Jeffrey A. Butts, Ph.D. John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York

1. The Positive Youth Justice Model Jeffrey A. Butts, Ph.D. John Jay College of Criminal Justice City University of New York Presented to: 2011 Conference of the Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association September 19, 2011

2. 2010 Report Butts, Jeffrey A., Gordon Bazemore, and Aundra Saa Meroe (2010)  Positive youth justice: Framing justice interventions using the concepts of positive youth development Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. www.juvjustice.org

3. What’s Your Theory? 3 Community disorder Family support Cognitive defects School success Secure housing School failure Poverty Stable employment Health Mental illness Positive friends Family violence Crime Protective Risk Greed Unemployment Ethical framework Poor nutrition Adult guidance Substance abuse Self-efficacy Hopelessness Community respect Lack of empathy Physical safety Poor decision-making Future aspirations How Do We Focus Intervention?

4. Lessons from Brain Research  Adolescence dominated by peer interactions, novelty seeking, elevatedconsumption behavior, which can be adaptive despite the risks that coincide with them  Adolescents have poor self-control in emotionally charged situations, are easily influenced by peers and don’t think through consequences of some actions  Research suggest that this is due to rapid growth in brain areas governing pleasure-seeking and emotional reactivity with slower development of areas supporting self-control  New research suggests adversity and stresscan “down regulate” brain systems that allow for adaptive behavior and “up regulate” emotional centers of the brain that hijack the rational regions in guiding choices and actions

5. If our Goal is Effectiveness… • When it comes to intervention strategies, we must be AGNOSTIC and open to new facts • Advocating one form of intervention over another based on turf, convenience, bias or a concern for our own financial success is simply wrong • Central goal of intervention is to ensure community safety by changing youth behavior -- NOT merely to deliver a particular type of service or to ensure the financial stability of our agencies

6. Effective Intervention Must Include • Dual Focus on: •  Risk Factors •  Protective Factors Maximum Use of:  Family Resources  Community Partners Parallel Efforts to:  Generate Evidence of Impact  Facilitate Successful Replication

7. Protective Factors Matter We Must Acknowledge that Risk-Based Interventions Are Not Enough Two Primary Examples:  Mental Health Services  Substance Abuse Services

8. More Than Mental Health Treatment  Even a perfect mental health treatmentsystem would not eliminate juvenile crimeand recidivism  The overlap between crime and mentalhealth is misunderstood (and often misused) 8

9. Prevalence of Mental Health Problems All U.S. Adolescents U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999), Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General Juvenile Assessment Center Population (diversion) McReynolds et al. (2008), Crime and Delinquency Secure Detention Population Teplin et al. (2002), Archives of General Psychiatry Probation Intake Population Wasserman et al. (2005), American Journal of Public Health 69% 46% 29% 21% What Does This Mean?

10. Cause or Correlation ?  The deeper we look into the juvenile justice process, the more we find mental health problems…  Is this because mental health issues causecrime?  Or is the justice system less likely to divert youth with mental health issues because of their service needs, thus more likely to charge, adjudicate, place, etc.? 10

11. Prevalence of Mental Health Problems Social and Economic Disadvantages Justice System Contact Mental Health Issues ? Offenders with Mental Health Problems

12. Are Rates of Mental Disorders Among Young Offenders Partly a Reflection of Their Social-Economic Status? • Amazingly, there are no good studies on adolescents…… but we do know some thingsfrom studies of adults.

13. “Major Depressive Episode” in Past Year (Adults) 14% 6% Working Full-Time Unemployed National Survey on Drug Use and Health, SAMHSA (2006)

14. “Any Mood Disorder” in Adults Under 40 13.6% 7.5% 7.4% Some College High School Less Than High School National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (III), reported in Jonas et al. (2006)

15. “Any Mood Disorder” in Adults Under 40 12.5% 8.6% 5.7% High Income Moderate Income Low Income National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (III), reported in Jonas et al. (2006)

16. “Dysthymia” in Adults Under 40 11.7% 4.6% 1.9% Some College High School Less Than High School National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (III), reported in Jonas et al. (2006)

17. “Dysthymia” in Adults Under 40 8.9% 5.0% 0.9% High Income Moderate Income Low Income National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (III), reported in Jonas et al. (2006)

18. Key Question  Do youth become involved in persistent criminal behavior because of mental health problems? or,  Are mental health problems more common among youth that tend to be more deeply involved in the justice system? Very Different Implications for Service Delivery and Crime Reduction Policy

19. Substance Use Disorders •  Approximately 10% to 25% of young offenders have substance use issues that could be called “problematic” – either abuse or dependence •  Most of these substance use issues involve alcohol and marijuana (80% to 90%) •  Few youth (5%) have addiction or dependence problems involving serious, illegal drugs

20. Substance Abuse If we combine prevalence data with national statistics about the volume of juvenile justice cases, we see something else interesting…

