Juvenile Offenders Describe the Role of the Correctional Counselor Peer Reviewed

WHAT WORKS FOR SERIOUS JUVENILE OFFENDERS? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Vicente Garrido Genovés, Lus Anyela Morales^* and Julio Sánchez-Meca^{* *}

Universidad de Valencia, ^* Universidad Católica (Colombia) and ^{* *} Universidad de Murcia

This written report examines the outcomes of best available empirical enquiry regarding the effectiveness of treatment programs implemented in secure corrections to prevent the recidivism of serious (violent and chronic) juvenile offenders (from 12 to 21 years onetime). In this review 30 experimental and quasi-experimental studies are analyzed, comparing 2831 juveniles in the treatment groups and 3002 youths for the control groups. The global effect size of these 30 studies in terms of standarized mean difference was d= 0,14 in favour of the treatment groups. This size upshot, in terms of «r» coefficient reached the value of 0,07, of low magnitude. The cerebral-behavioral methods of treatment were the nearly effective in decreasing recidivism. These results study that the rehabilitation programs for serious offenders achieve to reduce the full general recidivism in comparison with the control juveniles in approximately seven percent.

¿Qué funciona con los delincuentes juveniles graves? Una revisión sistemática. Este artículo examina los resultados de la mejor evidencia empírica disponible con respecto a la efectividad de los programas de tratamiento implementados en centros cerrados o prisiones juveniles para prevenir la reincidencia de delincuentes juveniles graves (violentos y habituales), en edades comprendidas entre los 12 y los 21 años. Se revisan 30 estudios experimentales y cuasiexperimentales, con united nations total de two.831 jóvenes en los grupos de tratamiento y three.002 en los grupos de comparación. El tamaño del efecto global en términos de reducción de la reincidencia fue de d= 0.fourteen a favor de los grupos tratados, lo que supone una reducción de la reincidencia del 7%. Los métodos cognitivoconductuales fueron los más efectivos.

The importance of interventions for serious juvenile offenders cannot be overstated as this group poses a significant claiming to criminal justice agencies both in terms of frequency and seriousness of their offending and after behaviour as adults. Government are increasingly incarcerating these young people, however, doubtfulness remains over the effectiveness of such an approach.

In 1995, Thornberry, Huizinga and Loeber reported results from the Programme of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency, which consists of 3 well coordinated longitudinal research projects: the Denver Youth Survey, the Pittsburgh Youth Study and the Rochester Youth Development Study. In total these three projects involved four,500 inner-city youths, ranging in age, at the beginning of data collection, from 7 to fifteen years quondam.

Chronic violent offenders constituted only fifteen% of the full sample in Rochester and 14% of the adolescent sample in Denver, yet, they committed 75% of all the fierce offenses reported in Rochester and 82% of all the violent offenses reported in Denver. In decision the authors stated: «If we do not successfully reach this minor grouping, we will leave the vast majority of the violence problem untouched» (p. 220).

Similar conclusions can exist drawn from many other studies: that those juveniles responsible for violent offenses are at high risk of condign chronic offenders, committing many types of offense and to receive an institutional sentence. For case, in the classic Cambridge (Uk) study, which included a sample of 400 subjects, 40% of the males received convictions before the historic period of xl. The prevalence of offending increased upward to age 17 then decreased, but the mean age was 21, showing the skewness of the historic period-law-breaking bend. The tiptop historic period of increase in the prevalence of offending was 14, while the height age of decrease was 23. These times of maximum dispatch and deceleration are hypothesised to exist times when important social influences are at work. Clearly, in a residential setting, the deceleration influence can inappreciably act, while the modelling on antisocial peers is present (Farrington, 2003).

There is significant continuity between offending in one historic period range and offending in another. For instance, 73% of males bedevilled in the Cambridge study equally juveniles between the ages of ten to 16 were reconvicted between ages 17 and 24, in comparing with only xvi% of those not bedevilled every bit juveniles. Nearly half (45%) of the juvenile offenders were reconvicted between ages 25 and 32, in comparing with only 8% of those not convicted as juveniles (also studies of Krohn et al., 2001, and Stattin and Magnusson, 1991, as quoted past Farrington, 2003). Effective interventions with juveniles should therefore impact later offending rates in adulthood.

Every bit described to a higher place, violent juveniles are criminally versatile; 55 of the 65 males with a confidence for violence as well received a conviction for a non-violent crime. To a big extent, the frequent offenders were versatile and sooner or later committed a violent offense. The probability of committing a violent offense increased steadily with the number of offenses committed, from xviii% of sometime offenders to 82% of those with 12 or more convictions (Farrington, 2003).

Those juveniles with multiple convictions are more than likely to receive farther periods of incarceration. A twenty-state research program sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 'Juveniles Taken into Custody', reported programs that shared age 18 as the upper age of juvenile jurisdiction, permitting readmission rates to be calculated over a reasonable time period. Of the 8057 youths released in 1992, 27% were readmitted inside one yr of their release. Male readmission rates were much higher than for females (28% and 16%, respectively), and in that location was a potent relationship betwixt the number of prior correctional commitments and readmission rates (Krisberg and Howell, 1998).

Information technology is difficult to overstate the importance of targeting chronic offenders for crime prevention and handling; considering that many violent juvenile offenders are also chronic/versatile offenders that receive institutionalised sentences, the effectiveness of the interventions becomes a critical issue (Farrington, 2005).

Current doubts in the intervention with violent juvenile offenders

The challenges involved in the handling of the violent delinquents have been widely reported. As Thornberry, Huizinga and Loeber (1995) bespeak out, by the fourth dimension most serious delinquents are identified and receive intensive treatment from the juvenile justice system, they are well into their delinquent careers. For example, the National Youth Survey in United States (Elliot, 1994; Elliot, Huizinga and Morse, 1986, quoted by Thornberry, Huizinga and Loeber, 1995) found a substantial gap between the peak ages of involvement in serious violence and processing by the juvenile justice system. In add-on, the offenders enrolled in treatment programs had a host of negative characteristics that reduce the likelihood of successful intervention. «These offenders are older; are heavily involved in delinquent careers, and are likely to be progressed along overt, covert and authority conflict pathways. They are likely to be involved in other forms of delinquency, to use drugs, and to showroom other related problem behaviors. They are likely to have multiple risks factors and social deficits […] The consequence is a spiralling behavioral trajectory that is exceedingly hard for prosocial forces to penetrate, merely this is precisely what nosotros enquire treatment programs to do, oftentimes with inadequate program resource and no after care services. Given these limitations, our expectations of treatment programs should exist small-scale» (Thornberry, Huizinga and Loeber, 1995, p. 233).

An underlying problem is the famine of master intervention research conducted specifically with serious juvenile offenders, about of the samples are mixed, including less serious offenders and non separately identified and analyzed. In an attempt to analyze the state of affairs in serious and violent juvenile offenders, Lipsey and Wilson (1998) conducted a meta-analysis (non in the context of a systematic review) focusing on two basic questions:

Does the prove indicate that intervention programs generally are capable of reducing the reoffending rates for serious delinquents? And if so, what types of programs are well-nigh effective?

Lipsey and Wilson included 200 experimental or quasi-experimental studies (published betwixt 1950 and 1995) that involved serious juvenile offenders to some degree (more stringent inclusion criteria produced a very small number of studies). The juveniles finally selected were those «reported to exist adjudicated delinquents. In addition, most, or all, of the juveniles had a record of prior offenses and those offenses involved person or property crimes, or an aggregate of all offenses, but not primarily substance abuse, status offenses or traffic offenses» (p. 315). The juvenile samples were largely male and with an boilerplate historic period of 14 to 17 years old. They categorized the studies into non-institutionalized (N= 117) and institutionalized (Northward= 83).

With non-institutionalized juveniles, treatment effects were larger for juvenile samples with mixed priors (i.e., including some proportion of person offenses) than those with mostly property priors. The most effective interventions were a group equanimous of interpersonal skills training, individual counselling and behavioural programs. The less effective interventions were wilderness/claiming programs, early on release from probation or parole, deterrence programs (daze incarceration), and vocational programs (which is dissimilar from employment related programs).

The results with institutionalized juveniles assorted markedly with those for non-institutionalized juveniles: with the offenders in institutions, the treatment effects are much the same for a given program whatever the sample characteristics such equally age, gender, ethnic mix and history of prior offenses. Again, the most successful intervention was interpersonal skills training, followed by the education family habitation programme (Achievement Place project). The to the lowest degree effective interventions were wilderness/claiming programs, drug forbearance, employment related programs and milieu therapy.

The mean effect sizes were similar for both non-institutional (.14) and institutional interventions (.10). Although Lipsey and Wilson categorized interventions every bit either institutional or non-institutional, they included in the institutionalized category many programs that were, in fact, residential community-based interventions, such as Achievement Identify.

