https://hemerotecadigital.uanl.mx/files/original/337/14327/PERSPECTIVAS_SOCIALES._2006._Vol._8._No._1._0002016262.ocr.pdf db66e4eecf5172d5b93ca4677e3036fd PDF Text Text ��Perspectivas Sociales - Social Perspectives Vol. 8, no. 1, primavcra/spring 2006 Publicación semestral de/ Biannual publication of lhe: Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, México (lng. José Antonio González Treviño, Rector; MTS. Grac1ela Jaime Rodriguez, Directora de la Facultad de Trabajo Social; Dr.Jorge Noel Valero Gil, Director de la Facultad de Economía); University ofTexas al Austin, E.E.U.U. (Dr. Larry R. Faulk:ner, Presiden!; Dr. Barbara W. Wbite, Dean School ofSocial Work); University ofTexas at Arlington, E.E.U.U. (Prof. James D. Spaniolo, President; Dr. Santos H. Hernández, Dean Scbool of Social Work), Our Lady of thc Lake University (Tessa Martínez Pollack, Presiden!; Dencece Ferrales. Dean Worden Scbool ofSocial Servicc); University ofTennessce (Dr. Jobn Petersen, Presidcnt; Dr. Karen Sowers, Dean College of Social Work); Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango (C.P. Rubén Calderón Luján, Rector; Lic. Ana María Al vare✓. del Castillo González, Directora de la Facultad de Trabajo Social) Editores /Editors México - UANL: Veronika Sieglin (coord.) y María Elena Ramos Tovar México U. Juárez de Durango: María Guadalupe Salas Medina Estados Unidos/USA - Austin: Lori Holleran y Dennis Poole Estados Unidos/USA - San Antonio Cora Le-Doux Comité Editorial / Editorial Board Claudia Campillo Toledano (UANL, México), Guillermina Garza Treviño (UANL, México), Dennis T. llaynes (UT Austin, E.E.U.U.), Lori Holleran (UT Austin, E.E.U.U.), Cora Le-Doux (Our Lady ofthe Lake University), Raúl Eduardo López Estrada (UANL, México), Maria Elena Ramos Tovar (UANL, México), Manuel Ribeiro Fcrreira (UANL, México), Veronika Sieglin (UANL, México), José Guillermo Zúñiga (UANL, México) Comité Científico/ Scientific Committee Socorro Arzaluz (El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, México), April Brayfield (Tulane University), Knsta Brumley (ITESM), Nilsa Burgos (Universidad de Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico), Miguel Ferguson (UT Austm), Victor García Toro (Universidad de Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico), Nirrnal Goswami, (Texas A&M UniversityKingsville), Dagmar Guardiola (Universidad de Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico). Emilio Hemández Gómez (Uni\crsidad Autónoma de Baja California, México), María de la Luz Javiedes Romero (UNAM, México), Christma Krause (Universidad de Gottingen, Alemania), Gisela Landázurri Benítez (UAM, México), María Cristina Maldonado (Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia), Freddy Marínez Navarro (ITESM, México), Amparo Micolta León (Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia), Benito Narváez Tijerina (UANL, México), Gabriela de L. Pedroza Villarreal (ITESM, México), Cecilia Quaas Femández (Universidad de Valparaíso, Chile), María lmelda Ramírez (Universidad Nacional de Colombia), Alba Nubia Rodríguez Pizaro (Unl\ersidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia) Flavio Sacco dos Anjos, (Universidad Federal de Pelotas, Brasil), Verónica VázquezGarcía (Colegio de Posgraduados, México), María Zebadúa (UANL, México) Editora del actual número/Editor of tbis number Lori Holleran Comité de redacción Gustavo García Rojas (UANL, México) Coordinadora de difusión y distribución María Elena Ramos Tovar (UANL, México): distribución comercial y académica Claudia Campillo Toledano (UANL, México): distribución académica Publicación semestral/semestral publication: correo clectrónico/email: vcronikasieglin@yahoo.de; vsicglin@hotmail.com; loríkay@.mail.utexas.edu; mramor@facts.uanl.mx www.fts.uanl.mx\revista.html ISSN: 1405-1133 Impreso en /Printed in Monterrey, Nuevo León, México Otoño de 2005 / fall 2005 Tiraje /issue: 1500 Los artículos publicados son responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores / The articles publisbed in Ibis ¡oumal are solely the responsability oftbe autbors FONDO UNIVERSITARIO �Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Pt!rSpectives pnmavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. 1/ INDICE DE CONTENIDO - TABLE OF CONTENTS Presentación - Presentatioo 5 ENSAYOS - ESSAYS Substance Abuse Treatment for Juvenile Delinquents: Prornising and Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. David W Springer 23 Consulting with the Experts: Utilizing Adolescent Input in Substance Use Prevention Efforts Lori Koenigsberg Steiker 53 Toe Role of the Federal Govemment in Juvenile Justice Michael J Churgin 67 INNOVACIONES DE LA PRÁCTICA - PRACTICE INNOVATIONS Mentally JII Offenders in thc Juvenile Justice Systern And the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program John Posey 79 ARTÍCULOS DE INVESTIGACIÓN - RESEARCH ARTICLES Predictors of violent juvenile behavior: Examining the impact of victimization and exposure to violence Li/iane C Windsor and Sanna J. Thompson J03 Accelerated, Differentiated Instruction on the Reading Achievement ofincarcerated Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a Time of Skepticism Forres/ A. Novy Eric Fredlund 131 �Revista Perspeclivas Sociales / Social Perspectfres primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. I / Pág. J-20 CALL FOR PAPERS - CONVOCATORIA A SOMETER ARTÍCULOS GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIB~TORS - NORMAS DE PRESENTACIÓ DE ARTICULOS 5 Presentación/Presentation Johannes Doll, Lori Holleran Steiker, Forrest Novy, and David W. Springer This specia/ edition is dedicated to the work and memory of Robert Dawson, SJD, an expert in criminal law and procedure, with a specia/ focus on issues ofjuveni/e justice and author of Texas Juveni/e Law {Texas Juveni/e Probation Commission, 5th ed, 2000) and The Juveni/e Justice Process (Foundation, 4th ed, 2000). It ali began with a conversation. An American and a Brazilian shared a concem for young people, youth with so many chalJenges and risks, and yet so many strengths and such resilience. Preoccupation with young children and adolescents is not new, and this century has seen significantly increasing concems. According to Hornstein, (1987, 507ft), developed societies today have seen a breakdown in the successful transition of youth to adulthood. He attributes this to a variety of factors, including: • Toe loss of confidence in the prospect of future employment guaranteeing a life with dignity; • Exaggerated youth values, principally with respect to the body, possessions, and aesthetics; • Changes in today's societal values; • The strengthening of subcultures with tendencies to be closed to outside groups. Within this problematic context, an upsurge in violence involving youth and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24, be they victims or perpetrators, has been observed. Intemational comparisons place Brazil in fourth place with regard to the number of general popuJation homicides and in 5th place with respect to juveniles (Waiselfisz, 2004). Furtber review of these data show a homicide rate among the general population as being relatively stable since 1980, yet the rate involving ISSN 1405-1133 O 2006 Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, University ofTexas of Austin, University ofTexas of Arlington, Our Lady oflhe Lake University, University ofTennessee, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Dmango. �Revista PeTYJ>OCtivas Sociales / Social p 6 juveniles has almost doubled in the last 20 years ( 1980: 30 homicides per l00 thousand; 2000: 54.5 homicides per 100 thousands, Waiselfisz, 2004). One encounters a similar pattem involving juveniles in the US. Furthermore, in relationship to other, large geo-regions, Latin America and the US are the only regions where the rates of juvenile homicides are significantly greater than those observed in the general population (Waiselfisz, 2004). The increase in juvenile-related violence, involving youth as victim as well as perpetrator, calls attention to issues of youth in conflict with societal norms. Yet, youth crimes or non-conforming behaviors do not necessarily suggest intrinsic antisocial behavior primarily given that studies in many countries have shown the number of crimes committed by juveniles tend to decrease as transition to adult life (Montada, 1995). Tbus, for youth groups exhibiting conflicts with established societal norms, a much more rehabilitative, educational approach rather than punitive is needed. The Brazilian legislature has also opted for this line of thinking, exempli.fied by the passage of the Child and Adolescent Act (Estatuto da Crianr;a e do Adolescente [ECA]) in 1990, which emphasizes a protective posture in relation to adolescents who commit crimes. Despite the progress in the Brazilian legislative arena, recent reports indicate that serious problems continue to be encountered in the transformation of a protective doctrine, expressed by the Child and Adolescent Act, in educational interventions for juvenile offenders (Mapeamento Nacional da Situar;iio do Atendimento dos Adolescentes em Cumprimento de Medidas Sócioeducativas, 2002). Among the most obvious findings reported include: • Lack of reliable and complete data relative to juvenile crimes; • Poor communication among responsible service providers working withjuvenile offenders (police, district attomeys,judges, program administrators, and non-governmental agencies offering socio-educational services); • Lack of a stable, socio-educational services system that address the needs of juvenile offenders; • Lack of research studies on interventions for this specific group of adolescents; . erspec11ves primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Nunr I / / Presentoc,ón / Presenta/ion 7 • In spite of a variety of existin . . .. lack ofsystematic evaluation ;• ~s~lated m1tiatives, there exists a efforts. o e s to assess the efficacy of these . Challenges exist not only in relation to . . . tions and the current lack f soc10-educational mterven..; o resources for youth d. d . uonal care, but also with . . a ~u icated to correcrespect to prov1dmg youth to general education Profi . . successful access d . . ess10na1s contmue to e ucatrng an increasingly d . .fi d encounter difficulty ~avioral problems. Tbese ~~~st _e _student population ex.hibiting bem whicb education is deliverede: m:~cate the ~eed to rethink the way teaching (transfer of knowled o d is ~opulation, from objectives of social behavior), effective ~~a~on th~t reinforc~s appropriate verse population in the most i 1 . mst~ct1on (working with a difonnation of teachers capabl n; us1v~ settmgs), and principally in the e o meetmg new challenges. mef:~:s With this m · mm · d, tt · was ev1dent . that d · epth, systematic investigation b th . a nee . ex1sts for more invenile offenders such as teach y ~se rnvested rn the success of ju. d , ers social workers . JU ges- a multidisciplinary ffi ' . . . • correctional officers, • e ort mvolvmg dtffi t d. . serv1ce provides Anoth . eren 1sc1plines and formed analysis ~nd di er ~portant aspect is the need for open in. scuss10ns of the ex · • mg similar challenges. penences of others confrontd Towards these outcomes w·th B .. col!aborative effort began to' ta~e sh raz1l~an US gra~t funding, a Uruversity ofTexas at A t· . _ape mvolvmg faculttes from the us m, m particul th s h whose research initiatives in . ar e c ool of Social Work "at-risk" youth were num preventton and rehabilitation efforts with' erous and th u · · Grande do Su] (UFRGS) • B ' . e m~erSidade Federal de Rio .. m raz1l. Also commg b d group of practit1oners ¡0 the · •¡ . . on oar early were a Together these professional;~:::oe Je~s~ce arena from b~th countries. a Sunday aftemoon Foil . p response toan idea born on . . owmg numerous meef . . was fi nahzed and submitted to th M . . mgs, a JOIDt proposal · e m1stry of Ed t· • questmg support for two s . . uca ton m Brazil rein each country The meet?'1°pos1a on Juverule Justice, one to be held ªº? fully, expand o~ the curre~~~:;:r~r:~pose~ ~o illuminate and, hopeand policy-making involving theJ· ·¡ e _a rt rn ~eatment, education, uvem e m confhct with the law. �8 / Revista Perspecth-as Sociales I Social Penpect11-es pnnur.ualspnng 1006. Vo/.8, Num / / Presentación I Presentation .nfi rm research and to assist in This effort was designed to b~tter r' o ffective ways to address . . d implementat1on o more e . fr the ident1fication an. . . . While much is to be garned oro a American and Braz1han real'.ttes. . . rtant to know and leam from h findings 1t too 1s unpo -r thi sharing of researc . ' . .th incarcerated youth. i o s current socio-educat10nal _practtceds wh11 s were invited to participate .. cademtcs an se o ar . ·te end practtttoners, a .' . and expertise about Juveru to share and exchange the1r expenence justice, youth and delinquency. Tbere were four project objectives: l m to capture essential informaElaborate an integrated da~ sysftite d data of which will be · • t the J. uverule o en ers, . t tion relat1ve o . . . G d do Sul database relatmg o incorporated in the ex1stmg Rio ran e children and youlb; . t effective educational and Id tt. fy and systemattze curren , 2. en . •h th ffenders· rebabilitative practtces w1~ you . o hos: goals are to facilitate . . pedagogic practtces w 3. Study pro~smg . h diverse behavior profiles in tbe genera1 tbe educatton of youth w1t 4. education system_; and . odels of evaluation to assess Elaborate format1ve a~d sul :ucational and rebabilitative tbe effectiveness of imp eme interventions used with youtb o:ffenders. mm:::~e . of ·uvenile issues, coupled witb We believe that the complex1ty J b d proposals tbat address d lop lines of researc an ffi d the urgent nee to eve . . t ention require a team e ort youth, delinquency, and effecttve m erv ' cbaracterized by: • A multidisciplinary focus; d tice with juveniles, tbeir • Experience in tbe ~esearc~ ~ prac educatioo, aod publtc se~unty, ch questions and underlying, • An understanding of pertment resear system-related correlates; ·t ations in different cultural • An ability to analyze complex s1 u contexts; . . . . d.alogue . • A capacity for multtd1sc1plinary 1 9 The Brazilian Team, brought together by the Federal University of Río Grande Do Sul (UFRGS) consisted of the following professionals: Carmen Craidy, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, College of Education), Merion Campos Bordas, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, previously Dean, College of Education), Malvina Dornelles, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, Coordinator, College of Education Graduate Program), Johannes Doll, Ph.D. (Associate Professor, previously Vice-Dean, College of Education), José Vicente Tavares Dos Santos, PhD. (Director, Institute ofPhilosophy and Human Science), Claudia Lima Marques, JD (Associate Professor, Coordinator, College of Law Graduate Program), and Oiga Falceto, MD (Psychiatrist). They also included doctoral students. Legal aspects of the project were addressed by Child and Juvenile Judges Eugenio Couto Terra, Leoberto Narciso Brancher, and Beatriz Gershenson Aguinsky as well as Simone Mariano da Rocha from the Office of the Porto Alegre's District Attomey for Children and Adolescents. The US Team consisted of the following professors at the University ofTexas (UT) atAustin: Nicbolas Shumway, Ph.D., Director, Institute of Latín American Studies; Lori Holleran, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Social Work, UT); Sanna Thompson, Pb.D. (Associate Research Professor, Scbool ofSocial Work, UT); David Springer, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Social Work, UT); Michael Lauderdale, Ph.D. (Professor of Social Work, UT); Michael Churgin, J.D. (Professor in Law, UT); and Robert Dawson, J.D. (Professor in Law, UT). The US team also included researcher/doctoral student Liliane Cambraia Windsor, LMSW, and Ph.D. candidate in the UT School of Social Work. Tbe unique part of this collaboration was, not only tbe interdisciplinary nature of the teams, but also the link between researchers, academicians, and practitioners. The project was actually initiated by Forrest Novy, Ph.D., Director of Special Education, Rehabilitation Services, at the Texas Youth Comrnission (TYC), the agency that serves incarcerated youth in the state ofTexas. His colleagues from the Texas Youth Commission who also participated in the project included: Dwight Harris, Executive Director, Linda Selness Reyes. Ph.D. Deputy Executive Director Corrine Alvarez- Sanders, Ph.D., Assistant Deputy Executive Direc;or of Rehabilitation Services, Deborab Nance, Ph.D.,Superintendent of Education, Rebabilitation Services, TYC, Neil Nichols, JD, General Counsel, Patricia Logtennan, MSW, Director of Treatment and Case Man- �1O / Presentaci6n / Presenta/ion h Director and Eric Fredlund, agement Chuck Jeffords, Ph.D., ~esearlc . olved the Texas Juvenile ' h An ¡ t Toe proJect a so mv h Ph.D. Researc a ys · . MS Director of Researc , Prob;tion Com.mission's Nancy ~g~na, ., MS Research Spec1ahst. and John Posey, . . obJect1ves . . w ere established for the period of the Three overarchmg project. . . 1 excellence in research and intemational • To reach mtemattona publications; I' bment of doctoral students and • 'T'o open space for the accomp is 1 ' · l level· professionals at an i~temah?ºª. re ~rd to youth-at-risk through • To contribute to bra10storrmng m g the following action~: d data system to capture essential 0 Elaborate an mt~grate . .1 offenders, data ofwhich information relattve to _the Juve~ ~ Rio Grande do Sul will be incorporated lll the ex1s g . database relating to c~ildren an~ y::!;ive educational and d . f with youth offen ers, rehabilitativ~ ~rae ices ·e ractices whose goals are to º Study prom1s10g p~agogtf p th with diverse behavior facilitate the educatton o ~ou . d . l educatton system, an profiles m the genera t' models of evaluation 0 ti ative and summa tve d Elaborate orm . f irn lemented educational an to assess the ~ffecttve~ess o edpwith youth offenders. rehabilitative mterventtons us º ldentify and systemat1ze curren , e . gthen the respective institutions Ali in all, the proJect w?uldh_stren at undergraduate and graduate . . efforts m t ts area, ed professiona1trammg h and new or elaborat course levels through project offshoots, researc , curricula. th first symposiurn was held. Scholars On November 14-17, 2005, e . G d do Sul carne together at Texas and Rio ran e . . fr and practitioners om . t d'1scuss youth and juverule JUS. f Texas at Austlll o . d the Univers1ty o . . uenc rehabilitation, educatto~, an tice with an emphas1s on delmq d y ti rum in which to exam10e tbe ' . · m presente a O . f prevent1_on. The sympos~u . ed outh and youth at risk. It t~ ~art 0 intemattonal area of a_dJud1cat y U S nd Brazilian univers1ttes and an ongoing collaborat10n between . . a Revista Perspec1iras Sociales/ Social P=pectives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8, Num. J/ 11 comrnunity agencies. Presentations included an overview of the juvenile justice systems in the U.S. and Brazil and discussed education and prevention efforts, legal policy implications, and rehabilitation programs in the two countries. As these vary greatly within each country, the focus was on the states of Texas and Río Grande do Sul. A second symposium was held August 2-5, 2006 in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande Do Su1. This meeting , similar to the first symposium held in Austin, focused on Brazilian laws, policies, and programs for adjudicated youth. Both the Brazilian and US conferences were sponsored and financiaUy supported by Toe University of Texas at Austin, School of Social Work and CAPES of the Brazilian Ministry of Education. ' This edition ofPerspectivas Sociales /Social Perspectives consists of six papers presented by American scholars at the first Symposium held in the United States. The next edition of this special topic will consist of the papers presented by our Brazilian colleagues. A discussion of the history and current review of federal laws, procedures and policies of the U.S. government with regard to youth is presented in, "The Role of the Federal Government in Juvenile Justice" written by Michael Churgin, ID (UT Law School). Two papers with perspectives from service agency settings are included: John Posey, Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, presents "Mentally Ill Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System & the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program," which provides background information about mentally ill offenders in the juvenilejustice system, and the prograrn developed by Texas in response to this gap entitled the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program (SNDP); Forrest Novy, Ph.D and Eric Fredlu.nd, Ph.D, at the Texas Youth Commission, one of America's largest state juvenile correctional systems, have subrnitted, "Accelerated, Ditferentiated Instruction on the Reading Achievement of Incarcerated Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a Time of Skepticism." This paper discusses clinical experiences and findings with differentiated, accelerated learning practices with underachieving incarcerated adolescents with disabilities. Liliane Cambraia-Windsor, doctoral student and Sanna Thompson, Ph.D, as- · sociate professor at the UT School of Social Work, present "Predictors of violent juvenile behavior: Examining the impact of victimization �lZ / Presentación / Presenta/ion Revista Perspecllvas Sociales I Social Perspecti<-es primavera/spring 1006. Vo/.8, Num. / / . " which explores the impact of youth, farru·1y, and exposure to vt0lence . ·te violent behavior through and community-level pred~ct~rs odanJtauvesruwell as in-depth interviews. a . f · ting quantttattve analyses o exis Utif . Adolescent Input m Substance "Consulting :'ith the E~~~rts: ri~::g conceptual paper by Lori ~Use Preventton Efforts ,s ª. P tiy t the UT School of Social .k Pb D assoc,ate pro essor a Holleran Ste1 er, . . , . . . reality-based, relevant drug and alWork, about creatmg and utt_hzmg_ h th From a substance abuse . ograrnrrung w1t you . . cobol prevention pr . . Ph O Professor and Associate treatment perspective, David S~nnger, . ' ts "Substance Abuse S h00l 0 f Social Work, presen , Dean of the UT cnil Delinquents: . p romJ•sm·g and Not-So-Promising J Treatment for uve e . . th nt literature and research . u s " hich reviews e curre . Practices m the · · w . . d they all have powerful unon this issue. While ~he topics ~e vande m · , tervention with adjudicated . . ti ntton educatton, an d phcattons or preve . , f th Editors tbat the papers presente and at-risk yout~. It i~ ~he h?;o:ial ~erspective/Perspectivas Sociales here in this special edihon ~ . d dd meaningfully to the body of . d . stice to the project obJectives an a o JU . . • th and delmquency. knowledge about juvemle Justtce, you , Introdu~ao . , dedicado ao traba/ho e a memória de Robert Este número especial e . . d' ·10 penal e processual, com um ec,a!Lsta em 1re1 ,, SJD P Dawson, , u"! es . . . ·¡ autor de "Texas Juveni/e Law foco especial na area da1ustu;a1m:e~l' 5ª d 2000) e "The Juvenile (Texas Juvenile Probation Comm1sswn, e ., Justice Process" (Foundation, 4ª ed., 2000). ou com urna conversa. U m americano e um brasileiro . d Tu o com~ - s a res eito de jovens de hoJe, urna compartilharam suas preocupa9oe. p s também com tanta for9a tant desafios e nscos, ma juventude com os . A preocupar~o com a juventude ·d d de sobrev1venc1a. ,,, XX e tanta capaci a e e pecífico durante o seculo . , nhou um elltoque es nao e nova, mas ?ª(1987 507fl) nas sociedades desenvolvidas aconSegundo Ho~tem , b a n~ passagem dos adolescentes para o teceu nesta epoca urna quev~os fatores entre estes: mundo adulto, causada por . n.fi , ,el em rela91io a urna futura • erda de urna perspectiva co a~ . . ~rofissao, que garanta condi96es dignas de vida, A • 13 • exagerada valoriza9ao da juventude, principalmente do corpo e da estética jovem; • mudans;as no sistema de valores das sociedades; • fortalecimento de sub-culturas com tendencia de fechamento contra outros grupos. Neste contexto problemático, observa-se nos últimos anos um aumento do fenómeno da violencia, ao qua! sao expostos, de fonna especial, os jovens da faixa etária entre 15 e 24 anos, seja como vítima, seja como agente desta violencia. Em compara96es intemacionais, o Brasil ocupa o 4° lugar nas taxas de homicídio no que se refere a populas;ao em geral, e o 5° lugar na popula9ao jovem (Waiselfisz 2004). Um outro dado preocupante neste contexto é o fato de que o número de homicídios entre a populas;ao em geral ficou relativamente estável desde 1980, enquanto, no grupo dos jovens, este número quase duplicou nos últimos 20 anos ( 1980: 30 homicídios para cada 100 mil; 2002: 54,5 homicídios para cada 100 mil; Waiselfisz, 2004). O problema de urna maior vitimiza9ao da juventude encontra-se também nos Estados Unidos; em relas:ao aos outros grandes grupos georegionais, América Latina e do Norte sao as únicas regioes nas quais os homicídios juvenis superam significativamente as taxas observadas na populas;ao em geral (Waiselfisz, 2004). O aumento do fenómeno da violencia, mesmo os jovens sendo mais vítimas do que agentes da violencia, chama a atens;ao para o grupo de jovens que entram em conflito com as regras da sociedade. O fato de cometer atos infracionais na juventude ou demonstrar comportamento divergente nao significa necessariamente que se trate de urna pessoa com comportamentos antisociais, até porque estudos em muitos países demonstrarn um aumento da delinqüencia entre jovens, que tende a diminuir com a entrada na fase da vida adulta (Montada, 1995). Em funs:ao disso, o grupo dos jovens que entram em conflito com as normas da sociedade, precisam muito mais um tratameoto educacional do que punitivo. Este pensamento foi acolhido também pela legislas:ao brasileira e levou em 1990 ao Estatuto da Crian9a e do Adolescente (ECA), que possui um caráter protetivo e assume urna postura educativa em rela91io aos adolescentes atores de ay0es infracionais. �14 1 ' Revista Perspectil'Os Socia/es ¡ Social Pe . . rspe<:trves pnmaveralspring 2006. Vol.8. Num I / / Presentación / Presenta/ion Apesar dos progressos no Brasil ero rela9ao ao campo da legislas;ao e dos direitos, existem ainda sérios problemas na transformas;ao da doutrina da protes;ao integral, expressa no ECA, em as;oes educativas junto aos jovens autores de atos infracionários, como levantamentos recentes demonstram (Mapeamento Nacional da Situas;ao do Atendimento dos Adolescentes em Cumprimento de Medidas Sócioeducativas, 2002). Entre estes destacam-se os seguintes: • falta de dados confiáveis e disponíveis relativos ao universo de infras;oes de jovens; • falta de comunicas;ao entre os responsáveis pelos jovens autores de atos infracionais (sistema de justi9a: delegacia, promotoria, juizado, poder executivo, ONGs que oferecem medidas sócio-educativas); • falta de urna rede estável de medidas sócio-educativas para jovens infratores; • falta de estudos sobre formas educacionais adequadas para este grupo específico de jovens; • apesar da existencia de várias iniciativas isoladas, faltarn modelos de acompanhamento e de avalia9ao destas medidas. Mas os desafios atuais nao existem somente em relas;ao as medidas sócio-educativas e a situas;ao das instituis;oes de intemas;ao, outra tarefa importante é a própria educa9ao escolar regular, pois também oeste campo, os pro:fissionais encontram cada vez maior di:ficuldade, especialmente em relas;ao a jovens com comportamentos divergentes do esperado pelos professores e pela sociedade. Este fato remete a necessidade de repensar elementos fundamentais do ensino escolar, desde os objetivos (transmissao de conhecimento - educac;ao para um comportamento social), passando pelas formas de trabalho didáticometodológico (trabalbando com a diferens;a ero urna perspectiva de inclusao) e principalmente a própria formac;ao dos professores para que estes consigam lidar com os desafios novos de jovens com comportamentos divergentes. Tendo em vista esta situas;ao, ficava evidente a necessidade de estudos aprofundados que consigam urna análise abrangente e profunda e que envolvam os diferentes atores que lidarn com jovens autores de atos infracionários, como pedagogos, assistentes sociais, policiais, juiz- 15 es, levando a necessidade de uro estudo . . . . ticipas;ao das diferentes cie . d _multtdisc1phnar com real parnetas e os diferentes gru fi . . pos pro ss1ona1s. outro aspecto importante e' ª a bertura para conh 1· . experiencias realizadas e tr I ecer, ana isar e discutir desafios similares. m ou os ugares do mundo que lidam com Frente a estas questoes e com a a. d Brasileiras e Ame · ' ~u ª de agencias de fomento ncanas, comes;ou a se d 1 junto de Faculdades da Univers·d d esenvo ver _um esforc;o conuldade de Servis;o Social t la e de :exas, e_ spec1almente da Fac. , a qua se dedica em m · . pesquisa ao estudo dos diferentes as e umeros proJetos de vens;ao e reabilitas;ao de jovens em ~tucto! do campo complexo da preFederal do Río Grande do Sul (UF;~Sa)s;ao d~ risco, e _da Uni~~rsidade desde o início uro . . ' Brasil. Tambero parttc1param, juvenil dos d~is pare~.º:~ p:i:-:s10na1s qualific_a~os da área da justis;a a idéia inicial, nascida numa tar~c~~, d~te~ parttc1~antes re~p?nderam contros, foi concluída urna mm~o. Apos urna sene de encas;ao no Brasil atrave' d prop~sta_e submettda ao Ministério de Edu. , s o seu orgao CAPES (C d fe19oamento do Pessoal de Ensino Su e . . o_or enas;ao do Aperdois Simpósios sobre Justic;a J ·¡ p nor), sohc1tando recursos para encontros seria de apresentar :vem , u~ er cada país. O objetivo deste em tratamento ed '.s~ poss1ve , ampliar o "state of the art" em conflito co~ a ~;~s:ao e pohhcas públicas a respeito de juventude A • Este esfors;o visava urna maior divul . para identificar e implementar fo g~9ao d~ pesqmsas e um apoio realidades americanas e b ·¡ . rmas ma1s efettvas nos contextos das ras, etras Enquant d um compartilhamento de resultad~s de o _se po : ganhar muito com o quanto é possível de aprender das ~~squ1s~s,_ nao se pode esquecer vens privados de liberdade Pa . praticas _soc1?-educativas com joda justi9a juvenil, pesquisadore:el::~~r:!:s:n;~a:antes no ~ampo para compartilhar e trocar suas ex oram convidados bre justi~a juvenil, juventude e atopsem_nfrenc~as ~ ~eus conhecimentos soac1onanos. • A • Foram acertados quatro objetivos principais: l. Elabora9ao de um sistema int d0 essenciais relativos ao unive~~~ e ! le~antame~to de dados ay0es de Jovens a ser �16 / Presentación I Presenta/Ion implantado no sistema de Justi1ya da lnfancia e da Juventude do Estado do Rio Grande do Su!. 2. Registro e sistematiza,;:ao das fonnas de interven,;:ao educacional e reabilitativa de jovens infratores. 3. Estudo de propostas pedagógicas que visam integrar os jovens com comportamentos divergentes no sistema regular de ensino. 4. Elaboras;ao de modelos de avalia,;:ao formativa (acompanhando o processo) e somativa (baseado nos resultados) de intervern;:oes educacionais e reabilitativas referentes a jovens autores de atos infracionais. A complexidade da questao da juventude, bem como a urgente necessidade de desenvolver pesquisas, que permitam elaborar propostas concretas neste campo, exige urna equipe que atenda as seguintes características: • caráter multidisciplinar; • experiencia em estudos, pesquisas e as;oes na área da juventude, da educas;ao e da segurans;a pública; • compreensao do problema de pesquisa nas suas rela,;:oes sistemicas; • capacidade de análise de situa,;:oes complexas em diferentes contextos culturais; • capacidade para um diálogo interdisciplinar. O grupo brasileiro da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul incluiu os seguintes professores: Carmem Craidy (doutora, professora titular, Faculdade de Educa,;:ao), Merion Campos Bordas (do utora, professora titular, Diretora da Faculdade de Educa,;:ao), Malvina Domelles (doutora, professora titular, Coordenador o Programa de Pós-Graduas;ao em Educa,;:ao), Johannes Doll (doutor, professor adjunto, ViceDiretor da Faculdade de Educa,;:ao), José Vicente Tavares dos Santos (doutor, professor titular, Diretor da Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas), Claudia Lima Marques (doutora, professora titular, Coordenadora do Programa de Pós-Gradua9ao em Direito) e Oiga Falceto (doutora, professora adjunta, Faculdade de Medicina). Também participaram alunos dos programas de pós-graduas;ao. Aspectos legais foram abordados pelos Juizes de Juventude Eugenio Couto Terra e Leoberto Narciso Brancher e a assessora Beatriz Gershenson Aguinsky (doutora Re>ista Perspec11ms &x,ales / Social Pers . . pec/,ves pmnm'ero/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num 1 / 17 ~m Servi90 Social), bem como a Pr . Juventude Simone Mariano da R h omotora de Justis;a da infancia e oc a. O. grupo dos Estados Unidos abran e . da Umversidade de Texas A f . N' g u os segumtes professores tordo Instituto Latino-am~ric~:~n. L ic~olas Shumway (doutor, Direda Faculdade de Servi,;:o Social/s on HoJleran (doutora, professora sora da Faculdade de Se . S, . anna Thompson (doutora, profes. rvi9o ocia!) David s · (d D rretor da Faculdade de Serv· S . ' pnnger outor, Viceprofessor da Faculdade de oo~1al~, Mich~el Lauderdale (doutor, professor da Faculdade de D' ·t,;:) octal), M1chael Churgin (doutor rrei o e Robert Da (d ' sor da Faculdade de Direito). Também ti wson _outor, profestoranda Liliane Cambraia w· d d ez parte a pesqmsadora e douextraordinário aspecto <leste m ~o; a_Fac~ldade de Servi90 Social. O disciplinar mas tambe'm . ptroJe º~ nao fo1 somente seu caráter inter, a m egra9ao de · d profissionais atuantes na prátic O . pes_q_u1sa .ores, professores e Forrest Novy, doutor e Diretor ~~ EproJet~ fo1 ide~li.zado e iniciado por abilitas;ao da Texas Youth C . d_uca,;:ao Especial do Servi90 de Reomm1ss10n (TYC) a agA · com os jovens privados de liberdad , encia que trabalha Youth Comission que tamb , _e _em Texas. Seus colegas da Texas H . em part1c1param no p · t fi ams, Diretor executivo Lind S ln roJe o oram: Dwight ecutiva adjunta Corri A,1 a e ess Reyes, doutora, Diretora ex. ' ne varez-Sanders do t D' ad~unta do Serviro de R b'l· ~ ' u ora, lfetora executiva Y ea 11ta9ao Deborah Nan d tendente de Educa,;:ao do S . d ' .. ce, outora, SuperinConselho geral Patri· . L erv190 e Reab1hta9iio, Neil Nichols doutor , era ogterman me tr D. , , ministrafiio de casos, Chuck Jeffi , s e, u:etor de tratamento e adFredlund, doutor, pesquisador Oords: doutor, Drretor de pesquisa e Eric da Liberdade assistida de jove~s ::+:::t;;~veu ta~bém a Comissiio retora de pesquisa e Jobn p ' ~y Arrigona, mestre, Diosey, mestre, pesqmsador. s:: Foram determinados tre b· · projeto: s o ~et1vos fundamentais para a fase do • ~lcan,;:ar excelencia internacional do mclusive publica9oes intemaci . s trabalhos e pesquisas, • ab . ona1s; rn espa9os para a realizafiío de dout . pós-doutorado em n' . . orado sandu1che e de 1 ive mternac1onal · • contribuir para a busca de solu,;:oes' em rel . . s1tua9ao de risco Nest , ltim a,;:ao a Jovens em . eu o ponto estao previstos os seguintes �l& ¡ Presentación / Presentation sub-objetivos: . . tegrado de levaDtamento de 0 Elabora9ao de um stst~ma m . d infravoes de dados essenciais relativos ao umver~o . e d "nf'ancia e . ser implantado no sistema de Just19a a t Jovens ª d Ri Grande do Sul. da juventude ~o Esta~o ~ ~as formas de interven9ao o Registro e s1stematiza9ao . . educacional e reabilitativa de Jovens mfr~tores.. t os 0 da , . s que vtsam m egrar t Estudo de propoS as pe gogica · t regular de . Jovens com comportamentos divergentes no sis ema ensino. ~ elos de avalia9ao formativa 0 Elabora9ao de mod somativa (baseado nos (acompanbando . o proc:,s:;) edeucacionais e reabilitativas resultados) de mterven90 . . . referentes a jovens autores de atos mfrac10na1s. . e No total o projeto devena re1or9ar os esforvos das , respectivas 'vel inde ' fi . ais competentes Desta area, em ru . stitui9oes em !ormar pro- ss10: , de projetos e sub-projetos, pesqmsa gradua9ao e pos-gradua?