What are the characteristics of effective youth offender programs?

Door
Abstract

A large body of literature has attempted to answer the question: what works in reducing youth reoffending? However, this literature often fails to provide specific guidance on program implementation. This review consolidates research on the practical implementation of tertiary youth offender programs to identify the design, delivery and implementation factors associated with positive changes in youth offending behaviours.

A systematic review of 44 studies revealed nine common components of effective programs. These components have been empirically associated with program effectiveness in methodologically diverse studies conducted in various contexts, suggesting they may contribute to reduced reoffending among young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system.

References

URLs correct as at June 2020

*Denotes studies included in the systematic review (n=44)

*Adler et al. 2016. What works in managing young people who offend? A summary of international evidence. Ministry of Justice Analytical Series. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-works-in-managing-young-people-who-offend

*Borowski A 2010. Indigenous participation in sentencing young offenders: Findings from an evaluation of the Children’s Koori Court of Victoria. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 43(3): 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.43.3.465

*Bouchard J & Wong JS 2018. Examining the effects of intensive supervision and aftercare programs for at-risk youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(6): 1509–1534. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17690449

*Braga AA 2016. The continued importance of measuring potentially harmful impacts of crime prevention programs: The academy of experimental criminology 2014 Joan McCord lecture. Journal of Experimental Criminology 12(1): 1–20. DOI: 10.1007/s11292-016-9252-4

*Calleja NG, Dadah AM, Fisher J & Fernandez M 2016. Reducing juvenile recidivism through specialised reentry services: A Second Chance Act project. Journal of Juvenile Justice 5(2): 1–11. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/251065.pdf

*Chan JPS & Boer DP 2016. Managing offenders and what works in Singapore: Ten reintegration assessment predictors (TRAP). Safer Communities 15(3): 142–159. DOI: 10.1108/SC-04-2016-0008

*Cohen MA & Piquero AR 2010. An outcome evaluation of the YouthBuild USA Offender Project. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8(4): 373–385. DOI: 10.1177/1541204009349400

*Cramer L, Esthappan S, Lynch M & Goff M 2019. Considerations for justice-involved youth programming: Lessons learned and recommendations from the Arches, AIM, and NYC Justice Corps Evaluations. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/considerations-justice-involved-youth-programming

*Cramer L, Lynch M, Goff M, Esthappan S, Reginal T & Leitson D 2019. Bridges to education and employment for justice-involved youth. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/bridges-education-and-employment-justice-involved-youth

*Day JC, Zahn MA & Tichavsky LP 2015. What works for whom? The effects of gender responsive programming on girls and boys in secure detention. Journal of Crime and Delinquency 52(1): 93–129. DOI: 10.1177/0022427814538033

*de Vries SLA, Hoeve M, Assink M, Stams GJJM & Archer JJ 2015. Practitioner review: Effective ingredients of prevention programs for youth at risk of persistent juvenile delinquency – Recommendations for clinical practice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 56(2): 108–221. DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12320

*Fazal SM 2014. Safely home: Reducing youth incarceration and achieving positive youth outcomes for high and complex need youth through effective community-based programs. Washington, DC: Youth Advocate Programs Policy & Advocacy Centre. https://chronicleofsocialchange.org/publication/safely-home-reducing-youth-incarceration/7344

*Hanham J & Tracey D 2017. Evolution of mentoring relationships involving young male offenders transitioning from a juvenile justice centre to the community. Youth Justice: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225417699169

*James C, Stams GJ, Asscher JJ, De Roo AK & van der Laan P 2013. Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among juvenile and young adult offenders: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review 33(2): 263–274. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.10.013

*Klenowski PM, Bell KJ & Dodson KD 2010. An empirical evaluation of juvenile awareness programs in the United States: Can juveniles be ‘scared straight’? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 49: 254–272. DOI: 10.1080/10509671003716068

*Knight A, Havard A, Shakeshaft A, Maple M, Snijder M & Shakeshaft B 2017. The feasibility of embedding data collection into the routine service delivery of multi-component program for high-risk young people. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14: 208–223. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14020208

*Koehler JA, Hamilton L & Losel FA 2013. Correctional treatment programmes for young offenders in Europe: A survey of routine practice. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research 19: 387–400. DOI: 10.1007/s10610-013-9206-6

*Koehler JA, Losel F, Akoensi TD & Humphreys DK 2013. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe. Journal of Experimental Criminology 9: 19–43. DOI: 10.1007/s11292-012-9159-7

*Lind B 2011. Screening cautioned young people for further assessment and intervention. Crime and Justice Bulletin no. 149. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research

*Lipsey MW 2018. Effective use of the large body of research on the effectiveness of programs for juvenile offenders and the failure of the model programs approach. Criminology & Public Policy 17(1): 189–198. DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12345

*Lipsey MW 2009. The primary factors that characterise effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders 4: 124–147. DOI: 10.1080/15564880802612573

*Lipsey MW & Howell JC 2012. A broader view of evidence-based programs reveals more options for state juvenile justice systems. Criminology & Public Policy 11(3): 515–523. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00827.x

*Luong D & Wormith JS 2011. Applying risk/need assessment to probation practice and its impact on the recidivism of young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 38(12): 1177–1199. DOI: 10.1177/0093854811421596

*McGuinness A, Tuohy M & Rowney R 2017. Youth justice: Effective practice guide. Deakin: Noetic Group. https://noeticgroup.com/youth-justice-effective-practice-guide/

*Meadowcroft P, Townsend MZ & Maxwell A 2018. A sustainable alternative to the gold standard EBP: Validating existing programs. Journal of Behavioural Health Services & Research 45(3): 421–439. DOI: 10.1007/s11414-018-9599-6

*Miller JM, Barnes JC, Miller HV & McKinnon L 2013. Exploring the link between mentoring program structure and success rate: Results from a national survey. American Journal of Criminal Justice 38(3): 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9188-9

Miller SP 2018. Thematic analysis. Salem Press Encyclopaedia

*Moore T, McArthur M & Saunders V 2013. Young people talk about transitioning from youth detention to the community: Making good. Australian Social Work 66(3): 328–343. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2012.752020

*Morales LA, Garrido V & Sánchez-Meca J 2010. Treatment effectiveness in secure corrections of serious (violent or chronic) juvenile offenders. Sweden: Brottsförebygande rådet (Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention). https://www.bra.se/bra-in-english/home/publications/archive/publications/2010-06-09-treatment-effectiveness-in-secure-corrections-of-serious-violent-or-chronic-juvenile-offenders.html

*Murphy P, McGuinness A & McDermott T 2010. Review of effective practice in juvenile justice: Report for the Minister for Juvenile Justice. Manuka: Noetic Solutions Pty Ltd

*Norris G, Griffith G & Norris H 2017. Risk assessment in youth justice: A child-centred approach to managing interventions. In W Petherick & G Sinnamon (eds), The psychology of criminal and antisocial behaviour: Victim and offender perspectives. London: Academic Press: 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809287-3.00006-7

*Prior D & Mason P 2010. A different kind of evidence? Looking for ‘what works’ in engaging young offenders. Youth Justice 10(3): 211–226. DOI: 10.1177/1473225410381688

*Roy A, Watchirs H, Costello S, Graham K, McGill B, McKinnon G & Moore T 2011. The ACT Youth Justice System: A report to the ACT Legislative Assembly by the ACT Human Rights Commission. Canberra: ACT Human Rights Commission. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/act-youth-justice-system-2011-report-act-legislative-assembly-act

*Sampson A & Themelis S 2009. Working in the community with young people who offend. Journal of Youth Studies 12(2): 121–137. DOI: 10.1080/13676260802558854

*Schwalbe CS, Gearing RE, Mackenzie MJ, Brewer KB & Ibrahim R 2012. A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review 32: 26–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.10.002

*Shlonsky A, Albers B, Tolliday D, Wilsson S, Norvell J & Kissinger L 2017. Rapid evidence assessment: Current best evidence in the therapeutic treatment of children with problem or harmful sexual behaviours, and children who have offended. Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

*Skeem JL, Scott E & Mulvey EP 2014. Justice policy reform for high-risk juveniles: Using science to achieve large-scale crime reduction. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 10: 709–739. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153707

*Spiranovic C, Cockburn H, Bartels L & Julian R 2015. Outcome measures for evaluating the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs. Victoria University Law and Justice Journal 5(1): 23–33. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2856069

*Stout B, Dalby H & Schraner I 2017. Measuring the impact of juvenile justice interventions: What works, what helps, and what matters? Youth Justice 17(3): 196–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225417741226

*Strnadová I, O’Neill SC & Cumming TM 2017. A snapshot of education behind the fence: Supporting engagement in education of incarcerated youth in Australia. International Journal of Educational Research 85: 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.06.004

*Strom KJ, Hendrix JA, Dawes D & Anderson SH 2017. An outcome evaluation of the Methodist Home for Children’s value-based therapeutic environment model. Journal of Experimental Criminology 13: 101–124. DOI: 10.1007/s11292-016-9275-x

*Unnithan NP & Johnston J 2012. Collaboration in juvenile justice: A multi-agency study. Federal Probation Journal 76(3): 22–30. https://www.uscourts.gov/federal-probation-journal/2012/12/collaboration-juvenile-justice-multi-agency-study

*Weaver RD & Campbell D 2015. Fresh start: A meta-analysis of aftercare programs for juvenile offenders. Research on Social Work Practice 25(2): 201–212. DOI: 10.1177/1049731514521302

*Welsh BC & Rocque M 2014. When crime prevention harms: A review of systematic reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology 10(3): 245–266. DOI: 10.1007/s11292-014-9199-2

*Welsh BC, Rocque M & Greenwood PW 2014. Translating research into evidence-based practice in juvenile justice: Brand-name programs, meta-analysis, and key issues. Journal of Experimental Criminology 10(3): 207–225. DOI: 10.1007/s11292-013-9182-3