holding them accountable. Community based programs are not necessarily benign alternatives. They are simply not institutional programs.
I see, so I am misunderstanding some of the meanings here. I will read through it again.
The term (in my opinion) "community based {alternative}" seems to imply that it is an alternative to residential treatment, or being locked up. Must we have a concrete building to be classified as an institution? I was thinking institutional program meant being physically confined regardless of the means of confinement.
And yes, it is my opinion that being confined by the great outdoors is equivalent to being confined in a building when looking at the impact on the kid. Except I could have probably worded it better...as not being able to escape rather than not being able to leave.
Am I correct in asuming that you believe that community based alternatives are just a tricky term to hide restrictive TC's of the future? I could see this although it could be a mixed bag. If I remember correctly, a few programs had already claimed to be using MST and FFT that were confirmedly abusive last year.
There is no good system in place for this type of family problem. It seems to me that the peeps at CAFETY seem to have the best ideas about creating a real alternative, community based or not.
-
If prohibition creates crime, then why are there so many DUI arrests and deaths? What about all the drunken fights that lead to deaths? Or drunks who take out their rage on their family? So when crack is made available for 99 cents at Walmart, suddenly a utopian society will appear? That's not a world I want to live in.
You imply that the legalization of crack will cause an increase in usage. Are you that one guy? You know. The one who is just dying to smoke crack but won't because it's illegal? You see my point. Take a look at this Zogby poll:
http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/zogby2007.htm (http://www.csdp.org/publicservice/zogby2007.htm)
Zogby International asked that question of 1,028 likely voters. Ninety-nine out of 100 said "No." Only 0.6 percent said "Yes."1
Drug War advocates have always insisted that addiction would explode if drugs were legalized. But that argument comes apart under the weight of the evidence. While a poll can't predict actual drug use, it clearly shows that most of us avoid hard drugs because of common sense – not fear of arrest.
And that's always been the case. At the beginning of the last century when a virtual free market for drugs existed, use rates were lower than they are today.2 Drug use and addiction – along with crime, violence and corruption – only began to climb after the advent of drug prohibition in 1914.3
Also, like people who blame guns for crimes people commit, you're blaming alcohol itself for DUIs and domestic violence. The decision to become intoxicated is a choice and a person with violent or reckless impulses knows that he is increasing the likelihood of irresponsible behavior. Even under the influence, the decision to get in the car or beat on the spouse is a choice. You might think that prohibition could quickly and easily solve this problem but it can't as history shows. Making drugs or alcohol illegal simply pushes it underground and makes situations worse by creating a black market supported by violence (eg. Al Capone). People who do stupid things do stupid things because they make bad choices, and they should be punished accordingly, not given an excuse by blaming it on alcohol or some fictitious "disease".
-
I dont know about studies,stats,symposiums or any of that anylitical shit. All I know about is me.
Wound up in psyciatric ward at 12,state school for boys at 13,foster care at 14,psyc ward at 15, straight at 15,detox at 19,jail at 20,detox at 21(x2) and again at 23. Outside of the medical need for detox,none of it did a godamn thing fo me but beat the fuck out of what miniscule amount of self esteem I had left.
I cant see being locked up as positive,sorry. Some thing dont belong in a cage.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Kind da zeros right in on the problem and the solution. Yet we will go through a metal masturbation exercise trying to figure out the problem with no solution in site.
Some of you folks here are extremely educated in these fields or at least have knowledge what are some solutions for these children that can't stay in the homes do to their actions, their parents or the combination of both.
This is what I see on a continuous routine, not from a clinical or any type of treatment bases but from volunteering my time and being on 2 boards that deal with the homeless. Homeless families. Where the children have been neglected and children services is looking to place again for the upteenth time. I would love to have more options to suggest other then foster, group home, TC ....ect. Where do the children go that for all purposes have no parents that can take care of them or want to. They already feel like a animals, locking them up in these institutions because life is failing them seems most cruel.
Just a question?????
Danny
-
I can see where seamus is coming from. After what he went through I don’t think he would advocate for anyone being sent to a anyplace that had four walls. I don’t think I would either. If there were more effective community based programs available to the public then the Therapeutic Boarding Schools could be reserved exclusively for those children who were not helped by the local options. This would help reduce the number of children being unnecessarily placed.
The struggle as I see it is how do they deal with these offenders (from the op link)? There is no way that these kids can be helped on an outpatient basis. The community would never allow it. A local solution would have to include having these kids locked up 24/7 but to be close enough to family for them to be involved in family therapy. So basically it would be the same as Therapeutic boarding schools only closer to home so that families without the means to travel could participate.
This is the solution that the state of Illinois came up with and so far seems to be very effective.
...
-
A juvenile justice study relevant to incarcerating youth in programs. Long-term study with more than 1300 youth.
Auntie Em
http://www.modelsforchange.net/reform-progress/57 (http://www.modelsforchange.net/reform-progress/57)
New Data on Sanctions and Services Supports the Use of Non-Institutional Alternatives
Mar 9, 2010, LaWanda Johnson
Does placing youth who commit offenses in expensive, out-of-home placements improve their chances of not reoffending? New preliminary data from the Pathways to Desistance study reported by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice suggests that, compared with probation, the answer may be “no” –even for youth who commit serious and sometimes violent offenses.
The data found that institutional placement – which includes both correctional and residential treatment facilities - appears to have no advantage over community-based services in addressing delinquency. For youth involved in ‘low-level’ offending, institutional placement raised their level of future offending by a statistically significant amount. The study also found that most youth with serious felony offenses ceased to re-offend after their contact with the system, regardless of the intervention.
“We see a lot of variability in these [youth], which means there are a lot of places for successful interventions and a lot of places where we can promote positive changes,” said University of Pittsburgh Professor Ed Mulvey, the Principal Investigator of the study. “But as long as we continue to create policies that say once a kid commits a certain kind of crime that they are on the road to adult criminality, that’s just a bad assumption from the start.”
The Pathways to Desistance study is a multi-site collaborative project which followed 1,354 juvenile offenders for seven years after their conviction. The research is the most intense look to date at the results of sanctions and services provided to youth who have committed serious offenses. Dr. Mulvey believes it can be used to dispel the commonly held beliefs that these youth are destined for a life of serious criminal offending.
“This study underscores the importance of taking into account individual and developmental differences—that adolescents change, they grow out of these behaviors that got them into trouble, and can turn their lives around. Youths who have committed serious offenses are not all the same, and not all headed for the same life of adult crime,” said Laurie Garduque, Director of Juvenile Justice for the MacArthur Foundation’s Program on Human and Community Development.
State advocates say the research supports many of their current reform efforts, and believe the study will help juvenile justice leaders steer systems struggling with conditions in juvenile institutions and help policymakers better manage dwindling public safety budgets towards better, more effective choices.
“We have been too heavy-handed with our use of out-of-home, institutional placements for youth,” stated Sarah Bryer, director of the National Juvenile Justice Network. “These findings support discontinuing the use of these types of placements in most cases, and provide political coverage to legislators who want to solve budget problems and help kids. They can be ‘tough on crime’ by supporting community-based alternatives.”
Reducing out of home placements: saving money and reducing re-offending in Illinois
States participating in the Models for Change Initiative have prioritized “right-sizing” their juvenile justice systems with innovative practices that have led to thousands of youth being diverted from out-of-home and institutional placements. This has had significant cost-saving benefits, and has contributed to reductions in recidivism.
Since 2005, Illinois has been decreasing the number of youth committed to its state facilities by providing fiscal incentives that encourage communities to treat and rehabilitate their youth in community-based settings. Through Redeploy Illinois, a program supported by Models for Change grantees, Illinois youth who have committed serious offenses - that would have otherwise landed them in one of the state’s juvenile facilities—have been diverted to programs in their home communities where they receive help, guidance and supervision. After years of being a successful pilot program, legislation enacted in January 2010 made it a permanent program and permitted all of the state's 102 counties to apply for Redeploy Illinois services.
Tailoring interventions: assessment helps direct expensive interventions where most appropriate
In line with one of the Pathways report’s key findings – that there is no “typical” justice-involved youth -- other Models for Change states have been adopting risk/needs assessment tools to help determine the risk level and criminogenic needs of youth who offend. One such tool, the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), is being used by probation officers and court officials in Louisiana to guide out-of-home placement decisions in hopes that use of these placements are restricted to those at highest risk for serious re-offending. According to Dr. Gina Vincent, co-director of the National Youth Screening and Assessment Project, tools like the SAVRY are needed to decrease subjectivity and increase the likelihood of successful community supervision and service delivery. She is conducting a study which examines if probation officers and court official are using SAVRY to its full advantage in Louisiana and to determine if this leads to lower placement and recidivism rates. She is conducting the same study in Pennsylvania using a similar tool, the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI).
“The SAVRY and YLS/CMI are not just risk assessment tools; the tools help probation officers to make objective decisions based on the research that we know about youthful re-offending. It is the quintessential example of translating research into practice,” says Dr. Vincent. “Research indicates that human judgment is not a good indicator of who is really at-risk of serious re-offending. This tool enhances one’s ability to tell who’s most likely to reoffend, who will need the most intensive level of intervention, and which types of services are most likely to decrease one’s chances of re-offending.”
Pathways research highlights need for more innovation
Several states and jurisdictions have already begun rethinking how they handle juvenile offenders, including New York City, which recently announced plans to merge the city’s Department of Juvenile Justice into its child welfare agency in hopes of having a more therapeutic approach toward delinquency that will send fewer youth to institutional placements. Campaign for Youth Justice executive director, Liz Ryan, believes more states should follow suit.
“Why are states continuing to invest millions in a strategy that simply doesn’t work?” said Ryan. “This study underscores the reasons why these large juvenile correctional institutions should be closed. It’s an abysmal failure, it’s a poor investment and it’s a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. Furthermore, it harms kids. States can and should do better.”
Funded in part by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pathways study, which includes more than 24,000 interviews, covers a wide range of topics including psychological development, mental health, behavior, attitudes, family and community context, and relationship. The study has produced several briefs on serious adolescent offenders intended to provide policymakers and practitioners with analyses to help in the development of a more rational, effective and developmentally appropriate juvenile justice system. For more information on Pathways to Desistance, please write to the project coordinator, Carol Schubert, at schubertca@upmc.edu.