ªº• a aves e desenvolvimento cumcular. t u 0 primeiro simpósio. De 14 a 17 de novembro de 2005 aconR~ceGrande do Sul enconfi · ·s de Texas e to Pesquisadores e pro sSionai A stin para discutir questoes u · rsidade de Texas em u traram-se na mve . . . ·¡ om enfase na reabilita9ao, edureferentes ajuventude e JUSh~a JUveru 'et fórum no qual foi anali~ O simpós10 represen ou um ca9ao e preven9ao. . m conflito coro a lei e jovens · t acional de Jovens e sada o campo m _ern fi faz parte de urna colabora9ao em em situa9ao de ns~- D~sta orma, . as e brasileiras e as agencias andamento entre umvers1dadcs amencaD que atuam nesta área. - . , urna visao geral sobre os sistemas J~As apresenta9oes ~clurra: d E tados Unidos e Brasil e discuttrídicas voltadas para a Juventu e. os . s lica9oes de políticas públicas ram educa9ao e esfo~~os ~revent~:~:• i;:es Como isso varia muito em e programas de reabtlitar¡:ao D~s ~tado~ de Texas e Rio Grande do cada um dos países, ~ ~oco fot nos di 1 a 3 de agosto de 2006 O do simposio acoDteceu DOS as fi Su!. segun . d d S 1 Este encontro, da mesma orma em Porto Alegre DO Rio G~an e ~ u . leis Brasileiras, as políticas e como o primeiro em AustlD, estu ou as Revista Perspeclivas Sociales / Social Perspec1ives pnmm,era/spring 1006. n,1.8, Num. / / 19 os programas para jovens em confüto com a lei. Ambas as conferencias foram financiadas pela Universidade de Texas, Austin, Faculdade de Servi90 Social e a CAPES do Ministério da Educar¡:ao do Brasil. Este número de Perspectivas Sociales/Social Perspectives consiste em seis trabalhos apresentados por pesquisadores americanos no primeiro simpósio, realizado nos Estados Unidos. O próximo número deste tema especial trará os estudos apresentados de nossos colegas brasileiros. Urna discussao da história e urna revisao das atuais leis federais, procedimentos e políticas do Governo dos Estados Unidos voltados para a juventude é apresentada pelo Prof. Dr. Michael Churgin (Faculdade de Direito da UT) em seu artigo "The Role of the Federal Government in Juvenile Justice". Dois outros artigos trazem a perspectiva das agencias em relar¡:ao ao tema: John Posey, Texas Juvenile Probation Commjssion, apresenta "Mentally Ill Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System & the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program," um trabalho que traz inforrna9oes sobre jovens com doenr¡:as mentais no sistema da justir¡:a juvenil e sobre o programa desenvolvido em Texas para atender este grupos especial com o nome "Specialized Needs Diversionary Program" (SNDP); Dr. Forrest Novy e Dr. Eric Fredlund da Texas Youth Commission, um dos maiores sistemas estaduais de correyao juvenil dos Estados U rudos apresentam o trabalho "Accelerated, Ditferentiated Instruction on the Reading Achievement of Incarcerated Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a Time of Skepticism." Este artigo discute as experiencias clínicas e os resultados com um diferenciado, acelerado programa de estudos para adolescentes com necessidades especiais privados de liberdade com defasagem escolar. Liliane Cambraia-Windsor, doctoranda, e Profa. Dra. Sana Thompson da Faculdade de Servir¡:o Social da UT apresentam "Predictors of violent juvenile behavior: Exam.ining the irnpact of victÍmjzation and exposure to violence", um estudo que explora o impacto de juventude, família e fatores comurutários ao comportamento violento de jovens através da análise de dados quaDtitativos já existentes e através de entrevistas. "Consulting with the Experts: Utilizing Adolescent Input in SubstaDce Use Prevention Efforts" é um trabalho principalmente conceitual da . Profa. Dra. Lori HoUeran Steiker da Faculdade de Serviyo Social da UT sobre a cria9lio e utiliza9ao de programas preventivas de álcool e drogas para jovens, desenvolvidos a partir das suas realidades. Do pon- �20 / Presemaci6n I Presentation to de vista de tratamento de dependencias , Prof. Dr. David Springer, Vice-Diretor da Faculdade de Servil;;o Social da UT, apresenta "Substance Abuse Treatment for Juvenile Delinquents: Promising and NotSo-Promising Practices in the U.S.", um trabalho que revisa literatura atual de pesquisa sobre este assunto. Enquanto os tópicos abordados sao variados, todos possuem urna forte relavíio com prevenyíio, educayíio e intervenylio com jovens em conflito com a lei e em situayíio de risco. Os editores esperam que os trabalhos apresentados nesta ediyíio especial de Social Perspective/Perspectivas Sociales estíio de acordo com os objetivos e representam urna contribuiyíio significativa para os conhecimentos sobre justiya juvenil, juventude e delinqüencia. References Dawson, R. O. (2000). Texas Juvenile Law, Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, 5th edition. Dawson, R. O. (2000). The Juvenile Justice Process, Foundation, 4th edition. Hornstein, Walter. ( 1987). "Jugend: Strukturwandel und Problemlage ", In Hanns Eyferth, Hans-Uwe Otto and Hans Thierscb (orgs.). Handbuch zur Sozialarbeit/Sozialpadagogik, Neuwied, Darmstadt, Luchterband, pp. 506-520. Montada, Leo. (1995). "Delinquenz", In RolfOerter and Leo Montada (orgs.), Entwicklungspsychologie: ein Lehrbuch, Weinheirn, Psychologie Verlagsunion. Waiselfisz, Julio Jacobo. (2004). Mapa da violencia IV. Os jovens do Brasil. Juventude, Violencia e Cidadania. Brasilia, UNESCO, Instituto Ayrton Senna, Secretaria Especial dos Direitos Humanos. ENSAYOS - ESSAYS �Revista Perspecti>VJS Sociales / Social Perspectfres prima>v:ralspring 1006. Vo/.8, Num / / Pág. 13-52 23 Substance Abuse Treatment for Juvenile Delinquents: Promising and Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. David W. Springer* Resumen Al trabajar con jóvenes deLinquentes los trabajadores sociales deben desarrollar una sensibilidad con relación a los factores de riesgo que influyen fuertemente la reincidencia. En un estudio reciente de Rivaux, Springer, Bohman, Wagner y Gil (en prensa) se observó que el consumo de drogas predijo la reincidencia individual en la misma medida que una edad más avanzada y el género masculino. Estos resultados subrayan la necesidad de poner el enfoque en la prevención y la intervención temprana en comportamientos delictivos, sobre todo para el caso de jóvenes drogadictos y para varones. Este estudio detectó asimismo que mayores niveles de problemas familiares predijeron la reincidencia en el caso de jóvenes latinos, en tanto que mayores niveles de problemas psicológicos predijeron la reincidencia para jóvenes afro-americanos. El conocimiento de estos predoctores ayuda a los trabajadores sociales a establecer los riesgos y a enfocar la intervención en fonnas culturalmente útiles_ Abstract When worlcing with youth who have committed crimes, social workers should be sensitive to the risk factors that have the greatest impact on recidivism_In a study recently conducted by Rivaux, Springer, Bohman, Wagner and Gil (in press), substance abuse predicted recidivism individually as did older age and being male_These findings highlight the need for a focus on prevention and early intervention services with delinquent behaviors, particularly for substance-abusing youth and formales. This • David W Springer is Associale Deanfor Student Ajfairs al the The University o/Texas al Austin Schoo/ o/Social Work, Austin, TX 78712 ISSN 1405-11 33 0 2006 Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Univers,ty ofTexas ofAustin, University ofTexas of Arlington, Our Lady oflhe Lorc Universily, University ofTennessee, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango. �24 / Substance Abuse Treatment for Juvenile De/inquents: Promising and Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. study also found that greater levels of family problems pre?icted recidivism for Latino youth, while increased levels ofpsychological problems predicted recidivism for A:frican American youth. Kn~wledge_ of these predictors could help social workers in assessments of nsk and m targeting interventions in a culturally useful way. Palabras claves/ Key Words Drogadicción, tratamientos, resultados, delincuentes juveniles Substance abuse, treatments, results, juvenile delinquents 1•''1 Introduction l Adolescent substance abuse and juvenile delinquency are interrelated and complex problems that remain prevalent and problematic ~ the United States. Approxímately 70 percent of all twelfth-graders m the U.S. report alcohol use, 38.8 percent report illicit drug use, and 34.3 percent report marijuana use during the past year (Jo?-°ston, ?'Malley, and Bachman, 2004). According to the Office ofApplied Stud1es (2004), more than ten percent of all adolescents report using illegal drugs in the pastmonth. More than 340,000 adolescents state they smoked marijuana in 2004 and 536,000 youths report using marijuana more than ~O d~ys in the past month. The problem is even more severe when cons1denng rates of adolescent alcohol consumption. More than 17 percent of all American adolescents say they drank alcohol within the past month and over 30 percent of 16-17 year old youth report they currently drink alcohol. Over 20 percent are binge drinkers, meaning they had five or more drinks on the same occasion at least once in the past 30 days (Office of Applied Studies, 2004). In terms of alcohol and/or drug (AOD) use among various racial/ ethnic groups, studies have shown important differences in the p~evalence of AOD use (Vega and Gil, 1998), in the risk factors assoc1ated with AOD use (Vega and Gil, 1998; Vega, Zimmerman, Gil, Warheit, and Apospori, 1993), and in protective factors that lessen subs~ce use (Vega and Gil, 1998). Broadly speaking, epidemiological stud1es ~ave found adolescent substance use rates to be highest among Caucasrnns and lowest among A.frican Americans. More specifically, 11.1 percent Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspec/ives primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. ¡ ¡ 25 of Caucasian ~dolescents have used illicit drugs, compared with 10.2 percent ofLatinos, and 9.3 percent ofAfrican Americans. Toe FBI ~2002) reports over 2.3 million arrests in the U.S. ofpersons under age 18 m 2001. Juveniles accounted for 17 percent ofall arrests 15 percent of all violent crime arrests, and 21 percent of all property crime arrests. Seventy-two percent of all adolescent arrestees were males· ~ow~ver, between 1992 and 200 l, the increase in crime rates was mor; s1gnific~nt for_female adolescents than formales. Toe number ofjuvenile arrests mvolvmg drug offenses increased by 169 percent from 1990 to 1999 (S!'1hl,_~003). A_disproportionate percentage of juvenile arrests ~re o~ m~o~ties; there 1s an overrepresentation of minorities in the U.S. Juvemle JUsttce population despite the fact that this overrepresentation <loes not appear to be due to higher rates of criminal activity (Kaestner Frank, Marel, and Schmeidler, 1986). ' Adolescent Substance Use and Juvenile Delinquency Research indicates a significant association between adolescent AOD use/abuse and delinquency (Dembo, Pacheco, Schmeidler Fisher and Coope~, 1997; Buizinga, Loeber, and Thomberry, 1994; R~ssow, Pape, ~nd W1chstrom, 1999). Incarcerated adolescents are three times more likely to have partaken in substance use in the past year than other adolescents, and juvenile offenders are more likely to have substance use problems (Office ofApplied Studies, 2003, Molider, Nissen, and Watkins 2 002). ~ !he last decade, the percentage of arrested male youth tha; ~sted pos1tive for a~ illegal drug increased by at least 30 percent (Terry, anderWaal, McB~de, and ~uren, 2000). Moreover, delinquent youtb are generally more mvolved m their substance use than non-delinquent Substance users, and, among delinquents, juveniles with more intense Substance use demonstrate more violent offenses (Sealock, Gottfriedson and Gallagher, 1997). ' ~eplin: Abr'.1111, McClelland, Duelan, and Mericle (2003) conducted an ~pide~olog1cal_ study to examine psychiatric disorders in 1,800 ju-. verule de~quents m Cook County, Illinois. They found that the most c?mmon disorders were substance use disorders and disruptive behavior disorders, such as oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder. �26 ¡ Substance Abuse Treatment for Juvemle Delinquents: Promising anti Not-S<>-Promismg Pracrices in the U.S. More specifically, Teplin and her colleagues_ found _that 6_6% ofboy~ ~d 74% of girls met criteria for at least one diagnosis. _Grrls _met entena in significantly greater numbers for affective and a_~ ety d1so~ders_ and boys met more commonly met criteria for externahzmg behav1or disorders such as ADHD and substance use. Half of boys and girls (5?% and 47%, respectively) met criteria for at least one sub~tance_ abuse disord~r. Toe ex.isting literature also reveals a strong relat1onship between history of abuse and both current substance use and ~elinq~ency._ Because of the association between substance abuse and Juvemle ~ehn_quen~y, the reduction of AOD use is critical to treating and preventmg Juverule delinquency. Revisto Penpecllvas Sociales I Social Penpectives primaveralspring 2006. Yo/.8, Num. ¡ ¡ 27 training or career counseling, and wilderness cballenge prograrns. In instituti?nal settings, evidence of effectiveness has been demonstrated for_b_ehav10ral programs (cognitive mediation and stress inoculation tram~~g), long~r-term community residential programs (TCs with cogrutiv~-?ehav10ral approaches), multiple services within residential c?mmurut1es (case ~~nagement approach), and skills training (aggress1on replacement trammg and cognitive restructuring). More research is needed to determine the effectiveness of day treatment centers as there ~ere too few studies to review. Those programs which have be;n shown meffective are juvenile boot camps, short-term residential facilities and State training schools. ' Literature review Following a number of critica! reviews of evaluations, in particular Lipton, Martinson, and Wilks (1975), the accepted wi,~dom_in the fiel?, related to substance-abusing juveniles became one of nothin~ works. Recent research with this population has been more encouragmg. Lipsey and Wilson (1998) conduct~ a meta_-analysis o~ experimental or quasi-experi.rnental studies of mterventions for senous ~nd violent juvenile delinquents. They reviewed 200 programs'. 83 _o f ~hich involved institutionalized juveniles and 117 involved nomnstJtutJonalized juveniles. McBride et al. ( l 999, p. 58) summarize the findings of Lipsey and Wilson's meta-analysis. Arnong the programs in noninstitutional settings, ~ose that de~onstrate good evidence of effectiveness include behav1oral therap1es (family and contingency contracting), i~te~sive case ma~ageme~t (including system collaboration and contmumg care),. multlsysteffilc therapy (MST), restitution programs (parole_- and probatlon based), and skills training. Program options that reqmre more research to document their effectiveness include twelve-step programs (AA, NA), adult mentoring (with behaviorally contingent reinforcement): aft~r-sch?ol recreation programs, conflict resolution/violence preventlon'. ~tens1ve probation services (IPS),juvenile versions ofTASC, p~r medi~tJon, and traditional inpatient/outpatient programs. Program options which d? not show evidence of effectiveness include deterrence programs, vocatlonal Arn~ng the guidin~ principies in their review of the existing literature on effect1ve programnung for substance-abusing adolescents McBride Vanderwall, Terry, and Van Buren ( 1999) asserted that three co;e elemen~ are needed: (1) intervention must take place early when it has the best chan~e ofreversing or ameliorating problem behaviors; (2) adolescents ~ntenng the system must undergo a cornprehensive needs assessment m order to tailor interv~ntions to each juvenile's unique needs; and (3) onc~ needs have been tdenti.fied, adolescents must be provided with a flexible and co~prehensive continuum of care that offers the full range of rele~ant serv1ces needed for effective intervention (cited in Dembo, Schme1d1er, and Walters, 2004). Juvenile assessment centers a recent development in juvenile justice, help to meet these elements. ' JuvenUe Assessment Centers and Juvenile Addiction Receiving Facilities AJuvenileAssessment Center (JAC) is a centratized intake system where la~ enforcement can drop off youth charged with truancy, felonies, and llllsdemeanors generally quickly, usually within ten minutes (Springer Sha~er, and McNeece, 1999). The first JAC was developed in Tampa: Flonda, where funds were obtained through competition from Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Byrne Grant) funds. In the mid-1990s, the Center. for Su_bstanceAbuse Treatment (CSAT) became interested in JACs as an effective approach to intervene with juvenile offenders with substance abuse problems (Dembo, Schmeidler, and Walters, 2004). JACs and �28 / Substance Abuse Treatment for Jwenile Delinquents: Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. J / 29 Promising an¡:I Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. community assessment centers (CACs) now exist across many cities and states in the U.S., including Kansas, Colorado, and Florida. Toe purpose of designing JACs was to help ens~e that yout~' service needs are addressed in disposition recommendanons and to link at-risk or troubled youth and their families with needed services (Dembo, Schmeidler, and Walters, 2004; Springer, Shader, and McNeece, 1999). While the cornerstone of JACs is screening and assessment systems, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has identified four common elements of the CACs they have funded (Oldenettel and Wordes, 2000, pp. l-2). 1. Single point of entry: a 24-hour centralized point of intake and assessment for juveniles who have come or are likely to come into contact with the juvenile justice system. 2. Immediate and comprehensive assessments: service providers associated with the JAC make an initial broad-based and, if necessary, a later in-depth assessment of youths' circumstances and treatment needs. 3. Management information systems: needed to manage and monitor youths, help ensure the provision of appropriate treatment services, and avoid duplication of services. 4. Integrated case management services: JAC staff use information obtained from the assessment process and the management information system (MIS) to develop recommendations to improve access to services, complete follow-ups of referred youths, and periodically reassess youths placed in various services. Regarding the above criteria, Dembo, Schmeidler, and Walters (2004) clarify that in-depth assessments are often completed following the JAC processing, that MISs vary in their comprehensiveness and sophistication, and that the provision of case management services is often limited to subsets of processed youths, such as those placed in diversion programs. If a youth is intoxicated or requires non-emergency medical screening or care, he or she is brought directly to the Juvenile Addiction Receiving Facility (JARF), when one is available, which is a complete detoxifica- tion unit. JARFs are generally closely associated with the JAC, often in the same building, and if not, at least in the same vicinity. A JARF is typically a traditional detoxification model that provides short-term residential care, consisting ofdetoxification, stabilization, and substance abuse services (Springer, Shader, and McNeece, 1999). Dembo and Brown (1994) examined 11 O truant juveniles brought to a JAC in Tampa, Florida, and found that it successfully identified multiple-problem, high risk youth. Ofthese youth, approximately 96% indicated a potential problem in peer relations; 82% indicated a potential problem in mental health status; and between 33% and 47% hada potential problem in substance abuse, physical health, family relations, and vocational status. Springer, McNeece, and Shader ( 1999) conducted a study assessing six JACs/JARFs in Florida, and similar to Dembo and Brown, they found that the primary presenting problems of the juveniles presented were peer relations, family relations, mental health, substance abuse, physical health, and school or vocational issues. Many ofthe staff across the JACs and JARFs appeared stressed because ofhigh caseloads or inadequate work settings. Additionally, they found that a common thread across well-run JACs was an energetic and hard working director with strong interpersonal and mediation skills. DrugCourts Toe entire U.S. criminal justice system has undergone a radical transformation due to the impact of the substance abuse problem and -the increasing number of offenders arrested on drug-related charges. Since the early 1980s,jails and state and federal prisons have become inundated with drug offenders. In many states, prisons have been forced to adopt a "revolving <loor" approach to incarceration, with new admissions (primarily for drug offenses) coming in the front <loor and literally pushing other, sometimes more serious offenders, out the back door. Toe federal response to the drug problem was to declare a "War on Drugs" and to establish mandatory sentencing requirements as a oondi-· tion of financia} assistance to the states' criminal justice agencies. These tactics had at least three repercussions: (1) an escalation in the number of persons incarcerated for drug-related offenses; (2) overcrowded prisons; �30 / Substance Abuse Treatmenl for Juvenile Delinquents: Promi.sing and Not-So-Promi.sing Practices in the U.S. and (3) increases in the number of early releases from prison. Toe number of felony drug arrests has skyrocketed, court dockets have burgeoned, and available resources for addressing ~he proble~ a~e severely lim.ited. It has become obvious that arrest _and mcarcerahon ts not a solution. It does little to break the cycle of 1llegal drug use and crime. Furthermore, offenders sentenced to jail or prison for dru~ offenses have a high rate of recidivism after their release. At the sa~e ttme, drug abuse treatment has been demonstrably effective in reducmg both drug abuse and drug-related crime (NIDA, 1999). Since treatment for substance abuse addiction is seen as a key component in preventing re-offenses, the need for altemativ~ programs is evident. A promising and innovative approach to the growmg substance abuse problem is the establishment of diversionary programs ~o~ as drug courts. Two main types of drug courts exist: those orgaruzed _stmply to speed up the processing of drug offenders and those that exist to provide treatment to offenders. Toe focus here is on treatment-oriented drug courts. l 1 Toe idea of dedicating specified courtrooms solely to drug cases is not new. Special drug case courtrooms were created in both Chicago and New York City in the early 1950s. More than two decades ago, when heroin was the primary drug of choice among offenders in New York City, a special ''Narcotics Courts" was created as a way of dealing with the impact ofthe new, harsher drug laws. Other ~p~roa~hes_ to link offenders to drug treatment at various points of the crurunal JUshce process have also been tried over the past 20 years. Drug courts evolved from existing efforts to engage defendants in treatment, such as Treatment Altematives to Street Crime (TASC), limited diversion programs, pretrial release programs, probation and intermediate sanctions programs. However, these earlier efforts were frequently fragmented, inconsistently or inappropriately used, or only minimally effective. Consequently, it was diflicult to monitor treatment progress or compliance with courtimposed conditions (cf. Belenko, 1990; 1998; Falkin, 1993; Mahoney, 1994). In 1989, the first treatment-focused drug court was established by Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. J / 31 Janet Reno, the sitting State Attomey for the eleventh Judicial Circuit (Miami, Florida). Toe Miami Drug Court has served as a model for the development of many other courts throughout the nation. Drug courts have since proliferated. As ofDecember 31, 2004, there were 1,621 operational drug court programs in the U.S. (357 ofwhich werejuvenile drug courts), a 37% increase from 2003 (Huddleston, Freeman-Wilson, Marlowe, and Roussell, 2005), and drug courts are now operating in all 50 states, 3 U.S. territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands), and 8 countries (Belenko, DeMatteo, and Patapis, in press). Toe drug court model differs in important ways from previous efforts to provide drug treatment to offenders with underlying drug problems. Toe drug court model creates an interface between the various components of the criminal justice and substance abuse treatment systems in order to use the coercive power of the court to promote abstinence and prosocial behavior(Belenko, 1996; Fino andNewlyn 1993· Goldkamp ' in sorne ' juvenile' 1998). While participation is generally voluntary (except drug courts), offenders must adhere to program requirements in order to successfully complete the program. In addition to receiving treatment ~t no or little cost to them, offenders may also be inclined to participate m drug court programs because many programs offer possible expungement of the offenders' criminal records upon successful completion of the program. Por sorne offenders, the opportunity to have one's record expunged is a strong incentive to participate. In keeping with the AA philoso~hy (Miller, 1995), total abstinence from day one of the rec~very pr~cess 1s not expected. Most therapeutic drug courts expect that relapse ':111 be a part of a normal recovery process. Clients are generally sancttoned or reprimanded, but are not dismissed from the program because of one or two "slips." This is driven by the assumption that relapse is "an unfortunate characteristic of addiction" that should be viewed as an oppo~ty to evaluate the client's treatment and recovery plan, rather than a s1gn oftreatment failure (Miller, 1995, p. 269). Toe mission of drug courts is to eliminate substance abuse and the resulting criminal behavior through a "team e:ffort that focuses on sobriety and accountability as the primary goals" (Drug Court Program Office, �32 / Substance Abuse TreatmentJor Juvenile Delinquents: Revista Perspectivas Sociales/ Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. J / 33 Promising and Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. 1997, p. 8). The team of professionals generally includes the state attomey, public defender, pre-trial intervention or probation staff, treatment providers, and tbe judge, who is considered to be tbe central figure on the team. The primary goals of drug courts are to reduce drug use and associated criminal behavior by engaging and retaining drug-involved offenders in programmatic and treatment services; to concentrate and coordinate expertise about drug cases in a single courtroom; to address other defendant needs througb clinical assessment and case management; and to free judicial, prosecutorial and public defense resources for adjudicating non-drug cases (Belenko, 1998). Tbere bave been several studies or evaluations of drug court programs. In a recent meta-analysis ofdrug court programs, Belenko (1998) concluded tbat: 1 ' Drug courts have been more successful than other forros of community supervision in closely supervising drug offenders in the community through frequent monitoring and close supervision including mandatocy frequent drug testing, placing and retaining drug offenders in treatment programs, providing treatment and related services to offenders who have not received such services in the past, generating actual and potential cost savings and substantially reducing drug use and recidivism while offenders are in the program. Based on more limited data and to a lesser but still significant extent, drug courts reduce recidivism for participants after they leave the program. Perhaps equally important for the future of the criminal courts system, drug courts have demonstrated the feasibility of employing a team-based, problem solving approach to adjudicating offenders with drug problems in a way that appears to reduce system costs and improve public safety. (p. 12) BootCamps A brief review of boot camps is warranted because of tbeir popularity in the U.S. in the era of treating offenders with retribution and punishment. Today's boot camps can be traced back to the United States' first penitentiaries at tbe turn of the 19th century, which used military-style marches, physical labor, and discipline (Rothman, 1990). Most local and state boot camps (also known as shock incarceration) are designed for firs_t of'.fenders and stress discipline, physical conditioning, and strict authontanan control (McNeece, 1997). Juvenile delinquent bootcamps have ~own in popularity over the last several years dueto the populaces' mentahty that these adolescents need more discipline in their lives. The boo~ cam~s ~hilosophy is based on breaking down and then building up tbe Juverule m a quasimilitary setting (Parent, 1989). _ Many criminologists believe that boot camps do not make a long-term llllpact on juveniles because they do not meet the needs of the offenders and that in fact rearrest rates of boot camp graduates are no different than other inmates (MacKenzie, 1994). Lipsey's (1992) well-k:nown meta-analysis oftreatment for juvenile offenders revealed that deterrence programs, such as boot camps, actually had negative treatment effects on delinquent youths. In short, it appears that despite their popularity among U.S. politicians, juvenile boot camps are not cost-effective and do not deliver positive treatment effects for juvenile offenders when compared to traditional services sucb as probation or parole (cf. California Youth~utbority, 1997; Peters, Thomas, and Zamberlan, 1997; Trulson and Tnplett, 1999). Media attention is beginning to reflect sorne of the pr~blems ass~ciated with boot camps, with the most recent example b~mg the trag1c case of Martín Lee Anderson, a 14-year old male who ~1ed after workers at a Florida boot camp restrained and hit him. At tbe time of this writing, no charges had yet been filed in the case but state authorities had shut down the boot camp. ' Therapeutic Communities A therapeutic community is generally a residential treatment environment_ where t~e drug user's cbange in conduct, attitudes, values, and emottons are llllplemented, monitored, and reinforced on a daily basis (DeLeon, 1986). Therapeutic communities view drug abuse as deviant behavior and believe substance abusers require holistic treatment to engender global c~ange. Tr~atment is sequenced in phases, and phase advancement reqmres th~ cli~nt to progress behaviorally, emotionally, and developmentally (J~mchill, Hawke, De Leon, and Yagelka 2000). · Proponents of therapeuttc communities consider the problem to be the substance abuser him or herself, not the drug(s), and the addiction is a symptom, not tbe essence of the disorder (Pan, Scarpitti, Inciardi, and �34 / Subsumce Abuse Treatmenlfor Juvenile Delinquents: Revista Perspectivas Sacia/es / Sacia/ Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. / / 35 Promising ami Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. Lockwood, 1993). In the case of work with adolescent substance abusers in therapeutic cornmunities, forros of Positive Peer Culture (PPC) are often used to facilitate group treatment. Positive Peer Culture, developed by Harry Vorrath, was heavily in:fluenced by a peer-oriented treatment model called Guided Group Interaction (GGI). Vorrath and Brendtro (1985) call PPC "a total system for building positive youth subcultures ". PPC is a holistic approach to working with youth in a therapeutic setting. It is not simply a set of techniques, but rather attempts to change the culture in the therapeutic setting. "PPC is designed to 'tum around' a negative youth subculture and mobilize the power of the peer group in a productive manner ... In contrast to traditional treatment approaches, PPC <loes not ask whether a person wants to receive help but whether he is willing to give help" (Vorrath andBrendtro, 1985, p. xxi). Proponents of PPC view troubled youth notas rebellious or "bad seeds," but rather as youth that with nurturing have much to contribute. Table l highlights sorne of the key aspects and assumptions of a Positive Peer Culture. Table 1. Positive Peer Culture Key Aspects of a Positive Peer Culture 1. Seeks to teach basic values. 2. The peer group has the strongest infl.uence over the values, attitudes, and behaviors of youth. 3. Youth feel positive about themselves when they feel accepted by others and deserving of that acceptance. 4. Youth are experts of their own lives. 5. Youth are resilient. 6. Youth possess strengths that should be recognized by practitioners and tapped throughout the treatment process. Youth are better to help one another when these strengths are tapped. 7. Focus on the here and now. 8. Problems are opportunities. 9. Youth must accept responsibility for their behavior and be held accountable. 1O. Both youth and adults must care for and help one another. According to Obermeir and Henry (1988-1989), adolescents who are successful in therapeutic communities perceive themselves as a member of a group of peers who act as a support network Rules of the therapeutic community are enforced by the clients themselves, with elder and trusted clients acting as supervisors to the other community members, alth~ugh staff members generally have more control of enforcing the rules m adolescent therapeutic communities than in traditional adult therapeutic communities. The staff in therapeutic communities consists of recovering substance abusers, licensed substance abuse counselors licensed professional counselors, and licensed clinical social workers. ' Jainchill et al. (2000) assessed the effectiveness of six residential therapeutic communities for adolescents. Wbile there was a statistically significant difference between treatment completers and treatment dropouts in pretest vs. posttest levels of drug use, it is not possible to rule out selectivity bias and extraneous variables, such as adolescents' motivation levels. Morral, McCaffrey, and Ridgeway (2004) conducted a more rigorous evaluation of a residential therapeutic community for adolescents in Los Angeles, California. Adolescents in the treatment group had significantly better outcomes on ali three substance use scales used to measure levels ofAOD use. There was nota significant difference between the treatment group and the comparison group in crime outcomes, but adolescents in the treatment group showed greater declines in mean seores over the one-year observation on arrests, property crimes and violent crimes. ' Research on the effectiveness of TCs for adolescents also reveals that the length of stay in treatment is the largest and most consistent predictor of positive outcomes (Catalano, Hawkins, Wells, Miller, and Brewer, 1990/91; De Leon, 1988). Positive outcomes, such as no criminal a~tivity, no use of alcohol or drugs, and employment, are all associated w1th longer stays in treatment (McBride et al., 1999). Outpatient Family-Based Interventions While it is a truism that families are critical in a youth 's substance abuse trea~ent, the soci~l worker must be cautious in concluding that family confl.ict causes a child or adolescent to use drugs, especially considering �36 / SubstanceAbuse TrealmentforJuvenileDelinquents: Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. J / 37 Promising and Not-So-Promising Praciices in the U.S. that ali families experience confl.ict and not all adolescents use substances (Springer, 2005). Working with an individual client without examining the family structure, dynamics, and roles that are infl.uenced by and infl.uence the client's substance use is generally insufficient (McNeece, Springer, and Arnold, 2003). Toe literature reveals a correlation between adolescent substance use and family system characteristics; specifically tbat family drug use, family composition, family interaction pattems, and family boundaries all increase the risk of adolescentAOD use (Anderson and Henry, 1994; Denton and Kampfe, 1994). Joaning, Quinn, Thomas, and Mullen ( 1992) conducted a study comparing the differences in adolescent substance abuse treatment between family therapy, adolescent group therapy, and family drug education. The findings tentatively revealed that fam.ily therapy was more effective in stopping adolescent drug abuse, producing twice the amount of substance-free adolescents than family drug education and three times the amount of adolescent group therapy. More recently, Austin, Macgowan, and Wagner (2005) conducted a rigorous evaluation of family-based interventions for adolescent substance abuse populations. The purpose of the systematic review was to examine the level of efficacy and effectiveness of the most current family-based treatment approaches. Austin and his colleagues found that Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) and Multidimensional Family Therapy are the most effective among the family-based interventions, meeting the criteria for probably efficacious according to the criteria developed by Chambless and Hollon (1998). Multisystemic Therapy Multisystemic therapy (MST) (Henggeler and Borduin, 1990; Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin, Rowland, and Cunningham, 1998) was developed by Scott Henggeler and bis colleagues at the Family Services Research Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. MST is a family- and community-based treatment approach that is theoretically grounded in a social-ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and family systems approach (Haley, 1976; Minuchin, 1974). This overview ofMST is in- cluded here because the "MST is consistent with the family preservation model of service delivery" (Schoenwald, Borduin, and Henggeler, 1998, p. 488). MST is one of NIDA's recommended scientifically-based approaches to drug abuse treatment (NIDA, 1999). It is being used across the country in communities implementing a "wraparound" approach to service delivery, where the focus is on delivering client-centered, culturally-competent services in the least restrictive but clinically appropriate environment ( cf. Schoenwald, Borduin, and Henggeler, 1998). !he social-ecological model views human development as a reciproca} mterchange between the client and "nested concentric structures" that mutually infl.uence each other (Henggeler, 1999). furthermore, the ecological perspective asserts that one's behavior is determined by multiple forces (e.g., family, school, work, peers) and is supported by modeling of delinquency and substance abuse (Henggeler, 1997). There are nine guiding principies that the MST practitioner should follow (Schoenwald, Borduin, and Henggeler, 1998, pp. 488-489). 1. Toe primary purpose ofassessment is to understand the "fit" between the identified problems and their broader systemic context. 2. Therapeutic contacts should emphasize tbe positive and should use systemic strengths as levers of change. 3. Interventions should be designed to promote responsible behavior and decrease irresponsible behavior among family members. 4. Interventions should be present-focused and actioil-oriented, . targeting specific and well-defined problems. 5. Interventions should target sequences of behavior within and between multiple systems. 6. Interventions should be developmentally appropriate and fit the developmental needs of the youth. 7 . Interventions should be designed to require daily or weekly effort by family members. 8. Intervention efficacy is evaluated continuously from multiple perspectives. 9. Interventions should be designed to promote treatment generalization and long-tenn maintenance oftherapeutic change. ' These nine principies can be used to guide practice with substanceabusing youth. �38 / Substance Abuse Treatmenlfor Juvenile DelilUJuents: Promising and Not-So-Promising Practices in the US. Henggeler (1999) has summarized the MST model of service delivery. Toe MST practitioner typically carries_ a lo"'.' caselo~d of 5 to 6 families, which allows for the delivery of more mtens1ve serv1ces (2 to 15 hours per week) than traditional approaches (normally 1 hour per week). Toe practitioner is available to the client system 24 hour~ a day, 7 days a week. Services are delivered in the client's natural envrronment, such as the client's home or a neighborhood center. Treatment is typically time-limited, lasting 4 to 6 months. Given the level of commitment required of the practitioner, MST may be difficult to implem~nt f~r so~e agencies. For a detailed exposition on implementing MST w1th high-nsk youth, see Henggeler and Borduin (1990). An appealing aspect ofMST is that it is driven by "evidenced-~ased" practice (i.e., empirical literature supports its efficacy). Accordmg _to Henggeler (1999), MST utilizes treatment approaches tha~ are pragma~c, problem-focused and have sorne empirical support, including, ~ut not hmited to: strategic farnily therapy (Haley, 1976), structural fanuly therapy (Minuchin, 1974), behavioral parent training (Munger, 1993), and ~ognitive behavior therapy (Kendal and Braswell, 1993). Brown, Bordum, and Henggeler (2001) call MST "the only treatment for serious delinquent behavior that has demonstrated both short-term and long-term treatment effects in randornized, controlled clinical trials with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds" (p. 458). MST has been found to reduce substance use as well as arrests for substance-related offenses (Henggeler et al., 1991). Finally, the potential cost-savings ofMST have been demonstrated with substance-abusingjuvenile offenders (cf. Schoenwald, Ward, Henggeler, Pickrel, and Patel, 1996). Through the Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations, Dr. Julia Littell, a social work professor at Brwn Mawr College in Philadelphia, has conducted her own systematic review on the effectiveness of MST (Littell, 2005; Littell, Popa, and Forsythe, 2005). In her review, Dr. Littell includes both published and unpublished studies, as is standard practice for reviews conducted through the Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations. In total, Dr. Littell and her colleagues identified 35 unique studies and included 8 in their review. For example, Dr. Littell discovered an unpublished study that had been led by Dr. Alan Leschied, who conducted Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. 1 / 39 a trial ofMST with 409 youth in Canada. She presented her findings ata recent meeting ofthe Campbell Collaboration, suggesting that MST may not be as effective as has been previously thought. This line of inquiry has recently appeared in the form ofletters to the editor of Children and Youth Social Services, both from Dr. Scott Henggeler, the developer of MST, and his colleagues (Henggeler, Schoenwald, Borduin, and Swenson, 2006) and from Littell (2006). Alcoholics Anonymous A brief review of abstinence-based approaches, such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), is also essential here, particularly considering the perception that such approaches are a blanket effective modality for substance-abusing adolescents. AA, an abstinence-based 12-step program, was founded in 1935 by William Wilson and Robert Holbrook Srnith. Proponents of AA believe that alcoholism is a disease that can not be cured; thus, there are recovering alcoholics but not ex-alcoholics. Toe surrender steps consist of treatment personnel persuading youth that they cannot control their use of drugs. Youth "surrender" their attempts to control drug use to a higher power. The "higher power" is not always intended to be synonymous with God or any similar deity, and the emphasis is on creating a spiritual defense against drug use. Toe integrity steps focus on youth's adrnitting that they have caused harm to others, thus enabling them to accept personal responsibility for conflicts precipitated by tension around drug and alcohol misuse (Brown-Standridge, 1987). Integrity steps allow youth to apologize for difficulties that were caused by their drug and alcohol use. Toe last three steps in the twelve-step program, serenity steps, are concemed with maintaining a drug-free life-style. While the surrender steps assist chemically dependent youth to cease use, the integrity steps begin the task of rebuilding relationships through apologies, and the serenity steps focus on living a life free of drugs and alcohol. Research studies assessing the effectiveness ofM groups with ado-: lescents reveal equivocal results. Alford, Koehler, and Leonard (1991) indicate that AA benefits adolescents who are able to understand and accept AA principies and traditions. However, the lack of a compari- �40 / Substance Abuse Treotment for Juvenile De/i,u¡uents: Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. J / 41 Promising and Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. son group requires that these results be interpreted with caution and not generalized to all adolescents (Springer, McNeece, and Amold, 2003). Toe Chemical Abuse/Addiction Treatment Outcome Registry reveals that adolescents who remained in AA for one-year had better outcomes than adolescents that did not remain in AA for an entire year or <lid not attend AA at ali. Again, these results must not be generalized to all adolescents because ofpossible differences between the experimental and comparison groups and confounding variables such as motivation levels. Research on the effectiveness of AA usually focuses on middle and upper-class populations with stable lives prior to the onset of a drinking problem (Alexander, 1990), and much of the evidence regarding its effectiveness is based on anecdotal reports (Miller and Hester, 1986). Toe effectiveness of AA with adolescents needs to be explored further by professionals and researchers working with substance-abusing adolescents (Springer, McNeece, and Amold, 2003). In the meantime, the blanket prescription ofAA groups for all adolescents who have used or abused alcohol or drugs is not a judicious use of resources, nor is it effective treatment planning (Springer, 2005). Case Management Case management activities originated in early-20th-century social work practice that provided services to disadvantaged clients. Rothman (2002) defines case management as a service for highly vulnerable client populations to ensure that they receive the help they need within the fragmentedAmerican service delivery system. Similarly, Sullivan (2002) asserts that case management is a direct service function that involves skill in assessment, counseling, teaching, modeling, and advocacy that aims to enhance the social functioning of clients. Case management includes at least six primary functions: (1) identification and outreach to people in need of service, (2) assessment of specific needs, (3) planning for service, (4) linkage to service, (5) monitoring and evaluation, and (6) advocacy for the client system. Toe most common activity for case managers who work with juveniles is coordinating substance abuse services (Jenson, 1997). Case management with substance-abusing clients has gained consid- erable attention in the past decade, particularly among populations who have multiple, long-term needs (Springer, McNeece, andArnold, 2003). While case management appears to be effective with dually-diagnosed youths (those with both a substance use anda mental health disorder) (Evans and Dollard, 1992) and with juvenile delinquents (Enos and Souther, 1996), Iittle is known about its effectiveness in juvenile justice settings (cited in McBride et al., 1999). Orine Drug Testing Urine drug testing in the juvenile justice system is a surveillance method to detect whether offenders are currently using drugs. Toe offender must provide a urine sample, which is tested to detect for the presence of specific drugs. Two main types of detection are commonly used: itnmunoassays and chromatography (Timrots, 1992). There are three common purposes for urine drug testing with offenders: (1) as an adjunct to community supervision, (2) asan assessment too! for offenders entering the justice system, and (3) asan assessment of drug use during mandated drug treatment (Timrots, 1992). Results ofurine drug tests inform judges ofthe offender's current drug use when considering sentencing, indicates whether the offender is complying with a mandate to be drug-free, and identifies offenders who need substance abuse treatment. Given problems with failure to revoke probationary status and a lack of treatment options when someone <loes has a positive drug screen, Turner, Petersilia, and Deschenes (1994) recommend asking the following questions prior to establishing widespread use of drug testing for those under community supervision: l. How do probation/parole agencies implement drug testing orders? 2. How many drug dependent offenders have testing conditions revoked? 3. How many offenders are actually tested, with what frequency and results? 4. How <loes the justice system respond to positive drug tests? 5. Do such tests result in added probation/parole conditions, referrals to treatment programs, or revocation? 6. What impact do lntensive Supervision Probation/Parole (ISP) �42 / Substance Abuse Treatmentfor Juvenile Delinquents: Promising and Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. programs with drug testing have on offender recidivism, as measured by official records of technical violations and new arrests? 7. How do jurisdictions differ on these dimensions? (p. 233) In the Third District Juvenile Court, Central Probation, Salt Lake City, Utah, an OJJDP-funded project, ali juveniles on probation are subject to testing at the discretion of theirprobation officer. Toe purpose of the testing is as follows (Crowe and Sydney, 2000): • To document whether a substance abuse problem exists, and if so, compel the juvenile to participate in treatment; and • To hold the juvenile accountable for his or her behavior. For the first positive drug test, the probation officer reviews the rules and places the youth under house arrest; for a second positive drug test, the juvenile may be returned to court and possibly detained; and for continuing positive drug tests, the juvenile may be ordered to participate in inpatient drug treatment or long-term residential placement. Beyond assessing whether an o:ffender is using drugs, it is not clear that drug testing alone appears to serve a useful purpose besides serving as a tool to help monitor offenders with substance abuse problems. Toe best approach may be to combine random drug testing with drug treatment (Graboski, 1986, as cited in Springer, McNeece, and Arnold, 2003). L: Summary and conclusion Alcohol and drug use are prevalent amongjuvenile offenders and many ofthe risk factors that predict delinquent behavior also predict adolescent drug use. An increasing number of adolescent arrestees are substanceusers, and among juvenile delinquents, the more serious and violent offenders use drugs more often. When working with youth who have committed crimes, social workers should be sensitive to the risk factors that have the greatest impact on recidivism. In a study recently conducted by Rivaux, Springer, Bohman, Wagner and Gil (in press), substance abuse predicted recidivism individually as did older age and being male. These .findings highlight the Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8. Num. J / 43 need for a focus on prevention and early intervention services with delinquent behaviors, particularly for substance-abusing youtb and formales. This study also found that greater levels of family problems predicted recidivism for Latino youth, while increased levels of psychological problems predicted recidivism for African American youth. Knowledge of these predictors could help social workers in assessments of risk and in targeting interventions in a culturally useful way. For example, such a finding might suggest a greater emphasis on family dynamics when working with Latino youth. Toe intersection of these various predictors of recidivism also highlights the need for prevention and intervention programs that are responsive to issues ofboth etbnicity and gender. McNeece, Bullington, Arnold, and Springer (2005) assert that treatment be linked with a harm reduction approach. Toe harm reduction strategy promotes public health rather than the criminal justice perspective when determining what to do about drug users. Thus, all drug use, whether of "licit" or illicit substances, is seen as potentially problematic. Proponents of this approach assert that the distinctions made between legal and illegal substances are totally artificial and bave led to a myopic focus solely on illicit chemicals (McNeece et al., 2005). We should make the receipt of federal funding contingent on the repeal of a number of state laws, including those that prohibit the free distribution of needles and syringes to intravenous drug users. Traditionally, therapeutic interventions with substance-abusing youth have been driven more by practice wisdom than by scientifically..., based outcome studies (evidence-based practice). While we should not abandon our accumulated practice wisdom, to the extent that it is available, practitioners are encouraged to also use evidenced-based practice to guide tbeir treatment planning. In short, it is critica! that practitioners remain up-to-date on the best practices available, which will be critica! in maximizing our e:ffectiveness in treating substance-abusing juvenile delinquents. Given the limited resources that are currently directed to troubled youths, an intemational commitment to help these youths is warranted if we are to reduce their substance abuse, delinquency, and associated problems. �44 / Substance Abuse Treatment for Juveni/e Delinquents: Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. J / 45 Promi.sing and Not-So-Promi.sing Practices in the U.S. References Chambless, D.L., and S.D. Hollon (1998). "Defining empirically supported therapies ", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, Alexander, B. K. (1990). "Alternatives to the war on drugs", Journal of Drug issues, 20, pp. 1-27. pp. 7-18. Alford, G. S.; R.A. Koehler, and J. Leonard (1991). "A/coholics Anonymous-Narcotics Anonymous model inpatient treatment of chemically dependent adolescents:A two-year outcome study", Journal of Studies Crowe, A. H., and L. Sydney (2000, May). "Developing a policy for a controlled substance abuse testing o/juveniles", Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JAIBG) Program Bulletin (NCJ Publication 178896), Washington, DC, OJJDP. onAlcohol, 52, pp. 118-126. Anderson, A. R., and C.S. Henry (1994). "Family systems characteristics and parental behaviors as predictors ofadolescent substance use", Adolescence, 29, pp. 405-420. Austin, A. M.; M.J. Macgowan, andE.F. Wagner(2005). "Effectivefamily-based interventions for adolescents with substance abuse problems: A systematic review", Research on Social Work Practice, 15, pp. 67-83. Belenko, S. (1998). "Research on drug courts: A critica/ review" , National Drug Courtlnstitute Review, 1, pp. 1-26. De Leon, G. (1986). "The therapeutic community for substance abuse: Perspective andApproach ", In D. De Leon and J. T. Zeigenfuss (Eds.), Therapeutic communities for addictions: Readings in theory, research and practice, Springfield, Il, Charles C Thomas, pp. 5-18. De Leon, G. (1988). "Legal pressures in therapeutic communities", In C. G. Luekefeld and F. Tims (Eds.), Compulsory treatment of drug abuse: Research and clinical practice, National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 86 [DHHS Publication # (ADM) 89-1578], Rockville, MD, U. S Department ofHealth and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, pp. 160-177. 1 1 Belenko, S.; D. DeMatteo, and N. Patapis (in press). "Drug courts ", In A. R. Roberts and D. W. Springer (Eds.), Handbook of forensic social work. L. .: Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Toe ecology of human development: Experiences by nature and Design, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. California YouthAuthority (1997). LEAD: A boot camp and intensive parole program. Final impact evaluation, Sacramento, CA, State of California, Department of the Youth Authority. Catalano, R. F.; J.D. Hawkins, E.A. Wells, J. Miller, and D. Brewer (1990/91). "Evaluation of the effectiveness of adolescent drug abuse treatment, assessment of risks for relapse, and promising approaches for relapse prevention ", Intemational Journal of the Addictions, 25, pp. 1085-1140. Dembo, R., and R. Brown (1994). "The Hillsborough County juvenile assessment center ", Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 3, pp. 25-43. Dembo, R.; K. Pacheco, J. Schmeidler, L. Fisher, and S. Cooper ( 1997). "Drug use and delinquen/ behavior among high risk youths ", Jown.al of Child and Adolescent SubstanceAbuse, 6, pp. 1-25. Dembo, R., Schmeidler, J., and W. Walters (2004). "Juvenile assessment centers: An innovative approach to identify and respond to youths with substance abuse and relatedproblems entering thejustice system ", In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile justice sourcebook: Past, present, and future, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 511-536. Denton, R. E., and C.M. Kampfe (1994). ''The relationship between Jamily variables and Adolescent substance abuse: A literature review" Adolescence, 29, pp. 475-495. ' �46 / Substance Abuse Treatment for Juvenile De/inquents: Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2()()6. 10/.8, Num. J / Promising and Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. Enos, R., and S. Soutbem (1996). Correctional case management, Cincinnati, OH, Anderson Publishing Co. Evans, M. E., and N. Dollard (1992). "Jntensive case managementfor youth with serious Emotiona/ disturbance and chemica/ abuse", In R. S. Ashery (Ecl.), (Progress and lssues in Case Management, NIDA Research Monograph Series (127), Rockville, MD: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Service, National Institute on Drug Abuse, pp. 289-315. Gambrill, E. (1999). "Evidence-based practice: An alternative to authority-based practice", Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 80, pp. 341-350. Haley, J. (1976). Problem solving therapy, San Francisco, CA, JosseyBass. Henggeler, S. W.; S.K. Schoenwald, C.M. Borduin, and C.C. Swenso_n (2006). ''Letter to the editor. Methodological critique and meta-analys1s as Trojan horse", Children and Youth Services, 28, pp. 447-457. \ 1 '1 1 ,, '' Henggeler, S. W. (1997). "The development of ejfective drug-abuse services for youth ", In J. A. Egertson, D. M. Fox, and A. l. Leshner (Eds.), Treating drug abusers effectively, New York, Blackwell Publisbers, pp. 253-279. . lttll 1 1 1 Henggeler, S. W. ( 1999). "Mu/tisystemic therapy: An overview ofc/inical procedures, outcomes, and po/icy imp/ications ", Cbild Psychology 47 Quarterly, 1, pp. 40-51. Henggeler, S. W.; S.K. Schoenwald, C.M. Borduin, M.D. Rowland, and P.B. Cunningham ( 1998). Multisystemic treatment ofantisocial behavior in children and adolescents, New York, Guilford Press. Huizinga, D.; R. Loeber, and T.P. Thornberry (1994). Urban delinquency and substance abuse: Initial findings, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Justice. Jainchill, N.; J. Hawke, G. DeLeon, and J. Yagelka (2000). "Ado/escents in therapeutic communities: One-yearposttreatment outcomes ", Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 32, pp. 81-94. Jenson, J. M. ( 1997). "Juvenile delinquency and drug abuse: Implications for social work practice in the justice system", In C. A. McNeece and A. R. Roberts (Eds.), Policy and practice in the justice system, Chicago, Nelson-Hall, pp. 107-123. Joaning, H.; W. Quinn, F. Thomas, and R. Mullen (1992). "Treating adolescent drug Abuse: A comparison offamily systems therapy, group therapy, and fami/y drug Education ", Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 18, pp. 345-356. Johnston, L. D.; P.M. O'Malley, J.G. Bachman, J. G., and J.E. Schulenberg (2005). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2004. Volume I: Secondary school students (NIH Publication No. 05-5727), Bethesda, MD, National Institute on Drug Abuse. and Psychiatry, 4 (1), pp. 2-10. Henggeler, S. W., and C.M. Borduin (1990). Family therapy and beyond: A multisystemic approach to treating the behavior problem.s of children and adolescents, Pacific Grove, CA, Brooks/Cole. Johnston, L. D.; P.M. O'Malley, and J.G. Bachman (2004). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2003. Volume I: Secondary scbool students (NIH Publication No. 03-5375), Bethesda, MD, National Institute on Drug Abuse. Henggeler, S. W.; C.M. Borduin, G.B. Melton, B.J. Mann, L.A. Smith, J.A. Hall, L. Cone, and B.R. Fucci (1991). "Effects of multisystemic Kaestner, E.; B. Frank, R. Marel, and J. Schrneidler (1986). "Substance abuse among Jemales in New York State: Catching up with the males" therapy on drug use and abuse in serious juveni/e offenders: A progress report jrom two outcome studies ", Family Dynarnics ofAddiction Advances in Alcohol and Substance Abuse, 5, pp. 29-49. �48 / Substance Abuse Treatment for Juvenile Delinquents: Promising and Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. Kendall, P. C., and L. Braswell (1993). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for impulsive children (2nd ed.), New York, Guilford Press. Lipsey, M. W. (1992). "Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects ", In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Corday, H. Hartman, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis, and F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook, New York, Russell Sage Foundation. Lipsey, M. W., and D.B. Wilson (1998). "Effective interventionfor serious Juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research ", In R. Loever and D. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions, London, Sage, pp.313-344. Littell, J. H. (2006). "Letter to the editor. The case for Multisystemic Therapy: Evidence or orthodoxy?", Children and Youth Services, 28, pp. 458-472. Littell, J. H. (2005). "Lessons learnedfrom a systematic review ofmultisystemic therapy", Children and Youth Services, 27, pp. 445-463. ,. ,1 1 '! 1 ¡ :: Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8. Num. I / 49 ~cNeece, C. A.; B. Bullington, E.M. Arnold, and D. W. Springer (2005). The war on drugs: Treatment, research, and substance abuse interventio~ in the twenty-first century ", In R. Muraskin andA. R. Roberts (Eds.), Vis10ns for change: Crime and justice in the twenty-:first century (4th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, pp. 88-120. McNeece, C. A.; D.W. Springer, and E.M. Arnold (2001). "Treating substance abuse Disorders ", In J. Ashford, B. D. Sales, and W.H. Reid ~Eds.), Treating adult and juvenile offenders with special needs, Washmgton, DC, American Psychological Association, pp. 131-169. ~iller, W. R., and R.K. Hester (1986). "The ejfectiveness of alcohol1sm research: What research reveals ", In W. R. Miller and N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors: Processes of change, New York, Plenum, pp. 175-204. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Munger, ~- L. ( 1993). Changing children 's behavior quickly, Lanham, MD, Mad1son Books. Littell, J. H., M. Popa, and B. Forsythe (2005). "Multisystemic therapy for social, emotional, and behavioralproblems in youth aged 10-17 ", Toe Cochrane Database ofSystematic Reviews, 4. Article No.: CD004797. pub4. DO1: 10.1002/14651858.CD004797.pub4. Nat~o~al Institute on Drug Abuse (1999, October). Principies of drug add1ction treatment: A research-based guide, [NIH pub. No. 99-4180], Washington, DC, Author. MacKenzie, D. L. (1994). "Boot camps: A national assessment", Overcrowded Times, 5 (4), pp. 14-18. Obermeier, G. E., and P.B. Henry (1989). "Adolescent inpatient tréatment ", Journal ofChemical Dependency, 2, pp. 163-182. McBride, D. C.; C.J VanderWaal, Y. M. Terry, and H. VanBuren (1999). Breaking the Cycle of drug use amongjuvenile offenders [On-line]. Retrieved October 24, 2002, from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffilesl/179273. pdf Office ofApplied StiJdies. (2004). Results from the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 03-3836, NHSDA Series H-22), Rockville, MD, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. McNeece, C. A. (1997). "Future directions in justice system policy and practice "In C.A. McNeece andA. R. Roberts (Eds.), Policy and practice in the justice system Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp. 63-269. Oldenettel, D., and M. Wordes, (2000). The community assessment center . concep~ (Juvenile justice bulletin). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of ~ustice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Dehnquency Prevention. i. .. �50 ¡ Substance Abuse Trearment for Juvenile Delinquents: Promising and Not-So-Promismg Practices in the U.S. Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primawtralspring 2006 Vo/.8, Num. I / ?· ~ock:wood ~ 199?)- "Sorne considerations on therapeutic communzlles m correctwns , In J. A. Pan, H.; F.R. Scarpitti, J.A. Inciardi, and_ Jnciardi (Ed.), Drug treatment and criminal justice (no. 27), Newbu.ry Park, CA, Sage, pp. 30-43. proParent' D. (1989) . Shock incarceration: An overview. of existing 1 In ..:tut f grams, Washington, DC, Department of Justice, Nattona su e o Justice. disorders and their families: Programs and evaluation best practice Austin, TX, Pro-ed, pp. 485-511. ' Springer, D. W. (2005). "Treating substance-abusing youth ", In C. A. McNeece and D. M. DiNitto (Eds.), Cbemical dependency: A systems approach (3rd ed.), Needham Heights, MA, Allyn and Bacon, pp. 269292. Peters, M.; D. Thomas, and C. Zamberlan (1997). Boot_camps for juvenile offenders, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Justice. Springer, D. W.; C.A. McNeece, and E.M. Arnold (2003). Substance abus~ _treatment for criminal offenders: An evidence-based guide for practthoners, Washington, DC, American Psychological Association. Physician Leadership on National Drug Con_trol Poli~y (2002). Adolescent substance abuse: A public health prionty, Prov1dence, RI, Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies. Spri~ger, ~- W.;_M.A. Shader, M. A., and C.A. McNeece {] 999). "OperatLOn of1uvem/e assessment centers: Trends and issues ", Joumal for Rivaux, s. L.; D.W. Springer, T. Bohman, E.F. Wagner, and A.G. Gil (in press). "Dif.ferences among substance abusing La!i~o: Anglo, and Stanton, M. S., and W.R. Shadish (1997). "Outcome, attrition, and African-Americanjuveni/e offenders in predict01:S ofrec1d1v1S"! a~d treatment outcome", Joumal of Social Work Practtce m the Add1cttons. • 51 Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 14, pp. 45-61. family/marita/ treatmentfor drug abuse: A meta-ana/ysis and review of the contro/led, comparative studies ", Psycbological Bulletin 122 pp. 170-191. ' ' Rothman, J. (2002). "An overview ofcase management", In A. R. Roberts and G. J. Green (Eds.), Social workers' desk reference, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 467-472. Sulli,;an, W. P. (2002). "Case management with substance-abusing c/ients , In A. R. Roberts and G. J. Greene (Eds.), Social workers' desk reference, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 492-496. Rothman, J. ( 1990). Toe discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the new republic, Boston, Little, Brown. Tepl_in, L. A.; K.M. Abram, G.M. McClelland, M. Duelan, and A.A . Mencle (2003). "Psychiatric disorders in youth in juveni/e detention" Archive ofGeneral Psychiatry, 59, pp. ll33-1143. ' Schoenwald, S. K.; D.M. Ward, S.W. Henggeler, S.G. Pickrel, and _H. Patel (1996). "Multisystemic therapy treatment of~ubs~ance abu~mg or dependent adolescent offenders: Costs of reducmg_ mcarceratl~n, inpatient, and residentia/ placement", Joumal of Child and Fanuly Terry, Y.M.; C.J. VanderWaal, and D.C. McBride (2000). "Provision of drug treatment servíces in the juvenile justice system: A system reform" Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 27, pp. 194-214. ' Studies, 5, pp. 431-444. Schoenwald, S. K.; C.M. Borduin, and S.W. Henggeler (1998). "Mu/tisystemic therapy: Changing the natural and service ecologies ofadoles~ cents andfamilies", In M. H. Epstein, K. ~utash, _and A. Duchno~ski (Eds.), Outcomes for children and youth w1th emottonal and behav1oral Timro~, A. (1992). Fact sheet: Drug testing in the criminal justíce system, Rockv11le, MD, Drugs and Crime Data Center and Clearinghouse. Trulson, C. R., and R. Triplett (1999). "School-based juveni/e boot camps: Eva/uating specia/ized treatment and rehabi/itation (STAR) ", �52 / Substance Abuse Treatment for Juwmile Delinquents: Promising and Not-So-Promising Practices in the U.S. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 14 (1), pp. 19-44. Revista PU$fJt!Clivas Sociales I Social PetTpeC(ives primavualspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. / / Pág. 53-65 Consulting with the Experts: Utilizing Adolescent Input m Substance Use Prevention Efforts Tu.roer, S.; J. Petersilia, and E.P. Deschenes ( 1994). "The_ i':'p/ementation and effectiveness ofdrng testing in community ~uperv,swn: Res~lts ofan experimental evaluation", ~n D. L. _Mac~e~1~ ~n~ C. D. Uch1da (Eds.), Drugs and crime: Evaluatmg pubhc pohcy tn1tlahves, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, pp. 231-252. Vega, w. A., and A.G. Gil (1998). Drug use and ethnicity in early adolescents, New York, Plenum Press. Vega, W. A.; R.S. Zimmerman, A.G. Gil, G.J. Warb_eit, _and_E. Apos?~ri, E. (1993). "Acculturation Strain Theory: lts ~ppbc~twn m .~p/ammg drng use behavior among Cuban and other Hlspamc youth , In_M. _R.· De La Rosa, and J. R. Adrados (Eds.), Drug Abuse among Mm~nty Youth: Advances in Researcb and Methodology, Rockville, MD, Natlonal lnstitute on Drug Abuse. Vega, W. A.; R.S. Zimmerman, and G.J. Warheit, G. J. (1_993). "Ri~~ Jactors for early adolescent drng use in 4 ethnic and raczal groups , American Joumal of Public Health, 83, pp. 185-189. Vorrath, H. H., and Brendtro, L, K. (1985). Positive peer culture (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. .,., ' ' Waldron, H. B. (1997). "Adolescent substance abuse andfa"!i~y thera!'y outcome: A review of randomized trials", Advances in Climcal Child Psychology, 19, pp. 199-234. 53 Lori Holleran Steiker* Resumen El presente trabajo teórico explora la premisa de que la intervención preventiva en el entorno escolar requiere de la consulta de la población meta al momento de diseñar la estrategia. Las formas predominantes de la evaluación de consumo de drogas en adolescentes utilizan técnicas cuantitativas, sin embargo, la exactitud de los datos autorreportados por las encuestas es cuestionable sobre todo en el ámbito escolar. A menudo los consumidores 'ocultos' no se encuentran al momento de la evaluación por haber sido expulsados, o bien, por ausentismo. Para examinar de mejor manera la cultura de los adolescentes y el consumo de drogas, técnicas como la entrevista a grupos focales, instrumentos de intervención diseñados por estudiantes (sobre todo los facilitados por lideres juveniles, videos producidos por adolescentes, etcétera) y estudios etnográficos pueden ser herramientas que proporcionan información más precisa sobre tendencias en el consumo de drogas. Los científicos enfocados a la prevención deberían de pedir a los adolescentes a guiarlos expertamente en la comprensión de sus experiencias. Abstract ~s conceptual paper explores the premise that school-based preven~on interventions incorporate consultation with the target population m the design process. While present modes of evaluating adolescent substance use consist primarily of quantitative techniques, the accuracy of self-reports in surveys is questionable and particularly in schools, the "hidden" users often are not present for evaluation due to drop-out and absentee rates. To better examine adolescent culture and drug use, * L-Ori Holleran Steiker is Associate Professor al The University o/ Texas al Auslin &hool ofSocial Work. Her email address is: lorikay@mail.ulexas.edu. . ISS~ 140?- 1133 C 2006 U~versidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Univcrsity of Texas of Austin, Uruvers1ty ofTexas ofArbngton, Our Lady of the Lake University, University ofTennessee, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango. �54 ¡ Ccnsulting with the Experts: Utilizing Ado/escent Input in Substance Use Prevention Efforts techniques such as focus groups, student designed intervention tools (e.g., facilitation by peer leaders, videos produced by_adolesc~nts, etc.), and ethnographic studies may yield more accurate mformat1on about substance trends. Prevention scientists must ask the adolescents for their expert guidance in understanding their experience. Palabras claves/Key Words Prevención, escuela, consumo de drogas, metodología, datos fiables Prevention, school, substance abuse, methodology, data accuracy Introduction -· ' 1 At present, few school-based prevention approaches have proveo effective in reducing substance use among adolescents, and even fewer have been tested with youth ofminority cultures (Forgey, Schinke, and Cole, 1997). Though there are several factors contributing to the lack of prevention successes from existing programs, this pa~er addresses the need for prevention programs which are grounded w1th respect to the culture of the targeted students. Culture, in this respect, refers not only to ethnic upbringing, but also to the swiftly changing culture of you~h. Tu.is includes, for example, language, clothing, body language, mus1c, etc. Purely ethnic conceptualizations of culture often oversimplify and stereotype; programs integrating ethnic cultural norms may capture sorne of the cultural nuances of a group, but may fail to represent the day-to-day experiences of the audience (Castro and Hemandez-Alarcon, 2002; Gosin, Marsiglia, and Hecht, 2003). Tu.is aspect of culture is referred to in this article as "organizational culture" (Fullan, 1991) which aims to capture a broader, more realistic picture of the multitude of variables which impact settings. Historically, drug prevention has most commonly consisted of the information education approach which assumes that once adults make adolescents aware of the health hazards of substances, they will develop anti-drug attitudes and subsequently make choices not to use. Research which questions the effectiveness of "information only" prevention programs (Botvin et al., 1995; Bukoski, 1985; Tobler, 1986, 1989) finds that not only does this form of intervention fail to ~roduce reduction in drug use, but sorne programs led to a subsequent mcrease Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. J / 5S in use of substances afterwards (Falck and Craig, 1988). For example, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) is the most widespread drug prevention program in the United States with well over 3 million participants (''Project DARE", 1990). In sorne cases, DARE has not only failed to reduce drug use, but sorne researchers have found that there was a subsequent increase in students' substance use afterwards (Clayton, et al., 1991; Harmon, 1993). Nonetheless, tnillions of government dollars and hundred of hours of school time have been spent on this one program every year. With the contributions of social theorists including Bandura ( 1977), Jessor and Jessor (1975, 1977), and McGuire (1974)), models began to consider the interplay of individual, social and environmental factors (Falck and Craig, 1988). Tu.ese models incorporated the complex, multi-level interaction of children with their environment and social and family systems. Tu.e ecological model stresses the concept of multiple levels of influence on child development and the complex interaction of child and environment (Lorion, 1987; Tolan, Guerra and Kendall, 1995). They focus on social skills and general functioning rather than on substances alone. Thus far, the majority of school based programs espousing the most successful social skills and ecological models have been implemented with majority culture youth (Wilson, Rodrigue, and Taylor, 1997). Though sorne programs have focused on minority youth, few have been designed to address culturally specific factors. Research efforts have focused superficially on cultural nuances (Forgey, Schinke and Cole, 1997) There is a need for cultural grounding and mechanisms to accurately ascertain sucb factors. Culturally grounded prevention programs Taking an ecological approach, the culture of each school varies depending upon the principal, staff, location, and students. One cannot expect a program design to fit all cultures or schools. Current research suggests that culturally-specific prograrns are imperative (Gordon · 1994; Botvin et al., 1995). Particularly, programs designed to serve th~ needs of minority youth have more impact when they re:flect sensitivity �56 / Consulting with the Experts: Utilizing Adolescent Input in Substance Use Preventinn Efforts to the unique cultural characteristics of the students (Lee and Richardson, 1991; Botvin et al., 1995). Price and Lorion's (1989) important contribution to the field of prevention is the identification that successful prevention program designs do not necessarily lead to effective implementation. They make the crucial point that the intervention involves complex transactions among individuals and the context adds further complexity by virtue of a "variety of dynamic organizational and cultural forces that can act either to protect and strengthen the innovation or to undermine and distort it" (p. 102). A program's positive outcome requires that the host be a major stakeholder in the success of the intervention. Also, the program must "speak the language of the recipients" and "be based on insights into contemporary rites of passage to the adult world and on insights into the taboos that the young are told to avoid" (Russo, 1980). There are several modes of intervention that a:ffect the cultural grounding of a program. First, the program design can be populationspecific. For example, the Culturally Tailored Intervention (CTI) specifically targeted substance abuse among inner-city African American and Hispanic youth (Forgey, Schinke, and Cole, 1997). Second, the implementers can adapt an externa! program to the specific population at hand. An example of this is the Life Skills Training model (Botvin, 1995) which only makes modifications to the generalized program where warranted to maximize cultural sensitivity, relevance and acceptability to varied populations. Regardless of the technique, the accuracy of the cultural aspects of a prevention program are crucial for program effectiveness. Many prevention models have been devised based on conjectures and intuitions and even stereotypes (Kim, Coletti, Williams, and Hepler, 1995). Cultural groundedness can only be achieved with input from the target population. Adolescent input Adolescents shift from primary closeness with parents to increasing intimacy with peers as adolescence progresses (Savin-Williams and Berndt, 1990). This shift in importance and intensity of peer relations affects the level of influence peers have on each other regarding sub- Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. J ¡ 57 stance use. Researchers have identified peer infl.uence as one of the strongest risk ~actors for substance abuse among majority and minority youth (Beauvais, 1992). Sorne studies have found peer relationships to be of even greater importance for minority adolescents (Spencer and Dombusch, 1990). !s . There scant attention to the role of adolescents in planning and nnplementmg substance abuse prevention programs. Sorne authors merely mention this in passing, but do not elaborate on the extent and mech~~sms _of such input. For example, Wodarski and Feit (1995) state, ther~ 1s a need for youth to provide input regarding what they feel are therr greatest stresses and programs needed to directly address th~s~ issues" (p. 9). Toe specific mechanisms of acquiring and utilizing this mput are not delineated. There is, however, a great <leal of literature on adolescents as program providers. Utilization of "peer leaders" is advocated due to their credibility with students, which may be higher than with their teachers (Ar~ ~tal., 19~1). Studies comparing teacher-led and peer-led prevent10n mterventions have demonstrated mixed findings (Erhard 19~~). First, it is impossible to attribute differences in programs to th; facihtator model due to the number of intervening variables. While 8 ?me comparative studies have found peer-led programs to have significant advantages (Botvin, Baken, Dusenbury, et al, 1990; Botvin et al., 1984; Forgey, Schinke and Cole, 1997; Luepker, Johnson and Murry, 1983; Murray, Johnson, Luepker and Mittlemeark, 1984; Perry and Grant, 1988; Tobler, 1986), others have found no significanJ differences based on peer or teacher implementer (Prince, 1995; Rickert, Susan, and Gottleb, 1991 ). E ven when peer implementer models are used, there can be problems. For example, in 1995, a study of 45 sc~ools with peer-led programs found that 50% ofthe schools stopped usmg the model after only one year due to the labor-intensive nature of training, supervising, and maintaining the peer implementers. Sorne of the assumptions about peer-led models, such as the fear of control and ~~scipline difficu.lties, are unfounded (Erhard, 1999). Also, in the sens1tive area of substance use and abuse, it is important to note that pee~-l~d programs yielded twice ~s much student self-disclosure among partic1pants (Erhard, 1999). Ali m all, there are strong indications that �58 / Consulting with the Experts: Utilizing Adolescenl Input in Substance Use Prevention Efforts Revista Perspectivos Sociales I Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8. Num. J / 59 the peer-led model may possess greater potential for primary prevention than teacher-led programs. particular changes over short time spans and provides unique opportunities to connect with and understand the ideas and values of each specific group of adolescents (Shapiro, 1985). Despite the amount of research on peer implementation, literature on the utilization of adolescent input in the substance abuse program development process are scant. Barriers to change Feasibility of implementation In order to use adolescent input to adapt prevention programs to the culture of the target population, there must be an openness to change, a willingness to allow the adolescents to be the "experts," and a cornmitment to listening to their contributions. For example, Toe Drug Resistance Strategies Project (DRS) (NIDA, ROi DA05629, 1997-2001) in Arizona has impacted the lives of almost 5,000 students since the prevention intervention was implemented in 1997. The project involved a group of ethnically diverse high school students from a large city high school in the creation of the curriculum. Adolescents were called upon to conceptualize, script and produce severa! culturally specific substance abuse prevention videos to illustrate the prevention messages of the currículum disseminated throughout Phoenix junior high schools. Toe students wrote scripts from the pilot studies that examined substance use and resistance experiences of 7th graders. The research team conducted focus groups with students representing the target population to assess the effectiveness of the student-produced prevention videos. The emic perspective was enlisted to gain unique insights into the adolescent perception of the option to use or resist substances. In addition, adolescent understanding of the targeted minority cultures were explored through this medium. The ethnography revealed powerful insights which were used to inforrn the rest of the three year project. There is no additional cost to utilizing such methods, although they can be time-consuming. Toe adolescent perspective allows for access to accurate vernacular, customs, and styles of the target population. Language usage in There has been controversy arnong prevention scientists regarding whether or not prograrn integrity is more important than adaptation of programs to particular audiences, or vice versa. There are those that believe that modifications of a model dilute its effectiveness. Prevention programs are rarely clear as to which elements are adaptable and which are not. Nurnerous research studies suggest that augmenting the host organization's sense of "ownership" is critica! to programmatic success; prevention programs cannot flourish without participation and cornmitrnent on the part of the host environment(s) (Price and Lorion, 1989; Kelly, 1987, Tomatzky, et al., 1983). Price and Lorion (1989) propose a distinction of "core elements" from adaptive characteristics, yet this suggestion is not presently in practice. More research to evaluate culturally specific programs is imperative to assess effects of adaptation. Prevention efforts must be tailored to the particular developmental needs ofthe target population in order to be effective (Marsiglia, Holleran, and Jackson, 2000.) Another issue of concem is the potential negative reaction to a change in school based prevention programming on the part of the community. As noted by Price and Lorion (1989) with regard to cultural sensitivity, "Frequently, reducing risk factors is not seen as a neutral act by sorne community members" (p. l 02). One must consider that programs such as DARE, are what communities, school staff, parents, and ~tudents have come to expect. Attempts to change or adapt interventions to make them more relevant, if not carefully approached, may be perceived as threatening. Conclusion ~ e great strides have been made in the field of prevention scienée ~th regard to awareness of risk and protective factors which should ínform program designs, the present practice of disseminating "model" �60 / Consulting with the Experts: Utilizing Adolescent Input in Substance Use Prevention Efforts programs based on these factors without adapting them to the population, setting, and culture they are to serve is flawed . No one program can effectively reach all populations. ... Adolescent-informed, culturally grounded programs can provide the language, so-to-speak, that can be heard by the targeted students. Toe most important benefit of utilizing adolescent input in the fonnation, process, and evaluation of substance abuse prevention efforts is the resulting reality-rooted, timely, and culturally applicable prevention interventions. This technique can be utilized even with existing programs, by having adolescents adapt evidence-based curricula to their own culture and agency. Toe use of this method will enhance substance use prevention efforts. By incorporating the students' perspectives throughout curricula, curricula are more grounded in the youths' social, geographical, and cultural context (Gosin, Marsiglia, and Hecht, 2003). Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. 1 / 61 References Akins, C. and Beschner, G. (Eds.) (1980). Ethnography: A research too! for policymakers in the drug and alcohol fields. Rockville, Maryland, U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services. Arkin, R.M.; H.J. Roemhild, C.A. Johnson, R.V. Luepker, and D.M. Murray (1981). "The Minnesota smoking prevention programme: A seventh grade health currículum supplement ", Journal of school health, 51, pp. 616-661. Beauvais, F. (1992). "An integrated model for prevention and treatment ofdrug abuse among American Indian youth ", Journal of addictive diseases, 11, pp. 63-80. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall. Botvin, G. J. (1995). "Drug abuse prevention in school settings", In G. J. Botvin, S. Schinke, and M. A. Orlandi (Eds.), Drug abuse prevention with multiethnic youth, Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp. 169-192. Botvin, G. J.; E. Baker, L. Dusenbury, S. Tortu, S., and E.M. Botvin (I 990). "Preventing adolescent drug abuse through a multimodal cognitive-behavioral approach: results ofa 3 year study", Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, pp. 437-446. Botvin, G.J.; E. Baker, N.L. Renick, A.D. Filazzola, and E.M. Botvin (1984). "A cognitive behavio~al approach to substance abuse prevention ", Addictive Behavior, 9, pp. 137-147. Bukoski, W.J. (1985). "School-based substance abuse prevention: A review ofprogram research ", In S. Ezekoye, K.H. Kumpfer, and W.J. Bukoski (Eds. ), Childhood and chemical abuse: Prevention and intervention, N.Y., Hayworth Press. Castro, P. G., and E.H. Hemandez-Alarcon (2002). "Jntegrating cultural variables into drug abuse prevention and treatment with racial/ �62 / Consulting with the Experts: Ulilizing Adolescent Input in Substance Use Preven/ion Efforts ethnic minorities", Toe Journal ofDrug Issues, 32, pp. 783-810. Clayton, S. (1991). "Gender differences in psychosocial determinants ofadolescent smoking", Journal of School Health, 61 , pp. 115-120. Erhard, R. (1999). "Peer-led and adult-led programs - Student perceptions ", Journal of Drug Education, 29(4), pp. 295-308. Falck, R., and R. Craig (1988). "Classroom-oriented, primary prevention programmingfor drug abuse ", Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20(4), pp. 403-408. Forgey, M.A.; S. Schinke, and K. Cole (1997). "School-based interventions to prevent substance use among inner-city minority adolescents", In D.K. Willson, J.R. Rodriguez, and W.C. Taylor (Eds.), Health-promoting and health-compromising behaviors among minority adolescents, Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association. Fullan, M. G. (1991). Toe New Meaning ofEducational Change, New York, Teachers College Press. Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. / / 63 -------, and Jessor, S.L. (1975). "Adolescent development and the onset ofdrinking ", Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36, pp. 27-51. Kelly, J.G. (1987). "Seven criteria when conducting community-based prevention research: A research agenda and commentary", In J.A. Steinberg, M.M. Silvennan, M.M. (Eds.), Preventing mental disorders: A research perspective, DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 87-1492, Washington D.C., US Gov. Printing Office. Kim, S.; S.D. Coletti, C. Williams, and N.A. Hepler (1995). "Substance abuse prevention involving Asian/Pacific Islander American communities", In G. J. Botvin, S. Schinke, and M. A. Orlandi (Eds.), Drug abuse prevention with multiethnic youth, Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp. 295-326. Lee, C.C., and B.L. Richardson (Eds.) (1991). Multicultural issues in counseling: New approaches to diversity, Alexandria, VA, American Association for Counseling and Development. Gordon, J.U. (1994). Managing multiculturalism in substance abuse services, Thousand Oaks, London, and New Delhi, Sage Publications. Lorion, R. (1987). ''Methodological challenges in prevention research", In J.A. Steinberg, M .M. Silverman (Eds.), Preventing mental disorders: A research perspective. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 87-1492, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. Gosin, M.; F.F. Marsiglia, and M.L. Hecht (2003). "Keepin 'it REAL: A Luepker, R.V.; C.A. Johnson, and D.M. Murry (1983). "Prevention of drug resistance currículum tailored to the strengths and needs ofpreadolescents of the Southwest", Toe Journal of Drug Education, 33(2), cigarette smoking: Three yearfollow-up ofan educationa/ program for youth", Journal ofBehavioral Medicine, 6(1), pp. 53-62. pp. 119-142. Marsiglia, F.F.; L. Holleran, and K.M. Jackson (2000). "Assessing the Harmon, M.A. (1993). "Reducing the risk ofdrug involvement among early adolescents: An eva/uation of drug abuse resistance education (DARE) ", Evaluation Review, 17, pp. 221-239. Jessor, R. (1984). "Adolescent development and behavioral health ", In J.D. Matarazzo, S.M. Weiss, J.A. Herd, and N.E. Miller (Eds.), Behavioral health: A handbook of health enhancement and disease prevention, NY, Wiley, pp. 69-90 Effect ofExterna/ Resources on School-Based Substance Abuse Prevention Programs ", Social Work in Education, 22(3), pp. 145-161 . McGuire, W.J. (1974). "Communication-persuasion models for drug education: Experimentalfindings ", In M.S. Goodstadt (Ed), Research on methods and programs of drug education, Toronto, Addictions Research Foundation. Murray, D.M.; R. V. Luepker, C.A. Johnson, and M.B. Mittelmark �64 / Consulting with the &perts: Utilizing Adolescent input in Substance Use Prevention Efforts Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8, Num. ¡ ¡ 65 (1984). "The prevention ofcigarette smoking in children: A comparison offour strategies ", Joumal of Applied Psychology, 14(3), pp. 274288. Shapiro, T. (1985). "Adolescent language: Jts use for diagnosis, group identity, values, and treatment", Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, pp. 29731 l. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (1997-2001). Drug Resistance Strategies Project, (project number 2RO1 DA05629), Washington, DC, National Institute ofHealth. Spencer, M., and S. Dornbusch (1993). "Challenges in studying minority youth ", In S. Feldman and G.Elliot (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press pp. 277-307. ' Perry, C.L., and M. Grant (1988). Comparing peer led youth alcohol education in four countries. Alcohol Health and Research World, 12, pp. 322-326. Price, R.H. and R.P. Lorion (1987). "Prevention programming as organizational reinvention: From research to implementation ", In D. Shaffer, l. Philips, and N.B. Enzer (Eds.), Prevention of mental health disorders, alcohol and other drug use in children and adolescents, OSAP Prevention Monograph-2. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 90-1646, Washington, D.C., U.S. Govemment Printing O:ffice. Project DARE: How's it doing? (1990) Prevention File, 16-18. As cited in Harmon, M.A. ( 1993) "Reducing the risk ofdrug involvement among early adolescents", Evaluation Review, 17, pp. 221-239. Russo, R.J. (1980). "State prob/ems and the needfor research-based planning in the drug field", In C. Akins, and G. Beschner (Eds.), Ethnography: A research tool for policymakers in the drug and alcohol fields, Rockville, Maryland, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Savin-Williams, R.C., and Bemdt, T.J. (1990). "Friendship and peerrelations", In S.S. Feldman and G.R. Elliott (Eds.), At the tbreshold: The developing adolescent, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, pp. 277-307. Schinke, S.P.; G.J. Botvin, and M.A. Orlandi (1991). Substance abuse in children and adolescents: Evaluation and intervention, Newbury Park, London and New Delhi, Sage Publications. Tobler, N.S. (1986). "Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs: Quantitative outcome results ofprogram participants compared to a control comparison group ", Joumal of drug issues, 4, pp. 537-567. Tobler, N.S. (1989). Drug prevention programs can work: Research findings. Paper presented at the conference " What Works: An International Perspective on Drug Abuse Treatrnent and Prevention Research " October 23-25, New York, New York. ' Tolan, P.H.; N.G. Guerra, and P.C. Kendall (1995). "A developmentalecological p erspective on antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: Toward a unified risk and interven/ion framework", Joumal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, pp. 579-584. Tomatzky, L.G.; E.O. Fergus; J.W. Avellar and G.W. Fairweather (1983). The process of technological innovation: Reviewing the literature, Washington, D.C., National Science Foundation. ~illson, D.K., J.R. Rodrigue, and W.C. Taylor (Eds.). Health-promotmg a~d health-compromising behaviors among minority adolescents, Washington, D.C., American Psychological Association. Wodarski, J.S., and M.D. Feit (1995). Adolescent substance abuse: An empirical-based group preventive health paradigm, N.Y. and London Haworth Press. ' �R<Nista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Yol.8, Num. 1 / Pág. 67-75 67 Toe Role ofthe Federal Government in Juvenile Justice Michael J. Churgin* Resumen ' .. A pesar de que el tema de la justicia criminal sigue constituyendo un asunto político popular en tiempos electorales y aún y cuando el Congreso de los Estados Unidos crea con regularidad nuevas leyes para el combate de la criminalidad expandiendo así el papel del gobierno fedemal en esta área, se han hecho pocas llamadas hacia la expansión del papel federal en la justicia juvenil. Se observan ocasionalmente algunas iniciativas, como por ejemplo con relación a las bandas juveniles, sin embargo, tanto el poder legislativo como ejecutivo federales siguen delegando a los estados el trato de las actividades criminales de personas menores de 18 años de edad. Abstract .,.... While the subject of criminal justice remains a popular political issue at the time of elections, and Congress creates new criminal laws regularly, expanding the role of the federal govemment in criminal matters, there have been few calls for an expansion of the federal role in juvenile justice. There are occasional initiatives, such as with youth gangs, but the federal legislative and executive branches have been content to rely on the states to handle criminal activity by persons under 18 as described earlier. Palabras claves/Key words Sistema de justicia, jóvenes, gobierno, función, Estados Unidos Justice system, juveniles , govemment, function, United States * Michael Churgin is Raybourne Thompson Centennial Professor in Law at The University of Texas at Austin. This pap er was prepared for the Symposium, Youth, Education, and Juvenile Justice - Perspectives from the United States and Brazil, November 14, 2005, Austin, Texas. · ISSN 1405-1133 © 2006 Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, University ofTexas of Austin, University ofTexas of Arlington, Our Lady of the Lore University, University ofTennessee, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango. �68 / The Role of the Federal Govemment in Juvenile Justice Introduction ..... From the founding of the United States until the late 20th century, the role of the federal government in the criminal justice system was quite limited. With the exception of certain matters of particular interest to the United States, such as crimes involving the postal service, federally insured banks or importation of drugs, almost all criminal prosecutions were conducted in the respective states. While the role of the federal government in criminal justice matters has grown considerably in the last several decades, Congress has chosen not to expand the role of the United States Department of Justice in juvenile matters to the same extent. There are occasional prosecutions against juveniles by United States attorneys. In addition, there is an office in the Justice Department devoted to juvenile justice matters, grants are made to the states with strings attached, federal civil rights statutes are applicable to state juvenile justice systems, and federal civil rights actions are brought to enforce a few federal statutes. However, basically, the world of juvenile justice is largely left to the states. Federal lnitiatives Historically, the federal government has been a bit player on the stage ofjuvenile justice. Congress established the Children 's Bureau in 1912, and one of its myriad tasks was to study the juvenile court systems in the various states. In its first decade, the Children's Bureau did studies of various aspects of juvenile justice. F ollowing a national conference on juvenile courts in 1921, the Bureau set up a committee to develop standards. Once promulgated in 1923, these standards provided guidance for several decades (Bradbury). The next major initiative did not occur until the passage of the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act in 1961 (Public Law (P.L.) 87-274), which authorized the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to engage in grant making on the question of juvenile delinquency. Authorization expired in 1967. During 1968, Congress split the baby? of federal involvement with the passage of two laws for two different agencies: the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act (P.L. 90-445) lodged within HEW, and the Crime Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. J ¡ 69 Control Act, a much more bold initiative, which created the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) within the Department of Justice (P.L. 90-351). HEW was to develop a national approach to the problem of juvenile delinquency and fund efforts by states to address the problem. LEAA was to focus on crime and the criminal justice system. Over time, however, LEAA funding for juvenile justice projects dwarfed HEW's funding for delinquency prevention. Toe state agencies might look to both for funds, but essentially criminal justice entities were the dominant players. Finally, in 1974, Congress set up the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs (OJJDP) within LEAA at the Department of Justice as part of the Juvenile Justice Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-415), and, under Title m, HEW was left with the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. States were now required to develop plans to remove status offenders and dependent/neglected children from detention/correctional facilities. Furthermore, juveniles alleged to be delinquent had to be separated from adults in facilities in order to qualify for the LEAA block funds for juvenile justice. Congress also imposed a requirement on LEAA to make sure that juvenile programs did not receive short shrift. The OJJDP was to be involved in ali programs dealing with juvenile delinquency, even beyond the funds that it directly administered. Until LEAA waned during the Carter and Reagan administrations, hundreds of millions of federal dollars were sent to the states through their planning entities to accomplish juvenile justice goals. The Department of Justice has maintained its preeminent role since 1974. Toe OJJDP has been placed under various umbrella entities with the department and is now lodged within the Bureau of Justice Programs. Toe mandates for state plans were modified over time. During the 1980s, there was an increased focus on jail removal requirements and the introduction of a concern for disproportionate minority confinement. The 1992 amendments saw the inclusion of gender bias programs ~nd a new emphasis on "prevention and treatment, family strengthemng, graduated sanctions, and risk-needed assessments." Toe 2002 reauthorization of the JJDP Act (P.L. 107-273) consolidated various programs into a single prevention block grant and provided for additional initiatives. However, the core requirements for states to re- �70 / The Role ofthe Federal Govemmen/ in Juvenile Justice ceive the block grants are maintained: deinstitutionalization of status offenders, separation ofjuveniles from adults in institutions, removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups and reduction of disproportionate minority contact where it exists (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/about/legislation.htm1). Only the state of Wyoming has refused federal dollars so it need not comply with the mandates. The OJJDP coordinates the gathering of data and publishes comprehensive national reports (Juvenile). OJJDP also staffs the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which is the federal voice on the subject with representatives of various agencies and independent persons appointed by the President and legislative leaders. There is a similar body made up of state representatives, the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice. The United States Supreme Court and the Rights of Juveniles •.,.... Probably the most substantial federal involvement took place in a series of decisions by the United States Supreme Court in the 1960's and 1970's interpreting the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to state juvenile delinquency proceedings. Toe Court held that juveniles facing a loss of freedom were entitled to be represented by counsel, and that the state must appoint counsel if the individual were indigent (Gault). In subsequent decisions, the Court held that the burden of persuasion in delinquency proceedings would be "beyond a reasonable doubt," the same standard employed in adult criminal trials (Winship), and that the double jeopardy clause applied to juvenile proceedings (Breed). However, the Court did not require states to provide juries (McKeiver), and the Court was permissive in allowing the states to detain juveniles pending court proceedings (Schall). Recently, the Court barred the execution ofjuveniles convicted of capital crimes, if the crime was committed by someone under the age of 18 (Roper). Federal Prosecutions of Juveniles Toe actual prosecution of juvenile cases by federal attomeys is limited. Congress has indicated a preference that the states prosecute these cases where possible. Exceptions include federal areas of special interest Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8, Num. I / 71 such as Indian reservations, and crimes committed on federal property such as national parks or in federal facilities. Toe greatest numbers of juveniles arrested by federal authorities are those seized by the Border Patrol of the Department of Homeland Security. A final category involves instances where the state declines to prosecute or Iacks adequate programs and services. However, in 1984, Congress created a new "substantial federal interest'' category: a crime of violence or a drug offense that is a felony and a substantial federal interest based on the nature of the offense or the circumstances of the case. (P.L. 98473). The United States Attorney so certifies and the case may remain in federal court (United States (1997)). If a case remains in the federal system as a juvenile case, the judge hears the matter without a jury in closed session. Toe disposition power is similar to that of state juvenile court. In addition, for certain serious cases, the juvenile may be transferred for trial as an adult, similar to the procedure in most states. Federal Enforcement of United States Civil Rights Statutes Under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA)(P.L. ~6-247) (42 USC §1997 et seq.), the federal Department of Justice may mtervene on behalf of persons confined to state institutions where there is an "egregious or fl.agrant deprivation of civil rights." Occasionally, there have been court actions directed against state and local juvenile facilities. (United States (1986)). Most federal complaints are resolved by agreement. For example, the Civil Rights Division began an investigation in 2004 of certain Indiana juvenile facilities. Toe following year, the govemor was notified of findings of civil rights violations in the area of general operation of the facilities plus specific problems in the provision of mental health care; subsequently, the federal government filed suit against Indiana. In 2006, the state and the federal governments entered into a settlement agreement, with Indiana agreeing to remedy the violations, and providing for monitoring by the Civil Rights Division. (Criminal Justice Newsletter (2006)). Similarly, the same procedural history occurred in a case against Hawaii concerning staffing, use of physical force, and providing an appropriate education · for persons with disabilities in the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility. (C~al Justice Newsletter (2005)). Sometimes, protracted litigation agamst the state takes place. This happened with the state ofLouisiana �72 / The Role of the Federal Government in Juveni/e Justice concerning medical, mental health and dental care in the state's juvenile facilities; and in 2000, the federal district judge approved a very detailed agreement that involved employment of a court expert to assist in monitoring compliance (Williams). The Americans with Disabilities Act, (P.L. 101-336), (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), is applicable to a state when it is sued for injunctive relief. In certain situations, there also may be damage claims. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court indicated damage claims were permissible for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States argued that as a result of the long history of denial of basic civil rights to the disabled in detention and prison facilities by states, Congress could provide for damage actions in addition to injunctive relief (United States (2006)). In addition, the federal government may begin enforcement actions. Last year, The Department of Justice reached agreement with the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services and its prívate contractor concerning a complaint from a deaf juvenile who alleged a lack of auxiliary aids at a state juvenile detention facility. He received only limited interpreter services and thus could not participate fully in various programs at the facility. There was an agreement for systemic change, training, and compliance, plus damages and a civil penalty (United States (2005). In addition, other federal civil rights mandates apply to the states' juvenile justice systems. For example, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (P.L. 106-274) (42 U.S.C. §2000cc-1) prohibits entities that receive federal funds from imposing a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or con:fined in an institution. Since all states except Wyoming receive federal juvenile justice funds, they are covered by the statute (Benning). Congress also has established protection and advocacy programs for persons with developmental disabilities and with mental illnesses in every state. These entities may investigate and sue state officials to enforce the civil rights of their clients (NAPAS). Private Civil Rigbts Lawsuits - A Texas Example In addition, individual residents of state facilities may sue under the Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. / I 73 general federal civil rights act, 42 U.S.C. §1983. One particularly famous (or infamous) Texas suit, Morales v. Turman, kept the Texas Youth Council (TYC) and the state in litigation for more than a decade. Initially, the case concerned access to counsel for confined juveniles, and the court's decision was a catalyst for the reform of the state's juvenile justice code (Morales (1971)). The more contentious aspect ofthe litigation concemed the treatment of juveniles in state facilities. The federal district judge invited the United States to participate as amicus curiae - this was before Congress had passed CRIPA - and this brought agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to TYC facilities. Toe judge ordered sweeping interirn relief (Morales (1973)), and a broad final order the following year describing brutality within TYC facilities (Morales (1974)). There was a time that whenever a juvenile was placed in segregation in a TYC facility, a report had to be filed with the federal judge. The litigation led to significant changes in the TYC board and the administration of TYC. The Texas legislature directed an infusion of funds, and authorized community based juvenile corrections (Churgin). The lawsuit lingered for years, anda proposed settlement was submitted to the court in 1983. While rejected by the federal court, (Morales (1983)), it was the blueprint for the 1984 termination of federal judicial oversight of the juvenile corrections system in Texas. Today, twenty years later, the juvenile justice system in Texas is a modero operation. Conclusion While the subject of criminal justice remains a popular political issu.e at the time of elections, and Congress creates new criminal laws regularly, expanding the role of the federal government in criminal matters, there ~ave been few calls for an expansion of the federal role in juvenile jusnce. There are occasional initiatives, such as with youth gangs, but the federal legislative and executive branches have been content to rely on the states to handle criminal activity by persons under 18 as described earlier. �74 / The Role ofthe Federal Government in Juvenile Justice Revista Perspectwas Sociales I Social Perspectwes primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. / J 75 References Morales v. Turman, 383 F.Supp. 53 (E.D. Tex. 1974). Benning v. State ofGeorgia, 391 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2004). Morales v. Turman, 569 F.Supp. 332 (E.D.Tex. 1983). Bradbury, Dorothy E. (1956). Four Decades of Action for Children, Children's Bureau, USGPO. NAPAS (National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems). For background on the development of these programs, see: http:// www.napas.org/aboutus/history.htm. Churgin, Michael J. (1982). "Mandated Change in Texas: The Federal District Court and the Legislature, " In Neither Angels or Thieves: Studies in Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders, (Handler and Zatz, eds), (National Academy Press, pp. 872-898. Criminal Justice Newsletter, December 2005, at 6-7. The federal complaint can be found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/hawaii_compt_ 2-7-06.pdf, and the results of the investigation can be found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/hawaii_youth_ findlet_8-4-05.pdf. Criminal Justice Newsletter, March 15, 2006, at 7-8. An example of an investigative report in the case can be found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/ crt/split/documents/split_ indiana_plain:fieldjuv_ :findlet_9-9-05.pdf. Toe federal civil rights complaint can be found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/ indianajuv_ compt_ 2-806.pdf. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Schall v. Martín, 467 U.S. 253 (1984). United States v. County of Los Angeles, 635 F.Supp. 588 (C.D.Cal. 1986) United States v. Juvenile No. 1, 11 8 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 1997). United States v. Maryland, (2005); a copy of the settlement agreement can be found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/documents/split maryland_agree_6-29-05.pdf. United States v. Georgia, 126 S.Ct 877 (2006). See also Messier v. Southbury Training School, 916 F.Supp 133 (D.Conn 1996). Williams v. McKeithen, 121 F.Supp.2d 943 (M.D.La 2000). Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519( 1975). In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report, can be found at: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/NR2006.pdf. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971). Morales v. Turman, 326 F.Supp. 677 (E.D. Tex. 1971). Morales v. Turman, 364 F. Supp. 166 (E.D. Tex. 1973). �PRACTICE INNOVATIONS INOVACIONES DE LA PRÁCTICA �Revista Perspectivas Sociales/ Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8. Num. I / Pág. 79-99 79 Mentally Ill Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System And the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program JohnPosey* Resumen El presente estudio examina la prevalencia de delincuentes con enfermedades mentales dentro del sistema de justicia juvenil, la insuficiencia de los servicios proporcionados a este tipo de delincuentes y la efectividad de un programa desarrollado en Texas - llamado Programa de Necesidades Especializadas de Diversión (SNDP) - para superar esta insuficiencia. Dicho programa intenta aumentar la disponibilidad y la intensidad de los servicios de salud mental al igual que la supervisión comunitaria para delincuentes juveniles con enfermedades mentales. Con ello se busca reducir la delincuencia y crear alternativas efectivas al encarcelamiento de los participantes del programa. Abstract This study examines the prevalence of mentally ill offenders in the juvenile justice system, the gap in services provided to mentally ill offenders, and the effectiveness of a program - the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program (SNDP) - developed by the Texas government. This program is intended to increase the availability and intensity of mental health services and community supervision for mentally ill juvenile offenders, resulting in reduced offending and effective altematives to incarceration for program participants. * Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. ISSN 1405-1133 0 2006 Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Unive111ity ofTexas ofAustin, University ofTexas ofArliogtoo, Our Lady ofthe Lake University, University ofTennessee, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango. �80 / Mental/y fil Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System And the Specialized Needs Diwrsionary Program Key words / Palabras clave Delincuentes, enfermedades mentales, sistema de justicia, jóvenes, prevalencia, Texas. Mentally ill offenders, justice system, juvenile, prevalence, Texas. Introducción In 2001 the 77th Texas Legislature received a series of reports from the Criminal Justice Policy Council which suggested there was a need for more services for mentally ill o:ffenders in the community, particularly adult and juvenile offenders in the probation system. Without appropriate treatment and supervision, these o:ffenders were more likely to recidivate to prison or the Texas Youth Commission. To start addressing this need for services, the Legislature in 2001 appropriated $35 mili ion in new funding for an Enhanced Mental Health Services Initiative. The Texas Council on O:ffenders with Mental Impairments received $23 million to provide mental health treatment for these offenders, while the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC) received $4 million and the Community Justice Assistance Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice received $8 million to fund specialized supervision caseloads for juvenile and adult probationers. Juveniles receiving both mental health treatment and specialized supervision or specialized supervision only are considered part of the Special Needs Diversionary Program (SNDP) of TJPC. In 2001 the 77th Legislature also mandated the use of a mental health screening instrument for juveniles in the criminal justice system. Toe goal of the initiative is to increase the availability and intensity of mental health services and community supervision for mentally iU offenders, resulting in reduced offending and e:ffective altematives to incarceration for program participants. Toe purpose of this report is to examine the prevalence of mentally ill o:ffenders in the juvenile justice system from 2001 to 2004, to determine if services in SNPD were being provided according to the model established, and to examine the effectiveness of SNDP. Important findings include the following: • In FY 2004, an estimated 26.5% of juveniles supervised in the Revista Perspectivas Sociales/ Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8, Num. I I 81 criminal justice system were mentally ill. • As of FY 2004, the estimated gap in mental health services for mentally ill juveniles stood at 67.2%, or an estimated 12,721 juveniles. • Most juveniles were provided services according to the model, though many <lid not receive as many home contacts as were required. • Approxirnately 70% of juveniles successfully completed SNDP in FY2004. • 19% of juveniles starting SNDP in FY 2002 were sent to residential placement within one year, while 25% were sent to residential placement within two years. • 7% of juveniles starting SNDP in FY 2002 were committed to the Texas Youth Cornmission (TYC), within one year, while 14% were cornrnitted to TYC within two years. TYC provides for the care and custody ofjuveniles removed from their homes by court order who are chronically delinquent or who commit serious offenses. • Juvenile with more home contacts per week had higber completion rates and lower TYC commitment rates than other juveniles. Methodology Each month the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission receives an extract of data from local probation departments containing information about juveniles ages 10-17 who are involved with the juvenile justice system. That information was used to establish the nu.mber of juveniles under supervision in the justice system from 2002 - 2004. The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) maintains records about juveniles receiving mental health services in Texas. Data from both agencies was matched to establisb the prevalence of mental illness among the juvenile justice system (a furtber explanation of this prevalence is provided below). TJPC created a unifonn database that ali departments would used to enter information about participants in SNDP.· That database, along with other information maintained by TJPC about juveniles sent to residential placement and TYC, was utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of SNPD. Information from the Texas Council on �82 / Mental/y JI/ Ojfenders in the Juveni/e Justice System And the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program Offenders with Mental Impairments provides mental healtb counselors for SNDP and collects additional mental health data, was used to establish a profile of SNDP participants. Toe study sample involved juveniles supervised by localjuvenile probation departments from September l, 2000 (the beginning of fiscal year 2001) to September 30, 2004 (the end of fiscal year 2004). Toe study also involved juveniles participating in SNDP from FY 2001 to FY 2004. The source of ali figures presented is TJPC. Explanation of Prevalence Previous research has estimated the percentage ofjuveniles in the criminal justice system with mental disorders to be anywhere from 65% - 80% (Cocozza et al., 2005; Wasserman et al., 2004; Otto et al., 1992). However, most of this research has evaluated juveniles in residential or detention settings, rather than on ali juveniles on supervision in a community. Toe report presented here <loes not attempt to identify the percent of juveniles with a specific mental disorder, but it <loes attempt to estimate the percent who are mentally ill, and it looks at all juveniles supervised on deferred prosecution or probation in a given year. There is no precise way to determine the number of mentally ill offenders in the community. TJPC has, however, developed an estímate for this population by matching juvenile criminal justice records it receives to DSHS records. This estimate captures the number of offenders age 10 - 17 who have ever hada recorded contact with Texas' public mental health system. Short of a costly census of the offender population, this matching routine is tbe best available means to approximate the number of mentally ill offenders in the juvenile justice system. These numbers do not include mentally ill juveniles who have never been diagnosed or received mental health services; have only received prívate mental health services; or have a history of mental illness that predates records retained in the DSHS CARE computer system. Juveniles participating in the enhanced mental health initiative or other mental health programs coordinated through local juvenile probation departments were added to this estímate. Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspeclives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8, Num. J / 83 The Gap in Mental Health Services for Juvenile Offenders in Texas Figure l below shows that in FY 2004 approximately 26.5% of juveniles supervised in the criminal justice system were mentally ill. This represents a slight increase from FY 2001, when 24.6% ofjuveniles supervised were mentally ill. Toe percent of mentally ill juveniles receiving mental health services increased from 30.7% in FY 2001 to 35.2% in FY 2002, the year the enhanced mental health initiative began. Toe percent receiving services increased slightly to 36.7% in FY 2003 but then decreased to 32.8% in FY 2004. Figure 2 demonstrates that the decrease between FY 2003 - 2004 is mostly due to a 17% decrease in the number of juveniles receiving services through programs offered by DSHS. lf the number of juveniles receiving services through DSHS had not decreased, then 37.0% of all mentally ill juveniles would have received services instead of the 32.8% that actually received services. As of FY 2004, the estimated gap in mental health services for mentally ill juveniles stood at 67 .2%, oran estimated 12,721 juveniles. Though many more juveniles are referred every year than are provided mental health treatment, referrals in the state decreased the two years that the percent of mentally ill juveniles provided mental health services increased, and referrals in the state increased the year the pei;cent of mentally il1 juveniles provided services decreased. Specifically, state wide referrals decreased by 4% between FY 2001-FY 2002; decreased by 1.4% between FY 2002 - FY 2003; and increased by 2% between FY 2003-FY 2004. This parallel is more pronounced in urban counties. Figure 3 shows urban counties (70,000 juveniles or more) have a higher percent of mental hea lth offenders than other counties. Figure 4 shows that these counties experienced the largest increase in the percent of mentally ill offenders receiving services between FY 2001- FY 2003, and the largest decrease in the percent receiving services between FY 2003FY 2004. While these counties witnessed decreases in referrals of2.9% and 1.4% respectively between FY 2001-2002 and FY 2002-2003, they �84 / Mental/y ll/ Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System And the Specia/ized Neeás Diversionary Program witnessed a 7.8% increase in referrals between FY 2003-2004, by far the largest among any group of counties. Revista Perspectivas Sociales/ Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8, Num. 1/ Figure 2: Programs Providing Mental Health Services to Mentally Ill Juveniles* Enhanced Mental Health lnitiative Figure 1: Prevalence of Mentally Ill Juvenile Offenders and Gap in Services, FY 2001-2004 Offenders Under Mentally 111 Mentally 111 Population Est Gap in Supervision, Population Receiving Mental Health Mental Health FY2001 (Estimated) Services, FY 2001 Services* Programs offered by DSHS Mental Health Programs offered by local Probation Departments Total Receiving Mental Health Services 4,586 649 5,235 Enhanced Mental Health lnitiative Programs offered by DSHS Mental Health Programs offered by local Probation Departments Total Receiving Mental Health Services 875 5,010 505 6,390 Mental Health Programs offered by local Probation Departments Total Receiving Mental Health Services 4,683 459 6,821 Enhanced Mental Health lnitiative Programs offered by DSHS Mental Health Programs offered by local Probation Departments Total Receiving Mental Héalth Services 1,851 3,883 474 6,208 FY2001 11.818 69.3% Offenders Under Mentally 111 Mentally III Population Est Gap in Supervision, Population Receiving Mental Health Mental Health FY2002 (Estimated) Services, FY 2002 Services FY2002 Enhanced Mental Health lnitiative Offenders Under Mentally 111 Mentally III Population Est Gap in Supervision, Population Receiving Mental Health Mental Health FY2003 (Estimated) Services, FY 2003 Services Offenders Under Mentally 111 Mentally III Population Est Gap in Supervision, Population Receiving Mental Health Mental Health FY2004 (Estimated) Services, FY 2004 Services *Estimated Gap in Mental Health Services = Mentally lli Population - Mentally Ill Population Receiving Mental Health Services. 85 FY2003 FY 2004 Programs · offered by DSHS • This <loes not include juveniles receiving mental health services who were not formally supervised in a given year, nor juveniles receiving private mental health services. This distinction is especially important to note for the enhanced mental health initiative, since 2,018 juveniles were served by the initiative in FY 2004, but only 1,851 were under formal supervision in FY 2004. Sorne juveniles were served by more than one óf the programs listed. Ifthe enhancedmental health initiative was one ofthose programs, the cb.ild was classified in the initiative. Ifthe cbild was listed in both a program offered by DSHS and a program offered by a local probation department, the cbi]d was classified in a program offered by DSHS. This explains the apparent decrease in participation in mental health programs offered by local probation departments. �86 / Mental/y l/1 Ojfenders in the Juveni/e Justice System And the Specialized Needs D;versionary Program Prevalence of Mentally ID Juveniles among Different Demograpbic Groups No demographic group witnessed a substantial increase in the percent of mentally ill juvenile offenders in the last four years. Besides ethnicity (American Indians, Asían Americans, and Other comprised just over one percent of those supervised) the only meaningful difference in the percent of those estimated to be mentally ill was among counties with different populations, where urban counties had a higher percentage of mentally ill offenders than very small counties. Figure 3: Est. Percent of Juvenile Offenders under Supervision who are Mentally Ill, FY 2001 & FY 2004, by Gender, Ethnicity, Age, and County Population Gender Ethnicity Age at beginning ofthe year Juvenile Age Population of County Total Female Mate African American American lndian Asian American Caucasian Hispanic Other 10 yrs 11 yrs 12 vrs 13 yrs 14 yrs 15 yrs 16 vrs 17 yrs 0-1,000 juveniles 1,001-7,000 juveniles 7,001-70,000 juveniles 70,001-390,590 juveniles AII under supervision FY 2001 23.6% 25.0% 29.8% 13.0% 14.3% 24.6% 22.2% 15.0% 25.7% 24.9% 24.6% 24.8% 24.6% 24.2% 24.0% 27.0% 24.0% 21.4% 22.7% 27.0% 24.6% FY2004 25.7% 26.8% 30.1% 11.4% 11.1% 25.6% 25.7% 15.7% 27.9% 25.4% 26.6% 25.8% 26.4% 26.2% 26.2% 29.2% 21.2% 25.0% 24.6% 28.3% 26.5% Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. / I 87 In looking at those receiving services (Figure 4), there was an increase in the percent of both females and males receiving services between FY 2001 and FY 2003, but there was a five anda half percent decrease in the percent of mentally ill females receiving services between FY 2003 and FY 2004. Among different ethnicities, African Americans witnessed the greatest increase in services between FY 2001 and FY 2003, while Caucasians witnessed the greatest decrease in FY 2004. Juveniles 13 years and older experienced the greatest increase in service between FY 200 I and FY 2003, while juveniles I Oyears old and 12-15 years old experienced the greatest decreases in FY 2004. Mentally ill juveniles from urban counties witnessed the largest increase in mental health services between FY 2001 and FY 2003; they also witnessed the largest decrease in services in FY 2004. Figure 4: Percent of Mentally III Juveniles Receiving Mental Health Services, FY 2001-2004, by Gender, Ethnicity, Age, and County Population Female Gender Mate African American Ethnicity Caucasian Hispanic Other 10 yrs Ageat 11 yrs beginning 12 yrs of the year 13 yrs 14 yrs 15 yrs 16 yrs 17 yrs 0-1 ,000 juveniles Juvenile Age Population 1,001-7,000 juveniles 7,001-70,000 juveniles of County 70,001-390,590 juveniles Total AII under supervision FY 2001 31.9% 30.3% 29.3% 30.3% 32.0% 31 .5% 54.1% 45.4% 44.7% 39.8% 34.6% 29.7% 23.8% 13.4% 48.2% 31.2% 30.5% 30.3% 30.7% FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 37.0% 36.8% 31 .3% 34.6% 36.7% 33.3% 34.1% 37.1% 34.0% 34.2% 35.9% 31.5% 36.8% 37.0% 33.0% 29.5% 37.6% 37.5% 53.8% 51 .5% 46.2% 49.5% 44.3% 42.3% 47.3% 45.9% 41 .7% 43.0% 43.3% 38.7% 39.9% 42.6% 36.4% 37.8% 38.9% 34.5% 28.4% 32.4% 30.0% 14.3% 16.8% 16.0% 34.6% 29.5% 27.8% 30.1% 33.6% 30.5% 34.2% 35.5% 31.6% 37.1% 38.4% 34.1% 35.2% 36.7% 32.8% �88 / Mental/y /1/ Ojfenders in the Juveni/e Justice System And the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program Prevalence among Juveniles in Detention and Residential Placement While the percent of juveniles estimated to be mentally ill among all supervised is substantially less than found in the literature, Figure 5 illustrates that percentage is much higher among juveniles in residential placement settings. Figure 5: Prevalence of Mental Illness among Juveniles in Detention & Placement, FY ' 04* "' #Mentally %Mental~ # Supervised # Estimated ~ Estimate< 111 Receiving 111 Receiving Detention FY 04 Secure Placement FY 04 DPU, Prob Mental~ 111 Mentallylll Mental Hltti Services 23,869 8,962 37.5% 3.741 4,386 2,600 59.3% 1,569 Mental Hltti Services 41 .7% 60.3% Other Placement FY 04 4,359 2,438 55.9% 1,099 45.1% No detention or placement 45,664 8,978 19.7% 2,074 23.1% Ali Supervisad DPU, Prob 71,461 18,929 26.5% 6,208 32.8% *Sorne juveniles were in detention, secure placement, and other placement in FY '04, which is why the numbers in the first four rows do not add up to the number in the last row. Mental Health Programs Provided to Juvenile Offenders DSHS Programs Juveniles involved with DSHS (formerly MHMR) participated in a variety of different programs and services. Skills training (22%), medication-related services (22%), and service coordination (21 %) accounted for almost 2/3 's of all services. On average, juveniles received services for 15 months (469 days) from DSHS. The average length of treatment f;r any particular service was 3 _ months (106 days). Programs Offered Through Local Juvenile Probation Departments Revista Perspectivas &ciales / Social Penpectives primavera/spring 2006. J/ol.8. Nwn. I / 89 Sorne local juvenile probation departments offered additional mental health services besides the Enhanced Mental Health Services Initiative. These services included day treatment, family skills training, and wrap around services, among others. Most of these services were provided in urban counties. The average length of treatment for juveniles in these services was 3 _ months (103 days). Enhanced Mental Health Services lnitiative Toe Enhanced Mental Health Services Initiative was developed in response to the gap in mental health services for juvenile offenders. lt was designed to prevent the removal of juveniles with mental health needs from the home and to prevent further involvement with the juvenile justice system. Specialized juvenile probation officers from the local juvenile probation departments and licensed professional staff from the local mental health centers worked together to provide intensive community based case management services to achieve these goals. Toe initiative is intended to combine specialized supervision caseload with mental health treatment and to provide services for a period of four to six months. Mental health treatment models such as multi-systemic therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, systematic family therapy, and family functional therapy have shown promising results in other parts of the country (Columbia Univ. Dept. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry). Though participating departments are not bound to these models, they are made aware of their effectiveness. The program began operating in a few areas in 2001 , with significant expansion in 2002. Juveniles receiving both specialized supervision and mental health treatment or specialized supervision only are considered part of the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program (SNDP) ofTJPC. Juveniles receiving mental health services only are not on specialized caseloads and are not part of SNDP, but they are active with juvenile probation departments while receiving mental health treatment through the illitiative. Figure 6 shows that the number of juveniles served by this initiative has more than doubled since its inception in 2002. When it began, the initiative was projected to serve 830 juveniles per year. This projection was exceeded by 140% in 2004. �90 / Mental/y JI/ Offenders in the Juveni/e Justice System And the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program Figure 6: Juveniles Served by Enhanced Mental Health Services Initiative, FY 2002 - 2004 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY2004 & Mental Health Services 699 1,334 1,444 Specialized Supervision Only 65 64 54 Mental Health Services Only 187 475 520 Total 951 1,873 2,018 Specialized Supervision - :.. ¡ ,, •~l· Specialized Needs Diversionary Program (SNDP) .. A total of 1,498 juveniles were served by SNDP in FY 04. Of those, 50% were 15-16 years old, 66% were minority, and 32% were female. SNDP guidelines require that an initial case plan be completed within 72 hours of the juvenile's enrollment into the program. Toe plan must be completed with participation and input from the juvenile, the juvenile 's parent/guardian, the specialized juvenile probation officer and LMHP, at a mínimum. A formal case plan review must be conducted on a monthly basis with mínimum input from the juvenile, parent/guardian, specialized o:fficer and LMHP. Services o:ffered during the program include anger management, chemical dependency education, crisis stabilization, electronic monitoring, family and individual therapy, life skills training, medication management, mentoring, vocational skills training, and wrap around case management. Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. J / 91 venile probation officer teamed with a Licensed Mental Health Professional (LMHP) carrying a caseload of 12 to 15 youth identi:fied as meeting the DSHS standard for priority population diagnosis. In FY '04 the average caseload in the program was 12.8 juveniles. Priority population includes juveniles with a DSM-IV Axis I diagnosis other than substance abuse, mental retardation, autism or pervasive development disorder, and either a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 50 or less, or be at risk of removal from a preferred living environment due to psychiatric symptoms, or have a determination of special education dueto emotional disturbance. The juvenile most also be between 1O- 17 years old and involved with the juvenile justice system. In FY ' 04 approximately 97% of juveniles participating in SNDP met priority population criteria. Juveniles are supposed to be served in the program from four to six months. In FY 04, the average length of stay was 4 _ months. All juveniles successfully completing the program are supposed to be referred to aftercare services. Approximately 83% of juveniles successfully discharged from SNDP in FY ' 04 were provided aftercare. At a mínimum, each juvenile and family is required to receive three to five contacts a week by the specialized team. Two of those contacts must occur in the home. Visits other than home include office, school, community, detention, court, non-custodia! parents, and phone visits. In FY 04, only 17% ofjuveniles received an average of at least two home visits per week, while 64% received at least three total visits per week. On average each juvenile received 1.6 home visits per week and 3.4 total visits per week. Mental Health and Criminal History of SNDP Juveniles A transition period was built into each juvenile's case management no later than two months prior to the juvenile's projected discharge from the program. The intent of this process is to set up aftercare services and to assist the youth and family in becoming less reliant upon the formal supports provided by the probation officer and mental health center and more reliant upon the informal supports available to them in the community. Were Services Provided According to the Model? The basic programmatic structure of SNDP includes a specialized ju- The most common diagnoses in FY 2004 were Bipolar Disorder (185 juveniles), Major Depression (180), Conduct Disorder (179), and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (178). Each of these accounted for 12% of the 1,498 juveniles served. A total of 19% (290 juveniles) hada dual diagnosis involving mental health and substance abuse. One percent (12 juveniles) hada dual diagnosis involving mental health and mental retardation, while 51 % (759 juveniles) hada dual diagnosis involving two different mental health disorders. Approximately 76% (1,13 1) had previously been involved with DSHS. On average juveniles had received services for 18 _ months (566 days) from DSHS befare starting �92 / Mental/y ll/ Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System Ami the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program SNDP. Factor Description Dual Dual Diagnosis Mental lllness/ Sub Abuse 64% Diagnosis No Dual Diagnosis 71% GAF 40 or less 59% Seores 41-50 74% 51 or more* 68% Numberof One 80% Referrals Two 74% Three 66% Four 62% Five ormore 51% Numberof Zero 81% Detentions One 71% Two 66% FY 2004 Nbr % 33 3% Three 53% Four 57% 30 708 103 Five or more 49% Numberof Zero 78% Adjudications One 69% Two 62% Three or more 61% . Completion Rates The percent of juveniles completing the program increased from 47% in FY '02 (the first year of the program) to 70% in FY '04. A total of 34 juveniles (3.3%) were committed to the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) or transferred to the adult system upon discharge from the program in FY '04. Juveniles with a dual diagnosis of mental illness/ substance abuse or with a GAF score of 40 or lower were significantly less likely to complete the program than other juveniles. Juveniles with more referrals, detentions, and adjudications were also significantly less likely to complete the program. Figure 7: Program Outcomes ofSNDP Juveniles Discharged FY 2002 - FY 2004 Other Unsuccessful Outcome Total Juveniles Discharged 93 Figure 8: Percent Completing SNDP, FY '04, by Mental Health & Criminal History The most common offenses for which juveniles were referred just prior to entering the program were Misdemeanor Assault and Violation of Probation. Almost half the juveniles involved in the program had at sorne time been referred for a felony o:ffense. Over 40% of juveniles participating in SNDP in FY 2004 had three or more referrals upon starting the program, while just under 20% had been detained three or more times upon starting the program. Absconded Committed to TYC Completed the Program Discharged Early/ Moved to Another Program Placed Out of the Home Transferred Out of Jurisdiction Transferred to Adult System Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspeclives primaveralspring 2()06. Vol.8, Num. I / FY 2002 Nbr % 12 3% 19 5% 189 47% 78 19% 47 10 2 44 401 12% 2% 0% 11% 100% FY 2003 Nbr % 61 6% 31 3% 571 60% 160 17% 97 23 6 o 949 10% 114 26 4 3% 70% 10% 11% 2% 3% 1% 0% 0% o 0% 100% 1,018 100% Percent *Only 22 juveniles had a GAF score of 51 or more, which may account for this odd trend. �94 / Mental/y /11 Offenders in the Juvenile J11stice System And lhe Specialized Needs Diversionary Program Juveniles discharged in FY '04 who had more home contacts per week bad signi:ficantly higher completion cates than others. Juveniles receiving an average ofless than one home contact per week hada 33% completion rate, while juveniles with one to less tban two home contacts per week bada 73% rate, and juveniles with two or more home contacts per week hada 74% rate. Juveniles receiving certain probation services also had signi:ficantly higher completion rates than others. Juveniles receiving life ski lis services had a 71 % completion rate compared to 64% for those who did not; juveniles receiving mentoring services had a 77% rate compared to 66% for tbose who did not; and juveniles receiving vocational services bad an 84% rate compared to 69% for those who did not. Resideotial Placement Rates Approximately 19% of juveniles starting SNDP in FY 2002 were sent to residential placement within one year of the date they began the program, while 25% were sent to placement within two years. Juveniles starting SNDP in FY 2003 also hada one year placement rate of 19%. Toe one year rate of7% for those successfully completing the program in FY'02 and FY'03 was almost 2/3 's less than tbat for all other juveniles, while the two year rate of 13% for those completing the program in FY ' 02 was almost half less than that for ali other juveniles. Figure 9: Juveniles Starting SNDP Sent to Residential Placement Revista Perspeclivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. 