Practice Profile: Cognitive–Behavioral Interventions for Justice-Involved Juveniles and Young Adults Adjudicated for an Offense in Europe

Evidence Rating for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types

Date: This profile was posted on July 30, 2021

This practice involves the use of cognitive–behavioral interventions to reduce the reoffending of juveniles and young adults adjudicated for an offense in Europe. Cognitive–behavioral interventions include various similar therapies, including thinking skills programs, social skills and problem-solving approaches, and reinforcement of behavioral change. This practice is rated Promising for the reduction of reoffending.

Practice Goals/Target Population

Cognitive–behavioral interventions can be any problem-focused approach that attempts to help people identify and change dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and patterns of behavior that contribute to their problems. Cognitive–behavioral approaches to reduce crime and delinquency target an individual’s thinking process and choices that led to their criminal behavior (Development Services Group, Inc., 2010; Lipsey, Landenberger, and Wilson 2007).

While there is research focused on the effectiveness of cognitive–behavioral interventions in North America, there is little information regarding how well these findings transfer to European countries and cultures (Koehler et al. 2013). This practice is focused on cognitive–behavioral interventions for reducing recidivism in the specific population of justice-involved youth and young adults in Europe.

Practice Theory

Cognitive–behavioral interventions are based on the supposition that cognitive dysfunctions and distortions that lead to criminal behavior are learned rather than inherited. Examples of such distorted thoughts include self-justificatory thinking, misinterpretation of social cues, lack of moral reasoning, and feelings of dominance or superiority. These types of “criminal thinking” may lead to criminal behaviors. Thus, cognitive–behavioral interventions teach recipients to self-monitor their thinking, and then use therapeutic techniques to identify and correct biased, risky, or otherwise distorted thought patterns (Lipsey, Landenberger, and Wilson 2007).

Practice Components

All cognitive–behavioral interventions attempt to help people identify and change dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and patterns of behavior that contribute to their problems, but they can be implemented in different ways. They can be implemented in a correctional facility or can be community based. They also can vary in intensity depending on the need level of the participant. One example of a cognitive–behavioral intervention is Reasoning and Rehabilitation, which is a program intended for justice-involved youth in England and Wales that aims to teach specific cognitive skills such as self-control, social perspective-taking, critical reasoning, assertiveness, emotional control, and problem-solving and reasoning skills. The goal of teaching these skills is to enable participants to think and therefore act more prosocially. It is delivered to groups of 6 to 12 participants in the community through 36 two-hour sessions. Reasoning and Rehabilitation is intended for youths who are determined to be at medium to high risk for reoffending. Another program example is Enhanced Thinking Skills, which is an adaptation of Reasoning and Rehabilitation and is specifically adapted for individuals adjudicated for an offense (also in England and Wales) who are medium risk and held in custody at the time of delivery. Enhanced Thinking Skills is a shorter program, taking place across 20 two-hour sessions (Cann, Falshaw, and Friendship 2005).

Meta-Analysis Snapshot
	Literature Coverage Dates	Number of Studies	Number of Study Participants
Meta Analysis 1	1980-2009	25	7940

Meta Analysis 1

Using meta-analytic techniques, Koehler and colleagues (2013) analyzed the effect of treatment programs on recidivism for juveniles and young adults adjudicated for an offense in Europe, and conducted a moderator analysis to assess the differential effectiveness of the various treatment types including cognitive behavioral interventions. To identify studies, numerous online databases were used, including International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, PSYCINFO, PSYCHARTICLES, PUBMED, COCHRANE Library, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, ERIC, and Science Direct. A variety of key search terms were used, such as juvenile, delinquent, therapy, rehabilitation, cognitive, mandated, outcome, recidivism, and reoffending.

To be eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis, studies had to be evaluations of interventions that contained a circumscribed correctional program that aimed to reduce reoffending. The literature search focused on evaluations conducted in Europe that targeted juveniles and young adults adjudicated for an offense, defined as previously adjudicated youths up to age 25. Published and unpublished evaluations that appeared between the years 1980 and 2009 were considered, and any report in a commonly used European language was deemed eligible. To be eligible, the evaluation had to compare the effect of the intervention in a treatment group with the level of reoffending in a control group. The control group could be defined as no treatment, treatment as usual, or an alternative treatment, but there had to be a clear indication of equivalence between groups (this could be achieved through randomization, matching, or statistical comparisons of equivalence). Evaluations had to include a form of reoffending as an outcome, which included both formal legal measures (rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration, and revocation of probation or parole) and self-reported data pertaining to crime. Measures of lower level offenses that do not constitute as crime, such as antisocial behavior, were not included. Finally, for the study to be considered eligible, effects had to be reported as any common statistics or raw data that would allow for the calculation of effect sizes.

The sample of studies comprised 21 evaluations with 25 discrete comparisons between treatment and control groups. The sample consisted of a total n of 7,940 juveniles and young adults adjudicated for an offense, with 3,883 in the treatment groups, and 4,057 subjects in the control groups. The mean age of participants was 15 and younger for 8 studies, ages 16 to 20 for 14 studies, and ages 21–25 for 3 studies. The mean age of participants across all studies was 17.9 years. The sample was more than 90 percent male in 8 studies, less than 90 percent male in 11 studies, and not reported in 6 studies. Most evaluations were conducted in the United Kingdom (64 percent), but evaluations from the Netherlands (16 percent), Germany (8 percent), Norway (8 percent), and Sweden (4 percent) also were included. Of the 25 studies, 16 percent were random experiments. The remainder had either moderate or strong statistical control (52 percent and 32 percent respectively). Most interventions were community based (68 percent) and voluntary (56 percent). Interventions that were evaluated included behavioral/cognitive–behavioral interventions (11 studies), nonbehavioral (10 studies), and intensive supervision/deterrence (4 studies). The CrimeSolutions review focused on the 11 studies that evaluated behavioral or cognitive–behavioral interventions.

The effect sizes for the outcome variable (reoffending) were calculated using Cohen’s d, which were converted into an odds ratio. When necessary values were omitted from the study report, the effect size was calculated based on available p, t, or F values.

Date Created: July 17, 2024

Rating Process

Learn how this and other practices are rated

Practice Snapshot

Age: 15 - 25

Gender: Male, Female

Targeted Population: Prisoners

Setting (Delivery): Other Community Setting, Correctional

Practice Type: Cognitive Behavioral Treatment, Probation/Parole Services

Unit of Analysis: Persons

Practice Profile: Cognitive–Behavioral Interventions for Justice-Involved Juveniles and Young Adults Adjudicated for an Offense in Europe

Notice

Practice Summary

Practice Description

Practice Goals/Target Population

Practice Theory

Practice Components

Meta-Analysis Outcomes

Meta-Analysis Methodology

Cost

Evidence-Base (Meta-Analyses Reviewed)

Additional References

Related Programs