CBT Approach And Behavior Analysis

Rehabilitation for at risk teens has been an ongoing issue that runs deep in certain communities. When kids at young ages are exposed to stress and have to cope early on with dysfunction they are denied the opportunity to mature and conditioned to commit thinking errors that perpetuate a young offender into an adult offender. To find ways to break this cycle John Hubner accounts his time on the Giddings State School Capital Offenders Program and how a group of counselors are able to combine many strategies in rehabilitating young offenders who have committed serious crimes. Young people convicted of serious crimes are often transferred to adult prisons that institutionalize young people to prison life only increasing the likely hood of

Juvenile institutions and programs have changed over time. There are also juvenile programs that necessarily do not punish juvenile’s delinquents but instead help modify their behavior to avoid recidivism. Certain treatments and methods regarding how to deal with these dangerous young offenders were fixed and improved to make these institutions and programs more effective in changing the lives of these young

Studies suggest that there is a divide between the government and public response to juvenile incarceration. Bullis & Yovas (2005) state that support is given to correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders as a form of punishment (as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). Individuals who support this perspective are often more likely to support the construction of more prisons and stern penalties on crime based upon the presumptions that youthful offenders are aware of the consequences of their actions (Drakeford, 2002 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 17). On the other hand, opponents of this perspective believe that incarceration creates an opportunity to rehabilitate the offenders (Huffine, 2006 as cited in Shannon, 2013, p. 18). This perspective supports the purpose of juvenile detention centers as “preparatory in nature – that is, offering services focused on the development of skills needed to return successfully to mainstream

One of the programs they review is the Multisystemic Therapy (MST) program. To prevent juveniles from repeating the same crimes they would keep them in the community instead of locking them away in jail. The juveniles would have family therapy, individual therapy, group therapy, and other types of support. As a result, “MST participants had a rate of recidivism of 22.1 percent…the individual therapy group which had a recidivism rate of 71.4 percent…those that participated only temporarily in the MST program also had a reduced recidivism rate of 46.6 percent compared to the control delinquent group MST participants had a significantly lower recidivism rate” (May, Osmond, and Billick 298). This programed showed that like the J RIP the delinquent juvenile who get help from their community are more likely to not go back to crime. The review also mentions, “one of the main goals of MST is to decrease the juvenile delinquents association with other delinquent youths, while facilitating familial support through communication and guided problem solving” (298). Because most criminals gain support from other criminals and learn new ways to commit crimes from them by keeping the influence away it shows the juveniles that that’s not the best route to

To ascertain whether practitioners attribute the desistance of young people from offending behaviour to the effective practice of targeted youth programs. Young offender’s recidivism has been said to be the consequence of ridiculous control programs attracting reduced compliance from young offenders according to (Kempen and Young 2014). Practitioners competences has been put under scrutiny with critiques such as (Andrews, Donald and James 2010) and (Petrosino et all 2010), alleging that they sometimes deviate from their professional requisites. Much of the criticism was specifically for the private practitioners rendering inconsistent treatment regime, lacking commitment to the recommended practice. Thus, this evident knowledge gap has failed young offenders to satisfy the targeted programs aims of desisting from antisocial behaviours and other criminal activities (Woods et al

Baer, D. M., Wofl, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (2015, 11 5). Some Current Dimensions of Applied Behavior Analysis. Retrieved from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13109980/pdf/jaba00083-0089.pdf

A form of intervention that continually arises in research looking at young offenders is the use of cognitive behavioural therapy or modification. Cognitive Behavioural therapy is founded on social learning, and adopts the theory that offenders have learned unsuitable ways of behaving due to their environment (McGuire, 2003). Many intervention plans include this type of treatment, sometimes coupled with psychiatric treatments (Jones, Chancey, Lowe & Risler, 2010). Cognitive behavioural techniques encourage offenders to think through a situation, instead of ensuing their immediate response. A reaction that can often be impetuous and self-centered attitudes that increase the likelihood of anti-social behavior (McGuire, 2003). In cognitive behavioural therapy an offenders learning is conditioned, they are trained to eradicate maladaptive actions (McGuire, 2003). Cognitive, rehabilitation or intervention programs aim to bring changes

In class we also discussed the recidivism statistics for these habitually violent juveniles who have determinate sentences and were released from TYC. For more than 50 percent of the juveniles released from TYC reoffend for at least one felony. Had these juveniles been tried as adults and received more severe sentences, their felonies could have been avoided. Although the methods used by the staff in the Hubner book seemed to make a difference while the juveniles were there, once they left, it didn’t appear that it made a difference at all. Many of the juveniles were able to stay out of trouble for about a year, but they recommitted afterwards.

