Implementing and sustaining evidence-based practice in juvenile justice: a case study of a rural state

US juvenile justice is at the forefront of experimentation with the evidence-based paradigm, whereby the best available research is utilized to help inform more rational and effective practice. Increasingly, state governments are playing a major role in this endeavor. Maine is one of these states and is the focus of this article. Using a case-study design, we set out to develop a fuller understanding of the events and processes that have contributed to the development, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based practice in juvenile justice in the state. Four major themes emerged. First, Maine has benefited from strong and lasting leadership within its corrections department. These leaders paved the way for the implementation and sustainment of programs, including finding innovative ways to use existing resources. Second, the adoption of the Risk-Need-Responsivity model was important in laying the groundwork for the use of evidence-based programming. Third, collaborations within and among state agencies and public and private groups were essential. Finally, buy-in and support from multiple stakeholders was and continues to be essential to Maine's work. Ongoing problems remain with respect to ensuring agencies prioritize fidelity to the model and locating increasingly scarce funding. Implications for other states are discussed.

Cost-Effective Violence Prevention through Targeted Family Interventions

Efforts in violence prevention can focus on individual youth, their families, their schools, or the communities in which they live. Among the small number of program models that have been proven effective in repeated replications, those that focus on improving family management and child care have been found to be the most cost-effective. The four model programs include Nurse Home Visitation, Functional Family Therapy, Multi-systemic Therapy, and Multidimensional Foster Care. All of these programs involve detailed protocols, extensive staff training and supervision, and quality-assurance procedures. The factors limiting their wider adoption include staff resistance to their structured approach, cost-sharing issues between local and state levels of government, and the political power of existing programs.

Responding to juvenile crime: lessons learned

Although the dispositional options for delinquent youths have diversified over the past 20 years, the debate about the most effective treatment of young offenders continues. This article reviews the existing evaluations of various juvenile corrections alternatives. In contrast to the conclusions of scholars in the late 1970s that "nothing worked" in juvenile corrections, Mark Lipsey's 1992 meta-analysis of more than 400 evaluations of juvenile programs reported an average 10% improvement in recidivism rates for all the programs evaluated. Lipsey's meta-analysis found a significant advantage in community-based programs run by private providers compared with large custodial institutions, such as traditional state training schools. The most effective privately run community programs have high levels of intensity and duration, multiple modes of intervention, and a great deal of structure. Nonresidential, dawn-to-dusk educational programs that work with both juveniles and their families are good examples of this type of programming. Boot camps for juvenile offenders have proliferated because of their political popularity. A recent evaluation of eight of these programs showed that four had no effect on recidivism, one resulted in higher recidivism rates, and three showed improvements in some recidivism measures. Probation and diversion, the most common of all juvenile court dispositions, are not effective options for youths with multiple risk factors. Juvenile courts need an array of dispositional options, the ability to monitor program effectiveness, and the flexibility to find the appropriate placement for each juvenile offender.

Strategies for Improving Coordination between Enforcement and Treatment Efforts in Controlling Illegal Drug Use

Improved coordination between law enforcement, prevention, and treatment efforts is a goal articulated by almost all policymakers concerned with reducing the use of illegal drugs. This paper reviews what is currently known about interactions between these alternative intervention strategies and identifies a number of problems that impede better coordination between them — including organizational incentives, differences in philosophy, and differences in the timing of impacts. Programmatic strategies suggested for overcoming these impediments include particular forms of training, the use of joint task forces, and the assignment of liaison personnel.