Evidence‐based juvenile justice programs and practices: A critical review

• Author: J. David Hawkins,Pamela R. Buckley,Delbert S. Elliott,Denise C. Gottfredson,Patrick H. Tolan
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12520
• Date: 01 November 2020
• Published date: 01 November 2020

DOI: ./- .

DEBATE

EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO IMPROVING JUVENILE

JUSTICE PROGRAMMING

Evidence-based juvenile justice programs and

practices: A critical review

Delbert S. Elliott1Pamela R. Buckley1

Denise C. Gottfredson2J. David Hawkins3Patrick H. Tolan4

University of Colorado Boulder

University of Maryland

University of Washington

University of Virginia

Correspondence

DelbertS. Elliott, Institute of Behavioral

Science,University of Colorado Boulder,

UCB,Boulder,CO.

Email:elliott@comcast.net

Thiswork was supported by a grant from

ArnoldVentures. The views and opin-

ionsexpressedherearesolelythoseofthe

authorsand may not be attributed to the

ArnoldVentures Foundation.

Fundinginformation

ArnoldVentures Foundation

Abstract

There is growing critical commentary and debate about

the relative effectiveness of individual program and

generic practice approaches to identifying evidence-

based interventions and their impact on the opera-

tion of the juvenile justice system. The central issue

is whether both of these approaches to identifying

evidence-based interventions provide a valid and reli-

able guide to improving juvenile justice programming

and, if so, what are the relative advantagesand disadvan-

tages of each? From a public policy perspective, should

we be investing more heavilyin one or the other, or treat-

ing them as effective complementary approaches and

encourage both? Weaddress each of these questions and

offer some suggestions for improving the effectiveness of

each approach.

KEYWORDS

Certification Standards, Cost-Benfit, Delinquency Prevention,

Evidence-Based, Fidelity, Practices, Programs

Intervention science is the study of the development, testing, dissemination and implementa-

tion of effective treatments and prevention models in service of at-risk and vulnerable groups,

and focuses on three basic types of interventions: programs, practices, and policies (Institute of

Medicine, ; Springer & Phillips, ; Walker, Lyon, Aos, & Trupin, ). Programs involve

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits

use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or

adaptations are made.

©  The Authors. Criminology & Public Policypublished by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society of Criminology

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp 1305

1306 ELLIOTT  .

a coherent package of activities with defined delivery protocols, implementation manuals, train-

ing, and technical assistance that implement an identified logic model, i.e., a particular change

strategy targeting identifiable risk or protective factors that are theoretically linked to a specific

outcome, like recidivism. There is less consensus regarding the definition of practices, which typ-

ically involve generic types of programs or strategies that have some common elements or core

components but are more flexible than manualized programs as they do not necessarily involve

the same detailed package of prescribed activities that characterize programs. Policie s involve for-

mal regulations or laws that apply uniformly to general populations (Elliott & Fagan, ; Sub-

stance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, ;Walkeretal.„). With respect

to current juvenile justice prevention and treatment, interventions demonstrated by research to

be effective, hereafter referred to as evidence-based interventions, are primarily programs and

practices. Currently, almost no juvenile justice policies are considered evidence-based (Elliott,

; Elliott & Fagan, ). Our focus in this essay is on comparing the utility of evidence-based

programs and practices for guiding juvenile justice intervention.

Critical commentary and related debate about the relative effectiveness of these twoapproaches

to identifying evidence-based interventions and their impact on the operation of the juvenile jus-

tice system have intensified (Embry & Biglan, ; Gorman et al., ; Greenwood,; Lipsey,

; Mullen & Streiner,; Rehuher, Hiramatsu, & Helm, ; Welsh, Rocque, & Greenwood,

). Severalcritical research and public policy questions are at the center of the debate: What cri-

teria should be used to evaluate the relative effectiveness of these two approaches? How effective

is each approach based on these criteria? What evidence is there that each can be implemented

with fidelity and to scale? How usable by practitioners is each? Based on such assessment, should

we be investing more heavily in one than the other? How might we improve the effectiveness of

each? In this essay we address these questions to inform decisions about the relative viability of

each approach for directing juvenile justice system interventions.

1EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PROGRAM AND

PRACTICE APPROACHES

Researchers use a basic set of standards for evaluating the effectiveness of program and practice

approaches. First, how extensive and robust is the evidence base for each? This includes questions

about the quality, quantity, and level of evidence established and the scientific standards used in

each approach for determining whether a program or practice is “evidence-based.”

Second, how extensive and sound is the research evidence for the claim that specific programs

or a set of practices are effective in reducingjuvenile reoffending when scaled up and implemented

as routine practice in the juvenile justice system?

Third, what is the expected impact of each approach on the population of juvenile offenders in

the justice system? How soundly can that impact be inferred? Should programs or practices with

larger effect sizes or serving a larger segment of offenders be given funding priority? What policy

implications follow from the findings about each approach?

Fourth, what does the existing evidence say about likely juvenile justice systemadoption rates

and factors influencing adoption decisions? These include factors like fidelity requirements and

differences in costs and benefits.

Clearly, additional criteria might be considered to compare the strengths and weaknesses of

these two approaches. However,this set addresses the most fundamental considerations that have

been emphasized in prior commentary (Embry & Biglan, ; Greenwood, ; Lipsey, ;

Mullen & Streiner, ).