Dosage Matters

Published date01 January 2016
DOI10.1177/1541204014555436
Date01 January 2016
Subject MatterArticles
YVJ555436 3..25 Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2016, Vol. 14(1) 3-25
Dosage Matters: Impact of a
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permission:
Violent Offender Treatment
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204014555436
yvj.sagepub.com
Program on Juvenile Recidivism
Darin R. Haerle1
Abstract
This study estimates the dose–response relationship between the time spent in an intensive,
therapeutic treatment program during juvenile incarceration and violent juvenile offenders’ odds of
recidivism. A propensity score matching approach is used to determine the treatment effect of a
strong and weak dose of this program on recidivism. Analyses reveal that program participants who
receive any dose of this program exhibit lower odds of recidivism than nonparticipants. Those who
received a stronger dose of treatment are significantly less likely to recidivate during the three years
following release than those who received no treatment. This effect grows in magnitude when
compared with those who receive a weak dose. The efficacy of this program’s treatment model
provides the evidence that, compared to a weak dose, rehabilitation of capital and violent juvenile
offenders is more feasible within the venue of juvenile incarceration when treatment is provided to a
high-risk population via an intensive dose.
Keywords
rehabilitation, blended sentencing, violent juvenile offenders, recidivism
Background
Accountability Movement in Juvenile Justice
The rehabilitative foundations of the juvenile justice system have eroded. Juvenile advocates orig-
inally designed the juvenile justice system to rehabilitate, but the evolution of juvenile justice has
slowly moved away from the rehabilitative mission of treatment toward a more punitive philosophy
that prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation—this is particularly true for serious and violent juve-
nile offenders (Merlo & Benekos, 2010; Podkopacz & Feld, 2001; Smallheer, 1999). This new juve-
nile justice system is quite similar to the adult criminal justice system with regard to philosophical
perspectives as well as procedural similarities (Podkopacz & Feld, 2001; Redding, 2003). Despite
1 Department of Political Science, College of Behavioral & Social Sciences, California State University, Chico, CA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Darin R. Haerle, Department of Political Science, College of Behavioral & Social Sciences, California State University,
400 West 1st St., Chico, CA 95929, USA.
Email: dhaerle@csuchico.edu

4
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(1)
the gradual decline in juvenile arrests across the country, specifically juveniles arrested for murder,
serious and violent youthful offenders continue to receive harsher sanctions (Merlo & Benekos,
2010). These punishments include commitment to a juvenile correctional facility, often followed
by a period of incarceration within an adult prison. Sentencing schemes known as blended sentences
have also been increasingly used for such offenders, which allows for a concurrent sentence that
begins under juvenile court jurisdiction and is then transferred to adult criminal court jurisdiction
if rehabilitative efforts at the juvenile level fail. Lengthy blended sentences and longer lists of
offenses that facilitate waiver to adult court have caused the net to widen for these violent youth.
By narrowing society’s conceptualization of juvenile, and forcing their earlier transition into adult-
hood, these punitive efforts effectively expand the umbrella under which the juvenile and adult sys-
tems overlap.
This transformation of juvenile justice from an offender-driven environment into a more offense-
driven system has effectively blurred the line between two justice systems originally designed to be
separate and distinct (Redding, 2003). This pendulum swing in policy has paralleled a shift in
accountability-based juvenile justice (Ward & Kupchik, 2009). While the juvenile justice system
originally used a system-based accountability model, the last few decades have witnessed a move-
ment toward an increasingly person-based accountability model. All juvenile offenders are arguably
subjected to this increasingly punitive emphasis, but high-risk serious, violent, and capital juvenile
offenders bear the brunt of many deterrence-driven policies that have appeared on the juvenile jus-
tice landscape during the last few decades. This is because various waiver provisions and sentencing
schemes focus on severity of offense and often ignore the personal characteristics of the offender
(Smallheer, 1999; Torbet & Szymanski, 1998).
Empirical research provides evidence on the factors that predict recidivism for institutionalized
youth who are released. These studies have produced consistent findings to suggest that age at first
commitment (Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 2000; Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001; Piquero, Brame, &
Lynam, 2004; Trulson, Marquart, Mullings, & Caeti, 2005), race/ethnicity (Archwamety & Kat-
siyannis, 2000; Ryan, Davis, & Yang, 2001; Weibush, Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005), num-
ber of prior adjudications (Lattimore, MacDonald, Piquero, Linster, & Visher, 2004; McMackin,
Tansi, & LaFratta, 2004; Ryan et al., 2001; Trulson et al., 2005; Weibush et al., 2005), gang activity
(Huebner, Varano, & Bynum, 2007; Lattimore et al., 2004; Trulson, DeLisi, & Marquart, 2011;
Trulson et al., 2005; Weibush et al., 2005), drug use (Cottle et al., 2001; Huebner et al., 2007; Lat-
timore et al., 2004; Simourd & Andrews, 1994), and institutional violence (Huebner et al., 2007;
Lattimore et al., 2004; Trulson, Haerle, DeLisi, & Marquart, 2011; Trulson et al., 2005) are some
of the most reliable predictors of recidivism among institutionalized juvenile offenders.
One common theme throughout the available research, however, is a lack of specificity regarding
the seriousness of offense type, including commitment and recidivism offenses (Archwamety &
Katsiyannis, 2000; Heide, Spencer, Thompson, & Solomon, 2001; Huebner et al., 2007; Lattimore
et al., 2004; Ryan et al., 2001; Weibush et al., 2005). This research tends to examine mixed samples
of offenders covering the severity spectrum, from those committed for more minor drug or property
offenses to those committed for violent offenses.
Given these predictors of recidivism, the goal should be to figure out what kind of rehabilitation
can reduce recidivism rates. Extensive meta-analytic efforts have provided such evidence by demon-
strating that—for institutionalized youth—longer duration of treatment (an average of 6 months or
more), a higher level of monitoring to ensure fidelity of implementation, and administration of treat-
ment by mental health professionals (rather than by juvenile justice personnel) were found to signif-
icantly predict reductions in recidivism (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). The most successful interventions
across two meta-analyses reduced recidivism by an average 12% and demonstrated that treatment
interventions for youth can be successful (Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). Based on this evi-
dence, this study proposes that not only presence of treatment but also dose of treatment should be

Haerle
5
examined. This is one of the very few research studies that are capable of exploring the effect of
treatment dosage for incarcerated juvenile offenders, specifically.
This study examines the efficacy of one specialized treatment program to reduce recidivism
among some of the most serious and violent juvenile offenders in the country. Many of these offen-
ders have been convicted of a capital crime and have received a blended sentence—one that begins
with juvenile incarceration and has the potential for one of two outcomes. This therapeutic Violent
Offender Treatment Program (hereafter, VOTP) is for some the vehicle that provides opportunity for
early release of these youth from juvenile correctional facilities, at which point, they may serve the
balance of that sentence under parole supervision. Alternatively, failure to successfully complete
this program can result in a youth being transferred to adult prison, where he will serve the remainder
of his blended sentence.
Using 20 years of data from youth committed to state juvenile correctional facilities in a Southern
state, this study evaluates the efficacy of this program by addressing the following two research
questions:
Research Question 1: How do background characteristics differ for VOTP participants com-
pared to non-VOTP participants? Additionally, how do characteristics differ for VOTP partici-
pants who receive a weak dose of treatment compared to those who receive a strong dose?
Research Question 2: What is the treatment effect of VOTP on the outcome of recidivism for
these youth? Does dose of treatment (defined as length of duration) produce a variation in this
treatment effect?
Findings from this study will contribute to the research on evidence-based practices by determining
whether an intensive, therapeutic, counseling-based intervention, delivered in strong doses to insti-
tutionalized youth, has the ability to reduce recidivism among this challenging group of serious and
violent juvenile offenders.
Treatment Dosage Research
Program fidelity needs to be measured in terms of structure and process, yet many challenges are
inherent in achieving such measures depending on program access and data sources. Ideally, as
Mowbray, Holter, Teague, and Bybee (2003) note in their meta-analysis, fidelity should be mea-
sured using a variety of metrics that include but are not limited to observations of service...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT