Prevention programs: types, effectiveness, and implementation strategies

Juvenile offenders like adult offenders, sometimes need guidance and assistance in order to lead law abiding lives. Research has led to identification of program models and intervention approaches that help juvenile offenders lead productive lives and keep them from re-offending as they mature. Additionally, prevention programs assist in decreasing the likelihood of juvenile offenders by offering alternative methods to cope with the stresses and hardships of life. Many times adult offenders were once juvenile offenders and if they had received help when they were still juveniles, they may not have re-offended. This research paper shows information from three articles that explain the advantages of intervention programs as well as the kind of intervention that most benefits juvenile offenders. Evidence-based practice has been widely recognized as the best way to approach any treatment program. However, many programs often ignore these practices for the more traditional approaches as the majority refrain from modification of treatment.

Introduction

For over 15 years, researchers have acknowledged intervention stratagems and program models that decrease law-breaking and encourage pro-social improvement. Thwarting delinquency not only protects the lives of young people from being spent and wasted in jail or detention facilities, but also inhibits the commencement of adult felonious businesses and thus diminishes the encumbrance of crime on its sufferers and on humanity as a whole. Taxpayers spend billions of dollars annually on the arrest, prosecution, incarceration, and treatment of criminal offenders. If there are programs available to prevent juvenile offenders from re-offending and becoming adult criminals, these programs could very well save taxpayers 7 to 10 dollars for every dollar financed, principally in the form of minimized expenditure on prisons and the justice system.

Review of the Research

The first article, written by Borduin et al. (1995) studies the long-standing effects of multisystemic therapy (MST) vs. individual therapy (IT) on the deterrence of criminal comportment as well as violent offending among 176 high risk juvenile offenders who were viewed as more likely to commit additional, more serious crimes. "Results from multiagent, multimethod assessment batteries conducted before and after treatment showed that MST was more effective than IT in improving key family correlates of antisocial behavior and in ameliorating adjustment problems in individual family members."(Borduin, 1995, pp. 569). The results proved MST was not only more effective in the short-term, but also the long-term as a 4-year follow up demonstrated a decrease in criminal behavior from the juveniles exposed to MST vs. IT, especially when it came to violent offending. These findings help determine which methods are effective and which are not leading to a better understanding of what solutions may become available for prevention programs.

Connor et al. state in their article, "Juvenile maladaptive aggression: a Review of Prevention, Treatment, and Service Configuration and a Proposed Research Agenda," prevention programs display potential for decreasing future violence in at-risk populations. Furthermore the kinds of drugs that can be used in the multi-faceted approach are the same as those used in people with ADHD or ADD adding to the treatment options available. "Atypical antipsychotics, lithium, divalproex sodium, and stimulants for conduct problems associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have empirical support for reducing aggression in selected patient populations"(Connor, 2006, pp. 808). Beneficial skepticism in the management of belligerent children and youths with comportment difficulties is no longer necessary if treatment programs offer multifocused psychosocial mediations early in life to children and adolescence who are at-risk as these methods offer the most empirical evidence for effectiveness.

Although research is ongoing, many programs lack the structure and methods necessary for successful outcomes. According to Greenwood (2008), researchers have recognized 12 "established" delinquency-prevention programs that have shown remarkable improvement in their participants. They also identified an additional 20-30 that demonstrated promise. Shifting towards evidence-based practices derived from information gathered from successful programs can help increase the likelihood of success in other programs through implementation of effective standardized practice. Evidence from school-based programs show remarkable prevention in many areas. "Successful school-based programs can prevent drug use, delinquency, anti-social behavior, and early school drop-out" (Greenwood, 2008, pp. 185).

Greenwood also highlights community-based programs, much like school-based programs, can deter first-time delinquents from added happenstances with the justice system by providing skill development and personal development. As evidence suggests, the most effective community programs stress family communications and provide services and incentive to the adults who oversee and instruct the child. Much like St. Leo University, whose core beliefs include acquiring and learning skills, interconnectedness, and personal development, these programs help the child or adolescent in a manner that builds them up and prepares them for the future rather than preparing them for singular events or emotional aspects of society. The school's core beliefs offer practical application and ongoing improvement much like the successful prevention programs. Most importantly emphasis on community makes St. Leo University's core beliefs stand out from the rest and what effective prevention programs believe in. Community is necessary for the betterment of people, especially criminals. However, many times it becomes difficult to implement the methods of successful prevention programs because the government and school exhibit a lack of commitment and involvement. "Progress in implementing effective programs, says Greenwood, is slow. Although more than ten years of solid evidence is now available on evidence-based programs, only about 5% of youth who should be eligible participate in these programs" (Greenwood, 2008, pp. 185).