Since the founding of the penitentiary, the hope has persisted that incarceration could serve reformative purposes. This intent to create a truly therapeutic prison is no longer a utopian dream. A theoretically informed and evidence-based approach for designing a correctional institution that delivers effective interventions is now available: the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI). In this context, the current essay illuminates how the CPAI can be used to guide the development of a prison whose goals and practices advance offender rehabilitation.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Anderson.
2.
ArbuthnotJ.GordonD. A. (1988). Disseminating effective interventions for juvenile delinquents: Cognitively-based sociomoral reasoning development programs. Journal of Correctional Education, 39, 48-53.
3.
BackerT. E.DavidS. L.SoucyG. (1995). Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
4.
BushJ.BilodeauB.KornickM. (1995). Options: A cognitive change program. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections.
5.
ByrneJ.KellyL. (1989). Restructuring probation as an intermediate sanction: An evaluation of the implementation and impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Research Program on the Punishment and Control of Offenders.
6.
CullenF. T.GendreauP. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In HorneyJ. (Ed.), Criminal Justice 2000, Volume 3: Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (pp. 109-175). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
7.
FaganJ. (1990). Treatment and reintegration of violent juvenile offenders: Experimental results. Justice Quarterly, 7, 233-263.
8.
GendreauP. (1996a). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
9.
GendreauP. (1996b). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 144-161.
10.
GendreauP.AndrewsD. A. (1979). Psychological consultation in correctional agencies: Case studies and general issues. In PlattJ. J.WicksR. J. (Eds.), The psychological consultant (pp. 177-212). New York: Grune and Stratton.
11.
GendreauP.AndrewsD. A.ThériaultY. L. (2010). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory— 2010. Saint John, NJ: University of New Brunswick.
12.
GendreauP.GogginC.SmithP. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 180-187.
13.
GendreauP.SmithP.GogginC. (2001). Treatment programs in corrections. In WinterdykJ. (Ed.), Corrections in Canada: Social reaction to crime (pp. 238-263). Scarborough, Ontario, Canada: Prentice-Hall.
14.
GoldsteinA. P. (1986). Psychological skill training and the aggressive adolescent. In ApterS.GoldsteinA. (Eds.), Youth violence: Program and prospects (pp. 89-119). New York: Pergamon Press.
15.
HammM. S.SchrinkJ. L. (1989). The conditions of effective implementation: A guide to accomplishing rehabilitative objectives in corrections. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16, 166-182.
16.
HarrisP.SmithS. (1996). Developing community corrections. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 183-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
HenggelerS.SchoenwaldS. K.PickrelS. G. (1995). Multisystemic therapy: Bridging the gap between university and community based treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 709-717.
18.
KassebaumG.WardD.WilnerD. (1971). Prison treatment and parole survival: An empirical assessment. New York: Wiley.
19.
LatessaE. J.LowenkampC. T.BetchelK. (2009). Community corrections centers, parolees, and recidivism: An investigation into the characteristics of effective reentry programs in Pennsylvania. (Final Report, NCJ No. 230510). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
20.
LowenkampC. T. (2004). A program level analysis of the relationship between correctional program integrity and treatment effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, Cincinnati, OH.
21.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2005). Evaluation of Ohio’s CCA funded programs: Final report. Cincinnati, OH: Division of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati.
22.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.SmithP. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter: The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 201-220.
23.
NesovicA. (2003). Psychometric evaluation of the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(09), 4674B. (UMI No. AAT NQ83525)
24.
PetersiliaJ. (1990). Conditions that permit intensive supervision programs to survive. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 126-145.
25.
PosavacE. J.CareyR. G. (2003). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
26.
QuayH. C. (1977). The three faces of evaluation: What can be expected to work. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 341-354.
27.
RothmanD. J. (1971). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the new republic. Boston: Little, Brown.
28.
RothmanD. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Boston: Little, Brown.
