Strengthening Community-Based Programming for Juvenile Sexual Offenders: Key Concepts and Paradigm Shifts

Abstract

The past decade has been witness to a sharp increase in residential placement of adjudicated delinquent youth, including juvenile sexual offenders. It is argued that this trend has fiscal implications and may be clinically contraindicated for less characterologically disturbed and dangerous youth. The authors advocate greater investment of public funds in the development and refinement of community-based intervention programs. It is believed that clinically and legally integrated programming, using newer social-ecological methodologies and supports, offers promise of reducing the number of youth who require residential placement, shortening residential lengths of stay and improving the transition of residentially treated youth back into community settings. Key concepts relevant to bolstering community-based programming for juvenile sexual offenders are identified and discussed. Two programs are described, and program evaluation data reviewed, in support of the viability of innovative community-based approaches to the management of this population.

The Effective Treatment of Juveniles Who Sexually Offend: An Ethical Imperative

“…Another promising intervention, albeit one with less rigorous testing to date, is the "Wraparound Milwaukee" program, in which all adjudicated juvenile sex offenders are enrolled as a requirement of probation (Hunter, Gilbertson, Vedros, & Morton, 2004). In a non-randomized study of juvenile sexual offenders (N = 260), Hunter and colleagues reported that this program was associated with fewer prison commitments, lower services costs, and shorter residential treatment stays than for juveniles treated prior to program initiation.…”

The Impact of Family Service Involvement on Treatment Completion and General Recidivism Among Male Youthful Sexual Offenders

“…This may be attributed to scarce aftercare efforts for youth who have sexually offended and their families (Hunter, Gilbertson, Vedros, & Morton, 2004;Thomas, 2004). With insufficient energy apportioned to post-sex-offense specific treatment, particularly residential treatment where step-down care and support are essential for youth who offend sexually (Hunter et al, 2004;Thomas, 2004), resources ought to be reallocated to improve service transitions. If family services gradually reduce, treatment is reinforced, and follow-up efforts are provided, families may feel more empowered to indoctrinate the concepts of treatment into their lives.…”

Juvenile Sex Offenders: A Case Against the Legal and Clinical Status Quo

“…Rather, sexual offending, like other juvenile delinquency, is likely caused by a combination of different individual, family, peer, school and other (e.g., community) characteristics for different youth. Although recent attempts have been made to modify juvenile sex offender programs to better reflect the developmental needs of youth (e.g., Hunter, Gilbertson, Vedros, Morton, 2004;Worling, 1998), the majority of juvenile treatment programs appear to follow from adult-oriented, cognitive-behavioral models and focus almost exclusively on individual characteristics as the primary mechanism of change (Becker & Hunter, 1997;Graham, Richardson, & Bhate, 1998). Indeed, the inclusion of family members (and, presumably, the targeting of relevant family characteristics) appears to have declined in recent years (c.f., Burton, Smith-Darden, Levins, Fiske, & Freeman-Longo, 2000) in spite of data indicating that the more effective treatments in both the areas of delinquency (Elliott, 1998) and adolescent substance abuse (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1999) focus on risk factors across youths' natural ecologies (i.e., family, peers, school) and substantially include caregivers in treatment.…”