The Long-Term Effects of the Youth Crime Prevention Program “New Perspectives” on Delinquency and Recidivism

• Published date: 01 September 2018
• Author: Sanne L. A. de Vries,Machteld Hoeve,Geert Jan J. M. Stams,Jessica J. Asscher
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17751161
• Date: 01 September 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

751161IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X17751161International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminologyde Vries et al.
research-article2018
Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
The Long-Term Effects of
Comparative Criminology
2018, Vol. 62(12) 3639 –3661
the Youth Crime Prevention
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Program “New Perspectives” https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17751161
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17751161
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo
on Delinquency and
Recidivism
Sanne L. A. de Vries1,2, Machteld Hoeve1,
Jessica J. Asscher1,2, and Geert Jan J. M. Stams1
Abstract
New Perspectives (NP) aims to prevent persistent criminal behavior. We examined
the long-term effectiveness of NP and whether the effects were moderated by
demographic and delinquency factors. At-risk youth aged 12 to 19 years were
randomly assigned to the intervention group (NP, n = 47) or care as usual (CAU, n
= 54). Official and self-report data were collected to assess recidivism. NP was not
more effective in reducing delinquency levels and recidivism than CAU. Also, no
moderator effects were found. The overall null effects are discussed, including further
research and policy implications.
Keywords
effectiveness, randomized controlled trial (RCT), prevention, juvenile delinquency,
New Perspectives, care as usual
Introduction
Although recent downward trends in juvenile offending are encouraging (Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2011; Van der Laan & Blom, 2011),
there is an increasing trend toward punitive responses to youth antisocial behavior
(Artello et al., 2015). Many studies have shown that juvenile justice programs without
1University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Sanne L. A. de Vries, Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University, 3584 CS Utrecht,
The Netherlands.
Email: L.A.devries@uu.nl

---

3640
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(12)
a therapeutic foundation (e.g., probation, deterrence, incarceration without treatment)
are ineffective in reducing juvenile delinquency (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Parhar,
Wormith, Derkzen, & Beauregard, 2008). Young adolescents with disruptive and
delinquent behavior, showing multiple risk factors, need constructive change-oriented
treatment (Lipsey, 2009). Given that these youngsters are at risk of developing a
chronic and serious criminal trajectory (Loeber, Burke, & Pardini, 2009), and are
highly costly to society (Welsh et al., 2008), it is essential to invest in (early) preven-
tive interventions.
The present study is one of the first outside the United States to examine the effec-
tiveness of a prevention program targeting adolescents at risk for persistent delin-
quency by using a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We examined the effectiveness
of New Perspectives (NP), comparing the long-term effects on self-reported and offi-
cial reports of delinquency comparing adolescents who received NP or care as usual
(CAU).
Previous Research on Programs Preventing Delinquency
Several (systematic) reviews have examined the effectiveness of preventive interven-
tions. Many researchers concluded that at-risk youth (selective/indicated prevention)
benefited most from these programs (e.g., Deković et al., 2011; Farrington, Ttofi, &
Lӧsel, 2016; Lösel & Beelmann, 2003). Given that these programs are generally short
and of low intensity, these findings are in accordance with the Risk principle of the
RNR model (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990) in that the program intensity should be
kept low for youngsters showing relative low-risk profiles.
Farrington and colleagues (2016) stated, on the basis of a systematic review, that all
types of community-based interventions (including individual, family- and school-
based interventions) produced an average of 5% reduction in the prevalence of prob-
lem behavior. However, although her findings on effects of early prevention programs
(including monitoring and diversion) were positive, Gill (2016), evaluating 15 system-
atic reviews including 13 meta-analytic studies, found that the effects of selective
(secondary) prevention programs were less straightforward and depended on the pro-
gram type. Programs consisting of repressive and punitive elements were ineffective,
whereas programs targeting positive social relations of at-risk youth (providing infor-
mal and supportive social control) proved to be successful. Varying outcomes of selec-
tive prevention programs were also found by Mulvey, Arthur, and Reppucci (1993),
concluding that well-implemented programs, including behavioral and family-based
change components, produced reductions in reoffending rates, although not in self-
reported delinquent behavior. However, these results were based on a narrative review
and should therefore be interpreted carefully.
Several meta-analytic studies found promising effects of family-based and behav-
ioral-oriented prevention programs. Long-term positive effects of (behavioral) parent
training in preventing antisocial and delinquent behavior were reported by meta-ana-
lytic studies of Farrington and Welsh (2003) and Piquero et al. (2009). Furthermore,
Schwalbe and colleagues (2012) indicated that family-based diversion programs

---

de Vries et al.
3641
resulted in a reduction of recidivism. However, the overall impact of diversion pro-
grams on recidivism was nonsignificant. Also, Wilson and Hoge (2012) found that
diversion programs were significantly more successful than traditional judicial pro-
grams, but differences were no longer significant when a robust research design was
used, excluding (most) alternative explanations for established intervention effects
(e.g., RCT, or successfully matched control design, independency of researchers).
Finally, findings of a meta-analytic study (De Vries, Hoeve, Assink, et al., 2015) on the
effectiveness of interventions for at-risk youth confirmed that family-based programs,
including behavior-oriented techniques (training parenting skills), are most effective
in preventing a persistent criminal career. Notably, group-based and highly intensive
programs proved to be counterproductive.
Lösel and Beelmann (2003) found that social skills training showed positive effects
in preventing antisocial behavior of adolescents, well-structured multimodal cogni-
tive-behavioral programs showing the strongest impact on antisocial behavior. A
meta-analytic study by Deković et al. (2011) examining early prevention programs
found that shorter, but more intensive programs and programs targeting social and
behavioral skills showed the largest effects. However, early prevention programs had
no significant effects on the reduction of criminal behavior in adulthood.
In conclusion, the findings of previous studies on the effectiveness of prevention
programs targeting risk factors, such as family factors and lack of social skills, show
overall positive effects. However, the effectiveness of prevention programs may
depend on certain conditions, such as the theoretical foundation, intensity, format, and
components of the program. Moreover, several meta-analytic reviews concluded that
studies with larger samples had smaller effects than those based on smaller samples
(e.g., Deković et al., 2011; Farrington & Welsh, 2003; Lösel & Beelmann, 2003;
Piquero et al., 2009). Andrews and Bonta (2010) found that interventions based on the
RNR model principles of Risk (proportionality between program intensity and risk of
reoffending), Need (targeting criminogenic needs), and Responsivity (match between
program style/mode and person’s characteristics) reduced offender recidivism up to
35%. Thus, we expect that preventive interventions that are designed according to the
RNR model and general principles of effectiveness derived from previous meta-ana-
lytic studies are promising in preventing a persistent criminal trajectory.
NP
A preventive intervention, based on the theoretical framework of the RNR model
(Andrews et al., 1990), is NP, an intensive community-based program focusing on
adolescents in early stages of delinquency. NP adheres to the risk principle by apply-
ing risk assessment and providing modules (NP Prevention and NP Plus) that differ in
treatment intensity to adjust to the offender’s risk of recidivism. Second, NP aims to
prevent a persistent delinquent trajectory of at-risk adolescents. To prevent persistent
delinquent behavior, NP addresses the following criminogenic needs (as secondary
treatment goals): poor relationships in the social network (parents and peers), cogni-
tive distortions, and poor parenting behavior. The multisystemic approach of NP

---

3642
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(12)
enables treatment of these multiple criminogenic factors related to delinquency and
recidivism (needs principle).
At the start of the intervention phase, social workers systematically assess the cli-
ent’s criminogenic needs to target them in treatment. Third, NP is based on the
responsivity principle by adjusting treatment to the client’s motivation level and per-
sonal background. Techniques of motivational interviewing and individual coaching
are used to influence treatment motivation of adolescents. In addition, the NP pro-
gram is carried out in a multimodal format by incorporating a variety of effective
cognitive social learning strategies (including...