Trends in criminal justice programming can sometimes lead one to question the direction the field is taking related to rehabilitation. This article presents one state’s attempt to evaluate the quality of residential treatment services in the state across a primary and then follow-up outcome evaluation. This article outlines study results specific to treatment effects by risk. The study finds consistent evidence in support of the risk principle across both studies. The article also outlines what the state did with the recommendations from these studies, and how that affected the delivery of correctional programming in that state.
AndrewsD. A. (1999). Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: Using risk assessments to reduce recidivism. FORUM on Corrections Research, 12, 11-17.
2.
AndrewsD. A. (2006). Enhancing adherence to risk-need-responsivity: Making quality a matter of policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 595-602.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.
4.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.HogeJ. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
5.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC. (2006). The risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.
6.
AndrewsD. A.KiesslingJ. J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional practices: A summary of CaVIC research. In RossR. R.GendreauP. (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 441-463). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Butterworth.
7.
AndrewsD. A.ZingerI.HogeR. D.BontaJ.GendreauP.CullenF. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
8.
BontaJ. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 355-379.
9.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (2006). The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treatment: A meta-analytic review of core correctional practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 203-214.
10.
GendreauP. (1996). The principle 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.
11.
GendreauP.AndrewsD. (1989). The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI). [Measurement instrument]. Saint John, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
12.
GendreauP.AndrewsD. (1990). Tertiary prevention: What the meta-analysis of the offender treatment literature tells us about “what works.”Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 173-184.
13.
GendreauP.FrenchS.TaylorA. (2002). What works (what doesn’t) revised 2002: The principles of effective correctional treatment (unpublished manuscript). New Brunswick, Canada: University of New Brunswick, St. John.
14.
GendreauP.GogginC.CullenF.AndrewsD. (2000). The effects of community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. FORUM on Corrections Research, 12, 10-13.
15.
GendreauP.GogginC.SmithP. (1999). The forgotten issue of effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 180-187.
16.
HansonK. R.BourgonG.HelmusL.HodgsonS. (2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also applies to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 865-891.
17.
IzzoR.RossR. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents: A brief report. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 134-142.
18.
LandenbergerN.LipseyM. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451-476.
19.
LatessaE.Brusman LovinsL.SmithP. (2010, February). Follow-up evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facility and halfway house programs—Outcome study. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati.
20.
LatessaE.HolsingerA. (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programming: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(4), 22-29.
21.
LatessaE.SmithP.LemkeR.MakariosM.LowenkampC. (2010). The creation and validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS). Federal Probation, 74(1), 16-22.
22.
LatessaE.SmithP.SchweitzerM.LabrecqueR. (2013, February). Evaluation of the Effective Practices in Community Supervision model (EPICS) in Ohio. Cincinnati, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati.
23.
LipseyM. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4, 124-147.
24.
LipseyM.WilsonD. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In LoeberR.FarringtonD. P. (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 113-336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
LovinsB.Brusman-LovinsL. (2009). Cognitive behavioral interventions: Tools for working with youthful offenders. In GlickB. (Ed.), Cognitive behavioral interventions for at-risk youth (Vol. 2, pp. 15.1-15.18). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute Inc.
26.
LovinsB.LowenkampC.LatessaE. (2009). Applying the risk principle to sex offenders: Can treatment make some sex offenders worse?The Prison Journal, 89, 334-357.
27.
LovinsL. B.LowenkampC.LatessaE.SmithP. (2007). Application of the risk principle to female offenders. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 383-398.
28.
LowenkampC. T. (2004). Correctional program integrity and treatment effectiveness: A multi-site, program level analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, OH.
29.
LowenkampC. T.FloresA.HolsingerA.MakariosM.LatessaE. (2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter?Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 368-375.
30.
LowenkampC.LatessaE. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs (Technical Report). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
31.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. (2004). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 501-528.
32.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE.HolsingerA. (2006). The risk principle in action: What we have learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 1-17.
33.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE.SmithP. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 201-220.
34.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.LemkeR. J. (2006). Evaluation of Ohio’s RECLAIM funded programs, community corrections facility, and DYS facilities: FY 2002 (Technical Report). Cincinnati, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati.
35.
MacKenzieD. (2000). Evidence based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 457-471.
36.
MartinsonR. (1974). What works?—Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
37.
NesovicA. (2004). Psychometric evaluation of the correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
38.
PearsonF. S.LiptonD. S. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of corrections-based treatments for drug abuse. The Prison Journal, 79, 384410.
39.
PearsonF. S.LiptonD. S.ClelandC. M.YeeD. S. (2002). The effects of behavioral/cognitive-behavioral progrms on recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 48, 476-496.
40.
PetersiliaJ. (1998). A decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned?Federal Probation, 62(1), 3-9.
41.
SmithP.GogginC.GendreauP. (2002). The effects of prison sentences and intermediate sanctions on recidivism: General effects and individual differences. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Solicitor General of Canada.
42.
SmithP.SchweitzerM.LabrecqueR.LatessaE. J. (2012). Improving probation officers’ supervision skills: An evaluation of the EPICS model. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 189-199.
43.
WilsonD.BouffardL. A.MacKenzieD. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 172-204.
