Deconstructing the Pipeline: Using Efficacy, Effectiveness ...



Deconstructing the Pipeline: Using Efficacy and Effectiveness Data and Cost-Benefit Analyses to Reduce Minority Youth Incarceration

David Osher, Ph.D.

American Institutes for Research

Mary Magee Quinn, Ph.D.

American Institutes for Research

Jeffrey M. Poirier, M.A.

American Institutes for Research

Robert B. Rutherford, Jr., Ph.D.

Arizona State University

Executive Summary

The civil rights movement in this country has been instrumental in making changes in our society. However, the dismal outcomes experienced by many youth of color—epitomized by their overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system—attest to the fact that our nation continues to struggle with what 100 years ago W. E. B. DuBois called the color line. For example, whereas the 1999 rate per 100,000 juveniles in residential placement was 156 for white youth, the rates for youth of color were black, 741; Hispanic, 356; American Indian, 483; and Asian, 140. Statistics such as these bring to the forefront issues of inequality that perplex educators and justice experts. Clearly our country has a long way to go before all our citizens realize equality.

However, this long journey does not have to be completely through uncharted territory. An emerging research base on reducing risk factors and enhancing protective factors for youth at risk for delinquency suggests the effectiveness of prevention and early intervention as well as the harmful impacts of many of the more traditional reactive responses to juvenile delinquency. Further, programs that prevent the development or continuation of delinquency can not only reduce the human costs of victimization but also save tax dollars in both the short and long term.

Technical knowledge alone, however, will be insufficient to eliminate the pipeline. Eliminating the pipeline also depends on developing the political will to redeploy wasted resources, avoid harmful interventions, eliminate bias, and improve practice. A key policy recommendation is to support the appropriate selection and effective implementation of evidenced-based prevention and treatments that are community based and to eliminate costly, wasteful, ineffective, and harmful interventions. A second recommendation is to provide ongoing training and support to improve practice. It is also necessary to increase funding for effective community-based prevention and treatment and to further draw attention to the long-term costs and benefits of these programs. Research suggests that increased funding for these programs would yield far more benefits for the dollars invested.

Introduction

The pipeline to prison is costly to individuals, their families, their victims (when there are victims), and society. The cost begins well before children enter prison (e.g., family disruption and loss of family income)[i] and extends well after their release (e.g., gangs, recidivism, and unemployment).[ii] Although these issues pertain to all children, they are particularly relevant to children and youth of color. These children and youth are disproportionately placed at risk by poverty, discrimination, and low-performing schools, and they are disproportionately removed from family, school, and community through a variety of unproven, ineffective, or harmful interventions.[iii] For example, whereas the 1999 rate per 100,000 juveniles in residential placement was 156 for white youth, the rates for youth of color were black, 741; Hispanic, 356; American Indian, 483; and Asian, 140.[iv]

Although some suggest that these differences are due to different rates of serious offenses, self-report data do not support this assumption.[v] If we use our strongest national data, self-report data on black youth, we see essentially no gap in the prevalence rate for self-reported serious violence and property crime: black youth commit slightly more violent (as opposed to serious violent) crime, the same amounts of serious violent and property crimes, and slightly less drug crime than white youth.[vi] Paradoxically, the number of youth incarcerated and the attendant costs of this incarceration have increased at the same time the National Research Council, the Institute of Medicine, and the Surgeon General of the United States, in report after report, identified the risks of punitive interventions and the promise of preventive ones.[vii],[viii]

We know a great deal about what to do and what not to do relative to incarcerating delinquents.[ix]Further, cost-benefit analyses show that the monetary benefits of effective prevention exceed the costs of such programs.[x] Research has pointed to the comparative benefits of effective preventive and community interventions, as well as the costs of unnecessary incarceration, boot camp, and shock incarceration in terms of reducing recidivism and promoting productive citizenship.[xi]

We know enough to suggest that the best and most cost-effective place to stop the pipeline is as close to the beginning of the pipeline as possible by preventing the incidence of delinquent behavior and supporting the development of a youth’s assets and resilience. Effective universal and early interventions can enable children and youth to navigate the normal hazards of development that all children and youth encounter, as well as the exceptional hazards of poverty, racism, and discrimination that children and youth of color confront.[xii] We also know enough to suggest that once patterns of antisocial behavior and delinquency develop, we can reduce the pipeline’s volume by employing intensive school- and community-based interventions that are efficacious and cost-effective alternatives to detaining and incarcerating most youth.

A growing body of research indicates that delinquency prevention programs are a good investment.[xiii] Cost-benefit analyses begin with program evaluations to produce and compare the outcomes of programs that are then examined in monetary terms.[xiv] The findings of one such analysis published in 2001 by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) are woven into this paper.[xv] WSIPP found that effective prevention programs yielded total benefits greater than program costs, as shown in the table below while ineffective programsdemanded costs that exceed program benefits.

| |Net Program Cost |Net Taxpayer and Crime Victim Benefits, |Benefit-Cost Ratio[xvi] |

| | |per participant | |

|Aggression Replacement Training |$738 |$33,143 |$44.91 |

|Functional Family Therapy |$2,161 |$59,067 |$27.33 |

|Juvenile boot camps |–$15,424 |–$3,587 |N/A |

|Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care |$2,052 |$87,622 |$42.70 |

|Multisystemic Therapy |$4,743 |$131,918 |$27.81 |

|Nurse Home Visitation |$7,733 |$15,918 |$2.06 |

|Perry Preschool Program* |$14,716 |$105,000 |$7.16 |

|“Scared straight” programs |$51 |–$24,531 |N/A |

|Seattle Social Development Project |$4,355 |$14,169 |$3.25 |

*These data are taken from a cost-benefit study other than that of WSIPP.[xvii]

Although we know a great deal about what to do, we do not use this knowledge well. For example, a longitudinal study of 1,517 inner-city boys in Pittsburgh (more than half of whom were black) found that almost half of the boys who eventually became persistent serious offenders had exhibited some serious delinquent behavior by age 12. Two-thirds of the boys who came to the attention of the juvenile court already had behavior problems for at least 5 years. However, fewer than half of these boys had received any help from either mental health professionals or personnel in schools.[xviii] Similarly, when Orange County, California, initiated its “8% Solution” to prevent serious repeat juvenile crime, it discovered that 35 of the 49 original youth had significant mental health problems but that only 1 was receiving psychotherapy.[xix]

Unfortunately, just when we know more about how to make schools safe and effective, the pipeline’s volume may grow. Many schools are going in the opposite direction by increasing class size or expelling more students .[xx] Similarly states, facing budget crises, are disinvesting in prevention. Further, while evidence of the benefits of individualized community treatments[xxi] and the risks of group interventions and incarceration has accumulated[xxii] most jurisdictions continue to incarcerate large numbers of juveniles, --separated them from family, school, and community and placing many in settings in which staff feel unprepared to address these issues.[xxiii] Between 1992 and 1997, 45 states passed laws making it easier to transfer juvenile offenders to the adult criminal justice system, 31 states increased juvenile sentencing options, and 47 states loosened confidentiality provisions for juveniles.[xxiv] The number of youth held for secure detention increased by 72% between 1985 and 1995, when less than 29% of the youth in secure custody were charged with a violent crime.[xxv]

This increase in punitive approaches disproportionately affects black, Latino, and Native American children and youth who are more likely to be suspended or expelled from school, as well as to be arrested, adjudicated, and incarcerated, than their white and Asian peers.[xxvi] For example, whereas 56% of the youth held in detention in 1985 were white and 44% were youth of color, these percentages reversed in 1995.

We will now present data on promising interventions that can reduce the pipeline. We provide information on schools, communities, and programs that the authors have and are continuing to study. We willl address the cost and benefits of these interventions and identify challenges to implementing these interventions within a society divided by poverty, culture, and race.

Promising Interventions

The following sections overviews some promising interventions that can reduce the pipeline volume. All have been subject to rigorous research or evaluation. Many have been tested in well-designed experimental field trials. Most have been identified as model, exemplary, or promising by the Department of Justice’s Blueprints Initiative, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Registry of Effective Programs; The Department of Education’s Safe, Disciplined and Drug-Free Schools Program’s List of Promising and Exemplary Programs; the Surgeon General’s Report on Youth and Community Violence.[xxvii]

Three caveats should be considered.. First, many of the programs that are included here have been researched by the programs’ developers. However, in most cases they have also been vetted though peer review processes and expert panels. Second, our strongest evidence comes from randomized efficacy trials, and there is a gap between efficacy data, which often involves research done in relatively ideal settings, and effectiveness data, which involves research in more typical settings with more typical staff and staffing numbers.[xxviii] Fortunately, these interventions all have demonstrated positive outcomes in real-world conditions. Third, the ability to implement interventions depends on the fit between a setting, an intervention, the “targets” of the intervention, and the ability and willingness of the people implementing it to do so with appropriate fidelity.[xxix]

Intervening Upstream

Upstream interventions cancan be universal or selective. Universal interventions reduce the incidence of problems by addressing risk factors for antisocial behavior and by developing protective factors. Since for most youth, delinquency is a social event (most acts of juvenile delinquency occur among groups of juveniles rather than individually),[xxx] universal interventions also reduce the likelihood that other children and youth can recruit specific individuals to be delinquent or reinforce their delinquent behavior by serving as an audience or participating in the delinquency.[xxxi] Universal interventions build a foundation, making it easier to identify individuals who need more intensive interventions, as well as providing a base for those interventions.[xxxii] Selective interventions focus on individuals who are at risk for some problem. In the following section, we introduce prenatal, preschool, and school-age interventions.

Nurse-Family Partnership

The Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) is a well-researched intervention that intercedes with at-risk kids even before they are born.[xxxiii] Home health care nurses make weekly visits to at-risk, low-income, first-time-pregnant women whose unborn child is already recognized as having multiple risk factors for delinquency. The visits begin in the second trimester of the pregnancy and continue through the child’s second year. In addition to improving prenatal health and the outcomes of the pregnancy, the nurse works directly with the mother to teach her the skills she will need to care for her infant and toddler and all subsequent children (e.g., resolving family problems resulting from child rearing, enhancing family relationships and communication).

• This program has been studied in urban and rural settings with predominately white and black families.

A 15-year follow-up study showed that when compared with children in the control groups, the now 15-year-old children in the study experienced significant improvements in child behavioral outcomes:[xxxiv]

• Fewer incidents of running away (60%)

• Fewer arrests (56%)

• Less consumption of alcohol (56% fewer days)

The estimated net cost of Nurse Home Visitation is $7,733 per participant.[xxxv],[xxxvi] Using outcome data from two studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in its cost-benefit analysis, WSIPP found that the program cost exceeded the estimated value of reduced criminal justice costs by $2,067 per participant. However, when the estimated value of reduced victim costs were considered along with that of reduced criminal justice costs, the benefits increased to $15,918. With a benefit-cost ratio of $2.06, every dollar invested in Nurse Home Visitation is estimated to yield more than $2 in total benefits.

Perry Preschool Programs (PPP)

Many affluent children with access to high-quality preschool, begin school with more preacademic skills than do their peers from disadvantaged or low-income homesThis advanced state of readiness has positive effects on affect school achievement and bonds between the child and his or her family and the school, two protective factors against delinquencyMultiple randomized research studies have shown that high-quality education programs for 3- and 4-year-old children from economically disadvantaged background can significantly affect school performance and delinquent behavior later in life.

PPP tagets the social, intellectual, and physical development of children living in poverty. PPPinvolves 2.5 hours of highly supervised and supportive learning each weekday for 30 weeks a year and 90-minute weekly home visits with parents to discuss developmental, behavioral, and educational issues.

PPP has shown improved long-term outcomes for children who participate:[xxxvii]

• Academic: 19% fewer school dropouts, better academic achievement as reflected by both grades and standardized test scores, and a greater bond with and improved attitude toward school

• Behavioral: fewer reports of delinquent behavior, fewer arrests, and fewer incidents of antisocial behavior in school

• Social Responsibility: higher rates of employment (50% vs. 32%), higher wages, reports of greater job satisfaction, less reliance on public assistance, and fewer teen pregnancies

A cost-benefit analysis of the Perry Preschool Program used outcome data from a randomized longitudinal study of 123 black children, ages 3 and 4, from low-income families. Initiated in 1962 and consisting of five waves through 1965, the study followed participants to compare outcomes of the experimental and control groups. Researchers found that the estimated benefits through age 19 were greater than the cost of 1 year of the program; when future estimated benefits were considered (i.e., beyond age 19), estimated benefits exceeded the 2-year cost of the program.[xxxviii]

This analysis “emphatically conclude[d] that the Perry Preschool Program was a good investment for society at the cost of one year and that there is relatively strong evidence that it was a good investment at the cost of two years.”[xxxix] The total net benefit, including benefits to age 19 and estimated future benefits, was $14,357 for 1 year of preschool attendance and $9,425 for 2 years of attendance (in 1981 dollars). These benefits were estimated after deducting the cost of the program ($4,963 for 1 year and $9,708 for 2 years). In a recent cost-benefit analysis, researchers found that the Perry Preschool Program brought average benefits of more than $105,000 (in 2001 dollars) per participant in terms of estimated economic benefits for both taxpayers and potential crime victims.[xl],[xli] Since the average cost of the program was $14,716 per participant, the estimated benefit-cost ratio was 7.16 to 1.

