J u s t i c e Re s e a R c h

National Institute of Justice

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

AUGUST 2014 William J. Sabol • Acting Director, NIJ Robert L. Listenbee • Administrator, OJJDP

CHANGING LIVES: PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION TO 

REDUCE SERIOUS OFFENDING

Decades of study have revealed much about risk factors for 

delinquency and crime. Individual characteristics and various 

factors can increase the probability of offending and may also 

predict substance abuse, teenage pregnancy, dropping out of school and other 

problems during adolescence and early adulthood. Because risk factors can 

predict future criminal behavior, prevention and intervention programs focus 

on mitigating them in a young person’s life. In addition, longitudinal studies 

have identified protective factors that inhibit criminal behavior. Programs that 

strengthen these protective factors can reduce the risk of delinquency. Most 

prevention and intervention programs that address risk factors have not been 

adequately evaluated, but high-quality studies are emerging. Randomized 

controlled trials and other rigorous studies have shown that many of these 

programs have positive effects on offending in addition to other outcomes. 

This bulletin focuses on the highest quality evaluation 

studies and research reviews. Grouped by program 

focus — family, school, peers and community, 

individual, employment — the bulletin assesses early 

childhood, juvenile, and early adulthood programs 

that have demonstrated measurable impacts on 

offending in early adulthood or up to age 29.

Family-Based Programs

Family-based programs target risk factors such 

as poor child rearing. Psychologists deliver some 

programs; public health professionals deliver others. 

This section discusses programs for young children 

and for adjudicated delinquents.

Young Children

Only a few programs that focus on early childhood 

have demonstrated that they have an impact on 

reducing offending in early adulthood. One was 

a parent training program that yielded positive 

results for young children but showed no impact for 

participants when they were between ages 16 and 21.

This publication summarizes Bulletin 6: Changing Lives: Prevention and 

Intervention to Reduce Serious Offending by Brandon C. Welsh, Mark W. 

Lipsey, Frederick P. Rivara, J. David Hawkins, Steve Aos, Meghan E. Peel and 

David Petechuk, NCJ 242936, available at NCJRS.gov. Bulletin 6 is one in a 

series of bulletins prepared for Transitions From Juvenile to Adult: Papers From 

the Study Group on Transitions From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime.

The study group was led by David Farrington and Rolf Loeber under award 

number 2008-IJ-CX-K402; to learn more, visit NIJ.gov, keyword “Transitions 

to Adulthood.” This summary was written by Phil Bulman, a staff writer at NIJ. 

See full bulletin for source citations.
2 n J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h

The best-known home visiting program, and the 

only one with a direct measure of delinquency, is 

the Nurse-Family Partnership initially carried out in 

Elmira, N.Y. Four hundred first-time mothers were 

randomly assigned to receive home visits from nurses 

during pregnancy or during the child’s first two years 

or to a control group that received no visits. Nurses 

visited mothers in the experimental groups every two 

weeks, advising them on prenatal and postnatal care, 

infant development, the importance of nutrition, and 

avoiding smoking and drinking during pregnancy.

Results showed that postnatal visits — particularly to 

poor, unmarried teenage mothers — were associated 

with a significant decrease in reported abuse and 

neglect during the child’s first two years. In a 15-year 

follow-up, significantly fewer experimental group 

mothers were identified as committing child abuse 

and neglect. By age 15, children of the higher risk 

mothers in the experimental group had significantly 

fewer arrests than controls. By age 19, girls in the 

experimental group had significantly fewer arrests, 

and girls of the higher risk mothers had significantly 

fewer children of their own and less Medicaid use. 

However, few effects were observed for boys.

Adjudicated Delinquents

Multisystemic Therapy

This therapy, designed for serious juvenile offenders, 

may include individual, family, peer, school and 

community interventions, including parent training 

and other skill-building sessions. It is often referred 

to as family-based treatment. Three evaluations 

of randomized experiments have measured the 

impact of multisystemic therapy on offending in 

early adulthood (the experimental groups received 

multisystemic therapy).

• Substance-abusing offenders: 118 substanceabusing juvenile offenders received either 

multisystemic therapy or the usual community 

services. The mean age at treatment was 15.7 and 

at follow-up was 19.6. The experimental group had 

significantly lower yearly conviction rates than did 

the controls for violent crimes but not for property 

crimes. Effects on long-term drug use were mixed, 

with higher rates of marijuana abstinence for the 

experimental group but no effect on cocaine use.

• Violent offenders: 176 serious and violent juvenile 

offenders received either multisystemic therapy or 

individual therapy. The mean age at treatment was 

13.7 and at follow-up was 28.8. The experimental 

group had significantly lower recidivism rates than 

did the controls (50 percent versus 81 percent), 

including lower rates of rearrest for violent offenses 

(14 percent versus 30 percent). Experimental 

participants also had 54 percent fewer arrests and 

57 percent fewer days of confinement in adult 

detention facilities.

• Sex offenders: 48 high-risk juvenile sex offenders 

received either multisystemic therapy or the usual 

community services. The mean age at treatment 

was 14 and at follow-up was 22.9. The experimental 

group reported lower recidivism rates than did the 

controls for sexual (8 percent versus 46 percent) 

and nonsexual (29 percent versus 58 percent) 

crimes. Experimental participants also had 70 

percent fewer arrests for all crimes and spent 80 

percent fewer days in detention facilities.

Functional Family Therapy

This approach modifies patterns of family interaction 

through modeling and reinforcement to encourage 

clear communication and minimize conflict. A 

long-term follow-up of a randomized experiment 

involving 54 juvenile offenders compared family 

therapy with probation services. The mean age at 

treatment was 15.4 for the experimental group and 

15.3 for the control group. Most were between ages 

20 and 22 at follow-up. Family therapy participants 

reported a lower rate of rearrest compared with their 

control counterparts.

THE NURSE-FAMILY PARTNERSHIP: FROM 

TRIALS TO INTERNATIONAL REPLICATION 

See the founder of the Nurse-Family Partnership, 

David Olds, Ph.D., discuss the program during 

a Research for the Real World seminar at 

NIJ.gov, keyword “nurse-family olds interview.”
J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h n 3

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care

This approach includes both individual therapeutic 

care for adolescents in foster care and training in 

parent management skills. A short-term follow-up 

of a randomized experiment involving 81 serious 

and chronic female juvenile offenders compared 

multidimensional treatment with group care. The age 

at treatment was between 13 and 17 and at follow-up 

was between 15 and 19. Multidimensional care was 

more effective than group care as measured by days 

in locked settings, number of criminal referrals and 

self-reported delinquency.

A two-year follow-up of a randomized experiment 

involving 79 adolescent males compared 

multidimensional treatment to group home care. 

The age at treatment was between 12 and 17 and at 

follow-up was between 16 and 19. Multidimensional 

treatment was significantly more effective than 

group home care as measured by referrals for violent 

offending and self-reports of violent behavior. Only 

5 percent of participants in the multidimensional 

program had two or more criminal referrals for 

violent offenses compared with 24 percent of the 

group home adolescents.

School-Based Prevention Programs

Only three school-based prevention programs have 

demonstrated that they have an impact on reducing 

offending in early adulthood: the Seattle Social 

Development Project, the Montreal LongitudinalExperimental Study and the Good Behavior Game.

Seattle Social Development Project

This project combines parent training, teacher 

training and skills training for children. About 500 

first-graders were randomly assigned to experimental 

or control classes in the original study. Parents 

and teachers in the experimental classes received 

child management instruction designed to increase 

children’s attachment to parents and their bonding 

to school. They also learned how to teach children 

positive ways to solve problems.

A follow-up at age 18 found that the group that 

participated in the full program through grade six 

reported significantly less violence, less alcohol 

abuse and fewer sexual partners than the group 

that participated in grades five and six only or the 

control group. In the latest follow-up, the group 

that participated in grades one through six reported 

significantly better educational and economic 

attainment and mental and sexual health by age 27, 

but no effects were found for substance abuse or 

criminal activity at ages 24 or 27.

Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Study

This study combined skills training, parent training 

and teacher support. About 250 disruptive 6-yearolds from low socioeconomic neighborhoods were 

assigned randomly to two groups, experimental and 

control. The experimental group learned how to 

improve social skills and self-control. Coaching, peer 

modeling, role playing and reinforcement strategies 

were used in small group sessions at school. Parents 

were trained in parent management, family crisis 

management and techniques for nonpunitive and 

consistent discipline. 

By age 12, three years after the end of treatment, 

the boys in the experimental group committed 

significantly less burglary and theft and were 

significantly less likely to get drunk or get into 

fights than the boys in the control group. The 

experimental boys also had significantly higher 

school achievement. At every age from 10 to 15, 

the experimental boys had significantly lower 

self-reported delinquency scores than the control 

boys. The differences in delinquency between the 

two groups increased as the follow-up progressed. 

However, the experimental boys were only slightly 

less likely to have a juvenile court record up to 

age 15 (7 percent compared with 9 percent). The 

experimental boys were also less likely to be gang 

members or to get drunk or take drugs but were 

not significantly less likely than the controls to have 

intercourse by age 15.

The latest follow-up was a criminal record check at 

age 24. Those in the experimental group were less 

likely to have a record than their control counterparts 

(22 percent compared with 33 percent).
4 n J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h

Good Behavior Game

The Good Behavior Game encourages children 

to learn how to regulate their own and their 

classmates’ behavior. In an experimental study in 

19 urban elementary schools in Baltimore, firstgrade students were randomly assigned to groups 

that had equal numbers of disruptive children. The 

two-year program began with tangible rewards, such 

as stickers, for entire groups that exhibited good 

behavior. Eventually, they moved to less tangible 

rewards such as longer recess times. 

After one year, teachers and peers rated the 

experimental students as less aggressive and shy than 

control students. The most positive effects were for 

students rated most aggressive at baseline. Among 

boys with the highest baseline aggression ratings, the 

positive effects endured through sixth grade. 

Between ages 19 and 21, male participants in the 

highest risk group engaged in significantly less violent 

and criminal behavior than their control counterparts 

(34 percent compared with 50 percent). They also had 

significantly lower rates of drug dependence.

Peer- and Community-Focused 

Programs

Peer-focused programs to prevent offending 

concentrate on reducing the influence of delinquent 

friends and increasing the influence of healthier 

friends. There are no outstanding examples of 

effective intervention programs for delinquency and 

later offending based on peer risk factors.

Children at Risk

The most important prevention program whose 

success seems to be based mainly on reducing peer 

risk factors is the Children at Risk program, which 

targeted high-risk adolescents with an average age of 

12 who lived in poor neighborhoods of five American 

cities. Participants were identified in schools and 

randomly assigned to experimental or control groups. 

Initial reports were disappointing, but a one-year 

follow-up showed that, according to self-reports, 

experimental participants were less likely to have 

committed violent crimes or sold drugs.

Mentoring Programs

Community-based prevention covers a wide array of 

programs such as after-school programs, mentoring, 

youth groups and resident groups. Although evidence 

is insufficient to support claims that after-school 

programs are effective, mentoring programs have 

been shown to produce a significant 10-percent 

reduction in offending on average. Mentoring is more 

effective when the average duration of each contact 

between mentor and mentee is greater and when 

mentoring is combined with other interventions. 

However, no studies have included follow-ups in the 

early adult years.

Communities That Care

Communities That Care and other comprehensive 

community initiatives work to bring together key 

people to target a range of risk factors. Findings 

from a randomized controlled trial involving 4,400 

students in 24 American communities found that 

the program significantly reduced the initiation of 

delinquent behavior and both alcohol and cigarette 

use between grades five and eight. However, there are 

no follow-ups into early adulthood.

Individual-Level Programs

These programs target individual-level risk factors 

for offending in early childhood, adolescence and 

early adulthood. They may focus on intellectual 

stimulation for preschool children, social skills 

training that targets traits such as impulsivity and 

low empathy in childhood, or treatment of substance 

abuse and improving mental health in young adults. 

Several preschool programs have demonstrated that 

they have an impact on reducing offending in early 

adulthood. 

Perry Preschool Project

The Perry Preschool project included 123 children in 

Ypsilanti, Mich., who were divided into experimental 

and control groups. Children in the experimental 

group attended a daily preschool program, backed up 

by weekly home visits, when they were ages 3 and 4. 

The goal was to provide intellectual stimulation that 
J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h n 5

would increase their thinking and reasoning abilities 

and lead to later school achievement.

The program had long-term benefits. At age 19, 

subjects in the experimental group were more likely 

to be employed, to have graduated from high school 

and to have received college or vocational training 

and were less likely to be arrested. By age 27, the 

experimental group had only half as many arrests 

as the controls, an average of 2.3 compared with 

4.6. They were more likely to have graduated from 

high school, had significantly higher earnings and 

were more likely to be homeowners. Among female 

participants in the experimental group, more were 

married, and fewer of their children were born out of 

wedlock.

The most recent follow-up, which included 91 percent 

of the original sample at age 40, found important 

differences between the experimental and control 

groups. Participants in the experimental group had 

significantly fewer lifetime arrests for violent crimes 

(32 percent compared with 48 percent), property 

crimes (36 percent compared with 58 percent) and 

drug crimes (14 percent compared with 34 percent) 

and were significantly less likely to have been 

arrested five or more times (36 percent compared 

with 55 percent). In addition, they had significantly 

higher levels of schooling (77 percent graduated 

from high school compared with 60 percent), better 

employment records and higher incomes.

Child-Parent Center Program

The Child-Parent Center program gave disadvantaged 

children ages 3 and 4 an active learning preschool 

program and family support. Educational enrichment 

continued into elementary school up to age 9. The 

program operated in 24 centers in impoverished 

Chicago neighborhoods. An evaluation found 

that, compared with the control group, those in 

the program group were significantly less likely to 

be arrested for any offense (17 percent compared 

with 25 percent). They also had lower rates of 

multiple offenses and violent offenses at age 18 and 

a significantly higher rate of high school completion 

(50 percent compared with 39 percent). At age 

24, participants in the experimental group had 

significantly lower rates of felony arrests (17 percent 

compared with 21 percent) and lower rates of 

incarceration (21 percent compared with 26 percent).

Carolina Abecedarian Project

The Carolina Abecedarian Project targeted 111 lowincome children, 98 percent of whom were African 

American, deemed to come from multirisk families. 

The experimental group received full-time preschool 

care in addition to social services; the control group 

received only social services. At age 21, fewer of those 

in the experimental group reported misdemeanor 

or felony arrests or incarceration. Also, significantly 

fewer were marijuana users or had become teenage 

parents, and significantly more had attended college 

or university.

Employment-Based Training 

Programs

These programs for adolescents and young adults 

focus on increasing employment rates among people 

at risk of serious offending.

Intensive Residential Training Programs

Job Corps is the only residential program that has 

demonstrated desirable effects on offending in early 

adulthood. It also has positive effects on subsequent 

earnings.

Job Corps improves the employability of at-risk 

young people (ages 16-24) by offering vocational 

training, education and health care. It serves about 

60,000 people annually. A three-year follow-up of a 

WORK AS A POSSIBLE NEGATIVE INFLUENCE

Many studies support the importance of employment in fostering desistance from 

crime and substance abuse, but some studies have found full-time employment may 

actually decrease the likelihood of desistance. Some researchers have wondered if 

employment for those who have strong criminal propensities may actually provide 

more opportunities to steal.
6 n J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h

randomized experiment that included 15,400 people 

found that Job Corps produced statistically significant 

reductions in criminal activity, improved educational 

attainment and greater earnings. The arrest rate 

among participants was 29 percent compared with 

33 percent for control counterparts. Tax data analysis 

showed that earnings gains continued for the oldest 

participants eight years after completing the program.

Ex-Offender Job Training for Older Males

These programs may be useful for those who are old 

enough to be “aging out” of crime. Few evaluations 

of programs that serve this population exist. Two 

programs from the 1970s that reduced offending in 

early adulthood were the Supported Work program 

and the Baltimore Life Experiment. One analysis 

found that the Supported Work program was highly 

effective at reducing offending and improving 

employment for ex-offenders older than age 26, but 

not for younger participants.

Transition to Adulthood

Few studies have examined the impact of 

interventions on criminal behavior outcomes 

during the transition from late adolescence to early 

adulthood. Most focus exclusively on juvenile or adult 

populations, but results are largely consistent. Four 

interventions with ample studies show effectiveness: 

1. Cognitive behavioral therapy produces on 

average a 22-percent reduction in offending rates. 

Most studies focus on either juveniles or adults. 

There is no reason to expect that this approach 

would be any less effective among offenders in the 

transitional age group.

2. Educational, vocational and employment 

programs show mixed results. Some find a modest 

10-percent decrease in offending, others find the 

mean effect to be about 20 percent, and still others 

have found no effect on reoffending rates.

3. Substance abuse treatment is commonly provided 

to offenders, and treatment programs produce 

a range of positive effects, from about 4- to 

20-percent reductions in reoffending rates.

4. Treatment for sex offenders varies, and analyses 

of effectiveness have all looked broadly at this 

category of program rather than at specific 

interventions. Reductions in general reoffending 

rates (not limited to sex crimes) range from 24 to 

36 percent.

Costs and Benefits

The financial benefits of programs often outweigh 

their costs, as they both reduce offending in the 

young adult years and save money in the long run. 

According to research conducted by the Washington 

State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP), this was 

true of multidimensional treatment foster care ($8 

saved per $1 expended), functional family therapy 

($10 saved per $1 expended), multisystemic therapy 

($3 saved per $1 expended), vocational education 

in prison ($12 saved per $1 expended), cognitivebehavioral therapy in prison ($22 saved per $1 

expended), drug treatment in prison ($6 saved per 

$1 expended), and employment training in the 

community ($12 saved per $1 expended).

See table 1 for WSIPP’s 2009 analysis of the benefits 

and costs of selected well-researched programs 

intended to reduce criminal reoffending of juvenile 

and young adult offenders. For WSIPP’s current costbenefit analyses, see http://www.wsipp.wa.gov. 
J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h n 7

TABLE 1: Estimates of the benefits and costs of selected evidence-based programs for juvenile and young adult offenders 

Program 

Expected Effects Benefits and Costs (2009 Dollars)

% Change, 

Reoffense # of Studies 

Total 

Benefits per 

Participant

Benefits to 

Taxpayers

Benefits to 

Victims

Total Cost per 

Participant

Total Benefits 

÷ Costs

Total Benefits 

– Costs

Juvenile Setting

Multidimensional 

Treatment Foster Care -18% 3 $59,275 $13,544 $45,731 $7,418 $7.99 $51,857 

Functional Family Therapy -18 7 32,248 8,463 23,785 3,134 10.29 29,114 

Family Integrated 

Transitions -10 1 33,770 7,716 26,054 10,795 3.13 22,975 

Adolescent Diversion 

Project -28 6 21,434 5,507 15,927 2,116 10.13 19,318 

Multisystemic Therapy -13 9 23,112 6,065 17,047 7,076 3.27 16,036 

Aggression Replacement 

Training -9 4 15,325 4,022 11,303 1,449 10.58 13,876 

Restorative Justice, 

low-risk offenders -10 14 7,820 2,009 5,811 972 8.04 6,848 

Coordination of Services -2 14 3,402 893 2,509 379 8.98 3,023 

Adult Setting

Vocational Education in 

Prison -10% 4 $15,470 $4,763 $10,707 $1,296 $11.94 $14,174 

Intensive Supervision, with 

treatment -18 11 20,617 6,262 14,355 7,878 2.62 12,739 

Education in Prison, basic 

or post-secondary -8 17 13,128 4,042 9,086 1,055 12.45 12,073 

Cognitive Behavioral 

Programs in Prison -7 27 11,204 3,450 7,754 517 21.69 10,687 

Drug Treatment in 

Community -9 6 9,999 3,037 6,962 629 15.89 9,370 

Drug Treatment in Prison -6 21 10,195 3,139 7,056 1,758 5.80 8,437 

Drug Courts -9 67 9,869 3,375 6,494 4,792 2.06 5,077 

Job Training/Assistance in 

Community -5 16 5,238 1,591 3,647 438 11.96 4,800 

Intensive Supervision, 

surveillance only -2 23 1,769 537 1,232 4,144 0.43 -2,375 

Note: All monetary figures are life-cycle present values; the discount rate used was 3 percent. All figures estimated with WSIPP’s benefit-cost model. The benefits to taxpayers and 

program costs are estimated for Washington state taxpayers. The benefits to crime victims are estimated with victim cost information representing the United States. All estimates 

were calculated in April 2010. 
8 n J u s t i c e R e s e a r c h

The National Institute of Justice and the Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

are components of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics; the Office for Victims of Crime; 

and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 

Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, 

and Tracking (SMART).

Points of view or opinions expressed in this 

document are those of the author and do not 

necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of NIJ, OJJDP, or the U.S. Department 

of Justice.

NCJ 243993

Program Effectiveness

NIJ’s CrimeSolutions.gov uses proven research to 

determine what works in criminal justice, juvenile 

justice and crime victim services. CrimeSolutions.gov 

rates some of the programs discussed in this 

summary as being effective or promising in reducing 

serious crime rates among young people (see table 2).

TABLE 2: Evidence ratings from CrimeSolutions.gov

Title Evidence Rating

Effective

Multisystemic therapy

Functional family therapy

Multidimensional treatment foster care

Nurse-Family Partnership

Good Behavior Game

Perry Preschool Project

Promising

Communities That Care

Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Study

Child-Parent Center

Job Corps programs

Note: A rating with one icon denotes programs evaluated in one study or 

meta-analysis. A rating with multiple icons denotes programs evaluated 

across multiple studies.