Improving The Effectiveness Of Juvenile Justice Programs
Improving theEffectiveness ofJuvenile JusticeProgramsA New Perspective on Evidence-Based PracticeMark W. Lipsey James C. Howell Marion R. KellyGabrielle Chapman Darin CarverImproving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice1
2Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice
Improving theEffectiveness ofJuvenile JusticeProgramsA New Perspective on Evidence-Based PracticeDecember 2010Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt UniversityJames C. Howell, Criminologist, Pinehurst, North CarolinaMarion R. Kelly, Consultant, Richmond, VirginiaGabrielle Chapman, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt UniversityDarin Carver, Juvenile Justice Programming Consultant, META L.L.C.Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practicei
iiImproving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice
ContentsPreface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5II. The Cyclic History of Criminal Justice Treatmentand Punishment Philosophies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7A. From Rehabilitation to Punishment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7B. Popularity of Deterrence Philosophies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8C. Return to Rehabilitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8D. Recent Policy Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9III. Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Delinquency. . . . . . . 11A. The Key Role of Behavior Change Programs for Juvenile Offenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12B. The Spectrum of Programs and the Challenge of Taking Effective Programs to Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12C. Doubts about Whether Many Programs Used in Practice Are Actually Effective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13IV. Evidence-Based Practice: More Than One Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17A. Direct Evaluation of the Effects of the Program as Implemented. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17B. Model Programs with Evidence Certified by a Credible Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18C. Best Practice Guidelines Based on a Meta-analysis of Research Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19V. Meta-analysis of Research on the Effects of InterventionPrograms for Juvenile Offenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21A. Analysis of the Findings of 548 Evaluation Studies of Delinquency Interventions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22B. Program Characteristics Associated with the Greatest Effects on Recidivism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221. Risk Level of the Juveniles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232. Therapeutic versus Control Treatment Philosophies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233. Generic Program Types and Embedded Model Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254. Amount and Quality of Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27C. Effective Juvenile Justice Programs: Implications for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practiceiii
VI. The SPEP: Evidence-Based Practice Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29A. The Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol for Assessing Juvenile Justice Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29B. The Experience of State Juvenile Justice Systems with the SPEP Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321. North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322. Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33C. Lessons Learned from the North Carolina and Arizona SPEP Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34D. The Challenge of Evidence-Based Practice for Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35VII. Integrating Evidence-Based Practice into JuvenileJustice Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37A. A System Reform Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371. Prevention Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 .2. Intervention and Graduated Sanctions Tier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39B. The Essential Tools: Risk Assessment, Needs Assessment, Case Management Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40C. Examples of a Comprehensive Continuum of Prevention and Graduated Sanctions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421. San Diego’s Comprehensive Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422. Orange County’s Comprehensive Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433. Missouri’s Comprehensive Strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44VIII. Practical and Policy Considerations in ImplementingJuvenile Justice Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47A. Needed Improvements in Juvenile Justice Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47B. The Challenges of Change and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48IX. Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51A. To Juvenile Justice System Administrators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51B. To Legislators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51C. To Juvenile Justice State Advisory Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51D. To Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51E. To Treatment Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52X. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55ivImproving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice
PrefaceAs a society we want our children to be healthy, safe,happy, fulfilled, and connected to others in a loving,positive manner—and as parents we do whatever we canto ensure those outcomes for our children. Those whowork in the social services share the same goals for thechildren, youth, and families they serve.Unfortunately, though individual workers do their best inthis regard, they are too often significantly challenged bythe systems within which they do their work to achievethe outcomes we want for our children. Appropriate andeffective services may not be available, it may not bepossible to match a youth’s needs to the services thatare available, and there may not be a way to determineif the services that are available are effective. Thesechallenges are not the result of a lack of knowledge. Wenow have the knowledge to do this work more effectively;indeed, the research that we have in hand today farexceeds our knowledge base as little as 5 to 10 years ago.Research sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention, the National Institute of Justice,and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (all within the U.S.Department of Justice), the U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services, and a number of foundations hashelped to grow our knowledge. We now have researchon best practices for juvenile justice–involved youthand the policies that support the practices. We findthis reflected in the increased use of evidence-basedpractices and programs, in the growth of the scienceof risk and protective factors and criminogenic factorsand characteristics, and in the development and use ofvalidated risk and needs assessment instruments. Wehave learned about the importance of advancing our workon an ecological platform, serving youth closer to home,and better connecting youth to family, school, community,and pro-social peers while utilizing a strength-basedapproach. The true challenge is not, therefore, a lack ofknowledge of what works, but rather is in translating therobust body of knowledge into practice.This is what the framework presented in this paperis designed to do. By bringing together the work ofDr. James “Buddy” Howell and his colleagues on theComprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and ChronicJuvenile Offenders (Comprehensive Strategy) and thecreation by Dr. Mark Lipsey of the Standardized ProgramEvaluation Protocol (SPEP), based on his groundbreakingmeta-analyses of juvenile justice research, the frameworkpresented in this paper is poised to meet one of thegreatest challenges we have in juvenile justice practicetoday: how to bring together in a coherent manner theadvances in knowledge noted above.To demonstrate the need for a new approach, contemplatethis scenario and whether it sounds familiar. A juvenilejustice director is delighted to identify a number of “goldstandard” programs that could be used to benefit his orher clients, whether found in the Blueprints for ViolencePrevention developed by Dr. Delbert Elliott, or in OJJDP’sModel Programs Guide, or in the Substance Abuse andMental Health Services Administration’s National Registryof Evidence-based Programs and Practices. The newprograms are implemented with as much fidelity aspossible in light of budget constraints and workforcelimitations, while at the same time local programs thatdo not have rigorous evidence of success are diminished.Outcomes may improve for the clients who experiencethese gold standard programs, although their replicationmay be uneven with mixed levels of effectiveness. Andtheir reach may be limited due to the expense associatedwith their implementation and resistance from providerswho are reluctant to replace their current programs withnew ones. Moreover, the programs are implemented insilos, disconnected from a systemwide quality assuranceapproach and a continuum of effective services to meet theneeds of youth. Despite these challenges, the use of goldstandard programs is viewed by many as a magic bullet,and in some instances, states are mandated to fund onlythese programs—resulting in reductions in funding forImproving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice1
local programs that may have measures of effectiveness,but that do not have rigorous evaluation studies.The authors of this paper suggest that we can do betterat translating knowledge into practice without waveringin our commitment to evidence that supports our policiesand practices. I can best bring to life this need to do betterthrough a story I was once told about a lecturer who wasaddressing an audience about how we decide to assumerisk in our lives. He posed three hypothetical questions toa volunteer in the audience. First, he asked the volunteerto imagine that there was a steel construction I-beam, 15feet long, 6 inches high, and 6 inches wide, lying in frontof the podium and offered the volunteer 50 to assumethe risk of walking across it. The volunteer indicated thatshe would assume the risk.The second hypothetical presented a situation in which theI-beam had been lengthened to 30 feet and was locatedacross a gorge that dropped 250 feet to a bed of rocks.Offered 100 to assume the risk of walking across theI-beam, the volunteer declined.Presenting the third hypothetical, the lecturer kept thecircumstances the same as in the second scenario, exceptfor one significant difference. In this situation, the lecturerhad one of the volunteer’s children on one side of thegorge and was holding the child by the hand, over theedge of the gorge. The volunteer was on the other side ofthe gorge, and unless she crossed the I-beam, the lecturerwould drop her child. The lecturer offered the volunteer 200 to walk across the I-beam. The volunteer hesitatedfor a long moment before responding, “Which one of mykids have you got?”I am sure that any amusement you might find in this storymay reflect the fact that you are a parent who has had“one of those days” with your kids—or that you were oneof those kids! I share this story, however, not merely asan amusement, but to amplify a point. You are unlikelyto ever meet an individual who says that he or she doesnot care about kids. All of us truly want what is bestfor children on some level. But the way that concern isexpressed may vary a great deal. The woman in my storywas being asked a very clear question: exactly what stepsare you willing to take to help a child? What kind of priority2do children have for you when the going gets tough, whenthere are choices to be made? And her answer revealedwhat may be an even harder question—which childrenare you willing to help?The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of parentswould do whatever it would take to get across thatI-beam—in fact, virtually every adult would do whateverit would take to save that child. But as a society, perhapsthrough our benign neglect, we don’t do whatever it takes,and kids to one extent or another are falling into the gorge.Our challenge is to take those extraordinary efforts thatindividual workers are willing to make and embed theminto systems that operate efficiently, effectively, and fairlyin meeting the needs of youth who come in contact withthem—systems that make it possible for workers to grabour children by the hand and not let them fall.The framework presented in this paper will help juvenilejustice systems around the country reform their systemsin this way. The overarching frame for the approach isto construct juvenile justice systems that are alignedalong a continuum of care, from prevention to earlyintervention and then to more significant systeminvolvement as needed. Incorporated into that continuumare the fundamental elements of valid risk and needsassessments, the matching of the level of risk and needto the appropriate service, and then ensuring that theservices provided are effective at improving outcomesfor the children and youth placed in them. By embeddingLipsey’s SPEP in the Comprehensive Strategy framework,the approach presented in this paper allows us tomaximize the use of the research we have while notgetting stuck in the box of evidence-based programsmore narrowly defined by the “gold standard” of programeffectiveness. Instead, the SPEP allows juvenile justiceagencies to compare their current services to bestpractices shown in the research to improve outcomesfor juvenile justice–involved yout
Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice i Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice December 2010 Mark W. Lipsey, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University James C. Howell, Criminologist, Pinehurst, North Carolina
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
juvenile collaborative court model and potential impacts of new laws on juvenile collaborative courts. This briefing will cover juvenile mental health court. Juvenile Mental Health Court Juvenile mental health court programs aim to divert youth from the juvenil
At the Animal Nutrition Group (ANU), a student can conduct research for a thesis with a workload of 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33 (Minor thesis), 36 or 39 ECTS (Major thesis). The aim of this thesis research is to train the students’ academic skills by means of an in-depth, scientific study on a subject of interest. With completion of the thesis, you have demonstrated that you can conduct a .
