Bridging the gap between research and frontline youth justice practice
| Author | Gemma Morgan,Pamela Ugwudike |
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817753509 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817753509
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2019, Vol. 19(2) 232 –253
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895817753509
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Bridging the gap between
research and frontline youth
justice practice
Pamela Ugwudike
University of Southampton, UK
Gemma Morgan
Swansea University, UK
Abstract
Although the Risk, Need, Responsivity model of rehabilitation is rooted in a substantial body
of research evidence, several studies of the model’s efficacy in youth and adult justice settings
within England and Wales have revealed modest outcomes. In this article, we contend that the
findings do not necessarily reflect deficits in the model. Rather, a growing corpus of research
now indicates that poor practice integrity or inadequate implementation of the model’s principles
is a key but under-researched factor that undermines the efficacy of interventions based on
the model. We also present the findings of a study that explored applications of the model in
three Welsh youth justice services and we examine possible means of bridging the gap between
research evidence and real-world practice.
Keywords
Evidence-based practice, programme integrity, rehabilitation, supervision skills, youth justice
Introduction
In the 1990s, small-scale studies in the UK and meta-analytic reviews of mainly North
American research literature on criminal justice interventions revealed that interventions
that adhere to certain research-based principles of practice can reduce recidivism rates
Corresponding author:
Pamela Ugwudike, Department of Sociology, Social Policy and Criminology, University of Southampton,
Southampton, Hampshire, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Email: p.ugwudike@soton.ac.uk
753509CRJ0010.1177/1748895817753509Criminology & Criminal JusticeUgwudike and Morgan
research-article2018
Article
Ugwudike and Morgan 233
(Andrews et al., 1990; McGuire, 1995). Although there was substantial research evi-
dence to support the efficacy of up to 17 principles of practice, the meta-analytic reviews
pointed to the fundamentality of three core principles, namely the risk, need and respon-
sivity (RNR) principles.1 The reviews revealed that adhering to these principles of prac-
tice can reduce reconviction rates, not only in adult criminal justice settings, but also in
youth justice settings (Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey, 2009; McGuire, 1995).
However, when interventions based on the principles were evaluated in some youth
justice services in England and Wales, the evaluations produced inconclusive evidence
of the model’s efficacy (Cann et al., 2003; Feilzer et al., 2004). Similar findings have
emerged in adult justice settings. For example, a recent evaluation of the Sex Offender
Treatment Programme (SOTP) which is based on the model has also produced limited
evidence of positive outcomes. Indeed, programme participants reoffended at a higher
rate than non-participants. The researchers did however acknowledge that issues to do
with the design and implementation of the programme were not assessed: ‘[t]his study
does not reveal the extent to which Core SOTP reoffending outcomes are due to treat-
ment design or poor implementation. However, the treatment approach should be modi-
fied in line with the latest evidence base’ (Mews et al., 2017: 5).
A limitation of the studies cited above is that they were impact evaluations that did not
closely examine the processes of service delivery to assess whether the model’s princi-
ples were being implemented appropriately. In other words, the studies overlooked the
important issue of programme integrity. The term ‘programme integrity’ has been used
to describe the degree to which interventions are delivered according to their design or
underpinning principles (Helmond et al., 2014). Therefore, interventions that adhere to
the research-based principles are said to possess high programme integrity, and they are
more likely to reduce recidivism than interventions that demonstrate poor programme
integrity (Helmond et al., 2014; Lowenkamp et al., 2006). Studies have found that poor
programme integrity correlates with attrition and higher risks of reconviction (Andrews
et al., 1990, 2011; Hollin and Palmer, 2006; Lowenkamp et al., 2006).
To date, although much has been written about the importance of programme integ-
rity, the few studies that have explored this issue have been conducted mainly in adult
criminal justice settings and in jurisdictions outside the UK. This article seeks to expand
the existing literature by addressing the ‘programme integrity’ gap (Helmond et al.,
2014: 1190) in youth justice settings within a UK jurisdiction, namely Wales.
In this article, we broaden the concept of ‘programme integrity’ by reconceptualizing
it as ‘practice integrity’ to reflect developments in research. In particular, there has been
a shift from analysing the impact of structured RNR programmes (mainly structured
group programmes) to studying the processes of applying the research-based principles
during assessments, sentence planning, routine one-to-one supervision practice, enforce-
ment practice or while delivering other interventions (Bonta et al., 2017; Raynor et al.,
2014; Sorsby et al., 2017; Trotter, 2013). Therefore, practice integrity involves applying
evidence-based RNR principles that are relevant to a given aspect of frontline practice,
including the examples provided above.
In line with the growing focus of recent research on studying broad aspects of practice
to support the integration of research-based principles (rather than the narrow focus on
structured programmes), we explored practice integrity within three youth justice
To continue reading
Request your trial