Study: Institutionalizing Youth in Not Effective

[AuntieEm2]

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

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 [email protected].

[Whooter]

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.




...

[psy]

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

"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..

[Whooter]

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.



...

[DannyB II]

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

"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

[rags]

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.

[wdtony]

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.

[Troll Control]

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.

[Whooter]

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.



...

[Anne Bonney]

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:

[Ursus]

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, 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.

[Troll Control]

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.

[seamus]

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.

[Ursus]

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 on fornits for that kinda stuff.

[Troll Control]

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 ; )