The Evolution of Correctional Program Assessment in the Age of Evidence-Based Practices

References

• Andrews, D. A. (2006). Enhancing adherence to risk‐need responsivity: Making quality a matter of policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 595–602.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). LSI–R: The level of service inventory-Revised. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/Matthew Bender References
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2005). Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A met-analytic review of programme integrity. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 173–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 8, 369–404.
   Google Scholar
• Barnoski, R. (2002). Washington State’s implementation of functional family therapy for juvenile offenders: Preliminary findings. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Barnoski, R. (2004). Outcome evaluation of Washington State’s research based programs for juvenile offenders. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, L., Sullivan, C. C., Lux, J., Thielo, A. J., & Gormsen, L. (2014). Measuring drug court adherence to the what works literature: The creation of the evidence-based Correctional Program Checklist–drug court. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 165–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 3–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, M., & Sankovitz, R. J. (2014). Dosage probation: Rethinking the structure of probation sentences. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Effective Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Casey, P. M., Warren, R. K., & Elek, J. K. (2011). Using offender risk and needs assessment information at sentencing: Guidance for courts from a national working group. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, F. T. (2013). Rehabilitation: Beyond nothing works. Crime and Justice, 42, 299–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 8, 313–338.
   Google Scholar
• Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (2013). Reaffirming rehabilitation. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Justice. (2011). Department of Justice launches crimesolutions.gov website [Press Release]. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-launches-crimesolutionsgov-website.
   Google Scholar
• Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 21–24.
   Google Scholar
• Duriez, S. A., Cullen, F. T., & Manchak, S. M. (2014). Is Project HOPE creating a false sense of hope: A case study in correctional popularity? Federal. Probation, 78, 57–70.
   Google Scholar
• Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2015). Importance of program integrity: Outcome evaluation of a gender responsive, cognitive-behavioral program for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 301–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EPISCenter. (n.d.). Standardized program evaluation protocol. Retrieved from http://www.episcenter.psu.edu/juvenile/spep.
   Google Scholar
• Finckenauer, J. 0. (1982). Scared Straight! and the panacea phenomenon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Gendreau, P. (1996). 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.
   Google Scholar
• Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. (1989). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Saint John, Canada: University of New Brunswick Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory – 2000 (CPAI-2000). Saint John, Canada: University of New Brunswick Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gendreau, P., Cullen, F. T., & Bonta, J. (1994). Intensive rehabilitation supervision: The next generation in community corrections? Federal Probation, 58, 72–78.
   Google Scholar
• Holsinger, A. M. (1999). Opening the ‘black box’: Assessing the relationship between program integrity and recidivism (unpublished doctoral dissertation), The University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.
   Google Scholar
• Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (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.
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J. (2004). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidence-based practices. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 547–560.
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E., Brusman-Lovins, L., & Smith, P. (2010). Follow-up evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facility and halfway house programs—Outcome study. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati School of Criminal Justice. Retrieved from https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/reports/project_reports/2010%20HWH%20Executive%20Summary.pdf .
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery-Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66, 43–49.
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programs: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 22–29.
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J., Holsinger, A. M., Jones, D., Fulton, B., Johnson, S., & Kadleck, C. (1999). Evaluation of the Ohio Department of Youth Services community correctional facilities. Unpublished report. School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J., Jones, D., Fulton, B., Stichman, A., & Moon, M. M. (1999). An evaluation of selected juvenile justice programs in Ohio using the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory. Unpublished report. School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J., & Lovins, B. (2010). The role of offender risk assessment: A policy maker guide. Victims and Offenders, 5, 203–219.
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J., Lugo, M. A., Pompoco, A., Sullivan, C. & Wooldredge, J. (2015). Evaluation of Ohio’s prison programs. Unpublished report. School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J., & Reitler, A. K. (2015). What works in reducing recidivism and how does it relate to drug courts? Ohio Northern University Law Review, 41, 757–789.
