This document contains a final report submitted by Veronica Elliott for a course on Juvenile Justice Administration. The report assesses alternative juvenile treatment programs and their effectiveness in reducing recidivism. It discusses programs like multisystem therapy, boot camps, wilderness programs, counseling, and restorative justice. It finds that comprehensive community-based programs that address the underlying causes of delinquency can be most effective in preventing reoffending.

1. Course Name: Juvenile Justice Administration
Course Code: MCJ6002
Week: Four
Assignment: Four
Assignment Name: Submit Final Report
Veronica Elliott
Problem Statement
“According to research estimates of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of 2004, 60 percent of all adolescents who
become part of the juvenile justice system before they are 11 years old will
commit a violent crime by the time they are 16.”

2. As an advisor to juvenile justice policy makers, you have been asked to
assess alternative juvenile treatment programs and present some alternative
juvenile treatment and present evidence of their success with persistent
offenders.
Assessment Report
Critical Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Contemporary Responses to Juvenile
Offenses
Juvenile crime and the juvenile justice system is a growing concern in America. No one
knows the main cause of juvenile delinquency or why juveniles commit crimes. Many
contemporary juvenile justice experts and I believe that institutionalization should be the last
response for handling juvenile offenders, and a number of mental health and child welfare
agencies promote community-based programs. Recent literature suggests that a system of
deinstitutionalization is appropriate and manageable and needs to be pursed as a viable
alternative for juvenile offenders. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
have established guidelines to reflect what a least restrictive environment should include.
Those guidelines consider size, distance, from home, degree of security, population mix, and
community programming. With variance in labels and treatment programs, it attempts to
evaluate the effectiveness of community based methods are troublesome. In general, however
studies indicate more negative consequences for youth committed to institutions than to
community-based programs. An evaluation of juvenile detention in Nebraska indicates that the
process by which trouble juveniles are managed needs to be evaluated. Opportunities exist for
moving in the more positive direction of community-based treatment (NCJRS).
Some responses to juvenile offenders are treating them as adults and let them get the
maximum sentence for them crime. That is for those who commit serious offenses. In juvenile
courts judges wavier juvenile offenders to criminal courts and they get tried as adults. Some say
that is used to help decrease the juvenile crime rate I think it adds to it. I think the best
effective response to juvenile offenses is to find out what the root of the problem is and try to
fix it by using counseling or any alternative treatment program.

3. Critical Evaluation of Alternative Treatment Programs for Juvenile
Offenders
Some people believe that alternative treatment or rehabilitation programs do not work.
I believe that they help a great deal on juvenile offenders. There is several different alternative
treatment programs design for juvenile offenders. The court selects the best program for the
juvenile. The court chooses the one that is the best for the treatment needed for the juvenile.
There are lots of alternative treatment programs that the juvenile or the juvenile court can
choose from that will benefit the juvenile. Programs such as Multisystem Therapy, Pooch
Programs, Boot camps, wilderness programs, restorative justice programs, counseling, and drug
abuse treatment programs.
Multisystem Therapy (MST) this is a program that empower parents with skills and
resources needed to help address difficulties that they may find in their teenagers. This
program also empowers youth to cope with family, school, peers, and problems in their
environment. MST helps to overcome barriers to service access, allows for the provision
intensive services resulting in low caseloads for therapists, increases family retention in
treatment, and enhances the maintenance of treatment gains. The effectiveness of MST comes
from controlled studies that focused on violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Results from
these studies showed that MST outcomes were similar for youths across the adolescent age
ranges that are 12-17 years (South University 2008).
Pooch Programs combine unwanted dogs with trouble youths. In these programs the
offenders are to learn patience, self-esteem, and responsibility and relationship skills. As the
juvenile train the dogs they learn anger management skills, deferred gratification, patience,
forward-thinking and planning, logical consequences, responsibility, and self-awareness (South
University 2008).
Boot Camps are the most familiar programs for trouble youths. Most parents use this
program for the teens when they sense that it is something going on with their teen. Boot
camps are considered an intermediate punishment, and they are very effective for certain types
of offenders those that need structure and can retain the structure upon release. Researchers
have indicated that boot camps are effective for short term, but not long-term (South
University 2008).
Wilderness Programs is an outward-bounding program. This program is an alternative to
the institutional programs. Evaluation studies of wilderness programs indicate that the short-

4. term, positive effects of therapeutic wilderness camp programs could potentially provide a
promising alternative to traditional juvenile justice placements (South University 2008).
The most common alternative treatment program that is the most effective is
counseling it is also the most court referred program. Counseling provides comprehensive
psychological services by combining the youth, family, school, and community perspective in
assessing the needs of the youths (University of Georgia). I believe that counseling is the most
effective is because it is an ongoing process and it is done as a group and individual.
Some people believe that community-based programs are the most effective such as
probation because it has state of the art supervision. I think probation is more effective
because it help the offender get back into society. It also lets the offender give back to their
victims. Probation is a second chance for the offender to get his/her life on track. However
there are many who have violated their probation and was sent to a juvenile detention center
to serve a sentence.
Center for Child and Adolescent Treatment Services (CCATS) Program specializes in
treating adolescents with diagnosed psychiatric disorders, drug or addiction problems, or both.
To get involve in this program youths are not just referred by courts but their parents can enroll
them as well. CCATS is a 12 step program that allows each individual 12-16 weeks, the actual,
time is solely dependent upon their personal needs.
Natchaug Hospital offers services for adolescent who have emotional or behavior health
issues that put them at risk of needed psychiatric residential or inpatient care. “The intensive
day treatment programs that Natchaug offers can help prevent hospitalization as well as
provide an environment that can help adolescent who were formerly in an inpatient or
residential setting transition back into their community and into regular life more smoothly
(Hollerbach 2006). This program is effective it help treat juvenile that can not help their
delinquency because they have behavior issues, which are medically related.
Restorative Justice is a good source of treatment for juvenile offenders. BCRJP us
restorative justice and it help decrease the juvenile crime rate. This involves the victims of
crime the opportunity to meet the offender in a safe place and structured setting, with the goal
of holding the offender directly accountable for their behavior while providing important
assistance and compensation to the victim. The victim gets to tell the offender how the crime
affected him/her the can receive answers to their questions and get involved with a restitution
plan for the offender. The offender is able to take direct responsibility for his/her behavior and
to learn the full impact of what they did, and develop a plan for making things right with the
person they the victimized (BCRJP 2005).

5. Juveniles must acknowledge that they have a problem and want to get treatment for it.
If the individual does not want the treatment then it is not going to be effective. For any
Treatment and program to work and decrease juvenile crime they all must work together. The
parents, schools, programs, communities, local law enforcement must work together to help
decrease juvenile crime.
Key Components of a Strategy to Prevent Juvenile Delinquency
and Recidivism
There are several different programs that are design to help reduce recidivism rates.
Probation‘s primary goal is to reduced recidivism. They do this by holding offenders
accountable and by assisting offenders change their behavior. Probation Officers also work
with victims in ensuring they are heard through Victim Impact Statements and by collecting
Restitution. DPCA’s primary strategies in reducing recidivism are realized through providing
quality training to probation officers in Evidence-Based Practices (EPB) well researched
practices. They train probation officers in case planning, Motivational Interviewing,
understanding the Stages of Change and we teach probation officers how to engage offenders
in skill-building exercises. DCPA strategies to reduce recidivism also include the provision of risk
and need actuarial assessment instruments to local probation departments. Uniform and
continuous assessments of the offender are essential. Measuring the risk of recidivism for the
juvenile as well as the adult is essential in determining which offenders fall into the low,
medium and high risk categories. Like risk and need assessment, the risk principle is a primary
component of what we commonly refer to as EBP. It determines how we allocate resources.
There is strong evidence that over supervising low risk offenders can actually increase their
overall risk of recidivism. They diverted low risk offenders from the system because there is a
low probability they will re-offended (DPCA 2008). A study was conducted in 2005 and the
results show that DPCA had a 24.2% reduction in recidivism among juvenile offenders was
realized when their protective factors increased. DPCA realized that to be effective they must
move their interventions to an earlier time in the lives of our youth and families. The best way
to correct or fix a problem is to catch it before it grows or get bigger.
“When applied to an aftercare model, intervention strategies counseling, behavior
programs, restitution, probation, employment, vocational and academic programs seek to
prevent delinquency by changing individual behavior. Despite early skepticism regarding
intervention programs, recent literature reviews and meta-analyses demonstrate that

