A Review of Successful Mental Health Interventions to Decrease Adolescent Violence

I want to start off this blog post by taking some time to review what I have already posted about and connect them all back to my main research question:

Can mental health treatments and interventions reduce the rate of crime and recidivism?

As mentioned in my first blog post, this also includes:

• Exploring the common links between mental health and crime
• Asking if mental health interventions for youth can help reduce the rate of crime
• Comparing crime and recidivism rates amongst countries — specifically countries that emphasize mental health and those that do not
• What the hypothetical implementation of more mental health services in the American Court system would look like
• Exploring the concept of isolation and punishment in terms of rehabilitation

My goal with this exploration is to better understand the relationship between mental health, crime, and recidivism to help lower the rates of crime and recidivism.

My second and third blog posts I examined the fact that there is a link between mental health and crime. Additionally, I discussed that comparing recidivism and crime rates amongst countries is not accurate; The definition of crime and recidivism varies between countries and` part of new reforms needs to address this issue by creating a clear international definition. Finally, last week (blog post 4) I began to dive into mental health interventions for youth and the concept of punishment by exploring “Get-Tough” programs for the youth. Ultimately, my discoverings lean towards the idea that punishment without mental health is not effective in reducing recidivism, especially in youth.

So what are some effective ways to incorporate mental health so that youths are deterred from crime and do not continue to commit crime?

Catalano and Fagan (2012) conducted a comprehensive review of research and literature. They began by acknowledging that violent behavior displays a developmental progression and that risk/protective factors are key factors in the likelihood that youth will engage in violence. Then, they identified seventeen interventions that produced a significant reduction in youths committing crimes. The interventions fall into the five following categories:

1. Early childhood education
2. School Based Interventions
3. School- and family-focused interventions
4. Parent training/family therapy
5. Community-based interventions

First, there were two early childhood education interventions that were successful: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers and Perry Preschool interventions. Both of these programs increase opportunities for academic success in youth that come from economically challenged families. They enhance parent-child bonding and work with parents to become more actively involved in their children’s lives. They also focus on individualized and interactive methods that increase academic success.

Second, they identified three school-based programs that were effective. Life Skills Training Boston focuses on improving social/emotional competence through curriculum. The goal is to improve cognitive-behavioral skills, drug prevention, and anger management/conflict resolution. Resolve It/Solve It is a 1–2 year peer-led school and community violence prevention program that aims to increase students’ respect for individuality, enhance conflict resolution, and reduce bullying. Safe Dates is a 10 session teacher-led curriculum to reduce dating violence by amending norms about domestic violence and gender stereotypes as well as enhancing communication and conflict resolution skills.

Third, they identified five school- and family-focused interventions where the children and parents go through separate programs. Most of the programs that the child goes to focus on problem solving, conflict resolution, peer relationships, social skills, and cognitive skills. The parental programs focus on helping the child with the developments (academic, social, and cognitive), increasing parental involvement, and better management of familial conflicts.

Fourth, three programs were identified as significantly reducing violence by youth through parent training/family therapy. In Washington, Staying Connected with Your Teen focuses on parent and child therapy sessions to promote bonding, and improve disciplinary strategies. Multi-Systemic Therapy was another affective program that seeks “to improve parenting skills, children’s academic and vocational performance, peer relationships, and families’ support networks.” And the final program in this category was the Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care intervention where foster care parents receive training, monitoring, and home visits, and the biological family receives similar weekly therapy to prepare for their children to come back home. Youth also receive individual therapy.

The Fifth and final category of Community-Based interventions included three programs: Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Moving to Opportunities, and Communities that care. The programs, respectively, involve one-on-one mentoring, housing vouchers that provide incentive to families living in disadvantaged areas to move, and the assessment of local youth risk protective factors, youth prevention services, and effective prevention programs.

In the discussion and application section of the paper, the authors discuss that these programs are effective and combined cover a broad age range and number of issues. They also stress that because it is believed that violence is developmental, it is important to take preventative actions prior to the emergence of violent behaviors or soon after. Furthermore, they emphasize that these results are not necessarily conclusive, but do suggest that prevention science should promote multicomponent interventions that include aspects of mental health treatment/interventions. This is a theme that I also identified in my last blog post as something researchers suggested be added to “Get-Tough” programs to increase their efficiency.

Overall, it seems that the potential benefits of these programs outweighs the costs of implementing them (at least in my opinion). Obviously, not all cities will be able to implement programs as sophisticated and thorough as the ones discussed in this blog post. But, there are guidelines and actions that can be widely implemented. For example, schools offer classes to parents to improve parent-child relationships and familial relationships. Schools may only be able to do one or two classes, but that can still make a difference.

That’s all for today.

Peace ✌️

Sheridan