Is there still a place for violent youth in juvenile justice

Several commentators urge the swift implementation of "get tough" policies aimed at removing young offenders from society. This ethos seemingly proceeds unabated, despite mounting evidence disputing its basic premise that rehabilitative and reintegrative efforts simply do not work. This article details the roots of the growing dissatisfaction with the juvenile justice system, evaluates the current approach to rehabilitative and reintegrative efforts, and examines innovative intervention programs aimed at treating and reintegrating violent youth. The article then highlights the possible contributions these innovations may have for juvenile justice policy. VioLit summary: OBJECTIVE: This aim of this article by Levesque was to review the increasing dissatisfaction with the U.S. juvenile justice system, to evaluate current programs, and to examine new intervention approaches. METHODOLOGY: The author conducted a non-experimental literature review and evaluation. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: The author began by reporting that although juvenile arrests had escalated during the 1980's, the research did not support the common conclusion that juveniles had become more violent. Policymakers who misconceived this group as violent began to create harsher programs and tougher criminal laws for juveniles. The author first reviewed intensive probation supervision (ISP) programs. This approach provided more contact between officers and the youth offenders, as well as their parents. Reviewers of these programs have criticized the research on ISP programs for its contradicting findings, ranging from positive effects on recidivism to unintended negative effects like misallocation of resources. Next, restitution programs offered an alternative by requiring offenders to perform community service or to pay the victim/victims family for their crime. The author reported that no studies have found this approach to be effective in reducing delinquency. Then, wilderness programs utilized the challenges of an outdoor setting to promote better behavior. The author noted that no empirical evidence had been produced to support long-term effectiveness. The author concluded that none of the above approaches successfully address the multifaceted nature of youth violence. The author reviewed the innovations in youth rehabilitation and reintegration. One development was the creation of interagency collaborations to provide comprehensive treatment for both the youths and their families. New programs offer individualized treatments and focus on helping the youth within the family environment. One example was the multi systemic family therapy (MST) approach that consisted of 30 hours of direct contact over an average of 3 months. Evaluation reports for MST showed positive results: decreased delinquency and improved family relationships. MST has even proven effective for reducing the recidivism of violent offenders. In general, the author found the following common attributes of successful new programs: a social-ecological perspective, delivery of services in the natural environment, and access to individualized services. AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS: The author recommended that these new innovations be taken seriously for their potential to decrease the cost and increase the effectiveness of the juvenile crime system. The author suggested that future researchers examine the new rehabilitative approaches in the context of youth rights. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) KW - Juvenile Offender KW - Juvenile Violence KW - Juvenile Court KW - Juvenile Justice System KW - Justice System Evaluation KW - Justice System Policy KW - Correctional Decision Making KW - Juvenile Correctional Institution KW - Literature Review KW - Justice System Intervention KW - Intensive Supervision KW - Probation KW - Restitution KW - Wilderness Program KW - Reintegration KW - Rehabilitation KW - Intervention Program KW - Violence Intervention KW - Program Evaluation