1/ 95 these juveniles was 33%. These rates are signi:ficantly higher than those shown in Figure 14 for juveniles starting SNDP tbat year. Toe one year placement rate for juveniles receiving mental health treatment only in FY '03 was 18%, which is actually lower tban tbat for juveniles starting SNDP that year. Toe residential placement rates of juveniles in SNDP were compared to a group of mentally ill juveniles who were not in SNDP. A total of 592 juveniles starting SNDP in FY 2002 who were on probation and who received both mental health treatment and specialized supervision were included in this analysis. Toe comparison group consisted of 6,497 juveniles who were on probation in FY 2002, were not in SNDP, and were estimated to be mentally ill. 1 Juveniles were estimated to be mentally ill if they ever hada recorded contact with Texas' public mental health system or were in a mental health program (other than the Enhanced Mental Health Initiative) coordinated through a local juvenile probation department. SNDP juveniles had signi:ficantly lower residential placement rates than the comparison group. These differences are more substantial when contrasting juveniles who successfully completed SNDP with juveniles in the comparison group who successfully completed their probation supervision. Figure 1O: Percent of Juveniles Starting SNDP & Comparison Group in FY 2002 Sent to Residential Placement within One and Two Years Successfully Completed TCOMI/Supv One Year Rate Two Year Rate One Year Rate Two Year Rate SNDPGroup 22% '' 28% 8% 15% Comparison Group 37% 41% 36% 38% Ali Juveniles Total Completed the Program Ali Other Outcomes Starting FY 2003 Starting FY 2002 One Year Rate Two Year Rate One Year Rate 19% 19% 25% 7% 37% 13% 42% 7% 40% Earlier it was discussed that sorne juveniles were provided mental health treatment through the Enhanced Mental Health Services Initiative but, unlike juveniles in SNDP, received no specialized supervision. Toe one year placement rate for juveniles receiving mental health treatment only in FY '02 was 28%, while the two year placement rate for 1 Tbere was no statistically significant difference in criminal history among the two groups, with SNDP juveniles having an average of3.4 prior referrals and comparison juveniles having an average of 3.5 prior referrals. SNDP juveniles and comparison juveniles both had an average of 1.5 prior adjudications. SNDP juveniles were signifi-· caotly younger !han the comparison group. A total of 69% of SNDP juveniles were less thao 16 years old, while only 60% of the comparison group were less than 16 years old. The SNDP group had a significantly greater percentage offemales (30%) than the comparison group (21 %). There was no significant difference in ethnicity, with minorities comprising 65% of the SNDP group and 68% of the comparison group. �96 / Mental/y ll/ Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System And the Specialized Needs Diversionary Program Though the SNDP group had a higher percentage of males, this did not impact the overall comparison. This is because among males, the SNDP group had a lower one year rate (21 % vs. 41 % for the comparison group) and two year rate (27% vs. 44% for the comparison group). Among females, the SNDP group had a slightly lower one year rate (24% vs. 26% for the comparison group) and a slightly higher two year rate (29% v. 27% for the comparison group). TYC Commitment Rates Approximately 7% of juveniles starting SNDP in FY 2002 were committed to TYC within one year of the date they began the program, while 14% were committed to TYC within two years. Juveniles starting SNDP in FY 2003 also hada one year TYC commitment rate of 7%. Toe one year rate of2% for those successfully completing the program in FY'02 and FY'03 was over 2/3's less than that for all other juveniles, while the two year rate of 9% for those completing the program in FY '02 was over 1/3 less than that for all other juveniles. Figure 11: Juveniles Starting SNDP Committed to TYC Total Completad the Program Ali Other Outcomes Startin~ FY 2002 One Year Rate Two Year Rate 7% 14% 2% 14% 9% 21% Starting FY 2003 One Year Rate 7% Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primal'eralspring 2006. Vol.8. Num. I I those with two or more had a two year rate of 8%. Toe one year TYC commitment rate for juveniles receiving mental health treatment only in FY '02 was 9%, while the two year TYC rate for these juveniles was 16%. These rates are slightly higher than those shown for juveniles starting SNDP that year. Toe one year TYC comm.itment rate for juveniles receiving mental health treatment only in FY '03 was 10%, and that rate is higher than that for juveniles starting SNDP that year. The TYC rates of juveniles in SNDP were compared to a group of mentally iU juveniles who were not in SNDP. The two groups were the same as those described earlier in the comparison of residential placement rates. SNDP juveniles had lower TYC rates than the comparison group. Toe differences after one year were significant at .06; the differences after two years were not significant at ali. TYC commitment rates were also lower when contrasting juveniles who successfully completed SNDP withjuveniles in the comparison group who successfully completed their probation supervision. Toe differences after one year were significant at .05; the differences after two years were not significant at ali. Figure 12: Percent of Juveniles Starting SNDP & Comparison Group in FY 2002 Sent to TYC within One and Two Years 2% 14% In FY 2002 juveniles with fewer referrals and adjudications had significantly lower TYC commitment rates than other juveniles. Juveniles starting SNDP in FY 2002 who had more home visits per week had significantly lower TYC commitment rates than other juveniles. Specifically, juveniles receiving an average of less than one home contact per week had a one year rate of 10%, juveniles with one to less than two home contacts per week had a one year rate of 5%, and juveniles with two or more home contacts per week had a one year rate of 3%. Juveniles with less than one home contact per week had a two year rate of 18%, those with one to less than two had a two year rate of 9%, and 97 Ali Juveniles SNDP Group Comparison Group One Year Rate 8% 11% Two Year Rate 15% 17% Successfully Comp.leted SNDP/ Sup One Year Two Year Rate Rate 3% 9% 6% 11% Though the SNDP group hada higher percentage ofmales, this did not impact the overall comparison. This is because among males, the SNDP group hada lower one year rate (10 % vs. 12% for the comparison group) and two year rate ( 17% vs. 19% for the comparison group). Among females, the SNDP group hada slightly lower one year rate (4% �98 / Mental/y fil O/fenders in the Juveni/e Justice System And the Specialized Needs Diversiona,y Program vs. 6% for the comparison group) and a slightly higher two year rate (10% v. 9% for the comparison group). Future Research Toe Texas Juvenile Probation Commission will continue to update trends on the prevalence of mentally ill offenders and gaps in services in the Texas juvenile justice system. lt also intends to follow the progress of SNDP, both in terms of outcomes and in terms of what types of mental health treatments are proving to be the most effective at rehabilitating juveniles. Finally, TJPC plans on calculating re-offense rates for juveniles participating in SNDP. Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. JI 99 References Cocozza, J.; E. Trupin, and L. Teodosio (2005). Diverting Youth with Mental Health Needs from the Juvenile Justice System: Critical Issues and Model Approaches. Gains TAPA Center for Jail Diversion and the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Net/ Teleconference on Juvenile Diversion Programs and Mental Health Courts. Columbia University Guidelines for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Referral. 2nd Edition (2003), New York, NY ,Columbia University Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Otto, R.K.; J.J. Greenstein, M.K. Johnson, and R.M. Friedman (1992). "Prevalence of mental disorders among youth in the juvenile justice system ", in J.J. Cocozza (ed.), Responding to the Mental Health Needs Among Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, Seattle, WA, Toe National coalition for the Mentally Il1 in the Criminal Justice System, pp. 7-48. Wasserman, G.A.; S. J. Ko, and L.S. McReynolds (2004). Assessing the Mental Health Status ofYouth in Juvenile Justice Settings, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, August 2004, NCJ 202713. �RESEARCH ARTICLES ARTÍCULOS DE INVESTIGACIÓN �Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. 1 I Pág. /03-/29 l 03 Predictors of violent juvenile behavior: Examining the impact of victimization and exposure to violence Liliane C. Windsor* Sanna J. Thompson** Resumen La comprensión del impacto de aquellos factores que influyen la conducta violenta entre jóvenes es de gran relevancia sobre todo cuando se pretende intervenir en el proceso de involucramiento de los adolescentes en conductas criminales. A través de bases de datos cuantitativos ya existentes y entrevistas a profundidad se explora, en este trabajo, el impacto de la juventud, la familia y predictores que operan en el nivel comunitario en el comportamiento juvenil violento. Se realizó un análisis de datos secundarios procedentes de la Encuesta Nacional sobre Adolescentes en los Estudios Unidos de 1995 (n = 3,219). Una vez controladas las variables demográficas, el nivel de pobreza, la edad, la familia y/o el consumo de drogas/alcohol así como violencia comunitario o escolar, los resultados del análisis de regresión logística demostraron que el hecho de presenciar actos de violencia (OR = 4.95) o haber sido victimizado en el pasado (OR= 4.32) incrementaron la probabilidad de un comportamiento violento en jóvenes. Se realizaron entrevistas profundas con el personal del sistema de justicia juvenil para indagar su percepción acerca de los factores que influyen el comportamiento violente entre adolescentes. En estas entrevistas emergieron tres tópicos principales: 1) eventos que contribuyen a la victimización; 2) consecuencias de la victimización y 3) factores que motivan una conducta violenta. El análisis de las entrevistas profundas hace pensar que el personal del sistema de justicia juvenil cree que los * Li/iane C. Windsor is a PhD. Student at the University of Texas al Austin Schoo/ of Social Work in the Substance Abuse Research Deve/opment Program. Her email is: li/iw@mail.utexas.edu ** Sanna J. Thompson is an Associatte Professor at the University ofTexas Schoo/ of Social Work_ ISSN 1405-1133 e 2006 Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, University ofTexas of Austin, University ofTexas of Arlington, Our Lady ofthe Lake University, University ofTennessee, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango. �] 04 / Prediclors ofviolen/ juvenile behavior: Revista Perrpectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8, Num. I / 105 Examining the impac/ ofviclimizalion and exposure to violence jóvenes son victimizados por lo general por los padres, situación que conduce a una autopercepción y a una cosmovisión negativas. Las entrevistas indican asimismo que el comportamiento violento puede ser comprendido como un mecanismo de afrontamiento que eleva los sentimientos de fuerza y control. Se requiere, empero, aún más investigación para comprender las causas y las circunstancias que conllevan a adolescentes en actividades criminales. Abstract Understanding the impact of factors influencing violent behavior among adolescents is of major importance in addressing the process by which adolescents become involved in criminal behavior. Using existing quantitative data as well as in-depth interviews, this study explored the impact of youth, family, and community-level predictors on juvenile violent behavior. Secondary data analysis of the National Survey of Adolescents in the United States, 1995 (N=3,219) were conducted. After controlling for demographics, poverty level, youth, family, and/or peer drug/alcohol use, community or school violence, results of logistic regression analyses demonstrated that witnessing violence (OR = 4.95) or previous victimization (OR= 4.32) increased the likelihood of youths' violent behavior. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with juvenile justice system personnel to query perceptions of factors affecting violent behavior among adolescents. Toree major themes emerged: 1) Events contributing to victimization, 2) Consequences of victimization, and 3) Motivators of violent behavior. Analysis of in-depth interviews suggested that juvenile justice personnel believe that youths' victimization is typically perpetrated by parents, leading to a negative selfperception and worldview. Interviews indicated that violent behavior may be viewed as a coping mechanism to increase feelings of strength and control. Further research is needed to understand the causes and circumstances leading adolescents to engage in these types of criminal activities. Predictors of juvenile violent behavior: Examining the impact of victimization and exposure to violence Juvenile delinquency is currently one of the major social and public health concems in America (Roberts, 2004). Although juvenile arrests for violent and property crimes have decreased during the past 2 decades, law enforcement agencies reported 2.3 million arrests of people under age 18 in 2002. Speci:fically, juveniles accounted for 15% of ali violent crime arrests (Snyder, 2004). A 2001 national survey also found that 39.1 % of adolescents who drank alcohol became violent and 52% who drank became violent at least twice (SAMHSA, 2002). In addition, more than 4 million youth participated in a serious fight at school or the workplace and almost 2 million attacked others with the intent to seriously hurt them (SAMHSA, 2002). These are conservative figures as they include only criminal behavior reported to the police. It is estimated that juvenile delinquent acts not reported to the police may be as high as 13 million annually (Roberts, 2004). Severa! theories have been developed to explain the unfolding of violent behavior among adolescents, including: 1) social leaming theory, which argues that criminal behavior is leamed through interpersonal mechanisms such as imitation and reinforcements (Akers and Jensen 2003; Bandura, 1977); 2) strain theories that hypothesize 'that stress i~ caused by inequitable social structures that encourage individuals to engage in criminal behavior (Merton, 1938); and 3) differential association theories propose that those who are exposed selectively or differentially to delinquent individuals are more likely to become delinquent (Sutherland, and Cressey, 1955). These theories identify possible predictors and explanations for adolescent violent behavior; however, .they lack strong research support and have been criticized for providing only vague definitions and limited usefulness (Warr, 2002). Riskfactors associated with juvenile violen! behavior For the purposes of this paper, juvenile violent behavior is defined as any illegal act committed by an adolescent that directly involves a victim. Such violence can range from physical assault to murder. Various risk factors have been shown to be associated with violent behaviot including the following: ' �106 / Predictors of violen/ juvenile behavior: Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. JJ Examining the impact ofvictimizatum ami exposure to violence - Youth substance abuse/dependency is strongly correlated with illegal activity and violence with evidence ofbidirectional effects (Dembo, and Pacheco, 1999; Goldstein, 1985; lnciardi, 1990; Lurigio, and Swartz, 1999; Winters, 1998). - Family factors include parental criminal behavior and drug use, maternal mental illness, negative parental attitudes, poor family management, single-parent homes, socio-economic disadvantage, child abuse and neglect, and domestic violence (Dunifon, and KowaleskiJones, 2002; Pagan, 2003; Fergusson, Swain-Campbell, and Horwood, 2004; Grogan-Kaylor, and Otis, 2003; Herrera, and McCloskey, 2003; Nofziger, 2003). According to Baron (1998), being a victim of family abuse or serious assault, having few financial resources, and associating with criminal friends often results in greater violent behavior. - Community and school violence factors include the availability of guns and drugs within the environment. Communities that tolerate drug use and violence have been shown to increase juvenile violent behavior. School violence refers to acts of violence witnessed/perpetrated within school environments (Anderson, 1994; Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, and Earls, 2001; Jonson-Reid, 1998; Nofziger, 2003; Scarpa, 2003; Schwartz, and Proctor, 2000) - Peers are highly infl.uential in adolescence; thus, association with other violent peers is a key factor in youths' violent behavior. Three mechanisms by which peers may infl.uence this behavior are fear of ridicule, loyalty, and status (Warr, 2002). Loyalty and fear of ridicule are potent compliance mechanisms for inducing conformity in adolescent groups regardless of whether the behavior is legal or not. Research indicates that the greater the youths' association with deviant peers, the more likely he/she is to display delinquent behaviors (Heinze, Toro, and Urberg, 2004). Unlike loyalty and ridicule, status threats can provide direct provocation for violent criminal conduct. A desire to acquire status can prompt unprovoked violence, such as bullying, to achieve status. Exhibiting daring, spontaneity, toughness, and leadership are qualities often needed to achieve higher status among adolescent peers (Warr, 2002). 107 Victimization and exposure to violence Victimization and exposure to violence have been shown to be strong predictors of violent behavior (Buka et al., 2001 ; Halliday-Boykins, and Graham, 200 l; Lauritsen, Laub, and Sampson, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2000). According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NIJ, 2003 ), rates of violent crimes are highest among youth between 16 and 19 years ofage; rates ofvictimization were 55.6 per 1,000 persons during 2002-2003. Adolescents 12-17 years of age living in single-parent families are three times more likely to be victimized than the "average" Americans age 12 or older. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice, 10% of youth who live in the most disadvantaged communities experience the highest risk for neighborhood violence; nearly 58 of every 1,000 youth reported at least one incident of violence during a six-month period in 2003, a level that is six times greater than the risk for youth in non-violent neighborhoods. Minority groups are at higher risk of being a victim of violent crime (Maxfield, and Widon, 1996; Snyder, 2004). Understanding the impact of factors influencing violent behavior among adolescents is of major importance to improve understanding ofthe process by which adolescents become involved in these criminal behaviors. Previous studies have been limited in explaining the dynamics of the relationship between victimization and exposure to violence on violent behavior. Studies have utilized quantitative methods and correlation analyses to assess the relationship between victimization or witnessing violence and violent behavior (Abram et al., 2004; Chang, Chen, and Brownson, 2003; Comell, Benedek, and Benedek, 1987; Daley, and Onwuegbuzie, 2004; English, Widon, and Brandford, 2002; Grogan-Kaylor et al., 2003; Halliday-Boykins et al., 2001 ; Schwartz et al., 2000). Attempts to disentangle the processes by which victimization leads to violent behavior are limited. Furthermore, most studies have only included juvenile delinquents in their sample, excluding those youth who have committed crimes but who have not been arrested (Abram et al., 2004; Chang et al., 2003; Comell et al., 1987; Daley et al., 2004; Halliday-Boykins et al., 2001). �l 08 / Predictors ofviolen/ juveni/e behavior: Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspeclives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. J / Examining the impact ofviclimization and exposure to vio/ence Research shows that victimization increases the risk of arrest and re-arrest, delinquency, and incidence of violent crime (Chang et al., 2003; English et al., 2002; Maxfield et al., 1996; Smith, and Thornberry, 1995); however it remains unclear what the impact of selected predictors are on juvenile violent behavior. For this study, secondary data analysis was used to examine the role of victimization, exposure to violence, and other known risk factors to predict adolescent violent behavior. A cross-sectional national quantitative dataset, as well as indepth qualitative interviews with juvenile justice personnel were analyzed to provide insight concerning the process by which a child who was victimized or witnessed violence becomes the victimizer. Understanding this process is important in shaping interventions that can prevent violent behavior. Methods: Quantitative Component Data and Sample A sample was drawn from the National Survey of Adolescents in the United States, 1995. Toe data were collected through a national probability telephone sample of 4,023 juveniles and their parents or guardians. Toe sample included youth between the ages of 12-17 who 1) were living in United States' households with telephones; 2) resided with a parent or guardian; and 3) could converse in English or Spanish. Ali interviews with both parents and adolescents were conducted using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) technology. For a detailed description of sampling and recruitment see Nofziger, (2003). After exclusion of missing cases, the overall sample (N=3,2 l 9) averaged 15 years of age (SD=1.6), with half being male. Although most of these youths were White (69%), substantial percentages were Black (14%), and Hispanic (10%). Toe remaining 7% self-reported belonging to another ethnic background. Nearly one-quarter of the youths (21 %) were in ninth grade. Toe majority of youth were above the poverty (82%) threshold of $20,000 annually. In this sample, 349 youths reported past violent behavior and 3069 youths denied past violent behavior. 109 Consistent with previous research, an appallingly high nurnber of youths perceived violence as a problem in their school (80%), and their community (80%). Drugs were identified as a problem in the majority of their communities (84%). Youths self-report of peer substance use were consistent with national trends reported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (2004) (see Table 1). Variables Drawing upon previous research of known significant predictors of violent behavior, the following variables were included in the quantitative analysis: Dependen/ Variable Youth violen! behavior: Ibis dichotomous variable was created by combining youths' self-report on whether they had ever been involved in gang fighting, armed robbery, forced someone to have sex against their will, and/or attacked someone with intent to seriously hurt or kill. Independent Variables Victimization: This variable <loes not include sexual abuse or neglect. lt was created by combining youths' self-report on whether they had ever been: 1) attacked with a weapon; 2) attacked without a weapon and thought the perpetrator was trying to kill or seriously injure them; 3) threatened with a weapon; and/or 4) beaten up with something like a stick, club, or bottle and were hurt pretty bad. Perpetrators included family, friends, or strangers. Witnessed violence: This variable was created by combining youths' self-report on whether they had ever actually observed another person: 1) shooting someone; 2) cutting or stabbing someone; 3) being sexually assaulted or raped; 4) being mugged or robbed; 5) threatening someone else with a knife, a gun, or sorne other weapon; and/or 6) beaten up. Control Variables Gender: Youth self-report as male or female. Ethnicity: Whether youth self-reported as White, Black, or Hispanic. Youths 'Marijuana use: Whether youth meets DSM criteria for abuse or dependency on marijuana. �11 O / Predictors ofviolen/ juveni/e behavior: Exmnining the impact ofvictimization ami exposure to violence Youths 'Alcohol use: Whether youth meets DSM criteria for abuse or dependency on alcohol. Youths 'Hard drug use: Whether youth meets DSM criteria for abuse or dependency on cocaine, heroine, or crack. Family member alcohol use: Youths' self-report on whetber a family member drinks alcohol so much that it became a problem. Family member drug use: Youtbs' self-report on whether a family member uses hard drugs or has a drug problem. Peer marijuana use: Youth's self-report on whether their friends had ever used marijuana. Peer alcohol use: Youth 's self-report on whether their friends had ever drunk alcohol. Peer prescription drug use: Youth's self-report on whether their friends had ever used prescription drugs for recreational purposes. Peer violence: This variable was created by combining youths' self-report on whether their friends had ever threatened or hit someone without any reason and or forced someone to have sex against their will. Poverty Leve/: Tbis measure was obtained by determining the number of people in each household and using it to determine the census poverty threshold. Toe sample had a mean of four individua]s in the household; thus, the poverty threshold was set at 19,500 per year. According to U.S. Census reports, those earning below 20,000 per year are considered impoverished (De-Navas-Watt, Proctor, and Mills, 2004). Community violence: Youths' perception whether violence is a problem in their community. Drugs in the community: Youths' perception whether drug use is a problem in their community. School violence: Youths' perception whether violence is a problem in their school. s s Data Analysis Logistic regression models were conducted with the entire sample to examine the leve! of association between victimization and exposure to violence on violent behavior after controlling for ali other variables in the model. Nominal-leve! independent variables with more than two categories were transformed into dummy variables and assigned reference categories (e.g., the reference category for ethnicity was White). Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspeclives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8, Num. J / 111 These categorical variables yield exponentiated B or odds ratios (ORs) that reflect the likelihood of a positive response relative to a defined reference category, after controlling for ali other effects in the model. For this study, the ORs refl.ect the likelihood of speci:fic variable occurring relative to youth's violent behavior. Partial regression coefficients (B) for each independent variable show how much the value of the dependent variable changes when the value of the independent variable changes. Qualitative Interviews Data and Sample Juvenile justice personnel work closely with delinquent youth. Such professionals have the opportunity to interact with delinquent juveniles on a daily basis and learn about their histories. Thus, it can be very infonnative to include juveni le justice personnel 's perceptions of the process by which victimized youth become perpetrators. Qualitative data was collected from three participants who were professionals working with delinquent youth and/or adults who were victimized during childhood and engaged in violent behavior during adolescence. Interview participants were selected using convenience sampling. Study participants included a youth worker with extensive juvenile justice system experience, the head of research at a youth correction agency responsible for overseeing reports conducted to infonn and evaluate policies related to juvenile detention and recidivism, and a lawyer associated with a juvenile detention center. All participants were mate, except one; two were Caucasian and one was Hispanic. Age ranged from 34-46, and participants had been working with high-risk youth from one to ten years. Interviews ranged from 30 minutes to 90 minutes and were conducted at the participants' office with the exception of one participant who chose to be interviewed at the research office. An interview guide was used to prompt information from participants (see appendix 1). Analysis of Qualitative Interviews Each interview was analyzed based on open coding techniques in order to identify, name, categorize, and describe phenomena found in the in- �112 / Predictors ofviolen! juveni/e behavior: Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. J / 113 Examining /he impacJ ofvictimization anti exposure to violence terviews. Open codingwas then followed by axial coding to determine the central phenomena through the identification ofparticular categories of interest. Relationships between open codes were examined with an emphasis on causality. These categories were then connected through selective coding, at which point the axial codes were analyzed in terms of their relationship to each other and core categories were identified. The coding scheme, developed after analyzing the first interview, was used as a reference to code all subsequent interviews. New emerging categories were incorporated in the initial coding sheet. For a more detailed description of analysis see Creswell (1998). Major themes included: events contributing to victimizations, consequences of victimization, and motivators of juvenile violent behavior. ing to victimization; 2) consequences of victimization; and 3) motivators of juvenile violent behavior. Victimization constituted of respondent's memories of violence perpetrated against delinquent youth they worked with. One of the respondents included memories about bis own life because this respondent engaged in violent behavior during adolescence. Examples of experiences ranged from being thrown out of the house in the middle of the night, being forced into prostitution by a parent, or witnessing the murder of a loved one. Toe victimization experiences seemed to be interrelated to all other categories either as a consequence or as a precipitating factor; they were present in ali cases discussed in the interviews. Respondents indicated these experiences had a profound negative impact on tbe lives of youth in which these providers had come into contact. Results Events contributing to victimization Findings Jrom Regression Analysis Results ofthe final logistic regression model (see Table 2) indicated that witnessing violence increased the likelihood of perpetrating violence by nearly five times (OR = 4.95); sirnilarly, being victimized increased the odds of being a victimizer by more than four times (OR= 4.32), after controlling for a variety of other variables in the model. Other signi:ficant predictors of violent behavior demonstrated that youth alcohol (OR= 1.79) and marijuana (OR=2.52) abuse/dependence increased the lik:elihood ofviolent behavior, as did having peers who engaged in violent behavior (OR= 2.36). Other control variables suggested increased lik:elihood of violent behavior: youth who had friends that used marijuana (OR=.462), alcohol (OR=.409), or prescription drugs (OR =.614) were significantly more likely to be violent than youth who did not have friends who used these substances. Being Caucasian decreased the likelihood of violent behavior by 40% (OR=.414) relative to racial minority groups. Males were 64% more likely to engage in violent behavior then females (OR= .360)(model c2 = 745.64, p = .000). Findings from Qualitative lnterviews Toree major themes emerged after analysis of the qualitative interviews with criminaljustice personnel. Themes included: 1) events contribut- Based on juvenile justice personnel's perspective, themes identifying events related to victimization were primarily constituted by stressors tbat contributed to tbe parents' loss of control which resulted in the victimization of the child. Stressors included domestic violence, neglect, drug and alcohol abuse in the family, parents' negative behaviors, parental excessive control of the child, exposure to violence, and low socio-economic status. Parents were the perpetrators of victirnization in nearly all experiences described by participating juvenile justice personnel. One respondent described the circumstances leading to the victimization of a young girl in the juvenile justice system: "Ann was also bom in a poor fam.ily. Both her parents were addicted to crack cocaine. Tbey used to have money and everything, but her dad started getting into trouble and into debt deeper and deeper because of the drugs. They lost everything. After they lost their big house, they were forced to move in with her grandfather who lived in the inner city. That's where her mom really Iost it. Ann was only 2 years old when that happened. Her parents were never home and her grandfather was so sad he died ayear later. They stayed in grandpa's house until they sold it for dope money. Ann 's parents were never around unless they were dope sick. . They were constantly moving from place to place scraping for food. Things got real bad and her parents finally decided to separate. Ann stayed with her mom, living with a friend There was no food in the �114 / Predictors ofviolen/ juvenile behavior: Examining the impact ofvictimization ami exposure to violence :fridge, and many people doing drugs around the house. During that time Ann saw people stealing from each other, fighting, being arrested, and doing drugs. But the big turn in her life happened when she turned 1O years old. Her mother was dope sick, trying desperately to raise sorne money when a neighbor told her he would give her 20 dollars to have sex with her daughter. 20 dollars! She did not think twice. She went in the house, gave her daughter alcohol and told her to do everything this man wanted her to do because they needed the money. Ann did not have anyone else she could turn to. Her father was in prison and everyone she knew was doing the same thing. She was also far too asbamed and scared to say anything to anyone. The prostitution went on until Ann was arrested for drug charges." Consequences ofvictimization Consequences of victimization were described in the interviews with juvenile justice personnel. These themes included self-~atred, ne~ative world view, anger, powerlessness, low self-image, d1sconnectton from parents, negative role-models, need for revenge, youth drug_ and alcohol abuse, lack of trust, and feelings of rejection. Following IS an illustration of these relationships according to the life memories of the respondent who engaged in violent behavior during adolescence: "At the time I didn't respect women at ali anda lot ofthings, so I started thinking, well I am this way because I saw my dad, my dad always raised me, and excuse the way I say but I quote him: he used to wake me up like 4 in the morning, come home drunk and fuck women, and bitches, and bla bla bla and it goes on and on. He would wake me up poking on my chest saying what the fuck, get up, find something to do. At the time I was only 5, 6, 7 years old, so that's what I had been hearing my whole life. Toe whole time that he was doing that, my mom was in the other room crying because he just beat her, and he has not been home for the past 3 days. So I am thinking that is why I don't have respect for women, because that's what I had been preached. I am waking up at 4 o'clock in the morning smelling beer and my dad, get off of my face, and fuck women, them bitches and this and that. So it's no wonder I had that mentality when I was 18 years old. I started drinking wben I was 13, 14, 15 and you know, I would go up, and this is when I was 18. You know I Revista Perspectivas Sxwles I &,e;,,/ Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. / / 115 see my dad doing this and that fine, there's no rules, only tbe alcoholism that exists in the family, so it's no wonder why I hated him so much. No wonder why I am so aggressive and abusive. Why I was so ready to fight because that's what I had seen, I believe that." Motivators ofviolent behavior Essentially participating juvenile justice personnel perceived criminal behavior as a coping mechanism to deal with the aftermath of victimization. According to respondents, victimization often resulted in youth feeling powerless, lonely, weak, and hopeless. Youth felt rejected and alone in a world where "you must take what you want". Turning to crime was described as a way to demonstrate strength and control. Youth found new friends (also involved in crime), felt better about themselves and regained a fragile illusion of control. Criminal behavior was also a way for youth to take justice into their own bands by becoming the perpetrator as opposed to the victim. lt was also described as a way for youth to protect themselves and their families in a world where you cannot trust anyone. For example, the respondent described bis experience during a turbulent adolescence: "I did it because I think my dad had so much control over the house and he had all the power in the house and the way he did it was so aggressive and now at home I guess I played that victim role, but the only way that I could feel powerful, cause at home I felt so dam weak I felt so you know controlled that when I got out I had to make myself, I guess at that time I was a kid, I had to make myself feel more like a man by going out and doing stupid stuff. Showing my, and I was always angry, around, so I was 15 years old. I was the youngest guy, the guy closest to my age m.ight have been like 22 years old, 21 years old. So I always hanging around with older people. Huh, so I felt that, I felt so little, so powerless at home that I felt I needed to hang with older guys, and the older guys to have respect. .. " Another participant shared the story of one of the youths he worked with: "He was accused ofkilling his brother until the cops finally found the men 1 .... �116 / Revista Perspectivas Sacillles I Sacia/ Perspectíves primaveralspring 2006. Vof.8, Num. J / Predictors ofviolen/jU11eni/e behavior: Examining the impact of victimization and exposure to vio/ence who were in fact responsible for the murder. Bobby was released to his family. No one ever apologized for wrongfully accusing him. He ran away from home and lived on the streets and friends houses where he started using and selling drugs. Bobby was arrested several times until he was fi.nally sent to prison for drug trafl:icking. He is currently doing time. Bobby was never able to overcome the anger he felt toward bis parents and toward the world. He felt that no one cared and that if you want to survive you have to work for yourself and not trust anyone. He also always believed he was a bad person, and that is why nobody ever wanted him. Doing what he did was a way for him to be seen, noticed by other people. Even if that meant being hated, it was better then not ex:isting at all." Discussion Toe current paper presents findings from in-depth interviews with juvenile justice personnel and a large national dataset to understand predictors of violent behavior among youth who become juvenile offenders. Results demonstrate the negative impact of victimization and exposure to violence on youth and the aggravating circumstances that lead sorne these youth to engage in criminal behavior. Logistic regression analyses indicated that being a direct victim of violence and witnessing violence were significant predictors of violent behavior after controlling for severa! relevant variables. Specifi.cally, this study found that youths who were victimized are 4 times more likely to engage in violent behavior and youths who witnessed violence are 5 times more lik:ely to engage in violent behaviors. These results support previous findings in the existing literature and further support various theories of deviant behavior. For example, social