A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe
- 5.2k Downloads
To examine the effectiveness of young offender rehabilitation programs in Europe as part of an international project on the transnational transfer of approaches to reducing reoffending.
A literature search of approximately 27,000 titles revealed 25 controlled evaluations that fulfilled eligibility criteria, such as treatment of adjudicated young offenders below the age of 25, equivalence of treatment and control groups, and outcomes on reoffending. In total, the studies contained 7,940 offenders with a mean age of 17.9 years.
Outcomes in the primary studies ranged widely from odds ratio (OR) = 0.58 to 6.99, and the mean effect was significant and in favor of treatment (OR = 1.34). Behavioral and cognitive-behavioral treatment ranked above average (OR = 1.73), whereas purely deterrent and supervisory interventions revealed a slightly negative outcome (OR = 0.85). Programs that were conducted in accordance with the risk–need–responsivity principles revealed the strongest mean effect (OR = 1.90), which indicates a reduction of 16 % in reoffending against a baseline of 50 %. Studies of community treatment, with small samples, high program fidelity, and conducted as part of a demonstration project had larger effects; high methodological rigor was related to slightly smaller outcomes. Large effect size differences between evaluations from the UK and continental Europe disappeared when controlling for other study characteristics.
Overall, most findings agreed with North American meta-analyses. However, two-thirds of the studies were British, and in most European countries there was no sound evaluation of young offender treatment at all. This limits the generalization of results and underlines the policy need for systematic evaluation of programs and outcome moderators across different countries.
KeywordsMeta-analysis Systematic review Offender rehabilitation Young offenders Crime prevention Recidivism
An asterisk (*) denotes the study was included in the meta-analysis.
- Andrews, D. (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatments. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 63–78). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2010). The Psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Newark: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
- Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime, 4th ed. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved May 23, 2012, from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/costbenefit.pdf.
- Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Olympia: Washington State Institute of Public Policy.Google Scholar
- *Bottoms, A. E. (1995). Intensive community supervision for young offenders: Outcomes, process and cost. (Cambridge, UK: Institute of Criminology) Google Scholar
- Bottoms, A., Dignan, J., et al. (2004). Youth justice in Great Britain. In M. Tonry & A. Doob (Eds.), Youth crime and youth justice: Comparative and cross-national perspectives. Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 31, pp. 21–183). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
- Brayford, J., Cowe, F., & Deering, J. (2010). What else works – Back to the future? In J. Brayford, F. Cowe, & J. Deering (Eds.), What else works? Creative work with offenders (pp. 254–268). Portland: Willan.Google Scholar
- Cleland, C., Pearson, F., Lipton, D., & Yee, D. (1997). Does age make a difference? A meta-analytic approach to reductions in criminal offending for juveniles and adults. San Diego: Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology.Google Scholar
- Doob, A. N., & Tonry, M. (2004). Varieties of youth justice. In M. Tonry & A. Doob (Eds.), Youth crime and youth justice: Comparative and cross-national perspectives. Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 31 (pp. 1–20). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
- Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. (1999). What works in young offender treatment: a meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11(2), 21–24.Google Scholar
- Dünkel, F., & Pruin, I. (2010). Young adult offenders in the criminal justice systems of European countries. In F. Dünkel, J. Grzywa, P. Horsfield, & I. Pruin (Eds.), Juvenile justice systems in Europe: Current situation and reform developments, vol. 4 (pp. 1557–1580). Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg.Google Scholar
- Farrington, D. (1986). Age and crime. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 7 (pp. 189–250). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
- Farrington, D., Ditchfield, J., Hancock, G., Howard, P., Jolliffe, D., Livingston, M., et al. (2002). Evaluation of two intensive regimes for young offenders. Home Office Research Study 239. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
- Garrido, V., Morales, L. A., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2006). What works for serious juvenile offenders? A systematic review. Psicothema, 18(3), 611–619.Google Scholar
- Gensheimer, L., Mayer, J., Gottschalk, R., & Davidson, W., II. (1986). Diverting youth from the juvenile justice system: A meta-analysis of intervention efficacy. In S. Apter & A. Goldstein (Eds.), Youth violence: Programmes and prospects (pp. 39–57). Elmsford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
- Gottschalk, R., Davidson, W., II, Gensheimer, L., & Mayer, J. (1987). Community-based interventions. In H. Quay (Ed.), Handbook of juvenile delinquency (pp. 266–289). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Hamilton, L., Koehler, J.A., & Lösel, F. (2011) Programmes to reduce reoffending throughout Europe: Three surveys on current practice. Final report of the project 'Strengthening transnational approaches to reducing reoffending', Appendix D. Retrieved May 23, 2012, from https://webmail.springer-sbm.com/owa/redir.aspx?C=23b359279c184631ba3922062a783e9d&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cepprobation.org%2fuploaded_files%2fRep%2520STARR%2520ENG.pdf.
- Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A., Marques, J. K., et al. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14(2), 169–194.Google Scholar
- Harper, G., & Chitty, C. (Eds.). (2005). The Impact of corrections on reoffending: A review of ‘What Works’, 2nd ed. Home Office Research Study 291. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
- Hollin, C. (2002). Risk–Needs assessment and allocation to offender programmes. In J. McGuire (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective programmes and policies to reduce reoffending (pp. 309–332). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Janson, C.-G. (2004). Youth justice in Sweden. In M. Tonry & A. Doob (Eds.), Youth crime and youth justice: Comparative and cross-national perspectives. Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 31 (pp. 391–441). Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
- *Kruissink, M. (1990). The Halt program: Diversion of juvenile vandals. Dutch penal law and policy: Notes on criminological research from the research and documentation centre. The Hague: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
- Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2003). Treating youth in conflict with the law: A new meta-analysis. Rep. RR03YJ-3e. Ottawa: Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- Lipsey, M. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. Cook, H. Cooper, D. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. Hedges, R. Light, T. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83–127). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
- Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313–345). London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Lloyd, C., Mair, G., & Hough, M. (1994). Explaining reconviction rates: A critical analysis. Home Office Research Study 136. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
- *Lobley, D., & Smith, D. (2007). Persistent young offenders: An evaluation of two projects. (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate)Google Scholar
- Lösel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending. Guidelines from research and practice (p. 79). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Lösel, F. (2000). The efficacy of sexual offender treatment: A review of German and international evaluations. In P. J. van Koppen & N. H. M. Roos (Eds.), Rationality, information and progress in psychology and law (pp. 145–170). Maastricht: Metajuridica Publications.Google Scholar
- Lösel, F. (2012a). Offender treatment and rehabilitation: What works? In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 986–1016). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lösel, F., & Pomplun, O. (1998). Jugendhilfe statt untersuchungshaft: Eine evaluationsstudie zur heimunterbringung. Studien und materialen zum straf- und massregelvollzug, vol. 7. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.Google Scholar
- Lösel, F., Köferl, P., & Weber, F. (1987). Meta-evaluation der sozialtherapie. Stuttgart: Enke.Google Scholar
- Lösel, F., Bottoms, A. E., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2012). Young adult offenders. Lost in transition? Milton Park, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Ministry of Justice (UK). (2010). Compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis. Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
- *Newburn, T., & Shiner, M. (2005). Dealing with disaffection: Young people, mentoring and social inclusion. (Cullompton, UK: Willan)Google Scholar
- *Ogden, T., Hagen, K., & Andersen, O. (2007). Sustainability of the effectiveness of a programme of Multisystemic Treatment (MST) across participant groups in the second year of operation. Journal of Children’s Services, 2(3), 4-14Google Scholar
- Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. S. (2002). The effects of behavioral/cognitive-behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 476–496.Google Scholar
- *Raynor, P., & Vanstone, M. (1997). Straight Thinking on Probation (STOP), The Mid Glamorgan experiment. Probation Studies Unit Report, 4. (Oxford, UK: Centre for Criminological Research)Google Scholar
- Redondo, S., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Garrido, V. (2001). Treatment of offenders and recidivism: assessment of the effectiveness of programmes applied in Europe. Psychology in Spain, 5(1), 47–62.Google Scholar
- Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury: Sage.Google Scholar
- *Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G., & A. Sorsby. (2008). Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series, 10/08. (London, UK: Home Office) Google Scholar
- *Slot, N. (1983). The implementation and evaluation of a residential social skills training program for youth in trouble. (In W. Everaerd, C. Hindley, A. Bot, & J. J. van der Werf, (Eds.), Development in adolesence: Psychological, social, and biological aspects (pp.192-205). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Marinus Nijhoff.) Google Scholar
- *Slot, N., & Bartels, A. (1983). Outpatient social skills training for youth in trouble; theoretical background, practice and outcome. (In W. Everaerd, C. Hindley, A. Bot, & J. J. van der Werf, (Eds.), Development in adolesence: Psychological, social, and biological aspects (pp.176-191). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Marinus Nijhoff.)Google Scholar
- *St. James-Roberts, I., Greenlaw, G., Simon, A., & Hurry, J. (2005). National evaluation of Youth Justice Board mentoring schemes 2001 to 2004. (London, UK: Youth Justice Board).Google Scholar
- Tournier, P., & Barre, M. (1990). Enquête sur les systèmes pénitentiaires dans les membres du Conseils de l’Europe: Démographie carcérale comparée. Bulletin d’Information Pénitentiaire, 15, 4–44.Google Scholar
- Ttofi, M., Farrington, D., & Baldry, A. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce school bullying: a systematic review. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet – Brå).Google Scholar
- Villetaz, P., Killias, M., & Zoder, I. (2006) The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13Google Scholar
- Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Weermann, F. (2007). Juvenile offending. (In M. Tonry, & C. Bijleveld, (Eds.), Crime and justice in the Netherlands. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 35 (pp. 261-318). Chicago: University of Chicago.)Google Scholar
- Welsh, B., & Farrington, D. (2001). A review of research on the monetary value of preventing crime. In B. Welsh, D. Farrington, & L. Sherman (Eds.), Costs and benefits of preventing crime (pp. 87–122). Oxford: Westview.Google Scholar