Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 19–43 | Cite as

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe

  • Johann A. KoehlerEmail author
  • Friedrich Lösel
  • Thomas D. Akoensi
  • David K. Humphreys
Article

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Meta-analysis Systematic review Offender rehabilitation Young offenders Crime prevention Recidivism 

References

An asterisk (*) denotes the study was included in the meta-analysis.

  1. *Andrée Löfholm, C., Olsson, T., Sundell, K., & Hansson, K. (2009). Multisystemic Therapy with conduct-disordered young people: Stability of treatment outcomes two years after intake. Evidence and Policy, 5(4), 373-397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (2010). The Psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Newark: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or needs assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model: does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 735–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. *Bottoms, A. E. (1995). Intensive community supervision for young offenders: Outcomes, process and cost. (Cambridge, UK: Institute of Criminology) Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. *Cann, J., Falshaw, L., & Friendship, C. (2005). Understanding ‘What Works’: Accredited cognitive skills programmes for young offenders. Youth Justice, 5(3), 165-179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. *Curran, D., Kilpatrick, R., Young, V., & Wilson, D. (1995). Longitudinal aspects of reconviction: Secure and open intervention with juvenile offenders in Northern Ireland. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(2), 97-123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. (1999). What works in young offender treatment: a meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11(2), 21–24.Google Scholar
  18. Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. (2003). Does family intervention work for delinquents? Results of a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45(3), 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced? Criminology and Public Policy, 10(1), 13–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eisner, M. (2009). No effects in independent prevention trials: can we reject the cynical view? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Farrington, D. P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: a meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(9), 865–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Hasselblad, V., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 167–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Hollin, C. R. (2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: does only randomization glister? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hollin, C., & Palmer, E. J. (2009). Cognitive skills programmes for offenders. Psychology Crime & Law, 15(2), 147–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. *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
  38. Landenberger, N., & Lipsey, M. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioural programs for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(4), 451–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. Lipsey, M. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-Analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lipsey, M., & Cullen, F. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: a review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Lipsey, M., Chapman, G., & Landenberger, N. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 144–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lipsey, M., Petrie, C., Weisburd, D., & Gottfredson, D. (2006). Improving evaluation of anti-crime programs: summary of a National Research Council report. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(3), 271–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. *Little, M., Kogan, J., Bullock, R., & van der Laan, P. (2004). ISSP: An experiment in multi-systemic responses to persistent young offenders known to children’s services. British Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 225-240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lloyd, C., Mair, G., & Hough, M. (1994). Explaining reconviction rates: A critical analysis. Home Office Research Study 136. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  48. *Lobley, D., & Smith, D. (2007). Persistent young offenders: An evaluation of two projects. (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate)Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. Lösel, F. (2012b). Towards a third phase of ‘what works’ in offender rehabilitation. In R. Loeber & B. C. Welsh (Eds.), The future of criminology (pp. 196–203). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lösel, F., & Beelmann, A. (2003). Effects of child skills training in preventing antisocial behaviour: a systematic review of randomized evaluations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 84–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lösel, F., & Köferl, P. (1989). Evaluation research on correctional treatment in West Germany: A meta-analysis. In H. Wegener, F. Lösel, & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal behavior and the justice system (pp. 334–355). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(1), 117–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lösel, F., Köferl, P., & Weber, F. (1987). Meta-evaluation der sozialtherapie. Stuttgart: Enke.Google Scholar
  58. Lösel, F., Bottoms, A. E., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (2012). Young adult offenders. Lost in transition? Milton Park, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, A., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: what have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. MacKenzie, D. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Maguire, M., Grubin, D., Lösel, F., & Raynor, P. (2010). ‘What works’ and the correctional services accreditation panel: taking stock from an inside perspective. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10, 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. McGuire, J. (2002). Motivation for what? Effective programmes for motivated offenders. In M. McMurran (Ed.), Motivating offenders to change: A guide to enhancing engagement in therapy (pp. 157–172). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McMurran, M. (2002). Motivation to change: selection criterion or treatment need? In M. McMurran (Ed.), Motivating offenders to change (pp. 3–13). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. *McMurran, M., & Boyle, M. (1990). Evaluation of a self-help manual for young offenders who drink: A pilot study. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29(1), 117-119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ministry of Justice (UK). (2010). Compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis. Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  66. *Mitchell, J., & Palmer, E. (2004). Evaluating the ‘Reasoning and Rehabilitation’ program for young offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(4), 31-45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. *Newburn, T., & Shiner, M. (2005). Dealing with disaffection: Young people, mentoring and social inclusion. (Cullompton, UK: Willan)Google Scholar
  68. *Ogden, T., & Hagen, K. (2006). Multisystemic treatment of serious behaviour problems in youth: Sustainability of effectiveness two years after intake. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 11(3), 142-149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. *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
  70. 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
  71. *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
  72. Redondo, S., Sánchez-Meca, J., & Garrido, V. (1999). The Influence of treatment programmes on the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders: An European meta-analytic review. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5(3), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. *Scholte, E., & Smit, M. (1988). Early social assistance for juveniles at risk. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 32(3), 209-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. *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
  77. *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
  78. *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
  79. *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
  80. *Sundell, K., Hansson, K., Andrée Löfholm, C., Olsson, T., Gustle, L.-H., & Kadesjö, K. (2008). The transportability of Multisystemic Therapy to Sweden: Short-term results from a randomized trial of conduct-disordered youths. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 550-560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Tong, L. S. J., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). How effective is the Reasoning and Rehabilitation programme in reducing offending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10(3), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. 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
  88. Weisburd, D., Lum, C., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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
  90. Wilson, D. (2009). Missing a critical piece of the pie: simple document search strategies inadequate for systematic reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(4), 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wilson, D., Bouffard, L., & MacKenzie, D. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(2), 172–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johann A. Koehler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Friedrich Lösel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Thomas D. Akoensi
    • 1
  • David K. Humphreys
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of CriminologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangen-NurembergGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Public HealthUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations