Early Intervention reducing recidivism among children and adolescent offenders Student number: s2875363 Student name: Kate O’Reilly Course name: CCJ10 Introduction to Forensic Psychology Enrollment: External, Griffith University Course convener: Dr. Myesa Knox Mahoney Course tutor: Domanic De Andrade Date due: Wed 23rd Jan 2013 Word count: 1430 It has been widely acknowledged that crime has consequences for individuals and society (Ou & Reynolds, 2010).
So it has been widely accepted that children and adolescents with antisocial behaviour are a societal problem (Helmond, Overbeek & Brugman, 2012). Antisocial behavior is characterised by violent offences such as robbery and assault causing harm to not only its victims but to society as well (Helmond, Overbeek & Brugman, 2012). Society pays the price for crime not only in loss of personal effects and medical costs but also in the cost of incarceration to the tax payers (Ou & Reynolds, 2010).
It is the antisocial behaviour, that is targeted in early interventions, in an attempt to diminish delinquency (Hollin & Palmer, 2009). Studies have been undertaken that provide evidence that intervention is effective and benefits the whole of society (Ou & Reynolds, 2010). In this essay, focus will be drawn specifically to intervention and it’s part in curbing recidivism in juvenile offenders.
This means that adolescents are far more likely to act before considering the consequences, they are impetuous, and easily influenced by their peers (Buchen, 2012). Now more than ever campaigners for youths are working towards less punishment and more importantly far more opportunity for intervention or rehabilitation (Buchen, 2012). Research into crime has shown that criminal activities occurring in adulthood have been found to follow a youth’s career of criminal activity and antisocial behaviour, developing into an adult re-offender, (Ou & Reynolds, 2010).
Youth offenders show predictors early in life that include the sex, race and ethnicity of the juvenile, as well as aggression, and antisocial behaviour in childhood (Ou & Reynolds, 2010). They can be coerced to offend simply because of stressors in their lives (Sealock & Manasse, 2012). In some cases studies have enabled prediction of delinquency that can then allow prevention of youth involvement in the juvenile justice system all together, (Sealock & Manasse, 2012).
Where this is not the case and a young person is incarcerated, early intervention is required to curb re-offenders. Mentally ill juveniles will offend three times as often as other juveniles, and for these offenders imprisonment can be fruitless causing significant increase in symptoms instead of reversing environmental damage and improving their skills as it is intended (Erickson, 2012). This puts them further at risk are mentally ill juveniles, for whom demanding life events, such as loss of job or family breakdown, will often lead to violence as a response (Markowitz, 2011).
For these mentally ill youths social opportunities can be limited, they will have difficulty finding a job, stable accommodation and a support network (Markowitz, 2011). There often limited opportunities for intervention before the fact (Markowitz, 2011). Because of this some offenders tend towards homelessness and crimes of survival such as shoplifting and trespassing, some committing these non-violent crimes as a way of seeking intervention they would not otherwise have access to (Hinday, 1997).
Symptoms of mental illness include; impulsivity and impaired judgment and can cause already hotheaded youths to act in antisocial ways (Hinday, 1997). A form of intervention that continually arises in research looking at young offenders is the use of cognitive behavioural therapy or modification. Cognitive Behavioural therapy is founded on social learning, and adopts the theory that offenders have learned unsuitable ways of behaving due to their environment (McGuire, 2003).
Many intervention plans include this type of treatment, sometimes coupled with psychiatric treatments (Jones, Chancey, Lowe & Risler, 2010). Cognitive behavioural techniques encourage offenders to think through a situation, instead of ensuing their immediate response. A reaction that can often be impetuous and self-centered attitudes that increase the likelihood of anti-social behavior (McGuire, 2003). In cognitive behavioural therapy an offenders learning is conditioned, they are trained to eradicate maladaptive actions (McGuire, 2003).
Cognitive, rehabilitation or intervention programs aim to bring changes to youth offenders (Jones et al. , 2010). Young adults, who spend time incarcerated, carry with them a high likelihood of recidivism when they return from correctional facilities and attempt to transition back into society, (James, Stams, Asscher, De Roo &Van der Laan, 2013). Research has provided a variety of reasons as too why juveniles find it so difficult when re engaging with society, one important reason explained by James et al,. 2013) is that not only are they coming to terms with the challenges of relocation from a juvenile facility back into every day life but they are doing this while simultaneously coping with the move from adolescents into adult hood. Helmond et al. , (2012) Discusses an intervention program constructed by cognitive-behavioural therapy called EQUIP, a program designed to communicate to young antisocial offenders who would be reintegrating into society, ways of acting and thinking responsibly. The EQUIP program is used in correctional facilities all over the world.
EQUIP incorporates a positive peer culture in which parties want to support others due to developing feelings of responsibility for them. The main focus of EQUIP is to address mental misrepresentation, deficiencies, and social and moral skills (Helmond et al. , 2012). A private not-for-profit agency, Hillside in the US, is a provider of intervention services for mentally ill young people and their families or guardians (Jones et al. , 2010). This program includes community-based services and a residential treatment facility, which treats participants under a program called Interpersonal Skills Program (Jones et al. 2010). Treatment through this program includes structured framework, group therapy and individual therapy as well as family therapy (Jones et al. , 2010). Hillside’s program works on cognitive behavioural treatment focusing on mental distortions, managing and assessing risk as well as avoiding situation leading to relapse (Jones et al. , 2010). For those adolescents in the justice system who require treatment for substance abuse, this can be a form of early intervention as offenders can be sent to juvenile drug court (Nissen & Pearce, 2011).
