WHAT WORKS WITH YOUNG OFFENDERS:
SUMMARIZING THE LITERATURE
Alan W. Leschied, Ph.D. C. Psych.*
I. ACCUMULATING EVIDENCE FORASSESSMENT AND
REHABILITATION IN THE YOUNG
OFFENDER FIELD
In a recently published summary of theaccumulation of evidence on assessment
and treatment in the young offender area,
Leschied and Cunningham (1999) notedthat more articles have been publishedregarding young offender assessment andtreatment in the past ten years (19881998) than were documented on major
literature data bases during the years
prior to 1988. What this points to, is not
only an increasing empirical basis for
decision making regarding placement andt r e a t m e n t t a r g e ts , b u t a s w e ll , a n
indication of the vast knowledge basewhich practitioners need to be aware of,in designing assessment and treatment
strategies.
A. General Principals from theAssessment Literature
T he fo llo w ing se ctio ns will de tailfindings related to the specifics of young
offender assessment that include general
as well as specific issues of assessmenta nd classification. The status of thegeneral literature with youth, similar towhat Andrews (1990) suggests with the
major predictors for adults at risk, is now
relatively apparent and continues toreinforce findings reported in recent
cross-sectional and longitudinal studies
by Farrington and Loeber (1999). This
trend suggests that there is a move away
* Professor, Faculty of Education, University ofWestern Ontario, London Ontario, CANADA

from the findings of general personality
theory that may have driven much of theresearch evidence through to the early
1980’s (e.g. such as Megargee’s MMPI
classification system) to a more risk
specific means of offender classification.
Further, specific assessment strategies
have now been develop ed andimplemented for specific purposes ofyoung of fe nde r m a na gem en t. Th ese
include offence-specific assessments
ranging from the assessment ofadolescent male sex offenders to the
management of youth in various security
levels in detention facilities. Presentationof these assessment strategies will bepresented.
B. General Principals from theTreatment Literature
Similar to the assessment literature,
increasing knowledge with respect toyou ng offender managemen t andtreatment has also been witnessed overthe past decade. Progress in this area has
capitalized not only on the specific effectsof young offender programmes, but fromthe general knowledge base regardingchild and adolescent intervention as well.
Kazdin and Weisz (1998) noted in theirreview of child and adolescentinterventions, that expressions such as
kn owledge-base d, data-driv en andempirically-supported now routinely
appear in selections made regarding
treatment op tions for specific client
gr o u p s . K n o w le d g e w ith r e sp e c t tosucce ssful p ro gram me s f or co nd uctdisordered and anti-social youth has
progressed not only in the description of
successful components of intervention (i.e.

83

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 59
cognitive-behavioral) but also in themethod of service delivery (custody versus
community). Descriptions of promisingprogrammes are presented that can guide
general decisions with respect to youth
management. Specific service components
are also detailed that can help guideplacement decisions in regard to thecontext in which more su ccessfulprogrammes can be offered.
1. Developing Intensive CommunityBased Services for Higher Risk Youth
While considerable emphasis is being
given to ‘front-end’ services primarily
targeting lower risk offenders, there isa lso supp ort for developing se rvices
addressing the needs of higher risk cases
who would otherwise be heading towards
a custody disposition. Justification forcommunity-based services must first
have, a s its yardstick, the ab ility todeliver cost-effective service that does notcompromise the community’s safety. A
key intention of the Canadian
Department of Justice (1998), with its
proposed framework for youth justicereform, is to lower the rates of custodyordered in Canadian youth courts. Thiscannot b e accomplished through law
reform alone. Members of the public ingeneral, and sentencing judges
specifically, must be convinced of several
things. First, incapacitation throughcustody may protect the public in the
short term but evidence does not support
reductions in offending throughincapacitation in the long term (Andrews,
et.al., 1990). Second, there are viablecommunity-based alternatives to custodythat can both protect the public in the
short term and reduce recidivism in thelong term. Third, the expensive option ofcustody w ill not ‘p urcha se’ a s much
reduction in offending as these other noncustodial sentencing options. This review
will outline the choice of interventions
such as Multisystemic Therapy (MST) as

84

a viable alternative to custody for highrisk young offenders.
2. Systemic and Programmatic
Requirements for Effective Service(i) Summary from the Meta-Analyses
Meta-analysis is the term used toreport quantitative summaries of theliterature. It represents a significant
advancement over earlier qualitative
reviews (Wells,1991). Meta-analysis
statistically compares the types oftreatments that are offered, to whomthey a re d irecte d an d w ith w ha t
outcomes. The meaningfulness of metaanalysis is only limited by the number
and quality of the studies that areincluded in the review. Fortunately,
adequate quality a nd quantity ofst u d ie s n o w e xi st to m a k e
inte rpre tation s of the tre a tm e nt
li te r a tu r e i n y o u t h j u s ti ce wi th
confidence, although Losel (1997) has
offered up some reservations withrespect to limiting the generalizeabilityof such findings. The limitations alongwith th e m aj or o utco m es will besummarized in the following section.
(ii) Major Outcomes from the MetaAnalysis
Meta-analytic reviews of the outcome
literature support the desirability of
p r o v i d i n g p r o gr a m m e s t h a t a r e
relate d to the causes of crime(Andrew s et al., 1990; Lipsey andWilson, 1998; Gendreau and Goggin,
1996).
Sanctionsprovided
independentof appropriate
rehabilitative efforts have failed todemonstrate significant reductions inoffending. These reviews have givenrise to a clearer understanding of boththe systemic requirements for thedelivery of effective service as well as
the programmatic requirements toprovide meaningful reductions inyouth recidivism.

118TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Andrews et al. (1990) identified theimportance of matching the intensityof service to the relative risk and needof individual offenders. The Risk
Principle of Case Classification, auseful m eans to alloca te service,suggests that intensive services are
more meaningfully delivered to highrisk youth, while low-risk youth can besafe ly assigne d to less intensive
services such as community service,f in e s , r e st i t u t io n a n d lo w - l e v e lcommunity monitoring. Inappropriate
matching of service to risk level will,
accordingly, be seen as an ineffective,
non-productive use of services that canfurther the criminogenic risk of someyouths (Andrews et al., 1990). There ise vi d e nc e t o s ug ge s t th a t, in th e
pro vince of Onta rio for exam ple,sentencing judges are inclined to placein custody a disproportionate numberof youths who would be assessed as
low risk for further offending (Hoge,
Andrews and L es chied, 1995).
D ifferential association theorists
would warn that placing low -risk
offenders with high-risk offenders
could well adversely affect their risk
for reoffending.
Lessons learned, therefore, from themeta-analysis on systemic variables
in effective programming for youth
corrections suggest that:•••

Lower risk cases can be safely
assigned to less intensive services
Higher risk cases are more
effectively dealt w ith in m ore
intensive services
The differential assignment ofyouth according to risk is criticalcharacteristic of any youth correctional
system.
(iii) Findings on Programme Componentsof Effective Service
Research has also add resse d theprogrammatic components ofcorrectional interventions for youth
by identifying the content and qualityof e ffective programm es (for a
detailed review see Andrews,
Leschied and Ho ge, 1992).
Components of effective programmesar e assesse d in r elation to theirability to meaningfully reduce
recidivism within the targeted group.
Programmes assessed as effective
tend to be those that systematicallyassess risk in clients, use the risk
principle of case classification, adopt
programme orientations known to beeffective, employ well educated andwell trained staff , monitor
programme integrity and adherence
to the intervention model used, andrigorously evaluate the extent towhich p ro gra mm e goals a re m et.
Cognitive-behavioural interventions
are often identified as having thegreatest p rom ise in reducing
recidivism when compared with otherpr o gr a m m ing o r ie nta t io ns ( e .g .,V en na r d, S ug g a nd He d d er m a n,1997).
Discussion therefore in identifying
appropriate young offender service
nee d s to b e mind f ul of th e eigh t
in te g r it y i ss u e s su m m ar iz e d byAndrews et al. (1990). According tothese authors, a coherent andempirically defensible model:•

Accordingly, a spectrum of services toaddress youths at all levels of risk andn e e d w o u l d b e a v e r y d e s ir a b l e•empirically links interventions
with desired outcomes;
assesses risk and need levels ofc l i e n t s a n d t a r g e t s th e m f o rintervention;

85

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 59
•
•
•
•

•

•

has a detailed programme manualout linin g th e discreet st eps
involved in the intervention;
ensures that therapists havestructured and formal training in
relevant theory and practice;ensures that therapists aresupervise d in a meaningfulmanner;assesses the therapeutic process
as delivered to monitor theadherence to key principles andthe employment of techniques
claimed to be employed;
conducts
assessmentsofintermediate changes in values,
skills or circumstances of clientsthat are presumed to relate todesired outcome(s); and,associates the level and intensityof intervention to risk, need andresponsivity.

3. Institutional Versus NonInstitutional Placement for
Treatment
Lipsey and Wilson’s (199 7) review
distinguished placement of treatment,
residential versus community, indifferentiating characteristics of effective
programmes. This is a criticaldifferentiation since much of the debate
regarding effective youth justice policies
centre on the importance of incarceration
as a relevant factor in community safety.
Lipsey and Wilson noted in their analysis
that different contributions are made forv a r io us c o m p o n en ts o f se r vi ce a s afunction of the placement for treatment.
Table 1 summarizes factors relevant foreffective programmes in institutional andnon-institutional placements.

86

Table 1
Programme Factors Contributing to
Effectiveness for Institutionalized
and Non- Institutionalized Young
OffendersInstitutional-Based Components
Interpersonal Skills
Teaching Family Model
Multiple Services
Behavioural Programmes
Individual/Group Programmes
Non-Institutional-BasedComponents
Interpersonal Skills
Individual/ Group Programmes
Multiple Services
Restitution/Probation
Employment/Academic Programmes
E f f e c t s i z e s a c c o u n t in g f o r t o t a lprogramm e outcom e across bothins tit uti on a l an d no n -i ns titu tio n a lprogrammes suggested that the threefactors comprising the highest ranking
wer e; inter pe rso nal skills training,
individual counselling and behavioral
programmes. The second grouping oflesser, yet significant contribution were
the two programme factors consisting ofmultimodal services and restitution foryouths on probation.
The work of D on And rew s a nd hiscolleagues (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta,
Gendreau and Cullen, 1990); Andrews,
Leschied and Hoge, 1992) were consistent
with the findings of Lipsey. However
Andrews’ work provides more specificity inregards to appropria te ta rgeting forintervention - known as the risk principle and increasing sophistication regarding
style and type of intervention, namely theimp ortance of cognitive-behaviouraloriented interventions. On a broader level,
Andrews’ work outlined characteristics ofpromising programmes as including:118TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
•
•
•
•
•

Employment of systematic assessment that emphasizes factors relevant to criminality
Possess therapeutic integrity
Attend to relapse prevention
Target appropriately
Employ appropriate styles of service

