For juvenile offenders, it pays to think long-term

Communities invest in a portfolio of services. Each service has a cost and is used to meet a certain need. Think of it as any financial investment. Communities must make sure that the current service portfolio continues to meet the ever-changing requirements in their fluctuating financial environment. In recent years, with tax revenues declining, many places have had to make hard choices about where to invest money. When looking at the need to help juvenile offenders and their families, the short-term costs of prevention must be weighed against the long-term expenditure for foster care, juvenile, and adult incarceration.

How important is experience when it comes to Multisystemic Therapy?

Everyone agrees that experience matters. The more time and practice you put into something, the better your performance. But, what if it there was a situation where it was the experience of your colleagues and organization, rather than your own, that mattered more to your future performance? This was the unexpected finding in a recently published study out of Sweden, “The Swedish Implementation of Multisystemic Therapy for Adolescents: Does Treatment Experience Predict Treatment Adherence?” 

Money earmaked for Evidence-Based Practices

It was only last June that South Dakota initiated a study on how to reduce the juvenile-incarceration rate. It was costing $140,000 a year for each youth commitment. Annual tuition at the University of South Dakota is only $13,904. And the returns on the commitment investment were not good. Forty percent of the adolescents were back with the Department of Corrections (DOC) three years after they were released.

5^th time’s the charm with support from both sides of the aisle

You might think that after introducing a bill four times over the course of eight years, its sponsor would give up. Not so for Rep. Bobby Scott. The Democrat from Virginia has reintroduced the Youth Promise Act for the fifth time. After previously not reaching the House floor for a vote, the prospects for it being passed look good.

Why implementing evidence-based practices is a good choice

Let’s start by being honest—it’s hard to implement Evidence-based Practices (EBPs). However, keep in mind, it’s even harder to start an unscripted practice even with the most well-intentioned service providers, rely on the limited scope of implementation expertise in many jurisdictions or shoot in the dark hoping for outcomes that may not even target the needs in your local community.

Just for argument’s sake, consider several alternatives. Without implementing an evidence-based practice, most jurisdictions or agencies will be doing business as usual. In other words, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This is a common definition of insanity. Agencies and jurisdictions might have great ideas about helping youth that never get to implementation because there is no real plan. (Most evidence-based practices come with a plan.) They may have a few stellar “go-to” clinicians, but what happens when they go? Individual clinician’s practices often can’t be replicated. (EBPs give you options for sustaining good practices with many different practitioners over time.)

Jurisdictions probably won’t know the longer-term outcomes of the youth in their care at the individual case level and certainly not at the aggregate system-impact level. (Most evidence-based practices come with data-collection tools and useful ways to monitor outcomes for practitioners and systems.)

The Cost of Jailing Juveniles—Enough to Give You Sticker Shock 

The Justice Policy Institute recently issued a report spelling out the staggering costs of incarcerating juveniles. The institute, a nonprofit think tank dedicated to finding ways to improve the justice system and reduce the number of people imprisoned, gathered information from 46 states on what they spend on their juvenile correctional facilities. These states accounted for 93 percent of the U.S. population in 2013.

Texas Juvenile Crime Justice Reform Reduces Crime & Saves Money

In 2007, after abuses were reported in Texas juvenile facilities, the legislature put together a reform package. Part of its aim was to keep youthful offenders close to home in the hopes of reducing the size of the correctional system, the second largest in the United States. Money that would have been spent putting kids behind bars, building new jails and prisons, and all the ancillary costs of incarceration were to be funneled into community supervision.

Over the course of the years since the reforms began, juvenile incarcerations plunged from 4,305 to 1,481, a 66-percent drop. At the same time, arrests fell by 33 percent from 136,206 in 2007 to 91,873 in 2012. So, it would not appear that locking up fewer adolescents was a threat to public safety.

By closing eight juvenile correctional facilities, the state shaved its appropriations from $486 million to $290 million from 2006-2007 to 2014-2015. The savings went to local probation departments that find community supervision, services, and treatment for the offenders.

Imagine yourself 17. You’ve been convicted of armed robbery. In jail, you were caught with a shiv. In the eyes of the institution, no excuse for that. However, any viewer of the TV series “Law and Order” would know having protection might be the only way to stave off predators.

Now take this further. Imagine you are confined to an 8-by-10 foot cell, 23 hours a day without human contact. That’s what happened to Michael Kemp. “You just like, ‘Man, I feel like an animal in here. I don’t even feel real...where I’m not even a human being."

Pew Poll Finds Voters  Support Juvenile Sentencing Reform For Those Who Commit Lesser Crimes

In the 1990s, the country and its lawmakers took a “get tough on juvenile offenders” stance. Keeping the community safe by getting delinquents off the street and locking them up was the attitude. 

Judging by a 2014 Pew Charitable Trusts poll, the times, have changed.

Study Finds Hispanic Juvenile Offenders in LA County Show Marked Improvements with MST

With Hispanics and Latinos making up more than 48 percent of Los Angeles’ population, it is no surprise that those concerned with the local juvenile-justice system would turn to the Rand Corporation to evaluate how effective Multisystemic Therapy is with minority youth offenders. 

Rand’s study followed 757 juveniles who received Multisystemic Therapy and 380 offenders who did not participate in the program from 2003 to 2010 to compare the outcomes of both groups. Of the MST group, 77 percent were Hispanic as compared to 69 percent in the non-MST group.

The results show MST-treated youth having a lower recidivism rate and doing better in their dealings with the county's probation system. (See below.) MST youth had significantly lower incarceration rates than the other group (11.2 percent, compared with 20.3 percent) and significantly higher rates of completion of community service (8.5 percent versus 2.6 percent).