program effects, it also can be used
to identify problems and deviations
from planned designs. Evaluation
is an effective way to generate
feedback about a program that can
be used to improve performance and
maximize program effectiveness.
1 Barnoski, R. (2004). Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Washington
State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Lipsey M.W. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 6, 611-41.
2 Backer, T. (2002). Finding the Balance: Program Fidelity and Adaptation in Substance Abuse Prevention. A State-of-the-Art
Review. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C. Page 7.
3 Ibid. Pages 3 and 14.
4 Ibid. Pages 23, 42 and 43. Also see Blakely, C. H., Mayer, J. P., Gottschalk, R. G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W. S., Rollman,
D. B., and Emshoff, J. G. (1987). The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 253-269. See also Emshoff, J., Blakely, C., Gray, D., Jakes, S., Brounstein, P., and Coulter, J. (In press) An ESID Case Study at the Federal Level. American Journal of Community
Psychology.
What Works
6 Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Fagan, A., Ballard, D. and Elliott, D. (2004). Successful Program Implementation: Lessons From
Blueprints. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
7 Heil, P. and English, K. (2007). Prison Sex Offender Treatment: Recommendations for Program Implementation. California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Sacramento, CA.
8 Mihalic et al. (2004). Page 5.
9 Pressman, J. L. and A. Wildavsky. (1984). Implementation. (Third Edition). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 10 Mihalic et al. (2004). Page 8.
115
(
)
*
+
,
-
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Section 8: Summary
This report was developed to serve as a resource for the Colorado Criminal and Juvenile Justice Commission and other professionals. Its primary purpose is to provide Commission members with practical and trustworthy information about what works to reduce recidivism or pre- vent the onset of criminal behavior. To identify effective programs, a comprehensive review of the criminology litera- ture was conducted with a specific emphasis on systematic reviews and meta-analyses that synthesized the evaluation results from many studies and programs. This review found that the following recidivism reduction and risk-focused pre- vention programs work:
What Works in Reducing Recidivism
• Education and vocational training • Substance abuse treatment • Drug courts
• Certain types of sex offender treatment, particularly cognitive-behavioral approaches and modified thera- peutic communities
• Programs for offenders with mental illness, including treatment, diversion, and modified therapeutic commu- nities for offenders with co-occurring disorders
• Cognitive-behavioral programs
• Certain types of juvenile rehabilitation programs, par- ticularly multi-faceted, family-based programs such as Functional Family Therapy, Multidimensional treat- ment Foster Care and Multi-Systemic Therapy
What Works in Preventing the Onset of Criminal Behaviors
• Nurse home visits during infancy
• Preschool intellectual enrichment programs, such as
the High Scope preschool curriculum and the Chicago Child-Parent Center program
• Parent management training • Child social skills training
• Certain types of school-based programs, particularly those that focus on the school environment and those that focus on self-control and social competency • After school and mentoring programs that promote
positive youth development, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and Big Brothers Big Sisters. These programs have been rigorously evaluated and found to be effective. Most have been shown to be cost-beneficial. Based on the latest and most rigorous research available, these programs are viable, evidence-based options for reduc- ing recidivism and preventing crime in Colorado.
It is important to keep in mind that this list of effec- tive programs is by no means exhaustive. Other effective programs may be operating that have not yet been evalu- ated, and some interventions that others view as effective or promising may not be among those identified in this report. Therefore, policymakers and practitioners are encouraged to keep abreast of new evidence as it emerges and to become familiar with other sources of information on evidence-based programs, such as SAMHSA’s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP) and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Model Programs Guide.
Based solely on the list of programs identified in this report, there is reason to believe that recidivism can be reduced and more young people can be prevented from ever committing crimes in the first place. There are effec- tive programs to counteract risk factors at every stage of a child’s development.1 And there effective programs for
What Works
found among offenders already in contact with the crimi- nal and juvenile justice systems.
Investing in these evidence-based programs is the key to reducing victimization and increasing public safety while simultaneously curbing correctional costs.
But as was stated in the introduction to this report, reduc- ing recidivism and preventing crime are not easy tasks. Even the most effective programs will not work for everyone. And research clearly demonstrates that programs have to be funded adequately and implemented properly to achieve their intended effects. Other key issues that policymakers and practitioners need to be concerned with include:
• Properly matching evidence-based programs with the risk-factors and target populations they were designed to address.
• Ongoing monitoring of program implementation and delivery to identify problems and deviations from pro- gram plans.
• A commitment to using evaluation feedback to guide program development and operations, resolve problems and make mid-course program corrections.
• Community-based after-care and follow-up services for programs delivered to incarcerated offenders.2
• Ensuring that public policies promote rather than impede the successful reentry of prisoners to soci- ety. Given the importance of stable employment and marriage to the desistance process, public policies that block employment, housing and other opportunities for ex-offenders are likely to perpetuate recidivism and high rates of reentry failure.
A fundamental premise of the evidence-based movement is that programs and policies are more likely to produce results when they are based on trustworthy scientific evidence. Rigorous scientific studies have a unique capacity to reduce bias, discover effects, and reliably identify what works. Years of study and practice in many fields have certainly borne this out. That said, there is a growing recognition that effec- tive practice needs more than just scientific knowledge to guide it.
Tom Schwandt (2005), one of the nation’s leading scholars on evaluation and practice, has pointed out that practice is a “complex affair” that is “local, contingent and contextual.”3
Scientific knowledge is certainly important, but effective practice also requires judgment and the ability “to size up the situation” and know how scientific knowledge can
location for the delivery of scientifically valid solutions.”4
Practitioner experience and expertise are important com- ponents of sound program delivery, and a commitment to evidence-based programming should never result in the dis- counting of practitioner knowledge.5
A commitment to evidence-based programming should not prevent innovation either. Many of the programs identified in this report began as new, untested ideas. Policy makers and practitioners should have the latitude to develop and try new approaches, provided they are thoughtfully conceived, theoretically sound and subject to objective evaluation. The negative consequences that can emerge from a poorly conceived program have been illustrated in recent reviews of the popular Scared Straight program. Scared Straight pro- grams involve organized visits to prison facilities by juvenile delinquents or children at risk for becoming delinquent to deter participants from future offending by providing first- hand observations of prison life.6 These programs have been
popular in several states and a recent Illinois law mandates the Chicago Public Schools to identify children at-risk for future criminal behavior and take them on tours of adult prison facilities.7 Petrosino (2003) and his colleagues con-
ducted a meta-analysis of seven rigorous studies of Scared Straight or similar programs and found that not only do they fail to deter crime, they actually lead to more offending behavior.8 This underscores the need to evaluate every new
program to ensure that harm or other unintended conse- quences are prevented.
In closing, one of the key lessons learned from both research and practice is that crime is a complex problem with many underlying causes. There are no simple solutions and no quick fixes. Reducing victimization and protect- ing the public requires a multi-disciplinary intervention and prevention effort involving a variety of institutions. Collaboration and cooperation are the keys to success. Strategies that span different agencies, different compo- nents of the justice system, and even different disciplines are likely to be the most successful.9