U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

From the Administrator

Although research indicates that intervention programs can reduce overall

recidivism rates among juvenile offenders, inadequate attention has

been paid to their impact on serious

juvenile offenders.

This Bulletin describes a meta-analysis

that addresses the following questions:

Can intervention programs reduce recidivism rates among serious delinquents? If so, what types of programs

are most effective?

While the effects measured across

the 200 studies reviewed varied considerably, there was an overall decrease of 12 percent in recidivism for

serious juvenile offenders who received treatment interventions.

The Bulletin describes the intervention

programs that showed the strongest,

most consistent impact on recidivism

for serious juvenile offenders. The most

effective interventions were interpersonal skills training, individual counseling, and behavioral programs for

noninstitutionalized offenders, and

interpersonal skills training and

community-based, family-type group

homes for institutionalized offenders.

The information provided by this Bulletin

and by the final report of OJJDP’s

Study Group on Serious and Violent

Juvenile Offenders, cited by the authors

as a resource, should guide efforts to

provide effective intervention programs

for serious juvenile offenders.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

April 2000

◆ Can intervention programs reduce recidivism rates among serious delinquents?

◆ If so, what types of programs are most

effective?

The Bulletin describes the procedures used

to select studies for the meta-analysis,

presents the methods of analysis used to

answer the above questions, and then discusses effective interventions for noninstitutionalized and institutionalized offenders.

Selection Procedures

The results reported here were derived

by updating a previously conducted metaanalysis of the effects of intervention on

delinquency (Lipsey, 1992, 1995) with more

recent studies. A subset of studies on serious offenders was selected from that metaanalysis, yielding 200 experimental or quasiexperimental studies of interventions for

both noninstitutionalized and institutionalized serious offenders. The studies selected

for the new database had the following

characteristics:

◆ The great majority, or all, of the juveniles were reported to be adjudicated

delinquents. Most had records of prior

offenses that involved person or property crimes or other, more serious,

acts of delinquency (but not primarily

substance abuse, status offenses, or

traffic offenses).

Effective Intervention

for Serious Juvenile

Offenders

Mark W. Lipsey, David B. Wilson, and Lynn Cothern

Effective intervention plays an essential

role in any strategy designed to diminish

the rates of juvenile delinquency. Individuals who are employed in the juvenile justice system use intervention as an important component of dispositional sanctions

imposed in juvenile cases. This is particularly true for the treatment of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders (serious offenders) who have the potential for

long and harmful criminal careers and

who, absent effective interventions, are

likely to recidivate while at the age for

peak offending.

Which interventions are most effective in

dealing with the serious offender? Although

recent research reviews have shown that

some intervention programs result in lowered recidivism among youthful offenders,

the reviews have only asked whether intervention is generally effective (Andrews et

al., 1990; Cullen and Gilbert, 1982; Garrett,

1985; Gendreau and Ross, 1987; Lipsey,

1992; Palmer, 1994). Little systematic attention has been given to the effectiveness

of interventions with distinct types of offenders, and little intervention research

has looked specifically at serious offenders.

This Bulletin presents the results of a

meta-analysis (a systematic synthesis of

quantitative research results) that posed

two questions:
2

◆ For noninstitutionalized juveniles, the

interventions studied included counseling, skill-oriented programs, and multiple services (combinations of services

or treatments that involved several different approaches). For institutionalized juveniles, they included counseling,

skill-oriented programs, and community

residential programs. Treatments usually lasted 1 to 30 weeks and involved

continuous contact or sessions that

ranged from once or twice per week to

daily, for 1/2 hour to 10 hours per week.

◆ Almost half of the studies used random

assignment to experimental conditions;

many of the others used some form of

matching. Control groups typically received the usual treatment (e.g., regular

probation or institutional programs).

The recidivism outcome variables that

were measured most frequently were

police contact or arrest, court contact,

or parole violations.

Recidivism Effect Size

Only one recidivism outcome measure was

selected from each study. Police contact or

arrest was selected if it was available; otherwise, officially recorded contact with juvenile court or offense-based probation violations were used because they are the most

comparable to police arrest. The difference

between the treatment and control groups

on the selected recidivism measure was calculated for each study and standardized so

that different measures could be compared.

