Programs that rely on "scare tactics" to prevent children and adolescents from engaging in violent behavior are not only ineffective, but may actually make the problem worse. Positive approaches, on the other hand, show promise according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
What Doesn't Work
Researchers found that group detention centers, boot camps, and other "get tough" programs often exacerbate problems by grouping young people with delinquent tendencies, where the more sophisticated instruct the more naïve. Similarly, the practice of transferring juveniles to the adult judicial system can be counterproductive, resulting in greater violence among incarcerated youth. Four of four (100 percent) secondary interventions that lasted a year or longer were effective, whereas five of five (100 percent) secondary interventions that lasted less than six months were ineffective.
What Works
The NIH research panel highlighted two programs that were clearly effective in reducing arrests and out-of-home placements: Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy. Among the important characteristics that these programs have in common are a focus on developing social competency skills, a long-term approach, and family involvement.
Multisystemic Therapy (MST) addresses the factors associated with serious antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. These factors include characteristics of the adolescent (for example, favorable attitudes toward violence), the family (poor discipline, family conflict), peers (positive attitudes toward violence), school (dropout, poor performance), and neighborhood (criminal subculture). Intense treatment occurs in natural environments (homes, schools, and neighborhood settings).
Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a family-based prevention and intervention program that draws on a multisystemic perspective. FFT first works to develop family members' inner strengths and sense of being able to improve their situations. Successful FFT programs, whether home-based, clinic-based, or school-based, include programs grounded in diversion, probation, alternatives to incarceration, and reentry from high-security, severely restrictive institutional settings.
"The good news is that a number of intervention programs have been demonstrated to be effective through randomized controlled trials," explained Dr. Robert L. Johnson, of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, who chaired the panel. "We were pleased to find several programs that work, and we hope that communities will adopt them and continue to develop other interventions that incorporate the features common to successful programs." |
