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

Abstract

There is growing critical commentary and debate about the relative effectiveness of individual program and generic practice approaches to identifying evidencebased interventions and their impact on the operation of the juvenile justice system. The central issue is whether both of these approaches to identifying evidence-based interventions provide a valid and reliable guide to improving juvenile justice programming and, if so, what are the relative advantages and disadvantages of each? From a public policy perspective, should we be investing more heavily in one or the other, or treating them as effective complementary approaches and encourage both? We address each of these questions and offer some suggestions for improving the effectiveness of each approach.

The case for rigorous comparative research and population impacts in a new era of evidence‐based interventions for juvenile offenders

“…Prior to Elliott et al. 's (2020) review, there has been an almost complete absence of research investigating the comparative utility of the two main evidence‐based models (or other models; see below) for guiding juvenile justice interventions. In their review of policy reforms for high‐risk juvenile offenders, Skeem et al.…”

“…Whatever conclusions that are drawn from or even critiques leveled at the review by Elliott, Buckley, Gottfredson, Hawkins, and Tolan (2020), it is important to acknowledge the larger context in which this work has been carried out. That is to say, it is quite an achievement that we have reached a state of intervention science and implementation science where we can begin to evaluate the merits of alternative models for delivering effective, economically efficient, and humane interventions to improve the life chances of young people who have come in conflict with the law.…”

“…In Elliott et al. (2020) we learn that there are two main evidence‐based models for guiding juvenile justice interventions. One involves the use of brand name or commercially developed evidence‐based programs.…”

“…One involves the use of brand name or commercially developed evidence‐based programs. These are characterized by a “coherent package of activities with defined delivery protocols, implementation manuals, training, and technical assistance…” (Elliott et al., 2020, p. 1). Examples of some of these programs include multisystemic therapy (MST) and functional family therapy (FFT).…”

“…Elliott et al. (2020) give some attention to this matter, with a particular focus on the groundbreaking work being carried out in Washington State (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2019). It is argued that population impacts should be the primary goal of evidence‐based interventions (Dodge, 2020; Gottfredson et al., 2015).…”