Objections to correctional treatment have been made on two grounds: (1) it is unethical because it is inevitably coercive; and (2) there is no evidence that it is effective in reducing crime. These two objections are intertwined, for the extent to which we can reasonably require offenders to take part in treatment programs is dependent on the probability of success. This article describes three frequently occurring types of offenders, along with prescribed treatment strategies. Success rates and other treatment outcome measures are presented, showing large differences for the three offender types. Implications for the coercion issue are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, S.N.The PICO Project. In N. Johnston, L. Savitz, & M. E. Wolfgang (Eds.), The sociology of punishment and correction. New York: John Wiley, 1970, 548-561.
2.
Adams, S.N.Evaluating correctional treatments. Presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1976.
3.
Andre, C.R., & Mahan, J.Final report on the Differential Education Project. Educational Research Series, No. 11. Sacramento: California Youth Authority, 1972.
4.
Bailey, W.C.Correctional outcomes: an evaluation of 100 reports. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1966 , 57, 153-160.
5.
Cavior, H.E., & Schmidt, A. A test of the effectiveness of a differential treatment strategy at theRobert F. Kennedy Youth Center. Federal Bureau of Prisons research report, 1974.
6.
Cohen, H.L., & Filipczak, J. A new learning environment: a case for learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971.
7.
Glaser, D.Remedies for the key deficiency in criminal justice evaluation research . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1974, 11, 144-54.
8.
Grant, M. Q. A study of conformity in a nonconformist population. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1961.
9.
Grant, J.D., & Grant, M. Q. A group dynamics approach to the treatment of nonconformists in the Navy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1959, 126-135.
10.
Hunt, D. A paradigm for developing and analyzing differential treatment programs. In C. S. Davis and M. R. Schmidt (Eds.), Differential treatment of drug and alcohol abusers . Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publications , 1977.
11.
Jenkins, R.L.Diagnoses, dynamics and treatment in child psychiatry. Psychiatric Research Report 18, American Psychiatric Association, 1964.
12.
Jesness, C.The Fricot Ranch study: outcomes with small versus large living groups in the rehabilitation of delinquents. Research Report No. 47. Sacramento: California Youth Authority, 1965.
13.
Jesness, C.The Preston Typology Study: an experiment with differential treatment in an institution. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 1971, 8, 38-52.
14.
Jesness, C.F., DeRisi, W., McCormick, P., & Wedge, R.The Youth Center Research Project: final report. Sacramento : California Youth Authority and American Justice Institute , 1972.
15.
Kassebaum, G., Ward, D.A., & Wilner, D.M.Prison treatment and parole survival. New York : John Wiley, 1971.
16.
Kelley, F.J., & Baer, D.J.Physical challenge as a treatment for delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 1971, 17, 437-445.
17.
Knight, D.The Marshall program, part 2: amenability to confrontive peer-groups treatment. Research Report No. 59. Sacramento: California Youth Authority, 1970.
18.
Lerman, P.Community treatment and social control: a critical analysis of juvenile correctional policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
19.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R.M., & Wilks, J.The effectiveness of correctional treatment. New York: Praeger, 1975.
20.
Martinson, R.What works? questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 1974, 35, 22-54.
21.
McCord, W., McCord, J., & Zola, I.K.Origins of crime. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1959.
22.
Morris, N.The future of imprisonment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
23.
Palmer, T.Types of treaters and types of juvenile offenders. California Youth Authority Quarterly, 1965, 18, 3, 14-23.
24.
Palmer, T.Personality characteristics and professional orientations of five groups of Community Treatment Project workers: a preliminary report on differences among treaters. Community Treatment Project Report Series, 1967, No. 1.
25.
Palmer, T.California's Community Treatment Project, the phase I, II, and III experiments: developments and progress. Research Report No. 10. Sacramento : California Youth Authority, 1970 .
26.
Palmer, T.Matching worker and client in corrections. Social Work, 1973, 18, 95-103.
27.
Palmer, T.The Youth Authority Community Treatment Project. Federal Probation , 1974, 38, 3-14.
28.
Palmer, T.Martinson revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 1975, 12, 133-152.
29.
Palmer, T.Final report of the Community Treatment Project, phases 1, 2, and 3. Sacramento: California Youth Authority and National Institute of Mental Health, 1976 .
30.
Palmer, T.B., Neto, V.V., Johns, D.A., Turner, J.K., & Pearson, J.W.Community Treatment Project Research Report No. 9. Sacramento : California Youth Authority and the National Institute of Mental Health, 1968.
31.
Quay, H., & Parsons, L.The differential classification of the juvenile offender. Morgantown, WV: Robert F. Kennedy Youth Center, 1971.
32.
Robison, J., & Smith, G.The effectiveness of correctional programs. Crime and Delinquency , 1971, 71, 67-80.
33.
Ward, D.A.Evaluative research for corrections. In L. E. Ohlin (Ed.), Prisoners in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973, 184-203.
34.
Warren, M.Q.The case for differential treatment of delinquents. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1969 , 381, 47-60.
35.
Warren, M.Q.Classification of offenders as an aid to efficient management and effective treatment. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1971, 62, 239-258.
36.
Warren, M.Q.All things being equal. Criminal Law Bulletin, 1973, 9, 6, 473-490.
37.
Warren, M.Q.Intervention with juvenile delinquents. In M. Rosenheim (Ed.), Pursuing justice for the child. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
38.
Warren, M.Q., & Hindelang, M.Differential explanation of offender behavior. In H . Toch (Ed.), Psychology of crime and criminal justice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, in press.
