need by sat
Prevention and Intervention Program
s
for Juvenile Offender
s
V O L
.
1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 1 8 5
Prevention and Inter vention Programs
for Juvenile Offenders
Peter Greenwood
Summary
Over the past decade researchers have identified intervention strategies and program models
that reduce delinquency and promote pro-social development. Preventing delinquency, says
Peter Greenwood, not only saves young lives from being wasted, but also prevents the onset
of adult criminal careers and thus reduces the burden of crime on its victims and on society. It
costs states billions of dollars a year to arrest, prosecute, incarcerate, and treat juvenile offend-
ers. Investing in successful delinquency-prevention programs can save taxpayers seven to ten
dollars for every dollar invested, primarily in the form of reduced spending on prisons.
According to Greenwood, researchers have identified a dozen “proven” delinquency-prevention
programs. Another twenty to thirty “promising” programs are still being tested. In his article,
Greenwood reviews the methods used to identify the best programs, explains how program
success is measured, provides an overview of programs that work, and offers guidance on how
jurisdictions can shift toward more evidence-based practices
The most successful programs are those that prevent youth from engaging in delinquent
behaviors in the first place. Greenwood specifically cites home-visiting programs that target
pregnant teens and their at-risk infants and preschool education for at-risk children that
includes home visits or work with parents. Successful school-based programs can prevent drug
use, delinquency, anti-social behavior, and early school drop-out.
Greenwood also discusses community-based programs that can divert first-time offenders from
further encounters with the justice system. The most successful community programs empha-
size family interactions and provide skills to the adults who supervise and train the child.
Progress in implementing effective programs, says Greenwood, is slow. Although more than ten
years of solid evidence is now available on evidence-based programs, only about 5 percent of
youth who should be eligible participate in these programs. A few states such as Florida, Penn-
sylvania, and Washington have begun implementing evidence-based programs. The challenge is
to push these reforms into the mainstream of juvenile justice.
www.futureofchildren.org
Peter Greenwood is the executive director of the Association for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice.
Peter Greenwood
1 8 6 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
T
here are many reasons to pre-
vent juveniles from becoming
delinquents or from continuing
to engage in delinquent behav-
ior. The most obvious reason is
that delinquency puts a youth at risk for drug
use and dependency, school drop-out, incar-
ceration, injury, early pregnancy, and adult
criminality. Saving youth from delinquency
saves them from wasted lives.1 But there are
other reasons as well.
Most adult criminals begin their criminal
careers as juveniles. Preventing delinquency
prevents the onset of adult criminal careers
and thus reduces the burden of crime on its
victims and on society. Delinquents and adult
offenders take a heavy toll, both financially
and emotionally, on victims and on taxpayers,
who must share the costs. And the cost of
arresting, prosecuting, incarcerating, and
treating offenders, the fastest growing part of
most state budgets over the past decade, now
runs into the billions of dollars a year. Yet
recent analyses have shown that investments
in appropriate delinquency-prevention
programs can save taxpayers seven to ten
dollars for every dollar invested, primarily in
the form of reduced spending on prisons.2
The prospect of reaping such savings by pre-
venting delinquency is a new one. During the
early 1990s, when crime rates had soared to
historic levels, it was unclear how to go about
preventing or stopping delinquency. Many
of the most popular delinquency-prevention
programs of that time, such as DARE,
Scared Straight, Boot Camps, or transferring
juveniles to adult courts, were ineffective at
best. Some even increased the risks of future
delinquency
.3
Only during the past fifteen years have re-
searchers begun clearly identifying both the
risk factors that produce delinquency and
the interventions that consistently reduce
the likelihood that it will occur. Some of the
identified risk factors for delinquency are
genetic or biological and cannot easily be
changed. Others are dynamic, involving the
quality of parenting, school involvement, peer
group associations, or skill deficits, and are
more readily altered. Ongoing analyses that
carefully monitor the social development of
cohorts of at-risk youth beginning in infancy
and early childhood continue to refine how
these risk factors develop and interact over
time. 4
Fairly strong evidence now demonstrates the
effectiveness of a dozen or so “proven”
delinquency-prevention program models and
generalized strategies.5 Somewhat weaker
evidence supports the effectiveness of
another twenty to thirty “promising” programs
that are still being tested. Public agencies and
private providers who have implemented
proven programs for more than five years can
now share their experiences, some of which
have been closely monitored by independent
evaluators.6 For the first time, it is now
possible to follow evidence-based practices to
prevent and treat delinquency.
In this article, I discuss the nature of evidence-
based practice, its benefits, and the challenges
it may pose for those who adopt it. I begin by
reviewing the methods now being used to
identify the best programs and the standards
they must meet. I follow with a comprehen-
sive overview of programs that work, with
some information about programs that are
proven failures. I conclude by providing
guidance on how jurisdictions can implement
best practices and overcome potential
barriers to successful implementation of
evidence-based programs.
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 1 8 7
Determining What Works
Measuring the effects of delinquency-
prevention programs is challenging because
the behavior the programs attempt to change
is often covert and the full benefits extend over
long periods of time. In this section, I review
the difficulties of evaluating these programs
and describe the evaluation standards that are
now generally accepted within this field.
Evaluation Methods and Challenges
For more than a century, efforts to prevent
delinquency have been guided more by the
prevailing theories about the causes of delin-
quent behavior than by whether the efforts
achieved the desired effects. At various times
over the years, the primary causes of delin-
quency were thought to be the juvenile’s
home, or neighborhood, or lack of socializing
experiences, or lack of job opportunities, or
the labeling effects of the juvenile justice
system.7 The preventive strategies promoted
by these theories included: removal of urban
children to more rural settings, residential
training schools, industrial schools, summer
camps, job programs, and diversion from the
juvenile justice system. None turned out to
be consistently helpful. In 1994 a systematic
review, by a special panel of the National
Research Council, of rigorous evaluations of
these strategies concluded that none could be
described as effective.8
Estimating the effects of interventions to pre-
vent delinquency—as with any developmental
problem—can be difficult because it can take
years for their effects to become apparent,
making it hard to observe or measure these
effects. The passage of time cuts both ways.
On the one hand, interventions in childhood
may have effects on delinquency that are not
evident until adolescence. Likewise, interven-
tions during adolescence may reap benefits
in labor force participation only in young
adulthood. On the other hand, an interven-
tion may initially lessen problem behavior in
children only to have those effects diminish
over time.
In addition to these complications, two
other problems make it difficult to identify
proven or promising delinquency-prevention
programs. The first is design flaws in the
strategies used by researchers to evaluate the
programs. The second is inconsistency in the
evaluations, which makes comparison nearly
impossible.
The first problem limiting progress in identi-
fying successful program strategies is the weak
designs found in most program evaluations.
Only rarely do juvenile intervention programs
themselves measure their outcomes, and the
few evaluations that are carried out do not
usually produce reliable findings.9
The “gold standard” for evaluations in the
social sciences—experiments that compare
the effects on youths who have been assigned
randomly to alternative interventions—are
seldom used in criminal justice settings.10
Although such rigorous designs, along with
long-term follow-up, are required to assess
accurately the lasting effect of an intervention,
they are far too expensive for most local
agencies or even most state governments to
conduct. Such evaluations are thus fairly rare
and not always applied to the most promising
programs.
Instead, researchers typically evaluate
delinquency-prevention programs using a
quasi-experimental design that compares out-
comes for the experimental treatment group
with outcomes for some nonrandom compari-
son group, which is claimed to be similar in
characteristics to the experimental group.
Peter Greenwood
1 8 8 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
According to a recent analysis of many
evaluations, research design itself has a
systematic effect on findings in criminal
justice studies. The weaker the design, the
more likely the evaluation is to report that an
intervention has positive effects and the less
likely it is to report negative effects. This
finding holds even when the comparison is
limited to randomized studies and those with
strong quasi-experimental designs.11
The second problem in identifying successful
programs is that a lack of consistency in how
analysts review the research base makes it
hard to compare programs. Different review-
ers often come to very different conclusions
about what does and does not work. They
produce different lists of “proven” and
“promising” programs because they focus on
different outcomes or because they apply
different criteria in screening programs.
Some reviews simply summarize the informa-
tion contained in selected studies, grouping
evaluations together to arrive at conclusions
about particular strategies or approaches that
they have defined. Such reviews are highly
subjective, with no standard rules for choos-
ing which evaluations to include or how their
results are to be interpreted. More rigorous
reviews use meta-analysis, a statistical
method of combining results across studies,
to develop specific estimates of effects for
alternative intervention strategies. Finally,
some “rating or certification systems” use
expert panels or some other screening
process to assess the integrity of individual
evaluations, as well as specific criteria to
identify proven, promising, or exemplary
programs. These reviews also differ from
each other in the particular outcomes they
emphasize (for example, delinquency, drug
use, mental health, or school-related behav-
iors), their criteria for selection, and the rigor
with which the evidence is screened and
reviewed. Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit
studies make it possible to compare the
efficiency of programs that produce similar
results, allowing policymakers to achieve the
largest possible crime-prevention effect for a
given level of funding.
Evolving Standards for Measuring
Effectiveness
Researchers have used a variety of methods
to help resolve the issues of weak design
and lack of consistency. The most promising
approach to date is Blueprints for Violence
Prevention, an intensive research effort
developed by the Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence at the University of
Colorado to identify and promote proven
programs. For Blueprints to certify a program
as proven, the program must demonstrate its
effects on problem behaviors with a rigor-
ous experimental design, show that its effects
persist after youth leave the program, and be
successfully replicated in another site.12 The
current Blueprints website (www.colorado.
edu/cspv/blueprints/) lists eleven “model”
programs and twenty “promising” programs.
The design, research evidence, and imple-
mentation requirements for each model are
available on the site.
Cost-effectiveness and cost-
benefit studies make it possible
to compare the efficiency of
programs that produce similar
results, allowing policymakers
to achieve the largest possible
crime-prevention effect for a
given level of funding.
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 1 8 9
Other professional groups and private agen-
cies have developed similar processes for
producing their own list of promising pro-
grams.13 The programs identified on these
lists vary somewhat because of differences in
the outcomes on which they focus and in the
criteria they use for screening, though the
lists have a good deal of consistency as well.
But these certified lists do not always reveal
how often they are updated and do not report
how a program fares in subsequent replica-
tions after it has achieved its place on the list.
Another effective way to compare programs is
through a statistical meta-analysis of program
evaluations. In theory, a meta-analysis should
be the best way to determine what to expect
in the way of effectiveness, particularly if it
tests for any effect of timing, thus giving more
weight to more recent evaluations. Once the
developers of a program have demonstrated
that they can achieve significant effects in one
evaluation and a replication, the next test is
whether others can achieve similar results.
The best estimate of the effect size that a new
adopter of the model can expect to achieve
is some average of that achieved by others in
recent replications. Meta-analysis is the best
method for sorting this out.
The first meta-analysis that focused specifi-
cally on juvenile justice was published by
Mark Lipsey in 1992.14 Lipsey’s analysis did
not identify specific programs but did begin
to identify specific strategies and methods
that were more likely to be effective than
others. Lipsey continued to expand and
refine this work to include additional studies
and many additional characteristics of each
study.15
Meta-analysis is also the primary tool used by
academics and researchers who participate in
the Campbell Collaboration (C2), an offshoot
of the Cochran Collaboration, which was
established to conduct reviews of “what works”
in the medical literature. The goal of C2, with
its potentially large cadre of voluntary review-
ers, is to become the ultimate clearinghouse
of program effectiveness in all areas of social
science, including juvenile justice. Progress,
however, has been slow so far.
The C2 Criminal Justice Coordinating Group
has concluded that it is unrealistic to restrict
systematic reviews in their field to randomized
experimental studies, however superior they
may be, because so few exist.16 A Research
Design Policy Brief prepared for the C2
Steering Committee by William Shadish
and David Myers proposes, however, that
systematic reviews be undertaken only when
randomized experiments are available to be
included in the review and that estimates of
effects for randomized and nonrandomized
evaluations be presented separately in all
important analyses when both types of stud-
ies are included.17
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Yet another way to identify promising pro-
grams is to use cost-benefit analysis to
evaluate the relative efficiency of alternative
approaches in addressing a particular prob-
lem. In 1996 a team at RAND published a
study showing that parenting programs and
the Ford Foundation-sponsored Quantum
Opportunities Program reduce crime much
more cost-effectively than long prison
sentences do.18 Implementing any program,
of course, has some costs, which can be
measured against its benefits. If a program
reduces future crimes, it also reduces the cost
of any investigations, arrest and court pro-
cessing, and corrections associated with the
crimes. Systematic cost-benefit studies of
alternative delinquency-prevention and
correctional intervention programs
Peter Greenwood
1 9 0 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
conducted by the Washington State Institute
for Public Policy (WSIPP), the legislative
analysis group serving the state legislature,
show that many proven programs pay for
themselves many times over.19
Comparing the cost-effectiveness of alterna-
tive crime-prevention strategies requires
decisions about which benefits or savings to
consider. All programs must be compared on
an equal footing. Some analyses consider only
savings within the criminal justice system.
Others view this issue more broadly: costs
must be covered and savings are savings no
matter where in government they arise.20 This
broader approach requires collecting data
reflecting the effect of an intervention on all
government spending. David Olds’ Nurse
Home Visiting Program, for example, is not
cost-effective as a delinquency-prevention
program alone, but when crime-reduction
benefits for both the mother and child are
combined with reduced welfare and school-
ing costs, benefits exceed costs by several
orders of magnitude.21
A final financial issue is whether to include
the benefits of reduced crime to potential
victims, their families, and friends. The crimi-
nal justice system has lagged behind fields
such as engineering, medicine, public health,
and environmental protection in efforts to
monetize benefits. Victim surveys provide
fairly good estimates of direct out-of-pocket
costs such as the value of lost or damaged
property, medical costs, and lost wages.
These direct costs, however, are only a small
share of the total costs to victims imposed
by crimes against persons.22 The question is
how to estimate the indirect costs of pain and
suffering, security expenses, and restricted
lifestyle, which can be quite large for some
more serious crimes.
Economists argue about the proper way to
place a monetary value on “quality-of-life”
items like clean air or a safer environment.
One way is to find markets that reflect these
values, such as the wage premium demanded
by workers engaged in dangerous professions.
Beyond the police, however, few professions
carry a substantial risk of being robbed,
raped, or shot. Furthermore, the wages for
those who engage in such professions (drug
dealers, smugglers, prostitutes) are difficult
to assess.
Economists have also used jury awards to
get estimates of the total costs to victims for
various crimes as shown in table 1.23 In the
WSIPP’s cost-effectiveness analysis of proven
and existing programs, estimates of savings
to victims are based on such analysis and are
several orders of magnitude larger than esti-
mates of the savings to taxpayers alone.24
If the only question is how much to spend on
delinquency prevention, then critics of the
indirect-costs-to-victims studies are right to
point out the heroic assumptions required to
extrapolate their data from jury verdicts to
ordinary crime victims, as well as the huge
margins of error involved. But if the purpose
is to decide which of several proposed
Table 1. Estimated Value of Victim’s Pain and
Suffering, by Crime Type
Crime type Cost to victim (dollars
)
Fatal assault 3,000,000
Non-fatal sexual or physical assault 87,000
Drunk driving 18,000
Robber y or attempt 8,000
Source: Ted Miller, Mark Cohen, and Brian Wiersema, Victims,
Costs, and Consequences: A New Look, National Institute of
Justice Report, NCJ–155282 (Washington: U.S. Department of
Justice, 1996).
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 1 9 1
interventions is most cost-effective, then
victim costs need not be considered. Instead
the preferred metric becomes the number of
crimes prevented for a specific amount
invested in either program, assuming that
both programs prevent the same relative mix
of crime types. Victim costs would, however,
become relevant if one approach prevented
mainly property crimes while the other
prevented mainly crimes against persons.
At this fledgling stage in developing
appropriate victim cost data for use in
cost-effectiveness studies, there are not many
choices. Analysts can ignore victim costs
altogether and seriously under-value interven-
tions that prevent crimes, particularly violent
crimes. They can use the victim cost data as
analysts at the WSIPP have. Or they can use
the even higher estimates for the social costs
of crime produced by more recent contingent
valuation studies.25 Until researchers reach a
consensus on this issue, the prudent approach
is to use all three methods, reporting sepa-
rately the results from each. In that way the
readers of the study will be free to come to
their own conclusions regarding the appropri-
ate method.
For any outcome of interest, it is necessary to
decide how to identify and describe effects,
how long a follow-up period to use, and how
widely to search for effects. The ideal would
be to identify all effects of an intervention,
no matter where or how far in the future they
occur. Many evaluations, however, report
outcomes only until participating youth exit
from the program.
Reporting Effects of an Intervention
The simplest way to report effects of an inter-
vention is the straightforward binary method
of statistical significance. Are the effects sig-
nificant as measured by standardized statistical
tests, using a sufficiently rigorous research
design? This outcome measure, traditionally
used by academic reviewers of research,26 was
used both by David Hawkins and Richard
Catalano27 in compiling the list of promising
programs for their Communities That Care
program and by Lawrence Sherman and his
colleagues in their evaluation of prevention
programs for the U.S. Department of Justice.28
Reporting only the binary outcomes provided
by significance tests, however, fails to capture
large differences in the size of effects known
to exist between interventions. The standard
measure adopted by many reviewers is the
effect size, typically defined as the difference
between the treatment and control group
means, on the selected recidivism measure,
standardized (divided) by their pooled
standard deviation. This standardized mean
difference effect size is commonly used to
represent the findings of experimental
comparisons in meta-analyses and other
quantitative studies.29
In the delinquency field, where the environ-
ment and situational factors appear to play
a critical role in shaping behavior, some
programs have been shown to produce
significant effects while youth are participat-
ing in them, but no effects after they leave
the program. This phenomenon of transient
behavioral change has led the Blueprints
Project to require evidence that effects per-
sist after a youth leaves the program before it
can appear on its list of proven models. 30
The issue of how far into the future to
measure effects depends on what the future
is expected to hold. If many of the benefits
of a program are not expected to be evident
for many years, then observations will be
required until their presence is verified. If
current trends and tendencies can be
Peter Greenwood
1 9 2 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
assumed to continue uninterrupted, then
shorter follow-up periods will do. The
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
uses ten years for the cut-off point in their
estimates of program benefits.31 But some
programs, such as the Perry Preschool, are
cost-effective only when benefits such as
reduced crime and enhanced income are
considered more than a decade after youth
leave the program.32
In summary, defining successful programs is
challenging, both because of design flaws in
many research studies and because compar-
ing inconsistent findings is difficult. But some
metric must be designed to allow jurisdic-
tions to begin to implement programs that
have been proven effective. Blueprints is the
most promising of these techniques, though
others such as meta-analysis hold promise.
What Works and What Doesn’t
For anyone in a position to decide which
programs should be continued or enhanced,
which should be scrapped, and which new
programs should be adopted, the ultimate
question is “what works” and “how well” does
it work? The answers to these questions now
come in two distinctive categories. One is
“generic,” including a number of generalized
strategies and methods that have been tried
by various investigators in different settings.
Parent training, preschool, behavior modi-
fication, and group therapy all fall into this
category. The other category includes the
“brand name” programs such as Functional
Family Therapy and Multisystemic Therapy.
These are programs that have been devel-
oped by a single investigator or team over a
number of years and proven through careful
replications, supported by millions of dollars
in federal grants. The generic methods are
identified by meta-analysis and represent the
efforts of independent investigators, each
testing particular versions of the method. The
brand name programs have met the criteria
Figure 1. Family Therapy Effect Sizes
Effect sizes for model programs are embedded in the distribution
Effect size
Family therapy effect sizes with Functional Family Therapy highlighted (N=43)
> 0
–.30 –.20 –.10 .00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00 >1.00
Source: Presentation by Mark Lipsey at meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice, Cambridge, Md.,
November 2007.
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 1 9 3
C
u
st
o
d
y
st
a
tu
s
S
tr
a
te
g
y
o
r
p
ro
g
ra
m
n
a
m
e
E
vi
d
e
n
c
e
–
b
a
se
d
s
ta
tu
s
S
o
u
rc
e
o
f
e
vi
d
e
n
c
e
E
ff
e
c
t
o
n
c
ri
m
e
(p
e
rc
e
n
t)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
st
u
d
ie
s
P
ro
g
ra
m
c
o
st
p
e
r
y
o
u
th
(d
o
ll
a
rs
)
C
ri
m
in
a
l
ju
st
ic
e
sy
st
e
m
s
a
vi
n
g
s
(d
o
ll
a
rs
)
B
e
n
e
fi
ts
t
o
vi
c
ti
m
s
(d
o
ll
a
rs
)
To
ta
l
b
e
n
e
fi
t
to
c
o
st
r
a
ti
o
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
A
g
g
re
s
s
io
n
r
e
p
la
ce
m
e
n
t
tr
a
in
in
g
(A
R
T
)
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
–
7
.3
0
4
8
9
7
6
,6
5
9
8
,8
9
7
1
7
.3
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
B
o
o
t
ca
m
p
s
i
n
l
ie
u
o
f
lo
n
g
e
r
cu
s
to
d
y
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
0
.0
1
4
0
8
,0
7
7
N
A
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
S
e
x
o
ff
e
n
d
e
r
th
e
ra
p
y
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
-1
0
.2
5
3
3
,0
0
0
8
,3
7
7
3
2
,0
0
0
1
.2
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
C
o
g
n
it
iv
e
–
b
e
h
a
vi
o
ra
l
th
e
ra
p
y
P
ro
ve
n
C
a
m
p
b
e
ll
C
o
lla
b
o
ra
ti
o
n
-2
5
.
0
5
8
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
Fo
cu
s
o
n
h
ig
h
-r
is
k
y
o
u
th
a
n
d
d
yn
a
m
ic
r
is
k
f
a
ct
o
rs
P
ro
ve
n
A
n
d
re
w
s
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
U
s
e
o
f
p
ro
ve
n
t
r
e
a
tm
e
n
t
m
e
th
o
d
s
a
p
p
ro
p
ri
a
te
f
o
r
in
d
iv
id
u
a
l
P
ro
ve
n
A
n
d
re
w
s
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
In
te
g
ri
ty
o
f
tr
e
a
tm
e
n
t
im
p
le
m
e
n
ta
–
ti
o
n
(
fi
d
e
lit
y)
P
ro
ve
n
A
n
d
re
w
s
,
L
ip
s
e
y
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
L
o
n
g
e
r
d
u
ra
ti
o
n
o
f
tr
e
a
tm
e
n
t
P
ro
ve
n
L
ip
s
e
y
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
W
e
ll-
e
s
ta
b
lis
h
e
d
p
ro
g
ra
m
P
ro
ve
n
L
ip
s
e
y
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
Fa
m
ily
i
n
te
g
ra
te
d
t
ra
n
s
it
io
n
s
(
FI
T
)
P
ro
vi
s
io
n
a
l
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
-1
3
.0
1
9
,7
0
0
1
9
,5
0
0
3
0
,7
0
0
5
.2
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
C
o
u
n
s
e
lin
g
,
p
s
yc
h
o
th
e
ra
p
y
P
ro
ve
n
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
-1
8
.
9
6
N
A
1
7
,3
0
0
2
3
,0
0
0
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
P
ro
ve
n
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
-1
7
.
5
3
N
A
2
6
,0
0
0
4
1
,0
0
0
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
B
e
h
a
vi
o
r
m
o
d
ifi
ca
ti
o
n
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
P
ro
ve
n
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
–
8
.0
4
N
A
1
2
,0
0
0
1
9
,0
0
0
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
L
if
e
s
k
ill
s
e
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
P
ro
m
is
in
g
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
–
2
.7
3
N
A
4
,1
0
0
6
,4
0
0
N
A
In
s
ti
tu
ti
o
n
W
ild
e
rn
e
s
s
c
h
a
lle
n
g
e
In
e
ff
e
ct
iv
e
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
0
.0
9
3
,0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
G
ro
u
p
o
r
Fo
s
te
r
H
o
m
e
M
u
lt
id
im
e
n
s
io
n
a
l
Tr
e
a
tm
e
n
t
Fo
s
te
r
C
a
re
(
M
T
FC
)
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
B
lu
e
p
ri
n
ts
,
A
o
s
,
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
-2
2
.0
3
6
,9
4
5
3
3
,0
0
0
5
2
,0
0
0
1
2
.2
P
a
ro
le
S
u
rv
e
ill
a
n
ce
o
ri
e
n
te
d
In
e
ff
e
ct
iv
e
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
0
.0
2
1
,2
0
0
0
0
0
.0
Ta
b
le
2
.
P
ro
ve
n
a
n
d
P
ro
m
is
in
g
P
ro
g
ra
m
s
a
n
d
S
tr
a
te
g
ie
s
Peter Greenwood
1 9 4 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
C
u
st
o
d
y
st
a
tu
s
S
tr
a
te
g
y
o
r
p
ro
g
ra
m
n
a
m
e
E
vi
d
e
n
c
e
–
b
a
se
d
s
ta
tu
s
S
o
u
rc
e
o
f
e
vi
d
e
n
c
e
E
ff
e
c
t
o
n
c
ri
m
e
(p
e
rc
e
n
t)
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
st
u
d
ie
s
P
ro
g
ra
m
c
o
st
p
e
r
yo
u
th
(d
o
ll
a
rs
)
C
ri
m
in
a
l
ju
st
ic
e
sy
st
e
m
s
a
vi
n
g
s
(d
o
ll
a
rs
)
B
e
n
e
fi
ts
t
o
vi
c
ti
m
s
(d
o
ll
a
rs
)
To
ta
l
b
e
n
e
fi
t
to
c
o
st
r
a
ti
o
P
a
ro
le
In
te
n
s
iv
e
s
u
p
e
rv
is
io
n
In
e
ff
e
ct
iv
e
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
0
.
0
1
0
6
,5
0
0
0
0
0
.0
P
ro
b
a
ti
o
n
Fu
n
ct
io
n
a
l
Fa
m
ily
T
h
e
ra
p
y
(F
FT
)
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
B
lu
e
p
ri
n
ts
,
A
o
s
,
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
–
1
5
.9
7
2
,3
2
5
1
4
,6
0
0
1
9
,5
0
0
1
4
.7
P
ro
b
a
ti
o
n
M
u
lt
is
ys
te
m
ic
T
h
e
ra
p
y
(M
S
T
)
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
B
lu
e
p
ri
n
ts
,
A
o
s
,
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
1
0
.5
1
0
4
,2
6
4
9
,6
0
0
1
2
,9
0
0
5
.3
P
ro
b
a
ti
o
n
In
te
n
s
iv
e
s
u
p
e
rv
is
io
n
In
e
ff
e
ct
iv
e
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
0
.0
3
1
,6
0
0
0
0
0
.0
P
ro
b
a
ti
o
n
D
e
te
rr
e
n
ce
In
e
ff
e
ct
iv
e
L
ip
s
e
y,
A
o
s
,
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
0
.0
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
D
iv
e
rs
io
n
Te
e
n
c
o
u
rt
s
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
–
1
1
.1
5
9
3
6
4
,2
3
8
5
,9
0
0
1
0
.8
D
iv
e
rs
io
n
A
d
o
le
s
ce
n
t
d
iv
e
rs
io
n
p
ro
je
ct
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
-2
0
.0
6
1
,9
1
3
1
8
,0
0
0
2
4
,0
0
0
2
2
.0
D
iv
e
rs
io
n
R
e
s
to
ra
ti
ve
j
u
s
ti
ce
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
–
8
.7
2
1
8
8
0
3
,3
2
0
4
,6
0
0
9
.0
D
iv
e
rs
io
n
D
ru
g
c
o
u
rt
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
–
3
.5
1
5
2
,7
7
7
3
,2
0
0
4
,2
0
0
2
.7
D
iv
e
rs
io
n
O
th
e
r
fa
m
ily
-b
a
s
e
d
t
h
e
ra
p
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
s
P
ro
ve
n
B
lu
e
p
ri
n
ts
,
A
o
s
,
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
-1
2
.
2
1
2
N
A
1
1
,0
0
0
1
5
,0
0
0
N
A
D
iv
e
rs
io
n
B
ri
e
f
s
tr
a
te
g
ic
f
a
m
ily
t
h
e
ra
p
y
(B
S
FT
)
P
ro
vi
s
io
n
a
l
B
lu
e
p
ri
n
ts
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
D
iv
e
rs
io
n
D
iv
e
rs
io
n
w
it
h
s
e
rv
ic
e
s
v
s
.
ju
ve
–
n
ile
c
o
u
rt
P
ro
m
is
in
g
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
–
2
.7
2
0
N
A
1
,0
3
0
1
,4
4
0
N
A
D
iv
e
rs
io
n
D
iv
e
rs
io
n
w
it
h
s
e
rv
ic
e
s
v
s
.
s
im
p
le
re
le
a
s
e
In
e
ff
e
ct
iv
e
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
0
.0
7
N
A
0
0
N
A
P
re
ve
n
ti
o
n
N
u
rs
e
f
a
m
ily
p
a
rt
n
e
rs
h
ip
–
m
o
th
–
e
rs
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
-5
6
.2
1
5
,4
0
0
8
,1
0
0
1
1
,5
0
0
3
.6
P
re
ve
n
ti
o
n
N
u
rs
e
f
a
m
ily
p
a
rt
n
e
rs
h
ip
–
c
h
ild
P
re
fe
rr
e
d
B
lu
e
p
ri
n
ts
,
A
o
s
,
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
-1
6
.4
1
7
3
3
4
,0
2
2
8
,6
3
2
1
7
.3
P
re
ve
n
ti
o
n
P
re
-K
e
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
f
o
r
lo
w
-in
co
m
e
th
re
e
–
a
n
d
f
o
u
r-
ye
a
r-
o
ld
s
P
ro
ve
n
A
o
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
-1
4
.2
8
5
9
3
4
,6
4
4
8
,1
4
5
2
1
.6
Ta
b
le
2
(
c
o
n
ti
n
u
e
d
)
S
o
u
rc
e
s
:
S
te
ve
A
o
s
,
M
a
rn
a
M
ill
e
r,
a
n
d
E
iz
a
b
e
th
D
ra
k
e
,
E
vi
d
e
n
ce
-B
a
s
e
d
P
o
lic
y
O
p
ti
o
n
s
t
o
R
e
d
u
ce
F
u
tu
re
P
ri
s
o
n
C
o
n
s
tr
u
ct
io
n
,
C
ri
m
in
a
l
Ju
s
ti
ce
C
o
s
ts
,
a
n
d
C
ri
m
e
R
a
te
s
(
O
ly
m
p
ia
,
W
a
s
h
.:
W
a
s
h
in
g
to
n
S
ta
te
I
n
s
ti
tu
te
f
o
r
P
u
b
lic
P
o
lic
y,
2
0
0
6
);
w
w
w
.c
a
m
p
b
e
llc
o
lla
b
o
ra
ti
o
n
.o
rg
;
D
.
A
.
A
n
d
re
w
s
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
,
“D
o
e
s
C
o
rr
e
ct
io
n
a
l
Tr
e
a
tm
e
n
t
W
o
rk
?
”
C
ri
m
in
o
lo
g
y
2
8
(
1
9
9
0
):
3
6
9
–
4
0
4
;
M
a
rk
W
.
L
ip
s
e
y,
“
Ju
ve
n
ile
D
e
lin
q
u
e
n
cy
T
re
a
tm
e
n
t:
A
M
e
ta
-A
n
a
ly
ti
c
In
q
u
ir
y
in
to
t
h
e
V
a
ri
a
b
ili
ty
o
f
E
ff
e
ct
s
,”
i
n
M
e
ta
-A
n
a
ly
s
is
f
o
r
E
xp
la
n
a
ti
o
n
:
A
C
a
s
e
b
o
o
k
,
e
d
it
e
d
b
y
T.
D
.
C
o
o
k
a
n
d
o
th
e
rs
(
N
e
w
Y
o
rk
:
R
u
s
s
e
ll
S
a
g
e
F
o
u
n
d
a
ti
o
n
,
1
9
9
2
),
p
p
.
8
3
–
1
2
7
;
w
w
w
.c
o
lo
ra
d
o
.e
d
u
/
cs
p
v/
b
lu
e
p
ri
n
ts
.
C
e
lls
l
a
b
e
le
d
N
A
m
e
a
n
i
n
fo
rm
a
ti
o
n
i
s
n
o
t
a
va
ila
b
le
.
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 1 9 5
established by various review groups for iden-
tifying proven programs.
These two methods overlap in an interesting
way. Most of the Blueprints model programs
represent an outstanding performer within a
larger category. The four experimental trials
of Functional Family Therapy (FFT), shown
in darker gray in figure 1, represent about 10
percent of all family therapy program evalua-
tions. Figure 1 contains a histogram, plotted
by Mark Lipsey, showing the number of family
therapy evaluations demonstrating various ef-
fect sizes.33 Although a number of evaluations
found negative effects, the average for all is
well above zero. None of the four FFT evalu-
ations found negative effects, and three are
well toward the upper end of the distribution.
Figure 1 indicates that family therapy works
as a generalized approach and that FFT works
even better, when done correctly. Similarly,
the other Blueprints models, on average,
produce larger effect sizes than the average for
the generic category of which they are a part.
The most recent reviews, meta-analyses, cer-
tified lists, and cost-benefit analyses provide a
variety of perspectives and wealth of informa-
tion regarding what does and does not work
in preventing delinquency. At the very top of
the promising program pyramid is the small
group of rigorously evaluated programs that
have consistently demonstrated significant
positive effects and developed effective
strategies for helping others to replicate their
model and achieve similar results. At the bot-
tom are the vast numbers of programs that
have never been evaluated. In the middle
are those for which there is some evidence
to support their claims of effectiveness in at
least one site. Most of the interventions that
have been shown to prevent the onset of or
continued involvement in delinquency were
first developed by researchers or academics
outside of the juvenile justice field to deal
with other problem behaviors such as child
abuse, misbehavior in school, school failure,
drug or alcohol abuse, or failure in foster-
care placement. However, because all these
targeted behaviors are closely related, and
often antecedent to delinquency,34 programs
developed to prevent them have also turned
out to prevent delinquency.
The research is strongest and most prom-
ising for school- and community-based
interventions that can be used before the
demands of public safety require a residential
placement. In this area a number of well-
specified, proven, cost-effective programs
have emerged. For youth in custodial settings
there is less research to draw on and what
there is suffers from serious methodological
problems. Still, some findings appear to hold
up across various settings. In this section I
review the evidence regarding “what works”
in delinquency prevention and intervention.
To categorize the strength of the evidence in
support of a particular program or strategy, I
have created a descending seven-level scale.
The various levels incorporate information
about evaluation design, effect size, number
of replications, and cost-effectiveness. The
first level, preferred programs and strategies,
includes models that are proven effective
according to the Blueprints standards or
rigorous meta-analysis and are found to
return significantly more in taxpayer savings
than they cost. On the second level, proven
programs and strategies meet the three
Blueprints qualifications for model programs
or are found to be effective by rigorous
meta-analysis. On the third level, provisional
programs are supported by one evaluation
with a strong research design showing
evidence of a crime-prevention effect. On the
fourth level, promising programs do not meet
Peter Greenwood
1 9 6 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
provisional standards, but the balance of their
evidence points toward positive effects.
Programs on the remaining three levels are
increasingly less strong. Potentially promising
programs are those without evidence of
effectiveness but whose design incorporates
promising practices. Ineffective programs are
those shown to have no effect or negative
effects. And, finally, unproven programs
include all the rest.
Table 2 classifies each listed program or
strategy according to this scale in the column
headed evidence-based status.
I begin this review by focusing on efforts to
prevent youth from engaging in delinquent
behaviors in the first place, then discuss
community-based programs that can divert
first-time offenders from further encounters
with the justice system, as a condition of pro-
bation or parole, or facilitate reentry for youth
after an institutional placement, and conclude
with programs for youth in custodial settings.
All of the programs described below are
listed in table 2 along with the source of their
rating, their effect on crime outcomes, the
number of evaluations on which their effect
size is based, the cost per youth, the estimated
government savings and victim benefits per
youth treated, and the ratio of their estimated
savings divided by their costs.
Prevention Programs
Primary prevention programs target the gen-
eral population of youth and include efforts to
prevent smoking, drug use, and teen preg-
nancy. Secondary prevention programs target
youth at elevated risk for a particular outcome,
such as delinquency or violence, a group that
might include those in disadvantaged neigh-
borhoods, those struggling in school, or those
exposed to violence at home.
