Assessing Interventions with Juvenile Offenders

In a recently published report titled “Social Policy Report:  Evidenced-Based Interventions for Juvenile Offenders and Juvenile Justice Policies that Support Them,” Scott Henggeler and Sonja Schoenwald discuss the various intervention methods that have been successful and others that have been unsuccessful.  The authors begin the report with startling numbers:  “more than 1,000,000 American adolescents are processed by juvenile courts annually and approximately 160,000 are sent to residential placements” (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011).  More statistics from Henggeler and Schoenwald:

Law enforcement agencies arrested 2,111,200 juveniles in 2008 (Puzzanchera, 2009). About 25% of the arrests pertained to violent (i.e., robbery, rape, aggravated assault, murder, and manslaughter) or property (i.e.,burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson) index offenses. Females comprised 30% of the arrested population, and black youth were overrepresented in juvenile arrests (Hispanic ethnicity was included in the white racial category). Of the youth eligible for processing in the juvenile justice system due to their arrest, 66% were referred to juvenile court and 10% were referred directly to criminal (adult) court.

Ineffective interventions:

·        Processing in the juvenile justice system:  juvenile court processing increases criminal behavior instead of lessening it

·        Juvenile transfer laws:  transferring a juvenile to adult court raises recidivism rates for youth offenders

·        Probation:  Evidence is mixed with regards to the effects of probation on youth offenders but there is a lack of strong empirical support

·        Shock interventions:  programs such as Scared Straight actually increasing criminal behavior of juvenile offenders

·        Residential Placement

Henggeler and Schoenwald note that the most effective treatment programs for juvenile offenders “address key risk factors (e.g. improving family functioning, decreasing association with deviant peers), are rehabilitative in nature, use behavioral interventions within the youth’s natural environment, are well specified, and include intensive support for intervention fidelity” (Henggeler & Schoenwald, 2011). 

Effective interventions:

·        Functional Family Therapy (FFT):  family and community-based treatment that has proven to be effective in decreasing antisocial behavior in youths.  In this therapy, the presenting problem for the delinquent youth is a result of a dysfunctional family system, so interventions work to establish a healthy family.  Henggeler and Schoenwald add that FFT “has become one of the most widely transported evidence-based family therapies, with 270 programs worldwide, treating more than 17,500 youth and their families” (2011). 

·        Multisystemic Therapy (MST):  another family and community-based treatment that views multiple systems as interrelated influences on youth behavior.  Interventions take place on many different levels, including school, family, individual, and community levels. 

·        Multidimensional Treatment for Foster Care (MTFC):  community-based foster care alternative to state detention and group care facilities. Many interventions incorporate cognitive behavioral therapy and encourages parental involvement

It is not surprising that there are so many ineffective interventions being used right now in the juvenile justice system because of the amount of youth that continue to engage in delinquent behavior.  Although it is not unanticipated, it is extremely frustrating and saddening that there are only a few effective interventions out there.  One of the commonalities among effective interventions that seemed to be missing in ineffective interventions was the role of the community.  Community-based interventions play a large role in juvenile justice as many youth are affected by the multiple systems surrounding them.  Additionally, the effective interventions incorporate various behavioral therapies; why are ineffective interventions not seeing the importance of this in intervening with delinquent behavior??

This was a great article to read about the current interventions being used.  It is apparent that there are major challenges when implementing evidence-based interventions in the juvenile justice system, but there are also glimmers of hope found in interventions such like MTFC, MST, and FFT.    

Henggeler, S. W. and Schoenwald, S. K. (2011).  Social policy report:  Evidence-based interventions for juvenile offenders and juvenile justice policies that support them.  Sharing Child and Youth Development Knowledge 25(1). 

The Fate of TYC Still Hangs in the Balance...