6. intervention program can effectively reduce delinquency. In fact, that the important issues us
not whether something works but what works for whom (NCJRS).”
Programs must have a specific plan and design. Research indicates that incomplete or
poorly implemented programs delivered by untrained personnel to offenders who spend only a
minimal amount of time in the program will not successfully reduce recidivism. Systemic
barriers to implementing interventions programs include unstable operating environments,
competing agency priorities, crowded facilities and aggressive diversion practices, poor staff
selection and training, staff turnover and vacancies, and poor access to services because of
inadequate transportation or along distance between the community and the institution
(NCJRS).
According to Aftercare Services, treatment for delinquent behavior is most effective
when it is provided to juveniles with the highest risk of recidivism. Programs that target low-
risk offenders show little reduction in recidivism because few of those offenders tend to repeat
delinquent behavior. In review of 200 studies, Lipsey found that the average intervention effect
for programs directed at serious offenders was positive, statistically significant, and equivalent
to a recidivism reduction of about 6 percentage points from a 50 percent baseline, but variation
across studies was considerable (NCJRS).
It is a steady drop in teen offender recidivism rates in Pierce County and it is not the
result of institutions. Pierce County focus on programs proven to keep kids out of state
institution to use state dollars not on detention facilities but in the communities. The county
began collecting much more precise and compressive data on the teen felons it had released,
tracking them for two years on probation. After the first arrest, offenders and their families go
through risk assessment a detailed interview to screen out those less likely to become chronic,
violent offenders. The high risk kids are detained, schooled and given therapy to help them
control anger and make decision based on reason, not impulse or peer pressure. The
researcher is pretty clear the more dependent they become on it and the harder it is to keep
them for developing a criminal lifestyle. The lesser offenders and their parents sign agreements
that obligate the children to pay fines and restitution, stay away from their victims and attend
school and counseling. Community accountability boards staffed by local volunteer’s adults
and teens make sure they comply. Ninety-four percent of their kids successfully complete the
six month program, 70 percent of them is not arrested again (IBT 2007).
“Post release reintegration programs are now often part of broader crime prevention
strategies that are designed to provide a comprehensive approach to public safety. Crime
reduction strategies developed in the Uk, the US and few other countries for youth and adult
offenders attempt to reintegrate the various elements of the criminal justice response to crime,
develop based interventions in an unbroken continuum of intervention. Several communities

7. in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada are in the early stages of developing similar
strategies. These strategies are premised on interagency cooperation and coordination,
integrated responses and partnership with community (Griffiths, 2007).”
“Depending on local public safety priorities, many of these crime reduction strategies
have had to consider ways of preventing recidivism by known offenders, particularly those who
are very dangerous and/or prolific. Often, the expression priority offenders are used to reflect
the fact that crime prevention priorities can vary from one community to another. A common
feature of these initiatives is the objective of developing cost effective programs that will
prevent crime and enhance public safety. Not surprisingly, the language of evidence-based
programming is often being used to guide, design, and justify various interventions. Some very
large scale initiatives, particularly in England, were designed on the basis of the best available
research evidence on the causes of crime, crime patterns and effective methods of
intervention. Some significant investments have been made in the U.S. and the U.K. to attempt
to evaluate the outcomes of these various strategies (Griffiths, 2007).”
Unfortunately, almost without exception, complex, integrated and comprehensive
interventions to promote reintegration and to prevent recidivism have failed to produce
conclusive results. Or, if positive outcomes have been generated, these have not been
measured. The apparent failure of many is due to program implementation issues, rather than
to the validity of the concept and principles of the intervention itself. A review of selected
intervention for youth and adult offenders has generated a number of lessons learned about
programming that is design to reduce rates of re-offending and to promote the reintegration of
offenders. That the outcome to date has been less than stellar serves as a reminder that the
effective prevention of recidivism by known offenders is far more complex than was
anticipated.

8. References
The Social Reintegration of Offenders and Crime Prevention Facilitating Offender Reintegration
and Preventing Recidivism: Lesson Learned Curt Griffiths April 2007 Retrieved on November 1,
2008 http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cp/res/soc-reint-eng.aspx
International Business Times Community is Focus to Prevent Recidivism Todd Lewan December
30, 2007 Retrieved on November 1, 2008
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20071230.community-is-focus-to-prevent-recidivism.htm
After Services Juvenile Justice Practices Series Retrieved on November 1, 2008
http://www.ncjrc.gov/html/ojjdp/201800/page2.html
Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives Probation Strategies to Prevent Recidivism
Robert Maccarone February 6, 2008 Retrieved November 1, 2008
National Criminal Justice Reference Service Response to Recidivism Retrieved on November 1,
2008 http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publication/abstract.aspx?id=136974
Juvenile Treatment and Corrections Dina Hollerbach December 18, 2006 Retrieved October 29,
2008
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/101908/juvenile_treatment_corrections_in_co
Restoring Justice: The Decrease in Juvenile Crimes in Barron County 2005 Retrieved on October
16, 2008 http://bcrjp.org/articles/restorative%20justice%20%20Crime%20Reduction1-Kas
Juvenile Counseling and Assessment Program The University or Georgia Retrieved on October
28, 2008 http://www.coe.uga.edu/chds/jcap/index.html
Week 4: Juvenile Justice Administration Alternative Programs in Juvenile Justice South
University Retrieved on October 30, 2008