American Journal of Community Psychology

, Volume 48, Issue 1–2, pp 138–140 | Cite as

Evidence-Based Practices Reduce Juvenile Recidivism: Can State Government Effectively Promote Implementation Among Probation Departments?

  • Paul L. SeaveEmail author
Original Paper


California places tens of thousands of juveniles into its 58 county-based justice systems every year. The offenders do not generally experience reduced rates of recidivism. Evidence-based practices can reliably and significantly reduce these rates. Probation departments have infrequently chosen to implement these practices, in large part because of the training, data collection, and organizational change required. Current state law does not effectively mandate these practices and more importantly fails to recognize and fund the substantial and ongoing training and technical assistance that would be required to implement these practices. State government could best promote evidence-based practices by working collegially with probation departments to obtain and distribute private and public funding to support effective implementation.


Evidence-based practice Probation Recidivism Juvenile 


  1. California Department of Justice (2010). California criminal justice profiles 2008. Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  2. Government Code (2010). Section 30061(b)(B)(i). Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Greenwood, P. (2010). Preventing and reducing youth crime and violence: Using evidence-based practices. Sacramento, CA: Governor’s Office of Gang and Youth Violence Policy.Google Scholar
  4. Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 6(3), 611–641.Google Scholar
  5. Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Office Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention, United States Department of Justice (2010). Easy access to FBI arrest statistics: 19942007. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2010(1), 1–88.Google Scholar
  8. State Commission on Juvenile Justice (2009). Juvenile justice master operational plan: Blueprint for an outcome oriented Juvenile justice system. Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Community Research and Action 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Governor’s Office of Gang and Youth Violence PolicySacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations