Text Size:   A+ A- A   •   Text Only
Find     
Site Image

Principles of Effective Intervention
Principles
1.  Assess risk. Offender risk/need assessments drive effective programs. Use
objective, standardized, and validated assessment of youth risk and need
factors.
 
2.  Target treatment to risk level of youth offenders. Use proven treatment
interventions that target known predictors of crime and recidivism to prepare
youth offenders for success in the community.
 
3.  Develop and implement evidence-based programs. Programs that
scientifically designed research has demonstrated as effective in reducing
recidivism.
 
4.  Use cognitive behavioral and social learning approaches in treatment
services. Systematic use of behavioral contingencies including rewards
and/or incentives is an integral component of all treatment services. Train
skills with guided practice (i.e., modeling, behavioral rehearsal, performance
feedback, etc.).
 
5.  Conduct interventions in an appropriate setting, matching youth and
interventions based on an assessment of risk, need, and responsivity.
 
6.  Ensure fidelity of program to evidence-based model. Well-trained staff
implement programs. Staff deliver services as designed, beginning with
assessment and continuing through aftercare. Staff receive ongoing training
and clinical supervision.
 
7.  Address youth responsivity. Treatment services and staff are matched to
the needs and abilities of the youth, including motivation, personality
characteristics, identity characteristics (age, gender, race, and ethnicity), and
cognitive/intellectual abilities.
 
8.  Plan for reintegration. Support youth offenders toward completion of
treatment. Involve families, provide continuity in programming, and structured
support during transitions in treatment, placement, and/or supervision level.
Ensure youth receive specific aftercare services (e.g. relapse prevention,
safety plans, etc.) and ongoing support in home communities.
 
9.  Evaluate programs and control quality. Measure relevant practices and
provide feedback to ensure quality. Conduct evaluations to establish
evidence of reduced recidivism and replicate programs that produce the
desired outcomes.
 
10.  Make certain programs are supported by qualified and involved leadership
and staff, and community partners and stakeholders who understand program
objectives.

Bibliography
Andrews, D.A., Bonta James, and R.D. Hoge. March 1990. “Classification for Effective
Rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 17(1): 19-52.
 
Bechtel, Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. (2007). Assessing the risk of re-offending for juvenile offenders using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 45(3/4), 85-108.
 
Cullen, F. T., Gendreau, P. (July 2000). Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects.  In Juley Horney (Ed.) Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 3: Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, (pp. 109-175). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice.
 
Cullen, F. T., Smith, P., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Nothing works revisited: Deconstructing Farabee's Rethinking Rehabilitation. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 101-123.
 
Drake, E., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington state. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 170-196.
 
Gendreau, P. (1996), The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
 
Gornik, M. (2001). Moving from Correctional Program to Correctional Strategy:
Using Proven Practices to Change Criminal Behavior. National Institute of Corrections. Presented by Mark Gornik to OYA during training in November 2004 and accessed at http://www.nicic.org/Library/017624 on January 21, 2005.
 
Kennedy, S., & Winter, M. (2003-2004). Practitioners guide to responsivity:
maximizing treatment effectiveness. Journal of Community Corrections. 13(2), 7-10;22-26; 30.
 
Latessa, E. J. (2004). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidence-based practices. Criminology and Public Policy 3, 547-559.
 
Latessa, E.  J. (n.d.). The Principles of Effective Intervention: Results and Lessons
Learned from Ohio. Presented by Edward J Latessa, Ph.D. Center for Criminal Justice Research, Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati.
 
Latessa, E. J. (n.d.) What Works and What Doesn’t in Reducing Recidivism: The
Principles of Effective Intervention. Presented by Edward J. Latessa to OYA
administration, staff, and partners January 2004.
 
Lipsey, M. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124-147.
 
Lovins, L., Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2007). Application of the risk principle to female offenders. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(4), 383-398.
 
Matthews, B., Hubbard, D. J., & Latessa, E. (2001). Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming. The Prison Journal 81(4), 454-472.
 
Pealer, Jennifer A. and Edward J. Latessa. December 2004. Applying the Principles of
Effective Intervention to Juvenile Correctional Programs. Corrections Today 66(7), 26-29.
 
Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, K. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 148-169.
 
Van Voorhis, P. (2009). Foreword. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 95-100.