Introduction

Mental health concerns among juvenile-justice-involved youth (JJIY) continue to be a major health crisis in the United States (US). Several studies and reports indicate that approximately 50 to 75 percent of JJIY meet criteria for a mental health disorder (Gottesman & Schwarz, 2011; Nichols et al., 2020; Shufelt & Cocozza, 2006). Furthermore, a number of investigations suggest that mental health concerns in this population include serious mood disorders (e.g., major depression), neurobehavioral disorders (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder), and behavioral disorders (e.g., conduct disorder) (Beaudry et al., 2021; Shufelt & Cocozza, 2006). These have been associated with negative outcomes such as recidivism (McReynolds et al., 2010; Plattner et al., 2009), poor prognosis of co-occurring concerns and risky substance misuse (Abram et al., 2015; Teplin et al., 2012), and increased likelihood of intimate partner violence (experience or perpetration; Van De Molen et al., 2013). While this scholarship has explored mental health concerns among JJIY, and the link to negative life outcomes, there are gaps in the existing research, particularly in effective interventions and models aimed at addressing both the mental health concerns and criminogenic risk contributing to recidivism and other negative life outcomes of this population. Thus, this paper seeks to identify literature focused on interventions implemented within the juvenile justice system and draw attention to a collective interdisciplinary juvenile justice-based framework to address both the mental health concerns and criminogenic risk factors of youth offenders.

The current juvenile system of care has two purposes: (1) ensure public safety and reduction of recidivism, and (2) foster positive outcomes for children, families, and communities (Models of Change, 2015; Weiss, 2013). However, recidivism among youth offenders continues to be a major concern, as reports suggest that approximately 55% of youth will be rearrested within one year of release from a juvenile justice institution (Development Services Group Inc., 2017; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Furthermore, a recent systematic review and meta-regression analysis found substantially high rates of psychotic illnesses, mood disorders, neurobehavioral disorders, behavioral disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychiatric morbidity among detained youth (Beaudry et al., 2021). These findings pose the question of whether care services in the juvenile justice system can address both the mental health needs and criminogenic risk of juvenile offenders. Nevertheless, there is opportunity for novel approaches and frameworks of care to enhance and/or reconstruct existing services to assist in the mental health healing and reduction of criminal behavior among youth offenders.

The establishment of a juvenile justice system was intended to distinguish treatment and outcomes between youth and adult offenders, and designed to rehabilitate youth (Cauffman et al., 2018). A central component of the juvenile justice system is to protect juvenile offenders while holding them accountable (Scott & Steinberg, 2009). Yet, a significant amount of research has shed light on institutional and individual/community factors contributing to poor mental health outcomes, recidivism, and increased engagement in risky behavior following release (Cuevas et al., 2019). For example, Ryan et al. (2014) found that youth placed in institutional correctional settings had a higher likelihood of recidivism than those who completed in-home probation. Additional research has found individual/community level factors such as childhood trauma and gang affiliation to be associated with participation in risky behavior following release (Caudill, 2010; Wolff et al., 2017). Despite extensive efforts by the juvenile justice system to address the various needs of JJIY, there are areas of opportunity to enhance existing approaches to care at the institutional and individual/community level to improve overall outcomes of youth offenders.

In this paper, we present Justice-Based Interdisciplinary Collective Care (JBICC), an innovative framework to address both the mental health needs and delinquent behavior of youth offenders. A central focus of the JBICC framework is to bridge the juvenile justice system and community partners and further the potential benefit of a collective and unified approach that addresses both the mental health needs and criminogenic risk of juvenile offenders. The proposed framework draws from integrated models of care such as the Integrated Models for Behavioral Health and Primary Care put forth by the SAMHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions (Heath et al., 2013). Incorporating a JBICC approach into the juvenile justice system may improve the mental health of JJIY and reduce participation in delinquent behavior and negative life outcomes following release, while at the same time reducing the rate of recidivism.

For orientation to the following sections, we start with a report on juvenile risk factors and reentry. We then provide a review of the literature on the two most commonly implemented interventions, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and multisystemic therapy (MST), with JJIY. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion (e.g., description, benefits) of the novel JBICC framework intended to enhance existing juvenile justice services.

