top of page
This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.Start Now

Putting Evidence-Based Practices into Action:

Using Research as a Guide

Community-based programs vary in their effectiveness depending on how closely they align with proven practices. Michigan counties with the greatest success use evidence-based practices.

Evidence-based practices are those which have been shown, through rigorous evaluation and replication, to be effective at preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency or victimization, or related risk factors. (1)  This results in reduced reoffending and improved outcomes for clients and systems alike. Evidence-based practices include: 

  • Using a validated, actuarial risk and needs assessment instrument to determine the relative risk and criminogenic needs of clients.

 

  • Developing an individualized case plan that needs, protective factors, and responsivity considerations.

 

  • Focusing services on moderate to high-level risk youth and expedite diversion and case closures for low-risk youth.

 

  • Include the youth and family into the case planning process and ensure the plan is strength-based, gender responsive, and culturally competent.

 

  • Offer evidence-based programs in the community that are designed and implemented based on research.

 

  • Using positive reinforcements and graduated interventions to help motivate behavior change.

 

  • Measuring program effectiveness and adjust services as needed.

Know the Terms

Risk principle: Understanding the likelihood of reoffending and how it can be reduced. 

 

Need principle: Interventions should target criminogenic needs (factors that are predictive of offending) over non-criminogenic needs (attributes that have little to do with the offending behavior). 

 

Responsivity principle: Deliver services in a manner that is consistent with each youth's individual learning style, developmental stage, and abilities. 

 

Actuarial tools: Tools that make a mathematical prediction using measurable and predictive factors like age or gender to formulate the likelihood of risk. 

 

Protective factors or strengths: Attributes that can decrease the potentially harmful effects of risk factors. Examples include good parental supervision, strong family ties, positive role models, strong community ties, school engagement, and career goals. 

Evidence-Based Practice and What Research Says...

Use a validated, actuarial risk and needs assessment instrument: 

  • Use of actuarial tools outperforms human judgment alone because decision-makers often use information unreliable, fall prey to internal biases, or over-estimate the likelihood of reoffending. (2)

  • To ensure validity, assessment tools should only be used to measure what they were designed to measure. For example, a mental health screening tool should not be used to measure the risk of sexual offending. (3)

Develop an individualized case plan that effectively matches services based on risk level, needs, protective factors, and responsivity consideration:

  • Interventions delivered along the risk-need-responsivity framework have been proven to effectively reduce recidivism. (4)

  • Youth who have the highest risk require the most intensive service and supervision while youth who score as low risk require less treatment. (5)

  • A program’s duration and quality have a distinct impact on the level of its effectiveness; about 100 hours of active treatment is effective for low to moderate-risk youth and 200 or more hours is necessary to treat high-risk youth. (6)

  • The more time spent on non-criminogenic needs, the higher the rate of recidivism. (7)

  • Developmentally-appropriate interventions must address the youth’s physical, cognitive, and psychosocial changes experienced during adolescence. (8)

  • Increasing protective factors or strengths can decrease the potentially harmful effects of a risk factor. (9)

Focus on moderate to high-level risk youth and expedite diversion and case closures for low-risk youth. 

  • Low-risk youth who commit low-level offenses are unlikely to re-offend even if there is no intervention.  (10) Providing services of any kind, even community probation, can actually increase their likelihood to re-offend. This is especially true if low or moderate-risk youth participate in services with higher risk youth. (11)

Include the youth and family in the case planning process. 

  • Youth and families are more likely to be motivated to work on the goals if they have been integrally involved in the development and ongoing review of their case. Together, the team can identify risks and needs and establish a plan to deliver appropriate supervision and targeted services that are strength-based, gender-responsive, and culturally competent. (12)

Offer evidence-based programs in the community.

  • Evidence-based programs are developed using a strong theoretical foundation, intended for a developmentally appropriate population, and include quality data collection, procedures, and evidence of effectiveness. (13) Programs that apply the principles of risk, need and responsivity demonstrate nearly double the efficacy when implemented in a community setting. (14)

Offer graduated interventions and positive reinforcement.

  • Change can be difficult and relapse should be expected. Graduated interventions should be put in place that appropriately match to the type and seriousness of misbehavior or violations that occur.  Violations should be used as learning opportunities to explore why relapse occurred, practice new skills, and reinforce positive changes. (15)

Measure program effectiveness and adjust services as needed.

  • It is necessary to monitor the effectiveness of services, including appropriateness of dosage, intensity and duration, and adjust as necessary. (16)

 

1. Evidence-based program and/or practice. (n.d.) In Performance Measures Glossary. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/grantees/pm/glossary.html

2. Gottfredson, S. D., & Moriarty, L. J. (2006, September). Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgment in Criminal Justice Decisions: Should One Replace the Other? Federal Probation, 70(2): 15-18.; Perrault, R. T., Paiva‐Salisbury, M., & Vincent, G. M. (2012, June 28). Probation officers' perceptions of youths' risk of reoffending and use of risk assessment in case management. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(4), 487-505. doi 10.1002/bsl.2015

3. Judicial Council of California AOC Center for Families, Children & the Courts (2011, February). Screening and Assessments Used in the Juvenile Justice System: Evaluating Risks and Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. Retrieved from http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/AOCBrief_AssessOnline.pdf

4. Andrews, D.A., & Dowden, C. (2007). The Risk-Need-Responsivity Model of Assessment in Human Service and Prevention and Corrections: Crime Prevention Jurisprudence. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(4): 439-464.

5. Ibid.

6.Latessa, E. (2011). Presentation from the Council of State Governments Justice Center’s Making the Most of Second Chances Conference, Focus on Individuals Risk to Public Safety. Washington, DC: Author.

7. Andrews, D.A,. & Bonta, J. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation (2007-2006). Retrieved from http://www.pbpp.pa.gov/Information/Documents/Research/EBP7.pdf

8. Steinberg, L., Chung, H. L., Little, M. (2003). Reentry of young offenders from the justice system: A Developmental Perspective. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(1).

9. Latessa, E. (2011). Presentation from the Council of State Governments Justice Center’s Making the Most of Second Chances Conference, Focus on Individuals Risk to Public Safety. Washington, DC: Author.

10. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (2001). Widening the Net in Juvenile Justice and the Dangers of Prevention and Early Intervention. San Francisco, CA: Author.

website: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/widening.pdf

11. Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Holsinger, A.M. (2006, January). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77-93. doi: 10.1177/0011128705281747

12. Pennell, J., Shapiro, C., & Spigner, C. [Center for Juvenile Justice Reform]. (2011). Safety, Fairness, Stability: Repositioning Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare to Engage Families and Communities. Retrieved from Georgetown University website:sd

13. Williams-Taylor, L. (2007). Research Review, Evidence-Based Programs and Practices: What Does it All Mean? Boyton Beach, FL: Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County.

14. Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J. (2007a). Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation (2007-2006). Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety Canada.

15. Krisberg, B., & Howell, J. C. (1998). The impact of the juvenile justice system and prospects for graduated sanctions in a comprehensive strategy. Loeber, R. & Farrington, D. P. (Eds), Serious & violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 346-366). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

16. Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J. and Holsinger, A.M. (2006). The risk principle in action. What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52: 77-93.

bottom of page