THE EFFECTIVENESS OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL INTERVENTIONS
In their seminal article, Andrews and his colleagues (1990) argued that to be effective in
reducing recidivism, correctional programs must provide treatment that is clinically relevant
and draws from the psychological literature of behavioral modification. They found
that juvenile correctional programs that were most effective in reducing recidivism were
those that ascribed to three major principles: the delivery of services to high-risk cases, the
targeting of criminogenic needs, and the use of cognitive and behavioral modalities. Specifically,
they found that juvenile correctional programs that ascribed to these principles
had a relatively strong effect (mean phi = .29) when compared both to rehabilitative programs
that did not (mean phi = –.07) and to more traditional criminal sanctions, such as probation
and restitution (mean phi = –.06).
A follow-up meta-analysis in 1999 conducted by Dowden and Andrews (1999) produced
similar results. Their examination of more than 200 effect sizes found that overall, juvenile
correctional treatment had a weak, albeit significant, average effect size (phi = .08). Furthermore,
their results again suggested that programs that used a cognitive behavioral treatment
modality, targeted high-risk youth, and attempted to change criminogenic needs were all
more effective (phi = .28) than those programs that did not (phi = –.08).
Lipsey (1999) also used the meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of juvenile correctional
treatment. His analysis examined more than 200 correctional interventions for
serious youthful offenders and concluded that correctional interventions with specific characteristics
were effective in reducing recidivism. Of interest, Lipsey also examined 83
programs for institutionalized youth, 8 of which were categorized as community residential
facilities. Lipsey’s results suggest that although on average, there were positive effects for
the community-based residential facilities, there was significant variation in the effect sizes
within this group. The small number of studies precluded an analysis of characteristics of
effective community-based residential facilities. However, in the larger analysis of programs
for institutionalized offenders, Lipsey noted that the characteristics of treatment modality,
program duration, and treatment implementation were associated with increases in program
effect size.
Also of interest, research conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
indicates that staff characteristics are important factors in determining the effectiveness of
juvenile correctional interventions (Barnoski, 2004). Barnoski (2004) reviewed a variety of
forms of juvenile correctional interventions and found that counselors who were categorized
as competent during quality assurance checks consistently produced higher effect sizes than counselors who were not. Furthermore, the findings indicate that counselors who were categorized as incompetent produced clients who were more likely to reoffend. These
findings are consistent with prior research that suggests that programs with trained and qualified staff are more likely to have an impact on recidivism (see Gendreau & Ross, 1979;
Palmer, 1994).
Research that uses general
A follow-up meta-analysis in 1999 conducted by Dowden and Andrews (1999) produced
similar results. Their examination of more than 200 effect sizes found that overall, juvenile
correctional treatment had a weak, albeit significant, average effect size (phi = .08). Furthermore,
their results again suggested that programs that used a cognitive behavioral treatment
modality, targeted high-risk youth, and attempted to change criminogenic needs were all
more effective (phi = .28) than those programs that did not (phi = –.08).
Lipsey (1999) also used the meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of juvenile correctional
treatment. His analysis examined more than 200 correctional interventions for
serious youthful offenders and concluded that correctional interventions with specific characteristics
were effective in reducing recidivism. Of interest, Lipsey also examined 83
programs for institutionalized youth, 8 of which were categorized as community residential
facilities. Lipsey’s results suggest that although on average, there were positive effects for
the community-based residential facilities, there was significant variation in the effect sizes
within this group. The small number of studies precluded an analysis of characteristics of
effective community-based residential facilities. However, in the larger analysis of programs
for institutionalized offenders, Lipsey noted that the characteristics of treatment modality,
program duration, and treatment implementation were associated with increases in program
effect size.
Also of interest, research conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
indicates that staff characteristics are important factors in determining the effectiveness of
juvenile correctional interventions (Barnoski, 2004). Barnoski (2004) reviewed a variety of
forms of juvenile correctional interventions and found that counselors who were categorized
as competent during quality assurance checks consistently produced higher effect
sizes than counselors who were not. Furthermore, the findings indicate that counselors who
were categorized as incompetent produced clients who were more likely to reoffend. These
findings are consistent with prior research that suggests that programs with trained and qualified
staff are more likely to have an impact on recidivism (see Gendreau & Ross, 1979;
Palmer, 1994).
Research that uses general measures of treatment integrity to predict program effectiveness
has found modest to strong correlations with recidivism. When measuring the program
integrity of 38 adult halfway houses, Lowenkamp, Latessa, et al. (2006) found that overall
698 Criminal Justice and Behavior integrity scores had r values ranging from .24 to .33. Gray (1997) examined community based correctional interventions and found a correlation of .41 between treatment integrity and program outcome. Nesovic (2003) examined more than 250 correctional programs and found that measures of treatment integrity maintained a correlation of .51 with recidivism.
Taken as a whole, research on interventions with juvenile offenders suggests that measures
of treatment integrity play an important role in the effective reduction in recidivism. Characteristics such as the risk level of the youth that are served, the treatment modality and
targets, and staff characteristics have been found to be important factors that improve the
likelihood of reducing recidivism. This body of research provides a compelling argument
regarding the importance of examining treatment integrity when evaluating juvenile correctional interventions, because it provides a look into the “black box” of correctional
interventions (Holsinger, 1999). That is, although outcome evaluations help in understanding
whether programs are effective, understanding treatment integrity provides an explanation
as to why programs are effective or not. Furthermore, understanding why their specific
program is effective or not provides practitioners with the tools to improve struggling programs
and to sustain programs that perform well.
The current research seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of Ohio’s CCFs. In doing so, it
examines how differences in treatment integrity correspond with program recidivism. The
measures of treatment integrity used in the current project are drawn from the CPAI designed
by Gendreau and Andrews (1996). Program effectiveness is measured using a quasi-experimental design to determine whether program participants were less likely to engage in
recidivism than a matched control group.
温馨提示：答案为网友推荐，仅供参考