Overall, juveniles who received treatment

showed an average 12-percent decrease in

recidivism. This result, while not enormous,

was positive, statistically significant, and

large enough to be meaningful. More important, however, was the large variability in

◆ The referral to the intervention program

was made by someone within the juvenile justice system, or the juveniles were

recruited directly by the researcher.

Other studies included were those in which

most or all of the juveniles in the study

had aggressive histories or those whose

specific purpose was to change aggressive juvenile behavior.

Methods of Analysis

and Findings

Profile of Studies in the

Database

The pool of studies selected for the metaanalytic database shared the following

features:

◆ They were conducted in the United

States by psychologists, criminologists,

or sociologists and were published

after 1970.

◆ The sample populations were largely

male, mostly white or of mixed ethnicity,

with an average age of 14 to 17 years.

Most of the juveniles had prior offenses.

In two-thirds of the samples, some or all

of the juveniles had a history of aggressive behavior.

◆ In most of the samples, juveniles were

under the supervision of the juvenile

justice system and were receiving

court-ordered intervention. In one-third

of the sample groups, juvenile justice

personnel administered treatment. In

one-fifth of the groups, treatment was

administered by mental health personnel in public or private agencies. In the

remainder of the groups, it was administered by other counselors, laypersons,

or researchers.

effects across studies. The remainder of

this Bulletin explores the characteristics of

the interventions that produced the largest

effects on recidivism.

Variation in Study Methods

and Procedures

The differences in methods and procedures

used in the studies are the first source of

variability in effect size. The use of a multiple regression equation made it possible

to estimate what the mean effect size over

the 200 studies would be if all the studies

were uniform in method and procedure.

The method-adjusted effect sizes were

then analyzed in terms of various treatment variables to identify those producing

larger effects.

Interventions for

Noninstitutionalized

Juveniles

The database was divided into studies of

interventions with noninstitutionalized

juveniles and studies of interventions with

institutionalized juveniles because the circumstances of treatment are different and

because the nature and response of the juveniles receiving treatment may differ. This

section examines the effects of noninstitutional treatment using the method-adjusted

effect size values (discussed previously) in

relationship to four clusters of variables.

These clusters, which were associated with

more than half of the variation among effect sizes across the studies, are listed in

decreasing order of magnitude:

◆ Juvenile offender characteristics.

◆ Treatment types.

◆ Treatment amount delivered (e.g., total

number of weeks and frequency of

treatment, and other ratings of treatment effectiveness).

◆ General program characteristics.

This model was further reduced to include

only the variables in each category that

were most closely related to intervention

effects on recidivism among noninstitutionalized serious juvenile offenders. Intervention effectiveness was associated with

the characteristics of the juveniles who

received treatment. The effects were larger

for more serious offenders (indicated by

the types of prior offenses that included

both person and property offenses) than

for less serious offenders. Type of treatment

was important and is discussed in the next

section. Longer treatment was positively

associated with effectiveness, whereas the
3

acteristics, and other differences) were

favorable. However, without understanding the variables contributing to these

differences, it is difficult to know whether

the effectiveness calculated for this group

of treatments was due to the treatment or

to another variable.

Interventions for

Institutionalized

Juveniles

Of the 200 studies analyzed, 83 dealt with

programs for institutionalized youth; of

these programs, 74 were in juvenile justice

institutions and 9 were in residential facilities under private or mental health administration. Using the same method of regression analysis, researchers examined the

same four clusters of variables as in the

sample of studies with noninstitutionalized

offenders. The clusters associated with

the largest variation in method-adjusted

effect size were, in decreasing order of

magnitude:

◆ General program characteristics.

◆ Treatment types.

◆ Treatment amount delivered (e.g., total

number of weeks and frequency of

treatment, and other ratings of treatment effectiveness).

◆ Juvenile offender characteristics.

This model was further reduced (using the

same procedure described earlier) to weed

out the weakest variables. This process

indicated that the characteristics of institutionalized juveniles accounted for the

smallest proportion of effect size variation.

This was in contrast to noninstitutionalized

juveniles, for whom juvenile characteristics

were most important. This means that the

conclusions yielded by this model need

not be differentiated by juvenile characteristics such as age, gender, ethnic mix, or

prior offense history.

