Examining The Effectiveness Of Correctional Interventions Research Paper ⋆ Research Paper Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This sample Examining The Effectiveness Of Correctional Interventions Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need help writing your assignment, please use our research paper writing service and buy a paper on any topic at affordable price. Also check our tips on how to write a research paper, see the lists of criminal justice research paper topics, and browse research paper examples.

Overview

“Evidence-based corrections” has become a popular phase to explain how an ideal correctional system should function. From this perspective, research, evaluation, and scientific processes should be used to make correctional decisions. To accomplish this objective, scientific research and evaluation needs to be completed to determine which correctional strategies, policies, programs, and interventions effectively result in the desired outcome or outcomes. A body of research conducted over the past 40 years provides guidance to policymakers who are interested in the effectiveness of specific correctional interventions. While there are many potential outcomes desired by the public, policymakers, and correctional experts, perhaps the most consistent interest is in interventions and decisions that are successful in reducing future criminal activities or, in other words, reducing recidivism. Using an evidence-based perspective, this research paper reviews the literature on “what works in corrections” and proposes a theoretical explanation, a theory of cognitive transformation, for why some interventions are effective in reducing the recidivism of delinquents and offenders while others are not. Despite the fact that we have some evidence of what works, overall the research on corrections and sentencing interventions fails to match the scientific rigor in methodology and research design that is evident in other fields. The paper ends with a caution about the complexity of transferring interventions from the original controlled setting to environments that may be completely different.

Introduction

Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, and, therefore, it is reasonable to attempt to prevent crime by preventing known offenders and delinquents from continuing their criminal and delinquent activities. Once these individuals are convicted or adjudicated, they come under the supervision of correctional systems and this provides an ideal period of time to attempt to change them so that they will cease their criminal activities. Reducing the future criminal activities of delinquents and offenders is of concern because many of these individuals are rearrested or convicted of new crimes a relatively short time after they are released from correctional supervision. Thus, while not the only reason for developing particular correctional strategies, reducing recidivism has remained a major goal of many correctional systems.

Decision makers, the public, and correctional personnel differ greatly in their perspectives on what to do with people who break the law, and their perspectives change dramatically over time. Some of the differences in viewpoints depend on political ideologies on what should be done to those who disobey criminal statutes. Equally as important are more utilitarian considerations related to what is believed to be effective in reducing recidivism and making communities safer. The new “evidence-based” paradigm is central to the utilitarian perspective of reducing recidivism.

The focus on evidence-based practices in criminal justice organizations began with a provocative entry by Sherman (1998). He argued that justice systems, like medicine, should adopt an evidence-based perspective to guide practice. In this way, approaches to crime prevention would be based on evaluation research demonstrating what is effective and this would be used to construct guidelines for effective practice. The approach emphasizes the need for accountability and continual improvement through the use of the most current research results. Thus, continual feedback from research would improve the effectiveness of the justice system in achieving the desired goals. In his opinion, the basic premise of evidence-based practice “is that we are entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts” (Sherman 1998, p. 4).

For corrections, the idea of an evidence-based perspective is that correctional systems will be more successful in achieving their goals to the degree that science is used to assist in decision making (MacKenzie 2000, 2001). Policymakers, judges, and correctional administrators must make decisions about how to intervene in the lives of convicted offenders and adjudicated delinquents. Most often they do so with some specific goals or objectives in mind. Two major objectives are to increase public safety and to change offenders so that they do not continue committing crimes. From the perspective of evidence-based corrections, interventions intended to accomplish these objectives should be studied with rigorous research and evaluations to determine whether they are successful in achieving the desired outcome or outcomes, in this discussion a reduction in recidivism. Frequently, however, decisions are made with little knowledge of whether the intervention is effective in reaching the desired results. Or as Sherman argued, too frequently, practitioners come up with their own “facts” with little evidence to support their views.

In corrections, too often decisions are made based on “gut-feelings” about what will be effective. For example, despite the fact that a growing body of research demonstrated that correctional boot camps were not successful in achieving the desired reduction in future criminal activities, for many years, people continued to assert that the discipline and challenge in the camps was “just what young offenders needed.” Policymakers referred to their experiences in the military and how this made them grow up. The correctional camps quickly proliferated in the USA; however, few jurisdictions conducted the meticulous research needed to determine if they were really accomplishing the reduction in recidivism that was the stated objective of the camps. Fortunately, some jurisdictions did provide support for research to examine whether the camps had an impact on criminal activity. For example, during the time when boot camps were proliferating across the USA, the California Youth Authority (CYA) investigated whether boot camps were something they wanted to initiate on a widespread basis in their facilities (Bottcher 1997). To answer the question of whether the programs would be successful in the desired objective of reducing recidivism, they conducted an experiment of a small pilot program. Researchers randomly assigned youth to the camp or the control group and compared the recidivism rates after youth were released from facilities. Their question about whether to start a large number of boot camps in their facilities was answered when they found releasees from the camps had no lower recidivism than those released from the traditional facilities. Decision makers decided not to start the boot camps in Youth Authority facilities. This is a good example of both how research can be used in decision making and the limitations of “gut-feelings.”

In my experience, another reason science is not used more often in correctional decision making is due to differences between law and science in how they conceptualize “research.” Many policymakers and court personnel are trained as lawyers and not as social scientists. The law profession looks to past precedence and authorities for guidance to answer questions, not empirical research. Legal research entails a search for past precedence and authorities in order to support one perspective. In law, one takes a position and then tries to find support for this position. Social scientists proceed from a very different perspective. The scientist goes into a research project to ask a question not to support a position and looks to the empirical world to provide the answer. The researcher in this case tries to stay as objective as possible so as not to influence the outcome of the research. Past experience, opinions of authorities, and past research helps the scientist formulate the question, but empirical data is what is used to answer the question.

A further reason given for not doing research to investigate whether an intervention is effective is that funding for research takes away from support for programs and interventions. This argument is frequently used by people who deliver services and treatment. So again, it is a difference in perspective with service providers believing that it is most important to use any funding available to actually deliver programs and services. In contrast, the scientist questions the wisdom of delivering programs before it is clear that the program really does achieve the desired goals or outcomes. For example, there has been little evidence that the programs designed for batterers are effective in changing their behavior. Yet much of the funding goes to providing programs while the quantity and quality of the research is very limited. A better use of funds, from the perspective of evidence-based scientists, is to conduct rigorous studies of the programs to identify what is effective in reducing future battering.

Overall, the expression “evidence-based corrections” has been widely accepted and the phrase has almost become a mantra; however, the number and quality of research in corrections is still relatively limited when compared with other fields. Despite the fact that there are factors that have contributed to limiting the research examining the impact of interventions on recidivism, a sufficient body of research currently exists on some interventions to draw conclusions about what works.

Examining The Effectiveness Of Correctional Interventions

This research paper focuses on what reduces criminal recidivism using an evidence-based perspective. Policymakers must consider many factors in sentencing and correctional decision making. Many and varied outcomes are important in these decisions including such things as public perceptions of safety, public acceptance of punishments, victim satisfaction, costs, and impacts on the offender like increased educational achievement and reduced substance abuse. These are all germane for policymakers to consider; however, the one factor that almost always is considered a central focus is the impact of decisions on preventing future criminal activity. That is, does the sentencing or correctional option have an impact on recidivism. Therefore, it is important to examine what strategies, programs, or interventions have been demonstrated in the research to be effective in reducing recidivism (MacKenzie 2006). The question becomes: What works in corrections to reduce recidivism?

Meta-analysis is a relatively new statistical technique for conducting systematic reviews of research literature to answer question such as whether an intervention has an impact on recidivism. These analyses are quantitative statistical methods for assessing the impact of a group of studies to determine if they are effective in achieving an identified outcome or outcomes. The studies are the units of analysis. Effect sizes are calculated to determine difference between treated groups who receive the target intervention and control or comparison groups who do not. Meta-analyses with recidivism as the outcome variable examine the impact of the intervention on recidivism and compare the recidivism rate of the treated group to the comparison. This quantitative data is used in the analysis to draw conclusions about effectiveness and to examine whether differences among studies vary as a function of participant characteristics, program components, or research design.

An examination of the literature using metaanalysis to examine the impact of various correctional options clearly demonstrates that certain types of programs are effective in reducing recidivism (MacKenzie 2006; see also the Campbell Collaboration 2012; Lo¨ sel 2012: 988 ff.). The following types of programs have been found to be effective in reducing future delinquent and criminal activities: academic and vocational education; cognitive skills programs (Moral Reconation Therapy; Reasoning and Rehabilitation; cognitive restructuring); cognitive behavior and behavioral treatment for sex offenders; Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) for juveniles; drug courts; and, drug treatment for those in the community and in correctional facilities (MacKenzie 2006). All of these interventions have human service components that address individual deficits and programs that target the individual-level characteristics directly associated with criminal behavior, called “criminogenic needs” by correctional psychologists (Andrews and Bonta 2006). Furthermore, the deficits or problems targeted are dynamic, or changeable, and not static. From this perspective, effective programs address changeable deficits or problems directly related to criminal behavior; in other words, the programs address “dynamic criminogenic needs (Andrews and Bonta 2006).” In addition, the effective interventions address cognitive processes and appear to bring about cognitive transformations in many participants.

