Essay: The Effects of Family Visitation on The Well Being of Incarcerated Youth

Introduction

Mental health and behavioral challenges are prevalent within incarcerated juvenile populations (Lambie & Randell, 2013). Recognizing that detention environments often fail to meet the needs of developing adolescence in a vulnerable state, efforts to make adjustments to better treat the mental health challenges of juveniles in detention are being pursued (Kretschmar, Butcher, Kanary, & Devens, 2015). Incorporating more family visitation is of particular promise due to reducing recidivism with little to no additional cost to the State (Borgman, 1985; Monahan, Goldweber, & Cauffman, 2011).

Research has shown that youth involved with the juvenile justice system have a history of being abused and/or neglected to some degree (Institute of Family Studies, n.d.). It is then of no surprise that these youths also come into the system with various behavioral and mental health issues. A majority of these youth are entering detention facilities never having any previous treatment(Kretschmar et al., 2015). Due to the vulnerable nature of this population it is crucial that the juvenile justice system serve them assist them with strategic interventions and rehabilitation as opposed to the primary focus being punishment. According to the National Center For Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Policy Research, youth should be placed in the least restrictive environment possible and receive developmentally appropriate evidence based treatment with the involvement of their family and other caregivers (Skowyra, Cocozza, 2007).

Juvenile Offenders

Adolescents in the general population are in a stage of development that is marked by high risk taking, emotional volatility, and various cognitive challenges (Casey, Jones, & Hare, 2008). Juveniles who encounter the judicial system due to being adjudicated of personal offenses are then particularly vulnerable with estimates as high as 1 in 5 juveniles who come into contact with the juvenile justice system having a serious diagnosable mental health disorder (Skowyra, Cocozza, 2007). Furthermore this population is often coming from families who are experiencing some sort dysfunction. Research has shown that children who experience child abuse and/or neglect are at an increased risk of becoming involved in the juvenile justice system (Ryan, Williams, & Courtney, 2013).

Juveniles who Sexually Offend

Juveniles who sexually offend are unique from juvenile non-sexual offenders in several aspects. They are more likely to come from a single parent home (Seto & Lalumière, 2010). Juveniles who sexually offend typically show more social anxiety and have lower self-esteem when compared to their non-sexually offending peers (Seto & Lalumière, 2010).  Moreover, juveniles who sexually offend do not have the same difficulties with impulse control and issues with authority as non- sexually offending juveniles and have significantly less of a criminal record (Margari et al., 2015). It has also been concluded that juveniles who sexually offend are less prone to having drug and alcohol addictions than juveniles who do not offend sexually (Margari et al., 2015). By acknowledging and understanding the contrast of this particular sub-group within the juvenile justice population professionals involved with their treatment can adjust and make specialized recommendations that will best suite their specific needs.

Effective Interventions for Juveniles in the System

The culmination of juvenile offenders developmental vulnerabilities, possible mental health challenges, and the experience of being incarcerated produces a highly vulnerable population that needs to be strategically served with thorough evidence based treatments. While incarceration for a small number of this population may be necessary for a limited amount of time, early intervention and maintaining a rehabilitative focus has been shown to produce positive outcomes (Skowyra, Cocozza, 2007). Furthermore, even when incarceration is necessary facilities that create a more natural environment and give opportunities for normal behavior provide juveniles with the greatest potential for success (Skowyra, Joseph Cocozza, 2007). Furthermore, therapeutic intervention has shown to be more cost effective than being held in detention alone.

Community based services has shown particular promise, an innovation brief by Dr. Phillippi  and Dr. DePrato show how a collaborative effort between various institutions in making  evidence based community services more widely available in Louisiana created a 46% decrease in juvenile arrest between 2006-2010 (Phillippi & DePrato, 2013). Furthermore, therapeutic intervention has shown to be more cost effective than being held in detention alone. The Washington State Institute for public Safety found the following, “for every dollar spent on county juvenile detention systems, $1.98 of ‘benefits’ in terms of reduced crime and costs of crime to taxpayers was achieved. By sharp contrast, diversion and mentoring programs produced $3.36 of benefits for every dollar spent, aggression replacement training produced $10 of benefits for every dollar spent, and multi-systemic therapy produced $13 of benefits for every dollar spent.”(Holman & Ziedenberg, n.d.). This data shows that juveniles who are simply held in waste funds when compared to juveniles who are offered evidence based interventions that reduce recidivism and save taxpayer funds.

While not typically viewed as an intervention itself, visits from family has shown to benefit the well-being of juvenile inmates. In a 2011 study, Monahan and colleagues conducted a study of 276 male juveniles and found that incarcerated youth who had more frequent visits from their parents had a more rapid decline in depressive symptoms than those who had fewer or no parental visits (Monahan et al., 2011). Interestingly, the quality of the parent/child relationship had no significant impact on the reduction of depressive symptoms. This is of interest because many juveniles entering a correctional facility are coming from dysfunctional or abusive family situations where it may be assumed less contact with parents would be preferred. Additionally, parental involvement and training for parents of chronically delinquent children has been shown to produce a reduction in criminal behavior and contact with law enforcement (Bank, Marlowe, Reid, Patterson, & Weinrott, 1991). Family visitation is a cost effective “intervention” because it can produce positive results without the added expense of specialized personnel and materials. Therefore, directing funds into improving and accommodating family visitation is a cost effective way to serve the juveniles in detention (Holman & Ziedenberg, n.d.).

The primary purpose of this study was to further investigate the effects of family visits on the mental and emotional state of incarcerated youth and add to the existing literature in this area, as most studies of this nature have focused on incarcerated adults. By providing further research on effects of family visitation on juveniles there is a greater probability of juvenile detention centers amending visitation policies based on the results and thereby creating an environment that is more conducive to the developmental and emotional needs of vulnerable youth.

This study proposes the hypothesis that incarcerated juveniles who receive a greater number of family visits during their sentence will have a fewer depressive symptoms, lower anxiety, and fewer negative behavioral incidence than inmates who receive less or no visits from family during their sentence.

References

• Bank, L., Marlowe, J. H., Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Weinrott, M. R. (1991). A comparative evaluation of parent-training interventions for families of chronic delinquents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00910562
• Borgman, R. (1985). The influence of family visiting upon boys’ behavior in a juvenile correctional institution. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 64(6), 629–638. Retrieved from http://spot.lib.auburn.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1986-30251-001&site=ehost-live
• Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Hare, T. A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124, 111–26. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.010
• Holman, B., & Ziedenberg, J. (n.d.). The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities A Justice Policy Institute Report. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/06-11_rep_dangersofdetention_jj.pdf
• Institute of Family Studies, A. (n.d.). The involvement of young people in care and criminal matters. Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/fm89d.pdf
• Kretschmar, J. M., Butcher, F., Kanary, P. J., & Devens, R. (2015). Responding to the mental health and substance abuse needs of youth in the juvenile justice system: Ohio’s Behavioral Health/Juvenile Justice Initiative. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(6), 515–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000139
• Lambie, I., & Randell, I. (2013). The impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.007
• Margari, F., Lecce, P. A., Craig, F., Lafortezza, E., Lisi, A., Pinto, F., … Grattagliano, I. (2015). Juvenile sex offenders: Personality profile, coping styles and parental care. Psychiatry Research, 229(1–2), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.07.066
• Monahan, K. C., Goldweber, A., & Cauffman, E. (2011). The effects of visitation on incarcerated juvenile offenders: How contact with the outside impacts adjustment on the inside. Law and Human Behavior, 35(2), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9220-x
• Phillippi, Stephen;DePrato, D. (2013). Innovation Brief: Model for Effective Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices — Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/494
• Ryan, J. P., Williams, A. B., & Courtney, M. E. (2013). Adolescent neglect, juvenile delinquency and the risk of recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 454–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9906-8
• Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 526–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019700
• Skowyra, K.R.Joseph J. Cocozza, P. D. (2007). Blueprint for change: A comprehensive model for the identification and treatment of youth with mental health needs in contact with the Juvenile Justice system.