Juvenile Risk Factors and Reentry

Criminogenic Risk Factors

For almost three decades, the risk factors most associated with criminal behavior have been described as the central eight risk factors, first introduced in the explanatory risk-need-response model (RNR; Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews et al., 1990, 2006). The model divides the eight risk factors, also known as criminogenic needs, into two categories, the big four (antisocial behavior, antisocial personality, antisocial attitudes, and delinquent peers) and moderate four (substance use, familial relationships, ties to school/work, leisure time; Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews et al., 2006). Investigations on the RNR model have shown the benefits, such as being able to identify youth who are more likely to reoffend and whom among the population may need intensive rehabilitative treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005; Lowenkamp et al., 2006). Additional research on the RNR model has indicated that when implemented to fidelity there is a 30% reduction in recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). However, mixed findings regarding the RNR model and the central eight risk factors have also been found. For example, Wooditch et al. (2014) found minimal support for some criminogenic risk factors and brought forth measurement concerns related to the central eight risk factors and the association with recidivism. Moreover, Haqanee et al. (2015) suggest that barriers (e.g., lack of knowledge, training limitations, context [correctional facility vs. community settings]) to successful implementation of the RNR framework exist, making it difficult to holistically address the criminogenic needs of offenders. Therefore, suggesting that there is a need for additional research on the development of responsive frameworks and interventions aimed at addressing the criminogenic needs of individuals, in particular youth offenders.

Despite advancements in the understanding of the criminogenic risk of JJIY, the relationship between the central eight risk factors and mental health among youth offenders continues to be poorly understood. Furthermore, according to Morgan et al. (2020), approaches to the rehabilitation of justice involved persons have either emphasized mental health recovery at the exclusion of treatment targeted at criminogenic risk, or solely focused on the criminogenic risk of individuals while omitting mental health recovery. While prior research has found evidence of the weak relationship between criminal behavior and mental health (Dowden & Andrews, 1999; Draine et al., 2002; Fisher et al., 2006), recent models (e.g., Bartholomew & Morgan, 2015) have proposed a complex directionality between poor mental health and delinquent behavior. A component of Bartholomew and Morgan’s model suggests a multi-directionality association between mental health and criminogenic risk, such that untreated mental health concerns result in increased delinquent risk, and vice versa (Morgan et al., 2020). The criminalness-mental illness association made in Bartholomew and Morgan’s model, suggests that mental health concerns may be a reaction to delinquent behavior and delinquent behavior may be a reaction response to mental health concerns (Morgan et al., 2020). In the spirit of these concerns, we agree with both Bartholomew and Morgan (2015) and Morgan et al. (2020), that interventions and models designed to rehabilitate justice involved persons, in this case JJIY, need to simultaneously address the co-occurring domains of mental health and delinquent behavior, versus treating these concerns as independent factors and in silos. In addressing these concerns concurrently, we anticipate that one will see an improvement in the mental health and delinquent behavior outcomes of youth offenders.

Juvenile Recidivism

Recidivism among the juvenile-justice-involved population has remained a constant priority within the juvenile justice system for decades, leaving mental health providers, researchers, administrators, and policy makers alike with more questions than answers (Robertson et al., 2020). While national estimates on recidivism for juveniles do not exist—due to measurement complexity and state difference in juvenile justice systems—data from the most cited source on juvenile offenders and victims suggests that rearrest rates for youth within 1 year of release average is 55 percent and for reincarceration and reconfinement the average rate is 24 percent (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2020; Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Despite efforts to address the known risk factors (e.g., offense history and placement, earlier age of first offense, institutional misconduct, family problems, ineffective use of leisure time, delinquent peers, conduct problems, nonserious mental health concerns; Grunwald et al., 2010; Trulson et al., 2005; Wolff et al., 2017) associated with reentry into the juvenile justice system, recidivism remains a significant concern and central outcome of interest for the Office of Juvenile justice and Delinquency Prevention (Holloway et al., 2024; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2020). While the scholarship on the relationship between antisocial misconduct and recidivism has been well documented, recent research is now starting to highlight additional correlates of reoffending such as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs; psychosocial [e.g., abuse, neglect, household dysfunction] factors with significant impact on health; Felitti et al., 1998). For instance, emerging research shows that ACEs increased the risk of subsequent arrest, with a higher prevalence of ACEs leading to a shorter time to recidivism among a sample of youth from the state of Florida participating in community-based treatment (Wolff et al., 2017). Findings from Wolff et al. (2017) emphasize the importance of not only screening or addressing misconduct among JJIY, but also screening for ACEs among youth offenders to better guide treatment provision. Expanding current conceptual and intervention models to assess and address trauma as a responsivity factor (Taxman, 2014) among youth offenders is vital, given that exposure to traumatic childhood events among JJIY is more prevalent than for the general youth population (Baglivio et al., 2014).

