Psychological Services 2004, Vol. 1, No. 2, 126–139 Copyright 2004 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 1541-1559/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1541-1559.1.2.126 Does the Youth Corrections System Work? Tracking the Effectiveness of Intervention Efforts With Delinquent Boys in State Custody Paul Florsheim, Steven Behling, Mikle South, Timothy R. Fowles, and John DeWitt This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. University of Utah This study adopted a systemic approach to studying intervention efforts with delinquent youth, examining the association between several youth corrections programs and adult criminal outcomes. Two studies were designed to use juvenile and adult court records to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment programs provided to delinquent youth in state custody. The results of Study 1 suggested that court-recorded delinquent charges can be used to estimate delinquency severity. The results of Study 2 presented a discouraging but not entirely unexpected illustration of the effectiveness of intervention efforts among delinquent youth. It was found that time spent in juvenile detention facilities, work programs, and group homes was associated with negative adult criminal outcomes. No links between time spent in youth corrections programs and positive outcomes were identified. Implications for future program evaluation efforts are discussed. A relatively small group of delinquent youth pose a great enough threat to their communities that they are remanded into state custody and ordered into treatment by the courts (MacKenzie, 1999). This group of institutionalized youth is important to study because they (a) are responsible for a substantial proportion of criminal acts committed by juvenile offenders (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999), (b) tend to be particularly resistant to treatment (Florsheim, Shotorbani, Guest-Warnick, Barratt, & Hwang, 2000), and (c) are at great risk for becoming chronic adult offenders (Schumacher & Kurz, 2000). Although there has been a great deal of research on the development of serious juvenile offenders (Lipsey & Derzon, 1998; Loeber, 1996), there has been comparatively less research on what happens to these youth once they have been identified and adjudicated. Moreover, we know very little about which components of our current system for treating and rehabilitating these youth are most effective. We do know that while in state’s custody, many of these young people receive multiple courses of treatment, often moving from one program to another over a period of several years (Altschuler, 1998; Krisberg & Howell, Paul Florsheim, Steven Behling, Mikle South, Timothy R. Fowles, and John DeWitt, Department of Psychology, University of Utah. The work described in this article was supported in part by funds provided by the Utah Division of Youth Corrections. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul Florsheim, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 South 1530 East, Room 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. E-mail: Florsheim@psych.utah.edu 126 1998). The tendency to send youth to several programs in succession may seem haphazard. However, the course of a particular youth’s placement history is presumably based on several treatment-relevant factors, including the youth’s family circumstances, current developmental needs, success in previous programs, and perceived threat to the community. The practice of moving a young person from program to program depending on his or her current needs has been described by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention as the “comprehensive strategy” (Krisberg & Howell, 1998). This approach is based on the principle of graduated sanctions; youth are provided with services (treatment, supervision, skill development, and opportunities for restitution) in response to their level of functioning and level of threat to their community. As youth become rehabilitated, fewer services are needed, and the level of system involvement is diminished. This approach to treatment–rehabilitation presents a challenge to program evaluators interested in whether a particular type of treatment is effective because it is very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to disentangle the effects of one treatment program from those of another. In fact, the comprehensive strategy assumes that the effects of treatment– rehabilitation efforts accumulate over time. To make matters even more complicated, young people sometimes cycle through the same treatment program on two or more occasions, particularly those who have setbacks (Altschuler, 1998). This recently articulated comprehensive strategy to treatment–rehabilitation underscores the need to develop conceptual frame- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. DOES THE YOUTH CORRECTIONS SYSTEM WORK? works and techniques for assessing program effectiveness at the systemic level (Farmer, 2000). If a new, more comprehensive approach to program evaluation is needed, where do we start? Computer-based records kept by most states provide a potentially valuable source of information regarding the course and outcome of treatment for youth in state custody. Although these records are limited in their richness, they can often provide an accurate picture of a particular youth’s day-by-day movement through the court and corrections system. Because most state systems document the services a particular youth receives, it is usually known (at the very least) how much time a particular youth spends in each treatment program and the sorts of services each program is expected to provide. Whether this type of information can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of specific programs in reducing (or promoting) recidivism remains an open question. One of the problems with using archival data to study youth in state custody is that record keepers rarely gather psychological data using psychometrically sound measures in a systematic fashion, leaving program evaluators with the difficult problem of defining risk and outcome in a way that is both psychologically and socially meaningful. For example, computer-based records may not tell us much about the psychological functioning of a particular youth beyond his or her offenses (arrests, charges, or convictions). Another problem with using computer records is that they are unlikely to reveal much, if anything, about the transactional nature of provider–client relationships (e.g., how services were delivered or the direct psychological impact of the services received). However, computer-based records of youth in custody, documenting types of services received over extended periods of time, may help us initiate the process of looking inside the “black box” of juvenile corrections (Krisberg & Howell, 1998). In this article, we present the results of two studies designed to address the issue of whether court records can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of youth corrections (YC) programs for institutionalized juvenile offenders. The first study, which focused on a sample of seriously delinquent youth in YC custody, was designed to test whether data on courtrecorded delinquent charges obtained from computer-based records provide a good estimate of delinquent behavior or represent a good prognostic indicator of adult criminality. Specifically, we compared the value of self-reported and court-recorded delinquent behavior with respect to predicting adult criminal charges. The second study was designed to use archival 127 data, drawn from records of youth placed in YC custody, to examine the relationship between time spent in specific types of treatment–rehabilitation settings and adult criminal outcomes. We began with the basic hypothesis that delinquent youth who spent more time in treatment-oriented programs would be less likely to become adult offenders after accounting for differences in the severity of delinquent histories. Study 1: Self-Reported Delinquency Versus Court-Documented Charges as Predictors of Adult Criminality Introduction In the case of youth who have been remanded to the corrections system and are receiving services designed to reduce their criminal behavior, level of offending seems to be a reasonable way to define risk (how much trouble a particular youth was involved in before his or her placement in YC custody) and outcome (how much trouble the youth was involved in after discharge from custody). Delinquent behavior has practical, real-world consequences, including psychological, social, and financial costs. For example, providing services to a youth who has been remanded into state custody will cost taxpayers between $21,000 and $84,000 (Cohen, 1998). The impact of a serious juvenile offender on his or her victims is harder to quantify, but estimates of financial impacts range from $62,000 to $250,000 (Cohen, 1998). If a youth is not successfully rehabilitated by the juvenile corrections system and becomes a “career” criminal, the costs to victims and taxpayers increase dramatically (Cohen, 1998). If delinquent activity is an important component of risk (for adult criminality) and an important target of intervention, the question of how to best assess delinquency is unavoidable (Elliott, Dunford, & Huizinga, 1987; Farrington, 2000; Farrington, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, Van Kammen, & Schmidt, 1996; Henggeler et al., 1993; Paternoster, Brame, & Farrington, 2001). As indicated earlier, one method of assessing delinquency is to gather information from juvenile court records. However, it is generally assumed that serious delinquents are charged with only a portion of the crimes they commit, raising questions about whether official records accurately reflect actual behavioral tendencies. It is also assumed that there is a great deal of variability among juvenile offenders with respect to how often they are caught and charged. The most “successful” offenders may be charged with only a small percentage of their actual offenses, whereas other (less successful) de- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 128 FLORSHEIM, BEHLING, SOUTH, FOWLES, AND DEWITT linquents will be charged with proportionally more offenses. Another common method of assessing delinquent behavior is to ask youth directly about their previous illegal activities, but results of previous research designed to assess the value of self-reported delinquency in predicting adult criminal behaviors have been equivocal (Elliott, Huizinga, & Morse, 1986; Farrington, 2000; Henggeler et al., 1993). Whereas some research suggests that self-report data provide better estimates of actual behavior than court data (Huizinga & Elliott, 1987), other research indicates that self-report delinquency data contribute little to our ability to predict adult outcomes (Farrington, 2001; Henggeler et al., 1993). It is important to remember that some (perhaps most) seriously delinquent adolescents may feel that they have something to lose when asked to report on their previous delinquent behaviors. Indeed, it seems prudent to assume that delinquents will not tell researchers the complete truth when asked about their illegal activities. To make matters worse, none of the usual corroborators (parents and teachers) can adequately answer questions about crimes committed covertly. In addition to the question of how to acquire information about delinquent or criminal activities, researchers also contend with the sticky issue of how to weigh the relative seriousness of particular offenses (Parton, Hansel, & Stratton, 1991; Stylianou, 2003; Wolfgang, Figlio, Tracy, & Singer, 1985). This issue has been the topic of debate and empirical investigation for at least 40 years (Sellin & Wolfgang, 1964). The most widely used approach to estimating the seriousness of criminal behaviors is to solicit ratings from the general public or specific target populations, including police and court officers (Stylianou, 2003). Research on public and professional perceptions of criminal behavior indicates that some offenses are clearly regarded as more psychologically and socially “costly” than others. When indexing a particular youth’s delinquent behavior, criminologists agree that “petty theft” and “assault with a deadly weapon” should not be considered similar with respect to their social or psychological impact (Loeber, Farrington, & Waschbusch, 1998). Nor should they be considered as equal indicators of risk for serious future criminal behavior (Monahan, 1996; Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, 1997). Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines, based on logical or empirical approaches, to inform us as to the weights that should be assigned to particular offenses. Law enforcement agencies and court administrators make distinctions between felonies and misdemeanors as well as among person, prop- erty, public order, and technical offenses, but these differences can be difficult to use in making comparisons across methods of reporting (self-report vs. court records) and systems (juvenile vs. adult). Despite the lack of clarity regarding how to weigh the seriousness of particular crimes, doing so is critical to the goal of program evaluation because youth who are at greater risk are likely to receive more services for longer periods of time (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). Study Goals The methodological flaws associated with both self-reported delinquency data and court records raise the question of whether one is better (more valid) than the other (Henggeler et al., 1993). This question has important implications for program evaluation, because it is much less expensive to use existing court records than to administer self-reports. Moreover, if we can rely on juvenile court records to estimate risk for adult criminality, we may be able to conduct program evaluation studies on a large scale, using the documented histories of the many thousands of youth who have been court ordered into treatment. The goals of Study 1 were to (a) examine the correspondence between self-report and court records of delinquent behavior among a group of severe juvenile offenders in state custody and (b) assess which of these indexes better predicted adult criminal outcomes. Method Participants Participants included 115 male juvenile offenders who (a) were between 15 and 17 years of age at the time of their recruitment, (b) had been remanded into state custody (Division of Youth Corrections), and (c) had been ordered into a community-based intervention program at some point during 1995–1996. By most estimates, these youth would be considered serious delinquents (Loeber et al., 1998). The average number of previous charges at the time of recruitment was 13.1 (SD ⳱ 7.4; see Table 1). Charges ranged in severity from status offenses to property damage, drug-related charges, and life-threatening offenses (e.g., aggravated assaults and drive-by shootings). Seventy-five percent of the participants reported having engaged in seriously violent behavior, and 78% had been charged with at least one offense against another person. Before being remanded into state custody, participants had been involved in the juvenile justice system DOES THE YOUTH CORRECTIONS SYSTEM WORK? 129 Table 1 Summary of Descriptive Statistics This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Study 1 (N ⳱ 115) Characteristic M Age at study recruitment (years) Age at first arrest (years) Ethnicity White Hispanic Other Number of charges at recruitment Misdemeanors Felonies Violent felonies Drug-related charges Total days in youth corrections placement 16.35 12.40 SD Study 2 (N ⳱ 175) % 0.97 2.09 M 16.34 12.36 SD 1.01 2.12 59.8 26.8 13.4 7.86 3.49 0.53 1.57 834 for an average of 3.28 years (SD ⳱ 1.89). Average age at first offense was 12.4 years (SD ⳱ 2.1). The ethnic distribution was uneven, with 69 White participants, 31 Latino participants, and 15 participants of other ethnicities (Native American, African American, and Asian American), reflecting local demographic patterns. Family incomes ranged from less than $5,000 per year to more than $30,000 per year, with a modal income in the $10,000 to $20,000 range. Procedure In 1996, participants were recruited into this study through their YC case managers. Case managers invited youth to take part and informed them that their participation was voluntary. Ninety-three percent of the youth who were asked to participate agreed to do so. Informed consent was obtained from each participant and his parent(s). Interviews were conducted at placement sites shortly after youth were remanded into treatment. Contemporaneously with these interviews, information was gathered from court records. In the summer of 2002, information regarding juvenile treatment histories and adult charges was obtained from YC computerized records and from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation. Death certification records were also examined to identify participants who had died (n ⳱ 2). Determining who had died was important because these individuals would not have adult criminal records and therefore would appear to have good outcomes. Developing a Common Metric That Accounts for Severity As indicated earlier, one of the issues facing criminologists is whether and how to weigh the serious- 5.36 2.94 0.72 1.74 446 % 59.3 26.6 14.1 7.88 3.38 0.62 1.46 788 5.24 2.82 0.82 1.80 453 ness of delinquent–criminal behavior (Stylianou, 2003). By most standards, violent crimes are regarded as more serious, more costly, and more prognostic of chronic criminality than nonviolent crimes (Lipsey & Derzon, 1998; Loeber et al., 1998; Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002; Wolfgang et al., 1985). A further distinction is frequently made between misdemeanors and felonies, which allows researchers and court officials to differentiate between stealing a candy bar and stealing a car. However, this distinction becomes problematic when making comparisons between self-report and court records because it is difficult to determine whether a particular self-reported offense would be recorded as a misdemeanor or a felony. In response to the controversy over how to best assess the seriousness of criminal behavior and the need to make reasonable comparisons across methods of assessment (self-report vs. court records), we devised a simple formula for juvenile offenses in which violent charges were weighted more heavily (e.g., multiplied by a factor of three) than nonviolent charges. The decision to use a factor of three to represent relative seriousness was based on (a) the perceptions of citizens, law enforcement officers, court officials, and criminologists that violent crime is more serious than nonviolent crime (Stylianou, 2003) and (b) research indicating that violent juvenile delinquents are more likely than nonviolent delinquents to have poor outcomes (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Loeber et al., 1998). In the case of adult outcome scores, violent charges were multiplied by a factor of three and nonviolent felonies were multiplied by a factor of two (misdemeanors were not weighted) to reflect that felonies are, by definition, more serious than misdemeanors. Because we did not use self-report data in 130 FLORSHEIM, BEHLING, SOUTH, FOWLES, AND DEWITT determining adult criminal outcomes, we were able to make use of the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors, which was documented in court records. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Measures Self-reported delinquent history. Participants were asked a long series of specific questions about their delinquent behavior through the use of a modified version of the Self-Report of Delinquent Behavior (SRD; Elliott, Huizinga, & Menard, 1989). The SRD was developed for the National Youth Survey and has subsequently been used by other delinquency researchers (Johnson, Wish, Schmeidler, & Huizinga, 1991; Loeber et al., 1998; Tolan, Gorman Smith, Huesmann, & Zelli, 1997). We modified the instrument slightly, asking respondents to indicate how many times (on a scale ranging from 0 to 100+) they had engaged in each of 19 specific types of criminal behavior (e.g., petty theft, arson, drug trafficking, sexual assault, and assault with the intent to kill, etc.). In the case of each positive response (at least one occurrence), follow-up questions were asked about the nature and circumstances of the three most recent occasions. In the present study, we did not use these follow-up data pertaining to the last three occasions in calculating self-reported delinquency scores. Rather, we used the SRD as a simple indicator of how many times a youth had engaged in (a) violence against another person (sexual assault, armed robbery, or fighting with a weapon or with intent to harm or kill), (b) property crimes, (c) theft, and (d) drug trafficking. We also administered a modified version of the Drug Use Inventory (DUI; Elliott et al., 1989) to assess drug use, which, for the purposes of this study, was considered a delinquent act. The DUI includes 15 items in which respondents are asked how many times in their lifetime (0–40+) they have used different types of illicit substances (including alcohol but excluding cigarettes). On the basis of their responses to the DUI, participants were given a severity of drug use score. Delinquency is often conceptualized as being distinct from substance use; however, for the purposes of comparing self-reported and courtreported juvenile offenses, we included substance use as a subcategory of delinquency because many youth enter the juvenile court system after being charged with possession of illicit substances. As indicated earlier, a weighted summation of juvenile delinquency was used to create a self-report delinquency severity score. Court-recorded delinquent history. Concurrent with the administration of the SRD, court records were examined for the purpose of collecting information about previous delinquent behaviors. Information gathered included (a) age at first arrest, (b) number of charges (both violent and nonviolent), and (c) years in YC custody. Charges ranged in severity from status violations to armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. As indicated earlier, a weighted summation of juvenile charges was used to create a court-record-based delinquency severity score. Adult charges. Adult criminal data were obtained (after all participants had been adults for at least 1 year) from the Bureau of Criminal Investigation database, which references the Interstate Information Index and Federal Bureau of Investigation records. Adult charges ranged from misdemeanors (e.g., driving under the influence) to nonviolent felonies (e.g., theft by extortion) and violent felonies against another person (e.g., sexual abuse of a child, murder, or rape). As indicated, a weighted summation of adult charges was used to create an adult criminal severity score. Results Zero-order Pearson correlations were used to examine the bivariate associations between specific indexes and composites of juvenile delinquent behavior (based on court records and self-reports) and adult criminality (based on court records). Results presented in Table 2 indicate that the associations between the specific indexes of crime and delinquency were not consistently strong. It is particularly noteworthy that the association between self-reported delinquency severity scores and court-recorded severity scores was not statistically significant. The bivariate association between self-reported delinquency scores and adult criminality scores was modestly significant, as was the association between court-recorded delinquency scores and adult criminal severity scores. As expected, bivariate correlations indicated that a youth’s age was positively associated with his adult criminal severity score (r ⳱ .241, p < .01). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine ethnic differences in delinquency and adult criminality scores. Results indicated a significant effect of ethnicity, F(2, 113) ⳱ 4.79, p ⳱ .01. Post hoc (Tukey honestly significant difference) tests indicated that Latino youth had significantly higher adult criminality scores (M ⳱ 8.2, SD ⳱ 7.4) than White youth (M ⳱ 4.6, SD ⳱ 5.0). There were no ethnic differences in age or delinquency severity scores. .19* .17 .12 .15 .22* .10 .04 .10 .01 .59** .21* .35* — .18* .22* .06 .11 −.02 .18* .08 .17 .13 .88** .45* — .24* .28** .08 .15 .09 .21* .16 .15 .14 — .14 .08 .09 .25** .30** .33** .07 .37** — .10* .23** .02 .10 .08 .18* .24** .04 .15 .74** — Discussion .92* — .77** .52** — .64** .45** .42 — .35** .31** .16 .29** — .10 .06 .15 .05 .01 — .02 .05 .06 .00 .01 .66** — The finding that court-recorded juvenile charges predicted adult criminal charges better than selfreported delinquent behavior suggests that juvenile court records may be a useful tool for tracking the trajectory of delinquent youth over time. Moreover, the association between juvenile and adult court records is consistent with previous research indicating that, among serious juvenile offenders, there is persistence in criminal behavior from youth to adulthood (Moffitt et al., 2002; Paternoster et al., 2001). Despite the statistically significant association between juvenile and adult charges, it is important to underscore that this association was modest, which suggests that other factors may have played an important role in determining whether a youth with a serious juvenile history became a chronic offender in adulthood. How can we gain an understanding of why some youth who have extensive delinquent histories appear to engage in less criminal activity as adults, whereas others seem to become more heavily involved in criminal behavior once they reach adulthood? The answer to this question is complex and may involve — Table 3 Self-Reported Delinquency Severity Scores as Predictors of Adult Criminal Severity Scores Adult criminal severity score **p < .01. Variable *p < .05. Composite of self-reported (SR) delinquent offenses SR violence against people SR property offenses/theft SR drug trafficking SR drug use Composite of court-recorded (CR) charges CR violent charges CR nonviolent felonies CR misdemeanors/drug charges Composite of adult charges Adult violent charges Adult felonies Adult misdemeanors/drug charges 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 131 Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to examine whether the self-report composite or the court-recorded composite better predicted adult criminal charges. In this set of analyses, current age was included to control for the influence of time, and ethnicity (dummy coded) was included to control for ethnic differences in adult criminal charges. Results presented in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that court-recorded delinquency scores accounted for a greater proportion of the variance in adult criminality scores, change in R2 ⳱ .044, F(1, 110) ⳱ 5.89, p < .05, than self-reported delinquency scores, change in R2 ⳱ .027, F(1, 110) ⳱ 3.52, p ⳱ .06. .12 .04 .24 .05 −.02 .80** .08 — 10 9 Variable Table 2 Correlation Table for Study 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 11 12 13 DOES THE YOUTH CORRECTIONS SYSTEM WORK? Demographic characteristics Current age Ethnicity Latino Other non-White Self-reported delinquencya a Standardized. **p < .01. B SE B ␤ 1.30 0.48 .24** 3.62 2.44 0.00 1.24 1.64 0.00 .26** .13 .17 FLORSHEIM, BEHLING, SOUTH, FOWLES, AND DEWITT 132 Table 4 Court-Recorded Delinquency Severity Scores as Predictors of Adult Criminal Severity Scores Adult criminal severity scores This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Variable Demographic characteristics Current age Ethnicity Latino Other non-White Court-recorded delinquency B SE B ␤ 1.20 0.48 .22* 4.34 3.00 0.15 1.23 1.60 0.06 .32* .17 .22* *p < .05. several factors. It is possible that, in the case of some serious youth offenders, maturation has an effect on criminal behavior. Previous researchers have documented that many delinquent youth become less involved in illegal activities as they approach adulthood, either because they are becoming more psychologically mature and socially responsible or because they are cognizant that the consequences for adult criminality are more serious (Loeber et al., 1998; Tolan & Gorman Smith, 1998). In other words, most delinquents hit their deviant peak during adolescence. This common developmental trend may help to explain some of the discontinuity we observed between youth and adult criminality. It is tempting to attribute a certain amount of the discontinuity between juvenile and adult charges to the success of intervention efforts. Indeed, it seems plausible that some youth are committing fewer crimes as adults because interventions have been successful (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). Although this may be the case for some delinquent youth, the fact that 77% of the participants in this study had at least one adult charge suggests that it is an unlikely explanation for most of our participants. The YC system may have the effect of suppressing delinquent behavior temporarily, while youth are in custody (Murray & Cox, 1979). However, the system apparently does little to prevent adult criminality in the long run. A more likely explanation for the discontinuity between juvenile and adult records is that both provide an incomplete picture of delinquent and criminal behavior. That is, if it were possible to obtain a more accurate portrait of delinquent and criminal behavior, it is probable that juvenile history would better predict adult outcome. It is also likely that the participants in this study have not been given sufficient opportunity for their adult records to “catch up” with their juvenile histories. The association between age and adult outcomes suggests that, with additional years, participants in this study will accumulate more adult charges, and their adult records will begin to resemble their juvenile records. The modest association between self-reported and court-recorded delinquency underscores that fact that both of these indexes are, at best, ballpark estimates of actual criminality. As such, it would be premature and unwise to interpret our findings to mean that court records have “won the race” against self-report data. At least for the time being, it makes sense to gather both types of data whenever possible (Farrington et al., 1996). Nonetheless, the results of Study 1 provide some justification for using court records as estimates of risk for chronic offending when it is inexpedient to collect self-report data. This conclusion helps justify moving to the next phase of investigation, which involved estimating the effects of time spent in YC programs on adult criminal outcomes. Results of Study 1 also indicated that Latino youth had higher adult criminality scores than White youth. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating ethnic disparities within both the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems, such that Latinos are more likely than Whites to be charged, convicted, and sent to YC programs or prison (Bilchik, 1999; Hawkins, Laub, & Lauritsen, 1998; Males & Macallair, 2000; Pope, Lovell, & Hsia, 2002). In this study, we found that disparities in adult criminal outcomes occurred even though Latino and White participants appeared to have similar delinquent histories. These findings suggest that, once they are determined to be serious delinquents, Latino boys apparently have a more difficult time than their White peers in finding their way out of the corrections system. There may be several reasons for this apparent disparity. Previous researchers have suggested that there are biases in the justice and corrections systems that result in members of minority groups facing more serious charges (and punishments) than members of other groups for similar offenses (Pope & Feyerherm, 1990). These biases could increase the chances that minority youth will become ensnared in the corrections system. It may also be the case that Latino youth are in fact committing more crimes or more serious crimes as adults. This would suggest that broader social, economic, and psychological factors are contributing to different criminal trajectories. For example, there is some evidence that minority youth, particularly Latino youth, are more likely than White youth to become associated with gangs (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). Once a youth has become gang involved, his (or her) chances of continuing to commit crimes as an adult and to engage in violence are This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. DOES THE YOUTH CORRECTIONS SYSTEM WORK? significantly greater than if he (or she) had not become gang involved (Thornberry, 1998). Although it was beyond the scope of this study to examine these social and psychological correlates of ethnic disparities in criminality, our results underscore the need for more research delineating the apparently differential trajectories of ethnic minority youth from juvenile to adult corrections. Moreover, these findings suggest the possibility of disparities in the provision of treatment to Latino and White youth remanded into YC custody. This issue was addressed in Study 2. Study 2: Time Spent in Juvenile Corrections Programs as a Predictor of Adult Criminal Outcomes Introduction Researchers who study delinquent youth tend to focus on four basic questions: (a) What factors predict delinquency? (b) How is delinquency related to the development of other problems, including adult criminality? (c) What can we do to prevent delinquency? and (d) Once a youth becomes delinquent, how can we facilitate his or her rehabilitation and reduce recidivism? In Study 2, we addressed this final question, focusing on programs for seriously delinquent youth who have been remanded into state custody. Unlike previous research that has tended to examine the effectiveness of a specific program of intervention, our approach was to examine the system as a whole. As indicated earlier, serious youth offenders who are remanded into state custody tend to spend time in several different placements, and levels of treatment and supervision vary widely (Altschuler, 1998; Gordon, Jurkovic, & Arbuthnot, 1998; Lipsey, 1999; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). For example, some programs are designed to provide youth with intensive treatment, whereas others are designed to help them make restitution. Some programs house large numbers of youth in large facilities, whereas others place youth in private homes (with proctor parents) in the community. Previous research indicates that although several specific model programs are effective for at least some delinquent youth (Borduin et al., 1995; Chamberlain, 2003; Chamberlain & Reid, 1998; Sexton & Alexander, 2000), the jury is still out with respect to whether commonly used YC programs are effective in reducing recidivism and chronicity (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). Indeed, the effectiveness of current, common approaches in rehabilitating serious and violent youth offenders is a source of heated debate (Altschuler, 1998; Lipsey, 1999; Shamsie, 133 1981) fueled by increases in the amount and severity of youth crime and findings that some interventions designed for youth appear to have iatrogenic effects (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999). Study