As Senate Bill 653 and House Bill 1915 work their way through the proper channels, the Executive Director of Texas Youth Commission (TYC), Cherie Townsend, has sent out a message to the TYC staff. With a month and a half left in the legislative session, Ms. Townsend points out, there is still much to be decided about the fate of TYC and the juvenile justice system in Texas. The current House and Senate versions of the budget would mean approximately $117 million worth of reductions in the next two years (Townsend, 2011). The message goes on to explain that the expectation is that the Senate version of the bill that will move forward and be considered in a Conference Committee, but that before this happens there are still differences between the bills that must be resolved. Ms. Townsend outlines some major elements of the Sunset legislation, including:

§ The establishing of a team to assist the agencies involved in the merger in coordinating their operations – the team will disband at a certain date

§ Provision for all employees of both TYC and TJPC to become employees of the new Texas Juvenile Justice Department, however some positions may be eliminated during or after the merger

§ Assembling of a new Board to provide oversight to the agency – the size of which is not yet determined. The members of the board will include local officials, juvenile probation chiefs, juvenile justice professionals, mental health professionals and members of the general public

§ An advisory council will also be set up to provide input and feedback – the members of the Council will be the executive director of the new agency, the Health and Human Services Commission executive director, local officials and juvenile probation chiefs

§ An emphasis is placed on the continuity of care within the Reentry Program – a variety of services such as counseling, mentoring, and halfway house step-down programs

§ Maintenance of the requirements for reform that were previously enacted

§ Any TYC facility that is close in a county with a population of less than 100,000 may be transferred to the county for a public interest benefit

§ A provision that the new agency will undergo a Sunset Review in 2017

Ms. Townsend also expresses concerns and issues still under consideration. Mainly, the questions center around how to merge the two agencies in the most smooth and effective manner possible. For example, “Can the two existing hotlines from each agency be consolidated?” (Townsend, 2011). The message ends by thanking the staff for the work they have done and continue to do to support TYC and the youth they serve. Ms. Townsend manages to convey a lot of information that must be troubling both for her to report and also for the staff to receive, while maintaining a calm, graceful tone throughout. As the 82^nd legislative session winds down, it will be interesting to see what the final result of SB 653 and HB 1915 will be.

Townsend, C. (2011). Message from TYC Executive Director Cherie Townsend. Texas Youth Commission. http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/news/ctownsend_04-15-2011.html

Sam's Story and Senate Bill 718

After I received my bachelor’s degree, I decided to volunteer for a year and work as an AmeriCorps member.  I was accepted to be a mentor for Communities in Schools of Central Texas, a dropout prevention program that provides social services to youth in public schools.  As a CIS AmeriCorps member, I mentor and tutor a caseload of twenty students at a middle school in North Austin that was 97% Hispanic and disadvantaged.  There were frequently not enough textbooks for the classroom and not enough teachers to accommodate the needs of the at-risk students.  As a mentor and tutor, my job was to provide supportive guidance to students in both academic and personal endeavors and to provide supplemental instruction for students with poor and unsatisfactory grades. 

One of my students—I’ll call her Sam—was a particularly challenging student for me during my first semester at the middle school.  She had a decorated disciplinary record at the middle school for various behavioral problems and was frequently suspended or sent to In-School Suspension (ISS).  After bringing marijuana to school in December '09, Sam was sent to the Alternative Learning Center (ALC) for ten days.  After Christmas break, however, Sam returned to the home campus, began staying after school with me to complete make-up work, and we developed a close mentoring relationship.  She raised her grades from F's to B’s and seldom received a disciplinary referral.  Teachers even visited CIS to let me know that Sam had drastically improved and was making a great deal of progress.  In April '10, however, everything changed.  One day during Sam’s math class, her substitute teacher began yelling at her for using her IPod.  Because the normal math teacher had no problem with students using their IPods, Sam continued listening to the music.  When Sam ignored the substitute’s request, he threw a pencil at her to get her attention.  Angrily, Sam cursed at her substitute and walked out of class.  She received a Class C misdemeanor, was sent back to the Alternative Learning Center, and has not returned to an AISD public school.  It has been a year.  After being sent to ALC for something in her (and my) eyes ridiculous, Sam decided to stop caring about school and is now involved in substance abuse and gang involvement.  Although this is an extreme example, it appears that her loss of interest in school could have been prevented had she not received a Class C misdemeanor for a curse word.  Thanks to the passing of Senate Bill 718, this hopefully won’t be an issue for future students.

Taken from Whitmire's Mar. 10 Statesman Opinion Article

On March 10, State Senator John Whitmire wrote an opinion article in the Austin American Statesman regarding Senate Bill 718 and other bills related to Class C misdemeanors.  Whitmire reported that Class C tickets, issued primarily for disruption of class, fighting where no serious injury is involved, curfew violations, and truancy, send “thousands of Texas students—some under the age of 10—to adult criminal court each school year to face fines of up to $500, community service, and court costs.”  The amount of Class C tickets issued in Texas is absolutely absurd; Whitmire said that “over a 5-year period, Class C tickets were issued to 1,200 elementary school students in Dallas ISD. Houston ISD's police department wrote 5,763 Class C misdemeanor tickets to students in 2008-09 alone.”  Although Austin numbers were not given, I would assume that they had very similar reports.

These numbers are extremely alarming, and Sam is just one of thousands.  Although Sam has not yet dropped out of school, she is definitely headed that way.  If more productive interventions were in place, Sam could still be in school being the successful student she was working hard to be during her spring semester.  Instead, she received a ticket that criminalized her behavior and made her believe that she was destined for failure. Whitmire made a great reference to Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefforson’s point:

"‘More than 80 percent of adult prison inmates are school dropouts. Charging kids with criminal offenses for low-level behavioral issues exacerbates the problem.’ This is a warning worth heeding.”

I agree wholeheartedly.  Criminalizing students’ behavior is not the answer.  More efficient interventions need to be in place to help students change negative and disruptive behaviors instead of punishing them and segregating them from the rest of their peers.  Maybe a positive behavior reinforcement program? Maybe a psychoeducational class for students with problem behaviors? Something needs to be done. 

On April 26, Senate passed SB 718, relating to disciplinary action taken against public school students on the basis of serious misbehavior.  SB 718 will help, but more has to be done.  If not, Sam won’t be the only one dropping out.

To read Whitmire's March 10 opinion article, click here

How Could Anyone Think This is a Good Idea?

In an article that ran on Wednesday March 30, Mike Ward called attention to an issue that has both Republicans and Democrats all fired up – and not in a good way! Legislative leaders were enraged when they found out that teenagers in Texas Youth Commission (TYC) facilities are paid for work they do while in lockups. Even though youth are only paid between fifty cents and two dollars an hour, which is hardly minimum wage, legislators were determined that the program should be cut from the budget and shut down. House Corrections Committee Chairman Jerry Madden went as far as to say: “It’s gone – one way or the other. How can anyone justify using taxpayer money to pay offenders for anything, whether we’ve got a tight budget or not?”. Senate Criminal Justice Committee Chairman John Whitmire echoed the sentiment, saying, “How could anyone think this is a good idea?” (Ward, 2011).

Cherie Townsend, the Youth Commission Executive Director, emailed lawmakers on Wednesday, explaining that the programs is a key component of rehabilitation services for youth – the food service work is linked to a vocational certification program that can help youth find employment once they are discharged from TYC. According to Townsend, youth use the money they earn for anything from items from the canteen to victim restitution monies or to pay child support (Ward, 2011).

One legislator, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden, voiced a somewhat differing opinion from his constituents. Ogden said that he would like more information before making a decision about the program, noting that “these kids are sitting there, waiting to get back into society, and putting them to work is good” (Ward, 2011). Ward goes on to mention that, unfortunately, this is not the first budget-related issue that has come up with respect to TYC. The organization has come under fire in recent years for irresponsible spending of different sorts. If this program does get cut, it may have more to do with general feelings toward TYC and their history – along with anxiousness about the budget and how taxpayers may react to their money being used to pay juveniles.

Ward, M. (2011). Texas youth inmates paid for work. http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/texas-youth-inmates-paid-for-work-1362477.html

A Day at the Capitol

            On April 26, 2011, I ventured to the Capitol to attend two Senate committee meetings:  one on health and human services and the other on criminal justice.  While the health and human services meeting did not have much relevance to our juvenile justice discussion, I enjoyed hearing the various senators discuss their respective bills.  The bills discussed in the meeting were SB 1289, SB 1084, SB 1424, SB 1360, SB 1454, SB 1448, SB 1790, SB 1745, and SB 856.  One of the most interesting bills discussed at the meeting was SB 1448, a bill authored by Senator Zaffirini relating to the consent for treatment for chemical dependency in a treatment facility and required training for the facility’s intake personnel.  The bill would not put additional financial costs on the treatment facilities and would require that each person employed complete eight hours of inservice training before being able to conduct an intake or assessment for a treatment facility.  If passed, the bill would take effect on September 1, 2011. Everyone seemed to be in support of the bill, but it was tabled until further public testimony could be heard.