The first opportunity for prevention is with
pregnant teens or at-risk children in early
childhood. The preeminent program in this
category is David Olds’ Nurse Home Visita-
tion Program, which trains and supervises
registered nurses as the home visitors. This
program is found on just about every list of
promising strategies based on the strength of
evidence regarding its significant long-term
effects and portability. It attempts to identify
young, poor, first-time mothers early in their
pregnancy. The sequence of approximately
twenty home visits begins during the prenatal
period and continues over the first two years
of the child’s life, with declining frequency. In
addition to providing transportation and link-
age to other services, the nurse home visitors
follow a detailed protocol that provides child-
care training and social skills development for
the mother.
A fifteen-year follow-up of the Prenatal/
Early Infancy Project in Elmira, New York,
showed that the nurse home visits significantly
reduced child abuse and neglect in participat-
ing families, as well as arrest rates for the chil-
dren and mothers.35 The women who received
the program also spent much less time on
welfare; those who were poor and unmarried
had significantly fewer subsequent births.
Many less costly and less structured home
visiting models have been tested, using social
workers or other professionals, rather than
nurses, but none has achieved the same suc-
cess or consistency as the Olds program with
nurses.36 The Olds model, now called the
Nurse Family Partnership, has been success-
fully evaluated in several sites and is now
replicated in more than 200 counties and
many countries.
For slightly older children, preschool educa-
tion for at-risk three- and four-year-olds is
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 1 9 7
an effective prevention strategy, particularly
when the program includes home visits or
work with parents in some other way. The
Perry Preschool in Ypsilanti, Michigan, is the
most well-evaluated model.
Numerous school- or classroom-based
programs have proven effective in preventing
drug use, delinquency, anti-social behavior,
and early school drop-out, all behaviors that
can lead to criminal behavior.37 The programs
vary widely in their goals, although they share
some common themes: collaborative planning
and problem-solving involving teachers,
parents, students, community members, and
administrators; grouping of students into
small self-contained clusters; career educa-
tion; integrated curriculum; and student
involvement in rule-setting and enforcement,
and various strategies to reduce drop-out.
For example, the Bullying Prevention
Program was developed with elementary and
junior high school students in Bergen,
Norway. The program involves teachers and
parents in setting and enforcing clear rules
against bullying. Two years after the interven-
tion, bullying problems had declined 50
percent in treated schools. Furthermore,
other forms of delinquency declined as well,
and school climate improved.38 The Bullying
Prevention Program is one of the eleven
Blueprints model programs and is listed as
promising by the Surgeon General.
Multiple evaluations of Life Skills Training, a
classroom-based approach to substance abuse
prevention, have shown it to reduce the use of
alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana among
participants. The reductions in alcohol and
cigarette use are sustained through the end of
high school.39 Life Skills Training is listed as a
model program by both Blueprints and the
Surgeon General and by most other lists of
proven programs.40 The program has been
widely disseminated throughout the United
States over the past decade with funding from
government agencies and private foundations.
Project STATUS is another school-based pro-
gram designed to improve junior and senior
high school climate and reduce delinquency
and drop-out. The two primary strategies
used are collaborative efforts to improve
school climate and a year-long English and
social studies class focused on key social
institutions. An evaluation of Project STATUS
found less total delinquency, drug use, and
negative peer pressure and greater academic
success and social bonding.41 Project STATUS
is rated promising by Blueprints.
The School Transitional Environmental
Program (STEP) aims to reduce the com-
plexity of school environments, increase peer
and teacher support, and decrease student
vulnerability to academic and emotional dif-
ficulties by reducing school disorganization
and restructuring the role of the homeroom
teacher. It specifically targets students at
greatest risk for behavioral problems. STEP
students are grouped in homerooms where
the teachers take on the additional role of
guidance counselor. All project students are
assigned to the same core classes. Evaluations
have demonstrated decreased absenteeism
and drop-out, increased academic success,
and more positive feelings about school.42
Both Blueprints and the Surgeon General
consider STEP a promising program.
Community-Based Interventions
Delinquency-prevention programs in com-
munity settings can be created for various
purposes such as diverting youth out of
the juvenile justice system, serving youth
placed on informal or formal probation, or
serving youth on parole who are returning
Peter Greenwood
1 9 8 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
to the community after a residential place-
ment. Settings can range from individual
homes, to schools, to teen centers, to parks,
to the special facilities of private providers.
They can involve anything from a one-hour
monthly meeting to intensive family therapy
and services.
The most successful programs are those that
emphasize family interactions, probably
because they focus on providing skills to the
adults who are in the best position to super-
vise and train the child.43 More traditional
interventions that punish or attempt to
frighten the youths are the least successful.
For example, for youth on probation, two
effective programs are family-based interven-
tions designated as proven by Blueprints and
the Surgeon General: Functional Family
Therapy and Multisystemic Therapy. Func-
tional Family Therapy (FFT) targets youth
aged eleven to eighteen facing problems with
delinquency, substance abuse, or violence.
The program focuses on altering interactions
between family members and seeks to
improve the functioning of the family unit by
increasing family problem-solving skills,
enhancing emotional connections, and
strengthening parents’ ability to provide
appropriate structure, guidance, and limits
for their children.44 It is a relatively short-
term program that is delivered by individual
therapists, usually in the home setting. Each
team of four to eight therapists works under
the direct supervision and monitoring of
several more experienced therapist/trainers.
The effectiveness of the program has been
demonstrated for a wide range of problem
youth in numerous trials over the past
twenty-five years, using different types of
therapists, ranging from paraprofessionals to
trainees, in a variety of social work and
counseling professions. The program is well
documented and readily transportable.
Multisystemic Therapy (MST), also a family-
based program, is designed to help parents
deal effectively with their youth’s behavior
problems, including engaging with deviant
peers and poor school performance. To
accomplish family empowerment, MST also
addresses barriers to effective parenting and
helps family members build an indigenous
social support network. To increase family
collaboration and generalize treatment, MST
is typically provided in the home, school, and
other community locations. Master-level
counselors provide fifty hours of face-to-face
contact and 24/7 crisis intervention over four
months.
MST works with an individual family for as
long a period as FFT does, but it is more
intensive and more expensive. In addition to
working with parents, MST will locate and
attempt to involve other family members,
teachers, school administrators, and other
adults in supervising the youth. Unlike FFT
therapists, MST therapists are also on call for
emergency services. Evaluations demonstrate
that MST is effective in reducing re-arrest
rates and out-of-home placements for a wide
variety of problem youth involved in both the
juvenile justice and social service systems.45
The most successful
community-based programs
are those that emphasize
family interactions, probably
because they focus on
providing skills to the adults
who are in the best position to
supervise and train the child.
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 1 9 9
The third program in this category, Intensive
Protective Supervision (IPS), targets non-
serious status offenders. Offenders assigned
to IPS are closely monitored by counselors
who carry reduced caseloads and interact
more extensively with the youth and their
families than traditional parole officers.
The counselors make frequent home visits,
provide support for parents, develop individ-
ualized service plans, and arrange for profes-
sional or therapeutic services as needed. An
evaluation of the program found that youth
assigned to IPS were less likely to be referred
to juvenile court during supervision or during
a one-year follow-up period and were more
likely to have successfully completed treat-
ment than youth assigned to regular protec-
tive supervision.46 IPS is listed as promising
by both Blueprints and the Surgeon General.
Other effective strategies for youth on proba-
tion include cognitive-behavioral therapy,
family counseling, mentoring, tutoring, drug
and alcohol therapy, interpersonal skills train-
ing, and parent training.
Community-based programs that focus on
the individual offender rather than on the
family are much less successful. Intensive
supervision, surveillance, extra services, and
early release programs, for example, have not
been found effective. Ineffective probation
programs and strategies include intensive
supervision, early release, vocational training,
bringing younger offenders together for pro-
gramming, and deterrence approaches such
as Scared Straight.
Institutional Settings
Juvenile courts, like criminal courts, function
as a screening agent for the purpose of
sanctions and services. Juvenile offenders’
needs for treatment must be balanced against
the demands of accountability (punishment)
and community safety. Only a fraction of the
cases reaching any one stage of the system are
passed on to the next stage. Out of all the
juveniles arrested in 1999, only 26 percent
were adjudicated delinquent and only 6.3
percent were placed out of their homes.47
Even among those arrested for one of the
more serious Crime Index offenses, only 35
percent were adjudicated delinquent and only
9.2 percent were placed out of their homes.
This pattern of case dispositions reflects the
juvenile court’s preference for informal rather
than formal dispositions and the understand-
ing that most programs work better in com-
munity, rather than institutional, settings.
Nevertheless juvenile courts will place youth
in more secure custodial placements if the
home setting is inappropriate and a more
suitable community placement is unavailable
or if the youth poses a public safety risk. In
these two instances placement in a group set-
ting is more likely.
Youths who are placed out of their homes are
referred to a wide variety of group homes,
camps, and other residential or correctional
institutions. Three generalized program
strategies improve institutional program
effectiveness. One is focusing on dynamic or
changeable risk factors—low skills, substance
abuse, defiant behavior, relationships with
delinquent peers. The second is individually
tailoring programs to clients’ needs using
evidence-based methods.48 The third is focus-
ing interventions on higher-risk youth, where
the opportunity for improvement and conse-
quences of failure are both the largest. These
three characteristics provide the basis for
the Correctional Program Inventory (CPI),
a program assessment instrument now being
used by Ed Latessa and several colleagues at
the University of Cincinnati to rate the qual-
ity of programming in individual correctional
facilities.49
Peter Greenwood
2 0 0 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
Finally, certain program characteristics that
are independent of the specific interventions
used have been shown to improve outcomes.
The integrity with which the program is
implemented and maintained is one such
characteristic, as is longer duration of treat-
ment. Well-established programs are more
effective than newer programs. Programs
that support mental health issues are more
successful than those that focus on punish-
ment, so treatment programs administered by
mental health professionals are more effec-
tive than similar programs administered by
regular correctional staff.
Generally, programs that focus on specific
skills issues such as behavior management,
interpersonal skills training, family counsel-
ing, group counseling, or individual counsel-
ing have all demonstrated positive effects in
institutional settings.
Among the specific program models that
work well with institutionalized youth are
cognitive-behavioral therapy, aggression
replacement training, and family integrated
transition. Cognitive-behavioral therapy
(CBT) is a time-limited approach to psycho-
therapy that uses skill building—instruction
and homework assignments—to achieve
its goals. It is based on the premise that it
is people’s thoughts about what happens to
them that cause particular feelings, rather
than the events themselves, and its goal is to
change thinking processes. It uses various
techniques to learn what goals clients have
for their lives and to improve skills that can
help them achieve those goals.50
Aggression replacement training also empha-
sizes focusing on risk factors that can be
changed. It is a cognitive-behavioral inter-
vention with three components. The first is
“anger control,” which teaches participants
what triggers their anger and how to control
their reactions. The second is “behavioral
skills,” which teach a series of pro-social skills
through modeling, role playing, and perfor-
mance feedback. The third is “moral reason-
ing,” in which participants work through
cognitive conflict in dilemma discussion
groups.51
Family integrated transitions (FIT) also
focuses on tackling dynamic risk factors—
substance abuse, mental health issues, and
community reentry from residential place-
ment. Developed for the State of Washington,
the program uses dialectical behavioral
therapy (another form of cognitive-behavioral
therapy), MST, relapse prevention, and
motivational enhancement therapy. It was
designed to help youth with mental health or
chemical dependency issues who are return-
ing to the community following a residential
placement. The only evaluation of the
program to date showed positive results.52
For youth who have traditionally been placed
in group homes—homes that are usually
licensed to care for six or more youths who
need to be removed from their home for an
extended period, but do not pose a serious
risk to themselves or others—the preferred
alternative is Multidimensional Treatment
Foster Care (MTFC). In MTFC, community
families are recruited and trained to take one
youth at a time into their home. MTFC par-
ents are paid a much higher rate than regular
foster parents but have additional respon-
sibilities. One parent, for example, must
be at home whenever the child is. Parent
training emphasizes behavior management
methods to provide youth with a structure
and therapeutic living environment. After
completing a pre-service training, MTFC
parents attend a weekly group meeting run
by a case manager for ongoing supervision.
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 2 0 1
Supervision and support are also provided to
MTFC parents during daily telephone calls.
Family therapy is also provided for biological
families. Random assignment evaluations find
that arrest rates fall more among participants
in the MFTC model than among youth in
traditional group homes.53 Although it costs
approximately $7,000 more per youth to sup-
port MFTC than a group home, the Washing-
ton State Institute for Public Policy estimates
that MFTC produces $33,000 in criminal
justice system savings and $52,000 in benefits
to potential crime victims.
Implementing Best Practices
With more than ten years of solid evidence
now available regarding what does and does
not work in preventing juvenile delinquency
and reducing recidivism, jurisdictions should
be adopting an evidence-based approach to
implementing new programs. Taking this
approach will prevent wasted lives, save tax-
payer dollars, and protect communities from
unnecessary crime victimization.
Cost-benefit studies conducted by the
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
(WSIPP), summarized in the far right-hand
column of table 2, indicate that many evidence-
based programs can produce savings on the
order of five to ten times their cost. In one
case, the Washington State legislature, con-
fronting a projected requirement to build two
additional prisons, asked WSIPP to estimate
how a substantial increase in spending on
evidence-based programs would affect
projected prison bed requirements. The
analysis, published in 2006, showed that
doubling current investments in high-quality
programs could eliminate the need for
additional prison capacity.54
Before a jurisdiction begins identifying suc-
cessful programs, it must first determine
whether there are any gaps in the service and
quality of its existing programs. A service gap
indicates a lack of suitable treatment options
for a particular type of youth; a quality gap
indicates a lack of sufficient evidence-based
programming.
After completing the audit, a jurisdiction can
follow one of two basic strategies to identify
successful programs. It can follow the Blue-
prints recommendations and replace existing
programs with the Blueprints proven models.
Or it can use meta-analysis findings as a guide
to improve existing programs. The steps
involved and financing required for these two
approaches are quite different, with the Blue-
prints approach being the costlier and more
intense of the two.
If a jurisdiction opts to implement the Blue-
prints approach to fill service gaps, it should
begin by selecting the program model that
best fits both the clients to be served and the
capabilities of the agency and staff that will
provide the service. In addition to carefully
reviewing the Blueprints publication describ-
ing the model, the jurisdiction may need to
speak with the model developer and other
agencies that have adopted it.
The second step is to arrange for training.
Most developers of the Blueprints model
programs have established organizations to
provide training, technical assistance, over-
sight, and certification to sites desiring to
adopt their model. Most require applicants
to meet a number of qualifying conditions
before being considered for implementation.
Initial training fees can range from $20,000
to more than $50,000, and annual licens-
ing fees can cost more than $100,000 a year.
Some developers offer training on a regular
schedule in one or two locations. Others will
send their trainers to the applicant’s site if a
Peter Greenwood
2 0 2 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
sufficient number of staff need to be trained.
The waiting period for training may be as
long as six to nine months. Once training has
been scheduled, the third step is to designate
or hire appropriate staff. Many agencies make
the mistake of selecting and training staff
who are not comfortable with the require-
ments of the program and do not last long
in the job. Some programs require only one
type of staff, such as a family therapist, while
others require several different types, such as
case manager, skills trainer, and family thera-
pist. The fourth step is to “sell” the program
to potential customers and agency personnel.
Without a strong champion within the host
agency, a demanding new program has little
chance of ever getting off the ground. The
fifth step is to heed the recommendation
of most model developers and arrange for
ongoing monitoring and feedback, usually by
having weekly phone conferences to discuss
cases or by reviewing videotapes of project
staff in action. The final step, implementing a
quality assurance mechanism, usually involves
questionnaires or observational rating sheets
to assess the fidelity of the program to the
original model.
If a jurisdiction opts for the meta-analytic (or
Lipsey) approach to improve the effective-
ness of its programs, the first step is to
identify the programs to be assessed. The
second is to identify key elements of each
program and compare them with the “best
practice” standards identified by meta-
analysis. The third step is to determine the
average effect size the combination of
elements for each program has produced in
previous evaluations.55
If the expected effects of a program are
small, because it lacks evidence-based
elements, an agency can consider adding
elements from table 2 that would raise the
anticipated effectiveness. For instance, a
residential program containing no evidence-
based elements can be made more effective
by adding cognitive-behavioral therapy or
aggression replacement training. Likewise,
a community supervision program with no
evidence-based elements can be made more
effective by adding a family therapy or parent
training component.
After selecting an evidence-based program,
an agency must adopt and implement a
validated risk assessment instrument that can
provide a basis for assigning youth to specific
programs, for comparing the effectiveness of
alternative programs in treating similar youth,
and for measuring the progress of individual
youth. These instruments are readily avail-
able from a number of vendors, some of
whom offer training in using the instrument
as well as in online data entry and analysis.56
The next step in developing an evidence-
based practice is to develop a way to assign
youths to the most appropriate program,
taking into account all the relative costs and
differences in effectiveness of each program.
Whenever uncertainty exists about which
Despite more than ten years
of research on the nature and
benefits of evidence-based
programs, such programming
is the exception rather than
the rule. Only about 5 percent
of youth who should be
eligible for evidence-based
programs participate in one.
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 2 0 3
program particular types of youth should be
assigned to, an evaluation should be con-
ducted to determine which of the competing
alternatives is best.
Finally, once programs have been imple-
mented, they must be monitored to ensure
that they follow the program model as
intended. Vendors of many proven programs
have developed their own fidelity measure-
ment instruments. Locally developed pro-
grams will require local development of such
instruments.
The juvenile court is in an excellent position
to identify quality and service gaps in the
current program mix and to identify programs
that are not performing up to their true
potential, because it sees other agency’s
failures. The records of individual cases that
come before the court provide informative
case studies of how well the system is per-
forming and where screening, assessment, or
programming gaps exists. The court is in the
best position to identify where particular
types of youth are slipping through the cracks
or particular parts of the system need to
improve their performance.