In order to properly address mandatory incarceration for chronic juvenile offender’s criminal activities, it is important to begin with psychological assessments and evaluations. Half of our youths have experienced some type of psychological trauma such as depression, PTSD, personality disorders, anxiety, anger issues, or dissociation, just to name a few (Moroz, K. 2009). In order to determine mandatory incarceration, all of these factors must be considered. I will agree with most of our society that is , if they are a danger to society and serious of the crime, they need to be put into detention, where they cannot cause harm but where they can received the right intervention program and mental health treatment for them, it’s the law. The juvenile justice system is to rehabilitate not punish young offenders. Punishment is not the answer in solving their delinquent behavioral patterns.

Corrective thinking helps individuals recognize their criminal thinking and develop more responsible thinking habits. In order for this approach to be successful, the offender must recognize the errors in his/her thinking, see it is a problem, and then learn and apply new ways of thinking. By focusing on and re-working the old thinking patterns, criminal behavior can be eliminated. Corrective thinking is a cognitive reconstruction method. The idea is that “thoughts determine feelings, which in turn influence choices that determine behavior” (Bye & Schillinger, 2005). Bye (2005) cited a study that concluded using Corrective Thinking models with offenders reduces recidivism by 74% in the three to 15 years after completion of the program. Bye and Shillinger’s (2005) study also determined that the Corrective Thinking Program had a positive impact on the participants and resulted in responsible levels of thinking. None of the participants in the intervention group were arrested while enrolled in training, however, many control group participants had been arrested (Bye & Shillinger, 2005). In order to reduce recidivism, there are many aspects to criminal thinking that must be changed, which is what the Criminal Thinking Program works to address. These programs place an emphasis on the following aspects; new communication patterns, developing close and

The goals of juvenile corrections are too deter, rehabilitate and reintegrate, prevent, punish and reattribute, as well as isolate and control youth offenders and offenses. Each different goal comes with its own challenges. The goal of deterrence has its limits; because rules and former sanctions, as well anti-criminal modeling and reinforcement are met with young rebellious minds. Traditional counseling and diversion which are integral aspects of community corrections can sometimes be ineffective, and studies have shown that sometimes a natural self intervention can take place as the youth grows older; resulting in the youth outgrowing delinquency.

The theme of the session will focus on young offenders and the use of CBT interventions to help with rehabilitation while in prison. The structure of the session will inform the class about the rates of young offenders, and the constant cycle of incarceration and the issues these young offenders deal with. Thus, the session will focus on how strategies such as CBT can be used to help provide intervention for these youth, in order to move in a positive direction upon release. This particular article was chosen as it analyzes three different types of interventions and subsequently shows that CBT had the biggest impact on the inmates. This article also sheds light on ‘group’ CBT interventions, and how to use CBT in a group versus an individualized

According to, (Landenberger, and Lipsey, 2005), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) has been shown to make a positive change on inmate’s actions and socially acceptable behavior by restructuring the way an inmate thinks through new cognitive skills involving therapeutic techniques. While inside the Criminal Justice System, inmates receive the opportunity to take advantage of medical care and receive therapeutic treatment that may not have been available to the individual prior to incarceration.

Therefore, numerous interventions have been designed to address and redirect specific behaviors of delinquent youth who are at-risk for recidivism or who have been incarcerated and are facing greater involvement within the juvenile justice system (Youth.Gov, 2017). More importantly, not every intervention works with every youth offender. The key is to focus on each youth as an individual and not as a population.

As indicated in a 2015 Policy Brief detailing approaches to address juvenile delinquency by implementing therapeutic programs, the state of Tennessee began to put in place programs which would target the future behavior of youthful offenders. Developed in 2014 in an attempt to address the climate of juvenile facilities by providing therapeutic services to offenders, the Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth (TCCY) philosophy was one which held that success was contingent upon “fostering the health and well‐being of the next generation” (A Therapeutic Approach to Juvenile Justice, 2015).