Corrections_Today_Winter_2025-2026_Vol.87_No.4

Especially in secure juvenile detention and commu nity-based environments, the Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy (JJSES) appropriates the use of specific evidence-based treatment programs. These include Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R), Aggression Replacement Training (ART) and Thinking for a Change (T4C) (Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delin quency, 2012). The JJSES initiative includes that cognitive groups reduce rearrest and reconviction by as much as 20-30%, provided that curricula are delivered as designed, in the proper intensity, to the most appropriate youth. Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R) R&R is based on evidence that offenders present with developmental delays regarding the cognitive skills that enable social adjustment (Hansen, 2008). This results in difficulties responding appropriately to social cues. R&R interventions aim to enhance self-control, interpersonal problem-solving, reasoning and perspective-taking by teaching youths to think critically before acting impul sively. In these programs, participants use interviewing and modeling techniques to improve the transfer and consolidation of learned skills (Hansen, 2008). Aggression Replacement Training (ART) ART was optimally designed as a multimodal pro gram to change the behavior of chronically aggressive youth. Hansen (2008) explains that treatments include social skills training to teach offenders how to manage events that provoke aggression and anger control tech niques to provide offenders with ways to reduce angry impulses by enhancing self-control skills. Additionally, moral reasoning components teach offenders better moral values, including respect for the needs of others. Thinking for a Change (T4C) Developed in partnership with the National Institute of Corrections, T4C is one of the most widely implemented programs for juveniles throughout Pennsylvania. These treatments integrate cognitive restructuring with the incor poration of prosocial skill sets to improve clients’ abilities to interpersonally problem-solve. It is important offender lessons are well-structured, not lasting beyond two hours

or administered more than twice weekly (Hansen, 2008). Finally, T4C programs are effectively deliverable in both institutional and community-based settings. Recent analyses Several analyses have been conducted, independent of the state’s quality assurance measures, to determine whether Pennsylvania is achieving its juvenile justice goals. For example, the Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission released a report investigating youth recidivism rates over several years (2022). The report revealed that for youths with closed cases, reoffending rates declined significantly from 18.5% in 2015 to 11.7% in 2019. It continued to highlight reductions in recidivism for both high-risk and very high-risk categories of juveniles. For some, this seemed to indicate the effectiveness of state policy and practice reforms. However, the commission’s report cautioned that notable declines in reoffending may have partly resulted from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which began near the end of the analysis period (Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, 2022). In 2019, Pennsylvania’s governor assembled a task force to conduct a comprehensive data-driven assess ment of the state’s juvenile justice system (Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, 2025). The evalua tion lasted 16 months, reviewing laws, polices and what interventions work best with youth offenders. Input was gathered from citizens through roundtables and public testimony, and questionnaires were provided to hundreds of judges, probation personnel and district attorneys. Representing a range of stakeholders, the bipartisan task force reported its findings and recom mendations to initiate additional improvements for justice-involved youth. Members revealed that while state juvenile reoffending has declined slightly in recent years, diversionary programs are underutilized, even when they are recommended (Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, 2025). Too often, adjudicated offend ers sent to residential placement facilities are removed from their homes for misdemeanor offenses. Moreover, these youths are frequently assessed as low-risk to reof fend. Regardless of the efficacy of state interventions and CBTs, overtreating these clients can be counterpro ductive. As a result, the task force recommended the focused use of detention and placement for those who

Winter 2025-2026 | Corrections Today

33