“There is general consensus among research-oriented psychologists and criminologists about ‘what works’ and ‘what doesn’t work’ in reducing the criminal behavior of juvenile offenders,” claim researchers from the Medical University of South Carolina, US.

What doesn’t work
Let’s start with what doesn’t work. Following an arrest, youth can go through one of three tracks: officially processed through the court system, released without referral or services, or diverted from the system to various community-based services. Juvenile court processing tends to increase criminal behavior, especially when compared with diversion to community services.

Next, all US states have mechanisms for handling juveniles in adult criminal courts, yet this is associated with higher recidivism among juveniles convicted of person and property offences when contrasted with counterparts adjudicated in juvenile court.

The evidence of the effects of probation and parole on juvenile offending is mixed. One meta-analysis found no effect, whereas another found a slight favorable effect. It might not be detrimental, then, but is widespread use of probation and parole justified given the lack of strong evidence?

As for interventions designed to shock juvenile out their delinquency through threats, bullying and intimidation by inmates – the most famous example of which is Scared Straight – they actually increase the criminal behavior of participants.

Lastly, residential facilities – boot camps, group homes, detention centers, wilderness camps – have more than failed to rehabilitate youth and improve community safety: they tend to increase criminal activity.

Researchers Scott Henggeler and Sonja Schoenwald say, “In sum, a number of juvenile justice interventions that are intended to reduce the criminal behavior of delinquents have had the unintended consequence of increasing youth antisocial behavior.

“We regard such findings as a logical and expected outcome of the interplay between well-established risk factors for offending and the nature of interventions provided.”

What does work
So what does work? Effective programs have three facets. First, effective programs address key risk factors, established through decades of correlational, longitudinal and experimental research. They focus on building more effective family functioning, disengaging youth from deviant peer networks, and enhancing school performance. Ineffective programs and policies largely ignore the impact of families and networks, or make them worse – for example, by putting antisocial youth together for extended periods of time.

Second, effective programs are rehabilitative and use behavior intervention techniques within the youth’s natural environment. They are community-based, whereas ineffective interventions operate elsewhere – residential facilities and prisons, for instance.

Third, effective programs are well-specified and include intensive support for intervention fidelity. This includes quality assurance manuals, training, and monitoring of therapist and program performance – and correction where necessary.

Three programs consistently identified as being effective in multiple real-world settings, and demonstrating these characteristics, are Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Multi-systemic Therapy (MST) and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC).

The broken link to policy
So, this is good news! We know what works and what doesn’t. Policy and practice surely follow suit, with FFT, MST and MTFC being implemented widely?

Not so. Henggeler and Schoenwald estimate that about 15,000 youth in the juvenile justice system are treated with an evidence-based treatment each year. Since 160,000 youth are placed annually, and an equal number are at high risk of placement, this means that fewer than 5% of eligible high-risk juvenile offenders in the US are treated with an evidence-based treatment.

There might be a consensus on these matters in the scientific world, but unfortunately “this knowledge has relatively little penetration into the general public, media, politicians, and policymakers.” Tomorrow’s Prevention Action story looks at why this is – and what can be done about it.

Tomorrow, Prevention Action will broadcast a follow-up to this story. Stay tuned.

Reference
Henggeler, Scott W. and Sonja K. Schoenwald. 2011. “Evidence-based interventions for juvenile offenders and juvenile justice policies that support them.” SRCD Social Policy Report 25(1): 3-20.