Endeavors in an Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of an Aftercare Program in the Netherlands

Abstract

This article addresses our endeavors and experiences conducting a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) to evaluate a promising aftercare intervention in the Netherlands. New Perspectives Aftercare Program (NPAP) is an intensive reentry program for serious juvenile and young adult offenders, aged 16 to 24, starting in the last phase of their detention or secure care and lasting for 9 months. Implementing the experimental study was a challenge, because it covered both the juvenile and adult justice system, with offenders receiving aftercare mandated under criminal and civil law, resulting in complex referral pathways complicating the system and moment of randomization. Other matters were related to resistance to random assignment and unforeseen conflicts between administrative and evaluation priorities of the different stakeholders, such as the city council and youth care organizations. Our experiences may be helpful to other researchers who encounter similar problems to fruitfully conduct experimental research in criminal justice settings.

Keywords

adolescence program evaluation reentry young offenders

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adviesbureau Van Montfoort Reclassering Nederland. (2004). RISc versie 1.0. Recidive Inschattings Schalen [RISc version 1.0. Recidivism Scale Inschattings]. Harderwijk, Netherlands: Flevodruk.

Adviesbureau Van Montfoort, Spirit Jeugd en Opvoedhulp, William Schrikker Groep. (2010). NPT-LVB: Nieuwe Perspectieven bij Terugkeer—Nazorg en Preventie van Terugval voor jongeren met een licht verstandelijke beperking na vrijheidsbeneming [NPAP-ID: New Perspectives Aftercare Program—Aftercare and Prevention of Relapse for juveniles with a minor intellectual disability]. Woerden, Netherlands: Author.

Andrews

(1996). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. In McGuire

(Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending (pp. 3-34). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Altschuler

D. M.

Armstrong

T. L.

(1994). Intensive aftercare for high-risk juveniles: Policies and procedures. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Asscher

J. J.

Deković

van der Laan

P. H.

Prins

P. J. M.

Van Arum

(2007). Implementing randomized experiments in criminal justice settings: An evaluation of multisystemic therapy (MST) in the Netherlands. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 113-129.

Bijleveld

C. C. J. H.

(2003). Mens durf te meten! Over methoden en technieken van criminologisch onderzoek [Human, dare to measure! On methods in criminology research]. Den Haag: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.

Boruch

Snyder

DeMoya

(2000a). The importance of randomized field trials. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 156-180.

Boruch

Victor

Cecil

J. S.

(2000b). Resolving ethical and legal problems in randomized experiments. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 330-353.

10.

Borum

Bartel

Forth

(2002). Manual for the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY): Consultation version. Tampa: Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.

11.

Braga

A. A.

(2010). Setting a higher standard for the evaluation of problem-orientated policing initiatives. Criminology and Public Policy, 9, 173-182.

12.

Brown

S. L.

St. Amand

M. D.

Zamble

(2002). The dynamic prediction of criminal recidivism: A three-wave prospective study. Law and human behavior, 33(1), 25-45.

13.

Bureau of the Best Practices Initiative Behavioral Interventions in Justice Systems (2010). Jaarverslag 2009 Erkenningscommissie Gedragsinterventies Justitie, Juli 2010 [Annual Report Best Practices Initiative Behavioral Interventions in Justice Systems]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Author. Retrieved from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/jaarverslagen/2010/07/01/jaarverslag-erkenningscommissie-gedragsinterventies-justitie.html

14.

Cook

(2003). Resistance to experiments: Why have educational evaluators chosen not to do randomized experiments? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 114-149.

15.

Crick

R. C.

Dodge

K. A.

(1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.

16.

Dekovic

(2010). Opmerkelijk: Effecten van interventies: Baat het niet dan schaadt het niet? [Noteworthy: Effects of interventions: Baat not not hurt to try?]. Kind en Adolescent, 31, 98-103.

17.

Dishion

T. J.

McCord

Poulin

(1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755-764.

18.

Farrington

(1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice. In Tonry

Morris

(Eds.), Crime & justice: An annual review of research (Vol. IV, pp. 257-308). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

19.

Farrington

D. P.

(2003a). A short history of randomized experiments in criminology: A meager feast. Evaluation Review, 27, 218-227.

20.

Farrington

D. P.

(2003b). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 587, 49-69.

21.

Farrington

Petrosino

(2001). The Campbell collaboration crime and justice group. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 578, 35-49.

22.

Farrington

D. P.

Welsh

B. C.

(2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 9–38.

23.

James

Stams

G. J. J. M.

Asscher

J. J.

de Roo

A. K.

van der Laan

P. H.

(in press). Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among juvenile and young adult offenders: A meta-analytic review.

24.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2007). Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 53-70.

25.

Lipsey

M. W.

(1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In Cook

T. D.

Cooper

Cordray

D. S.

(Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83-127). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

26.

Lodewijks

H. P. B.

Doreleijers

Th. A. H.

de Ruiter

de Wit-Grouls

(2006). SAVRY handleiding voor de gestructureerde risicotaxatie van gewelddadig gedrag bij jongeren [SAVRY Manual for the structured risk assessment of violent behavior among younger]. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

27.

Lum

Yang

S. M.

(2005). Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 191-213.

28.

Ministry of Justice. (2003). Jeugd terecht. Actieprogramma aanpak jeugdcriminaliteit [Action program for prevention of youth criminality]. Den Haag, Netherlands: Author.

29.

Ministry of Justice. (2005). Installatie erkenningscommissie gedragsinterventies Justitie [Best practices initiative behavioural interventions in justice settings]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Author. Retrieved from http://www.justitie.nl/actueel/persberichten/archief2005/installatie-erkenningscommissie-Gedragsinterventies-Justitie.aspx

30.

OASys Development Team. (2001). The Offender Assessment System: User manual. London, UK: Author.

31.

Petrosino

A. J.

Turpin-Petrosino

Finckenauer

J. O.

(2000). Well-meaning programs can have harmful effects! Lessons from experiments of programs such as Scared Straight. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 354-379.

32.

Rubin

(1997). The family preservation evaluation from hell: Implications for program evaluation fidelity. Children and Youth Services Review, 19(1/2), 77-99.

33.

Sherman

L. W.

(2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 6-19.

34.

Schubert

C. A.

Mulvey

E. P.

Steinberg

Cauffman

Losoya

S. H.

Hecker

Chassin

Knight

G. P.

(2004). Operational lessons from the pathways to desistance project. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 237-255.

35.

Snyder

H. N.

Sickmund

(2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

36.

Travis

Solomon

A. L.

Waul

(2001). From prison to home. The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Centre.

37.

Vogelvang

B. O.

Schut

(2008). Nieuwe Perspectieven bij Terugkeer—Hulp voor jongeren na vrijheidsbeneming. Programmahandleiding [New Perspectives Aftercare Program—Help for juveniles after detention. Program manual]. Woerden, Netherlands: Adviesbureau Van Montfoort/Spirit.

38.

Wartna

B. S. J.

Tollenaar

Blom

Alma

S. M.

Bregman

I. M.

Essers

A. A. M.

Straalen

E. K.

(2011). Recidivism report 2002-2008. Trends in the reconviction rate of Dutch offenders. Fact sheet 2011-5a. The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Security and Justice.

39.

Wampold

B. E.

Brown

G.S.

(2005). Estimating Variability in Outcome Attributable to Therapists. A Naturalistic Study of Outcomes in Managed Care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(5), 914-923.

40.

Weisburd

(2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials. Evaluation Review, 27, 336-354.

41.

Welsh

W. N.

Harris

P. W.

(2008). Criminal justice policy and planning (3rd ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.

42.

Welsh

B. C.

Peel

M. E.

Farrington

D. P.

Elffers

Braga

A. A.

(2011). Research design influence on study outcomes in crime and justice: A partial replication with public area surveillance. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 183-198.