Evidence-based Approaches in the Rehabilitation of Juveniles

Solution Preview

Thank you, again for the privilege of serving you. The following discusses evidence-based practice principles and rehabilitative approaches.

FBI statistics reveal astounding numbers of juveniles commit crimes in the United States. Almost one-fifth of all arrests in this country are juveniles. Index crime statistics revealed that in 2001 twenty-six percent of those arrested were juveniles and were responsible for "15% of the violent crime arrests and 30% of the property crime arrests. . . 23% . . . for robbery, and 29% of the people arrested for larceny-theft were under the age eighteen" (Kendall, 2004; FBI, 2002). According to Donziger (1996) most of the cases involved with juveniles are held in juvenile courts and detained in juvenile correction facilities that are overcrowded and provide minimal counseling and education. (Kendall, 2004; Donziger, 1996)
According to J. P. Wright (2007) many ideologies and misguided notions from unexamined beliefs complicate juvenile justice policies. It is possible that some may be correct, but they are not supported by the evidence. This has led to the evidence-based practice principles and rehabilitative approaches. Real knowledge on the causes of this behavior can lead to better responses related to the causes that lead to delinquency. Wright places "considerable emphasis on empirical research" (Wright, 2007). How can we intervene if we do not know the causes? Where do we get this evidence? It must be evidence-based on research data. (Wright, 2007)
Three of the principals of evidence-based practice principles are used by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction: "(1) there is a definable outcome; (2) it is measurable; and, (3) it is defined according to practical realities, such as recidivism, victim satisfaction, etc." (Bogue et al. 2004). Lipsey and Wilson (1998) reviewed more than 200 programs and determined that the best programs had reduced recidivism by as much as 40 percent. Compared to the cost and social damage of juvenile crimes this kind of success is more than cost-effective, compared with the success of adult offenders' reduction of between five and 18 percent. (Hollin, 1999) In the best quality programs the reduction is even greater. (Andres & Bonta, 1998)
In their review of more than 200 programs delivered to serious and violent young offenders, Lipsey and Wilson (1998: 338) reported that the best programs were capable of reducing recidivism rates by as much as 40 per cent. They regarded this as an 'accomplishment of considerable practical value in terms of the expense and social damage associated with the delinquent behavior of these juveniles.' A reduction in recidivism of this magnitude compares favorably with those commonly cited in reviews of rehabilitation programs for adult offenders which have found that these programs typically reduce rates of reoffending by between 5 and 18 per cent (Hollin 1999). Effectiveness rates are known to be higher in the best quality programs (Andrews & Bonta 1998). "Typically these programs have a ...