Criminology & Public Policy 13(1)

Criminology & Public Policy, February 2014: Volume 13, Issue 1

VOLLMER AWARD

Interventions for Juvenile Offenders: A Serendipitous Journey
Mark W. Lipsey

This is a story of a concatenation of largely unplanned and unexpected events that propelled a line of research on the effectiveness of interventions for juvenile offenders along a trajectory that is more coherent in retrospect than at the time of any of those events. In the course of that serendipitous journey, insights were gained on the limitations of individual studies, the value of systematic analysis of a body of research, and the challenges of transporting evidence into evidence-based practice.

VOLLMER AWARD COMMENTARIES

Mark Lipsey's Contribution to Evidence-Based Services for Juvenile Offenders: What Works across Juvenile Justice Systems
James C. Howell

From Research Synthesis to Evidence-Based Policy and Practice: How Mark Lipsey Is Improving Juvenile Offender Treatment
Brandon C. Welsh

JUVENILE ECONOMIC SANCTIONS

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
Rehabilitative and Restorative Justice for Juvenile Offenders: How Might Economic Sanctions Help?
John W. Raine

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Juvenile Economic Sanctions: An Analysis of Their Imposition, Payment, and Effect on Recidivism
Stacy Hoskins Haynes, Alison C. Cares and R. Barry Ruback

Research Summary: Economic sanctions, particularly restitution, can help juvenile offenders both learn the extent of the harm they caused and assume responsibility for repairing that harm. If that assumption is true, then restitution should be imposed in every case for which it is appropriate, other factors should not affect imposition, and paying restitution should be negatively related to recidivism. This analysis of 921 juvenile cases in five Pennsylvania counties found that restitution was imposed in only 33% of cases for which it was appropriate, whereas fees were imposed in 66% of cases. Consistent with expectations, restitution was more likely to be imposed for property offenses, but contrary to expectations, restitution was more likely to be imposed for felonies and for males. Judges were less likely to revoke the sentences of juveniles who paid a greater percentage of their total economic sanctions and of juveniles whose violation of sentencing conditions was for nonpayment of economic sanctions.

Policy Implications: Given that support for both punitive and progressive policies exists, policy makers have a unique opportunity to pursue alternatives, like economic sanctions, that appeal to both perspectives. Economic sanctions are particularly important for juveniles because they are less likely to interfere with other financial obligations (in large part because juveniles have fewer financial obligations than do adults) and because they avoid the stigma associated with more punitive sentences, such as incarceration. The negative relationship between payment of economic sanctions and recidivism, found in this study and in other studies, also suggests that, in both the short and the long term, economic sanctions are more cost-effective. Furthermore, the restorative aspect of economic sanctions, particularly restitution, suggests that policy makers should consider how best to impose and collect economic sanctions, as they also are consistent with efforts to improve the treatment of crime victims.

POLICY ESSAYS

The Costs of Delinquency
Mark A. Greenwald, Sherry L. Jackson and Michael T. Baglivio

Juvenile Economic Sanctions: A Logical Alternative?
Tamara Walsh

SERIOUS, VIOLENT, AND CHRONIC JUVENILE OFFENDERS

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
Delinquency Referrals; Predictive and Protective Factors for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offenders; and Juvenile Justice Interventions
Kenneth C. Land

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: A Statewide Analysis of Prevalence and Prediction of Subsequent Recidivism Using Risk and Protective Factors
Michael T. Baglivio, Katherine Jackowski, Mark A. Greenwald and James C. Howell

Research Summary: The prevalence of serious, violent, and chronic offenders is assessed across 5 years of delinquency referrals to a centralized juvenile justice agency. Differences in prevalence by gender and race/ethnicity and by age at first referral are compared for these youth with the other juveniles referred. Analyses examine whether subsequent official reoffending of these juveniles is predicted by similar risk and protective factors as with other youth. Stability in the proportion of youth meeting the serious, violent, and chronic classification was found. Males were more than twice as likely to be serious, violent, and chronic offenders. Serious, violent, and chronic offenders were almost three times more likely to have been first referred when 12 years old or younger. Predictive risk and protective factors are substantively different for these serious, violent, and chronic youth. Policy implications regarding appropriate delinquency interventions to address significant risk and protective factors for different subgroups of youth are discussed.

Policy Implications: Our study examines the prevalence rates of juvenile offenders classified as serious, violent, and chronic, thereby necessitating an analysis of resource allocation strategies for a juvenile justice agency. In light of this and other empirical findings, agency policies have been adjusted and new policies implemented, including a reduction in the number of residential beds by more than 50% in the last 3 years and reallocation of “deep-end” resources to prevention and community-based programming.

POLICY ESSAYS
What are the Policy Implications of Our Knowledge on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offenders?
Rolf Loeber and Lia Ahonen

Moving from Description to Implementation of Evidence-Based Research Findings
Alex R. Piquero

SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCE RESTRICTIONS

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Advancing the Argument Against Sex Offender Residence Restrictions
Richard Tewksbury

RESEARCH ARTICLE
The Effect and Implications of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions
Beth M. Huebner, Kimberly R. Kras, Jason Rydberg, Timothy S. Bynum, Eric Grommon and Breanne Pleggenkuhle

Research Summary: We evaluated the efficacy of sex offender residence restrictions in Michigan and Missouri using a quasi-experimental design with propensity score matching. First, we examined the implementation of the laws and found that sex offenders in both states were less likely to live in restricted areas after the implementation of the laws than the prerestriction sample, but the differences were not statistically significant. In our outcome analysis, we find little evidence that residence restrictions changed the prevalence of recidivism substantially for sex offenders in the postrelease period. In Michigan, trends indicate that the implementation of the laws led to a slight increase in recidivism among the sex offender groups, whereas in Missouri, this effect resulted in a slight decrease in recidivism. Technical violations also declined for both groups in Missouri. The small effect sizes, inconsistent results across states, and the null results between sex offender and non–sex offender models cast doubt on the potential usefulness of the laws to influence individual patterns of recidivism broadly.

Policy Implications: The results caution against the widespread, homogenous implementation of residence restrictions. Instead, we advocate individualization in sex offender programming and call for the development of risk-centered models of residence restrictions that draw on the established literature. In addition, the research highlights the practical challenges in defining restricted areas, enforcing restrictions, and promoting successful returns to the community. Furthermore, a call for reframing the focus of sex offender reentry to include collaborative treatment groups and enhanced communication and services between key stakeholders is made. Finally, we close with a discussion of several best practice models that provide alternative housing sources for individuals sentenced under residence restrictions without a suitable home plan.

POLICY ESSAYS

Sex Offender Residency Restrictions : Successful Integration or Exclusion?
Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine

Residence Restrictions Are Ineffective, Inefficient, and Inadequate: So Now What?
Kelly M. Socia