Center for Juvenile Justice Reform: Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs

Anyone who wants to see fewer youth return to the juvenile justice system wants to provide them with effective services. There's plenty of evidence about what works, but the problem has been implementing proven programs at scale. 
So a new publication from the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform (CJJR) at Georgetown University couldn't come at a better time. Titled, "Improving the Effectiveness of Juvenile Justice Programs: A New Perspective on Evidence-Based Practice," it was authored by Mark W. Lipsey, James C. Howell, Marion R. Kelly, Gabrielle Chapman, and Darin Carver. 
It includes a quick overview of the evidence base on what works in juvenile justice, and a review of Mark Lipsey's gigantic meta-analysis of 548 evaluation studies (1958 - 2002) from which are drawn general guidelines on effective practice. 

At the heart of the document is a description of Lipsey's Standardized Program Evaluation Protocol (SPEP), which is intended to help local juvenile justice systems compare their programming (almost across the board) with what evidence has shown works. This can help support communities in retaining locally-grown programs that work (or beefing them up as needed) and help them perform continual quality improvement, without necessarily obligating them to implement "gold-standard" programs.

Want to try out the SPEP in your jurisdiction? States will be able to apply for assistance from CJJR's Juvenile Justice System Improvement Project some time in January 2011 March 2011. It'll be a competitive process: only three lucky states will be approved.
The tool was announced at a symposium CJJR held on December 3 - to learn more, check out the press release or resources page.

What do you think? Were you at the symposium? Have you reviewed the document? Let us know what you think by leaving a comment.
Related Post:

• Need more help evaluating program outcomes? Check out this handy post, which addresses potential evaluation issues and bias: "Assessing Program Outcomes Can be Tricky."