J. Sander

Meta-analysis 2010 Proposal Background Juvenile delinquency is a considerable problem for society, the youth engaging in crime, and their families (Agnew, 2005). Given the scope of the problem, it is not surprising that there are numerous reports on interventions to reduce juvenile delinquency and improve academic and behavioral outcomes for the youth. Interventions range from single case studies to multi-site investigations, cognitive-behavioral treatment, to community services. They include a host of settings, such as detention and probation centers, schools, and in the home. Several past meta-analyses have successfully summarized some effects of these interventions. In general, previous meta-analyses have found that many types of interventions can be effective, but, even among interventions of moderate success, recidivism is only reduced by about 12% overall (Lipsey, 1999). Lipsey (1992, 1999, 2009) created a dataset of crime interventions in 1985 that has since been regularly updated and re-analyzed, currently including about 500 published and unpublished original studies dated between 1950 and 1996. Even with this dataset, one of the tasks at hand for researchers is: to better define which interventions are most useful under which conditions for which participants (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007). Given past reviews that consistently found (a) only a modest overall effect of juvenile delinquency interventions on recidivism, (b) the variability in effectiveness with the quality of implementation, and (c) the lack of clarity regarding how, when, and for whom interventions are most effective, the field still has considerable progress to make to curtail the problem of juvenile delinquency. Reducing crime is not the only aim of interventions for juvenile offending. Rehabilitation is also a primary goal (Agnew, 2005). In the juvenile justice literature, there are several risk factors and background characteristics common among offenders. One of these is low educational achievement, which in itself is a striking predictor for delinquency recidivism (Cottle, Lee & Heilbrun, 2001). While the average age of the adjudicated youth is 15 years (approximately 10th grade), the average reading level is 4th grade or lower (Vacca, 2008). Learning interventions are important and pressing to assist in rehabilitation, but studies are sparse. There are a handful of studies conducted on reading interventions in juvenile detention facilities, where offenders are in custody of the state (Krezmien & Mulcahy, 2008), but probation services and public schools, settings where juveniles are in custody of their parent or guardian, also address academic needs in some ways. Given the emerging body of research in educational services and juvenile justice interventions, it is now possible to conduct a synthesis of the work examining juvenile crime, academics, and the interventions that may address both academic and behavioral outcomes. Existing meta-analyses have not adequately examined educational outcomes. Primarily, existing meta-analytic studies have been limited with regard to: 1) contemporary changes in instructional design and practice on interventions for juvenile delinquents, 2) the range of outcomes and populations examined, and 3) the level of specificity included about academic interventions. First, there have been substantial changes in education practice with the creation of special education, beginning in 1975 with PL 94-142, now known as IDEA, revised in 1990, 1997, and reauthorized in 2004 (United States Department of Education, 2007). Many practices in education have

Page 1 of 3 J. Sander changed since these reforms. Response to Intervention, a sweeping movement in education to address academic and behavioral concerns (Gresham, 2007), along with other universal prevention programs (i.e., Positive Behavior Support; Sugai & Horner, 1999) have been designed to promote success for the same youths that are served by juvenile justice centers. Consequently, many of the studies included in earlier meta- analyses may inaccurately reflect the current state of practice and outcomes, as they pre- date these reforms. I know of no meta-analysis that has examined the impact of contemporary educational interventions in relation to the effectiveness of juvenile delinquency programs. Finally, there are a number of aspects of these academic and behavioral interventions, as well as the populations they serve, that existing meta-analyses have yet to examine as potential moderators. Future research would benefit from a systematic analysis that teases apart which aspects of these academic interventions are most effective for which juvenile offenders. For example, interventions that specifically address academic skills, emotional coping skills, behavioral problems and family relationships may be more effective than programs that only address emotions and behaviors only. Likewise, future research would benefit from a systematic analysis that teases apart the characteristics of juvenile delinquents most predictive of their success in such programs. For example, a targeted academic intervention may be more effective for offenders with a certain level of academic skill relative to his or her grade level or with a particular level of disruptive behavior and emotional difficulty. In summary, the integration of data across a wide range of settings, including educational, community, and juvenile justice settings, is now possible with emerging literature. Years of older research and an abundance of recent research have accumulated addressing the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce juvenile delinquency and improve academic outcomes, but educational interventions in the past 15 years are very different from many prior studies. Further, recent studies have examined the effects of various types of educational and behavioral interventions among juvenile delinquents with a wide array of background characteristics. However, despite past meta-analyses and an abundance of primary research, the overall effectiveness of programs with academic components or programs that address academic and behavioral outcomes remains unclear. Likewise, the particular conditions under which interventions that address academics and delinquency may be most effective has yet to be examined. Consequently, future research will be most fruitful if past work is systematically synthesized before moving forward, and if the studies included are adequately representative of the interventions addressing behavioral and educational concerns, and recent juvenile justice and school reforms.

Expected results and outcomes This dataset is designed to yield several publications to address additional research questions that are pertinent to the field of academic and behavioral interventions in communities, juvenile justice, and school settings. I expect that the results from this study will immediately produce subsequent research proposals to follow up on the primary findings, along with clear areas in which to seek grant funding for additional studies.

Page 2 of 3 J. Sander

References Agnew, R. (2005). Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Control, 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company Cottle, C. C., Lee, R. J. & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The Prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: A Meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(3), 367-394. Gresham, F. M. (2007). Response to intervention and emotional and behavioral disorders: Best practices in assessment for intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(4), 214-222. Krezmien, M. P. & Mulcahy, C. A. (2008). Literacy and delinquency: Current status of reading interventions with detained and incarcerated youth. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24, 219-238. Lipsey, M.W. (1999). Can Rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 6 (3), 611-643. Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The Primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A Meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124-147. Lipsey, M. W. & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The Effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A Review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297- 320. National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002. US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, accessed September 3, 2004 at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt052.asp Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support: Practices, pitfalls and promises. Effective School Practices, 17, 10-22. United States Department of Education (2007). Archived: 25 Year History of the IDEA. Retrieved August 7, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/print/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.html Vacca, J. S. (2008). Crime can be prevented if schools teach juvenile offenders to read. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1055-1062. Zabel, R. H., & Nigro, F. A. (1999). Juvenile offenders with behavioral disorders, learning disabilities, and no disabilities: Self-reports of personal, family, and school characteristics. Behavioral Disorders, 25(1), 22-40.

Page 3 of 3