Two variables emerged that were important in terms of the amount of treatment

provided. First, monitoring to ensure that

all juveniles received the intended treatment was essential. Second, the length of

treatment was related to the size of treatment effect; that is, the longer the treatment (the average in this sample was 25

weeks), the larger the effects. The type of

treatment also was important and is discussed in the next section.

General program characteristics (i.e., the

way in which a program is organized,

staffed, and administered) were more related to the size of recidivism effects than

the type or amount of treatment. The largest treatment effects were found for wellestablished programs (2 years or older).

However, the variable most strongly related

to effect size was administration by mental health personnel, in contrast to juvenile

justice personnel.

Type of Treatment and

Effects on Recidivism

The different types of treatment for institutionalized juveniles were grouped according to the magnitude of mean effect

sizes and the consistency of effect sizes.

Again, it is important to note that the small

number of studies forming the basis of

these estimates limits the ability to draw

strong conclusions. Two types of treatment

showed relatively large, statistically significant mean effect sizes for institutionalized

offenders across all estimation procedures:

interpersonal skills programs (involving

training in social skills and anger control)

mean number of hours per week was negatively correlated due to the small effects

realized for low-intensity programs that

operate continuously or meet frequently,

such as wilderness/challenge and group

counseling programs. Among general program characteristics, only the level and

nature of the researcher’s participation

made a significant, independent contribution to effect size. Effects were larger when

the researcher was more involved in the

design and delivery of treatment.

Type of Treatment and

Effects on Recidivism

To compare differences in treatment, observed effect sizes (the original effect size

computed in each study), equated effect

sizes (the effectiveness after controlling

for all common variables), and methodadjusted effect sizes (the effectiveness

after controlling for differences in study

methods and procedures) were examined

to consider the magnitude of the mean

effect, the variance around each of those

means, and the extent of agreement across

the three different effect size estimates.

Three types of treatment showed the strongest and most consistent evidence of reducing recidivism in noninstitutionalized

serious offenders:

◆ Interpersonal skills training (based on

three studies).

◆ Individual counseling (based on eight

studies).

◆ Behavioral programs (based on seven

studies).

It should be noted that there are only a

small number of studies for each type of

treatment because these treatments have

not often been studied in reference to serious noninstitutionalized offenders. Following these treatment types in effectiveness

were multiple services and restitution programs for juveniles on probation or parole.

The types of treatment that showed the

clearest evidence that they were not effective included wilderness/challenge programs, early release from probation or

parole (based on only two programs), deterrence programs, and vocational programs.

One group of treatment types, including

employment-related programs; academic

programs; and advocacy/social casework,

group counseling, and family counseling

programs, presented mixed or ambiguous

evidence. This group showed inconsistent

effect size estimates. On the other hand,

their equated effect sizes (which account

for method and procedure, juvenile char-
4

and teaching family homes (communitybased, family-style group homes). Interpersonal skills training was also one of

the treatments that had a stronger effect

on noninstitutionalized juveniles. Strong,

but less consistent, results appeared for

multiple service programs, community

residential programs (mostly other than

juvenile justice programs), and other

miscellaneous treatments.

Milieu therapy (in which the total environment, including peers, is structured to

support the goals of treatment) showed

consistent null results. Drug abstinence

programs, wilderness/challenge programs,

and employment-related programs did not

show statistically significant or consistent

mean effects.

The middle tier consisted of behavioral

programs and individual, group, and guided

group counseling (involving a facilitated

group in which members develop norms,

give feedback, and make decisions that

regulate behavior). Some were statistically

significant and some were consistent

across the three estimation procedures,

but none met all the criteria. In the case of

behavioral programs, this may have been

because only two studies were included.

For the three varieties of counseling, the

effect size estimates were inconsistent.

Observed effects were confounded with

other study characteristics, making it difficult to determine actual treatment effects.

Effectiveness of

Treatment Types

The question asked at the beginning of this

Bulletin, “Can intervention programs reduce recidivism rates among serious delinquents?” has been answered. A review of

the statistical findings of 200 studies found

that the average intervention effect for these

studies was positive, statistically significant, and equivalent to a recidivism reduction of about 6 percentage points from a

50-percent baseline, but variation in effects

across studies was considerable.

Because there were relatively few studies

of any one type of treatment and a range

of influential variables, only tentative

conclusions can be drawn from this

meta-analysis. The first and most important finding is that sufficient research

has yet to be conducted on the effects of

intervention with serious offenders. Keeping this in mind, then, the question arises,

“What types of programs are most effective

for reducing recidivism?”