Ineffective Policies, Practices, And Philosophies

Correctional interventions that provide increased control or are based on the philosophies of deterrence and incapacitation have not been found to be effective in reducing recidivism. In the past 40 years, policymakers and many correctional system decision makers moved away from a philosophy of rehabilitation toward increased use of interventions focusing on incapacitation, deterrence, and control. Many of these interventions have been submitted to rigorous research to determine whether they are effective in reducing recidivism. The conclusion from the research is that neither increasing the onerousness of punishment to deter nor increasing control to limit individuals’ ability to offend is effective in reducing recidivism. Deterrence, incapacitation, increased control, and other punitive approaches to corrections are not effective in reducing future criminal activities (MacKenzie 2006; Lo¨ sel 2012: 989 f.). The interventions do not address the criminogenic needs of those who offend. Investigations of popular correctional interventions reflecting this paradigm, such as correctional boot camps, intensive probation and parole supervision, electronic monitoring, and drug testing, have not been demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism. None of these interventions address the criminogenic needs of the offenders nor do they create cognitive change.

Lipsey and Cullen’s (2007) review of metaanalyses of aversive sanctions and supervision provides further support to the findings of the failure of control, deterrence, and incapacitation interventions to reduce recidivism. They conclude that such sanctions do not inhibit subsequent criminal behavior, and they found evidence that many actually increase future criminal activities. One such program, Scared Straight, has consistently been found to increase recidivism. In addition, existing policies increasing the length of prison sentences do little to deter criminal behavior and such sentences may actually be criminogenic (Nagin et al. 2009). Unintended consequences of incapacitation and deterrence philosophies had other unplanned, negative impacts. The large number of young people being sent to prison in the USA decimated some urban communities and many of those suffering from these policies are young minorities from inner cities (Clear 2007).

Another philosophy about how to decrease recidivism comes from the traditional sociological perspective attributing crime to social conditions. Interventions developed from this perspective have not been found to be effective in reducing recidivism. From this point of view, the focus of interventions should be on changing peoples’ social environments by giving them employment and housing, and not on individual differences such as thought processes and rehabilitation. Social bonds or ties to social institutions are assumed to be the keys to successful desistance from crime and, therefore, giving people opportunities to form these bonds was expected to reduce their criminal activity. Life course criminologists who promote this control theory position argue that the attachments or bonds to marriage and employment are critical events leading to desistance and, consequently, interventions should focus on giving offenders and delinquents environment opportunities to develop these times and bonds.

Interventions providing increased social opportunities have not been found to effectively reduce recidivism, a disappointing finding to many social bonds theorists and life course sociologists (see later section on the need for cognitive transformations prior to opportunities). Programs are designed to help offenders obtain employment or housing in order to help them adjust to community life. Reentry programs provide assistance in these areas for those leaving facilities. In-prison work programs and correctional industry are expected to reduce recidivism by giving offenders future employment opportunities. Life-skills program provide assistance in job searches, resume writing, check writing, and other general skills needed for successful adjustment to the community. Yet, these interventions have not been found to be effective. Work programs, multicomponent work programs, prison industries, and life skills have not been found to be successful in reducing recidivism. It is likely the reason these interventions have not been effective is because they are designed to give opportunities to people who may not be cognitively prepared to take advantage of the opportunities.

Another disappointing research finding is that programs designed for batterers or domestic violence perpetrators do not have an impact on recidivism. It is unclear why these programs are not effective (MacKenzie 2006). It may be that the attitudes and corresponding behavior of perpetrators are so deep-rooted that they are very difficult to change. Another possibility is that the relationship between the perpetrator and victim is more complex than realized and treatment does not address this in a manner that is effective. What is clear is that both the quantity and quality of scientific studies is inadequate, considering the large number of programs operating and the magnitude of the problem. One of the problems in this area of research is the hesitancy of those developing programs to test the effectiveness with rigorous research. They frequently take the position that any money used for research will limit the number and size of the programs. Of course, the response is that it is a waste of time and money to operate ineffective programs when research would help give us evidence of what is truly effective and provide evidence of this effectiveness.

Other ineffective programs are those that have little theoretical basis for expecting an impact on recidivism. For example, psychosocial sex offender treatment is based on a psychodynamic theoretical perspective that demands insight, self-reflection, and verbal abilities that are often beyond the skill level of the offenders. The therapy is not responsive to the particular learning styles of the offenders. Other ineffective programs are based on threats of punishment or additional control that do not have a theoretical basis. In general, residential placement for juveniles or adults does not reduce recidivism. Unless the residents receive some type of effective programming while they are in the facility.