Challenges and Obstacles to Imple-
menting Evidence-Based Practice
Despite more than ten years of research on
the nature and benefits of evidence-based
programs, such programming is the exception
rather than the rule. Only about 5 percent of
youth who should be eligible for evidence-
based programs participate in one.57
One reason for the slow progress is the gen-
eral lack of accountability for performance
within the juvenile justice system, or even any
ability to measure outcomes. Only rarely does
a jurisdiction take delinquency prevention
and intervention seriously enough to measure
the outcome of its efforts. Rather, it tends
to evaluate agencies on how well they meet
standards for protecting the health and safety
of their charges and preventing runaways
or incidents requiring restraints. Without
the availability of such data as re-arrests or
high school graduation rates, there is little
pressure on agency officials to improve their
performance.
A second challenge is a lack of funding.
Implementing evidence-based programs,
especially the Blueprints models, is expensive.
Training a single team of therapists and their
supervisor can cost more than $25,000. The
agency may have to hire new staff that meet
higher credentialing standards before
start-up, without any revenue to cover their
costs. State and local agencies have a hard
time finding that kind of funding even in
good economic times. Today it is difficult
indeed. Even after youth begin being
referred to the program, it may still take time
for the flow of cases to fully occupy all the
staff charged to the program.
To fund start-up activities, some states have set
up grant mechanisms, for which local commu-
nities compete. Some jurisdictions seek grants
from state or federal agencies. Even after an
evidence-based program is implemented, it
may be hard to find funds to continue its
operation. Most of the savings from effective
programs accrue to the state in the form of
lower corrections costs. If some of these
anticipated savings are not passed down to the
local entities that must fund the programs,
they may have trouble competing for scarce
local funding against better-established
programs. Some sites have solved this problem
by working with state licensing officials to
ensure adequate funding and reimbursement
rates from Medicaid, Mental Health, or other
federally subsidized funding streams.
Peter Greenwood
2 0 4 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
Another problem faced by agencies that have
invested in appropriate evidence-based train-
ing for their staff are competitors who claim
to be offering the same programming bene-
fits without all of the up-front costs associated
with evidence-based programs. The guy who
is trying to sell a program that is “a lot like
MST” at half what MST Inc. charges is a lot
like the guy selling fake Rolex watches on the
street corner for a fraction of the usual price.
Counterfeits all!
Many of the established evidence-based
programs have tried to solve the problem of
counterfeits by certifying those that have paid
for the training and meet their performance
standards. But if local funders are not aware
of this legitimacy issue, the better qualified
program may lose out in the bidding process
to an uncertified cut-rate competitor.
Yet another difficulty for funding agencies or
providers who wish to select the most effec-
tive evidence-based program is the lack of
any standardized system for rating programs.
Many other entities besides Blueprints claim
to be reliable sources of information on
program effectiveness. Some are government
agencies; others are housed at universities or
within professional organizations. The ratings
assigned to programs by some of these orga-
nizations sometimes reflect low standards for
rating the rigor of evaluation methods or can
be biased in favor of programs that the rating
organization helped develop or identify.
Another big problem is resistance from
staff. It is one thing to sell the director of
an agency on the value of evidence-based
programs. It is quite another to sell the staff
who must adopt the new behaviors, because
they have spent their whole career develop-
ing their own intuitive approach. When they
begin the training they are reluctant to admit
that someone at some distant university has
come up with a better approach than they
have. As in all cognitive-behavioral therapy,
there is a certain amount of cognitive dis-
sonance when they start applying the new
methods. It just does not feel right. Some
staff never overcome this initial resistance
and must be shifted to other programs.
A different question is whether an agency
has the competence or capacity to take on a
Blueprints program. Some of these programs
are very demanding in terms of staff qualifi-
cations, supervision, information systems, and
quality assurance. Often program developers
find that an applicant agency needs a year or
two to develop the capacity even to begin the
first steps of implementing their model.
Conclusions
Over the past decade researchers from a
variety of disciplines have identified or
developed an array of intervention strategies
and specific program models demonstrated to
be effective in reducing delinquency and
promoting more pro-social development.
They have developed a variety of training
methods and other technical assistance to
help others replicate these successful meth-
ods. They have accumulated evidence that
many of these programs are cost-effective,
Every year of delay in
implementing evidence-
based reforms consigns
another cohort of juvenile
offenders to a 50 percent
higher than necessary
recidivism rate.
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 2 0 5
returning more than five times their cost in
future taxpayer savings. Evidence also
confirms that the general public overwhelm-
ingly prefers treatment and rehabilitation
over confinement and punishment for
juvenile offenders.
Still, only about 5 percent of the youth who
could benefit from these improved programs
now have the opportunity to do so. Juvenile
justice options in many communities remain
mired in the same old tired options of custo-
dial care and community supervision. It is as
if the major research accomplishments of the
past decade had never happened.
In the long run, the authority of science
may win out, and the necessary changes will
occur. But the authority of science is under-
mined on a daily basis by those who refuse to
distinguish the difference between fact and
opinion. Every year of delay in implement-
ing evidence-based reforms consigns another
cohort of juvenile offenders to a 50 percent
higher than necessary recidivism rate.
Enough states and local communities have
begun to take action on this issue that it is
now possible to see the pattern of changes
and reform that must occur. The evidence-
based approach has to be adopted agency-
wide. It cannot take root and flourish within
just one part of the organization, while other
units continue on as usual. Either the reform
movement will continue to gain converts and
momentum, eventually spreading throughout
the organization, or the rest of the organiza-
tion will find a way to kill it.
The concept of evidence-based reform is
easiest to sell at the CEO level, where it is
just another new concept to grapple with—
something that CEOs do every day. The
reforms get harder to sell the further you go
down in the organization chart. Down on the
front lines, underpaid staff, working with
difficult youth on a daily basis, develop their
own personal styles and methods of dealing
with these youth and their issues. Most
evidence-based models require staff to make
significant change in both style and methods
when working with youth and provide quality
assurance processes (usually involving surveys
of clients) to make sure their performance is
up to standards.
The political and institutional changes
needed to bring about evidence-based prac-
tice require champions in every organization
to make them happen. Those in positions of
authority for juvenile justice policy must be
informed about the evidence-based programs
now available to them and about how those
programs can help them reduce delinquency
rates, ensure safer communities, and reduce
government spending.
Policymakers will have to be assisted by
experts in evidence-based practices in
designing and implementing the reforms
required. States will have to create financial
incentives for local communities to invest in
effective prevention programs, most likely by
returning some share of the savings in future
corrections costs to counties or local com-
munities. Requests for proposals will have
to require evidence-based programming and
services, and those buying the services must
be able to distinguish evidence-based propos-
als and programs from other proposals and
programs. Providers will eventually be held
accountable for the results they achieve.
Practitioners who are going to work with
juvenile offenders and at-risk youth will have
to be trained and monitored to ensure that
they are delivering services in the most
appropriate and prescribed manner.
Peter Greenwood
2 0 6 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
Achieving the consistency and fidelity that
effective programs appear to require will
necessitate new ways of supervising and
managing those who have direct contact with
youth and their families. Shifting from a
management focus on preventing abuse or
infractions to one that empowers employees
to provide effective services to their clients is
going to be a major struggle.
Those who wish to develop or promote new
methods of intervention will have to learn
how to play by the new set of rules and
protocols that have made possible the pro-
gramming advances of the past decade.
Programs can no longer be promoted for
wide-scale dissemination until they have been
proven effective by a rigorous evaluation.
None of these challenges is impossible.
Efforts to expand the use of Blueprints pro-
grams in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wash-
ington have been under way for several years
now, with considerable success. Both North
Carolina and Arizona have undertaken efforts
in collaboration with Mark Lipsey to evaluate
all their programs.58 Hundreds of communi-
ties have adopted and implemented proven
program models and are reaping the benefits
of reduced delinquency and lower system
costs.59 The challenge now is to move beyond
these still relatively few early adopters and
push these reforms into the mainstream of
juvenile justice.
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 2 0 7
Endnotes
1. David P. Farrington and Brandon C. Welsh, Saving Children from a Life of Crime: Early Risk Factors
and Effective Interventions (Oxford University Press, 2007).
2. Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future
Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates (Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute
for Public Policy, 2006).
3. Lawrence W. Sherman and others, Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising
(Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 1997).
4. Mark W. Lipsey and James H. Derzon, “Predictors of Violent and Serious Delinquency in Adolescence
and Early Adulthood,” in Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, edited by Rolf Loeber and David P.
Farrington (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998).
5. Delbert Elliot, Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Boulder, Col.: Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence, University of Colorado, 1997).
6. S. A. Mihalick and others, Blueprints for Violence Prevention Replications: Factors for Implementation
Success (Boulder, Col.: University of Colorado, 2002).
7. Margaret K. Rosenheim and others, eds., A Century of Juvenile Justice (University of Chicago Press, 2002).
8. Albert J. Reiss and Jeffrey A. Roth, Understanding and Preventing Violence (Washington: National
Academy Press, 1993).
9. Sherman and others, Preventing Crime (see note 3).
10. William R. Shadish, Tomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 2002); Sherman and others,
Preventing Crime (see note 3).
11. David Weisburd, Cynthia M. Lum, and Anthony Petrosino, “Does Research Design Affect Study Outcomes
in Criminal Justice?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578 (November 2001):
50–70.
12. Elliot, Blueprints for Violence Prevention (see note 5).
13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General
(Rockville, Md.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001); Mihalick and others, Blueprints
for Violence Prevention Replications (see note 6).
14. Mark W. Lipsey, “Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Inquiry into the Variability of
Effects,” in Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook, edited by T. D. Cook and others (New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1992), pp. 83–127.
15. Mark W. Lipsey and David Wilson, “Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Synthesis of
Research,” in Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, edited by Rolph Loeber and David Farrington
(Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998); Mark W. Lipsey, “The Effects of Community-Based Group Treat-
ment for Delinquency: A Meta-Analytic Search for Cross-Study Generalizations,” in K. A. Dodge,
Peter Greenwood
2 0 8 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
T. J. Dishion, and J. E. Lansford, Deviant Peer Influences in Programs for Youth (New York: The Guilford
Press, 2006).
16. D. P. Farrington and A. Petrosino, “The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group,” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 578 (2000): 35–49.
17. William Shadish and David Myers, Policy Brief, Campbell Collaboration Research Design, 2002.
18. P. W. Greenwood and others, Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits
(Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 1996).
19. S. Aos and others, The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime (Olympia, Wash.:
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2001).
20. M. R. Gold and others, eds., Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (Oxford University Press, 1996).
21. Lynn Karoly and others, Investing in Our Children (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 1998).
22. P. J. Cook and J. Ludwig, Gun Violence: The Real Costs (Oxford University Press, 2000).
23. Ted Miller, Mark Cohen, and Brian Wiersema, Victims, Costs, and Consequences: A New Look, National
Institute of Justice Report, NCJ –155282 (Washington: U.S. Department of Justice, 1996).
24. Aos and others, The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime (see note 19).
25. Cook and Ludwig, Gun Violence: The Real Costs (see note 22).
26. David Hawkins, Richard Catalano, and David Brewer, “Preventing Serious, Violent and Chronic Offend-
ing: Effective Strategies from Conception to Age 6,” in Sourcebook on Serious, Violent and Chronic
Juvenile Offenders, edited by J. C. Howell and others (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1995); P. Tolan and
N. G. Guerra, What Works in Reducing Adolescent Violence (Boulder: University of Colorado, 1995).
27. D. Hawkins and R. Catalano, Communities That Care (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992).
28. Sherman and others, Preventing Crime (see note 3).
29. H. Cooper and L. V. Hedges, eds., The Handbook of Research Synthesis (New York: Russell Sage, 1994);
Lipsey and Wilson, “Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders” (see note 15).
30. Elliot, Blueprints for Violence Prevention (see note 5).
31. Steve Aos and others, Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth
(Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2004).
32. Karoly and others, Investing in Our Children (see note 21).
33. Presentation at meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice in Cambridge,
Maryland, November 2007.
34. Delbert S. Elliot, David Huizinga, and Scott Menard, Multiple Problem Youth: Delinquency, Substance
Use and Mental Health Problems (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989).
35. David Olds and others, Prenatal and Infancy Home Visitation by Nurses, in D. S. Elliot (series ed.), Blue-
prints for Violence Prevention (Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute
of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado–Boulder, 1998).
Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders
V O L . 1 8 / N O . 2 / FA L L 2 0 0 8 2 0 9
36. David L. Olds and others, “Effects of Home Visits by Paraprofessionals and by Nurses: Age-Four
Follow-up of a Randomized Trial,” Pediatrics 114, no. 6 (2004): 560–68.
37. Denise C. Gottfredson, David B. Wilson, and Stacy Skroban Najaka, “School-Based Crime Prevention,”
in Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, edited by Lawrence W. Sherman (London: Routledge, 2002).
38. D. Limber Olweus and Sharon Mihalic, Bullying Prevention Program, in D. S. Elliot (series ed.), Blueprints
for Violence Prevention (Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of
Behavioral Science, University of Colorado–Boulder, 1998).
39. Gilbert L. Botvin and others, “Long-term Follow-up Results of a Randomized Drug Abuse Prevention
Trial in a White Middle-Class Population,” Journal of the American Medical Association 273 (1995):
1106–12; Gilbert L. Botvin and others, “Preventing Adolescent Drug Abuse through a Multimodal Cogni-
tive-Behavioral Approach: Results of a Three-Year Study,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
58 (1990): 437–46.
40. Mihalick and others, Blueprints for Violence Prevention Replications (see note 6).
41. Denise C. Gottfredson, Changing School Structures to Benefit High-Risk Youths. Troubled and Troubling
Youth: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990).
42. Olga Reyes and Leonard A. Jason, “An Evaluation of a High School Dropout Prevention Program,” Journal
of Community Psychology 10 (1991): 277–90.
43. Peter W. Greenwood, “Cost-Effective Violence Prevention through Targeted Family Interventions,”
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1036 (Dec. 2004): 201–14, special issue on Youth Violence:
Scientific Approaches to Prevention.
44. J. Alexander and others, Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Functional Family Therapy (Boulder, Colo.:
University of Colorado, 1998).
45. S. W. Henggler and others, Multisystemic Therapy, in D. S. Elliot (series. ed.), Blueprints for Violence
Prevention (Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado, 1998).
46. H. Sontheimer and L. Goodstein, “Evaluation of Juvenile Intensive Aftercare,” Justice Quarterly 10
(1993): 197–227.
47. C. Puzzanchera and others, Juvenile Court Statistics 1999 (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile
Justice, 2003).
48. D. A. Andrews and others, “Does Correctional Treatment Work?” Criminology 28 (1990): 369–404.
49. Edward J. Latessa, S. J. Listwan, and D. J. Hubbard, Correctional Interventions: Changing Offender
Behavior (Boston: Roxbury Publishing, 2005).
50. Mark W. Lipsey, Nana A. Landenberger, and Sandra J. Wilson, Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Programs
for Criminal Offenders (Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology, Vanderbilt Institute for Public
Policy Studies, Campbell Collaboration, August 2007).
51. Barry Glick, “Aggression Replacement Training in Children and Adolescents,” The Hatherleigh Guide to
Child and Adolescent Therapy 5 (1996):191–226.
Peter Greenwood
2 1 0 T H E F U T U R E O F C H I L D R E N
52. Steve Aos, Washington State’s Family Integrated Transitions Program for Juvenile Offenders: Outcome
Evaluation and Benefit-Cost Analysis (Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2004).
53. P. Chamberlain, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, in D. S. Elliot (series ed.), Blueprints for Violence
Prevention (Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral
Science, University of Colorado, 1998).
54. Aos, Miller, and Drake, Evidence-Based Public Policy Options (see note 2).
55. James C. Howell and Mark W. Lipsey, “A Practical Approach to Evaluating and Improving Juvenile Justice
Programs,” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 55, no. 1 (2004): 35–48.
56. See the article by Edward P. Mulvey and Anne-Marie R. Iselin in this issue.
57. K. Henigan and others, Phase 1: Survey of Interventions and Programs; A Continuum of Graduated
Responses for Juvenile Justice in California (Juvenile Justice Data Project, Center for Research on Crime,
University of Southern California, 2007).
58. Howell and Lipsey, “A Practical Approach” (see note 55).
59. Report of the Blueprint Commission (Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, 2007).
Capstone
(4)
value: 4.00
Milestones
(3)
value: 3.00
Milestones
(2)
value: 2.00
Benchmark
(1)
value: 1.00
Lack of
Proficiency
(0)
value: 0.00
Score/Level
TaskStream https://w.taskstream.com/RubricWizard/RubricPrintViewWithSession/Pr…
1 of 4 10/24/2017, 1:51 PM
Capstone
(4)
value: 4.00
Milestones
(3)
value: 3.00
Milestones
(2)
value: 2.00
Benchmark
(1)
value: 1.00
Lack of
Proficiency
(0)
value: 0.00
Score/Level
TaskStream https://w.taskstream.com/RubricWizard/RubricPrintViewWithSession/Pr…
2 of 4 10/24/2017, 1:51 PM
Capstone
(4)
value: 4.00
Milestones
(3)
value: 3.00
Milestones
(2)
value: 2.00
Benchmark
(1)
value: 1.00
Lack of
Proficiency
(0)
value: 0.00
Score/Level
TaskStream https://w.taskstream.com/RubricWizard/RubricPrintViewWithSession/Pr…
3 of 4 10/24/2017, 1:51 PM
Capstone
(4)
value: 4.00
Milestones
(3)
value: 3.00
Milestones
(2)
value: 2.00
Benchmark
(1)
value: 1.00
Lack of
Proficiency
(0)
value: 0.00
Score/Level
TaskStream https://w.taskstream.com/RubricWizard/RubricPrintViewWithSession/Pr…
4 of 4 10/24/2017, 1:51 PM
Taskstream Assignment Rubric
Name_________________________________________________
|
Criteria |
Excellent |
Very Good |
Good |
Fair |
Poor |
|
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
Due date Was paper uploaded to Turnitin on or before the due date? |
|||||
|
Content Is it evident that the student read the entire article? Did the student utilize information from the article as support for their perspective and views? Did the student use other resources to support their opposition to the article? The student was able to grasp the intent of the article. |
|||||
|
Organization Is the paper organized and well written? Did the student use the APA format? Were citations used? |
|||||
|
Grammar/Spelling errors Did the student avoid excessive grammar and spelling errors? Did the student avoid plagiarism? |
|||||
|
Total Score |