Relatively few policy decisions regarding corrections use scientific evidence to assist in making informed decisions. This article emphasizes the importance of using evidence-based corrections if we are to be successful in reducing crime in the community. As an example of how scientific information can be used to make decisions, an assessment technique designed by University of Maryland researchers is used to assess the effectiveness of correctional strategies, interventions, and programs. This technique uses a two-step procedure for drawing conclusions about what works in crime prevention. Studies within each area (e.g., drug treatment, cognitive skills programs, educational programs) are assessed for scientific rigor. The scientific rigor score and the direction and significance of the results are used to draw conclusions about what works, what doesn't, what is promising, and what we don't know. The assessment technique is described and summaries of the findings from this assessment are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altschuler, D. M.
, Armstrong, T. L., & MacKenzie, D. L. (1999). Reintegration, supervised release, and intensive aftercare. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
2.
Andrews, D. A.
, & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
3.
Andrews, D. A.
, Zingler, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically-relevant and psychologically-informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
4.
Anglin, M. D
, Longshore, D., Turner, S., McBride, D., Inciardi, J., & Pendergast, M. (1996). Studies of functioning and effectiveness of Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) programs: Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
5.
Bloom, H.
, Orr, L. L., Cave, G., Bell, S. H., Doolittle, F., & Lin, W. (1994). The National JTPA Study: Overview of impacts, benefits, and costs of Title IIA. Cambridge, MA: Abt.
6.
Deschenes, E.P.
, Turner, S., Greenwood, P., & Chiesa, J. (1996). An experimental evaluation of drug testing and treatment interventions for probationers in Maricopa County, Arizona. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
7.
Gallagher, C.A.
, Wilson, D. B., Hirschfield, P., Coggleshall, M. B., MacKenzie, D. L. (1999). The effects of sex offender treatment on sexual reoffending. Corrections Management Quarterly, 9(4), 19-29.
8.
Gendreau, P.
, Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1995). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Unpublished manuscript, University of New Brunswick, St. John, Canada.
9.
Lipsey, M.
(1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cooket al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83-128). New York: Russell Sage.
10.
MacKenzie, D. L.
(1997). Criminal justice and crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. Gottfredson, D. L. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising (Chap. 9, pp. 1-76). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
11.
MacKenzie, D.L.
, & Hickman, L. (1998). What works in corrections? (Report to the State of Washington Legislature Joint Audit and Review Committee). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
12.
Milkman, R. H.
(1985). Employment services for ex-offenders field test-detailed research results. McLean, VA: Lazar Institute.
13.
Moon, M. M.
, & Latessa, E. J. (1992). Drug treatment in adult probation: An evaluation of an outpatient and acupuncture program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17, 217-226.
14.
Petersilia, J.
, & Tumer, S. (1992). Intensive supervision programs for drug offenders. In J. M. Byrne, A.J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 18-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
Polizzi, D. M.
, MacKenzie, D. L., & Hickman, L. (1999). What works in adult sex offender treatment? A review of prison- and non-prison-based treatment programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 357-374.
16.
Rhodes, W.
, & Gross, M. (1997). Case management reduces drug use and criminality among drug-involved arrestees: An experimental study of on HIV prevention intervention. Unpublished manuscript submitted to the National Institute of Justice and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington, DC.
17.
Sherman, L. W.
(1999). Evidence-based policing. Ideas in American policing. Washington, DC: The Police Foundation.
18.
Sherman, L. W.
, Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D.L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
19.
Sontheimer, H.
, & Goodstein, L. (1993). Evaluation of juvenile intensive aftercare probation: aftercare versus system response effects. Justice Quarterly, 10, 197-227.
20.
Taxman, F. S.
, & Spinner, D. L. (1996). The jail addiction services (JAS) project in Montgomery County, Maryland: Overview of results from a 24 month follow-up study. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park.
21.
Wilson, D. B.
, Gallagher, C. A., Coggleshall, M. B., & MacKenzie, D.L. (1999). Corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(4), 8-18.
