Blog: No bio box

The video below (from GOOD Magazine) isn't specifically focused on the juvenile justice system, but it's undeniably linked: it raises questions about the United States' addiction to mass incarceration and was made to spark discussion. It makes its one-minute case with statistics, but also with rap music and creative graphics. 
 

Prisons in Maryland and California have put their "Scared Straight" programs on hold in the wake of warnings from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) that federal funding could be cut for states using the discredited intervention.
Two DOJ officials, including Jeff Slowikowski, the Acting Director of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), wrote in an editorial published last week that the "Scared Straight" program was "scary -- and inffective," and that it "could run counter to the law."
They cited studies showing that  "Scared Straight" youth are more likely to commit new crimes.

Looking for some inspiration on working with youth in the juvenile justice system?  Check out "All Walks of Life," a strengths-based program that works with youth in Savannah Georgia (many referred from the juvenile court):
 

 
All Walks of Life features four programs. The first three are theatre arts, film and photography, sound design and music recording. The third, "The Goon Squad," has teens learn how to recycle and refurbish computers to (a) reduce e-waste, (b) give low-income families free computers, and (c) in the director's words, keep the kids themselves out of "the social landfill." 
But you can learn all that much better from the video above, which tells you everything you need to know in exactly one minute. 

"Traumatizing at-risk kids is not the way to lead them away from crime and drugs,"write Laurie O. Robinson and Jeff Slowikowski of the U.S. Department of Justice in a January 31st editorial published in The Baltimore Sun responding to A&E television network's reality show, "Beyond 'Scared Straight.'" (Hat tip to the Justice Policy Institute on Facebook.)
Robinson is assistant attorney general for the federal Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and Slowikowski is acting administrator of the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
They point to the research showing that "scared straight" programs actually make youth more likely to commit new crimes, not less. They go on:
"The fact that these types of programs are still being touted as effective, despite stark evidence to the contrary, is troubling. In the decades following the original scared straight program, states across the country developed similar models in the hopes that this get-tough approach would make an impact on their impressionable youth. As it turns out, the impact was not the one they had hoped for.
"Fortunately, in recent years, policymakers and criminal and juvenile justice practitioners have begun to recognize that answers about what works are best found in sound research, not in storytelling. Evidence from science provides the field with the best tool for sound decision-making. This 'smart on crime' approach saves taxpayer money and maximizes limited government resources — especially critical at a time of budget cuts."
We applaud them and the rest of the leadership at the Department of Justice for adding their voices of opposition to scared-straight programming for youth in the justice system. Their voices now join the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, the National Council of Juvenile and Famliy Court Judges (NCJFCJ), the Campaign for Youth Justice, and of course Reclaiming Futures -- we're glad to see so many arrayed publicly against an intervention that wastes money and lives.

Update August 2011: in spite of overwhelming research evidence and opposition from juvenile judges, federal officials, and juvenile justice experts,  A&E Television is airing a new series of episodes of Beyond 'Scared Straight.'
 
 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has announced the following funding opportunities:
 

• Evaluations of Girls Delinquency Programs (deadline Feb. 28, 2011)
• Evaluation of Second Chance Act Juvenile Mentoring Initiatives (deadline Mar. 7, 2011)
• Field Initiated Research and Evaluation Program (deadline Mar. 7, 2011)
• Research on Best Practices for Mentoring (deadline Mar. 8, 2011)

 
Resources:
 
To obtain further information about the above and other current OJJDP solicitations, including eligibility criteria and application deadlines, visit ojjdp.gov/funding/FundingList.asp.
 
 
[Reprinted with minor edits from JUVJUST.]

By now, you've probably heard about A&E's "Beyond 'Scared Straight,'" the reality show airing on A&E in which teens in the juvenile justice system -- some for status offenses -- are yelled at and verbally humiliated by adult prisoners. The goal is to "scare" kids "straight."
There's only one small problem: it doesn't work. In fact, doing nothing is more effective than this program, because teens who go through the program are more likely to commit crimes than teens who do not. That wastes money and lives. In terms of evidence-based programming, it's a dead end.
If you work with youth in the juvenile justice system or you're a policy maker who cares about effective programming, here's the bad news: according to Change.org, "Beyond 'Scared Straight'" is A&E's highest-rated show ever. Which means we're going to keep hearing about it for a while. Viewers will be pushing states and local communities to adopt similar programs.
What can you do? 
1. Keep advocating for evidence-based programming in your community. Remind policy makers that researchers and national juvenile justice experts say "Scared Straight" is a waste of money, and that the Office of Juvenlie Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) won't fund it.
2. If you'd like to let your voice be heard at A&E, Change.org is circulating an online petition to urge A&E to cancel "Beyond 'Scared Straight.'"

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has announced the following funding opportunities:

• National Gang Center - one award of up to $2,000,000 for a 12-month project period. Application deadline: Feb. 28, 2011. 
• Comprehensive Anti-Gang Strategies and Programs - Application deadline: March 11, 2011.

As with all federal grants, applicants should register on Grants.gov several weeks in advance of the application deadline. 
>>More information.
[Info taken with some edits from JUVJUST newsletter.]

Want free training and certification for your juvenile drug court in techniques designed to enhance treatment engagement and provide effective intervention? 
Thanks to the National Drug Court Institute (NDCI), along with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT), you're eligible to get it if you have a juvenile drug court funded by OJJDP.
No OJJDP funding for your juvenile drug court? Don't despair - the announcement says "other juvenile drug courts" are also eligible.
The goal of the training is to help local courts "implement Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (BIRT) combined with Motivational Enhancement Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (MET/CBT 5)." Once you're trained up, your drug court could provide teens with an evidence-based five-session treatment, made up of two one-on-one MET sessions, and then three, weekly group CBT sessions. (And yes, research indicates such a brief course treatment can be highly effective.) 

I often work with juvenile justice programs and their staff, advising them on research and evaluation issues. I recently learned that people need to be reminded that using pre-/post-outcome comparisons to judge the effectiveness of a program can be misleading.
In a recent meeting I attended, a program director was defending the effectiveness of his agency's intervention approach. He described what he believed were solid measures of impact by first describing the rate of offending among his program's clients prior to intake (in terms of average arrests per year). 
Then, he told us how that number was cut in half during the first year after a youth completed the program. According to him, this meant that the program had been proven effective.
For emphasis, he added, “With such good before-and-after data, we don't need any more evidence to know that we’re effective.”
Eeek, I thought to myself. 
He clearly didn't realize that his assertion of effectiveness was risky and possibly flawed.
Many people believe that agencies can assess their effectiveness entirely with pre/post comparisons of youth outcomes, such as recidivism or drug use before and after treatment.
Apparently, they do not know about the statistical bias present in that sort of comparison.