“Get-Tough” Programs Are Not Effective in Reducing Crime.
This week, I continued my endeavor into how mental health treatments can lower recidivism rates and crime. However, I did not take my usual route. I had two midterms related to this topic in my legal psychology course and forensic psychology course. Interestingly enough, in both textbooks, there was a study examining the “get tough” technique used to reform juvenile delinquents (unfortunately this study is not available to the general public and is only accessible through textbooks or database subscriptions). One of the topics I have been exploring and continue to plan on exploring is how America’s current system focuses on punishment (such as “get tough” techniques) rather than rehabilitation and the efficacy of the current system. This article examined why “get tough” techniques may not be as effective as some psychological techniques. Furthermore, today’s blog post will focus on the get-tough techniques and examine their role in reducing crime rates amongst adolescents.
One example of the get-tough technique is boot camps or “shock incarcerations” where teens get shipped off, often in the middle of the night, to camps modeled after military boot camps for three to six months. Sometimes, teenagers are sent for periods of up to two years. These camps emphasize strict rules and harsh (oftentimes physically draining or intensive) punishments.
Research has yielded mixed support for these camps. In 2010, Benjamin Meade and Benjamin Steiner reviewed 69 controlled studies and discovered that these programs have little to no overall improvement in recidivism offender rates. In fact, they found that some of the programs they evaluated were effective in reducing rates of delinquency while others actually increased rates. They found that boot camps that involved multidisciplinary techniques such as substance abuse counseling or psychotherapy seemed to be more effective than those that did not. However, it is noted that the conclusion of this study can not be labeled significant or externally valid as the sample size was incredibly small.
Psychologists do not know for sure why get-tough treatments are overall ineffective, but they have several hypotheses. First, it is believed that part of the reason they are less effective than reward-based strategies is because they teach people what not to do but fail to implement what to do. Second, adolescents with preexisting conduct disorders that enter these treatments usually go in with feelings of anger, alienation, and resentment of authority. It seems that get-tough programs only exacerbate these emotions. Additionally, teenagers might go to these camps and meet other delinquent teens that become their role-models.
Psychologists suggest that “get-tough programs” are not the best practice for reducing juvenile delinquency, but if they must be used, they should incorporate aspects of psychology such as psychotherapy or drug counseling as the effective programs from Meade and Steiner’s review did. Psychologists recommended that some better pathways to reducing delinquency is teach teens enduring tools such as social skills, ways to communicate, anger management technique, and ways to get involved in the community.
This is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this topic. This is one article. There are articles published by the DOJ dating all the way back to 1995 that detail the inefficiency of get-tough programs. The New York Times, American Psychological Association, American Bar Association, and several other high profile and reputable journals have published articles regarding get-tough programs (which are now also referred to as the troubled teen industry). In the media, there also has been portrayals of not just delinquency being increased, but stories of abuse and trauma that occurs in these camps that factor into the increased delinquency. For example, since 2020, Paris Hilton has been actively campaigning to shut down get-tough programs and tenn reform programs after details of the abuse her and her fellow peers endured at a program in Provo, Utah.
It is clear that get-tough programs are not effective the way they are currently being done and that psychological aspects need to be implemented to increase effectiveness (so mental health treatments can be effective in reducing criminal behavior). But, are get-tough programs, even when they implement aspects of psychological treatment and teach enduring tools, more effective than other pathways such as cognitive therapy?
That’s all for this week,
Peace ✌️
Sheridan