After the meeting had ended, I walked around to soak in the experience. It was a nice change of scenery from the School of Social Work and Akins High School, the two places where I spend the majority of my time.  Although a person must have a great deal of patience in waiting for briefings and committee meetings, it was interesting to just observe the various senators and representatives (and other important people in business suits!) walk around looking official and doing important things.  It was also invigorating (and scary!) to know that Senate and House bills were being passed while I was in the building.

After exploring the Capitol, Margaret and I attended the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.  This meeting was quite different from the meeting I had attended in the morning; the location was quite smaller (moving from the Senate chamber to a small meeting room), the way in which bills were heard and discussed was different, and there were fewer people in attendance.  After being called to order and completing a roll call, the committee discussed the following bills:

• SB 533 (Author—Davis) Relating to the minimum standards for the certifications of sexual assault training programs and sexual assault nurse examiners and for certification renewal by those entities
• SB 972 (Author—Hinojosa) Relating to the taking of a defendant’s bail bond by county jailers
• SB 1529 (Author—Hinojosa) Relating to the date by which law enforcement agencies must report arrests to the Department of Public Safety
• SB 1636 (Author—Davis)  Relating to the collection, analysis, and preservation of sexual assault or DNA evidence
• SB 1658 (Author—Hinojosa)  Relating to the membership and duties of, and the investigations conducted by, the  Texas Forensic Science Commission, the administrative attachment of the Texas Forensic Science Commission to the Department of Public Safety, and the accreditation of criminal laboratories by the Department of Public Safety.

Although no juvenile justice bills were officially discussed, we did find out that Senate Bill 718 relating to disciplinary action taken against public school students on the basis of serious misbehavior was passed today.  This bill will affect juvenile justice because school district police officers will be prohibited from issuing citations, specifically Class C misdemeanors, for disrupting a classroom.  This is great news!

The day at the Capitol was a success!

Save Money and Save Youth - What a Concept!

For all the debates about budget cuts and the amount of money Texas spends per child involved in the juvenile justice system, one important piece of the equation seems to have been left out of many of the things we have been reading and writing about. “While the state’s juvenile justice system continues to enact and need further reforms, Texas also needs programs and practices designed to keep children from entering the system in the first place” (Miller, Saxton, & Smith, 2011, p.58). In terms of cost-effectiveness, and overall well-being of the state and its residents, preventative measures are a much more feasible option. This report makes the argument that we should be putting more focus on programs like Services to At-Risk Youth (STAR), Community Youth Development (CYD), and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS).

Another major question raised by the report is whether or not disciplinary action is leveled in equal amounts on different groups of children; i.e. those of different racial or ethnic backgrounds, males versus females, children of different socioeconomic backgrounds, those with special needs, or whether the age of a child is factored in as it should be.

So, if a child does make a poor choice, what is to be done? “… the best approaches prevent future delinquent behavior, promote youth success, and keep the community safe. Research indicates that providing youth with interventions in the community… is the most effective way to prevent delinquent behaviors from continuing (Miller, Saxton, & Smith, 2011, p.64). Furthermore, these types of programs are much less expensive – and have been found to be much more effective in bringing about long-term changes in the youth’s behavior. Programs that keep youth in the community – and not isolated in some remote facility – are also much more likely to prepare youth to be successful, contributing members of society when they are able to return to it (Miller, Saxton & Smith, 2011, p.68).

To these ends, “Juvenile Justice” suggests a number of things Texas can do to improve the outlook for our juvenile justice system and our state’s youth:

§ Increase funding for programs proven to promote resiliency and prevent delinquency

§ Invest in quality early childhood education for Texas children

§ Require TEA to collect data on school ticketing and arrests and to make school disciplinary data publicly available

§ Require school districts that disproportionally refer students of color or special education students to DAEP’s to implement a remediation plan

§ Remove discretion in categories of behavior that can result in expulsion and referral to juvenile court

§ Require schools to train school police officers, teachers, and staff on how to discipline students in a positive way

§ Use multidisciplinary teams as standard practice for assessment and service delivery

§ Require probation-based diversion strategies in all counties

§ Increase use of mental health and drug courts, and move all juvenile courts towards treatment-based models

§ Identify youth needs early by conducting comprehensive assessments and creating individualized treatment plans that plan for the youth’s release

§ Facilitate community and family involvement by serving youth in small, regionalized facilities, partnering with community-based organizations, and bringing families into decision-making roles

§ Provide grants to community-based organizations that assist youth in enrolling in school or training; securing employment and safe, stable housing; accessing mental health services; and resolving substance abuse problems to decrease the likelihood of reoffending

The “Juvenile Justice” report offers many reasonable, concrete suggestions for things Texas can do to help keep youth out of the juvenile justice system as well as offering some cost-effective ways to rework the system as it stands today. We can only hope that someone at the Legislature gets their hands on this report and others with similar messages and likes what he or she sees…

Miller, C., Saxton, J., and Smith, J. (2011). Juvenile Justice. A Report on the Bottom Line: Conditions for Children and the Texas of Tomorrow. pp.58-70.

Killin' Time with Carl

           While waiting for the Senate Criminal Justice Committee meeting to begin, Margaret and I engaged in a conversation with an older gentleman who said he was there to advocate for the inclusion of mental health considerations in the upcoming House and Senate bills. We explained our reasons for being there and then had a fascinating hour-long conversation with him about the recent criminal justice and juvenile justice bills in the 82^nd legislative session.  When asked if we could include the conversation in our blog, he told us that he would prefer that we not use his name because he did not want his “personal opinion to be confused with anything else.”  For the purposes of the blog, then, we will call him Carl. 

            Carl is a man in his sixties who has done extensive professional and volunteer work in the criminal justice and mental health fields in Texas.  Originally from Dallas, he moved to Austin more than ten years ago and is a dedicated advocate for mental health and criminal justice programs in the area.  Because of our interest in HB 1915 and his obvious expertise in criminal justice, I asked for his opinion on the bill.  Surprisingly, Carl told us that he was actually a long-time “substance abuse volunteer” at the TYC institution in Giddings, TX.  He shared many anecdotes about his volunteer time there and said then told us that he was in favor of the merger between TYC and TJPC.  Carl said, “There is no way that anyone is going to be able to argue that spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on TYC institutions that aren’t even effective is worth it.”  He said that there are facilities in Texas that are doing a good job of rehabilitating their committed population, but there are also facilities that are using corporal punishment and doing more harm than rehabilitation.  He described the institutions he had visited; and with the exception of Giddings, every institution sounded depressing and sad.  “Once you walk through those gates, everything turns gloomy,” he added.  Carl said it would be beneficial for each TYC facility to complete a needs assessment and calculate the individual costs for each facility to run efficiently.  “I doubt this will happen, though, so HB 1915 is the next best thing,” Carl said with a sigh.

            Ideally, the closure of some inefficient TYC institutions would allow for more funds to be spent on rehabilitation and psycho-educational programs for the youth that stay in the institutions.  Instead of focusing on punishment, the institutions could provide psychoeducational classes, counseling, chemical dependency treatment, and other methods proven to be effective in working with delinquent youth.  Because of Carl’s positive substance abuse volunteer experience at Giddings, he added that Giddings would be an ideal facility to pilot a new TYC institution that holds rehabilitation and treatment just as highly as punishment.

            Carl definitely swayed me.  After hearing some of his personal stories about the mistreatment of youth in TYC institutions, I am both alarmed and concerned for the future of juvenile justice in Texas.  I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation with Carl and hope to have many more interesting conversations about the future of juvenile justice in Texas.

McLennan County State Juvenile Correctional Facility, Unit 1, Mart, TX

Giddings State School, Giddings, TX