Evidence on the Effectiveness of Juvenile Court Sanctions

PurposeThe past decade has been witness to a proliferation of calls for evidence-based juvenile court sanctions—including various programs, interventions, services, and strategies or approaches—that reduce recidivism and improve mental health, drug dependency, and education outcomes. At the same time, an emerging body of work has identified “proven,” “evidence-based,” “best practice,” or, more generally, “effective” efforts to achieve these outcomes. Even so, grounds for concern exist regarding the evidence-base for these and other sanctions.MethodsThis paper describes the heterogeneity of sanctioning within juvenile justice and argues that, despite substantial advances in research, the heterogeneity severely delimits the generalizability of evaluations to date. It also raises questions about how much is in fact known about the effectiveness of many juvenile justice sanctions.ConclusionExtant research offers grounds for optimism. Even so, explicit articulation of the limitations of this research and the need for studies that examine external validity is important for developing evidence about “what works” in juvenile justice. Implications for research and policy are discussed.

► Substantial heterogeneity in juvenile justice sanctions and interventions exists.
► The external validity of studies that evaluate them remains largely unknown.
► The evidence-base for existing sanctions and interventions is thus limited.
► Practiced-based evidence research can help to identify effective sanctions.
► Better systems for monitoring and assessing sanctions and outcomes are needed.