   Google Scholar
• Lattimore, P. K., Dawes, D., Tueller, S., MacKenzie, D. L., Zajac, G., & Arsenault, E. (2016). Outcome findings from the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment: Is swift, certain, and fair an effective supervision strategy? Criminology and Public Policy, 15, 1103–1141.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W. (1989, November). The efficacy of intervention for juvenile delinquency: Results from 400 studies. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Reno, NV.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual. Review of Law and Social. Science, 3, 297–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6, 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313–345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lovins, B., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Applying the risk principle to sex offenders: Can treatment make some sex offenders worse? The Prison Journal, 89, 344–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T. (2004). Correctional program integrity and treatment effectiveness: A multi-site, program-level analysis (unpublished doctoral dissertation), The University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs: Final report. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research, Division of Criminal Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005a). Evaluation of Ohio’s CCA funded programs. Unpublished report, University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Cincinnati, Ohio.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2005b). Evaluation of Ohio’s RECLAIM funded programs, community corrections facilities, and DYS facilities. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati, Center for Criminal Justice Research, Division of Criminal Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: What we have learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., Makarios, M. D., Latessa, E. J., Lemke, R., & Smith, P. (2010). Community corrections facilities for juvenile offenders in Ohio: An examination of treatment integrity and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 695–708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, D. L., Wilson, D. B., & Kider, S. B. (2001). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 126–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makarios, M., Lovins, L., Latessa, E., & Smith, P. (2016). Staff quality and treatment effectiveness: An examination of the relationship between staff factors and the effectiveness of correctional programs. Justice Quarterly, 33, 348–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, B., Hubbard, D. J., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming. The Prison Journal, 81, 454–472.
   Google Scholar
• Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Greenman, S. J., Bhati, A. S., & Greenwald, M. A. (2011). Evidence on the effectiveness of juvenile court sanctions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 509–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute of Corrections. (n.d.). The principles of effective intervention. Retrieved from http://nicic.gov/theprinciplesofeffectiveinterventions.
   Google Scholar
• Nesovic, A. (2003). Psychometric evaluation of the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI. (unpublished doctoral dissertation), Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor, T., Sawyer, B., & Duncan, J. (2008). A country-wide approach to increasing programme effectiveness is possible: Oregon’s experience with the Correctional Program Checklist. Irish Probation Journal, 5, 36–48.
   Google Scholar
• Ostermann, M., & Hyatt, J. M. (2017). When frontloading backfires: Exploring the impact of outsourcing correctional interventions on mechanisms of social control. Law and Social Inquiry, 1–32.
   Google Scholar
• Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68, 4–8.
   Google Scholar
• Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2003). Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: A systematic review of the randomized experimental evidence. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 41–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Charitable Trusts. (2014). State prison health care spending: An examination. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps, M. (2011). Rehabilitation in the punitive era: The gap between rhetoric and reality in U.S. prison programs. Law and Society Review, 45, 33–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polaschek, D. L. (2012). An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quay, H. C. (1977). The three faces of evaluation: What can be expected to work? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 341–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, K. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4, 148–169.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013a). Establishing a risk-dosage research agenda: Implications for policy and practice. Justice Research and Policy, 15, 123–141.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, K. G., Latessa, E. J., & Makarios, M. D. (2013b). Examining the interaction between level of risk and dosage of treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 338–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, C. J., Blair, L., Latessa, E., & Sullivan, C. C. (2014). Juvenile drug courts and recidivism: Results from a multisite outcome study. Justice Quarterly, 33, 291–318.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taxman, F. S. (2012). Probation, intermediate sanctions, and community-based corrections. In Petersilia, J. & Reitz, K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections, (pp. 363–385). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Welsh, B. C., Rocque, M., & Greenwood, P. W. (2014). Translating research into evidence-based practice in juvenile justice: Brand-name programs, meta-analysis, and key issues. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 207–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeaton, W. H., & Sechrest, L. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(2), 156–167.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar