Using Best-Practice Research to Inform Program Revision in Juvenile Justice
Approaches to and public perceptions of juvenile justice in the United States have long been mutable. Recent shifts in the field include efforts to raise the age for youth who are tried as juveniles and increased opposition to lifesentences for juvenile offenders. This followed trends in the late 1980s and 1990s which sought to be harsher on juvenile offenders. Current opinion polling indicates that the policy swing away from harsh punishment has popular support. While some Americans feel that court-involved youth should be punished, the majority opinion is that “getting juvenile offenders the treatment, counseling, and supervision they need to make it less likely that they will commit another crime” is more important than “serious punishments.” In some areas, this has led to a shift away from detention and toward probation and therapeutic programs for all but the most severe offenses. These programs, sometimes referred to as Intensive Probation (IP), have evidence of effectiveness and have been adopted by a number of courts across the country.
In the last few decades, a number of studies have focused on the specific needs of high risk youth involved in juvenile justice systems. Researchers like Mark Lipsey at Vanderbilt University have conducted meta-analyses that reviewed research in the field to determine what works to reduce recidivism and for whom. From these analyses, three elements appear to be most closely tied to reductions in recidivism rates for youth at a higher risk for reoffending: programs that are 1) mostly therapeutic in nature rather than punitive and controlling, 2) use a validated assessment tool to assign only the most high risk youth to IP programs, and 3) incorporate on-going internal monitoring of programs to insure sustained program fidelity.
Key findings
Current opinion polling indicates that the policy swing away from harsh punishment has popular support. While some Americans feel that court-involved youth should be punished, the majority opinion is that “getting juvenile offenders the treatment, counseling, and supervision they need to make it less likely that they will commit another crime” is more important than “serious
punishments.”
