Butts, Jeffrey A., John K. Roman, and Katheryne Pugliese (2024). Evidence-oriented youth justice. Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Crime and Justice Policy. Brandon C. Welsh, Steven N. Zane, and Daniel P. Mears (Editors). New York: Oxford University Press.
Conclusion of the chapter:
It is facile to characterize youth justice policymaking as choosing programs that work versus those that do not. To meet the foundational goals of youth justice — i.e., mitigating various individual, family, and community factors leading to delinquent behavior — a less polarizing framework is required. The evidence base of youth justice is growing, but researchers still know far more about what does not work than what does. These limitations are apparent in two accessible research repositories that inform justice policy — Blueprints and CrimeSolutions. Using either of these important sources of research information, practitioners would find just five youth justice interventions that qualify as evidence-based approaches: cognitive-behavioral therapy, group therapy, family therapy, interpersonal skill building, and mentoring. All five models implicitly locate the source of youth offending in the individual deficits of youth and families. Mainstream theories of delinquency suggest a wider range of causes, including social, economic, cultural, and structural factors. As yet, however, the evaluation field has not presented system leaders with proven, ready-to-use interventions addressing those factors. Researchers have much work to do.
The youth justice field needs research to fill critical gaps in practice and theory. Without such evidence, policymakers and funding sources will continue to build evidence within a narrow theoretical range and create less-than-comprehensive youth justice strategies. The best way to understand evaluation research and the development of evidence in youth justice today is to view it as a contentious and evolving process constantly affected by theoretical differences, political ideology, financial interest, bureaucratic dysfunction, and the practical concerns of measurement and data collection. It is not a simple, unfettered accumulation of readily available knowledge about what works.
