A New Vision for Youth

A New Vision for Youth

Building on Strenth: Positive Youth Development in Juvenile Justice Programs

A new report explores 6 juvenile justice programs that use positive youth-development principles to improve their intervention approaches:

• Johnson Youth Center Treatment Unit (Juneau, Alaska)
• Washington County Juvenile Department, Hillsboro Oregon
• AMI YES Program, Wimauma, Florida
• Clackamas County Juvenile Services Department, Oregon City, Oregon
• Department of Social Services and Department of Probation and Community Justice, Tompkins County, New York
• The Guidance Center – Juvenile Justice Program, Southgate, Michigan

Building on Strenth: Positive Youth Development in Juvenile Justice Programs (2008)

William H. Barton & Jeffrey A. Butts
http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1471

This report describes the results of an exploratory study of juvenile justice programs where managers and practitioners are attempting to build youth interventions with strength-based, positive youth development principles. Previous researchers have not adequately documented how such reforms take place, let alone whether they produce effective results for youth, families, and communities. When juvenile justice programs attempt to incorporate strength-based, positive youth development approaches in their work with young offenders, they will likely face resistance from their own staff and from key stakeholders. This study suggests that it is possible to implement these approaches in juvenile justice settings, but more research is needed to substantiate their effects.

Facilitating Factors

• Hospitable Community Culture
• Commitment of Leadership
• The Strengths Perspective as the Practice Model to Foster PYD Goals
• Internal Early Adopters
• Training and Retraining
• Intentional Hiring
• Integration into the Bureaucratic Processing
• Consistent Reinforcement through Supervision
• Collaboration with Other Agencies; Organizational Permeability
• Using Feedback from Data on Youth Outcomes

Challenges

• Resistance from Staff
• Additional Demands on Staff Time and Creativity
• Making Meaningful Links between Assessments and Plans
• Staying the Course
• Obtaining Buy-In from Others in the System: Judges, Prosecutors, and Police
• Initial Resistance from Families

Next Steps

As is clear from the list of facilitating factors and challenges above, the introduction of strength-based positive youth development principles into juvenile justice settings requires both political will and a technical way, as is true of any policy or program innovation (Barton, 1994). Although it is far from universal at this time, the political will may be growing, as these principles are increasingly permeating other systems, such as mental health and child welfare, and more and more jurisdictions are looking at ways to better integrate the various systems that affect children, youth, and families. Within juvenile justice, the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, has now reached 87 jurisdictions (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007, October). Although the JDAI focuses on a detailed set of prescriptive practice reforms to limit the overuse of secure detention, “wherever JDAI has been successfully implemented it has proven to be a powerful catalyst for broader reform” (Mendel, 2007, p. 20). Successful implementation of JDAI requires the development and maintenance of an informed collaborative infrastructure, including mobilization of stakeholders; strong, committed leadership; and data-driven decisions. As a result, JDAI jurisdictions have a forum for examining other aspects of their juvenile justice systems beyond detention and have adopted a set of values that makes reform and innovation more likely. Strength-based positive youth development principles are much more congruent with such a climate.

As to the technical way, the strength-based positive youth development approach is clearly science based in terms of adolescent developmental research and compatibility with the growing literature on risk and resilience. However, it cannot yet be described as evidence based. To achieve such a status, more programs using a strength-based positive youth development approach will need to participate in rigorous evaluations that generate data on intervention fidelity and youth outcomes. Greater research investments are clearly indicated.

Finally, there is still no blueprint or operational manual for implementing juvenile justice programs that are consistent with a strength-based positive youth development approach. In one sense, because the approach requires a great deal of individualized flexibility and creativity, full manualization may never be possible. Nevertheless, general guidelines for implementation must be developed for practitioners and program managers, especially those in agencies embracing this perspective for the first time. The results of this small, exploratory study are intended as a contribution to the eventual development of such guidelines.