The research on what works in correctional interventions provides a powerful agenda for correctional programming. Evaluability assessment is a tool that can be used to help put this research into practice by providing a measure of program quality. This article describes Gendreau and Andrews's Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) as one example of an evaluability assessment tool that is designed to ascertain how well programs are meeting certain principles of effective intervention. It also reports the results of CPAIs conducted on 86 treatment programs. The results indicate that these programs are not adequately incorporating the principles into their correctional programming. Common shortcomings are discussed, and potential resolutions are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Supervision Inventory-Revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
3.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
4.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? Clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
5.
Baird, S. C., Heinz, R., & Bemus, B. (1979). The Wisconsin case classification/staff deployment project (Project Report No. 14). Madison, WI: Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Corrections.
6.
Brill, R. (1978). Implications of the conceptual level matching model for treatment of delinquents. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 15, 229-246.
7.
Clear, T. (1988). Statistical prediction in corrections. Research in Corrections, 1, 1-39.
8.
Clear, T., & Hardyman, P. (1990). The new intensive supervision movement. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 42-60.
9.
Clements, C. (1988). Delinquency prevention and treatment: A community-centered perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 286-305.
10.
Fabiano, E., Porporino, F., & Robinson, D. (1991). Canada's cognitive skills program corrects offenders' faulty thinking. Corrections Today, 53, 102-108.
11.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1990). Tertiary prevention: What the meta-analyses of the offender treatment literature tell us about what works. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 173-184.
13.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1994). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (4th ed.). St. John, New Brunswick, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
14.
Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (2000). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and realities. In P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell, & D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation (pp. 289-298). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
15.
Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-407.
16.
Gottfredson, D. (1987). Prediction and classification. In D. Gottfredson & M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making (pp. 1-20). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Holsinger, A. (1999). Opening the black box: Assessing the relationship between program integrity and recidivism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
18.
Izzo, R., & Ross, R. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents: A brief report. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 134-142.
19.
Jesness, C. F. (1988). Jesness Inventory Classification System. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 78-91.
20.
Jones, P. (1996). Risk prediction in criminal justice. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work (pp. 33-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programs: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(4), 22-29.
22.
Lerner, K., Arling, G., & Baird, S. C. (1986). Client management classification strategies for case supervision. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 254-271.
23.
Lipsey, M. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. Cook, H. Cooper, D. Cordray, H. Hartman, L. Hedges, R. Light, T. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation (pp. 83-127). New York: Russell Sage.
24.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Palmer, T. (1974). The Youth Authority's community treatment project. Federal Probation, 38, 3-14.
26.
Palmer, T. (1992). The re-emergence of correctional intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
Palmer, T. (1996). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful intervention. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work (pp. 131-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Prosavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (1992). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
Reitsma-Street, M., & Leschied, A. W. (1988). The conceptual-level matching model in corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 92-108.
30.
Rutman, L. (1980). Planning useful evaluations: Evaluability assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
31.
Spiegler, M. D., & Guevremont, D. C. (1993). Contemporary behavior therapy (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
32.
Van Voorhis, P. (1994). Psychological classification of the adult male prison inmate. Albany: State University of New York Press.
33.
Van Voorhis, P., & Brown, K. (1996). Evaluability assessment: A tool for program development in corrections. Unpublished monograph, National Institute of Corrections, Washington, DC.
34.
Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F. T., & Applegate, D. (1995). Evaluating interventions with violent offenders. Federal Probation, 50, 17-27.
35.
Warren, M. (1983). Application of interpersonal maturity theory to offender populations. In W. Laufer & J. Day (Eds.), Personality theory, moral development, and criminal behavior (pp. 23-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
36.
Whitehead, J., & Lab, S. (1989). A meta-analysis of juvenile correctional treatment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 276-295.