Cognitive Transformations

As noted earlier, correctional interventions such as drug treatment, education, and cognitive skills programs are effective in reducing future recidivism. One consistency among the effective programs is a focus on human service. Furthermore, an important aspect of this programming, and the reason they may be successful, is that the interventions address cognitive processes. From this perspective, an individual-level change in cognition must occur before the person is prepared to form ties or bonds to social institutions (MacKenzie 2006). In order to form positive relationships with family, keep a job, support children, or form strong commitments to other social institutions, a person must be cognitively ready to move toward these ties and bonds, and, in many cases, for offenders or delinquents, this requires a change in cognitive reasoning and attitudes. Such a focus on individual change in thinking and information processing is critical to understanding what works in corrections and developing interventions that will successfully impact future criminal activity.

Before a person is prepared to move away from criminal and delinquent activity toward a noncriminal life style, a cognitive transformation is required. It is not the social conditions that have driven these people to become involved in crime. The way individuals think and process information influences whether they violate the law. Deficiencies in social cognition, problem-solving abilities, and sense of self-efficacy are all cognitive deficits or “criminogenic needs” found to be associated with criminal activity. According to the cognitive transformation theory, programs are effective to the degree they are capable of creating a cognitive change in thinking whether this is through changes in criminal thinking or criminogenic attitudes, improved executive functioning and problem solving, or increased maturity and moral development.

Various theories have been proposed to explain the cause of crimes and desistance from crime or the lack thereof. Many of these theories reflect the sociological tradition of criminology and focus on social bonds or ties as the causes for criminal activity. Recently, these theories have been called into question particularly when the literature on “what works” in corrections is examined. Programs based on providing opportunities have not been found to reduce recidivism. While marriage, employment, and school may be correlated with reduced criminal activity, they are not the explanation for why someone chooses to become involved in criminal activity nor do they provide a blueprint for the development of effective correctional programs. Effective correctional programs address cognitions and prepare people for a transition into a noncriminal lifestyle. A cognitive transformation must occur prior to the move away from criminal activities (MacKenzie 2006). Until this transition occurs, people will not be prepared to take advantage of environmental opportunities. Consistent with this perspective, desistance theorists, most notably Giordano and her colleagues (Giordano et al. 2002), Paternoster and Bushway (2009), and Maruna (2001), have proposed theories to explain how cognitive or self-identify changes occur and how these lead to a shift away from criminal activities.

In summary, the research demonstrates that correctional interventions can effectively reduce future criminal behavior. Effective programs address cognitions and prepare people for a transition to a noncriminal lifestyle. A cognitive transformation must occur prior to the move away from criminal activities. Until such a transformation transpires, people will not be prepared to take advantage of environmental opportunities for employment or housing. Consistent with this perspective are the new theories, proposed by several desistance theorists, to explain how changes in cognitions or self-identity can lead to a shift away from criminal activities. Empirical research has demonstrated the type of correctional programs that are effective in changing offenders and, given this information, theorists have developed hypotheses about how and why these programs are effective. The evidence-based correctional paradigm will need to incorporate these viewpoints into policy decisions if one of the goals of programming is to reduce recidivism.

Research Quality And Program Implementation

Approximately 40 years ago, Martinson and his colleagues reviewed the research literature on correctional interventions and concluded that few if any programs could be said to be effective (Martinson 1974; Lipton et al. 1975). Many people interpreted this to mean that nothing works in correctional management and treatment. However, the conclusion from the report was not that nothing could work but instead the researchers attributed the failure to find effective programs to two factors: (1) poor research design and methodology and (2) inadequate implementation of the programs that were studied. These two issues remain important in any assessment of the effectiveness of programs today. The first issue has to do with the quality of the research and the ability of the study design to rule out alternative explanations for the results. The second deals with the integrity of the program or how the program is designed and operated, the amount of time the participant spends in the program, and the training and oversight of the staff.

Since the time of the Martinson study, improvements have been made in research design and statistical techniques. Improved statistical techniques along with systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide evidence of what is effective in preventing and reducing criminal behavior. An increased number of studies have used experimental designs randomly assigning subjects to the intervention or control groups. For example, in a recent review, Farrington and Welsh (2005) found 83 experiments examining offending outcomes had been conducted since an earlier review in 1983. Meta-analytical techniques have increased researchers’ ability to combine studies and statistically investigate the effectiveness of a group of studies.

