Of all the issues critical to the development of effective correctional treatment programs, program implementation has been relatively ignored. The authors present 32 guiding principles that will be of use to policy makers, program developers, and clinicians in ensuring that a useful intervention has a greater probability of being accepted. The guidelines are organized under four general categories: general organizational factors, program factors, change agent activities, and staffing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, D. (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines fromresearch and practice (pp. 35-61). NewYork: John Wiley.
2.
Arbuthnot, J.,& Gordon, D. A. (1988). Disseminating effective interventions for juvenile delinquents: Cognitively-based sociomoral reasoning development programs. Journal of Correctional Education, 39, 48-53.
3.
Backer, T. E., David, S. L., & Soucy, G. (1995). Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
4.
Backer, T. E., Liberman, R. P., & Kuehnel, T. (1986). Dissemination and adoption of innovative psychosocial interventions. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 1, 111-118.
5.
Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
Byrne, J., & Kelly, L. (1989). Restructuring probation as an intermediate sanction: An evaluation of the implementation and impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Program: Final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Research Program on the Punishment and Control of Offenders.
7.
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409-428.
8.
Fagan, J. (1990). Treatment and reintegration of violent juvenile offenders: Experimental results. Justice Quarterly, 7, 233-263.
9.
Fairweather, G. W., & Davidson, W. S. (1986). An introduction to community experimentation. Toronto, Canada: McGraw-Hill.
10.
Fairweather, G. W., Sanders, D. H., & Tornatsky, L. G. (1974). Creating change in mental health organizations. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
11.
Gendreau, P. (1995). Technology transfer in the criminal justice field: Implications for substance abuse. In T. E. Backer, S. L. David, & G. Soucy (Eds.), Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer (pp. 198-208). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
12.
Gendreau, P. (1996a). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Gendreau, P. (1996b). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 144-161.
14.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1979). Psychological consultation in correctional agencies: Case studies and general issues. In J. J. Platt & R. J. Wicks (Eds.), The psychological consultant (pp. 177-212). New York: Grune & Stratton.
15.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1996). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory(CPAI) (6th ed.). New Brunswick, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
16.
Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1997). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and realities. In P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell, & D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation (3rd ed., pp. 271-279). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
17.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Paparozzi, M. (1996). Principles of effective assessment for community corrections. Federal Probation, 60, 64-70.
18.
Gendreau, P.,& Ross, R. R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-407.
19.
Hamm, M. S.,& Schrink, J. L. (1989). The conditions of effective implementation: Aguide to accomplishing rehabilitative objectives in corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16, 166-182.
20.
Harris, P., & Smith, S. (1996). Developing community corrections. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 183-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Henggeler, S., Schoenwald, S. K., & Pickrel, S. G. (1995). Multisystemic therapy: Bridging the gap between university and community based treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 709-717.
22.
Paparozzi, M. (1994). A comparison of the effectiveness of an intensive parole supervision program with traditional parole supervision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey.
23.
Petersilia, J. (1990). Conditions that permit intensive supervision programs to survive. Crime& Delinquency, 36, 126-145.
24.
Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (1997). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25.
Shadish, W. R. (1984). Lessons from the implementation of deinstitutionalization. American Psychologist, 39, 725-738.
26.
VanVoorhis, P.,& Brown, K. (1996). Evaluability assessment: Atool for program development in corrections. Monographs for the National Institute of Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
