Conclusion

The rehabilitation debate - arguments about whether or not rehabilitation works - has been the focus of rehabilitation research for more than 30 years. The research has undoubtedly supported the notion that, yes, rehabilitation does work. Moreover, it works better than doing nothing when youth are incarcerated and it works better than deterrence-based strategies. In other words, rehabilitation works better than many of the programs and ideals that are rampant in corrections to date. While deterrence-based strategies may appease the public's "get tough" sentiment, they do not satisfy the public's desire to rehabilitate offenders, especially their heightened desire to rehabilitate youth.

Classic meta-analytical studies have provided a foundation for contemporary researchers to build on and fill in the gaps in knowledge. Since the general questions about the effectiveness of rehabilitation have been answered, it is now time to turn to the particulars of rehabilitation to determine what the ideal circumstances are for effective treatment.

It is important to note that rehabilitation is not the only relevant crime prevention strategy. Preventing crime can begin much earlier than when there needs to be a response to offending youth. On the front end, prevention of offending behavior can be accomplished by addressing communities and ensuring that the welfare of all Ontarians is provided for (health care, education, employment opportunities, equal treatment, etc.). On the back end, rehabilitation needs to address individual needs within the setting of "real life" or in the community. In both cases, this requires the cooperation of service providers such as mental health, corrections, enforcement and education. The programs discussed herein call for input from mental health professionals, academics, schools and families. Effective coordination across service sectors is imperative. "Research into service delivery needs to advance our understanding regarding what the most effective means are to provide such cross-sectoral services" (Leschied, 2007: 44).

Policy-makers must be mindful that rehabilitation efforts do not appear inconsistent or unfair in any way. There is fine balance between addressing the needs of a youthful offender and imposing sanctions that can be seen as disproportionately punitive. The Youth Criminal Justice Act prescribes that responses to youth crime must be proportionate in terms of the current offence (i.e., youth may not be punished more severely for being repeat offenders). This is a tough challenge. Collaboration between service providers may be able to help the youth justice system adhere to the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act by referring treatment decisions to other sectors.

Finally, the most important lesson learned from a review of the vast literature on rehabilitation is that the key to providing adequate service is to base interventions on evidence-based practices and continuously evaluate the effects of these treatments. It is recommended that when implementing a new program, funding be built in and dependent on a rigorous evaluation process that involves a pre-test/post-test research design and randomization wherever possible (11). Mandated evaluation strategies will enable program developers to understand what works and what doesn't while changes can be made. Follow up studies are also needed in order to understand the long-term effects of rehabilitative treatment. From a policy perspective, evaluation requirements enable government funding agencies to understand whether or not they are spending their money wisely. To this end, programs can foster scientific support, instead of hype or rhetoric being used to "sell" specific programs. Most importantly, high-quality evaluation research will measure and contribute to assurances that treatment interventions are making a positive impact on the lives of youth - or provide good reason to amend programs that are not helping youth live up to their potential.