Youth Offending Programmes – what really does work
The Christchurch Press recently lead with a story about how the controversial ‘Boot Camp’ for New Zealand’s worst young offenders should be scrapped, after new figures showed a high reoffending rate. The camp is held at Te Puna Wai youth residence near Christchurch at a cost of $36,000 for each participant. Fifteen of the 17 people who attended the first two trial MACs have reoffended, and four of those are in prison. HMA staff have run the reducing reoffending aspect of the MAC three and four programmes. We therefore have a real interest in what constitutes success. While it is election year and politicians will argue back and forth, the key question is what should we expect in terms of real change?
Research suggests that most of the traditional interventions for antisocial adolescents have a relatively small effect on antisocial development. A number of meta-analyses of delinquency treatment programmes have found that the average effect of these programmes is to reduce offending by about 10%. This effect is so much smaller than the effect produced by interventions with younger antisocial children. Given the very large cost to society of offending (over the lifetime of the offender) however, interventions which produce a 10% reduction in offending may, nevertheless, still represent a worthwhile investment.The elements which are common to effective interventions are: (a) they are longer and more intensive than the interventions required for younger antisocial children; (b) they focus upon criminogenic needs (crime causing factors); (c) they are located in a multiple contexts – the home, the school, the peer group and even in recreational settings; (d) they are highly structured rather than experiential and unstructured; (e) they are being delivered by highly trained and experienced therapists; (f) they recognise that effective interventions for antisocial teenagers require the therapist to build a positive relationship with the antisocial teenager; and (g) they tend to be not a cheap option.
As can be gathered, a wrap-around intervention is what is required if we are to truly get runs on the board. In our recent book (McMaster, K.J. & Riley, D. [2011], Effective Interventions with Offenders; Lessons Learnt, Steele Roberts: Wellington) we indicated that the average costs of a high risk offender in the five years following being caught for a crime is in the vicinity of $550,000. In the offending game we think that a ten percent reduction in frequency and severity is well worth the investment upfront.
Programmes by themselves will never be the answer, and, like many things, maintaining change is the critical part of any intervention. If we can get young people through the first fifteen or so months without reoffending, then we have a real chance. We need to remember that offending is highly reinforcing behaviour. I have referred to adolescence as the testosterone filled years (alcohol, speed as in cars and fighting). We all know from our own adolescence that these are the risk years.
The keys to long terms change, in addition to those mentioned above, include increasing skill and capacity of existing staff to really engage with young people. Added to this, longer-term mentoring of young people with clear pro-social models who can show them a better way, may start to compete with the pressure from family and mates (we call these people Turn Around People). It takes real courage to walk away from trouble and young people need to learn that turning the other cheek is sometimes a better long term option. Easy to say at 53 years of age – much harder at 16!
Comments are closed.
Sign up for our newsletter!
Recent Posts
- Are you ready to seriously consider change?
- Understanding the Process of Intimate Partner Homicide
- An all too common story
- Supporting the specialised development of Probation Officers
- The role of peer work and behaviour change
Categories
- Announcements
- Family violence
- Learning & development
- Motivational Interviewing
- Offender work
- Practice tips and techniques
- Programme design & development
- Uncategorised
- What Ken thinks
- Youth offending
Archives
- September 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- December 2021
- January 2020
- April 2019
- March 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- June 2018
- June 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- September 2016
- July 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- October 2015
- July 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- January 2014
- November 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- July 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- July 2008