Again, the differences between interventions with institutionalized and noninstitutionalized offenders should be noted.

For noninstitutional interventions, effects

were most strongly related to the characteristics of the juveniles, especially those

with a history of prior offenses. The influence of treatment type and amount was

intermediate, and program characteristics

were weakly related to effect size. This

order was reversed for interventions with

institutionalized juveniles. Program characteristics were most strongly related to

the size of intervention effects; the type

and amount of treatment were moderately

related, and the characteristics of the juveniles were not especially important.

The specific program characteristics most

closely connected with the reduction of

reoffense rates of serious offenders were

different for institutional programs for

incarcerated offenders than for noninstitutional programs for offenders on probation or parole in the community. These

characteristics did not necessarily have

to do with the type of intervention; some

were part of the administrative context or

due to the characteristics of the juveniles

treated. Therefore, a good match between

program concept, host organization, and

the targeted juvenile is essential.

Effective Interventions for

Noninstitutionalized

Offenders

The selection criteria for the 117 studies of

noninstitutionalized offenders included in

this meta-analysis were not highly restrictive, resulting in a range of programs in the

study. The samples also varied considerably

in terms of the severity of the juveniles’ offense records. This allowed for some analysis of whether the interventions generally

used with noninstitutionalized offenders

would also be effective in reducing the

recidivism of more serious offenders. The

research directly addressing this question

is limited, so there is no assurance that

these interventions would be effective. However, this meta-analysis indicated that the

intervention effects were larger for samples

having greater numbers of serious offenders (with prior offenses). Also, there was

little difference in the effects of interventions with respect to other characteristics

of the samples (extent of aggressive history, gender, age, and ethnic mix). These

two factors provide reason to believe that

the interventions that are generally effective for noninstitutionalized delinquents

would be equally effective with more serious offenders. Table 1 compares the effectiveness of different types of treatments for

noninstitutionalized and institutionalized

offenders. Treatment types are given in

descending order of effectiveness.

In this meta-analysis, the types of treatment that were the most effective for noninstitutionalized offenders—individual

counseling, interpersonal skills, and behavioral programs—were shown to reduce

recidivism by about 40 percent, a significant decrease. It is interesting to note that

individual counseling appears to be an effective form of treatment for noninstitutionalized serious offenders but not for institutionalized offenders. Further examination

of this discrepancy is warranted but was

beyond the scope of the meta-analysis.

Following is a description of the most effective intervention programs for noninstitutionalized offenders, as represented in

table 1.

Individual Counseling

◆ Juvenile probationers received one-toone counseling from citizen volunteers

in addition to regular probationary

supervision (Moore, 1987).

◆ Reality therapy counseling, in which

clients practiced eight steps until they

were able to take charge of their lives,

was given in weekly hour-long sessions

for 12 weeks by two students enrolled

in graduate-level counseling courses

(Bean, 1988).

◆ Juvenile sexual offenders were treated

with multisystemic therapy (Borduin

et al., 1990).

Interpersonal Skills

◆ An experimental training program used

drama and the production of videos

to help delinquent juveniles see themselves from the perspective of others

and to provide remedial training in

role-taking skills (Chandler, 1973).

◆ An intensive 10-day course in a large

camp or church retreat facility for juveniles included followup that involved

commitment to one or more personal

or community projects (Delinquency

Research Group, 1986).

Behavioral Programs

◆ Adjudicated delinquents were ordered

by the court to a family counseling

program as a condition of probation

(Gordon, Graves, and Arbuthnot, 1987).
5

◆ Probationers were included in a contingency contracting program as a

method of behavior therapy (Jessness

et al., 1975).

Multiple Services

◆ A probation program offered 24 different treatment techniques, with no juvenile receiving more than 12 or fewer

than 4 techniques (Morris, 1970).

◆ A project provided 3 months of intensive services to youth on probation,

followed by approximately 9 months

of followup services (Browne, 1975).

◆ Youth were placed under intensive case

management and received an array of

services to meet their specific needs

(Weisz et al., 1990).

Effective Interventions for

Institutionalized Offenders

Of the 83 studies on interventions with

institutionalized offenders examined in the

meta-analysis, 74 involved juveniles in the

custody of juvenile justice institutions and

9 involved residential institutions administered by mental health or private agencies.

All juveniles had committed serious offenses warranting confinement or close supervision in an institutional facility.

Recidivism effect sizes for the different

treatment types were most consistently

positive for interpersonal skills interventions and teaching family homes. Recidivism effects for behavioral, community residential, and multiple service programs were

somewhat less consistently positive. However, the small number of studies in each

category makes it difficult to draw strong

conclusions about the relative effectiveness

of treatment types for institutionalized

offenders. Using control group results

from the available studies, the researchers estimated that the recidivism rate for

these juveniles would be approximately

50 percent without treatment. Relative to

that, the most effective treatments would

reduce recidivism by 30–35 percent, a significant decrease considering the seriousness of these juveniles’ delinquency.

The following describes the most effective

intervention programs for institutionalized

offenders, as represented in table 1.

Interpersonal Skills

◆ Adolescent boys living in a community home school participated in twelve

1-hour sessions in social skills training

over 6 weeks (Spence and Marzillier,

1981).

◆ Adolescent boys at a youth center participated in aggression replacement training, which took place in 30 sessions over

10 weeks (Glick and Goldstein, 1987).

◆ The Social Interactional Skills Program

was a structured didactic program that

encouraged youth to recall problematic

past experiences and identify negative

social stimuli that affected their social

interactions (Shivrattan, 1988).

Teaching Family Homes

◆ In a community-based, family-style

group home, supervising adults (called

teaching parents) used behavior modification with six to eight delinquent

juveniles (Kirigan et al., 1982).

◆ Adjudicated delinquents were in a

community-based, family-style, behavior modification group home where

teaching parents used a token economy

to help youth progress behaviorally

and academically (Wolf, Phillips, and

Fixson, 1974).

Behavioral Programs

◆ Incarcerated male and female adolescents participated in a 12-week cognitive mediation training program involving small discussion groups ranging in

size from 10 to 14 youth (Guerra and

Slaby, 1990).

◆ Institutionalized male delinquents participated in a stress inoculation training

program that included defining anger,

analyzing recent anger episodes, reviewing self-monitoring data, and constructing an individualized six-item anger

hierarchy (Schlicter and Horan, 1981).

◆ Girls in a correctional institution were

trained in reinforcement therapy principles and acted as peer counselors for

incoming wards (Ross and McKay, 1976).

Community Residential Programs

◆ A community-based group home for

girls offered advocacy, counseling, educational support, and vocational support (Minnesota Governor’s Commission

on Crime Prevention and Control, 1973).

Table 1: A Comparison of Treatment Types in Order of Effectiveness

Types of Treatment Used With Types of Treatment Used With

Noninstitutionalized Offenders Institutionalized Offenders

Positive effects, consistent evidence

Individual counseling Interpersonal skills

Interpersonal skills Teaching family homes

Behavioral programs

Positive effects, less consistent evidence

Multiple services Behavioral programs

Restitution, probation/parole Community residential

Multiple services

Mixed but generally positive effects, inconsistent evidence

Employment related Individual counseling

Academic programs Guided group counseling

Advocacy/casework Group counseling

Family counseling

Group counseling

Weak or no effects, inconsistent evidence

Reduced caseload, Employment related

probation/parole Drug abstinence

Wilderness/challenge

Weak or no effects, consistent evidence

Wilderness/challenge Milieu therapy

Early release, probation/parole

Deterrence programs

Vocational programs
6

◆ Institutionalized youth placed in a 32-bed

therapeutic community setting in an

inner-city neighborhood received counseling, remedial education, vocational

assessment and training, and other

services (Auerbach, 1978).

◆ A community-based residential treatment center for adjudicated youth used

extensive group discussion as therapy

and emphasized progressive assumption

of self-responsibility (Allen-Hagen, 1975).

Multiple Services

◆ A probation department used a camp as

an experimental program. The camp

provided supportive services such as

vocational training, skill-oriented education, job placement, and cottage living

(Kawaguchi, 1975).

◆ Institutionalized boys were treated in

a multifaceted program to overcome

academic, vocational, and psychological deficits (Thambidurai, 1980).

