Reviews in the Justice-Involved Youth topic area determine the quality of causal evidence on interventions that aim to improve the employment, earnings, education, and/or recidivism outcomes of youth involved in the justice system. To identify studies for this topic area, CLEAR compiled studies identified for two other systematic reviews as well as studies identified from additional research repositories. Therefore, this is not a systematic review.
Justice-Involved Youth
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 2005 - 2015.
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 11 - 19 of 19
Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the marginal impacts of three layered treatments—drug court hearings, substance abuse therapy, and contingency management counseling—on criminal justice outcomes…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the South Oxnard Challenge Project (SOCP), an alternative juvenile probation program, on delinquency and drug use. The study was a randomized…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to evaluate the effect of participating in a juvenile drug court in Farmington, New Mexico, on recidivism. The author used historical data from official court records to…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Transitional Living program on education, earnings, and recidivism outcomes. The authors used a randomized controlled trial and estimated…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of the Los Angeles County Repeat Offender Prevention Program (ROPP) on youths’ recidivism and educational outcomes. The authors randomly assigned eligible youth to…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Harford County (Maryland) Juvenile Drug Court on recidivism. The authors used administrative records to estimate the impact of the drug court…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study examined the impact of structured after-care and reentry services for justice-involved youth on their recidivism rates. The study used a nonexperimental design to compare youth who…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Reentry Services Project (RSP) on juvenile recidivism. The authors estimated regression models comparing the number of criminal and official…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Boys & Girls Clubs of America’s Targeted Re-Entry Initiative on youth’s recidivism. The authors used administrative data to match…
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.