learning theory argues that behavior, including criminal behavior, is leamed through positive and negative reinforcement (Orcutt, 1983). If a person is rewarded for criminal behavior more tban they are punished, they will be more likely to commit criminal acts. Others empbasize that criminal bebavior is learned in tbe same way as any other kind of behavior (Jenlcs, 2000). For youth who experience victimization by family members or others or who witness violent acts, tbeir learned behaviors are often counter to pro-societal norms (Wbitbeck, and Simons, 1990; 117 Whitbeck, and Simons, 1993). Criminal and violent behavior then ' ' become a coping mechanism to deal with the aftermath of victimization. Violence against others may be viewed as the only response these youths perceive is needed to develop their sense of power and place in the world. In fact, ethnographic works sucb as Code of the Streets (Anderson, 1994) suggests that violence is used by these youth to gain respect, power, and protection. However, this response to victimization creates a vicious cycle of continued violence, reducing the possibility of opportunities to make positive changes. Quantitative analyses indicated tbat gender was a predictive factor in perpetrating violent behaviors; males were more likely to conduct tbese behaviors tban females. Qualitative interviews supported this finding as respondents spoke of females ' greater vulnerability to sexual exploitation. Female youth were described in qualitative interviews as being forced into prostitution by their motbers to support a drug habit. Research of such exploitation of female youth indicates that females are more likely to become victims of sexual assault and exploitation while males are more likely to become victims of physical violence (Janus, Archambault, Brown, and Welsh, 1995; McCormack, Janus, and Burgess, 1986; Rew, Taylor-Seehafer, and Fitzgerald, 2001 ; Wbitbeck et al., 1993). Although males were 64% more likely to engage in violent behavior then females, males are more often victims of physical threats and assault while females were more often victims of sexual exploitation and rape (Stewart et al., 2004). Females who were sexually abused are more likely to engage in delinquent acts while sexually abused males are more likely to report physical symptomatology.and fear of adult meo (McCormack et al., 1986). Racial differences indicated that White youth were less likely to perpetrate violence than were minority groups; minorities were 59% more likely to engage in violent behavior than wbites. Previous researcb confirms this finding, as African Americans are more likely to be victims of crime than are whiteA.mericans (Neal, and Turner, 1991). Homicide ranks as the leading cause of death among young black males (Takanishi, 1993) and adolescent African American males are more likely to die of a gunshot wound caused by a friend of acquaintance than from any other cause (Hammond, and Yung, 1993). Toe incidence .,. �118 / Predictors ofviolen/ juvenile behavior: Revista Perspectn>as Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. J / ]]9 Examining the impact ofvictimization ami exposure to violence of fatal violence for adolescent Latino males has been reported to be 3-4 times greater than for white counterparts (Hammond et al., 1993). Racial differences were not presented as a category related to victimization and criminal behavior in the qualitative interviews; however, it was identified throughout the interviews as an impact across ali themes discussed. Interview participants believed that minorities have particularly high risk for victimization due to poverty. They noted that limited :financia! resources of these youth lead to a lack of support networks, increased exposure to violence and drug/alcohol abuse, lack of parental supervision, vulnerability to exploitation, lack of health insurance and mental health treatment, and fewer opportunities. In this study, peer violence and peer substance use were highly significant predictors of youths' violent behaviors. Previous research has reported that being a victim of family abuse or serious assault, having few financia! resources, spending more time on the streets, and associating with criminal friends result in more violent, delinquent behaviors (Baron et al., 1998). Specifically, victimization both during childhood as well as after being on the streets is a significant predictor of robbery, aggravated assault, and involvement in group fights. Adolescents who spend longer periods of time without adult supervision and in the company of their peers are significantly more likely to engage in delinquent behavior then their counterparts (Heinze et al., 2004; Warr, 2002; Yoder, Whitbeck, and Hoyt, 2003). Youth living in impoverished communities are exposed to other deviant peers that often teach them delinquent behavior. Yoder and colleagues (2003) found support for the selection and social affiliation models developed by Thomberry and colleagues (1993) in which it is hypothesized that: 1) gangs attract youth who are already involved in violence (selection); 2) gangs train youth to become delinquent (social a:ffiliation); and 3) gangs attract those who are already delinquent and further trains them in becoming more delinquent (enhancement). As one qualitative interviewee noted, " ... [urban] youth see crime every day, so that is what they know, and they quickly leam that they can make more money committing crimes. Kids [who live] there also have too much time on their hands and little supervision, so they are a product of their environment. They do not think they have choices, they do not think about their future." An interesting finding of this study was the lack of significance with measures of community and school violence, as well as drugs in the community. Although most youth perceived their coromunities and schools as violent environments, these were not significant predictors of their own violent behavior. As high crime communities are distinguished by their economic deprivation, tendency to be large in size, are overcrowded, and have greater proportions of non-White residents (Agnew, 1999), it may be that these youth <lid not live in truly violent environments. 0n the other hand, the variable of measuring poverty level was also not a significant predictor of violence behavior in this study. Thus, this lack of significant association may sirnply be an artifact of poor measurement rather than an accurate reflection of the irnpact ofviolence and drugs in the community and at school or particular bias of the sample. Limitations Quantitative analysis This study included severa! limitations that must be discussed in light of the results. First, the use of a secondary data source for this study limited the unavailability of important variables, such as more comprehensive measures of substance use, family functioning, community and school violence, and peer influences. Furthermore, the sample was fairly imbalanced between the numbers of youth indicating or denying experiences of violent behavior (3069 youth denied violent behavior and 349 reported violent behavior). However the large sample likely makes the effects of the unbalanced groups less of a concem. Finally, given the nature of cross-sectional data, our findings cannot inform causality--that is, which conclition occurred first. For example, it is not possible to determine whether violent behavior preceded or was the result of the youths' exposure to violent acts. Qualitative Analysis Toe main limitation consisted of the researcher's inability to interview �120 / Predictors ofviolen/ jwenile behavior: Examining the impact ofvictimizalion and exposure to violence youth directly due to IRB constraints. Direct interviews with victimized juvenile delinquents are crucial to better understand and map the process that leads them to engage in criminal behavior. Furthermore, the qualitative sample and sampling procedure were limited in scope; only those individuals that the researcher knew were contacted. Thus, there were no African American respondents interviewed, which would have been a rich source of information. Finally, saturation of the data was impossible due to time limitations and resulted in incomplete or limited narratives concerning topics of interest for this analysis. Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. / ¡ 121 References Abram, K.M.; L.A. Teplin, D.R. Charles, S.L. Longworth, G.M. McClelland, and M.K. Dulcan (2004). "Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in juvenile detention ", Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, pp. 403-410. Agnew, R. (1999). "A general strain theory of community differences in crime rates ", Joumal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36 (2), pp. 123-155. Implications Despite the limitations, results provide support for continued research of this population and suggest needs that individuals working with these youth must consider. Child victimization and youth violent behavior have been a longstanding concem in the United States. Crime and victimization dramatically reduces the well-being ofthe population at large and results in extensive economic costs to the nation (Roberts, 2004). Increased understanding of the causes and circumstances leading to criminal behavior is imperative in developing effective interventions to minimize the problems associated with juvenile delinquency, and more specifically, violent behaviors. For example, interventions must specifically address issues of minority and impoverished youth who are at particularly high risk for victimization. Family relationships are also an important area that deserves increased attention. Finally, increasing the knowledge of staff that interacts with juvenile delinquents may help them better understand the needs of these youth and serve as positive role models. Further research is needed to increase our understanding of this topic as well as our ability to serve these disadvantaged populations. Akers, R.L., and G. Jensen (2003). Social Leaming Theory and the Explanation of crime, New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers. Anderson, E. (1994). " The code ofthe streets", TheAtlantic Monthly, pp. 81-94. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory, Prentice-Hall. Baron, S. W., and T.F. Hartnagel (1998). "Street youth and criminal violence", Joumal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35 (2) pp. 166-192. , Buka, S.L.; T.L. Stichick, l . Birdthistle, and F.J. Earls (2001). " Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks and consequences ", American Joumal of Orthopsychiatry, 71 (3), pp. 298-310. Chang, J.J.; J.J. Chen, and R.C. Brownson (2003). "The role of repeat victimization in adolescent delinquen! behaviors and recidivism ", Toe Joumal of Adolescent Health : Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 32, pp. 272-280). Comell, D.G.; E.P. Benedek, and D.M. Benedek (1987). "Characteristics ofadolescents charged with homicide: Review of72 cases" Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5 ( 1), pp. 11-23. ' Daley, C.E., and A.J. Onwuegbuzie (2004). "Attributions toward violence ojmate juvenile de/inquents: a concurren! mixed-methodological �122 / Predictors ofviolentjuvenile behavior: _ Examining the impacl ofvictimization and exposure to v,o/ence 1 Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. JI 123 analysis", Toe Journal of Social Psychology, 144, pp. 549-570). 29 (5), pp. 383-402. Dembo, R., and K. Pacheco (1999). Global appraisal of individual needs (GAIN): Administration guide for the GAIN and related measures (version 1299). Retrieved 3-23-2005, 2005, from www.chestnut. org/li/gain Hammond, W.R., and B. Yung (1993). "Psychology role in the public helath repsonse to assaultive violence among young African-American men ",American Psychologist, 48, pp.142-154. De-Navas-Walt, C.; B.D. Proctor, and R.J. Mills (2004). Current Population reports, P60-226, Income poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States, 2003, Washington, DC, U.S. Census Bureau. Dunifon, R., and L. Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2002). "Who s in the house? Race differences in cohabitation, single parenthood, and child development", Child Development, 73, pp. 1249-1264). English, D.; C.S. Widon, and C. Brandford (200!)- Chil~~od victimization and delinquency, adult criminality, and violent cnmrnal behavior: a replication and extention, US Department of Justice. Fagan, A.A. (2003). "The Short- and Long-Term Effects ofAdoles~e~t Violent Victimization Experienced Within the F ami/y and Commumty , Violence and Victims, 18 (4), pp. 445-459. Fergusson, D.; N. Swain-Campbell, and J. Horwood (2004). "How does childhood economic disadvantage /ead to crime? ", Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 45 (5), pp. 956-966. Goldstein, P.J. (1985). "The drugs/vio/ence nexus: A tripartate conceptual framework ", Journal ofDrug Issues, 15, pp. 493-506. Grogan-Kaylor, A., and M.D. Otis (2003). " The effect of childhood maltreatment on adult crim~nality: a tobit regression analysis ", Child Maltreatment, 8, pp. 129-137). Halliday-Boykins, C.A., and S. Graham (2001). "At both ends of the gun: Testing the relationship between community violence exposure and youth violent behavior", Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, s Heinze, H.; P.A. Toro, and K. Urberg (2004). "Antisocial behavior and affiliation with deviant peers ", Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33 (2), pp.336-346. Herrera, V.M., and L.A. McCloskey (2003). "Sexual abuse,family violence, and fema/e delinquency: Findings from a longitudinal study", Violence and Victims, 18, pp. 319-334. Inciardi, J.A. (1990). "The crack-violence connection within a population of hard-core adolescent offenders ", In M. De La Rosa, E.Y. Lambert, and B. Gropper (Eds.), Drugs and Violence: causes correlates, and consequences, Vol. NIDA Research Monograph No 103). Rockville, MD, National Institute on Drug Abuse. Janus, M.-D.; F.X. Archambault, S.W. Brown, and L.A. Welsh (1995). "Physical abuse in Canadian runaway adolescents ", Child Abuse and Neglect, 19 (4), pp. 433-447. Jenks, D.A. (2000). "A social developmental theory: An integrative approach ", Justice Professional, 12 (4), pp. 507-533. Jonson-Reid, M. (1998). "Youth Violence and exposure to violence in childhood" an ecological review", Aggression and violent behavior, 3 (2), pp. 159-179. Lauritsen, J.L.; J.H. Laub, and R.J. Sampson (1992). "Conventional and delinquen! activities: Implications f or the prevention of violen/ victimization among adolescents ", Violence and Victims, 7 (2), pp. 91108. Lurigio,A.J.,andJ.A. Swartz(1999). "The nexus betweendrugand crime: Theory, research, and practice", Federal Probation, 63, pp. 67-72. �124 / Predictors ofviolentjuvenile behavior: Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. / / 125 Examining the impact ofvictimization ami exposure to violence Maxfield, M.G., and C.S. Widon (1996). "The cycle of violence: Revisited six years later", Achives of pediatrics and adolescent Medicine, 150. SAMHSA. (2002). National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Retrieved November 25, 2003, from http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/nhsda/2k2nsduh/ Results/2k2Results.htm#toc McCormack, A.; M.-D. Janus, and A.W. Burgess (1986). "Runaway youths and sexual victimization: Gender differences in an adolescent runaway population ", Cbild Abuse and Neglect, 10 (3), pp. 387-395. Scarpa, A. (2003). "Community violence exposure in young adults ", Trauma Violence andAbuse, 4, pp. 210-227. Merton, R.K. (1938). "Social structure and anomie", American Sociological Review, 3, pp. 672-682. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2004). NIDA lnfoFacts: High School and Youth Trends, Retrieved 5-9-2005, 2005, from http://www. nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/HSYouthtrends.html Neal, A., and S. Turner (1991 ). "Anxiety disorders research with African American: Curren! status", Psychological Bulletin, 109, pp. 400410. Schwartz, D., and L.J. Proctor (2000). "Community violence exposure and children s social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion regulation and social cognition ", Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68 (4), pp. 670-683. Smith, C., and T.P. Thomberry (1995). "The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency ", Criminology, 23 (4), pp. 451-477. Snyder, H.N. (2004). Juvenile arrests 2002, Washington, DC, Office of juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Pro- grams. NIJ. (2003). Youth Victimization: Prevalence and implications, Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Justice. Nofziger, S. (2003). Correlates and Consequences of Juvenile exposure to violence: a replication and extension of majar findings from the National Survey of Adolescents. Retrieved 5-2-2005, 2005, from http:// www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/ Orcutt, J.D. (1983). Toe social learning tradition: Interpersonal relationships and deviant behavior. Retrieved July, 2005, 2005, from http:// deviance.socprobs.net/Unit_ 3/Theory/DA.htm Rew, L.; M. Taylor-Seehafer, and M. Fitzgerald (2001). "Sexual abuse, alcohol and other drug use, and suicida/ behaviors in homeless adolescents ", lssues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 24 (4), pp. 225240. Roberts, A. (2004). Juvenile justice sourcebook: past present and future, New York, NY, Oxford University Press. Stewart, A.J.; M. Steiman, A.M. Cauce, B.N. Cochran, L.B. Whitbeck, and D.R. Hoyt (2004). "Victimization and posttraumatic stress disorder among homeless adolescents", Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21 (1), pp. 325-331. Sutherland, E.H., and D. Cressey (Eds.). (1955). Principies of Criminology, Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott. · Takanishi, R. (1993). "The opportunities of adolescence - Research, interventions, and policy ", American Psychologist, 48, pp. 85-87. Thomberry, T.P.; M.D. Krohn, A.J. Lizotte, and D. Chard-Wierschem (1993). "The role ofjuvenile gangs in facilitating delinquen! behavior", Journal ofresearch in crime and delinquency, 30 (1), pp. 55-87. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: the social aspects of criminal conduct, New York, NY, Cambridge University Press. �126 / Predictors ofviolen/ juvenile behavior: Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspeclives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8, Num. I / 127 Examining the impacl ofviclimization ond exposure lo vio/ence Whitbeck, L.B., and R.L. Simons (1990). "Life on the streets. Toe victimization of runaway and homeless adolescents", Youth and Society, 22, pp. 108-125. Whitbeck, L.B., and R.L. Simons (1993). "A comparison of adaptive strategies and patterns of victimization among homeless adolescents and adults", Violence and Victims, 8 (2), pp. 135-152. Winters, K.C. (1998). "Kids and drugs: Treatment recognized link between de/inquency and substance abuse", Corrections Today, 60, pp. 118-121. Yoder, K.A.; L.B. Whitbeck, and D.R. Hoyt (2003). "Gang involvement and membership among homeless and runaway youth", Youth and Society, 34 (4), pp. 441-467. Table 1: Quantitative Sample Demographics Characteristics Gender Male Female Race White Black Hispanic Other Youth Victimization Victimized Not victimized Youth Violence Exposure Witnessed violence Has not witnessed violence Youth Behavior Violent Notviolent Youth Substance Abuse/Dependence Marijuana Harddrug Alcohol Family problem substance use Alcohol Hard drugs Peer substance use (ever) Marijuana Alcohol Prescription drugs (recreational use) Peer Behavior Violent Not violent Poverty Level Below poverty Above poverty Problems in the Community Violence Drugs School Violence Problem Nota problem MeanAge Years (SD) Percentage (n=645) 50% 50% 69% 14% 10% 7% 19% 81% 73% 27% 11% 89% 5% 1% 5% 15% 10% 40% 55% 7% 23% 77% 18% 82% 80% 84% 80% 20% 15 (1.6) .... �128 Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primaveralspring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. 1 / I Predictors ofviolen/ juvenile behavior: Examining the impact ofvictimization ami exposure to violence Table 2: Logistic Regression Model of Predictors ofYouth Violent Behavior 129 Appendix 1 lnterview Guide Characteristics B S.E. Sig. OddsRatio Poverty Level -.183 .176 .298 .833 Youth Drug Abuse/dependence Marijuana Hard drugs Alcohol .925 .248 .580 .235 .425 .232 .000 .560 .013 2.522** 1.281 1.786** Peer Violence .861 .146 .000 2.365** Friend Substance Use (ever) Marijuana Alcohol Prescription drug .772 .893 .488 .195 .238 .209 .000 .000 .020 .462** .409** .614** Gender -1.021 .152 .000 .360** Family problem substance use Alcohol Harddrugs .220 .299 .170 .187 .196 .110 1.246 1.348 Ethnicity White Black Hispanic -.882 .145 .007 .295 .316 .334 .003 .646 .983 .414** 1.156 1.007 School Violence .157 .118 .183 1.170 Community Violence .033 .109 .764 1.033 Drugs are a problem in the Community .006 .077 .933 1.006 Youth Victimization 1.462 .145 .000 4.316 Youth Violence Exposure / Witnessing violence 1.600 .429 .000 4.954 Constant .347 .794 .662 1.415 Model X2 745.64 (p=.000) 1-) Tell me a little about your professional experience with the juvenile justice system. 2-) Could you describe a typical day of work there? 3-) Have you ever worked with a Latino youth who was a victim of violent crime as a child, and later became a perpetrator of violent crime? a-) Could you tell me about this case without disclosing the youth's real name? b-) What do you think lead this child to commit a crime? c-) Do you think this youth suffered any kind of discrimination during his/her life? 4-) Have you ever worked with a White youth who was a victim of violent crime as a child, and later became a perpetrator of violent crime? a-) Could you tell me about this case without disclosing the youth's real name? b-) What do you think lead this child to commit a crime? c-) Do you think this youth suffered any kind of discrimination during his/her life? 5-) Have you ever worked with a Black youth who was a victim of violent crime as a child, and later became a perpetrator of violent crime? a-) Could you tell me about this case without disclosing the youth 's real name? b-) What do you think lead this child to commit a crime? c-) Do you think this youth suffered any kind of discrimination during his/her life? 6-) Do you think being a minority influences delinquent behavior? How? 7-) Ask demographic questions �Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspeclives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. 11 Pág. I31-149 131 Accelerated, Differentiated Instruction on the Reading Achievement oflncarcerated Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a Time of Skepticism Forrest A. Novy* Eric Fredlund** Resumen Algunos estudios frecuentemente citados sugieren remediar las dificultades de aprendizaje para que sean minimalmente efectivos después del segundo grado de secundaria. Sin embargo, según nuestra experiencia con prácticas de aprendizaje diferenciadas y aceleradas aplicadas a adolescentes encarcelados con niveles de aprovechamiento menores pasa lo contrario. Los autores describen las características de jóvenes con discapacidades en uno de los centros correccionales estatales más grandes de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica y comparten resultados sobre capacidades de lectura que apoyan la posición de que una de las poblaciones juveniles socialmente más constreñidas y con bajos niveles de aprovechamiento académico puede aprender a velocidades no esperadas. Abstract Frequently quoted research suggests remediation oflearning difficulties to be "minimally effective" after second grade. However, our experience with differentiated, accelerated learning practices with underachieving incarcerated adolescents with disabilities indicates the opposite is true. The authors describe the characteristics of youth with disabilities in one of America's largest state juvenile correctional systems, and share reading outcome data that support the view that one of today's most disenfranchised and academically underachieving juvenile populations can leam at rates far exceeding common expectations. * Forrest A. Novy is the Director ofSpecial Education ofthe Texas Youth Commission, Austin, Texas. ** Eric Fredlund is Research Analyst for the Texas Youth Commission, Austin, Texas. ISSN 1405-11 33 O 2006 Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, University ofTexas of Austin, University ofTexas of Arlingtoo, Our Lady of the Lake University, University ofTennessee, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango. �132 / Acce/erated, Differentiated Instruclion on the Reading Achievement oflncarcerated Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspeclives primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8. Num. 1 / 133 Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a Time o/Skepticism Palabras claves / Key Words Instrucción, jóvenes, dificultades de aprendizaje, cárcel, programas Instruction, youth, leaming difficulties, correccional system, programmes lntroducction Incarceratedjuvenile offenders with disabilities are one of today's most disenfranchised cohorts of children. Ranging in ages from 10-21 (average age approximately 16), the group is estimated to account for 30-70% of all youth committed by the courts to residential correctional settings (Leone, Meisel, & Drakeford, 2002, Müller, E., 2005; Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005). Compared to general population age-mates, incarcerated youth with disabilities presenta troubling milieu of"at risk" characteristics. Literature and other research reviews consistently report higher than expected levels of academic underachievement, economic disadvantage, alcohol and drug abuse, distressed home environments, gang involvement, and emotional and mental health lability (National Council on Disability [NCD], 2003; Müller, 2005 ; Smith & Griffin, 2002; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002, Texas Youth Commission, 2004). Historically, these youth, in the "deeper end" of the correctional system, have been identified as sorne our most underserved and prograrnmatically neglected children (Hubner, 2005; NCD, 2003; Hollandsworth, 2003, Leone, Meisel, & Drakeford, 2002; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 2004; Quino, et al., 2005), and "among the most vulnerable in our society" (Edelman, Holzer, & Offner, 2006; US Department of Justice, 2003). lncidence figures put this population at approximately 134,000, nationwide (Sick.mund, 2002). A Time of Skepticism for "At Risk" Youth Today's attitudes toward underachieving, academically weak middle and high school students, including many identified as "delinquent," are generally negative and discouraging. Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998), editors of a recent in:fiuential and widely disseminated publication, state, "In school lore, second grade is broadly viewed as children's last chance. Those who are not on track by third grade have little chance of ever catching up" (p. 212). Others have reinforced this forecast. Reid Lyon (Learning disabilities and early intervention strategies, 2002), then of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, in testimony to the Subcommittee on Education Reform, Committee on Education and the Workforce, observed, " ...remediation of learning difficulties is minimally effective after second grade" (p. 3). In 2004, Lyon and co-author, Chhabra, went on to say that " ... failure to read by 9 years of age portends a life-time of illiteracy for at least 70 percent of struggling readers" (Lyon and Chhabra, 2004, How can we prevent reading failure section, para. 3). Reinforcing this bent, noted educator and researcher, Robert Slavin, quoted in a report by the Idaho Department ofEducation Reading Committee (1998), predicts that for "3rd graders reading ayear or more below grade level (or who have been retained one or more times) ... who are poor... attending a school serving many other poor children, their chances of eventually graduating from high school approaches zero" (p. 6). Slavin (1998) also identifies reading failure, in addition to grade retention and special education eligibility, as one of the "most important predictors ofdropout, delinquency, early pregnancy, and other serious problems (Lloyd, 1978)" (para. 1). These statements underpin and sustain popular beliefs that "at risk" youth can not succeed at learning rates observed in normally achieving age-mates. These children, many of whom carry concomitant conduct, behavior, or emotional disturbance characterizations, are more often than not served in less than ideal disciplinary, altemative education settings, taught by under qualified teachers, and exposed to curricula using ineffective and inappropriate instructional practices. For many of these students academic success is generally the exception rather than rule and by the time they reach middle and high school they are well behind their normally achieving peers. lt is unsurprising that "school lore" in fact confirms society's pessimism regarding the future of such troubled youth. This is particularly true for delinquent youth with and without disabilities. �l34 / Accelerated, Differentiated Jnstruction on the Reading Achievement ofIncarcerated Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a Trme ofSkeptícism Accelerated, Differentiated Instruction for lncarcerated Youth While the prevailing attitude toward long-term underachievers is one of continued failure, our outcome data with incarcerated juveniles, as well as fi.ndings elsewhere reported, suggest the opposite is true (cf. Belfanz, Legters, & Jordan, 2004; Codding, 2001; Conderman & Katsiyannis, 2002; Leone & Drakeford, 1999; Raiche & Showers, 2000; Schoenbach, Braunge, Greenleaf, & Litman, 2003). For incarcerated youth, the educational challenge is particularly immediate and compelling. We know that for many this will be their last formal, secondary-level educational experience. Maximizing this experience is particularly critica! given the strong association between educational attainment and reduced recidivism and arrest rates (Jeffords, 2004). To accelerate learning, students must be motivated to learn and teachers empowered to select methods and approaches that work. Students are moved through courses of study as mastery of subject matter is demonstrated. To maximize acceleration, successful teachers assess student performance regularly (and often). Accelerated learning occurs most :frequently when teachers incorporate the use of instructional technology in lesson planning and delivery. Teaching staff and other professionals (e.g., diagnosticians, caseworkers, rehabilitation stafl) are encouraged (at times required) to hone intervention skills and knowledge of promising practices by participating in workshops, conferences, and 'job alike" trainings where they can share and exchange successes and classroom practices. Considerable fiscal resources should also be eannarked eacb academic year so teachers and evaluation staff can purchase needed supplies, materials, and evaluation tools. Collectively, these initiatives and foci foster higher levels of student achievement at accelerated rates. Educating Incarcerated Juveniles with Disabilities: The Texas Experience Toe State ofTexas manages one of the nation's largest juvenile corrections residential populations. Toe Texas Youth Commission (TYC) is charged by the legislature tocare for, educate, and rehabilitate the state's most serious and chronically delinquent offenders. Approximately 4,800 Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectíves primaveralspring 2006. Vol.8, Num. 11 135 youth, ages 10-21 , reside in 14 majar state institutions (TYC, 2005a). Committing their crimes between the ages of 1O and 17, adjudicated offenders can remain under the jurisdiction of TYC until age 21. In 2005, TYC processed 2,614 new commitments, a third ofwhom committed either a violent, firearms-related, or substance abuse offense (TYC, 2005b). TYC offenders come from urban and rural areas. Tiie average age is 16 at entry. Girls represent approximately 10 percent·of the population. Four out of 10 youtb are Hispanic, and one in three-is African-American. One-half of TYC offenders bave high need for drug treatment. Four out of 1Oyouth exhibit serious emotional problems, and three out of four offenders are from chaotic home environments involving abuse and neglect (TYC, 2005a). t ·,; Since 2001, the state 's incarcerated juvenile population qualifying for special education services under thelndividuals withDisabilities I!duéation Act (IDEA), as amended (IDEA, 2004) has ranged from 40-45% of all commitments. Ninety-five percent of special education-eligible.youth enter the state's correctional system having previously been identified: These figures represent three and a half times the reported incidence.rates of children with disabilities receiving special education in the ":free'' or, general population. Specific learning disabilities (SLD) and emotional disturbance (ED) diagnostic conditions account for nine ofieh of the commission's incarcerated students with disabilities. Academically, special education-eligible youtb are on average five-to-six grade lev.els behind their normally achieving age-mates in both i:eading- an-d rnatb skills (Novy, 2005). Special education services are provided year-round and include reforJ ral, evaluation, and individualized education programming ín a'ccoroanoo with federal and state mandates. The state's juvenile corr~ctíonal system seeks for all students, with and without disabilities, improved math and reading skills, development ofjob-related competencies, the awarding of high school credits, and when applicable, the conferring of a high school diploma or "GED" certificate prior to release (General ,Educational Development, 2006). Meaningful, intensive educational interventions during incarceration, followed by comprehensive reentry efforts and supports after release are crucial in lowering traditionally bigh tates of re-arrest and re-incarceration (Jeffords, 2004; Mears & Travis, 2004). �136 / Accelerated, Differentiated l nstruclion on the Reading Achievemenl oflncarcerated 137 Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2{)()6. Vo/.8, Num. 1 / Youth wilh Disabililies: Unexpected Progress in a Time ofSkeplicism TYC students vary greatly in age, grade levels, academic skills, and learning abilities. Those who are most successful are guided by teachers that adapt to individual need and leamer diversity. These teachers motívate their students by connecting with tbem. They adjust to wideranging academic achievement levels and learning abilities (and disabilities), draw upon challenging instructional approaches and materials, use technology whenever possible, and, most importantly, communicate bigh expectations for learning and achievement. Because ofhigh student mobility, teachers must also be qualified and proficient to teach multiple subject areas, at differing rates and content levels- all simultaneously. Por students with disabilities, the formula for success is the same, but with additional assistance from specially trained educators, assessment staff, and correctional rehabilitation professionals. primarily minority (approximately 35% and 37% African American and Hispanic, respectively (see Table 1). A significant majority exhibited specific learning disabilities (SLD) (53%) or emotional disturbance (ED) (44%), as defined by federal special education law (IDEA, 2004). Other representing conditions included other health impairment (OHI), speech and language impairments (SI), mental retardation (MR), and auditory and visual impairments (Al) and (VI), respectively. Table 1: Characteristics of incarcerated youth with disabilities as a function of age, gender, level of intellectual functioning (IQ), and ethnicity (N=2691) Variable Mean Median SD Mínimum Maximum PretestAge Posttest Age (IQ) Male Anglo African American Hispanic Other 16.0 17.6 87 90.86% 28.47% 16.1 17.5 87 10.8 12.8 60 The Study We analyzed three years of reading achievement data for incarcerated youth receiving special education services. We used the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE, 1997) to establish achievement rates over time between a youth 's entry to the correctional system and at his release. The study's measure of"expected" growth in reading is currently defined by the Texas legislature as a mínimum of one month gain in reading ability (as measured fonnally by the TABE) for every month of incarceration. A logistical regression analysis ascertained correlates of student-specific characteristics (e.g., intellectual functioning, reading level at entry, gang affiliation, limited English proficiency) to reading level changes over time. We used this analysis to control for "expected" variations in reading gains across 14 TYC correctional facilities, enabling us to calculate an "expected" gain rate for each correctional facility. When then compared each facility's "actual" rate of reading gain to its "expected" rate, deriving a less ambiguous picture of a facility's contribution to positive educational outcomes in reading during incarceration. Study Population Characteristics The study's population mean age was 16 years at admission, 68% of whom were first time commitments. The cohort was predominantly male (91 %), functioning in the low average range intellectually, and 1.2 1.4 12 20.5 21 ·140 34.52% 36.83% 00.19% Source: Texas Youth Commission, Research Department, Austin, TX. 2006. Table 2 highlights additional population characteristics. These include documented mental health need, treatment need, whether specialized treatment was provided d~g incarceration (e.g., chemical dependency, sexual behavior, capitál offender), reported gang membership, and if the commitment classification was as a "general" offender (i.e., youth whose committing offense did not include classification as either a ''violent," "chronic serious," or "1rrearms" offender, oras a "controlled substances dealer") (see TYC-Gl~ssary ofTerms (2006]). �138 / Accelerated, Differenliated lnstruction on the Reading Achievemenl oflncarcerated 139 Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. J / Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a 1ime ofS/repticism Table 2: Additional population characteristics: ldentified treatment needs, gang involvement, general offender commitment status, and whether a specialized treatment was received Characteristic Mental Health Need Sexual Behavior Treatment Need Any Specialized Treatment Need Received Any Specialized Treatment Gang Membership Reported General Offender Mean 70.16% 13.64% 86.85% 45.37% 45.34% 61.98% Source: Texas Youth Commission, Research Department, Austin, TX. 2006. Reading Achievement Gains over Time Table 3: Incarcerated youth with disabilities' reading grade level equivalents (GLEs): Entry v. release- School Years 2003, 2004, and 2005 Variable PerMonth Reading Gain Rate Pretest Reading Grade Leve! Equivalent (GLE) Posttest Reading Grade Leve! Equivalent (GLE) Months between Pre- Posttests Mean Median SD Mínimum Maximum 1.71 1.41 1.77 -5 15 4.7 4.6 2.4 o.o 12.6 7.3 6.9 2.8 O.O 12.9 19.09 13.90 13.66 1.64 83.15 Source: Texas Youth Commission, Research Department, Austin, TX. 2006. Pre- and posttest reading seores (i.e., in grade level equivalents) were examined (see Table 3). At entry the sample's average grade level equivalent(GLE) was fourth grade, seventh month (4.7), approximately 6 grade levels behind the expected GLE for normally achieving age-mates (i.e., mid 10th grade for a student turning 16 years old). Posttest reading GLE was seventh grade, third month (7.3), or more than two and half (2.6) grade levels higher than at entry. This refl.ected a mean gain rate of 1.7 months per month of instruction, where gain rates were first determined for each youth by dividing the difference in pre- vs. posttest GLEs (in months) by ofthe time (in months) between pre- and posttest administrations. Toe median gain rate was 1.4 months and may be a better indicator ofthe distribution's central tendency given its resistance to the effects of outliers. lt should be noted that the authors did not control for outliers in their analyses, instead choosing to include the total population's results regardless of anticipated testing "inconsistencies" (i.e., questionable youth effort at entry or release). Average time between pre/post testing was 19 months. Figure t. Readlng Growth Over 12 Months ol lnstructlon for Theoretlcally Normally Achlevlng vs. lncarcerated Speclal Educatlon Populatlon 11.6 11.8 _....._ 10.6 9.6 ..,._ Theoretlcal 7.6 ..... speclal Educatlon ~ 5.6 -6 4 ./ 3.6 1.6 Beglnnlng Grade Level Equlvalent Endlng Grade Level Equivalen! Time 1 Toe theoretical grade level equivalent of I0.6 (tenth grade sixth month) was based upon the generally expected grade level for a hypothetical, normally acbieving student who entered first grade at age, six years six months. 