In the late 1990s, California legislators funded a statewide, community-based correctional program intended to reduce parolee recidivism. Overseen by the California Department of Corrections, the PreventingParolee Crime Program (PPCP) provided literacy training, employment services, housing assistance, and substance abuse treatment to tens of thousands of parolees. The study found that the PPCP produced modest reductions in reincarcerations and parole absconding, creating the potential for substantial long-term cost savings for California taxpayers. Because the PPCP's positive effects were strongest for parolees who completed their services, future program designers and administrators should consider including mechanisms to improve parolee retention and service utilization. This study also points out the potential benefits of incorporating rigorous evaluation plans into the design and implementation of correctional rehabilitation programs.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, 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(3), 369-404.
2.
Austin, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Current trends, practices, and issues. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 314-334.
3.
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 313-339.
4.
Farabee, D., Prendergast, M., & Anglin, D. M. (1998).The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders. Federal Probation, 62(1), 3-11.
5.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works?Criminology, 34, 575-607.
6.
Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery—Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 62(2), 43-49.
7.
Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartman, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, et al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation (pp. 83-127). New York: Russell Sage.
8.
Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works? Reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 63-78). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
9.
Lipsey, M. W., & Cordray, D. S. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 345-375.
10.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger.
11.
Little Hoover Commission. (2003). Back to the community: Safe and sound parole policies. Sacramento, CA: Author. Available at www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/172/report172.pdf
12.
Maltz, M. D. (1984). Recidivism. New York: Academic Press.
13.
Martin, C., Lurigio, A. J., & Olson, D. E. (2003). An examination of rearrests and reincarcerations among discharged day reporting center clients. Federal Probation, 67(1), 24-31.
14.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works?—Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
15.
McDonald, D. C. (1989). Punishment without walls: Community service sentences in New York City. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
16.
Miller, N. S., & Flaherty, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of coerced addiction treatment (alternative consequences): A review of clinical research. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18,9-16.
17.
Palmer, T., & Petrosino, A. (2003). The “experimenting agency.”Evaluation Review, 27(3), 228-266.
18.
Petersilia, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Public safety and reintegration challenges. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 360-375.
19.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home—Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
Polcin, D., & Greenfield, T. (2003). Factors associated with probation officers' use of criminal justice coercionto mandatealcoholtreatment. AmericanJournalof DrugandAlcoholAbuse, 29(3), 647-671.
21.
Schmidt, P., & Witte, A. D. (1988). Predicting recidivism using survival models. New York: Springer-Verlag.
22.
Seiter, R. P., & Kadela, K. P. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49(3), 360-388.
23.
Sherman, L. W. (2000). Reducing incarceration rates: The promise of experimental criminology. Crime & Delinquency, 46(3), 299-314.
24.
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
25.
Tonry, M. (1997). Intermediate sanctions in sentencing guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
26.
Weisburd, D. (2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials. Evaluation Review, 27(3), 336-354.
27.
Zimring, F., & Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation:Penal confinementandthe restraint of crime. New York: Oxford University Press.