Universal School- and Community-Based Interventions

Schools can provide a positive, supportive environment that builds assets, fosters resilience, and protects children and youth against substance abuse and delinquent behavior.[xlii] Schools can also be the setting for purposive intervention: since, “

“ by the amount of available time to reduce risk factors for crime, schools have more opportunity to accomplish that objective than any other agency of government.”.[xliii] However, schools can also be places where students experience academic failure, punishment, and humiliation from adults and teasing, bullying, and ostracism from peers can also create or intensify risk factors, further increasing the risk of poor social outcomes.[xliv] The schools’ ineffective responses to behavior and academic problems can exacerbate these problems and support the socialization of antisocial behavior.[xlv]

Effective schools have adequate financial resources and strong social capital. Although they come in many forms, they often are small (or create small learning communities) and have strong teacher morale and community, a sense they can make a difference in the lives of all students, effective leadership that is committed to the success of all students, support for student learning and behavior, an engaging curriculum, and links to families and the community.[xlvi] Struggling schools often lack financial resources and social capital. These schools are often too large; their teachers are too demoralized, isolated, and doubtful of their ability to affect student outcomes. These schools, which often have ineffective or autocratic leaders who are willing to accept the failure of many students, do not adequately support student learning and behavior, fail to engage students academically, and have poor links to families and communities[xlvii] Unfortunately, students of color disproportionately attend struggling schools.[xlviii]

Fortunately, it is possible to turn schools and districts around.[xlix] Chicago school reform provides an example. Those Chicago low-performing, high-poverty schools that enhanced their performance had high levels of support for students as well as a strong academic focus.[l] These schools also had high levels of relational trust between and among school staff and families.[li] Schools that had these characteristics in 1992 were much more likely to improve their performance. Among those lacking high levels of trust in 1992, those that improved their performance also improved their levels of trust. A comparison of two sets of 182 high-poverty schools in which the first had made a 24% gain on the reading portion of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) over 12 years and the other 182 had made only an 8% gain found that the succeeding schools were characterized by strong leadership, parent-community partnerships, school safety, teacher commitment to school, staff development and teacher collaboration, and a staff priority on student learning.[lii]

One Chicago school which we have studied exemplifies what can be done by creating environments that connect students to school; support learning and behavior; and prevent the downward spiral of academic failure, behavioral problems, punishment, and non-normative mobility, which leads to suspension, dropout, and delinquency.[liii] Like other successful schools[liv] it has a strong principal , strong teacher solidarity, and uses it resources strategically. Staff expect all students to succeed and believe that they had the capacity to make it happen. One of the 182 Chicago’s high-gain schools, Rachel Carson Elementary School, had a gain of 40% over the period. This school serves 1,300 students, 99% Latino and 1% black. Compared with an average of 88% in the other high gain schools and 93% in the low-gain schools, 98% of its students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Only 12% of the Rachel Carson students read at the national average on the ITBS in 1992. One decade later, over half of the students do. As an engaging and supportive school, Rachel Carson offers a safe learning environment without suspending students. Rachel Carson did this, to quote its principal, by “caring about where students will be 10 years later” and by using some of its limited resources to reach out to families[lv]. (SOAR) Seattle Social Development Project

SOAR focuses on the healthy development of young people by increasing opportunities for active involvement in family and school, skills for successful participation in family, school, peer groups, and community, and consistent recognition for effort and improvement. SOAR targets school, family, and child risk factors and seeks to enhance protective factors of bonding to family and school, opportunities for prosocial involvement, recognition for prosocial involvement, setting healthy beliefs and standards for behavior, and social and emotional skills.

SOAR has three major components: a series of instructional improvement workshops and classroom coaching for teachers in order to enhance academic achievement and bonding to school, and reduce classroom behavior problems; developmentally sequenced parenting workshops to increase attachment and enhance parents skills in helping their children succeed academically and develop strong bonds to school; and social and citizenship skills training for children to learn and practice social and citizenship skills and to learn and practice social and emotional skills in the classroom and in social situations.

.[lvi] In randomized studies of experimental and control multiethnic, public, regular education classrooms and schools in high-crime urban areas, the intervention proved to have significant effects on lowering the teacher-rated aggressive behavior in boys and self-destructive behavior in girls[lvii] and improving family management practices and bonding to family and school. Further, the students who had received the intervention were significantly less likely to engage in delinquent behavior and alcohol use.[lviii] By the end of the 11th grade, the students who participated in the project had reduced involvement in sexual activity, violent delinquency, drunkenness, and drinking and driving.[lix]

The estimated net cost of the Seattle Social Development Project is $4,355 per participant.[lx] Using outcome data from one study meeting the criteria for inclusion in its cost-benefit analysis, WSIPP found that the program cost exceeded the estimated value of reduced criminal justice costs by $456 per participant. However, when the estimated value of reduced victim costs were considered along with that of reduced criminal justice costs, benefits exceeded program costs by $14,169. With a benefit-cost ratio of $3.25, every dollar invested in the Seattle Social Development Project yields more than $3 in total benefits.

When Problems Get More Severe

Some children experience moderate to severe emotional and behavioral disorders that significantly impair their functioning and quality of life across the domains of family, school, peers, and community. Sometimes they express these disorders in an externalizing manner that demands the attention of teachers, administrators, and police. Specific interventions and their intensity depend on the nature, severity, and frequency of each child’s emotional and behavioral problems. These children and youth require more intensive interventions, services, and supports. Because these children are at great need, and because powerful intensive interventions involve greater risk of harm, it is particularly important that the children and youth receive interventions that are likely to help them avoid delinquency or recidivism.

For example, many early and intensive interventions congregate youth – a practice that may be risky, particularly, since juvenile offenders are much more likely than adults to commit serious violent crimes in groups.[lxi] Data from the Oregon Youth Study show that early involvement with deviant peers predicted substance use, health-risking sexual behavior, and police arrests for youth from age 10 to age 18.[lxii] Congregating high-risk youth can increase the likelihood of delinquent behavior. Foremost, youth with deviant behaviors tend to have deviant friends who model and reinforce antisocial behavior.[lxiii] For example, in a study of the Adolescent Transitions Program, a program for high-risk 11–14-year-olds, participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups (parent-focused, teen-focused, parent- and teen-focused, or self-directed change groups).[lxiv] The groups that brought high-risk youth together produced greater tobacco use, more problem behavior at school, and more favorable attitudes toward substance use[lxv].

Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART)

Experts agree that you cannot “take a behavior away” without replacing it with a more efficient and more effective behavior.[lxvi] That is why it is often difficult to change behaviors of people as they grow older. For example, by the time an angry child with aggressive behavior becomes an adolescent, he or she has probably used aggression to control his or her environment for a number of years. Aggressive behavior becomes almost an automatic response in situations that frustrate, embarrass, or otherwise challenge the youth. Convincing someone for whom aggression has become so easy and useful to change his or her behavior is often quite a problem.

