Treatment Quality and Reoffending in the Sunshine State

• Published date: 01 February 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12357
• Author: Carter Hay
• Date: 01 February 2018

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

TREATMENT QUALITY AND JUVENILE

RECIDIVISM

Treatment Quality and Reoffending

in the Sunshine State

Carter Hay

Florida State University

The most striking juvenile justice trend of recent decades is the rise of the evidence-

based orientation (Greenwood, 2006; Howell, 2003; Lipsey, Howell, Kelly,

Chapman, and Carver, 2010). This shift involves an emerging expectation that

all aspects of juvenile justice functioning will be informed by rigorous empirical scrutiny.

The ultimate result should be an effective system that identifies the correct youths for

intervention, provides them with appropriate evidence-based interventions, delivers ser-

vices with strong fidelity, and engages in ongoing monitoring of all aspects of the system.

Substantial progress has in fact been made in each of these areas—sophisticated tools and

practices now abound in the areas of risk assessment (Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith,2006;

Taxman, 2016), diversion of low-risk youth (Lux, Schweitzer, and Chouhy, 2015), struc-

tured decision making with dispositions (Baglivio, Greenwald, and Russell, 2014), the

systematic evaluation of intervention programs (Lipsey et al., 2010), and the use of meta-

analytic techniques to summarize and disseminate results (Lipsey, 2009). Thus, it is now

commonly recognized that the nation’s approach to juvenile justice is increasingly informed

by research evidence (see Bishop and Feld,2011). Indeed, with such progress, it is reasonable

to speak of the current period as a get-smart era that diverges greatly from the get-tough era

that preceded it.

But despite these gains, thorny issues remain in trying to implement an evidence-

based approach. These issues often follow from a familiar justice-related list of “usual

suspects”—there are, for example, existing limitations in the store of evidence on “what

works.” Moreover,some programs and practices are institutionally embedded and, therefore,

resistant to change. Also, jurisdictions differ in their political and ideological contexts—this

naturally translates into varied progress toward an evidence-based model. A few simple

Direct correspondence to Carter Hay, Eppes Hall, College of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Florida State

University, 112 S. Copeland St., Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273 (e-mail: chay@fsu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12357 C2018 American Society of Criminology 139

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 1