Current research on ways to reduce recidivism among JJIY stress the provision of interventions grounded in evidence to reduce measurable indicators of recidivism (e.g., arrest, court referrals, readjudication, reincarceration, self-reported delinquency; Evans-Chase & Zhou, 2014). Common evidence-based interventions implemented within the juvenile justice system aimed at reducing recidivism among JJIY include cognitive behavioral therapy or elements of CBT (Hoogsteder et al., 2015; Landenberger and Lipsey, 2005; Milkman & Wanberg, 2007) and multisystemic therapy (MST; Borduin, 2019; Henggeler et al., 1992; Timmons-Mitchell et al., 2006). To illustrate the most commonly used interventions with youth offenders in juvenile justice settings and to identify clinical and research needs in this area, we briefly review peer-reviewed literature focused on CBT and MST approaches.

Brief Review of Intervention Literature

Interventions Implemented in the Juvenile Justice System

Overall, research on the most empirically supported interventions implemented with JJIY adhere broadly to elements of CBT and MST (Skeem et al., 2009; Timmons-Mitchell et al., 2006). In our search of the literature, we found multiple systematic reviews or research syntheses (e.g., Baetz et al., 2022; Desai et al., 2006; Morgan et al., 2012), and meta-analyses (e.g., Kumm et al., 2019; Lipsey et al., 2000) of interventions implemented for both institutionalized and non-institutionalized youth offenders. However, as indicated by Kumm et al. (2019) there are many concerns with interventions and implementation within the juvenile justice system. These authors found that few studies provide rigorous evaluation of the implemented intervention (Kumm et al., 2019), which raise concerns around fidelity, feasibility, acceptability, scalability, efficacy, and effectiveness. Further, the authors reported that across studies few describe intervention conditions, translation of intervention across settings, and mixed results for interventions affecting internalizing symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety, somatic complaints, and withdrawal). Additional concerns around interventions for JJIY and implementation include lack of oversight and training requirements, and variability in the types of interventions delivered in juvenile justice facilities between jurisdictions (Swank and Gagnon, 2016). Despite the availability of research demonstrating the importance of identifying and treating JJIY, there appears to be a lack of uniformity on models, interventions, and approaches to addressing the mental health and criminogenic risk of youth offenders (Aalsma et al., 2015).

Cognitive Behavioral Informed Treatments

Cognitive behavioral therapy is one of the most utilized and tested interventions with JJIY to address mental health concerns (e.g., depression), behavioral problems (e.g., aggression), substance use (e.g., alcohol and drugs), and recidivism (Desai et al., 2006; Feucht & Holt, 2016; Hoogsteder et al., 2015). For example, Lowenkamp et al. (2009) found that youth offenders participating in a cognitive behavioral program (Thinking for a Change) had a significant lower recidivism rate compared to youth not exposed to the curriculum. The program was implemented by staff in a community corrections agency and consisted of 22 sessions delivered over 11 weeks (2 sessions each week) with an emphasis on development of prosocial skills (e.g., active listening and asking appropriate questions, complex restructuring techniques; Lowenkamp et al., 2009). A second study, utilizing a cognitive-behavioral treatment approach, found that JJIY in the Value-Based Therapeutic Environment (VBTE) group showed improvement on value- and skills- based behaviors related to self-image, goals orientation, personal development, and additional characteristics compared to the individuals in the comparison group (Strom et al., 2017). Further, results indicated that the odds of new violent charges were approximately 49% lower for youth offenders in the VBTE group during the 12-month follow up after discharge compared to individuals in the comparison group (Strom et al., 2017). Another study, which included components of CBT (e.g., cognitive restructuring), found youth offenders who received any dose of the program (Violent Offender Treatment Program [VOTP]) showed lower odds of recidivism compared to nonparticipant youth offenders during the three years following release (Haerle, 2016). While the VOTP has shown promising outcomes for participants, there are concerns regarding the rigorous demand (e.g., 6 months, between 8–12 h of therapy a week) and controversial elements (e.g., role-playing family trauma and offending history; Haerle, 2016). Finally, a fourth study implementing cognitive behavioral elements found JJIY in the state of Ohio participating in the Targeted Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM) program to recidivate less often and more slowly than youth in the comparison group (Schweitzer et al., 2017). While we are not conducting a systematic review of the effectiveness of these programs, it is worth noting that all the research studies mentioned were conducted using a quasi-experiment research design, therefore, limiting the studies ability to conclude a causal association between intervention and outcome.

