An Evaluation of the Impact of Goal Setting and Cell Phone Calls on Juvenile Rearrests

• Published date: 01 December 2016
• Author: Stephen J. Bahr,Lance D. Erickson,David J. Cherrington
• Date: 01 December 2016
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15588549
• Subject Matter: Articles

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2016, Vol. 60(16) 1816 –1835

© The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15588549

ijo.sagepub.com

Article

An Evaluation of the Impact

of Goal Setting and Cell

Phone Calls on Juvenile

Rearrests

Stephen J. Bahr1, David J. Cherrington1,

and Lance D. Erickson1

Abstract

Using a sample of 256 juvenile offenders who were randomly assigned to treatment

or control groups, this study evaluates a cognitive-behavioral program that combines

cognitive training, goal setting, and a phone-coach follow-up. The training involved

six classroom sessions where participants received instruction and help in creating

individualized goals. After attending the classes, participants received automated

phone calls twice a day for up to a year. During the year following the program, the

treatment and control groups were not significantly different in whether or not they

were rearrested or in total rearrests. However, the total number of calls received

had a significant negative association with whether or not they were rearrested for a

felony and with the total number of felony rearrests.

Keywords

rearrests, felony, recidivism, goal setting, cognitive training, technology

Juvenile crime continues to be a serious social problem in the United States. From

1985 to 2011, delinquency caseloads involving drug offenses nearly doubled, and per-

son offenses increased by 72%. In 2011, juvenile courts in the United States processed

1.24 million cases and supervised more than 31 million youth (Hockenberry &

Puzzanchera, 2014). Although the number of cases handled by juvenile courts

decreased substantially from 2002 to 2011, a large number of juveniles continue to

commit serious offenses. In 2011, juveniles between the ages of 10 and 17 were 10.7%

1Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Corresponding Author:

Stephen J. Bahr, Department of Sociology, Brigham Young University, 2031 JFSB, Provo, UT 84602, USA.

Email: stephen_bahr@byu.edu

588549IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X15588549International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyBahr et al.

research-article2015

Bahr et al. 1817

of the U.S. population but accounted for 13% of all violent arrests and 20% of all

arrests for property crimes (Puzzanchera, 2013).

In response to these trends, many programs have been created to help rehabilitate

juvenile offenders. Although there is a growing body of research evaluating juvenile

programs, many programs have not received rigorous evaluation (Jewell, Malone,

Rose, Sturgeon, & Owens, 2015; Lipsey, 2014).

This report is part of an ongoing evaluation of a two-part rehabilitation program

called RealVictory that combines six cognitive training sessions and twice-a-day

phone calls for the following year. Previous evaluations of the program found that

treatment participants had fewer rearrests than comparable controls using a sample of

70 juvenile probationers (Burraston, Cherrington, & Bahr, 2012). The purpose of the

present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the RealVictory program on reducing

rearrests among a sample of 256 juvenile offenders from three different treatment

settings.

Effective Juvenile Rehabilitation Programs

There have been a number of assessments of “what works” in existing crime preven-

tion, correctional, and reentry programs (Boyum, Caulkins, & Kleiman, 2011;

MacKenzie, 2006; Seiter & Kadela, 2003; Sherman, Farrington, Welsh, & MacKenzie,

2002; Wormwith et al., 2007). Although there has been a substantial amount of research

on treatment effectiveness, many programs are not adequately evaluated, and few

policy decisions in corrections use scientific evidence to assist in making informed

decisions (MacKenzie, 2006). In addition, evidence that a program works in one set-

ting is no guarantee that it will work on another group in a different setting (Lipsey,

2014). There is a critical need for research that evaluates the effectiveness of different

juvenile programs and identifies the conditions under which different types of treat-

ments are effective (Boyum et al., 2011; Cullen & Jonson, 2011; Jewell et al., 2015;

Lipsey, 2014; Wormwith et al., 2007).

Reviews of existing research indicate that a number of different types of programs

are promising, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy. In a meta-analysis of 400

studies treating juvenile delinquents, Lipsey (1995) observed that the average recidi-

vism rate was about 50% for the control group compared with 45% for the treatment

group, a 10% reduction in recidivism. Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger (2001)

examined 14 experiments and found that recidivism rates of those in treatment groups

were about two thirds as high as those in the control groups. The results appeared to be

somewhat stronger among juveniles than among adults. In a meta-analysis of 58 pro-

grams, Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) reported that, on average, treatment partici-

pants had a recidivism rate 25% lower than control participants. The programs were

more effective if they treated high-risk offenders, were implemented well, and included

cognitive-behavioral treatment methods.

In their review of various meta-analyses, Lipsey and Cullen (2007) concluded that

cognitive-behavioral programs tend to reduce recidivism although the results are

rather modest. Effective cognitive-behavioral programs teach prosocial attitudes and