A Synthesis of Academic Interventions for Incarcerated Adolescents

Abstract

This article contains a synthesis of academic intervention studies conducted between 1970 and 2012 with adolescents who were incarcerated in residential juvenile correctional facilities. Literacy, mathematics, written expression, and multicomponent interventions were included if they measured effects on at least one academic outcome measure. Of the 16 studies synthesized, 7 studies employed an experimental or quasi-experimental design, 4 used a single-case design, and 5 used a single-group design. Because the results are restricted due to methodological limitations and a general lack of research in this area, we discuss the existing gaps in the literature and explore initial findings using these 16 studies. Results suggest the potential of implementing explicit, targeted, academic interventions that have previously shown promise with adolescents in the general school setting (e.g., peermediated instruction). Implications and guidance for future research regarding effective delivery of evidence-based practices for adolescents in the incarcerated setting are discussed.

Assessment of an Academic Skills Development Program for Youths in Juvenile Correctional Facilities

“…Moreover, subsequent to 18 sessions of individual instruction (approximately four months), a decrease from 8.3 to 7.3 years of educational lag was observed in the experimental group. The results of the present intervention are consistent with those of studies conducted by other researchers in the area of interventions involving institutionalized youths (Gomide et al, 2017;Joly & Piovezan, 2012;Wexler et al, 2014).…”

How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation

“…Though our review partially overlaps with that of Wexler et al (2013), it differs in three key ways. First, similar to our meta-analysis of adult interventions, we include both academic and vocational education/CTE interventions rather than academic interventions only.…”

“…All are small studies, and all show gains in the target behaviors, but none uses a comparison group. Because all four ineligible studies are included in the recent systematic review by Wexler et al (2013), we consider them here in some detail.…”

“…However, unlike in our adult meta-analysis, we do include brief descriptions of level-1 studies that are relevant to the interventions under discussion, insofar as they help to contex- tualize findings from the eligible studies. We make mention of relevant level-1 studies because these studies are often cited in the broader literature on what works in juvenile correctional education (e.g., Houchins et al, 2008;Wexler et al, 2013). Our aim in briefly mentioning level-1 studies as part of the research context while excluding them from our discussion of eligible studies is to acknowledge the centrality of some of these studies to the correctional education literature, while also highlighting why their designs do not warrant even limited inferences about program impact.…”

“…Building on a small review of reading interventions in correctional settings by Krezmien and Mulcahy (2008), Wexler et al (2013) undertook a review that focused only on academic interventions undertaken in juvenile correctional facilities, and that looked exclusively at academic outcomes. Though our review partially overlaps with that of Wexler et al (2013), it differs in three key ways.…”