Several additional programs were described in the literature focused on addressing mental health concerns among youth offenders. For example, Rohde et al. (2004) found that youth offenders assigned to the Adolescent Coping with Depression (CWD-A) course, a cognitive-behavioral intervention for depressed youth with comorbid conduct disorder, reported reduction in depression and improved social functioning compared to youth assigned to the life skills/tutoring control group. However, group difference in depression and conduct disorder at 6- and 12-month follow up were nonsignificant (Rohde et al., 2004). Further, a pilot study conducted with Black, White, and Latinx JJIY in the state of Georgia found a trauma-informed, mindfulness-based yoga (TIMBY) intervention, with CBT elements, helped youth to modulate anger, regulate emotions, and reduce anxiety symptoms (Owen-Smith et al., 2021). A final study utilizing data from a randomized trial, investigating a CBT informed treatment (Coping with Depression [CWD]) with a mixed sample of JJIY and non-JJIY with depressive and substance use disorders, found that participants most depressed responded well to the intervention and intervention effects were maintained post treatment (Rohde et al., 2018). A limitation to the Rohde et al. (2018) study is that the four comparison groups included both JJIY and non-JJIY, which makes it difficult to understand the impact treatment had on just youth offenders involved in the justice juvenile system.

Multisystemic Therapy Approaches

Broadly, MST is a rigorous, family and community-based treatment model for youth and their families focused on addressing antisocial, criminal, substance use, behavior, and serious emotional disturbance (Henggeler et al., 2009). MST is grounded in the ecological model, which encompasses multiple systems (e.g., justice system, family, school, peers) that contribute to or limit criminal activity and behavior, while holding the family system as a key component in behavioral change (Henggeler et al., 2009). In a study conducted in a community mental health setting with 93 JJIY and their families, results indicated significant reduction in rearrest at 18-month posttreatment follow-up and improvement in 4 areas of functioning (e.g., school/work, home, community, moods and emotions) for youth in the MST treatment group compared to youth in the treatment as usual group (Timmons-Mitchell et al., 2006). According to the authors, this study was the first randomized clinical trial of MST with JJIY with no direct supervision from the model developers conducted in the United States (Timmons-Mitchell et al., 2006). Similarly, a second study examining the long-term criminal activity of 176 JJIY who participated in either MST or individual therapy found that youth in the MST group had significantly lower recidivism rates at follow-up than youth in the individual therapy group (Schaeffer & Borduin, 2005). Similarly, findings from Borduin et al. (2009) suggest that JJIY with problematic sexual behaviors that participated in an adapted MST program self-reported lower rates of rearrests compared to youth offenders who received usual community services following release from treatment. While MST has been found effective in addressing criminal and behavioral concerns among JJIY, there are studies that report mixed findings on the effectiveness of MST in decreasing recidivism among youth offenders. For example, Mitchell-Herzfeld et al. (2008) found a nonsignificant association between MST participation with lower rates of rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration among youth offenders involved with the Office of Children and Family Services in the state of New York. Similarly, another study conducted with juvenile offenders with co-occurring disorders found no statistically significant difference in recidivism at 36-month follow up between youth offenders in the MST-Family Integrated Transitions treatment group and youth in the control group (Trupin et al., 2011).

