Clinical supervision of court-referred juvenile offenders:Are juvenile referrals the least among equals?
Matthew C.Leone a ,⁎,1,Nancy A.Roget b ,Jennifer H.Norland b
a Department of Criminal Justice and the Grant Sawyer Center for Justice Studies,University of Nevada,Reno,United States b
Center for the Application of Substance Abu Technologies,University of Nevada,Reno,United States
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o Article history:
Received 24July 2008
Received in revid form 30September 2008Accepted 30September 2008Available online 22October 2008Keywords:
Clinical supervision
Court referred juveniles Juvenile treatment
In the counling field,clinical supervisors operate between the line-level counlor and the organizational administration.They are responsible for both the ef ficient operation of the therapeutic aspect of the organization,and the supervision,training,and management of the therapists.The quality of the treatment offered by an institution can be assd by a number of measures,including the ratio of clinical supervisors to counlors,the training and experience of the clinical supervisor,and the number of different tasks the clinical supervisor is asked to perform.Through a survey of clinical supervisors in five western states we compared the differences among clinical supervisors who had large versus small numbers of court-referred juveniles in their programs.Data indicate that therapeutic programming and clinical supervision are different in programs with a high proportion of court ordered juvenile offenders relative to tho with a high proportion of private referrals.This programming,however,may be superior to the programming and clinical supervision received in programs with fewer court-ordered juvenile offenders.
©2008Elvier Ltd.All rights rerved.
1.Introduction
Ben Lindy,known as “the kid's judge ”in Denver,Colorado in the early 1900s (Hiner &Hawes,1985),
once said that juveniles are neither moral nor immoral,but rather “unmoral ”becau they have yet to fully develop.They are,he said,“little savages,living in a society that has not yet civilized them ”(Lindy &O'Higgins,1911:134–135).Judge Lindy believed that the juvenile court had a duty to offer juveniles the opportunities necessary to make them fully functioning members of society.His point of view,while popular at the time,reprented a perspective more enlightened and in many ways quite different than the beliefs that had preceded it.
1.1.History of the American juvenile justice system
The history of the juvenile justice system in America is in many ways similar to that of the adult system.Both have gone through signi ficant changes,often brought about by public pressures and economic realities,and both have cycled between treatment and punishment as ways to control criminal behaviors.The juvenile system,however,is unique becau it has always dealt with a relatively weak gment of the population,and many abus within
the system went undetected and uncorrected for years.Abus also occurred within the adult justice system,but the victims were usually less likely to remain quiet,and therefore their experiences were more likely to come to the attention of the public.As a result,abusive treatment of adult offenders was typically less prolonged than that of the juvenile population.
During the earliest period of social development in Anglo-American culture,there was little legal differentiation between adults and juveniles.While placement in a workhou was a common respon to crime for both juveniles and adults in the 16th century,the respon was aimed toward punishment,rather than reform.Both adults and juveniles arrived at the workhou through the same legal process,and there were not parate courts for juvenile offenders.That began to change in the 19th century,and the belief that juveniles,becau of their still “incomplete ”status,derved a justice system respon that re flected that status (Binder,Geis,&Bruce,2000).The New York Hou of Refuge opened in 1825to address the needs of the juvenile offenders and to focus on their reform,rather than their punishment.Similar hous of refuge opened in Boston in 1826and Philadelphia in 1828,indicating a growing interest in reforming wayward youth.The legal system soon followed with court cas,which strengthened the state's powers over the youths,allowing the state to act in the best interest of the child,even if this action was against the will of the parents (Ex Parte Crou,1839).Prior to this change,much of society had been operating under the ideals t forth by the church,known as Paterna Pietas.The principle of Paterna Pietas implied that God,as a heavenly father,treated his earthly children with care and concern,and parents were to act in the same way with
Children and Youth Services Review 31(2009)451–456
⁎Corresponding author.
E-mail address:mleone@unr.edu (M.C.Leone).1
Supported in part by a grant from the Substance Abu Mental Health Services Administration,United States Department of Health and Human Services 6UD1
TI13419-05-6.
doi:
10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.09.012
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review
j ou r n a l h o m e pa ge :ww w.e l s e v i e r.c o m/l o c a t e /c h i l d y o u t h
0190-7409/$–e front matter ©2008Elvier Ltd.All rights rerved.
their offspring.The shift away from Paterna Pietas and toward Parens Patriae,which placed the ultimate responsibility for the care of the child in the hands of the state,indicated that the state was going to take the care of children riously,and that it would maintain the ultimate authority in the decision of what is right and necessary for the care of the child(Binder et al.,2000).While the doctrine of Parens Patriae has its roots in English common law and English history,the United States made the laws a greater part of their justice system, and initially worked to create a juvenile justice system that would change and nurture,rather than punish,the juvenile offender.
This new therapy-centered juvenile justice system would be focud on the goal of doing that which was in the best interests of the child(Mears,2002).This benevolence implied three changes to the sys
tem of juvenile justice.First,there would need to be courts designed around the needs and the specific differences of juveniles; cond,ntencing options beyond punishment were necessary for tho who were procesd through the new juvenile courts;and third,the system would need to change to allow juveniles to more rapidly and conveniently exit the court system and move directly into a therapeutic tting.All of the goals could be accomplished with the knowledge and technologies available at the time of the emergence of the juvenile courts.The changes,however,would prove to be rather expensive.
At this point in juvenile justice history,the public supported spending money on rvices and programs which could potentially prevent large numbers of juveniles from becoming adult offenders. The costs,however,could not be borne indefinitely,and as funding was reduced,rvices diminished,staffing declined,and populations within the juvenile institutions incread,along with the accompany-ing frustration and violence(Wooden,1976).
The experiences of the American juvenile justice system of the 1930s are amazingly similar to the experiences of the1990s(Marcotte, 1990).As Cannon and Beir pointed out,juvenile facilities of the21st century are“chronically short of money,which means fewer staff, more overcrowding—in short,more trouble”(2004:30).Furthermore, many detention facilities are holding juveniles with mental
health issues.As many as60to70%of the juveniles in detention facilities were evaluated as having psychiatric disorders,making their treat-ment and management more problematic,more expensive,and more difficult(Teplin,Abram,McClelland,Dulcan,&Meicle,2002).
1.2.Budgetary effects on the operations of the American juvenile justice system
When faced with decreasing budgets and growing populations of increasingly difficult inmates,the adult prison system typically addresd the problem in a logical,albeit undesirable manner. Budgets could be trimmed minimally in the areas of food and clothing,leaving only programming and rvices for reductions. Service cutbacks were limited by federal guidelines and in some cas court orders,so the decreas could again only be minimal. Reductions in programming would eventually result in diminished numbers of inmates qualifying for parole,but in the short term the reductions were the most feasible way to balance a budget.This reduction would best be accomplished by hiring less qualified(and cheaper)persons to provide programs and rvices,and offering less individualized treatment plans,including lf treatment-bad12-step programs(Prendergast&Wexler,2004).Juvenile facilities,faced with similar budgetary reductions and similar restrictions were able to utilize many of the same options,although often to a lesr degree.
加拿大留学中介排名
To decrea detained populations and costs while continuing to offer supervision and rvices to their clients,juvenile justice systems incread the number of juveniles on supervid relea programs. Overall rates for juvenile probation referral incread from56to62% between1985and2002,with person and public order offens increasing approximately50%,and drug offens nearly doubling in the same period(Livy,2006).Informal probation incread only5% in the same period,indicating a trend toward“more formal processing of delinquency cas”(2006:1).Given the types of cas receiving probation at a greater rate,and the budgetary issues juvenile rvices routinely face,it is logical to assume that many of the juveniles placed on probation were also required to attend programming outside the confines of the institution.Indeed,in20026.2%of the total juvenile arrests for drugs were dispod through court ordered counling rather than traditional probation supervision(Snyder& Sickmund,2006).Given the importance of counling to the operations of the juvenile justice system,the quality of the counling received by juveniles may be uful as an indicator of the overall health of the juvenile system and the likelihood of effective treatment and decread potential for recidivism(Jones&Wyant,2007).
