NCJ Number
188774
Journal
Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse Volume: 10 Issue: 2 Dated: 2000 Pages: 1-7
Editor(s)
Vincent B. Van Hasselt Ph.D.,
Brad Donohue Ph.D.
Date Published
2000
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This paper presented results of an expanded longitudinal analysis that examined the effect of the Youth Support Project (YSP) in Florida aiding in the improvement of youth entering the juvenile justice system and their families.
Abstract
Developing effective intervention programs for youths involved in the juvenile justice system is viewed as a national priority. Youth intervention programs are expected to reflect the experience that many youths entering the system have problems in the areas of physical abuse, sexual victimization, alcohol and other drug use, and emotional/psychological functioning using a holistic approach. This study focused on one such approach, the Youth Support Project (YSP) in Tampa, Florida. The YSP uses a systems and structural approach to improve the functioning of youth and their families. An expanded longitudinal analysis examined the effects of services under the YSP and included youths who entered the project in 1996. Families were randomly assigned to the Extended Services Intervention (ESI) receiving monthly phone contacts by project research assistants or the Family Empowerment Intervention (FEI) receiving personal in-home visits from project field consultants (FCs). The major focus of the analyses was to determine the impact of assignment to the FEI or ESI group on the youths’ psychosocial functioning during the year following their assignment. Results indicated significant reductions in self-reported drug sales and marijuana use during the follow-up period for the FEI group. There was also a trend toward less self-reported frequency of getting high or drunk on alcohol for FEI compared to the ESI group youths. The results of the expanded longitudinal analyses suggested the promise of the Family Empowerment Intervention. This study provided stronger evidence of the value of this intervention than presented in the first assessment. References