ART enhances “interpersonal skills, self-mediated ability to control anger, and a youth’s concern for the rights and needs of other.”[lxvii] ART’s “core” training comprises a social skills curriculum, anger-control training, and training in moral reasoning. Juvenile offenders who had participated in ART had significantly fewer rearrests than similar youths who were randomly assigned to a no-treatment control group.[lxviii]

Four studies passed WSIPP’s criteria for inclusion in the cost-benefit analysis of ART, which was estimated to have a net cost of $738 per participant.[lxix] WSIPP estimated that the value of reduced crime outcomes of participants yields benefits to taxpayers of approximately $8,287 in reduced criminal justice costs. When the value of reduced victim costs was also considered, benefits increased to $33,143. With a benefit-cost ratio of $44.91, every dollar invested in Aggression Replacement Training is estimated to yield almost $45 in total benefits.

Wraparound

Wraparound (to quote the Surgeon General’s Report on Youth Violence) demonstrates what can be accomplished when the focus is “on providing services rather than instituting greater penalties” and when “comprehensive services are tailored to individual youths, as opposed to trying to fit youths into predetermined or inflexible programs.”[lxx] Wraparound is a child and family-driven planning process that results in a unique set of community services and natural supports that are individualized for that child and family to achieve positive outcomes.[lxxi].

Wraparound Milwaukee has applied it successfully to youth in the juvenile justice system. It has reduced the use of residential treatment has decreased 60% and inpatient psychiatric hospitalization by by 80%. The average cost of care per child has dropped from more than $5,000 a month to less than $3,300 a month. Recidivism rates for a variety of offenses for 134 delinquent youth enrolled in Wraparound Milwaukee dropped by more than half at 1-year follow up, from 18.5% to 7.8% across all types of offenses.[lxxii].

Multisystemic Therapy (MST)

MST posits that other approaches to treatment—incarceration, residential treatment centers, and outpatient clinics in particular—have frequently been ineffective because they focus too much on the juvenile individually, provide services in a setting different from the home environment, and have little accountability for success. MST addresses these issues by providing an intensive treatment that focuses on the multiple factors related to delinquency in various settings or systems (e.g., school, family, peers) in the adolescent’s life. It provides this treatment in the home and community of the youth. It has a well-defined and empirically grounded theory of treatment and emphasizes accountability of service providers, effective implementation of the treatment model, and long-term change.[lxxiii]

There have been eight randomized Eight radomized clinical traials of MST demonstate its efficacy for black and white males and females..[lxxiv]. Re-arrest rates for chronic juvenile offenders decreased by 25 to 70% compared with the rates for control groups.[lxxv] Long-term follow-ups have found that compared with control groups, participants in MST spent between 47 and 64% fewer days in out-of-home placements.[lxxvi]

In one study, 200 juvenile offenders ages 12 to 17 and their families, who were referred by the Department of Juvenile Justice, were randomly assigned to either individual therapy (i.e., outpatient mental health services) or MST.[lxxvii],[lxxviii] A follow-up 4 years later found that the 63 participants who completed the individual therapy recidivated at a rate of 71.4%, and the 15 participants who partially completed and dropped out of MST recidivated at a rate of 46.6%.[lxxix] In contrast, the 77 participants who completed MST had a 22.1% recidivism rate, and those who recidivated were less likely to be arrested for violent or serious crimes and were arrested less often.[lxxx]

Three studies passed WSIPP’s criteria for inclusion in the cost-benefit analysis of Multisystemic Therapy, which was estimated to have a net cost of $4,743 per participant.[lxxxi] WSIPP estimated that the value of reduced crime outcomes of participants yields benefits to taxpayers of $31,661 in reduced criminal justice costs. When the value of reduced victim costs was considered along with that of reduced criminal justice costs, benefits increased to $131,918. With a benefit-cost ratio of $27.81, every dollar invested in Multisystemic Therapy is estimated to yield almost $28 in total benefits.

Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

FFTis an intensive intervention therapy designed to reduce delinquency, conduct disorder, drug and alcohol abuse, and family conflict. FFT is a family-focused program targeting youth ages 11–18 who are at risk for (or are experiencing) delinquency and related maladaptive behaviors FFT reduces risk factors and enhances protective factors, including the risk of ending the treatment early. To accomplish this, “it focuses on the multiple domains and systems within which adolescents and their families live.”[lxxxii] The program consists of three general phases: engagement and motivation (building the perception that positive outcomes can result from program participation), behavior change (developing and implementing plans that are intended to change delinquent behavior), and generalization (helping the family maintain change and prevent recurrence of the delinquent behavior).[lxxxiii]

Clinical research shows that FFT “significantly reduces recidivism for a wide range of juvenile offense patterns.”[lxxxiv] FFT also reduces potential delinquency for the siblings of program participants. The effectiveness of FFT was recently examined at the largest FFT research and practice site in the United States, the Family Project in Las Vegas. Over 2 years, FFT staff contacted 231 families referred to the project by probation officers, of whom 80% completed FFT services.[lxxxv] After the first year, the recidivism rate of those who completed FFT was just under 20%, whereas that of the treatment group (i.e., those who received regular probation services) was 36%. “These data suggest that FFT reduced recidivism by roughly 50%, a figure consistent with previous FFT randomized clinical trials and replication studies.”[lxxxvi] In its comprehensive review of FFT evaluations, WSIPP found an average effect size of approximately –0.25 for basic recidivism.[lxxxvii] This suggests that FFT reduces future crime outcomes among participants by about 25% on average.

The estimated net cost of Functional Family Therapy is $2,161 per participant.[lxxxviii] Using outcome data from seven studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in its cost-benefit analysis, WSIPP found that the estimated value of reduced criminal justice costs exceeded the program cost by $14,149 per participant. When the estimated value of reduced victim costs were also considered, benefits increased to $59,067. With a benefit-cost ratio of $27.33, every dollar invested in FFT is estimated to yield approximately $27 in total benefits.

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care’s (MTFC) program model is rooted in the research conducted in the early 1970s at the Oregon Social Learning Center in Eugene. The first MTFC program was established in 1983, targeting serious and chronic juvenile offenders, and the Oregon Youth Authority funds the program. In MTFC, community families are recruited, trained, and supported to serve as foster families for participating youth. No more than two children or youth are placed with any one family so that counterproductive association with problem peers is restricted or eliminated. Intensive services are provided to the youth, the foster family, and, in many cases, the biological family.

Three studies have employed an experimental design to evaluate MTFC. Two of these involved youth with serious and chronic delinquency,[lxxxix] and one involved youth being discharged from a state mental hospital.[xc] Results were very favorable. One study followed 79 boys who were persistent offenders who were randomly assigned either to Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care or to standard community group care (group homes). Results showed that MTFC boys ran away less frequently, completed the program more often, had significantly fewer criminal referrals, and returned to live with relatives more often.[xci]

Two studies passed WSIPP’s criteria for inclusion in the cost-benefit analysis of MTFC, which was estimated to have a net cost of $2,052 per participant.[xcii] WSIPP estimated that the value of reduced crime outcomes of participants yielded benefits to taxpayers of approximately $28,836 in reduced criminal justice costs. When the estimated value of reduced victim costs was considered along with that of reduced criminal justice costs, benefits increased to $87,622. With a benefit-cost ratio of $42.70, every dollar invested in Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care is estimated to yield almost $43 in total benefits.

The Justice System as the Target of Intervention

The pipeline to prison reflects systemic issues in education, mental health, juvenile justice, and other human services. Although systemic change alone may not reach down to the practice level, it can create systems-level policies and principles that support the development or implementation of new protocols and procedures that can transform service delivery.[xciii]There are a number of examples of promising approaches to systems change. For example, a comparison study of a system of care[xciv] (SOC) community with a non-SOC community found that entry into the juvenile justice system was delayed or reduced, recidivism decreased, and these effects were greatest for repeat and serious offenders.[xcv]

Even if services are available, they may not be provided if decisions are made to arrest, detain, or otherwise remove children and youth from their home and community. Once successful iniative suggests how three jurisdications reduced or eliminate disparities in the juvenile justice system.[xcvi] In Cook County, Illinois, where 90% of the youth detained from 1996 to 2000 were youth of color, reform reduced the number detained by 31%, thus reducing the number of youth of color detained from an average of 694 per day in 1996 to 478 in 2000. Santa Cruz, California, where 64% of the youth in Juvenile Hall were Latino in 1997, reduced this percentage to 50% in 2.5 years, while also dropping its average daily census from 49 to 37. Multnomah County Oregon, reduced the number of youth admitted to detention by half, from 1,107 in 1994 to 478 in 2000, while reducing the differential between the percentage of white, black, and Latino youth in corrections from 13% white, 24% black, and 23% Latino, in 1994 to 9% white, 12% black, and 6% Latino, in 2000. Moreover, when paper referrals are eliminated from the equation (when a youth is arrested but is not brought to detention at intake and is issued a summons to appear at a later date), the discrepancy between the two groups was eliminated in 1999.[xcvii]

There were similarities (as well as differences) in approach. All three modified their programs to eliminate barriers, whether location or timing of services and developed community-based alternatives to prevention, including shelter care, foster homes, home detention, and day reporting centers. Santa Cruz added Spanish-speaking staff, which enabled families to talk to intake officers. After determining that its diversion programs were culturally inappropriate, Santa Cruz developed new programs that addressed the needs of Latino youth. Multnomah County and Cook County reengineered their risk assessment instrument to eliminate incentives to detain. Multnomah County also eliminated biases built into routines (e.g., criteria for “good family structure,” or adding “productive activity” to “school attendance” as a mitigating factor). In addition, Multnomah County was relentless in reducing disparities.

Challenges to Narrowing the Pipeline

We know from rigorous research and evaluation what can be done to narrow the pipeline and that it is possible and cost-effective to do so. But four key challenges remain—redeploying wasted resources and eliminating harmful interventions; eliminating bias; changing practice; and developing political will.

Redeploying Wasted Resources

Communities have a finite amount of resources. Often they are employed to support interventions that are ineffective or even harmful. For example, more than 80% of school districts invest in D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), in spite of evidence that it is ineffective in reducing youth drug use.[xcviii] Similarly, many schools employ punishment as a primary intervention in spite of extensive data to show that punishment is ineffective or even likely to increase problematic behavior.[xcix]

The first challenge is to avoid wasting resources. It is necessary to redirect the “three strikes and you’re out” mindset of the general public and policymakers away from reactive and punitive programs and toward an examination of the ineffectiveness of these programs. For example, WSIPP looked at the costs and benefits of juvenile boot camps and “scared straight” programs and found positive effect sizes; that is, participants in these programs had higher recidivism rates than comparison groups.[c] The “scared straight” programs had an estimated net cost of $51 per participant, but as a result of higher recidivism among participants, yielded an estimated loss of –$24,531 because of increased criminal justice and victim costs. Similarly, juvenile boot camps, which had an estimated net cost of $15,424, yielded an estimated loss of –$3,587.

Eliminating Bias

Although Multnomah County reduced disparities in those retained, it was unable to address what it defined as disproportionalities “at the front door.”[ci] Even after Multnomah County reduced these disparities, the proportions of black and Hispanic youth referred were 2.5 and 1.5, respectively, of their proportion in the county population. “We ‘inherited’ the problem,” the Department of Community Justice complained.[cii]

The problem is not just in Multnomah County. Whether the bias is conscious or unconscious, it affects how behavior is perceived and interpreted. For example, an examination of 233 probation reports in one jurisdiction found that the probation officers tended to attribute the delinquency of youth of color to internal causes (e.g., personality or character) and white delinquency to external causes (poor home life, lack of role models).[ciii] Similarly, an examination of student statewide discipline data in South Carolina found much greater disparities in discipline for the subjective charge of “disturbing the school” than for charges that had some objective referent, such as possessing weapons or drugs.[civ]

The process may also be transactional. The attitudes that youth take when they interact with police can help determine whether they are arrested as well as the affect of both the youth and police when the youth is brought to the police station.[cv] Distrust of police, misperception of police behavior impulsivity, and poor social skills all can contribute to an arrest for “contempt of cop.”[cvi]

Institutionalized racism, bias, and cultural incompetence, which contribute to disparities in all service areas, continue to feed the pipeline. So do the disparities themselves. Health disparities, for example, contribute to poor prenatal health, which creates risks for behavior problems, as does disproportionate exposure to lead.[cvii] Similarly, the disproportionate removal of children of color from birth homes by child welfare and the failure of teachers to respond to children’s behavior problems creates non-normative mobility that contributes to dropping out.[cviii] Finally, inappropriate special education services and the lack of access to mental health services in the community contribute to school drop out and delinquency among children of color.[cix]

Even though people and institutions are hard to change, change can happen. The changes that took place in Cook County were, in part, products of training that increased participants’ knowledge of the problem of excessive detention and what could be done to minimize the unnecessary use of detention. Training alone, however, is not sufficient. It is important to specifically target the problem of the pipeline and focus on actions that address that problem. In Multnomah County, for example, an explicit focus on disparities drove the data analysis that drove the discussions that led to the development of new strategies, which, when successful, reinforced commitment.[cx]

Changing Practice

It is easier to identify effective interventions than it is to change practice. A large gap exists between efficacy data on what works in highly controlled field trials and effectiveness data on what works in the real world, where children are complex and supervisory or coaching resources are thin.[cxi]

This gap is sometimes attributed to the failure to implement interventions effectively or the tendency to water down interventions by reducing the dosage, increasing caseloads, and eliminating key elements. The pressures are great, even in settings that want to implement with fidelity,[cxii] Research on the effects of implementing evidenced-based programs indicates that less than complete implementation can limit program impacts and effectiveness.[cxiii] This, in turn, can contribute to a lack of commitment to the change process and the development of an attitude that nothing can be changed or that the problem is with someone else (e.g., the youth, the administrators, the other agencies)[cxiv].

Organizations, however, can work through these challenges. Doing so requires selecting interventions that align well with the organizations’ goals and strengths, making sure that program modification and adaptation do not leave out or water down essential ingredients, and committing to a long-term process of change.[cxv] These organizations also provide ongoing training and support to staff through coaching, mentoring, supervision, and the use of data for quality assurance and continuous improvement. For example, the impressive outcomes realized by Wraparound Milwaukee and Multisystemic Therapy are related to their use of quality assurance data and intensive supervision[cxvi].

Developing Political Will

Political will is often a problem when implementing systemic change or attempting to change polices, procedures, and practices in professional bureaucracies. This is especially the case in dealing with institutionalized racism and ethnocentrism, especially when public safety is a manifest concern.

Still, political will can be developed, and with it, change can be realized. The desegregation of our largest professional bureaucracy, the military, is a case in point.[cxvii] That success was accomplished by employing the same basic approach that Multnomah County did when it eliminated disparities in juvenile detention: establishing a goal, using data to measure progress, adapting strategies when necessary, and being relentless until the goal is achieved.

Conclusion

The Pipeline to Prison is a pressing problem that is increasing in magnitude. Fortunately, we know enough to address this problem, and we also know that the best place to start is at the front end of the pipeline. Perhaps (in terms of technical interventions) this was not always the case. Two decades ago, people doubted the efficacy and economic efficiency of prevention and treatment. At that time we knew little about children’s mental health. We saw prevention and treatment research that was not always of the highest quality and lacked strong statistical and analytical tools.[cxviii] But this is no longer true.[cxix] We have findings on the efficacy, effectiveness, and relative costs and benefits of numerous interventions—starting before a child is born and continuing through adjudication. We also know what is unlikely to work, what may be harmful, and what wastes resources.

This paper presented data on interventions that can be employed to close off the pipeline. Most of the interventions have been tested by experimental field trials. Others were evaluated by well-designed studies with control group and pre-post test designs. Most were vetted by expert panels..[cxx]

We know enough about the problems as well as what to do—including how to support change. A century after W. E. B. DuBois wrote that the problem of the 20th century was the problem of the color line and 49 years after Brown v. Board of Education, our nation is still confronted with how we deal with what Lisa Delpit aptly characterized as “other people’s children.” [cxxi] The recent national focus on school climate and school mental health that was a product of seeing white students shoot other white students clearly indicates that the stunning disparities that feed the pipeline would be attacked with much more vigor if most people saw these statistics as being about “their children.”

Technical knowledge alone is insufficient. Four key challenges remain—redeploying wasted resources and eliminating harmful interventions; eliminating bias; changing practice; and developing political will. The color line that W. E. B Dubois pointed out 100 years ago remains, which suggests how formidable this barrier is. The news here is that the problem is a political problem, not a scientific or technical one.

-----------------------

[i] Rosenweig, J. M., Brennan, E. M., & Ogilvie, A. M. (2002). Work-family fit: Voices of parents of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Social Work, 47(4), 415–424.

[ii] National Research Council (NRC), Panel on High Risk Youth. (1995). Losing generations: Adolescents in high-risk settings. DC: National Academy Press

[iii] Osher, D., Woodruff, D., & Sims, A. (2002). Schools make a difference: The relationship between education services for African American children and youth and their overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system. In D. Losen (Ed.), Minority issues in special education (pp. 93–116). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project; Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001)

[iv] Sickmund, M., & Wan, Y. (2001). Census of juveniles in residential placement databook. DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

[v] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (HHS) (2001a). Mental health: culture, race, ethnicity: A supplement to mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General.

[vi] Hoytt, E. H., Schiraldi, V., Smith, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (2002). Reducing racial disparities in juvenile detention. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation;HHS. (2001a).

[vii] NRC (1995); NRC & Institute of Medicine (IOM). (2001). Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. DC: Author;HHS. (2001a). Sherman, L. W., et al.. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the United States Congress. College Park: University of Maryland; Burns, B. J.et al.,. (2003). Treatment, services, and intervention programs for child delinquents. Washington, DC: DJ,OJJDP; Dwyer, K., Osher, D. & Warger, C. (1998) Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools. DC: ED & DJ; The Federal Bureau of Investigation ( (2001). The school shooter: A threat assessment perspective. Washington, DC: Author; Fein, R. A. et al.,. (2002),Threat assessment in schools: A guide to managing threatening situations and to creating safe school climates. Washington, DC: United States Secret Service; (ED (2001). Safe, disciplined and drug-free school programs. Washington, DC: Author); Osher, D., Dwyer, K., & Jackson, S. (2003a). Safe, supportive, and successful schools. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

[viii]Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention and Treatment, 5.; Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B. (1999). Preventing mental disorder in school-aged children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs State College: Pennsylvania State University, Prevention Research Center; Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Soydan, H. (2003). Are mainstream programs for juvenile delinquency less effective with minority youth than majority youth? A meta-analysis of outcomes research. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 3–26; NRC, 1995; NRC & IOM, 2001; HHS (2001b) Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: HHS, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General.

•

[ix] Sherman et al. (1998).

[x] NRCNRC & IOM, 2001; HHS, 2001.

Gottfredson., D. C. (2001), Schools and delinquency. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press; HHS 2001a.

[xi] DJ, Office of Justice Programs, OJJDP. (n.d.). Juvenile justice reform initiatives in the states: 1994–96. Retrieved March 9, 2003, from ch2_b.html

[xii] Juvenile Justice Evaluation Center. (2002). Cost-benefit analysis for juvenile justice programs. DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association, OJJDP.

[xiii] Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Directed by the Legislature of the state of Washington to evaluate the costs and benefits of prevention programs, among other programs, WSIPP conducted a meta-analysis of more than 400 evaluations of prevention programs published in the previous 25 years. WSIPP identified studies that used methodologies of high standard to evaluate prevention and also measured whether the programs reduced delinquency relative to control or comparison groups. It then examined programs meeting these criteria by looking at the costs and the benefits of reduced criminal activity of program participants. Although WSIPP uses cost estimates (adjusted to 2000 dollars) for Washington state to predict the costs and savings of programs for Washington state residents, the findings offer strong indicators of the potential savings for programs implemented in other states.

[xiv] The report by Aos, et al. appears to compute benefit-cost ratios by dividing the sum of estimated program benefit and program cost by total program cost. In order to make the ratios more comparable to those reported in other studies,. we adjusted the reported ratios by directly dividing estimated benefits by costs and not including costs in the numerator. 

[xv] Schweinhart, L. (2003, April). Benefits, costs, and explanation of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL.

[xvi] Stouthamer-Loeber, M, & Loeber, R. (2002). Lost opportunities for intervention: undetected markers for the development of serious juvenile delinquency. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 12, 69–83.

[xvii] Schumacher, M., & Kurz, G. A. (2000). The 8% solution: Preventing serious, repeat juvenile crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[xviii] McCord, J., Widom, C. S., Bamba, M. I., & Crowell, N. A. (Eds.). (2000). Education and delinquency: Summary of a workshop. DC: National Academy Press.

[xix] Burns, B., Hoagwood, K., & Mrazek, P. J. (1999). Effective treatment for mental disorders in children and adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2(4), 199–254; Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Corday, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta analysis for explanation (pp. 83–127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

[xx] Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764; NRC. (1995).

[xxi] NRC. (2001); Stiffman et al. (1997).

[xxii] Snyder & Sickmund. (1999).

[xxiii] Hoytt et al. (2002).

[xxiv] [xxv] NRC. (2001); Skiba et al. (2000).

[xxvi] For brevity, many other programs also identified in these reports have not been included. For other programs seeOsher et al, 2003a.

[xxvii] Weisz, J. R., & Jensen, P. S. (1999). Efficacy and effectiveness of child and adolescent psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy. Mental Health Services, 1, 125–157; Weisz, J. R., Weiss, B., & Donenberg, G. (1992). The lab versus the clinic: Effects of child and adolescent psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 47, 1578–1585.

[xxviii] Osher et al. (2003a)

[xxix] Gold, M. (1970). Delinquent behavior in an American city. San Francisco: Brooks & Coleman.

[xxx] Dishion, T. J., Andrews, D. W., & Crosby, L. (1995). Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality and interactional process. Child Development, 66, 139–151; Dishion, T. J., Capaldi, D., Spracklen, K. M., & Li, F. (1995). Peer ecology of male adolescent drug use. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 803–824; Scaramella, L., Conger, R. D., Spoth, R., & Simons, R. L. (2002). Evaluation of a social contextual model of delinquency: A cross-study replication. Child Development, 73, 175–195.

[xxxi] Dwyer, K., & Osher, D. (2000). Safeguarding our children: An action guide. DC: ED & DJ, American Institutes for Research (AIR).

[xxxii] Greenwood, P. W., Model, K. E., Rydell, C. P., & Chiesa, J. (1998). Diverting children from a life of crime: Measuring costs and benefits. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

[xxxiii] Olds et al. (1998).

[xxxiv] Aos et al. (2001).

[xxxv] The net cost is the program cost minus any services the program replaces. All WSIPP estimates are in 2001 dollars.

[xxxvi] Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. S., & Weikart, D. P. (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press; Schweinhart, L .J., & Weikart, S. P. (1980). Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 15. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 4, 29–30; Weikart, D. P., Bond, J. T., & McNeil, J. T. (1978). The Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results through fourth grade. Ypsilanti, MI: `High/Scope Press.

[xxxvii] Barnett, W. S. (1985). Benefit-cost analysis of the Perry Preschool Program and its policy implications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(4), 333–342.

[xxxviii] Barnett. (1985, p. 339).

[xxxix] Schweinhart. (2003).

[xl] These benefits include savings in reduced justice system and welfare costs and from reduced criminal activity, increased tax payments of participants as a result of higher incomes, and savings in schooling because participants were less likely to need special education services.

[xli] Blum, R. W., McNeely, C. A., & Rinehart, P. M. (2002). Improving the odds: The untapped power of schools to improve the health of teens. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center for Adolescent Health and Development; Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; McCord et al. (2000)

[xlii] Sherman et al. (1998, pp. 2–11).

[xliii] Caspi, A., & Moffit, T. E. (1995). The continuity of maladaptive behavior: From description to understanding in the study of antisocial behavior. In D. Chicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 2: Risk, disorder, adaptation (pp. 472–511). New York: Wiley; Reid, J. B., & Eddy, J. M. (1997). The prevention of antisocial behavior: Some considerations in the search for effective interventions. In D. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), The handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 343–356). New York: Wiley.

[xliv] Osher, D., Morrison, G., & Bailey, W. (2003b). Exploring the relationship between students’ mobility and dropout among students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Negro Education; Osher et al. (2002).

[xlv] Learning First Alliance. (2001). Every child learning: Safe and supportive schools. DC (DC): Author; Osher, D., Sandler, S., & Nelson, C. (2001). The best approach to safety is to fix schools and support children and staff. New Directions in Youth Development, 92, 127–154.

[xlvi] Metz, M. H. (1997). Keeping students in, gangs out, scores up, alienation down, and the copy machine in working order: Pressures that make urban schools in poverty different. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), ChicagoChicago; Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling. Albany: SUNY Press; Klingner, J. (2003,). School factors matter in special education placement of minorities: Evidence from ethnographic research. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, Chicago.

[xlvii] Legters, N. (2003). Achieving equity and standards in urban high schools: Context and effects of organizational reforms. Presentation at the annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago.

[xlviii] Learning First Alliance. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. DC: Author.

[xlix] Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., Perry, T. E., & Smylie, M. A. (1999). Social support, academic press, and student achievement: A view from the middle grades in Chicago. Chicago: Consortium for Chicago School Research.

[l] Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

[li] Moore, D. (2003). Chicago school reform: Accountability measures and critical perspectives. Presentation at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

[lii] Dumas, J. E., Prinz, R. J., Smith, E. P., & Laughlin, J. (1999). The Early Alliance prevention trial: An integrated set of interventions to promote competence and reduce risk for conduct disorder, substance abuse, and school failure. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2(1), 37–53; Osher et al. (2002); Osher et al. (2003b).

[liii] Quinn, M. M., Osher, D., Hoffman, C. C., & Hanley, T. V. (1998). Safe, drug-free, and effective schools for ALL students: What works! DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice (CECP), AIR ; Maeroff, G. I. (1998). Altered Destinies: Making life better for schoolchildren in need. NY: St Martin’s Griffin

[liv]Moore, D. (2003). Chicago school reform: Accountability measures and critical perspectives. Presentation at annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago.; Osher, et al., 2001.

[lv] Hawkins, J. D., & Lam, T. (1987). Teacher practices, social development, and delinquency. In J. D. Burchard & S. N. Burchard (Eds.), Prevention of delinquent behavior. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Osher et al, 2003a.

[lvi] Hawkins, J. D., Von Cleve, E., & Catalano, R. F. (1991). Reducing early childhood aggression: Results of a primary prevention program. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 208–217.

[lvii] Hawkins J. et al.. (1992) The Seattle Social Development Project: Effects of the first four years on protective factors and problem behaviors. In J. McCord & R. Tremblay (Eds.), The prevention of antisocial behavior in children (pp. 139–161.New York: Guilford.

[lviii] O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, R.D., & Day, L. E., (1995). Preventing school failure, drug use, and delinquency among low-income children: Effects of a long-term prevention project in elementary schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 87–100.

[lix] Aos et al. (2001).

[lx] Snyder & Sickmund. (1999).

[lxi] Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Yoerger, K. (2000). Adolescent growth in new forms of problem behavior: Macro- and micro-peer dynamics. Prevention Science, 1, 3–13.

[lxii] Dishion et al. (1999).

[lxiii] Dishion, T. J., & Andrews, D. W. (1995). Preventing escalation in problem behaviors with high-risk adolescents: Immediate and one-year outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 538–548.

[lxiv] Poulin, F,. Dishion, T.J., & Burraston, B. (2001) 3-year iatrogenic effects associated with aggregating high-risk adolescents in cognitive-behavioral preventive interventions. Applied Development Science 5(4):214-224.