According to Andrews et a. (1990), handling for delinquent behaviour is almost effective when the juveniles to whom that treatment is administered have appreciable risk of actually reoffending (the 'risk principle'). The opposite view, however, is often expressed: the well-nigh serious cases are the least acquiescent to treatment. The authors' meta-analysis supported the take a chance principle: for both groups of offenders, the average intervention program produced a positive effect equivalent to about 12% reduction in subsequent reoffense rates.

In spite of these results, it remains to exist demonstrated what specific strategies are actually promising in rehabilitating serious incarcerated juvenile offenders. Preliminary data suggest that some violent offenders are more acquiescent to treatment than chronic belongings offenders (Redondo, Sánchez-Meca and Garrido, 1999). These data, nevertheless, are far from conclusive, especially in Europe, in role as a result of the paucity of programmes that can be averaged to extract different conclusions in terms of the moderator variables.

Redondo et al (1997), in the commencement European meta-assay report reported that in terms of crime typology, the most effective interventions were obtained with offenders confronting persons (r= .419). In a second meta-analysis, Redondo et al (1999) analysed the specific influence of 32 European treatment programmes on recidivism. The greatest effectiveness was achieved with violent offenders (non sex offenders), which seems to confirm the chance principle (Andrews et al, 1990).

In summary, many gaps remain in our knowledge about the treatment of serious delinquents.

Although the Lipsey and Wilson (1998) meta-analysis compared institutionalized and noninstitutionalized handling for serious youth, they included in the institutionalized category many programs that were in fact residential community-based interventions. We withal practise not know which is the contribution of secure corrections handling, meaning for that traditional juvenile prison, borstal and training schools as well as modernistic small units for some kinds of offenders (with individualised treatment as a philosophy in the program intervention). In our opinion, the theoretical thought of saying that non-secure interventions is superior to secure corrections has non been proved empirically in the case of the serious juvenile offenders.

Finally, althought information technology is necessary to written report the office played by dissimilar moderating variables (for case: prior law-breaking history versus non prior history; violent non chronic offenders versus fierce chronic offenders; intervention in an early age versus a later age; male delinquents versus female delinquents) and their influence on the global upshot size of the treatment for this specific kind of offenders, this discussion will non be included in this

Objective

The main objective of this review was to collect and assess the quality, in a systematic manner, of the outcomes of empirical research regarding the effectiveness of treatment programs implemented in secure corrections in guild to decrease the reoffense rate and quality (i.e., type of offence) of serious (chronic and violent) delinquents (12-21 years quondam). In this paper are addressed 2 specific questions (equally in Lipsey and Wilson review): Are intervention programs effective in reducing the recidivism of serious delinquents? And if so, what types of programs are most constructive?

Criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies for this review

Types of studies

This review includes experimental and quasi-experimental studies with control or comparison groups and with prior and later cess of the intervention. The dearth of studies with this population forestall to select a stricter benchmark (i.e., simply randomized experimental designs; see Beelman and Lösel, this issue). Furthermore, the outcomes presented include relapse rates and offenses. In this review we used the scientific methods scale of Sherman et al (1997) and we included just those studies ranked iii, iv or 5 (i.e., a experimental group and at least a comparable control group). As consequence, nosotros excluded qualitative and pre experimental quantitative inquiry papers (rank 1 or 2 in the same scale) every bit well as single case design reports.

Types of participants

The programme recipients were juveniles either male or female, in secure corrections anile between 12 and 21 years former, under either the adult or juvenile jurisdictions, characterised equally serious (chronic or and violent) delinquents.

We determined that the population in the selected studies corresponded to serious delinquents by inspecting the blazon of offense committed (tearing offenses) and their previous convictions («persistent offender», juveniles with three or more previous legal adjudications).¹

The term «secure corrections» means, in this review, environment or secure institutions characterized by physical restraint measures as locked doors, walls, bars, fences, etc. We included as secure corrections: centres of juvenile reform, prisons, borstals, training schools, camps and ranches, which hold juveniles accountable for their delinquent acts and provides a structured treatment environment. We excluded community programs or programs such as foster care, foster home, group home, journal detention and, in general, those in which delinquents are in contact every day with the community (every bit Achievement Place). Because of the beingness of institutionalised programs with the latter period spent in the community, we have included the studies in which more the l% of the treatment takes place in the institution.

Types of intervention

This review analyzed interventions aimed at decreasing mail service- treatment recidivism when the juveniles are returned into the customs. These interventions included psychological approaches (non-behavioural, behavioural and cognitive), social and educational procedures and methods, also equally ecology conditions directed to support the learning of prosocial behaviours and attitudes (for instance therapeutic communities).²

Types of outcome measures

Studies had to include at least one event of general recidivism. For this review nosotros defined general recidivism in a broad sense, including any subsequent offending behaviour, every bit measured by such indices every bit official record obtained from the constabulary or adult/juvenile justice courts that involve any kind of new offences with any kind of court response (parole, prison house, etc.).

Search Strategy for Identification of Relevant Studies, Selection and Coding

We searched: (one) published and unpublished studies, (2) between 1970 and 2003, (3) studies in areas of criminology, psychology, sociology, social service, pedagogy and psychiatry, (four) from any land and one of the following idioms: English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, German language and Italian.

First, nosotros did a manus search of a selection of specialized relevant journal contents that are held in our Universities. Second, nosotros conducted a specific search of thirteen available electronic databases relevant to the topic area (a summary of Databases and years reviewed are in the tabular array 1). The keywords used to search in these databases were: delinquency (ts), criminal (s), convicted, offender(s), inmates; detention, facility(ies), prison (due south,ers), incarceration (ed), infirmary (south), borstal (s), correctional(south), reformatories; boy(s), girls(southward), adolescent(ce,s), juvenile (es), youth, immature; treatment(s), programme(s), therapy (ies), rehabilitation, intervention(due south); agression (ive), anger, violence, violent, serious, chronic, persistent. Nosotros did the search with the English and the Spanish fundamental words. A search in the Campbell Collaboration Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register (C2-SPECTR) developed past the U.k. Cochrane Eye and supervised past the University of Pennsylvania Graduate Schoolhouse of Education, was also employed.

Choice of studies

The total number of references obtained from the search methods (excluding the Internet searches, which generated thousands of websites) was 1299. The text of each abstract was screened carefully to identify potentially eligible studies, according the criteria described in a higher place. From the 1299 studies identified, we kickoff selected 122. The complete reports were obtained and examined. The reviewers assessed the eligibility of the studies using a checklist. Finally, we constitute 17 reports which fit the criteria of our review.

Coding procedures

A coding protocol to register the extracted data from each comparing was used. This coding protocol was synthetic on the basis of the literature reviewed nigh correctional intervention programs for serious institutionalised delinquents. We have also taken into account previous experiences in others systematic reviews such every bit the Boot Camp review (MacKenzie, Wilson and Kilder, 2001) and previous meta-analyses (Marín-Martínez, Hidalgo, López, López, Moreno, Redondo, Rosa and Sánchez-Meca, 2002).

Edifice on the piece of work of Lipsey (1994) and Sánchez-Meca (1997) the coding instrument was divided in three variables groups: (a) Noun variables (participants, treatment and context); (b) Methodological variables (qualities of the report design); (c) Extrinsic variables (as country, publication yr, etc.). 2 of the researchers were coding separately the studies, discussing the discrepancies when necessary.

Results

Description of selected studies

This review consisted in the analysis of 17 documents (eight journals manufactures, two books, one published governmental report, ii unpublished governmental reports, 3 unpublished dissertation and one unpublished research and demonstration project report). In these 17 documents we identified thirty comparisons betwixt treatment and control groups. We named these comparisons «studies».

In these 30 studies, we only included groups with «due north» (number of youths in the sample of each group) equal or in a higher place 5. If the study had information about completers (juveniles who participated in the minimum sessions established for the treatment program) and no completers (juveniles who failed to attend the minimum sessions required), we preferred completers data. When the studies had information about more than i command or comparison group, nosotros selected one of them in lodge to avert the dependency in the data.

In general, the studies included in this review were published from the Untied States, with samples of male mix (i.east., chronic and violent) offenders, with a mean of age of sixteen years. The most part of the programs used cognitive-behavioral intervention strategies, followed for these non-behavioral. Only a little function of them had an aftercare intervention component. The participants in the studies lived at juvenile prisons, likewise as in special training schools and centers of juvenile reform. The studies were experimental and quasi-experimental, with attrition around 17% for the event of general recidivism. The size samples ranged from five to 660 juveniles. The final follow up in the studies presented a range between vi and 120 months. In average, the concluding follow upwardly period for the 30 studies had a median value of 12 months, while the hateful was 31,59 months (SD= 36,11).

