Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

30 Intervening Effectively with Juvenile Offenders: Answers from Meta-Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Development of Criminal and Antisocial Behavior

Abstract

A general critique of the injustices characterizing juvenile corrections became focused on the empirical effectiveness of rehabilitation programs, with the claim being made that “nothing works” to reform wayward youths. The statistical technique of meta-analysis played a crucial role in arbitrating this debate. Most prominently conducted by Mark Lipsey, meta-analytic studies revealed that deterrence or punishment-oriented interventions do not work, but that human service or treatment programs do work. In particular, programs implemented with therapeutic integrity and that conform the principles of the Risk-Need-Responsibility (RNR) Model reduce recidivism the most. Research knowledge gained from meta-analysis should be used to develop and implement evidence-based interventions. Broad public support exists for rehabilitative efforts to save juvenile offenders from a life in crime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alexander, M. (2011). Applying implementation research to improve community corrections: Making sure that “new” thing sticks! Federal Probation, 75(2), 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, F. A. (1981). The decline of the rehabilitative ideal: Penal policy and social purpose. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2005). Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta-analytic review of programme integrity. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., Dowden, C., & Gendreau, P. (1999). Clinically relevant and psychologically informed approaches to reduced re-offending: A meta-analytic study of human service, risk, need, responsivity, and other concerns in justice contexts. Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional practice: A summary of CaVIC research. In R. R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 439–463). Toronto, Canada: Butterworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brayford, J., Cowe, F., & Deering, J. (Eds.). (2010). What else works? Creative work with offenders. Cullompton, UK: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBS Television Network. (1975). It doesn’t work. 60 Minutes, 7(32), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clear, T. R., & Frost, N. A. (2014). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T. (2005). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference—The American Society of Criminology 2004 presidential address. Criminology, 43, 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T. (2013). Rehabilitation: Beyond nothing works. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice in America, 1975 to 2025—Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 42, pp. 299–376). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Trager, J. S., & Gendreau, P. (2005). The rise and fall of boot camps: A case study in common-sense corrections. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(3–4), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 14, pp. 1–79). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In J. Horney (Ed.), Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system: Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 3, pp. 109–175). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (2013). Reaffirming rehabilitation (2nd Ed.). Waltham, MA: Anderson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2012). Correctional theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism: The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91, 48S–65S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Pratt, T. C., Micelli, S. L., & Moon, M. M. (2002). Dangerous liaison? Rational choice theory as the basis for correctional intervention. In A. R. Piquero & S. G. Tibbetts (Eds.), Rational choice and criminal behavior: Recent research and future challenges (pp. 279–296). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., & Smith, P. (2011). Treatment and rehabilitation. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of crime and criminology (pp. 156–178). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Vose, B. A., Jonson, C. N. L., & Unnever, J. D. (2007). Public support for early intervention: Is child saving a “habit of the heart”? Victims and Offenders, 2, 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Wright, J. P., & Applegate, B. K. (1996). Control in the community: The limits of reform? In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional interventions that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 69–116). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feld, B. C. (1999). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feld, B. C., & Bishop, D. M. (2011). Juvenile justice. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of crime and criminal justice (pp. 627–659). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, C. J. (1985). Effects of residential treatment on adjudicated delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaylin, W., Glasser, I., Marcus, S., & Rothman, D. (Eds.). (1978). Doing good: The limits of benevolence. New York, NY: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory—2000 (CPAI 2000). Saint John, Canada: University of New Brunswick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Goggin, P., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue of effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 180–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 463–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1, 2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, M. R. (1979). Treatment destruction techniques. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16, 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, P. C., & Turner, S. (2011). Juvenile crime and juvenile justice. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 88–129). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krohn, M. D., Lopez, G., & Ward, J. T. (2014). Effects of official interventions on later offending in the Rochester Youth Development Study. In D. P. Farrington & J. Murray (Eds.), Labeling theory: Empirical tests—Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 17, pp. 179–207). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latessa, E. J. (2004). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidence-based practices. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 547–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66(2), 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M., & Schneider, W. (1983). The confidence gap: Business, labor, and government in the public mind. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquent treatment: A meta-analytic treatment inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Lewis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83–127). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquency? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 63–78). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1999a). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law, 6, 611–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1999b). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 142–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 3, 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313–336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York, NY: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeber, R., & Le Blanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A review of research (Vol. 12, pp. 375–473). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lösel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 79–111). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52, 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35(2), 22–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, R. (1979). New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law Review, 7(Winter), 243–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (Ed.). (1995). What works: Reducing reoffending. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (2001). What works in correctional intervention? Evidence and practical implications. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington, & A. W. Leschied (Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 25–43). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J. (2002). Criminal sanctions versus psychologically-based interventions with offenders: A comparative empirical analysis. Psychology Crime and Law, 8, 183–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, N. (1974). The future of imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S., Piquero, A. R., Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration for juvenile offenders: Evidence from a contingent valuation. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 627–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, M. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk-needs-responsivity approach. Psychology Crime and Law, 10, 229–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, T. (1978). Correctional intervention and research. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, T. (1992). The re-emergence of correctional intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 17, pp. 281–335). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petitclerc, A., Gatti, U., Vitaro, F., & Tremblay, R. E. (2013). Effects of juvenile court exposure on crime in young adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54, 291–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2014). The impact of juvenile system processing on delinquency. In D. P. Farrington & J. Murray (Eds.), Labeling theory: Empirical tests—Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 17, pp. 113–147). Transaction: New Brunswick, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A. R., Cullen, F. T., Unnever, J. D., Piquero, N. L., & Gordon, J. (2010). Never too late: Public opinion about juvenile rehabilitation. Punishment and Society, 12, 187–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platt, A. R. (1969). The child savers: The invention of juvenile delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polaschek, D. L. L. (2012). An appraisal of the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, T. C. (2009). Addicted to incarceration: Correctional policy and the politics of misinformation in the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, P., & Robinson, G. (2009). Rehabilitation, crime and justice (Rev. and updated ed.). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, C. R., VanBenschoten, S. W., Alexander, M., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2011). A random (almost) study of staff training aimed at reducing re-arrest (STARR): Reducing recidivism through intentional design. Federal Probation, 75(2), 57–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, D. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in Progressive America. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, D. J. (2002). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in Progressive America (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, K. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4, 148–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P., Schweitzer, M., Labrecque, R. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2012). Improving probation officers’ supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooden, K. (1976). Weeping in the playtime of others: America’s incarcerated children. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Sarah M. Manchak & Francis T. Cullen

  2. 5840 Bearcat Way, PO Box 210389, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA

    Sarah M. Manchak & Francis T. Cullen

Authors
  1. Sarah M. Manchak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francis T. Cullen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah M. Manchak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychoeducation, University of Montreal, Montreal, Québec, Canada

    Julien Morizot

  2. Department of Sociology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY, New York, New York, USA

    Lila Kazemian

Recommended Readings

Recommended Readings

  • Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Anderson. See, in particular, Chapter 11.

  • Feld, B. C. (1999). Bad kids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Howell, J. C. (2009). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 3, 297–320.

  • MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Manchak, S.M., Cullen, F.T. (2015). 30 Intervening Effectively with Juvenile Offenders: Answers from Meta-Analysis. In: Morizot, J., Kazemian, L. (eds) The Development of Criminal and Antisocial Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08720-7_30

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation