What Works - Effective Recidivism Reduction and Risk Focused Prevention, CO Division of Justice, 2008
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
What Works
Effective Recidivism Reduction and
Risk-Focused Prevention Programs
A Compendium of Evidence-Based
Options for Preventing New and
Persistent Criminal Behavior
Prepared for the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
RKC Group
Roger Przybylski
February, 2008
What Works
Effective Recidivism Reduction and
Risk-Focused Prevention Programs
A Compendium of Evidence-Based
Options for Preventing New and
Persistent Criminal Behavior
February, 2008
RKC Group
Roger Przybylski
Prepared for
Division of Criminal Justice
Jeanne M. Smith, Director
Colorado Department of Public Safety
Peter A. Weir, Executive Director
700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80215
303.239.4442
http://dcj.state.co.us
This project was supported by Grant 2004-DB-BX-0033 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance through DCJ’s
Office of Adult and Juvenile Assistance. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the federal Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document
are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.
.
/
Y
Contents
\j
Z
(
(
)
)(
*
*
)
+
+
*
,
,
+
,
.
Page
Executive Summary
1
Method
1
Findings
1
What Works in Reducing Recidivism
2
What Works at Preventing the Onset of
Criminal Behavior
3
Bottom line
4
Introduction
5
Primary Audience and Purpose
of the Report
5
Structure of the Report
8
The Evidence-Based Concept
and its Application
11
Origins of the Evidence-Based Movement
11
Standards of Evidence
12
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
13
The Role of Economic Evaluation
14
Common Approaches to
Economic Evaluation
14
Method
17
Review Process
17
What Was Considered? Review Protocol
17
Colorado Program Evaluations
19
Framework
19
(
)
*
+(
,
)
*
.
+
/
,
Y
\j
.
/Z
Y
Z
Page
Incarceration and its Impact
on Crime
23
Figure 4.1. Average Daily
Inmate Population
23
Figure 4.2. State Prison
Incarceration Rate
24
Impact of Incarceration on Crime
24
Does incarceration work to reduce
the crime rate?
26
Incarceration and Crime: Summary
26
Diminishing Returns
27
Community Impacts
27
Impact on Children
27
Prison and Recidivism
28
Research on Desistance from Crime
29
Promoting Desistance from Crime
29
Effective Recidivism
Reduction Programs
35
Impact of Rehabilitation Services
on Recidivism
35
Principles of Effective Intervention
36
Education and Vocational Programs
38
Do Educational and Vocational
Programs Work?
39
Other Factors
42
Substance Abuse Treatment
42
Figure 5.2. Number of CDOC Inmates
Incarcerated for a Drug Offense
42
Treatment Effectiveness
43
iii
+
What Works
,
.
/
Y
Page
Effective Recidivism
Reduction Programs (cont.)
Figure 5.3. Changes in Criminal Activity
Before vs. After Treatment
44
A Few Cautionary Points
45
Treatment as an Alternative to Prison
46
Evaluations of Substance-Abuse
Programs for Offenders in Colorado
46
Table 5.1. CDOC Therapeutic
Community (TC) Evaluation
47
Drug Courts
47
Do Drug Courts Work?
49
Sex Offender Treatment
51
Treatment Effectiveness
51
An Evaluation of the Colorado
Department of Corrections’
Therapeutic Community for
Sex Offenders
\j
Z
iv
53
The Containment Approach for
Managing Sex Offenders
54
Effectiveness of the Containment Model
54
Mental Health Programs
55
Many offenders suffer from
mental illness
55
The challenge for corrections
56
What do we know about the
effectiveness of programs in
these areas?
57
Diversion
57
ACT in Colorado
58
The CDOC Modified Therapeutic
Community for Offenders with
Mental Illness and Chemical
Abuse Disorders
59
Evaluation of the CDOC MTC
60
Supported employment and
supportive housing
60
Cognitive-Behavioral Programs
61
Specific Program Models
62
Effectiveness
64
Juvenile Offender Programs
67
Evidence of Program Effectiveness
69
*
(
+((
)
)
,
)
*
*
*
+
+
.
+
,
,
/
,
Y
.
.
\j
.
/
/
/Z
Y
Y
Y
Page
The Colorado MST Outcomes
Tracking Project
70
The Colorado Youthful Offender System
71
The Colorado Division of
Youth Corrections Continuum
of Care Initiative
72
Restorative Justice
72
Effective Early Prevention
Programs
83
Figure 6.1. Risk and Protective Factors
84
Home Visits during Infancy
85
Preschool Programs
87
Table 6.1. Chicago Child-Parent Center
19-Year Post-Program Follow-up
90
Parent Management Training
91
Child Social Skills Training
94
School-Based Programs
94
Truancy Programs
99
Community-Based Programs
100
Peer Programs
102
The Blueprints for Violence Prevention
103
Figure 6.2. Blueprints for Violence
Prevention Model Programs
103
Implementation Issues
111
Summary
115
Bibliography
119
\j
\j
\j
ZZ
Z
Executive Summary
This report identifies and describes interventions that are
effective in reducing recidivism and preventing crime. The
primary audience is the Colorado Commission on Criminal
and Juvenile Justice, and the primary goal of this compendium is to assist the Commission in carrying out its mission
and statutory duties. These duties include investigating
evidence-based recidivism reduction initiatives and costeffective crime prevention programs.
The primary audience is the
Colorado Commission on Criminal
and Juvenile Justice, and the
primary goal of this compendium
is to assist the Commission in
carrying out its mission and duties.
Findings
Incarceration and Crime
Given the increased use of incarceration as a crime control strategy, the review begins with a summary of recent
research on the impact of incarceration on crime. The
studies reviewed and findings presented are not Coloradospecific.
• Incarceration clearly prevents crimes by removing
offenders from the community. Estimates of the number of crimes prevented vary, but an annual average
of about 15 crimes per offender has been cited by two
rigorous studies.
u
Most crimes prevented through incapacitation are
property crimes.
u
The preventive effect of incapacitation on drug
crimes is likely offset by a replacement effect in
the community. That is, other offenders quickly
replace incarcerated drug offenders.
Descriptions of the findings presented in this summary can be
found in the body of the report where relevant studies are referenced. Complete citations can be found in the bibliography.
Method
This report is based on a comprehensive and systematic
review of the criminology literature on what works to reduce
recidivism or prevent the onset of delinquent and criminal
behavior. Information was obtained by reviewing evaluation
and other reports on correctional interventions and early,
risk-focused prevention programs operating in the United
States and Canada. To identify what works, both quality
and consistency of the evidence was considered. Quality
was addressed by basing the conclusions presented here on
the latest and most rigorous scientific evidence available.
Consistency was addressed by focusing on research that
synthesized the evaluation results from many studies
and programs.
\j
Z
• Research examining the impact of incarceration on
crime rates has produced disparate results. Nevertheless,
the following conclusions can be drawn from the most
rigorous studies.
u
The relationship between incarceration and crime
rates is quite complex. The fact that crime rates
have declined in recent years while incarceration
rates have increased is not conclusive evidence that
the increased use of imprisonment caused the drop
in crime or that incarceration is cost-effective relative to other crime control strategies. In fact, the
relationship between higher rates of imprisonment
and crime rates is quite uneven across time and
jurisdictions.
u
The conclusions reached by several recent, highly
rigorous studies are remarkably consistent in finding
1
What Works
that a 10% higher incarceration rate was associated
with a 2% to 4% reduction in the crime rate.
The drop in crime that most jurisdictions experienced in the 1990s is primarily due to factors other
than incarceration. Studies that have focused on
explaining the drop in crime have consistently concluded that incarceration has played a role in the
crime drop but that social, policing and other factors
together are responsible for at least two-thirds and
arguably much more of the overall crime decline.
u
• Research shows little evidence that incarceration has a
positive effect on later reoffending.
u
u
Rigorous studies have shown that incarceration
is associated with higher rates of recidivism when
compared with community-based sanctions.
Longer prison sentences are also linked to higher
rates of recidivism.
u
Recent research has begun to examine the collateral
costs of incarceration on children of prisoners, and
the longer-term costs to disadvantaged communities.
u
Community-level studies have found that the
social fabric of neighborhoods can be negatively
affected by the incarceration of large numbers of
young adult men, thereby increasing rather than
preventing crime at the neighborhood level.
Research shows little evidence that
incarceration has a positive effect
on later reoffending.
• Employment, aging, and marriage contribute to the
termination of criminal activity, and these play a more
important role in recidivism reduction than incarceration and surveillance-oriented supervision.
• Research shows that when supervision is service-oriented and focuses on the individual offender’s deficits
that are related to criminal behavior (such as addiction,
employment problems, unstable living arrangements,
pro-criminal attitudes and associates), recidivism can be
significantly reduced.
What Works in Reducing Recidivism
More than 30 years of research has produced a body of evidence that clearly demonstrates that rehabilitation programs
work. A variety of programs, properly targeted and well-implemented, can reduce recidivism and enhance public safety.
• Education and vocational programming. Based
on the scientific evidence, education and vocational
training programs work. Meaningful work is an
important contributor to reductions in offending.
These programs
u
Increase the rate of employment for ex-offenders.
u
Reduce recidivism.
u
Provide a positive return on investment.
A variety of programs, properly
targeted and well-implemented,
can reduce recidivism and enhance
public safety.
• Substance abuse treatment. Substance abuse treatment works. Treatment programs
u
Reduce alcohol and drug use and crime.
u
Produce a significant return on taxpayer investment.
In addition, research confirms the following:
u
The longer an offender stays in treatment, the better the chance of post-treatment success.
u
Therapeutic communities are particularly
effective.
u
Aftercare is important for long-term success.
• Drug courts. Drug courts operate in nearly every state.
They help keep offenders in treatment longer and they
effectively reduce recidivism.
u
Drug courts are often initially more expensive than
traditional drug offender processing, but they provide a substantial return on taxpayer investment.
• Sex offender treatment. Studies examining the
effectiveness of sex offender treatment in the 1990s
2
Executive Summary
produced mixed or inconsistent results, but systematic
reviews conducted more recently indicate that certain
sex offender treatment approaches can and do work.
u
Cognitive-behavioral therapy and modified
therapeutic communities have been shown to
achieve at least modest reductions in sexual and
general recidivism.
u
Containment approaches to sex offender management also appear to be effective.
• Mental health. Offenders with mental illness present
significant challenges for the criminal justice system.
u
Mental health treatment is highly effective with
early intervention success rates of 60-80%.
u
Diversion, institutional and transition programs
are all needed, and many of these can work.
u
Research indicates that crisis intervention teams
(CIT), assertive community treatment (ACT)
and modified therapeutic communities for
offenders with co-occurring mental illness and
substance abuse disorders work.
• Cognitive-behavioral programs. Studies consistently
show that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective at reducing recidivism. Several programs employing
cognitive-behavioral approaches are widely used in the
criminal justice system.
u
have been shown to reduce recidivism and other problem behaviors in juvenile offenders.
u
\j
Z
Functional Family Therapy, MultidimensionalTreatment Foster Care and Multi-Systemic
Therapy are family-based programs demonstrated
to be effective and cost-beneficial through rigorous
scientific research.
What Works at Preventing the Onset of
Criminal Behavior
More than forty years of research on conduct disorder has
identified many of the risk factors associated with problem
behavior, including those for crime and violence. Many
of these risk factors are present early in life, and they help
explain why young people differ in their long-term criminal
potential. Risk focused prevention programs employ various strategies to reduce the influence of risk factors that are
associated with criminal conduct. These risk-focused prevention programs are delivered early in life before law-breaking
behavior begins.
Several risk-focused prevention
programs delivered early in life are
effective at preventing the onset of
criminal behavior.
Moral Reconation Therapy®, Aggression
Replacement Training®, Reasoning and
Rehabilitation, and Relapse Prevention
Therapy are cognitive-behavioral programs that
have been rigorously evaluated and found to
reduce recidivism.
• Programs for juvenile offenders. While some effective programs are designed for use with juveniles and
adults, programs specifically targeting juvenile offenders
have generally been found to be effective. Family-based
programs that address multiple causes of delinquency
Family-based programs that address
multiple causes of delinquency have
been shown to reduce recidivism
and other problem behaviors in
juvenile offenders.
• Nurse home visits during infancy. Home visitation
programs conducted by nurses and delivered during
the pre- and post-natal periods have been shown to be
highly effective.
u
The Nurse-Family Partnership program that
is being implemented in Colorado has long-term
crime prevention benefits for both children and
their mothers.
• Preschool programs. Pre-school intellectual enrichment programs prevent delinquency from occurring
later in life.
u
The Chicago Child-Parent Center program and
the High Scope/Perry Preschool project are
examples of programs that provide a variety of
long-term benefits to participants, including the
prevention of criminal conduct.
3
What Works
• Parent management training. Several reviews of parent management training programs have concluded that
they are effective at preventing juvenile delinquency.
These programs focus on interactions between parents
and their children.
u
The Oregon Parent Management Training
model, the Incredible Years Training Series and
the Preparing for the Drug Free Years program
are examples of parent management training programs that have been shown to work.
• Child social skills training. Research suggests that
programs delivered to very young children for the
purpose of improving their social and emotional competencies are effective at preventing delinquency.
• School-based programs. Programs that focus on
the school environment or self-control and social
competency using cognitive-behavioral methods have
been found to prevent delinquency and other problem
behaviors.
u
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program,
Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways
(RiPP), and Life Skills Training are examples of
programs that work.
u
CASASTART is an effective school-centered program that involves the entire community.
• Community-based programs. Community-based
programs have proven to be difficult to evaluate and
little is known about their long-term effectiveness overall. However, after-school and mentoring programs that
promote positive youth development have been shown
to work.
u
The Boys and Girls Clubs of America and
Big Brothers Big Sisters are examples of highquality after-school and mentoring programs
that work.
Implementation Issues
Evidence-based programs have to be implemented properly
in order to be effective. Research has consistently shown that
programs that have been implemented with a high degree
of fidelity are far more likely to produce positive outcomes
than those that have not.
• Delivering a program with a high degree of fidelity is
difficult, even in the best situations.
4
Evidence-based programs have to
be implemented properly in order to
be effective.
• A variety of factors can undermine proper implementation and service delivery, critically weakening a
program’s intended effect.
• Ongoing monitoring of program implementation and
delivery is critical.
• Evaluation feedback should be used to guide program
development and operations, resolve problems and
make mid-course program corrections when necessary.
Bottom line
There are effective prevention programs to counteract risk
factors at every stage of a child’s development. There also
are effective programs for addressing the wide range of
criminogenic needs that are found among offenders already
in contact with the criminal and juvenile justice systems.
Investing in these evidence-based programs is the key to
reducing victimization and increasing public safety while
simultaneously managing correctional costs.
Investing in these evidence-based
programs is the key to reducing
victimization and increasing
public safety while simultaneously
managing correctional costs.
Section 1: Introduction
What works in reducing recidivism? What works in preventing criminal behavior? Answering these key questions is the
focus of this What Works report. Both questions are important for policymaking and practice. Recidivism reduction
and crime prevention are widely recognized as key components of a comprehensive and cost-effective public safety
strategy, and they have taken on even more importance in
recent years as criminal justice policy makers in many jurisdictions have been asked to find ways to curb correctional
costs without compromising public safety.
Reducing recidivism and preventing crime are not easy
tasks. Even the most effective interventions will not work for
everyone, and delivering programs in the proper manner is
often a challenge in real world settings. But we know more
today than ever before about what works in preventing both
the onset and continuation of criminal conduct.
More than 30 years of scientific research has created a
body of knowledge that criminal justice policymakers
and practitioners can draw upon to develop and deliver
programs that are both effective and cost-beneficial. The
purpose of this report is to shed light on this knowledge
and its practical implications for public safety and criminal and juvenile justice in Colorado.
Primary Audience and Purpose of
the Report
This report identifies and describes interventions that are
effective in reducing recidivism and preventing crime. The
primary audience is the Colorado Commission on Criminal
and Juvenile Justice, and the primary goal of this compendium is to assist the Commission in carrying out its mission
and duties. The Commission was created in May 2007
when the Governor signed House Bill 07-1358. Its mission is to enhance public safety, ensure justice and protect
the rights of crime victims through the cost-effective use of
public resources. The Commission’s statutory duties include
(
)
*
+
,
investigating effective alternatives to incarceration and the
factors contributing to recidivism, along with evidencebased recidivism reduction initiatives, and cost-effective
crime prevention programs.1
One of the factors behind the creation of the Commission
is concern about Colorado’s growing prison population and
the associated taxpayer costs. Colorado’s prison population
has nearly doubled in the past 10 years, after more than
doubling in the 10 years before that.2 Another increase of
about 25% is expected over the next five years.3 Despite
expanding the prison system by more than 11,000 state
prison beds, more than 4,500 contract prison beds and
more than 1,900 community transition beds since 1985,
Colorado’s prison system cannot currently accommodate the
projected inmate growth.4 The Colorado General Assembly’s
Joint Budget Committee (JBC) staff reports that all state
prison beds will be full by the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.5
That means that the state will have to build new prisons or
house excess prisoners elsewhere, either in private prisons,
which are also near capacity, or out-of-state.
Incarceration costs
Housing the state’s growing prison population comes at a
considerable price to taxpayers. In FY 2006, for example,
the average cost of incarcerating one inmate for one year
in the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC)
was $27,588; the cost of a private prison bed approached
$20,000.6 Over the past 20 years, the state’s General Fund
appropriation to the CDOC has grown from $76 million in
FY 1988 to more than $636 million in FY 2008.7
But operating expenses are just one of the costs of incarceration. Construction costs are another. The current capital
construction cost for one prison bed is about $125,000.8 In
its five-year capital construction plan submitted to the JBC,
the CDOC requested $821.1 million for prison system
expansion projects in order to add 5,766 state prison beds
through FY 2013.9 That request comes after the state spent
5
What Works
roughly a half billion dollars on prison construction and
expansion between 1994 and 2003.10
In this time of scarce resources, there are inevitable concerns about the rising costs of corrections and its impact
on other state-funded responsibilities. In FY 1985, General
Fund appropriations to the CDOC accounted for 2.8% of
the state’s operating budget; today it accounts for 8.8%.11
Because of the fiscal constraints imposed by TABOR and
other laws, increases in spending for corrections inevitably
require reductions in spending for other state services.12
Ensuring public safety
Public safety is undeniably one of the most important
functions government provides. The ultimate goal of the
criminal justice system is to protect the public and provide
justice when crimes are committed. But it is reasonable to
ask whether there are innovative and cost-effective ways to
curb correctional costs without compromising public safety.
Cutting recidivism and preventing crime may very well
be the key to managing costs while ensuring public safety.
Arguably, if recidivism rates can be reduced and more young
people can be prevented from ever committing crimes in
the first place, fewer prison beds would be needed. There
would be fewer crime victims and fewer offenders entering
or returning to the system. There would be taxpayer savings,
as well. For these reasons, recidivism reduction and crime
prevention are at the heart of the Commission’s work and
the primary focus of this report.
In Colorado and across the nation, almost everyone sent
to prison eventually returns to the community. Given the
Recidivism reduction and crime
prevention are at the heart of the
Commission’s work and the primary
focus of this report.
In Colorado and across the
nation, almost everyone sent
to prison eventually returns to
the community. Given the record
number of offenders coming out
of prison, perhaps nothing is more
important for public safety than
reducing the recidivism rate.
6
record number of offenders coming out of prison, perhaps
nothing is more important for public safety than reducing
the recidivism rate. Research has demonstrated that repeat
offenders account for a disproportionate amount of crime,
and that offenders released from prison are arrested at
rates 30-45 times higher than the general population.13
In Colorado, more than 10,000 inmates were released from
the prison system in FY 2007 alone. If current trends persist, about half will be back behind bars within three years of
their release.14
Prisoner reentry
Policy makers, practitioners and scholars alike are beginning
to focus attention on the challenges posed by the record
number prison inmates returning to communities. Many of
these offenders have a limited education, poor employment
skills, substance abuse problems and other deficits that are
well known risk factors for a return to crime. Without treatment and assistance during the transition to community
life, many offenders are likely to fail and return to prison.
Organizations like the International
Association of Chiefs of Police,
the National District Attorneys
Association, the National Institute
of Corrections, and the Council of
State Governments are supporting
reentry services as a way to reduce
victimization and cut recidivism.
There is widespread recognition today that the successful reentry of prisoners to society is a critical public safety
issue. Successful reentry reduces recidivism and victimization. It enhances public safety. It also saves public resources.
There is also widespread recognition that successful reentry requires more than supervision by a parole officer. It
requires treatment and transitional services, selected for
individuals on the basis of rigorous assessment. Given the
links between reentry and public safety, the entire criminal
justice system, from law enforcement through corrections,
has a role to play in the process. Organizations like the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National
District Attorneys Association, the National Institute of
Corrections, and the Council of State Governments are supporting reentry services as a way to reduce victimization and
cut recidivism.15
Introduction
Crime prevention is key
Preventing the onset of delinquent and criminal behavior
is equally important. While crime prevention takes many
forms, early risk-focused prevention programs that target
children and families and focus on risk factors for criminal
conduct can produce long-lasting public safety benefits.
During the past 30 years, research has identified precursors
of violent and other criminal behavior.16 These are called
risk factors. Risk factors exist within communities, schools
and peer groups, as well as within families and individuals.
Protective factors that buffer the effects of exposure to risk
and inhibit the development of problem behavior also have
been identified.17 Some risk factors can be changed, others
cannot. By counteracting risk factors that can be changed,
particularly early in life before delinquent behavior begins,
risk-focused prevention programs have been shown to
reduce the likelihood of future offending.
Risk-focused prevention has been applied with great success in medicine and public health. In the criminal justice
setting, however, the merit and value of early prevention is
sometimes overlooked because the full payoff is not realized
for many years. But prevention works. Effective risk-focused
programs reduce victimization and the pool of offenders
entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems. They
also provide other social benefits across the life-course of
individuals. Just as it is accepted in medicine and public
health that prevention is better than cure, it is cheaper and
safer to prevent crime than to treat its victims and manage
its perpetrators.18
Despite a plethora of research, tradition rules
Unfortunately, many of the programs that reduce recidivism or prevent crime in the most cost-effective manner
are not well known.19 Moreover, some interventions that
sound good or that have considerable political or public
appeal turn out, based on a thorough review of the evidence
(that is, rigorous scientific evaluation), not to be very effective at all. Some even do more harm than good. This has
led a number of leading criminologists to conclude that
offender interventions and crime prevention efforts are more
often than not based on tradition, conviction or ideology
rather than the best available evidence about what works.20
Renowned criminologists Mark Lipsey and Frank Cullen
(2007) recently stated the following:
At present, there is a growing body of evidence
that suggests much of what is done within corrections is not based on sound evidence but,
rather, on custom, bureaucratic convenience, and
political ideology. 21
Some experts conclude that our
programmatic response to offenders
is based on tradition, bureaucratic
convenience and political ideology
rather than the best available
evidence about what works.
Yet research shows that evidence-based programs produce
the best results. Years of study have borne this out. Crime
prevention and recidivism reduction initiatives are far more
likely to be effective and cost-beneficial when they are based
on the best and latest available evidence about what works.
Careful implementation is essential
Of course, knowing what works is only the first step.
Evidence-based programs still have to be funded and implemented properly in order to produce results. Delivering a
program with a high degree of fidelity - that is, according
to plan - is difficult, even in the best situations with the
most skilled and experienced staff. A variety of environmental and human factors can encumber, even undermine,
proper implementation and service delivery, critically
weakening a program’s intended effect. Attention to proper
program implementation is always a prerequisite for success.
It requires continuous data collection for program oversight
and feedback to staff to ensure that the program is on the
right track.
Effective programs also carry a financial cost. Funding to
support and sustain effective treatment and prevention
interventions can be difficult to find. This is especially true
when resources are limited and the competition for public
funds is high.
The potential savings is great
But investing in evidence based crime reduction programs
can pay significant dividends. When recidivism is reduced
or crime is prevented, there are fewer victims and there are
fewer offenders arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison.
The financial savings to victims and taxpayers can be significant. In a 1998 study conducted by Mark Cohen, one of
the nation’s leading experts on the costs of crime, a typical
criminal career was estimated to cause $1.3 to $1.5 million
in costs to victims and taxpayers. The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth from embarking on a life of crime was
estimated to be between $1.7 and $2.3 million.22
(
)
*
+
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
7
What Works
In a 1998 study conducted by
Mark Cohen, one of the nation’s
leading experts on the costs of
crime, a typical criminal career
was estimated to cause $1.3 to
$1.5 million in costs to victims and
taxpayers. The monetary value
of saving a high-risk youth from
embarking on a life of crime was
estimated to be between $1.7 and
$2.3 million.
The value of investing in evidence-based programs on a statewide basis was recently estimated by the Washington State
Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP). In 2005, the Washington
legislature directed the WSIPP to conduct a study of evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison
construction, criminal justice costs and crime rates. As part
of that work, the WSIPP estimated the costs and benefits of
several evidence-based program implementation scenarios. A
moderate implementation portfolio, where evidence-based
programs currently operating in the state are expanded to
serve 20% of the remaining eligible population, was esti-
Economists at the Washington
State Institute for Public Policy
calculated that, over 22 years,
evidence-based programs could
save taxpayers about $1.9 billion
through avoided prison and other
criminal justice system costs. This
is a savings to taxpayers after
factoring in the annual costs for
expanded programming. The return
on investment was estimated to
be more than $2.50 in taxpayer
benefits per dollar of cost. With
a more aggressive statewide
expansion of evidence-based
programming, crime would further
decline and taxpayer benefits would
be even larger.
8
mated to cost about $63 million annually. But the net effect
of the investment would reduce the need for prison beds and
lower the crime rate further. Between 2008 and 2030, taxpayers could save about $1.9 billion through avoided prison
and other criminal justice system costs. This is a savings to
taxpayers after factoring in the annual costs for expanded
programming. The return on investment was estimated to be
more than $2.50 in taxpayer benefits per dollar of cost. With
a more aggressive statewide expansion of evidence-based programming, crime would further decline and taxpayer benefits
would be even larger.23
Indeed, economic evaluations consistently show that many
of the programs described in this report are not only effective, but they pay for themselves in terms of reduced costs
to taxpayers alone. The return on investment is even greater
when intangibles such as victim pain, suffering and fear of
crime are also taken into account. Evidence-based prevention and recidivism reduction programs work. They can
prevent crime and cut recidivism rates, thereby enhancing
public safety while decreasing taxpayer costs.
Structure of the Report
This report has eight sections. Section 2 focuses on the
evidence-based concept and its application in criminal and
juvenile justice. It explains what “evidence-based” means,
and briefly describes why evidence-based programs are
valuable. It also describes how trustworthy scientific evidence about the effectiveness of interventions is acquired.
In Section 3, the methods used to identify the programs
that are included in this report are described, including the
process to find and acquire information, and the protocol
followed to review the extant research and identify programs
that work.
Sections 4 through 6 review the evidence in each of three
broad areas. Section 4 focuses on incarceration. It includes a
summary of what research tells us about the impact of incarceration on crime and crime rates. It also briefly discusses
the relationship between incarceration and recidivism, as
well as the latest research on desistance from crime, that is,
the transition from criminal to noncriminal conduct.
Section 5 is devoted to effective recidivism reduction
programs: interventions that work. Following a brief introduction concerning the efficacy of rehabilitation programs,
the key principles of effective intervention are described.
Then, effective recidivism reduction programs are sequentially discussed. Effective programs are briefly described in
several programmatic areas along with the supporting scientific evidence. Selected evaluations of programs operating in
Colorado also are briefly reviewed.
Introduction
Section 6 is devoted to effective early prevention programs.
The focus here is on programs that prevent the onset of
delinquent and criminal behavior. These programs are
delivered to children and often their families and they target
known risk factors – the precursors of criminal conduct and
other problem behaviors. Using a format similar to the one
used in Section 5, effective early prevention programs are
sequentially discussed. In each intervention area, specific
program models that work are identified and described,
along with the supporting scientific evidence.
Section 7 summarizes key issues regarding the implementation of effective programs. Finally, a brief summary and a
few closing comments are provided in Section 8. All source
material used for the report is listed in a Bibliography following Section 8.
Colorado Revised Statutes, 16-11.3-101.
1
Colorado Department of Corrections Annual Statistical Reports.
2
Colorado General Assembly Joint Budget Committee. (December 20, 2007) FY 2008-09 Staff Budget Briefing, Department
of Corrections. Page 6. In the five-year period from June 2007 through June 2012, Legislative Council Staff projects the
total inmate population to increase by about 5,700 inmates (25.4%). The Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) projects an
increase of 4,900 inmates (21.8%).
3
Ibid. Page 6. Also, Colorado Department of Corrections Annual Statistical Report, FY 2006. Page 22.
4
Colorado General Assembly Joint Budget Committee. (December 20, 2007). FY 2008-09 Staff Budget Briefing, Department
of Corrections. Page 6.
5
Ibid. Page 8.
6
Ibid. Page 2.
7
Ibid. Page 81.
8
Ibid. Page 6.
9
Colorado Department of Corrections Annual Statistical Report, FY 2006. Page 10.
10
Colorado General Assembly Joint Budget Committee. (December 20, 2007). FY 2008-09 Staff Budget Briefing, Department
of Corrections. Page 4.
11
Colorado Lawyers Committee. (2006). Report on the Sentencing System in Colorado: A Serious Fiscal Problem on the Horizon.
Task Force on Sentencing. Author, Denver, CO.
12
Rosenfeld, R., Wallman, J., and R. Fornango. (2005). The contribution of ex-prisoners to crime rates. In Prisoner Reentry
and Crime in America, J. Travis and C. Visher (eds.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Page 85.
13
Colorado Department of Corrections, Admissions and Release Trends, Statistical Bulletin OPA 08-08, December 1, 2007,
and Colorado Department of Corrections Annual Statistical Reports.
14
For example, in 2006, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), in collaboration with the federal
Community Oriented Policing Services Office (COPS), brought together over 100 law enforcement, correctional, and
community leaders for a two day summit to address the issue of offender re-entry and in particular, the role of local law
enforcement in re-entry programs. The results of that summit are contained in the final report: Offender Re-Entry: Exploring
the Leadership Opportunity for Law Enforcement Executives and Their Agencies. The report provides 50 recommendations to
help police leaders determine how they can reduce recidivism rates by supporting offender re-entry initiatives. In 2005, the
National District Attorneys Association adopted Policy Positions on Prisoner Reentry Issues in the belief that prisoner reentry has become a crucial issue and that prosecutors should, where practicable, be participants in addressing this issue in an
effort to reduce recidivism and ensure the safety of victims and the community.
15
(
)
*
+
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
9
What Works
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1995). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for
Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Page 17.
16
Ibid.
17
Farrington, D.P., and Welsh, B.C. (2007). Saving Children From a Life of Crime, Early Risk Factors and Effective
Interventions. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Page 3; National Crime Prevention Council. (2005). Engaging the
Power of Prevention: 10 Action Principles. National Crime Prevention Council, Washington, DC. Page 5.
18
Wilson, J.Q. (2007). Foreward to Farrington, D. and B. Welsh, Saving Children From a Life of Crime: Early Risk Factors and
Effective Interventions. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
19
See for example Lipsey, M.W. and Cullen, F.T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3 at page 3; Greenwood, P. (2006). Changing lives: delinquency
prevention as crime-control policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL at pages 5 and 155-167; and Mihalic, S., Fagan,
A., Irwin, K., Ballard, D., and Elliott, D. (2004). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Center for the Study and Prevention
of Violence University of Colorado, Boulder. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice
Programs, U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, at page 14.
20
Lipsey and Cullen (2007). Page 3.
21
Cohen, M. (1998). The Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 1.
22
Aos, S., Miller, M., and Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Olympia, WA. Available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.
23
10
Section 2: The Evidence-Based Concept
and its Application
)
*
+
,
-
The term “evidence-based” has been used in many fields
and defined in many ways. In medicine, education and
several other public policy arenas, including criminal and
juvenile justice, the term has generally been used to describe
practices and programs that are informed by the results of
scientific research and deemed to be effective. While some
people prefer the terms research-based or science-based,
evidence-based programs and practices rely on sound theory
and are considered to be effective according to rigorous scientific evaluation.1
In a subsequent 1978 report, the OTA argued that:
“Evidence-based” also applies to a broader decision-making
approach. Rather than relying on conviction, conjecture
or conventional wisdom, decision makers turn to the best
available evidence about what does and does not work when
evaluating options and making decisions. Evidence-based
decision making is simply the routine and systematic application of the best available knowledge in order to identify
and choose the optimal approach in policy, management and
other applied settings.2
Shortly thereafter, the medical community began assembling
evidence on effective interventions drawn from highly rigorous
studies and disseminating it in a way that practitioners could
easily access and apply. In the 1980s and 1990s, this practice
began to migrate to other fields, including criminology.
Origins of the Evidence-Based Movement
The evidence-based movement originated in the fields of
medicine and public health. In the early 1970s, Archibald
Leman Cochrane, a medical scientist and epidemiologist
working in the United Kingdom, set off a firestorm in the
medical community when he asserted that most medical treatments being used by practitioners were not based
on any valid evidence of effectiveness. In his 1972 paper,
Effectiveness and Efficiency, Cochrane argued that health services should be evaluated on the basis of scientific evidence,
rather than on anecdotes, opinion or tradition.3
Four years later, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) issued the first of several reports supporting
Cochrane’s thesis. In a 1976 report to Congress, for example, the OTA stated that “[o]nly 10 to 20% of all procedures
used in present medical practice have been proven by clinical trial; many of these procedures may not be efficacious.”4
Given the shortcomings in current assessment
systems, the examples of medical technologies
that entered widespread use and were shown
later to be inefficacious or unsafe, and the large
numbers of inadequately assessed current
and emerging technologies, improvements are
critically needed in the information base regarding safety and efficacy and the processes for
its generation. 5
Accountability and efficiency
While evidence-based programs are obviously desirable because they can help address social problems, their
popularity has grown for accountability and efficiency
reasons, too.6 Today, more than ever before, taxpayers and
government officials want to know that publicly funded
programs are providing tangible, real-life benefits to people
and communities. Evidence-based programs help fit the
bill, because given proper targeting and implementation,
they can be expected to produce results in a cost-effective
way. What’s more, given the growing number of evidence-
From an economic standpoint,
evidence-based programs are
effective and efficient, and they
help to ensure that limited
resources produce a sound return
on investment.
11
What Works
based programs in various public policy areas, agencies
can increasingly rely on proven program models instead of
programming through trial and error. From an economic
standpoint, evidence-based programs are effective and efficient, and they help to ensure that limited resources produce
a sound return on investment.
Widespread interest
Interest in evidence-based criminal justice practices can be
found across the country. In Oregon, for example, state
law requires certain prevention, treatment and intervention
programs that are intended to reduce criminal behavior
to be evidence-based. Selected state agencies such as the
Oregon Department of Corrections and the Oregon Youth
Authority are required to expend an increasing percentage of
their state funds on evidence-based programs, reaching 75%
in 2009.
Other states have evidence-based initiatives underway as
well. In 1997, the Washington State Legislature passed the
Community Juvenile Accountability Act (CJAA), which
established “research-based” programs in the state’s juvenile
courts. In California, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation is funding the Center for Evidence-Based
Corrections at the University of California Irvine to help
corrections officials make policy decisions based on scientific
evidence. And in Arizona and North Carolina, state-level
juvenile justice agencies are working with researchers at the
forefront of the evidence-based movement to assess how well
each state’s juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs match up against evidence-based practices.
Standards of Evidence
A fundamental premise of the evidence-based movement is
that the information used to establish what works must be
trustworthy and credible. Even within science, some types
of evidence are more trustworthy than others, and it is not
uncommon for studies of the same phenomena to produce
ambiguous or even conflicting results. Hence, only the best
and most rigorous studies should be used to determine
Even within science, some types
of evidence are more trustworthy
than others, and it is not uncommon
for studies of the same phenomena
to produce ambiguous or even
conflicting results.
12
whether an intervention is effective, and both the quality
and consistency of the evidence need to be considered.
In the scientific community there is general agreement that
certain types of studies - namely well designed and implemented experiments, or randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
as they are often called, along with highly rigorous quasi
experiments - provide the best and most trustworthy evidence about an intervention’s effectiveness.7
Modeled on laboratory experiments, RCTs are powerful
tools for determining the effectiveness of an intervention.
They are considered superior for discovering effects and
inferring causality because of their capacity to produce valid
findings and reduce bias. In laymen’s terms, an RCT helps
the evaluator discover in a highly trustworthy way whether
or not a program was successful in a particular setting.
RCTs have several key features, most notably an intervention (such as a substance-abuse treatment program) and two
groups of subjects. One group participates in the program,
and the other does not. The subjects who participate in the
program are called the experimental or treatment group; the
subjects who do not participate in the program are called the
control group. In RCTs, decisions about who participates in
the program and who does not are randomly made by the
researcher. Randomly assigning subjects to the treatment
and control groups creates the optimal conditions for reducing bias and making statistical (that is, causal) inferences.
Although RCTs are an exceptionally powerful tool for
inferring causality and determining program impact, they
are difficult to implement in real life settings. RCTs are
expensive, and they typically require considerable time and
research expertise. In addition, there may be resistance to the
use of random assignment on the grounds that it is unethical to withhold potentially beneficial services from control
group subjects simply for the sake of research. In practice, a
variety of constraints can preclude an evaluator from using
an RCT.8 When that happens, researchers examining the
impact of an intervention typically employ the next best
approach, a quasi-experiment.
Quasi-experiments are similar to RCTs, but they do not
employ random assignment. They attempt to determine a
program’s effectiveness by comparing program participants
with a similar but non-randomly selected group of people
who did not participate in the program. In well designed
quasi-experiments, researchers go to great lengths to ensure
that program participants and the comparison subjects are
similar in all ways but one: participation in the program. In
criminal justice settings, researchers typically try to ensure
that comparison group members are matched with program
participants in terms of criminal history, demographics,
The Evidence-Based Concept and its Application
and other relevant factors. While quasi-experiments are less
adept at reducing bias than experiments, most researchers
agree that well designed and implemented quasi-experiments
provide highly credible evidence.
The Need to Examine Many Studies
There also is widespread consensus in the scientific community that single studies are rarely definitive. Individual
studies with seminal findings certainly do exist but single
studies can be misleading, and research can best be understood in the context of other studies.9 Individual studies can
also produce erroneous results.10 Hence, researchers typically rely on systematic reviews of an entire body of research
evidence to arrive at generalizeable conclusions about what
does and does not work.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Systematic reviews of program evaluations are one of the
primary vehicles researchers use to identify what works. A
systematic review locates, appraises and synthesizes information from all relevant scientific studies on a particular topic.
Systematic reviews are fundamentally different than narrative reviews or other traditional ways of summarizing
research because they adhere to a pre-established protocol
regarding the selection and assessment of research studies.11
This reduces bias, ensures comprehensiveness, and maximizes the validity and reliability, that is, the trustworthiness,
of the findings. Properly executed, a systematic review produces a comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence
on a particular topic, such as whether or not a program is
effective in reducing recidivism.
The Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS)
One of the most influential review models in criminal and
juvenile justice was developed by Larry Sherman and his col-
To answer a particular research
question, systematic reviews
adhere to a pre-established
protocol regarding the selection
and assessment of research
studies. This reduces bias, ensures
comprehensiveness, and maximizes
the trustworthiness of the findings.
leagues at the University of Maryland. For their Preventing
Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising report
to Congress, Sherman et al. (1997) developed the Maryland
Scientific Methods Scale (SMS). The SMS scores and ranks
the methodological quality of a study along a number of
dimensions, including:
• The study’s ability to control outside factors and eliminate major rival explanations for an intervention’s effects,
• The study’s ability to detect program effects; the smaller the effects, the larger the sample size needs to be, and
• Other considerations, such as the study’s response rate,
attrition and the use of appropriate statistical tests.12
Using these criteria, the Maryland team graded every study
in their review and assigned each one a “scientific methods score” based on methodological rigor. Generally, well
designed and executed experiments received the highest
rating and therefore received the greatest weight and consideration. Well designed and executed quasi-experiments were
included in the review but were given less consideration
when drawing conclusions about program effectiveness. Less
rigorous studies were excluded from the analysis altogether.
This was one of the initial attempts in criminology to categorize evaluation evidence according to its scientific rigor.
The Sherman Report, as it is sometimes called, has had a
major influence on the systematic review process. Today,
methodological quality considerations are a standard feature
of most systematic reviews, and review protocols commonly
exclude studies from further analysis that fail to reach a
specified standard of methodological rigor. In practice, most
systematic reviews rely exclusively on well designed and
executed RCTs and quasi-experiments to draw conclusions
about an intervention’s effectiveness.
Meta-analysis
)
*
+
,
.
/
Y
In recent years, more and more reviews are incorporating a
specific statistical procedure for synthesizing the results of
many different studies. This statistical method, called metaanalysis, has made systematic reviews even more objective
and scientifically rigorous.
\j
Z
In practice, meta-analysis combines the results of many
evaluations into one large study with many subjects (the
total number of subjects from the individual studies). This is
important, because single studies based on a small number
of subjects can produce distorted findings about a program’s
effectiveness.13 By pooling the original studies, meta-analysis
counteracts a common methodological problem in evaluation research – small sample size – thereby helping the
13
What Works
• Rely only on the most rigorous studies; and
By pooling the original studies,
meta-analysis counteracts a
common methodological problem
in evaluation research – small
sample size – thereby helping the
analyst draw more accurate and
generalizable conclusions about an
intervention’s effects.
analyst draw more accurate and generalizable conclusions
about an intervention’s effects.
Meta-analysis is especially useful when synthesizing the
results of studies that use different types of measures.
Evaluations of recidivism reduction programs provide a
good example. Whereas some studies may define and measure recidivism as rearrest, others may define it as a return
to prison. Follow-up periods may also vary across studies.
Making sense of these variations can be quite difficult in
a traditional review, but meta-analysis provides a way to
combine studies and reach valid conclusions, despite such
variations in the original studies.
Meta-analysis also reports its findings in terms of an average
effect size, that is, the effect of the program on the desired
outcome.14 This helps the evaluator gauge both the strength
and consistency of a program’s effect. Rather than using
a vote-counting approach to determine the proportion of
studies that found a statistically significant program effect,
the evaluator can rely on a quantitative measure that more
accurately captures and summarizes program performance.
Taken together, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are
the principal scientific building blocks of the evidence-based
movement. They provide the highest standard of evidence
about what works because they do the following:
• Examine a large body of evidence on a program’s
effectiveness;
Taken together, systematic reviews
and meta-analyses are the principal
scientific building blocks of the
evidence-based movement. These
approaches serve as the primary
sources of information for this report.
14
• Employ rigorous scientific techniques to reduce bias
and arrive at a valid conclusion about an intervention’s
effectiveness.
Because systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide the
most trustworthy scientific evidence, they serve as the primary sources of information for this report.
The Role of Economic Evaluation
Analysts who conduct systematic reviews to identify effective
interventions are increasingly reporting findings from economic evaluations, too. Economic evaluations apply analytic
methods to identify, measure, value, and compare the costs
and consequences of one or more programs.15 Economic
evaluations are substantively different and more ambitious
than standard outcome evaluations because they examine
a program’s efficiency or return on investment. As a result,
economic evaluations provide decision makers with unique
and important information about an intervention that is
particularly valuable when making decisions about resource
allocation.
Economic evaluations provide
decision makers with unique and
important information about an
intervention that is particularly
valuable when making decisions
about resource allocation.
Common Approaches to Economic
Evaluation
Cost-benefit analysis
One of the most common approaches to economic evaluation is cost-benefit analysis (CBA). A cost-benefit study
examines and places monetary value on both the costs and
effects of a program. The result is usually a single summary
statistic – expressed as the program’s benefit-cost ratio or net
present value – that indicates whether and to what extent
the program’s benefits exceed its costs. Because CBA evaluates all programs strictly in monetary terms, it provides the
basis for comparing many different programs, even those
with widely disparate outcome objectives.
From a decision-making perspective, CBA has a fundamental advantage over other forms of economic evaluation
The Evidence-Based Concept and its Application
A Caution About Cost-Benefit
Analysis
Monetary valuations of costs and
benefits are often based on a variety
of assumptions and they can be
imprecise. The analyst’s decision,
for example, to measure or not
measure certain costs or benefits
can radically affect a program’s
bottom line. Thanks to the work
of numerous scholars and the
development of more sophisticated
tools, however, the techniques for
conducting cost-benefit analysis are
improving all the time.
monetary benefits of criminal and juvenile justice programs
have been developed by researchers at the Washington State
Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) and the Urban Institute.
And researchers at the Evaluation Center at Western
Michigan University are developing a practical checklist for
cost-benefit analysis.
Despite its current limitations, cost-benefit estimates are
becoming more precise, and most researchers agree that
cost-benefit analysis is a valuable tool for estimating a
program’s return on investment. The federal Office of
Management and Budget recommends cost-benefit analysis as the technique to use in a formal economic analysis
of government programs or projects.18 And the National
Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department
of Justice, is actively promoting CBA and placing greater
emphasis on the funding of cost-benefit studies. In 2002,
Congress actually amended the federal statute governing
NIJ’s evaluation duties, to expressly direct NIJ to engage in
more economic evaluation where practical.19
Those at the forefront
because it provides a basis for comparing a much broader
range of competing alternatives. CBA can determine if a
program is a good investment in and of itself, but it also can
be used to determine which program out of any set of alternatives has the highest ratio of benefits to costs. In theory,
CBA could be used to compare, for example, a corrections
program, an education program and a public health program.
The primary disadvantage of CBA is that all costs and benefits must be quantified in monetary terms. In practice, this
can be very difficult to do. Estimating the type and amount
of crime that a given intervention will prevent can be hard
enough without also having to estimate the monetary savings that will result from fewer victimizations and reductions
in offender processing. Some critics have suggested that the
state of the art is not sufficiently developed to support valid
and accurate comparisons.16 Indeed, monetary valuations
of costs and benefits are often based on a variety of assumptions and they can be imprecise. The analyst’s decision, for
example, to measure or not measure certain costs or benefits
can radically affect a program’s bottom line.
CBA continues to evolve
Thanks to the work of numerous scholars, along with the
application of more sophisticated tools, the techniques for
conducting cost-benefit analysis are improving all the time.
Researchers in Florida and Oregon, for example, have developed cutting-edge methods for capturing data on program
costs.17 Sophisticated models for quantifying the costs and
Findings from CBAs of evidence-based programs are
increasingly being used to more fully demonstrate an
intervention’s value. Researchers at the WSIPP are at the
forefront of the movement. In response to requests from
the Washington legislature, the WSIPP has been conducting CBAs that estimate a program’s return on investment
to Washington taxpayers. Recent reviews of criminal and
juvenile justice interventions conducted by Farrington and
Welsh (2007), MacKenzie (2006) and Greenwood (2006)
have incorporated findings from CBAs, too.
As an objective means of documenting not only what works,
but also what is cost-effective, economic evaluation can
help decision makers identify crime control and prevention practices that produce results with a known return on
investment. Since even an effective program may not be a
viable option unless its benefits exceed its costs, we present
the findings from economic studies when they were available
for the programs discussed in this report.
Even an effective program may not
be a viable option unless its benefits
exceed its costs. For this reason,
this report includes economic study
findings for many programs when
the information is available.
)
*
+
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
15
What Works
The terms “model programs” or “exemplary programs” are sometimes used.
1
2
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2007). Understanding Evidence-Based Practices for
Co-Occurring Disorders, Overview Paper 5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration. Washington, DC. Page 1. See also Health Canada. (2004). Creating a Culture of EvidenceBased Decision Making. Canada Health Action: Building on the Legacy - Volume II - Synthesis Reports and Issues Papers.
Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/renewal-renouv/1997-nfoh-fnss-v2/legacy_heritage5_e.html#4.
3
Cochrane, A.L. (1972). Effectiveness and Efficiency, Random Reflections on Health Services. The Royal Society of Medicine
Press. London, UK.
4
Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress. (1976). Development of Medical Technology: Opportunities for
Assessment. Author, Washington, DC. Page 26.
Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress. (1978). Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies.
Author, Washington, DC. Page 7.
5
Small, S.M., Reynolds, A.J., O’Connor, C., and Cooney, S.M. (June 2005). What Works, Wisconsin? What Science Tells
Us about Cost-Effective Programs for Juvenile Delinquency Prevention. School of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin,
Madison. Madison, WI.
6
See for example Sherman et al. (1997), MacKenzie (2006) and Farrington and Welsh (2007).
7
As a result, there are generally fewer experiments than other types of studies.
8
Petticrew, M. (2007). Making High Quality Research Accessible To Policy Makers And Social Care Practitioners. Plenary
Presentation at the Campbell Collaboration Colloquium. Plenary presentation at the Campbell Collaboration Colloquium,
May 16, Glasgow, U.K. Also see Petrosino and Lavenberg (2007), Note 11.
9
In fact, this is the reason that good science requires replication.
10
Petrosino, A. and Lavenberg, J. (2007). Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Best Evidence on “What Works” for
Criminal Justice Decision Makers. Western Criminology Review, 8, 1-15. Also, the Campbell Collaboration Crime and
Justice Group, available at: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/CCJG/reviews/index.asp.
11
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing Crime: What
Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. A Report To The United States Congress. Prepared for the National Institute of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
12
See for example, Lipsey, M. (2002). Meta-analysis and program outcome evaluation. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 9,
194-208. (Translated.)
13
There are several methods used by meta-analysts to calculate effect sizes. For complete reviews see Lipsey and Wilson (2001).
14
Haddix, A.C., Teutsch, S.M., and Corso, P.C. (2003). Prevention Effectiveness: A Guide to Decision Analysis and Economic
Evaluation, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
15
See for example, Zimring, F. E., and Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation: Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime.
Oxford University Press, NY.
16
See for example the Drug Abuse Treatment Cost Analysis Program (DATCAP) at the University of Miami (www.datcap.
com) or the work of NPC research (www.npcresearch.com).
17
Office of Management and Budget. (October 29, 1992). Circular A-94, revised.
18
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, Section 237.
19
16
Section 3: Method
This section presents the approach used to identify what
works in reducing recidivism and preventing crime. It specifies the framework adopted to define effectiveness.
Review Process
This report is based on a comprehensive and systematic
review of the criminology literature on what works to reduce
recidivism or prevent the onset of delinquent and criminal
behavior. Information was obtained by reviewing evaluation
and other reports on correctional interventions and early,
risk-focused prevention programs operating in the United
States and Canada.
Source materials were identified using several methods. National Criminal Justice Reference Service and
Internet World Wide Web searches were undertaken, and
abstracts were reviewed from recent American Society
of Criminology, American Evaluation Association and
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference programs. Relevant listings and registries of “evidence-based”
programs, such as the Surgeon General’s Report on Youth
Violence, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration’s National Registry of Evidence-Based
Programs and Practices, and the University of Colorado’s
Blueprints for Violence Prevention project, were also
reviewed. To identify additional leads, several national
and state organizations were contacted, including many
in Colorado. Requests for evaluation studies were made to
Colorado’s Interagency Committee on Adult and Juvenile
Correctional Treatment and private research firms. These
efforts were supplemented with outreach to professionals in
the criminal and juvenile justice, research, and evaluation
communities. Reference pages from a variety of on-line and
print documents also were reviewed.
This process produced a number of published and unpublished documents deemed relevant for this project. Those
that could be obtained with a reasonable investment of
resources were collected and reviewed. Very few documents
*
+
,
.
were unavailable; most of these were published prior to
1990. All obtained source material was reviewed with a
focus on what works in reducing recidivism and preventing
crime. Patterns and common themes that emerged across
multiple studies and sources were synthesized into the summary of what works presented in the following sections.
What Was Considered? Review Protocol
To identify what works in preventing crime and reducing
recidivism, both quality and consistency of the evidence was
considered. Quality was addressed by basing the conclusions
presented here on the latest and most rigorous scientific
evidence available. Consistency was addressed by focusing
primarily on research that synthesized the evaluation results
from many studies and programs.
While individual program evaluations were reviewed and
sometimes included (where relevant), none of the conclusions presented here are based on the results of any single
study.1 Rather, the findings presented here are based first and
foremost on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of highly
rigorous evaluation research. This approach is consistent with
the scientific principles and latest lessons learned concerning
methods for discovering the efficacy of interventions.
As discussed in Section 2, systematic reviews and metaanalyses are techniques that place the results of any single
study in the context of a larger body of research. This helps
the analyst identify anomalies and better understand where
the weight of the evidence lies. Meta-analysis takes the
process one step further by calculating the average effect of
the intervention. This statistic is a quantitative – and thus
highly objective – metric that more accurately captures and
summarizes program effectiveness.
Recency and saliency
First, the most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses
were reviewed, particularly those conducted since 1995.
17
What Works
Earlier reviews are cited, particularly those that are considered seminal research that established key principles of
effective correctional intervention, but reviews conducted
within the past 12 years, especially those incorporating
meta-analysis, received the greatest consideration.
Consistency of findings
When multiple reviews produced consistent findings that a
program prevented crime or reduced recidivism, the program
was considered to be effective. When multiple reviews produced inconsistent findings, the quality and weight of the
evidence was assessed. Reviews that were based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and rigorous quasi-experiments,
those that included a larger number of studies, and those that
were more recent, were given the greatest weight. Conclusions
are based on the preponderance of evidence.
Generally, when multiple rigorous and contemporary
reviews produced findings that a program prevented crime
or reduced recidivism, but one review did not, the program
is considered effective, but the research that is at odds with
this conclusion is also presented. When two or more reviews
failed to demonstrate a program’s effectiveness, we concluded that the evidence was insufficient to state that the
program worked unless a larger number of rigorous, more
recent reviews consistently demonstrated positive program
effects. Of course, when the preponderance failed to demonstrate that a program prevented crime or reduced recidivism,
we could not conclude that the program worked.
Focus on crime and criminal behavior outcomes
Since the primary goal here is to identify programs that prevent crime or reduce recidivism, the focus of this report is
on reviews that examined program effectiveness using crime
or criminal behavior outcomes. In most cases, we did not
examine other possible program benefits, such as employment, reduced illegal drug use, reductions in foster care, or
increases in communication among stakeholders.
There were two major exceptions to this practice. First, some
programs are designed to address risk factors that are related
to criminal offending, that is, those that are criminogenic in
nature or known precursors of delinquency or criminal conduct later in life. When such risk factors are directly relevant
to program success and program effectiveness was reported
in risk factor reduction terms, the evidence was reviewed
and findings are presented in this report.
Second, economic evaluations have attracted a great deal of
interest and attention in recent years. It is becoming more
and more commonplace to report on a program’s monetary
18
It is important to keep in mind
that the focus of this What Works
compendium is exclusively on the
direct public safety benefits that
a practice or program produces.
Programs that work are defined as
those that are effective at reducing
recidivism or preventing criminal
conduct later in life.
costs and benefits before concluding that a program works.
For this reason, and to more fully demonstrate the value of
effective programs, economic evaluations were examined
and this report includes the results from any relevant cost
benefit analyses (CBAs) concerning a program’s return on
investment.
It is important to keep in mind that the focus of this compendium is exclusively on the direct public safety benefits
that a practice or program produces. Programs that work are
defined as those that are effective at reducing recidivism or
preventing criminal conduct later in life. While a program’s
capacity to alter risk factors for criminal conduct and provide a sound return on investment are also concerns, there
may be other benefits, or other dimensions of program performance, that stakeholders deem to have merit or value that
are not addressed in this report. It is not the intention to
discount these benefits, or suggest that any one perspective
on program performance is inherently superior to others.
Rather, the goal of this review is to be responsive to the
duties mandated to the Colorado Commission on Criminal
and Juvenile Justice to investigate evidence-based recidivism
reduction initiatives and cost-effective crime prevention
programs.2
While more than 400 documents were reviewed for the
development of this report, several key sources played a
major role in identifying programs that work. These include:
• Systematic reviews made available through the
Campbell Collaboration, an international network of
researchers that prepares and disseminates systematic
reviews of high-quality research on effective methods to
reduce crime and delinquency.
• Meta-analyses conducted by Mark Lipsey and his
colleagues on the effectiveness of rehabilitation and correctional interventions.
Method
• Meta-analyses conducted by Doris MacKenzie and her
colleagues on effective recidivism reduction programs.
• Systematic reviews on the effectiveness of early prevention programs conducted by David Farrington and
Brandon Welsh.
• Research and reviews on prevention programs conducted by Peter Greenwood and his colleagues.
• The Blueprints for Violence Prevention Project at
the University of Colorado Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence.
• Meta-analyses and cost-benefit analyses on crime
reduction and prevention programs conducted by the
Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
A complete list of the source material used for this report is
presented in the Bibliography.
Colorado Program Evaluations
The search strategy used to find source materials for this
report also produced a number of documents dealing with
programs operating in Colorado. Since Colorado-specific
studies may be of particular interest, findings from several of
these local evaluations are presented in the report.
Dozens of documents dealing with Colorado evaluations
were acquired. Those that met the following criteria were
reviewed:
• The study was based on an outcome evaluation of
a program that currently or recently operated in
Colorado;
• Program effects on crime or criminal behavior, including recidivism, were reported;
• Recidivism outcomes were identified using a pre-post,
comparison or control group design, and
To acquaint the audience with work
that has been done in Colorado,
findings from local evaluations
are presented throughout the
report. The reader should keep in
mind, however, that the Colorado
evaluations may or may not be
methodologically rigorous. No
attempt was made to systematically
critique any of the studies in terms
of evaluation methodology. In fact, it
is important to remember that the
Colorado studies are not systematic
reviews or meta-analyses, and
they are quite unlike those used to
demonstrate what works overall.
Framework
Focus on results, not on intent. At this stage of the report,
it is important to underscore that this review of what works
relies on a scientific definition of effectiveness. Following
the lead of Sherman and his colleagues in their 1997 “What
Works” report to Congress, an effective program is defined
as one that reduces or prevents criminal conduct, based on
scientific study. The empirically tested success or failure of an
intervention in reducing or preventing crime is the primary
concern in the current report. This report is not concerned
with an intervention’s intent to punish, deter, or rehabilitate.
Nor is this report concerned with labels or perceptions that
an intervention is hard or soft on crime. This definition of
effectiveness is firmly grounded in science and criminology,
and it was eloquently articulated by Sherman and his colleagues in their 1997 report:
• The report was published between 1995 and the present.
Findings from selected evaluations that met these criteria
are summarized in relevant sections of the report. Again, the
primary goal of this review of local studies is to acquaint the
audience with work that has been done in Colorado. The
reader should keep in mind, however, that the Colorado
evaluations may or may not be methodologically rigorous.
No attempt was made to systematically critique any of the
studies reported here in terms of evaluation methodology.
It is important to remember that the Colorado studies are
not systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and they are quite
unlike those used to demonstrate what works overall.
The empirically tested success or
failure of an intervention in reducing
or preventing crime is the primary
concern in the current report.
This report is not concerned with
an intervention’s intent to punish,
deter, or rehabilitate.
*
+
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
19
What Works
Crime prevention is widely misunderstood. The
national debate over crime often treats “prevention” and “punishment” as mutually exclusive
concepts, polar opposites on a continuum of
“soft” versus “tough” responses to crime.... The
science of criminology, however, contains no such
dichotomy.... Crime prevention is a result.
Crime prevention is therefore defined not by its
intentions, but by its consequences. These consequences can be defined in at least two ways. One
is by the number of criminal events; the other
is by the number of criminal offenders (Hirschi,
1986). Some would also define it by the amount
of harm prevented (Reiss and Roth, 1993: 59-61)
or by the number of victims harmed or harmed
repeatedly (Farrell, 1995). ...What all these definitions have in common is their focus on observed
effects, and not the “hard” or “soft” content, of a
program.3
A final caveat
It is important to keep in mind that the list of effective
programs provided here is by no means exhaustive. In
each of the effective program areas discussed, representative examples of specific programs that work are presented.
Interventions that others view as effective or promising may
not be among those identified. There are several reasons why
this may occur. As Greenwood points out, recommendations
on “what works” have been published by many organizations, often with what appears to be a lack of consistency
regarding the specific programs that are considered to be
effective. These differences are largely “explained and reconciled” by variations in purpose, focus and screening criteria
that are found across different reviews.4 When two reviews
focus on different outcomes, for example, they inevitably
will use different studies to arrive at a conclusion about what
works. Decisions about how much evidence is needed to
make a generalizeable conclusion will also influence results.
Indeed, there were program models examined for this
report for which there was evidence of effectiveness, but
the level of certainty was not great enough to justify a clear
and generalizeable conclusion regarding recidivism reduction or crime prevention effects. This typically was the case
when the evidence was not based on a systematic review or
an adequate number of rigorous studies or when criminal
behavior outcomes were not directly addressed. Of course,
there also may be effective programs that simply have not
yet been evaluated.
20
Crime prevention is widely misunderstood. The national debate
over crime often treats “prevention”
and “punishment” as mutually
exclusive concepts, polar opposites
on a continuum of “soft” versus
“tough” responses to crime....
The science of criminology, however,
contains no such dichotomy....
Crime prevention is a result.
Crime prevention is therefore defined
not by its intentions, but by its
consequences (Sherman, et al, 1997).
Summary
This report is intended to serve as resource for members of
the Colorado Criminal and Juvenile Justice Commission, and
other professionals as well. The aim is to provide Commission
members with practical and trustworthy information about
programs that work, serving as a basis for discussing, debating
and eventually crafting safe and cost-effective strategies for
addressing the Commission’s legislative mandate. Each of the
programs identified and described here has been rigorously
evaluated and found to be effective. Most have been shown
to produce a substantial return on investment. Many have
been certified as “evidence-based” by a federal agency or wellrespected research organization. Based on the latest and most
rigorous research available, the programs identified in this
report are viable, evidence-based options for reducing recidivism and preventing crime in Colorado.
Method
A single study will not typically provide a trustworthy indicator of the effectiveness of a particular treatment. See Wilson,
D.B., and Lipsey, M.W. (2001). The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: Evidence from meta-analysis.
Psychological Methods, 6, 413-429. Page 424.
1
Colorado Revised Statutes, 16-11.3-101.
2
Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing Crime: What
Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. A Report To The United States Congress. Prepared for the National Institute of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Pages 2.2-2.3.
3
Greenwood, P. (2006). Changing lives: delinquency prevention as crime-control policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL. Pages 42-44.
4
*
+
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
21
What Works
22
Section 4: Incarceration and its Impact
on Crime
This section focuses on incarceration and its impact on
crime. Recent research on desistance from crime – that is,
the transition from criminal to noncriminal conduct – is also
briefly discussed. Following a brief overview of Colorado’s
prison population growth, this section addresses the following questions:
• Does incarceration prevent crime?
• Does incarceration reduce the criminal propensities of
prisoners so that they are less likely to persist in criminal behavior once they transition on to parole?
• What factors are important in promoting desistance
from crime?
Colorado’s prison population growth
Colorado’s prison population has increased more than
400% over the past 20 years. During the fiscal year (FY)
ending June 30, 2007, Colorado’s average daily prison
population was 22,424. This compares with an average daily
prison population of 12,205 in FY 1997, and only 4,327 in
FY 1987 (Figure 4.1).1
),#'''
)'#'''
(,#'''
('#'''
,#'''
)''.
)''*
)'',
)''(
(000
(00.
(00,
(00*
(00(
(0/.
(0/0
'
(0/,
Across the nation, prison population growth has largely been
driven by changes in public policy. Since the late 1970s,
numerous laws have been enacted in Colorado that affect
criminal sentencing and correctional practices. While various motivations were behind these laws, including greater
consistency and certainty in sentencing as well as enhanced
public safety, there is little question that these statutory
changes resulted in more people going to prison for longer
periods of time. Within three years of the passage of H. B.
1320 in 1985, for example, the average length of a prison
stay in Colorado had increased by about two-thirds.2
By 1990, the prison population had more than doubled.
Whereas the Colorado prison
incarceration rate was 23% below
the national average in 1990, it was
5% higher than the national average
in 2006.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS), Colorado incarcerated more than
twice as many individuals for every 100,000 residents in
2006 than it did in 1990, 469 compared to 209 (Figure
4.2).3 Whereas the Colorado prison incarceration rate was
23% below the national average in 1990, it was 5% higher
than the national average in 2006.
Figure 4.1. Average Daily Inmate Population
EldY\if]@edXk\j
+
,
.
/
Source: Colorado Department of Corrections, Annual Statistical Reports
and General Statistics.
Of course, Colorado’s increasing use of incarceration is by
no means unique. According to BJS, state prison populations increased more than 90% between 1990 and 2006,
from fewer than 690,000 inmates to more than 1.3 million.
As a result, the 50-state incarceration rate increased 64%,
from 272 to 445 state prisoners for every 100,000 citizens.
Colorado’s incarceration rate, however, has been increasing
at a faster pace than that of most other states. Between 1990
23
What Works
Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice
reflects a growing concern on the part of Coloradans with
the escalating expenditure of public resources for incarceration at the expense of funding for other state services, such
as education and health care.
Figure 4.2. State Prison Incarceration Rate
IXk\g\i(''#'''I\j`[\ekj
,''
+''
*''
Impact of Incarceration on Crime
)''
:fcfiX[f
EXk`feXc
(''
)''-
)''+
)'')
)'''
(00/
(00-
(00+
(00)
(00'
'
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
and 2006, Colorado’s state prison incarceration rate jumped
from the 30th to the 18th highest in the nation.
In 2006, there were 469 state prisoners in Colorado for
every 100,000 residents. That compares with a rate of 437
state prisoners for every 100,000 residents in other western
states, and a rate of 445 per 100,000 residents for all 50
states combined.4
Between 1990 and 2006, Colorado’s
state prison incarceration rate
jumped from the 30th to the 18th
highest in the nation. In 2006,
there were 469 state prisoners
in Colorado for every 100,000
residents. That compares with a
rate of 437 state prisoners for
every 100,000 residents in other
western states, and a rate of 445
per 100,000 residents for all 50
states combined.
In these times of fiscal constraint, escalating prison populations and their associated costs have become a concern
across the nation. According to the Vera Institute of Justice,
more than 25 states took steps to lessen sentences and otherwise modify sentencing and corrections policy as a way to
curb correctional costs in 2003 alone.5 Sentencing reform,
alternatives to incarceration, and an emphasis on successful reentry and prevention programs are included in the
range of reforms being enacted. Indeed, the creation of the
24
Given the increased use of incarceration as a crime control strategy, this review begins with a summary of recent
research on the impact of incarceration on crime. Numerous
studies on the topic have been undertaken in recent years,
though none are specific to Colorado. These studies examined the impact of imprisonment on individual levels of
offending or the relationship between incarceration rates
and crime rates.
Given the increased use of
incarceration as a crime control
strategy, this review begins with a
summary of recent research on the
impact of incarceration on crime.
Crimes are averted by incarceration
Incarceration can affect crime in a number of ways. First,
crimes may be averted because offenders in prison or jail are
incapacitated. As long as offenders are locked up, they cannot commit crimes in the community.6 Second, the threat
of incarceration may deter potential individuals from committing criminal acts. Finally, the prison experience itself
may deter those who have been incarcerated from resuming
criminal conduct once they return to the community.
Incapacitating offenders undeniably prevents some number
of crimes from occurring. But quantifying that number is
difficult, primarily because of the methodological problems
inherent in such research.7 The primary data sources used
to estimate the number of crimes an offender commits in
the community – criminal history records and self-reports
of prisoners – provide imprecise estimates. Studies have also
demonstrated that a small percentage of the offending population commit crimes at a very high rate.8 As a result, it is
extremely difficult to estimate either the average number of
crimes a single offender commits, or the average number of
crimes prevented when an offender is incarcerated.9
Incarceration and its Impact on Crime
Targeting high rate offenders is key to
effectiveness
One of the most comprehensive studies of the frequency
of offending was conducted by Blumstein et al. (1986)
and published in the National Academy of Sciences report
Criminal Careers and Career Criminals. Averages of 2 to 4
violent crimes per year for active violent offenders and 5
to 10 property crimes per year for active property offenders were reported. Estimates derived from self-reports of
inmates were higher.10 Before being incarcerated, those who
were active in robbery committed an average of 15 to 20
robberies annually and those who were active in burglary
committed 45 to 50 burglaries. Blumstein et al. also found
that the median offender commits very few crimes annually, while a small percentage of offenders commit more
than 100. This research was replicated in Colorado by the
Division of Criminal Justice (Mande and English, 1988, and
English and Mande, 1992). Interviews with nearly 2,000
prisoners in the Department of Corrections found the average self-reported crime rate to be less than ten crimes per
year across eight major crime types.
Interviews with nearly 2,000
prisoners in the Colorado
Department of Corrections found
the average self-reported crime rate
to be less than ten crimes per year
across eight crime types.
Early criminal career research like that published by the
National Academy of Sciences confirmed that a small
number of high-rate offenders are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. It also provided support
for selective incapacitation strategies designed to reduce
crime by incarcerating high-rate offenders for long periods of time.11 The enactment of “three strikes” laws across
the country are a prime example of selective incapacitation in action. Research has shown, however, that selective
incapacitation strategies have had less impact on crime
than originally anticipated, primarily because identifying
high-rate offenders and targeting them for incarceration is
difficult in practice.12 As Nagin (1998) points out, perhaps
the only legally permissible factor that can be used to identify and target high-rate offenders – prior record – is highly
imperfect because only a small percentage of crimes result in
arrest and conviction.13 A lengthy criminal record can also
take time to accumulate, meaning that some offenders will
already be “aging out” of crime by the time they are targeted
for a lengthy prison sentence. The replacement effect (new
offenders quickly replace those incarcerated) that is associated with crimes such as drug dealing also diminishes the
impact of selective incapacitation.
Property crimes most likely to be averted
One of the more frequently cited studies on the number of
crimes averted when an offender is incarcerated was published by economist Steven Levitt.14 Using data from 12
states for the years 1971 to 1993, Levitt estimated that each
additional prisoner leads to a reduction of between 5 and 6
reported crimes per year. Including unreported crime raises
the total to 15 crimes eliminated per prisoner per year. The
bulk of the crime reduction – about 80% – is in property
crimes. A 1994 study by Marvell and Moody produced
generally similar estimates.15 They examined incarceration
rate data from 49 states for the years 1971 to 1989 and estimated that about 17 crimes were averted annually for each
additional prisoner behind bars.16
Bhati (2007) used arrest data from 13 states to estimate the
number of crimes averted by the continued incarceration of
released prisoners.17 The mean number of all crimes averted
annually was estimated to be 18.5 (with a median of 13.9).
The estimates showed no substantial differences in annual
crimes averted across gender, race or ethnicity, or crime type.
While Bhati’s findings are generally consistent with Levitt’s,
the study affirms that averages can be misleading: 5% of the
releasees were responsible for 30% of all property crimes,
and a small proportion was not anticipated to commit any
crimes at all.
Researchers have noted that
the number of crimes averted
is linked to the type of crime.
A careful analysis by Cohen and
Canela-Cacho (1994) found that
incarcerating violent offenders
was associated with crime reduction,
but imprisoning drug offenders had
no effect on crime. Incarcerated drug
offenders seem to be “replaced” in
the community, confounding the
ability to estimate the effect of
incarceration on overall crime.
+
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
25
What Works
Researchers have noted that the number of crimes averted
is linked to the type of crime. A careful analysis by Cohen
and Canela-Cacho (1994) found that incarcerating violent
offenders was associated with crime reduction, but imprisoning drug offenders had no effect on crime. Incarcerated
drug offenders seem to be “replaced” in the community,
confounding the ability to estimate the effect of incarceration on overall crime.
as much as one-third of the crime drop. Two recent studies
looking at incarceration and violent crime are also worth
noting. Spelman (2000) analyzed violent crime and prison
data over a 25-year period ending in 1996 and concluded
that about one-fourth of the crime drop could be attributed
to the prison buildup. And Rosenfeld (2000) concluded
that, at most, incarceration explains 15% to 20% of the
decline in adult homicide since 1980.
Does incarceration work to reduce
the crime rate?
Incarceration and Crime: Summary
A considerable amount of research has examined the relationship between incarceration rates and crime rates in
recent years. Overall, these studies have produced somewhat
disparate results depending on the type of measures used.
A 2007 report published by Vera Institute for Justice provides a good illustration.18 Fifteen different studies that
examined the impact of incarceration on crime rates were
identified in the Vera report, each with different results.
The estimated impact of a 10% increase in the incarceration
rate ranged from a 22% reduction in serious crime to virtually no impact at all. One study reported a 28% reduction
in violent index crime for every 10% increase in the incarceration rate.19
One reason for the variation in findings is the type of data
used. Whereas some of the earliest studies used national data,
more recent research has been based on state and communitylevel data. Researchers generally agree that localized data
provide more accurate and reliable results.20 Studies using
national-level data have reported crime rate reductions ranging from 9% to 22% for a 10% increase in incarceration
rates.21 More recent studies using state-level crime data, on
the other hand, have generally found a more modest impact.22
For every 10% increase in the incarceration rate, reductions
in the crime rate ranging from less than 1% to about 4% have
typically been reported.23 Several highly rigorous studies using
state or county-level data are remarkably consistent in finding
that a 10% higher incarceration rate was associated with a 2%
to 4% reduction in the crime rate.24
Research has also tried to determine how much of the crime
drop that has occurred in recent years can be attributed
to the increased use of imprisonment. Unfortunately, as
Zimring (2007) points out, the methods available to answer
the question leave considerable room for error and studies
that have focused on the issue have produced a wide range
of estimates.25 Zimring suggests that low-end estimates
attribute about 10% of the post-1990s crime drop to incarceration.26 At the high-end, Levitt (2004) estimated that the
increase in incarceration over the 1990s might account for
26
As the 2007 Vera Institute report points out, one could use
the available research to argue that an increase in incarceration is associated with a substantial drop in crime or no drop
in crime at all.27 Despite the disparate findings, at least three
conclusions can be drawn from the research:
1. The relationship between incarceration and crime
rates is quite complex. The fact that crime rates have
declined in recent years while incarceration rates have
increased is not conclusive evidence that the increased
use of imprisonment caused the drop in crime or that
incarceration is cost-effective relative to other crime
control strategies. In fact, the relationship between
higher rates of imprisonment and crime rates is quite
uneven across time and jurisdictions. Zimring (2007),
for example, recently showed that crime rates actually
increased in the late 1980s when a 54% increase in
incarceration occurred. And Levitt (2004) estimated
that a dollar spent on prisons yields a crime reduction
benefit that is 20% less than a dollar spent on police.
2. The conclusions reached by several recent, highly rigorous studies are remarkably consistent in finding that
a 10% higher incarceration rate was associated with a
2% to 4% reduction in the crime rate.
3. The drop in crime that most jurisdictions experienced
in the 1990s is primarily due to factors other than
incarceration. Studies that have focused on explaining the drop in crime have consistently concluded
that incarceration has played a role in the crime drop
but that social, policing and other factors together are
responsible for at least two-thirds and arguably much
more of the overall crime decline.
The drop in crime that most
jurisdictions experienced in the
1990s is primarily due to factors
other than incarceration.
Incarceration and its Impact on Crime
Whether or not the impact of incarceration justifies the cost
is largely a question for policy makers to answer. Research,
however, can shed light on the economic issues that come
into play. For example, increasing the incarceration rate by
10% to achieve a 4% reduction in the crime rate is far more
expensive today than it was years ago. In 1990, increasing
Colorado’s prison population by 10% meant adding about
750 prisoners. Today it means adding about 2,250.
Research also demonstrates that the impact of incarceration
on crime largely depends on who goes to prison and for
what length of time.28 Incarceration has a far greater impact
and return on investment when it is used for violent and
high-rate offenders. Prisons are expensive, but violent and
career criminals impose tremendous financial and social
costs on society. The empirical evidence is increasingly clear,
however, that the increased use of incarceration for low-rate,
non-violent offenders prevents and deters few crimes.29
The impact of incarceration on
crime largely depends on who goes
to prison and for what length of
time. Incarceration has a far greater
impact and return on investment
when it is used for violent and highrate offenders.
The empirical evidence is
increasingly clear, however, that
the increased use of incarceration
for low-rate, non-violent offenders
prevents and deters few crimes.
Diminishing Returns
From a policy making perspective, it is important to recognize that the increased use of imprisonment eventually
results in diminishing returns. The reason for this is simple:
locking up more and more people eventually leads to
the incarceration of less serious offenders. When that happens, costs increase without a commensurate increase in
public safety.
Incarceration may increase crime
Several recent studies have confirmed that incarceration
becomes less effective at reducing crime as the prison popu-
lation grows.30 But Liedka, Piehl and Useem (2006) also
found that there is a point beyond which increases in the
incarceration rate are actually associated with higher crime
rates.31 Using state-level prison and crime data from 1972
through 2000, they found that higher crime rates begin to
occur when a state’s incarceration rate reaches between 3.25
and 4.92 inmates per 1,000 persons in the general population. Colorado’s incarceration rate in 2006 reached 4.69 per
1,000 persons.32
Community Impacts
Research on the impact of incarceration at the community
level is relatively new, but it is beginning to shed light on
the unintended consequences of imprisonment. High rates
of incarceration tend to be concentrated in certain communities, particularly those that are poor or disadvantaged.
Over time, these communities can be weakened rather than
strengthened by high rates of incarceration. When a relatively high percentage of parent-aged males are absent due
to incarceration, family structures are weakened and social
resources are strained. As a result, crime increases.33
Numerous studies using neighborhood level data have
demonstrated that increases in incarceration rates have compromised informal social control and produced higher rates
of crime at the neighborhood level.34 While more research
is needed to confirm and better understand these dynamics,
there is no question that poor communities are disproportionately affected by high rates of incarceration. And the
evidence is becoming increasingly clear that over time, high
rates of incarceration can destabilize a neighborhood to the
extent that crime actually increases, thereby offsetting and
even outstripping any crime reduction effects provided by
increased incarceration.
Numerous studies using neighborhood level data have demonstrated
that increases in incarceration rates
have compromised informal social
control and produced higher rates of
crime at the neighborhood level.
+
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Impact on Children
Finally, research also is demonstrating that incarceration has
unintended consequences for children. On any given day in
the United States, there are over 1.5 million minor children
27
What Works
with an incarcerated parent. About two-thirds of all female
prisoners and one-half of all male prisoners are parents with
an average of approximately 2 children each. Fifty-eight
percent of the children who have a mother in prison are
under the age of 10. Another 5% of women entering prison
are pregnant.35
Bosley et al. (2002) estimated that
at least 2,500 children in Colorado
have a mother in prison and 13,000
children in Colorado have a father
in prison.
Bosley et al. (2002) estimated that at least 2,500 children in
Colorado have a mother in prison and 13,000 children in
Colorado have a father in prison.36 In total, a minimum of
15,500 children currently have a parent in prison. Certainly,
a much larger number have experienced the incarceration of
a parent at some point in their lives.
Research has documented that children suffer a host of negative consequences upon parental incarceration. Children
of incarcerated parents are at an increased risk of abuse and
neglect, and they are far more likely to engage in criminal
behavior, and be imprisoned themselves later in life than
their peers.37 Gabel and Shinkledecker (1993) found that
children of incarcerated parents are seven times more likely
to become involved in the juvenile and adult criminal
justice system.
Gabel and Shinkledecker (1993)
found that children of incarcerated
parents are seven times more likely
to become involved in the juvenile
and adult criminal justice system.
However, having parents involved in crime is a significant
risk factor for children. Therefore, this issue presents a
dilemma that is difficult to resolve with the current state of
knowledge. There is a pressing need for research to understand how best to meet the needs of these children.
28
These collateral consequences of incarceration – the negative impact on families, children and neighborhoods, and
perhaps the crime rate itself – have underscored that the
relationship between incarceration and crime is quite
complex. While incarceration certainly prevents a certain
number of crimes from occurring in the community, incarceration also has negative community impacts that are
difficult to quantify and are often overlooked. All of these
impacts, positive and negative, along with their financial and
social costs are important considerations in any assessment
of crime control policy.
Prison and Recidivism
Another aspect of incarceration that research has examined
is the relationship between imprisonment and post-release
offending. Several studies have specifically looked at the
impact of prison sentences on recidivism.
Two meta-analyses conducted by Gendreau and his colleagues have actually found that imprisonment is associated
with negative reoffending outcomes. In 1999, Gendreau and
colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 50 studies involving more than 300,000 prisoners and found no evidence
that prison sentences reduced recidivism. In fact, the more
rigorous studies in that analysis found a strong connection
between longer prison stays and increased recidivism.38 In a
separate meta-analysis conducted a few years later, Gendreau
et al. (2002) found that incarceration was associated with
an increase in recidivism when compared with communitybased sanctions, and that longer time periods in prison
(compared with shorter sentences) were associated with
higher recidivism rates. A systematic review of the research
published by Lipsey and Cullen (2007) reached similar
conclusions. In summarizing the evidence on deterrence-oriented corrections programs and the effects of longer prison
terms, Lipsey and Cullen stated the following:
In sum, research does not show that the aversive
experience of receiving correctional sanctions
greatly inhibits subsequent criminal behavior.
Moreover, a significant portion of the evidence
points in the opposite direction – some such
actions may increase the likelihood of recidivism.
The theory of specific deterrence inherent in the
politically popular and intuitively appealing view
that harsher treatment of offenders will dissuade
them from further criminal behavior is thus not
consistent with the preponderance of available
evidence.39
Incarceration and its Impact on Crime
“In sum, research does not show
that the aversive experience of
receiving correctional sanctions
greatly inhibits subsequent criminal
behavior. Moreover, a significant
portion of the evidence points in
the opposite direction – some such
actions may increase the likelihood
of recidivism. The theory of specific
deterrence inherent in the politically
popular and intuitively appealing
view that harsher treatment of
offenders will dissuade them from
further criminal behavior is thus not
consistent with the preponderance
of available evidence.”
Mark Lipsey and Francis Cullen
(2007)
Research on Desistance from Crime
Research has also examined the process of desistance from
crime. Desistance generally refers to the transition from
criminal to noncriminal conduct. Although most researchers agree that desistance should be viewed as a process rather
than an event, there is less agreement about how desistance
should be measured.40 Some argue that the permanent
absence of offending is the best measure of desistance, but
abstinence can be difficult to capture.41
Others argue that reduced levels of offending – as measured
by reduced frequency or seriousness of offenses – is a better
metric because it is part of the desistance process for many
offenders and more apt to be measured accurately. While
both abstinence and reduced offending have been used as
The scientific evidence is
remarkably consistent that people
who desist from crime are those
who are better integrated into prosocial roles in the family, workplace
and community.
measures in desistance research, there is a growing consensus
that desistance should be thought of as the sustained absence
of offending along with positive social reintegration.42 While
different measures of desistance can lead to different research
findings, the scientific evidence is remarkably consistent
that people who desist from crime are those who are better
integrated into pro-social roles in the family, workplace and
community.43
Promoting Desistance from Crime
Employment, marriage, and aging are linked
to desistance
Desistance from crime was a major focus of a recent study
conducted by a committee of researchers for National
Research Council (Petersilia et al. 2008). In the report
entitled Parole, Desistance from Crime, and Community
Integration, Petersilia and her colleagues on the committee
identified family and work as being particularly important
in the desistance process. Marriage, especially strong marital
attachment, is a significant factor in desistance for men and
to a lesser extent for women. Strong ties to work and stable
employment also can lead to desistance. Other factors such
as education and reduced consumption of drugs promote
desistance, too. Perhaps the most obvious and simplest pathway to desistance from crime is aging: offending declines
with age for all offenses.
Desistance from crime was a major
focus of a recent study conducted
by a committee of researchers
for National Research Council
(Petersilia et al. 2008). In the
report entitled Parole, Desistance
from Crime, and Community
Integration, Petersilia and her
colleagues on the committee
identified family and work as
being particularly important in the
desistance process. Other factors
such as education and reduced
consumption of drugs promote
desistance, too.
+
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
29
What Works
Individualize the intervention
Several other important findings emerged from the work of
the National Research Council (NRC):
1. Desistance from crime varies widely among parolees.
In the words of the report’s authors, when it comes to
desistance or recidivism, there is no such thing as the
‘average’ parolee. Parolees need to be viewed as a heterogenous population.
2. The time period immediately following release from
prison is the riskiest for the offender and the public.
In fact, the peak rates for reoffending occur in the
very first days and weeks out of prison. Arrest rates
then decline over time, especially for property and
drug crimes.
3. Death rates for new releasees are disproportionately
high, with drug overdose, homicide and suicide
accounting for three of the four leading causes
of death.
The time period immediately
following release from prison is
the riskiest for the offender and
the public.
Taken together, the NRC committee’s findings have important implications for corrections and public safety policy.
Given the importance of stable employment and marriage, public policies that block employment and other
Taken together, the NRC committee’s
findings have important implications
for corrections and public safety
policy. Given the importance of
stable employment and marriage,
public policies that block employment and other opportunities for
ex-offenders to resume a regular
life in the community are likely to
serve as a barrier to desistance,
eventually leading to higher rates
of reentry failure.
opportunities for ex-offenders to resume a regular life in
the community are likely to serve as a barrier to desistance, eventually leading to higher rates of reentry failure.
Conversely, programs and policies that reduce criminogenic
risk factors (see below for a description of criminogenic
needs) and promote successful reentry are likely to lead to
higher rates of desistance and greater public safety. The evidence that reoffending declines over time and is most likely
to occur soon after release suggests that supervision and
transition service strategies are likely to be most cost-effective when they focus on immediate needs in the first weeks
and months after release.
Overall, the NRC report, as well as other research, underscores the need for evidence-based recidivism reduction
programs both in prisons and the community. On their
Criminogenic Needs
There are two basic types of criminal risk factors: (1) static, which cannot be
changed (e.g., criminal history, age), and (2) dynamic, which are malleable.
Dynamic risk factors are also known as criminogenic needs because they
are amenable to change and are appropriate targets for intervention and case
management. These risk/needs factors include criminal attitudes, thinking
and values; unstable living arrangements; lack of employment; antisocial peer
associations; problems with substance abuse; and lack of self-control. There are
also non-criminogenic needs, that is, factors that research has not linked with
criminal conduct. These include anxiety and low self-esteem.
Source: Crime and Justice in Colorado: 2006.
30
Incarceration and its Impact on Crime
The evidence that reoffending
declines over time and is most likely
to occur soon after release suggests
that supervision and transition
service strategies are likely to be
most cost-effective when they focus
on immediate needs the first weeks
and months after release.
own, incarceration and community supervision have little
positive impact on recidivism rates and desistance from
crime, and many if not most offenders are likely to fail and
return to prison without treatment and transitional services.44
In a review of the research on the impact of imprisonment on the desistance process, Maruna and Toch (2005)
concluded that the experience of imprisonment alone “is
largely irrelevant to the subsequent offending patterns of
individuals.”45 They did suggest, however, that the prison
experience may deter some individuals from subsequent
offending, specifically those who have prosocial bonds to
family and the community.
Indeed, recent studies conducted by the Washington State
Institute for Public Policy indicate that treatment-oriented
supervision programs, for example, reduced recidivism and
provided taxpayers with a sound return on investment.
Conversely, surveillance-oriented programs failed to reduce
recidivism and their costs exceeded their benefits.46
Colorado Department of Corrections. (Multiple years). Annual Statistical Reports and General Statistics: Historical Inmate
Jurisdictional Population, Average Daily Population by Fiscal Year. Colorado Springs, CO. Available at http://doc.state.
co.us.
1
Colorado Legislative Council Staff. (2001). An Overview of the Colorado Adult Criminal Justice System. Report to the
Colorado General Assembly, Research Publication #487. Colorado State Capitol, Denver, CO.
2
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, Table 6.29.2004, available at http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/ ; Sabol et
al. (December 2007). Prisoners in 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: http://www.
ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf.
3
Sabol et al. (December 2007). Prisoners in 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Available at:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf.
4
Wool, J. and Stemen, D. (2004). Changing Fortunes or Changing Attitudes? Sentencing Reforms in 2003. Vera Institute of
Justice, New York, NY.
5
+
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What Works? Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY.
6
Relying on official criminal history records significantly underestimates the number of crimes committed. Self-report data
also has deficiencies in terms of its accuracy.
7
See for example, Visher, C. (1986). The RAND Inmate Survey: A Reanalysis. In Criminal Careers and Career Criminals,
Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, Jeffrey Roth and Christy Visher (eds). National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
8
Nagin, D. S. (1998). Deterrence and Incapacitation. In The Handbook of Crime and Punishment, Michael Tonry (ed).
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
9
This is to be expected because exposure to arrest and incarceration is greater for high-rate offenders.
10
MacKenzie (2006).
11
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J., and Visher, C. (1986). Criminal Careers and Career Criminals. National Academies
Press, Washington, DC.
12
31
What Works
Nagin (1998: 364-365)
13
Levitt, S.D. (1996). The effect of prison population size on crime rates: Evidence from prison overcrowding litigation.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 319-351.
14
Marvell, T.B. and Moody, C.E. (1994). Prison population growth and crime reduction. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
10, 109-140.
15
Again, mostly property offenses.
16
Bhati, A.S. (2007). An Information Theoretic Method for Estimating the Number of Crimes Averted by Incarceration. Urban
Institute, Washington, DC.
17
Stemen, D. (2007). Reconsidering incarceration: New directions for reducing crime. Vera Institute of Justice, New York, NY.
18
See the Devine, Sheley, and Smith (1988) study reported in Table 1 on page 4 of the Vera Institute report (2007). Also,
Visher (1987) conducted a review of the research on general incapacitation and concluded that doubling the prison population during the 1970s and early 1980s reduced crime by 10 to 30%.
19
For example, see: MacKenzie, D.L. (2006). What Works? Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents.
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
20
Stemen (2007). Page 3.
21
See MacKenzie (2006) or Stemen (2007). Findings from these studies are generally viewed to be more accurate because
they are based on a lower level of data aggregation.
22
See for example Stemen (2007).
23
See for example Levitt (1996), Spelman (2000), Aos et al. (2003), MacKenzie (2006) and Stemen (2007). For a contrary
finding, see Kovandzic and Sloan (2002) and Kovandzic and Vieraitis (2006) – these found no relationship between incarceration rates and crime.
24
Zimring, F.E. (2007). The Great American Crime Decline. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Pages 55 and 198.
25
Ibid. Page 55.
26
Stemen (2007). Page 3.
27
Austin, J. and Fabelo, T. (2004). The Diminishing Returns of Incarceration, A Blueprint to Improve Public Safety and Reduce
Costs, JFA Institute, Malibu, CA.
28
See Piehl, A.M., Useem, B. and J. Dilulio, Jr. (1999). Right-Sizing Justice: A Cost Benefit Analysis of Imprisonment in
Three States. Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, No. 8, New York, NY; and Aos, S. (2003). The criminal justice system in Washington State: Incarceration rates, taxpayer costs, crime rates, and prison economics. Washington State
Institute on Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.
29
See Spelman (2000), Liedka, Piehl and Useem (2006), and Cohen and Canela-Cacho (1994).
30
Liedka, R., A. Piehl and B. Useem. 2006. The crime-control effect of incarceration: Does scale matter? Criminology and
Public Policy, 5, 245-276; Kovandzic, T.V. and Vieraitis, L. (2006). The effect of county-level prison population growth on
crime rates. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 213-244.
31
Sabol, et al. (December 2007). Prisoners in 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Appendix Table 6.
Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf.
32
Clear, T., Waring, E. and Scully, K. (2005). Communities and reentry: concentrated reentry cycling. In Prisoner Reentry and
Public Safety in America, Travis, J. and C. Visher (eds.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
33
See Lynch and Sabol (2001), Fagan et. al. (2003) and Piquero et. al. (2005).
34
32
Incarceration and its Impact on Crime
Greenfeld, L. and Snell, T. (1999). Women Offenders: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wo.pdf.
35
Bosley, B., Donner, C., McLean, C., and Toomey-Hale, E. (2002). Parenting From Prison - A Resource Guide for Parents
Incarcerated in Colorado. Parenting from Prison Guide Committee, Denver, CO.
36
Little Hoover Commission (December 2004). Breaking the Barriers for Women on Parole, Report #177, Sacramento, CA.
See also Gabel, S. and Shindledecker, R. (July 1993). Characteristics of children whose parents have been incarcerated.
Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 44, 656-660.
37
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. and Cullen, F. (1999). The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism. A Report to the
Corrections Research and Development and Aboriginal Policy Branch, Solicitor General of Canada. Ottawa, Canada.
Also, Smith, P., Goggin, C., Gendreau, P. (2002). The Effects of Prisons Sanctions on Recidivism: General Effects and
Individual Differences. Public Works and Government Services Canada. Available at www.sgc.dc.ca.
38
Lipsey, M.W. and Cullen, F.T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual
Review of Law and Social Science, 3, Page 8.
39
National Research Council. (2008). Parole, Desistance from Crime, and Community Integration. Committee on Community
Supervision and Desistance from Crime. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
40
The National Research Council (2008:20) report points out “that care must be taken not to erroneously attribute the
absence of further crime events near the end of an observation period or at the end of a specific age to (career) desistance
rather than to the random time between events. Improved measures of the permanent absence of offending, which remains
the clearest definition of desistance from crime, are needed.”
41
National Research Council (2008: 1-21).
42
See National Research Council (2008), Uggen et al. (2005), Petersilia (2003), and Sampson and Laub (1993).
43
See Solomon et al. (2005) and Maruna and Toch (2005).
44
+
,
.
/
Y
Maruna, S. and Toch, H. (2005). The impact of imprisonment on the desistance process.” In Prisoner Reentry and Crime in
America, Travis, J. and Visher, C. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Page 140.
45
See Aos, S., M. Miller, and E. Drake. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction,
Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA.
46
\j
Z
33
What Works
34
Section 5: Effective Recidivism
Reduction Programs
At risk for recidivism
In Colorado, over 95,000 individuals were on probation,
in community corrections or juvenile placements, or under
the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Corrections
on December 31, 2007.1 Thousands more were incarcerated
in county jails. Most of these offenders under correctional
supervision – more than 65,000 – were living in communities across the state. Of those behind prison bars, more
than 9 out of 10 will eventually return to the community.
Finding ways to reduce the recidivism rate for these offenders is a critical public safety challenge.
,
.
/
Y
from prison today - as many as 49 out of every 100 - will
be back behind bars within three years. Among adult
probationers, about 20% fail due to technical violations
and many of these eventually are resentenced to prison.2
Of the adults who successfully complete probation, 8%
commit a new crime within one year. Breaking this cycle
of repeat offending is an essential first step in curbing correctional costs.
Impact of Rehabilitation Services
on Recidivism
Defining recidivism
The end of rehabilitation
Recidivism rates typically refer to the proportion of offenders who commit a subsequent crime following contact with
the justice system. Sometimes the rate includes those who
have been placed in prison because they violated the conditions of supervision. High rates of recidivism are a principal
reason why Colorado’s prison population and correctional
costs are rising. A sizeable percentage of inmates released
In 1975, Doug Lipton, Robert Martinson and Judith Wilks
published their famous study on the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for criminal offenders.3 In a preview
of the findings released the year before, Martinson stated
that “With few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative
efforts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism.”4 Widely interpreted as “nothing
works” in offender rehabilitation, the Martinson report is
often cited as the beginning of a shift away from more than
six decades of emphasis on correctional rehabilitation and
toward punishment and deterrence in correctional policy.
In 1979, Martinson recanted his earlier position in an
article published in the Hofstra Law Review, but “nothing
works” had permanently entered the lexicon of criminal
justice policy.5
Recidivism rates typically refer
to the proportion of offenders
who commit a subsequent crime
following contact with the justice
system. Sometimes the rate
includes those who have been placed
in prison because they violated the
conditions of supervision. High rates
of recidivism are a principal reason
why Colorado’s prison population
and correctional costs are rising.
Irrefutable evidence
More than 30 years of research since the Martinson report
has produced a body of evidence that clearly contradicts the
“nothing works” thesis. In 1987, for example, Gendreau
and Ross reviewed more than 200 studies on offender rehabilitation and concluded that effective recidivism reduction
programs were conducted in a variety of settings, with both
juvenile and adult offenders.6 More recently, MacKenzie
35
What Works
Rehabilitation programs can and
do work. Summarizing this body
of literature is the purpose of this
section of the compendium.
(2006) examined various correctional strategies using metaanalysis, simulations and other methods and concluded:
“There is sufficient evidence to reject the nothing works
mantra.”7 Finally, Lipsey and Cullen’s (2007) review of
the research on correctional interventions determined that
every meta-analysis comparing offenders who received rehabilitation treatment with those who did not found lower
recidivism for those who received treatment.8 Most of the
analyses found average recidivism reduction effects in the
20% range. Lipsey and Cullen (2007) concluded that “the
preponderance of research evidence, therefore, supports the
general conclusion that rehabilitation treatment is capable
of reducing the reoffense rates of convicted offenders and
that it has greater capability for doing so than correctional
sanctions.”9
In short, the scientific evidence is unmistakably clear.
A variety of programs, properly targeted and well-implemented, can reduce recidivism and enhance public safety.
The remainder of this section identifies and describes
what works toward reaching these goals.
Given the knowledge that has
been built over the past 30 years,
recidivism rates can be cut,
provided the services delivered
are needed by the offender and
the program is well implemented.
Research has demonstrated that
several interventions are effective
at reducing recidivism, even among
serious, high-risk offenders.
Principles of Effective Intervention
One of the key findings of the past 30 years of research is
that effective interventions share a common set of features.
These common characteristics form what leading criminolo36
gists Don Andrews, Paul Gendreau and their colleagues call
the “principles of effective intervention.”10 These principles
are summarized below.
1) Effective intervention is intensive and targets
behavioral change. Intensive treatment occupies
40% to 70% of the offender’s time and is 3 to 9
months in duration. Behavioral programs focus on
changing the cognitions and values that maintain
anti-social behavior, and they emphasize positive reinforcement rather than the threat of punishment to
strengthen pro-social behavior.
2) To effectively reduce recidivism, behavioral programs must target multiple criminogenic needs
of higher risk offenders. This is what is known as
the need principle. Criminogenic needs are dynamic
risk factors that are related to subsequent offending,
such as substance abuse, lack of education, and antisocial attitudes and beliefs. Dynamic risk factors can
be changed through programming, whereas static risk
factors, such as criminal history and age at first arrest,
cannot.
An important correlate of the need principle is the
critical role of risk assessment. It is possible to predict
the risk of recidivism of groups of offenders by using
well-researched assessment tools that are capable of
identifying a wide range of criminogenic needs. The
use of a comprehensive, reliable and valid instrument
such as the LSI (Level of Service Inventory) offers
significant improvements and advantages over guessing about future risk. The LSI predicts recidivism but,
perhaps more importantly, it also provides information pertaining to offender needs. Most offenders in
Colorado are assessed using the LSI tool.
The use of a comprehensive, reliable
and valid instrument such as the
LSI (Level of Service Inventory),
offers significant improvements
and advantages over guessing
about future risk. The LSI predicts
recidivism, but perhaps more
importantly, it also provides
information pertaining to offender
needs. Most offenders in Colorado
are assessed using the LSI tool.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
3) Another important principle is that higher risk offenders are more likely to benefit from interventions than
lower risk offenders. This is what’s known as the risk
principle. In practice, more intensive levels of treatment should be reserved for higher-risk offenders.
In fact, using high levels of treatment with low-risk
offenders is not only inefficient, it can actually do
more harm than good.
In Ohio, for example, Lowenkamp and Latessa (2004)
found that community-based residential programs
were successful in reducing recidivism for high-risk
offenders, but that recidivism actually increased with
low-risk offenders. These increases in recidivism rates
were substantial, and they led the authors to question the policy of admitting low-risk offenders into
residential programs in Ohio as well as across the
country.11 And in New York, Wilson (2007) found
that participants in a short-term, prison-based reentry
program, Project Greenlight, fared significantly worse
than offenders who did not participate in the program, both in terms of rearrest and parole revocations.
In a report published by the National Institute of
Justice, Wilson discussed the reasons why Greenlight
did more harm than good.
“Although the developers of Project Greenlight
drew elements from the literature on correctional interventions, there were some key
failures – most notably, ignoring the treatment
principles that form the foundation of effective programming. There is general agreement
that interventions should be directed toward
high-risk participants and that assessing risk
There must be a match between
the treatment approach, staff
characteristics and the learning
style and personality of the offender.
Programs must take into account
and be responsive to the motivation,
cognitive ability, age, gender,
ethnicity and other characteristics
of the offender.
and needs should be a part of any intervention protocol. Project Greenlight staff found,
however, that the assessment tool was too cumbersome and time-consuming to administer and
therefore dropped it. Another basic treatment
principle is that interventions should target participants’ specific needs. Project Greenlight was
a broad-based intervention in which everyone
in the group was exposed to the same program
elements. Postrelease interviews indicated that
some participants felt significant frustration
and anger about being forced to attend drug
education sessions when they had no history of
substance use. It should also be noted that an
emerging body of evidence suggests that the
delivery of intensive services to low-risk individuals may be counterproductive.”12
4) Finally, a basic principal for successful treatment
delivery is that responsivity should occur between
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
The Level of Service Inventory (LSI) is one of the most common classification tools
used with adult offenders. The LSI is used in a variety of correctional contexts
across the United States to guide decision-making. In Colorado, the LSI is used in
probation, community corrections, prison, and parole to develop supervision and
case management plans and to determine placement in correctional programs.
In some states, the LSI is used to make institutional assignments and release
from institutional custody decisions. It may be the most used instrument: In a
1999 study, researchers found that 14% of the agencies surveyed in a national
study were using the LSI with another 6% planning on implementing it in the near
future. The instrument is perhaps the most researched correctional risk/needs
assessment and, from the first validation study in 1982, it has continued to show
consistent predictive validity for a range of correctional outcomes.
Source: Andrews, Dowden and Gendreau (1999).
37
What Works
program staff, offenders and program settings.13 This
is the responsivity principle. In essence, there must
be a match between the treatment approach, staff
characteristics, and the learning style and personality of the offender. Programs must take into account
and be responsive to the motivation, cognitive ability,
age, gender, ethnicity and other characteristics of the
offender.
Research has demonstrated that programs incorporating
these principles are far more effective at reducing recidivism than those that do not. A meta-analysis conducted
by Andrews and Bonta (2006), for example, found that
programs that embodied the principles of effective intervention achieved a recidivism reduction of around 50%, while
programs that departed from them had little or no impact
on recidivism.14
What Works Program Areas
Education and Vocational Programs
Education matters
A defecit in education is associated with many social problems, including crime. Rates of delinquency are higher
among adolescents who drop out than among those who
stay in school, and the association between dropping out
and later criminal behavior has been shown to persist into
early adulthood.15 Indeed, more than 2 out of 3 state prison
inmates in America have not graduated from high school.
Research has shown that repeat offenders are far more likely
than first offenders to have left school without completing
even an elementary education. This suggests that offenders
that have the lowest level of educational skills, and are therefore less employable, are also the most likely to return to
prison time and time again.16 In addition, dropouts are more
likely than high school graduates to be unemployed, living
in poverty, and on public assistance.17
Dropouts are more than eight times
as likely to be in jail or prison as
high school graduates.
Education, work and crime are linked
Research has consistently shown that crime and unemployment are linked, and that one of the most important
conditions that leads to less offending is a strong tie to
meaningful employment.18 MacKenzie (2006) recently
reported that offenders are more likely to be unemployed
than the general population, and that young adult males
have higher rates of offending during periods of unemployment.19 Extensive research has demonstrated that strong
ties to work can lead to desistance of offending. In fact, the
38
Certain groups-particularly black
males-are disproportionately
represented in the prison system,
and are disproportionately
undereducated.
informal social controls that are associated with work are far
more effective than formal controls in increasing desistance
from crime.20 Yet a substantial number of offenders have
educational, cognitive and other deficits that directly affect
their prospects for meaningful employment.
Common programs
Educational and vocational training programs are common in correctional systems, particularly prisons, across
the United States. According to the National Institute of
Corrections, correctional education is generally comprised
of four broad categories of programs: adult basic education (ABE), secondary/General Educational Development
(GED), postsecondary education programs and vocational
training.21
Adult basic education includes instruction to improve
reading, language and arithmetic skills of those who are
functionally illiterate or those who lack basic communication capabilities. Secondary education provides instruction
that leads to a high school diploma or that prepares individuals for the General Educational Development Equivalency
Examination (GED). Postsecondary education (PSE)
includes college courses, and many of these programs are
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
What does the scientific evidence
tell us about the effectiveness of
educational and vocational training
programs? Overall, the weight of
the evidence indicates that they
work. Highly rigorous studies of
educational and vocational programs
have found lower recidivism rates
for program participants and
positive returns on investment.
Most state prisons provide educational programs for their
inmates, and many offenders take advantage of educational
opportunities while they are under correctional supervision.
In studies conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 52%
of State prison inmates in 1997 and 23% of probationers in
1995 said they had participated in an educational program
since admission to a correctional facility or their most recent
sentence to probation.22 In Colorado, educational programs
have been used with offenders in prison, on probation and
under the jurisdiction of community corrections. In the
CDOC alone, GED instruction and testing are available in
all facilities. According to the CDOC website, 998 offenders
received GED certificates in FY 2007, and 2,359 vocational
certificates were awarded to offenders in FY 2006.23
offered through community colleges or four-year institutions of higher education.
Do Educational and Vocational
Programs Work?
Vocational education is designed to develop occupational
awareness and provide skills and experience in a particular trade or industry. Training in how to apply for a job,
interview successfully, and retain employment through professional workplace habits is also common.
What does the scientific evidence tell us about the effectiveness of educational and vocational training programs?
Overall, the weight of the evidence indicates that they
work. Highly rigorous studies of educational and vocational
How does Colorado rank?
The high school graduation rate for 2002-2003 was 73% statewide, according to
the National Center for Education Statistics and the Education Research Center. For
every 100 students in Colorado in the 9th grade, 91 enter 10th grade, 85 enter 11th
grade, 78 enter 12th grade and 73 graduate. Specifically, Denver County graduates
only 46.8 of every 100 students that enter the 9th grade, according to Education
Week magazine. In addition:
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
• Colorado ranked 37th among the 50 states for funding K-12.
• Colorado ranked 42nd in the nation for Hispanic graduation rates.
• Colorado ranked 48 out of 50 in funding for higher education.
Source: www.edweek.org/rc.
Dropout rates effect on crime
Studies show that the lifetime cost to the nation for each youth who drops out of
school and later moves into a life of crime and drugs ranges from $1.7 to $2.3 million.
The relationship between crime and education is clearest when looking at dropout
status and incarceration: although they constitute less than 20% of the overall
population, dropouts make up over 50% of the state prison inmate population.
Overall serious crime rates are reduced by 10-20% with a high school education.
This reduction in crime is assumed to have a corresponding effect on incarceration
rates and societal costs.
Source: Bridgeland, Dilulio, and Morison (2006) and Levin, Belfield, Muennig and Rouse (2007).
39
What Works
programs have found lower recidivism rates for program
participants and positive returns on investment.
One of the most comprehensive studies of offender education programs was undertaken by the Correctional
Education Association in 1998.24 The research examined the
effect of education on the rate of recidivism and on post-release employment in three states - Maryland, Minnesota and
Ohio. More than 3,000 inmates released between September
1997 and December of 1998 were studied, and the researchers found a significant relationship between participation
in education programs and a lower rate of recidivism in
every state.
A more recent analysis conducted by the Florida
Department of Corrections (2001) produced similar
findings.25 Inmates who earned a GED were less likely to
recidivate than those who did not complete an educational
program. The recidivism rate for the 1,788 inmates in the
study who received a GED was 30% compared to 35%
for those who did not complete a program. This reduction
in recidivism translated into approximately 100 inmates
not returning to prison. Moreover, inmates who received a
GED and improved their TABE reading scores to 9th grade
level or higher were far less likely to recidivate than those
who received a GED and read at an 8th grade level or less.
Inmates who earned a vocational certificate also were
less likely to recidivate than those who did not complete
a program.
Several systematic reviews of correctional education programs confirm what was found in these single studies. Gaes
et al. (1999) reviewed the research on a variety of different
correctional interventions, including education and work
programs, and Wilson and Gallagher (2000) conducted a
meta-analysis of the outcomes of 53 different education,
vocation, and work programs. Each of these reviews concluded that education programs increase employment and
reduce recidivism.
One review that failed to reach a similar conclusion was
conducted by Visher (2006). Her review focused specifically on employment programs delivered in settings other
than prison or jail. While her analysis did not find that
employment-focused interventions for ex-offenders reduced
recidivism, she cautioned that the studies in her review were
mostly out of date and the average subject was not typical of
persons released from prisons today.
Two very recent and rigorous systematic reviews provide
strong evidence that education and vocational training programs work. The first was conducted by the Washington
State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) in 2006. It
included a meta-analysis of three types of programs: prison40
based vocational training, prison-based general education,
and community-based employment programs. The study
found that vocational training programs delivered in prison
reduced recidivism an average of 9%. General education
programs delivered in prison and employment programs
delivered in the community were also found to reduce
recidivism, albeit at a more modest rate. All three programs
produced a positive return on investment. For example,
prison-based vocational training programs provided an average of $5.76 in taxpayer benefits for every $1 of cost.
Prison-based vocational training
programs provided an average of
$5.76 in taxpayer benefits for every
$1 of cost.
The second review was conducted by MacKenzie (2006),
also examining several types of education and vocational
training programs in both prison and community settings.
Her meta-analysis of education programs found that on
average, adult basic education and GED programs reduced
recidivism by 9 percentage points. Post-secondary education programs produced an even greater impact, reducing
recidivism by 13 percentage points. MacKenzie (2006)
concluded that “the preponderance of evidence supports the
conclusion that corrections-based education programs are
effective in reducing recidivism.”26
The preponderance of evidence
supports the conclusion that
corrections-based education
programs are effective in reducing
recidivism.
Wilson et al. (2000) also conducted a meta-analysis of 26
studies evaluating the effectiveness of vocational and work
programs, including prison industries. They found that
vocational training increased the employment rates and
reduced the recidivism rates of program participants.27
Correctional industries and other work programs did not.
Across 17 vocational training studies, the average effect size
was an 11 percentage point reduction in recidivism.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
Why do people involved in the criminal
justice system continue abusing
drugs?
Figure 5.1. Decreased brain metabolism
in a drug abuser
The answer to this perplexing question
spans neurobiological, psychological,
social, and environmental factors.
The repeated use of addictive drugs
eventually changes how the brain
functions. Subsequent brain changes,
which accompany the transition from
voluntary to compulsive drug use,
affect the brain’s natural inhibition and
reward centers, causing the addict to
use drugs in spite of the adverse health,
social, and legal consequences. Craving
for drugs may be triggered by contact
with the people, places, and things
associated with prior drug use, as well
as by stress. Forced abstinence without
treatment does not cure addiction.
Abstinent individuals must still learn
how to avoid relapse, including those
who have been incarcerated and may
have been abstinent for a long period of
time. Potential risk factors for released
offenders include pressures from peers
and even family members to return
to drug use and a criminal lifestyle.
Tensions of daily life – violent associates,
few opportunities for legitimate
employment, lack of safe housing, even
the need to comply with correctional
supervision conditions – can also create
stressful situations that can precipitate
a relapse to drug use.
Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse (2006).
Principles of Drug Abuse Treatment for Criminal
Justice Populations, U.S. Departments of Health,
available at http://www.drugabuse.gov/podat_cj/faqs/
faqs2.html.
Research on how the brain is affected
by drug abuse promises to help us learn
much more about the mechanics of
drug-induced brain changes and their
relationship to addiction. Research also
reveals that with effective drug abuse
Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse (2006).
The Science of Addiction. U.S. Departments of Health,
http://www.drugabuse.gov/scienceofaddiction/
addiction.html.
Healthy brain
High
Diseased brain/
cocaine abuser
Low
Source: From the laboratories of Drs. N. Volkow and
H. Schelbert.
treatment, individuals can overcome
persistent drug effects and lead healthy,
productive lives.
Is continued drug abuse a voluntary
behavior?
The initial decision to take drugs is
mostly voluntary. However, when drug
abuse takes over, a person’s ability to
exert self control can become seriously
impaired. Brain imaging studies from
drug-addicted individuals show physical
changes in areas of the brain that are
critical to judgment, decision making,
learning and memory, and behavior
control. Scientists believe that these
changes alter the way the brain works,
and may help explain the compulsive and
destructive behaviors of addiction.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
41
What Works
Based on the scientific evidence, education and vocational
training programs work. They increase the rate of employment for ex-offenders, and meaningful work is an important
contributor to less offending. More importantly, the evidence clearly shows that they reduce recidivism and provide
a positive return on investment.
The Urban Institute’s report underscored the importance of
the following factors:
• Correctional programs can increase post-release
employment and reduce recidivism, provided the programs are well designed and implemented. Programs are
far more likely to work when they embody evidencebased principles of effective intervention.
Other Factors
• To be effective, employment programs should focus on
skills applicable to the job market, be delivered close to
an offender’s release so that skills and work habits are
internalized by the offender, be integrated with other
programs, and followed by aftercare services in the
community (Lawrence et al. 2002).28
In 2002, the Urban Institute published a report focused
specifically on employment-related programs in prison.
They reviewed the literature on prison-based education,
vocational training, and prison industry programs. They
also conducted an inventory of programs in seven states,
and offered recommendations for improving existing
employment-related programs and introducing new ones.
What Works Program Areas
Substance Abuse Treatment
Offenders convicted of drug crimes
In both Colorado and across the nation, offenders convicted
of a drug crime make up a sizeable proportion of the prison
population. Drug offenders account for about 20% of the
inmate population in Colorado, and more people are serving prison time for a drug offense than for any other type
of crime. At mid-year 1987, there were 192 drug offenders
in prison in Colorado. Today there are more than 4,000
Figure 5.2. Number of CDOC Inmates Incarcerated for a
Drug Offense
EldY\if]@edXk\j
,#'''
*#0*)
+#'''
+#(-,
*#'''
(#/()
)#'''
(0)
'
(0/.
(00(
(00.
)''+
=`jZXcP\Xi<e[
Source: CDOC Statistical Reports.
42
While drug policy is often a catalyst for heated and sometimes polarizing debate, there is little question that drug
offenders are one of the driving factors behind prison population growth. In FY 1987, there were fewer than 200 new
court commitments to Colorado prisons for drug crimes.
In FY 2006, there were 1,638.30 Many drug offenses are
statutorily labeled as “extraordinary risk” crimes, a designation that automatically increases the presumptive sentencing
range that applies to these offenders. Drug offenders also
make up a substantial portion of the community corrections and probation populations. In FY 2006, for example,
offenders sentenced for a drug offense accounted for 36% of
the offenders discharged from residential community corrections program in Colorado.31
Offenders with substance abuse problems
/')
(#'''
(Figure 5.2). At mid-year 2006, drug offenders accounted
for about one-third of the inmate population serving time
for a non-violent crime.29
)''-
Statistics on offenders convicted of drug crimes, however,
present only a small part of the picture. A far larger number
of offenders are involved with drugs or alcohol, and a significant number are clinically addicted. Nearly 9 out of every 10
CDOC inmates, for example, are in need of substance abuse
treatment.32
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
The links between substance abuse and crime are well documented. Drug abusers often engage in crime to support their
drug habits, and research has shown that rates of criminal
behavior increase during periods of drug addiction.33 Studies
of prisoners and probationers at the national level also indicate that about half were under the influence of alcohol or
drugs when they committed their current offense.34 About
1 in 5 state prisoners reported in a national survey that they
committed their current offense to get money for drugs.35
About 1 in 5 state prisoners
reported in a national survey that
they committed their current
offense to get money for drugs.
Left untreated, alcohol and drug abuse are associated with
elevated rates of failure on probation and parole, repeated
contacts with the justice system, and higher rates of recidivism overall. Given the high percentage of offenders in
need of treatment, it is unlikely that recidivism rates can be
appreciably reduced without breaking the cycle of substance
abuse and crime. Without appropriate assessment, treatment
and aftercare, offenders with chronic substance abuse problems will have little chance for success upon release. They
will likely resume criminal activity due to their addiction
and eventually return to prison.
Without appropriate assessment,
treatment and aftercare, offenders
with chronic substance abuse
problems will have little chance for
success upon release.
Several types of treatment are used to address the specific
needs of substance-abusing offenders. Major treatment
modalities include detoxification, methadone maintenance
for opiate addicts, drug-free outpatient therapy, and residential therapy, including therapeutic communities. Even
within these modalities, treatment programs can vary in
terms of structure and services. Treatment programs for
substance-abusing offenders generally fit into the following three categories: in-prison therapeutic communities,
other prison or jail-based programs, and community-based
programs-both residential and outpatient.36 Each of these is
used with offenders in Colorado.
Treatment Effectiveness
Substance abuse treatment can work
Research has produced clear and convincing evidence that
substance abuse treatment works. Treatment reduces alcohol
and drug use and crime. It also produces a significant return
on taxpayer investment.37 Numerous studies have found
therapeutic communities to be particularly effective, and
treatment appears to work equally well for those who are
coerced into treatment and those who volunteer. Staying
in or completing treatment increases the likelihood of positive outcomes.
Research has produced clear and
convincing evidence that substance
abuse treatment works. Treatment
reduces alcohol and drug use and
crime. It also produces a significant
return on taxpayer investment.
Treatment reduces drug use and crime
One of the most comprehensive studies on treatment
effectiveness was the National Treatment Improvement
Evaluation Study (NTIES).38 This Congressionallymandated five-year study of more 4,400 subjects found
that treatment decreased substance abuse as well as criminal
activity. One year pre- and post treatment comparisons
found that the use of illicit substances by treatment participants in the study fell by about 50% in the year after
treatment, while the number arrested fell by 64% (Figure
5.3). Drug selling decreased 78%, and the percentage who
supported themselves largely through illegal activity was
nearly cut in half.39
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Significant cost benefit
The NTIES confirmed the positive treatment effects found
two years earlier in the often cited California Drug and
Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA) research.
The CALDATA study found that treatment reduced criminality by two-thirds and that there were $7 in savings for
43
What Works
G\iZ\ekX^\f]Ki\Xkd\ek:c`\ekj
Figure 5.3. Changes in Criminal Activity
Before vs. After Treatment
.'
-+
-'
,'
()Dfek_j
9\]fi\Ki\Xkd\ek
+/
()Dfek_j
8]k\iKi\Xkd\ek
+'
*'
(.
)'
(+
(.
0
('
'
8ii\jk\[]fi
8ep:i`d\
Jfc[;il^j
@cc\^Xc
Jlggfik
Source: National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Survey,
Gerstein et al. (1997).
every $1 spent on treatment.40 Whereas the CALDATA
study was one of the first to quantify treatment’s return on
investment, NTIES was the first study of its kind to include
correctional clients.
Coerced treatment works
Several systematic reviews of treatment success have been
undertaken in recent years, and their findings are consistently positive, too. Sherman et al. (1997) systematically
reviewed evaluations that examined the effectiveness of
drug treatment programs in prison and in the community,
and concluded that drug treatment is effective in reducing
the recidivism of offenders. One of the review’s other key
findings was that offenders coerced into treatment by the
criminal justice system do as well as those who enter treatment voluntarily.41
A meta-analysis conducted by Prenderghast and his colleagues (2002) reached similar conclusions. Treatment
resulted in less drug use and fewer crimes. Mitchell et al.
(2005) meta-analyzed sixty-six rigorous evaluations of prison
and jail-based treatment programs and found a modest
reduction in post-treatment offending. On average, treatment clients recidivated at a rate of 28% compared to a
recidivism rate of 35% for the non-treatment comparison
group. Therapeutic communities (TCs), however, produced
a slightly larger reduction in recidivism.
It works for offenders in prison, jail and
the community
More recently, MacKenzie (2006) examined the effectiveness
of incarceration and community-based treatment separately.
44
She found that out-patient drug treatment programs
delivered to offenders in the community were effective at
reducing future criminal behavior.42 Treatment programs
delivered in correctional facilities also worked, but the
majority of the effective programs were TCs, particularly
when they were followed by community-based aftercare.43
MacKenzie (2006) examined the
effectiveness of incarcerationand community-based treatment
separately. She found that outpatient drug treatment programs
delivered to offenders in the
community were effective at
reducing future criminal behavior.
Treatment programs delivered in
correctional facilities also worked,
but the majority of the effective
programs were TCs, particularly
when they were followed by
community-based aftercare.
Aos and his colleagues (2006) conducted a meta-analysis
of 35 rigorous evaluations of substance abuse treatment
programs as part of a larger systematic review of adult corrections programs. Statistically significant reductions in
recidivism were found for every category of substance abuse
treatment examined: prison-based programs, jail-based programs, and treatment programs delivered in the community.
Savings to taxpayers due to reductions in crime ranged from
nearly $5,000 per program participant for community-based
treatment to about $2,700 per program participant for
prison-based treatment.44
Substance-abuse treatment has been the focus of numerous other economic evaluations. Reviews conducted by
Cartwright (2000), Harwood et al. (2002), and McCollister
and French (2003) have all reached similar conclusions.
Substance abuse treatment pays for itself and generates net
economic benefits for taxpayers. One of the most comprehensive reviews of treatment economic research was
recently conducted by researchers at the Addictions Research
Institute (ARI) at the University of Pennsylvania. Based on
their findings, Steve Belenko and his colleagues (2005) at
ARI concluded the following:
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
“Economic studies across settings, populations,
methods, and time periods consistently find positive net economic benefits of alcohol and other
drug treatment that are relatively robust. The
primary economic benefits occur from reduced
crime (including incarceration and victimization
costs) and post-treatment reduction in health
care costs.”45
A Few Cautionary Points
It’s not a slam dunk
While the evidence is unmistakably clear that substance
abuse treatment works, several factors can influence treatment effectiveness. These include:
• Time in treatment. Research has consistently shown
that time in treatment matters. Program completion
and longer retention times are associated with better
substance abuse and recidivism outcomes.
• Aftercare. Treatment programs delivered to offenders
under correctional supervision are unlikely to produce
long-term results if offenders return to an environment
where relapse is likely. Aftercare services help prevent
relapse and sustain the positive treatment effects that
are initiated when the offender is under correctional
supervision. Studies have shown that while aftercare is
expensive, prison-based treatment is most effective and
cost-beneficial when aftercare is also provided.46
• Program integrity. Treatment programs that are well
designed, properly staffed and delivered with integrity
are likely to achieve positive results. Conversely, programs that are poorly implemented or delivered are
likely to fail. A recent report by the California Office
A recent report by the California
Office of the Inspector General
(2007) on in-prison substance
abuse programs managed by
the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation
concluded that over a billion
dollars of taxpayer funds had been
“wasted” in the poor delivery of
in-prison substance abuse services.
of the Inspector General (2007) on in-prison substance
abuse programs managed by the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation concluded that over
a billion dollars of taxpayer funds had been “wasted”
in the poor delivery of in-prison substance abuse services.47 This underscores the need to deliver services
that are consistent with evidence-based principles for
effective correctional intervention (described at the
beginning of this section), and the need for continual
monitoring of program delivery to ensure fidelity to the
program design.
Few receive services
Despite the evidence that well designed and properly implemented treatment programs are effective and cost-beneficial,
many offenders are not receiving the treatment they need.
Between 70% and 85% of state prison inmates need some
level of substance abuse treatment, yet only a fraction of
these offenders receive services. A 2004 national study of
prison inmates found that only about 15% of the inmate
population received treatment since admission.48 And since
that time, services in prisons across the country have been
reduced due to fiscal constraints. Therefore, expanding
Data reported by the Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Division (ADAD) of the
Colorado Department of Human
Services are not offender-specific,
but they illustrate the gravity of the
treatment resource situation. Among
all 50 states, Colorado ranked fifth
in persons 12 years of age or older
needing but not getting treatment
for illicit drug use. Nationwide, $27
per U.S. resident is spent on publicly
funded substance abuse treatment;
Colorado spends $7.50 per resident.
In addition, for every $100 Colorado
spent on programs that address the
negative consequences of substance
abuse, only six cents was spent on
treatment, prevention or research.
The average amount spent by
other states was $3.70 per $100
of spending.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
45
What Works
access to treatment is likely an essential step in reducing
recidivism and ultimately correctional costs.
Evaluation of Therapeutic Community (TC)
Programs for Offenders
Data reported by the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division
(ADAD) of the Colorado Department of Human Services
are not offender-specific, but they illustrate the gravity of the
treatment resource situation. Among all 50 states, Colorado
ranked fifth in persons 12 years of age or older needing but
not getting treatment for illicit drug use. Nationwide, $27
per U.S. resident is spent on publicly funded substance
abuse treatment; Colorado spends $7.50 per resident. In
addition, for every $100 Colorado spent on programs that
address the negative consequences of substance abuse, only
six cents was spent on treatment, prevention or research.
The average amount spent by other states was $3.70 per
$100 of spending.49
Klebe and O’Keefe (2004) examined the effectiveness of
two TCs for offenders in Colorado. One is a prison-based
program and the other is community-based. The prison
program is the Crossroads to Freedom House TC at the
Arrowhead Correctional Center (ACC); the communitybased program is Peer I located in Denver. Together these
two programs provide a continuum of care for high risk substance abusing felons.52
Treatment as an Alternative to Prison
Research on the costs and benefits of imprisonment has
shown that using expensive prison space to incarcerate large
numbers of drug offenders is not a cost-effective use of
public resources. In a study of prisoners entering prison in
New York, New Mexico and Arizona in 1997, researchers
conducted a cost-benefit analysis that led them to conclude
that “at least some prison beds currently occupied by drug
offenders would be better reserved for high-rate property
and violent offenders” and that policy makers in “these and
other states need to revisit mandatory-minimum drug laws
that are increasing prison populations without demonstrably
and cost-effectively increasing public safety” (Piehl, Useem
and Dilulio, 1999).50 According to the Vera Institute of
Justice, there is an emerging consensus that sentences for
drug offenses, particularly those involving simple possession,
should be reassessed and that community-based treatment
may be a more cost-effective sanction.
Treatment-based alternatives to incarceration are less expensive than prison and they can reduce recidivism.51 The
average daily cost of an Intensive Residential Treatment
(IRT) bed in Colorado, for example, is about 25% less per
offender than the cost of incarceration. IRT programs are
community-based and utilized by offenders with serious
substance abuse problems who are transitioning from prison
back to the community.
Evaluations of Substance-Abuse
Programs for Offenders in Colorado
Several evaluations of substance abuse treatment programs
for offenders have been undertaken in Colorado. Two
important evaluations that examined recidivism outcomes
are briefly described below.
46
The outcome study was based on 778 subjects who were
retrospectively placed in one of five groups for the analysis.
Group 1 were those inmates who successfully completed TC
treatment in prison who then went on to receive treatment at
the community-based Peer I TC. Group 2 received treatment
at the Peer I TC only.53 Group 3 received and successfully
completed treatment at the ACC TC only. They did not
attend Peer I or any other community-based TC treatment.
Group 4 received treatment at the ACC TC only, but these
inmates did not successfully complete the program.54 Group
5 was comprised of inmates identified as needing residential
treatment who did not participate in a TC either in prison
or the community.55 These five groups were compared on
several recidivism outcomes. Survival analysis was used to
explore the length of time to a new offense.
Results found that offenders with the lowest rate of community supervision failures were those who completed the
prison-based ACC TC and continued on to Peer I treatment
in the community. For example, the 2-year supervision failure rate was 41% for Group 1 compared to 72% for Group
5, those offenders who did not participate in TC treatment
either in prison or the community (See Table 5.1). Only
33% of the inmates who received TC treatment both in
prison and the community returned to prison during the
2-year follow-up period. That compares with 58% of the no
treatment group. In addition, survival analysis showed that
the participants who received treatment in both TCs had
the slowest failure rates. Overall, the researchers concluded
that long-term TC treatment that provides a continuum of
care from prison to the community can substantially reduce
recidivism.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
Table 5.1. CDOC Therapeutic Community (TC) Evaluation
2-Year Recidivism Rates
Technical Violations
Inmates who
Received TC
Treatment in
Prison and the
Community
No TC
Treatment
Comparison
Group
4%
34%
Felony Arrests
18%
26%
Return to Prison
33%
58%
Overall Supervision Failure
41%
72%
Source: Klebe and O’Keefe (2004).
Evaluation of Intensive Residential Treatment
in Colorado
O’Keefe et al. (2003) also investigated the effectiveness of
Intensive Residential Treatment (IRT) programs for offenders in Colorado.56 These programs are community-based
and offenders are frequently referred to them in lieu of
prison, either as a diversionary program or as a transition
from prison back to the community.
Four IRT programs were a part of the study: the
Community Intensive Residential Treatment (CIRT) program at the San Luis Valley Community Corrections Center,
the Drug and Alcohol Residential Treatment (DART) program at Williams Street Center in Denver, the Residential
Treatment Center (RTC) in Greeley, and the Short-Term
Intensive Remedial Residential Treatment (STIRRT) program in Denver. These programs varied on a number of
dimensions, including the treatment model used, treatment duration and aftercare. For example, length of stay in
treatment could range from 14 days at STIRRT to approximately 45 days at the other three sites.
The study employed a quasi-experimental design with comparison groups drawn from matched judicial and CDOC
offender populations not receiving IRT. The researchers
pointed out, however, that it is likely that most comparison group members received some form of non-residential
treatment, therefore the research primarily addressed
whether IRT “provided an added benefit over outpatient
treatment.”57 Several outcomes were examined. In terms of
recidivism, the study found mixed results across programs
and even within some programs on different measures of
recidivism. For example, only STIRRT participants had
statistically significant outcomes across multiple recidivism
measures relative to a comparison group.
Overall, O’Keefe and her colleagues concluded that the
study’s findings indicate a positive trend across IRT programs, but they raised several important program and policy
issues. Given the evidence that treatment duration is linked
to post-treatment success, they suggested that the residential
portion of IRT may not be long enough to produce substantive change in the population being served. The researchers
also cited problems with program implementation fidelity,
including referral of offenders who may not be appropriate
for the IRT program.58 In terms of policy, the researchers suggested that it may be beneficial to the criminal justice system
to provide intensive treatment services to high-risk offenders
in lieu of prison, but proper assessment, referral and program
delivery are critical. Continuing care for six months or longer
following IRT may also be essential for success.
Colorado Social Research Associates (2006) also recently
evaluated STIRRT. They found that program participants
demonstrated positive change in terms of substance abuse,
recidivism, and other outcomes.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
What Works Program Areas
Drug Courts
What is a drug court?
A drug court is a special court given the responsibility to
handle cases involving drug-using offenders through comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services,
immediate sanctions and incentives. Drug courts use the
authoritative weight of judges, prosecutors, defense attor-
neys, treatment providers and others to compel the offender
to deal with his or her substance abuse problem.59 In the
drug court model, the judge uses his or her authority to
hold the offender accountable for treatment progress. The
intention is to combine intensive judicial supervision with
substance abuse treatment in an environment of multidisciplinary collaboration.
47
What Works
In the drug court model, the judge
uses his or her authority to hold
the offender accountable for
treatment progress. The intention
is to combine intensive judicial
supervision with substance abuse
treatment in an environment of
multidisciplinary collaboration.
Drug courts vary somewhat from one jurisdiction to another
in terms of structure, scope, and target populations, but they
all share three primary goals:
1. Reduce recidivism;
2. Reduce substance abuse among participants; and
3. Rehabilitate participants.
Core elements almost always include the integration of
substance abuse treatment with criminal justice system case
processing, frequent alcohol and drug testing, a continuum
of measured responses to continued substance abuse, and
intensive ongoing collaboration between the criminal justice
system and treatment providers.
In 1997, the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office
of Justice Programs published Defining Drug Courts: The
Key Components, which describes the basic elements of drug
courts.60 The 10 key components are:
6. A coordinated strategy among the judge, prosecution,
defense, and treatment providers to govern offender
compliance.
7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant.
8. Monitoring and evaluation to measure achievement of
program goals and gauge effectiveness.
9. Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote
effective planning, implementation, and operation.
10. Partnerships with public agencies and communitybased organizations to generate local support and
enhance drug court effectiveness.
Drug courts operate in nearly every state
As of April 2007, more than 1,700 drug courts were operating nationwide and about 350 more were in the planning
stage.61 More than 300,000 adults have entered drug court
programs since the first drug court opened in 1989.62
Drug courts are primarily used for non-violent, druginvolved offenders, but the profile of offenders accepted
into programs has changed considerably over the years.
Originally, drug courts targeted low-level and first-time
offenders. Today, more and more drug courts are accepting
or focusing on offenders with more serious substance abuse
problems or criminal histories. Drug courts for adult offenders are most common, but juvenile drug courts, which first
emerged in the mid-1990s, have proliferated in the past
decade. Family drug courts that apply the drug court model
to child abuse and neglect cases related to substance abuse,
and reentry drug courts for offenders who have been released
from short terms of confinement, have also emerged.
1. Integration of substance abuse treatment with justice
system case processing.
2. Use of a non-adversarial approach, in which prosecution and defense promote public safety while
protecting the right of the accused to due process.
3. Early identification and prompt placement of eligible
participants.
4. Access to a continuum of treatment, rehabilitation, and
related services. Drug court personnel need to understand that addiction is a health problem that is difficult
to cure and requires long-term treatment. Relapses may
be frequent, making it necessary to extend treatment
well beyond the typical 12 month period.
5. Frequent testing for alcohol and illicit drugs.
48
Drug courts for adult offenders are
most common, but juvenile drug
courts, which first emerged in the
mid-1990s, have proliferated in the
past decade. Family drug courts
that apply the drug court model
to child abuse and neglect cases
related to substance abuse, and
reentry drug courts for offenders
who have been released from
short terms of confinement,
have also emerged.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
Program settings have also expanded considerably. Originally,
drug courts focused on diversion from prosecution. Today,
drug courts may be based on post-adjudication or probation
revocation strategies, too. Regardless of the setting, a judge
exercises authority to defer case prosecution if the offender
agrees to participate in the treatment process. Successful completion of a drug court program typically results in dropped
charges, vacated or reduced sentences, or rescinded probation.
(Rempel et al., 2003). In California, the Judicial Council
reported that arrest rates compiled on drug court graduates from 17 counties were 85% lower in the two years
after admission than they were in the two years prior to
drug court entry. Conviction rates for the same participants
declined 77%, and incarceration rates declined by 83%.
Cost offset and avoidance was estimated at $43 million, predominately due to averted jail and prison costs.63
Do Drug Courts Work?
Evaluations find drug courts reduce recidivism
Drug courts have been the focus of extensive evaluation
since their inception in 1989. Evaluations have examined
drug courts both at the individual program and state levels.
The costs and benefits of drug courts also have been studied,
perhaps more so than any other criminal justice program.
Overall, drug courts have been found to reduce recidivism
and provide a sound return on investment.
Overall, drug courts have been found
to reduce recidivism and provide a
sound return on investment.
One of the largest statewide studies of drug courts ever
undertaken was conducted by the Center for Court
Innovation (CCI) in New York. The study found that the
three-year rearrest rate across six courts was on average
29% lower for drug court participants compared to similar
offenders who did not participate in the drug court program
In California, the Judicial Council
reported that arrest rates compiled
on drug court graduates from 17
counties were 85% lower in the
two years after admission than
they were in the two years prior
to drug court entry. Cost offset
and avoidance was estimated at
$43 million, predominately due to
averted jail and prison costs.
The United States Government
Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed
27 rigorous drug court evaluations
in 2005 and concluded that drug
courts reduced the likelihood of
rearrest and reconviction.
Several systematic reviews of drug court evaluations have
also been undertaken in recent years. Belenko (2001)
reviewed three highly rigorous drug court evaluations and
found reductions in recidivism for drug court participants.
The United States Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reviewed 27 rigorous drug court evaluations in 2005
and concluded that drug courts reduced the likelihood of
rearrest and reconviction. Rearrest rates for drug court participants were 10% to 30% below those of the comparison
group in 10 of the 13 drug court programs that reported
rearrest data. Seven drug courts provided data on costs and
benefits. Although program costs typically exceeded the
costs of business as usual, all seven drug courts yielded positive net benefits, primarily from reductions in recidivism.
Latimer (2006) and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis
of 54 studies and found that drug treatment courts in
Canada reduced the recidivism rates of participants by 14%.
Similarly, MacKenzie (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of
24 rigorous drug court studies and found favorable recidivism reduction effects in 22 of them.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
MacKenzie (2006) conducted a
meta-analysis of 24 rigorous drug
court studies and found favorable
recidivism reduction effects in
22 of them.
49
What Works
Recent studies conducted by the WSIPP are also worth noting. Barnoski and Aos (2003) conducted a meta-analysis
of 30 rigorous drug court evaluations and found that, on
average, drug courts reduced recidivism by 13%. A more
recent meta-analysis of 57 rigorous drug court evaluations
conducted by the Institute in 2006 found somewhat more
modest results (Aos et al. 2006). Adult drug courts reduced
recidivism by an average of 8%, and they produced a positive return on investment.
dollars over the long-term, primarily through reduced victimization and criminal justice processing costs. Another
important and consistent finding of drug court research
is that drug court programs keep clients in treatment for
longer periods of time. Given the evidence concerning the
importance of treatment duration, this is an important program outcome that contributes to recidivism reduction.
The WSIPP also evaluated six adult drug courts operating in
Washington state. Their research found that five of the drug
courts reduced recidivism by an average of 13%. Only one
of the courts failed to reduce recidivism significantly. A costbenefit analysis showed that the five successful drug courts
were more expensive than regular criminal court – $3,891
more per participant – but that their return on investment
was substantial: $1.74 in benefits for every $1 of costs.
Denver initiated one of the first drug courts in the nation.
The program began accepting cases in 1994, but it was dissolved in 2002. The program was reestablished early in 2007
with funding from the City of Denver.
The WSIPP also evaluated six adult
drug courts operating in Washington
state. Their research found that
five of the drug courts reduced
recidivism by an average of 13%.
One of the courts failed to reduce
recidivism significantly.
The weight of the evidence shows that drug courts work.
Every review reported here found favorable effects on recidivism for drug courts overall. Economic evaluations also
indicate that drug courts produce a reasonable return on
investment. Although drug courts typically are more expensive than standard processing at first because they provide
more intensive supervision and services, they save taxpayer
Although drug courts typically
are more expensive than standard
processing at first because they
provide more intensive supervision
and services, they save taxpayer
dollars over the long-term, primarily
through reduced victimization and
criminal justice processing costs.
50
Evaluations of the Denver Drug Court
Two evaluations of the Denver drug court have examined
the program’s impact on recidivism. Each was conducted
prior to 2002. The first was conducted by the DCJ, and
it was based on the program’s first two years of operation
(Harrison et al. 2001). The study analyzed outcome and
other information obtained on all drug offenders processed
through the Drug Court during the first quarters of 1995
and 1996. A matched sample of drug offenders serving probation/deferred judgement sentences in 1993 served as the
comparison group for the study.
The DCJ evaluation found that 81% of drug court cases
participated in treatment for at least six months, a positive
finding given the research linking length of time in treatment with post-treatment success. Although drug court
clients had criminal histories that were significantly more
serious than those of comparison group members, drug
court clients fared slightly better than their comparison
group counterparts in terms of new criminal filings. At two
years after program entry, 18% of the drug court clients had
received a new filing compared to 22% of the comparison
group. Equal proportions (of approximately one-third)
of the offenders in both groups were arrested during the
two-years following their entry into drug court or their probationary/deferred judgment period.
Drug court participants, however, were significantly less
likely to complete their supervision successfully (49%
compared to 65%). This finding is linked to the fact that
drug court offenders were more likely to get arrested while
under supervision (62% compared to 50%), which should
be expected when supervision and compliance requirements
are intensified, and when the population is significantly
more serious than the comparison group. Consistent with
a higher program failure rate, a larger proportion of drug
court offenders were eventually sentenced to prison following a probation revocation: 38%, compared to 24% of the
comparison group. Overall, these findings do not indicate
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
that the program was effective at reducing recidivism during
its early years of operation.
The second evaluation conducted by Tjaden et al. (2002)
focused on clients participating in the drug court between
1997 and 1999. The study included a recidivism analysis
that compared Drug Court participants with a group of
drug offenders from a nearby county who did not participate in a drug court program. Drug court participants were
found to have lower recidivism rates based on new charges
filed during a 24 month follow up period (20% vs. 24%),
but the differences dissipated somewhat during the third
year after program intake. Survival analysis also revealed
that comparison group members tended to recidivate more
quickly than drug court participants. Finally, a cost analysis
found that the Drug Court had a slightly lower operating
cost than a typical court and that while some net savings
occurred due to reductions in recidivism, those savings were
somewhat short-lived.
One of the important points noted in the study is that
although eligibility policies changed over time, the Denver
drug court initially handled virtually all offenders charged
with drug crimes, with more serious cases being expedited
for sentencing.64 While most clients were earmarked for
treatment services, the dual mission of the court was a
fundamentally different approach than the therapeutic jurisprudence model that underlies most other drug courts.
Evaluation of the Denver Juvenile Drug Court
The Denver Juvenile Drug Court was established in 1998
to provide substance abusing juvenile offenders the opportunity for community based treatment and other services,
while enhancing community safety through swift sanctions and incentives. Juveniles entering the program receive
deferred adjudication and cases are dismissed upon successful completion of treatment and supervision requirements.
A recent evaluation of the Denver Juvenile Drug Court conducted by Readio and Harrison (2003) focused on juveniles
participating in the program between October 2000 and
June 2003. The study compared drug court participants
with a matched group of substance abusing juvenile offenders who were placed on probation prior to the advent of
the drug court program. Drug court clients were found to
have fewer new criminal filings than their comparison group
counterparts both during and after program participation.
While in the program, 16% of drug court clients had a new
criminal filing compared to 20% of the comparison group
members. During the 12 month period following discharge
from supervision, new filing rates were 10% for drug court
clients and 24% for the comparison group.65
\j
Z
What Works Program Areas
Sex Offender Treatment
Since mid-year 2000 alone, the number of CDOC inmates
who were sentenced for a sex crime has increased 17%.
There were nearly 6,000 offenders convicted of sex crimes
serving a prison sentence in Colorado in January, 2008.66
Included in this number are more than 1,130 serving lifetime supervision sentences, all of whom must participate in
sex offender treatment prior to being considered for parole.67
According to the Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers (ATSA), most states require convicted sex offenders
to participate in treatment while in prison or on probation.
A Safer Society survey (McGrath, Cumming, and Burchard,
2003) recently found that more than 1,500 sex offender
treatment programs were operating in the U.S. and that
most were community-based (80%). A survey of prison
,
.
/
Y
treatment conducted in 2006 by the Colorado Department
of Corrections (Lins, 2006) found that formal sex offender
treatment programs were operating in 44 state prison
systems but the study revealed significant variation in the
operation of these programs.68
Treatment Effectiveness
Studies examining the effectiveness of sex offender treatment
in the 1990s produced mixed or inconsistent results, but
systematic reviews conducted more recently indicate that
certain sex offender treatment approaches can and do work.
Specifically, cognitive-behavioral therapy and therapeutic
communities have been shown to be effective in reducing
recidivism.
51
What Works
Systematic reviews conducted more
recently indicate that certain sex
offender treatment approaches can
and do work. Specifically, cognitivebehavioral therapy and therapeutic
communities have been shown to be
effective in reducing recidivism.
In 1996, the GAO published a review of sex offender treatment research based on 22 other reviews covering 550 studies.
Their analysis found no consensus among the reviews about
what treatment works to reduce the recidivism of sex offenders. Cognitive-behavioral treatment was most often reported
to be promising, while psychotherapy was generally viewed
as not being effective. Because most of the reviews reported
methodological problems, definitive conclusions about the
efficacy of treatment could not be drawn.69
Lösel and Schmucker’s (2005)
meta-analysis of 69 studies
involving more than 22,000
offenders found a 6% reduction in
recidivism among offenders who
received treatment.
Gallagher et al. (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of 25 evaluations of sex offender treatment and found strong evidence
that cognitive behavioral approaches with relapse prevention
components are effective at reducing recidivism. Sex offenders
treated with cognitive-behavioral/relapse prevention techniques recidivated at a rate 8 percentage points below that of
comparison sex offenders. In 2002, Hanson and his colleagues
conducted a meta-analysis of 43 studies and found that treatment reduced sexual recidivism by 4.5 percentage points.
A follow-up analysis based only on the more recent studies
found a 7.5% reduction in sexual recidivism. Cognitivebehavioral approaches again were most effective. Lösel and
Schmucker’s (2005) meta-analysis of 69 studies involving
more than 22,000 offenders found a 6% reduction in recidivism among offenders who received treatment.70 Prentky et al.
(2006) conducted a narrative review of treatment effectiveness
studies and concluded that “the most reasonable estimate at
52
this point is that treatment can reduce sexual recidivism over a
five year period by between 5% and 8%.”71
Two recent reviews reported even more positive results.
A meta-analysis of 30 studies conducted by Luong and
Wormith (2006) found that that sex offenders who received
any treatment recidivated at a significantly lower rate than
sex offenders who did not receive treatment. The researchers reported that for every 100 untreated sex offenders
who sexually recidivate, 82 sex offenders who received any
form of treatment will do so.72 Again, cognitive-behavioral
approaches were associated with significant reductions
in recidivism whereas other treatment approaches were
not. Positive treatment effects were also recently found by
MacKenzie (2006). Her meta-analysis of 28 evaluations
found statistically significant reductions in recidivism for
treatment participants. The average rate of recidivism was
12% for treatment participants compared to 22% for those
not participating in treatment. Further analysis demonstrated that programs using cognitive-behavioral/relapse
prevention therapy were effective in reducing recidivism.
Several studies concerning sex offender treatment have
recently been conducted by the WSIPP. One study
(Barnoski, 2006) examined the effectiveness of Washington’s
Specialized Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA).
Under SSOSA, certain felony sex offenders are granted
in lieu of imprisonment a special sentence that involves
some jail time, community supervision and outpatient
treatment.73 The evaluation found that the five-year sexual
and violent crime recidivism rates for offenders granted a
SSOSA were consistently lower than the rates for the other
types of sex offenders. Barnoski (2006) also examined the
effectiveness of a prison-based Sex Offender Treatment
Program (SOTP) in Washington that uses a combination of treatment techniques including group therapy,
psycho-educational classes, behavioral treatment, and family involvement. The study found that the SOTP did not
reduce the recidivism rates of program participants. Finally,
Aos (2006) and his colleagues at the Institute conducted a
meta-analysis of six rigorous studies of adult sex offender
treatment with aftercare and found that these programs
reduced recidivism, on average, by 7%. A meta-analysis
of five studies focusing on juvenile sex offender treatment
found an average reduction in recidivism of 10%.
Two other recent reviews have focused specifically on sex
offender treatment for juveniles. Reitzel and Carbonell
(2006) examined 33 studies and found that treated adolescents had a sexual recidivism rate 12 percentage points
lower than untreated adolescents. And Winocur et al.’s
(2006) meta-analysis based on seven studies that reported
recidivism outcomes found that treatment had a small to
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
moderate positive effect on the recidivism rates of juvenile
sex offenders. Specifically, juveniles who complete a cognitive-behavioral program are less likely to commit sexual or
any reoffenses than are juveniles “who do not receive treatment, receive an alternative treatment, or do not complete
treatment.”74
Overall, the most recent scientific evidence suggests that
certain types of sex offender treatment can reduce recidivism. Cognitive-behavioral approaches were identified as
being effective in several of the studies highlighted above.
Therapeutic communities for sex offenders are briefly
discussed below.
An Evaluation of the Colorado
Department of Corrections’ Therapeutic
Community for Sex Offenders
In 2003, the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
conducted an evaluation of the sex offender therapeutic community (TC) at the Colorado Department of
Corrections (DOC) (Lowden, et al., 2003). DCJ researchers reviewed the literature, examined 578 offender files,
interviewed therapeutic staff and offenders, attended and
quantitatively rated 67 treatment groups, conducted focus
groups with inmates, and analyzed new arrests, court filings, and prison incarcerations on over 3,000 sex offenders
released from DOC.
Evaluation findings
Over 3,000 sex offenders released from the Colorado DOC
between April 1993 and July 30, 2002 were included in the
outcome analysis (Lowden et al., 2003). Three groups of
offenders were studied based on treatment participation:
1. No treatment, which included all of those who participated in less than 30 calendar days of Phase I treatment.
2. Phase I, which included those with more than 30 days
in Phase I and no Phase II treatment.
3. Phase II (TC), which included those who completed
Phase I and participated in Phase II treatment for
more than 30 days.
The treatment groups in this study contained everyone
who participated in that phase of treatment for at least 30
days whether or not they dropped out or were terminated
after 30 days. This method makes the findings more significant because the problem inmates were not excluded from
the analysis.
The following key findings emerged from the study:
Successful participation in the SOTMP involves progress
in treatment and completing specific treatment tasks. The
number of tasks that each offender must complete to receive
a community placement recommendation is based on (1)
the length of the offender’s minimum prison sentence, and
(2) lifetime supervision standards set by the Colorado Sex
Offender Management Board.
\j
Z
• Participation in treatment was significantly associated
with success on parole. An analysis of the parole completion/revocation rates of 1,585 sex offenders released
to parole between 1993 and 2002 indicated that nearly
half of the offenders who did not receive treatment were
revoked back to prison. This rate was three times higher
Brief overview
The Colorado Sex Offender Treatment and Management
Program (SOTMP) TC was designed to be a cognitive
behavioral program that operates within a therapeutic
environment. In TCs, inmates are housed together in a therapeutic milieu where they live and work with others who are
working on similar treatment issues. Colorado’s SOTMP TC
model was modified from the traditional substance abuse
format to accommodate specific treatment issues unique to
sex offenders.
,
.
/
Y
• Participation in treatment was
significantly associated with
success on parole.
• The length of time that an
offender participates in treatment
was significantly related to
positive outcomes after release
from prison. Each additional
month spent in the TC increased
the likelihood of success upon
release by 1% (12% per year).
• The Colorado DOC’s program
for sex offenders, as it was
implemented in 2003, was found
to effectively reduce recidivism.
53
What Works
than the group that received both Phase I and Phase
II treatment and two times higher than the group that
only received Phase I treatment.
• The length of time that an offender participates in
treatment was significantly related to positive outcomes
after release from prison. Each additional month spent
in the TC increased the likelihood of success upon
release by 1% (12% per year).
• Sex offenders who did NOT have treatment and who
were released on parole were at least eight times as likely
to get arrested for a violent crime during the first year
out than those who participated in TC treatment.
• The Colorado DOC’s program for sex offenders, as
it was implemented in 2003, was found to effectively
reduce recidivism.
The Containment Approach for
Managing Sex Offenders
The “containment approach”75 combines specialized cognitive-behavioral treatment and supervision with polygraph
surveillance and specific lifestyle restrictions that work to
contain the offender both in the community and in prison.
Treatment is intended to teach offenders to exert internal
control over their dangerous pre-assaultive behaviors, while
the criminal justice system provides external control.
The containment approach emerged in the 1980s when
traditional methods of managing adult sex offenders were
replaced with creative strategies that emphasized individualized case management and multidisciplinary teams.
Jurisdictions across the country began using variations of
this approach which was first documented by researchers
at the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice in Managing
Adult Sex Offenders: A Containment Approach, a final product in a federally-funded research study and published by
the American Probation and Parole Association (English,
Pullen and Jones, 1996). Some jurisdictions in Colorado
have been using this approach since the mid-1980s, and the
approach has been used statewide for at least ten years. The
containment model was adopted formally by Colorado in
the form of the Standards and Guidelines of the Sex Offender
Management Board (SOMB), and by many state and local
jurisdictions across the nation.
The containment approach is a very specific case management tactic, a five-part “model process” that captured the
consistent program elements found by researchers during an
extensive field study in multiple states. It can be conceptualized as follows:
54
The containment model was adopted
formally by Colorado in the form of
the Standards and Guidelines of the
Sex Offender Management Board
(SOMB), and by many state and
local jurisdictions across the nation.
1. A philosophy that values public safety, victim protection, and reparation for victims as the paramount
objectives of sex offender management;
2. Implementation strategies that rely on agency coordination, multidisciplinary partnerships, and job
specialization;
3. Multiple, interrelated strategies that hold sex offenders accountable through the combined use of both the
offenders’ internal controls (learned through intense
treatment), external criminal justice controls (probation, parole, law enforcement registration, etc.) and
the use of the polygraph to monitor internal controls
and compliance with external controls;
4. Development and implementation of informed public
policies to create and support consistent practices; and
5. Quality control mechanisms, including program monitoring and evaluation, that ensure prescribed policies
and practices are delivered as planned.
Within this framework multiple agencies cooperate and collaborate to develop and implement policies and protocols
that focus on community safety. Such efforts have been
underway in Colorado for many years.
Effectiveness of the Containment Model
Several studies around the nation have been conducted
examining the effectiveness of containment approach practices. They are summarized below.
A 2004 study of the living arrangements of 130 sex offenders in Colorado was conducted by Amy Dethlefsen for
the Sex Offender Management Board. She analyzed data
on the first 15 months of probation supervision.76 Note
that this sample consisted of serious offenders: 60% of the
offenders in this study were high-risk, and another 32%
were medium-risk. Thirteen offenders in this study (10%)
self-reported new hands-off sex crimes (voyeurism, indecent
exposure) in the 15 months of study; only one crime was
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
detected by law enforcement. No hands-on sex offenses were
detected during the study. Close monitoring of these offenders resulted in obtaining information that would otherwise
remain unknown.
Other outcome studies conducted in Framingham,
Massachusetts,77 Jackson County, Oregon,78 and multiple
jurisdictions in Illinois have found significant reductions
in new sex crimes among offenders participating in the
containment approach. Researchers for the Illinois study
concluded the following:
...all specialized probation programs should be
based on the containment approach and should
include (a) at least three unannounced random field visits per offender every month, (b)
a full-disclosure polygraph and a maintenance
polygraph exam every six months, and (c) a tight
partnership between probation officers and
treatment providers that includes probation officers appearing at random times at the treatment
site to check on offenders’ attendance.79
In sum, the containment approach is a victim-safety focused,
multi-agency, collaborative approach to managing offenders.
Team members (supervising officers, treatment providers,
and polygraph examiners, at a minimum) often go beyond
the boundaries of their job descriptions for the sake of public
safety. And early evidence suggests that it works.
In sum, the containment approach
is a victim-safety focused, multiagency, collaborative approach to
managing sex offenders. And early
evidence suggests that it works.
What Works Program Areas
Mental Health Programs
Many offenders suffer from
mental illness
A large number of offenders in the criminal justice system
suffer from mental illness. The Los Angeles County Jail,
Cook County Jail in Chicago and Riker’s Island Jail in New
York City each have more residents with mental illness than
any hospital in the United States.80 In the Special Report,
Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that at midyear 2005,
more than half of all prison and jail inmates in the U.S. had
a mental health problem.81 Among state prisoners, more
than four in 10 reported symptoms that met the criteria for
mania, about 1 in 4 reported symptoms that met the criteria
for major depression, and an estimated 15% reported symptoms that met the criteria for a psychotic disorder.
The Bureau’s research also found that state prison inmates
with a mental condition were more likely than other inmates
to have a violent criminal record (61% compared to 56%),
and more likely than other inmates to have been under
the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the current
offense (53% compared to 43%). Inmates with mental illness also were more likely than other inmates to have a prior
criminal history. Over three-quarters of inmates with mental
illness had been sentenced to time in prison or jail or on
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
probation at least once prior to their current sentence; 47%
reported three or more prior sentences to probation or incarceration. Inmates with mental health problems were also
more likely than other inmates to be homeless and unemployed before their incarceration.
CDOC offenders
A recent study by the Colorado Department of Corrections
(CDOC) reported that, as of June 30, 2005, 25% of
Colorado inmates were found to have mental health needs.82
Sixteen percent of the prison and parole population met the
diagnostic criteria for “serious and persistent mental illness”
and another 9% were assessed with “moderately severe” to
“severe” mental health needs.83 The CDOC study also
found that:
• Within the prison population, the percentage of offenders with mental illness increased from 20% in FY 2001
to 25% in FY 2005.
• Female offenders are three times as likely as males to be
classified as having a serious mental illness.
• Offenders with mental illness commit a disproportionately high rate of disciplinary infractions.
55
What Works
• Offenders with mental illness have greater needs in a
variety of areas, including substance abuse, academic,
vocational, sex offense-specific, anger management and
medical.
• Offenders with mental illness were less likely than other
inmates to have a transitional community corrections
placement following their release from prison: 28%
were placed in community corrections during their
incarceration as compared to 36% of inmates without
mental illness.
• Technical returns (i.e., parole violations) rather than
new crimes are increasingly responsible for prison
admissions among this population.
• Inmates with mental illness had higher-than-average
recidivism rates. At three years post-release, return rates
to CDOC were 49% for offenders with a serious mental illness, 58% for offenders with moderately severe to
severe mental illness, and 47% for those without a mental illness.84
Inmates with mental illness had
higher-than-average recidivism
rates. At three years post-release,
return rates to CDOC were 49%
for offenders with a serious mental
illness, 58% for offenders with
moderately severe to severe mental
illness, and 47% for those without a
mental illness.
The challenge for corrections
Offenders with mental illness present significant challenges
for the criminal justice system. Detecting mental illness can
be difficult, and meeting the treatment and housing needs
of the mentally ill is often complicated and costly. As the
CDOC study shows, offenders with mental illness also have
more trouble adapting to prison than other inmates, and
they tend to have more disciplinary infractions. Also, many
offenders with mental illness have co-occurring substance
abuse disorders.
Successful reentry is a major challenge too. Many offenders
with mental illness have difficulty accessing treatment in the
community. Unemployment and homelessness are common,
as is recidivism, which often is related to technical violations
or, when the behavior is criminal, to low-level economic
56
Mental health treatment works.
The National Alliance for the
Mentally Ill reported in 2007 that
treatments for serious mental
illnesses are highly effective with
early intervention success rates
of 60-80%. In fact, treatment
outcomes for people with even the
most serious mental illnesses are
comparable to outcomes for wellestablished medical or surgical
treatments for other chronic
diseases.
(e.g., petty theft) or public order crimes. In fact, research has
found that people with mental illness are 64% more likely
to be arrested than those without a mental illness committing the same crime (Olson, 2001).85 Studies of parolees
as well as probationers have found that those with mental
illness are more likely to fail than parolees and probationers without mental illness.86 Cycling through the mental
health, substance abuse, and criminal justice systems is not
uncommon for offenders with mental illness.87
The subcommittee on criminal justice of the President’s
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2004)
recently suggested that three major responses are needed:
1. Diversion programs that keep people with serious
mental illnesses out of the criminal justice system.
2. Institutional services for people with serious mental
illnesses in who do need to be in correctional facilities.
3. Transition programs that facilitate the successful
reentry of people with serious mental illnesses to the
community.88
Studies also show that the
diversion of persons with mental
illness accused of minor crimes
into community-based treatment
reduces recidivism. In any
correctional setting, early diagnosis
and discharge planning are key
components of treatment success.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
What do we know about the
effectiveness of programs in
these areas?
Two broad conclusions can be drawn from the scientific evidence. First, mental health treatment works. The National
Alliance for the Mentally Ill (2007) reports that treatments
for serious mental illnesses are highly effective with early
intervention success rates of 60-80%. In fact, treatment outcomes for people with even the most serious mental illnesses
are comparable to outcomes for well-established medical or
surgical treatments for other chronic diseases.89
Second, a number of promising practices and programs
that serve justice-involved individuals with mental illness
have been identified in recent years, but more research on
the effectiveness of many of these interventions is needed.
Some of these interventions are clearly effective with the
mentally ill overall, but evidence regarding their effectiveness
with criminal justice populations is only now beginning to
emerge. Given the impact that offenders with mental illness
are having on the criminal justice system, several effective
and promising programs are briefly discussed below.
Diversion
Research on jail diversion programs suggests that they can
reduce arrests, time spent in jail, and recidivism.90 These
programs generally divert appropriate people with mental illness away from the criminal justice system and into
community treatment. Diversion programs may occur at
the point of police contact (pre-booking) or after arrest
(post-booking). In a recent review of diversion programs,
Steadman and Naples (2005) were able to find only seven
published empirical studies that examined program outcomes, but results were positive overall.91 Their analysis of
six jail diversion programs found that jail diversion reduces
time spent in jail without compromising public safety. The
researchers concluded that there is “mounting evidence that
jail diversion results in positive outcomes for individuals,
systems, and communities.”92
The Crisis Intervention Team model
One diversion approach that merits noting is the Crisis
Intervention Team (CIT) model, which is designed to
improve the outcomes of police interactions with people
with mental illnesses. CIT has been studied more than other
diversion programs and it also has been implemented widely
in Colorado.
enforcement training, community collaboration, and a
strategic systematic response from law enforcement, mental
health agencies, and others. The overall goal is to divert
individuals with mental illnesses at the point of first contact
with the police. Police officers are trained in the use of crisis
intervention and de-escalation techniques when encountering the individuals with mental illness and community
treatment and other resources are mobilized to accept and
serve those individuals who are diverted from the criminal
justice system. The Memphis CIT Model has been used in
more than 35 states.
Colorado’s CIT Efforts
Colorado adopted the CIT model in 2002 with the support of the Colorado Legislative Interim Committee on the
Study of the Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness in
the Criminal Justice System.93 The state’s CIT initiative was
guided and initially administered by the Colorado Division of
Criminal Justice, which staffs the Interim Committee. DCJ’s
Colorado Regional Community Policing Institute (CRCPI) is
responsible for program implementation. As such, it responds
to local requests for CIT and coordinates the communitydriven effort, oversees the delivery of the training course, and
provides on-going technical support. To date, the Colorado
CIT initiative has trained more than 2,500 officers from 73
law enforcement agencies across the state.94
The DCJ has also been assessing the CIT initiative since it
began in 2002. Data collected from CIT officers indicate
that the most likely outcome from a police contact is the
voluntary transport of individuals to appropriate mental
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Data collected and analyzed in
2006 on more than 3,400 law
enforcement contacts in Colorado
indicates that 3 out of every 4 CIT
calls resulted in transportation
to treatment. Only 4% of mental
health calls involving a CIT officer
resulted in an arrest. Almost one in
five calls resulted in de-escalation of
the individual’s emotional state so
that no transportation to services
was required. When this occurred
officers often provided referrals to
community resources.
The CIT model was originally developed by the Memphis,
Tennessee police department in 1988. It involves law
57
What Works
health and psychiatric care. Data collected and analyzed
in 2006 on more than 3,400 law enforcement contacts in
Colorado indicates that 3 out of every 4 CIT calls resulted
in transportation to treatment. Only 4% of mental health
calls involving a CIT officer resulted in an arrest. Almost
one in 5 calls resulted in de-escalation of the individual’s
emotional state so that no transportation to services was
required. When this occurred officers often provided referrals to community resources.95
The core component of CIT is the development of cooperative relationships among community agencies. The DCJ
study found that many essential partnerships have been
established that led to substantial changes in the traditional
ways of responding to the issues presented by this population.
An additional outgrowth of CIT training is an innovative
three-day program unique to Colorado called Children in
Crisis that is designed to educate both law enforcement
(school resource officers) and school administrators on
youth with mental illness. In addition, the Denver Police
Department has developed a 16-hour training program for
dispatchers to assist them in identifying individuals who
may be struggling with severe emotional distress. Finally,
Jefferson County has developed a management program,
with funding from the Colorado Health Foundation,
designed to respond to referrals from probation, diversion,
pretrial and jail staff as well as those from CIT officers.
Assertive Community Treatment (ACT)
The Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) model (also
known as the Program of Assertive Community Treatment,
or PACT) combines treatment, rehabilitation and support
services in a multi-disciplinary, self-contained team. The
ACT team typically is made up of professionals from a variety of relevant disciplines, including psychiatry, nursing and
addiction counseling. The ACT team is mobile and it operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to provide services in
the community and in homes to those suffering from severe
mental illness, including those in contact with the criminal
justice system. Program staff often helps clients find housing and employment, as well as meet their legal obligations.
An extensive body of research has demonstrated that ACT
is effective with populations of individuals with serious
mental illness, particularly at reducing hospitalization.96
Organizations such as the Dartmouth Psychiatric Research
Center have identified ACT as an evidence-based practice.
The effectiveness of ACT in reducing hospitalizations has
lead to an interest in extending and adapting the model to
criminal justice settings. The basic idea is to use the ACT
model to keep people with serious mental illness out of
58
jail and prison. In a recent paper, Morrissey and Meyer
(2006) reported that ACT was most effective at reducing
hospitalizations, but not consistently effective in reducing arrests and jail time.97 They pointed out, however, that
methodological problems with research to date makes it difficult to draw clear conclusions. Morrissey and Meyer also
noted that a number of forensic ACT (FACT) programs
have emerged in recent years, and that pre-post studies in
Chicago and Rochester, New York, have produced highly
favorable results. These FACT programs typically receive
most referrals from criminal justice agencies and they focus
on keeping individuals with mental illness out of jail and
prison. In Rochester, FACT clients had significant reductions in arrests, jail days and hospitalizations. In Chicago,
FACT clients also spent fewer days in jail. Morrissey and
Meyer (2006) concluded that “with their criminal justice
savvy,” FACT teams “can be expected to reduce recidivism
and maintain certain clients in the community.”98
In a recent paper, Morrissey
and Meyer (2006) reported
that ACT was most effective at
reducing hospitalizations, but not
consistently effective in reducing
arrests and jail time. They pointed
out, however, that methodological
problems with research to date
makes it difficult to draw clear
conclusions. Morrissey and Meyer
also noted that a number of forensic
ACT (FACT) programs have emerged
in recent years, and that pre-post
studies in Chicago and Rochester,
New York, have produced highly
favorable results.
ACT in Colorado
The Colorado Division of Mental Health has adopted the
ACT model for use in Colorado with a specific focus on
individuals with serious and persistent mental illness who
are also at risk for involvement with the criminal justice
system. ACT teams are operating out of the San Luis Valley
Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center, Mental
Health Center of Boulder County and the Mental Health
Center of Denver. Consumers involved in ACT are often at
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
risk for hospitalization or incarceration, and most have substance abuse problems.99
Integrated Mental Health and Substance
Abuse Treatment
According to the Division of Mental Health, outcome data
from local programs indicates that the ACT program is
highly successful (Lee, 2004). Compared to the year prior
to program enrollment, ACT clients demonstrated a variety
of positive post-enrollment outcomes, including increased
functioning, reduced substance abuse and fewer days incarcerated and hospitalized. The Division of Mental Health
also reports that reductions in the number of incarceration
days and inpatient hospitalization days resulted in considerable avoidance of costs.100
Many offenders with mental illness also have a co-occurring
substance abuse disorder. In fact, research has shown that
co-occurring disorders (COD) are far more prevalent
among criminal justice populations than among the general
public.103 Research has also shown that integrated treatment services are effective with COD. Integrated treatment
addresses both sets of conditions simultaneously in the same
setting, with a single clinician or treatment team trained in
both substance abuse and mental health services. Integrated
treatment has been identified as an evidence-based practice
by the Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center. In a recent
review of integrated treatment programs for justice-involved
persons with COD, Osher and Steadman (2007) identified
the modified therapeutic community as an approach that
can reduce recidivism.104
The Boulder County PACE Program
Partnership for Active Community Engagement (PACE) is
an integrated treatment and diversion program operating in
Boulder County, Colorado, that is based on the ACT model.101 PACE employs a multi-disciplinary, co-located team
that provides services and structure to a target population
of adult offenders with mental illness who have a history
of incarceration. Collaboration with a variety of agencies
ensures that clients receive complementary services that
address individual needs. The goal of PACE is to increase client functioning and reduce jail use by the target population.
An evaluation conducted by Silvern et al. (2006) found that
PACE was highly successful. The study examined the average rates (days per month) that 57 PACE clients stayed in
the Boulder County jail prior to program enrollment, during participation in PACE, and following termination from
the program.102 Overall, the study found that participation
in PACE produced statistically significant reductions in
the rates of incarceration and in the rates of new criminal
charges. Relative to pre-program incarceration rates, PACE
clients spent fewer days per month incarcerated both during
and after program participation. For example, PACE clients
in Boulder County spent an average of 3.4 days per year in
jail after entering the program compared to 56 days per year
in jail before PACE entry.
PACE clients in Boulder County
spent an average of 3.4 days
per year in jail after entering the
program compared to 56 days per
year in jail before PACE entry.
The CDOC Modified Therapeutic
Community for Offenders with Mental
Illness and Chemical Abuse Disorders
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
The Colorado DOC has been a national leader in programming for inmates with co-occurring mental illness and
substance abuse disorders. In 1995, the CDOC implemented a therapeutic community (TC) for inmates with
COD at its newly opened facility for mentally ill inmates,
the San Carlos Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado.
Working with staff from the National Development &
Research Institutes (NDRI) as part of a National Institute
on Drug Abuse funded research project, the TC program
was modified over the next few years and a communitybased aftercare component was also developed.
Both the prison and community-based modified therapeutic
communities (MTCs) retain the community structure of
a traditional TC, but they incorporate increased flexibility,
decreased intensity, and greater individualization. They
also integrate mental health and substance abuse therapeutic approaches and resources.105 The prison-based MTC
at San Carlos employs a cognitive behavioral curriculum
within a foundation of TC principles. Planned program
duration is 12 months, but variation can occur depending
on each offender’s progress in treatment or other factors.
Inmates participate in program activities 4-5 hours per day,
five days per week. The community-based aftercare MTC,
Independence House, is a 20-bed program located within a
Community Corrections facility in Denver. Mental health
counseling and other services are provided by a local mental
health center. MTC program participants are involved in
program activities 3-5 hours per day, three to seven days
59
What Works
per week. Activities typically focus on relapse prevention,
medication and symptom management, and basic life skills.
Length of stay is about six months.106
Evaluation of the CDOC MTC
Both the San Carlos and Independence House MTC programs have been the focus of a highly rigorous evaluation
conducted by researchers at NDRI (Sacks et al., 2003).
Inmates with COD were randomly assigned to either the
prison-based MTC or usual mental health services. The latter
group of inmates served as the study’s control group. Inmates
who completed the MTC program in prison could enter the
MTC aftercare program upon release. Those not participating in the aftercare MTC, as well members of the control
group, were eligible to receive a variety of services in the
community. Baseline and 12-month post-release follow-up
data were collected and analyzed using two main crimerelated outcomes, reincarceration and criminal activity.107
The study found significant positive effects for MTC program
participants. Inmates who participated in the prison-based
MTC program had significantly lower reincarceration rates
than their control group counterparts: 9% compared to 33%.
Moreover, inmates who participated in both the prison and
community-based aftercare MTCs had significantly lower
reincarceration rates (5% compared to 33%), rates of criminal
activity (42% compared to 67%), and rates of criminal activity related to alcohol and drug use (30% compared to 58%),
than members of the control group.108
Inmates who participated in the
Colorado DOC’s modified therapeutic
community (MTC) program had
significantly lower reincarceration
rates than their control group
counterparts: 9% compared to 33%.
Moreover, inmates who participated
in both the prison and communitybased aftercare MTCs had
significantly lower reincarceration
rates (5% compared to 33%), rates
of criminal activity (42% compared
to 67%), and rates of criminal
activity related to alcohol and drug
use (30% compared to 58%), than
members of the control group.
60
Sacks et al. (2003) also reported that the longer an offender
remained in treatment the greater their success was at 12
months post-release. They estimated that if an inmate had
two additional months of treatment, the likelihood of reincarceration would drop by 17%; five additional months of
treatment would reduce the likelihood of incarceration by
38%. Overall, the researchers concluded the following:
[This study] provides initial evidence that
combining prison and aftercare modified TC
treatment improves crime outcomes, which
confirms the benefits that accrue from such integrated programs. These results should encourage
criminal justice program developers and policy
makers to consider developing modified TC
aftercare programs in conjunction with prison
modified TC treatment.109
Supported employment and
supportive housing
Two programs that are particularly relevant in the context
of offender reentry are supported employment and supported housing for offenders with mental illness. Supported
employment is an evidence-based practice that helps people
with serious mental disabilities find and keep meaningful work. Supportive housing is also an evidence-based
program: it is designed to provide individuals with serious
mental illness either transitional or long-term housing. A
large body of highly rigorous research has demonstrated the
effectiveness of both of these programs in increasing employment rates and the housing stability, respectively, of persons
with serious mental illness.110 Given the important role that
work and housing stability play in the successful community
reintegration of offenders released from prison and jail, both
programs hold considerable potential as recidivism reduction interventions of offenders with mental illness.
Unfortunately, little is known about the capacity of either
program to work with criminal justice involved populations. In a recent review, Anthony (2005) reported that no
known published studies have addressed the effectiveness
of supported employment interventions with populations
of justice involved people with mental illness.111 Moreover,
there appears to be minimal expansion of the supportive
employment model to criminal justice settings.
There is some evidence, however, that supported employment can work with justice involved clients based on the
Employment Intervention Demonstration Program (EIDP)
study conducted by Judith Cook and her colleagues.112 The
research employed an experimental design to study the
effects of an integrated psychiatric and vocational service
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
intervention at seven sites nationwide. Clients who received
the program were more than twice as likely to be meaningfully employed as their control group counterparts two
years after participating in the program. While neither the
program nor the study focused on criminal justice involved
clients per se, positive outcomes were found for the small
percentage of program participants who had been arrested in
the three month period prior to program enrollment.
The evidence on supportive housing programs is only
slightly better. In a recent paper on supportive housing for
offenders with mental illness, Roman and her colleagues
(2006) reported that, while rigorous evaluations of supportive housing reentry programs are scarce, outcome data
from a small number of individual and statewide programs
are showing positive results.113 For example, St. Leonard’s
Ministries (SLM) provides transitional and long-term housing to parolees and other offenders returning from prison
to the community in Chicago. About one-third of the
program participants are mentally ill. Residents are referred
to the program by parole officers or the Department of
Corrections. Three-year recidivism rates for program partici-
pants are consistently around 20%; which is well below the
average rate of 52% for inmates in Illinois.114
According to Roman et al. (2006), the statewide Shelter Plus
Care program in Maryland, which provides rental assistance
to persons with serious mental illness upon release from jail,
reports jail recidivism rates of less than 7%. In California,
supportive housing for justice involved clients with mental
illness has been shown to increase residential stability for
those returning to the community from prison.
Roman and her colleagues also reported that supportive
housing reentry programs are typically designed as transitional programs with a focus on treatment and a supportive
peer community. Services are integrated into the program
and participation is typically required under a housing
ready approach.115 In housing ready models, clients typically
participate in treatment and progress through a series of lessintensive services with the goal of final permanent housing
placement when the client is ready. Housing ready models
stand in contrast to a housing first approach that offers
direct housing placements without required participation
in services.
What Works Program Areas
Cognitive-Behavioral Programs
Reviews examining the effectiveness of correctional interventions consistently report that cognitive-behavioral programs
are effective at reducing recidivism. As the name implies,
cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) integrates the principles
of cognitive theory and behavioral theory. In practice, CBT
attempts to change both unwanted behaviors and the internal thought processes that lead to them.
According to the National Association of CognitiveBehavioral Therapists (NACBT), cognitive-behavioral
therapy refers to “a classification of therapies with similarities” more so than a “distinct therapeutic technique.”116 The
following characteristics are among those found in most
CBT programs:
• Treatment is based on the premise that thoughts cause
feelings and external behaviors. Thought processes can
be changed, and therefore behavior can be changed, too.
• Treatment is time-limited and relatively brief, not an
open-ended process.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
• Treatment is highly structured. Each therapy session has
a specific agenda and focus.
• Treatment is educational. It is designed to help clients
learn new ways of thinking and acting. It helps clients
uncover distortions in thinking and irrational assumptions about situations that can lead to inappropriate
behavior.
• Clients are required to do homework as a way to practice newly learned skills and techniques.
Over the past few decades, cognitive-behavioral therapy
has been used to treat a wide variety of problems and disorders, including substance abuse and criminal conduct. In
a recent review of CBT programs for criminal offenders,
Lipsey and his colleagues (2007) found that CBT programs
have been used with juvenile and adult offenders, delivered
in institutional and community settings, and administered
independently or as part of a multi-component intervention.117 Cognitive-behavioral programs used with criminal
offenders are designed to change criminal thinking and
61
What Works
Cognitive-behavioral programs
used with criminal offenders are
designed to change criminal thinking
and behavior while also providing
the offender with problem solving,
interpersonal and social skills
that facilitate long-term pro-social
behavior.
behavior while also providing the offender with problem
solving, interpersonal and social skills that facilitate longterm pro-social behavior.
Studies consistently show that CBT programs work. Pearson
et al. (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of 69 studies that
examined both CBT and behavioral interventions and
found that the CBT programs were effective at reducing
recidivism. Wilson et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis of 20 studies
and Aos et al.’s (2006) meta-analysis of 25 studies of CBT
programs both found positive program effects. Lipsey and
his colleagues (2007) reported that “several well conducted
meta-analyses have identified cognitive-behavioral therapy
(CBT) as a particularly effective intervention for reducing
the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders.”118 Their own
meta-analysis of 58 studies found that CBT programs on
average cut one-year recidivism rates by 25%. Consistent
with the principles of effective intervention, effects were
greater for high-risk offenders.
Several manualized CBT programs that employ a specialized treatment curriculum have been used with offenders
across the country. Manualized programs are advantageous because their content and approach are standardized,
thereby helping to ensure that a theoretically grounded and
empirically tested treatment protocol is properly and consistently delivered. In a recent report on cognitive-behavioral
interventions, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
identified the following programs as being widely used in
the criminal justice system:119
• Aggression Replacement Training®
• Moral Reconation Therapy®
• Reasoning and Rehabilitation
• Relapse Prevention Therapy
• Thinking for a Change, and
62
• Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment:
Strategies for Self-Improvement and Change (SSC)
In the following pages, each of these approaches is briefly
described and the evidence on program effectiveness is summarized. It is important to note that some of these programs
are proprietary and disseminated through a designated
licensing or certification organization. These organizations
tend to be affiliated with the original program developers or
their parent institutions, and they typically provide training
and technical assistance designed to ensure program integrity and implementation fidelity. It is also important to keep
in mind that cognitive-behavioral approaches are used in a
variety of substance abuse, sex offender, mental health and
other offender treatment programs that may or may not use
one of these specific program models.
Specific CBT Program Models
Aggression Replacement Training® (ART®) is a multimodal, cognitive-behavioral intervention designed to teach
individuals to replace aggression and antisocial behavior
with positive alternatives. Developed by Arnold Goldstein
and Barry Glick at the Syracuse University Center for
Research on Aggression, ART® provides program participants with impulse control, anger management and other
pro-social skills that can be used to reduce anger and violence and increase more appropriate behaviors. ART® was
originally designed for use with aggressive youth 10-17 years
of age, but today it is also used with adult offenders.
ART® consists of a 10-week, 30-hour intervention administered to groups of 8 to 12 offenders. Participants typically
attend three 1-hour sessions per week. The program’s three
main components are anger control, skillstreaming, and
moral reasoning. The anger control component teaches
program participants a variety of self-control skills, including how to recognize triggers for aggressive behavior. The
skillstreaming component teaches pro-social interpersonal
skills, including how to deal with group pressure. The moral
reasoning component is focused on changing cognitive distortions and building concern for others.
ART® is a trademarked and copyrighted program disseminated through G&G Consultants, LLC in Glenville, New
York. G&G provides training and other services regarding
ART® implementation and certification, including the
licensing of ART® training centers. According to G&G,
ART® has been used in at least 45 states and several foreign
countries.120
Moral Reconation Therapy® (MRT®) is a workbook
based cognitive-behavioral treatment program with a focus
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
on moral reasoning. Developed by Greg Little and Ken
Robinson in the early 1980s, the program was originally
used with substance abusing offenders in a prison-based
TC. Today, MRT® is used with a wide range of adult and
juvenile offenders in institutional and community settings.
MRT® is designed to raise moral reasoning so that concern
for social rules and others is an important part of an individual’s decision-making process.121
The MRT® curriculum works in a step-by-step fashion,
moving the offender through progressive stages of behavioral change and growth. The program typically has 12 to
16 steps depending on the population being served. It is
delivered by an MRT®-trained facilitator in a group setting
(12-15 participants is typical) with participants meeting
once or twice per week. Program duration varies depending
on the setting, but most offenders complete treatment in
20-30 sessions.
MRT® is a trademarked program and its materials are copyrighted. Program materials are distributed to criminal justice
agencies by Correctional Counseling Incorporated (CCI),
in Memphis, Tennessee. MRT® training is also delivered
by CCI or agencies with a formal CCI agreement. MRT®
programs are operating in 45 states, and programs for
offenders can be found in prisons, jails and community settings. Versions of MRT® are available for use with a variety
of offender populations, including general adult offenders,
perpetrators of domestic violence, sex offenders, misdemeanants, and juvenile delinquents.122
Reasoning and Rehabilitation is a cognitive behavioral
program that teaches pro-social cognitive and problem solving skills to offenders. Developed by Ross and Fabiano in
1985, R&R is based on the premise that many offenders
have cognitive and social competency deficits that play a
major role in their criminal behavior. R&R attempts to alter
impulsive, anti-social thinking and behavior by enhancing
critical reasoning, self-control, problem solving skills, and
pro-social values. It also is specifically designed to capture
and sustain the participation and motivation of offenders.123
The R&R program consists of ten modules that are delivered in sequential sessions, typically to a group of 6 to
10 offenders. Program delivery usually takes place in a
classroom-like setting over a period of 8 to 12 weeks. The
program works in a progressive manner, moving offenders
through stages of change. Each session teaches a new subskill that builds upon skills learned in prior sessions. The
modules cover the following areas: problem solving, social
skills, negotiation skills, management of emotions, creative
thinking, values enhancement, critical reasoning and cognitive exercises.124
R&R typically targets medium-to-high risk adult and
adolescent offenders. R&R training and materials are copyrighted and available through T3 Associates in Ottawa,
Ontario. According to T3, R&R is used in institutional and
community correctional settings throughout the United
States, Canada, and several other countries.125
Relapse Prevention Therapy (RPT) is a cognitivebehavioral approach designed to teach individuals how to
anticipate and prevent inappropriate behavior. Although
it was originally developed for use with substance abusers,
RPT is being used today with a variety of populations and
problem behaviors, including substance abuse, violence, sex
offending and other types of criminal conduct. The RPT
model developed by George Parks and G. Alan Marlatt
(2000) is based on research that shows that most relapses
are due to certain types of high-risk situations, including
negative emotional states, interpersonal conflict, and social
pressure.126 RPT attempts to prevent relapse and promote
abstinence by teaching individuals how to anticipate and
deal with these situations.
According to Parks and Marlatt, RPT intervention strategies
can be grouped into three categories: coping skills training,
cognitive therapy, and lifestyle modification.127 Offenders
are taught behavioral awareness and more effective coping
and self-management strategies that can help them identify
and manage situations that can lead to relapse.128 Both specific and global intervention strategies are used to address
the triggers and risks that precede relapse as well as the
cognitive distortions and lifestyle imbalances that lead to
high-risk situations.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Guidelines for implementing RPT have been published by
the Addictive Behaviors Research Center (ABRC) at the
University of Washington in Seattle (Marlatt, Parks, and
Witkiewitz, 2002). RPT training and technical assistance are
also available through ABRC. Publications on RPT program
models are also available through the National Institute on
Drug Abuse.129
Thinking for a Change (T4C) is a cognitive-behavioral
program for offenders developed by the National Institute of
Corrections (NIC) in 1997. It is designed to provide offenders with the motivation and skills needed to change their
thinking patterns and behaviors. T4C integrates cognitive
restructuring, social skills and problem solving instruction
to raise an individual’s awareness and build interpersonal
problem solving skills.130 The program is used with adult as
well as juvenile offenders in both institutional and community settings.
The T4C curriculum consists of 22 sequential lessons that
are delivered to 8-12 participants over the course of about
63
What Works
1-3 months. While T4C can be customized to meet the
needs of a specific participant group, instruction, role-play
and homework are typical program features. The program
was specifically designed to be meaningful to a broad range
of offenders, including prison and jail inmates, probationers
and parolees.131
According to the NIC, T4C programs have been implemented in at least 40 states. The NIC provides the program
to correctional agencies free of charge, and training materials
are available on the NIC website.132
Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment:
Strategies for Self-Improvement and Change (SSC) is a
cognitive-behavioral treatment program for adult substanceabusing offenders involved in criminal conduct. Developed
by Kenneth Wanberg and Harvey Milkman, SSC employs
a phased, multi-modal approach, with screening and assessment serving as important program components. Clients
participate in the assessment process to facilitate self-awareness and change.
SSC is long-term, lasting up to one year. It can be delivered
in the community as well as in a correctional institution.
Phase I is designed to develop the offender’s self-awareness
and motivation to change. It concludes with the development of a relapse and recidivism prevention plan.133 Phase II
focuses on skill-building for changing thought processes and
behavior. Phase III focuses on the stabilization and maintenance of change. According to its developers, Phase I of SSC
“can serve as a stand-alone program that may be followed by
Phases II and III either in aftercare settings or while monitored by correctional supervisory personnel.”134
SSC is used extensively by substance abuse treatment providers in Colorado.135 A Provider’s Guide and a Participant’s
Workbook have been published by Sage Publications, Inc.
Training sessions for the delivery of SSC are available through
the Center for Interdisciplinary Services in Denver, Colorado.
Effectiveness
Several of the programs described above have been subject
to extensive evaluation. Both single studies and systematic
reviews of these programs have generally produced positive
results. A brief summary of the evidence on each program’s
effectiveness in reducing recidivism is provided below.
ART® Effectiveness
Several evaluations of ART® have been conducted by program developers Goldstein and Glick. Overall, these single
studies have consistently found positive treatment effects. In
64
New York, for example, Goldstein et al. (1989) examined
the effectiveness of ART® delivered to delinquent youth
in a community setting. For some program participants,
ART® was also provided to family members. The study
found that both groups receiving ART® had significantly
fewer post-program arrests than control group youth who
did not participate in ART®.136
Researchers at the WSIPP have also conducted evaluations
of ART®. Between 1999 and 2001, 20 of Washington’s
34 juvenile courts implemented ART®, and about 1,500
juvenile offenders participated in these programs. Barnoski’s
(2004) evaluation based on an 18-month follow-up period
found felony recidivism rates of 21% for ART®-treated
youth compared to 25% for control group youth (Barnoski,
2004). A cost-benefit analysis estimated that the ART® program generated $6.71 in taxpayer benefits for every $1 spent
on the program. For courts where ART® was competently
delivered, the return on investment was $11.66 in benefits
for every $1 of cost. A separate meta-analysis of four ART®
evaluations conducted by the Institute in 2006 also found
positive treatment effects (Aos et al., 2006).
For courts where ART® was
competently delivered, the return
on investment was $11.66 in
benefits for every $1 of cost. A
separate meta-analysis of four
ART® evaluations conducted by
the Institute in 2006 also found
positive treatment effects (Aos et
al., 2006).
MRT® Effectivness
Several evaluations of MRT® have been conducted by
Little, one of MRT’s® original developers. Some of that
research has tracked MRT® clients for 10 years or more
after treatment, and virtually all of the studies that have
examined recidivism have found positive effects. A metaanalysis of 9 studies examining the effectiveness of MRT®
with probationers and parolees, for example, found that
MRT® cut recidivism on average by nearly two-thirds
(Little, 2005). Another meta-analysis of 32 studies focusing on prison-based MRT® programs found an average
three-year recidivism rate of 27% for MRT®-treated felons
compared to an average recidivism rate of 40% for control
subjects (Little, 2006).
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
R&R program evaluations in Colorado
MacKenzie concluded that the
research provides strong evidence
that MRT® reduces recidivism.
Reviews conducted by researchers unaffiliated with MRT®
have also found positive results. Wilson et al. (2005)
examined the effectiveness of MRT® as part of a larger
review of CBT programs and found that MRT® programs reduced recidivism, on average, by 16 percentage
points. MacKenzie’s (2006) meta-analysis of seven rigorous
MRT® studies also found significantly lower recidivism
rates for MRT® treated offenders. She concluded that “the
research provides strong evidence that MRT® programs
are effective in reducing the recidivism of offenders.”137 A
cost-benefit analysis conducted by Aos and his colleagues
(2001) estimated that MRT® programs produced a return
on investment to taxpayers alone of nearly $9 for every $1 of
program cost.
R&R Effectiveness
Evaluations of the effectiveness of R&R have also produced
favorable results. Several single studies by Poporino and
Robinson, for example, have found that R&R reduces
recidivism. One study examining R&R’s use with high-risk
offenders found prison readmission rates of 37% for R&R
program participants compared to 70% for comparison
subjects.138
R&R’s effectiveness has also been demonstrated in several
systematic reviews. Allen et al. (2001), Aos et al. (2001)
and Pearson et al. (2002) all found positive R&R effects on
recidivism in their reviews. Pearson et al. also found that
R&R was effective in both institutional and community
settings. Wilson et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis of seven studies
found mixed results overall, but R&R program participants recidivated at a slightly lower rate than non program
participants in the three experiments that were part of the
analysis. Tong and Farrington (2006) reviewed 16 studies
and found positive R&R treatment effects on recidivism,
as did MacKenzie (2006) in a meta-analysis of eight R&R
evaluations. Finally, Aos and his colleagues (2001) estimated
that R&R programs produced more than $8 in benefits to
taxpayers for every $1 of program cost. Overall, the evaluation evidence supports the conclusion that R&R
is effective in reducing recidivism. An R&R evaluation
conducted in Colorado by the Division of Criminal
Justice, however, underscores the importance of quality
implementation.
In 1991, the Colorado Judicial Department incorporated the
R&R program into a pilot project for adult substance abusing offenders called the Specialized Drug Offender Program
(SDOP). The R&R program was evaluated as part of a larger
SDOP study and found to enhance program success among
certain program participants (Hunter and Johnson, 1992).
Based on this research, the Office of Probation Services
incorporated the R&R program into a Juvenile Intensive
Supervision Probation (JISP). In 1996, the Colorado
Division of Criminal Justice conducted an evaluation of the
R&R program as it was implemented in JISP.139
The DCJ study included both a process evaluation that
examined program implementation and delivery and an outcome evaluation that used an experimental design. Several
outcome measures were examined, including the acquisition
of cognitive skills and post-program arrest recidivism. DCJ’s
outcome evaluation found that R&R program participants
and non-participants were equally likely to be rearrested
for a new crime during the 12-month follow-up period.
The study also found limited evidence to suggest that
offenders who received the R&R program had improved
pro-social attitudes or increased cognitive skills. None of
this was surprising, however, because the process evaluation demonstrated that the R&R program was not properly
implemented.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Findings from the process evaluation indicated that program staff did not routinely invest the suggested amount of
time in lesson preparation. Most officers reported that the
demands of their regular job duties did not permit adequate
DCJ’s outcome evaluation found
that R&R program participants
and non-participants were equally
likely to be rearrested for a new
crime during the 12-month follow-up
period. The study also found limited
evidence to suggest that offenders
who received the R&R program
had improved pro-social attitudes
or increased cognitive skills. None
of this was surprising, however,
because the process evaluation
demonstrated that the R&R program
was not properly implemented.
65
What Works
time for the task. In addition, an excessive amount of time
elapsed between training and program delivery: 3.2 months
on average, whereas 60 days or less was recommended by
the program’s designers. A review of videotaped program
sessions also revealed that program delivery barely met R&R
program standards. These findings led the evaluators to
conclude that the program was not implemented as planned
and to recommend that resources be directed toward training, monitoring and ongoing quality control for the explicit
purpose of building and maintaining program integrity.140
The DCJ evaluation underscores the importance of program
implementation and delivery. Even proven program models
can fail to yield results when design specifications are not
faithfully followed. A quality control mechanism that can
identify problems and deviations from design in a timely
manner should be a staple of every programming effort.
The DCJ evaluation underscores
the importance of program
implementation and delivery.
Even proven program models can
fail to yield results when design
specifications are not faithfully
followed.
bationers who met the admission criteria but were not yet
assigned to the program.144 Probationers who completed
the T4C program were found to have a lower rate of recidivism for a new offense (13%) compared to the comparison
group (20%) and program drop-outs (18%). Offenders
who dropped out of the program received technical violations, however, at a far higher rate than even the non-treated
offenders.
The second study examined the effects of a T4C program
used with probationers in Tippecanoe County, Indiana.
Lowenkamp and Latessa (2006) compared the rearrest outcomes of 136 offenders who participated in T4C with those
of 97 comparable probationers who did not participate in
the program. T4C-treated offenders were found to have a
significantly lower rearrest rate than their non-treated counterparts; 23% compared to 35%. The 90 offenders who
completed the T4C program successfully had a rearrest rate
of 18%.145
While single studies like these do not provide conclusive evidence about the effectiveness of T4C, their positive findings
are consistent with the larger body of evidence concerning
cognitive-behavioral approaches overall. Given the widespread implementation of the T4C approach, there is both
a need and opportunity for additional rigorous outcome
research.
SSC Effectiveness
RPT Effectiveness.
Several studies have found that RPT is effective in reducing substance abuse. Carroll (1996) and Irvin et al. (1999)
both conducted systematic reviews of RPT studies and
found that RPT is an effective substance abuse treatment
intervention.141 Neither of these reviews, however, directly
addressed the impact of RPT on criminal recidivism. One
recent meta-analysis that did was conducted by Dowden et
al. (2003). They consolidated the findings of correctional
interventions that targeted relapse prevention and found
that RPT programs decreased recidivism on average by
15%.142 The analysis also found that programs adhering to
the principles of effective correctional intervention yielded
the strongest reductions in recidivism.
T4C Effectiveness
Our review of the research found only two studies that
examined the effect of T4C on recidivism. The first examined a T4C program used with probationers in Dallas
County, Texas.143 The study compared a small number of
T4C program participants with a matched group of pro66
In this review of the research, we did not find any systematic reviews that addressed SSC specifically, nor did we find
any single studies that examined the program’s impact on
recidivism in a rigorous manner.146 Nevertheless, we have
highlighted SSC because of its widespread use in Colorado
and the well-established scientific evidence concerning the
effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral programs in general.
In this review of the research, no
systematic reviews were found that
addressed SSC specifically, nor were
single studies that examined the
program’s impact on recidivism in
a rigorous manner. Nevertheless,
SSC is highlighted here because of
its widespread use in Colorado. Its
widespread use underscores a need
for the program to be evaluated.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
What Works Program Areas
Juvenile Offender Programs
Since the first juvenile court in the United States was created
in Illinois in 1899, juvenile offenders have historically been
viewed as a distinct population from offending adults.147
The juvenile justice system is largely independent from the
adult criminal system and the procedures and methods that
are used with juvenile offenders tend to emphasize their protection and rehabilitation rather than their punishment.
overall. The most effective programs reduced recidivism by
an average of about 20 percentage points. Interventions
for non-institutionalized juveniles were more effective with
serious offenders than with non-serious offenders. Two
types of treatment were found to be most effective with
institutionalized offenders: interpersonal skills training and
community-based, family style group homes.
Juvenile justice systems throughout the country were established under and have largely been guided by the doctrine of
parens patrie. This means that the state acts as the guardian
or responsible authority for a minor to protect the youth
from harmful conduct or environments.148 While many
states passed laws in the 1990s stressing punishment and
accountability for juvenile offenders, most juvenile courts
and other segments of the juvenile justice system continue
to view treatment and guidance for young offenders as an
important part of their mission.
More recently, MacKenzie (2006) conducted a systematic
review of several types of recidivism reduction programs
for juvenile delinquents and found mixed results for both
residential (primarily wilderness) and intensive community
supervision programs. Her meta-analysis of seven rigorous
evaluations of multi-systemic therapy (MST) programs,
however, found strong evidence that MST worked. Garrido
and Morales (2007) conducted a systematic review of 30
studies focused on interventions for institutionalized chronic
or violent juvenile offenders. They found that interventions
with a cognitive or cognitive-behavioral emphasis were most
effective. The researchers also noted that multi-focused
interventions had a significant effect on recidivism, and that
services are likely to have a greater impact when they intervene in multiple spheres of a juvenile’s life.
An extensive body of research on
the effectiveness of rehabilitation
programs for juvenile offenders
has been assembled over the
past 20 years. Overall, these
studies indicate that several types
interventions for juvenile offenders
can and do work.
An extensive body of research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders has been assembled
over the past 20 years. Overall, these studies indicate that
several types interventions for juvenile offenders can and
do work.
Lipsey and Wilson (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of
200 studies and found that correctional interventions for
juvenile offenders were effective at reducing recidivism
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Several reviewers have examined the effectiveness of
family-based programs for juvenile offenders. Familybased interventions work with multiple family members
to address a variety of factors that may be contributing to
a child’s delinquency, including family conflict, ineffective
parenting, and poor communication. Family-related factors such as poor parenting, parental conflict and anti-social
parents have consistently been found to be risk factors for
criminal offending.149 Reviews conducted by Woolfenden
et al. (2002), Greenwood (2006), Aos et al. (2006) and
Farrington and Welsh (2007), have all found that familybased programs are effective at reducing recidivism. Three
family-based programs that target adjudicated delinquents
and effectively reduce recidivism are highlighted below.
Functional Family Therapy
Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a short-term, familybased program for at-risk and juvenile justice involved
67
What Works
youth. Originally developed in 1969 by James Alexander and
Bruce Parsons at the University of Utah, FFT focuses on the
multiple systems within which adolescents and their families
live.150 The overarching goal is to prevent anti-social behavior
and other problems by engaging the family, developing family
strengths and counteracting risk factors for problem behavior.
FFT was designed to help diverse populations of at-risk
youth, many of which are underserved and labeled as treatment resistant. The program specifically targets 11-18
year-olds and their families, including youth engaging in
delinquency, violence or substance abuse.
The FFT model has three distinct phases: engagement and
motivation, behavior change, and generalization. Each phase
has distinct goals and objectives, and each addresses different risk and protective factors. Engagement and motivation
is designed to break down barriers and prepare youth and
families for positive change. Behavior change focuses on
skill building and the development and implementation of
appropriate short- and long-term behavior change plans.
Generalization is aimed at relapse prevention and helping
families to sustain change by applying what has been learned
to future situations.
FFT has been applied in a variety of contexts. It can be
delivered as a home, clinic or school-based intervention,
and it has been used in diversion, probation and reentry settings.151 On average, participating youth and families attend
8 to 12 one hour sessions over a 3 month period, but up to
30 hours of service may be involved. FFT sessions are delivered by one or two highly trained therapists, with therapists’
caseloads averaging 12-16 families.
FFT programs are currently operating in more than 20
states and at least two foreign countries. Dissemination,
training and technical assistance are provided by FFT
Inc., in Seattle, Washington. FFT is recognized as a model
program by the Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence at the University of Colorado.
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) is a program for youth displaying serious and chronic anti-social
behavior or emotional disturbance who are in need of
out-of-home placement. It serves as an alternative to group
or residential treatment, incarceration or hospitalization.
Developed by Patricia Chamberlain at the Oregon Social
Learning Center (OSLC) in 1983, the MTFC model is
based on the principles of social learning theory and research
conducted by Gerald Patterson and John Reid at the OSLC
in the 1970s.
68
MTFC provides short-term (6-9 months), highly structured
care and supervision in the foster family setting. Foster parents are recruited, trained, and supported by the program,
and they provide youth with close supervision, a supportive
relationship, and reduced contact with antisocial peers.
Adolescents under MTFC typically engage in social and academic skills-building, as well as other therapeutic activities
that are matched to the individual’s age and need. MTFC
also provides family therapy to biological parents and/or
other aftercare resources. Academic support, psychiatric
consultation and medication management are also provided
when needed.
Foster parents receive 12 -14 hours of training and a variety of support services, including access to MTFC staff 24
hours a day/7 days a week. The MTFC treatment team,
which meets weekly, includes a supervisor, a family therapist, an individual therapist, a child skills trainer, and a daily
telephone contact person. The program supervisor provides
intensive support to the foster parents and oversees interventions delivered by MTFC team members and others in
home, school and other settings.
The MTFC adolescent program has been implemented in at
least 35 locations throughout the country and in several foreign countries. Youth are referred from a variety of sources,
including probation and the juvenile courts. Most referrals
have been involved in numerous prior treatment efforts and
have failed at least one prior out-of-home placement. Since
the early 1980’s, the MTFC model has been expanded to
serve youth in other age groups as well. Today, there is a
version of MTFC for children 3-5 years of age as well as the
one for adolescents. A version of MTFC for children 6-11
years of age is in development.
The MTFC program is disseminated through TFC
Consultants, Inc. in Eugene, Oregon. TFC provides complete implementation services, including training and
technical assistance. TFC also has a MTFC certification
process to help ensure that programs are implemented with
fidelity and integrity. At least one provider in Colorado was
receiving MTFC implementation services from TFC as of
January, 2008. MTFC is recognized as a model program by
the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the
University of Colorado.
Multi-Systemic Therapy
Multisystemic Therapy (MST) is a community-based intervention for serious and chronic juvenile offenders who are
at risk of out-of-home placement. It was developed in the
late 1970s based on the premise that individual, family and
environmental factors all play a role in shaping anti-social
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
behavior.152 MST works within multiple systems (i.e., individual, family, school, neighborhood) to address the various
causes of a child’s delinquency.153 The overarching goal of the
program is to improve family functioning, reduce anti-social
behavior and prevent the need for out of home placement.
MST is comprehensive, goal-oriented and highly individualized program that emphasizes youth and family strengths.
Improving parental discipline and family interaction,
replacing deviant peers with pro-social relationships, and
improving the child’s school performance are often focal
points of intervention efforts. Parents are taught effective parenting skills and assisted in developing a support
network of family, friends and community resources that
can help promote and sustain pro-social behavior in the
child. Barriers to effective parenting are also identified and
addressed. Youth are empowered to deal with problems in
appropriate pro-social ways.
MST services are typically home-based but sometimes
delivered in a community setting such as a school or neighborhood center. The program targets offenders 12 to 17
years of age, and services are delivered by a trained MST
therapist. A typical intervention involves about 60 hours of
therapist-family contact over a four month period, with
therapists available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Therapist caseloads are small, typically ranging from four
to six families.
MST programs are currently operating in more than 30
states and several foreign countries. The program is disseminated through MST Services, located in Mt. Pleasant,
South Carolina. MST Services is affiliated with the Medical
University of South Carolina and the Family Services
Research Center where MST was originally developed. MST
Services grants license agreements for MST and provides
a variety of program development and training services.
Orientation trainings for new MST therapists employed
by licensed providers are also provided through the Center
for Effective Interventions (CEI) at the Metropolitan State
College of Denver. Several licensed providers are delivering
MST in Colorado. MST is recognized as a model program
by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at
the University of Colorado.
Evidence of Program Effectiveness
Each of the programs described above have been subject to
extensive evaluation. A brief summary of the evidence on
each program’s effectiveness in reducing recidivism is provided below.
FFT Effectiveness
Both single studies and systematic reviews have shown
that FFT works. In Las Vegas, for example, Sexton and
Alexander (2000) found that only 20% of the youth who
completed FFT committed an offense during the year after
treatment compared with 36% of their treatment-as-usual
counterparts. In Washington, Barnoski’s (2004) evaluation of FFT programs implemented in 14 sites across the
state found that when FFT was delivered competently, the
program reduced felony recidivism by 38%. A cost-benefit
analysis estimated that FFT produced $2.77 in taxpayer
savings for every $1 spent on the program. FFT programs
delivered by competent therapists produced a far greater
return on investment; $10.69 in benefits for each taxpayer
dollar spent.
Aos and his colleagues (2006) at the WSIPP also conducted
a meta-analysis of seven rigorous FFT evaluations and found
that the average FFT program with quality control reduced
recidivism by 16%. They reported that without the program, a youth has a 70% chance of recidivating for another
felony or misdemeanor conviction after a 13-year follow-up;
if the youth participates in FFT, the recidivism rate drops to
59%. Their cost-benefit analysis estimated that the average
FFT program produces $6.29 in taxpayer benefits for every
$1 of program cost.
MTFC Effectiveness
Research on the effectiveness of MTFC has consistently
demonstrated that the program reduces recidivism. Fisher
and Chamberlain (2002), for example, randomly assigned
a small sample of boys to either MTFC or group care. They
found that in the first year after treatment, MTFC program participants had less than half the number of arrests,
and spent fewer days incarcerated than the boys who were
in the comparison group.154 A follow-up analysis found
that MTFC youth had fewer violent offenses and less selfreported criminal activity than their comparison group
counterparts two years after program completion (Eddy et
al. 2004).155
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
In 2006, Aos and his colleagues conducted a systematic
review of 571 rigorous evaluations of adult corrections,
juvenile corrections, and prevention programs for the
Washington state legislature. The researchers also estimated
the benefits and costs of many of the programs. Three rigorous evaluations of MTFC programs were included in the
analysis. Compared to regular group care, the MTFC programs reduced recidivism by an average of 22%. The average
MTFC program cost per participant was $6,945. Benefits to
taxpayers alone due to the reduction in crime were $32,915
69
What Works
per participant. This equates to a taxpayer return on investment of $4.74 for every $1 invested in the program.
MST Effectiveness
Over the past 20 years, MST’s effectiveness has been examined in numerous individual studies as well as in several
systematic reviews. Overall, these studies have shown that
MST improves family functioning, decreases recidivism
and reduces out-of-home placements. Several MST studies
focusing on different types of juvenile offenders have been
conducted by Henggeler, one of MST’s early developers.
In the Simpsonville, South Carolina project, for example,
Henggeler and his colleagues (1997) evaluated MST’s use
with violent and chronic juvenile offenders. They found that
youth receiving MST services had fewer rearrests and spent
less time incarcerated than youth receiving services as usual.
In Charleston, South Carolina, an evaluation of MST used
with substance abusers found similar positive results.156
Over the past 20 years, MST’s
effectiveness has been examined
in numerous individual studies
as well as in several systematic
reviews. Overall, these studies
have shown that MST improves
family functioning, decreases
recidivism and reduces out-of-home
placements.
Schaeffer et al.’s (2005) study that compared the effects of
MST with individual out-patient counseling is also worth
noting because of its long-term follow-up. Recidivism effects
were compared 14 years after program participation, when
the individuals in the study were about 28 years of age.
Schaeffer and her colleagues found that the individuals who
received MST services as youth had on average 54% fewer
arrests and 57% fewer days in adult confinement than their
comparison group counterparts who only received outpatient counseling.157
Systematic reviews conducted by independent researchers
such as Farrington and Welsh (2007), Curtis et al. (2004),
and MacKenzie (2006) have also found positive MST
effects. MacKenzie (2006) concluded that the results of her
meta-analysis “provide strong evidence for the effectiveness
of MST.”158
70
MacKenzie also cited Littell’s (2005) meta-analysis which
produced results that differed from those of other reviews.
Littell et. al’s study was undertaken jointly for the Campbell
and Cochrane Collaborations and it found inconsistent
results, leading the researchers to suggest that “it is premature to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of MST
compared with other services.”159 Ogden and Hagen, however, have suggested that the review was based on too few
studies to warrant solid conclusions.160
Finally, Aos and his colleagues (2006) conducted a metaanalysis of 10 rigorous studies and found that MST programs
reduced recidivism, on average, by 11%. Moreover, MST
programs were found to produce a substantial return on
investment. While program costs were about $4,200 per
participant, the program produced more than $9,600 in
crime reduction benefits to taxpayers and another $12,855
in reduced victimization benefits for every program participant. On average, MST produced $2.26 in benefits to
taxpayers alone for every $1 invested in the program.
The Colorado MST Outcomes
Tracking Project
The Center for Effective Interventions (CEI) and several
partner organizations have been involved in an ongoing evaluation of MST programs delivered in Colorado as part of the
Colorado MST Outcomes Tracking Project.161 An analysis
of outcome data for more than 400 juvenile offenders receiving MST treatment from Colorado providers between June
2005 and December 2006 found that youth who completed
MST treatment had significantly less substance abuse, less
An analysis of outcome data for
more than 400 juvenile offenders
receiving MST treatment from
Colorado providers between
June 2005 and December 2006
found that youth who completed
MST treatment had significantly
less substance abuse, less legal
involvement, fewer arrests and
fewer out-of-home placements
during treatment compared to the
year before.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
legal involvement, fewer arrests and fewer out-of-home placements during treatment compared to the year before.162 Each
of these positive outcomes was sustained 6 months after discharge from the MST program.163 The Focus Research/CEI
report (2007) also noted that youth who did not complete
treatment were more likely to have been arrested or have had
any legal issue during their enrollment in MST than youth
who successfully completed treatment.
The Colorado Youthful Offender System
In 1994, the Colorado Department of Corrections implemented a specialized program for violent juvenile offenders
who were charged and convicted as adult felons. This program, called the Youthful Offender System (YOS), was the
result of a Special Session of the state General Assembly
held in the fall of 1993. YOS essentially provided Colorado’s
courts with a new sentencing option that serves as a middletier between traditional adult and juvenile corrections for
certain violent juvenile felons. YOS programs participants
receive a suspended adult prison sentence and a sentence
to YOS ranging from 2 to 6 years, followed by a period of
community supervision. Offenders convicted of a class 2
felony may be sentenced to YOS for up to 7 years. Failure
to complete YOS results in reinstatement of the adult prison
sentence and transfer to the adult prison system.
YOS is located in Pueblo, Colorado on the grounds of the
Colorado State Hospital. The mission of the program is
to provide a controlled and regimented environment that
affirms dignity of self and others, promotes value of work
and self-discipline, and develops useful skills and abilities
through comprehensive, needs-based programming, including community reintegration and aftercare. A variety of
services are provided to YOS offenders, including substance
abuse treatment, mental health services, sex offender treatment, anger management, cognitive skill-building and a
variety of female-specific activities. YOS has the following
distinct phases:
• An intake, diagnostic and orientation phase.
• Phase 1, which provides offenders with a range of programming, educational and vocational services, and
other activities.
• Phase II, which prepares program participants for community reentry.
• Phase III, which involves a period of community supervision used to gradually reintegrate the offender into
society.164
The Colorado legislature also directed DCJ to conduct an
evaluation of YOS and specifically to examine the recidivism
of YOS program participants.165 In 2002, DCJ released the
results of their study.
Recidivism was defined as new felony court filing and examined for periods of one year, 2 years and 5 years following
discharge from the YOS program. Of the 670 offenders sentenced to YOS from the program’s inception through June 30,
2001, only those offenders discharged from YOS at the time
of the study were included in the recidivism analysis. The
sample sizes available for analysis were smaller as the “time at
risk” period grew. There were 269 offenders in the one-year
analysis, 184 in the 2-year, and only 17 YOS offenders in the
5 year post-discharge analysis. It is important to note that at
the time of study, 102 YOS offenders had failed the program,
98 of them for committing a new crime.166
Overall, DCJ’s analysis found that 78% of the youth at risk
to reoffend for one year received no new felony filings, a
one-year recidivism rate of 22% percent. As time goes on
the successful group gets smaller: 65% of those at risk for
two years received no new felony filings, and 35% of those
at risk to reoffend for five years received no new felony
filings.167 DCJ also reported that most YOS offenders who
recidivated did so in the first year following discharge from
the program.
DCJ evaluated the YOS program again in 2004 (Rosky et
al., 2004). Recidivism was defined as new court filing following transition to the community. Much like the 2002
study findings, recidivism rates for one year and two years
were 22% and 33% percent, respectively.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Moreover, the study included a special analysis of YOS
offenders who furthered their education while incarcerated.
Only 10% of those admitted to YOS had a high school
diploma or a General Equivalency Degree (GED). The
2004 study found that YOS residents who discharged to
community supervision with a secondary education were
significantly more likely to succeed during community transition. This group was also more likely to succeed following
completion of their sentence.
Specifically, those who did not obtain a GED or diploma
while in YOS were found to be:
• 3.8 times more likely to be revoked from YOS to prison;
• 1.6 times more likely to have a felony filing within 2
years of discharge; and
• 2.7 times more likely to return to prison with a new
conviction following discharge.
71
What Works
The 2004 study found that YOS was targeting a unique and
serious population of young offenders, as was intended by
the program originators, and that many of those sentenced
to YOS benefited significantly from the educational component of the program (Rosky et al., 2004).
CDOC’s YOS Recidivism Analysis
In 2006, the CDOC released a comprehensive report on
the YOS which also examined recidivism rates for successful
YOS discharges (Liepold and Williams, 2006). Recidivism
was defined as return to CDOC for either new criminal
activity or a technical violation of parole, probation or
non-department community placement. Recidivism was
examined for multiple release cohorts using one, 3 and 5
year follow-up periods. Across all release cohorts, the average recidivism rate for YOS discharges was 7% at one year,
20% at three years, and 33% at five years following program
completion. These rates are considerably lower than those
found for adults. Adults had a one-year recidivism rate of
36%, a 3-year rate of 49% and a 5-year rate of 57%, based
on the most recent data available at the time of the study.168
The Colorado Division of Youth
Corrections Continuum of Care
Initiative
In 2005, the Colorado Division of Youth Corrections
(DYC) implemented its Continuum of Care Initiative
(CCI) which is designed to improve services for juvenile
offenders from detention through commitment and parole.
The initiative integrates assessment, treatment and transitional services in a comprehensive and coordinated manner
to ensure that each youth’s unique criminogenic needs are
identified and addressed, thereby reducing the likelihood
of recidivism. Risk assessment, individualized case management and a comprehensive continuum of services are
cornerstones of the effort.
The CCI attempts to provide the most appropriate placements and the most effective services for the optimal
duration of time as youth progress progress from detention
through commitment and parole. Treatment, specialized
supervision (including drug testing and electronic monitoring), and a variety of support services are provided through
the program. Treatment services represent the bulk of
program expenditures, and they include substance abuse
treatment, individual and group therapy, family therapy,
job/skills training, mentoring and a variety of other services.
When the Colorado General Assembly authorized funding
for the Continuum of Care Initiative it also requested the
72
DYC to study and report on the program’s effectiveness.
An evaluation report by Triwest Group was issued in 2007
in response to the legislative request. The Triwest study
examined a number of issues to meet the legislature’s evaluation requirements, but only a preliminary analysis of
recidivism was possible. Recidivism was defined as a new
offense filing while under DYC jurisdiction. Given the short
time the program had been operating at the time of the
study, program participants had not been discharged from
DYC long enough to allow for a post-discharge recidivism
analysis. Nevertheless, pre-discharge recidivism was found to
be significantly lower for CCI youth relative to an equivalent comparison group. Thirty percent of the CCCI youth
who were discharged from DYC during FY 2007 received a
new filing while under DYC supervision, compared to 39%
for the comparison group of youth who were discharged
during FY 2005, before CCI was implemented.
Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated
Treatment Network
An evaluation of the Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated
Treatment Network which serves juvenile offenders with
substance abuse problems is also worth noting. The program
provides an integrated therapeutic and correctional approach
to the treatment and monitoring of juvenile offenders to
reduce recidivism and relapse. Juveniles with substance
abuse treatment needs that are referred to the program
receive assessment and case management services through
TASC (Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities), a
well established case management model that serves as a
link between the justice system and treatment providers.
Comprehensive treatment services that meet each client’s needs are delivered by providers participating in the
Network. An evaluation conducted by Erickson et al. (2001)
reported favorable outcomes for Network clients, including
lower rates of recidivism than are found for other juvenile
offender populations.
Restorative Justice
In 2007, the Colorado legislature passed HB 1129 which
encourages the development of restorative justice programs
for juveniles in Colorado. Restorative justice programs are
based on the premise that crime is a violation of people and
relationships and therefore it is important to repair the harm
caused by a wrongful act.169 To be fully accountable, offenders need to acknowledge that their behavior was harmful
to others and take action to repair that harm to the fullest extent possible. Restorative justice programs provide a
mechanism for doing so through processes such as
,
.
/
Y
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and
peacemaking circles.
Research suggests that restorative justice programs can have
a positive impact on recidivism. For example, Nugent et al.
(1999) reviewed and analyzed the results of fours studies of
victim-offender mediation (VOM) programs for juveniles
and found that participation in VOM reduced recidivism.
Youth participating in VOM recidivated at a rate of 19%
compared to 28% for their comparison group counterparts.
Latimer et al. (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 22 stud-
ies involving 35 restorative justice programs and found that
restorative justice programs are a more effective method
of improving victim/offender satisfaction, increasing
compliance with restitution, and decreasing recidivism
compared to non-restorative approaches. While more
rigorous research is needed, particularly for family group
conferencing and peacemaking circles, restorative justice
programs overall do appear to have a positive impact on
recidivism.
1
Division of Criminal Justice Quarterly Population Report for the period ending December 31, 2007 available at
http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/pdf/Correctional%20Populations/CORCOP%20123107%20revised.pdf; Division of Youth
Corrections Monthly Population Report for December 2007 available at http://www.cdhs.state.co.us/dyc/PDFs/
MPR1207.pdf; http://www.cdhs.state.co.us/dyc/PDFs/MPR1207.pdf; Judicial Branch Annual Statistical Report:
FY2006; Department of Corrections Monthly Population Report for December 2007 available at http://www.doc.state.
co.us/Statistics/MonthReport/Dec2007.pdf.
2
The Colorado Judicial Branch Annual Statistical Report of cases terminated in FY 2007 states that, among adult probationers, 21% were revoked and 22% absconded from supervision (Table 44 on page 156).
\j
Z
3
Lipton D., Martinson R., and Wilks, J. (1975). The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment
Evaluation Studies. Praeger, New York, NY.
4
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and Answers about prison reform. The Public Interest,10, 22-54. Page 25
5
Martinson, R. (1979). New Findings, New Views: A Note of Caution Regarding Sentencing Reform. Hofstra Law Review,
7, 243-258.
6
Gendreau, P. and Ross, R.R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-407.
7
MacKenzie, D.L. (2006). What Works: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY. Pages 345-346.
8
Lipsey, M. and Cullen, F. (2007). The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews.
Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3.
9
Ibid. Page 26.
10
Andrews, D. (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. In J. McGuire (ed.), What Works:
Reducing Reoffending–Guidelines from Research and Practice. John Wiley, New York, NY; Andrews, D. and Bonta, J. (2006).
The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 4th ed. Lexis/Nexis, Newark, NJ; Andrews, D., and Dowden C. (2005). Managing
correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta-analytic review of programme integrity. The British Psychological
Society, 10, 173-87; Andrews D., Zinger, I., and Hoge, R. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant
and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404; Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective
intervention with offenders. In A. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional Interventions That Work: Defining the Demand
and Evaluating the Supply. Sage, Newbury Park, CA; Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., and Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue
in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 43, 180-87; Gendreau, P., and Smith, P. (2006). The theory of effective correctional intervention: Empirical
status and future directions. In F. Cullen, J. Wright, and K. Blevins, (eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological
Theory-Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 15. Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.
73
What Works
11
Lowenkamp, C. and Latessa, E. (2004). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programmimg through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 501-528.
Wilson, J.A. (June 2007). Habilitation or Harm: Project Greenlight and the Potential Consequences of Correctional Programming.
National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Page 6.
12
Latessa, E. (1999). What Works in Correctional Intervention. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 23, 414-426.
13
Andrews, D.A., and Bonta, J. (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 4th ed. Lexis/Nexis, Newark, NJ. Page 235.
14
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (1991). Education and criminal justice in Illinois: Trends and Issues ‘91.
Author, Chicago, IL. Page 10.
15
Bridgeland, J.M., DiIulio, J.J., Morison, K.B. (2006). The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School Dropouts – calculations based on Harlow, C. W. (revised 2003). Education and Correctional Populations. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Available at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf.
16
Ibid.
17
National Research Council. (2008). Parole, Desistance from Crime, and Community Integration. Committee on Community
Supervision and Desistance from Crime. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Page 75.
18
MacKenzie (2006).
19
20
National Research Council (2008).
21
Ryan, T.A. and Woodard Jr., J.C. (1987). Correctional Education: A State of the Art Analysis. National Institute of
Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
22
Harlow, C.W. (2003). Education and correctional populations: Special Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C. (NCJ 195670). Prison industries programs are also common across the United States.
Inmates typically work in a particular industry, including manufacturing, farming and service industries.
23
See https://doc.state.co.us/secure/combo/frontend/index.php/contents/view/967.
24
Steurer, S., Tracy, A. and Smith, L. (2001). Three State Recidivism Study, Preliminary Summary Report, Draft. Office of
Correctional Education, United State Department of Education, Washington, DC.
25
Florida Department of Corrections. (2001). Analysis of the impact of inmate programs upon recidivism. Available at: http://
www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivismprog/index.html.
26
MacKenzie (2006). Page 84.
27
MacKenzie (2006) also conducted a meta-analysis of six highly rigorous studies of vocational training programs and concluded that vocational education is effective in reducing recidivism.
28
Lawrence, S., Mears, D.P., Dubin, G. and Travis, J. (2002). The Practice and Promise of Prison Programming. Urban
Institute, Washington, DC.
29
74
Colorado Department of Corrections Annual Statistical Reports.
30
Ibid.
31
Office of Community Corrections. (2006). Community Corrections FY 2006 Annual Report. Division of Criminal Justice,
Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO.
32
Colorado Department of Corrections Annual Statistical Reports.
33
Nurco, D.N., Hanlon, T.E., Kinlock, T.W. and Duszynski, K.R. (1988). Differential criminal patterns of narcotic addicts
over an addiction career. Criminology, 26, 407-424.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
34
Mumola, C.J. and Bonczar, T.P. (1996). Substance abuse treatment of adults on probation, 1995. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. (NCJ 1666611); Mumola, C.J. (1999). Substance abuse and treatment, State
and Federal prisoners, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. (NCJ 172871)
35
Ibid.
36
Phipps, P., Korinek, K., Aos, S. and Lieb, R. (1999). Research Findings on Adult Corrections’ Programs: A Review.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Page 11.
37
See for example, Harwood, H.J., Malhotra, D., Villarivera, C., Liu, C., Chong, U., and Gilani, J. (2002). Cost effectiveness and cost benefit analysis of substance abuse treatment: A literature review. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
Also see Belenko, S., Patapis, N. and French, M.T. (2005). Economic Benefits of Drug Treatment: A critical review of the
evidence for policy makers. Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
38
Gerstein, D. R., Datta, R.A., Ingels, J.S., Johnson, R.A., Rasinski, K.A., Schildhaus, S. and Talley, K. (1997). Final Report:
National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Survey. National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, IL.
39
Ibid.
40
Gerstein, D.R., Harwood, H.J., Suter, N. and Malloy, K. (1994). Evaluating recovery services: The California drug and alcohol treatment assessment. Prepared by the National Opinion Research Center for the California Department of Alcohol and
Drug Programs, Health and Welfare Agency, Sacramento, CA.
41
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing Crime: What
Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. A Report To The United States Congress. Prepared for the National Institute of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
42
MacKenzie (2006). Page 251.
43
Ibid. Pages 264-265.
44
Aos, S., Miller, M. and Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA.
45
Belenko, S., Patapis, N. and French, M.T. (2005). A critical review of the evidence for policy makers. Treatment Research
Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Page ii.
46
See for example McCollister, K.E., French, M.T., Prendergast, M., Wexler, H., Sacks, S., and Hall. E (2003). Is In-Prison
Treatment Enough? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prison-Based Treatment and Aftercare Services for Substance Abusing
Offenders. Law and Policy, 25, 62-83, or Griffith, J., Hiller, M., Knight, K., and Simpson, D. (1999). A Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis of In-Prison Therapeutic Community Treatment and Risk Classification. The Prison Journal 79, 352-368.
47
Office of the Inspector General. (Feb. 2007). Special Review Into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs Managed by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. State of California, Sacramento, CA.
48
Mumola, C.J. and Karberg, J.C. (2007 revised). Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004. Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC. (NCJ 213530)
49
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division. (2007). The Costs and Effectiveness of Substance Use Disorder Programs in the State of
Colorado. Report to the General Assembly House and Senate Committees On Health and Human Services. Department
of Human Services, Denver, CO. Pages 10-11, 23.
50
Piehl, A.M., Useem, B. and Dilulio, Jr., J. (1999). Right-Sizing Justice: A Cost Benefit Analysis of Imprisonment in Three
States. Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, New York, NY. Pages 3 and 13.
51
The empirical evidence is clear that community-based treatment works. It reduces both substance abuse and criminal activity and produces a sound return on investment. See for example, McLellan, A.T. and McKay, J.T. (1998).
The Treatment of Addiction: What Can Research Offer Practice? National Research Council, National Academies Press,
Washington, DC.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
75
What Works
76
52
Klebe, K. and O’Keefe, M. (2004). Outcome Evaluation of the Crossroads to Freedom House and Peer I Therapeutic
Communities. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Also,
O’Keefe, M., Klebe, K., Roebken, K. and Fisher, E. (2004). Effectiveness of Arrowhead and Peer 1 Therapeutic Communities.
Colorado Department of Corrections and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO.
53
They did not receive treatment at any prison-based TC, but may have been involved in a less intensive treatment program.
54
Participants who left for medical reasons or who were transferred to another program were excluded from the sample.
55
Only participants who discharged from the program at the time of this study (February 2000) were included in the group.
56
O’Keefe, M., Klebe, K., Fisher, E. and Roebken, K. (2003). Outcome Evaluation of Intensive Residential Treatment in
Colorado. Prepared for the Interagency Committee on Adult and Juvenile Correctional Treatment. Colorado Department
of Corrections, Colorado Springs, CO.
57
Ibid. Page 23.
58
Ibid.
59
See National Association of Drug Court Professionals, at www.nadcp.org.
60
National Institute of Justice. (2006). Drug Courts: The Second Decade. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Page 3.
61
American University. (2007). OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project. Bureau of Justice Assistance
Drug Court Clearinghouse, Drug Court Activity Update: April 16, 2007. Summary of drug court activity by state and
county, at www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/publications.
62
National Association of Drug Court Professionals, at www.nadcp.org.
63
Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. (February 7, 2003). Annual Progress Report: Report to
members of the Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee. Administrative Office of the Courts, San Francisco, CA.
64
Tjaden, C.D., Diana, A., Feldman, D., Dietrich, W. and Jackson, K. (2002). Denver drug court: Second year report, outcome evaluation. Prepared for the Division of Probation Services, Colorado Judicial Branch, Denver, CO.
65
Readio, S. and Harrison, L. (October 2002). Denver Juvenile Drug Court Evaluation: Second Year Evaluation Report. The
Health Resources Consortium, Boulder, CO.
66
Personal communication with Peggy Heil, Chief of Clinical Research, Colorado Department of Corrections, January 8,
2008.
67
See the Lifetime Supervision Report to the General Assembly (November 2007), available at: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/
sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/2007%20Lifetime%20Report%20full.pdf.
68
Lins, Richard G. (2006). The 2006 50 State Survey of Sex Offender Prison Programs. Colorado Department of Corrections,
Colorado Springs, CO. See also: West, M., Hromas, C. S., and Wenger, P. (2000). State Sex Offender Treatment Programs,
50-state survey. Colorado Department of Corrections, Colorado Springs, CO.
69
General Accounting Office. (June 1996). Sex offender treatment: Research results inconclusive about what works to reduce
recidivism. GAO 96-137. Washington, DC.
70
Lösel, F., and Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146.
71
Prentky, R., Schwartz, B. and Burns-Smith, G. (2006). Treatment of Adult Sex Offenders. Applied Research Forum,
National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women. Page 5. Available at www.vawnet.org.
72
Luong and Wormith (N.D.). Page 1.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
73
Barnoski, R. (January, 2006). Sex offender sentencing in Washington State: Special sex offender sentencing alternative trends.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA.
74
Winokur, M., Rozen, D., Batchelder, K. and Valentine, D. (2006). Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment: A Systematic Review
of Evidence-Based Research. Applied Research in Child Welfare Project, Social Work Research Center, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO. Page iv.
75
English, K. (2004). The Containment Approach to Managing Sex Offenders. Seton Hall Law Journal, 989, 1255-1272;
English, K. (1998).The containment approach: An aggressive strategy for the community management of adult sex
offenders. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4, 218-235; English, K., Pullen, S., and Jones, L. (1996). Managing Adult Sex
Offenders: A Contain ment Approach. American Probation and Parole Association, Lexington, KY.
76
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (2004). Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex
offenders in the community. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO. Available at
http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/FullSLAFinal01.pdf.
77
Walsh, M. (2005). Overview of the IPSO Program-Intensive Parole for Sex Offenders – in Framingham Massachusetts.
Presentation by the parole board chair to the National Governor’s Association policy meeting on sexual offenders.
November 15, 2005. San Francisco, CA.
78
England, K.A., Olsen, S., Zakrajsek, T., Murray, P., and Ireson, R. (2001). Cognitive/behavioral treatment for sexual
offenders: An examination of recidivism, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Treatment and Practice, 13, 223-231.
79
Stalans, L. (2004). Adult sex offenders on community supervision: A review of recent assessment strategies and treatment.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 564-608.
80
Cox, J.F., Morschauser, P., Banks, S., and Stone, J.L. (2001). A Five-Year Population Study of Persons Involved in the
Mental Health and Local Correctional Systems: Implications for Service Planning. Journal of Behavioral Health Services
and Research 28, 177-87. See also, National Association of Mental Health Planning and Advisory Councils. (2005). Jail
Diversion Strategies for Persons with Serious Mental Illness. Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
81
James, D., and Glaze, L. (2006). Special Report, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
82
Schnell, M.J. and Leipold, M.O. (2006). Offenders with Mental Illness in Colorado. Colorado Department of Corrections,
Colorado Springs, CO.
83
Ibid.
84
Ibid.
85
Olsen, J. (2001). Incarceration, homelessness, and health. National Health Care for the Homeless. Nashville, TN. Available
at http://www.nhchc.org/Advocacy/PolicyPapers.
86
Skeem, J., and Louden, J.E. (2006). Toward Evidence-Based Practice for Probationers and Parolees Mandated to Mental
Health Treatment. Psychiatric Services, 57.
87
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2004). Subcommittee on Criminal Justice: Background Paper. DHHS Pub.
No. SMA-04-3880. National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD. Page 3.
88
Ibid. Page 6.
89
National Alliance on Mental Illness. (2007). Fact Sheet, Mental Illnesses: Treatment Saves Money and Makes Sense. Available
at www. nami.org.
90
See for example, Steadman, H.J., Deane, M.W., Borum, R., and Morrissey, J. (2002). Comparing outcomes of major
models of police responses to mental health emergencies. Psychiatric Services, 51, 645-649.
91
Steadman, H.J., and M. Naples. (2005). Assessing the Effectiveness of Jail Diversion Programs for Persons with Serious
Mental Illness and Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 163-170.
77
What Works
92
Ibid. Page 168.
93
This committee was established by Colorado House Joint Resolution 99-1042.
94
Personal communication with Sandy Sayre, Regional Community Policing Institute, Colorado Division of Criminal
Justice, February 11, 2008.
95
Pasini-Hill, D. and English, K. (October 2006). Crisis Intervention Teams: A Community-Based Initiative. Elements of Change,
10. Office of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO.
96
Morrissey, J. and Meyer. P., (2005). Extending ACT to Criminal Justice Settings: Applications, Evidence and Options.
Paper presented at Evidence-Based Practice for Justice-Involved Individuals: Assertive Community Treatment Expert
Panel Meeting, February 18, 2005, Bethesda, MD. Available at http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/text/ebp/Papers/
ExtendingACTPaper.asp.
97
Ibid.
98
78
Ibid. Page 2.
99
Lee, J.M. (2004). Colorado Criminal Justice Assertive Community Treatment: For Individuals with Mental Illnesses and At
Risk for Involvement with the Criminal Justice System, 2001-2004. Division of Mental Health, Colorado Department of
Human Services, Denver, CO.
100
Ibid.
101
PACE is a collaborative effort of the Chief Judge of the 20th Judicial District, Boulder County Sheriff, Boulder County
Commissioners, Boulder County Probation Services, Mental Health Corporation of Boulder County, Inc., Boulder
County Public Health Department and the Community Justice Services Division of Boulder County.
102
Silvern, L., Bowels, A., Richards, J., Poncelow, J., and Richardson, G. (July 2006). PACE evaluation study: Final report
and progress report #3. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Also see Epp, G., and D’Alanno, T. (October 8, 2004).
Presentation on Boulder PACE for Increasing Access to Mainstream Services for Individuals and Families Experiencing
Homelessness: National Learning Meeting. Sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing
and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, and Labor. Arlington, VA.
103
See for example, Abram, K.M. and Teplin, L.A. (1991). Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees:
Implications for public policy. American Psychologist, 46, 1036-1045.
104
Osher, F.C. and Steadman, H.J. (2007). Adapting evidence-based practices for persons with mental illness involved with
the criminal justice system. Psychiatric Services, 58, 1472-1478.
105
To meet the increasing demand for services, CDOC also established a second prison-based program within the Crossroads
to Freedom TC for substance abusers at the Arrowhead Correctional Facility. In that program, mental health services are
provided to offenders in a specific program track. See Sacks, S., Sacks, J.Y. and Stommel, J. (2003). Modified TC for
MICA inmates in correctional settings: A program description. Corrections Today, 90-99.
106
Sacks et al. (2003).
107
The study examined a variety of substance use and mental health outcomes as well.
108
Sacks, S., Sacks, J.Y., McKendrick, K., Banks, S., and Stommel, J. (2004). Modified TC for MICA Offenders: Crime
Outcomes. Behavioral Sciences and The Law, 22, 477-501.
109
Ibid. Page 23.
110
See for example, Anthony (2005), Roman et al. (2005) and the Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center, Evidence-Based
Practices Center at http://dms.dartmouth.edu/prc/evidence.
111
Anthony, W. (2005). Supported Employment for People in Contact with the Criminal Justice systems: Applications, Evidence
and Options. Paper presented at Evidence-Based Practice for Justice-Involved Individuals: Supported Employment Expert
Panel Meeting, September 7, 2005, Bethesda, MD.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
112
Cook, J.A., Lehman, A.F., Drake, R., McFarlane, W.R., Gold, P.B., Leff, S., Blyer, C., Toprac, M.G., Razzano, L.A.,
Burke-Miller, J.K., Blankertz, L., Shafer, M., Pickett-Schenk, S.A., and Grey, D.D. (2005). Integration of Psychiatric and
Vocational Services: A Multisite Randomized, Controlled Trial of Supported Employment. American Journal of Psychiatry,
162, 1948-1956.
113
Roman, C.R., McBride, E.C., and Osborne, J. (2006). Principles and Practice in Housing for Persons with Mental Illness
Who Have Had Contact with the Justice System. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
114
Illinois Department of Corrections. (June 2005). Statistical Data. Available at: http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/
reports/default.shtml.
115
Roman et al. (2006).
116
National Association of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapists. Available at: http://www.nacbt.org/whatiscbt.htm.
117
Lipsey, M.W., Landenberger, N.A. and Wilson, S.J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders.
A Campbell Collaborative Systematic Review. Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology, Vanderbilt Institute for
Public Policy Studies, Nashville, TN.
118
Ibid. Page 6.
119
Milkman, H. and Wanberg, K. (May 2007). Cognitive Behavioral Treatment: A review and discussion for correctional professionals. National Institute of Corrections, Longmont, CO. (NIC 021657)
120
See http://artgang0.tripod.com.
121
See http://www.moral-reconation-therapy.com.
122
Ibid.
123
Ross, R. and Fabiano, E. (1985). Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation.
Institute of Social Sciences and Art, Johnson City, TN; Ross, R., Fabiano, E., and Ewels, C. (1988). Reasoning and
Rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 32, 29-35.
124
Ross, R. and Fabiano, E. (1991). Reasoning and Rehabilitation: A handbook for teaching cognitive skills. T3 Associates,
Ottawa, Canada.
125
http://www.t3.ca/.
126
Parks, G.A., and Marlatt, G.A., (September/October 2000). Relapse Prevention Therapy: A Cognitive-Behavioral
Approach. The National Psychologist. See also Marlatt, G.A., Parks, G.A., and Witkiewitz, K. (December 2002).
Clinical Guidelines for Implementing Relapse Prevention Therapy: A Guideline Developed for the Behavioral Health Recovery
Management Project. Addictive Behaviors Research Center, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA. Available at http://www.bhrm.org/guidelines/RPT%20guideline.pdf.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Ibid.
127
128
This includes managing minor slips or lapses so they don’t progress to a full-blown relapse.
See for example Gorski’s CENAPS® Model of Relapse Prevention Therapy at http://drugabuse.gov/PDF/ADAC/
ApproachestoDACounseling.pdf.
129
130
Milkman and Wanberg (2007). Page 30.
131
Ibid. Page 31.
132
http://www.nicic.org/.
133
Milkman and Wanberg (2007). Page 18.
134
Ibid.
79
What Works
80
135
Milkman and Wanberg (2007) reported that “as of December 2001, 72 different agencies in Colorado were documented
as presenting SSC, with a cumulative client enrollment in excess of 3,000.” Page 40.
136
See Goldstein, A.P. and B. Glick. (2001). Aggression Replacement Training: Application and Evaluation Management.
In G. Bernfeld, D. Farrington, and A. Leschied (eds.), Offender Rehabilitation and Practice: Implementing and Evaluating
Effective Programs. Wiley, New York, NY.
137
MacKenzie (2006). Page 120.
138
Porporino, F.J., and Robinson, D. (1995). An evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program with Canadian
federal offenders. In R.R. Ross and B. Ross (eds.), Thinking straight. Cognitive Centre, Ottawa, Canada.
139
Pullen, S. (1996). Evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Cognitive Skills Development Program as Implemented
in Juvenile ISP in Colorado. Office of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public
Safety, Denver, CO. See also Johnson, G., and Hunter, R. (1992). Evaluation of the Specialized Drug Offender Program for
the Colorado Judicial Department. Center for Action Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
140
Pullen (1996).
141
Carroll, K.M. (1996). Relapse prevention as a psychosocial treatment: A review of controlled clinical trials. Experimental
and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 4, 46-54; Irvin, J.E., Bowers, C.A., Dunn, M.E., and Wang, M.C. (1999). Efficacy of
relapse prevention: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 563-570.
142
Dowden, C., Antonowicz, D., and Andrews, D.A. (2003). The effectiveness of relapse prevention with offenders: A metaanalysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 516-528.
143
Golden, L., Gatchel, R., and Cahill, M. (2006). Evaluating the Effectiveness of the National Institute of Corrections’
“Thinking for a Change” Program Among Probationers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43, 55-73.
144
A total of 142 probationers were included in the study. The recidivism analysis focused on 120 probationers who were followed for a minimum of 3 months and up to 1 year after the treatment group exited the program.
145
Lowenkamp and Latessa (2006). What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: The Principles of Effective
Intervention Presented by: Edward J. Latessa, Center for Criminal Justice Research, Division of Criminal Justice,
University of Cincinnati at www.uc.edu/criminaljustice.
146
In the aforementioned NIC report on cognitive-behavioral programs, Milkman and Wanberg (2007) reported a series
of favorable findings from an SSC study they previously conducted using client and provider self-reports (Wanberg and
Milkman, 2001).
147
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (1997). Trends and Issues 1997. Author, 120 South Riverside Plaza,
Chicago, IL. Page 152.
148
Ibid.
149
See Garrido, V. and Morales, L.A. (March 2007). Serious (Violent or Chronic) Juvenile Offenders: A Systematic Review of
Treatment Effectiveness in Secure Corrections. Final Report Submitted to the Campbell Collaboration, Crime and Justice
Group. Available at http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/doc-pdf/Garrido_seriousjuv_review.pdf; Mihalic, S., Fagan,
A., Irwin, K., Ballard, D., and Elliott, D. (2004). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Center for the Study and Prevention
of Violence University of Colorado, Boulder. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice
Programs, U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; and Farrington, D.P., and Welsh, B. (2007). Saving Children
From a Life of Crime, Early Risk Factors and Effective Interventions. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
150
Sexton, T.L., and Alexander, J.F. (2000). Functional Family Therapy. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Page 2.
151
Ibid.
152
Blueprints Model Programs, Multi-Systemic Therapy, at: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/programs/
details/MSTdetails.html.
Effective Recidivism Reduction Programs
153
Henggeler, S.W. (1997). Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth: The MST Approach. Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
154
Fisher, P., and Chamberlain, P. (2000). Multidimensional treatment foster care: A program of intensive parenting, family
support, and skill building. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 155-164.
155
Eddy, M. J., Bridges, Whaley, R., and Chamberlain, P. (2004). The prevention of violent behavior by chronic and serious
male juvenile offenders: A 2-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 2-8.
156
Henggeler (1997).
157
Schaeffer, C.M., and Borduin, C.M. (2005). Long-term follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy
with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 445-453.
158
MacKenzie (2006). Page 185.
159
Littell J.H., Popa, M., and Forsythe, B. (2005). Multisystemic Therapy for social, emotional, and behavioral problems in youth
aged 10-17. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004797.html.
160
Ogden, T. and Hagen, K. (August 2007). Can a systematic review be any better than the work it’s based upon? Prevention
Action. Available at http://www.preventionaction.org/research/can-systematic-review-be-any-better-work-it-s-based-upon.
161
The “Tracking Project” is a joint initiative of several organizations, including: the Center for Effective Interventions
at Metropolitan State College of Denver, Focus Research and Evaluation, the MST Institute, the New Mexico MST
Outcomes Tracking Project, and seven Colorado MST provider agencies.
162
The report noted that 300 of the youth who were admitted and discharged from treatment during the study period completed the program successfully.
163
The 6-month follow-up analysis was based on data for 66 youth.
164
See Di Trolio, E., Rodriguez, J.M., English, K. and Patrick, D. (2002). Evaluation of the Youthful Offender System (YOS) in
Colorado: A Report of Findings Per C.R.S. 18-1.3-407. Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety,
Denver, CO, and Rosky, J., Pasini-Hill, D., Lowden, K., Harrison, L., and English, K. (2004). Evaluation of the Youthful
Offender System (YOS) in Colorado: A Report of Findings Per C.R.S. 18-1.3-407. Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado
Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO; and
165
C.R.S. 18-1.3-407.
166
Di Trolio et al. (2002).
167
Ibid. Page 39.
,
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Leipold, M. and Williams, S. (2006). Youthful Offenders System: Fiscal Years 2003-2005. Colorado Department of
Corrections, Office of Planning and Analysis, Colorado Springs, CO.
168
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., and Muise, D. (2001). The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis. Research
and Statistics Division, Department of Justice, Ottawa, Canada.
169
81
What Works
82
Section 6: Effective Early Prevention
Programs
The focus of Section 6 is early prevention programs that
work. These programs prevent the onset of law-breaking
behavior by counteracting risk factors and enhancing protective factors for delinquent and criminal conduct later in life.
.
/
Y
factors is 10 times as likely to be violent by age 18 as a
10-year-old exposed to only one risk factor.
This section begins with a discussion of risk and protective
factors, and then describes programs that have been identified through rigorous research as preventing delinquency
and criminal conduct.
The research on risk factors for crime, violence and
substance abuse has been summarized by a many organizations, including the Institute of Medicine of the National
Academies of Sciences, the Surgeon General of the United
States, and OJJDP. A summary list of risk factors is presented in Figure 6.1.
Risk factors
Protective factors
Forty years of research on conduct disorder has identified
many of the risk factors associated with problem behavior,
including those for crime, violence and substance abuse.
Risk factors exist within communities, schools and peer
groups, as well as within families and individuals. Risk factors increase the likelihood that a young person will engage
in problem behavior later in life, and they help explain why
young people differ in their long-term criminal potential.1
Children are often resilient in the face of one or two risk
factors, but research has shown that exposure to a greater
number of risk factors increases the risk of crime, violence
and substance abuse significantly.
Protective factors that can mediate the impact of risk factors
also have been identified. Protective factors exist at the individual, family and community levels, too. While protective
factors have not been studied as extensively or rigorously
as risk factors, the interaction of risk factors and protective
factors can help explain why some youth engage in delinquency and others do not. As risk factors are decreased and
protective factors enhanced, the likelihood of delinquency
is reduced. A summary list of protective factors is also presented in Figure 6.1.
The National Program of Research on the Causes and
Correlates of Delinquency has studied large samples of highrisk, inner city youth in Denver, Pittsburgh and Rochester,
New York. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP), this research has shown that chronic offenders have
multiple risks in their backgrounds, including deficits in such
areas as family and school.2 Similarly, the Cambridge Study
in Delinquent Development (Farrington, 1997) found that
the percentage of youth convicted for violent crimes was only
3% for those with no risk factors in their background but
ten times greater, at 31%, for those with four (Hawkins, et
al. 2000). Research conducted by Todd Herrenkohl and his
colleagues (2000) as part of the Seattle Social Development
Project found that a 10-year-old exposed to 6 or more risk
Our increased knowledge about risk factors for criminal
conduct has led to a growing interest in risk-focused crime
prevention. Pioneered by J. David Hawkins and Richard
Catalano in Seattle, Washington, risk-focused crime prevention has been embraced by numerous organizations, such
Risk-focused crime prevention
\j
The idea is to use risk-focused
approaches to prevent crime, much
like they have been used to prevent
heart attack, stroke and traffic
fatalities.
83
What Works
Figure 6.1. Risk and Protective Factors, by Domain
Domain
Individual
Risk Factor
Early Onset (age 6-11)
Late Onset (age 12-14)
Protective Factor*
General offenses
General offenses
Intolerant attitude toward deviance
Substance use
Psychological Condition
High IQ
Being male
Restlessness
Being female
Aggression**
Hyperactivity
Problem (antisocial) behavior
Difficulty concentrating**
Positive social orientation
Risk taking
Perceived sanctions for
transgressions
Exposure to television violence
Medical, physical problems
Low IQ
Antisocial attitudes, beliefs
Dishonesty**
Aggression**
Being male
Physical violence
Antisocial attitudes, beliefs
Crimes against persons
Problem (antisocial) behavior
Low IQ
Substance use
Family
Lowsocioeconomic status/poverty
Poor parent-child relationship
Antisocial parents
Harsh or lax discipline
Warm, supportive relationships with
parents or other adults
Poor parent-child relationship
Harsh, lax, or inconsistent
discipline
Poor monitoring, supervision
Parents’ positive evaluation of peers
Low parental involvement
Parental monitoring
Broken home
Separation from parents
Other conditions
Abusive parents
Neglect
Poor attitude, performance
Broken home
Low socioeconomic status/poverty
Abusive parents
Family conflict**
Poor attitude, performance
Academic failure
Commitment to school
Weak social ties
Weak social ties
Antisocial peers
Antisocial, delinquent peers
Friends who engage in conventional
behavior
School
Peer Group
Antisocial parents
Recognition for involvement in
conventional activities
Gang membership
Community
Neighborhood crime, drugs
Neighborhood disorganization
*Age of onset not known. ** Males only.
Source: Adapted from Office of the Surgeon General, 2001.
as OJJDP, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and
Delinquency, and Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a bipartisan, anti-crime organization led by more than 3,000 police
chiefs, prosecutors, sheriffs, other law enforcement leaders, and violence survivors. The idea is to use risk-focused
approaches to prevent crime, much like they have been used
to prevent heart attack, stroke and traffic fatalities.
In practice, risk focused prevention programs employ various strategies to reduce the influence of risk factors that are
associated with criminal conduct. Risk factors help identify
84
who is most likely to benefit from prevention efforts and the
specific prevention strategy that ought to be employed.3
It is important to recognize that
risk factors cannot be used to
identify which particular children
will grow up to be offenders.
Effective Early Prevention Programs
It is important to recognize that risk factors cannot be used
to identify which particular children will grow up to be
offenders.
• Home visits during infancy,
To be effective, prevention programs need to be tailored to
the age range of the target population and the risk factors
that occur during that particular period of youth development. As the Surgeon General’s 2001 report on youth
violence explains:
• parent management training,
Violence prevention and intervention efforts
hinge on identifying risk and protective factors
and determining when in the course of development they emerge. To be effective, such efforts
must be appropriate to a youth’s stage of
development. A program that is effective in
childhood may be ineffective in adolescence and
vice versa.4
The remainder of this section identifies risk-focused crime
prevention programs that work. These programs are specifically designed to counteract risk factors for later offending,
and they have been found through rigorous scientific
research to effectively prevent delinquency and criminal
behavior. Some of these programs are universal prevention
programs, meaning they are made available to an entire
community, school or other population. Others are selective
prevention programs, meaning they target a specific group
of children or families deemed to be at higher-risk than others due to the presence of one or more risk factors.5 In either
case, the prevention programs identified here are delivered
early in life, when children are most impressionable, but
also most vulnerable to a variety of influences that have been
shown to shape their development and later behavior.6
In some cases, such as Nurse-Family Partnerships, program
delivery actually begins during the prenatal period in order
to address health, parenting and others factors that place a
child at risk for behavior and delinquency problems later
in life.
In reviewing these programs, it is important to keep in mind
that the focus here is primarily on each program’s effectiveness in preventing future criminal conduct. Programs that
have not been evaluated using delinquent or criminal behavior outcomes are not discussed in detail in this report.
This compendium of effective prevention programs draws
heavily on the work of several researchers, including David
Farrington and Brandon Welsh, Peter Greenwood, and Del
Elliott, Sharon Mihalic and their colleagues at the University
of Colorado’s Blueprints for Violence Prevention project.
The programs identified are organized around the following
main categories:
• preschool programs,
• child social skills training,
• school-based programs,
• truancy programs,
• community-based programs, and
• peer programs.
We conclude with a brief overview of prevention programs
identified as model programs by the Blueprints for Violence
Prevention project at the University of Colorado-Boulder.
Home Visits during Infancy
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Risk factors found during the earliest years of life can have
a profound impact on a child’s later behavior. Greenwood
and his colleagues at the Rand Corporation (1996) have
reported that early childbearing, low birth weight, and other
types of birth complications are associated with higher rates
of delinquency later in a child’s life. Parental rejection of a
child and other forms of poor parenting are associated with
higher rates of delinquency, too.7 Fagan and Najman (2003)
found that low levels of maternal affect increased children’s
aggression at age five and delinquency at age 14.8 And Cathy
Spatz Widom, a researcher in the Department of Psychiatry
at the New Jersey Medical School, has demonstrated that
childhood abuse and neglect substantially increases the odds
of future delinquency and adult criminality. In one of the
most detailed studies ever undertaken on the issue, Widom
and Maxfield (2001) found that being abused or neglected
as a child increased the likelihood of arrest as a juvenile by
59%, as an adult by 28%, and for a violent crime by 30%.9
In one of the most detailed studies
ever undertaken on the issue,
Widom and Maxfield (2001) found
that being abused or neglected as
a child increased the likelihood of
arrest as a juvenile by 59%, as an
adult by 28%, and for a violent
crime by 30%.
85
What Works
Home Visitation Parent Education Programs
Home visits with new parents are one of the most common prevention programs delivered during the early years
of a child’s life. These programs focus on parent education
designed to improve the pre- and post-natal care of the
child. Nurses or other health professionals typically conduct
home visits, and they often begin at birth or during the later
months of pregnancy when many of the factors occur that
can place a child at risk, such as a mother using alcohol or
drugs, or maintaining poor diet and health behaviors. Home
visitation programs are typically selective prevention programs in that they target young, first-time mothers who are
economically disadvantaged.10
Although some reviews of home visitation programs have
produced mixed results, a rigorous meta-analysis conducted
by Farrington and Welsh (2003) found that well-implemented programs are effective: they reduced delinquency,
on average, by 12 percentage points. Earlier reviews by
Greenwood et al. (1996) and Karoly et al. (1998) reached
the same overall conclusion: home visits can reduce problem
behaviors from occurring later in life.
The Nurse Family Partnership Program
One of the best known and most rigorously evaluated home
visitation programs is the Nurse Family Partnership (NFP)
program developed by David Olds and his colleagues.11
The program is designed to help low-income, first time parents (often teens and often unmarried) improve pregnancy
outcomes, child health and development, and economic
self-sufficiency. Problems targeted for prevention include
preterm delivery and low birth weight, developmental
impairment, abuse and neglect, school failure, conduct disorder, and crime and delinquency.
Registered nurses conduct regular home visits during the
prenatal period and for up to two years after birth. During
pregnancy, home visits typically occur once per week for the
first four weeks of the program and then every other week
until delivery. During the postnatal period, home visits
occur once per week for 6 weeks after birth, then every other
week until the child reaches 12 months of age. After that,
visits occur every other week until the child is 20 months.
The final visits occur once per month until the child is two
years of age.
Nurses help women and their families improve their health
behaviors, care for children, plan future pregnancies, and
become self-sufficient. They teach parents about health
and nutrition, how to nurture and raise a child, and how
to obtain necessary services such as childcare, income and
86
nutritional assistance, and pediatric primary care. They may
also guide parents to resources that allow them to complete
their education and find meaningful work.
According to the Nurse-Family Partnership National Service
Office in Denver, the NFP program is currently operating in 23 states. Most programs are implemented through
local, county or state health departments, although some are
implemented through independent nonprofits and hospitals.
The NFP is recognized as a model program by the Center
for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University
of Colorado-Boulder.
NFP Effectiveness
The NFP program has been the focus of extensive research
over the last three decades. Highly rigorous evaluations
using experimental designs have been conducted in three
different program implementations sites. The first site was
semi-rural Elmira, New York, where program participants
were primarily low-income, white families. The second site
was Memphis, Tennessee, an urban setting where program
participants were primarily low-income, African American
families. The final site was Denver, Colorado, where a
large percentage of the program participants studied were
Hispanic.
Overall, these studies have shown that the NFP program is
capable of producing a variety of positive outcomes across
highly diverse settings. Positive short- and long-term effects
were found for both children and their families. For example, program participants had fewer verified reports of child
abuse or neglect, fewer maternal behavioral problems due to
alcohol and drug abuse, and fewer maternal and child arrests
Fifteen-year follow-up data from the
Elmira study showed that mothers
who received nurse home visits
had 61% fewer arrests, 72% fewer
convictions, and 98% fewer days
in jail than mothers who did not
participate in the program. Children
who were part of the program grew
up to have 59% fewer arrests
and 90% fewer juvenile court
adjudications as a person in
need of supervision than control
group children.
Effective Early Prevention Programs
than non-program participants. Fifteen-year follow-up data
from the Elmira study showed that mothers who received
nurse home visits had 61% fewer arrests, 72% fewer convictions, and 98% fewer days in jail than mothers who did not
participate in the program. Children who were part of the
program grew up to have 59% fewer arrests and 90% fewer
juvenile court adjudications as a person in need of supervision than control group children. In addition, child abuse or
neglect during the first two years of life was far less prevalent
among families receiving home visits (4%) than among
families who did not (19%).
Economic evaluations have shown that the NFP program
produces a sound return on investment. Karoly et al. (1998)
estimated that a positive return on taxpayer investment was
realized by the time a high-risk child served by the program
turned four years of age. By the time children from a highrisk families reach age 15, the cost savings to taxpayers are
four times the original investment in the program. Aos et al.
(2004) estimated that the average NFP program produces
$2.88 in benefits for every $1 of costs.12
The Colorado NFP Initiative
Colorado has been at the forefront of efforts to implement
the NFP program on a statewide basis. In 1998, a group of
attorneys and other community leaders, with the support of
the Colorado Trust, created Invest in Kids (IIK), a non-profit
organization dedicated to improving the lives of Colorado’s
children and their families. IIK partners with communities to
improve the health and well being of Colorado’s children by
facilitating the implementation and promoting the sustainability of programs that work. NFP was the first program the
organization advocated throughout Colorado.13
Invest In Kids worked with the Colorado legislature to
create a sustainable source of funding to bring the NFP
program to as many eligible Colorado families as possible, eventually leading to the passing of the Nurse Home
Visitor Program Act in 2000 (25-31-101, C.R.S.). The Act
allocated 3% (or roughly $2.3 million) of the tobacco settlement proceeds in FY 2001 to local communities to fund the
implementation of the NFP program. Additional funding is
made available each subsequent year until NFP implementation receives 19% of the settlement proceeds (roughly $19
million) in FY 2012.14
NFP implementation funds are administered by the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE). Local communities must compete for funds to
implement the program. According to the CDPHE, NFP
programs were operating in 53 Colorado counties as of
September 2007.15
Preschool Programs
Low intelligence and educational attainment are among the
most important individual risk factors for criminal offending later in life.16 Several studies, such as those conducted
by Schweinhart et al. (1993) and McCord and Ensminger
(1997), have found that low IQ at ages as early as 4 and
6 predict arrests for crime and violence well into adulthood.17 This link between low intelligence at an early age
and problems later in life has led to the development of
prevention programs that are delivered to children at a very
early age for the purpose of improving their learning and
social competencies. Farrington and Welsh (2007:106) refer
to these programs as “pre-school intellectual enrichment
programs.”18
This link between low intelligence
at an early age and problems later
in life has led to the development
of prevention programs that are
delivered to children at a very
early age for the purpose of
improving their learning and social
competencies.
.
/
Y
\j
Z
In their review of early prevention programs, Farrington and
Welsh concluded that pre-school intellectual enrichment
programs work. They prevent delinquency and criminal
offending in an effective manner. Several systematic reviews
provide supporting evidence. Yoshikawa (1995) reviewed
40 programs and found that early childhood education and
family support programs can have long-term positive effects
on the prevention of delinquency. As part of a meta-analysis
of a larger range of programs, Farrington and Welsh (2003)
found that a group of programs that included pre-school
and daycare were highly effective, reducing offending by
13 percentage points. A review of preschool education programs conducted by Duncan and Magnuson (2004) found
similar results. They concluded that preschool intellectual
In their review of early prevention
programs, Farrington and Welsh
concluded that pre-school intellectual enrichment programs work.
87
What Works
achievement programs have long-term beneficial effects on
children’s criminal behavior and other outcomes. Yoshikowa
(1995) reported that the most effective early education programs had well trained staff, low child-to-teacher ratios, and
family support components.19
Two preschool programs that have been rigorously evaluated and shown to be effective are the High/Scope Perry
Preschool project that was implemented in Ypsilanti,
Michigan, and the Child Parent Center (CPC) program currently operating in Chicago, Illinois. Each program is briefly
described below.
High/Scope Perry Preschool project
The High/Scope Perry Preschool project began in Ypsilanti,
Michigan in 1962. It was designed as a curriculum development and research project that coupled an innovative
preschool program for low-income, at-risk children with a
highly rigorous evaluation. The preschool curriculum was
based on a participatory learning model developed by David
Weikart and his colleagues, who created the High/Scope
Educational Research Foundation in 1970. The curriculum
was designed to develop cognitive, language, social and
other competencies, and it emphasized initiative, creativity
and problem solving in a cooperative and highly interactive
environment.
Children attended the preschool 2.5 hours per day, five days
per week, over a 2-year period. The staff-to-child ratio was
about one adult for every five or six children. Teachers were
trained in early childhood development and education, and
they conducted home visits with each child’s family every
week. Parents also participated in teacher- facilitated meetings with other parents on a monthly basis.
From its beginning, the Perry Preschool project was the
focus of an intensive and highly rigorous evaluation.
Between 1962 and 1967, 123 high risk 3- and 4- year old
children were randomly assigned to either the preschool program or a control group of children that did not go through
These children in the Perry
Preschool study have been tracked
for more than 35 years, with the
latest round of follow-up data
collection occurring in 2005,
when study participants were
approximately 40 years of age.
88
the program.20 These children in the Perry Preschool study
have been tracked for more than 35 years, with the latest
round of follow-up data collection occurring in 2005, when
study participants were approximately 40 years of age.21
Overall, the evaluation found that the Perry Preschool program produced a variety of long-lasting benefits. Program
participation had positive effects on a variety of outcomes,
including educational attainment, employment, commitment to marriage and crime. Perhaps what is most striking
is that, at age 40, Perry Preschool program participants had
significantly fewer arrests than non-program participants.
Only 14% of the program participants had ever been
arrested for a drug crime compared to 34% of the non-program participants. Program participants had lower lifetime
arrest rates for violent crimes (32% compared to 48%) and
property crimes (36% compared to 58%), too. Moreover,
program participants were sentenced to significantly less
time in prison or jail. By age 40, only 28% of the Perry preschool participants compared to 52% of the control group
youth had been sentenced to prison or jail at least once.
Only 14% of the program
participants had ever been arrested
for a drug crime compared to 34%
of the non-program participants.