21. Rate of substance use disorders among all U.S. 12-17 year-olds. - SAMHSA (2006) 8% 100% What proportion have a substance use disorder? - McReynolds et al. (2008) 11% Youth at a Juvenile Assessment Center

22. 50% 100% About half of all arrested youth are referred to juvenile court authorities. - Juvenile Court Statistics, OJJDP Of these, what proportion have a substance use disorder? - Wasserman et al. (2005) 25% 11% Youth at a Juvenile Assessment Center Youth Referred to Juvenile Probation

23. 20% 100% About 20 percent of all court referred youth are held in secure detention at some point. - Juvenile Court Statistics, OJJDP Of these, what proportion have a substance use disorder? - Teplin et al. (2002) 25% 11% 49% Youth at a Juvenile Assessment Center Youth Referred to Juvenile Probation Youth Held in Secure Detention

24. 100% When they first enter the juvenile system, the prevalence of substance abuse among young offenders is similar to other teens. Substance-abusing offenders, however, may be more likely to be retained through to the more restrictive stages of justice processing. The preponderance of drug-abusing youth in the deep end of the justice system could be partly a function of how case decisions are made if drug-abusing youth are treated more coercively. Drug-using youth would be a larger subgroup by the end of the process; not because drugs cause crime but because drugs prompt more aggressive action by justice authorities. 25% 11% 49% Youth at a Juvenile Assessment Center Youth Referred to Juvenile Probation Youth Held in Secure Detention

25. Substance Use Disorders Among Youth Referred to a Juvenile Assessment Center Among Youth Referred to Juvenile Probation Intake Abuse Disorders Alcohol 2% Marijuana 4% Other drug 1% Dependence Disorders Alcohol 1% Marijuana 5% Other drug 1% No Disorder 89% Abuse Disorders Alcohol 7% Marijuana 10% Other drug 3% Dependence Disorders Alcohol 3% Marijuana 13% Other drug 4% No Disorder 75% Source: McReynolds et al. (2008) Source: Wasserman et al. (2005)

26. Why the Confusion? Why do we hear so much about mental health and substance abuse?  The most troubling cases often involve MH and SA  MH and SA problems were overlooked and under-diagnosed for years  The science related to these issues has improved  Interest group politics and public relations

27. 27 New Model of Intervention • We need a strong, evidence-based approach that is:  Suitable for youth not primarily affected by mental health or substance abuse issues  Designed to support behavior change and not simply deterrence  Focused on protective factors, not just risk

28. Supportive relationships • Rewards for work • Skill development • Success in learning • Physical activity and sports • Music and the arts • Civic engagement • Community/political involvement 28 Positive Youth Development  Strengths and assets Attachment, engagement, and socialization Usefulness and belonging Broad system of community-based supports Allow all youth to experience opportunities and activities that youth in wealthy communities take for granted:

29. Community Network for Youth DevelopmentSan Francisco 40 Developmental Assets National Research Council Institute for Applied Research in Youth DevelopmentTufts University Promising and Effective Practices National Youth Employment Coalition National Clearinghouse and Families & Youth Youth Development Framework 29 Not Adapted for Youth Offenders

30. 30 Focusing on Protective Factors • There are good reasons to believe that using positive youth development to focus on protective factors will help to reduce youth crime.

31. 31 Research on Comprehensive Models Supports the potential of a youth development approach to juvenile justice interventions Hawkins and Weis“The Social Development Model: An Integrated Approach to Delinquency Prevention.” Journal of Primary Prevention 1985

32. 32 Survey of Youth Assets (Univ. of OK) Youth with more assets are less likely to report that they have carried a weapon *14% of sample reported some weapon carrying Aspy et al. (2004), Journal of Counseling and Development

33. Survey of Youth Assets (Univ. of OK) Youth with more assets are less likely to report that they have previously used drugs/alcohol • Oman et al. (2004). American Journal of Public Health

34. Search-Institute.org Percentage of 6th- to 12th-Grade Youth Reporting Selected High-Risk Behaviors, by Level of Developmental Assets

35. 35 Focusing Youth Justice on PYD How do we transform youth justice systems to focus on practical ways of attaching youth to assets and facilitating positive youth development?

36. 36 Very Different Perspectives

37. 2010 Report from CJJ Butts, Jeffrey A., Gordon Bazemore, and Aundra Saa Meroe (2010)  Positive youth justice: Framing justice interventions using the concepts of positive youth development Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. www.juvjustice.org

38. Our Model: Positive Youth Justice Source: Butts, Bazemore, and Meroe (2010)

39. 39 Youth Development Approach May be an Evidence-Based Model Some Day  Requires an accumulation of findings from numerous, high-quality studies. Depends on sustained investment by service providers, researchers, and funding sources.

40. Contact Information Jeffrey A. Butts, Ph.D. Director, Research & Evaluation CenterJohn Jay College of Criminal JusticeCity University of New York www.jjay.cuny.edu/rec jbutts@jjay.cuny.edu www.jeffreybutts.net