◆ A planned reentry program used a shortterm, 52-bed living unit that included

cottage living, counseling, education,

and recreation activities (Seckel and

Turner, 1985).

The Challenge of

Providing Effective

Interventions for

Serious Juvenile

Offenders

Two views are often expressed about the

effectiveness of intervention with serious

offenders. According to the risk principle

(Andrews et al., 1990), treatment for delinquent behavior is most effective when

provided to juveniles who are at highest

risk for reoffending. The opposite view is

that serious juvenile delinquents are the

most hardened and least likely to respond

to treatment. The results of this metaanalysis support the first view—that is,

serious delinquents can be helped.

On average, the 200 intervention programs

studied produced positive, statistically

significant effects equivalent to a 12-percent

reduction in recidivism. Intervention, therefore, can reduce recidivism. However, it is

difficult to know which types of programs

to use. The best programs reduced recidivism by as much as 40 percent, whereas

others had negligible effects on recidivism.

By determining the characteristics of effective intervention, new and better programs

can be designed, tested, implemented,

and evaluated.

For Further

Information

The following publications are available

from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

(JJC). For more information or to order a

copy, contact JJC, 800–638–8736 (phone),

301–519–5600 (fax), puborder@ncjrs.org

(e-mail), www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org (Internet).

◆ Summary of the Final Report of the

Study Group on Serious and Violent

Juvenile Offenders (Study Group). To

help communities and practitioners

learn more about serious and violent

juvenile offenders, OJJDP released a Bulletin that summarizes the Study Group’s

final report. The 8-page Bulletin, Serious

and Violent Juvenile Offenders (May 1998),

is available (free of charge) from JJC.

◆ Final Study Group Report. The Study

Group’s final report, Never Too Early,

Never Too Late: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions for Serious and

Violent Juvenile Offenders (Loeber and

Farrington, 1997), is also available (for

a fee) from JJC.

References

Allen-Hagen, B. 1975. Youth Crime Control

Project: A Final Report on an Experimental

Alternative to Incarceration of Young Adult

Offenders. Research Report No. 75–1.

Washington, DC: Washington, D.C. Department of Corrections.

Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R.D., Bonta,

J., Gendreau, P., and Cullen, F.T. 1990. Does

correctional treatment work? A clinically

relevant and psychologically informed

meta-analysis. Criminology 28(3):369–404.

Auerbach, A.W. 1978. The role of the therapeutic community “Street Prison” in the

rehabilitation of youthful offenders. Doctoral dissertation. Washington, DC: George

Washington University. University Microfilms No. 78–01086.

Bean, J.S. 1988. The effect of individualized

reality therapy on the recidivism rates and

locus of control orientation of male juvenile

offenders. Doctoral dissertation. Oxford,

MS: University of Mississippi. Dissertation

Abstracts International 49, 2370B. University

Microfilms No. 88–18138.

Borduin, C.M., Henggeler, S.W., Blaske, D.M.,

and Stein, R.J. 1990. Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology 34:105–113.

Browne, S.F. 1975. Denver High Impact Anticrime Program: Evaluation Report. Denver,

CO: Denver Manpower Administration.

Chandler, M.J. 1973. Egocentrism and antisocial behavior: The assessment and training of social perspective-taking skills. Developmental Psychology 9:326–333.

Cullen, F.T., and Gilbert, K.E. 1982. Reaffirming Rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Delinquency Research Group. 1986. An Evaluation of the Delinquency of Participants in

the Youth at Risk Program. Claremont, CA:

Claremont Graduate School, Center for

Applied Social Research.

Garrett, C.J. 1985. Effects of residential

treatment on adjudicated delinquents: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime

and Delinquency 22(4):287–308.

Gendreau, P., and Ross, R.R. 1987. Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the

1980s. Justice Quarterly 4(3):349–407.
7

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin is based on “Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders:

Synthesis of Research” by Mark W. Lipsey and David B. Wilson, a chapter in

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington (Sage Publications, Inc.,

1998). Refer to the chapter for more information about the meta-analysis discussed in this Bulletin, including its methodology, the quantitative data produced,

and a complete bibliography of the 200 studies selected.

