Perpetrators of our nation’s violent and income-generating
crimes like robbery, burglary, or theft are more often
than not illegal drug users. According to ADAM data, in
27 of the 34 sites reporting arrestee drug use data, over 60
percent of male adults had positive drug test results for at
least of the following: cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine,
opiates, and/or PCP. The average rate for female
adults was 67 percent in 1999, up three percent from
1998 data. Overall, however, most sites reported slight
differences in drug use among male and female arrestees
from 1998 to 1999.22
The nation’s incarcerated population is now more than 2
million.23 While the number of offenders in each major
offense category increased, the number incarcerated in federal
prisons for a drug offense accounted for the largest
percentage of the total growth (63 percent). Public-order
offenders accounted for 26 percent of the increase; violent
offenders, 6 percent, and property offenders, 1 percent.24 Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constitute the largest group of federal inmates (58 percent) in 1998, up from 53
percent in 1990. As of September, 1998, when the last
data was collected, federal prisons held 63,011 sentenced
drug offenders, compared to 30,470 at yearend 1990.
Criminal justice policy-makers have begun to realize
how important it is to provide substance abuse treatment
for drug-offenders while they are incarcerated and after
their release into the community. It is no longer viewed as
just a public health issue or the “right thing to do.” Correctional
administrators have experienced the public
safety and cost-saving benefits of providing these services
in a continuum of care. Given the number of parole violators
who are returned to prison for drug offenses,
however, there is still much work to be done.
Correctional administrators and treatment providers alike
look to the field of research and science to support their
criminal justice policies. Delaware researchers have
expended a great deal of effort to provide evidence that a
“continuum of primary (in prison), secondary (work release)
and tertiary (aftercare) therapeutic community treatment
for drug-involved offenders” is effective in reducing incidents
of relapse and recidivism. Past research had indicated
substantial decreases in these two areas for offenders in the
year after completing work release when they had participated
in primary and secondary treatment. Unfortunately
these results do not appear to last into their third year of
release. The positive effects of the substance abuse programs
are enhanced significantly when the offenders participate
actively in the therapeutic communities, complete the programs,
and obtain follow-up treatment as with aftercare.
“Clients who complete secondary treatment do better than
those with no treatment or program dropouts, and those
who receive aftercare do even better in remaining drug-and
arrest-free.”25
Results were similar for researchers studying in-prison
therapeutic community treatment in Texas. “This study
examined re-incarceration records for 394 nonviolent
offenders during the 3 years following prison. Those who
completed both ITC and aftercare were least likely to be
re-incarcerated (25 percent), compared to 64 percent of
the aftercare dropouts and 42 percent of the untreated
comparison groups. Furthermore, those who completed
high-severity aftercare were re-incarcerated only half as
often as those in the aftercare dropout and comparison
groups (26 percent vs. 66 percent and 52 percent). The
findings support the effectiveness of intensive treatment
when it is integrated with aftercare, and the benefits are
most apparent for offenders with more serious crime and
drug-related problems.”26
Substance Abuse Treatment for
Incarcerated Offenders
Both state and federal agencies have established substance-abuse treatment programs in correctional
institutions. Incarcerating offenders without treating
underlying substance abuse simply defers the time when
addicts return to the streets and start harming themselves
and the larger society. As a crime-control measure alone,
drug treatment for criminally active addicts is strikingly
cost-effective. It offers the potential of reducing crime by
two-thirds at about half the cost of incarceration alone.
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the
number of federal inmates receiving residential substance
abuse treatment increased from 1,236 in 1991 to
12,541in 2000. BOP provides drug treatment for inmates
prior to release. In FY 2000, four existing residential drug
abuse treatment programs expanded capacity, and three
institutions opened new residential drug abuse treatment
programs bringing the number of institutions providing
residential drug abuse treatment to 47, up from 32 in
1994. In FY 2000, over 40, 000 inmates received some
sort of drug abuse service. Six female institutions currently house residential drug abuse treatment programs
and two more female sites will be implemented by the
end of FY 2002. The Federal Medical Center (FMC) in
Carswell, Texas also includes a specialized program for
female inmates with co-occurring disorders. In 2000, over
44,500 inmates participated in all types of BOP drug
treatment services. Since 1992, the number exceeds
230,000.
