As part of a recent national study of intensive and special adult probation projects (i.e.,
innovative probation efforts that seek either to achieve a substantial reduction in caseload
or to offer unique probation services, or both) evaluation reports from 28 such projects
were obtained and analyzed. This paper describes the state of art in measurement practice
found in that review. Approaches and problems are discussed for all types of measures
encountered, including process measures, outcome measures, and costl benefit measures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, W.P., P.M. Chandler, M.G. Neithercutt, and D. Crim (1971) "The San Francisco project: a critique." Federal Probation35, 4: 45-53.
2.
American Correctional Association (1966) Manual of Correctional Standards. New York: American Correctional Association.
3.
Bamford, T.D. (1971) "California reputation and reality." Probation17, 1: 4-7.
4.
Banks, J. and R.L. Rardin (1978) "Evaluation practice in adult intensive special probation." Federal Probation (forthcoming).
5.
Banks, J., T.R. Siler, and R.L. Rardin (1977) "Past and present findings in intensive adult probation ." Federal Probation41, 2: 20-25.
6.
City of Southfield 46th District Court (1975 ) Probation Improvement Program— Subgrant Final Evaluation Report. Southfield, MI: City of Southfield.
7.
City of Southfield 46th District Court (1974 ) Probation Improvement Program-Action Grant Final Evaluation Report. Southfield, MI: City of Southfield.
8.
Cocoros, J.A., R.L. Fraizer, C.M. Friel, and D.J. Weisenhorn (1973) Incarceration and Adult Felon Probation in Texas: a Cost Comparison. Criminal Justice Monograph 4,3. Institute of Contemporary Corrections and the Behavioral SciencesHuntsville, TX: Sam Houston State Umversity .
9.
Kentucky Department of Probation (1974) Probation and Parole Reorganization. Action Grant Application, Kentucky Crime Commission. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department of Justice.
10.
Killinger, G. C., and P. F. Cromwell [eds.] (1974) Corrections in the Community : Alternatives to Imprisonment—Selected Readings. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
11.
Lipton, D., R. Martinson, and J. Wilks (1975) The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment—a Survey of Treatment Evaluation Studies. New York: Praeger.
12.
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973) Corrections. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
13.
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ( 1976) Evaluation of Regional Offices and Sub-Offices of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Final Report.
14.
Bureau of Administrative Services. Research and Statistical Division.Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
