Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The full number of studies yielded within each database is catalogued in Appendix ii.

  2. Assuming a recidivism rate of 50 % in the control groups, the recidivism rate in the treatment groups can be calculated using the following formula for OR effect sizes:

    $$ {\text{Treatment group recidivism rate}} = \frac{{OR}}{{(1 + OR)}} $$

    We gratefully acknowledge the editors for providing this helpful formula.

  3. After examining the properties of the data for potential multicollinearity and the existence of outliers, we determined that none of the standard assumptions had been violated and meta-regression could proceed.

References

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

  • *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), 373-397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  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 

  • *Cann, J., Falshaw, L., & Friendship, C. (2005). Understanding ‘What Works’: Accredited cognitive skills programmes for young offenders. Youth Justice, 5(3), 165-179

    Article  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 

  • *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), 97-123

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced? Criminology and Public Policy, 10(1), 13–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, M. (2009). No effects in independent prevention trials: can we reject the cynical view? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 163–183.

    Article  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. P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 49–68.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Hasselblad, V., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 167–168.

    Article  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 

  • Hollin, C. R. (2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: does only randomization glister? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8, 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollin, C., & Palmer, E. J. (2009). Cognitive skills programmes for offenders. Psychology Crime & Law, 15(2), 147–164.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *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), 225-240

    Article  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. (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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  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., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(1), 117–146.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York: Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McMurran, M. (2002). Motivation to change: selection criterion or treatment need? In M. McMurran (Ed.), Motivating offenders to change (pp. 3–13). Chichester: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • *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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice (UK). (2010). Compendium of reoffending statistics and analysis. Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin. London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mitchell, J., & Palmer, E. (2004). Evaluating the ‘Reasoning and Rehabilitation’ program for young offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39(4), 31-45

    Article  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. (2006). Multisystemic treatment of serious behaviour problems in youth: Sustainability of effectiveness two years after intake. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 11(3), 142-149

    Article  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), 4-14

    Google 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. (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.

    Article  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 

  • *Scholte, E., & Smit, M. (1988). Early social assistance for juveniles at risk. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 32(3), 209-218.

    Article  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 

  • *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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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, 13

  • Ward, T., & Brown, M. (2004). The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10(3), 243–257.

    Article  Google 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.)

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Johann A. Koehler, Friedrich Lösel & Thomas D. Akoensi

  2. Institute of Psychology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany

    Friedrich Lösel

  3. Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    David K. Humphreys

Authors
  1. Johann A. Koehler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Friedrich Lösel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas D. Akoensi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David K. Humphreys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johann A. Koehler.

Additional information

This study was carried out within the European cooperation project “Strengthening Transnational Approaches to Reducing Reoffending”. The project was funded by the European Union. We thank our partners from the UK Ministry of Justice, London Probation Trust, European Organization for Probation, and the Ministries of Justice of Bulgaria, France and Hungary for their cooperation. We also thank primary study authors for providing us with data to assist in the meta-analysis, and the anonymous peer reviewers for insightful suggestions that contributed to the improvement of this article.

Appendices

Appendix i: Keywords used to search electronic databases

Target Population

Youth Violen* OR Delinquen* OR Juvenile OR Hooligan* OR Hate

 

AND

Intervention

Program* OR Treatment* OR Interven* OR Correcti* OR Therap* OR Counsel* OR Mentor* OR Rehabilitati* OR Cogniti* OR Relapse OR Boot Camp* OR Wilderness Challenge* OR Intensive OR Incarcerat* OR Court* OR Probation OR Mandated OR Inmate* OR Institution* OR Non-Institution* OR Prison*

 

AND

Outcome

Effect* OR Outcome* OR Eval* OR Experiment* OR RCT* OR Quasi* OR Trial* OR Empirical* OR ES* OR Recidiv* OR Reoffen*

Appendix ii: Searched Databases

Database

Number of Studies

Bibliographic Databases

  International Bibliography of the Social Sciences

795

  PSYCINFO

4,018

  PSYCARTICLES

186

  PUBMED

336

  COCHRANE Library

67

  EMBASE

822

  ISI Web of Knowledge

4,018

  Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA)

12,105

  C2 SPECTR (ERIC)

1,672

  Science Direct

2,282

 

Governmental Publications

  UK Home Office Research Database

5

  Brå-Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention

0

 

Internet Resources

  Google Scholar

N/A

  MetaCrawler

N/A

 

Unpublished Resource Databases

  Dissertation Abstracts International

683

Total

26,989

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koehler, J.A., Lösel, F., Akoensi, T.D. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe. J Exp Criminol 9, 19–43 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9159-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9159-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation