After conducting a comprehensive literature search, the authors undertook a meta-analysis to examine the association between correctional education and reductions in recidivism, improvements in employment after release from prison, and other outcomes. The study finds that receiving correctional education while incarcerated reduces inmates' risk of recidivating and may improve their odds of obtaining employment after release from prison.
This is a compilation of descriptions of English-language research studies, conducted between 1945 and 1967 to evaluate the treatment of criminal and juvenile offenders. Each of the 231 studies has been annotated and classed into categories. Study findings are classified according to eleven treatment methods (independent variables) and seven desired areas of change (dependent variables). The independent variables include imprisonment, parole, casework and individual counselling, milieu therapy, and medical methods. The dependent variables discussed are recidivism, institutional adjustment, vocational adjustment, educational achievement, drug and alcohol re-addiction, personality and attitude change, and community adjustment. (Source: NCJRS, adapted).
Assesses the effectiveness of correctional education for both incarcerated adults and juveniles, presents the results of a survey of U.S. state correctional education directors, and offers recommendations for improving correctional education.
Delinquency evaluates one of the largest longitudinal-observational studies of juvenile delinquents ever conducted. Utilizing a normal population sample and conducting individual interviews repeatedly over many years, the author and his colleagues followed the development of 400 British working-class boys from age eight to twenty-five, of whom one-third eventually had criminal records. Five factors were found to predict most delinquent behavior, the most powerful statistically being the presence of a criminal parent. By measuring the accumulated pressure of these factors, D. J. West demonstrates the extent to which delinquency can be predicted from classroom observations or social background at an early age. He outlines policy guidelines that would tailor intervention to a youth's age and circumstances, and he argues persuasively that positive change in the parents' situation usually produces good effects on the children.
This book offers criminologists and students an evidence-based discussion of the latest trends in corrections. Over the last several decades, research has clearly shown that rehabilitation efforts can be effective at reducing recidivism among criminal offenders. However, researchers also recognize that treatment is not a "one size fits all" approach. Offenders vary by gender, age, crime type, and/or addictions, to name but a few, and these individual needs must be addressed by providers. Finally, issues such as leadership, quality of staff, and evaluation efforts affect the quality and delivery of treatment services. This book synthesizes the vast research for the student interested in correctional rehabilitation as well as for the practitioner working with offenders. While other texts have addressed issues regarding treatment in corrections, this text is unique in that it not only discusses the research on "what works" but also addresses implementation issues as practitioners move from theory to practice, as well as the importance of staff, leadership and evaluation efforts.
This collection of papers discusses effective correctional treatment of offenders by examining topics such as diversion programs, interventions with the families of delinquents, community-based programs for junevile offenders, programs for juneviles in correctional institutions, and programs for adult offenders. Collectively, these papers provide evidence that correctional rehabilitation is possible.
What Works in Corrections, first published in 2006, examines the impact of correctional interventions, management policies, treatment and rehabilitation programs on the recidivism of offenders and delinquents. The book reviews different strategies for reducing recidivism and describes how the evidence for effectiveness is assessed. Thousands of studies were examined in order to identify those of sufficient scientific rigor to enable conclusions to be drawn about the impact of various interventions, policies and programs on recidivism. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed to further examine these results. This book assesses the relative effectiveness of rehabilitation programs (e.g., education, life skills, employment, cognitive behavioral), treatment for different types of offenders (e.g. sex offenders, batterers, juveniles), management and treatment of drug-involved offenders (e.g., drug courts, therapeutic communities, outpatient drug treatment) and punishment, control and surveillance interventions (boot camps, intensive supervision, electronic monitoring). Through her extensive research, MacKenzie illustrates which of these programs are most effective and why.
A theme that has persisted throughout the history of American corrections is that efforts should be made to reform offenders. In particular, at the beginning of the 1900s, the rehabilitative ideal was enthusiastically trumpeted and helped to direct the renovation of the correctional system (e.g., implementation of indeterminate sentencing, parole, probation, a separate juvenile justice system). For the next seven decades, offender treatment reigned as the dominant correctional philosophy. Then, in the early 1970s, rehabilitation suffered a precipitous reversal of fortune. The larger disruptions in American society in this era prompted a general critique of the “state run” criminal justice system. Rehabilitation was blamed by liberals for allowing the state to act coercively against offenders, and was blamed by conservatives for allowing the state to act leniently toward offenders. In this context, the death knell of rehabilitation was seemingly sounded by Robert Martinson's (1974b) influential “nothing works” essay, which reported that few treatment programs reduced recidivism. This review of evaluation studies gave legitimacy to the antitreatment sentiments of the day; it ostensibly “proved” what everyone “already knew”: Rehabilitation did not work. In the subsequent quarter century, a growing revisionist movement has questioned Martinson's portrayal of the empirical status of the effectiveness of treatment interventions. Through painstaking literature reviews, these revisionist scholars have shown that many correctional treatment programs are effective in decreasing recidivism. More recently, they have undertaken more sophisticated quantitative syntheses of an increasing body of evaluation studies through a technique called “meta-analysis.” These meta-analyses reveal that across evaluation studies, the recidivism rate is, on average, 10 percentage points lower for the treatment group than for the control group. However, this research has also suggested that some correctional interventions have no effect on offender criminality (e.g., punishment-oriented programs), while others achieve substantial reductions in recidivism (i.e., approximately 25 percent). This variation in program success has led to a search for those “principles” that distinguish effective treatment interventions from ineffective ones. There is theoretical and empirical support for the conclusion that the rehabilitation programs that achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism use cognitive-behavioral treatments, target known predictors of crime for change, and intervene mainly with high-risk offenders. “Multisystemic treatment” is a concrete example of an effective program that largely conforms to these principles. In the time ahead, it would appear prudent that correctional policy and practice be “evidence based.” Knowledgeable about the extant research, policymakers would embrace the view that rehabilitation programs, informed by the principles of effective intervention, can “work” to reduce recidivism and thus can help foster public safety. By reaffirming rehabilitation, they would also be pursuing a policy that is consistent with public opinion research showing that Americans continue to believe that offender treatment should be an integral goal of the correctional system.
This comprehensive volume summarizes the contemporary evidence base for offender assessment and rehabilitation, evaluating commonly used assessment frameworks and intervention strategies in a complete guide to best practice when working with a variety of offenders. Presents an up-to-date review of ‘what works’ in offer assessment and rehabilitation, along with discussion of contemporary attitudes and translating theory into practice Includes assessment and treatment for different offender types across a range of settings Internationally renowned contributors include James McGuire, James Bonta, Clive Hollin, Anthony Beech, Tony Ward, William Lindsay, Karl Hanson, Ray Novaco and William Marshall
This is a compilation of descriptions of English-language research studies, conducted between 1945 and 1967 to evaluate the treatment of criminal and juvenile offenders. Each of the 231 studies has been annotated and classed into categories. Study findings are classified according to eleven treatment methods (independent variables) and seven desired areas of change (dependent variables). The independent variables include imprisonment, parole, casework and individual counselling, milieu therapy, and medical methods. The dependent variables discussed are recidivism, institutional adjustment, vocational adjustment, educational achievement, drug and alcohol re-addiction, personality and attitude change, and community adjustment. (Source: NCJRS, adapted).
