Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center: Is it Effective? A Comparison of Youth Released From a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Center to Youth at a Traditional Juvenile Correctional

8/14/2019 Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center: Is it Effective? A Comparison of Youth Released From a Residential Substance

1/66

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center: Is itEffective? A Comparison of Youth ReleasedFrom a Residential Substance Abuse TreatmentCenter to Youth at a Traditional JuvenileCorrectional Center, Final Report

Author(s): Jill A. Gordon Ph.D.

Document No.: 196668

Date Received: October 03, 2002

Award Number: 99-RT-VX-K024

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally-funded grant final report available electronically in addition totraditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are thoseof the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.Department of Justice.


2/66

*FINAL REPORT

Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center: Is it Effective? A Comparison ofYouth Released from a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Center toYouth at a Traditional Juvenile Correctional CenterI

II

1999-RT-VX-KO24Jil l A. Gordon, Ph.D.Virginia Commonwealth University

. . Principal Investigator- .

August 2002

?----

nd do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.een published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)his document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not


3/66

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report is the product of the cooperation of a large number ofpeople whoseparticipation in the research process, and generosity of their time is greatly appreciated. Iwould like to thank these persons for their willingness to work in the preparation ofthisreport. Particularly, to Sharon Havens and Don Driscoll for their kindness andwillingness to examine the program at Barrett; to all of the Barrett stafFfor allowing meto observe the treatment process; and to Tim Jost and his staff at the Department ofJuvenile Justice.I would like to express my gratitude to Amy Stichman for agreeing to conduct the CPAI,Patricia Reyes, Robyn Diehl, and Terri Giordano for their diligencein collecting the data.Also to Tammy Hynson and Sharon Dawson for keeping me straight on the fiscd end ofthings.Without the effortsof allof you this endeavor would not have been so smooth. Thankyou.And &ally, to the reviewersof an earlier drafl, thank you for your feedback.

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.een published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)his document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not


4/66

*

TABLE OFCONTENTSTOPICEXECUTIVE SUMMARYSECTION 1: A DESCRIPTION OF THE JUVENILEPROCESSING SYSTEM,BARRETT. JUVENILE CORRECTIONALCENTER, AND TRADITIONAL JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL,CENTERS IN THE COMMONWEALTH

Correctional Processing System at the Reception and DiagnosticBarrett Juvenile Correctional CenterHanover Juvenile Correctional CenterRelated Literature

Center

SECTION 2: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT STATE OFTHE PROGRAM OFFERED AT BARRETT AND A TRADITIONALDETENTION CENTER AS EXAMINED BY THE CORRECTIONALPROGRAM ASSESSMENT INVENTORYBarrett Juvenile Correctional CenterHanover Juvenile Correctional CenterA Comparison of CPAI of Barrett and Hanover

SECTION 3: THE ADEQUACY OF THE COMPARISON GROUPSECTION 4: THE EFFECTIVENESS OFBARRETT UVENILECORRECTIONAL CENTER

A Look at the Effectiveness Overall: Barrett Youth versusComparison YouthA Look at the Effectiveness of Barrett Youth Onlysummary

SECTION 5 : SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

PAGEi - iv

1-9

2-33-55- 66 - 9

10- 1911- 1313- 1616- 19

20-2425- 48

29-3839- 84849 - 556 - 58EFERENCES



5/66

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Commonwealth of Virginia currently operates seven institutions. One facilityisvastly different than the others in that it offers a substance use treatment program toalladmitted youth. Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center began operatingas a substanceusetreatment facility in 1993. From 1993 to 1997 the state provided counselors toimplement the program, however, since 1997 a private treatment provider, the GatewayFoundation, has been contracted to administer treatment services.The program offered at Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center is highly structured. Itutilizes a therapeutic community approach to try andinstillchange into the offenders byhaving the youth be accountable for notonly their behavior but the behavior of theirpeers as well. The treatment provided at the center is grounded in behavioral and sociallearning concepts and includes anger management, lifeskillsdevelopment, substanceeducation, relapse prevention, behavioral management issues, and individual and groupcounseling. Overall, the approach emphasized at Barrett seeks to help the youthrecognize and learn fiomhis negative attitudes and behaviors, rather than focusingonlyon the mere custody and careof the youth.In general, the remaining institutions operated by the Commonwealth of Virginia seek toachieve public safety while meeting the disciplinary, medical, recreational., and treatmentneeds of the youth. The hcilities do offer treatment in the areas of substance abuse, sexoffender, individual and group therapy,skills counseling, and educational and vocationaltraining to the youth. However, services are provided onan as needed basis. That is,not all youth receive treatment and the intensity, duration, and quantity varies byoffenders. Additionally, the traditional institutions have implemented a quasi-militaryprogram (LEADER) that is designed to assist with behavioral changein the youth.Due to the unique nature of Barrett Juvenile Correctional Centerit is important to assessthe impact, ifany, it has on the outcome of youth released fiom the program. Therefore,the purpose of this research is to evaluate the impact of the program on recidivism.Specifically, this studyhas the following objectives:

0 to assess the current state of the treatment being offered,to select an adequate comparison group,andto evaluate the effectiveness of treatment offered at Barrett Juvenile CorrectionalCenter by examining the outcome of youth admitted to the Center compared toyouth who were eligible for admittance to the Center but were detained at atraditional juvenile correctional center.

The outcomes of the youth are dehed as:the likelihood and number of rearrests at the juvenile and adult level,

1--..and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)his document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not


6/66

0 the likelihood and number of reconvictions at the juvenile and adult level,0 the likelihood and number of substance use incidents obtained fkom the paroleofficer reports, and0 the likelihood and number of substance related charges received at the juvenileand adult level.

The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) was administered at BarrettJuvenile Correctional Center and Hanover Juvede Correctional Center in order to assessthe current state of treatment provided to the youth. In brief, the CPAI investigates howclosely a program adheres to the principles of effective intervention that have been foundto be associated with the outcome of offenders when released. The two institutions wereselected to examine the program offered to the treatment group (Barrett JuvenileCorrectional Center) and an average institution in the Commonwealth where m ycomparison youth are admitted (Hanover Juvenile Correctional Center).The results of the CPAI reveal differences in the categorical scores between each of theinstitutions and the overall score as well. Specifically, the CPAT score for Barrett isvery satisfactory and for Hanover satisfactory, but needs improvement. Therefore, itis shown that there are differences between how closely the institutions adhere to theprinciples of effective intervention, indicating that Barrett follows them more closely.Given this it is anticipated that the outcome of the youth released fiom Barrettwill bemore positive than youth released fiom the other institutions.

aIn order to assess the outcome of the experimental youth itis essential to select anappropriate comparison group. This is accomplished through a matching procedure thatoccurred retrospectively. Specifically, when a youth was released fiom Barrett asimilaryouth was selected fiom those detained at the other medium security institutions.Thevariables that the youth were matched on include the age at admission, gender- llmales, date of release, race of the offender, mandatory or recommended need forsubstance use treatment, and sentence length. This process yielded412 experimentalyouth and 406 comparison youth who were released between July 1,1998 and June 30,2000.Examination of the two groups reveals they are similar with regardsto age, race, priorcommitments, DSM IV assessments, and need for substance abuse treatment. However,the two groups do vary by dependency and sentence length with the average sentencelength being longer for the comparison youth. With regards to any differences among theoutcome of the youth, the results show that regardless of facility placement, most youthwere rearrest and reconvicted and were not using a substance or charged on a substancerelated offense. Although examination of the number of reconvictions, substance useincidents, and substance related charges did reveal significant bi-variate differencesbetween the groups. With the Barrett youth having fewer reconvictions than thecomparison group but a higher number of reported substance use incidents and substance

..11

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)his document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not


7/66

related charges than the comparison youth. Furthermore, the multi-variate models thatcontrol for differences among the youth reveal that the significant differences aremaintained for reconviction and substance use.The analysis did not stop by examining difference between facility types, rather, it probedfurther into any differences among Barrett youth only, The program offered at Barrett isgrounded in phases of release, so this variable was pursued. Specifically, it is assumedthat youth who are released without completing all four treatment phases of release havenot been exposed to the entire treatment regime offered at the Center, the outcomesshould vary by treatment phase of release (i.e., phase four youth having more positiveoutcomes compared with phase three, two, or one; the outcome of phase three youthbeing more satisfactory than phase two or one) and between those who have completedthe entire program (completers, phase four) to those who did not complete the program(non-completers, phase one, two, and three).The results found no significant difference in the outcome of youth when examiningphase of release but did uncover some variation when looking at completers versus non-completers. Specifically, it was established that those who complete the entire programare less likely to be reconvicted of an offense or charged with a substance related offensein relation to those who did not complete the entire program (non-completers). Thedifferences established in the bi-variate models were not maintained in the multi-variatemodels.Overall, the results of the CPAI ndicate that it would not be unreasonable to expect adifference in the outcome of youth admitted to Barrett and traditional detention centers.This is due to the closer adherence to the principles of effective intervention by BarrettJuvenile Correctional Center. The results do reveal significant bi-variate relationshipsamong most outcome measures examining variations in the number of incidents. Inaddition, when controlling for variations in individual characteristics it was stdl foundthat youth admitted to Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center had fewer reconvictions thanthose detained at traditional detention centers. However, the results did discover thatBarrett youth had a higher number of substance use incidents reported by the paroleofficer and a higher number of substance related charges relative to the comparisonyouth. This finding is not in the expected direction but may be influenced by the paroleofficers closer monitoring of substance related issues or the experimental group based ontheir primary treatment need. But, in general, it must be noted that most youth,regardless of institutional placement,were involved with the criminal justice system atleast one time upon release.Furthermore, the results did not show a significant difference in the outcome of theBarrett youth only by phase of release. And the results uncovered a signiscant differenceon& among the bi-variate analysis between program completers and non-completerswhen considering reconviction and substance related charges. Based on the results of theCPAI and analysis it is recommended that the program offered at Barrett JuvenileCorrectional Center may be improved E

iii--..



8/66

stamadized assessment instruments for risk, needs, and responsivity areadministered to the youth and the results then utilized to match clients learningstyles, risk levels, and so on to the appropriate treatment providers and dosage oftreatment, andthe system of phases toward release must adopt a policy of graduation to the nextphase based on the youth's behavior rather than completion of the curriculum foreach phase.

Additionally, the program structure appears to be sound (according to the CPAI) o theimplementation process may need to be enhanced. Some points found in the CPAI andfiom earlier research conducted at Barrett (Gordon and Stichman, forthcoming) suggestareas that could strengthen the current implementation process.Providing additional resources to appropriately train all staf(treatment andcustody) so they are proficient in the treatment protocol in order to enhance thequality of the therapeutic community.Eliminate all components of the LEADER program due to its conflicting goalswith achieving a therapeutic community.Create an aftercare program in the community that mimics the institutionalprogram in order to obtain any long-term effects.

Implementation of these recommendations should improve the overall quality of theprogram implementation process and youth accountability. In addition, it wiU providefuture research at the facility more information to help clarifjr the appropriate targetpopulation for the program.

iv



9/66

SECTION 1: A DESCRIPTION OF THE JUVENILEPROCESSING SYSTEM,BARRETT JUVENILE CORREC TIONAL CENTER AND TRADITIONALJUVENILE CORRECTIONAL CENTERS IN THE COMMO NWEALTHThere are three specific objectives to this research (a) to assess the current state

of the treatment being offered, (b) to select an adequate comparison group, and (c) toprovide an assessment of the effectivenessof treatment provideed at Barrett JuvenileCorrectional Center by examining the outcome of youth admitted to the Center comparedto youth who were eligible for admittance to the Center but were detained at a traditionaljuvenile correctional center.

The current state of the treatment being examined by conducting the CorrectionalProgram Assessment Inventory (CPAI) at Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center and onetraditional detention center (Hanover Juvenile Correctional Center). The CPAI wasdeveloped by Gendreau and Andrews (1994) to determine how well a program conformsto and implements the principles of effective correctional intervention. The principles ofeffective intervention consist of program components which have been found to have apositive impact on the outcome of treatment programs and include matters such as usingbehavioral or cognitive intervention strategies, targeting high-risk offenders, andemphasizing pro-social attitudes and behaviors (Andrews and Bonta 1994; Gendreau1996).

The sufficiency of the comparison group wiu be examined by outlining the stepstaken to retrospectively select the comparison group and by providing some demographiccharacteristics, criminal history characteristics, and standardized score informationbetween the two groups. And the h l bjective is accomplished by investigative therearrest, reconviction, substance use, and substance related charges received between the

1



10/66

two groups. Prior to delving into the findings for the three objectives itis important toexplain the processing procedures that determine the hcility where a youthis detainedeand a description of the program offered at Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center.

Correctional Processing Svstem at the ReceDtion and Diam ostic C enterPrior to institutional placement the youth enters the Reception and Diagnostic

Documents

Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center: Is it Effective? A Comparison of Youth Released From a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Center to Youth at a Traditional Juvenile Correctional