Does Correctional Treatment Work? A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta‐analysis *

Abstract

Careful reading of the literature on the psychology of criminal conduct and of prior reviews of studies of treatment effects suggests that neither criminal sanctioning without provision of rehabilitative service nor servicing without reference to clinical principles of rehabilitation will succeed in reducing recidivism. What works, in our view, is the delivery of appropriate correctional service, and appropriate service reflects three psychological principles: (1) delivery of service to higher risk cases, (2) targeting of criminogenic needs, and (3) use of styles and modes of treatment (e.g., cognitive and behavioral) that are matched with client need and learning styles. These principles were applied to studies of juvenile and adult correctional treatment, which yielded 154 phi coefficients that summarized the magnitude and direction of the impact of treatment on recidivism. The effect of appropriate correctional service (mean phi = .30) was significantly (p <.05) greater than that of unspecified correctional service (.13), and both were more effective than inappropriate service (−.06) and non‐service criminal sanctioning (−.07). Service was effective within juvenile and adult corrections, in studies published before and after 1980, in randomized and nonrandomized designs, and in diversionary, community, and residential programs (albeit, attenuated in residential settings). Clinical sensitivity and a psychologically informed perspective on crime may assist in the renewed service, research, and conceptual efforts that are strongly indicated by our review.

Moving ahead: Five essential elements for working effectively with girls

“…The authors of this literature assert that girls need qualitatively different types of programs and services to adequately address their delinquent behavior (see for example, Belknap, 2001;Belknap & Holsinger, 1998;Bloom, 2000;Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003;Chesney-Lind, 1997). The "what works" literature, emanating from the work of Canadian psychologists, synthesizes quantitative research on correctional and juvenile justice programs and has promulgated principles of effective intervention that are associated with a reduction in recidivism (see for example, Andrews, Zinger, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen, 1990;Cullen & Gendreau, 2000;Latessa, Cullen, & Gendreau, 2002;Lipsey & Wilson, 1998;Sherman et al, 1997). These researchers assert that the strongest criminogenic needs (i.e., correlates of delinquency) are similar among boys and girls.…”

“…In contrast, the gap between the knowledge emanating from the "what works" research and juvenile justice practice may stem from an over dependency on empiricism and inductive reasoning. This "what works" research agenda has focused, primarily, on the use of meta analyses (i.e., quantitative syntheses of existing studies) to demon strate the utility of rehabilitative programming and identify the characteristics of programs that produced the largest reduction in recidivism (see Andrews, Zinger, et al, 1990;Lipsey & Cullen, 2007;Lipsey & Wilson, 1998). This work is an invaluable source of "knowledge construction" for the corrections and juvenile justice fields (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000, p. 133); it provides a solid empirical basis for the development of programs for offenders.…”

Measuring the Effect of Probation and Parole Officers on Labor Market Outcomes and Recidivism

“…Studies link probation and parole officer attitudes to a host of outcomes including pre-sentence recommendations (Katz 1982;Rosecrance 1985Rosecrance , 1987, job task selection (Clear and Latessa 1993), acceptance of agency directives (Lynch 1998;Makarios et al 2012;Sigler and McGraw 1984), and supervision practices (Seng and Lurigio 2005;Steiner et al 2011;West and Seiter 2004). In a similar vein, research also suggests that the amount of training a probation or parole officer has received is of the utmost importance for his or her clients (Bonta et al 2008;Dowden and Andrews 2004;Lowenkamp et al 2014;Oleson et al 2012;Robinson et al 2012;Trotter 1996) and that probationer or parolee outcomes like criminal recidivism are influenced by their probation and parole officers (Andrews 1980;Andrews et al 1990;Bourgon and Gutierrez 2012;Huebner and Berg 2011;Jalbert and Rhodes 2012;MacKenzie et al 1999;MacKenzie and De Li 2002;Paparozzi and Gendreau 2005;Steiner et al 2012; however, see also Horney et al 1995).…”

Intimate Partner Violence During the Transition from Prison to the Community: An Ecological Analysis

“…Finally, incarcerated offenders' participation in correctional rehabilitation programs (e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapy) is associated with decreases in post-prison criminal recidivism (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen, 1990). In their meta-analysis, Andrews and colleagues (1990) found small to moderate effect sizes for the relationship between correctional 72 program participation and reductions in recidivism (phi = .13-.30).…”