Problems addressed

Effectiveness

Promising

.

.

.

.

.

Promising

¿Quieres saber más acerca de esta clasificación? Consulte nuestro manual metodológico.

Description

“Alternative Measures” are understood as judicial measures applicable before or after conviction that, instead of establishing a prison sentence, seek, by judicial decision, to apply non-custodial penalties and sanctions.
In the case of young individuals in conflict with the criminal law, the application of alternative measures is in line with the principles and safeguards enshrined in various international instruments, which recognize children and adolescents as specially protected subjects. In the juvenile criminal justice system, this mandate manifests as the principles of specialization, de-judicialization, and minimal criminal intervention.
Alternative Measures can be grouped into two distinct categories. On the one hand, pre-sentencing or diversionary interventions take place after an offender has been convicted (this may include a guilty plea), but prior to formal entry into the criminal justice system for sentencing. On the other hand, post-sentencing interventions are carried out as a direct part of a sentence or after a sentence has been passed. Probation or parole is an alternative measure to juvenile institutionalization.

Country of application
  • United States
Evidence

An analysis carried out a systematic review with 17 studies on pre-sentence (or referral) interventions and 12 studies on post-sentence interventions [1]. The evidence found indicates that there are positive effects of pre-sentence diversion with personal skills training programs, especially for primary offenders, compared to standard diversion (caution and monitoring). As for post-sentencing, there are positive effects in community-based family residential placement programs compared to standard residential placement for female juvenile offenders.
A meta-analysis was devoted to studying interventions under the control of the juvenile justice system (probation and parole vs. institutionalization) for serious young offenders [2]. A study of 200 experimental and quasi-experimental papers found that the treatment effect on recidivism was statistically significant (12% average reduction in juvenile recidivism). Because of the high internal heterogeneity due to methodological and treatment characteristics, it is important to distinguish between institutionalized and non-institutionalized youth. Counseling was most effective to reduce recidivism for non-institutionalized youth, while teaching interpersonal skills was most effective for institutionalized youth.

Bibliography

[1] Newman, M., Vigurs, C., Perry, A., Hallam, G., Schertler, E., Johnson, M., & Wall, R. (2012). A systematic review of selected interventions to reduce juvenile re-offending. Technical Report. EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Portals/0/PDF%20reviews%20and%20summaries/Ju…

[2] Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious & violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313–345). Sage Publications, Inc. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/181201.pdf

Information Source

Evaluated cases

Why might the cases evaluated have different levels of effectiveness in relation to their respective type of solution?
Click here to understand why.

Some cases were not included in the evidence bank due to deficiencies detected in the methodology of their impact evaluations.
Click here to see the list

 

Image
flag

Send us your study!

Have you participated in impact evaluation studies of interventions to prevent crime, violence or disorder? Send us your study. It will be evaluated and may be included in the Evidence Bank!

Contact us