While there is some evidence that MST is an effective intervention for reducing behavioral concerns and recidivism among youth offenders, there is also evidence showing its effectiveness in addressing mental health concerns with justice involved youth. For example, a pilot study conducted with youth transitioning into adulthood with serious mental illness and justice involvement found an adapted version of MST (Multisystemic Therapy for Emerging Adults) to reduce the number of endorsed mental health symptoms assessed using the Brief Symptom Inventory by participants from 20 to between 5 and 6 (Davis et al., 2015). A second study, which compared MST for Child Abuse and Neglect (MST-CAN) with Enhanced Outpatient Treatment (EOT), showed that MST-CAN was significantly more effective than EOT in reducing mental health symptoms (e.g., anxiety, depression, trauma, dissociation, anger) among youth involved in child protective services (Swenson et al., 2010). Finally, a third study implementing MST with a sample of 180 ethnically diverse JJIY found improvement in emotional regulation skills among youth offenders, with particular improvement among youth offending girls (Winiarski et al., 2017). Although there are promising studies demonstrating the benefits of MST on addressing mental health concerns among JJIY, the evidence is limited and therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution. Consequently, more work is needed that investigates the effectiveness of MST on mental health concerns of youth offenders.

Additional evidence has shown that the sole use of skill-based interventions such as CBT are less effective at reducing recidivism than interventions that use a therapy or counseling perspective or a multiple services approach (Development Services Group Inc, 2017; Evans-Chase & Zhou, 2014; Lipsey et al., 2000). While research over the past three decades has highlighted the use of evidence-based interventions (e.g., CBT, MST) within the juvenile justice system to target individual behavior and problematic thinking among JJIY, recidivism and other negative life outcomes among youth offenders will continue to be a major health crisis until societal and community-level factors (e.g., structural racism, poverty, racial profiling, discrimination, access to service, immigration policies) are properly addressed. These findings shed light on the importance of a collective and collaborative approach to the issues of recidivism among youth offenders.

Proposed Model

Given the limited literature on frameworks/models (e.g., A Framework for Reducing Criminogenic Needs Through Effective Programming, [Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2014]; Criminogenic Risk and Behavioral Health Needs Framework, [Osher et al., 2012]) and guidelines/principles (Principles of Community-based Behavioral Health Services for Justice-involved Individuals: A Research-based Guide, [Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, 2019]) that address simultaneously the mental health needs and criminogenic risks of JJIY, we propose several key elements for integration of behavioral health and criminogenic rehabilitation into the juvenile justice system. The model bridges community partners, with the purpose of informing future interventions, implementations, and research in this area. Drawing from integrated models of care (Heath et al., 2013), we discuss key components that may better meet the holistic needs of JJIY in institutional and community settings, including: collaboration between institutions (e.g., detention, probation, youth correction facilities), community programs (e.g., peer mentoring), and specialty mental health treatment and criminogenic rehabilitation (e.g., comprehensive care, evidence-based interventions). We also focus on the need for cultural responsiveness to be interwoven throughout all aspects of treatment (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Justice-Based Interdisciplinary Collective Care Framework

Full size image

Collective Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Identifying effective methods of intervention for youth offenders is difficult given the multiple influences and environmental factors that encourage or endorse delinquent behaviors (Carney & Buttell, 2003), along with the numerous psychosocial and cultural needs. As a result, an integrated system of comprehensive service grounded on strengths that centers the voice of youth offenders, the family, and community from the start is needed to address the complex needs of youth offenders. A key component to integrated treatment is a focus on interdisciplinary collaboration (Heath et al., 2013). Therefore, a collective interdisciplinary collaborative approach to care for JJIY should include correctional/probation officers, institutional providers (e.g., psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, psychiatrist), community providers, education representatives, family members, peer mentors, and the youth, and trained in the cross-section of mental health and criminogenic needs among youth offenders in the justice system.