1.3.Clinical supervision as an indicator of treatment quality
In rearch which was to mark the beginning of a new area of study,Biasco and Redfering(1976)note
d that clinicians who received supervision from more experienced clinicians were likely to have clients who made more significant progress compared with clinicians who were unsupervid.From this empirical foundation the process of clinical supervision has continued to be studied,and the requirement of clinical supervision has become codified and manda-tory in virtually all jurisdictions.Furthermore,Holloway(1995)notes that clinical supervision became recognized as a parate discipline in 1980.Clinical supervisors now rve as the interface between the administration,tho who generate new ideas and practices within thefield,and the practicing clinical counlor(Haynes,Corey,& Moulton,2003).A good clinical supervisor stays informed through conference attendance and professional publications,and brings to the practitioners the newest and most successful clinical protocols (Amodeo,Ellis,&Samet,2006).Clinical supervisors are also expected to certify that the practitioners are performing the operational duties required of them by the organizational administration,and to make sure the practitioners are following organizational policies. Many clinical supervisors are also asked to supervi clinical interns, evaluate their clinical ssions,and keep track of the hours required for full licensure.Often,clinical supervisors also maintain a treatment caload along with the duties listed above.As expected,the multifaceted duties take a great deal of time,and clinical supervisors are therefore unlikely to provide quality supervision if they are asked to supervi a great number of clinicians(Milne&Weterman,2001).
While the literature does not indicate a“proper”ratio of clinicians to clinical supervisors,lower numbers of supervies has been shown to improve the effectiveness of the clinical supervisor as well as the therapeutic practices of the clinicians in the organization(Haynes et al.,2003,Herbert&Trusty,2006).Milne and James(2002)noted that more clinical supervision improved overall clinical competency and likely the success of the therapeutic intervention,and van Ooijen (2000)noted that balance among the three areas of clinical super-vision(administrative,educational,and supervisory support)bene-fited both the supervisor and the supervie,likely resulting in enhanced institutional effectiveness.
As juvenile justice systems attempt to provide more rvices with less funding,and more juveniles are court-ordered into therapeutic ttings to reduce correctional populations,the question which must be asked is"are the court ordered juveniles getting the same level of care as juveniles who are privately referred(not institutionally ordered or required)into treatment programming?"However,given the importance of the clinical supervisor to the overall quality of treatment received,the question may be more appropriately termed “are facilities with large proportions of court ordered juveniles offering quality clinical supervision to their therapists?”This is the rearch question we sought to answer.
452M.C.Leone et al./Children and Youth Services Review31(2009)451–456
2.Methodology
The survey was generated through three concutive focus group ssions with clinical supervisors.In thefirst focus group,clinical supervisors were asked to identify their various duties,and the challenges they face in performing the duties.From this informa-tion,we asmbled a t of typical respons to each of the open-ended questions,and created from the respons a draft survey.This survey was then prented to a cond focus group,and the participants were asked to critique the questions and eliminate respons they considered unnecessary,as well as add things they believed were missing.This survey was then nt out to a third group of clinical supervisors and a phone conference was held to gain access to the opinions of tho clinical supervisors who were unable to attend the previous two focus groups.From the interactions,afinal survey document was asmbled,and the survey materials were prepared for submission to the respondents.Survey subjects each received a packet which included:a cover letter explaining the goals of the rearch,the names and affiliations of the rearchers,and the importance of the study to thefield of clinical supervision;two Dairy Queen or Target(depending on the area)$1.00gift certificates;the survey,and a lf addresd and stamped envelope for the return of the survey.We again reminded t
he respondents in the cover letter that participation is voluntary and respons are anonymous.
isb是什么意思Two weeks following this mailing,a postcard was nt out reminding them to return the survey if it had not already been completed and returned,and asking them to contact the rearchers if they had lost or misplaced the survey.Tho potential respondents who indicated that they would like to participate,but had not received or misplaced the survey were nt another complete survey packet.
3.Results
A list of clinical agencies in Montana,Utah,Nevada,Wyoming and Colorado was generated through the Center for the Application of Substance Abu Technologies(CASAT)at the University of Nevada, Reno.CASAT is a rearch center which tests treatment models and trains practitioners in the current effective models of treatment.The Mountain West states were lected becau of their similarities,such as large physical spaces with a few den population areas distributed around the state,and similar juvenile justice and adult justice system structures.Their laws pertaining to juvenile delinquency are also quite similar,as are the operations of the juvenile courts and the inter-mediate sanction process for juveniles.
The program managers for each of the agencies that participate in the training programs offered by
CASAT were asked for a list of clinical supervisors at each of their respective agencies.Agencies that didn't list a clinical supervisor were eliminated from the rearch pool.A total of230clinical supervisors were preliminarily identified and were retained as potential subjects.Upon clor inspection of the subject list we noted that veral clinical supervisors were listed multiple times due to their supervisory positions at multiple clinical sites.Once the overlapping cas were eliminated,the pool of potential subjects dropped to approximately210.The clinical supervisors were considered the rearch pool,and were conquently nt survey packets.Around15of the packets were returned either due to the clinical supervisor no longer being at that site,or becau the clinical supervisor refud to participate.Of the remaining190+ surveys which were nt out,85(44.7%)were returned completed.Of this group58(68%of respondents)were deemed uful for the analys becau of their significant activities with juvenile clients. Clinical supervisors from practices which dealt exclusively with adult clients were eliminated;and only the respons of tho clinical supervisors who agencies handle juvenile clients were considered appropriate for this rearch.Two of the clinical supervisors surveyed, however,reported that their agencies did handle juvenile clients,but that they currently had no court-referred clients.Due to their past experience with juvenile clients,the data from the respondents were retained for this study.
3.1.Demographics of respondents
Clinical supervisors who responded to the survey were nearly evenly divided between males and females,with males comprising 52%of the respondents and the remaining48%female.Mean age was 47years at the time of the survey,and as expected,the population was relatively highly educated,with64%having masters-level degrees and 10%having doctoral-level degrees.Few of the respondents reported having a degree in Criminal Justice(16%)but29%reported that they had taken cours in criminal justice,taking on average nine cours in thefield.White respondents comprid84%of the respondent group,and22%of the group reported that they were in recovery from
a drug or alcohol addiction.
3.2.Rearchfindings
Clinical agencies werefirst examined and categorized bad on the percentage of juvenile clients in the agency that were referred there by criminal justice agencies.Following this initial analysis,the agencies were divided into quartiles,bad on the percentage of juvenile clients who were referred to the agency through the criminal justice system.A score of1was assigned to the lowest percentage quartile,a2to the next quartile,a3to the following,and a4to the quartile with the highest ratio of criminal justice referrals;plea e Table1for a description of thefindings.This quartile rank score
will be ud as a covariate in the following analys;thefirst round of analys were conducted using variations of the Chi-Square statistic.
Thefirst ven questions dealt with the experience of being and becoming a clinical supervisor.Respons to the questions were compared across the four-quartile rankings that relate to the percentage of juvenile clients referred to the agency through criminal justice agencies.Forfive of the six questions,agencies with all levels of criminal justice referrals of their juvenile clients were statistically similar.Only one question,which dealt with the issue of training in clinical supervision prior to actually becoming a clinical supervisor, was different across criminal justice referral quartiles.The respons to this question indicate that clinical supervisors who received training in clinical supervision prior to becoming a clinical supervisor (the preferred method of advancement)tended to work in agencies
Table1
Percentage of juvenile clients referred by criminal justice agencies and quartile ranking
Number of
agencies
Percent of
agencies
Quartile
ranking
Agencies per
quartile
0%2 2.41
2%1 1.21
4%1 1.2115
5%5 5.91
10%67.11
15%1 1.22
20%4 4.72
25%2 2.4215
30%1 1.22
40%1 1.22
50%67.12
60%2 2.43
70%4 4.7314
75%2 2.43
80%67.13
82%1 1.24
85%2 2.44
90%4 4.7414
95%2 2.44
100%5 5.94
453
M.C.Leone et al./Children and Youth Services Review31(2009)451–456
with higher percentages of criminal justice agency referred juveniles (plea e Table2for thefindings).
The following group of questions assd the relative agreement/ disagreement to a ries of statements which were raid during the focus group portion of the instrument construction process.The statements dealt with the typical duties of clinical supervisors,and measured(via a5point Likert scale)the respondents'relative agree-ment with each specific statement.No significant differences were noted among the respons to the questions,with the exception of the question dea
ling with clinical supervisors as providers of necessary training to the clinicians they supervi.On this question,the highest and lowest quartile groups were more oriented toward neutrality,while the two central quartiles were more inclined to answer“very true”to the same question(plea e Table3for thefindings).
Following the statements,education and work history were examined.Education was similar to the question above,in that the findings were significant,and oriented toward the central two quartiles of the respon group,indicating that clinicians who worked for agencies with moderate percentages of criminal justice referred juveniles were significantly more likely to have received specialist or doctorate-level degrees.
Work history generated veral significantfindings.Persons who worked at agencies with a greater proportion of their juvenile clients having arrived through criminal justice referrals were significantly more likely to have worked at multiple agencies as both a clinical supervisor as well as a clinician,had spent more time as a clinical supervisor,but had less time as a clinical supervisor with their current agency.They were also slightly more likely to have worked at multiple agencies.Clinical supervisors in lower criminal justice referral agencies were also slightly more likely to have advanced degrees
Table2
Clinical supervisor background and training question by quartile ranking
Background and training question Quartile1
mean
Quartile2
mean
Quartile3
mean
Quartile4
mean
Significance
Were you a clinical
supervisor prior to
this position?
1.43 1.44 1.11 1.17N.S.
Were you hired as
promoted?
1.71 1.60 1.57 1.62N.S.
Were you trained in clinical
supervision prior to
becoming a C.S.?
1.71 1.21 1.42 1.50.025
Were you trained in clinical
supervision after
becoming a C.S.?
1.40 1.21 1.25 1.15N.S.
Do all clinicians in your
agency have a CS?
1.00 1.07 1.00 1.14N.S. Does your agency have
more than1site?
1.20 1.33 1.21 1.14N.S.
Do you supervi at
multiple sites?
1.36 1.53 1.64 1.36N.S.
Table3
Relative agreement with clinical supervisor duty statements by quartile ranking
Duty statement Quartile1
mean Quartile2
mean
saltaQuartile3
mean
Quartile4
mean
Significance
Effective clinical supervisors
lead by example
1.27 1.07 1.08 1.36N.S.
Effective clinical supervisors
establish clear boundaries
with their staff
1.33 1.47 1.31 1.21N.S.
Effective clinical supervisors
communicate effectively
1.27 1.20 1.31 1.21N.S.
Effective clinical supervisors
have great clinical
knowledge
1.80 1.80 1.85 1.79N.S.
Effective clinical supervisors
are lf-motivated
1.53 1.47 1.69 1.71N.S.
Effective clinical supervisors
find effective solutions to
problems
1.73 1.60 1.46 1.71N.S.
Effective clinical supervisors
u personal strengths to
improve agency
1.60 1.47 1.62 1.57N.S.
Effective clinical supervisors
take criticism well
1.67 1.53 1.69 1.50N.S. Effective clinical supervisors
motivate others well
1.60 1.36 1.38 1.36N.S. Effective clinical supervisors
provide necessary training
to their clinicians
1.73 1.27 1.08 1.86.006
bring up
Effective clinical supervisors
have a vision for the future
of the agency
1.73 1.67 1.38 1.86N.S.
Effective clinical supervisors
have good professional
judgment
1.33 1.27 1.31 1.29N.S.
Effective clinical supervisors work well independently and without supervision 1.93 1.73 1.77 2.00N.S.
Table4
Clinical supervisor training and preparation by quartile ranking
Training/preparation
statement
Quartile1
mean
Quartile2
mean
Quartile3
mean
我爱你韩语Quartile4
mean
Significance板寸发型
Total time as clinical
supervisor
8.33312.1679.1159.567.000
Number of agencies worked
at as a clinician
2.60 2.87 4.00
3.23.039
Number of agencies worked
at as a C.S.
1.73 1.80
2.14 1.86.05
Licend in more than one
discipline
1.60 1.60 1.71 1.64N.S.
Highest academic degree 3.93 4.27 3.93 4.02.027
Years in counlingfield17.80021.93321.60719.991N.S.
Time with current agency9.10014.2338.96410.643N.S.
wooyun orgTime as C.S.with current
agency
6.20010.367 4.857
7.057.000
Age48.60054.00051.92350.089N.S.
cet4成绩
Table5
Percentage of juvenile clients referred by criminal justice agencies correlated with
clinical supervision data
Clinical supervision question Correlation
value
Significance
Number of years experience as C.S.−.152N.S.
Time in current agency prior to being promoted to CS.055N.S.
Number of clinicians you supervi−.102N.S.
Number of other employees you supervi−.067N.S.
Average caload among your clinicians?−.177N.S.
Number of full time clinicians in your agency−.054N.S.
Number of part time clinicians in your agency−.245N.S.
Number of C.S.'s are there in your agency.015N.S.
Number of non-clinician staff in your agency−.165N.S.
Number of agency sites−.331.026
Contact hours per week with each of your clinicians.271.042
Number of clinical cas you supervi−.080N.S.
Percentage of your day dedicated to C.S..002N.S
Percentage of your day dedicated to facility management.179N.S
Percentage of your day dedicated to ca management.155N.S
Percentage of your day dedicated to treatment−.087N.S
Percentage of the juvenile clients at your agency in
individual counling
.242N.S
Percentage of the juvenile clients at your agency in group
counling
.477.000
Percentage of the juvenile clients at your agency in family
counling
.148N.S
Number of years in counlingfield−.023N.S
Time with current agency−.092N.S
Time as C.S.with current agency−.132N.S
Total time as C.S.−.098N.S
Number of agencies worked at as clinician.239N.S
Number of agencies worked at as C.S..035N.S
Percent of male juvenile clients.296.032
454M.C.Leone et al./Children and Youth Services Review31(2009)451–456
童趣译文than tho in the third and fourth quartiles of criminal justice referrals (plea e Table4for thefindings).
Following the examinations,a cond round of analys were conducted using Pearson correlations to determine the strength and direction of relationships between overall criminal justice referrals and clinical practices.Agencies with more criminal justice referrals of juvenile clients were likely to have significantly more weekly contact hours between clinical supervisors and clinicians,but the clinicians offered more group counling ssions,albeit at significantly fewer counling sites.N
ot surprisingly,agencies with more justice system referrals were also significantly more likely to have male clients.A finding of interest which approached statistical significance noted that tho agencies with more criminal justice referrals were less likely to utilize part-time clinicians(plea e Table5for thefindings).
4.Discussion
The results indicated two major trends among facilities that treat juveniles from criminal justice referrals.Thefirst trend indicates that the clinical supervisors in the justice-referred juvenile agencies are in some ways better educated and better prepared than more private-referral agencies.The clinical supervisors had spent(on average)longer periods of time as clinical supervisors,had worked at more agencies,and were more likely to have received training in clinical supervision before becoming a clinical supervisor.Clinical supervisors who worked in agencies in the middle quartiles(which dealt with large numbers of justice referrals,but not exclusively justice referrals)were more likely to e themlves as training providers,something that was less likely at agencies that had virtually all of their juvenile clients referred from the juvenile justice system.
The cond trend noted in the data involved the correlates of high rates of juvenile justice system ref
errals and the actual practice of juvenile counling.Agencies with large numbers of juvenile justice referrals were more likely to have more dedicated clinical supervisors,as measured by the amount of time they spent in contact hours with their clinicians.The clinicians tended to offer more group counling ssions than clinicians who worked at agencies with fewer justice-system referred juveniles,which is interesting given that the agencies also had significantly more male clients—a group that traditionally preferred more individually-bad treatment programming.
It was also interesting to note that somefindings indicated that the highest quartile was more similar to the lowest quartile than it was to tho directly adjacent.The explanation for this phenomenon may be that there are functional similarities in some narrow areas between the two different quartiles.Specifically,low criminal justice referral sites are traditionally places where a new clinician mayfind his or her first professional position.Their relative lack of experience may make a hiring committee at a facility that handles large numbers of court referred offenders reluctant to hire them,so they look for more appropriate agencies.Likewi,as the data indicated,agencies with larger numbers of court referred offenders often have more experienced counlors and clinical supervisors.What the two groups have in common is the need for active and competent clinical supervision.New counlors require more supervision due to their inexperience,while more experien
ced clinicians in agencies that receive large numbers of court referred juveniles also need active and competent clinical supervision due to the problematic nature of the client ba.Tho in the middle quartiles may need less clinical supervision due to the counlor's greater experience and the less difficult nature of the client.
5.Conclusion第三英文
This rearch sought to compare the training and activities of clinical supervisors from agencies with larger and smaller propor-tions of juvenile justice system client referrals.We found that the agencies with the largest proportion of criminal justice system referrals were in no significant way wor(in terms of caloads, duties,and time spent with clients)than the agencies that handled larger proportions of privately referred clients.In fact,the agencies were either virtually identical to the other three quartiles of juvenile justice system referrals,or they were superior.If the activities and training of the clinical supervisors can be ud as a barometer of the health of the organization,and the literature suggests that is the ca,then agencies that handle large numbers of juvenile justice system referrals are as healthy as tho agencies that handle mostly private referrals.Prior rearch strongly indicates that more adequately supervid clinicians are more effective in their duties,and their clients more rapidly progress through the clinical process.With that being the ca,it is not inap
propriate to assume that agencies with larger proportions of justice system referred juveniles are both more effective and efficient than tho agencies which maintain proportionally larger caloads of pri-vately-referred juveniles.
While this rearch showed statistically significant differences among the groups,it is critical to keep in mind that the data have limitations.First of all,the clinical supervisors were drawn from the Mountain West region of the United States.As such,the are clinical supervisors who work in less denly populated areas,with many of them working in areas that could best be described as rural.As such, the juveniles who are nt to the agencies as clients may not reprent the most problematic or dangerous end of the continuum. Second,thefindings are being ud to predict the effectiveness of the institutions bad on the characteristics of the institutions and the training of the clinical supervisors.To be conclusive,the data should next be validated using recidivism rates for tho juveniles nt to agencies with differing levels of clinical supervision.If the data and the prior rearch are both correct,juveniles who are nt by the criminal justice system to clinical agencies with the best clinical supervision will have the most effective clinical experience and the lowest recidivism rates.However,bad on the data collected from clinical supervisors in thefive western states,agencies that handle juveniles referred through the juvenile justice system experience quality clinical interventions,and are in no way the least among equals.
References
Amodeo,M.,Ellis,M.A.,&Samet,J.H.(2006).Introducing evidence-bad practices into substance abu treatment using organization development methods.The Amer-ican Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abu,32,555−560.
Biasco,F.,&Redfering,D.(1976).Effects of counlor supervision on group counling: Client's perceived outcomes.Counlor Education and Supervision,15(3),216−220. Binder,A.,Geis,G.,&Bruce,D.(2000).Juvenile delinquency,(3rd ed.)Cincinnati,OH: W.H.Anderson.
Cannon,A.,&Beir,V.(2004).Juvenile injustice.U.S.News&World Report,137(4), 28−32.
Ex Parte Crou.(1839)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,4Whart.9.
Haynes,R.,Corey,G.,&Moulton,P.(2003).Clinical supervision in the helping professions:
A practical guide.Pacific Grove,CA:Thomson-Brooks/Cole.
Herbert,J.T.,&Trusty,J.(2006).Clinical supervision practices and satisfaction within the public vocational rehabilitation program.Rehabilitation Counling Bulletin, 49(2),66−80.
Holloway,E.(1995).Clinical supervision:A systems approach.London:Sage.
Hiner,N.R.,&Hawes,J.M.(Eds.).(1985).Growing up in America:Children in historical perspective Urbana,Illinois:University of Illinois Press.
Jones,P.R.,&Wyant,B.R.(2007).Target juvenile needs to reduce delinquency.Crimi-nology and Public Policy,6(4),763−772.
Lindy,B.,&O'Higgins,H.(1911).The beast.Garden City,MJ:Doubleday.
Livy,S.(2006).Juvenile delinquency probation caload,1985–2002.Washington,DC.: U.S.Government Printing Office.
Marcotte,P.(1990).Criminal kids.ABA Journal,76(4),61−65.
Mears,D.P.(2002).Sentencing guidelines and the transformation of juvenile justice in the21st century.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,18(1),6−20.
Milne,D.L.,&James,I.A.(2002).The obrved impact of training on competence in clinical supervision.British Journal of Clinical Psychology,41,55−72.
Milne,D.L.,&Weterman,C.(2001).Evidence-bad clinical supervision:Rationale and illustration.Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,(8),444−457.
455
M.C.Leone et al./Children and Youth Services Review31(2009)451–456