[lxv] Quinn, M. M., Gable, R. A., Rutherford, R. B., Nelson, C. M., & Howell, K. W. (1998). Addressing student problem behavior: An IEP team’s introduction to functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plans. DC: CECP, AIR.

[lxvi] ED. (2002). Exemplary and promising safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools: Programs 2001. DC: Author, p. 42.

[lxvii] Gibbs, J. C. (1995). The cognitive-developmental perspective. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral development: An introduction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; Goldstein, A. P., & Glick, B. (1994). The prosocial gang: Implementing aggression replacement training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Goldstein, A. P., & Glick B. (1995). Aggression replacement training for delinquents. In R. R. Ross, D. H. Antonowicz, & G. K. Dhaliwal (Eds.), Going straight, effective delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation. Ottawa: AIR Training Publications.

[lxviii] Aos et al. (2001).

[lxix] U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2001b), xxx.

[lxx]Burns, B., & Goldman, S. (1999). Promising practices in Wraparound for children with serious emotional disturbance and their families. Promising Practices in Children’s Mental Health, 1998 Series, Volume IV. DC: AIR, CECP; Kendziora, K. T., Bruns, E. J., Osher, D., Pacchiano, D., & Mejia, B. X. (2001). Wraparound: Stories from the fiel, loc. cit., 2001 Series, Volume 1.

[lxxi]Kamradt, B. (April 2000). Wraparound Milwaukee: Aiding youth with mental health needs. Juvenile Justice Journal, 7(1), 14–23.

[lxxii]Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (1998). Multisystemic Treatment of Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents. New York: The Guilford Press; Osher et al. (2003a).

[lxxiii] Ibid., 13.

[lxxiv] Ibid.; Consortium on Children, Families, and the Law (CCFL). (n.d.). Fact sheet, Multisystemic Therapy: Clinical outcomes and cost savings. Retrieved April 20, 2003, from ;

[lxxv] Ibid.

[lxxvi] Borduin, C. M. et al. (1995). Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile offenders: Long-term prevention of criminality and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(4), 569–578.

[lxxvii] Ninety-two participants were in the MST group, 84 in the IT group, and 24 refused to participate. The average number of previous arrests was 4.2 and 63% were previously incarcerated.

[lxxviii] Borduin et al. (1995); MSTS (2000). Research on effectiveness, p. 7.

[lxxix] Borduin et al. (1995).

[lxxx] Aos et al. (2001).

[lxxxi] Sexton, T. L., & Alexander, J. F. (2000). Functional family therapy. DC: DJ, p. 2.

[lxxxii] Ibid.

[lxxxiii] Ibid. 5.

[lxxxiv] Ibid .

[lxxxv] Ibid,. 6.

[lxxxvi] Aos et al. (2001).

[lxxxvii] Ibid..

[lxxxviii] Chamberlain, P. (1990). Comparative evaluation of specialized foster care for seriously delinquent youths: A first step. Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family Care, 2, 21–36; Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (1991). Using a specialized foster care community treatment model for children and adolescents leaving the state mental hospital. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 266–276.

[lxxxix] Chamberlain & Reid. (1991).

[xc] Chamberlain & Reid. (1998).

[xci] Aos et al. (2001).

[xcii] Rosenblatt, A., & Woodbridge, M. W. (2003). Deconstructing research on systems of care for youth with EBD: Frameworks for policy research. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 27–37.

[xciii] A system of care” is a comprehensive approach to coordinating and delivering a far-reaching array of child- and family-drive services from multiple agencies.

[xciv] Foster, E. M., Qaseem, A., & Connor, T. (2003). Can better mental health services reduce juvenile justice involvement? Manuscript submitted for publication.

[xcv] Hoytt et al., (2002).

[xcvi] Feyerherm, W. H. (2000). Detention reform and overrepresentation: A successful synergy. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4(1), 44–51; Hoyt (2002); Multnomah County, Oregon, Department of Community Justice. (2001). Juvenile minority over-representation in Multnomah County’s Department of Community Justice: Final report for 2000. Multnomah, OR: Author.

[xcvii] Ringwalt C, Ennett S. T, & Holt, K. D. (1991). An outcome evaluation of Project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Health Education Research, 6(3), 327–337.

[xcviii] Repp, A., & Singh, N. (1990). Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing.

[xcix] Aos et al. (2001).

[c] Multnomah County. (2001, p. 5).

[ci] Ibid .

[cii] Bridges, G. S., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554–570.

[ciii] Artilles, A. J., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2003,). “Culture” and “context” in overrepresentation scholarship: Challenges and risks for future research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago.

[civ] NRC. (1995).

[cv] Osher, D, Rouse, J, Woodruff, D., Kendziora, K., & Quinn, M. (2002). Addressing invisible barriers: Improving outcomes for youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. DC: U. S. Department of Education.

[cvi] Needleman, H. L., Riess, J. A., Tobin, M. J., Biesecker, G. E., & Greenhouse, J. B. (1996). Bone lead levels and delinquent behavior. JAMA, 275, 363–369.

Courtney, M. E. & Skyles, A. (Eds.) (2003) The Overrespresentation of Children of Color in the Child Welfare System, Children and Youth Services Review Volume 25 (5-6), 355-507; Osher et al., 2003b.

[cvii] Osher et al.(2002.

[cviii] Hoytt et al. 2002.

[cix] Weisz & Jensen (1999); Weisz et al.,,1992.

[cx] Mihalic, S., Ballard, D., Michalski, A., Tortorice, J., Cunningham, L., & Argamaso, S. (2002). Blueprints for violence prevention initiative: Final process evaluation report. Colorado Springs, CO: CSPV.

[cxi] Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Chaudry, N., & Samples, F. (1998). Resolving conflict creatively: Evaluating the developmental effects of a school-based violence prevention program in neighborhood and classroom context. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 187–213; Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E.M., & Diaz, T. (1995). Long-term follow-up results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white middle-class population. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 1106–1111.

[cxii] Hall, G. E. & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing Change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

[cxiii] Osher et al. (2003a).

[cxiv]Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Brondino, M. J., Schere, D. G., & Hanley, J. H. (1997). Multisystemic therapy with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of treatment fidelity in successful dissemination. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 65, 821–833

[cxv] Osher, D. (1999). Race relations and war. In J. Chambers (Ed.), The Oxford companion to American military history (pp. 584–586). New York: Oxford University Press.

[cxvi] Lipsey. (1992).

[cxvii] Burns et al. (2003); Kendziora, K., & Osher, D. (in press). Addressing and responding to delinquency in the juvenile justice system.in xxx Community planning to foster resilience in children; Lipsey, M. W., Wilson, D. B., & Cothern, L. (April 2000). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders (Bulletin). DC: DJ, OJJDP

[cxviii]

[cxix] Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of black folk: Essays and sketches. Chicago: A. C. McClurg; Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children. New York: The New Press.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download