Peer Mentoring

While some models (e.g., wraparound services model; Brown & Hill, 1996; Carney & Buttell, 2003; Eber et al., 1997; Pullman et al., 2006) may already take on a comprehensive approach (e.g., case management, counseling [individual, family, group, youth, vocational], crisis care and outreach, education support, family support, psychiatric consult, health services, legal services, residential treatment, transportation) to service provision for JJIY, incorporating peer mentors (e.g., Credible Messengers) with lived experience of justice involvement and mental health in recovery with competence in working with youth offenders would increase the comprehensiveness of available services. Integrating mentors with lived experience as part of collective interdisciplinary collaborative services may help increase engagement among youth offenders, while facilitating the youth’s reintegration into the community. For example, youth participating in a youth-serving organization’s mentoring program were less likely to have returning arrest and experienced significant academic and employment gains (Douglas & Delgado, 2014). Similarly, a second study (evaluation study of Foundation 4 Life, a peer mentoring program) found that 30% of participants increased positive decision making and 26% experienced internal deliberation about consequences of unlawful behavior (Weaver and Lightowler, 2012). Further, data from an evaluation of a pilot six-week training program— Credible Messengers Institute— found that individuals/returned citizens (i.e., formally incarcerated) participating as mentors reported improved self-esteem, level of hope, and self-knowledge (Lopez-Humphreys & Teater, 2019). Additionally, mentors with lived experience are well positioned to transform and strengthen the youth’s involvement with the community. For example, one report highlights that the hiring of mentors residing in the same communities as JJIY creates the opportunity for ongoing contact and continuous reinforcement of treatment (Austria & Peterson, 2017). Further, mentors are well situated to serve as brokers and connect JJIY with community supports including faith-based organizations, civic groups, and community resources with the purpose of reestablishing and fostering authentic relationships that lead to personal growth and second opportunities (Austria & Peterson, 2017). The integration of mentors into existing services is likely to assist in the wholistic healing of youth offenders.

The shared lived experience, identities, and cultural background between the mentor and offending youth may allow for genuine, collaborative, empathic, and compassionate mentor–mentee relationships. The shared lived experience and intersecting identities among the mentor–mentee may enhance the working alliance by strengthening and streamlining the rapport and trust building process, which may increase the offending youth’s motivation to take ownership of their own healing process. The integration of mentors into collective interdisciplinary collaborative services will enrich the youth’s treatment team credibility and expertise. Moreover, members of the collective interdisciplinary collaborative team should receive cultural responsiveness training to better serve offending youth of color across different levels of services. According to Cadenas et al. (2022), considering that cultural context shapes lived experience, additional cultural responsiveness training is needed to better prepare collective interdisciplinary collaborative service teams working with at risk populations.

Justice-Based Services

Expanding interventions and services to incorporate structural inequities of health (SIOH; nonmedical factors [socioeconomic status, education, neighborhood and physical environment, employment, access to care] that influence life outcomes; Artiga and Hinton, 2019), at individual and community levels can lead to better understanding of needs, barriers, limitations, and conditions impacting the mental health and criminogenic needs of youth offenders, which can enhance the development or adaptations of interventions and services. While current effective strength-based models already exist (e.g., RNR) for the assessment and treatment of youth offenders, these models lack recognition of structural factors (e.g., policy and law, racism, discrimination, poverty, limited access to services, inequitable educational system, oppressive immigration laws, land displacement, and legacy of enslavement) purposely designed to harm and hinder underserved communities (e.g., communities of color, low socioeconomic status). These have been shown to have a greater impact on the overall health and mobility of disenfranchised groups than biological and behavioral factors. Therefore, treatment models, interventions, and services should operate from a SIOH lens with an emphasis on contextual factors influencing the mental health and criminogenic needs of youth offenders. For example, when making treatment recommendations, service teams need to consider the various contexts that form the youths’ environments and how the various contexts can enhance or hinder the implementation of coping and healing skills (e.g., emotion regulation, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, structuring, self-management). Further, while it may be beyond the current resources and capacity of a given service team to provide personalized holistic treatment, considering the possibility is critical when SIOH serve as barriers to services and healing with groups who may not trust systems, perhaps due to historical colonialization, oppression, racism, and injustice. At the very least, services should provide effective screening of risk, needs, and strength (e.g., RNR); interventions based on individual, family, and community needs; understanding of SIOH; and targeted culturally responsive interventions that simultaneously address the co-occurring mental health and criminogenic needs of youth offenders and their families.

