Juvenile Waiver, Boot Camp, and Recidivism in a Northwestern State

Steiner, Benjamin; Giacomazzi, Andrew L.

doi:10.1177/0032885507303750

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beyond these differences in research design and model specification, the primary studies included in our analysis differ on several other methodological characteristics that might affect estimates of the effects of custody on reoffending. The size of the samples used in individual statistical models ranged from less than 100 (e.g., Wheeler and Hissong 1988a;Steiner and Giacomazzi 2007;Sirén and Savolainen 2013) to more than 500, 000 (e.g., Mueller-Smith 2014;Gaes et al 2016). This variation in sample size influences the confidence accorded the effect sizes reported by individual studies, with smaller samples being more prone to imprecision (Dattalo 2008;Barnes et al 2020).…”

Section: A Sources Of Heterogeneity In Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review

Petrich¹,

Pratt²,

Jonson³

et al. 2021

Crime and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beginning in the 1970s, the United States began an experiment in mass imprisonment. Supporters argued that harsh punishments such as imprisonment reduce crime by deterring inmates from reoffending. Skeptics argued that imprisonment may have a criminogenic effect. The skeptics were right. Previous narrative reviews and meta-analyses concluded that the overall effect of imprisonment is null. Based on a much larger meta-analysis of 116 studies, the current analysis shows that custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending or slightly increase it when compared with the effects of noncustodial sanctions such as probation. This finding is robust regardless of variations in methodological rigor, types of sanctions examined, and sociodemographic characteristics of samples. All sophisticated assessments of the research have independently reached the same conclusion. The null effect of custodial compared with noncustodial sanctions is considered a "criminological fact." Incarceration cannot be justified on the grounds it affords public safety by decreasing recidivism. Prisons are unlikely to

show abstract

Section: A Sources Of Heterogeneity In Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review

Petrich¹,

Pratt²,

Jonson³

et al. 2021

Crime and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in one study boot camp participants with a previous record had lower recidivism than controls (Kempinen & Kurlychek, 2003). In three other studies, boot camp arrestees were less likely to be convicted (Steiner & Giacomazzi, 2007), less likely to be recommitted (Wells, Minor, Angel, & Stearman, 2006), or if reincarcerated, spent less time in prison (Duwe & Kerschner, 2008). These findings suggest that arrestees who have been to boot camps may commit less serious offenses than arrestees who have not been to boot camps.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Drug Treatment Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Works in Substance Abuse Treatment Programs for Offenders?

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The school is one of the most important contexts for carrying out health promotion programs related to the abuse of substances. Over the years, methods and intervention models have changed a great deal, both in relation to the evolution of health goals and to the role played by experts, students, parents, and teachers. We would like to offer a different perspective on health promotion at school by discussing the weaknesses and strengths of the most used methods, in order to identify the appropriate methodology, based on recent evidence research findings. We used Scopus as database for reviewing existing literature. The evolution in the methodology of health promotion programs can be synthesized through a sequence of three phases, from the 1960s to the present day. This method of prevention has been in vogue for many years and is still popular. It was based on the idea that an individual with medical and scientific expertise was the ideal partner for any prevention intervention. It envisages delegating to the expert the tasks of designing, implementing, conducting, and evaluating the program. It emphasized the medical and scientific knowledge of the individual who came from the Institute of Mental Health and Addiction into the school and was viewed as an expert in substance abuse, but who knew very little about the students.Since s/he was not an educator, often the external expert found difficulties when it came to mediating his/her technical language with the needs of the students he was talking to. These interventions were, therefore, mainly mini-conferences for giving information (often presented as "shock information", Toumbourou, 2007; Cimini et al., 2009), and were not adapted to the specific needs of the groups to which they were addressed. The interventions so developed are focused on "problematic" symptoms or behaviors, considered as "causes" and predictors of drug consumption that is conceived of as an internal and almost innate tendency. This methodological choice depends on the theoretical framework which considers "addiction" as coming from people of interior fragility and which is reducible by increasing awareness of the dangers and risks (Evans-Whipp et al., 2007). In contrast to this trend, the literature has been trying to prove how this choice of approach might be ineffective (Bangert-Drowns, 1988) for many reasons: it fully leaves out the personal student standpoints, beliefs, and meanings about these kinds of experience (Vander Leanen, 2011); students are passive and they do not participate in the construction of the program (Orsini et al., 2012), teachers are little involved

show abstract

“…Subsequent research, however, has indicated that traditional military-style residential treatment programs are associated with only short-term changes in adolescents’ attitudes and may not lead to long-term reductions in disruptive behavior (Steiner & Giacomazzi, 2007). For example, adolescents who attend military-style residential treatment programs often show significant improvement in their perceptions of themselves, their attitudes toward school, and their self-esteem relative to youths in residential treatment centers or detention facilities (MacKenzie, Gover, Armstrong, & Mitchell, 2001; Wood, May, & Grasmick, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a voluntary military-style residential treatment program for youths with conduct problems: 6- and 36-month outcomes.

Weis

Toolis

2009

Psychological Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors investigated the socioemotional and behavioral outcomes of adolescents referred to voluntary military-style residential treatment. Adolescents (N ϭ 232) with conduct problems were classified into three groups: adolescents who completed treatment, adolescents who withdrew from treatment, and wait list controls. Six months after treatment, boys and girls who completed military-style residential treatment showed fewer externalizing problems, greater adaptive skills, and better behavioral outcomes (e.g., high school completion, employment, lower recidivism) than comparison youths. Results were not maintained at 36-month follow-up. Adolescents who enlisted in the military after treatment showed better outcomes at 36-month follow-up than youths who returned home after treatment. Results indicate that the benefits of treatment might be tangible but short-lived for adolescents who return to their communities.

show abstract

Juvenile Waiver, Boot Camp, and Recidivism in a Northwestern State

Cited by 9 publications

References 33 publications

Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review

Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review

What Works in Substance Abuse Treatment Programs for Offenders?

Evaluation of a voluntary military-style residential treatment program for youths with conduct problems: 6- and 36-month outcomes.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About