|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this article by Hartstone and Cocozza was to examine the impact of the Court Related Unit (CRU) pilot program on the post-release experiences of its youths. CRU was established as a joint effort between the New York Department of Mental Hygiene, and the New York State Division for Youth for the treatment of violent and mentally disordered juveniles.
METHODOLOGY:
This study was a quasi-experimental design, using an exclusive population of youths eligible for and treated at the CRU. To be eligible for this program the youths had to have committed a violent offense which included either a 1st or 2nd degree act of Murder, Man-slaughter, Rape, Sodomy, Arson, Robbery or Kidnapping. Others could be admitted if they were officially adjudicated a delinquent and displayed a "pattern of violence against the person."
The experimental group included youths treated in the CRU program. The comparison group was eligible for the program, but upon further evaluation, (levels of violence and mental illness), this groups members were not accepted into the CRU program.
The experimental and comparison groups matched on average age at 15.5 years, 75% were black or hispanic, and 78% did not live with both natural parents. There were major differences noted between the two groups. Comparison group subjects were four times as likely to have no prior court records and twice as likely to have no prior judgements. Where as the CRU youths were more likely to have a prior petition for violent offenses, and were three times as likely to be diagnosed as psychotic. Other differences were pointed out in the study. The authors cautioned that these two groups were similar, but that the comparison group was not a control group.
Data was collected using official records and follow-up interviews for all youths released by CRU before April 30, 1979 (n=34). The same procedure was used for the subjects of the comparison group (n=42). Follow-up interviews focused on social and psychological adjustment and the youths assessment of their prior treatment. The youths were ask questions which included their own assessment of their ability to integrate with the community and their family, their feelings of being stigmatized, and any indications of abnormal behavior. Only 24 of 34 CRU youths and 27 of 42 comparison youths participated. Additional arrest and incarceration rate information was collected from official state and city agencies.
Analysis included comparisons of percentages and sample means in the areas of placement, duration, adjustment and recidivism. Because this study included the whole population of youths at the CRU as well as those eligible for entrance, the authors did not feel it necessary to use tests of significance when comparing these groups.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
Even though the sample was small, evidence suggested that the program had a positive impact on the CRU youths. The CRU youths had more serious histories than the comparison group, yet the CRU group managed better upon returning to the community. The CRU youths had fewer arrests, and when they were arrested it was under less violent circumstances than the comparison group. The CRU youths also felt less stigmatized, had higher self-esteem, and had better family relations than the comparison group. The authors caution that the differences seen were not always great, but given the differences in the two group's histories, even the slight improvement of the CRU groups recovery rates over the comparison groups was a strong indicator that the program was more successful than other alternative programs.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors wanted to make it clear that their findings were not an answer to the problems of juvenile violence. They reminded the reader that their study is only one case study, and that cost effectiveness should be considered when implementing a program such as CRU. Additionally, the authors stated that this type of program is only a small part of the bigger picture on the continuum of care that needs to be available when treating troubled youths. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - New York
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Juvenile Treatment
KW - Juvenile Mental Health
KW - Mental Health Treatment
KW - Treatment Effectiveness Evaluation
KW - Treatment Program
KW - Program Effectiveness
KW - Program Evaluation
KW - Offender Treatment
KW - Community Reintegration
KW - Violence Intervention
KW - Intervention Program
KW - Violence Treatment
Language: en |