The current study examines changes in assessed criminogenic needs/dynamic risk factors of juvenile offenders participating in a victim impact delinquency intervention. Three hundred twenty juvenile offenders in residential placement were randomly assigned to either participate in a victim impact curriculum or to a control group receiving a minimal substitute. Comparison of means was used to examine changes in criminogenic domains using an actuarial risk/needs assessment. Results demonstrate significant reductions in subscales of the assessment instrument for youth assigned to the intervention compared to the control group in the intent-to-treat analysis. Additional significant reductions in subscale scores occurred for youth completing the intervention. The findings demonstrate the ability of a specific intervention to reduce risk in criminogenic domains related to offending behavior and illustrate the importance of reassessment over time. Policy implications are discussed.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
2.
AndrewsD. ABontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27.
3.
BaglivioM. (2009). The assessment of risk to recidivate among a juvenile offending population. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 596-607.
4.
BaglivioM.JackowskiK. (2013). Examining the validity of a juvenile offending risk assessment instrument across gender and race/ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(1), 26-43.
5.
BarrigaA. Q.Sullivan-CosettiM.GibbsJ. C. (2009). Moral cognitive correlates of empathy in juvenile delinquents. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 19, 253-264.
6.
BazemoreG.UmbreitM. (1995). Rethinking the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive or restorative responses to youth crime. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 296-316.
7.
BontaJ.Wallace-CaprettaS.RooneyJ. (2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312-329.
8.
BraithwaiteJ. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. In TonryM. (ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 25 (pp. 1-27). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
ClementsC. (1988). Delinquency prevention and treatment: A community-centered perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 286-305.
10.
EisenbergN.FabesR. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In DamonW.EisenbergN. (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 701-778). New York, NY: Wiley.
11.
EnglishS.CrawfordM. (1989). Victim awareness education is basic to offender programming: A model course (Technical Paper). Sacramento: California Youth Authority.
12.
GabouryM. T.SedelmaierC. M. (2007). Impact of crime on victims (IOC) curriculum development project: Final evaluation report. West Haven, CT: University of New Haven, Department of Criminal Justice.
13.
GabouryM. T.SedelmaierC. M.MonahanL. H.MonahanJ. J. (2008). A preliminary evaluation of behavioral outcomes in a corrections-based victim awareness program for offenders. Victims and Offenders, 3, 217-227.
14.
GendreauP. (1996). The principles of effective interventions with offenders. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
GendreauPAndrewsD. A.GogginC.ChanteloupeF. (1992). The development of clinical and policy guidelines for the prediction of criminal behavior in criminal justice settings. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, St. John, New Brunswick, Canada.
16.
HarlandA. T. (1996). Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
HayC.MeldrumR.ForrestW.CiaravoloE. (2010). Stability and change in risk seeking: Investigating the effects of an intervention program. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 91-106.
18.
JolliffeD.FarringtonD. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441-476.
19.
LevrantS.CullenF. T.FultonB.WozniakJ. F. (1999). Reconsidering restorative justice: The corruption of benevolence revisited?Crime and Delinquency, 45, 3-27.
20.
LipseyM. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.
21.
LowencampC. T.LatessaE. J.SmithP. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 575-594.
22.
McColdP. (2000). Toward a holistic vision of restorative juvenile justice: A reply to the maximalist model. Contemporary Justice Review, 3, 357-414.
23.
MonahanL. H.MonahanJ. J.GabouryM. T.NiesynP. A. (2004). Victims’ voices in the correctional setting: Cognitive gains in an offender education program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39, 21-33.
24.
National Institute of Corrections. (2004). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: The principles of effective intervention. Washington, DC: Author.
25.
PaternosterR.SimpsonS. (1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law & Society Review, 30, 549-583.
26.
PutninsA. L. (1997). Victim awareness programs for delinquent youths: Effects on moral reasoning maturity. Adolescence, 32, 709-715.
27.
SchlagerM. D.PachecoD. (2011). An examination of changes in LSI-R scores over time: Making the case for needs-based case management. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 541-553.
28.
ShermanL. W.GottfredsonD. C.MacKenzieD. L.EckJ.ReuterP.BushwayS. D. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
29.
ShermanL. W.StrangH. (2004). Restorative justice: What we know and how we know it (Working Paper). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Jerry Lee center of Criminology, Retrieved from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/rjWorkingPaper1.pdf
30.
ShermanL. W.StrangH. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. London, UK: The Smith Institute.
31.
ShermanL. W.StrangH.AngelC.WoodsD.BarnesG. C.BennettS.InkpenN. (2005). Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 367-395.
32.
StamsG. J.BrugmanD.DekovicM.Van RosmalenL.Van der LaanP. H.GibbsJ. C. (2006). The moral judgment of juvenile delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 11-123.
33.
StutzW. A. (1994). Victim awareness educational program evaluation. Unpublished manuscript, Washington State Department of Corrections, Division of Community Corrections, Victim Services Unit, Olympia, WA.
34.
UmbreitM. S. (1996). Victim offender mediation: From the margins toward the mainstream (Perspectives Newsletter). Saint Paul: Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation, University of Minnesota Press.
35.
U.S. National Institute of Corrections. (2004). Corrections-based services for victims of crime. Longmont, CO: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections Information Center. Retrieved from http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2004/019947.pdf
36.
VoseB.LowencampC. T.SmithP.CullenF. T. (2009). Gender and the predictive validity of the LSI-R: A study of parolees and probationers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 459-471.
37.
Van VugtE.GibbsJ.StamsG. J.BijleveldC.HendricksJ.van der LaanP. (2011). Moral development and recidivism: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 1234-1250.