Substance abuse treatment programs in collaboration with the juvenile justice system provide this method of intervention where youths are educated and put through an intensive program of rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration (Nissen & Pearce, 2011). High recidivism amidst adolescents has encouraged the government to provide funding from the government to develop and maintain re-integration as intervention, following the lack of success using probation-only in the attempt to prevent adolescents re-offending (Nissen & Pearce, 2011). James, et al. (2013), found that this type of program referred to as after care has had great success when starting a program during incarceration and when aimed at youths with a high risk of re-offending. Another successful after care program was developed by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation and is called Reclaiming Futures (Nissen & Pearce, 2011). The program Reclaiming Futures deploys affirmative youth development and leadership building and efforts on leadership expansion in the community, a community that can offer assistance to bridge life in incarceration to life in society through constructive growth activities (Nissen & Pearce, 2011).
Something that Reclaiming Futures does well is bring together suitable intervention and the needs of the adolescent offenders, and this provides an empathetic network around young people with the result being rarer occasions of violations when in parole (Nissen & Pearce, 2011). Early interventions have been found to reduce the rate of recidivism when they target young offenders. As evidence suggests a career criminal is likely to begin offending as a child, not suddenly as an adult.
Therefore intervention that targets change of behaviours, physically and mentally at an early age, prove effective. Intervention is successful at an early age because medically, an individual’s brain does not stop developing until their late twenties. As a result, adolescents can react impulsively to situations, leading to antisocial and criminal behaviour then ultimately to prosecution. The chances of this situation arising are heightened in mentally ill youths however, by incorporating the various approaches of early intervention a program can be planned base on an individual needs assessment.
This plan is determined by the offence committed, and requirements of the youth, and allows positive outcomes to be achieved. All research suggests that the affirmative results are the product of early interventions. References Buchen, L. (2012). Science in court : arrested development. Nature, 484(7394), 304-306. DOI:10. 1038/484304a Erickson, C. D. (2012). Using Systems of Care to Reduce Incarceration of Youth with Serious Mental Illness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(3-4), 404–416. DOI 10. 1007/s10464-011-9484-4 Gibbs, J. C. , Potter, G.
B. , Barriga, A. Q. & Liau, A. K. (1996). Developing the helping skills and prosocial motivation of aggressive adolescents in peer group programs. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1(3), 283-305. DOI: 10. 1016/1359-1789(95)00018-6 Helmond, P. , Overbeek, G. & Brugman, D. (2012). Program integrity and effectiveness of a cognitive behavioral intervention for incarcerated youth on cognitive distortions, social skills, and moral development. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9),1720–1728. DOI: 10. 1016/j. childyouth. 2012. 05. 001 Hiday, V. A. 1997). Understanding the connection between mental illness and violence. International journal of law and psychiatry, 20(4), 399-417. DOI: 10. 1016/S0160-2527(97)00028-9 Hollin, C. R. & Palmer, E. J. (2009). Cognitive skills programmes for offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(2-3), 147-164. DOI:http://dx. doi. org/10. 1080/10683160802190871 James, C. , Stams, G. J. J. M. , Asscher, J. J. , De Roo, A. K. & Van Der Laan, P. H. (2013). Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among juvenile and young adult offenders: A meta-analytic review.
Clinical Psychology Review, 33(2), 63–274. DOI: 10. 1016/j. cpr. 2012. 10. 013 Jones, C. D. , Chancey, R. , Lowe, A. & Risler, E. A. (2010). Residential Treatment for Sexually Abusive Youth: An Assessment of Treatment Outcomes. Research on Social Work Practice. 20(2), 172-182. DOI:http://dx. doi. org/10. 1177/1049731509333349 Markowitz, F. E. (2011). Mental illness, crime, and violence: Risk, context, and social control. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 16(1), 36–44. DOI: 10. 1016/j. avb. 2010. 10. 003 McGuire, J. (2003).
Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Re-offending. Retrieved from http://www. swin. eblib. com. au. ezproxy. lib. swin. edu. au/patron/FullRecord. aspx? p=146239&echo=1&userid=znHAXBQDThLw9bSY1Xo67Q%3d%3d&tstamp=1358851968&id=4B65141F70B1486C0EA05198C182C8FA6D56A7DB Nissen, L. B. & Pearce, J. (2011). Exploring the implementation of justice-based alcohol and drug intervention strategies with juvenile offenders: Reclaiming Futures, enhanced adolescent substance abuse treatment, and juvenile drug courts.
Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 60–65. DOI: 10. 1016/j. childyouth. 2011. 06. 014 Ou, S. ,& Reynolds, A. J. (2010). Childhood predictors of young adult male crime. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(8), 1097–1107. DOI: 10. 1016/j. childyouth. 2010. 02. 009 Sealock, M. D. & Manasse, M. (2012). An uneven playing field: The impact of strain and coping skills on treatment outcomes for juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 238–248. DOI: 10. 1016/j. jcrimjus. 2012. 02. 002