Search

Abstract Background Parental substance misuse is a pervasive risk factor for a range of detrimental outcomes for children across the life course. While a variety of interventions have been developed for this population, the existing evidence‐base requires consolidation and consideration of the comparative effectiveness of different interventions to facilitate evidence‐informed decisions between different intervention approaches. Objectives This review aimed to use network meta‐analysis to synthesise the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. Network meta‐analysis was not possible; however, we synthesised the effects of a broad range of interventions on child psychosocial outcomes. Another aim was to examine potential moderators of the effects, yet this was also not possible due to data limitations. A secondary objective was to qualitatively synthesise economic, treatment completion, and treatment acceptability information for included studies. Search Methods Searches were performed in November 2020 and again in April 2021. Encompassing multiple disciplines, we searched 34 databases, 58 grey literature repositories, and 10 trial registers. Supplementary hand searches were conducted on 11 journals, along with harvesting the references of all included studies and existing reviews, and forward citation searching each report of all included studies. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing data. Selection Criteria Eligible studies included randomised and quasi‐experimental evaluations of psychosocial, pharmacological, and/or legal interventions using either a placebo, no treatment, waitlist control, treatment‐as‐usual, or alternative treatment as a comparison condition. Study participants needed to be comprised of families with children under the age of 18 with one or more currently substance‐misusing parents (or caregivers). Studies were required to evaluate the eligible intervention using a child‐focused psychosocial outcome. If reported in eligible studies, the following secondary outcomes were also synthesised in the review: cost‐effectiveness, treatment completion, length of time in treatment and acceptability of treatment (e.g., participant perspectives of the intervention). There were no restrictions placed on publication status or geographic location, however only research written in English was included. Data Collection and Analysis Standard methodological procedures were followed across all stages of the review, as guided by the published protocol for the review (Eggins et al., 2020). Due to the inability to conduct network meta‐analyses, random effects pairwise meta‐analyses with inverse variance were used to synthesise effects when two or more studies with conceptually similar interventions and outcomes were available. Results of the meta‐analyses are displayed in forest plots, and separate analyses are provided for conceptually distinct outcomes and time‐points of measurement. Sensitivity analyses are used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity in the absence of sufficient studies to conduct subgroup analyses. Main Results 99 studies (reported in 231 documents) met review inclusion criteria, encompassing 22,213 participants. Most studies were conducted in the United States (k = 76), almost half were randomised controlled trials (k = 46), and the most common comparator was treatment‐as‐usual (k = 50). Interventions were evaluated using a large range of child psychosocial outcomes which broadly fell under: (a) child welfare; (b) child development; (c) child emotional and behavioural; and (d) educational domains. Intervention models were rarely only legal or pharmacological in nature, with most studies evaluating integrated psychosocial treatments with either pharmacology, coordinated health care, case‐management, and/or judicial or child welfare oversight and coordination. Thirty‐six meta‐analyses and 227 single effect sizes were used to appraise the effectiveness of included interventions, based on 68 studies with sufficient data for effect size calculation. The size and direction of the effects varied across interventions, type of outcomes, and time‐point of measurement. Twenty‐seven meta‐analyses and 186 single effect sizes suggested null effects. Only five single effect size estimates based on three studies indicated negative effects including: higher depressive and somatisation symptoms (parent‐report), hopelessness (child‐report), educational achievement difficulties (parent‐report), and substantiated child protection reports for those engaged with interventions versus treatment‐as‐usual or no treatment. Nine meta‐analyses and 36 single study effect estimates suggest that psychosocial, pharmacological and/or legal interventions have a positive effect on a range of specific child welfare, developmental, and emotional/behavioural outcomes for children. The risk of bias varied across domains and studies, which further lowers confidence in the results. Based on a subset of included studies, treatment completion tends to vary, yet cost‐benefits can be achieved when intervening with children whose parents misuse substances. Authors' Conclusions Despite a large body of evaluation evidence, disparate outcomes, and missing data precluded analyses to formally examine the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. The large amount of unreported (missing) data meant that many effect estimates were underpowered due to single studies and small sample sizes. The review findings suggest that interventions for families affected by parental substance misuse can be effective when they holistically address multiple domains such as parent wellbeing/mental health, parenting, children's wellbeing, and/or other factors impacting family wellbeing (e.g., housing).

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell Collaboration systematic review. Our objective is to synthesize what is known about the effectiveness of strategies for reducing community violence, focusing on those strategies that have been subjected to a systematic review. We aim to answer the following questions in this review: what strategies to reduce community violence have been rigorously evaluated through systematic reviews; which have sufficient evidence of effectiveness, which seem promising, and which appear ineffective; and what implications for practice and policy can be drawn from this large body of research? We anticipate categorizing the results of our review similarly to the original review by Abt and Winship (2016). That is, categorizing reviews by people‐based approaches, place‐based approaches, and behavior‐based approaches. However, given that this is an updated review and we will be incorporating additional studies, we may find that an alternative or additional categorization is warranted and update our categorization accordingly. Implications for policy and practice as they relate to these categories will be discussed.

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objective is to assess the effects of interrogation approach on confession outcomes for criminal (mock) suspects.

Executive Summary/Abstract Background Survey research and analysis of police records, hospital emergency rooms, and women's shelters have clearly established the severity of the intimate partner violence problem and the need to find programs to address this issue. Roughly 1 in 4 women in an intimate relationship is a victim of intimate partner violence. Court‐mandated batterer intervention programs (BIPs) have been implemented throughout the United States as a leading method to address this problem. These programs are also now implemented in Canada and Europe. These programs emerged from the women's shelter movement leading to programs with a strong feminist orientation, such as the Duluth Model. The programs that were developed were group‐based and relied on psychoeducational methods. Their aim was to get men to take responsibility for their sexist beliefs and stop abusing their partners by teaching them alternative responses for handling their anger. More recent programs draw from cognitive‐behavioral therapeutic principles or a mix of the latter with feminist components as well. Objectives This is an update of our prior review. The aim was to assess the effects of postarrest court‐mandated interventions for intimate partner violence offenders that target, in part or exclusively, male batterers. Our focus was on studies aimed at reducing intimate partner violence, above and beyond what would have been expected by routine legal procedures (e.g., probation monitoring, etc.). Search Methods We searched numerous databases and websites, bibliographies of published reviews of related literature, and a scrutiny of annotated bibliographies of related literature. Our goal was to identify all published and unpublished literature that met our selection criteria. The original review identified nine eligible studies. The updated search identified two new studies. The total sample size across these 11 studies was 4824. Selection Criteria We included experimental (random assignment) and quasi‐experimental evaluations of court‐mandated BIPs that measured official or victim reports of future intimate partner violence. Rigorous quasi‐experimental designs were defined as those that either used matching or statistical controls to improve the comparability of the treated (program) and untreated (comparison) groups. The original review also included quasi‐experimental designs that used treatment drop‐outs as the comparison group. Given the serious selection bias of such studies, these have not been included in this update. Data Collection and Analysis We coded characteristics of the treatment, sample, outcomes, and research methods. Findings were extracted in the form of an effect size and effect sizes were analyzed using the inverse‐variance weight method of meta‐analysis. Official report and victim report outcomes were analyzed separately as were the different design types (i.e., random assignment and quasi‐experimental designs with a no treatment comparison). Results The mean effect for official reports of intimate partner violence from experimental studies showed a modest (but statistically nonsignificant) benefit for the program group (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.49–1.28], k = 7) whereas the mean effect for victim reported outcomes showed equal outcomes for both groups (e.g., no benefit or harm; odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, [0.74–1.32], k = 7). The quasi‐experimental studies showed a small but not statistically significant benefit for the program group on official reports (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI [0.24–1.22], k = 7). One quasi‐experiment reported a nonsignificant effect for a victim report outcome (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI [0.50–6.14], k = 1). None of the analyses were statistically significant. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that these programs are effective. Both the official measure and the victim reported measures have potential sources of bias, increasing the uncertainty regarding any benefits or harms related to these programs. Authors' Conclusions The findings, we believe, raise doubts about the effectiveness of court‐mandated BIPs in reducing re‐assault among men convicted of misdemeanor intimate partner violence. New programs and/or entirely new approaches to this important social problem should be explored.

Abstract This review aims to first enhance and update existing reviews by comprehensively synthesising the full array of psychosocial, pharmacological and legal interventions that aim to improve the psychosocial outcomes of children with substance misusing parents. Second, the review aims to use network meta‐analysis to integrate and examine the comparative impact of these interventions. Specifically, the review will address the following research questions: (1) What is the comparative impact of psychosocial, pharmacological, and legal interventions for improving the psychosocial outcomes of children with substance misusing parents? (2) Does the impact of interventions vary according to the child developmental period (e.g., infancy, early childhood, adolescence) or the type of (a) outcome measure; (b) substance misuse; (c) practitioner implementing the intervention; or (d) intervention setting? (3) Does the impact of interventions vary by the country of implementation?

This Campbell systematic review examines the effects police‐initiated diversion programs on delinquent behavior, compared to traditional system processing. The review summarizes evidence from nineteen high‐quality studies, including 13 randomized controlled trials and six quasi‐experimental studies. This review includes studies that evaluated the effects of police‐led diversionary practices compared to traditional processing for youth under 18 years of age. We identified a total of 14 manuscripts representing 19 evaluations. Of these 19 evaluations, 13 used randomized controlled designs (random assignment to conditions) and 6 used quasi‐experimental designs (no random assignment to conditions). Many of these designs included two or more diversionary conditions compared to a common control (traditional processing) producing 31 treatment‐comparison contrasts for analysis. These studies were conducted between 1973 and 2011, inclusively. Most were conducted in the USA (11) with the remaining conducted in Canada (4), Australia (2), and the UK (2). The general pattern of evidence is positive, suggesting that police‐led diversion reduces the future delinquent behavior of low‐risk youth relative to traditional processing. Assuming a 50 percent reoffending rate for the traditional processing condition, the results suggest a reoffending rate of roughly 44 percent for the diverted youth. This overall benefit of diversion holds for the random assignment studies judged to be free from any obvious risks of bias. No meaningful differences were found across types of diversionary programs. Furthermore, we found no evidence to suggest these findings suffer from publication selection bias. Plain language summary Police‐led diversion of low‐risk youth reduces their future contact with the justice system Police‐led diversion of low‐risk youth who come into contact with the justice system is more effective in reducing a youth's future contact with the justice system compared to traditional processing. What is this review about? Youth misconduct and misbehavior is a normal part of adolescence and that misbehavior sometimes crosses the line from disruptive or problematic to delinquent. Nationally representative surveys of youth in the USA have indicated that minor delinquent behavior is normative, particularly for boys. The normative nature of minor delinquent behavior raises the question of how police should respond to minor delinquent behavior in a way that is corrective, but also avoids involving the youth in the criminal justice system beyond what will be effective in reducing future misbehavior. Police diversion schemes are a collection of strategies police can apply as an alternative to court processing of youth. Diversion as an option is popular among law enforcement officers, as it provides an option between ignoring youth engaged in minor wrongdoing and formally charging such youth with a crime. Police‐led diversion has the potential to reduce reoffending by limiting the exposure of low‐risk youth to potentially harmful effects of engagement with the criminal justice system. What is the aim of this review? This Campbell systematic review examines the effects police‐initiated diversion programs on delinquent behavior, compared to traditional system processing. The review summarizes evidence from nineteen high‐quality studies, including 13 randomized controlled trials and six quasi‐experimental studies. This review examined whether police‐led diversion and traditional processing of youth have different effects on rates of official delinquency. What are the main findings of this review? This review includes studies that evaluated the effects of police‐led diversionary practices compared to traditional processing for youth under 18 years of age. We identified a total of 14 manuscripts representing 19 evaluations. Of these 19 evaluations, 13 used randomized controlled designs (random assignment to conditions) and 6 used quasi‐experimental designs (no random assignment to conditions). Many of these designs included two or more diversionary conditions compared to a common control (traditional processing) producing 31 treatment‐comparison contrasts for analysis. These studies were conducted between 1973 and 2011, inclusively. Most were conducted in the USA (11) with the remaining conducted in Canada (4), Australia (2), and the UK (2). The general pattern of evidence is positive, suggesting that police‐led diversion reduces the future delinquent behavior of low‐risk youth relative to traditional processing. Assuming a 50 percent reoffending rate for the traditional processing condition, the results suggest a reoffending rate of roughly 44 percent for the diverted youth. This overall benefit of diversion holds for the random assignment studies judged to be free from any obvious risks of bias. No meaningful differences were found across types of diversionary programs. Furthermore, we found no evidence to suggest these findings suffer from publication selection bias. What do the findings of this review mean? The findings from this systematic review support the use of police‐led diversion for low‐risk youth with limited or no prior involvement with the juvenile justice system. Thus, police departments and policy‐makers should consider diversionary programs as part of the mix of solutions for addressing youth crime. Many of the studies included in the review were conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. Newer high quality studies are needed to ensure that the findings still hold for contemporary juvenile justice contexts. Additional studies are also needed outside of the USA for this same reason. Finally, we recommend that research explore the usefulness of diversion for low‐risk adult offenders. How up‐to‐date is this review? The search for eligible studies was completed in January of 2017, so only studies identifiable through January 2017 were included. This Campbell systematic review was published in May 2018. Executive summary/Abstract Background Overly punitive responses to youth misconduct may have the unintended consequence of increasing the likelihood of future delinquency; yet, overly lenient responses may fail to serve as a corrective for the misbehavior. Police diversion schemes are a collection of strategies police can apply as an alternative to court processing of youth. Police‐initiated diversion schemes aim to reduce reoffending by steering youth away from deeper penetration into the criminal justice system and by providing an alternative intervention that can help youth address psychosocial development or other needs that contribute to their problem behavior. Objectives The objective of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of pre‐court interventions involving police warning or counseling and release, and cautioning schemes in reducing delinquent behavior. Search methods A combination of 26 databases and websites were searched. References of relevant reviews were also scanned to identify studies. We also consulted with experts in the field. Searches were executed by two reviewers and conducted between August 2016 and January 2017. Selection criteria Only experimental and quasi‐experimental designs were eligible for this review. All quasi‐experimental designs must have had a comparison group similar to the police diversion intervention group with respect to demographic characteristics and prior involvement in delinquent behavior (i.e., at similar risk for future delinquent behavior). Additionally, studies must have included youth participants between 12 and 17 years of age who either underwent traditional system processing or were diverted from court processing through a police‐led diversion program. Studies were also eligible if delinquency‐related outcomes, including official and non‐official (self‐report or third‐party reporting) measures of delinquency were reported. Data collection and analysis This study used meta‐analysis to synthesize results across studies. This method involved systematic coding of study features and conversion of study findings into effect sizes reflecting the direction and magnitude of any police‐led diversion effect. There were 19 independent evaluations across the 14 primary documents coded for this review. From this, we coded 67 effect sizes of delinquent behavior post diversion across 31 diversion‐traditional processing comparisons. We analyzed these comparisons using two approaches. The first approach selected a single effect size per comparison based on a decision rule and the second used all 67 effect sizes, nesting these within comparison condition and evaluation design. Results The general pattern of evidence is positive, suggesting that police‐led diversion modestly reduces future delinquent behavior of low‐risk youth relative to traditional processing. Authors' conclusions The findings from this systematic review support the use of police‐led diversion for low‐risk youth with limited or no prior involvement with the juvenile justice system. Thus, police departments and policy‐makers should consider diversionary programs as part of the mix of solutions for addressing youth crime.

Background Amphetamine‐type stimulants (ATS) refer to a group of synthetic stimulants including amphetamine, methamphetamine, 3,4‐methylenedioxy‐methamphetamine (MDMA) and related substances. ATS are highly addictive and prolonged use may result in a series of mental and physical symptoms including anxiety, confusion, insomnia, mood disturbances, cognitive impairments, paranoia, hallucinations and delusion. Currently there is no widely accepted treatment for ATS‐use disorder. However, cognitive‐behavioural treatment (CBT) is the first‐choice treatment. The effectiveness of CBT for other substance‐use disorders (e.g. alcohol‐, opioid‐ and cocaine‐use disorders) has been well documented and as such this basic treatment approach has been applied to the ATS‐use disorder. Objectives To investigate the efficacy of cognitive‐behavioural treatment for people with ATS‐use disorder for reducing ATS use compared to other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12‐step facilitation, no intervention or treatment as usual. Search methods We identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) and quasi‐RCTs comparing CBT for ATS‐use disorders with other types of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, 12 step facilitation or no intervention. We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and five other databases up to July 2018. In addition, we examined reference lists of eligible studies and other systematic reviews. We contacted experts in the field. Selection criteria Eligibility criteria consisted of RCTs and quasi‐RCTs comparing CBT versus other types of interventions with adult ATS users (aged 18 years or older) diagnosed by any explicit diagnostic system. Primary outcomes included abstinence rate and other indicators of drug‐using behaviours. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results Only two studies met the eligibility criteria. Both studies were at low risk of selection bias and reporting bias. In one study, almost half of participants in the intervention group dropped out and this study was at high risk of attrition bias. The studies compared a single session of brief CBT or a web‐based CBT to a waiting‐list control (total sample size across studies of 129). Results were mixed across the studies. For the single‐session brief CBT study, two out of five measures of drug use produced significant results, percentage of abstinent days in 90 days (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 2.11) and dependence symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.59, 95% CI–1.16 to–0.02). Little confidence could be placed in the results from this study give the small sample size (25 participants per group) and corresponding large CIs around the observed effects. For the web‐based CBT, there was no significant difference across different outcomes. Neither study reported adverse effects. The meta‐analytic mean across these two trials for drug use was not significant (SMD –0.28, 95% CI–0.69 to 0.14). In summary, overall quality of evidence was low and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that CBT is effective, or ineffective, at treating ATS use. Authors' conclusions Currently, there is not enough evidence to establish the efficacy of CBT for ATS‐use disorders because of a paucity of high‐quality research in this area.

