Adherence to “What Works”: Examining Trends across 14 Years of Correctional Program Assessment

References

• Andrews, D. A. (2006). Enhancing adherence to risk-need-responsivity: Making quality a matter of policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 595–602. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cpp.2006.5.issue-3
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2005). Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta‐analytic review of programme integrity. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 173–187. doi:https://doi.org/10.1348/135532505X36723
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnoski, R. P. (2002). Washington State’s implementation of functional family therapy for juvenile offenders: Preliminary findings. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Blair, L., Sullivan, C. C., Lux, J., Thielo, A. J., & Gormsen, L. (2016). 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X14549950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Covington, S. S., & Bloom, B. E. (2007). Gender responsive treatment and services in correctional settings. Women & Therapy, 29(3–4), 9–33. doi:https://doi.org/10.1300/J015v29n03_02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullen, F. T. (2013). Rehabilitation: Beyond nothing works. Crime and Justice, 42, 299–376. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/670395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dube, S., & McLeod, M. (2018). Minnesota and 7 counties collaborate to improve correctional services: Standardized checklist used to align interventions with evidence-based standards. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/09/17/minnesota-and-7-counties-collaborate-to-improve-correctional-services
   Google Scholar
• Duriez, S. A., Sullivan, C., Latessa, E. J., & Lovins, L. B. (2018). The evolution of correctional program assessment in the age of evidence-based practices. Corrections, 3, 119–136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2017.1343104
   Google Scholar
• Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The correctional program assessment inventory 2000 (CPAI 2000). Saint John, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
   Google Scholar
• Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2001). Implementation guidelines for correctional programs in the “real world”. In G. Bernfeld, D. Farrington, & A. Leschied (Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 247–268). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Haqanee, Z., Peterson-Badali, M., & Skilling, T. (2015). Making “what works” work: Examining probation officers’ experiences addressing the criminogenic needs of juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54(1), 37–59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2014.980485
   Web of Science ®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, Ohio.
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J. (2003). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidence-based practices. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 547–559. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00061.x
   Google Scholar
• Latessa, E. J. (2005). The evidence-based correctional program checklist. Center for Criminal Justice Research: University of Cincinnati.
   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., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Bechtel, K. (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.
   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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lösel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 79–111). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A., Robinson, C. R., & Alexander, M. (2012). Diminishing or durable treatment effects of STARR? A research note on 24-month re-arrest rates. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37, 275–283. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2012.753849
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs[Technical 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. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The importance of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 201–220. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00388.x
   Google Scholar
• Manchak, S. M., Farringer, A., Anderson, V. R., & Campbell, C. (2017). Current US agency-level trends in supporting implementation of evidence-based practices in parole. Corrections: Policy, Practice, and Research, 4, 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J., & Maloney, C. (2013). Practitioner compliance with risk/needs assessment tools: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 716–736. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812468883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nesovic, A. (2003). Psychometric evaluation of the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
   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
• Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative. (2014). Evidence-based policymaking: A guide for effective government. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2014/11/evidencebasedpolicymakingaguideforeffectivegovernment.pdf
   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
• Robinson, C. R., Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., VanBenschoten, S., Alexander, M., & Oleson, J. C. (2012). A random study of Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest (STARR): Using core correctional practices in probation interactions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35, 167–188. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2012.674823
   Google Scholar
• Sechrest, D. K. (1976). The accreditation movement in corrections. Federal Probation, 40, 15–19.
   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 & Offenders, 4, 148–169. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612581
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, C. J., Strange, C., Sullivan, C., Newsome, J., Lugo, M., Mueller, D., … McCafferty, J. (2019). Final report: Juvenile risk assessment implementation and outcome study. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice: 2014-MU-FX-00.
   Google Scholar
• Taxman, F. S. (2012). Probation, intermediate sanctions, and community-based corrections. In J. Petersilia & K. Reitz (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections (pp. 363–385). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Viglione, J., Rudes, D. S., & Taxman, F. S. (2015). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 263–285. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincent, G. M., Paiva-Salisbury, M. L., Cook, N. E., Guy, L. S., & Perrault, R. T. (2012). Impact of risk/needs assessment on juvenile probation officers’ decision making: Importance of implementation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(4), 549–576. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar