The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview

By Mark Lipsey. 2009

1,009 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/73263c92fa874d7efc28adba0e721c97491e0558

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Rehabilitation: Beyond Nothing Works (2013, background): “This context of suspicion made the meta-analyses of Mark Lipsey, first published in the 1990s, especially important (see Lipsey 1992, 1995, 1999, 2009; Lipsey and Wilson 1993, 1998; Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger 2001; Lipsey and Cullen 2007).”
Sources of Variability in Estimates of Predictive Validity (2011, background): “They have viewed the “involvement of the researcher/ developer in the delivery of the program” (Lipsey, 2009, p. 127) as a proxy for smart evaluations and for evaluations of programs that were implemented with integrity.”
What Works in Youth Violence Prevention (2013, background): “Some contend that specific, ‘‘named’’ programs may be too costly and/or difficult for communities to implement, given that they tend to be highly structured and often involve multiple components; and that it may be more feasible to foster implementation of more general strategies, practices, and/or ”
Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A Guidebook for Implementation (2012, background): “24 Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview.”
Generating Employment in Poor and Fragile States: Evidence from Labor Market and Entrepreneurship Programs (2015, background): “Meta-analyses of adolescent and adult interventions in correctional institutes nd that CBT-informed programs that target criminogenic behaviors among the highest-risk men reduce recidivism more than alternate approaches (Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey, 2009).”
The Effectiveness of Violence Reduction Treatment for Psychopathic Offenders: Empirical Evidence and a Treatment Model (2012, neutral): “(see Andrew & Bonta, 1994–2010; Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Lipsey, 2009).”
Perceptions of Institutional Experience and Community Outcomes for Serious Adolescent Offenders (2012, background): “Moreover, since institutional placement has shown a limited impact on recidivism in juvenile offenders (about a 12% decrease; Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; see also Loughran et al., 2009), it would seem practically useful to gain a better understanding of the relationship between perceptions…”
Do Social Bonds Buffer the Impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences on Reoffending? (2017, background): “…instance, as the literature has demonstrated that mentoring programs can be effective in reducing recidivism among juvenile justice–involved youth (Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey, Howell, Kelly, Chapman, & Carver, 2010), perhaps the individual the youth is attached to matters (e.g., a mentor as opposed to…”
Never too late (2010, background): “punitive programs, from boot camps to scared straight to very lengthy incarcerations, are ineffective in reducing juvenile recidivism (MacKenzie, 2006; Lipsey, 2009).”
A Meta-Analytic Review of Correctional Interventions for Women Offenders (2016, result): “This is not typically a finding in the literature where studies have noted the superiority of community-based programs to those offered during incarceration (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Lipsey, 2009).”
Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter?☆ (2010, methodology): “, 2009), and fail to reduce recidivism (Drake et al., 2009; Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, et al., 2000; Lipsey, 2009; Petersilia & Turner, 1993).”
The Effect of Youth Diversion Programs on Recidivism (2013, background): “Lipsey (2009) focused his meta-analysis on youth treatment philosophies and concluded that when controlling for methodological and sample characteristics, the context in which treatment programs are delivered (e.g., diversion, community supervision, or incarceration) did not influence effectiveness.”