Mark W. Lipsey, Ph.D., is Professor of Public Policy and Codirector of the Center

for Evaluation Research and Methodology at Vanderbilt University, Institute for

Public Policy Studies, Nashville, TN. David B. Wilson, Ph.D., is Jerry Lee Assistant

Research Professor with the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,

University of Maryland, College Park. Lynn Cothern, Ph.D., is a Senior WriterEditor for the Juvenile Justice Resource Center in Rockville, MD.

Photograph page 2 copyright © 2000 PhotoDisc, Inc.; photograph page 3

copyright © 2000 Artville Stock Images; photograph page 6 copyright © 2000

Blair Seitz/West Stock.

Glick, B., and Goldstein, A.P. 1987. Aggression replacement training. Journal of Counseling and Development 65(7):356–362.

Gordon, D.A., Graves, K., and Arbuthnot,

J. 1987. Prevention of adult criminal

behavior using family therapy for disadvantaged juvenile delinquents. Unpublished

manuscript. Athens, OH: Ohio University.

Guerra, N.G., and Slaby, R.G. 1990. Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent

offenders: 2. Intervention. Developmental

Psychology 26(2):269–277.

Jessness, C.F., Allison, F.S., McCormic, P.M.,

Wedge, R.F., and Young, M.L. 1975. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Contingency Contracting with Delinquents. Sacramento, CA:

California Youth Authority.

Kawaguchi, R.M. 1975. Camp Fenner Canyon

Evaluation: Final Report. Los Angeles, CA:

Los Angeles County Probation Department.

Kirigan, K.A., Braukmann, C.J., Atwater, J.D.,

and Worl, M.M. 1982. An evaluation of

teaching family (Achievement Place) group

homes for juvenile offenders. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis 15(1):1–16.

Lipsey, M.W. 1992. Juvenile delinquency

treatment: A meta-analysis inquiry into

the variability of effects. In Meta-analysis

for Explanation. A Casebook, edited by

T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H.

Hartmann, L.V. Hedges, R.J. Light, T.A.

Louis, and F. Mosteller. New York, NY:

Russell Sage, pp. 83–127.

Lipsey, M.W. 1995. What do we learn from

400 research studies on the effectiveness

of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In

What Works? Reducing Reoffending, edited

by J. McGuire. New York, NY: John Wiley,

pp. 63–78.

Minnesota Governor’s Commission on

Crime Prevention and Control. 1973. An

Evaluation of the Group Residence Program

for Juvenile Girls: June 1972 through April

1973. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department

of Corrections.

Moore, R.H. 1987. Effectiveness of citizen

volunteers functioning as counselors for

high-risk young male offenders. Psychological Reports 61(3):823–830.

Morris, J.A. 1970. First Offender: A Volunteer Program for Youth in Trouble with the

Law. New York, NY: Funk and Wagnalls.

Palmer, T. 1994. A Profile of Correctional

Effectiveness and New Directions for Research. Albany, NY: State University of

New York Press.

Ross, R.R., and McKay, B. 1976. A study of

institutional treatment programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 20(2):167–173.

Schlicter, K.J., and Horan, J.J. 1981. Effects

of stress inoculation on the anger and aggression management skills of institutionalized juvenile delinquents. Cognitive

Therapy and Research 5(4):359–365.

Seckel, J.P., and Turner, J.K. 1985. Assessment of Planned Re-Entry Programs (PREP).

Sacramento, CA: California Youth Authority.

Shivrattan, J.L. 1988. Social interactional

training and incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Canadian Journal of Criminology

30(1):145–163.

Spence, S.H., and Marzillier, J.S. 1981. Social skills training with adolescent male

offenders: II. Short-term, long-term and

generalized effects. Behavior Research

and Therapy 19:349–368.

Thambidurai, G.A. 1980. A comparative

outcome study of a contract parole program for individuals committed to the

youth correctional complex in the state

of New Jersey. Doctoral dissertation. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Dissertation Abstracts International 41, 371B.

University Microfilms No. 80–16503.

Weisz, J.R., Walter, B.R., Weiss, B., Fernandez,

G.A., and Mikow, V.A. 1990. Arrests among

emotionally disturbed violent and assaultive individuals following minimal versus

lengthy intervention through North

Carolina’s Willie M Program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 58:720–728.

Wolf, M.M., Phillips, E.L., and Fixson, D.L.

1974. Achievement Place: Phase II (Vol. 1).

Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental

Health, Center for Studies of Crime and

Delinquency.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 181201

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300