2 Toe grade level equivalent (GLE) of 4.7 (fourth grade seventh month) was the mean GLE of the study population at entry; mean age 16 years) �140 / Accelerated, Differentiated Jnstmction on the Reading Achievement ofIncarcerated 141 Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8. Num. J / Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a TlTlle ofSkepticism Comparing these results to those expected of a theoretical group of normally achieving 16 year olds (i.e., 16 years O months) helps to clarify the significance of the special education population's overall growth. Figure 1 below graphically depicts expected achievement differences (in grade level equivalents) during 12 months of instruction for the two groups- Theoretical (starting at 10.61) and Special Education (starting at4. 72). Using an expected reading gain rate for the "hypothetical" normally achieving group of one month of achievement for every month of instruction, a grade level equivalent (GLE) of 11.8 would be expected after 12 months of schooling (i.e., 12 months, or 1.2 years gain in reading accomplishment). In comparison, the special education group, whose reading gain rate is 1.7 months for every month of instruction, will progress approximately two grade levels (to 6.6) over the same time period, narrowing its "achievement gap" from 5.9 to 5.2 grade levels in one year. About two-thirds of youth in the 3-year reading gain sample achieved sufficient gain to satisfy the standard of at least one-month gain per instructional month. Variables Associated with Reading Achievement Ten characteristics associated with the probability of achieving the reading gain standard are presented in Table 4. Months between pre- and posttest was the strongest predictor of whether or not a youth attained tbe "one montb gain" standard. Of youth taking both pre- and posttest within one year, three-quarters achieved this goal. When duration between tests exceeded 24 months, achievement fell to about one-half. Toe value of the pre-test score also predicted if a student was likely to attain the goal. All other things being equal, students who scored lower on the pretest achieved the reading gain standard at higher rates than counterparts scoring higher at pretest. For example, of students whose entering GLE was 2.8 or lower on the pre-test, about 66 percent achieved the reading gain goal. For those scoring above 6.2 the comparable success rate was 62 percent. Intellectual ability was also a good predictor of whether or not the reading gain standard would be achieved. As expected a mental retardation diagnosis was negatively associated with amount of reading gain. However, it is also important to note Table 4: Variables Associated witb Achieving Reading Gain Goal (one month gain per month of instruction) -Scbool Years 2003 through 2005 N 2691 Ali Months between Pre & Posttest 671 Less than 9.5 months 9.5 to 13.89 months 673 675 13.9 to 24.6 months 672 More than 24.6 months IQ 655 95 or Above 636 88-94 80-87 687 713 79 orbelow Pre Score / Age in Months on Pre Day Lower Achievers 699 712 Low-Moderate Achievers High Moderate Achievers 668 Higher Achievers 612 Race Anglo 766 Non-Anglo 1925 Degree Mental Health Need 112 ~ryHigh 287 High Modera/e 764 287 Low 1032 None Ever Diagnosed ED Yes 1224 1467 No Mental Retardation Yes 89 No 2602 Limited English Projicieney 365 LEP NotLEP 2326 Educational Setting 1308 Mainstreamed Higher Setting 1383 Received Specialized Treatment Yes 1221 1470 No PercentAchieving Mean Gain Per Month Instruction Reading Gain Goal 65.8% 1.7 2.6 1.9 1.4 1.0 76.3% 74.1% 66.4% 46.3% 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.5 75.7% 67.5% 64.2% 56.7% 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.4 66.0% 67.1% 67.7% 61.9% 2.0 1.6 70.6% 63.8% 1.1 1.4 l.6 1.8 1.9 50.0% 58.2% 63.9% 64.7% 71.5% 1.7 l.7 66.2% 65.4% 1.1 1.7 44.9% 66.5% 1.7 1.7 64.7% 66.0% l.9 1.5 69.3% 62.5% 1.7 1.7 65.9% 65.6% �142 / Accelerated, Differentiated Jnstn,ction on the ReadingAchievement oflncarcerated Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a Tune ofSkepticism that of youth diagnosed with mental retardation (mild to severe), 45% achieved at least one month ofreading gain per month of instruction. Toe degree of a student's mental heath need, determined by a psychologist at our Marlin Orientation and Assessment Unit (MOAU) upon entry, also predicted amount of reading achievement, with the "high" need youth less li.kely to achieve the one-month growth target (50% vs. 71% for "none"). 143 Revista Perspectivos Sociales/Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8, Num. I / Table 5: Expected vs. observed reading gain goal rates by correctional campus: Special education eligible youth EXPECTED OBSERVED READING GAIN GOAL READING GAIN GOAL Correctional Campus N ACHIEVEMENT ACHIEVEMENT DIFFERENCE Ali 2684 65.8% 65.8% 0.0% Campus I 263 71.3% 70.7% -0.9% Campus2 187 59.2% 48.1% -18.7% Campus 3 267 66.4% 59.6% -10.3% Campus4 255 68.5% 60.8% -11.3% Campus 5 304 70.4% 77.6% 10.3% Campus6 89 52.8% 58.4% 10.7% Campus 7 288 70.6% 66.7% -5.5% Campus 8 41 78.7% 87.8% 11.5% Campus Comparisons-Expected V s. Actual Reading Gains Campus9 61 69.0% 75.4% 9.3% Shown in Table 5 are expected vs. observed rates of achieving the reading growth standard in 14 TYC campuses4. Looking at the data in this way helps to clarify each campus' relative instructional contribution. We are currently using these data to identify campuses where students significantly exceed expected rates of achievement. For example, Campuses 5, 6, 10, 12, and 13 exceeded by 10% their "expected" success rates. Our interest now is to explain these observed discrepancies relative to individual campus leadership, classroom setting, instruction, and program delivery practices. CampuslO 224 60.4% 60.7% 0.6% Campus 11 91 65.2% 72.5% 11.3% Campus 12 247 58.5% 76.1% 30.0% Campus 13 188 68.2% 67.6% -l.0% Campus 14 179 61.6% 55.9% -9.3% On first analysis, having received specialized treatment or not did not differentially predict reading outcomes. However, once all characteristics were taken into account, having received specialized treatment significantly estimated the likelihood the reading gain measure would bemet3. Summarizing, the best single predictor for achieving the reading skill growth standard is time between pre- and posttest. However three variables - months between pre- and posttesting, entry level reading score, and intellectual ability accurately predicted reading goal attainment with 70.8% accuracy. With all 10 characteristics entered, the model predicts with 72.6% accuracy. 3 Analysis ofmaximurn likelihood estimates x2[1, N=2691] = 5.15, Pr = .0233. 4 Toe data presented in Table 5 exclude from the analysis the results of 7 youth at the TYC orientation and assessment center. This facility is a primary orientation and evaluation unit and <loes not provide a ful] educational program. Youth remain at this facility on average 45-60 days before movement to another TYC operated school. Table 5 also includes youth served at one TYC campus closed in spring 2003---Campus #9). Source: Texas Youth Commission, Researcb Department, Austin, TX. 2006. �144 / Accelerated, Differentiated /nstruction on the Reading Achievement oflncarcerated Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. JI 145 Youth with Disabilíties: Unexpected Progress in a Time o/Skepticism CONCLUSIONS Data have been presented describing the reading growth patterns of a cohort of youth in long-term, secure confinement. Our study's findings indicate that when provided appropriate opportunities, even our most neglected and underachieving students- incarcerated youth with disabilities-can perform at higher than commonly expected rates of achievement. We believe fundamental to this success is accelerated and differentiated educational opportunities that focus on individual need in an environment of high expectations. Using logistical regression analyses of key student characteristics, we have begun to isolate student and campus-specific factors most associated with reading performance. Our next step is to better understand the explicit nature of these factors, particularly in campus settings where students are achieving at the highest rates. Are different teaching methods or approaches being employed? Is technology being used differently to teach reading? Are students on these higher performing campuses encouraged, motivated, and/or rewarded in ways that distinguish them from poorer performing campuses? What role, if any, <loes campus leadership play? Answers to these questions will strengthen our understanding of campus variables that contribute most to student success. In Texas, incarcerated high school-aged youth are demonstrating accelerated learning, despite years of school failure. And many are going on to successful com.munity reintegration following release in part, we contend, because of educational progress made during confinement. For incarcerated juveniles with or without disabilities, we must identify and develop the "protective" factors most associated with post release success. Our data point convincingly to level of reading achievement as one ofthe most important factors. Others, while not addressed in this paper, have also been identified, including GED and high school diploma attainment, level of math achievement, reading on grade level at release, and participation in career and tecbnology education training. While our goals may be clear in terms of desired outcomes (i.e., the protective characteristics we wish in place), the real challenge is to find the ways and means by which these can best be advanced. We have argued for the need of educators and allied co-workers to question prevailing assumptions about learning and "at risk" children, particularly incarcerated youth with disabilities. We believe it is incorrect to assume, as many do, that these children and youth are relegated to a future of school failure if not caught (i.e., remediated) in the early school years. Achievement gaps can and will be closed if students, regardless of age or grade level, are provided appropriate interventions. With appropriate accelerated and di~erentiated learning opportunities these children can and will demonstrate rates ofleaming (in our case in the reading domain) that exceed expectations. Lastly, let our efforts, whether educational, rehabilitative, or correctional, always be child-centered, driven by individual need and circumstances. Dr. Jim Boynton, longtime psychiatrist at TYC's Corsicana Residential Treatment Center, thoughtfully captures this when he says, "For better or for worse, this really is their last good chance to get better... The tragedy is that for so many of these kids, this is also their first chance to get better too" (Hollandsworth, 2003, p. 142). �146 / Accelerated, Differenliated /nstruclíon on the Reading Achievement oflncarceraled Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. 11 147 Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a Time o/Skepticism References Balfanz, R., Legters, N., Jordan, W. (2004). Catching up: Effect of the talent development ninth-grade instructional interventions in reading and mathematics in high-poverty high schools. CRESPAR/Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. An on-line version available at: www.csosJhu.edu. Codding, J. (2001). An up ramp for struggling readers. Principal Leadership (High School Education), 2 no22, 22-5. Conderman, G. & Katsiyannis,A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices in secondary special education. Remedia/ and Special Education, v23 i3 p169 (11). Edelman, P., Holzer, H. J., Offner, P. (Eds.). (2006). Reconnecting disadvantaged young men. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press General Educational Development, (2006). American Council on Education, One Dupont Circle NW, Washington DC, 20036, E-mail: http://www.acenet.edu. Hollandsworth, S. (2003, November). Their last good chance to get better, Texas Monthly, pp. 135-182. Hubner, J. (2005). Last chance in Texas: The redemption of criminal youth. New York: Random House. Idaho Department of Education Reading Committee, 1998. Vision statement report to the legislature on reading education in Idaho. Idaho Department ofEducation, Boise, Idaho. Individual With Disabilities Education Act, as amended (2004), 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400 et. seq. Jeffords, C. (2004). Recidivism by education measures. E-mail to one of the authors. Texas Youth Commission, August 25, 2004. Learning disabilities and early intervention strategies: How to reform the special education referral and identification process. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Education Reform of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 107th Cong., (June 6, 2002) (testimony of G. R. Lyon). Leone, P. E. & Drakeford, W. (December 1999). Altemative education: From a "last chance" to a Proactive Model. The Clearing House, 3(2). http://www.edjj.org/Publications/pub_06_ 13_00_ l .html Leone, P. E., Meisel, S. M., & Drakeford, W. (2002). Special education programs for youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 53 no2, 46-50. Lloyd, D.N. (1978). Prediction of school failure from third-grade data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38, 1193-1200. Lyon, G. R. & Chhabra, V. (2004). The science of reading research, Educational Leadership, 61 (6) 12-17. Mears, D. P. & Travis, J. (2004). The dimensions, pathways, and consequences of youth reentry. Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, January 2004. Retrieved January 2006 from http://www.urbanl.org. Müller, E. (2005). The juvenile justice system and youth with disabilities. In Forum: Briefpolicy analysis, NASDSE, Oct 2005. National Council on Disability. (2003, May 1). Addressing the needs of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system: Toe current status of evidence-based research. NCD Report retrieved March 8, 2004, from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/juvenile.html. Novy, F. A. (2005). Adjudicated youth with learning disabilities: Positive outcomes for youthful offenders. Learning Disabilities Association ofTexas, State Conference, November, 2005. O:ffi.ce ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]. (2004). OJJDP Annual Report 2003- 2004, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Washington, DC. �148 / Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vol.8. Num. 1 / 149 Accelerateá, Differentiated /nstnJction on the Reading Achievement ofIncarcerated Youth with Disabilities: Unexpected Progress in a Time ofS>.epticism Quinn, M. M., Rutherford R. B., Leone, P. E., Osber, D. M., & Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: a national survey, Exceptional Children, 71 no3 339-45. Raiche, N. & Sbowers, B. (2000) A second chance to learn to read. Leadership, 30 no2, 18-20 N/D. Scboenbach, R., Braunger, J, Greenleaf, C, & Litman, C (2003). Apprenticing adolescents to reading in subject-area classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 85 no2, 133-8. Sickmund, M. (2002, March). Juvenile offenders in residential placement: 1997-1999. OJJDPfact sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Slavin, R. E. (1998). Reading by nine: What will it take? Peabody Journal ofEducation, 73 no3-4, 68-80. Retrieved December2005, from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com. Smith, L. L & Griffin, J.K. (2002). Conversations witb delinquents: The mingling of meager dialogues. Journal of Correctional Education, 53 no4 127-30. Snow, C. E., Burns, M . S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Researcb CounciVAcademy Press. Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M ., McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry, 59, 1133-1143. Test ofAdult Basic Education (TABE) ( 1996). Technical Report- Forms 7 & 8. CTB/McGraw-Hill, Monterey, CA. TYC Board Report, 2004, January 13, 2004. Texas Youth Commission. TYC, (2005a). TYC population tren<Js. Texas Youtb Commission, Austin, TX. Retrieved February 2006 from http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/. TYC, (2005b). TYC commitment pro.file. Texas Youtb Commission Austin, TX. Retrieved February 2006 from http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/ TYC, (2006). Glossary ofterms. Texas Youth Commission,Austin, TX. Retrieved April 2006 from http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/. US Department of Justice, (2003). Justice department files lawsuit chaUenging conditions at two Mississippi juvenile training schools (Press Release), Washington, D.C. �CALL FOR PAPERS CONVOCATORIA A SOMETER ARTÍCULOS �CONVOCATORIAASOMETERARTÍCULOSA 'Social Perspectives/Perspectivas Sociales Social Perspectives/Perspectivas Sociales es una revista bilingüe y binacional que invita a trabajadores sociales y científicos sociales a someter manuscritos para ser editados durante el 2007. La revista constituye un proyecto conjunto de la Facultad de Trabajo Social de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, México, The School of Social Work at the University of Texas at Austin y Toe University of Texas at Arlington. Buscamos artículos que se enfocan en temas relacionadas con la frontera México-Estados Unidos y las personas que se desplazan en ambas direcciones; tópicos de importancia para la práctica del trabajo social que refieren a aspectos comunes entre ambas naciones en tomo a individuo, familia y comunidad; aspectos comunes entre ambas naciones acerca de las políticas sociales, la formación del trabajo social; e investigaciones científico-sociales acerca de las condiciones sociales. Se da una especial bienvenida a trabajos que analizan prácticas innovadoras, presentan resultados de estudios empíricos y que revisan críticamente políticas y programas de desarrollo social. Se alienta asimismo a trabajos interdisciplinarios e internacionales. Los artículos se publican en ingles o español con un resumen en ambos idiomas. Los trabajos sometidos serán dictaminados por miembros del Comité Editorial y del Comité Científico de la revista. Los manuscritos deben tener como extensión mínima 1Opáginas y máximo 30 a espacio 1 _. El manuscrito típico tiene alrededor de 20 páginas incluidos el resumen . (300-350 palabras) y la bibliografia. Los autores pueden enviar sus artículos a: Veronika Sieglin, co-editora Maria Elena Ramos Tovar, co-editora Profesora Titular Profesora Titular Depto. de Posgrado Depto. de Posgrado Facultad de Trabajo Social Facultad de Trabajo Social Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León Ciudad Universitaria Ciudad Universitaria San Nicolás de los Garza, N.L. San Nicolás de los Garza, N.L. México México Tel. 00-52-(81)-83-52-13-09 ext 229 Tel. 00-52-(81)-83-52-13-09 ext 227 �CALL FOR PAPERS Social Perspectives/Perspectivas Sociales Social Perspectives/Perspectivas Sociales, a bilingual, bi-national journal, is seeking rnanuscripts to be published in 2007. The journal is a joint project of the Facultad de Trabajo Social of the Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo Leon, Mexico, the Facultad of Trabajo Social of the Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, México, Toe Worden School ofSocial Service ofOur Lady ofthe Lake University, the School of Social Work at the University ofTexas at Austin and The U niversity of Texas at Arlington, and the College of Social Work of the University of Tennessee. We are seeking papers that focus on issues connected to the U.S.- Mexico border and the persons moving in both directions across that border, social work practice issues that are cornmon to individuals, families and cornmunities in both nations, social policy issues that are common to both nations, social work education relevant to both nations, and research on social conditions with implications to both nations. Papers describing innovative practices, empirical research, policy and program developments are welcomed. lnterdisciplinary and intemational papers are encouraged. Articles can be printed in Spanish or English with abstracts in both languages. Submissions will be reviewed by members of the editorial review panel. Manuscripts may range from 10-30 pages, typed, doublespaced pages depending on the content. Toe typical manuscript is about 20 pages including references and abstract (300-350 words). Articles for consideration should be sent to: María Elena Ramos Tovar, co-editora Veronika Sieglin, co-editora Profesora Titular Profesora Titular Depto. de Posgrado Depto. de Posgrado Facultad de Trabajo Social Facultad de Trabajo Social Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León Ciudad Universitaria Ciudad Universitaria San Nicolás de los Garza, N.L. San Nicolás de los Garza, N.L. México México Tel. 00-52-(81)-83-52-13-09 ext 229 Tel. 00-52-(81)-83-52-13-09 ext 227 GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORSNORMAS DE PRESENTACIÓN DE ARTÍCULOS �Revista Perspectivas Sociales / Social Perspectives primavera/spring 2006. Vo/.8, Num. I / 157 NORMAS DE PRESENTACIÓN DE COLABORACIONES PARA LA REVISTA 'Social Perspectives/Perspectivas Sociales Social Perspectives/Perspectivas Sociales es una revista bilingüe y binacional que invita a trabajadores sociales y científicos sociales a someter manuscritos para ser editados durante el 2007. La revista, editada de forma semestral, constituye un proyecto conjunto de la Facultad de Trabajo Social de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, México, The School of Social Work at the University of Texas at Austin y Toe University ofTexas atArlington. Buscamos artículos que se enfocan en temas relacionadas con la frontera México-Estados Unidos y las personas que se desplazan en ambas direcciones; tópicos de importancia para la práctica del trabajo social que refieren a aspectos comunes entre ambas naciones en tomo a individuo, familia y comunidad; aspectos comunes entre ambas naciones acerca de las políticas sociales, la formación del trabajo social; e investigaciones científico-sociales acerca de las condiciones sociales. Se da una especial bienvenida a trabajos que analizan prácticas innovadoras, presentan resultados de estudios empíricos y que revisan críticamente políticas y programas de desarrollo social. Se alienta asimismo a trabajos interdisciplinarios e internacionales. Los artículos deben ajustarse a las siguientes normas de presentación de originales: 1. Los documentos deberán ser versiones definitivas e inéditas. 2. Los trabajos se enviarán por correo electrónico en formato Microsoft® Word a alguna de las siguientes direcciones electrónicas veronikasieglin@yahoo.de ó lorikay@mail.utexas. edu. 3. Deberá enviarse, en un documento anexo llamado ''Datos del autor", la siguiente información: nombre completo, grado universitario máximo, institución donde labora, cargo actual que desempeña, número telefónico, dirección postal, dirección electrónica. En el caso de coautorías deberán indicarse los datos de todos los colaboradores. 4. Las colaboraciones serán evaluadas por la dirección de la revista �Revista P=¡,ectiw,s Sociales I Social P=pectives primavera/sprmg 2006. Vo/.8, Num. I ¡ 158 para verificar que se ajusten a las present~ normas. De ser a~í: serán enviadas a dos dictaminadores rruembros del Corrute Editorial y del Comité Científico de la revista, cuyo arbitraje favorable es requisito indispensable para la publicación del trabajo. 5. Los artículos se publican en inglés o español con un resumen_ ~n ambos idiomas. Los manuscritos deben tener como extension mínima 10 páginas y máximo 30, en fuente Times New Roman, interlineado de 1.5, sin macros ni viñetas de adorno, sin hacer énfasis con fuentes tipográficas, y utilizando cursivas sólo para voces extrajeras. 6. El manuscrito típico tiene alrededor de 20 páginas incluido el resumen (300-350 palabras) y la bibliografia. 7. Los artículos iniciarán con un resumen (300-350 palabras) e incluirán cinco palabras clave. 8. Las citas textuales se consignarán entre comillas, no mediante cursivas. Cuando se trate de citas breves, se mantendrán dentro del párrafo en que se produzca la referencia; si la ~ita reb~a las cuatro lineas, se colocará a bando, con márgenes mas amplios, a un espacio y sin entrecomillado. 9. La bibliografía irá al final del artículo en este orden: a~tor (apellidos, nombre), año (entre paréntesis), obra (en cursiva), lugar de edición, editorial. Ejemplos. a) Libros Bauman, Zygmunt (2002). La ambivalencia de la modernidad y otras conversaciones, Barcelona, Paidós. Adelantado, José, José Antonio Noguera y Xavier Rambla (2000): "El marco de análisis: las relaciones complejas entre estructura social Y políticas sociales", en José Adelantado (coord.), Cambios en el Estado de Bienestar, Barcelona, Editorial Icaria, pp. 23-60. b) Revistas: 159 !· Boltvinik, Julio ,<o_c~?re 2001 "Opciones metodológicas para medir la ~o_breza en Mextco , en Revista Comercio Exterior, vol. 51 núm. ¡ o Mex1co DF, pp. 869-878. ' ' c) Sitios de Internet: C~ara Nacional de la Industria Tequilera (2004). Informe de /a Cámara N~cwnal de la l~~ustria Tequilera sobre su comportamiento durante el ano de 2005, Mex1co. Disponible en: http://www.camaratequilera.com. mx/ (Recuperado el 19/ 10/06). 1O. Respetando el estilo de cada escritor, sugerimos redactar los textos a través de construcciones sintácticas sencillas, párrafos ~refer~ntei:nente brev~s y articulación entre profundidad teórica, ngor científico y clandad expositiva. 11 . Una vez emitidas las evaluaciones de los árbitros consultados se com~nic_ará al _au~or los resultados del dictamen en cualquier~ de los termmos s1gu'.entes: se publica, no se publica o se publica con _las recomendac10nes o modificaciones que se consideraron pertmentes. 12. Los_ artículos publicados en Social Perspectives/Perspectivas ~octales serán difundidos y distribuidos por todos los medios ~presos y/o electrónicos que el Comité Editorial de la revista Juzgue convenientes. �160 Revista Perspectivas Sociales I Social Pel'$peclives primavera/spring 2006. Yo/.8, Num. JI GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS disadvantaged young men, Washington DC, Urban Institute Press. Contributions should adjust to the following rules: Russo, R. J. (1980). "State problems and the need for research-based planning in the drug field", In C. Akins, and G. Beschner (Ecls.), Ethnography: A research too/ for po/icymakers in the drug and alcohol fields, Rockville, Maryland, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, pp. 40-65. 1. Contributions must be original and they should not be under consideration in any other journal. 2. Contributions should be submitted electronically to one of dthe following e-mail addresses: veronikasieglin@yahoo. e; lorikay@mail.utexas.edu; or to mramor@facts.uanl.mx. Toe journal prefers Microsoft Word for Windows. . 3. Author(s)' information (author(s)' name, academ1~ degree), affiliation including telephone, postal address and e-mail address should be typed on a separate sheet. 4. All papers deemed appropriate for the journal are s~nt ou~ anonymously to two referees of the Scientific Bo~rd ~f the JO_urna that consists of an interoational panel. Contnbuttons w1ll be published only if they are accepted by th~ referees. . 5. Contributions will be published in English or Spamsh. Papers sbould not be shorter than IO pages and longer than 30 pages. They should be typed 1.5 spaced, Times New Ro~an. Avoid fancy typefaces. Use cursives type font º°:1Y for ~ore1gn words. 6. The typical manuscript is about 20 pages mcluding references, and abstract (300-350 words). . . 7. Include a brief abstract (300-350 words) summanzmg the findings and five key words. . 8. Textual quotations should use quotation marks instead of curs1ve letters. Please indent any citations in the body of the text that are longer than four lines as a block quotation; give them a deeper indent than the rest of your text. 9. References must be presented at the end ofthe article in a separat)e References section as followed: author (last name, first name , (year), title, place, editorial. Examples: a) Books Edelman, P.; H.J. Holzer, and P. Offner (Eds.). (2006). Reconnecting 161 b) Journal Articles: ~urray, D. M_.; R. V. ~uepker, C.A. Johnson, and M.B. Mittelmark (1984). The preventton of c1garette smoking in children: A comparison of four strategies", Journal ofApp/ied Psycho/ogy, 14(3), pp. 274-288. e) Information from web-sites: McBri_d e, D. C.; C.J VanderWaal, Y. M. Terry, and H. VanBuren ( 1999). Bre~kmg the Cyc/e of drug use among juveni/e offenders [On-line]. Retneved October 24, 2002, from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffilesl/l 79273. pdf 1O. Write sentences and paragraphs clearly and succinctly with a minimum of jargon. Writing should demonstrate theoretical soundness and scientific accuracy. 11. Authors will be notified after the reviewers retum their comments to the editors. The results of the reviewers may be in any of th~se tenns: publishable as it is, not publishable, or publishable w1th commendations and/or modifications. 12. The_articles published in Social Perspectives/Perspectivas Sociales may be distributed in any press or electronic format that the editorial comm.ittee considers pertinent. ���� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Perspectivas Sociales = social perspectives Description An account of the resource Revista de Ciencias Sociales de la Facultad de Trabajo Social, publicada en la década de los noventa. Editada por Emma Adame W., Luis Leñero O, Ma. Del Carmen Elú, Víctor Zúñiga y Rodolfo Garza. Contiene artículos de investigación científica sobre educación, trabajo social, ciencias sociales, psicología, etcétera. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Título Uniforme Perspectivas Sociales = social perspectives Año de publicación El año cuando se publico 2006 Volumen Volumen de la revista 8 Número Número de la revista 1 Mes de publicación Mes cuando se publicó Primavera Día Día del mes de la publicación 1 Periodicidad La periodicidad de la publicación (diaria, semanal, mensual, anual) Semestral Relación OPAC https://www.codice.uanl.mx/RegistroBibliografico/InformacionBibliografica?from=BusquedaAvanzada&bibId=1753308&biblioteca=0&fb=20000&fm=6&isbn= Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Perspectivas Sociales : Social Perspectives, 2006, Vol 8, No 1, Primavera Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Cárdenas G. de Silva, Rosa María Subject The topic of the resource Ciencias Sociales Investigación Trabajo social Educación Psicología social Description An account of the resource Revista de Ciencias Sociales de la Facultad de Trabajo Social, publicada en la década de los noventa. Editada por Emma Adame W., Luis Leñero O, Ma. Del Carmen Elú, Víctor Zúñiga y Rodolfo Garza. Contiene artículos de investigación científica sobre educación, trabajo social, ciencias sociales, psicología, etcétera. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Universidad de Nuevo León, Facultad de Trabajo Social ; Austin Texas, School of social wook, University of Texas at Austin Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Sieglin, Veronika, Editora Holleran, Lori, Editor Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 01/04/2006 Type The nature or genre of the resource Revista Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource tex/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 2016262 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Fondo Universitario Language A language of the resource spa/eng Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Monterrey, N.L., (México) Access Rights Information about who can access the resource or an indication of its security status. Access Rights may include information regarding access or restrictions based on privacy, security, or other policies. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. El diseño y los contenidos de La hemeroteca Digital UANL están protegidos por la Ley de derechos de autor, Cap. III. De dominio público. Art. 152. Las obras del dominio público pueden ser libremente utilizadas por cualquier persona, con la sola restricción de respetar los derechos morales de los respectivos autores Abuso de sustancias Adolescentes Comportamiento juvenil violento Delincuentes juveniles Encarcelados Enfermedades mentales Gobierno Federal Jóvenes con discapacidades Justicia juvenil