Goals The obstacles facing researchers studying the juvenile corrections system or youth in the custody of this system are complex. Youth enter the system at different stages of development, they receive different doses of treatment, they are often sent to several different placements (sometimes consecutively), and they have different sets of personal difficulties. As an initial step toward understanding how YC treatment and rehabilitation programs influence the criminal outcomes of delinquent youth, this study was designed to clarify types of YC programs and examine the association between time spent in each specific type of program and adult criminal activity. Drawing on the findings of Lipsey and Wilson’s (1998) metaanalysis of institutional treatment for juvenile offenders, we expected that more time in treatment would predict more positive outcomes. Method Participants Participants in Study 2 included the 115 participants from Study 1 and an additional 60 youth remanded into state custody in 1996 whose juvenile court records (charges for misdemeanors, nonviolent felonies, and violent felonies) were matched to those of the original sample. The total sample included 175 male adolescents. Average age at first arrest for this group was 12.4 years (SD ⳱ 2.1), and average number of days spent in YC programs was 789 (SD ⳱ 453). Additional descriptive information is provided in Table 1. Measures Juvenile charges. Total numbers and types of juvenile charges accrued were collected from computerized court records. Whereas in Study 1 we collected court data contemporaneously with the collection of self-report data, in Study 2 we gathered information about charges accrued during each youth’s entire delinquent history. On the basis of this information, we created a severity score using the formula described in Study 1 for adult criminal severity (misdemeanors + nonviolent felonies × 2 + violent felonies × 3). FLORSHEIM, BEHLING, SOUTH, FOWLES, AND DEWITT This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 134 The average delinquency severity score was 19.7 (SD ⳱ 10.2). Adult charges. We obtained adult criminal data (charges) using the same procedures outlined in Study 1, and we calculated adult criminal severity scores using the formula just described. The average adult severity score was 4.76 (SD ⳱ 5.7). As of 2002, 72% of the participants had been charged with at least one crime as an adult. Treatment history. Youth in YC custody are typically placed in several different classes of programs. We developed a scheme for classifying program types based on examination of program descriptions and contract regulations. These classifications were as follows: detention facilities, proctor homes, group homes, residential treatment centers, work programs, wilderness programs, and secure care facilities. Programs varied in regard to several dimensions, including staff–youth ratios, treatment orientation, number of youth housed in a single facility, level of structure provided, and, of course, cost of treatment. Descriptions of the programs are provided in Table 5. Time spent in each placement type varied across the participants. However, 85.5% of the participants spent time in five of the seven placement types. Percentages of participants spending time in each placement group were as follows: detention, 100% (n ⳱ 175); proctor home, 73% (n ⳱ 130); work program, 54% (n ⳱ 95); group home, 11% (n ⳱ 20); residen- tial treatment center, 91% (n ⳱ 160); wilderness program, 20% (n ⳱ 36); and secure care facility, 27% (n ⳱ 40). The costs of these different placements varied widely depending on the nature of the treatment and supervision provided. The total average cost (per youth) for time spent in these seven YC programs was $41,927 (SD ⳱ $24,894). Results Zero-order Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationships among independent variables and the bivariate associations between background variables (age at first arrest and age at entry into YC custody) and adult severity scores. Results (see Table 6) indicated that participants with high delinquency severity scores spent significantly more time in detention facilities, wilderness programs, group homes, and secure care facilities. Youth who spent more time in detention also spent more time in secure care facilities, residential treatment, and wilderness programs. In addition, youth who spent more time in wilderness programs were likely to spend more time in work programs. Age at first arrest was associated (negatively) with delinquency severity and time spent in detention. Youth who entered the YC system earlier tended to have higher adult criminal severity scores. An ANOVA was conducted to examine ethnic differences in background characteristics, treatment his- Table 5 Description of Program Types Days in program Program type Detention Work program Proctor home Group home Intensive group home Wilderness program Secure care facility Description M SD Short-term placement for youth awaiting adjudication or who pose an immediate threat to themselves or others; low level of treatment and low staff-to-youth ratio Program designed to provide youth with the opportunity to work off court-mandated fines and make restitution payments; low level of treatment and low staff-to-youth ratio Designed for youth with minimal delinquent records and behavioral problems; adolescents are supervised by trained proctor “parents” who provide daily living needs and guidance Supervision of moderately serious offenders with behavioral problems provided under the supervision of nonprofessional, trained staff; moderate staff-to-youth ratio Intensive treatment for seriously delinquent youth with severe behavioral problems; high level of supervision and high staff-to-youth ratio Based on positive peer culture and challenging youth to develop new coping skills; high level of supervision and high staff-to-youth ratio; treatment administered by nonprofessional staff Long-term, lock-down facility for severely delinquent youth who are thought to present a risk to the community; intense treatment, high levels of supervision, and high staff-to-youth ratio 115.4 95.2 39.6 52.5 123.4 138.5 11.2 46.5 200.7 184.2 15.0 33.3 102.4 209.8 DOES THE YOUTH CORRECTIONS SYSTEM WORK? 135 Table 6 Correlation Table for Study 2 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Age at first arrest — .22* −.48** −.22* .02 −.12 −.10 .00 −.12 −.13 Age entered into custody — −.55** −.26** −.11 −.26** −.23* −.32** −.07 −.09 Delinquency severity score — .35** .09 .36** −.06 .26** .06 .19* Time in detention — .14 .19* .02 .07 .16* .52** Time in work program — .23** .02 .09 .02 .02 Time in wilderness program — .03 .10 .00 .13 Time in proctor home — .04 .00 .03 Time in group home — .06 .10 Time in residential treatment — −.06 Time in secure care — Adult criminal severity score *p < .05. 11 −.06 −.21** .18* .14 .20* .05 −.06 .21* .04 −.02 — **p < .01. tories, delinquency severity, and adult criminal severity scores. Results indicated that ethnicity was associated with adult criminal severity score, F(2, 175) ⳱ 3.00, p ⳱ .05. Post hoc analyses indicated that Latino youth had higher adult criminality scores than White youth. We also found that ethnicity was associated with time spent in group homes, F(2, 175) ⳱ 3.54, p < .05; youth in the “other” ethnicity category spent more time in group homes than White youth. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the association between days in YC placements and adult criminality scores, controlling for individual differences in ethnicity, delinquency scores, and opportunity (i.e., years as an adult). This analysis indicated that treatment history accounted for 9% of the variance in adult outcomes, F(11, 164) ⳱ 4.40, p < .001. More specifically, higher amounts of time spent in detention facilities, work programs, and group homes were associated with higher adult criminality scores. Results are presented in Table 7. Follow-up analyses were conducted to test the possibility that the relationship between time spent in specific placement types and outcome was nonlinear. We had originally hypothesized that time in treatment would predict better outcomes (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998), but it seemed plausible that either too much time or too little time in a particular type of treatment would be associated with poorer outcomes and that moderate amounts of time would be associated with better outcomes. This possibility draws some support from the psychotherapy research literature, which indicates that, under some circumstances, treatment dose is curvilinearly associated with outcome in the sense that too little may not be enough to have an effect and too much will have diminishing or even deleterious effects (Lueger et al., 2001). To test this hypothesis, we conducted a second multiple re- gression analysis in which amount of time spent in each placement type was first standardized (converted to a Z score) and then squared. Results of these analyses were not substantially different from those shown in Table 7. Thus, there was no evidence that time spent in juvenile corrections programs was curvilinearly related to adult criminal outcomes. Discussion Study 2 was designed to examine the association between amount of time spent in specific types of YC programs and adult criminal outcomes. The results were not encouraging. First, there were no associations between time spent in programs and positive outcomes, suggesting that none of the programs had Table 7 Time Spent in Juvenile Corrections Programs and Adult Criminality Adult criminal outcome (composite) Variable Demographic characteristics Current age (opportunity) Age of entry into YC Latino Delinquency severity score Time spent in YC placements Detention Work program Wilderness program Proctor home Group home Residential treatment Secure care Note. YC ⳱ youth corrections. *p < .05. **p < .01. B SE B ␤ 2.06 −0.43 2.51 0.01 0.67 0.70 0.91 0.06 .39** −.08 .19** .01 0.01 0.02 −0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 .18* .19* −.07 −.06 .15* .08 −.03 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 136 FLORSHEIM, BEHLING, SOUTH, FOWLES, AND DEWITT the intended effect of preventing or even reducing recidivism. Our failure to identify any positive effects of time in treatment is not consistent with recent meta-analytic studies of interventions with serious delinquents; these studies suggest that several current models of institution-based treatment reduce the likelihood of recidivism (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). However, a major difference between this study and the approach of most previous treatment outcome studies of delinquent youth was that we followed youth into adulthood. This allowed us to wait out the welldocumented suppression effect of placing youth in the custody of the YC system (Murray & Cox, 1979). Another difference is that we focused on youth who were receiving what is sometimes referred to as “treatment as usual” rather than state-of-the-art treatment approaches (Chamberlain, 2003; Sexton & Alexander, 2000). Second, the finding that time spent in detention facilities, work programs, and group homes was associated with negative adult outcomes suggests the possibility that some programs may actually facilitate criminality. It is important to underscore that we are not proposing that time spent in detention, work programs, or group homes causes youth to exhibit more criminal behaviors. However, the links we identified are consistent with recent research indicating that certain types of peer-based programs for delinquent youth seem to have iatrogenic effects (Brown, Jenkins & Rhodes, 1992; Dishion et al., 1999; Dishion, Spracklen, Andrews, & Patterson, 1996; Poulin, Dishion, & Burraston, 2001). For example, Dishion et al. (1999) found that delinquent youth who spent time in programs with other delinquent youth were more likely to be arrested as adults. These researchers suggested that such programs may expose youth to a “deviant peer culture” wherein new delinquent behaviors are learned and existing antisocial behaviors are reinforced. With this in mind, it seems relevant that detention, work programs, and group homes are similar in three fundamental respects: (a) The staffto-youth ratio is relatively low, (b) professionally administered treatment is not a primary focus, and (c) the number of youth housed together in the same facility is often quite high. These conditions seem ripe for the development of a deviant peer culture. Does this mean that such programs should be closed down? We caution against this conclusion for two reasons. First, our study was preliminary. We believe that our particular approach to program evaluation has never been previously tested, and therefore our findings should be regarded as tentative at best. The findings presented in Study 2 would need to be replicated with larger samples (and in different states) before conclusions could be drawn about the risks of detention and work programs for delinquent youth. Research with larger samples would also allow examination of whether individual differences among youth might moderate the association between time spent in detention or work programs and adult outcomes. It may be that these programs have different effects on youth (a) at different stages of their development or (b) with different delinquency histories. Second, detention and work programs currently serve an important function in the juvenile justice system. Detention is often used as a temporary placement for youth deemed to pose a threat to society or at high risk for running away. Work programs provide youth with the opportunity to pay off their fines and make restitution for their delinquent behavior. Neither of these program types could be easily replaced. Nonetheless, it may be prudent to consider ways to modify the quality of care provided through these types of placement, perhaps increasing level of structure and treatment orientation. Improving the quality of treatment received by youth in detention facilities and other publicly administered correctional facilities has been advocated by a number of policymakers and researchers both within and outside government institutions (Roush, 1996). General Discussion Criminologists, psychologists, and policymakers have been puzzling for years over how to prevent the most serious of youth offenders from entering the adult corrections system and becoming chronic offenders (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Loeber et al., 1998). Recently, clinical researchers have proposed several model treatment programs for treating severely delinquent youth, mostly through outpatient, familybased programs or foster care (Chamberlain, 2003; Huey & Henggeler, 2001; Sexton & Alexander, 2000). However, many of the most serious juvenile offenders appear to be unsuitable for outpatient treatment and are therefore placed in programs outside their homes. Moreover, finding foster care placements for the growing numbers of severely delinquent youth is a monumental task. Thus, it seems likely that many of these youth will continue to receive treatment in group-oriented, residential programs. This study was unlike most previous studies of treatment outcomes in two important respects. First, unlike most previous studies of delinquent youth that have focused on additional delinquent charges (usually within a year of treatment) as an index of recidi- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. DOES THE YOUTH CORRECTIONS SYSTEM WORK? vism, we followed delinquent youth into the adult system. By allowing more time to pass before collecting outcome data, we diminished our chances of finding positive treatment effects. This long-term perspective is important if we are to understand the long-term effectiveness of interventions aimed at delinquent youth. Second, we attempted to study the system as a whole and to examine the accumulative influence of multiple interventions. Because this approach is novel, the findings reported here will need replication and careful consideration before conclusions can be drawn about how to reform the YC system. However, it is important to point out that the model we tested is quite similar to models used in naturalistic, longitudinal studies of risk and protective factors associated with youth developmental outcomes (Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, Wei, Farrington, & Wikstroem, 2002). In this tradition of research, the critical independent variables tend to include family, neighborhood, and individual psychological factors. In the current study, the critical independent variable was time spent in each of several types of treatment programs. Our current understanding of how systems of interventions affect youth is underdeveloped (Salzer & Bickman, 1997). Although there have been some studies of delinquents in various types of treatment programs (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Wilson & Lipsey, 2000), there has been little effort to study the system as a whole, which would necessarily involve tracking youth through multiple placements (Salzer & Bickman, 1997). As indicated in the introduction, the goal of this study was to develop a strategy for evaluating treatment outcomes among serious delinquents remanded into state custody and sent to several programs over a period of several years. This broadly systemic approach revealed some potentially important findings that require further explication. Because juvenile and adult court records are available across several states, the means to replicate and test the generalizability of local findings are within our immediate grasp. We believe that this study marks an important first step toward (a) designing methods for helping public agencies record and maintain data that will be useful for program evaluations and (b) developing a more sophisticated approach to tracking the trajectories of youth who spend significant proportions of their adolescence moving through institutional settings. References Altschuler, D. M. (1998). Intermediate sanctions and community treatment for serious and violent juvenile offend- 137 ers. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 367–385). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bilchik, S. (1999). 1999 national report series: Minorities in the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Borduin, C. M., Mann, B., Cone, L. T., Henggeler, S., Fucci, B. R., Blaske, D., & Williams, R. A. (1995). Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile offenders: Longterm prevention of criminality and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 569–578. Brown, W. K., Jenkins, R. L., & Rhodes, W. A. (1992). Delinquent peer culture and adult criminality: A longitudinal study. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 17, 161–170. Chamberlain, P. (2003). Treating chronic juvenile offenders: Advances made through the Oregon multidimensional treatment foster care model. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (1998). Comparison of two community alternatives to incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 624–633. Cohen, M. A. (1998). The monetary value of saving a highrisk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 5–33. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764. Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373–390. Elliott, D. S., Dunford, F. W., & Huizinga, D. (1987). The identification and prediction of career offenders utilizing self-reported and official data. In J. D. Burchard & S. Burchard (Eds.), Prevention of delinquent behavior (pp. 90–121). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substance use, and mental health problems (pp. 52–56). New York: Springer-Verlag. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Morse, B. (1986). Selfreported violent offending: A descriptive analysis of juvenile violent offenders and their offending careers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1, 472–514. Farmer, E. M. Z. (2000). Issues confronting effective services in systems of care. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 627–650. Farrington, D. P. (2000). Psychosocial predictors of adult antisocial personality and adult convictions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 605–622. Farrington, D. P. (2001). Predicting adult official and selfreported violence. In G.-F. Pinard & L. Pagani (Eds.), Clinical assessment of dangerousness: Empirical contributions (pp. 66–88). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W. B., & Schmidt, L. (1996). Self-reported delinquency and a combined delinquency seriousness scale based on boys, mothers, and teachers: Concurrent This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 138 FLORSHEIM, BEHLING, SOUTH, FOWLES, AND DEWITT and predictive validity for African-Americans and Caucasians. Criminology, 34, 493–514. Florsheim, P., Shotorbani, S., Guest-Warnick, G., Barratt, T., & Hwang, W.-C. (2000). Role of the working alliance in the treatment of delinquent boys in community-based programs. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 94–107. Gordon, D. A., Jurkovic, G., & Arbuthnot, J. (1998). Treatment of the juvenile offender. In R. M. Wettstein (Ed.), Treatment of offenders with mental disorders (pp. 365– 428). New York: Guilford Press. Hawkins, D. F., Laub, J. H., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1998). Race, ethnicity, and serious juvenile offending. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 30–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Smith, L. A., Foster, S. L., Hanley, J. H., & Hutchinson, C. M. (1993). Assessing violent offending in serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 233–243. Huey, S. J., & Henggeler, S. W. (2001). Effective community-based interventions for antisocial and delinquent adolescents. In J. N. Hughes & A. M. La Greca (Eds.), Handbook of psychological services for children and adolescents (pp. 301–322). London: Oxford University Press. Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1987). Juvenile offenders: Prevalence, offender incidence, and arrest rates by race. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 206–223. Johnson, B. D., Wish, E. O., Schmeidler, J., & Huizinga, D. (1991). Concentration of delinquent offending: Serious drug involvement and high delinquency rates. Journal of Drug Issues, 2, 205–229. Krisberg, B., & Howell, J. C. (1998). The impact of the juvenile justice system and prospects for graduated sanctions in a comprehensive strategy. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 346–366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 6, 611–641. Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 86–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313–345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Loeber, R. (1996). Developmental continuity, change, and pathways in male juvenile problem behaviors and delinquency. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 1–27). New York: Cambridge University Press. Loeber, R., Farrington, D., & Waschbusch, D. A. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 13–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lueger, R. J., Howard, K. I., Martinovich, Z., Lutz, W., Anderson, E. E., & Grissom, G. (2001). Assessing treatment progress of individual patients using expected treatment response models. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 150–158. MacKenzie, L. R. (1999). Residential placement of adjudicated youth, 1987–1996 (Fact Sheet 117). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Males, M., & Macallair, D. (2000). The color of justice: An analysis of juvenile adult court transfers in California. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26 years. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179–207. Monahan, J. (1996). Violence prediction: The past twenty and the next twenty years. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 23, 107–120. Murray, C. A., & Cox, L. A. (1979). Beyond probation: Juvenile corrections and the chronic delinquent. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Parton, D. A., Hansel, M., & Stratton, J. R. (1991). Measuring crime seriousness: Lessons from the National Survey of Crime Severity. British Journal of Criminology, 3, 72–83. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). On the relationship between adolescent and adult conviction frequencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 201–225. Pope, C. E., & Feyerherm, W. H. (1990). Minority status and juvenile justice processing: An assessment of the research literature (Parts I and II). Criminal Justice Abstracts, 22, 327–336, 527–542. Pope, C. E., Lovell, R., & Hsia, H. M. (2002). Disproportionate minority confinement: A review of the research literature from 1989 through 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Poulin, F., Dishion, T. J., & Burraston, B. (2001). Threeyear iatrogenic effects associated with aggregating highrisk adolescents in cognitive-behavioral preventive interventions. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 214–224. Roush, D. W. (1996). Juvenile detention training needs assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Salzer, M. S., & Bickman, L. (1997). Delivering effective children’s services in the community: Reconsidering the benefits of system interventions. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 6, 1–13. Schumacher, M., & Kurz, G. A. (2000). The 8% solution: Preventing serious, repeat juvenile crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sellin, T., & Wolfgang, M. E. (1964). The measurement of delinquency. Oxford, England: Wiley. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. DOES THE YOUTH CORRECTIONS SYSTEM WORK? Sexton, T., & Alexander, J. (2000). Functional family therapy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Shamsie, S. J. (1981). Antisocial adolescents: Our treatments do not work—Where do we go from here? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 26, 357–364. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Wei, E., Farrington, D. P., & Wikstroem, P.-O. H. (2002). Risk and promotive effects in the explanation of persistent serious delinquency in boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 111–123. Stylianou, S. (2003). Measuring crime seriousness perceptions: What have we learned and what else do we want to know? Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 37–56. Thornberry, T. P. (1998). Membership in youth gangs and involvement in serious and violent offending. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious & violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 147–166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tolan, P. H., & Gorman Smith, D. (1998). Development of 139 serious and violent offending. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 68–85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tolan, P. H., Gorman Smith, D., Huesmann, L. R., & Zelli, A. (1997). Assessment of family relationship characteristics: A measure to explain risk for antisocial behavior and depression among urban youth. Psychological Assessment, 9, 212–223. Webster, C. D., Douglas, K. S., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. D. (1997). Assessing risk of violence to others. In C. D. Webster & M. A. Jackson (Eds.), Impulsivity: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 251–277). New York: Guilford Press. Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2000). Wilderness challenge programs for delinquent youth: A meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 1–12. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., Tracy, P. E., & Singer, S. I. (1985). National Survey of Crime Severity (Bureau of Justice Statistics Report No. NCJ-96017). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2005, Vol. 36, No. 1, 37– 43 In the public domain DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.36.1.37 Clinical Practice in Corrections: A Conceptual Framework Philip R. Magaletta and Vicki Verdeyen This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Federal Bureau of Prisons Given the rich complexities of clinical practice in corrections, it is surprising that professional psychology lacks a conceptual framework for organizing the knowledge that guides such work. To accommodate the sources of information contributing to this knowledge base, a conceptual framework that informs clinical practice is presented. The framework posits several psychology services, each of which differs in core knowledge and treatment parameters. Implications for training are offered to guide psychologists who contemplate or begin careers in correctional facilities as well as educators and supervisors in training and internship programs who attempt to prepare students for roles as correctional psychologists. each remains incomplete. Unless the novice correctional psychologist has an understanding of an author’s professional orientation or a literature’s professional emphasis, it is easy to confuse definitions and terms that look familiar but actually mean different things. In the words of McGuire (2001), “The field under discussion is replete with conceptual confusions and it is essential to begin by clarifying key terms” (p.122). As an example, a psychologist searching the corrections literature on treatment outcomes might expect to find studies conducted by mental health colleagues using traditional mental health outcomes, such as symptom reduction (i.e., decreased anxiety or depression measured by a lower score on a psychometric assessment). Although several such works might appear, what the psychologist is most likely to encounter is research conducted by sociological or criminological colleagues, with treatment outcomes being operationalized by recidivism or return to criminal conduct, rearrest, or reincarceration. Unfortunately, this problem of conceptual confusion is not limited to the professional literature. A psychologist reading a request for proposals on treatment interventions with offenders might find that the granting agency is interested in a yield of data useful to “correctional practitioners.” In this scenario, the granting agency may actually be referring to the correctional administrators, wardens, or superintendents who direct the prison operation, to the custody staff (correctional officers) who maintain it, or to the clinicians who implement the treatment programs and interventions. Psychologists who do not begin to develop a conversion table or translation may end up entirely lost. Those who do attempt a beginning can be expected to travel quite a long road. One of the great needs of the day is an overarching conceptual framework to organize the diverse bodies of knowledge that currently inform the professional practice of psychology in corrections. Although several authors have alluded to the confusion that stems from the lack of such a conceptual framework (Cooke, 1998; Correia, 2001; Cruser & Diamond, 1996; Gannon, 2004; Lovell, Allen, Johnson, & Jemelka, 2001; Sell, 1955), few have attempted to provide one (see Fagan, 2003; Maier & Fulton, 1998, for notable exceptions). Without such a model, we are forced to assume that clinical practice in corrections is just practicing psychology with clients who simply happen to be living in a prison. With over 1,600 offenders released from jail and prison daily, this type of thinking is problematic for practitioners both in and out of prison (Travis & Given the range of services that they provide, doctoral-level psychologists are one of the most versatile groups of mental health practitioners in today’s correctional environment (Magaletta & Boothby, 2003). Such versatility likely contributes to psychologists’ continued presence as the most frequently employed mental health professionals in America’s jails and prisons (Camp & Camp, 2000). Correctional facilities were among the first institutions in the 1920s to train psychologists as the concept of internship training was born (Morrow, 1946; Routh, 2000). Since that time, the ranks of correctional psychologists have grown from a mere 78 in the 1940s (Burton, 1948) to nearly 2,500 at the turn of the century. Despite these realities, clinical psychologists who enter correctional practice are bewildered that their traditional diagnostic compass and training provide only minimal direction to a small number of those they are asked to treat. Adding to this confusion, psychologists who turn to the literature for guidance soon discover an empirical base that has been cut and pasted from several different professions, each of which has developed its own particular knowledge base in correctional practice. Unfortunately, each knowledge base appears to have grown parallel to the others, and taken alone, PHILIP R. MAGALETTA earned his PhD in clinical psychology from St. Louis University. He has been practicing correctional psychology for 8 years with the Federal Bureau of Prisons and currently serves the agency as clinical training coordinator for the Psychology Services Branch. His areas of research include mental health services delivery to incarcerated populations, telehealth, and organizational approaches to behavioral sciences research in prisons. VICKI VERDEYEN earned her EdD at West Virginia University. She recently retired from the Federal Bureau of Prisons where she worked as a correctional psychologist for 22 years. Her last assignment was as the psychology administrator at the bureau’s headquarters in Washington, DC. Her areas of interest in research are identification of behavioral and mental disorders that increase criminal risk, the neurophysiological aspects of violence, and process evaluation of correctional treatment programs. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED HEREIN are those of the authors only and do not reflect the official policy or opinions of the Department of Justice or the Federal Bureau of Prisons. CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Philip R. Magaletta, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW, Washington, DC 20534. E-mail: pmagaletta@bop.gov 37 MAGALETTA AND VERDEYEN 38 Lawrence, 2002). Having received in-prison mental health and substance abuse services, they will need follow-up services from community practitioners. Furthermore, it is likely that many of these offenders had received psychological services prior to entering prison (Morgan, Rozycki, & Wilson, 2004). The framework presented below provides all psychologists with a fuller understanding of the scientific disciplines contributing to the body of knowledge on criminal behavior and change. On the basis of this understanding, training recommendations for psychologists who contemplate or begin careers in correctional facilities, as well as the educators and supervisors who prepare them, can be pursued. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Conceptual Framework Structure In general, a profession is defined as having a unique body of knowledge, with members who possess specific skills or techniques developed on the basis of this knowledge (Keith-Spiegel & Koocher, 1985). The present framework is constructed to assist doctoral-level psychologists in organizing the knowledge that informs their clinical practice in corrections. It begins by organizing two of the primary clinical practice skill sets that psychologists bring to the environment of a correctional system: direct service provision to clinical populations and the coordination of programs, including administration and supervision of the human service personnel who implement them. The direct service provision skill set for psychologists would likely include screening, assessment, treatment, and follow-up. Boothby and Clements (2000) reported that nearly a quarter of responding correctional psychologists spent their time involved in such activities (direct treatment, 26%; assessment, 18%). The second skill set, the coordination of programs, would most likely find the psychologist engaged in program design, development, implementation (including supervision), administration, and evaluation of prison programs for both clinical and nonclinical populations. Boothby and Clements reported that correctional psychologists spent the largest segment of their time (30%) engaged in such administrative tasks. Although there is much obvious overlap in the knowledge and competencies used in these two skill sets, understanding can be facilitated by examining them as if they were separate and plotting them against one another as a ratio. In doing so, three unique psychology services emerge (see Table 1). The first, mental health services, finds psychologists involved in direct service provision. The ratio of direct to coordinated services is high. At the opposite end of the spectrum, correctional treatment programs do not necessarily require direct service provision from psychologists. However, they typically can and do benefit from large amounts of program coordination/supervision from them. Between mental health services and correctional treatment programs are mental health treatment programs. In corrections, these programs traditionally require equal amounts of direct service provision and coordination/supervision of services from psychologists. Arranging these three psychology services as vertical coordinates, descriptive dimensions can be added horizontally to form the framework matrix (see Table 2). These descriptive dimensions are added to facilitate an understanding of the professional orientation (literature base, professional discipline, theoretical models), the focus of the interventions (treatment target, outcome measure), and mechanisms of the change process (therapeutic modality, change agent, assessment content and instruments) for each psychology service. In the narrative overview that follows, these dimensions are woven through each psychology service to highlight their similarities and differences. Conceptual Framework Content Mental Health Services (MHSs) Contemporary models of training and service delivery for psychologists are most closely aligned with this psychology service. The literature and academic sponsors aligned under MHSs are typically medical and psychological in nature. As such, the professional disciplines supporting these services are psychiatry and psychology (clinical and counseling). Professional psychologists and psychiatrists are typically trained to serve individuals with moderate-to-severe and persistent mental health disorders, regardless of the context in which the disorders appear. While the theoretical models that undergird the majority of MHSs are continually emerging, the prevailing models are biological and biopsycho-social in nature. They inform an approach to change that is predicated on a thorough understanding of physiologically based psychopathological conditions. The focus of interventions in MHSs includes identifying and assisting in the stabilization of individuals with mental health disorders and reducing the frequency and intensity of their symptoms (Morgan, 2003). In this service, offenders may present themselves for treatment, but referrals are equally likely to be made to the psychologist by other correctional line staff (correctional case managers, unit officers, etc.), each of whom have daily interactions with offenders and can thus monitor their behavior and changes in it. Less often, other offenders who are trying to manage life with a mentally ill cell mate will make the referral for the one who is ill. A frequently sought outcome in this service is increased general adaptive functioning. In corrections, this might include educating an individual with a serious mental illness in how to manage their medications so that they can hold a job in the prison or remain in a general population unit where they will be least restricted. Mechanisms of change that are typically found in MHSs include a Table 1 Ratios of Direct Service Versus Coordination or Supervision of Service for Three Types of Care Service skill set Direct services Program coordination and supervision of services Mental health treatment programs Correctional treatment programs high moderate low low low moderate moderate high high Mental health services CLINICAL PRACTICE IN CORRECTIONS 39 Table 2 Informing Clinical Practice in Corrections: A Conceptual Framework Core dimension Mental health treatment programs Literature base/professional discipline Psychiatry Psychology Psychology Criminal justice Theoretical model Biological Bio-psycho-social Stabilization of mental health symptoms (DSM-IV-TR driven) Degree of functioning Reduced number/severity of mental health symptoms and increased functionality Medication Therapeutic relationship ESTs Mostly individual case management Bio-psycho-social Social learning Moderate impact on risk and acting-out behaviors (diagnostic criteria and related to criminogenic need) Relapse prevention Treatment target Outcome measure This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Mental health services Change agent Therapeutic modality Assessment content Assessment instruments Confirm medical diagnosis Level of functional impairment MMPI–2 Structured Clinical Interview Correctional treatment programs Criminal justice Sociology Psychology Social learning Skills deficits Reduce risk of criminality (criminogenic need) Recidivism Cognitive–behavioral principles Therapeutic relationship Education (risk factor reduction), lifestyle change Group therapy Psychoeducation in cohorts Some case management Namely behaviors and risk/need Psychoeducation in cohorts Short form measures (i.e., BDI) LSI-R/risk/need interviews Criminogenic risk/need Note. DSM–IV–TR ⫽ Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision; American Psychiatric Association, 2002); ESTs ⫽ empirically supported treatments; MMPI-2 ⫽ Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Interview–2 (Butcher et al., 1989); BDI ⫽ Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1987); LSI-R ⫽ Levels of Service Inventory–Revised (Andrews & Bonta, 1995). mix of biological and psychophysiological agents, as well as relationship-based therapeutic techniques. The therapeutic modalities used are individual in nature and include psychiatric consultations, individual psychotherapy, psychosocial rehabilitation, and case management. Assessment needs for MHSs are likely to be focused on exploring, confirming, or denying a medical diagnosis based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; American Psychiatric Association, 2002). Instruments frequently used for diagnosis include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory⫺2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989), the Personality Assessment Inventory (Morey, 1991), and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III (Millon, 1994). Again, the symptom constellations that form those diagnoses are in themselves treatment targets. Correctional Treatment Programs (CTPs) CTPs are a direct contrast to MHSs and the most obvious source for conceptual confusion among psychologists. CTPs lie at the opposite end of the direct service spectrum, needing the least direct clinical expertise and the most coordination, supervision, research, and administrative expertise of the psychologist. These programs are aimed at impacting an offender’s propensity toward future criminality. Under the guidance of the professions within and the academic mantles of sociology, criminology, and to a lesser extent, psychology (both social and clinical) the literature base and subsequent empirical understanding of criminality has flourished over the past several decades. To understand the architecture of correctional systems (as opposed to mental health systems), it is worth noting that most current correctional approaches have been derived exclusively from the sciences of sociology and criminology. These disciplines traditionally study crime as a social problem. Sociologists study people, their groups (e.g., family of origin, peer groups, and social systems), and their institutions (e.g., education and health care). Criminology is the sociological study of crimes, including patterns of crimes (e.g., youth gangs, drug arrests). Consistent with the traditions of these disciplines, the explanations for crime are anchored in the aspects of society that they study(e.g., low socioeconomic settings, broken homes, levels of education, illegal gun purchases, drug arrests). The critical point for professional psychologists to grasp is that much of the literature in these domains has to do with criminality and the correlates of crimes, as opposed to how to change behaviors. Simply stated, the professionals within sociology and criminology are students of crime, not necessarily students of change. The literature base providing knowledge on criminality may be referenced in many ways. For the practitioner, the most relevant information will emerge from the literatures on static and dynamic criminality risk factors, the personal, intrapersonal, communityreinforcement perspective (Andrews & Bonta, 1998), criminal thinking (Samenow, 1984), and criminal lifestyles (Walters, 1990). What tends to link the various theoretical models emerging from this literature and undergirding the psychological relevance of CTPs are that they view criminal behavior as being caused by criminal attitudes. Therefore, the theories of change in CTPs emanate either from social-learning and cognitive skills theories or from cognitive– behavioral theories of change (Glick, 2003). Interventions in CTPs are typically designed to increase offenders’ institutional adjustment, or the likelihood that they will follow the rules, and to reduce criminal recidivism, thus increasing the likelihood that they will follow the law after their release from This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 40 MAGALETTA AND VERDEYEN prison. Recidivism itself tends to be the gold standard that is referenced most frequently in this literature as a treatment outcome. Aspects of offenders’ lives that are highly related to engagement in criminal activities are referred to as criminogenic needs. A criminogenic need is a risk factor that, once positively influenced (in this case, through a therapeutic change process), can result in less likelihood of future criminal behaviors. Criminogenic needs thus serve as primary treatment targets for CTPs. Among the current list of empirically supported criminogenic needs are criminal associates, antisocial attitudes, and violence (Andrews & Bonta, 1998). Among the many examples of these types of programs, the Thinking for a Change Program (Bush, Glick, & Taymans, 1997) has been widely disseminated. Perhaps driven by the reality that many offenders possess some degree of future criminal risk, CTPs are usually applied to a large number of offenders, thus necessitating a group modality. Referrals to such groups are usually made by the offenders themselves or by the offenders’ case-management team, which recommends the program as a way of building on the offenders’ chance of postrelease success. The mechanism of change in CTPs is the proper imparting of information and skills to the offender, usually termed psychoeducation. Reviewing the literature in this area, it is clear that the primary agents of change in