Culturally responsive research on the provision of services stresses the importance of conceptualizing presenting concerns and behaviors consistent with the culture and belief system of the person and family seeking services (Sue et al., 2009). As a result, working with racial and ethnic minoritized and socio-economically diverse youth offenders may require culturally responsive interventions/services and innovative implementation that is community-informed and culturally validating. Collective interdisciplinary collaborative service teams must take caution against the generalization of treatment and service delivery across all groups, as they run the risk of unintentionally invalidating the lived experience of marginalized communities, which may further reinforce certain valid beliefs such as mistrust in systems of care. While adaptation may be a step in the right direction to minimize the negative effects of generalization of treatments and services, it is not enough if adapted treatments or services are not implemented successfully (Cabassa & Baumann, 2013) or without careful consideration of SIOH and context. Careful examination of treatments, services, implementation, SIOH, needs, and context must be considered when working from a culturally responsive lens, leading to overall improvement of services.

Community Engagement

Community members recognized as trusted representatives are well positioned to positively impact and change the life course of youth offenders. While there are multiple benefits to community involvement across the various levels in the overall healing of youth offenders, community programs/organizations in positions to make a difference often lack the resources (e.g., staff, responsive trainings, funds) needed to effectively address the mental health and criminogenic needs of justice involved youth prior to engaging in criminal behavior, during detention period, and post release. Therefore, to maximize on community positionality there needs to be ongoing federal and state commitment, resources, partnering, and support. Holistic investment in community programs/organizations can lead to better overall outcomes for justice involved youth. For example, programs and organizations such as Credible Messengers, Community Connection for Youth, Youth Advocate Programs, Inc., and Roca, Inc., have been successful in reducing recidivism, maintaining high level of youth engagement in programming, and strengthening bonds between the youth offender and community, which have led to positive life outcomes for youth (Community Connection for Youth, 2024; Credible Messengers Justice Center, 2024a, 2024b; Youth Advocate Programs, Inc, 2024). Community programs/organizations with appropriate resources and support may help bridge gaps in juvenile justice treatment and services by providing round the clock mentoring, long-lasting supportive relationships, peer services, ongoing support and mental health groups, and skills building groups; peers with lived experience may be especially helpful in the implementation of these types of services and paid consultation roles (Austria & Peterson, 2017). Finally, community programs/organizations working with youth offenders will need to confront and break down inequities that may lead to unjust treatment of racial and ethnic minoritized and socio-economically diverse communities. Therefore, commitment to equity, inclusion, and diversity efforts must be embedded in their mission.

Discussion

The recognized limitations of current evidence-based interventions implemented within juvenile justice settings suggest that there is opportunity for a novel comprehensive model to enhance services for this population. Further, given the longstanding nature of the various presenting concerns experienced by JJIY, the Justice-Based Interdisciplinary Collective Care framework can be one possible solution to address simultaneously the mental health needs and delinquent behavior of youth offenders. The JBICC is designed to serve as a bridge between institutional and community settings grounded on a collective interdisciplinary collaborative approach to services with a justice and community focus. The integrated nature of the model merges together the multiple services needed for the holistic healing of youth offenders. With an understanding of the complex needs of youth offenders, we offer benefits (e.g., continuation of personalized holistic care, support across various domains of the youths ecological system), recommendations (e.g., funding opportunities for peer delivered services, research that investigates the integration of community healing approaches alongside traditional services and interventions), and implications (e.g., restructuring policy within and outside the juvenile justice system, fostering an environment that encourages interdisciplinary collective collaboration) to the implementation of the JBICC framework to care for youth offenders.

Potential Benefits

Increased justice-based interdisciplinary collective collaboration between the juvenile justice system and community programs/organizations would be a major benefit to youth offenders and their families. Likewise, racial and ethnic minoritized and socio-economically disadvantaged communities are likely to benefit from JBICC, either through increased access in general to services and/or through the continuation of personalized holistic (e.g., mental health and criminogenic) care because of increased resources. Another benefit to JBICC would be expanded multidisciplinary approaches to treatment, services, and implementation. JBICC would provide much needed services and support across the various domains that make up the youth’s ecological system. Further, JBICC efforts can strengthen youth offender’s commitment to transformation and growth (National Mentoring Resource Center, 2024a, 2024b; OJJDP, n.d.). Moreover, JBICC services can build on treatment (e.g., CBT) provided to youth in institutional settings, therefore, reinforcing coping skills and healing methods.

Future Research

A JBICC approach may provide a unique opportunity for community integration and collaboration, implementation, and adaptation of evidence supported services related to mental health and criminogenic care, which can inform practice and research. For example, research on the efficacy and effectiveness of peer (e.g., Credible Messengers) delivered services (e.g., life coaching, mentoring, CBT, job training, enhancing motivation, bridging youth with community resources) is needed to assess if an intervention (e.g., peer delivered services) effect exists and to better understand how patient-, service-, and system-level factors account or moderate an intervention’s effect. As found in the mental health and addiction service literature, there is substantial evidence that supports the effectiveness of peer delivered services (e.g., Bassuk et al., 2016; Davidson et al., 2012). Further, researchers should consider partnering and co-creating knowledge, services, programs, and interventions with community members, trusted leaders, and people with lived experience to address both the mental health and criminogenic needs of youth offenders. Research should also focus on identifying barriers and facilitators of successful implementation of JBICC. In particular, the clinical, social, and pragmatic utility of integrating community healing approaches alongside traditional services and interventions should be examined. It may be that peer and community involvement in the overall healing of youth offenders may enhance accountability, engagement in services, and completion of evidence-supported treatments. Additionally, research should highlight the role of structural racism/systems that serve as a barrier to comprehensive services, healing, and upward mobility. Finally, researchers interested and invested in addressing the mental health and criminogenic needs of JJIY through a justice-based interdisciplinary collective collaborative approach may consider conducting a polit study to establish the fidelity, feasibility, acceptability, and scalability of the proposed framework and ascertain preliminary evidence of the target mechanisms that may mediate JJIY recovery. The following funding opportunities sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice (https://bja.ojp.gov/program/jmhcp/overview) and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/funding; https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/funding/fy2023/O-OJJDP-2023-171695) are potential funding streams that can fund pilot studies that investigate successful implementation of JBICC.

Implications for Policy

The juvenile justice system could support increased access and expand services to mental health and criminogenic care for youth offenders and their families by investing in community healing and peer-delivered services. This may require the hiring and training of peers with lived experience in the areas of justice involvement and mental health, restructuring policy within and outside the juvenile justice system, and investing in community healing. Additionally, establishment of a JBICC service team requires support from the juvenile justice system to implement validating best practices (e.g., resources, staff, space) and to foster an environment that encourages interdisciplinary collective collaboration.

Limitations

We expect challenges to the implementation of the Justice-Based Interdisciplinary Collective Care framework. First, given the interdisciplinary collective approach to the JBICC framework, it is likely that there will be disciplinary differences regarding conceptualization of presenting concerns and approaches to care. The conflicting paradigms (methodologies/theories) from the different stakeholders involved may lead to disagreement regarding treatment, which may prolong care for JJIY. Second, while working from a justice-based approach is aspiration, it is unlikely that all stakeholders involved in the treatment of JJIY will have engaged in personal work that address implicit and explicit biases. Lending to differential service offering and delivery of treatment for racial and ethnic JJIY. Finally, the ongoing challenges (e.g., financial, personnel, lack of governmental support) of community-based programs and organizations can constrain the scope and effectiveness of community initiatives.

Conclusions

As mental health and criminogenic concerns among JJIY continue to be a major health crisis in the United States, JBICC offers an opportunity to expanded services outside traditional settings and methods to ensure that youth offenders and their families receive validating and culturally responsive access to services. While many of the existing programs in the juvenile justice system are designed to address singular issues– criminogenic needs or mental health concerns as found in the current review– the JBICC framework advocated for in the current paper is an effort to encourage broader integration of peers with lived experience and trusted community members in the mental health and criminogenic healing of youth offenders. Failure to recognize the need to simultaneously address the mental health and criminogenic needs of youth offenders can unnecessarily exacerbate suffering and recidivism. Underserved communities (e.g., communities of color, low socioeconomic status) are especially likely to benefit from a JBICC approach to services and care. Further, changes in legislation can also shift funding priorities in government agencies to support programs invested in the healing of communities. Finally, it is the responsibility of mental health providers, researchers, administrators, and policy makers alike to come together and invest in the JBICC and assess its feasibility, acceptability, scalability, efficacy, and effectiveness.