With the number and consistency ofanalyses pointing to factors that relate toeffective strategies for reducing youthful
offending, considerable attention is now
being directed at developing efforts that
effectively disseminate and sustain thecomponents of effective programmes. The
following section draws on findings thatare being reported in the forthcoming
book edited by Gary Bernfeld, David
Farrington and Alan Leschied throughJohn Wiley Press entitled, “Implementing
Effective Correctional Programmes”.
II. OVERVIEW OF MAJOR
FINDINGS FROM THE METAANALYSIS
In the mid and latter 1970’s, reviews of
the programme literature in corrections
contributed to an extraordinary
discussion that became the touch stone toa generation of corrections professionals.
The nothing works debate as it is been
popularly know n, not only became amatter for social scientists to consider,
but also played into the hands of policym a ke r s a nd p o l i t i c i a n s i n cr i m i n a ljustice. Depending upon their particularpolitical leaning, decision makers used
the results of such reviews to either
proclaim the failure of rehabilitation,
thereby perhaps unwittingly heralding
the expanded use of get tough measures,or used them to develop the grow ing
science of prediction and treatment in thecorrections field. Followers of the debate
will now be familiar with the names ofRobert Martinson (1976) in the U.S. andin Canada, Jalal Shamsie (1979) whoseti tl e s o f q u a li ta ti ve re vi e w s o f th eliterature so provocatively proclaimed
that “Nothing Worked” and that “Our
Treatments Do Not Work: Where do We
Go From Here”. And with eachprovocation, there was a Paul Gendreau,
Robert Ross (1979) or Ted Palmer (1996)
w h o s ug ge s te d th a t a m o r e c a r e f u lreading of the outcome literature would
provide “Bibliotherapy for Cynics”.
Two decades have now passed, andwith more sophistication in providing
quantitative reviews of the prediction andoutcome literature, meta-analyses havea s s is te d i n d e v e l o p i ng a s c i e n c e o fcriminal conduct. Such a science draws
not only on linking factors that help in
the understanding of criminogenic risk
levels of certain individuals - nature andstrength - but also on the literature
rega rd ing tr ea tm ents or system s o fservice delivery that can promote
effective outcomes in correction alpractice. The following section highlights
some of the major findings from the metaanalyses that relates to implementation.
A. Contributions from the MetaAnalyses
There have bee n a number ofcontributions to the meta-analysis oncorrections treatment. Perhaps the mostwell-known are those authored by Don
Andrews and his colleagues (1990) and by
Mark Lipsey (Lipsey and Wilson, 1993;
Lipsey 1995). Technical understanding of
the approach taken by these authors will
not be provided here. Suffice to say thatthe qua lity and nature of the me ta analyses that are reported reflect thequality and number of the studies in thefield. Hence, the nature and quality ofknowledge could not have been achieved
and reported on by Andrews and Lipsey
were it not for the efforts of so many who
contributed to that knowledge base.

87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 59
B. Major Assessment Issues in
Implementation
Both cross-sectional and longitudinalstudies have identified factors that link
past or current conditions withindividuals that place them at increasingr is k f o r c ri m in o g e n ic in vo l ve m e n t.
Andrews and Bonta (1998) suggest thatthese studies support a socia lpsychological understandi ng of
criminogenic risk. That is, individuals
m ay cognitively process certain
conditions in their environment thatd e ve lop or r ew a rd c er ta in style s o rcontent of thinking that are reflected ina nti- socia l b ehaviour. Those syste mvariables that influence risk to a greater
extent include the following:•••families of origin,peer associates, andschool or working conditions.

Data has also sup p o rte d the lin kb e t w e en a nt i - s o ci a l b e ha vio ur w i t h
substance use in the understanding ofcrime cycles (Huizinga , M enard andElliott, 1989). Measures of those factorsthat contribute most significantly ands e e m t o b e a t t r a c t i n g th e g r e a te st
attention in the literature include multifactored indicators as measured by theLevel of Service Inventory (Andrews andBonta, 1999), the Risk - Need Inventory(Hoge, Leschied and Andrews,
1996),criminal sentiments (Simourd,1999) and psychopathy (Hare, 1991).
C. Assessing for Criminogenic Risk
Accurate and relevant assessment ofcriminogenic risk is tied to the major
outcomes from the meta-a na lysis on
effective treatment. While Lipsey has
identified the major general contributors
to successful correctional programmes,
Andrews, et.al.’s principle contribution
rests in the refining of understanding
r ega rd ing the ap pr op riate ta rget of88

intervention. While Lipsey’s results wereencouraging regarding the average effectsizes supporting reductions of 10-30 per
cent in re-offending within particular
types of programming (i.e. behavioral overpsychodynamic), Andrews’ findings thatcertain programme components targetedto specific criminogenic risk factors referred to as clinical relevance - could
improve outcomes by an even greater
extent. Hence, Andrews articulated therisk principle of case classification as a
critical component of effective service
thereby linking assessment with serviced e live r y in t he o ve ra ll a p p ro a ch t oeffective correctional treatment. Thesefin ding s therefore su ggest thatassessment of appropriate risk relevant toc ri m i na l j u st ic e in v o lv e m e nt ar e a
ne c es sa r y a nd f un d a m e nt a l p a r t o f
successful programme implementation.
The following section will begin to address
the structural models of conceptualizing
im plem enta tion issue s b ased on theempirical findings from the meta-analysis.
III. PROGRAMMEIMPLEMENTATION AS A SCIENCEIN ITS OWN RIGHT
A. Dissemination of Effective
Programme Strategies:

118TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Technology Transfer in the
Human Service Field1
The transfer of knowledge in the social
a n d h um a n se r vic es f ro m w h a t ha slargely been an academic-base dknowledge to app lied settings is
cha llenging not only to correctional
professionals, but to practitioners in avariety of human service settings. The
literature chronicles numerous examples
of programmes that were either wellconceived and poorly implemented or wellim plem ented but po orly sustaine d(Bauman, Stein and Ireys, 1 991). O fcourse, there is also the suspicion thatthe fa ilure to im plem e nt or sustainc or re ctio na l pr og ra m m es tha t ha v edemonstrated effectiveness in research
may be tied to the more insidious, cynicalintentions of some policy and programme‘experts’. This has more to do with theunwillingness of such administrators todisavow the knowledge base in a given
area and indeed purposefully undermine
the integrity of that knowledge. Andrews
and Bonta (1998) refer to this intentional
undermining as knowledge destruction.
Techniques of knowledge destruction arecharacterized by the seeming
sophisticatio n of a rgum ent in using
scientific principles to negate scientificfact. Erstwhile, the use o f suchtechniques belays the negative beliefs
a n d a tt i t u d e s o n t h e p a r t o f t h e s ecommentators. A careful reading of what
1

The author is grateful for the guidance indeveloping these ideas on dissemination from Dr.
Gary Bernfeld of St.Lawrence College, Kingston
Ontario. The forthcoming book by Bernfeld,
F a r r i n g t o n a n d L e s c h i e d (E d s . ) i n c l u d e s
con tribu ti ons from some of the leadin gr es e a r ch e r s i n th e a r e a o f p rog ra m m eimplementation and dissemination. In addition,
readers may find the forthcoming Compendiumson effective correctional practice, volumes 1, 2
and 3 produced through Correctional Services
Canada (Larry Motiuk, Ed.) of interest.

is known about successful programmes is
p a ra m ou nt t o s uc ce ss f ull y p la n ne dprogramme implementation.
In an excellent review of the lessons
learned from the literature on successfulprogramme implementation, Lisbeth
Shore (1991) noted that theimplementat ion of prog ram mes i s“shaped by powerful forces” that are noteasily modified even by “new knowledge”.
Ind ee d , S ho re’ s sum m ar y of f a ctor snecessary in successful implementation
include the necessity of a climate that is“created by skilled, com mitted
professionals respectful and trusting of
the clients they serve .....regardless of theprecepts, demands and boundaries set byprofessionalism and bureaucracies” (p.
258). The necessity of providing caring
programmes, that are coherent and easy
to use, providing continuity andcircumventing the traditions of limiting
professional and bureaucratic limitations
were absolutely the prerogative of such
effective programmes. Paul Gendreau(1996) of course would add that a seniora d vo ca te in a n o rg a niz a tio n w ho i swilling to champion the cause of such a
programme is an essential ingredient as
well.
‘Powerful forces’ as Shore calls them
are certainly at work in the corrections
fields w he n it comes to tra nsferringknowledge to practice on a broad scale.
Political beliefs th at h ave sh aped
correctional practice have in many cases
been antagonistic to the lessons learned
from the literature on effective
corrections. Deterrence, sanctions andpunishment-based correctional practices
and policies have been pre-eminent in thelast two decades. This is despite what
Palmer (1996) amongst others indicateshas been a failure of such programmes todemonstrate reductions in offending. Yet,juxtaposed to this em phasis on

89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 59
punishment reflected in correctional
policy has been the extraordinary growthin knowledge in the area of effective
treatment. The following sections identify
the necessary steps in taking evidencebased practice into applied settings.
B. The Necessity of a KnowledgeBased Approach
Cu llen , et.al.(1 998 ) cite d ata
suggesting that there continues to bem a n y b o th w it h in a n d w it h o u t t h ecorrections profession who have failed tore cogniz e the grow ing litera ture on
effective treatment with offender
populations. Despite this disappointing
lack of awareness, the literature
continues to grow, documenting not only
progress in regards to the accumulationof evidence of effective interventions, butalso the summaries from numerous metaanalyses that now speak to the patternsof effectiveness being documented acrossstud ies. N ume ro us re search ers andpractitioners now speak about the needfor examining ‘technology transfer’; theapplication of what research hassuggested can be effective and translatingthat knowledge into routine correctional
practice. This chapter will highlight thefa ctors related to implementation ofprogrammes that attempt to comply withthe principles of effective service. Though
few in number, there are now studies thatreport on evaluations that monitor the
implementation of programmes at boththe practitioner level - referred to astreatment adherence - and the broader
programme, service and system level referred to as programme compliance.
Coupled with the move to monitor andm e a s ur e a d h e re nc e , is th e g ro w ing
emphasis on dissemination of information
regarding effective programmes. Training
is p ivo tal, com bining both thecommunication of programme findings
a long with the kinds of support and90

co nsultation re quire d to insu re theeffective replication of those programmes.
S o m e o f t h e m o r e w e l l- a r ti c u l a t e dinterventions such as Multisystemic
Therapy (Heng geler, Sch oen wald,
Bourduin, Rowland and Cunningham,
1998) and the Teaching-Family Model(1990) are currently developing, alongwith field input and support, detailed
practitioner and supervisor manuals thatca n a ssist successful dissemination,although it must be acknowledged thatsuch higher level dissemination efforts
that are also being evaluated are still
relatively rare in the human services andc o r r e c t io n s f ie l d s . T h e r e a r e si g n s
ho weve r that this situation m a y bechanging. Fixsen, Blase, Timbers andWolf (1990) have reported on a fifteen
y e a r f o l l o w - u p o f a n e v a l u a t io n o f
p ro gr a m m e d iss em in a tio n w it h the
Teaching-Family Model. This analysis
includes an examination of the challenge
in developing a means of transferringknowledge to practitioners.
C. General Considerations for
Successful Implementation
As with any change strategy in humanservice, the complexities of factors thatneed to be addressed in promoting a shift
in correction al practice may seem
daunting if not absolutely overwhelming
to an initiator of programme change.
Ellickson and Petersilia (1983) identified
six principle organizational considerations
that were necessary in initiating
pr og ramme
implementationincorrections. They included:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Sincere motivation at implementation
Support at the top of leadership andea ch gr oup w ho se c oop er ation isrequired for implementation and use
Staff competence
A cost-benefit surplus
Clarity of goals and procedures
Clear lines of authority

118TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
I n ad dition, program me shifts f or
implementation in corrections requires
the support of both legal and non-legal
stakeholders in the community. Whatm a y m a ke sen se f ro m a p rogra m m eperspective may be seen by the courts as
in conf lict w ith the rule of la w . F or
example, if justice is seen as too
individualized i.e. sanctions are not seen
as proportionate given the nature of theoffending, the rule of law m ay beperceived as under-mined because of theinequity of the severity and nature of the
sanction. Clarity in the purpose and roleo f the co urts a nd othe r la w - re la te dforums need to be seen as complementary
to the role and purpose of correctional
programmes.

of even successful programmes. While theg e n e r a l o u t c o m e l it e r a t u r e i s n o wreporting reductions in offending ranging
from 20 to 40 per cent (Andrews et. al.
(1990); Lipsey and Wilson, 1998) there
are some areas of correctional practicewhere data has not supported claims ofeffectiveness. One such area is related tooutcomes with psychopathic individuals.

D. Contextual Issues in Successful
Implementation
Experience in North America over the
past two decades has reflected the trend
towards incarceration as the correctional
policy of choice. Trends in the support forincarceration coupled with the legacy ofthe nothing w orks conclusions ofreviewers of correctional programmes inth e early and mid 1 970’s , crea ted
considerable challenge to implement
programmes that were not predicatedsimply on adding to the incarceration
rate. In many respects, findings fromprogramme reviews suggesting that thecommunity was the preferred context inwhich to deliver effective programmes
flew in the face of the get tough school ofcorrections policy. Hence, development oft re n d s su ch a s in te n siv e p ro b a tio nsupervision programmes, even thoughevidence suggested their abilities toinfluence offending rates, were toughsells. There are two important factors to
be considered. The first is to have anawareness of the extant literature on
effective practice; to be aware of what is
p o ss i b l e i n d e l iv e r i n g a s u c c e ss f u lprogramme, and to not oversell the effects“Unless a community recognizes or
accepts the premise that a change incorrections is needed, is affordable,
and does n ot c onflict with its
sentiments
rega rdingjustpunishment, an innovative project
has little hope of surviving muchless succeeding”.

The second critical consideration inpromoting programme implementation isknowledge of the willingness, level of
acceptance of policy makers, correctional
prof essionals and the im mediate
community to accept a shift in policy.
Petersilia as cited in Harris and Smith(1996) suggests,

While there seems some minor
variations in interpretation of the effectsof the immed iate context to sup port
implementation of programmes, as a
general statement, community contexts
se em mo re a ble to suppo rt eff ective
outcomes when compared to programmesdelivered in resid ential contexts(Andrews and Bonta, 1998). Henggeler
and his colleagues argue that treatinghigh risk youth in the community is amore ecologically valid approach to bothassessing and treating high risk youth
since it allows for an increased
opportunity to work directly with thesystems that are both influencing andbeing influenced by the behaviour of theirfamilies and peers. Hoge, Leschied andAndrews (1993) in a stud y on thecom ponents in young off ender91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 59
programmes found that factors inagreement with items related to effective
correctional practice were more likely tobe identified in community programmes
than in residential programmes.
E. Empirical Findings Related to
Implementation: Treatment
Adherence and Programme
Compliance
The evolution of research developmentin the corrections field has only recently
emphasized the importance of providing
outcome evalua tion a s a standard inservice delivery. It may come as a surprise
to some that, as reported in Andrews et.
al., prog rammes that were bein gevaluated by those charged with theirimpleme ntation
were
actually
characterized in their outcomes as more
effective than those that were not being as
closely monitored. Hence it would seemthat evaluation could also be characterized
as a factor in successful implementation.
Monitoringfor
pr ogr amme
implementation however has not met withthe sam e level of developm ent. Thissection will highlight two examples of
implementation evaluation which serve toassist in understanding programmes thatare relatively successful in identifying
effective implementation strategies.
1. Treatment Adherence
For any experienced corrections
professional, it will come as no surprisethat implementation, while critical, isonly a part of any success story. The real
challenge arises in trying to, 1)
implement a programme consistent withthe components reflecting an effective
stra te gy- re fe rre d to as pr ogra m m e
integrity and, 2) support those factorsthat can sustain a programme after it has
shown itself to be effective.
What are those factors that influencesustainability a nd help programmes

92

remain true to those factors critical tosuccessful?
M ulti-System ic Therap y: Scott
Hengge ler a nd his a ss ocia t es at the
Medical University of South Carolina
have turned their attention not only toprogramme contents that are effectivewith high risk youth, but also to thosefactors that can sustain an effective
programme over the longer term.
A brief overview of MST suggests thata therapeutic focus on certain systemic
factors within the lives of highly
c o nf li ct e d y o u th , ( i . e . th a t s ha r e apresent, solution, strength-based focus)
wi ll be rew arded wit h s ign ifican t
reductions in youth criminal activity.
Results from Henggeler, Melton,
Brondino, Scherer and Hanley (1997)
suggested that while some treatment
gains were sustained in some youths,
others were not. Further analysis by theauth o rs su gge ste d that p r og ra m m esustainability was tied to the presence of
ce rtaintherapist/programmecharacteristics that in turn characterized
specific components of the MST model.
The conclusion of this study suggested
that to achieve sustainability of positive
outcomes from intervention, adequate
and on-going training and consultation
was necessary. Further, these authorsde ve lo p ed the T he ra pist A dhe re nce
Measure (TAM) which consists of 26
items that ask family members to rate
the ir the rap ist on item s that w ould
reflect consistency of the intervention
with the principles of MST. Computers c o r in g w i t h t he T A M a l l o w s f o r arelatively short turn around time toprovide a quantified summary to thetherapist and their supervisor regarding
how consistent the intervention w asprovided on a case by case basis. Datasuggests that therapist adherence ispositively correlated with client118TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
outcomes. The development of similar
adherence measures particular to a given
intervention is possible given clearly
identified and well articulated aspects of
the nature of the intervention and type ofservice delivery.
2. Programme ComplianceW h il e s t u d i e s su c h a s w it h M S T
examine treatment adherence at thetherapist level, another line ofinvestigation recommends evaluating a
programme’s ability to comply with preset conditions that evidence has suggested
are consistent with overall components ofeffective programmes.
The Correctional Programme
Assessmen t In ven tor y: T he CP AI(Gendreau and Andrews, 1996) is aninventory developed out of the metaanalysis literature on effective
programmes. It consists of seventy-fiveitems covering six components critical tothe understanding of what constitutes aneffective programme, along with two areasthat are considered integral to effective
p r o g r a m m e s , n a m e ly e m p h a s i s o nevaluation and ethical considerations. The
c o m p o n e n ts c o n s is t o f : p r o g r a m m e
im p le m e n ta ti o n, c l ie n t p r e - s e rv i ce
assessment, programme characteristics,
staff characteristics, evaluation and other(i.e. ethical consideration). All of thecomponents and the questions asked ofprogrammes consist of factors influenced
by the reviews of the effective corrections
literature. Table 2 summarizes the six
components of the CPAI.

Table 2
Summary of the CPAI Components
Scale

Scale Description

1. Programme Implementation

Surveys the conditions under which the programme
was introduced

2. Preservice Assessment

Surveys applications of the principle of risk, need
and responsivity

3. Programme Characteristics

Assesses targeting of criminogenic factors and theuse of cognitive behavioural techniques

4. Therapeutic Integrity

Surveys service delivery, emphasising intensity andmatching conditions

5. Relapse Prevention

Surveys extent to which programmes focus on postrelease programmes

6. Staff Characteristics

Surveys staff and training issues

7. Evaluation

Examines the extent to which the system emphasizes/encourages research and evaluation activities

8. Other

Assesses emphasis on ethical concerns and securityof programme funding

In a relatively large scale review ofy o u ng o f f e n d e r p ro g r a m m e s in o n ejurisdiction, Hoge, Leschied and Andrews(1993) r eview ed o ver o ne hundre dprogrammes measured on the extent andnature of their components on the CPAI.
The results of this study were telling.
Data reflected the range of programmecomponents that were available. Table 2
summarizes the scale scores of the CPAI

93

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 59
a s a f u nc tio n o f t he lo c a ti o n o f th e
programmes (i.e. custody, probation)
Scores on the important scales from the
CPAI tended to be in the community(characterized as Community Support
Te ams) opp ose d to custody. Further
analysis using a measure such as the
CPAI can identify training a nd staff
needs, movement of service fro mresidential to community and approaches
in capitalizing on the strengths of certain
programmes. While the authors would
defer that measures such as the CPAI
should not be held as a ‘gold standard’,n o n e th e le ss , su ch a m e a su re h o ld s
promise in assessing programmes on abroad scale.
F. Issues in Dissemination andTraining
As program mes generally, andcorrectional programmes in particularmove to higher levels of accountability,
the mo vem ent toward s standa rd s o fpractice and compliance reviews will be
encoura ged. Indeed, in the next tw oyears, Correctional Services Canada withthe support of the Home Office in the
United Kingdom will be moving towards
adopting a set of standards to guide thecontent and delivery of programmes. The
increasing challenge therefore will be tomove the developing knowledge to thefield in order to implement effective
correctional practices.
Access to that knowledge is an ongoing challenge, both to those who arepartners in developing it, and also to
those practitioners who are trying toaccess it. The tradition of developing
knowledge, only to have it published inrelatively obscure academic journals readby few will, arguably, not move the field
dramatically in developing innovative
stra tegies. I nde ed, this tradition o f
distancing knowledge from the field inviewing publication as the end of94

knowledge development rather than the
beginning, may be an answer to Cullenet.al.’s query as to why so many in thecorrection’s field lack familiarity withk n o w l e d g e i n th e a r e a o f e f f e c ti v e
co rrections. A major challenge incorrections therefore will be to look to
innovative ways to communicate what is
known in order to support change at thepolicy and practitioner level. Increasing
the availability of knowledge is perhaps
the single largest challenge in this area.
Four innovations in communication incorrections are worth note as examples.
1. RCJNet is a list serve website thatcom municatestonumerousc o r re c ti o n s p r o c e s si o n a l s a b o u tknowledge in the corrections field.
Currently managed by Irving Kulik of
CSC, the service provides website
links, summaries of recent justice
documents, or summaries of researchthat may be of interest. Using latest
te c h no l o gy , R C J N e t s e r ve s as aclearinghouse for current corrections
information. The Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention(O JJ D P) out of W ashington D .C.
serves a similar purpose in the U.S. inmaking current documents available
on line for wide spread dissemination.
2. The National Institute of Justice(NIJ) has initiated a distancee d uc a tio n p r o gr a m m e p ro v id in glearning opportunities to correctional
professionals through a system ofcentres connected through satellitelink ed co mm unica tions syste ms.
Fr om a single so urc e , unlim ite dnumbers of practitioners and policy
makers across a limitless geographic
area can interact with the leaders in
the field in hearing of new
programme or policy ideas.
3. The London Family Court Clinic,
along with Multi-Systemic Therapy
Services Incorporated in Charleston,

118TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSSouth Carolina has developed aninteractive website that links MST
team s a cro ss North Ame rica a nd
Europe. Practitioners using MST areable to communicate with one anotherwith respect to promising therapeutic
approaches or clinical issues that may
arise in the course of service delivery.
Recently, the development of an MST
clinical team in Norway was able tolink to the Ontario teams. Collegial
supervision takes on new meaning inthis era of expanding technology!
4. The Toronto-Based Institute for AntiS ocia l and Violent Yo uth (I AV Y )directed by Jalal Shamsie has, forclose to twenty-five years, provided an
extracting and commentary service on
articles of particular interest to theyoung offender field. Such services
help to focus and sum marize
information of particular currency
and relevance to the f ield byreviewing articles from major
journals.
G. Summary and Conclusion
Implementation of programmes in aspolitically-charged context as corrections
finds itself is a challenging prospect.
What corrections professionals havegoing for them however is a knowledge
base that supports certain programmes
and policies over others with the goal
towards increasing community safety andlessening human misery. This chapter
ha s highlighte d the ma jor issues in
implementation as being:•

An acknowledgement of the literatureon what works for eff ective
corrections and policy practices. This
litera ture highlights a ppropriate
assessment strategies that increase
the potential for interventions to beclinically relevant to factors that
influence criminogenic risk.

•

•

•

Identification of contextual factorsthat can influence the probability thatpr ogr amm e in nov atio n will be
successfully introduced. These factors
in c l u d e l e a d e r s h i p s u p p o r t f o r
implementation, staff competence andgoa l cla rifi ca ti on for the rea sonsbehind implementation. It is suggested
that a multi-level systems analysis isnecessary to fully comprehend thecomplexities of systems change. The
four levels of analysis should include
an understanding of the needs of thecl ie n t , p r o gr a m m e , a g e n cy , a ndsociety.
Specific contextual factors influence
successful implementation. Current
knowledge suggests that different
factors influence successful communityb a s e d i m p l e m e n ta ti o n v e r s us
residential-based implementation.
Measures have been developed tomo nitor the d egr ee of suc cess inprogramme implementation. These
include measures for both treatment
adherence and programme compliance.
Finally, training and dissemination is
now considered the greatest challenge
f a c i ng i m p l e m e n t a t io n i n t h ecorrections field. The nothing works
debate is now recognized as serving animportant purpose in focussing efforts
in developing the current extent of
kno w le d ge o n ef f e ctive p r a ctice .
However, as many have cited, thenothing works debate is now over.
Arguably what could shape the next
generation of corrections professionals
is the challenge of communicating theknowledge on effective strategies top r a c t it io n e r s . U si n g c u r re nt
technology, clearinghouse extracting
services, the internet and interactive
communication technology are all
examples of methods in communicatingthat knowledge to those who makede cisions b oth fo r p o licy a nd f orpractice.

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 59
References
Andrews, D.A., A.W. Leschied and R.D.
Hoge. A review of the profile, prediction
and treatment literature with young
off enders: A social psychologicalapproach, Toronto: Ministry ofCommunity and Social Services, 1992.
Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R.D.,
Bonta, J., G endreau, P. & Cullen, F.
( 19 9 0) . D oes corre ctiona l trea tment
work? A clinically-relevant andpsychologically-informed metanalysis.
Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J.(1998). The
psychology of criminal conduct. (Second
Edition) Anderson Publishing,
Cincinnati, OH.
Bauman, L.J., Bauman, Stein, R.E.K. &Reys, H.T. (1991). Reinventing fidelity:
The transfer of social technology among
settings. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 19, 619-639.
Cullen, F.T., Wright, J.P., Brown, S.,
M o o n , M . M . , B l a n k e n sh i p , M . B . &Applegate, B.K. (1998). Attitudes toward
prevention. Crime and Delinquency, 2,
187-204.
Department of Justice Canada. A
Strategy for the Renewal of Youth Justice,
Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada,
1998.
E ll i ckson, P. & Pe te rsi l ia , J .(1 98 3 ).
Im plem enting new idea s in criminal
justice. S anta Monica CA: The Rand
Corporation.
Fixsen, D.L., Olivier, K.A., & Blase, D.A.
( 19 9 0 ). H om e-b a s ed, fa m il y centre d
treatment for children. Unpublishedm anuscrip t. Hull Child & Fam ily
Services.

96

Gendreau, P. and Andrews, D.A. (1996).
Correctional Programme Assessment
Inventory. University of New Brunswick,
St. John NB.
Gendreau, P. and C. Goggin. Correctional
Treatment: Accomplishments andRealities. In P. VanVoorhis, M. Braswelland D. Lester (Eds.), Correc tionalCounselling, 3rd Edition, Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing Co., pp. 271-280,
1997.
Gendreau, P. a nd Ross, R.R. (19 79).
Effective correctional treatment:
Bibliotherap y f or cynics. C rime andDelinquency, 21, 463-489.
Hare, R. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised. Toronto, ON. Multi
Health Systems.
Harris, P. & Smith, S. (1996). Developing
co mmunity
corrections:An
Implementation perspective. In A.T.
Harland (ed .) Choo sing correcti onal
options that work: Defining the demandand evaluating the supply. Thousand
Oaks, CA. Sage Publ. Pps. 183-222.
Heng g eler, S ., S choenwa ld, S.K .,Bou rduin, C.M., Rowlan d, M.D. &Cunningham, P.B. (1998) Multisystemictreatm ent of antisocial behaviour i nchildren and adolescents. The Guildford
Press, New York, NY.
Henggeler, S.W., Melton, G.B., Brondino,
M .J . , S ch er e r, D . G . & H a n l e y, J . H.
(1 9 9 7 ). M ul t i s yste m ic t he ra py w i t hviolent and chronic juvenile offenders andtheir families: The role of treatment
fidelity and successful dissemination.
Jo urna l o f C o nsul t in g a nd C l ini ca l
Psychology, 5, 821-833.
Hoge, R.D., Leschied, A.W. & Andrews,
D.A. (1993). An investigation of young

118TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSo f f e nd e r s er v i ce s i n t he p ro v i nc e o f
Ontario: A report of the repeat offender
project. M inistry of Comm unity a nd
Social Services, Toronto, ON.
Hoge, R.D., Andrews, D.A. & Leschied,
A.W. (1995). The Risk/Need Inventory.
The Ministry of Community and Social
Services, Toronto, ON.
Huizinga, D.H., Menard, S. & Elliott,
D.S. (1989). Delinquency and drug use:
Temporal and developmental patterns.
Justice Quarterly, 6,3, 419-455.
K a z d i n, A . E . & W e i sz , J .R . ( 1 9 9 8 ) .
Identifying and developing empiricallysupp orted child and adolescenttreatments. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 66,1, 19-36
Leschied, A. W., & Gendreau, P. (1986).
The declining role of rehabilitation in
Canadian juvenile justice: Implications ofunderlying theory in the Young Offenders
Act. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 28,
315-322. Also in T. O’Reilly-Fleming & B.
Clark (Eds.) (1993 ), Youth injustice:
Canadian perspectives (pp. 39-47). Toronto,
ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Leschied, A. W., & Jaffe, P. G. (1986).
Implications of the consent to treatment
section of the Young Offenders Act: A
case study. Canadian Psychology, 27,
312-313.
Leschied, A. W., & Gendreau, P. (1986).
The declining role of rehabilitation in
Canadian juvenile justice: Implications ofunderlying theory in the Young Offenders
Act. Canadian Journal of Criminology,
28, 315-322. Also in T. O’Reilly-Fleming& B. Clark (Eds.) (1993), Youth injustice:C a na di a n p e r s p e ct i v e s ( p p . 3 9 - 4 7 ) .
Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press
Inc.

Leschied, A.W. a nd Cunningha m, A.
(1999) Clinical trials of Multisystemicth e r a p y in O n t a r io : R a t io n a l e a n dcurrent status of a community-basedalternative for high risk young offenders.
Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 2530.
Lipsey, M. (1995). What do we learn from
400 research studies on the effectivenessof treatment with juvenile delinquents. In
J. MacGuire (ed.) What Works: Reducing
Offending. John and Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, UK. pps. 63-78.
Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (1998).
E f f e ct iv e i n te r v e n ti o n s f o r se r i o u s
j u v e n i le o f f e n d e r s : A s y n t h e s e s o f
research. In R. Loeber and D.P.
Farrington (eds.) Serious and violent
offenders: Risk factors and successfulinterventions. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage
Publ. pps. 313-366.
Losel, F. (1998). Treatm ent andmanagement of psychopaths. In D .J.
C oo k e , A . F or th & R .B . H a re ( ed s. )Psy ch op a thy : The ory , R esea rc h a nd
Implications for Society. The Hague:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, pps. 303354.
M a r ti ns o n, R . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . W ha t w o r k s :Questions and answers about prison
reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
P a l m e r , T . 1 9 9 6 ) . P r o gr a m m a t ic a n d
Nonprogrammatic aspects of successful
implementation. In A.T. Harland (ed.)
Choosing correctional options that work:
Defining the demand and evaluating the
supply. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA. pps. 131-182.
Shamsie, J. (1979). Our treatments do notwork, where do we go from here?
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 59
S hore, L.B . (1 991 ). S uccess ful
programmes: From moving models tomoving mountains. Presented to the“Empowering Families” Conference. St.
Louis, Missouri. December, 7.
Simourd, D. & Van de Ven, J. (1999).
Ass essment of crimin al attitudes:
Criterion-related validity of the criminal
sentiments scale-modified and pride in
delinquency scale. Criminal Justice andBehaviour, 1, 90-106.
Wells, L.E. (1991). The utility of metaanalysis in criminal justice research.
P a p er p re se nte d a t the A ca d em y o f
Criminal Justice Sciences M eetings,
Nashville, TN.

98