Over the past decade researchers have identified intervention strategies and program models that reduce delinquency and promote pro-social development. Preventing delinquency, says Peter Greenwood, not only saves young lives from being wasted, but also prevents the onset of adult criminal careers and thus reduces the burden of crime on its victims and on society. It costs states billions of dollars a year to arrest, prosecute, incarcerate, and treat juvenile offenders. Investing in successful delinquency-prevention programs can save taxpayers seven to ten dollars for every dollar invested, primarily in the form of reduced spending on prisons. According to Greenwood, researchers have identified a dozen "proven" delinquency-prevention programs. Another twenty to thirty "promising" programs are still being tested. In his article, Greenwood reviews the methods used to identify the best programs, explains how program success is measured, provides an overview of programs that work, and offers guidance on how jurisdictions can shift toward more evidence-based practices The most successful programs are those that prevent youth from engaging in delinquent behaviors in the first place. Greenwood specifically cites home-visiting programs that target pregnant teens and their at-risk infants and preschool education for at-risk children that includes home visits or work with parents. Successful school-based programs can prevent drug use, delinquency, anti-social behavior, and early school drop-out. Greenwood also discusses community-based programs that can divert first-time offenders from further encounters with the justice system. The most successful community programs emphasize family interactions and provide skills to the adults who supervise and train the child. Progress in implementing effective programs, says Greenwood, is slow. Although more than ten years of solid evidence is now available on evidence-based programs, only about 5 percent of youth who should be eligible participate in these programs. A few states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Washington have begun implementing evidence-based programs. The challenge is to push these reforms into the mainstream of juvenile justice.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Research SummaryEvidence‐based practice in the field of delinquency prevention has come a long way in the last 15 years in the United States. This progress has been aided by several leading organizations and researchers providing authoritative and up‐to‐date lists of what works, the application of cost–benefit models, and some political leaders championing this movement over “get tough” practices. State governments are on the cutting edge of this movement, providing leadership, infrastructure, and funding for local efforts. This article reports on the first study to examine the ways that state governments are promoting and supporting the use of evidence‐based practice. Case studies of seven early adopter states show a modest yet growing investment in several brand name evidence‐based programs, including Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Multisystemic Therapy (MST), and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC). To support these programs, numerous efforts stand out across the seven states, including special funding, risk assessment guidance and support, assistance in needs assessment and program selection, and program evaluation.Policy ImplicationsThe experiences of the two most progressive states—Connecticut and Pennsylvania—offer many lessons for policy makers and practitioners in other states. Evidence‐based practice should begin with bringing together a collaborative group, representing all key stakeholders, for the purpose of identifying needs and selecting programs to support. States also should consider establishing evidence‐based centers, which can provide training and technical assistance to county agencies, and report to stakeholders on the performance of programs along with their impacts on crime and correctional costs within the state. At some point, many states will find it necessary to design and evaluate programs tailored to their own special needs, or to evaluate the application of proven programs to populations different from those covered in the original research.The positive experiences and reaction to the rollout of evidence‐based programs in early adopter states suggests that state and county agencies can develop the expertise to make effective use of such programs by adopting the strategies and methods that have already been developed for that purpose. With a growing knowledge base and much promise on the horizon, state and local governments and practitioners should be cautiously optimistic about the potential of evidence‐based practice in delinquency prevention.

A classic experimental design was used to determine whether youths assigned to a small experimental program, designed to offer a comprehensive and highly structured array of intervention services and activities, actually received significantly different treatment, and performed better, than control youths assigned to traditional training schools. Interviews with staff and youths suggest that the experimental program did deliver significantly more treatment services. One‐year follow‐up data showed no significant differences in arrests or self‐reported delinquency between experimental and control groups, although those who completed the experimental program performed significantly better than those who were removed for disciplinary reasons.

As drug treatment courts have multiplied over the past decade, so too have research evaluations conducted on their implementation and effectiveness. This article explores the decade of drug treatment court research conducted at RAND, starting with the experimental field evaluation of Maricopa's drug testing and treatment options to the most current 14-site national evaluation of courts funded in 1995-96 by the Drug Court Program Office. The article presents summaries of findings, a brief description of a drug treatment court typology, and suggestion of where future research might focus.

No abstract