these programs are the information imparted and skills taught, not necessarily the relationship to or the person doing the imparting. In terms of assessment, CTPs have witnessed unprecedented growth over the past 10 years. There is now a well-developed core of theoretically relevant constructs and instruments to measure them. Andrews and Bonta (1998) provide a comprehensive review of these assessments and conceptually group them into instruments that predict risk (of recidivism and dangerousness or violent recidivism), instruments that assist in classification of treatment need (i.e., third-generation risk–needs assessment instruments), and instruments that aid in classification for custody levels and treatment need (personality-based approaches to assessment and classification). serve as a criteria for diagnostic inclusion (e.g., antisocial personality disorder). With disinhibited behaviors being a target for treatment efforts, outcomes are usually measured and associated with some form of relapse prevention or limitation of the degree of disinhibition. As with the range of theoretical constructs that inform change in this area, the mechanisms of change used in MHTPs are varied. Although cognitive– behavioral principles and relationship-based change theories are well represented, a fair degree of self-help and strict behavioral change programs may also be found. In many instances, a range and combination of treatment approaches are offered under the rubric of an intensive treatment program. This range of approaches is further shown by the therapeutic modalities used. Group psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and intensive case management all feed a therapeutic matrix that supports the change process. Exemplary models of such treatment are reviewed in a recent article by Martin, Inciardi, and O’Connell (2003). Finally, although referral sources for this service include the offender and case-management team, MHTPs also introduce the concept of judicial recommendation. In MHTPs, it is not uncommon for judges to be actively involved in making concurrent recommendations for sentence length and program referrals, particularly for programs that address substance abuse or sexual deviance. Assessment instruments in this domain are usually given in battery form and include both criminogenic needs inventories and instruments that yield information on issues of particular diagnostic relevance (i.e., drug abuse inventories, sex-offender risk instruments). Compared with both CTPs and MHSs, MHTPs themselves tend to be relatively well evaluated. Perhaps this is because the unique treatment targets under this rubric place them at the mouth of dual-funding streams that typically request outcome-based evaluations of program performance (i.e., public health and human services as well as public safety agencies both provide monies for such programs; Peters & Matthews, 2003). Mental Health Treatment Programs (MHTPs) With the conceptual framework now fully expanded, training recommendations can be delineated. Some of these recommendations push toward integration or bridge building among the various services. Other recommendations encourage educators and supervisors to maintain the services as separate entities to facilitate a fuller understanding in their trainees of how and when to integrate them. Ultimately, it becomes clear that each service offers different strengths to be pursued and various limitations to be compensated. Supervision remains imperative to sound and effective clinical practice in corrections. Given the complexity of the knowledge base, the dangers and stresses intrinsic to correctional environments, and the reality that many clinicians in prison coordinate the work of others, it is critical that ongoing supervision be received. Conversely, it remains a top priority that educators and supervisors regularly review the quality of the supervision they are providing. If psychologists retain the reflective function of the profession and advance this current field of practice, it will be only because they paused and sought guidance on the best and most efficient ways of dealing with the complex realities behind the wall. In addition to the content of their work, which is considered below, certain themes ought to appear or be queried for regularly These programs provide a conceptual link and a middle ground between the two aforementioned services. This link is evidenced by the fact that criminologists, psychologists, and psychiatrists— and each of their respective academic sponsors—all contribute to the literature in this area. MHTPs clearly benefit from the marriage of psychological principles and criminal justice empiricism to effect change in offenders. The theoretical models informing this approach to change truly borrow from sociological, criminological, biological, social learning, bio-psycho-social, and cognitive– behavioral domains. The treatment targets for MHTPs are most globally conceptualized as diagnosable, psychopathological conditions that are also empirically linked to and supported as criminogenic need and risk factors. These targets are acting-out or disinhibited types of behaviors that are captured by both the criminogenic and mental health domains. For example, substance abuse and impulsivity are correlated with criminal activity—as well as having the potential to be represented diagnostically. In other instances, the behavioral manifestation of the pathological condition itself may be criminal (e.g., pedophilia). In yet a third variant, criminal activity itself may Implications for Training This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. CLINICAL PRACTICE IN CORRECTIONS in the supervision of those practicing in corrections. For example, how do psychologists, heavily trained in change models that emphasize rapport building, accommodate the reality that their patients may not be trustworthy or may be deceiving them (Meloy, 1996)? How do psychologists accommodate the often difficult and complex realities of working within a bureaucracy (Maier & Fulton, 1998)? How does one promote the idea of waiting during an ongoing assessment or waiting for treatment effects when one practices in an action-oriented environment (Magaletta & Boothby, 2003)? How does the clinician retain empathy and work with offenders who refuse treatment (for themselves) but still require management (for the protection of themselves or others)? Educators and clinical supervisors should remain sensitive to the different assessment methods, treatment modalities, and target outcomes of the psychological services and should continually highlight these for their trainees. The framework implies that training for clinical practice in corrections will require educators and supervisors to raise the consciousness of trainees, helping them to become aware of the multiple dimensions and avenues of knowledge that should be informing their work within the correctional system. In their survey of internship training opportunities in correctional psychology, Ax and Morgan (2002) reported that 83% of surveyed programs relied on a generalist training model. Building on the foundation of a well-trained generalist, it is essential that a competency in understanding when, where, and how to use each service or a combination of the aforementioned psychology services be further developed. The novice clinician who remains trained as a generalist, with no exposure to these multiple psychology services will probably not have the breadth of knowledge needed to deliver the appropriate type and level of psychology services to offenders or to determine the appropriate levels of management and security needed to protect others. Conversely, those whose training has overemphasized a correctional subspecialty, say in forensic risk assessments, are not likely to be as helpful in mainstream corrections, where the majority of the current job market lies. For psychologists new to correctional work, the MHS domain of the framework will sound simplistic and intuitive because, for them, it is. However, it is the ease with which such clinicians understand this domain—it is almost automatic—that makes it exceedingly difficult for them not to think this way about all psychology services in corrections. Those training for or new to correctional work must become aware of this automatic way of thinking about patients if they are to expand the scope of their clinical thought, understanding, and repertoire and thus apply it effectively to other areas of correctional practice with offenders. Given that the majority of their training experiences are likely to have occurred in MHSs, novice psychologists may need redirection as they seek to apply mental health constructs to CTPs. In such instances, introducing the current framework may be helpful. It would allow a supervisor to iterate the distinctions and differences between the various services with the framework, highlighting that the CTP method is psychoeducational and that, if screening and assessment are going to be attempted, a criminogenic test battery might be of most use. Once these types of conceptual distinctions are mastered by the novice psychologist, supervisors can expect that the servicecoordination skill set needed in CTPs and MHTPs will require extra attention. Ax and Morgan (2002) reported that only 13% of 41 surveyed correctional internships offered any experience in administration (an intrinsic aspect of program coordination). This contrasts sharply with the amount of time that the novice psychologist can ultimately expect to devote to such endeavors (Boothby & Clements, 2000). Teaching the skills and imparting the value of proper CTP and MHTP program coordination (to include program implementation, curriculum development, evaluation of program effectiveness, and supervision of other treatment staff) will likely require a judicious use of supervision, on-the-job training, continuing education, and encouragement to seek out, communicate with, and learn from others who have developed, coordinated, and sustained effective programs themselves. Psychologists who can integrate the various knowledge domains are needed to establish informed and comprehensive behavioral science research agendas. As was stated earlier, there is a gap in the correctional practice literature. Several unique knowledge domains have grown parallel to one another. Taken alone, each remains incomplete. It is our contention that psychologists themselves (and particularly those who are educating and supervising the next generation of psychologists who enter clinical practice in corrections) are in a unique position to bridge this gap, fostering integration of the knowledge bases. For example, most psychologists are appropriately matched to apply the methods of psychotherapy outcomes research (most likely under the rubric of MHTPs) to groups of high-risk criminal offenders. Most lucidly stated by Wormith and Olver (2002), “one is reminded that getting higher risk offenders into treatment is one thing and that keeping them there is another” (p. 449). Under the rubric of CTPs, psychologists and criminologists alike have done a stellar job of creating instruments that identify the factors leading to the highest likelihood of recidivism (the risk principle). However, it remains true that the factors leading to accurate classification of highest risk also lead to treatment attrition and failure (Wormith & Olver, 2002). A greater understanding of the change process for offenders in prison, the factors leading to treatment attrition, motivational styles, resistance, and methods for measuring these phenomena (see Norcross, 2002, for a comprehensive review) are urgently needed. Program evaluation research in the three service areas has yet to elucidate the impact of the therapists ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment