These markers included successful screening and assessment of risk and psychosocial needs, completion of initial and master treatment plans, establishment of sex offender specific treatment goals with a focus on psycho-educational treatment components, and community reintegration.
The Statewide Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment Program effectively produced the cost benefit of fewer juveniles in secure care, with a The results of the Program Evaluation showed a reduction of juvenile sex offenders in the system and a reduction of juvenile sex offenders in secure care, with a The sex offender treatment program effectively reduced recidivism rates of juveniles in secure care and community programs.
The total recidivism for sexual and non-sexual crimes was 4. The results of the Program Evaluation showed that the secure care treatment program addressed the needs of the higher risk to re-offend juveniles and the community programs addressed the needs of lower risk juveniles, showing a comprehensive method of ensuring public safety.
This comprehensive statewide approach is robust in its ability to address the needs of juvenile sex offenders while at the same time keeping the public safe. Introduction Juvenile sex offenders are one clinical population that remains underrepresented in juvenile justice reentry literature. The problem of juvenile sexual offending is well-documented. Trends in rates of juvenile sexual offense arrests as well as recidivism over the last 10 years have shown little decline Keogh, Accordingly, there is a need to include extensive program evaluations based on various approaches to juvenile sex offending treatment and reentry programs in order to continue meeting the needs of communities, victims, families, and the youth themselves.
One significant challenge faced within the juvenile sex offender treatment community is the integration of services across treatment providers, especially related to transitional and reentry planning.
Typically, youth who commit sexual offenses are charged, adjudicated and assigned to a level of treatment commensurate with type of offense as well as risk of reoffending. Levels of care normally progress from less restrictive environments such as community outpatient clinic services, to traditional and treatment foster care, to more restrictive environments such as residential group care, acute psychiatric services, and finally secure care within a juvenile corrections environment Underwood et al.
At all stages of treatment, consistency in provider training, program implementation, psychological and risk assessment, as well as program discharge are common challenges. Additionally, the multi-faceted procedures required to ensure positive reentry and youth community reengagement continues to be an important treatment focus. Through formal program evaluation, many of these challenges can be measured and addressed.
The Sex Offender Treatment Model For the State of Louisiana, these and additional concerns lead to a multi-system shift in delivering services to adjudicated juvenile sex offenders. It was evident that the previous system for legally supervising and managing juvenile sex offenders was disconnected and lacked the rigor and coordination needed to effectively meet the needs of juvenile sex offenders, their families and the community. Effective community reentry and transitioning of juveniles from secure care to community-based treatment was needed.
To ensure that juveniles received the appropriate treatment and that secure care was reserved for youths with the highest risk needs, the assessment of risk and treatment needs of juveniles would have to be standardized. Conversely, community-based programs, which would allow for increased family involvement and better management of reintegration services, would need to be primarily reserved for juveniles with the lowest risk.
This would ensure that the treatment needs of juvenile sex offenders were met in multiple sites including community-based specialized non-secure residential and outpatient services. Finally, a focus on programming and treatment across reentry phases was also necessary. In particular, a focus on psycho-education was needed across all phases of treatment.
However, for those youth reentering the community, would increase the likelihood of a seamless transition. The Office of Juvenile Justice defined four major goals of the supported program: Increased residential alternatives to secure care for juvenile who require out of home placement.
Promotion of statewide institutional and community practitioner adherence to evidenced-based practice models, including a focus on psycho-educational components. Because community treatment providers and juvenile justice administrators play a significant role in coordinating care in the provision of sex offender placement and treatment for these juveniles, the OJJ developed a comprehensive statewide system.
This new system would address the needs of juvenile sex offenders including those juveniles in secure care, community-based residential treatment facilities and community-based outpatient treatment clinics. This statewide system also standardized initial and ongoing assessment and treatment.
The overarching goal of the reentry model for OJJ is to help youths returning to the community to avoid many of the situations that resulted in their initial arrest and detainment. The term engagement is often utilized as a predictor of successful transition. While part of the juvenile justice system, a youth will be in one of various phases aimed at ultimate reengagement with the community. For example, in phase one, a youth enters a secure care environment.
At this time extensive assessment and evaluation are conducted for treatment and planning. Despite an intense focus on rehabilitation, this phase is also important in that community resources and partners continue to be identified for reentry.
The current OJJ program evaluation focused primarily on phase two coordination of treatment and other resources with emphasis on community reentry. However, the focus on community-based treatment services continues to stress the importance of reentry for OJJ. With a focus on reentry, it is hoped that recidivism rates would decrease and the coordination of services would be improved.
Integrated Treatment One of the primary components of the comprehensive statewide treatment program is the implementation of a best practices treatment protocol across all sites and providers.
As cited in Underwood et al. Cognitive-behavioral therapies stress the importance of cognitive processes as determinants of behavior. The model of care utilized in the statewide sex offender treatment program utilizes three basic processes for change: As such, the theoretical and treatment model is primarily cognitive-behavioral treatment incorporating multiple interventions.
Psycho-Education For the state of Louisiana, a specialization in the treatment of juvenile sex offenders was identified as particularly salient.
Prior to the creation of the new program, consistency of treatment delivery specific to sexual offending behaviors was somewhat sporadic. In developing an integrated treatment approach, a psycho-educational component was specifically introduced across all treatment providers. Within the mental health literature, psycho-educational approaches have several purposes, including providing factual information about behaviors associated with disorders.
The main intent is to increase knowledge related to the problem Becker, Psycho-education regarding the abuse cycle, including historical, situational, cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements was introduced into the integrated treatment protocol to ensure that each offender was aware of their own risk factors and the operation of the abuse cycle in their own individual lives. While recognizing the dearth of empirical and evidence-based practices for juvenile sex offenders at a statewide level, this program uses cognitive-behavioral and behavioral approaches, case management, psycho-education, pharmacological and skill-based methodologies as contributing treatment components.
Sex offender treatment in this system refers to the provision of culturally and developmentally appropriate assessments, diagnoses, treatment planning, on-going treatment interventions and reintegration services.
Within this context, the actual service delivery consists of individual, group, family, psychiatric, educational, crisis intervention, and case management services. However, based on the risk and needs of the juvenile, the dosage of treatment varies per treatment site. The purpose of the program evaluation was to assess the following six overarching goals: Ninety-five percent of community providers and probation officers will successfully complete sex offender specific trainings.
Six regional treatment programs would be developed, resulting in one per service region. Six community re-entry step-down programs would be developed, resulting in one per service region. Six family intervention programs would be developed, resulting in one per service region to improve reentry services. Development of program materials covering the following topics: Ninety percent of providers substantially adhering to the OJJ established practice model. Each of these goals was categorized into three broad areas: Each of these areas contained specific evaluation goals to be accomplished and measured through a series of program evaluation methodologies, utilizing quantitative and qualitative strategies.
Appendix A summarizes evaluation activities that quantify the above stated goals. Program Evaluation Methodology The current program evaluation relies upon a multi-modal methodology for collecting, analyzing, and using information to answer critical questions about the sex offender treatment program.
For each program evaluation activity, an outcome measure was assigned to capture essential information. Table 1 summarizes methodology utilized in the evaluation. Participants were all persons involved with OJJ programs including secure care facilities, residential programs, and outpatient treatment clinics.
Participants were organized along the following broad categories: Administrators facility directors, assistant directors, regional managers, judges 2. Treatment Providers mental health providers, case managers, group leaders, probation officers 3. Direct Supervision personnel juvenile justice staff, residential counselors 4. Juveniles secure care, residential treatment and outpatient 5.
Families and other caretakers The OJJ juveniles included males ranging in age from 12 to 21 years of age. The most frequent age of juvenile sex offenders was Table 2 lists the number of juveniles in care during the program.
Each participant was given an opportunity to take part in the program evaluation process by providing written and oral feedback to several surveys regarding the Louisiana Juvenile Sex Offender treatment program.
Participants had the right to refuse participation in the evaluation process at any time. Nine measures were utilized for information gathering for this program evaluation.
These quantifiable and qualitative measures included interviews structured , observations audit and file reviews , and self-report measures social climate and satisfaction surveys. Some of these measures relied upon a true-false format or Likert format, while others relied on forced response methods. Table 3 provides a summary of instruments utilized.
Descriptions of each instrument follow. The program evaluators traveled to all of the sites identified for this evaluation. While onsite, in-person unstructured interviews were conducted, and all sites were administered structured interviews. The WAS, an instrument developed by Rudolf Moos , was utilized by the program evaluators to assess the climate within secure care and residential care facilities.
This item questionnaire is completed by all residential programs including secure care and residential care. The WAS is composed of 10 subscales that measure the actual, preferred, and expected treatment environments of hospital-based psychiatric programs. The WAS assesses three underlying sets of dimensions. The Involvement, Support, and Spontaneity subscales measure relationship dimensions.
Order and Organization, Program Clarity, and Staff Control subscales assess system maintenance dimensions. The J-SOAP-2 is an evidenced based assessment of risk factors that have been linked to both sexual and violent offending in juveniles.
The measure is designed for use with males years of age. There were three methods of observation utilized outside of direct interviews: The program evaluator conducted on-site visits on four separate trips from December — March The program evaluator visited all of the secure care facilities, all of the residential treatment facilities and outpatient clinics and all of the regional probation officers. The program evaluator reviewed treatment files of juveniles in the secure care, residential and outpatient programs.