Although prior research suggests that juvenile correctional programs can be effective at reducing recidivism, research has also found that some programs are more effective than others. This suggests that identifying the characteristics of effective correctional programs is an important issue surrounding interventions with juveniles. The current research not only examines the effectiveness of Ohio’s community correctional facilities in reducing recidivism, but it also examines whether measures of treatment integrity are related to recidivism. The findings revealed that programs that scored higher on treatment integrity were more effective at reducing recidivism. Specifically, community corrections facilities that served higher risk youth, targeted dynamic risk factors with cognitive behavioral modalities, and employed trained and qualified staff were found to have stronger effects on recidivism than those that did not.
Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R.D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F.T. ( 1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
2.
Aos, S. ( 1997). Outcome evaluation of Washington State’s research-based programs for juveniles. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
3.
Barnoski, R. ( 2004). Outcome evaluation of Washington State’s research-based programs for juvenile offenders. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
4.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1989). Children in custody 1975-85: The census of public and private juvenile detention, correctional, and shelter facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
DeComo, R., Tunis, S., Krisberg, B., Herrera, N., Rudenstine, S., & Del Rosario. D. (1995). Juveniles taken into custody: Fiscal year 1992. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
6.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D.A. ( 1999). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis . Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 1-6.
7.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D.A. ( 1996). The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (6th ed.). Saint John, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
Gray, G.A. ( 1997). Does coercion play a significant role in community treatment programs that reduce offender recidivism? Unpublished master’s thesis, University of New Brunswick, Canada.
10.
Holsinger A.M. ( 1999). Examining the "black box": Assessing the relationship between program integrity and recidivism. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, OH.
11.
Latessa, E.J., & Holsinger, A.M. (1999). Evaluation of the Ohio Department of Youth Services Community Corrections Facilities. Unpublished technical report, University of Cincinnati, OH. Available from http://criminaljustice.cech.uc.edu/research_reports
12.
Lipsey, M.W. ( 1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents?The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 142-166.
13.
Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. ( 2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs: Final report. Unpublished technical report, University of Cincinnati, OH. Available from http://criminaljustice.cech.uc.edu/research_reports
14.
Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. ( 2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low risk offenders. In Topics in community corrections: Assessment issues for managers (pp. 3-8). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
15.
Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. ( 2005). Evaluation of Ohio’s RECLAIM funded programs, community corrections facilities, and DYS facilities. Unpublished technical report, University of Cincinnati. Available from http://criminaljustice.cech.uc.edu/research_reports
16.
Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Smith, P. ( 2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 575-594.
17.
Lowenkamp, C.T., Pealer, J., Smith, P., & Latessa, E.J. ( 2006). Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision based programs? Federal Probation, 70, 3-8.
18.
Nesovic, A. ( 2003). Psychometric evaluation of the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
19.
Palmer, T. ( 1994). A profile of correctional effectiveness and new directions for research. Albany: State University of New York Press.
20.
Rosenthal, R. ( 1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.) . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
