Hi, friend! Juvenile justice systems should use effective interventions. I suppose it is an uncontested principle, therefore, I am confused why some people still hesitate to apply this rule?

My pleasure.

Thank you very much for the explanation.

Good for you to accept this principle so smoothly. However, it is also reasonable for some people to be different from you, especially considering that there is uncertainty about which interventions are indeed most effective and how a system should even select its interventions. For example, should systems go to the trouble and expense of adopting "model" name-brand programs that appear in official registries (e.g., Blueprints for Violence Prevention)? Alternatively, should the emphasis be on existing "home-grown" interventions that use supported therapeutic principles (as indicated in large-scale meta-analyses) but often without an independently and rigorously evaluated protocol? Complexities also emerge when considering which juveniles should enter the system and receive interventions. With an evidence-based approach, the most intensive services (especially residential placement) should be reserved for high-risk offenders-this is the "risk principle" in the well-supported risk needs-responsivity model. Many research findings support the risk principle-interventions that target high-risk offenders tend to have stronger effect sizes. And yet, in practice, adherence to the risk principle varies widely across different jurisdictions. As part of this, some societies continue to confine juvenile offenders at higher than expected levels for minor offenses involving drug use, public order infractions, or technical violations.