Holistic Representation for Court-Involved Youth: Findings from an RCT

Purpose. Many youth enter the juvenile justice system with underlying and unaddressed risk factors such as mental health issues, substance abuse challenges, or school problems.  Juvenile justice scholars contend that mental health, substance abuse, and school problems are under-assessed and under-treated in the juvenile justice system because of a lack of resources, lack of trained staff, and a punishment mentality (Roberts & Bender, 2006).  At the same time, many argue that the juvenile justice system has become the default mental health service provider for youth with serious mental illness, substance abuse, or school problems (Goldstrom et al., 2000; Pullmann et al., 2006).  This study used a randomized clinical trial to evaluate whether providing wraparound forensic social work services in addition to court-appointed legal services, would improve functioning, decrease Motions for Review, and lower recidivism for first-time juvenile offenders. 

Methods. Cases were randomly assigned to either the treatment group with an attorney and a Master’s-level social worker or to the control group with only an attorney, for “treatment as usual.”  The agency providing legal representation covers all indigent defense services for youth in the county, so all youth who were eligible for a court-appointed attorney and who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in the study.  Three hypotheses were presented: 1) HRP first-time offenders’ scores on the Youth Self Report (YSR) will improve significantly from pre-test to post-test and will improve more than the control group’s scores; 2) HRP first-time offenders will receive fewer Motions for Review over the 12-month study period than the control group; and 3) HRP first-time offenders will demonstrate a longer time period of time (measured in days) between their first adjudicated offense and second adjudicated offense over the 12-month study than for the control group.

Results. Comparing the treatment group’s posttest mean scores to the control group’s posttest mean scores, the treatment group showed significant improvement for youth functioning on six out of the eight scales.  Significant differences were found on the: Withdrawn/Depressed (F=13.784, p<.000), Somatic Complaints (F=6.964, p<.004), Thought Problems (F=6.91, p<.004), Attention Problems (F=9.845, p<.001), Rule-Breaking Behavior (F=5.953, p<.007), and Aggressive Behavior scales (F=12.125, p<.000).   However, differences on two scales, Anxious/Depressed (F=2.802, p<.079) and Social Problems (F=.867, p<.432) were not significant. The two additional measures, Motions for Review and recidivism, did not yield significant results. 

Implications. Despite its limitations, this study provides compelling evidence of the effects of wraparound forensic social work services for first-time offenders.  Unlike previous studies, which advocated for assessment through Juvenile Assessment Centers (Dembo, Schmeidler, & Walters, 2004) or through screening tools (Roberts & Bender, 2006); this research provides empirical support for the effectiveness of both assessment and service provision for court-involved youth.  Court-appointed lawyers may meet defense representation needs, but holistic representation services actually bolster existing client strengths/protective factors and can address underlying needs/risk factors which weaken youth functioning and contribute to additional court-involvement and/or reoffending.  Case study example is provided and implications for service provision are explored.