Several cost-benefits studies show that the Perry Preschool
program produced a substantial return on investment.
Barnett (1996) estimated that the program produced about
$7 in savings for every $1 in costs when program participants were age 27. Schweinhart’s (2007) estimates based on
outcomes at age 40 are substantially higher; $16.14 in benefits for every $1 invested in the program.
The High/Scope Perry Preschool study demonstrates that
early childhood education programs can prevent crime
in a cost-beneficial manner. Although the original Perry
Preschool no longer exists, the High/Scope Educational
Research Foundation disseminates the High/Scope preschool curriculum worldwide. According to the Foundation,
the curriculum is intended for use in Head Start programs,
pre-kindergartens and kindergartens, and day care centers and homes.22 Some 12,000 early childhood programs
throughout the U.S. and in other countries now use the
High/Scope model. According to a 2003 report by the
TriWest Group, the High/Scope preschool program is being
used in several sites in Colorado.
Effective Early Prevention Programs
According to a 2003 report by the
TriWest Group, the High/Scope
preschool program is being used in
several sites in Colorado.
Chicago Child-Parent Center
Another early childhood education model that works is
the Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC) program. The
CPC program provides educational and family-support
services to disadvantaged children during the preschool
and early elementary school years. Initially implemented at
four sites in Chicago, Illinois, in 1967, the CPC program
currently operates in 24 centers throughout the Chicago
Public School system. The program targets children in highpoverty neighborhoods, particularly those being served by
other early childhood programs. The CPC program is specifically designed to promote success in school, but research
has shown that it produces long-term benefits in a variety of
other areas, including delinquency prevention.
The CPC program is based on the premise that a stable
and rich learning environment during early childhood and
parental involvement in a child’s education both play an
important role in a child’s academic success.23 Therefore,
CPC emphasizes early engagement, low child-to-teacher
ratios, parent participation and a seamless transition
from preschool through early elementary school. While
instructional activities are tailored to the needs of program
participants, language-based instruction, health and nutritional services, and outreach activities that include home
visits are all part of the program.
The CPC currently serves about 5,600 children ages 3-9
through 24 local centers. Some centers are located within an
elementary school, while others are in nearby buildings.
Each center has a “Head Teacher” that coordinates all program activities, a “School-Community Representative”
who conducts outreach activities, and a “Parent- Resource
Teacher” responsible for the parent program, which is one of
the CPC’s defining features.
A high level of parent involvement is one of the features that
sets CPC apart from other preschool programs. Parents must
agree to actively participate in the program and a minimum
of 1/2 day per week of direct parent participation in parentroom activities or as a classroom volunteer are required.
Parent-room activities include parent-child interaction, par-
ent-parent interaction, and educational instruction in areas
such as nutrition, health, safety and personal development.
CPC Effectiveness
Since 1985, Arthur Reynolds and his colleagues have been
studying the effects of the CPC program as part of the
Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS). The study has been
tracking 1,539 low income minority children who attended
early childhood programs between 1985 and 1986, including 989 children who participated in the Chicago CPC.24
Data have been collected continuously since 1985 on a variety of outcomes. Although the study is quasi-experimental
in terms of its design, several features make the research
exceptionally rigorous.25
Study findings have shown that participation in the CPC
program produces a variety of long-term benefits, including
lower rates of dropout and delinquency. Fifteen years after
leaving the program, children who participated in the
CPC preschool program for 1 or 2 years had a higher rate
of high school completion (49.7 % vs. 38.5%) and lower
rates of juvenile (16.9% vs. 25.1%) and violent arrests
(9.0% vs. 15.3%) than non-program participants (Reynolds
et al., 2001).26
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Fifteen years after leaving the
program, children who participated
in the CPC preschool program for
1 or 2 years had a higher rate
of high school completion (49.7
% vs. 38.5%) and lower rates of
juvenile (16.9% vs. 25.1%) and
violent arrests (9.0% vs. 15.3%)
than non-program participants
(Reynolds et al., 2001).
Reynolds and Robertson (2003) have also examined the
impact of the CPC program on child maltreatment.27 They
found that by age 17, children who participated in the
preschool program had half as many abuse or neglect referrals or court petitions as non-program participants.28 The
greatest difference occurred between the ages of 10 and 17,
several years after program participation.
The latest findings from the CLS are based on a 19-year
follow-up period when the average age of the CPC program
89
What Works
Table 6.1. Chicago Child-Parent Center 19-Year Post-Program Follow-up
Outcome Measure
Adult Crime by age 24
CPC Preschool
Participants
Comparison Group
Difference
Any incarceration
20.6%
25.6%
-5.0%
Any arrest
35.8%
40.0%
-4.2%
Felony arrest
16.5%
21.1%
-4.6%
Any violent arrest
16.3%
18.8%
-2.5%
Any conviction
20.3%
24.7%
-4.4%
Felony conviction
15.8%
19.9%
-4.1%
5.1%
7.1%
-2.0%
Violent crime conviction
Source: Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Ou, S., Robertson, D.L., Mersky, J.P., Topitzes, J.W., and Niles, M.D. (2007.) Effects of a School-Based, Early Childhood
Intervention on Adult Health and Well-being: A 19-Year Follow-up of Low-Income Families. Archive of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 730-739.
participants was 24 (Reynolds et al. 2007). Controlling
for preprogram characteristics, participants in the CPC
preschool had significantly higher rates of high-school completion and college attendance, and significantly lower rates
of felony arrests, convictions and incarceration than their
comparison group counterparts. For example, by age 24,
16.5% of the CPC program participants had been arrested
for a felony offense compared to 21.1% of the comparison
group members. About 1 in 5 CPC preschool participants
had been in prison or jail compared to about 1 out of every
4 non-program participants. (See Table 6.1). The analysis
also found that children who participated in the CPC program for four to 6 years (preschool and continuing until
second or third grade) had even better outcomes than children who had 0-4 years of program participation.
return on investment (benefit-cost ratio) of the elementary
school component was also positive but less robust; $1.42
in public benefits per dollar of program costs. Extended participation in the CPC program (4-6 years) provided an even
greater return on investment; $3.59 in public benefits per
every dollar of program costs.
Reynolds and his colleagues (2001) also conducted a costbenefit analysis of the CPC program. They found that CPC
produced a substantial return on investment. While the
average cost of the preschool program was $6,730 (1998
dollars) per child for 1.5 years of participation, the economic benefit to the public (taxpayers and crime victims)
was $25,771 per participant. The CPC preschool program
produced $3.83 in public benefits for every dollar invested
in the program. The ratio of benefits to costs for government savings alone was $2.88 per dollar invested. The
• All teachers have a college degree and certification in
early childhood education.
Extended participation in the CPC
program (4-6 years) provided an
even greater return on investment;
$3.59 in public benefits per every
dollar of program costs.
90
In the August, 2007 issue of the the American Medical
Association’s Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine, Reynolds and his colleagues identified the following four program elements as the cornerstones of CPC’s
success:
• The intervention begins at age three and continues
into early elementary school, promoting stability in the
learning environment.
• Instructional activities address all learning needs with a
special emphasis on literacy and school readiness.
• Comprehensive family services are provided that promote positive learning experiences both in school and
at home.29
The authors also noted that CPC’s effects are most likely to
be reproduced in urban contexts serving relatively high concentrations of low-income children.
Effective Early Prevention Programs
Parent Management Training
Family Risk Factors
Several risk factors related to the family are important predictors of criminal behavior. Criminal or anti-social parents,
parental conflict, poor child-rearing practices, and large family size have all been found to increase the likelihood that a
child will engage in delinquent or criminal conduct later in
life.30 A recent meta-analysis found that having anti-social
parents, for example, was one of the strongest predictors of
serious and violent offending during late adolescence and
early adulthood.31 Similarly, Hawkins, et al. (2000) reported
that exposure to high levels of family conflict appears to
increase the risk of violence later in life. Poor parental supervision of children has been found to be a strong and reliable
predictor of later offending too: it typically doubles the risk
of delinquency, according to Farrington and Welsh (2007).
Criminal or anti-social parents,
parental conflict, poor child-rearing
practices, and large family size
have all been found to increase the
likelihood that a child will engage in
delinquent or criminal conduct later
in life.
Parent Management Training
The critical role that families play in shaping a child’s behavior has lead to the development of prevention programs that
focus on effective parenting. Parent management training
(PMT) programs target family risk factors such as poor
child rearing practices and they have been found to be effective at preventing delinquency and criminal conduct. PMT
programs are designed to teach parents how to change and
effectively manage a child’s behavior. They are based on the
premise that poor parenting practices are an important cause
of a child’s inappropriate behavior, and that positive parenting is the key to behavior change on the part of the child.32
PMT programs are largely based on the work of Gerald
Patterson, John Reid and their colleagues at the Oregon
Social Learning Center (OSLC). Their research demonstrated that inappropriate behaviors are taught and
reinforced within the day-today interactions that take place
between parents and their children. Moreover, children
begin to learn and emulate behaviors at a very early age.
Patterson’s research on anti-social behavior and parent-child
interactions guides many childhood interventions in schools
and mental health centers today. In fact, PMT was originally
used in outpatient mental health settings, but it has been
adapted for use in a variety of locations and for children
across the development continuum.33 The OSLC is even
testing a prison-based program designed to impact the children of incarcerated parents.34
PMT programs in use today share a common set of features,
particularly a focus on parents rather than children. Parents
are taught to identify and define the behaviors they want to
increase or decrease in their child, and they learn positive
reinforcement and discipline skills through a variety of interactive techniques.
Parents are taught to identify
and define the behaviors they
want to increase or decrease in
their child, and they learn positive
reinforcement and discipline skills
through a variety of interactive
techniques.
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Parent training is typically provided by a trained professional
in either an individual family or group environment. Parents
are taught how to recognize appropriate and inappropriate
behaviors, communicate behavioral expectations, reward
positive behavior, and impose appropriate consequences for
negative behaviors. The therapist typically models effective
practices and coaches parents in their application. Parents
complete homework assignments to help them learn new
techniques, and frequent contact with the therapist between
sessions helps the parents resolve problems.
PMT Effectiveness
Early studies of Patterson’s PMT model found favorable
results. Several studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s
demonstrated that PMT improved parenting and reduced
problem behaviors in children, including delinquency. More
recently, Eddy and Reid (2001) reviewed the interventions
identified as best practices for the prevention and treatment
of child problems by several federally-funded task forces.
They found that PMT was one of only four programs consistently rated as a “best practice” across multiple lists. They
reported that both RCTs and quasi-experiments have shown
91
What Works
that PMT reduces a variety of problems, including police
contacts.
Several reviews have shown that PMT programs are
effective at preventing criminal conduct.35 Duncan and
Magnuson (2004:24) reviewed evaluations of PMT
programs and concluded that PMT “can lead to meaningful reductions in children’s problem behaviors.”36 Yale
psychologist Alan Kazdin (2005:179) recently reported
that the benefits of PMT have been established in highly
rigorous studies, showing PMT to “reduce offense rates
among delinquent adolescents.”37 Farrington and Welsh
(2007:136) recently concluded that parent management
training is “effective in preventing delinquency and later
offending.”38 The authors cited their 2003 meta-analysis
that found PMT programs produced an average reduction
in antisocial behavior and delinquency of 20 percentage
points compared to controls.39
Three PMT programs that have been found to prevent
delinquency are briefly described below.
Parent Management Training - Oregon
Model (PMTO)
PMTO is a family-based intervention that teaches parents
and caregivers effective strategies for managing a child’s
behavior. It is directly based on OSLC research, and is
designed to prevent and reduce behavior problems in children 4-12 years of age.
PMTO attempts to enhance effective parenting and diminish coercive family processes.40 Trained professionals teach
parents research-based techniques for shaping behavior and
socializing the child and they coach parents in the application of effective parenting skills. Parents are taught to
replace coercive processes with the following five effective
parenting practices:
• Skill encouragement,
• Proper discipline,
• Behavior monitoring,
• Problem solving, and
• Positive involvement.
Support for positive behavior and appropriate consequences
for negative behavior are core components of the model.
PMTO is currently being implemented statewide in
Michigan and it has been implemented on a national
scale in Norway.41 A non-profit affiliate of the OSLC,
92
PMTO is currently being
implemented statewide in Michigan
and it has been implemented on a
national scale in Norway.
Implementation Sciences International Inc. (ISII) in
Eugene, Oregon, is responsible for facilitating the implementation of PMTO worldwide.
Evaluations of PMTO have shown that the program
has positive effects on parenting and children’s behavior.
Patterson et al. (2004) examined the effects of a PMTO
application with recently separated single mothers and their
sons using an RCT design. The researchers found that over
a 30-month follow-up period, there was an improvement
in parenting practices and a reduction in child anti-social
behavior (including measures of delinquency) among the
PMT participants. Conversely, anti-social behavior increased
for the boys in the control group.42 A follow-up analysis,
when the boys in the study ranged from nine to almost 14
years of age, showed that the PMTO program continued to
prevent delinquency and other problem behaviors 3 years
after the program was delivered.43
The Incredible Years Training Series
Another parent management training model that has
been found to prevent delinquency is the Incredible Years
Training Series (IYS) developed by Carolyn WebsterStratton at the University of Washington. The program is
designed to prevent delinquency and behavior problems in
children by promoting parental and teacher competence and
strengthening families. The IYS emphasizes the importance
of the child’s socialization process and its development was
strongly influenced by OSLC research. The IYS is a community-based, universal prevention program that is delivered in
homes, schools and other settings, too.
The IYS is a comprehensive set of curricula - parent training, teacher training and child training - designed to
prevent and reduce problem behaviors and increase the
social competence of children up to 12 years of age.44 The
parent training program is made up of three series: Basic,
Advance, and School. The Basic series is the core element
the program. It teaches parents effective parenting skills,
including behavior monitoring, proper discipline and reinforcement techniques, and problem-solving strategies. The
Advance and School programs serve as supplements to the
Basic program. The former addresses family risk factors such
.
/
Y
Effective Early Prevention Programs
as marital discord and poor anger management, while the
latter focuses on ways to foster the child’s academic competence. Group discussion, videotape modeling, and rehearsal
intervention techniques are important elements of the IYS
curriculums.
The IYS has two programs for teachers: a classroom management program and a classroom curriculum designed to
promote problem solving and social competence for children 4-8 years of age. The IYS child training programs focus
on strengthening the social and emotional competencies of
children. These programs can be used in school classrooms
or by counselors to treat difficult or aggressive children.
Evaluations of the parent training component employing
experimental designs have shown that the program improves
parenting interactions and reduces conduct problems in
children. The BASIC program also promotes social competence, reduces parents’ violent methods of discipline, and
improves child management skills. The Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) summarized
the many studies of IYS in a 2000 research bulletin. Many
studies of hundreds of children, parents and teachers have
found significant positive outcomes, with the combined parent and child interventions producing sustained effects on
child behaviors. The combined parent-child interventions
found a 95% decrease in deviant behaviors compared to a
74% decrease for the child-only intervention, and a 60%
decrease for the Basic plus Advance parent training alone.45
Among the other outcomes are improvements in parental
functioning that have long been understood to place children at risk of conduct disorder:46
• Reductions in parental depression;
• Increases in positive family communication and problem-solving;
• Increased compliance by children to parental commands;
• Increases in parent use of effective limit-setting by
replacing physical discipline with non-violent discipline
techniques; and
• Increases parental in monitoring of children.47
The IYS is recognized as a model program by the Center
for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University
of Colorado. Program materials, training and leader certification is provided by the Incredible Years organization
in Seattle, Washington. The IYS is being used in Canada,
the United Kingdom and in at least 43 states, including
Colorado.
IYS in Colorado
In 2002, the Incredible Years became the second program
Colorado’s Invest in Kids (IIK) organization chose to adopt
for statewide implementation.48 Working with community
stakeholders across the state, IIK identified a need for child
mental health and school readiness programming that helps
bridge the transition from early childhood education to elementary school. The IYS program was chosen to help meet
that need because of its approach, target population, and
effectiveness. According to IIK, the IYS program is being
used in 50 sites in 13 counties and two Native American
reservations in Colorado.49
The Preparing for the Drug Free Years
program (PDFY)
Preparing for the Drug-Free Years (PDFY) is a parent training program designed to reduce the risks that a child will
abuse drugs or develop other problem behaviors. Developed
by David Hawkins and Richard Catalano at the University
of Washington, PDFY teaches parents how to reduce critical risk factors and enhance protective factors for juvenile
substance abuse that are present during the later elementary
and middle school years.50 The program targets parents of
children ages 8-14.
PDFY is a universal prevention program that has been used
with families from a range of socio-economic and cultural
backgrounds. PDFY has been delivered to parents in a
variety of settings, including homes, schools, hospitals and
community centers.51 The program typically consists of
five 2-hour workshop sessions, although it has been offered
in other formats as well. Sessions include instruction on
risk factors for substance abuse, setting clear expectations,
managing family conflict, strengthening family bonds and
avoiding trouble. Children attend one session with their
parents in order to learn effective skills for resisting peer
pressure.
\j
Z
PDFY sessions are typically delivered by community members who have received PDFY training. The PDFY program
Mason et al. (2003) found lower
rates of substance use and lower
rates of delinquency for children
of PDFY-treated families compared
to controls 3.5 years after program
delivery.
93
What Works
is commercially available through Developmental Research
and Programs (DRP) in Seattle, Washington. DRP offers a
3-day training course that prepares community members to
serve as a PDFY workshop leader.
The program combines child social skills training with parent training and it targets boys from low socio-economic
backgrounds who display high levels of disruptive behavior
at an early age.
Evaluations using RCTs have found that PDFY produces
positive effects for both parents and children.52 Kosterman
et al. (1997), for example, found that PDFY improved the
child management skills of parents participating in the
program. Mason et al. (2003) found lower rates of substance use and lower rates of delinquency for children of
PDFY-treated families compared to controls 3.5 years after
program delivery. A cost-benefit analysis conducted by
Spoth et al. (2002) estimated that the PDFY program produced $5.85 in benefits for every $1 of cost.
The social skills training component of PTP provides 7-9
year old boys with school-based training designed to build
self-control and other pro-social skills. Training is delivered
to small groups of children that include both disruptive boys
(the target population) and pro-social peers. The parent
training component is designed to improve the parents’ ability to manage and control their child’s behavior. It is based
on techniques developed by the OSLC. Parent training sessions are home-based and typically delivered every 2 weeks.
They focus on behavior monitoring, positive reinforcement,
effective discipline, crisis management and other parenting
skills. Parent training is typically spread over 17 sessions
while child-social skills training averages 19 sessions.
Child Social Skills Training
Research has shown that certain characteristics such as
impulsiveness and low empathy that are evident in childhood are risk factors for offending later in life. In the
Pittsburgh Youth Study, for example, impulsive judgment
and impulsive behavior in boys were both found to be
related to delinquency.53 Similarly, Wasserman et al. (2003)
reported that several studies have shown that impulsive boys
are more likely to commit delinquent acts at 12 to 13 years
of age. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) have argued that
low self control, which is evident by age 6-8, is a principle
factor in delinquency and adult criminal conduct.54 And
Jolliffe and Farrington’s (2004) review of 35 studies found
that low cognitive empathy - the inability to understand
or appreciate the feelings of others - was strongly related to
offending.55
Raising the empathy and self-control levels of offenders is
a major aim of some of the cognitive-behavioral programs
described in Section 5 of this report. Child social skills training programs are somewhat similar in their aims, but they
are delivered to children at an early age for the purpose of
improving their social and emotional competencies.
In their recent review of prevention programs, Farrington
and Welsh (2007) concluded that child social skills training
programs are effective in preventing delinquency. They cited
a recent meta-analysis of by Beelmann and Lösel (2006) as
well as research by McCord and her colleagues (1994) demonstrating positive long-term impacts on delinquency.
The Montreal Preventive Treatment Program
One example of an effective social skills training program
is the Preventive Treatment Program (PTP) developed by
Richard Tremblay and his colleagues in Montreal, Canada.
94
PTP has been the focus of a rigorous evaluation conducted
by Richard Tremblay and his colleagues as part of the
Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Study. More than 300
boys who were randomly assigned to PTP-treatment and
control groups have been tracked for nearly 10 years. By
age 15, boys who participated in the PTP program were less
likely than untreated boys to report delinquent behavior,
have a juvenile court record, be in a gang, or have friends
who had been arrested. Treated boys were also less likely to
use alcohol or drugs or have serious difficulties in school.
School-Based Programs
In each of the programs described below, schools are not
only the locus of delivery; they are an essential element
of the program’s design. Elementary, middle or junior
high school students are the primary program targets, and
interventions tend to focus on the school environment or
self-control or social competency using cognitive behavioral
methods. In the case of CASASTART, the school serves as
the hub of an initiative that involves the entire community.
In the following pages we describe several school-based programs that are effective at preventing delinquency.
School-based prevention programs
School-based prevention programs have become quite
prevalent over the past 20 years. The use of metal detectors,
school-resource officers and other approaches that prevent
crimes from occurring are particularly popular. So too are
substance abuse prevention programs, such as the Drug
Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program. This review
is not concerned with these types of prevention efforts,
Effective Early Prevention Programs
per se. Rather, the focus here is specifically on risk-focused,
early prevention programs empirically shown to prevent the
onset of criminal behavior.
Research on the Effectiveness of School-based
Programs
A considerable body of research has examined the effectiveness of school-based programs in preventing future
crime and delinquency. Wilson et al. (2001) conducted a
meta-analysis of 165 studies and found that school-based
prevention practices are effective for reducing alcohol and
drug use, drop-out and non-attendance, and other conduct
problems.56 Program effects on drop-out and non-attendance were roughly three times greater than for delinquency,
but cognitive behavioral and environmentally focused
programs were found to be particularly effective for reducing delinquency and drug use. The researchers also noted
that many popular school-based programs have not been
adequately studied.
Many popular school-based programs
have not been adequately studied.
Wilson and Lipsey (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of
more than 200 research studies examining the effectiveness of school-based programs for preventing or reducing
aggressive behavior. They found that school violence prevention programs were generally effective at reducing fighting,
intimidation, and other negative behaviors, especially among
higher risk students. Carefully and successfully implemented
programs tended to produce greater reductions in aggressive
behavior.
Farrington and Welsh (2007:156) cited both of these studies in their review of school-based prevention programs, and
concluded that “only a handful of school-based intervention
modalities are effective” at preventing delinquency.57 Based
on Wilson et al.’s findings, Farrington and Welsh identified
the following four types of programs that are effective in
school-based prevention:
• School and discipline management,
• Classroom or instructional management,
• Reorganization of grades or classes, and
• Self-control or social competency programs using cognitive behavioral methods.58
All but the last are environmentally focused interventions.
Reorganization of grades or classes was identified as the
most effective approach, reducing delinquency on average by 17%. Reorganization generally involves substantive
changes to grade or class structures or curriculums to make
the school environment more relevant, to better meet student needs, and to counteract the negative effects of large
class sizes. Mihalic et al. (2004) also reported that school
and discipline management programs, interventions to
establish norms and expectations for behavior, and instructional programs that teach social competency skills using
cognitive-behavioral methods are effective.59
Farrington and Welsh highlighted four specific programs
as case studies of effective school-based prevention efforts:
Positive Action Through Holistic Education (PATHE),
Student Training Through Urban Strategies (STATUS),
the Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP), and
Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RiPP). PATHE
and STATUS are no longer available for dissemination.
SSDP, RiPP and three other effective school-based interventions are briefly described below.
The Seattle Social Development Project
.
/
Y
\j
Z
The Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) is a multiyear, school-based intervention designed to reduce risk
factors and increase protective factors in multiple domains.
The program is based on the work of J. David Hawkins
and Richard Catalano at the Social Development Research
Group at the University of Washington, Seattle. SSDP uses
teacher training, parent training and skills training for children to enhance a child’s bonds with school and family. The
program is used in grades 1 through 6 with both general
student populations and high-risk youth.
Classroom behavior management is one the core SSDP
components. Teachers are trained in proactive classroom
management, interactive teaching, and cooperative learning.
In first grade, children receive instruction on problem solving
and conflict resolution. In 6th grade, training on refusal skills
is provided. Optional training in developmentally appropriate child behavior management is also offered to parents as
their children progress from first through sixth grade.
The Social Development Research Group at the University
of Washington has been studying the effects of the SSDP
intervention since its initial implementation in the 1980s.
Their work is part of a larger ongoing longitudinal study
of students in 18 public schools serving high crime areas of
Seattle. This study has followed a sample of children since
they entered the fifth grade in 1985. In 1996, when participants were 21 years of age, 605 students from the sample
95
What Works
were successfully interviewed. Program effects were assessed
using a variety of outcome measures including positive
functioning in school or work and decreases in crime and
substance abuse.
The study design allowed researchers to compare students
who received the full SSDP intervention with two other
groups of students: one that received only about two years of
SSDP and another that received no SSDP programming at
all. Researchers found that at age 21, students who received
the full SSDP intervention demonstrated significantly better
functioning in school and at work (Hawkins et al., 2005).
Compared with controls, full-intervention participants
were significantly more likely to have graduated high-school
(91% vs. 81%) and be currently employed. Students who
received the full SSDP program also were significantly less
likely than their control group counterparts to be involved
in crime, to have sold illegal drugs in the past year, and to
have had a court record at the age of 21.60 An economic
analysis conducted by the WSIPP estimated that the SSDP
produced an 18.6% reduction in crime and $4,341 in crime
reduction benefits to taxpayers for every program participant
(Aos et al., 2006).
An economic analysis conducted
by the WSIPP estimated that the
SSDP produced an 18.6% reduction
in crime and $4,341 in crime
reduction benefits to taxpayers
for every program participant (Aos
et al., 2006).
While the Social Development Research Group has always
been involved in SSDP research, an independent company took over the distribution of the intervention for a
short period of time, renaming the program SOAR (Skills,
Opportunities and Recognition). That company is no longer
involved with SSDP. Currently, program materials are being
re-tooled by the Social Development Research Group and
pilot tested in Pennsylvania under a new program name:
Raising Healthy Children.61
Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways
(RiPP)
Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways is a school-based
violence prevention program designed to provide students
with conflict resolution strategies and skills. The program
96
was developed in the early 1990s by researchers at Virginia
Commonwealth University working in collaboration with
public schools in Richmond, Virginia. RiPP is based on
social cognitive learning theory and it combines classroom
instruction with real world skill building opportunities such
as peer mediation. The overall goal of RiPP is to reduce risk
factors and increase protective factors related to violence and
problem behavior.
RiPP targets children 11-14 years of age in middle and
junior high schools. The 3-year program employs a standardized curriculum with specific activities and focal points
for each of the 6th, 7th, and 8th grades. Sixteen RiPP sessions are delivered each year, typically during social studies,
health or science classes. Sessions build upon each other
in a cumulative fashion. They include a variety of developmentally appropriate activities, including team building
and problem solving activities, role play, rehearsal and peer
mediation.
RiPP is delivered by a prevention facilitator who is specifically hired and trained for the program. The facilitator
serves as an adult role model, teaching skills that promote
non-violence and modeling pro-social behaviors. An
intensive training program is provided through Virginia
Commonwealth University (VCU).
RiPP is disseminated through VCU and Prevention
Opportunities, LLC in Ashland, Virginia. Prevention
Opportunities works with VCU to deliver RiPP training
and other implementation services. According to Prevention
Opportunities, RiPP is currently being used in schools in
five states. 62
RiPP has been the focus of several evaluations that have
found favorable program effects on aggressive and delinquent behavior. In Richmond, Farrell et al. (2001) evaluated
the RiPP curriculum for 6th graders at 3 middle schools
by randomly assigning classrooms to treatment (RiPP) and
control conditions (no RiPP). Their analysis found that
RIPP participants had fewer disciplinary violations for
violent offenses and in-school suspensions compared with
youth in the control group. RiPP participants also reported
fewer fight-related injuries.63 Valois et al. (1999) evaluated a
pilot application of RiPP in a single school in rural Florida.
Students who participated in RiPP reported significantly
smaller increases in physical aggression and frequency of
drug use compared to students who did not receive the
program. Farrell et al. (2003) examined RiPP’s effectiveness
based on a larger number of implementation sites in Florida.
Students in the study’s four intervention schools received the
RIPP curriculum in 6th and 7th grades, while students in
the four comparison schools received other or no program-
Effective Early Prevention Programs
ming at all. Students who participated in RiPP reported less
aggression over time than their comparison group counterparts. Moreover, students in the comparison schools that did
not use RiPP were more likely to report carrying a weapon
to school and using it to threaten someone than were students in the intervention schools.64
prevention measures, the creation of a committee to coordinate bullying prevention activities, and the development
of anti-bullying rules and policies. Increased monitoring
of areas where bullying is likely to occur also takes place.
Classroom components include regular discussions about
bullying and reinforcement of anti-bullying rules and policies. Individual level components are designed to stop any
ongoing bullying and provide support to victims.
Students in the comparison schools
that did not use RiPP were more
likely to report carrying a weapon
to school and using it to threaten
someone than were students in the
intervention schools.
The BPP is designed for use in elementary, middle, and
junior high schools. School staff is responsible for program
implementation and all students participate in the program.
Parents are actively involved as well. Implementation is
typically launched at the start of the school year, and full
implementation occurs over the course of two years.
The Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program
In recent years, there has been increasing recognition that
bullying is a problem requiring intervention. Numerous
studies have documented the short- and long-term impacts
that bullying has on victims, and Fox and his colleagues
(2003:4) recently reported that “nearly 60% of boys who
researchers classified as bullies in grades six through nine
were convicted of at least one crime by the age of 24. Even
more dramatic, 40% of them had three or more convictions
by age 24.”65
In the 2003 report Bullying Prevention is Crime Prevention,
the organization Fight Crime: Invest in Kids suggested that
as much as half of all bullying can be prevented.66 They
called on local, state and national policy makers “to invest in
proven anti-bullying measures for every school in America.”
One of the proven interventions identified in the report is
the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (BPP).
The BPP is a multi-component, school-based program
designed to prevent and reduce bullying problems. It was
developed at the University of Bergen in Norway and is
based on the research of Dan Olweus, one of the world’s
leading experts on bullying. BPP attempts to restructure
the existing school environment to reduce opportunities
and rewards for bullying. The goal is to mobilize the entire
school in a way that makes bullying unacceptable.
The BPP has school level, classroom level, and individual
level components. The school-level component includes the
distribution of a student questionnaire designed to assess the
bullying problem. It also involves training for school staff on
Several evaluations of BPP have demonstrated that the
program reduces bullying, other problem behaviors, and
delinquency. The first evaluation of BPP in Norway, for
example, found a 50% reduction in bullying incidents
and reductions in antisocial behavior such as vandalism,
fighting, and theft.67 Evaluations in the U.S. have reported
similar results. In South Carolina, for example, students
participating in the BPP program had lower levels of school
misbehavior, vandalism, and general delinquency than students who did not participate in the program.68
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Several evaluations of BPP have
demonstrated that the program
reduces bullying, other problem
behaviors, and delinquency.
BPP has been implemented in several hundred schools in
the United States and several foreign countries. Program
materials, training and other implementation services
are available in the U.S. through the Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program at Clemson University. The BPP is recognized as a model program by the Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado.
The Life Skills Training (LST) program
The Life Skills Training (LST) program was developed by
Gilbert Botvin, a professor of public health and psychiatry
at Cornell University’s Weill Medical College. The LST
program was designed to influence individual risk factors
associated with substance abuse but has recently been found
to reduce delinquency and violent behavior in the months
immediately following the program.
97
What Works
The LST program is a classroom-based intervention that can
be delivered by teachers, counselors, health professionals and
others. The elementary school curriculum consists of 24 sessions delivered over a 3 year period beginning in either the
3rd or 4th grade. The middle school curriculum consists of
30 sessions delivered over 3 years beginning in either the
6th or 7th grades.69 Both curriculums are designed to
provide students with self-management, social and drug
resistance skills. Developmentally appropriate teaching
strategies are employed, including lecture, discussion,
coaching, and practice.
While numerous evaluations have demonstrated that the
LST program effectively reduces substance use, recent
research has also shown that the program has a positive
effect on delinquency and violence. Botvin et al. (2006)
randomly assigned 41 New York City schools to either
intervention or control conditions. Participants in the 20
intervention schools received the Life Skills Training program that was modified to include material that focused
on violence, anger management, and conflict resolution
skills. The study participants self-reported high frequencies
of aggressive behavior and delinquency prior to LST: over
half reported engaging in fights and delinquency in the year
prior to the program70 whereas a national sample of students
found 36% reported fighting behavior.71
CASASTART (Striving Together to
Achieve Rewarding Tomorrows)
CASASTART (Striving Together to Achieve Rewarding
Tomorrows) is a school-centered youth development program designed to prevent criminal conduct and other
problem behaviors by high-risk 8 to 13 year olds. It was
created in 1992 by the National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University.74 The
program draws on a wide variety of community resources to
ensure program participants receive the support and services
they need.
CASASTART is a flexible program that is primarily
designed at the local level to address unique community
needs. All local programs, however, share a core set of features, including the following:
• A committed lead agency,
• A defined target population,
• A defined geographic boundary for program operations,
• Regular meetings between program staff and partner
organizations to build relationships and ensure services
are available and delivered to program participants.75
To determine effectiveness, survey data were collected
from 4,858 sixth grade students prior to the intervention
and three months after the intervention. Findings showed
significant reductions in violence and delinquency for intervention participants relative to controls in the three months
following the program. Also, the study found that program
dose mattered: youth who attended more than half of the
program sessions had better outcomes than those with less
exposure to the program.72
CASASTART serves children who attend schools in the
designated operational area. Most program meetings and
activities take place in the school. CASASTART case managers work with teachers, social service agencies, police
officers and neighborhood residents to coordinate support
and service delivery. Children participate in CASASTART
on a voluntary basis for up to two years. In practice,
CASASTART provides program participants with services,
support and a safe place to go after regular school hours.
The researchers also estimated the extent to which program
delivery was consistent with the model LST program, and
found fidelity to be lower in the New York study than in
previous studies. It is possible that, with greater fidelity, program outcomes could be even better.
The CASASTART model is comprised of the following
eight core services:
1. Case management,
2. Family support,
Another recent study of the LST program implemented in
rural schools found significant reductions in methamphetamine use among adolescents compared to controls.73
3. Education services,
The LST program is recognized as a model program by
the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at
the University of Colorado. Training services are available through National Health Promotion Associates, Inc.
(NHPA), in White Plains, New York.
5. Mentoring,
4. Out-of-school activities,
6. Incentives,
7. Community policing, and
8. Juvenile justice intervention.76
98
Effective Early Prevention Programs
An individual service plan featuring all eight of these components is developed for each child that is enrolled in the
program. A case manager meets with the child several times
per week and oversees the child’s participation in all program activities. Case managers also meet with families at
least once a month and make regular home visits.77
The case management component ensures that the needs of
participating youth and families are met. Small caseloads of
13 to 18 families ensure that program participants receive
close attention. The family services component includes
counseling services, parent programs, family advocacy and
other organized activities. Education services include tutoring and homework assistance, as well as work preparation
opportunities. After-school and summer activities offer
opportunities for prosocial activities with peers. Activities
include recreation, entertainment and social development
programs focusing on self-esteem, cultural heritage, and
social problems. The mentorship component fosters group
or one-to-one relationships with mentors to promote positive behaviors.
CASASTART also works with local law enforcement to
increase police presence, involvement in the community and
involvement with program youth. Case managers also communicate with juvenile justice and probation departments to
intervene if youth become involved with the courts.
CASASTART is operating in at least 34 cities and counties nationwide and one Native American reservation. At
year-end 2007, CASASTART had been implemented in 10
schools in Colorado. CASASTART was first implemented
in Colorado in 1999 with funding and other assistance
provided by the The Colorado Foundation for Families and
Children. The Foundation continues to provide training and
technical assistance, as well as management and oversight,
to CASASTART programs in Colorado.78 Program materials and implementation resources are also available through
the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University.
in the year following the program. Compared to the control group, CASASTART participants also were less likely
to report drug use and lifetime drug sales.79 A study of the
Colorado CASASTART sites found that 98% of participants
continued to the next grade, 75% increased their academic
achievement, and 73% decreased their suspension rate.
Additionally, parental involvement at the school increased
by 50 percent.80
Truancy Programs
In recent years there has been increasing recognition that
truancy is a widespread problem. A recent report by the
National Center for School Engagement (NCSE) estimated
that 20% of Denver Public School (DPS) students and 30%
of high school students specifically are chronically truant.81
Research has shown that truancy is related to a number of
other problem behaviors, including dropping out and delinquency. For example, a lack of commitment to school is a
well-established risk factor for drop-out, substance abuse
and delinquency. And research conducted by NCSE has
found that approximately 60% of students who left DPS for
juvenile incarceration were chronically truant.82
\j
Z
According to the NCSE, many different agencies provide
programs or services designed to prevent or reduce truancy
in Colorado.83 Interventions range from a letter or phone
call from the school to parents to hearings and possible
punitive sanctions for certain truants in juvenile court.
Court interventions often include mandated treatment and
support service plans. Failure to comply with court ordered
sanctions can lead to juvenile detention. However, most
truants do not receive an intervention beyond a letter or
phone call, according to NCSE.84 Qualitative data based
on interviews with a variety of stakeholders such as parents,
school personnel and other professionals in Colorado, also
indicates that interventions such as truancy officers, student
attendance review boards (SARBs) and truancy petitions in
juvenile court have all been cut in recent years.85
Empirical Support
Unfortunately, conclusive scientific evidence about the
effectiveness of many truancy reduction initiatives is not
yet available. While numerous single studies have been
conducted, including some with rigorous designs, few systematic reviews or meta-analyses appear in the literature.
This review was able to locate only one systematic review
that examined research on the effectiveness of truancy prevention and intervention programs: a study conducted by
the Wilder Research Center by Gerrard et al. (2003).
CASASTART was the focus of a highly rigorous evaluation
conducted by the Urban Institute between 1992 and 1996.
CASASTART youth reported lower levels of violent crimes
Gerrard and her colleagues reviewed evaluation studies on
school-based interventions, community-based interventions, and law enforcement or court-based interventions.
At year-end 2007, CASASTART
had been implemented in 10 schools
in Colorado.
.
/
Y
99
What Works
They concluded that strong and clear attendance policies,
strengths-based family counseling, relationship building,
and intensive school interventions that include a team
approach, mentors and individualized service plans were
effective. Contacting parents and using incentives worked
best with students in the 10th grade or younger. Ongoing
rather than one-time or targeted programs and interventions
that keep youth in the educational mainstream were also
effective. Financial sanctions against TANF families were
not effective. Other strategies were deemed of unknown
effectiveness due to insufficient rigorous evaluation.86
They concluded that strong and
clear attendance policies, strengthsbased family counseling, relationship
building, and intensive school
interventions that include a team
approach, mentors and individualized
service plans were effective.
Researchers at the Colorado Foundation for Families and
Children recently estimated the costs and benefits of three
truancy reductions projects in Colorado: The Adams county
Truancy Reduction Project, the Denver Truancy Reduction
Education Project, and Project Respect in Pueblo, County.
Each program treats truancy as a family problem and each
used an intensive case management approach with frequent
referrals to service providers in the community.87 The costs
and benefits of all three programs were examined in comparison to both a court-centered approach and taking no action
at all. All of the truancy programs in the study were found
to be effective. Heilbrunn and Seeley (2003:16) concluded
the following: “school failure is so costly that there need only
be minor success with truancy reduction programs in order
to achieve a positive payback.”88
In 2007, NCSE also developed a compendium of 18 truancy reduction programs deemed by the organization to be
effective. Each program, along with its target population,
setting and supporting evidence of effectiveness are briefly
described in the organization’s published report.89
Community-Based Programs
Community-based crime prevention can take many forms.
Situational crime prevention (i.e., target hardening), community defense (such as neighborhood watch and citizen patrols),
100
community development (Weed and Seed Programs) and a
variety of other approaches have all fallen under the heading
of community-based prevention. This makes it difficult to
reach definitive conclusions about the overall effectiveness
of community-based approaches. As several researchers have
pointed out, there is little agreement on the definition of
community-based crime prevention or the specific programs
that should be labeled as community-based.
As several researchers have pointed
out, there is little agreement on
the definition of community-based
crime prevention or the specific
programs that should be labeled as
community-based.
Community-based programs have also proven to be difficult
to evaluate. The complexities of the community setting
make it hard to isolate program effects and other methodological problems are common, too. Given the deficiencies
that seem to characterize so many community-based studies,
it’s reasonable to suspect that the lack of evidence demonstrating community-based program effectiveness may be a
reflection of research rather than program quality. Indeed,
several reviews of community-based programs have failed to
find positive results. Hope (1995) and Bennett (1998) both
concluded that there was little evidence that communitybased approaches worked. More recently Greenwood (2006)
reported that little is known about the long-term effects of
community-focused interventions, primarily because appropriate research designs are hard to implement.
Farrington and Welsh (2007:154) recently reported the following: “the state of evaluation research is somewhat better
with respect to after-school and community-based mentoring programs.”90 Welsh and Hoshi (2002), for example,
identified three after school programs (ASPs) that had a positive impact on delinquency. Brown et al. (2002) reviewed
ASP evaluations in California and reported that preliminary
studies indicate that ASPs improve student performance and
reduce juvenile crime. An analysis of 14 ASPs in Maryland
by Gottfredson et al. (2004) found that ASP participation
reduced delinquent behavior for youth in middle school, but
not for youth in elementary school. After school programs
that emphasized social skills and character development
were most effective.91 Finally, Durlak and Weissberg (2007)
conducted a meta-analysis of 73 ASPs and found that ASP
Effective Early Prevention Programs
participation lead to multiple benefits, including a reduction
in both externalizing behavior and drug use. They also calculated a “value added benefit” and estimated that having an
effective ASP would result in 27% more youth with better
grades, 25% with less drug use, and 30% with less problem
behavior, including aggression and delinquent acts.92
After school programs that emphasized social skills and character
development were most effective.
William Brown and colleagues (2002) also conducted a costbenefit analysis of ASPs in California, where $433 million
was invested in ASPs under the After School and Education
Safety Act of 2002, often referred to as Proposition 49.93
The study found that for each dollar invested, California
could expect a return of between $8.92 and $12.90, with
most of the benefit coming from reduced crime costs.94
The study by Welsh and Hoshi (2002) reviewed seven
community-based mentoring program evaluations that
examined program impact on delinquency. The analysis
produced mixed results overall but the researchers concluded that mentoring represents a promising delinquency
prevention approach.95 A meta-analysis of 55 programs
conducted by DuBois et al. (2002) found that the typical
youth received modest benefits but effectiveness varied
widely across programs.
While ASPs and mentoring programs are designed to provide youth with a variety of benefits, each program model
has an underlying delinquency prevention rationale. Given
the higher rate of risky behavior and juvenile crime during
after school hours when youth are less likely to have adult
supervision, ASPs offer a safe environment where youth
Effective ASPs also provide youth
with positive role models, prosocial peer associations, and a
variety of constructive programs.
Mentoring programs also decrease
unsupervised time and increase
exposure to positive role models
and peer associations.
are supervised by adults. Effective ASPs also provide youth
with positive role models, pro-social peer associations, and a
variety of constructive programs. Mentoring programs also
decrease unsupervised time and increase exposure to positive
role models and peer associations. In fact, mentoring is often
a component of quality ASPs. Both program models provide
positive youth development opportunities that can enhance
a child’s social and self-management skills.
In its 2004 report entitled After School Programming: A
Pressing Need-A Public Policy, the Colorado Foundation
for Children and Families (CFCF) emphasized the importance of incorporating comprehensive, research-based, youth
development programs within ASPs. An exclusive focus on
either childcare or an extension of the school day may limit
ASP effectiveness. Five core elements of effective ASPs were
identified in the CFCF report:96
• Positive Youth Development
• Cultural Competency
• Partnerships
• Evaluation
• Sustainability
The Colorado Trust, a private grant-making foundation,
has invested $11 million to support 32 ASPs in 21 counties across the state.97 According to CFCG, more quality
programs are needed, as are comprehensive statewide ASP
policies, a common set of quality standards and evaluation
measures, and sustainable funding for ASPs.
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Although more and higher quality evaluations of community-based programs are needed, well-implemented after
school and mentoring programs hold promise in preventing
delinquency. Farrington and Welsh highlighted the Boys
and Girls Clubs of America and Big Brothers Big Sisters of
America as case studies of promising after-school and mentoring programs, respectively. Both programs are described
below.
Boys and Girls Clubs of America
Boys and Girls Clubs of America (BGCA) has been providing youth with a safe and pro-social place to spend time
during non-school hours and the summer for more than
100 years. More than 4,000 chartered club locations are
operating nationwide. Clubs are located in neighborhood
buildings and led by professional staff. They provide afterschool, weekend and summer programs to meet the needs of
young people ages 6-18, and they serve as a safe and healthy
101
What Works
Boys and Girls Clubs of America
(BGCA) has been providing youth
with a safe and pro-social place
to spend time during non-school
hours and the summer for more
than 100 years.
alternative to the streets or being home alone. Several clubs
are currently operating in Colorado.
Over the past 25 years, many BGCA programs have focused
on the prevention of delinquency and gang involvement.
More recently, career preparation and academic support
have been integrated into club activities. Targeted programs
that focus on particular populations and service needs have
also been implemented in recent years.
Over the past two decades, BGCA programs have been the
focus of more than 20 evaluations. A review of these studies by Arbreton and her colleagues (2005) at Public/Private
Ventures (P/PV) reported that BGCA prevention classes and
targeted outreach models of delinquency prevention show
evidence of reducing delinquent behaviors.98 A 2002 study
of BGCA gang prevention and intervention programs, for
example, found positive behavioral outcomes for targeted
youth, with more frequent club attendance producing more
favorable outcomes, including fewer gang related behaviors,
and less contact with the juvenile justice system.99 Arbreton
and her colleagues also cite Schinke et al.’s 1991 study that
found that public housing areas with a Club that offered
SMART Moves (an alcohol, drugs and pregnancy prevention program) had significantly lower rates of drug activity
than areas without it.100
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America Mentoring
Program
Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) is the largest youth mentoring program in the nation. BBBS operates in every state
and several foreign countries. The program matches youth 6
through 18 years of age with mentors in professionally supported one-to-one relationships. Professional program staff
administer and supervise every match, and they also provide
training and ongoing support. Both community-based and
school-based mentoring programs are offered through BBBS.
A rigorous evaluation of BBBS programs was conducted by
Tierney and Grossman in the early 1990s.101 The researchers randomly assigned 959 10- to 16-year-olds who applied
102
to BBBS programs across 8 sites to a treatment group, for
which BBBS matches were made or attempted, and a waiting list control group. Using an 18-month post-application
follow-up period, mentored youth were 46% less likely to
initiate drug use, and 32% less likely to have hit someone
than their control group counterparts.
BBBS is recognized as a model program by the Center
for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University
of Colorado.
Peer Programs
Peer-based prevention programs typically attempt to reduce
the influence of antisocial and deviant peers while increasing
the influence of peers who are pro-social and law-abiding.102
While there is evidence that peer-based programs can be
effective at reducing substance abuse and some other negative behaviors, a conclusive body of evidence demonstrating
that peer-based programs are effective in reducing delinquency or criminal conduct has not yet been developed.103
In a 2001 report entitled Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice, the
National Research Council (NRC) reviewed four studies
that examined the effects of peer-based prevention programs
on anti-social and delinquent behavior and found mixed
results (McCord et al. 2001).104 While grouping younger
children in interventions was successful in reducing aggressive behavior, the results for older adolescents were mixed,
with some interventions doing more harm than good.105
A recent evaluation of a peer-based program conducted by
Valente et al. (2007) found similar results. While the program was effective at preventing substance use and some
students benefited from the positive influence of their
friends, others were harmed by the negative influence of
their substance using peers.106 Students whose peers used
drugs were more likely to use drugs if they took part in the
peer-led intervention.
McCord and her colleagues at the
NRC were concerned enough about
the potential harm that deviant
peer associations could produce
in a program setting that they
cautioned against grouping high-risk
or deviant peers together, especially
during adolescence.
Effective Early Prevention Programs
McCord and her colleagues at the NRC were concerned
enough about the potential harm that deviant peer associations could produce in a program setting that they
cautioned against grouping high-risk or deviant peers
together, especially during adolescence.
“Putting antisocial or at-risk juveniles together
may provide them the opportunity to actively
reinforce deviant behavior through laughter
and social attention while talking about such
behavior. In addition, high-risk adolescents may
adjust their values as a result of associating
with peers who approve of misbehavior and,
as a consequence, be more likely to misbehave
themselves.”107
While there is ample evidence to conclude that anti-social or
deviant peers should not be grouped together, the effectiveness of properly structured peer-based programs to prevent
criminal conduct remains unknown. A 2002 review of peerbased program evaluations conducted by the Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction, for example, concluded
that while peer programs can be effective at reducing certain risky health-related behaviors among adolescents, there
is less empirical evidence about the benefits of the peer
approach for preventing violent behaviors.108
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the
project expanded into a much broader initiative, not only
identifying effective programs, but also supporting their replication in sites across the country.
After reviewing more than 600 programs, the Blueprints
initiative identified 11 model programs that effectively prevented violence and drug use (see Figure 6.2). While the
Blueprints Advisory Board considers many criteria when
reviewing program effectiveness, three factors are considered
most important:
• Evidence of a deterrent effect with a strong
research design,
• Demonstration of a sustained effect, and
• Multiple site replication.110
Programs meeting all three of these criteria are classified as
“model” programs, whereas programs meeting at least the
first criterion but not all three are considered “promising.”
Figure 6.2. Blueprints for Violence Prevention Model
Programs
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America
Functional Family Therapy
Similarly, in their 2007 review of early prevention programs,
Farrington and Welsh reported that they were not be able to
identify any meta-analyses or systematic reviews that examined the effectiveness of peer based programs in reducing
delinquency or later offending. Due to that lack of rigorous
evaluation and the absence of evidence-based reviews, the
author’s concluded that, “at present, a peer based approach is
of unknown effectiveness in preventing delinquency or later
offending (2007:156).”109
The Blueprints for Violence Prevention
Several of the programs identified in this report are considered to be “model” programs by the Blueprints for Violence
Prevention project at the University of Colorado-Boulder.
The Blueprints project is a national violence prevention
initiative to identify violence prevention programs that are
effective. It is operated by the Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence (CSPV).
The Blueprints project began in 1996 with initial funding
from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Pennsylvania
Commission on Crime and Delinquency. The project was
conceived as an effort to identify model violence prevention
programs and implement them within the State of Colorado.
With funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
The Incredible Years
.
/
Y
\j
Z
Life Skills Training
Midwestern Prevention Project
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care
Multisystemic Therapy
Nurse-Family Partnership
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
Project Towards No Drug Abuse
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies
Of the 11 model Blueprints programs, 8 have been
described in this report. Given the original conceptualization of the Blueprints project and the project’s location at
the University of Colorado, the 3 other model Blueprints
programs may be of interest to readers. Each is a schoolbased, universal prevention program. Although evaluations
of these programs have not necessarily demonstrated that
they prevent criminal behavior per se, they have been shown
to reduce risk factors for delinquency such as substance
abuse.
Therefore, each program is briefly described below using
excerpts from CSPV’s Blueprints Model Program Descriptions
Fact Sheet.111
103
What Works
Midwestern Prevention Project
This community-based program targets adolescent drug use.
The program uses five intervention strategies designed to
combat the community influences on drug use: mass media,
school, parent, community organization, and health policy
change. The primary intervention channel is the school.
Project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND)
Project TND is a drug abuse prevention program that targets high school age youth at traditional and alternative high
schools. The curriculum, taught by teaches or health educa-
tors, contains twelve 40-minute interactive sessions, and
focuses on motivations to use drugs, social skills, and cognitive processing skills.
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) is an
elementary school-based intervention designed to promote
emotional competence, including the expression, understanding and regulation of emotions.
McCord, J., Widom, C.S., and Crowell, N. (2001). Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. National Research Council. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC. Page 66. Farrington and Welsh (2007). Page 37.
1
2
Przybylski, R. (Summer 1996). With higher numbers of children entering their crime-prone years, more needs to be done
to address increasing rates of juvenile violence. The Compiler. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Chicago, IL.
Page 6.
3
McCord, Widom, and Crowell (2001).
4
Office of the Surgeon General. (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Public Health Services, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Chapter 4. Available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
library/youthviolence/toc.html.
5
Farrington, D.P., and B. Welsh. (2007). Saving Children From a Life of Crime, Early Risk Factors and Effective Interventions.
Oxford University Press: New York, NY. Page 7.
6
Farrington and Welsh (2007). Page 105.
7
Greenwood, P.W., Model, K.E., Rydell, C.P., and Chiesa, J. (1996). Diverting Children from a Life of Crime, Measuring
Costs and Benefits. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. Page 6.
8
Fagan, A., and Najman, J. (2003). The Gendered and Long-Term Relationship Between Family Practices and Children’s
Aggression and Delinquency. Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardians, Issue Papers. Brisbane,
Queensland, AU. Available at http://www.childcomm.qld.gov.au/pdf/publications/issues/issue_two_paper.pdf.
9
Widom, C.S., and Maxfield, M.G. (February 2001). An Update on the “Cycle of Violence”. Research in Brief. National
Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
10
Greenwood et al. (1996), for example, reported that women in poverty, single parenthood and youthful mothers are at
higher risk of being an ineffective or abusive parent.
11
The NFP program was originally called the Prenatal and Early Childhood Nurse Home Visitation Program.
12
The benefit cost ratio differences between the Aos et al. and Karoly et al. estimates are due to differences in the types of
programs analyzed. The Karoly et al. estimate is based on an NFP program delivered to high-risk families, whereas the Aos
et al. estimate is based on NFP programs delivered to high-risk as well as low-risk families.
13
See http://www.iik.org.
14
104
Ibid.
Effective Early Prevention Programs
15
See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ps/nursehome/NHVPfactsheet.pdf.
16
Farrington and Welsh (2007).
17
In Chicago, McCord and Ensminger (1997) found that low IQ at age 6 predicted arrests for violent crimes up to age
32. Schweinhart et al. (1993) found that low intelligence at age 4 predicted arrests up to age 27. See Farrington and
Welsh (2007).
18
Farrington and Welsh (2007). Page 106.
19
Yoshikawa, H. (Winter 1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. Future
of Children, 5, 51-75.
20
Fifty-eight of the children were assigned to the Perry Preschool program, and 65 were assigned to a control group.
21
Of the original study participants, 97% of those who were still living were interviewed at age 40.
22
There also are versions of the High/Scope model for infants and toddlers, for elementary school students, and for adolescents.
23
The program’s child to teacher ratio is about 17 to 2 in preschool and 25 to 2 in kindergarten.
24
Reynolds, A.J. Temple, J.A., Suh-Run, O., Robertson, D.L., Mersky, J.P., Topitzes, J.W., and Niles, M.D. (2007). Effects
of a School-Based, Early Childhood Intervention on Adult Health and Well-being, A 19-Year Follow-up of Low-Income
Families. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 730-739.
25
For example, the comparison group was chosen from randomly selected schools, and selection and attrition analyses using
propensity score, econometric methods, and latent-variable structural modeling have consistently indicated that program
estimates are robust to alternative analyses.
26
Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L. and Mann, E.A. (2001). Long-term Effects of an Early Childhood
Intervention on Educational Achievement and Juvenile Arrest: A 15-Year Follow-up of Low-Income Children in Public
Schools. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2339 - 2346.
27
Reynolds, A. J., and Robertson, D.L. (2003). School-Based Early Intervention and Later Child Maltreatment in the
Chicago Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 74, 3-26.
28
Abuse and neglect referrals are made to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. Petitions are made to the
juvenile court.
29
Reynolds et al. (2007).
30
Farrington and Welsh (2007). Page 75.
31
Lipsey, M.W., and Derzon, J.H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood.
In R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington (eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders:Risk Factors and Successful Interventions.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
.
/
Y
\j
Z
32
Webster-Stratton, C., and Hooven, C. (1998). Parent Training for Child Conduct Problems. University of Washington. Page
186. Available at http://www.incredibleyears.com/library/items/parent-training-for-child-conduct-problems_98.pdf.
33
Eddy, J.M., and Reid, J.B. (2001). The Antisocial Behavior of the Adolescent Children of Incarcerated Parents: A
Developmental Perspective. Oregon Social Learning Center. Eugene, OR.
34
Ibid.
35
Farrington and Welsh (2007). Page 122.
36
Duncan, G., and Magnuson, K. (2004). Individual and Parent-based Intervention Strategies for Promoting Human Capital
and Positive Behavior. Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston IL. Available at http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2004/duncan/17jacobsconference.pdf. Page 24.
105
What Works
106
37
Kazdin, A.E. (2005). Parent Management Training: Treatment for Oppositional, Aggressive, and Anti-Social Behavior in
Children and Adolescents. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Page 179.
38
Farrington and Welsh (2007). Page 136.
39
Ibid. Page 127.
40
Forgatch, M.S., Patterson, G.R., and DeGarmo, D.S. (2005). Evaluating Fidelity: Predictive Validity for a Measure of
Competent Adherence to the Oregon Model of Parent Management Training. Behavior Therapy, 36, 3-13.
41
ISII also has been contracted to train professionals on the use of PMTO in the Netherlands and Iceland, and planning for
the implementation of PMTO in Mexico is currently taking place.
42
Patterson, G.R., DeGarmo, D. and Forgatch, M.S. (2004). Systematic Changes in Families Following Prevention Trials.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 621-633.
43
DeGarmo, D.S., and Forgatch, M.S. (2005). Early development of delinquency within divorced families: evaluating a randomized preventive intervention trial. Developmental Science, 8, 229-239.
44
Webster-Stratton, C. (June 2000). The Incredible Years Training Series. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Page 1.
45
Ibid. Page 18.
46
For an excellent review of the research pertaining to “our abilities to alter the destinies of vulnerable children,” see Lisbeth
B. Schorr’s (1988) Within Our Reach: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage. Anchor Books, New York, NY. Page xvii.
47
See summary at http://www.incredibleyears.com.
48
See http://www.iik.org.
49
Http://www.iik.org/incredible_years.
50
Haggerty, K., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. (1999). Preparing for the Drug Free Years. U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington,
DC. Page 1.
51
Haggerty et al. (1999) reported that PDFY has even been delivered to parents in prison.
52
Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Spoth, R., Haggerty, K. P., and Zhu, K. (1997). Effects of a preventive parent-training
intervention on observed family interactions: Proximal outcomes from Preparing for the Drug Free Years. Journal of
Community Psychology, 25, 337-352; Mason, W. A, Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., and Spoth, R. L.
(2003). Reducing adolescents’ growth in substance use and delinquency: Randomized trial effects of a parent-training prevention intervention. Prevention Science, 4, 203-212.
53
Browning, K. and Loeber, R. (1999). Highlights of Findings From the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
54
A considerable body of research supports their thesis. See for example Pratt, T.C. and Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical
status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.
55
In their recent review of early risk factors for delinquency, Farrington and Welsh (2007) concluded that both impulsiveness and low empathy are important predictors of offending.
56
Wilson, D.B., Gottfredson, D.C., and Najaka, S.S. (2001). School-Based Prevention of Problem Behaviors: A MetaAnalysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 247-272.
57
Farrington and Welsh (2007). Page 156.
58
School and discipline management interventions typically involve a comprehensive, schoolwide effort to change the
school climate with an emphasis on behavior management and school discipline practices. Classroom or instructional
Effective Early Prevention Programs
management programs typically combine teacher training in effective instructional and disciplinary practices with student
training. (Mihalic et al., 2004 at Note 59)
59
Mihalic, S., Fagan, A., Irwin, K., Ballard, D. and Elliott, D. (2004). Blueprints for Violence Prevention, prepared by the
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence University of Colorado, Boulder, for the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Page 14.
60
Hawkins, D.J., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R.F., Hill, K.G., and Abbott, R.D. (2005) Promoting Positive Adult
Functioning Through Social Development Intervention in Childhood: Long-term Effects From the Seattle Social
Development Project, Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine.159, 25-31.
61
See http://depts.washington.edu/ssdp/intervention.shtml.
62
See http://www.preventionopportunities.com.
63
Farrell, A.D, Meyer, A.L. and White, K. (2001). Evaluation of Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP): A
School-Based Prevention Program for Reducing Violence Among Urban Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,
30, 4, 451-463.
64
Farrell, A.D., Valois, R.F., Meyer, A.L., and Tidwell, R.P. (2003). Impact of the RIPP violence-prevention program on
rural middle school students: A between-school study. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 143-167.
65
Fox, J.A., Elliott, D.S., Kerlikowske, R.G., Newman, S.A. and Christeson., W. (2003.) Bullying Prevention is Crime
Prevention. Fight Crime: Invest in Kids: Washington, DC. Page 4.
66
Ibid. Page 4.
67
Olweus, D., Limber, S. P., and Mihalic, S. (1999). The Bullying Prevention Program: Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Vol.
10. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
68
Fox et al. (2003). Page 25.
69
http://www.lifeskillstraining.com/structure.php.
70
Botvin, G.J., Griffin, K.W., Nichols, T.R.. (2006). Preventing Youth Violence and Delinquency through a Universal
School-based Prevention Approach. Prevention Science, 7, 403-408. Page 405.
71
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2005. Surveillance
Summaries, June 9, 2006, as cited by Botvin et al. (2006).
72
Botvin, G.J., Griffin, K.W., Nichols, T.R. (2006). Preventing Youth Violence and Delinquency through a Universal
School-based Prevention Approach. Prevention Science, 7, 403-408.
73
Spoth, R.L., Clair, S., Shin, C., Redmond, C. ( 2006). Long-Term Effects of Universal Preventative Interventions on
Methamphetamine Use Among Adolescents. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 160, 876-882.
74
See http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/templates/Home.aspx.
75
These include case conferences to review an individual’s progress in the program and administrative meetings to resolve
problems among partner agencies.
76
See http://www.coloradofoundation.org/template.asp?intPageId=102.
77
See http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/templates/Home.aspx.
78
See http://www.coloradofoundation.org/template.asp?intPageId=91.
79
Blueprint Promising Programs Fact Sheet, available at: httm:\\www.Colorado.edu/cspv.
80
See http://www.coloradofoundation.org/template.asp?intPageId=102.
.
/
Y
\j
Z
107
What Works
The National Center for School Engagement. (2006). Truancy in Denver: Prevalence, Effects and Interventions. Colorado
Foundation for School and Families, Denver, CO.
81
Ibid. Page 23.
82
108
83
The National Center for School Engagement. 2006. Truancy in Denver: Prevalence, Effects and Interventions, Executive
Summary. Colorado Foundation for School and Families, Denver, CO. Page 2.
84
Ibid. Page 3.
85
The National Center for School Engagement (2006). Truancy in Denver: Prevalence, Effects and Interventions. Colorado
Foundation for School and Families, Denver, CO. Pages 54-55.
86
Gerrard, M.D., Burhans, A. and Fair, J. (2003). Effective truancy prevention and intervention: A review of relevant research
for the Hennepin County School Success Project. Wilder Research Center, St. Paul, MN.
87
Heilbrunn, J.Z., and Seeley, K. (2003). Saving Money, Saving Youth: The Financial Impact of Keeping Kids in School.
National Center for School Engagement, Colorado Foundation for Families and Children, Denver, CO. Page 2.
88
Ibid. Page 16.
89
National Center for School Engagement (2007).
90
Farrington and Welsh. (2007). Page 154.
91
Gottfredson, D., Gerstenblith, S., Soul’e, D., Womer, S., and Lu, S. (December 2004). Do After School Programs Reduce
Delinquency? Prevention Science, 5, 4.
92
Durlak, J.A., and Weissberg, R.P. (2007). The Impact of After-School Programs that Promote Personal and Social Skills.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Chicago, IL.
93
See http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/prop_49.cfm.
94
Brown, W.O., Frates, S.B., Rudge, I.S., and Tradewell, R.L. (September 2002). The Costs and Benefits of After School
Programs: The Estimated Effects of the “After School Education and Safety Program Act of 2002.” Clarmont College,
Clarmont, CA. Available at http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/rose/publications/pdf/after_school.pdf.
95
Welsh, B.C. (2007). Science and Politics of Early Crime Prevention: The American Experience and Directions for Canada.
IPC Review, 1, 161-192.
96
Colorado Foundation for Families and Children. (2004). After School Programming: A pressing Need, A Public Policy.
Author, Denver, CO. Page 15.
97
See http://www.coloradotrust.org/index.
98
Arbreton, A.J.A., Sheldon, J., and Herrera, C. (2005). Beyond Safe Havens: A Synthesis of 20 Years of Research on the Boys &
Girls Clubs. Public/ Private Ventures Philadelphia, PA.
99
Arbreton, A.J.A., and McClanahan, W.S. (2002). Targeted Outreach: Boys and Girls Clubs of America’s Approach to Gang
Prevention and Intervention. Public/Private Ventures,Philadelphia, PA.
100
Schinke, S.P., Cole, K., and Orlandi, M.A. (1991). The Effects of Boys and Girls Clubs on Alcohol and Other Drug Use and
Related Problems in Public Housing. Boys and Girls Clubs of America, New York, NY.
101
Tierney, J.P. and Grossman, J.B. (2000). Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Public/Private
Ventures, Philadelphia, PA.
102
Farrington and Welsh (2007). Page 138.
103
For example, Valente et al. found that peer-led prevention efforts aimed at reducing adolescent alcohol and other drug
use are about 15 percent more effective than other programs. See Valente, T.W., Ritt-Olson, A., Alan, S., Unger, J.B.,
Effective Early Prevention Programs
Okamoto, J., and Sussman, S. (2007). Peer acceleration: Effects of a social network tailored substance abuse prevention
program among high-risk adolescents. Addiction, 102, 1804-1815.
104
McCord et al. (2001).
105
See for example, Feldman (1992) who “found that putting one or two at-risk juveniles in groups of pro-social juveniles
reduced antisocial behaviors, whereas groups of at-risk juveniles receiving the same interventions increased their misbehavior.” In McCord et al. (2001). Page 138.
106
Valente et al. (2007).
107
McCord et al. (2001). Page 138.
108
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (December 2002). Youth to Youth: A review of peer program theoretical underpinnings, forms, functions, and process- and outcome-related findings. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and the
Center on Education and Work. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
109
Farrington and Welsh (2007). Page 156.
110
According to CSPV, two additional factors are considered in the selection of Blueprints programs: whether a program conducted an analysis of mediating factors and whether a program is cost effective. These criteria, however, had to be dropped
in most cases because few programs had conducted either analysis. They remain required factors for school-based evaluations based on a small number of sites.
111
See http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/overview.html.
.
/
Y
\j
Z
109
What Works
110
Section 7: Implementation Issues
This section of the report deals with
the critically important issue of
program implementation.
This section of the report deals with the critically important
issue of program implementation. Evidence-based programs
are no silver bullet. Without proper targeting and implementation, even the best programs are unlikely to realize
their potential or even produce positive results.
Sound implementation is essential for success
Evidence-based programs have to be implemented properly
in order to be effective. Research has consistently shown that
programs that have been implemented with a high degree
of fidelity are far more likely to be successful than those that
have not. Lipsey (1999) and Barnoski (2004), for example,
have demonstrated that thorough implementation and
competent program delivery results in larger reductions in
recidivism, while partial implementation and poor delivery
can degrade a program’s recidivism effect.1
The adaptation issue
While program integrity can certainly be compromised by a
number of factors, the excessive adaptation of an intervention is one of the most common problems associated with
program implementation and delivery. Thomas Backer
(2002), a scientist affiliated with the National Center for the
Advancement of Prevention, defines adaptation as the deliberate or accidental modification of the program, including
the following:
• deletions or additions (enhancements) of program
components;
.
/
Y
• modifications in the nature of the components that are
included;
• changes in the manner or intensity of administration of
program components called for in the program manual,
curriculum, or core components analysis; or
• cultural and other modifications required by local
circumstances.2
Adaptation to meet local contingencies or achieve a sense of
ownership is a common practice in many fields. While there
is widespread consensus in the scientific community that
implementation fidelity is an important goal, adaptation
remains a somewhat controversial issue.
Research has consistently shown
that programs that have been
implemented with a high degree
of fidelity are far more likely to be
successful than those that have not.
\j
Z
Many researchers argue that adaptation of any kind is
potentially problematic, because we know very little about
which components of a program are responsible for its success. By changing or tampering with program elements, no
matter how unwittingly, adaptation can degrade a program’s
effects or even cause a program to do more harm than good.
Therefore, the argument goes, it is important to adhere
to the program model as closely as possible in every situation. Some researchers and many practitioners, on the other
hand, are concerned that rigid fidelity may not be the best
approach. Adaptation, they argue, is sometimes necessary to
reduce resistance to a new initiative or ensure that a program
is relevant at the local level.3
111
What Works
Backer (2002: 42) and others have suggested that arguments
based on a fidelity/adaptation dichotomy are somewhat
moot and need to be reframed. Research has demonstrated
that absolute fidelity is rare, that adaptation will happen,
and that fidelity and adaptation are needed for program success.4 Therefore, the best way to achieve intended effects in a
real world setting is to strike an appropriate balance between
fidelity and adaptation.5
Unfortunately, finding the ideal balance remains exceptionally difficult. Adaptation guidelines or thresholds that are
empirically tested and that might be used to inform decision
making are not yet available. Until better guidance becomes
available, program planners and staff inclined on pursuing
adaptation of proven program models are largely moving
into uncharted territory and may be risking harm. The discussion about Project Greenlight in Section 5 of this report
provides a good example. Adaptation in Project Greenlight
did not just weaken the program’s effects; it actually led
to an increase in recidivism. Given the evidence regarding
the overall importance of fidelity, adaptation is likely to be
advantageous only when it is highly strategic, pursued with
extreme caution and monitored to prevent harmful effects.
The discussion about Project
Greenlight in Section 5 of this
report provides a good example.
Adaptation in Project Greenlight
did not just weaken the program’s
effects; it actually led to an increase
in recidivism. Given the evidence
regarding the overall importance of
fidelity, adaptation is likely to be
advantageous only when it is highly
strategic, pursued with extreme
caution and monitored to prevent
harmful effects.
Building support
Building a strong base of support is also essential for sound
program implementation.6 It is not uncommon for a new
program to be met with apprehension or even outright
resistance that can undermine a program’s delivery and effectiveness. Therefore, it is critical that time and effort be taken
to cultivate commitment and buy-in among administrators,
staff, partners and stakeholders. Education and training is
almost always a prerequisite for change, and organizational
112
development is frequently necessary to facilitate and sustain
new programming efforts.
Organizational development
Evidence-based principles provide a scientific basis for developing more effective services. Organizational development
is required to successfully implement and maintain systemic
change. Implementing evidence-based practices requires
Implementing evidence-based
practices requires organizational
administrators and leaders to
redefine the organizational mission
and develop explicit values that are
consistent with the new direction.
It is vital to expose staff to new
ideas, and then to proactively build
new knowledge and skills through a
carefully planned training program.
organizational administrators and leaders to redefine the
organizational mission and develop explicit values that are
consistent with the new direction. It is vital to expose staff
to new ideas, and then to proactively build new knowledge
and skills through a carefully planned training program. It
is usually necessary to modify the infrastructure to support
this new way of doing business – that is, a portion of the
organization must be identified as having the authority and
responsibility to move the new plan forward. Transforming
organizational culture requires a consistent message from the
organization’s leaders, followed by actions and resources that
reinforce the message.7 Infrastructure changes in the form
of revised hiring, personnel evaluation or other practices are
sometimes needed, too.
Adequate resources for all aspects of program planning and
implementation also have to be obtained. This includes
ensuring that staff has the training, skills and experience
that are needed for program delivery.8 Insufficient resources
for manpower, training, equipment or financial support can
cripple the best intentioned efforts.
The importance of ongoing evaluation
Finally, even when implementation looks like it is going
well, managers and staff need to be concerned with program
Implementation Issues
An ongoing quality control
mechanism is essential for success.
drift. As the weeks, months and even years go by, it is easy to
lose sight of objectives, or perhaps abandon some essential
element of the program. Hence, an ongoing quality control
mechanism is essential for success.
While evaluation certainly can be used to discover and
document program effects, it also can be used to identify
problems and deviations from planned designs. Simply put,
evaluation is an effective way to generate feedback about
a program that can be used to improve performance and
maximize program effectiveness. Feedback from evaluation
is particularly important because policies and programs are
rarely implemented or delivered precisely according to plan.
What appears to be simple and straightforward in the implementation process often turns out to be more complex and
difficult than anticipated.9
In a recent report on successful program implementation,
Sharon Mihalic (2004:8) and her colleagues identified the
following four issues as key considerations when evaluating
implementation fidelity:
• Adherence. Is the program being delivered as it was
designed, with all core components in place; the appropriate target population being served; staff trained
appropriately; and the right protocols and materials used?
• Exposure or dosage. Do program participants receive
the program content (i.e., number of treatment sessions
and length of each treatment session) they are supposed
to receive?
• Quality of program delivery. Do staff members
deliver the program with skill, using the techniques or
methods prescribed?
• Participant responsiveness. Are participants engaged
by program activities?10
While evaluation certainly can be
used to discover and document
program effects, it also can be used
to identify problems and deviations
from planned designs. Evaluation
is an effective way to generate
feedback about a program that can
be used to improve performance and
maximize program effectiveness.
.
/
Y
\j
Z
In sum, realistic efforts to reduce recidivism and prevent
criminal behavior with evidence-based programs must
include an ongoing evaluation component to guide implementation, ensure fidelity and maximize the program’s
potential.
Barnoski, R. (2004). Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Washington
State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Lipsey M.W. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of
juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 6,
611-41.
1
Backer, T. (2002). Finding the Balance: Program Fidelity and Adaptation in Substance Abuse Prevention. A State-of-the-Art
Review. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Washington, D.C. Page 7.
2
Ibid. Pages 3 and 14.
3
Ibid. Pages 23, 42 and 43. Also see Blakely, C. H., Mayer, J. P., Gottschalk, R. G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W. S., Rollman,
D. B., and Emshoff, J. G. (1987). The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector
social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 253-269. See also Emshoff, J., Blakely, C., Gray, D., Jakes,
S., Brounstein, P., and Coulter, J. (In press) An ESID Case Study at the Federal Level. American Journal of Community
Psychology.
4
Backer, T. (2002). Page 41.
5
113
What Works
Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Fagan, A., Ballard, D. and Elliott, D. (2004). Successful Program Implementation: Lessons From
Blueprints. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
6
Heil, P. and English, K. (2007). Prison Sex Offender Treatment: Recommendations for Program Implementation. California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Sacramento, CA.
7
Mihalic et al. (2004). Page 5.
8
Pressman, J. L. and A. Wildavsky. (1984). Implementation. (Third Edition). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
9
Mihalic et al. (2004). Page 8.
10
114
Section 8: Summary
This report was developed to serve as a resource for the
Colorado Criminal and Juvenile Justice Commission
and other professionals. Its primary purpose is to provide
Commission members with practical and trustworthy
information about what works to reduce recidivism or prevent the onset of criminal behavior. To identify effective
programs, a comprehensive review of the criminology literature was conducted with a specific emphasis on systematic
reviews and meta-analyses that synthesized the evaluation
results from many studies and programs. This review found
that the following recidivism reduction and risk-focused prevention programs work:
What Works in Reducing Recidivism
• Education and vocational training
• Substance abuse treatment
• Drug courts
• Certain types of sex offender treatment, particularly
cognitive-behavioral approaches and modified therapeutic communities
• Programs for offenders with mental illness, including
treatment, diversion, and modified therapeutic communities for offenders with co-occurring disorders
• Cognitive-behavioral programs
• Certain types of juvenile rehabilitation programs, particularly multi-faceted, family-based programs such as
Functional Family Therapy, Multidimensional treatment Foster Care and Multi-Systemic Therapy
What Works in Preventing the Onset of
Criminal Behaviors
• Nurse home visits during infancy
• Preschool intellectual enrichment programs, such as
/
Y
the High Scope preschool curriculum and the Chicago
Child-Parent Center program
• Parent management training
• Child social skills training
• Certain types of school-based programs, particularly
those that focus on the school environment and those
that focus on self-control and social competency
\j
Z
• After school and mentoring programs that promote
positive youth development, such as the Boys and Girls
Clubs of America and Big Brothers Big Sisters.
These programs have been rigorously evaluated and found
to be effective. Most have been shown to be cost-beneficial.
Based on the latest and most rigorous research available,
these programs are viable, evidence-based options for reducing recidivism and preventing crime in Colorado.
It is important to keep in mind that this list of effective programs is by no means exhaustive. Other effective
programs may be operating that have not yet been evaluated, and some interventions that others view as effective
or promising may not be among those identified in this
report. Therefore, policymakers and practitioners are
encouraged to keep abreast of new evidence as it emerges
and to become familiar with other sources of information
on evidence-based programs, such as SAMHSA’s National
Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices
(NREPP) and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Model
Programs Guide.
Based solely on the list of programs identified in this
report, there is reason to believe that recidivism can be
reduced and more young people can be prevented from
ever committing crimes in the first place. There are effective programs to counteract risk factors at every stage of
a child’s development.1 And there effective programs for
addressing the wide range of criminogenic needs that are
115
What Works
found among offenders already in contact with the criminal and juvenile justice systems.
Investing in these evidence-based programs is the key to
reducing victimization and increasing public safety while
simultaneously curbing correctional costs.
But as was stated in the introduction to this report, reducing recidivism and preventing crime are not easy tasks. Even
the most effective programs will not work for everyone.
And research clearly demonstrates that programs have to be
funded adequately and implemented properly to achieve
their intended effects. Other key issues that policymakers
and practitioners need to be concerned with include:
• Properly matching evidence-based programs with the
risk-factors and target populations they were designed
to address.
• Ongoing monitoring of program implementation and
delivery to identify problems and deviations from program plans.
• A commitment to using evaluation feedback to guide
program development and operations, resolve problems
and make mid-course program corrections.
• Community-based after-care and follow-up services
for programs delivered to incarcerated offenders.2
• Ensuring that public policies promote rather than
impede the successful reentry of prisoners to society. Given the importance of stable employment and
marriage to the desistance process, public policies that
block employment, housing and other opportunities for
ex-offenders are likely to perpetuate recidivism and high
rates of reentry failure.
A fundamental premise of the evidence-based movement is
that programs and policies are more likely to produce results
when they are based on trustworthy scientific evidence.
Rigorous scientific studies have a unique capacity to reduce
bias, discover effects, and reliably identify what works. Years
of study and practice in many fields have certainly borne
this out. That said, there is a growing recognition that effective practice needs more than just scientific knowledge to
guide it.
Tom Schwandt (2005), one of the nation’s leading scholars
on evaluation and practice, has pointed out that practice is a
“complex affair” that is “local, contingent and contextual.”3
Scientific knowledge is certainly important, but effective
practice also requires judgment and the ability “to size
up the situation” and know how scientific knowledge can
best be applied. Practice is more than merely a “site or
116
location for the delivery of scientifically valid solutions.”4
Practitioner experience and expertise are important components of sound program delivery, and a commitment to
evidence-based programming should never result in the discounting of practitioner knowledge.5
A commitment to evidence-based programming should not
prevent innovation either. Many of the programs identified
in this report began as new, untested ideas. Policy makers
and practitioners should have the latitude to develop and try
new approaches, provided they are thoughtfully conceived,
theoretically sound and subject to objective evaluation.
The negative consequences that can emerge from a poorly
conceived program have been illustrated in recent reviews of
the popular Scared Straight program. Scared Straight programs involve organized visits to prison facilities by juvenile
delinquents or children at risk for becoming delinquent to
deter participants from future offending by providing firsthand observations of prison life.6 These programs have been
popular in several states and a recent Illinois law mandates
the Chicago Public Schools to identify children at-risk for
future criminal behavior and take them on tours of adult
prison facilities.7 Petrosino (2003) and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of seven rigorous studies of Scared
Straight or similar programs and found that not only do
they fail to deter crime, they actually lead to more offending
behavior.8 This underscores the need to evaluate every new
program to ensure that harm or other unintended consequences are prevented.
In closing, one of the key lessons learned from both
research and practice is that crime is a complex problem
with many underlying causes. There are no simple solutions
and no quick fixes. Reducing victimization and protecting the public requires a multi-disciplinary intervention
and prevention effort involving a variety of institutions.
Collaboration and cooperation are the keys to success.
Strategies that span different agencies, different components of the justice system, and even different disciplines
are likely to be the most successful.9
Reducing victimization and
protecting the public requires a
multi-disciplinary intervention and
prevention effort involving a variety
of institutions. Collaboration and
cooperation are the keys to success.
Summary
1
Greenwood, P. (2006). Changing lives: delinquency prevention as crime-control policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL. Page 49. Also, Greenwood, P. (N.D). Changing lives: Delinquency prevention as crime-control policy: Executive Summary.
Adolescent Development and Legal Policy Monograph Series of the John D. and Catherine T. MacAuthor Foundation,
Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Page 2.
2
As the National Research Council points out: In-prison programs have larger effects on recidivism when coupled with postrelease community-based programs. National Research Council. (2008). Parole, Desistance from Crime, and Community
Integration. Committee on Community Supervision and Desistance from Crime. Committee on Law and Justice, Division
of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Page 76.
3
Schwandt, T.A. (2005). The Centrality of Practice to Evaluation. The American Journal of Evaluation, 26. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA. Page 98.
Ibid. Page 97.
4
/
Y
\j
Z
5
Some advocates of the evidence-based movement contrast scientific evidence with all other forms of knowledge. See for
example Eddy (2005) and Kihlstrom (2005). Critics of this position, however, point out that definitions of effective outcomes are not always universally shared, and that some types of inventions are more amenable to research than others.
See for example Reed (2005) and Messer (2005). Reed (2005) and Schwandt (2005) suggest that the dichotomy between
science and everything else discounts important knowledge derived from practical experience. In 2001, the Institute of
Medicine suggested a definition of evidence-based practice that breaks the false dichotomy between science and everything
else and that reflects a sense of value for multiple evidence streams. According to the IOM, evidence-based practice is best
defined as the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. While rigorous and relevant
scientific research should receive the greatest weight, practitioner expertise and client values also need to be considered
(SAMHSA, 2007:2).
6
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., and Buehler, J. (2003). Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programs for
preventing juvenile delinquency (Updated C2 Review). In The Campbell Collaboration Reviews of Intervention and Policy
Evaluations (C2-RIPE). Campbell Collaboration, Philadelphia, PA. Petrosino and his colleagues concluded that government
officials permitting this program need to adopt rigorous evaluation to ensure that they are not causing more harm to the
very citizens they pledge to protect.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid. Petrosino and his colleagues concluded that government officials permitting this program need to adopt rigorous
evaluation to ensure that they are not causing more harm to the very citizens they pledge to protect.
9
Przybylski, R. (1995). Evaluation as important tool in criminal justice planning. The Compiler. Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority, Chicago, IL. Page 6.
117
What Works
118
Y
Bibliography
\j
Z
Abram, K.M., and Teplin, L.A. (1991). Co-occurring disorders among mentally ill jail detainees: Implications for public
policy. American Psychologist, 46, 1036-1045.
Akers, R.L., and Sellers, C.S. (2004). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation and Application, 4th Ed. Roxbury
Publishing Company, Los Angeles, CA.
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division. (October 2006). The Costs and Effectiveness of Substance Use Disorder Programs in the State
Of Colorado. Report to the General Assembly’s House and Senate Committees and Health and Human Services. Colorado
Department of Human Services, Denver, CO.
Allen, L.C., MacKenzie, D.L., and Hickman, L.J. (2001). The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral treatment for adult
offenders: A methodological, quality-based review. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45,
498-514.
American University. (January 2007). Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance
Project. Drug Court Clearinghouse, Drug Court Activity Update. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC.
Andrews, D.A. (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. In McGuire (ed.), What Works: Reducing
Reoffending–Guidelines from Research and Practice. John Wiley, New York, NY.
Andrews, D.A., and Bonta, J. (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 4th Ed. Lexis/Nexis, Newark, NJ.
Andrews, D.A., and Dowden, C. (2005). Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta-analytic review of
programme integrity. The British Psychological Society, 173-187.
Andrews, D.A., Dowden, C. and Gendreau, P. (1999). Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Approaches to Reduced
Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Study of Human Service Risk, Need, Responsivity and other Concerns in Justice Contexts. Carleton
University, Ottawa, Canada.
Andrews D.A., Zinger I., and Hoge, R. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically
informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Anthony, W. (2005). Supported employment for people in contact with the criminal justice systems: Applications, evidence and
options. Paper presented at Evidence-Based Practice for Justice-Involved Individuals: Supported Employment Expert Panel
Meeting, September 7, 2005, Bethesda, MD.
Aos, S. (2003). The Criminal Justice System in Washington State: Incarceration Rates, Taxpayer Costs, Crime Rates, and Prison
Economics. Washington State Institute on Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.
Aos, S., Leib, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., and Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention
Programs for Youth. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.
119
What Works
Aos, S., Miller, M., and Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.
Aos, S., Miller, M., and Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal
Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Available at http://www.wsipp.
wa.gov/pub.
Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., and Lieb, R. (2001). The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.
Arbreton, A.J.A., Sheldon, J., and Herrera, C. (2005). Beyond Safe Havens: A Synthesis of 20 Years of Research on the Boys &
Girls Clubs. Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA.
Arbreton, A.J.A., and McClanahan, W.S. (2002). Targeted Outreach: Boys and Girls Clubs of America’s Approach to Gang
Prevention and Intervention. Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA.
Austin, J., Clear, T., Duster, T., Greenberg, D.F., Irwin, J., McCoy, C., Mobley, I., Owen, B., and Page, J. (November 2007).
Unlocking America: Why and How to Reduce America’s Prison Population. The JFA Institute, Malibu, CA. Available at www.
jfa-associates.com.
Austin, J. and Fabelo, T. (2004). The Diminishing Returns of Incarceration: A Blueprint to Improve Public Safety and Reduce
Costs. JFA Institute, Malibu, CA.
Backer, T. (2002). Finding the Balance: Program Fidelity and Adaptation in Substance Abuse Prevention. A State-of-theArt Review. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Barnett, W.S. (1996). Lives in the Balance: Age-27 Benefit-Cost Analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. High/Scope
Press, Ypsilanti, MI.
Barnoski, R. (2006). Sex Offender Sentencing in Washington State: Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative Trends.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.
Barnoski, R. (2004). Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Washington State
Institute for Public Policy, Olympia, WA. Available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.
Bates, B., English, D., and Kouidou-Giles, S. (1997). Residential treatment and its alternatives: A review of the literature.
Child and Youth Care Forum, 26, 7–51.
Beelmann, A., and Lösel, F. (2006). Child social skills training in developmental crime prevention: Effects on antisocial behavior
and social competence. Psicothema, 18, 603-610. Available at http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/727/72718342.pdf.
Belenko, S., Patapis, N., and French, M.T. (2005). Economic Benefits of Drug Treatment: A critical review of the evidence for
policy makers. Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Bennett, T. (1998). Crime prevention. In M. Tonry (ed.), The Handbook of Crime and Punishment. Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Bhati, A.S. (2007). An Information Theoretic Method for Estimating the Number of Crimes Averted by Incarceration. Urban
Institute, Washington, DC.
Blakely, C.H., Mayer, J.P., Gottschalk, R.G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W.S., Rollman, D.B., and Emshoff, J.G. (1987).
The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 15, 253-269.
Blau, Z., and Hagan, J. (1995). Current Perspectives on Aging and the Life Cycle, Vol. 4. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
120
Y
Bibliography
Blueprint Promising Programs Fact Sheet, available at: httm:\\www.colorado.edu/cspv.
Blumstein, A., and Beck, A.J. (2005). Reentry as a transient state between liberty and recommitment. In J. Travis and C.
Visher (eds.) Prisoner Reentry and Public Safety in America. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
\j
Z
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Rother, J., and Visher, C. (1986). Criminal Careers and Career Criminals. National Academies Press,
Washington, DC.
Blumstein, A., and Wallman, J. (2000). The Crime Drop in America. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Bosley, B., Donner, C., McLean, C., and Toomey-Hale, E. (2002). Parenting from prison: A resource guide for parents
incarcerated in Colorado. Parenting from Prison Guide Committee. Denver, CO. Available at http://www.courts.state.co.us/
panda/reports/parentingfromprison1.3.pdf.
Botvin, G.J., Mihalic, S.F., and Grotpeter, J.K. (1998). Life Skills Training: Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book Five.
Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series (D.S. Elliott, Series Editor). Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Botvin, G.J., Griffin, K.W., and Nichols, T.R.. (2006). Preventing youth violence and delinquency through a universal
school-based prevention approach. Prevention Science, 7, 403-408.
Bridgeland, J.M., DiIulio, J.Jr., and Morison, K.B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts –
calculations based on Harlow (revised 2003). Available at http://www.silentepidemic.org.
Brown, W.O., Frates, S.B., Rudge, I.S., and Tradewell, R.L. (September 2002). The Costs and Benefits of After School Programs:
The Estimated Effects of the “After School Education and Safety Program Act of 2002.” Clarmont College, Clarmont, CA.
Available at http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/rose/publications/pdf/after_school.pdf.
Browning, K., and Loeber, R. (1999). Highlights of Findings From the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Bushway, S., Piquero, A., Broidy, L., Cauffman, E., and Mazerolle, P. (2001). An empirical framework for studying desistance
as a process. Criminology, 39, 491-516.
Carroll, K.M. (1996). Relapse prevention as a psychosocial treatment: A review of controlled clinical trials. Experimental and
Clinical Psychopharmacology, 4, 46-54.
Cartwright, W.S. (2000). The economics of public health: Financing drug abuse treatment services. Health Policy, 66, 247-260.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2005. Surveillance
Summaries, June 9, 2006 as cited in Botvin et al. (2006).
Center for Effective Interventions. (December 2006). Colorado MST tracking project: Aggregate results for seven MST providers.
Metropolitan State College of Denver, 900 Aurora Parkway, Denver, CO.
Center for Effective Interventions. (March 2007). Colorado MST tracking project: Aggregate results for seven MST providers.
Technical Report. Metropolitan State College of Denver, 900 Aurora Parkway, Denver, CO.
Center for Systems Integration. (December 2006). Guidebook to Interagency Planning Efforts Addressing Kids’ Mental Health.
Prepared for Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO.
Cissner, A.B., and Rempel, M. (2005). The state of drug court research: Moving beyond “Do they work?” Center for Court
Innovation, NY. Available at http://www.courtinnovation.org/_uploads/documents/state%20of%20dc%20research.pdf.
Clear, T., Waring, E. and Scully, K. (2005). Communities and reentry: Concentrated reentry cycling. In J. Travis and C.
Visher (eds.), Prisoner Reentry and Public Safety in America. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
121
What Works
Cochrane, A.L. (1972). Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. The Royal Society of Medicine
Press, London, UK.
Cohen, M. (1998). The monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 1.
Cohen, J., and Canela-Cacho, J.A. (1994). Incarceration and violent crime: 1965–1988, In A.J. Reiss, Jr. and J.A. Roth
(eds.), Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4, Consequences and Control. National Research Council, National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Colorado Department of Corrections. (Multiple years). Colorado Springs, CO. Available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/
Statistics/3StatisticalReports.htm.
Colorado Department of Corrections. (Multiple dates). Monthly population and capacity reports. Colorado Springs, CO.
Available at http://www.doc.state.co.us/Statistics/MonthReport/Current.pdf.
Colorado Department of Corrections. (September 15, 2005). Administration Regulation #500-01, Academic/Vocational
Education. Colorado Springs, CO. Available at http://www.doc.state.co.us.
Colorado Department of Human Services. (2006). The Costs and Effectiveness of Substance Use Disorder Programs in the State
of Colorado, Report to the General Assembly House and Senate Committees On Health and Human Services. Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Division, Colorado Department of Human Services, Denver, CO.
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (2004). Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex
offenders in the community. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO. Available at
http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/FullSLAFinal01.pdf.
Colorado Foundation for Families and Children. (2002). Youth Out of School: Linking Absence to Delinquency. Author,
Denver, CO.
Colorado Foundation for Families and Children. (2004). After School Programming: A pressing Need, A Public Policy. Author,
Denver, CO.
Colorado General Assembly Joint Budget Committee. (2006). FY 2006-07 Staff Budget Briefing, Department of Corrections,
January 3, 2006. Colorado State Capitol, 200 E. 14th Ave., Denver, CO.
Colorado General Assembly Joint Budget Committee. (2007). FY 2008-09 Staff Budget Briefing, Department of Corrections,
December 20, 2007. Colorado State Capitol, 200 E. 14th Ave., Denver, CO.
Colorado General Assembly Joint Budget Committee. (2007). FY 2007-08 Appropriations Report. Colorado State Capitol,
200 E. 14th Ave., Denver, CO.
Colorado House Joint Resolution 99-1042.
Colorado Lawyers Committee. (2006). Report on the Sentencing System in Colorado: A Serious Fiscal Problem on the Horizon.
Task Force on Sentencing. Author, Denver, CO.
Colorado Legislative Council. (2001). An overview of the Colorado adult criminal justice system: Report to the Colorado General
Assembly, Research Publication #487. Colorado State Capitol, 200 E. 14th Ave., Denver, CO.
Colorado Revised Statutes, 16-11.3-101.
Colorado Social Research Associates. (September 2002). STIRRT Outcome Evaluation Internal Report. Arapahoe House,
Denver, CO.
Colorado Social Research Associates. (September 2003). STIRRT Outcome Evaluation Internal Report. Arapahoe House,
Denver, CO.
122
Y
Bibliography
Colorado Social Research Associates. (September 2004). STIRRT Outcome Evaluation Internal Report. Arapahoe House,
Denver, CO.
Colorado Social Research Associates. (No date). STIRRT Outcome Evaluation Internal Report, FY2005. Arapahoe House,
Denver, CO.
Colorado Social Research Associates. (2006). STIRRT Outcome Evaluation 2006. Report to the Colorado Alcohol and Drug
Division. Arapahoe House, Denver, CO.
\j
Z
Cook, J.A., Lehman, A.F., Drake, R., McFarlane, W.R., Gold, P.B., Leff, S., Blyer, C., Toprac, M.G., Razzano, L.A., BurkeMiller, J.K., Blankertz, L., Shafer, M., Pickett-Schenk, S.A., and Grey, D.D. (2005). Integration of psychiatric and vocational
services: A multi-site randomized, controlled trial of supported employment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 1948-1956.
Cooper, H.M. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews, 3rd Ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cox, J.F., Morschauser, P., Banks, S. and Stone, J.L. (2001). A five-year population study of persons involved in the mental health
and local correctional systems: Implications for service planning. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research 28, 177-87.
Cullen, F.T., Pratt, T.C., Micelli, S.L., and Moon, M.M. (2002). Dangerous liaison? Rational choice theory as the basis for
correctional intervention. In A.R. Piquero and S.G. Tibbetts (eds.), Rational Choice and Criminal Behavior: Recent Research
and Future Challenges. Routledge, New York, NY.
Cullen, F.T., Vose, B.A., Jonson, C.L., and Unnever, J.D. (2007). Public support for early intervention: Is child saving a
“habit of the heart?” Victims and Offenders 2,1-16.
Cullen, F.T., Wright, J., and Blevins, K. (2006). Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory–Advances in Criminological
Theory. Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.
Cullen, F.T. (2006). It’s time to reaffirm rehabilitation: Reaction essay. Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 665-672.
Curtis, N.M., Ronan, K.R., and Borduin, C.M. (2004). Multisystemic treatment: A meta-analysis of outcome studies. Journal
of Family Psychology, 18, 411-419.
Defina, R.H. and Arvanites, T.M. (2002). The weak effect of imprisonment on crime. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 635-653.
DeGarmo, D.S., and Forgatch, M.S. (2005). Early development of delinquency within divorced families: evaluating a
randomized preventive intervention trial. Developmental Science 8, 229–239.
Devine, J.A., Sheley, J.F. and Smith, M.D. (1988). Macroeconomic and social-control policy influences on crime rate
changes, 1948-1985. American Sociological Review, 53, 407-420.
Di Trolio, E., Rodriguez, J.M., English, K., and Patrick, D. (2002). Evaluation of the Youthful Offender System (YOS) in
Colorado: A Report of Findings Per C.R.S. 18-1.3-407. Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety,
Denver, CO.
Division of Criminal Justice. (March 2007). Colorado’s Three-Year Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention plan (20062008): 2007 Update. Prepared for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council. Office of Adult and Juvenile
Justice Assistance, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO.
Division of Mental Health. (2006). The Community Based Management Pilot Programs for Persons with Mental Illness Who are
Involved in the Criminal Justice System: Report Regarding H.B. 00-1034. Colorado Department of Human Services, Denver, CO.
Donohue, J.J. III, and Siegelman, P. (1998). Allocating resources among prisons and social programs in the battle against
crime. Journal of Legal Studies, 27, 1-47.
Doob, A.N., and Webster, C.M. (2003). Sentence severity and crime: Accepting the null hypothesis. In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime
and Justice: A Review of Research, 30,143-195. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
123
What Works
Dowden, C., and Andrews, D.A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime and Delinquency, 4,
438-52.
Dowden, C., and Andrews, D.A. (October 2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis.
Canadian Journal of Criminology, 449-467.
Dowden, C., Antonowicz, D., and Andrews, D.A. (2003). The effectiveness of relapse prevention with offenders: A metaanalysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 516-528.
Drug Court Standards Committee. (1997, 2004). Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. Bureau of Justice Assistance
in collaboration with the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. (NCJ 205621)
DuBois, D.L. (2007). Effectiveness of Mentoring Program Practices. MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, 1600 Duke
Street, Alexandria, VA.
DuBois, D.L., Holloway, B.E., Valentine, J.C., and Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A
meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157-197.
Duncan, G., and Magnuson, K. (2004). Individual and Parent-based Intervention Strategies for Promoting Human Capital and
Positive Behavior. Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston IL. Available at http://www.northwestern.
edu/ipr/publications/papers/2004/duncan/17jacobsconference.pdf.
Durlak, J.A., and Weissberg, R.P. (2007). The Impact of After-School Programs that Promote Personal and Social Skills.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, Chicago, IL.
Eddy, D.M. (2005). Evidence-based medicine: A unified approach. Health Affairs, 24, 9-17.
Eddy, J.M., Whaley, R.B., and Chamberlain, P. (2004). The prevention of violent behavior by chronic and serious male
juvenile offenders: A 2-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 2-8.
Eddy, J.M., and Reid, J.B. (2001). From Prison to Home: The Antisocial Behavior of the Adolescent Children of Incarcerated
Parents: A Developmental Perspective. Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, OR. Available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/
prison2home02/eddy.htm.
Eddy, J.M., and Reid, J.B., (2001). The Antisocial Behavior of the Adolescent Children of Incarcerated Parents: A
Developmental Perspective. Oregon Social Learning Center. Eugene, OR.
Emshoff, J.G., Blakely, C., Gray, D., Jakes, S., Brounstein, P., and Coulter, J. (2003). An ESID Case Study at the Federal
Level. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 345-357.
England, K.A., Olsen, S., Zakrajsek, T., Murray, P., and Ireson, R. (2001). Cognitive/behavioral treatment for sexual
offenders: An examination of recidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Treatment and Practice, 13, 223-231.
English, K. (1998). The containment approach: An aggressive strategy for the community management of adult sex offenders.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 218-235.
English, K. (2004). The containment approach to managing sex offenders. Seton Hall Law Journal, 989, 1255-1272.
English, K., Jones, L., Patrick, D., and Pasini-Hill, D. (2003). Sex offender containment: Use of the post-conviction
polygraph. In R.A. Prentky, E. Janus, and M. Seto (eds.), Sexually Coercive Behavior: Understanding and Management. New
York Academy of Sciences, New York, NY.
English, K. and Mande, M.J. (1992). Measuring Crime Rates of Prisoners, Final Report. National Institute of Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice. Washington, DC. (NCJ 142430)
English, K., Pullen, S., and Jones, L. (1996). Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach. American Probation and
Parole Association, Lexington, KY.
124
Y
Bibliography
Erickson, G., Harrison, L., Readio, S., Wanberg, K. (June 2001). Final Evaluation: The Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated
Treatment Network. Prepared for Denver Juvenile Probation, Division of Probation Services, Denver, CO.
Evans, J.R., and Wilde, D. (April 2007). Youthzone Program Evaluation Report: Improving Program Performance. Youthzone,
Inc., Glenwood Springs, CO.
\j
Z
Fagan, A., and Najman, J. (2003). The Gendered and Long-Term Relationship Between Family Practices and Children’s Aggression
and Delinquency. Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardians, Issue Papers. Brisbane, Queensland, AU.
Available at http://www.childcomm.qld.gov.au/pdf/publications/issues/issue_two_paper.pdf.
Fagan J., Piquero, A. and West, V. (2006). Neighborhood, race, and the economic consequences of incarceration in New York
City, 1985-1996. In R.D. Peterson and L.J. Krivo (eds.), The many colors of crime: Inequalities of race, ethnicity and crime in
America. University Press, New York, NY.
Fagan, J., West, V. and Holland, J. (2003). Reciprocal effects of crime and incarceration in New York City neighborhoods.
Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1551-1602.
Farabee, D. (2006). Why the expansion of offender programs is premature. Journal of Community Corrections, 16, 9-10.
Farrell, G. (1995). Preventing repeat victimization. In M.Tonry and D.P. Farrington (eds.), Building a Safer Society. Crime and
Justice, Vol. 19. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Farrell, A.D., Meyer, A.L, and White, K. (2001). Evaluation of responding in peaceful and positive ways (RIPP): A schoolbased prevention program for reducing violence among urban adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 451–463.
Farrell, A.D., Valois, R.F., Meyer, A.L., and Tidwell, R.P. (2003). Impact of the RIPP violence prevention program on rural
middle school students. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 143–167.
Farrington, D.P. (2006). Childhood risk factors and risk-focused prevention. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds.),
The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 4th Ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Farrington, D.P. (No date). What has been learned from self-reports about criminal careers and the causes of offending? Report for
the Home Office. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, UK.
Farrington, D.P. (1998). Predictors, causes and correlates of male youth violence. In M. Tonry and M.H. Moore (eds.), Youth
Violence, Crime and Justice, Vol. 24. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Farrington, D.P. (1997). Early prediction of violent and nonviolent youthful offending. European Journal on Criminal Policy
and Research, 5, 51-66.
Farrington, D.P., and Weisburd, D.L. (2007). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. The Criminologist, 32, 1.
Farrington, D.P., and Welsh, B.C. (2007). Saving Children from a Life of Crime, Early Risk Factors and Effective Interventions.
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Farrington, D.P. and Welsh, B.C. (2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two
decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 9-38.
Farrington, D.P., and West, D.J. (1995). Effects of marriage, separation, and children on offending by adult males. In Z. Blau
and J. Hagan (eds.), Current Perspectives on Aging and the Life Cycle, 4, 249-281. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Feder, L., and Wilson, D.B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts
affect abusers’ behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239-262.
Feldman, R.A. (1992). The St. Louis Experiment: Effective treatment of antisocial youths in prosocial peer groups. In J.
McCord and R. Tremblay (eds.), Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Interventions from Birth through Adolescence. Guilford,
New York, NY.
125
What Works
Florida Department of Corrections. (2001). Analysis of the impact of inmate programs upon recidivism. Available at: http://
www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivismprog/index.html.
Fisher, P., and Chamberlain, P. (2000). Multidimensional treatment foster care: A program of intensive parenting, family
support, and skill building. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 155–164.
Forgatch, M.S., Patterson, G.R., and DeGarmo, D.S. (2005). Evaluating fidelity: Predictive validity for a measure of
competent adherence to the Oregon Model of parent management training. Behavior Therapy, 36, 3–13.
Fox, J.A., Elliott, D.S., Kerlikowske, R.G., Newman, S.A. and Christeson, W. (2003). Bullying Prevention is Crime
Prevention. Fight Crime, Invest in Kids. Washington, DC.
Gabel, S. and Shindledecker, R. (July 1993). Characteristics of children whose parents have been incarcerated.
Hospital and Community Psychiatry 44, 656-660.
Gaes, G.G., Flanagan, T.J., Motiuk, L.L. and Stewart, L. (1999). Adult correctional treatment. In M. Tonry and J.
Petersilia (eds.), Prisons. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Gallagher, C.A., Wilson, D.B., Hirschfield, P., Coggeshall, M.B., and MacKenzie, D.L. (1999). A quantitative review of the
effects of sex offender treatment on sexual reoffending. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3, 19–29.
Garrett, C.J. (1985). Effects of residential treatment on adjudicated delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 22, 287-308.
Garrett, A., Rinehart, D., Clark, K., and McRee, R. (2001). STIRRT Evaluation Internal Report. Arapahoe House,
Department of Program Evaluation, Denver, CO.
Garrido, V., and Morales, L.A. (March 2007). Serious (Violent or Chronic) Juvenile Offenders: A Systematic Review of Treatment
Effectiveness in Secure Corrections. Final report submitted to the Campbell Collaboration, Crime and Justice Group. Available
at http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/doc-pdf/Garrido_seriousjuv_review.pdf.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional
Interventions That Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Sage, Newbury Park, CA
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. and Cullen, F. (1999). The effects of prison sentences on recidivism. A Report to the Corrections
Research and Development and Aboriginal Policy Branch, Solicitor General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Gendreau P., Goggin C., and Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program
implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 180-87.
Gendreau, P., and Ross, R.R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-407.
Gendreau, P., and Smith, P. (2006). The theory of effective correctional intervention: Empirical status and future directions.
In F. Cullen, J. Wright, and K. Blevins (eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory–Advances in Criminological
Theory. Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.
General Accountability Office. (February 2006). Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results
for Other Outcomes. Report to Congressional Committees. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report GAO-05-219.
Washington, DC.
General Accounting Office. (September 2003). Justice Outcome Evaluations: Design and Implementation Studies Require More
NIJ Attention. Report to the Honorable Lamar Smith, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, DC.
General Accounting Office. (June 1996). Sex Offender Treatment: Research Results Inconclusive About What Works to Reduce
Recidivism. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives. U.S.
General Accounting Office, Report GAO/GGD-96-137. Washington, DC.
126
Y
Bibliography
Gerber, J., and Fritsch, E.J. (1994). The effects of academic and vocational program participation on inmate
misconduct and reincarceration. In Prison Education Research Project: Final Report. Sam Houston State University,
Huntsville, TX.
\j
Z
Gerrard, M.D., Burhans, A., and Fair, J. (2003). Effective Truancy Prevention and Intervention: a Review of Relevant Research for
Hennepin County School Success Project. Wilder Research Center, St. Paul, MN.
Gerstein, D.R., Datta, R.A., Ingels, J.S., Johnson, R.A., Rasinski, K.A., Schildhaus, S., and Talley, K. (1997). Final
Report: National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Survey. National Opinion Research Center, Chicago, IL.
Gerstein, D.R., Harwood, H.J., Suter, N., and Malloy, K. (1994). Evaluating Recovery Service: The California Drug and
Alcohol Treatment Assessment. Prepared by the National Opinion Research Center for the California Department of Alcohol
and Drug Programs, Health and Welfare Agency, Sacramento, CA.
Giordano, P.C., Cernkovich, S.A., and Rudolph, J.L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive
transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990-1064.
Golden, L., Gatchel, R., and Cahill, M. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of the National Institute of Corrections’
“Thinking for a Change” program among probationers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43, 55-73.
Goldstein, A.P., and Glick, B. (2001). Aggression replacement training: Application and evaluation management. In G.
Bernfeld, D. Farrington, and A. Leschied (eds.), Offender Rehabilitation and Practice: Implementing and Evaluating Effective
Programs. Wiley, New York, NY.
Gottfredson, D., Gerstenblith, S., Soul’e, D., Womer, S., and Lu, S. (December 2004). Do after school programs reduce
delinquency? Prevention Science, 5, 4.
Gottfredson, M.R., and Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Gottshalk, R., Davidson, W.S. II, Mayer, J., and Gensheimer, G.K. (1987). Behavioral approaches with juvenile offenders: A
meta-analysis of long-term treatment efficacy. In E.K. Morris and C.J. Braukmann (eds.), Behavioral Approaches to Crime and
Delinquency: A Handbook of Application, Research, and Concepts. Plenum Publishing, New York, NY.
Granfield, R., Eby, C., and Brewster, T. (1998). An evaluation of the Denver drug court: The impact of a treatment-oriented
drug offender system. Law and Policy, 20, 183-202.
Greenfeld, L., and Snell, T. (December 1999). Women Offenders: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Justice programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
bjs/pub/pdf/wo.pdf.
Greenwood, P. (N.D). Changing lives: Delinquency prevention as crime-control policy: Executive Summary. Adolescent
Development and Legal Policy Monograph Series of the John D. and Catherine T. MacAuthor Foundation, Research
Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
Greenwood, P. (2006). Changing lives: delinquency prevention as crime-control policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Greenwood, P.W., Model, K.E., Rydell, C.P., and Chiesa, J. (1996). Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs
and Benefits. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Griffith, J., Hiller, M., Knight, K., and Simpson, D. (1999). A cost-effectiveness analysis of in-prison therapeutic community
treatment and risk classification. The Prison Journal, 79, 352–368.
Haapanen, R., L. Britton, L., and Croisdale, T. (2007). Persistent criminality and career length. Crime and Delinquency, 53,
133-155.
Haddix, A.C., Teutsch, S.M., and Corso, P.S. (2003). Prevention Effectiveness: A Guide to Decision Analysis and Economic
Evaluation. 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
127
What Works
Haggerty, K., Kosterman, R., Catalano, R.F., and Hawkins, J.D. (1999). Preparing for the Drug Free Years. Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Hall, G.C.N. (1995). Sexual offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Clinical and
Consulting Psychology, 63, 802-809.
Hanson, R.K., Gordon, A., Harris, A.J.R., Marques, J.K., and Murphy, W. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome
data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 14, 169-194.
Harland, A. (1996). Choosing Correctional Interventions That Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Harlow, C.W. (2003). Education and Correctional Populations: Special Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, DC. (NCJ 195670)
Harris, P.M., Gingerich, R., and Whittaker, T.A. (2004). The “effectiveness” of differential supervision. Crime Delinquency,
50, 235-271.
Harrison, L. (December 2007). Population Projections for Adult Prison and Parole, Community Corrections, and Juvenile
Commitment and Parole. Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO.
Harrison, L., Patrick, D., and English, K. (2001). Evaluation of the Denver Drug Court: The Early Years, 1995-1996. Office of
Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO.
Harwood, H.J., Malhotra, D., Villarivera, C., Liu, C., Chong, U., and Gilani, J. (2002). Cost effectiveness and cost benefit
analysis of substance abuse treatment: A literature review. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center
for Substance Abuse Treatment, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
Hawkins, D.J., Herrenkohl, T.I., Farrington, D.P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.F., Harachi, T.W., and Cothern, L. (April
2000). Predictors of Youth Violence. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Hawkins, D.J., Kosterman, R., Catelano, R.F., Hill, K.G., and Abbott, R.D. (2005). Promoting positive adult functioning
through social development intervention in childhood: Long-term effects from the Seattle Social Development Project.
Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 25-31.
Health Canada. (2004). Creating a Culture of Evidence-Based Decision Making. Canada Health Action: Building on the
Legacy - Volume II - Synthesis Reports and Issues Papers, available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/renewal-renouv/1997nfoh-fnss-v2/legacy_heritage2_e.html.
Health Resources Consortium. (2007). Denver Youth Development Court: Final report. Author, Boulder, CO.
Health Resources Consortium. (2006). Denver Family Integrated Drug Court: Final Evaluation Report. Author, Boulder, CO.
Heil, P., and English, K. (2007). Prison Sex Offender Treatment: Recommendations for Program Implementation. California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Sacramento, CA.
Heilbrunn, J.Z., and Seeley, K. (2003). Saving Money, Saving Youth: The Financial Impact of Keeping Kids in School. National
Center for School Engagement, Colorado Foundation for Families and Children, Denver, CO.
Henggeler, S.W. (1997). Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth: The MST Approach. Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC.
Herrenkohl, T.L., Maguin, E., Hill, K.G., Hawkins, J.D., Abbott, R.D., and Catalano, R.F. (2000). Developmental risk
factors for youth violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 176-186.
128
Y
Bibliography
Herrera, C., Sipe, C.L., and McClanahan, W.S. (2000). Mentoring school-age children: Relationship development in
community-based and school-based programs. Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA.
Herrera, C., Vang, Z. and Gale, L.Y. (2002). Group mentoring: A study of mentoring groups in three programs.
Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA.
\j
Z
Hirschi, T. (1986). On the compatability of rational choice and social control theories of crime. In D. Cornish and R. Clarke
(eds.), The Reasoning Criminal. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, Section 237.
Hope, T. (1995). Situational Crime Prevention. In M. Tonry and D. Farrington (eds.), Building a Safer Society: Strategic
Approaches to Crime Prevention. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. University of Chicago Press Journals, Chicago, IL.
Hosley, C. (2005). Aggression Replacement Training. Wilder Research Center, St. Paul, MN.
Http://www.silentepidemic.org.
Http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/spa/justice/publications.
Huddleston, C.W. III, Freeman-Wilson, K., and Boone, D.L. (2004). Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on
Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States. National Drug Court Institute, Alexandria, VA.
Illescas, S.R., Sanchez-Meca, J.S., and Genovés, V.G. (2001). Treatment of offenders and recidivism: Assessment of the
effectiveness of programmes applied in Europe. Psychology in Spain, 5, 47-62.
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (1991). Education and criminal justice in Illinois: Trends and Issues ’91. Author,
120 South Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL.
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (1997). Trends and Issues 1997. Author, 120 South Riverside Plaza, Chicago, IL.
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (2006). After school programs offer at-risk youth services in Jefferson,
Franklin Counties. Program Evaluation Summary, 4, Chicago, IL.
Illinois Department of Corrections. (June 2005). Statistical Data. Available at: http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/reports/
default.shtml.
Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research. The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Interagency Committee on Adult and Juvenile Correctional Treatment. (December 2003). What Works in for Substance
Abusing Offenders in Colorado? Presentation to the Executive Committee on the Colorado Criminal Justice Information
System. Author, Denver, CO.
Interagency Committee on Adult and Juvenile Correctional Treatment. (February 2006). What Works in for Substance Abusing
Offenders in Colorado? Follow-up Meeting. Presentation to the Executive Committee on the Colorado Criminal Justice
Information System. Author, Denver, CO.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (January 2007). Offender Re-Entry: Exploring the Leadership Opportunity for Law
Enforcement Executives and Their Agencies: Final Report of the IACP/COPS 2006 Summit. Available at http://www.theiacp.org/
research/ReentrySummitReport.pdf.
Irvin, J.E., Bowers, C.A., Dunn, M.E., and Wang, M.C. (1999). Efficacy of relapse prevention: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 563-570.
James, D., and Glaze, L. (2006). Special Report, Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
129
What Works
Johnson, G., and Hunter, R. (1992). Evaluation of the Specialized Drug Offender Program for the Colorado Judicial Department.
Center for Action Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Jolliffe, D., and Farrington, D.P. (2007). A systematic review of the national and international evidence on the effectiveness of
interventions with violent offenders. Ministry of Justice Research Series. Ministry of Justice, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jolliffe, D., and Farrington, D.P. (2007). A rapid evidence assessment of the impact of mentoring on offending: A summary. Home
Office Online Report available at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr1107.pdf.
Jones, S., and Quisenberry, N. (2004). The general theory of crime: How general is it? Deviant Behavior, 25, 401-426.
Jucovy, L. (2006). Just Out: Early lessons from the Ready4Work Prisoner Reentry Initiative. Public/Private Ventures,
Philadelphia, PA.
Judicial Council of California. (February 7, 2003). Annual Progress Report: Report to members of the Collaborative Justice Courts
Advisory Committee. Administrative Office of the Courts, San Francisco, CA.
Kaminer, Y. (2004). Contingency management reinforcement procedures for adolescent substance abuse. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1324-1326.
Karoly, L.A., Greenwood, P.W., Everingham, S.S., Haube, J., Kilburn, M.R., Rydell, C.P., Sanders, M., and Chiesa, J. (1998).
Investing In Our Children: What We Know and Don’t Know About the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions.
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Kazdin, A.E. (2005). Parent Management Training: Treatment for Oppositional, Aggressive, and Anti-Social Behavior in Children
and Adolescents. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Kihlstrom, J.F. (2005). What qualifies as evidence of effective practice? Scientific practice. In J.C. Norcross, L.E. Beutler,
and R.F. Levant (eds.), Evidence-based practices in mental health: Debate and dialogue on the fundamental questions. American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
King, R.D., M. Massoglia, and R. MacMillan. (2007). The context of marriage and crime: Gender, the propensity to
marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminology, 45, 33-64.
Kinnon, J.B. (2003). The shocking state of black marriage: Experts say many will never get married. Ebony,
November. New York, NY.
Kirchner, R., Przybylski, R. and Cardella, R. (1994). Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Programs. Assessment and
Evaluation Handbook Series, No. 1. Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Klebe, K., and O’Keefe, M. (2004). Outcome Evaluation of the Crossroads to Freedom House and Peer I Therapeutic
Communities. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J.D., Spoth, R., Haggerty, K.P., and Zhu, K. (1997). Effects of a preventive parent-training
intervention on observed family interactions: Proximal outcomes from Preparing for the Drug Free Years. Journal of
Community Psychology, 25, 337-352.
Kovandzic, T.V. and Sloan, J.J. (2002). Police levels and crime rates revisited: A county-level analysis from Florida (1980–
1998). Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 65-76.
Kovandzic, T.V., Sloan, J.J., and Vieraitis, L.M. (2002). Unintended consequences of politically popular sentencing policy:
The homicide promoting effects of “Three Strikes” in U.S. cities 1980-1999. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 399-424.
Kovandzic, T.V., Sloan, J.J., and Vieraitis, L.M. (2004). “Striking out” as crime reduction policy: The impact of “three strikes”
laws on crime rates in U.S. cities. Justice Quarterly, 21, 207-239.
Kovandzic, T.V., Vieraitis, L.M. (2006). The effect of county-level prison population growth on crime rates. Criminology and
Public Policy, 5, 213-244.
130
Y
Bibliography
Kubrin, C., and Stewart, E. (2005). Predicting who reoffends: the neglected role of neighborhood context in
recidivism studies. Criminology, 44, 165-197.
Landenberger, N.A., and Lipsey, M.W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A metaanalysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451-476.
Latessa, E.J. (2004). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidence-based practices. Criminology and Public
Policy, 3, 547-560.
Latessa, E.J. (No date). From theory to practice: What works in reducing recidivism? The State of Crime and Justice in Ohio.
Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services, Statistical Analysis Center, Columbus, OH, 170-171.
\j
Z
Latessa, E.J. (1999). What works in correctional intervention. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 23, 414-426.
Latessa, E.J., Cullen, F.T., and Gendreau, P. (September 2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the
possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66, 43–49.
Latimer, J. (2001). A meta-analytic examination of youth delinquency, family treatment, and recidivism. Canadian Journal of
Criminology, 43, 237-253.
Latimer, J., Morton-Bourgon, K., and Chrétien, J-A. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do They
Reduce Recidivism? Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice, Ottawa, Canada.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., and Muise, D. (2001). The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice. Practices: A meta-analysis. Research and
Statistics Division, Department of Justice, Ottawa, Canada.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., and Morton-Bourgon, K.E. (2003). Treating Youth in Conflict with the Law: A New Meta-Analysis.
Report RR03YJ-3e. Department of Justice, Ottawa, Canada.
Laub, J.H., and Sampson, R.J. (2003). Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lawrence, S., Mears, D.P., Dubin, G. and Travis, J. (2002). The Practice and Promise of Prison Programming. Urban Institute,
Washington, DC.
LeBlanc, M., and Fréchette, M. (1989). Male Criminal Activity from Childhood Through Youth: Multilevel and Developmental
Perspectives. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Lee, J.M. (September 2004). Colorado Criminal Justice Assertive Community Treatment: For Individuals with Mental Illness and
at Risk for Involvement with the Criminal Justice System, 2001-2004. Division of Mental Health, Colorado Department of
Human Services, Denver, CO.
Leipold, M.O. and Williams, S. (2006). Youthful Offenders System: Fiscal Years 2003-2005. Office of Planning and Analysis,
Colorado Department of Corrections, Colorado Springs, CO.
Levin, H., Belfield, C., Muennig, P., and Rouse, C. (2007). The Costs and Benefits of an Excellent Education for All of America’s
Children. Center for Cost-Based Studies, Columbia University, New York, NY. Available at www.CBCSE.org.
Levitt, S.D. (1996). The effect of prison population size on crime rates: Evidence from prison overcrowding litigation. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 319-351.
Levitt, S.D. (2001). Alternative strategies for identifying the link between unemployment and crime. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 17, 377-390.
Levitt S.D. (2002). Deterrence. In J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia (eds.), Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control. ICS Press,
Oakland, CA.
131
What Works
Levitt, S.D. (2004). Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and six that do not.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18, 163-190.
Liedka, R., Piehl, A.M., and Useem, B. (2006). The crime-control effect of incarceration: Does scale matter? Criminology and
Public Policy, 5, 245-275.
Lins, Richard G. (2006). The 2006 50 State Survey of Sex Offender Prison Programs. Colorado Department of Corrections,
Colorado Springs, CO.
Lipsey, M.W., and Cullen, F.T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual
Review of Law and Social Science, 3.
Lipsey, M.W., Landenberger, N.A. and Wilson, S.J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. A
Campbell Collaborative Systematic Review. Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology, Vanderbilt Institute for Public
Policy Studies, Nashville, TN.
Lipsey, M.W. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the
effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, 6, 611-641.
Lipsey, M.W. (2002). Meta-analysis and program evaluation. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskirft, 9, 194-208. (Translated.)
Lipsey, M.W., and Derzon, J.H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood.
In R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington (eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D. (1998). Effective interventions for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In
R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington (eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Lipsey, M.W., Wilson, D.B., and Cothern, L. (2000). Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders. Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Lipton, D., Martinson R., and Wilks, J. (1975). The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment: A Survey of Treatment Evaluation
Studies. Praeger, New York, NY.
Littell, J.H., Popa, M., and Forsythe, B. (2005). Multisystemic Therapy for Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Problems in Youth
Aged 10-17. The Campbell Collaboration Library. Available at http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004797.html.
Little, G.L. (2006). Review of one- to three-year recidivism of felony offenders treatment with MRT™ in prison settings.
Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review, 15, 1-3.
Little, G.L. (2005). Meta-analysis of moral reconation therapy®: Recidivism results from probation and parole
implementations. Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Review, 14, 14-16.
Little Hoover Commission. (December 2004). Breaking the barriers for women on parole, Report #177. Sacramento, CA.
Lochner, L., and Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests, and self-reports.
American Economic Review, 94, 155-189.
Loeber, R., and Farrington, D. (1996). Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Loeber, R., and Le Blanc, M. (1990). Toward a Developmental Criminology.
Crime and Justice, 12, 375-473.
132
Y
Bibliography
Lösel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of metaevaluations. In J. McGuire (ed.), What
Works: Reducing Reoffending, Guidelines from Research and Practice. Wiley, New York, NY.
Lösel, F., and Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146.
Lowden, K., English, K., Harrison, L., Pasini-Hill, D., and Lounders, P. (2007). Crime and Justice in Colorado: 2006. Office
of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO.
Lowden, K., Hetz, N., Patrick, D., Pasini-Hill, D. Harrison, L., and English, K. (2003). Evaluation of Colorado’s Prison
Therapeutic Community for Sex Offenders: A Report of Findings. Office of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice,
Colorado Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO.
\j
Z
Lowenkamp, C.T., and Latessa, E.J. (2004). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk
principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement, Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 501–528.
Lowenkamp, C.T., and Latessa, E.J. (April 2004). Developing successful re-entry programs. Lessons learned from the “what
works” research. Corrections Today, 72-77.
Luong, D., and Wormith, S.J. (No date). The effectiveness of psychological sex offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Department
of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. Available from the authors at Duyen.Luong@usask.ca.
Lynch, J.P., and Sabol, W.J. (2001). Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
MacKenzie, D.L. (2006). What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Mande, M.J., and English, K. (1988). Individual Crime Rates of Colorado Prisoners: Final Report to the National Institute of
Justice. Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety.
Marlatt, G.A., Parks, G.A., and Witkiewitz, K. (December 2002). Clinical Guidelines for Implementing Relapse Prevention
Therapy: A Guideline Developed for the Behavioral Health Recovery Management Project. Addictive Behaviors Research Center,
Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Available at http://www.bhrm.org/guidelines/RPT%20
guideline.pdf.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 10, 22-54.
Martinson, R. (1979). New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law Review, 7, 243-258.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.
Maruna, S., and Toch, H. (2005). The impact of imprisonment on the desistance process. In J. Travis and C. Visher (eds.),
Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Marvell, T.B., and Moody, C.E. (1994). Prison population growth and crime reduction. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
10, 109-140.
Mason, W.A, Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J.D., Haggerty, K.P., and Spoth, R.L. (2003). Reducing adolescents’ growth in
substance use and delinquency: Randomized trial effects of a parent-training prevention intervention. Prevention Science, 4,
203-212.
McCollister, K.E., French, M.T., Prendergast, M., Wexler, H., Sacks, S., and Hall. E. (2003). Is in-prison treatment enough?
A cost-effectiveness analysis of prison-based treatment and aftercare services for substance abusing offenders. Law and Policy,
25, 62-83.
McCord, J., and Ensminger, M.E. (1997). Multiple risks and comorbidity in an African-American population. Criminal
Behavior and Mental Health, 7, 339-352.
133
What Works
McCord, J., Tremblay, R.E., Vitaro, F., and Desmarais-Gervais, L. (1994). Boys’ disruptive behavior, school adjustment and
delinquency: The Montreal Prevention Experiment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17. Available at http://
jbd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/739.
McCord, J., Widom, C.S., and Crowell, N. (2001). Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. National Research Council, National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G.F., and Burchard, B.L. (2003). Current practices and trends in sexual abuser management: The
Safer Society 2002 nationwide survey. Safer Society Foundation, Inc., Brandon, VT.
McGuire, J. (1995). What Works: Reducing Reoffending–Guidelines from Research and Practice. John Wiley, New York, NY.
McLean, R.L., and Thompson, M.D. (2007). Repaying Debts: Report Summary. Council of State Governments, Justice Center.
New York, NY.
McLellan, A.T., and McKay, J.R. (1998). The Treatment of Addiction: What Can Research Offer Practice? National Research
Council, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Mendel, R.A. (2001). Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works – and What Doesn’t. American Youth Policy
Forum, Washington, DC.
Messer, S.B. (2005). What qualifies as evidence of effective practice? Patient values and preferences. In J.C. Norcross, L.E.
Beutler, and R.F. Levant (eds.), Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health: Debate and Dialogue on the Fundamental Questions.
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Mihalic, S., Fagan, A., Irwin, K., Ballard, D., and Elliott, D. (2004). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Center for the Study
and Prevention of Violence University of Colorado, Boulder. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Fagan, A., Ballard, D. and Elliott, D. (2004). Successful Program Implementation: Lessons From
Blueprints. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Milkman, H., and Wanberg, K. (May 2007). Cognitive behavioral treatment: A review and discussion for correctional
professionals. National Institute of Corrections. Longmont, CO. (NIC 021657)
Miner, M. and Coleman, E. (2003). Sex Offender Treatment: Accomplishments, Challenges, and Future Directions. Hawthorn
Press, New York, NY.
Mitchell, O., Wilson, D., and MacKenzie, D. (2005). The Effectiveness of Incarceration-Based Drug Treatment on
Criminal Behavior. Submitted to the Campbell Collaboration, Criminal Justice Review Group. Available at http://www.
campbellcollaboration.org/doc-pdf/Mitchell_crimedrug_prot.pdf.
Morris, E.K., and Braukmann, C.J. (1987). Behavioral Approaches to Crime and Delinquency: A Handbook of Application,
Research, and Concepts, 15. Plenum, New York, NY.
Morrissey, J., and Meyer, P. (2005). Extending ACT to Criminal Justice Settings: Applications, Evidence and Options. Paper
presented at Evidence-Based Practice for Justice-Involved Individuals: Assertive Community Treatment Expert Panel Meeting.
February 18, 2005, Bethesda, MD. Available at http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/text/ebp/Papers/ExtendingACTPaper.asp.
Mumola, C.J., and Bonczar, T.P. (1996). Substance abuse treatment of adults on probation, 1995. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. (NCJ 1666611)
Mumola, C.J. (1999). Substance abuse and treatment, State and Federal prisoners, 1997. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. (NCJ 172871)
134
Y
Bibliography
Nagin, D.S. (1998). Deterrence and incapacitation. In M. Tonry (ed.), The Handbook of Crime and Punishment. Oxford
University Press, New York, NY.
National Alliance on Mental Illness. (2007). Fact Sheet, Mental Illnesses: Treatment Saves Money and Makes Sense. Available at
www.nami.org.
National Association of Drug Court Professionals, available at www.nadcp.org.
National Association of Mental Health Planning and Advisory Councils. (2005). Jail Diversion Strategies for Persons with
Serious Mental Illness. Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
\j
Z
National Center for School Engagement. (January 2007). Blueprints for Violence Prevention Programs that Reduce Truancy and/
or Improve School Attendance. Colorado Foundation for Families and Children, 303 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 400, Denver, CO.
National Center for Social Engagement. (August 2006). Truancy in Denver: Prevalence, effects and interventions. National
Truancy Prevention Association and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
National Crime Prevention Council. (2005). Engaging the Power of Prevention: 10 Action Principles. National Crime
Prevention Council, Washington, DC.
National District Attorney’s Association. (2005). Policy positions on prisoner re-entry. Adopted July 17 in Portland, MN. 99
Canal Center Plaza, Alexandria, VA.
Olsen, J. (2001). Incarceration, Homelessness, and Health. National Health Care for the Homeless, Nashville, TN. Available at
http://www.nhchc.org/Advocacy/PolicyPapers/.
National Institute of Corrections. (No date). Cognitive Behavioral Programs: A Guide to Existing Resources. Author, Longmont, CO.
National Institute of Justice. (2006). Drug Courts: The Second Decade. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. (NCJ 211081)
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006). Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations–A research-based
guide. Available at http://www.nida.nih.gov/PODAT_CJ.
National Research Council. (2008). Parole, Desistance from Crime, and Community Integration. Committee on Community
Supervision and Desistance from Crime. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2004). Subcommittee on Criminal Justice: Background Paper. DHHS Pub. No.
SMA-04-3880, Rockville, MD.
Nugent, W.R., Williams, M., and Umbreit, M.S. (2003). Participation in victim-offender mediation and the prevalence of
subsequent delinquent behavior: A meta-analysis. Utah Law Review, 1, 137-166.
Nurco, D.N., Hanlon, T.E., Kinlock, T.W., and Duszynski, K.R. (1988). Differential criminal patterns of narcotic addicts
over an addiction career. Criminology, 26, 407-424.
Office of Community Corrections. (2006). Community Corrections FY 2006 Annual Report. Division of Criminal Justice,
Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1995). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,
Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Office of Management and Budget. (October 29, 1992). Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal
Programs, Circular A-94, revised. Author, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/
a094.html.
135
What Works
Office of Technology Assessment Health Program. (August 1976). Development of Medical Technology: Opportunities for
Assessment. Author, Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
Office of Technology Assessment Health Program. (September 1978). Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies.
Author, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Office of Technology Transfer. (August 1983). The Impact of Randomized Clinical Trials on Health Policy and Medical Practice.
Author, Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
Office of the Inspector General. (February 2007). Special Review Into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs Managed by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. State of California, Sacramento, CA.
Office of the Surgeon General. (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Public Health Services, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/
youthviolence/toc.html.
Ogden, T., and Hagen, K. (August 2007). Can a systematic review be any better than the work it’s based upon? Prevention
Action. Available at http://www.preventionaction.org/research/can-systematic-review-be-any-better-work-it-s-based-upon.
O’Keefe, M., Klebe, K., Fisher, E., and Roebken, K. (2003). Outcome Evaluation of Intensive Residential Treatment in
Colorado. Prepared for the Interagency Committee on Adult and Juvenile Correctional Treatment. Colorado Department of
Corrections, Colorado Springs, CO.
O’Keefe, M., Klebe, K., Roebken, K., and Fisher, E. (2004). Effectiveness of Arrowhead and Peer 1 Therapeutic Communities.
Colorado Department of Corrections and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Colorado Springs, CO.
Olweus, D., Limber, S.P., and Mihalic, S. (1999). The Bullying Prevention Program: Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Vol. 10.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Osher, F.C., and Steadman, H.J. (2007). Adapting evidence-based practices for persons with mental illness involved with the
criminal justice system. Psychiatric Services, 58, 1472-1478.
Parks, G.A., and G.A. Marlatt. (September/October 2000). Relapse Prevention Therapy: A Cognitive-Behavioral Approach.
The National Psychologist.
Pasini-Hill, D., and English, K. (October 2006). Crisis Intervention Teams: A Community-Based Initiative. Elements of Change,
10. Office of Research and Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO.
Patterson, G.R., DeGarmo, D., and Forgatch, M.S. (2004). Systematic Changes in Families Following Prevention Trials.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 621–633.
Pearson, F.S., and Lipton, D.S. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of corrections-based treatments for drug
abuse. The Prison Journal, 79, 384-410.
Pearson, F.S., Lipton, D.S., and Cleland, C.M. (1997). Rehabilitative programs in adult corrections: CDATE meta-analysis.
Presented at Annual Meeting American Society of Criminology, San Diego, CA.
Pearson, F.S., Lipton, D.S., Cleland, C.M., and Yee, D.S. (1998). A review and meta-analysis of the effects of experiential
challenge programs on recidivism. Presented at Annual Meeting American Society of Criminology, Washington, DC.
Pearson F.S., Lipton, D.S., Cleland, C.M., and Yee, D.S. (2002). The effects of behavioral/cognitive behavioral programs on
recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 48, 476-496.
Petersilia, J., and Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research,
17, 281-335. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Petersilia, J., and Turner, S., with the assistance of Peterson, J. (1986). Probation in California: Implications for Crime and
Offender Recidivism. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
136
Y
Bibliography
Petersilia, J. (1999). Parole and prisoner reentry in the United States. Crime and Justice, 26, 479-529.
Petersilia, J. (2001). Reforming Probation and Parole in the 21st Century. American Correctional Association.
Washington, DC.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68, 4-8.
Petersilia, J. (2005). From cell to society: Who is returning home? In J. Travis and C. Visher (eds.), Prisoner Reentry
and Crime in America. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Petersilia, J. (2006). Understanding California Corrections. California Policy Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA. Available at http://www.ucop.edu/cprc/document/understand_ca_corrections.pdf.
\j
Z
Peterson, R.D., and Krivo, J. (2006). The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America.
University Press, New York, NY.
Petrosino, A., and Lavenberg, J. (2007). Systematic reviews and metal-analytic best evidence on “what works” for criminal
justice decisionmakers. Western Criminology Review, 8, 1-15.
Petrosino, A., and Soydan, H. (2005). The impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal recidivism: Results from
meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 435-450.
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., and Bueler, J. (2003). Scared straight and other juvenile awareness programs for
preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review of the randomized experimental evidence. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 41-62.
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., and Bueler, J. (2003). Scared straight and other juvenile awareness programs for
preventing juvenile delinquency (Updated C2 Review). In The Campbell Collaborative Reviews of Intervention and Policy
Evaluations (2-Ripe). Campbell Collaboration, Philadelphia, PA.
Petticrew, M. (2007). Making High Quality Research Accessible To Policy Makers And Social Care Practitioners, plenary
presentation at the Campbell Collaboration Colloquium in May 16, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Petticrew, M., and Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell Publishing,
Boston, MA.
Pew Center on the States. (November 2007). When offenders break the rules: Smart responses to probation and parole violations.
Public Safety Policy Brief, No. 3. Author, Philadelphia, PA. Available at www.pewpublicsafety.org.
Phipps, P., Korinek, K., Aos, S., and Lieb, R. (1999). Research Findings on Adult Corrections’ Programs: A Review. Washington
State Institute for Public Policy. Olympia, WA.
Piehl, A.M., Useem, B., and Dilulio, J. Jr. (1999). Right-Sizing Justice: A Cost Benefit Analysis of Imprisonment in Three States,
Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, New York, NY.
Piquero, A.R., and Tibbetts, S.G. (2002). Rational Choice and Criminal Behavior: Recent Research and Future Challenges.
Routledge, New York, NY.
Porporino, F.J., and Robinson, D. (1995). An evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation program with Canadian federal
offenders. In R.R. Ross and B. Ross (eds.), Thinking Straight. Cognitive Centre, Ottawa, Canada.
Pratt, T.C., and Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A metaanalysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.
Prentky, R., Schwartz, B., and Burns-Smith, G. (December 2006). Treatment of Adult Sex Offenders. Applied Research Forum,
National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women. Available at www.vawnet.org.
137
What Works
Pressman, J.L., and Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation, 3rd Ed. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Przybylski, R. (2004). Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Brief on the Current State of Practice. Prepared for the Institute for Law and
Justice for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Przybylski, R. (Summer 1996). With higher numbers of children entering their crime-prone years, more needs to be done to
address increasing rates of juvenile violence. The Compiler. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, Chicago, IL.
Przybylski, R. (1995). “Evaluation as important tool in criminal justice planning.” The Compiler. Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority, Chicago, IL.
Pullen, S. (1996). Evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Cognitive Skills Development Program as Implemented in
Juvenile ISP in Colorado. Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety, Denver, CO.
Raphael, S., and Winter-Ebmer, R. (2001). Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime. Journal of Law and Economics,
44, 259-283.
Rapp-Paglicci, L.A., and A. Roberts. (2004). Mentally ill juvenile offenders. In A. Roberts (ed.), Juvenile justice sourcebook, 2nd
Ed. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Readio, S., and Harrison, L. (2003). Denver Juvenile Drug Court Evaluation: Third Year Evaluation Report. The Health
Resources Consortium, Boulder, CO.
Reed, G.M. (2005). What qualifies as evidence of effective practice? Clinical expertise. In J.C. Norcross, L.E. Beutler, and
R.F. Levant (eds.), Evidence-Based Practices in Mental Health: Debate and Dialogue on the Fundamental Questions. American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Reiss, A.J. Jr., and Roth, J.A. (1994). Understanding and Preventing Violence: Volume 4, Consequences and Control. National
Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Reitzel, L.R., and Carbonell, J.L. (2006). The effectiveness of sexual offender treatment for juveniles as measured by
recidivism: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 401-421.
Rempel, M., Fox-Kralstein, D., Cissner, A., Cohen, R., Labriola, M., and Farole, D. (2003). The New York state adult drug
court evaluation: Policies, participants, and impacts. Center for Court Innovation, New York, NY.
Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Ou, S., Robertson, D.L., Mersky, J.P., Topitzes, J.W., and Niles, M.D. (2007). Effects
of a school-based, early childhood intervention on adult health and well-being: A 19-Year follow-up of low-income
families. Archive of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 730-739.
Reynolds, A.J., and Robertson, D.L. (2003). School-Based Early Intervention and Later Child Maltreatment in the
Chicago Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 74, 3–26.
Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L., and Mann, E.A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood
intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public
schools. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2339-2346.
Rhine, E.E., Mawhorr, T.L., and Parks, E.C. (2006). Implementation: The bane of effective correctional programs.
Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 347-358.
Richardson, G. (2005). Partnership for Active Community Engagement: Initial Program Evaluation and Recommendations for
Future Analysis. Thesis submitted to the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Roman, C.R., McBride, E.C., and Osborne, J. (2006). Principles and Practice in Housing for Persons with Mental Illness Who
Have Had Contact with the Justice System. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
138
Y
Bibliography
Roman, J., Townsend, W., and Bhati, A.S. (2003). Recidivism Rates for Drug Court Graduates: Nationally-Based Estimates.
Final Report to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
(NCJ 201229)
Rose, D., and Clear, T. (2002). Incarceration, Re-entry and Social Capital: Social Networks in Balance. John Jay College of
Criminal Justice, City University of New York, New York, NY. Available at http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/410623_
SocialCapital.pdf.
Rosenfeld, R. (2000). The limited importance of prison expansion. In A. Blumstein and J. Wallman (eds.), The Crime Drop
In America. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Rosenfeld, R., Wallman, J., and R. Formango. (2005). The contribution of ex-prisoners to crime rates. In J. Travis and C.
Visher (eds.), Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
\j
Z
Rosky, J., Pasini-Hill, D., Lowden, K., Harrison, L., and English, K. (2004). Evaluation of the Youthful Offender System (YOS)
in Colorado: A Report of Findings Per C.R.S. 18-1.3-407. Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety.
Denver, CO
Ross, R., and Fabiano, E. (1991). Reasoning and Rehabilitation: A handbook for teaching cognitive skills. T3 Associates.
Ottawa, Canada.
Ross, R., and Fabiano, E. (1985). Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation.
Institute of Social Sciences and Art. Johnson City, TN.
Ross, R., Fabiano, E., and Ewels, C. (1988). Reasoning and Rehabilitation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 32, 29-35.
Rossman, S.B., and Roman, C.G. (2003). Case managed reentry and employment: Lessons from the opportunity to succeed
program. Justice Research and Policy, 5, 75-100.
Rosten, K. (Multiple years). Annual Statistical Reports. Research and Analysis Unit, Colorado Department of Corrections,
Colorado Springs, CO.
Ryan, T.A. and Woodard J.C. Jr. (1987). Correctional Education: A State of the Art Analysis. National Institute of Corrections,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Sabol, W.J., Couture, H., and Harrison, P.M. (December 2007). Prisoners in 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p06.pdf.
Sacks, S., Melnick, G., Coen, C., Banks, S., Friedmann, P.D., Grella, C., and Knight, K. (2007). CJDATS Co-occurring
Disorders Screening Instrument (CODSI) for Mental Disorders (MD): A pilot study. The Prison Journal, 87, 86-110.
Sacks, S., Melnick, G., Coen, C., Banks, S., Friedmann, P.D., Grella, C., Knight, K., and Zlotnick, C. (2007). CJDATS
Co-occurring Disorders Screening Instrument (CODSI) for Mental Disorders (MD): A validation study. Criminal Justice &
Behavior, 34, 1198-1215.
Sacks, S., Sacks, J.Y., McKendrick, K., Banks, S., and Stommel, J. (2004). Modified TC for MICA Offenders: Crime
outcomes. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 22, 477-501.
Sacks, S., Sacks, J.Y., and Stommel, J. (2003). Modified TC for MICA inmates in correctional settings: A program
description. Corrections Today, 90-99.
Sampson, R.J., and Laub, J.H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds.
American Sociological Review, 55, 609-627.
Sampson, R.J., and Laub, J.H. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
139
What Works
Sampson, R.J., and Laub, J.H. (2003). Desistance from crime over the life course. In J.T. Mortimer and M.J.
Shanahan (eds.), Handbook of the Life Course. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY.
Sampson, R.J., Laub, J.H., and Wimer, C. (2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to withinindividual causal effects. Criminology, 44, 465-508.
Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S., and Earls, F. (1999). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of
collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
Sarre, R. (1999). Beyond “What Works?” A 25-year Retrospective of Robert Martinson. Paper presented at the History of Crime,
Policing and Punishment Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with Charles Sturt
Universtiy. Canberra, December 9-10.
Schaeffer, C.M., and Borduin, C.M. (2005). Long-term follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy
with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 445-453.
Schinke, S.P., Cole, K., and Orlandi, M.A. (1991). The Effects of Boys and Girls Clubs on Alcohol and Other Drug Use and
Related Problems in Public Housing. Boys and Girls Clubs of America, New York, NY.
Schnell, M.J., and Leipold, M.O. (2006). Offenders with mental illness in Colorado. Colorado Department of Corrections,
Colorado Springs, CO.
Schorr, L.B. (1988). Within Our Reach: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage. Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Schwandt, T.A. (2005). A diagnostic reading of scientifically based research for education, Educational Theory, 55, 285-305.
Schweinhart, L.J. (No date). The high/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 40: Summary, Conclusions and Frequently Asked
Questions. High/Scope Press, Ypsilanti, MI.
Schweinhart, L.J. (2007). How to Take the High/Scope Perry Preschool to Scale. Early Childhood Research Collaborative
Conference Summary, December 7-8 2007. Available at http://www.earlychildhoodrc.org/events/summary.cfm.
Schweinhart, L.J., H.V. Barnes, H.V., and Weikart, D.P. (1993). Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study
through Age 27. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 10. High/Scope Press, Ypsilanti, MI.
Seiter, R.P., and Kadela, K.R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime and
Delinquency, 49, 360-388.
Sexton, T.L., and Alexander, J.F. (2000). Functional Family Therapy. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Sexton, T.L., and Alexander, J.F. (2002 revised). Functional Family Therapy: Principles of Clinical Intervention, Assessment and
Implementation. FFT, LLC. Available at www.fftinc.com.
Shader, M. (No date.) Risk factors for delinquency: An overview. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office
of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Shaffer, D.K. (2006). Reconsidering drug court effectiveness: A meta-analytic review. PhD dissertation submitted to the Division
of Research and Advance Studies, University of Cincinnati, OH.
Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works,
What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. A Report To The United States Congress. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Silvern, L., Bowels, A., Richard, J., Poncelow, J., and Richardson, G. (July 2006). PACE Evaluation Study: Final Report and
Progress Report #3. University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO.
140
Y
Bibliography
Skeem, J., and Louden, J.E. (2006). Toward evidence-based practice for probationers and parolees mandated to mental health
treatment. Psychiatric Services, 57, 3.
Small, S.M., Reynolds, A.J., O’Connor, C. and Cooney, S.M. (June 2005). What Works, Wisconsin? What Science Tells Us
about Cost-Effective Programs for Juvenile Delinquency Prevention. School of Human Ecology, University of Wisconsin,
Madison. Madison, WI.
Smith, P., Goggin, C., and Gendreau, P. (2002). The Effects of Prison Sentences and Intermediate Sanctions on Recidivism:
General Effects and Individual Differences. Report JS42-103/2002. Solicitor General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Solomon, A., V. Kachnowski, and Bhati, A. (2005). Does Parole Work? Analyzing the Impact of Postprison Supervision on
Rearrest Outcomes. Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
\j
Z
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online. Table 6.29.2004. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. Available at http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook.
Spelman, W. (2000). What recent studies do (and don’t) tell us about imprisonment and crime. Crime and Justice, 27, 419-494.
Spelman, W. (2000). The Limited Importance of Prison Expansion. In A. Blumstein and J. Wallman (eds.), The Crime Drop
In America. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Spoth, R.L., Clair, S., Shin, C., Redmond, C. ( 2006). Long-Term Effects of Universal Preventative Interventions on
Methamphetamine Use Among Adolescents. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 160, 876-882.
Stalans, L. (2004). Adult sex offenders on community supervision: A review of recent assessment strategies and
treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 564-608.
Stall, R., and Biernacki, P. (1986). Spontaneous remission from the problematic use of substances: An inductive
model derived from a comparative analysis of the alcohol, opiate, tobacco, and food/obesity literatures. International
Journal of the Addictions, 21, 1-23.
State Court Administrator’s Office. (August 2007). EBP: What does it mean for Colorado Probation? Evaluation Unit, Division
of Probation Services. Denver, CO.
Steadman, H.J., Deane, M.W., Borum, R., and Morrissey, J. (2002). Comparing outcomes of major models of police
responses to mental health emergencies. Psychiatric Services, 51, 645-649.
Steadman, H.J., and Naples, M. (2005). Assessing the effectiveness of jail diversion programs for persons with serious mental
illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 163-170.
Stemen, D. (2007). Reconsidering incarceration: New directions for reducing crime. Vera Institute of Justice, New York, NY.
Steurer, S.J., Smith, L. and Tracy, A. (2001). Three State Recidivism Study, Preliminary Summary Report, Draft. Office of
Correctional Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Stillman, J. (1999). Working to learn: Skills development under work first. Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2007). Understanding Evidence-Based Practices for Co-Occurring
Disorders, Overview Paper 5. Author, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Sullivan C.J., McKendrick., K., Sacks, S., Banks, S., Sacks, J.Y. and Stommel., J. (In press). Modified Therapeutic Community
Treatment for Offenders with Co-Occurring Disorders: Mental Health Outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation.
Sullivan C.J., McKendrick., K,, Sacks, S. and Banks, S. (In press). Modified Therapeutic Community Treatment For
Offenders with MICA Disorders: Substance Use Outcomes. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse.
Tierney, J.P., and Grossman, J.B. (2000). Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Public/Private
Ventures, Philadelphia, PA.
141
What Works
Tjaden, C.D., Diana, A., Feldman, D., Dietrich, W., and Jackson, K. (2002). Denver Drug Court: Second Year Report,
Outcome Evaluation. Prepared for the Division of Probation Services, Colorado Judicial Branch, Denver, CO.
Tong, L.S.J., and Farrington, D.P. (2006). How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” programme in reducing
reoffending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 3-24.
Tonry, M. (1998). The Handbook of Crime and Punishment. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
TriWest Group. (October 2003). The Status of Mental Health Care in Colorado. Prepared for the Mental Health Funders
Collaborative. Denver, CO. Available at http://www.thecoloradotrust.org/repository/publications/pdfs/MHCC.
Triwest Group. (2007). Continuum of Care Initiative Evaluation, Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2006-07. Prepared for the
Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Children, Youth and Family Services, Division of Youth Corrections.
Author, 4855 Riverbend Road, Boulder, CO.
Uggen, C., and Massoglia, M. (2003). Desistance from Crime and Deviance as a Turning Point in the Life Course. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY.
Valente, T.W., Ritt-Olson, A., Alan, S., Unger, J.B., Okamoto, J., and Sussman, S. (2007). Peer acceleration: effects of a social
network tailored substance abuse prevention program among high-risk adolescents. Addiction, 102, 1804–1815.
Valois, R., Tidwell, R., and Farrell, A.D. (1999). Year 1 Pilot Test of RIPP in Florida, Unpublished report.
Visher, C.A. (1986). The RAND Inmate Survey: A reanalysis. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, J. Roth and C. Visher (eds.),
Criminal Careers and Career Criminals, National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Visher, C.A. (1987). Incapacitation and crime control: Does a ‘lock’em up’ strategy reduce crime? Justice Quarterly, 4, 513-543.
Visher, C.A., Winterfield, L., and Coggeshall, M.B. (2005). Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A metaanalysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 295-315.
Walker, K. (2007). Research brief: Attendance and Truancy Programs. The Principals’ Partnership, a program of Union Pacific
Foundation. Available at http://www.principalspartnership.com.
Walsh, M. (2005). Overview of the IPSO program–Intensive Parole for Sex Offenders – in Framingham Massachusetts.
Presentation by the parole board chair to the National Governor’s Association policy meeting on sexual offenders. November
15, 2005. San Francisco, CA.
Wasserman, G.A., Keenan, K., Tremblay, R.E., Cole, J.D., Herrenkohl, T.I., Loeber, R., and Petechuk, D. (April 2003). Risk
and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency. Child Delinquency Bulletin Series. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Webster-Stratton, C., and Hooven, C. (1998). Parent Training for Child Conduct Problems. University of Washington.
Available at http://www.incredibleyears.com/library/items/parent-training-for-child-conduct-problems_98.pdf.
Weisburd, D., Lum, C.M., and Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50-70.
Weitekamp, E.G.M., and Kerner, H-J. (1994). Cross-National Longitudinal Research on Human Development and Criminal
Behavior. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Welsh, B.C. (2007). Science and Politics of Early Crime Prevention: The American Experience and Directions for Canada.
IPC Review, 1, 161–192.
Welsh, B.C., and Farrington, D.P. (2007). Key Challenges and Prospects in Peer-Based Delinquency Prevention Programs:
Comment on van Lier, Vitaro, and Eisner. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 13, 297-300.
142
Y
Bibliography
Welsh, B.C., and Farrington, D.E. (2007.). Preventing Crime: What Works for Children, Offenders, Victims, and Places.
Springer, New York, NY.
Welsh, B.C., and Hoshi, A. (2002). Communities and crime prevention. In L.W. Sherman, D.P. Farrington, B.C. Welsh and
D.L. MacKenzie (eds.), Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. Routledge, New York, NY.
\j
Z
West, M., Hromas, C.S., and Wenger, P. (2000). State Sex Offender Treatment Programs, 50-state survey. Colorado Department
of Corrections, Colorado Springs, CO.
Whitehead, J.T., and Lab, S.P. (1989). A meta-analysis of juvenile correctional treatment. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 3, 276-295.
Widom, C.S., and Maxfield, M.G. (February 2001). An Update on the “Cycle of Violence:” Research in Brief. National Institute
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Wilson, D.B., Bouffard, L.A., and MacKenzie, D.L. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group oriented, cognitivebehavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 172-204.
Wilson, D.B., Gallagher, C.S., and MacKenzie, D.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and
work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 347-68.
Wilson, D.B., Gottfredson, D.C., and Najaka, S.S. (2001). School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 247-272.
Wilson, D.B., and Lipsey, M.W. (2001). The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: Evidence from meta-analysis.
Psychological Methods, 6, 413-429.
Wilson, D.B., MacKenzie, D.L., and Mitchell, F.G. (2005). Effects of Correctional Bootcamps on Offending. The Campbell
Collaboration Library at http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/frontend.asp.
Wilson, D.B., Mitchell, O., and MacKenzie, D.L. (2006). A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 2, 459-487.
Wilson, J.A. (2007). Habilitation or Harm: Project Greenlight and the Potential Consequences of Correctional Programming.
National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Wilson, J.Q. (2007). Forward to Farrington, D. and Welsh, B.C., Saving Children from a Life of Crime: Early Risk Factors and
Effective Interventions. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Wilson, J.Q., and Petersilia, J. (2002). Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control. ICS Press, Oakland, CA.
Wilson, R.J., and Prinzo, M. (2003). Circles of support: Restorative justice initiative. In M. Miner and E. Coleman (eds.), Sex
Offender Treatment: Accomplishments, Challenges, and Future Directions. Hawthorn Press, New York, NY.
Wilson, R.J., Stewart, L., Stripe, T., Barrett, M. and Cripps, J.E. (2000). Community-based sex offender management:
Combining parole supervision and treatment to reduce recidivism. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 41, 177-188.
Wilson, S.J., and Lipsey, M.W. (2000). Wilderness challenge programs for delinquent youth: A meta-analysis of outcome
evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 1-12.
Wilson, S.J., and Lipsey, M.W. (September 2005). The Effectiveness of School-Based violence Prevention Programs for reducing
Disruptive and Aggressive Behavior. Report Commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. Washington, DC.
Wilson, S.J., Lipsey, M.W., and Derzon, J.H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive and
disruptive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 136-149.
143
What Works
Wilson, S.J., Lipsey, M.W., and Soydan, H. (2003). Are mainstream programs for juvenile delinquency less effective with
minority youth than majority youth? A meta-analysis of outcomes research. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 3-26.
Winokur, M., Rozen, D., Batchelder, K. and Valentine, D. (2006). Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment: A Systematic Review of
Evidence-Based Research. Applied Research in Child Welfare Project, Social Work Research Center. Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (December 2002). Youth to Youth: A Review of Peer Program Theoretical Under
pinnings: Forms, Functions, and Process- and Outcome-Related Findings. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and the
Center on Education and Work. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau. (June 2004). Restorative Justice Programs in Milwaukee and Outagamie Counties: An
Evaluation. Joint Legislative Audit Committee, State Capitol, Milwaukee, WI.
Wool, J., and Stemen, D. (2004). Changing Fortunes or Changing Attitudes? Sentencing and Corrections Reforms in 2003. Vera
Institute of Justice, New York, NY.
Woolfenden, S.R., Williams, K., and Peat, J. (2002). Family and Parenting Interventions in Children and Adolescents with
Conduct Disorder and Delinquency Aged 10-17. The Cochrane Library. Available at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgibin/mrwhome/106568753/HOME.
Yoshikawa, H. (Winter 1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. Future of
Children, 5, 51-75.
Zimring, F.E. (2007). The Great American Crime Decline. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Zimring, F.E., and Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation: Penal Confinement and the Restraint of Crime. Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Zsolt, B. (1999). Economics and crime in the states. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 39-56.
144
Colorado Division Of Criminal Justice
700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80215
http://dcj.state.co.us/ors