A joint BOP/NIDA study is examining the program
and has provided a report addressing the first 36 months
after release from custody. Unlike most studies of prison
treatment effects, the BOP/NIDA study employs sophisticated
methods (e.g., weighting) to remove any possible
selection bias and is more likely than other studies to
underreport treatment effects. Nonetheless, the study
found that, after 36 months, the male treatment population
was 19 percent less likely to be re-arrested on a new
offense and 16 percent less likely to use drugs than a comparison
group that received no treatment. The male
treatment population was 16 percent less likely to be rearrested
or revoked for parole violation. The female
treatment population was 18 percent less likely to be rearrested
or revoked and 18 percent less likely to use drugs.
The female treatment population was employed about 70
percent of the time, during the 36 months, the control
group employed about 60 percent of the time. These
results demonstrate savings in incarceration costs, an
extended period of public safety for the community, and
an increased contribution to local economies.
The Corrections Program Office (CPO) of the U.S.
Department of Justice has funded state projects for substance
abuse treatment through Residential Substance
Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for State Prisoners grants. In
addition, states may use 10 percent of the funds they
receive through the formula Violent Offender Incarceration/
Truth In Sentencing Grant Program (VOI/TIS) for
aftercare components of their treatment programs. One
example of these projects is Delaware’s in-prison program
which has provided institutional and transitional drug
treatment since the late 1980s. State correctional authorities
provide reports to CPO annually that demonstrate
the effectiveness of these programs. These reports include
drug testing results as well as data they have obtained
regarding recidivism rates for the offenders who participated
and completed their programs. In 1998, 555,153
urine specimens were collected from 1,099,131 inmates.
530,237 of these specimens tested negative for drugs. In
1999, of the 1,121,981 specimens tested from 1,139,373
inmates, 1,084,880 tested negative for illegal drugs. Of
the states able to report any data on recidivism (some programs
have not been in operation long enough to have
data on recidivism), an average of 94.2 percent exinmates
who participated in RSAT treatment were conviction free
one year after release.
Providing Treatment in Prisons and
Jails
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 6.3
million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on
parole at the end of 1999—3.1 percent of all U.S. adult
residents. State and federal prison authorities had under
their jurisdiction 1,366,721 inmates at the end of 1999.
Local jails held or supervised 687,973 persons awaiting
trial or serving a sentence at the middle of 1999. Between
1990 and 1999, the incarcerated population grew an average
5.7 percent annually. Population growth during 1999
was significantly lower in State prisons (up 2.1 percent)
and local jails (up 2.3 percent) than in previous years. The
population in custody of federal prison authorities rose by
13.4 percent.27
Substance abuse has a much higher prevalence among
the offender population than among the general population.
Yet only a fraction of substance-abusing offenders in
correctional facilities have access to much-needed treatment.
A BJS study found that 57 percent of state
prisoners and 45 percent of federal prisoners surveyed in
1997 said they had used drugs in the month before their
offense—up from 50 percent and 32 percent reported in
the 1991 survey. Thirty-three percent of state and 22 percent
of federal prisoners said they committed their current
offense while under the influence of drugs, and about one
in six of both state and federal inmates said they committed
their offense to get money for drugs. About
three-quarters of all prisoners can be characterized as
being involved with alcohol or drug abuse in the time
leading up to their arrest. Among those prisoners who had
been using drugs in the month before their offense, 15
percent of both state and federal inmates said they had
received professional drug abuse treatment during their
current prison term — down from a third of such prisoners
in 1991.
To ensure that gains made during treatment in prison
continue after release, OJP requires that preference be
given to programs with aftercare as an essential component.
Aftercare services should involve coordination
between the correctional treatment program and other
human service and rehabilitation programs, such as education
and job training, parole supervision, halfway
houses, and self-help and peer group programs that may
aid in rehabilitation. Although programs such as aftercare
are not eligible for RSAT funding, states are required to
ensure coordination between correctional representatives
and alcohol and drug abuse agencies at the state and, if
appropriate, local levels.
Dual Diagnosis/Dual Disorder
Effective treatment addresses a range of issues. Many
juvenile and adult offenders who abuse or are dependent
on drugs and alcohol also have co-occurring mental disorders,
primary health care needs, and a host of related
housing, employment, and social service needs. More and
more our jails and prisons are experiencing the entry of
people with mental illness. A key factor influencing this
trend, among many others, is the desinstitutionalization
of State mental hospitals beginning 30 years ago when
there was, and still is, a dearth of community mental
health centers with needed resources to expand treatment.
Thus, many seriously mentally ill people end up in the
criminal justice system, as well as on the streets.
Many of these individuals self-medicate with illegal
drugs or as a result of their untreated mental disorders may
behave in a disorderly way. By mid-year 1998, approximately
283,800 offenders with mental illness were being
held in prisons and jails in the United States, and 547,800
offenders with mental illness were on probation. They are
more likely than other inmates to be in prison for a violent
offense (53 percent to 46 percent respectively) and are less
likely than others to be incarcerated for a drug related
offense (12 percent to 22 percent respectively). Even so,
about 60 percent of mentally ill offenders state that they
were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of
their current offense. The combination of the condition of
mental illness and the concurrent use of substances is frequently
the precursor to disorderly behavior, not the
simple presence of mental illness by itself.
Who are these offenders with mental illness? These
individuals have reported relatively high rates of previous
physical and sexual abuse, loss of one or both parents
from the primary caretaking role, serious problems with
alcohol and drug abuse in one or both parents, and early
developmental expressions of symptoms that may indicate
emotional disorders that are typically unaddressed and
untreated. Treatment programs will have to focus on the
mental health needs of such offenders with the same
intensity that they address substance abuse issues. The
two disorders are so closely linked that treatment requires
attention to both issues. This is both a public safety issue
as well as one of public health and humane treatment.
Drug Free-Prison Zone
The Drug Free-Prison Zone demonstration project is
being conducted jointly by ONDCP, the National Institute
of Corrections, and BOP to interdict and control the
availability of drugs in prisons. The program combines
policy, testing, technology, treatment, and training,
including a program of regular inmate drug testing, the
use of advanced technologies (e.g., ion spectrometry) for
detection of drugs entering facilities, and the training of
correctional officers and other institutional staff.
Twenty-eight BOP facilities are participating and gathering
information on visitor screening, inmate drug
testing, and five types of inmate misconduct. Interim
results from the BOP show that through June 2000, over
140,000 visitors had been screened using a drug detection
device and over 3,000 (2.6 percent) tested positive for one
or more drugs and thus were denied the opportunity to
visit. At the 28 institutions where visitor screening for visitors
is being conducted, before and after comparisons of
randomly tested inmates show substantial decreases (23
percent or more) in drug detections in medium security,
low security, and administrative facilities. Among inmates
tested in the suspect category (past history of drug use,
etc.), drug detections were down substantially (22 percent
or more) in highs, mediums, and administrative facilities.
Other types of misconduct such as fighting, assaults, alcohol
use, etc. were down somewhat in medium security
facilities and considerably in administrative facilities.
Eight states (Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida,
Kansas, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) began participating
in January 1999 and are employing a variety of
education, training, interdiction, and treatment measures.
The states have reviewed approaches to drug detection
previously unknown to them. California has linked technology
and intelligence with law-enforcement agencies
such as DEA, leading to arrests. New Jersey has created a
highly effective mobile interdiction team that moves
among state prisons. New York and Maryland are linking
treatment with enforcement efforts. All states are putting
comprehensive policies in place and making extensive use
of testing and detection equipment. The initiative is being
independently evaluated.
Operating Standards for Prison-Based
Therapeutic Communities (TCs)
The field testing of operating standards was conducted
by Therapeutic Communities of America (TCA), with
ONDCP support. The resulting document was made
available in December 1999. This is a groundbreaking
contribution that brings a new level of discipline to practitioner
discussion of drug treatment. This comprehensive
set of operating standards for prison-based TCs—over
120 standards across 11 program domains—has now
been validated in operational prison settings. In its present
form, the standards document provides a blueprint
for state and local leaders, and it will eventually be put
into a format appropriate for use by national accrediting
organizations. The document is available at the National
Assembly Star on the ONDCP Web site.
Substance-Abuse Treatment
Provided with Community
Supervision
In 1996, states and localities spent over $27 billion in
corrections, of which $22 billion was used for prison operations
alone. The average annual cost per inmate was
$20,142, ranging from a low of $8,000 to a high of
$37,800. For the federal system, the annual cost per inmate
was $23,500.28 By comparison, probation and parole costs
in 1997 ranged from $1,110 per year for regular supervision
to $3,470 for intensive supervision, and $3,630 for
electronic supervision. Cost variation is explained primarily
by caseload. The average caseload for regular probation was
175, and sixty-nine for regular parole. Average caseloads for
intensive supervision probation and parole were thirty-four
and twenty-nine, respectively; electronic supervision was
twenty and eighteen.
Using the Federal Bureau of Prisons as a representative
program, the annual cost of residential and transitional
treatment and services was estimated at $3,000 per
inmate. Generally accepted estimates of annual treatment
costs per person in the community are: regular outpatient,
$1,800; intensive outpatient, $2,500; short-term residential,
$4,400; and long-term residential, $6,800.
Combining the most expensive community supervision
with the most expensive treatment yields an estimated
average cost of $10,430 per person per year compared to
$20,142 for incarceration alone, and $23,142 for incarceration
combined with treatment and transitional
services. Drug courts, TASC, BTC, and Zero-Tolerance
have all helped make community supervision and
treatment more effective.
Criminal Justice Treatment Networks
CSAT’s Criminal/Juvenile Justice Treatment Networks
(CJTN) project, a five-year systems integration initiative
launched in FY95, continued its fifth year of federal funding
in FY99. The networks have developed an integrated system
of intake, supervision, and treatment across justice agencies
for adult and juvenile offenders in eight metropolitan jurisdictions.
In this past year, the networks expanded services
and partnerships. In FY 1999, SAMHSA/CSAT published
Strategies for Integrating Substance Abuse Treatment and Juvenile
Justice Systems: A Practice Guide, which describes the
range of substance-abuse treatment services provided in
juvenile justice settings.
Drug Courts
Drug courts divert drug offenders out of jails or prisons
and refer them to community treatment. Drug courts seek
to reduce drug use and associated criminal behavior by
retaining drug-involved offenders in treatment. Defendants
who complete the program either have their charges dismissed
(in a diversion or pre-sentence model) or probation
sentences reduced (in a post-sentence model). Title V of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(P.L. 103-322) authorizes the Attorney General to make
grants to state and local governments to establish drug
courts. As of October 31, 2000, 593 drug courts were operating
nationwide, including adult, juvenile, tribal, and
family drug courts. Also, as of October 31, 2000, 456 were
in planning stages, up from a dozen in 1994.29
Drug courts have been an important step forward in
diverting non-violent offenders with drug problems into
treatment and other community resources, leaving the
criminal justice system to address violent acts. Fifty-seven
thousand people have graduated from drug courts since
their inception. A review of thirty evaluations involving
twenty-four drug courts found that these facilities keep
felony offenders in treatment or other structured services
at roughly double the retention rate of community drug
programs. Drug courts provide closer supervision than
other treatment programs and substantially reduce drug
use and criminal behavior among participants.30
CSAT is piloting three Family Drug Courts projects in
which alcohol and other drug treatment, combined with
intervention and support services for children and families,
are integrated into the legal processing of the family’s
case. In some jurisdictions there is coordination between
the criminal courts and the civil Family Drug Court.
Family Drug Courts should be able to help states comply
with the Adoption and Safe Families Adoption Act of
1997, P.L. 105-89. Family Drug Courts will substantially
reduce the time taken for final disposition of abuse and
neglect cases and will increase the percentage of family
reunification.
Treatment Accountability for Safer
Communities (TASC)
Created in the early 1970s and originally named Treatment
Alternatives to Street Crime, TASC has
demonstrated that the coercive power of the criminal justice
system can be used to get individuals into treatment
and manage their behavior without undue risk to communities.
Through TASC, some drug offenders are
diverted out of the criminal justice system into community-
based supervision. Others receive treatment as part of
probation, and still others are placed into transitional services
as they leave an institutional program. TASC
monitors client progress and compliance—including
expectations for abstinence, employment, and improved
personal and social functioning—and reports results to
the referring criminal justice agency.31
Breaking the Cycle (BTC)
BTC encompasses the integrated application of testing,
assessment, referral, supervision, treatment and rehabilitation,
routine progress reports to maintain judicial oversight,
graduated sanctions for noncompliance, relapse prevention
and skill building, and structured transition back into the
mainstream community. Since its inception in Birmingham,
Alabama in June 1997, 8,891 assessments have been
conducted on felony offenders to ascertain treatment needs.
Currently, 1,676 offenders are active within the BTC Program.
Over 72,447 drug tests have been performed on
offenders, and over 6,652 treatment referrals have been
made at the point of assessment. A bond has been implemented
requiring felony offenders to report to TASC within
48 hours for assessment and urinalysis. The period of time
that elapsed between a BTC offender’s entry into the system
and his/her TASC assessment has dropped from 24 days in
December 1997 to four days in August 1999. Disposition
alternatives including the deferred and expedited dockets
have been established. These sentencing options were
designed to utilize BTC compliance information to qualify
defendants for early dispositions. By diverting these cases
prior to the grand jury, circuit court docket space is available
for jail cases. These expedited calendars have allowed Birmingham
to postpone construction of a new jail pending full
review of needs.
