Conclusions: The use of mainstream service programs for ethnic minority juvenile delinquents without cultural tailoring is supported by these findings. At issue is whether clients of ethnic minority groups should be treated with the same methods, interventions, and programs as the majority population of a particular country.
The present study was undertaken to assemble otherwise scattered research results about the effectiveness of service programs for minority juvenile delinquents relative to White majority delinquents.
For minority youth, the weighted mean effect size for delinquency outcomes across all treatment modalities was. Both these values were statistically significant, as evidenced by confidence intervals that do not include zero. Though the mean effect size for White youth was somewhat larger than that for minority youth, this difference was not statistically significant. For the other outcome constructs, mean effect sizes for both minority and White juveniles were greater than zero for all outcome categories except family functioning, although not all were statistically significant.
Thus, the mainstream interventions represented in these studies, on average, had positive effects on both subsequent delinquency and several other important outcomes. Although the mean effect sizes for White samples were greater than those for minority samples on 7 of the 10 nondelinquency outcome categories, none of the differences in either direction was statistically significant, as evidenced by the highly overlapping confidence intervals. Thus, without exception, across all the outcome domains represented in these intervention studies, there were no significant differences between the overall effects of mainstream intervention services on predominantly minority treatment groups and those on predominantly White treatment groups.
Differences in delinquency outcomes observed across studies could be due to any of several factors, including between-study differences in method and procedure, participant characteristics, amount of treatment, and, of course, type of treatment. The first possible source of effect size variability we examined for delinquency outcomes was differences across studies in methods and procedures.
If two researchers use different methods to conduct their studies, and those differences influence the findings, it is difficult to tell whether those findings reflect the effectiveness of the interventions or the influence of the methods used to study them. Studies in which treatment and control groups were similar prior to treatment produced smaller effect sizes than those in which treatment and control groups were not similar.
Unpublished technical reports tended to produce smaller effect sizes than published journal articles, books, and dissertations. Studies in which the evaluator assumed only a research role tended to produce smaller effect sizes. Studies in which those collecting outcome data were blind to the group status of participants produced larger effect sizes than those in which data collectors were not blind.
The results presented thus far indicate that mainstream treatments without cultural tailoring are as effective for minority youth as they are for majority youth. However, these results are all based on comparisons of different sets of studies, some using samples of minority youth and some using majority youth.
The most direct comparison of the effects of delinquency intervention programs for minority versus majority youth comes from studies with both minority and majority participants that report effects separately for each group. Such studies would compare the outcomes for ethnic groups who received the same interventions that were evaluated under the same conditions with the same methods.
Though the numbers are small, the results shown in Figure 4 are completely consistent with those from the other analyses reported above. None of the effect size differences between ethnic groups was statistically significant and the nonsignificant trends in those differences were in the direction of larger effects for minority youth than White youth. The limited data that permit direct comparison, therefore, also fail to support the view that the effects of mainstream programs for delinquency favor majority youth and are less effective with minorities.
Redesigned YE4C. Keeping youth in school and out of the justice system. Myth Busters: National Reentry and Medicaid. Programs Federal Youth Court Program. Gang Resistence and Education Program.
Reintegration of ExOffenders Program. Publications National Gang Threat Assessment. Aftercare Services. Amber Alert: Best Practices. Criminal Career Patterns. Curriculum for Training Educators of Youth in Confinement. Employment and Training for Court-Involved Youth. Explanations for Offending. Fact Sheet: Disproportionate Minority Contact.
Federal Justice Statistics, Functional Impairment in Delinquent Youth. Graphic Novels for Youth in Custody. Highlights of the National Youth Gang Survey.
Improving Literacy Skills of Juvenile Detainees. Juvenile Arrests Juvenile Court Statistics Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Gang Prevention. Juvenile Mentoring Program: Report to Congress. Juveniles in Residential Placement, Make a Friend-Be a Peer Mentor.
Native American Traditional Justice Practices. Predictors of Youth Violence. Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare. Risk Assessment for Adolescents. Serving Youth in Confinement. Socioeconomic Mapping and Resource Topography.
Special Education and the Juvenile Justice System. Spring Issue of Journal of Juvenile Justice. The Impact of Gangs on Communities. The Northwestern Juvenile Project: Overview. Trauma-informed Care and Outcomes Among Youth. Women and Girls in the Corrections System. Gender-Specific Programming. A new report released by UW—Madison and the UW Extension synthesizes the latest research on what works in preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency.
The investigators synthesized three decades of evidence on crime prevention programs from original research, research reviews and program registries sponsored by government agencies and professional organizations. The most cost-effective programs had economic returns that far exceeded the initial investment.
Among the programs with the greatest benefits were preschool programs, intensive home visiting, school-based socio-emotional learning, therapeutic interventions, and targeted diversion programs. These programs are much less expensive than the costs associated with juvenile crime. This does not include costs to crime victims or to society for future adult crime and incarceration.
0コメント