This review synthesizes the evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile curfews in reducing criminal behavior and victimization among youth. Included studies test the effect of an official state or local policy intended to restrict or otherwise penalize a juvenile's presence outside the home during certain times of day. This must have been a general preventive measure directed at all youth within a certain age range and not a sanction imposed on a specific youth. Twelve quantitative evaluations of the effects of curfews on youth criminal behavior or victimization are included in the review. Synopsis/Plain Language Summary The Campbell review in brief The evidence suggests that juvenile curfews do not reduce crime or victimization. What is this review about? Curfews restrict youth below a certain – usually 17 or 18 – from public places during nighttime. For example, the Prince George's County, Maryland, curfew ordinance restricts youth younger than 17 from public places between 10 P.M. and 5 A.M. on weekdays and between midnight and 5 A.M. on weekends. Sanctions range from a fine that increases with each offense, community service, and restrictions on a youth's driver's license. Close to three quarters of US cities have curfews, which are also used in Iceland. A juvenile curfew has common sense appeal: keep youth at home during the late night and early morning hours and you will prevent them from committing a crime or being a victim of a crime. In addition, the potential for fines or other sanctions deter youth from being out in a public place during curfew hours. Juvenile curfews have received numerous legal challenges. The constitutional basis for infringing the rights of youth rests on the assumption that they reduce juvenile crime and victimization. This review synthesizes the evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile curfews in reducing criminal behavior and victimization among youth. What are the main findings of this review? What studies are included? Included studies test the effect of an official state or local policy intended to restrict or otherwise penalize a juvenile's presence outside the home during certain times of day. This must have been a general preventive measure directed at all youth within a certain age range and not a sanction imposed on a specific youth. Twelve quantitative evaluations of the effects of curfews on youth criminal behavior or victimization are included in the review. Do curfews reduce crime and victimization? The pattern of evidence suggests that juvenile curfews are ineffective at reducing crime and victimization. The average effect on juvenile crime during curfew hours was slightly positive ‐ that is a slight increase in crime ‐ and close to zero for crime during all hours. Both effects were not significant. Similarly, juvenile victimization also appeared unaffected by the imposition of a curfew ordinance. However, all the studies in the review suffer from some limitations that make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Nonetheless, the lack of any credible evidence in their favour suggests that any effect is likely to be small at best and that curfews are unlikely to be a meaningful solution to juvenile crime and disorder. Other studies have suggested curfews may be ineffective as juvenile crime is concentrated in hours before and after school, and that under‐resourced police forces focus on more urgent demands than enforcing curfews. What do the results mean? Contrary to popular belief, the evidence suggests that juvenile curfews do not produce the expected benefits. The study designs used in this research make it difficult to draw clear conclusions, so more research is needed to replicate the findings. However, many of the biases likely to occur in existing studies would make it more, rather than less, likely that we would conclude curfews are effective. For example, most of these studies were conducted during a time when crime was dropping throughout the United States. Therefore, our findings suggest that either curfews don't have any effect on crime, or the effect is too small to be identified in the research available. How up to date is this review? The search for this review was updated in March 2014, and the review published in March 2016. What is the Campbell Collaboration? The Campbell Collaboration is an international, voluntary, non‐profit research network that publishes systematic reviews. We summarise and evaluate the quality of evidence about programmes in social and behavioural sciences. Our aim is to help people make better choices and better policy decisions. About this summary This summary was prepared by Howard White (Campbell Collaboration) and is based on the Campbell Systematic Review 2016:0X ‘Juvenile Curfew Effects on Criminal Behavior and Victimization: A Systematic Review’ by David B. Wilson, Charlotte Gill, Ajima Olaghere, and Dave McClure. Anne Mellbye (R‐BUP) designed the summary, which was edited and produced by Tanya Kristiansen (Campbell Collaboration). Executive Summary/Abstract BACKGROUND A juvenile curfew has a common sense appeal: keeping youth at home during the late night and early morning hours will prevent them from committing a crime or becoming a victim of a crime. This appeal has led to the popularity of curfews, at least within the United States and Iceland. However, prior reviews have questioned the effectiveness of curfews. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile curfews in reducing criminal behavior and victimization among youth. SEARCH METHODS The systematic search was conducted between January 20, 2014 and March 5, 2014. The search strategy yielded 7,349 titles and abstracts. The initial screening identified 100 of these as potentially relevant and in need of a full text review for study of eligibility. Fifteen documents representing 12 unique studies were found to be eligible and then coded. SELECTION CRITERIA To be eligible, a study must have tested the effect of an official state or local policy intended to restrict or otherwise penalize a juvenile's presence outside the home during certain times of day. This must have been a general preventive measure directed at all youth within a certain age range and not a sanction imposed on a specific youth. All quantitative research designs were eligible. An eligible study must have assessed the effect of a curfew on either juvenile criminal behavior or juvenile victimization. The manuscript, published or unpublished, must have been written in English and reported on data collected after 1959. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The typical evaluation design of an eligible study was a variant on an interrupted time‐series. To accommodate these designs, the effect size used in this synthesis was the percent change in the crime or victimization rate during the period of time with a curfew relative to a baseline period, adjusting for any overall linear time trend. The outcomes of interest included crime and victimization, which were categorized by time of day (curfew hours, non‐curfew hours, or all hours) and offender or victim age (juvenile or adult). The effects during non‐curfew hours and the effects for adults served as control outcomes; that is, outcomes that should be unaffected by a curfew. RESULTS The pattern of evidence suggests that juvenile curfews are ineffective at reducing crime and victimization. The mean effect size for juvenile crime during curfew hours was slightly positive (reflecting a slight increase in crime), whereas it was essentially zero for crime during all hours. Both effects were non‐significant. Similarly, juvenile victimization also appeared unaffected by the imposition of a curfew ordinance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence suggests that juvenile curfews are ineffective at reducing crime or victimization. This is not, however, a conclusive finding. The observational nature of the research designs creates potential sources of bias and, as such, the findings need additional replication. However, many of the most plausible biases should have increased the likelihood of finding an effect. In particular, most of the studies reviewed were conducted during a time period when crime was decreasing throughout the United States. Thus, it appears that juvenile curfews either have no effect on crime and victimization or the effect is too small to be reliably detected with the data available.

The use of DNA testing as part of police investigative work has increased substantially since its emergence in the 1980s. The objective of this Campbell systematic review has been to synthesize the existing evidence on the effectiveness of DNA testing as part of routine police investigative practices compared to other more traditional forms of investigation. We have identified five studies that clearly addressed the effectiveness of DNA testing as part of a criminal investigation to improve criminal justice system outcomes. The evidence suggests that DNA testing has positive value when used to investigate a broad range of crime types. There are caveats. Other than a methodologically sound evaluation in five U.S. jurisdictions, the evidence of the utility of DNA testing for serious violent crimes is based on studies with clear methodological weaknesses. Synopsis The use of DNA testing as part of police investigative work has increased substantially since its emergence in the 1980s. The objective of this review has been to synthesize the existing evidence on the effectiveness of DNA testing as part of routine police investigative practices compared to other more traditional forms of investigation. We have identified five studies that clearly addressed the effectiveness of DNA testing as part of a criminal investigation to improve criminal justice system outcomes. The evidence suggests that DNA testing has positive value when used to investigate a broad range of crime types. There are caveats. Other than a methodologically sound evaluation in five U.S. jurisdictions, the evidence of the utility of DNA testing for serious violent crimes is based on studies with clear methodological weaknesses. Abstract BACKGROUND The use of DNA testing as part of police investigative work has increased substantially since its emergence in the 1980s. Initially used primarily in serious cases, such as homicides and rapes, recent use has expanded to include additional crimes, such as property offenses. The science behind the accuracy of DNA testing is substantial. With the growth of DNA databases, the possibility of comparing DNA evidence collected from a crime scene against a DNA database to identify suspects has become feasible. An important empirical question is whether wide scale use of DNA testing as part of routine police investigative practices will improve case outcomes. OBJECTIVES The objective of this review has been to synthesize existing evidence on the effectiveness of DNA testing as part of routine police investigative practices compared to other more traditional forms of investigation. SEARCH CRITERIA We were inclusive with respect to research design, including both experimental RCT designs and observational or quasi‐experimental studies. All studies must have provided an estimate of the effect of DNA testing (yes/no or degree of) as part of the investigative phase of a criminal case on a criminal justice system outcome, such as the identification of a suspect or a conviction. SELECTION STRATEGY We searched 35 electronic databases and reviewed the references of seminal works in the area. This produced more than 10,000 titles that we scanned for potentially eligible works. These potentially eligible works were examined more carefully and evaluated against our eligibility criteria. This process resulted in five studies that met our inclusion criteria. Four of these five studies were dissertations or government reports. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Studies were coded with respect to a range of methodological and substantive features. When possible, odds‐ratios were computed to reflect the effect of DNA testing on criminal justice system outcomes. Given the diversity of designs, we did not meta‐analyze results across studies. We did, however, use meta‐analysis to synthesize results across multiple sites within two of the five studies. MAIN RESULTS Across studies we found generally positive results regarding the utility of DNA testing. The results from the single experimental study on the effectiveness of DNA for property crimes were consistently positive across the included sites. A time‐series analysis found a relationship between the size of a local DNA database and clearance rates for most crime types. Two of the remaining three quasi‐experimental designs found positive, and sometimes large, effects for the benefits of DNA testing. A study of homicides found a negative effect of the value of DNA. Clear alternative explanations for this finding are plausible. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence suggests that DNA testing has value when used to investigate a broad range of crime types. There are caveats to this conclusion, and additional high quality evaluations are needed to establish the robustness and generalizability of these findings. Other than a methodologically sound evaluation in five U.S. jurisdictions, the evidence of the utility of DNA testing in investigative practices for serious violent crimes is based on studies with clear methodological weaknesses.

This Campbell systematic review examined the effect of ordering violent partners to undergo treatment. The researchers summarized the best studies in this area and analyzed whether court‐mandated treatments prevent repeated assaults. The conclusion is that the current evidence raises doubts about effectiveness of court‐mandated treatment in reducing the probability of repeated domestic violence. Existing research can therefore not guarantee that court‐mandated treatments actually do more good than harm. The review emphasizes that even though there is an acute need for methods to stop and prevent repeated violence, forcing the violent offender to undergo treatment might not result in positive effects. All studies conducted between 1986 and 2003 that examine the effect of court mandated treatments were searched for in the review. The researchers' conclusions are based on ten studies that were assessed to be of sufficient high quality. The studies are all carried out in the USA and include a total of 3,614 participants. Abstract Background: Survey research and analysis of police records, hospital emergency rooms and women's shelters have clearly established the severity of the domestic violence problem and the need to find programs to address this issue. Today, court‐mandated batterer intervention programs (BIPs) are being implemented throughout the United States as one of the leading methods to address this problem. These programs emerged from the women's shelter movement and therefore contained a strong feminist orientation. They developed as group‐based programs, typically using psychoeductional methods. Their aim was to get men to take responsibility for their sexist beliefs and stop abusing their partners by teaching them alternative responses for handling their anger. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effects of post‐arrest court‐mandated interventions (including pre‐trial diversion programs) for domestic violence offenders that target, in part or exclusively, batterers with the aim of reducing their future likelihood of re‐assaulting above and beyond what would have been expected by routine legal procedures. Search Strategies: We searched numerous computerized databases and websites, bibliographies of published reviews of related literature and scrutiny of annotated bibliographies of related literature. Our goal was to identify all published and unpublished literature that met our selection criteria. Selection Criteria: We included experimental or rigorous quasi‐experimental evaluations of court‐mandated batterer intervention programs that measured official or victim reports of future domestic violent behavior. Rigorous quasi‐experimental designs were defined as those that either used matching or statistical controls to improve the comparability of the groups. Given their importance in the literature, we also included rigorous quasi‐experimental designs that used a treatment drop‐out comparison. Data Collection and Analysis: We coded characteristics of the treatment, sample, outcomes, and research methods. Findings were extracted in the form of an effect size and effect sizes were analyzed using the inverse‐variance method. Official report and victim report outcomes were analyzed separately as were the different design types (i.e., random, quasi‐experimental with a no treatment comparison, and quasi‐experimental with a treatment dropout comparison). Main Results: The mean effect for official reports of domestic violence from experimental studies showed modest benefit whereas the mean effect for victim reported outcomes was zero. Quasi‐experimental studies using a no‐treatment comparison had inconsistent findings indicating an overall small harmful effect. In contrast, quasi‐experimental studies using a treatment dropout design showed a large, positive mean effect on domestic violence outcomes. The latter studies suffer, we believe, from selection bias. Reviewer's Conclusions: The findings, we believe, raise doubts about the effectiveness of court‐mandated batterer intervention programs in reducing re‐assault among men convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

The objective of this Campbell systematic review was to synthesize the extant empirical evidence on the effects of boot‐camps and boot camp like programs on the criminal behavior (e.g., postrelease arrest, conviction, or reinstitutionalization) of convicted adult and juvenile offenders. Thirty‐two unique research studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies reported the results from 43 independent boot‐camp/comparison samples. The random effects mean odds‐ratio for any form of recidivism was 1.02, indicating that the likelihood that boot camp participants recidivating was roughly equal to the likelihood of comparison participants recidivating. This overall finding was robust to the selection of the outcome measure and length of follow‐up. Methodological features were only weakly related to outcome among these studies and did not explain the null findings. The overall effect for juvenile boot camps was slightly lower than for adult boot camps. Moderator analysis showed that studies evaluating boot‐camp programs with a strong treatment focus had a larger mean odds‐ratio than studies evaluating boot camps with a weak treatment focus. Although the overall effect appears to be that of “no difference,” some studies found that boot camp participants did better than the comparison, while others found that comparison samples did better. However, all of these studies had the common element of a militaristic boot camp program for offenders. The current evidence suggests that this common and defining feature of a boot‐camp is not effective in reducing post boot‐camp offending. Abstract Background Correctional boot camps were first opened in United States adult correctional systems in 1983. Since that time they have rapidly grown, first within adult systems and later in juvenile corrections, primarily within the United States. In the typical boot camp, participants are required to follow a rigorous daily schedule of activities including drill and ceremony and physical training, similar to that of a military boot‐camp. Punishment for misbehavior is immediate and swift and usually involves some type of physical activity like push‐ups. Boot‐camps differ substantially in the amount of focus given to the physical training and hard labor aspects of the program versus therapeutic programming such as academic education, drug treatment or cognitive skills. Objectives To synthesize the extant empirical evidence on the effects of boot‐camps and boot camp like programs on the criminal behavior (e.g., post‐release arrest, conviction, or reinstitutionalization) of convicted adult and juvenile offenders. Search Strategy Numerous electronic databases were searched for both published an unpublished studies. The keywords used were: boot camp(s), intensive incarceration, and shock incarceration. We also contacted U.S and non‐U.S. researchers working in this area requesting assistance in locating additional studies. The final search of these sources was completed in early December of 2003. Selection Criteria The eligibility criteria were (a) that the study evaluated a correctional boot camp, shock incarceration, or intensive incarceration program; (b) that the study included a comparison group that received either probation or incarceration in an alternative facility; (c) that the study participants were exclusively under the supervision of the criminal or juvenile justice system; and (d) that the study reported a post‐program measure of criminal behavior, such as arrest or conviction. Data Collection and Analysis The coding protocol captured aspects of the research design, including methodological quality, the boot‐camp program, the comparison group condition, the participant offenders, the outcome measures and the direction and magnitude of the observed effects. All studies were coded by two independent coders and all coding differences were resolved by Drs. MacKenzie or Wilson. Outcome effects were coded using the odds‐ratio and meta‐analysis was performed using the random effects model. Main Results Thirty‐two unique research studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies reported the results from 43 independent boot‐camp/comparison samples. The random effects mean odds‐ratio for any form of recidivism was 1.02, indicating that the likelihood that boot camp participants recidivating was roughly equal to the likelihood of comparison participants recidivating. This overall finding was robust to the selection of the outcome measure and length of follow‐up. Methodological features were only weakly related to outcome among these studies and did not explain the null findings. The overall effect for juvenile boot camps was slightly lower than for adult boot camps. Moderator analysis showed that studies evaluating boot‐camp programs with a strong treatment focus had a larger mean odds‐ratio than studies evaluating boot camps with a weak treatment focus. Conclusions Although the overall effect appears to be that of “no difference,” some studies found that boot camp participants did better than the comparison, while others found that comparison samples did better. However, all of these studies had the common element of a militaristic boot camp program for offenders. The current evidence suggests that this common and defining feature of a boot‐camp is not effective in reducing post boot‐camp offending.

The aim of this Campbell systematic review is to synthesize the extant empirical evidence on the effects of boot‐camps and boot camp like programs on the criminal behavior (e.g., postrelease arrest, conviction, or reinstitutionalization) of convicted adult and juvenile offenders. The participants are kept extremely busy from early morning until late in the evening with physical training, drills and ceremonies. Punishment for even minor offences is immediate and usually involves physical activity. Boot camps for young offenders will typically also include academic education and therapeutic elements. The analyses covered by this research review are based on 43 outcome studies, involving almost 120,000 young people and adults in total who participated in boot camps or militaristic programmes. Of these studies, 40 come from the USA, one from Canada and two from the UK. The studies measure recidivism in several different ways, such as arrests, sentences, imprisonment. For the studies that conducted measurements over several durations of time (e.g. after 12, 24 and 36 months), the authors of the research review chose the measurement with the longest timeframe that still covered at least 90% of the original participants. Regardless of which of these measurements was studied, the conclusion was the same: boot camps are neither worse nor better than e.g. imprisonment. Abstract Background Correctional boot camps were first opened in United States adult correctional systems in 1983. Since that time they have rapidly grown, first within adult systems and later in juvenile corrections, primarily within the United States. In the typical boot camp, participants are required to follow a rigorous daily schedule of activities including drill and ceremony and physical training, similar to that of a military boot‐camp. Punishment for misbehavior is immediate and swift and usually involves some type of physical activity like push‐ups. Boot‐camps differ substantially in the amount of focus given to the physical training and hard labor aspects of the program versus therapeutic programming such as academic education, drug treatment or cognitive skills. Objectives To synthesize the extant empirical evidence on the effects of boot‐camps and boot camp like programs on the criminal behavior (e.g., post‐release arrest, conviction, or reinstitutionalization) of convicted adult and juvenile offenders. Search Strategy Numerous electronic databases were searched for both published an unpublished studies. The keywords used were: boot camp(s), intensive incarceration, and shock incarceration. We also contacted U.S and non‐U.S. researchers working in this area requesting assistance in locating additional studies. The final search of these sources was completed in early December of 2003. Selection Criteria The eligibility criteria were (a) that the study evaluated a correctional boot camp, shock incarceration, or intensive incarceration program; (b) that the study included a comparison group that received either probation or incarceration in an alternative facility; (c) that the study participants were exclusively under the supervision of the criminal or juvenile justice system; and (d) that the study reported a post‐program measure of criminal behavior, such as arrest or conviction. Data Collection and Analysis The coding protocol captured aspects of the research design, including methodological quality, the boot‐camp program, the comparison group condition, the participant offenders, the outcome measures and the direction and magnitude of the observed effects. All studies were coded by two independent coders and all coding differences were resolved by Drs. MacKenzie or Wilson. Outcome effects were coded using the odds‐ratio and meta‐analysis was performed using the random effects model. Main Results Thirty‐two unique research studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies reported the results from 43 independent boot‐camp/comparison samples. The random effects mean odds‐ratio for any form of recidivism was 1.02, indicating that the likelihood that boot camp participants recidivating was roughly equal to the likelihood of comparison participants recidivating. This overall finding was robust to the selection of the outcome measure and length of follow‐up. Methodological features were only weakly related to outcome among these studies and did not explain the null findings. The overall effect for juvenile boot camps was slightly lower than for adult boot camps. Moderator analysis showed that studies evaluating boot‐camp programs with a strong treatment focus had a larger mean odds‐ratio than studies evaluating boot camps with a weak treatment focus. Conclusions Although the overall effect appears to be that of “no difference,” some studies found that boot camp participants did better than the comparison, while others found that comparison samples did better. However, all of these studies had the common element of a militaristic boot camp program for offenders. The current evidence suggests that this common and defining feature of a boot‐camp is not effective in reducing post boot‐camp offending.

This Campbell systematic review assesses the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing criminal or drug‐use behaviour recidivism. The review summarises findings from 154 studies, all of which report evidence from adult drug courts, drunk driving (DWI) drug courts, and juvenile courts. All but eight of the studies are of drug courts in the USA. There is a large, significant mean average effect from both adult and DWI drug courts. Overall, recidivism rates were just over one third (38%) for programme participants, compared to half (50%) for comparable non‐participants. This effect endures for at least three years. There is a smaller effect from juvenile drug courts. Program participation reduces recidivism from 50% to 44%. The effects of drug court participation are highly variable. Programs with fewer high‐risk offenders are more effective in reducing reoffending rates. This finding may help explain why juvenile courts are less effective, as they deal with a greater proportion of high‐risk offenders. Variation in intensity of programs is not related to effectiveness. Courts that required more than the standard number of phases or drug tests were no more effective than other courts. The highest quality evidence from three experimental evaluations confirms the impact from adult courts on recidivism, though there was some inconsistency in durability of the effects over time. For DWI drug courts three of the four experimental evaluations produced similar results as the adult drug courts, but one high quality study found negative effects. Abstract BACKGROUND Drug courts are specialized courts in which court actors collaboratively use the legal and moral authority of the court to monitor drug‐involved offenders' abstinence from drug use via frequent drug testing and compliance with individualized drug treatment programs. Drug courts have proliferated across the United States in the past 20 years and been adopted in countries outside the United States. Drug courts also have expanded to non‐traditional populations (juvenile and DWI offenders). OBJECTIVES The objective of this review is to systematically review quasi‐experimental and experimental (RCT) evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism, including drug courts for juvenile and DWI offenders. This systematic review critically assesses drug courts' effects on recidivism in the short‐ and long‐term, the methodological soundness of the existing evidence, and the relationship between drug court features and effectiveness. SEARCH STRATEGY We used a multi‐pronged search strategy to identify eligible studies. We searched bibliographic databases, websites of several research organizations involved in drug court research, and the references of eligible evaluations and prior reviews. SEARCH CRITERIA Evaluations eligible for inclusion in this review were evaluations of drug courts that used an experimental and quasi‐experimental comparison group design. Studies must also have had an outcome that examined criminal or drug‐use behavior (recidivism). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS From each evaluation, we coded an effect size that quantified each court's effect on various measures of recidivism (general recidivism, drug‐related recidivism, and drug use). We also coded features of the drug court program, research methodology, and sample. We analyzed effect sizes using the random‐effects inverse‐variance weight method of meta‐analysis. MAIN RESULTS One hundred fifty‐four independent evaluations of drug courts met our eligibility criteria; 92 of these assessed adult drug courts, 34 examined juvenile drug courts, and 28 investigated DWI drug courts. If all of the evaluations are considered, the evidence suggests that adult and DWI drug courts reduce general and drug‐related recidivism; in fact, the mean effect size for both adult and DWI drug courts is analogous to a drop in recidivism from 50% for non‐participants to approximately 38% for participants. Moreover, the effects of adult drug courts appear to persist for at least three years. If only the three experimental evaluations of adult drug courts are considered, the evidence still supports the effectiveness of adult drug courts, as all three experimental evaluations find sizeable reductions in recidivism, although there was inconsistency in the durability of the effects over time. Three of the four experimental evaluations of DWI drug courts find sizeable reductions in recidivism; however, one experimental evaluation found a negative effect. Thus, the evidence is suggestive of effectiveness of DWI drug courts but this conclusion is not definitive. For juvenile drug courts we find considerably smaller effects on recidivism. The mean effect size for these courts is analogous to a drop in recidivism from 50% for non‐participants to roughly 43.5% for participants. CONCLUSIONS These findings support the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing recidivism, but the strength of this evidence varies by court type. The evidence finds strong, consistent recidivism reductions in evaluations of adult drug courts. DWI drug courts appear to be strong but this evidence is less consistent, especially in experimental evaluations. More experimental researching assessing the effects of DWI drug courts is clearly needed. For juvenile drug courts, the evidence generally finds small reductions in recidivism. More evaluations of juvenile drug courts, especially experimental and strong quasi‐experimental evaluations, are needed. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Drug courts are specialized courts in which court actors collaboratively use the legal and moral authority of the court to monitor drug‐involved offenders' abstinence from drug use via frequent drug testing and compliance with individualized drug treatment programs. The objective of this review was to systematically review quasi‐experimental and experimental evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing future offending and drug use. The systematic search identified 154 independent, eligible evaluations, 92 evaluations of adult drug courts, 34 of juvenile drug courts, and 28 of drunk‐driving (DWI) drug courts. The findings most strongly support the effectiveness of adult drug courts, as even the most rigorous evaluations consistently find reductions in recidivism and these effects generally persist for at least three years. The magnitude of this effect is analogous to a drop in general and drug‐related recidivism from 50% for non‐participants to approximately 38% for participants. The evidence also suggests that DWI drug courts are effective in reducing recidivism and their effect on recidivism is very similar in magnitude to that of adult drug courts (i.e., a reduction in recidivism of approximately 12 percentage points); yet, some caution is warranted, as the few available experimental evaluations of DWI drug courts do not uniformly support their effectiveness. For juvenile drug courts we find considerably smaller effects on recidivism. The mean effect size for these courts is analogous to a drop in recidivism from 50% for non‐participants to roughly 43.5% for participants

This updated Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness incarceration‐based drug treatment interventions in reducing postrelease recidivism and drug use. The review summarises findings from 74 studies, 65 of which were conducted in the United States, four in Canada, three in Australia, one in Taiwan and one in the United Kingdom. The main evidence presented in this review suggests that the effectiveness of treatment programs varies by the type of treatment. These findings most strongly support the effectiveness of therapeutic communities, as these programs produced relatively consistent reductions in recidivism and drug use. Boot camps have no effect on either outcome. These conclusions should be read with caution given the limited number of such evaluations and general methodological weakness. Therapeutic community programs were the only programs to consistently show modest reductions in recidivism and drug relapse however, there is evidence of publication bias that could have over‐estimated its effectiveness. Given all these shortcomings, further evidence regarding the effectiveness of this type of intervention is needed. Structured Abstract BACKGROUND Many, if not most, incarcerated offenders have substance abuse problems. Without effective treatment, these substance‐abusing offenders are likely to persist in non‐drug offending. The period of incarceration offers an opportunity to intervene in the cycle of drug abuse and crime. Although many types of incarceration‐based drug treatment programs are available (e.g., therapeutic communities and group counseling), the effectiveness of these programs is unclear. OBJECTIVES The objective of this research synthesis is to systematically review quasi‐experimental and experimental (RCT) evaluations of the effectiveness of incarceration‐based drug treatment programs in reducing post‐release recidivism and drug relapse. A secondary objective of this synthesis is to examine variation in effectiveness by programmatic, sample, and methodological features. In this update of the original 2006 review (see Mitchell, Wilson, and MacKenzie, 2006), studies made available since the original review were included in an effort to keep current with emerging research. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched bibliographic databases, hand searched select journals, and reviewed websites of several research organizations involved in drug treatment research to identify potentially eligible studies. SEARCH CRITERIA Eligible studies needed to assess the effectiveness of incarceration‐based (e.g., jail, prison) drug treatment programs, use experimental or quasi‐experimental comparison group research designs, measured a post‐release recidivism or drug use outcome, and be conducted between 1980 and 2011, inclusive. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS From each evaluation, we coded an effect size that quantified each program's effect on various measures of recidivism and/or drug relapse. We also coded features of the program, research methodology, and sample. We analyzed effect sizes using the random‐effects inverse‐variance weight method of meta‐analysis. MAIN RESULTS Seventy‐four evaluations met our eligibility criteria. The overall average effect of these programs was approximately a 15 to 17% reduction in recidivism and drug relapse. The effectiveness of such programs, however, varied by program type. Therapeutic communities had relatively consistent but modest reductions in recidivism and drug relapse. Counseling and narcotic maintenance programs had mixed effects. Specifically, counseling programs on average reduced recidivism but not drug relapse, narcotic maintenance programs had sizeable reductions in drug relapse but not recidivism, and boot camps had negligible effects on both recidivism and drug relapse. CONCLUSIONS This synthesis of evaluations of incarceration‐based drug treatment programs found that such programs are modestly effective in reducing recidivism. These findings most strongly support the effectiveness of therapeutic communities, as these programs produced relatively consistent reductions in recidivism and drug use. Both counseling and incarceration‐based narcotic maintenance programs had mixed effects. Counseling programs were associated with reductions in recidivism but not drug use; whereas, incarceration‐based narcotic maintenance programs were associated with reductions in drug use but not recidivism. Note that our findings regarding the effectiveness of incarceration‐based narcotic maintenance programs differ from a larger review of community‐based narcotic maintenance programs (see Egli, Pina, Christensen, Aebi, and Killias, 2009). Finally, boot camp programs for drug offenders had negligible effects on both recidivism and drug use. Plain Language Summary This research synthesized results from 74 evaluations of incarceration‐based drug treatment programs using meta‐analysis. Incarceration‐based drug treatment programs fell into four distinct types: therapeutic communities (TCs), group counseling, boot camps specifically for drug offenders, and narcotic maintenance programs. We examined the effectiveness of each of these types of programs in reducing post‐release offending and drug use, and we also examined whether differences in research findings can be explained by variations in methodology, sample, or program features. Our results consistently found support for the effectiveness of TC programs on both outcome measures, and this finding was robust to variations in method, sample, and program features. We also found support for the effectiveness of group counseling programs in reducing offending, but these programs' effects on drug use were negligible. The effect of narcotic maintenance programs was also mixed with reductions in drug use but not offending. Boot camps had no substantive effect on either outcome measure.