According to results of the 1998 Arrestee Drug Abuse
Monitoring Program, 64 percent of male offenders were
positive for drug use at the time of arrest. In contrast, only
23 percent of BTC offenders tested positive during routine
random urinalysis after intervention had occurred.
Retention rates have exceeded 70 percent and the rearrest
rate has remained in the single digits. A Policy and Advisory
Oversight Committee composed of criminal justice
system representatives has proactively identified systemic
barriers and made substantial steps to develop solutions,
including the development of a management information
system to automate the assessment, offender tracking, and
drug testing functions of the TASC effort.
An outcome evaluation of Birmingham BTC, conducted
by the Urban Institute, found arrests, illegal
activities, drug use, family problems, and employment
problems significantly lower for the BTC population than
for the control group. Other findings of potential significance:
many drug using offenders do not require formal
treatment and can be managed with testing and monitoring
alone; and the use of formal sanctions has a significant
positive impact on compliance.
For Fiscal Year 2001, the Jefferson County Council set
aside $1.4 million in state and local funds to continue the
innovations begun under BTC, effectively transitioning
the program from Federal grant to locally-owned initiative.
In addition, Birmingham received $150,000 from
the Bureau of Justice Assistance to implement a mental
health court. The assessment, screening, and judicial oversight
features of this court were patterned after those
initiated under BTC.
In 1998, three additional jurisdictions were selected to
participate under the Breaking the Cycle initiative. Jacksonville,
Florida and Tacoma, Washington are conducting
Breaking the Cycle in their adult criminal justice systems.
Lane County (Eugene), Oregon is conducting a juvenile
Breaking the Cycle program These sites are began implementation
in October 1999 (Jacksonville and Tacoma)
and May 2000 (Eugene). During the first year of implementation,
over 5,500 drug-using offenders in
Jacksonville and Tacoma combined and over 100 minors
in Eugene have been ordered into BTC. All sites are
subject to process and outcome evaluations.
Zero Tolerance Drug Supervision
Initiative
This Presidential initiative proposes comprehensive
drug supervision to reduce drug use and recidivism
among offenders. The federal government will help states
and localities implement tough new systems to drug test,
treat, and sanction prisoners, parolees and probationers.
This initiative will ensure that states fully implement the
comprehensive plans to drug test prisoners and parolees
that they are required by law to submit to the Justice
Department, while also supporting the efforts of states
like Maryland and Connecticut to begin drug testing
probationers on a regular basis.
Initiatives Currently Underway
Over the past two years, ONDCP has joined with DOJ
and HHS to lay the foundation for systemic collaboration
between justice and public health. Working together,
these federal agencies have documented the state-of-the-science
at the March 1998 consensus meeting of scholars,
clinicians, and other practitioners and then proceeded on
two fronts:
- Applying the science: expanding breaking-the-cycle
demonstrations to additional sites, demonstrating interdiction,
intervention policies, and technology through
the drug-free prison zone demonstration, and validating
operating standards for prison-based TCs.
- Crafting a policy—in concert with federal, state, and
local agencies as well as national organizations—to
contribute to public safety and health.
This science-based policy calls for the criminal and
juvenile justice systems to operate together with other service
systems as a series of intervention opportunities for
disordered drug and alcohol offenders. Intervention must
be systematically applied as early as possible:
- To prevent entry into the criminal/juvenile justice system
of individuals who can be safely diverted to
community social-service systems.
- To limit entry into the criminal/juvenile justice system
of adult and juvenile nonviolent offenders through
community justice interventions in concert with other
social-service systems.
- To intervene with people who must be incarcerated or
securely confined, through appropriate treatment and
supervision, both during and after the period of confinement.
One example of a current initiative is the Department
of Justice’s Operation Drug TEST (Testing, Effective
Sanctions, and Treatment). This program is a pilot project
designed to identify drug abusing defendants as soon as
they enter the federal criminal justice system and to provide
appropriate supervision, sanctions, and treatment to
help them become and remain drug-free. It was developed
in response to a 1995 Presidential directive to the Attorney
General, who worked to secure the strong support of
the federal judiciary for this project. The Department of
Justice and the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts (AO) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
and began implementing the program in 25
federal judicial districts in fiscal year 1997. One of these
districts opted out of the program, leaving 24 as the core
initial group. Since 1997, $4.7 million annually has been
allocated for this program.
National Assembly
Over the past three years, ONDCP has joined with the
Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services to
lay the foundation for systemic collaboration between justice
and public health. A March 1998 Consensus Meeting
of scholars, policy makers, and practitioners, ONDCP,
DOJ, HHS, took stock of existing knowledge regarding
drug treatment and the justice system, probing scientific
research and clinical experience to determine what is known
with reasonable confidence. This was followed by a June
1999 meeting of forty stakeholder organizations to advise
DOJ, HHS, and ONDCP, regarding policy to reflect established
knowledge. Building on these efforts, a December
1999 a National Assembly on Drugs, Alcohol Abuse, and
the Criminal Offender was co-sponsored by ONDCP,
DOJ, and HHS. This unprecedented gathering of over 800
health and justice officials presented and discussed
approaches to link the justice system with other service systems,
to provide a series of opportunities for intervention
with drug and alcohol disordered offenders:
- To prevent entry into the criminal/juvenile justice
system for those who can be safely diverted to community
social service systems.
- To limit penetration into the criminal/juvenile justice
system for adult and juvenile nonviolent offenders
through community justice interventions in concert
with other social service systems.
- To intervene with those who must be incarcerated or
securely confined, through appropriate treatment and
supervision, both during and after confinement.
The National Assembly yielded widespread consensus
regarding: the need for public safety and public health agencies
to work together in a consistent, collaborative manner, to
provide the breadth of services required and to make full use
of limited funding; the need for formal agreements to overcome
the obstacles presented in bringing all of the essential
actors to the table; the need to seize the opportunity presented
by the juvenile and criminal justice systems’ authority
to mandate treatment; the critical importance of thorough
assessment at the beginning of the process, to properly match
services with needs and manage compliance with treatment
requirements; the critical importance of post-incarceration
transitional and follow up services and support to foster safe
re-entry into the community; and the need to make specific
guidance on best practices available to practitioners.
The planning committee for the National Assembly
formed an interagency committee, the Public
Health/Corrections Working Group, to respond to
requests for technical assistance, to develop a Web site by
which information on public health and public safety
concerns could be disseminated, and to establish a
national compendium of interventions for substance
abusing persons involved with the justice system. This
working group is comprised of representatives from the
Justice Department, the Department of Health and
Human Services, ONDCP, and the Department of Education.
Together they have supported several states
initiatives to host state assemblies and to establish systems
that integrate corrections and treatment agencies. The
group also assisted National TASC with their annual conference
by participating in developing the agenda,
obtaining funds, and making presentations at the event.
Other follow-up includes interagency agreements
between CSAT, CPO, and the Surgeon General’s office and
a spring 2001 conference that will bring public safety and
public health officials together to discuss the issues facing
offenders with mental illness and co-occurring disorders.
Juvenile Justice
The juvenile justice system presents an opportunity to
prevent the cycle of substance abuse and crime. The juvenile
justice system was specifically developed to respond differently
than the adult justice system to youth who commit
crimes. Since its inception, the primary goal has been rehabilitation,
rather than punishment, of the youth in the
context of the family system. It is vital that we develop policy,
pass laws, and implement programs which preserve and
enhance this approach. Research in recent years has supported
the wisdom of developing a separate juvenile justice
system. By nature youth are risk takers and experimenters,
and as part of the normal developmental process will engage
in behaviors that are illegal. From a developmental perspective,
adolescence is a major transitional phase that is defined
by significant physical development coupled with increases
in aggressive behavior, increased conflicts with parents and
other authority figures, and an orientation away from family
and towards peers and experimentation. Family, community,
and schools all play prominent roles in a juvenile’s
development, and they must be incorporated into any comprehensive
solution. The “strength-based approach”
treatment approach looks to the positive attributes of youth,
and builds on those, rather than focusing exclusively on
what the youth has done wrong.
System Integration
Another challenge for the justice system is to reach
beyond the immediate defendant and address family
crises, domestic violence, juvenile delinquency, abuse and
neglect, and a host of related problems. The justice system
must incorporate means of intervening in a child’s first
problems with adults—often in his or her own home
during the early years of life. Community involvement in
legal issues, particularly when they intersect with families
and children, is essential for breaking the cycle of substance
abuse, crime, and violence. An example of this
concept in action is New Jersey’s Unified Family Courts,
which encompass a network of six thousand volunteers
who bring together diverse segments of the court and
community to collaborate on effective approaches to families
in crisis.
