Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy with adolescents with illegal sexual behavior in a secure residential treatment facility

Newman, Jan L. Everhart; Falligant, John Michael; Thompson, Kelli; Gomez, Michael D.; Burkhart, Barry R.

doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.028

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Practitioners commonly use behavior rating scales and questionnaires such as the QABF in clinical practice (Smith et al., 2012). Residents may feel more comfortable answering questions about their problem behavior via the QABF because the process aligns with the type of therapeutic services (e.g., trauma‐informed cognitive and behavior therapy (Newman et al., 2018)) they receive in juvenile facilities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correspondence between resident‐ and staff‐report on the QABF: Do justice‐involved youth agree with residential staff?

Sheridan

Edgemon

Rapp

2022

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Residents in juvenile residential treatment facilities (JRTFs) often display various emotional, behavioral, and educational needs. Researchers have recently developed behavioral interventions to increase residents' appropriate behavior such as cooperation with facility staff instructions, accepting feedback from facility staff, and tolerating unpleasant events. However, there is not a generally accepted tool for assessing the operant function of residents' problem behavior in JRTFs. For various logistical reasons, indirect functional assessments may be more appropriate in a JRTF than manipulating either antecedent or consequent events. This study obtained scores on the Questions About Behavior Function (QABF) assessment for 17 residents from two dormitory staff members for each resident. To increase the number of respondents, each resident completed a QABF for their own behavior. Results revealed moderate to high correspondence (i.e., agreement) for highest and lowest potential operant function of problem behavior between combinations of JRTF staff and residents. These preliminary findings suggest additional research with the QABF in JRTFs is warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correspondence between resident‐ and staff‐report on the QABF: Do justice‐involved youth agree with residential staff?

Sheridan

Edgemon

Rapp

2022

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Staff members in D4 had longer work histories in the juvenile residential facility and likely participated in more professional development training. The D4 supervisor and staff members also had regular contact with a clinical psychologist with expertise in the assessment and treatment of adjudicated adolescents (e.g., see Everhart-Newman et al, 2018). Likewise, D4 residents may have been more receptive to staff interactions as a function of their recent history of individual and group therapy within the facility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing Praise Delivery Within Dorms of a Juvenile Justice Facility

Luna

Rapp

2020

Behav Modif

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers have shown that adolescents in residential treatment facilities benefit from behavior-analytic intervention. However, it remains unclear whether practitioners can apply behavioral interventions to increase staff members’ appropriate interactions with residents within a juvenile justice facility. In Study 1, researchers compared direct measures of staff behavior in three target dorms (D1, D2, and D3) containing high levels of resident disruptive behavior to a dorm (D4) with consistently low levels of resident disruptive behavior. Results indicated that staff members in the target dorms engaged in significantly higher rates of reprimands and negative statements than in D4. In Study 2, researchers used didactic and video instruction to train staff members in D1, D2, and D3 to increase contingent and noncontingent praise delivery. Results indicated praise delivery by staff members increased slightly in each target dorm. In Study 3, researchers first evaluated the extent to which measures of staff members’ and residents’ behaviors improved following training within each dorm. Subsequently, researchers compared the post-training behavioral measures from D1, D2 and D3 to D4 to determine the extent to which staff behavior in the training dorms was distinguishable from D4. Results of Study 3 indicated that one or more staff behaviors improved in each training dorm. Nevertheless, residents’ disruptive behavior was unchanged in each target dorm. In addition, staff members’ behavior in each target dorm continued to be distinguishable from staff members’ behavior in D4 on most behavioral measures.

show abstract

“…Mental health screening is used upon admission to identify whether a client presents risks warranting immediate intervention (e.g., suicidal ideation, self-injury) [4,45,58,59]. Mental health assessments are used throughout secure treatment to inform treatment and care [13,16,20,24,42,44,45,47,55]. There is a lack of appropriate and comprehensive assessment of the needs of clients in secure treatment [4,10,19,23,45,56,58].…”

Section: Mental Health Screening and Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Factors associated with a longer lengths of stay include criminal history [64], violent incidents during treatment[63], lack of legal recourse [9], programs design [9], and a lack of step-down discharge destinations [42,64].…”

Section: Length Of Staymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, system leaders and policymakers should consider using a phased treatment model in which clients are provided with a series of intensive mental health treatments within and, gradually, beyond the secure setting. Combining mental health treatments within a secure setting with multisystemic therapy -which aims to address the multiple factors that in uence a young person in their community context -after discharge is a promising approach [3,35,42,43,64]. Thus, during the rst phase, clients could be offered evidence-based treatments for their mental health concerns and families could be offered psychoeducation.…”

Section: Implications For Policymakers and System Leadersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mental health treatment programs for children and young people in secure settings: A systematic review

Schutte¹,

Danseco²,

Lucente³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: While there are mental health treatment programs for children and young people in secure settings (i.e., secure treatment programs) in many countries, there is a lack of transparency and consistency across these that causes confusion for stakeholders and challenges for the design and delivery of high-quality, evidence-based programs. This systematic review addresses two questions: What do mental health treatment programs for children and young people in secure community settings look like across jurisdictions? What is the evidence underlying the various components of these programs? Methods: Twelve databases were searched in November 2021: CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Academic Search Complete, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences collection, Google Scholar, OpenDOAR, and GreyLit.org. To be included, publications had to be empirical literature or a report on mental health treatment within a secure setting for people under the age of 25; contain pre-identified keywords; be based on a research or evaluation study conducted since 2000; and be assessed as low risk of bias using an adaptation of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative research checklist. The systematic review included 63 publications. Data were collected and analyzed in NVivo qualitative software using a coding framework. Results: There are secure treatment programs in Australia, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, England and Wales, Scotland, and the United States of America. Although there are inconsistencies across programs in terms of the systems in which they are embedded, client profiles, treatments provided, and lengths of stays, most share commonalities in their governance, definitions, designs, and intended outcomes Conclusions: The commonalities across secure treatment programs appear to stem from them being designed around a need for treatment that includes a mental disorder, symptom severity and salience involving significant risk of harm to self and/or others, and a proportionality of the risks and benefits of treatment. Most share a common logic; however, the evidence shows that this logic tends not to lead to sustained outcomes. Policymakers, service providers, and researchers could use the offered recommendations to ensure the provision of high-quality secure treatment programming to children and young people with serious and complex mental health needs.

show abstract

Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy with adolescents with illegal sexual behavior in a secure residential treatment facility

Cited by 10 publications

References 40 publications

Correspondence between resident‐ and staff‐report on the QABF: Do justice‐involved youth agree with residential staff?

Correspondence between resident‐ and staff‐report on the QABF: Do justice‐involved youth agree with residential staff?

Increasing Praise Delivery Within Dorms of a Juvenile Justice Facility

Mental health treatment programs for children and young people in secure settings: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About