Meta-analysis

In the bulk of the studies in this review we could calculate the odds ratio and its logarithm. Simply in 2 studies at that place were no data of recidivism frequencies, but they reported means and standard deviations. Therefore, in order to unify the data in all the 30 studies we calculated the issue sizes (ESs) with the standardized hateful difference («d») translating the odds ratio to «d» values.³ Finally, we limited these ESs values in terms of Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) and its translation to the BESD (Binomial Effect Size Display) with the purpose to facilitate the interpretation.

Each ane of the 30 studies included in this review reported measures virtually full general recidivism and these information were assessed in different periods of follow upwardly. In social club to avoid the dependency in the data the analysis distinguished between three temporal moments of each register (longest follow up —six to 120 months—, first follow upwards —six to fifteen months— and follow upwards period between 17 to 33 months) on an contained way. At the beginning of the data analysis we assumed both random and fixed effects models for the ES analysis. Still, every bit the results were very similar in the 2 models, we decided to present but the results with the fixed effects model.

From the thirty studies analyzed, xix obtained positive ESs favoring the treatment groups, viii programs showed negative ESs, and in iii cases the ES was naught (table 2).

In the terminal follow upwards period, the full of meta-analyzed studies involved 5833 juveniles (2831 treated and 3002 non-treated). The mean ES was positive (d= 0,143) in favour of the treatment groups, with a confidence interval statistically pregnant (0,092 to 0,193). This consequence corresponds to a correlation coefficient r= 0,07, of low magnitude. The translation of the «r» ES value to the BESD indicated 46,52% of recidivism for the treatment groups and 53,48 for the control groups. These data revealed that the rehabilitation programs for serious offenders to reduce the general recidivism in comparison with the control juveniles of approximately, 7%. Figure 1 shows the forest plot for the effect size distribution in the last follow upward period. It is of import to accept into business relationship that the values upper nix hateful a everyman rate of full general recidivism in the treatment group in comparison to the control grouping.

The results were similar in the other 2 groups of studies. In the period of follow up betwixt 6 to fifteen months, likewise as in the flow of follow upwards between 17 and 33 months, the global ES in terms of «d» was 0,xvi. This value is equal to a «r» value of 0,08.

1 of the virtually important enquiry question is wether there are any variations in the effectiveness of diferent types of handling program. Considering this variable, in vii studies, the treatment was cognitive. 11 studies corresponded to cerebral – behavioral treatment. Three studies applied an educative approach. Other eight studies used a non-behavioral treatment. Only one report applied a therapeutic community approach treatment (see table 3).

Nosotros did a meta-analysis taken into account the type of treatment applied in the experimental groups. As at that place was but i report with a therapeutic community approach (Cornish and Clarke, 1975), information technology was eliminated from the analysis. Thus, the final assessment by blazon of intervention contained 29 studies.

Information showed that in general the interventions are constructive in favor of the treatment groups with confidence intervals statistically meaning, with exception of the educative intervention. Additionally, equally Q_B was proximate to the significance level [Q_B(3)= 7.197, p= 0.066], we can say that the result is marginally significant, with this variable explaining 9% of the variance. This issue points out the differences betwixt types of treatment. That means that the variable of type of treatment has influence on the ES, at least marginally. The model seems to exist well specified, considering the global test Q_W and the Q_wj for each category are non significant, although the cognitive-behavioral category is slight above of 0,05. This tin indicate that this kind of treatment tin explain the most office of variability in the ES (see table four).

In the meta-analysis, the not-behavioral treatments obtained the higher global ES (d= 0,235), followed past the cognitive – behavioral programs (d= 0,215) and and then by the cognitive programs (d= 0,117).

It seems curious that the non-behavioral treatments achieved the higher ES (d= 0,235), because the studies with ES higher are in the category of cognitive behavior treatments.

As information technology is shown in table 5, the studies with cognitive interventions presented ESs from 0,05 to 0,51 in terms of coefficient r, all in favor of handling groups. The ESs for cognitive – behavioral programs were between r= -0,39 and r= 0,68; seven of the xi ESs were positives in favor of the treatment groups. Non behavioral programs accomplished ESs betwixt r= -0,477 and r= 0,xviii; five from the eight studies in this category had positive values in favor of the treatment groups.

Perchance the main reason for these results is that the study in the non-behavioral treatments with college ES (d= 0,37; r= 0,182) is the research of Jesness (1975). This study presents the higher sample size in this category with 453 juveniles in the treatment group and 660 in the command group. In the other categories, for example in the cognitive – behavioral, there are higher ESs (for example, r= 0,678), but the sample size is smaller than in the Jesness report, for case 15 or 10 juveniles for each group.

As we suspected the influence of the Jesness study on the ES of this category, we did an analysis of sensitivity. This assay consisted in the elimination of this written report. The objective was to bank check how much this study influences the ES for the non-behavioral category. Effectively, in the sensitivity analysis, the ES of the non-behavioral programs decreased significantly from d= 0,235 to d= 0,053 (see tabular array 6). With these results, it is clear that the global ES for not-behavioral programs decreases a lot, and let the cerebral-behavioral (d= 0,215) and the cerebral (d= 0,117) equally the almost constructive methods of intervention

Discussion

One of the principal objectives of this review was to identify empirical published and unpublished studies (in different languages) with high methodological rigor, in relation to the evaluation of correctional intervention programs for institutionalized serious (chronic and or trigger-happy) juvenile offenders. Considering this objective, we found few studies with the criteria of a clear definition of serious offenders and with high methodological rigor. Merely 17 studies met the inclusion criteria for our review. In spite of these criteria were flexible (because we included experimental studies as well as quasi-experimental ones), the number of studies founded was low.

Additionally, in spite of our efforts we could not find studies with these characteristics in of languages different of English language. Almost all the studies in this review were done in the United States. This condition limits our conclusions for other countries and cultures, and supports the need to foster this kind of researches in other countries.

This systematic review addressed the post-obit questions: Are correctional treatments constructive in reducing the recidivism among institutionalized serious (fierce and chronic) juvenile offenders? Which method of intervention seems to be more than effective?

Our enquiry confirms the overall finding of efficacy of the treatment plan for juvenile offenders (Andrews et al, 1990; Garret, 1985; Gensheimer, Mayer, Gottschalk and Davidson, 1986; Redondo, Garrido and Sánchez-Meca, 1997, 1999, 2002), and specially the results of assessments almost the effectiveness of programs applied to serious offenders (Lipsey, 1999; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998).

The mean ES for general recidivism was positive in favor of the handling groups, with a conviction interval statistically significant. This result corresponds to vii percentage points of divergence between the handling and the comparison groups. This information is similar to the result referred in the meta-analysis of Lipsey, where the average intervention upshot for these studies was positive, and equivalent to a recidivism reduction of about 6 percentage points. Thus, the evidence suggests that implementing programs is better than not doing it.

Data from some studies in this review reported that the treatment group did it better than the comparison group in terms of general recidivism reduction. Meanwhile, other studies showed that comparing samples did it meliorate than the experimental groups, and others did exactly the same for the treatment and the comparison groups. The variation around of the overall mean ES of r= 0,07 was considerable. Some studies and groups of studies reported effects much larger than the global ES, and others reported effects considerably smaller. The boilerplate effect, therefore, does non provide a good summary of what can exist expected from the correctional intervention with this juvenile population.

As in other meta-analyses, the cognitive and cognitive-behavioral methods of treatment were the virtually constructive, although the inclusion of the large sample of the Jessness' study in the non-behavioral category increased this to achieve the first position in effectiveness. A conclusion of that event is the necessity to analyze in detail the characteristics of this treatment, because can be fatigued important considerations for the effective offending treatment.

However, the loftier value of some effect sizes for some individual studies remarks the importance of studying possible moderator variables and the utility of the handling in the objective to reduce the delinquency. For instance, the study of Caldwell and Rybroek (2001) had an result size of d= 1,845 or r= 0,678; and the fourth report of Ross and McKay (1976) had an event size of d= one,179 or r= 0,508.

There are many plausible reasons for these differences, including participant and treatment characteristics, methodological variation across studies, differences in the context and plenty diversity in the full general characteristics of the studies.

Implications for practice, research and criminal policy

Although the data showed positive results in favor of the handling groups of serious offenders, there are few studies interested in assess the efficacy of correctional intervention for them. Information technology is of import to better the number and quality (with a complete clarification of moderator variables) of this kind of studies, in order to reduce this nowadays lack of knowledge.

Considering that some programs showed a high ES and that the global ES was positive in favor of treated juveniles, it is justifiable to continue the efforts in the treatment of this population.

Acknowledgements

This written report is based in a final written report submitted to the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group (Oct 2005). This inquiry has been supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología of Espana (Project No. SEC2001-3821-C05-05).

Notes

¹ Studies in which more than a half of the samples are sexual offenders were excluded, as this is the focus of another Campbell Collaboration systematic review (lead author Friedrich Lösel). Studies that included juveniles committing minor offenses such equally shoplifting, minor public order, traffic offenses and condition offenses for the first time were excluded as well.

² Specifically, this review excludes studies that correspond with other Systematic Reviews from the Campbell Criminal offense and Justice Group such equally boot camps or scared straight programs.

³ We calculated the odds ratio and its translation to standardized hateful difference, d, through the translation formula proposed in Haddock, Rindskopf and Shadish (1998; see also Sánchez-Meca, Marín-Martínez and Chacón-Moscoso, 2003). Nosotros have used the meta-analytic procedures developed past Hedges and Olkin (1985) and by Cooper and Hedges (1994).

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

Beelman, A., and Lösel, F. (this event).

Cooper, H. and Hedges, Fifty.5. (eds). (1994). Handbook of research synthesis. New York: Sage.

Farrington, D.P. (2002). Multiple risk factors for multiple problem violent boys. In R.R. Corrado, R. Roesch, S.D. Hart and J.Thousand. Gierowski (eds.): Multi-problem fierce youth: a foundation for comparative research on needs, interventions and outcomes. Amsterdam: IOS press.

Farrington, D.P. (2003). Key results from the first twoscore years of the Cambridge Study in runaway development. In T.P. Thornberry and M.D. Krohn (eds.): Longitudinal enquiry in the social and behavioural science: an interdisciplinary serial. Taking stock of delinquency. An overview of finding from contemporary longitudinal studies. Due north.Y.: Kluwer/Plenum.

Farrington, D.P. (2005). Babyhood origins of hating behavior. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12, 177-190.

Garret, P. (1985). Effects of residential handling of adjudicated delinquents: a meta-assay. Periodical of Enquiry in Crime and delinquency, 22, 287-308.

Gensheimer, L., Mayer, J., Gottschalk, R. and Davidson, West. (1986). Diverting youth from the juvenile justice system: a meta-analysis of intervention efficacy. In S. Apter and A. Goldstein (eds.): Youth violence: programs and prospects. Elmsford, NY, US: Pergamon Printing.

Haddock, C.K., Rindskopf, D. and Shadish, Westward.R. (1998). Using odds ratios every bit result sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous information: a primer on methods and problems. Psychological Methods, 3, 339-353.

Hedges, L.V. and Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, F.L: Bookish Printing.

Krisberg, B. and Howell, J.C. (1998). The bear upon of the juvenile justice system and prospects for graduated sanctions in a comprehensive strategy. In R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington (eds.): Serious and violent juvenile offenders. Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 346-366). Grand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lipsey, 1000.W. (1994). Identifying potentially interesting variables and analysis opportunities. In H. Cooper and Fifty.V. Hedges (eds.): The Handbook of Enquiry Synthesis (pp. 111-123). New York: Sage.

Lipsey, Yard.W. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? The Register of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 564, pp. 142-166.

Lipsey, One thousand.W. and Wilson, D. PB. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. In R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington (eds.): Serious and violent juvenile offenders (pp. 313-345). Yard Oaks, CA:Sage.

MacKenzie, D.Fifty., Wilson, D.B. and Kider, S.B. (2001). Effects of correctional kick camps on offending. The Register of The American University of Political and Social Science, vol., 578, nov, 126-143.

Marín-Martínez, F., Garrido, Five., Hidalgo, M.D., López, J.A., López, C., López, C., Moreno, P., Redondo, S., Rosa, A.I. and Sánchez-Meca, J. (2002). Eficacia de los programas de rehabilitación de delincuentes en Europa: united nations estudio metaanalítico. Reporte de investigación Fundación Séneca. Centro de coordinación de la investigación. Proyecto de investigación Nº PB/34/FS/99.

Redondo, South. (1993). Evaluar e intervenir en las prisiones [Evaluating and intervening at the prisons]. Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias.

Redondo, Southward., Garrido, V. and Sánchez-Meca, J. (1997). What works in correctional rehabilitation in Europe: a meta-analytic review. In S. Redondo, V. Garrido, J. Pérez and R. Barberet (eds.): Advances in psychology and law: International contributions (pp. 499-523). Berlín: De Gruyter.

Redondo, S., Sánchez-Meca, J. and Garrido, 5. (1999). The influence of treatment programmes on the backsliding of juvenile and adult offenders: an European meta-analytic review. Psychology, Crime and Police, v, 251-278.

Redondo, South., Sánchez-Meca J. and Garrido, V. (2002). Crime handling in Europe: a last view of the century and futurity perspectives. In McGuire, J. (ed.): Offender rehabilitation and treatment: effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending. Sussex, England: Wiley.

Sánchez-Meca, J. (1997). Methodological issues in the meta-evaluation of correctional treatment. In S. Redondo, V. Garrido, J. Pérez and R. Barberet (eds.): Advances in psychology and law: international contributions (pp. 486-498). Berlín: De Gruyter.

Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F. and Chacón-Moscoso, S. (2003). Effect size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8, Issue 4.

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D.C., MacKenzie, D.L., Eck, J.E., Reuter, P. and Bushway, S.D. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what'due south promissing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Thornberry, T.P., Huizinga, D. and Loeber, R. (1995). The prevention of serious delinquency and violence. In J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins and J.J. Wilson (eds.): Serious, Tearing and Chronic juvenile offenders (pp. 213-237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wiebush, R.G., Baird, C., Krisberg, B. and Onek, D. (1995). Chance cess and classification for serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. In J.C., Howell et al (eds.): Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (pp. 171-212). Sage.

Studies included in this review

Bottcher, J. (1985). The Athena program: an evaluation of a girl's treatment programme at the Fresno Canton Probation Section'south Juvenile hall. Sacramento: California Youth Say-so.

Bottoms, A.E. and McClintock, F.Northward. (1973). Criminals coming of age: a study of institutional adaptation in the handling of adolescent offenders. London: Heinemann.

Caldwell, M. and Van-Rybroek, 1000. (2001). Efficacy of a decompression treatment model in the clinical management of violent juvenile offenders. International Periodical of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(4), 469-477.

Cann, J., Falshaw, Fifty., Nugent, F. and Friendship, C. (2003). Understanding what works: accredited cognitive skills programmes for adult men and young offenders. Home Office: Building a rubber, just and tolerant order. Findings 226, 1-6.

Cornish, D.B. and Clarke, R.5.G. (1975) Residential treatment and its furnishings on malversation (Research Rep. Nº 32). London: Home Office Enquiry Study, HMSO (NCJRS Document Nº 034165).

Fagan, J. (1990). Handling and reintegration of vehement juvenile offenders: experimental results. Justice Quarterly, 7(2), 233-263.

Fagan, J. (1990). Social and legal policy dimensions of trigger-happy juvenile criminal offense. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(one), 93-133.

Friedman, A.Due south. and Friedman, C.J. (1970). Comparing of three treatment models in delinquency: inquiry and demonstration project, July one, 1966 to October 31, 1970 (Concluding report). Washington, DC: Section of Health, Education and Welfare.

Gordon, J. (1997). An evaluation of Paint Creek Youth Center. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences. Vol. 57 (x-A).

Guerra, N.G. and Slaby, R.Chiliad. (1990). Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: 2 intervention. Developmental Psychology, 26, 269-277.

Jesness, C.F. (1971). The Preston Typology Report: an experiment with differential handling in an institution. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, viii, 38-52.

Jesness, C.F. (1975).. Comparative effectiveness of behavior modification and transactional analysis programs for delinquents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(6), 758-779.

Kawaguchi, R.M. (1975). Camp Fenner Canyon evaluation: terminal report. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Canton Probation Department (NCJRS Document Nº NCJ036121).

Moody, East.E. (1997). Lessons from pair counseling with incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Journal of addictions and Offender Counseling, 18(ane), 10-25.

Randall, L.Eastward. (1973). The effects of a vocational educational activity program in rehabilitating youthful public offenders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34 (04), 1786A (University Microfilms Nº 73-24428).

Robinson, S.C. (1994). Implementation of the cognitive model of offender rehabilitation and malversation prevention (cognitive skills preparation). Doctoral dissertation. University of Utah). Dissertation abstracts international, 55 (08), 2582A (University Microfilms Nº 95-02199).

Ross, R.R. and McKay, B. (1976). A written report of institutional handling programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology: An interdisciplinary Journal, 20(2), 167-173.

Sowles, R.C. and Gill, J.H. (1970). Institutional and community adjustment of delinquents following counseling. Periodical of consulting and clinical psychology, 34(iii), 398-402.

corneliusmepland.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.psicothema.com/pi?pii=3261

Share this post