Funding, Implementing Evidence-Based Practices
Jun 2, 2011, Zerline Hughes, Justice Policy Institute
Now more than ever, cash-strapped states are looking into ways to shave expenses. Nationally, there are 81,000 youth in juvenile facilities; 70 percent of these youth are held in state-funded, post-adjudication, residential facilities which cost states and taxpayers an average of $240.99 per day, per youth, according to the American Correctional Association. Long-term costs may be even higher.
A recent report, “Pathways to Desistance” initiated by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice, raises concerns that institutional placement can actually raise the level of offending for some youth; this strengthens the case for expanded use of evidence-based, non-institutional treatment alternatives.
The evidence-based practice approach came into its own from the 1970s through the 1990s, according to Dr. Phillippe Cunningham, a professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Medical at the University of South Carolina, in Charleston, S.C.
“One of the things that came out of that era was the realization that kids who need services don’t get them,” he said. “We were using the wrong sorts of interventions. The interventions we were using didn’t address the myriad factors of behavior.” What was also identified was the integral fact that practitioners must match the needs and services at the right time in a child’s development and recovery.
Sharing Dr. Cunningham’s sentiment is Debra DePrato, M.D., child and forensic psychiatrist and Director of Louisiana Models for Change.
“Fifteen years ago, the ‘evidence’ or research was not complete on juvenile justice involved youth or on adolescent brain development; these areas have burgeoned in the last ten years,” said Dr. DePrato. “Before the development of evidence based practices, the thinking was that no one can do anything to change delinquent youth’s behavior, so in order to keep the public safe, the push was to lock these kids up.”
Fast forward 10-15 years later: the field now has research-based methods and assessment, as well as proven treatment models to better assess and identify the causal factors of youth delinquency as well as youths’ other needs across various treatment models. In other words, the treatments target delinquency risk factors or criminogenic factors.
Evidence-based treatment models include Multisystemic Therapy, Functional Family Therapy and Multidimensional Family Therapy. While these are being used in some jurisdictions, according to Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice, published last December, research evidence – and the tools it supports – have not yet been well integrated into most juvenile justice systems.
“Models for Change has given us the resources to put the tools into practice in the community - with the involvement and support of the courts and juvenile justice systems -and then allowed us to apply them on a statewide basis so kids are treated consistently and uniformly,” said DePrato.
She said continuing to move forward with evidence-based juvenile justice practices will need long-term buy-in from state agencies and the community, because successful implementation is difficult and time consuming. Practitioners must master the various applications in order to execute them with fidelity to most positively affect youth.
Securing consistent and long-term funding for programs that use evidence-based practices continues to pose a challenge. So does affording practitioners the time to learn and perfect evidence-based approaches.
“Funding for such programs makes sense both financially and for public safety. The last thing we want to do is put kids in a program that hurts them and decreases their chances for long term success. Fiscally, it makes sense to put youth in effective programs.”
Dr. Cunningham added that developing treatment from evidence-based practices ensures that taxpayers and constituents are “getting their money’s worth.” He says the programs are cost effective for states as they decrease and eliminate incarceration, and decrease crime.
While there is still a long way to go, the efforts of people like Dr. Cunningham and Dr. DePrato may be starting to pay off. In 2008, the number of youth in residential placements declined to the lowest level since 1993, according to OJJDP. Through expanded use of evidence-based practices that address the underlying issues facing youth, and development of more community-based programs, both youth and society as a whole stand to gain through decreased incarceration, better individual outcomes and improved community safety.
- Issues
-
Community-based alternatives
, Evidence-based practices
, Mental health
, Right-sizing jurisdiction
- States
-
Louisiana