The good news is that there is evidence that some correctional interventions do work and these interventions have specific characteristics consistent with certain principles that can be replicated in future program development. Scientific evidence exists that some correctional interventions are effective in reducing future criminal activity of delinquents and offenders.

Yet problems still exist. “Corrections” is far from other fields, such as medicine, in the use of randomized trials to examine effectiveness. In one study of correctional interventions, MacKenzie (2006) found only 14.8 % of the evaluations were successful randomized trials. In contrast, 23.2 % of the studies were evaluated as so low in the quality of the research methodology that they could not be used to determine effectiveness. The latter were considered to have very dissimilar comparison groups and, therefore, it was impossible to tell if the results were due to differences between the groups being compared or the intervention. That is, it was impossible to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the program. MacKenzie’s (2006) work only included studies that compared a group who received the intervention to a group that did not. The great majority of the published and unpublished manuscripts were excluded from the review because they were qualitative or descriptive studies without any comparison group, so it would be impossible to draw conclusions about the impact on participants. In the future, it will be critical to increase the rigor of the research designs if we are going to successfully employ evidence-based knowledge to correctional decision making.

The second issue Martinson and his colleagues believed limited their ability to draw conclusions about what was effective in reducing recidivism was the quality of the programs studied. We have made progress since that time and now have a body of research literature demonstrating what programs are effective in reducing recidivism. While research has successfully identified therapeutic programs that are effective, much less is known about how to insure these programs are delivered with fidelity and/or therapeutic integrity, or the extent to which interventions conform to the manner of service intended by the developers of the intervention. Insuring the quality of programs remains an issue today. Criminology has been criticized for its lack of focus on what goes on inside correctional programs (Petersilia 2004). Despite the increased knowledge and statistical precision, correctional research continues to fail to investigate what is in the “black box” of the program. If the program is going to be transferred to another jurisdiction with a different population of offenders, detailed information about the characteristics of the intervention is necessary. Martinson and his colleagues found that the programs studied were so poorly implemented that it was impossible to tell whether a well-implemented program would have had an impact. This remains an important element in the research today. Certainly, a program with well-trained staff, designed and operated according to plans in accordance with principles of effective programming, targeting cognitions, providing sufficient dosage appropriate for the risk level of participants, and having enough administrative oversight to afford quality control would be expected to be more effective than a program without such essentials. Consequently, an ideal component of any correctional program evaluation is a relatively thorough, yet unobtrusive assessment of program delivery, especially when a program is adopted from another jurisdiction or population. The portability of a promising program does not always go smoothly (Armstrong 2003). Some researchers have begun to study the implementation of programs by measuring the characteristics of programs, participants, and administration (Latessa and Holsinger 1998; Taxman and Friedmann 2009).

Conclusion

“Corrections” appears to be on the cusp of a new age with a focus on evidence-based programming and smart sentencing. The old paradigm emphasizing punitive punishments has failed and changes are on the way. A large number of delinquents and offenders who come under the supervision of correctional personnel continue to be involved in criminal activity while they are in the community or return to crime when they are released from a facility. How to change this behavior in order to prevent crimes is a critical question for correctional interventions. The research provides guidelines for the components of interventions that will be effective in reducing recidivism. The research clearly points in the direction of the need to develop programs that will address dynamic criminogenic characteristics that will bring about cognitive transformations. Interventions that were popular during the law-and-order state of US correctional philosophy have not effectively reduced recidivism nor have interventions that provide offenders with opportunities for housing or employment if these are not combined with programs addressing cognitive processes.

The emphasis on evidence-based corrections and smart sentencing appears to be heralding a new age. To be successful in these endeavors, we will need more research using rigorous research designs. Also important will be future efforts to understand the specific components of effective programs and how these can be successfully transferred to new populations and jurisdictions.

Bibliography:

Andrews DA, Bonta J (2006) The psychology of criminal conduct, 4th edn. Lexis/Nexis, Newark
Armstrong T (2003) The effect of moral reconation therapy on the recidivism of youthful offenders: a randomized experiment. Crim Justice Behav 30:668–687
Bottcher J (1997) A boot camp and intensive parole program: the final impact evaluation (report to the California legislature). California Department of Youth Authority, Sacramento
Campbell Collaboration (2012) http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/resources/links/links_crime_and_justi ce.php. Search 3 Nov 2012
Clear T (2007) Imprisoning communities: how mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford University Press, New York
Farrington DP, Welsh BC (2005) Randomized experiments in criminology: what have we learned in the last two decades? J Exp Criminol 1:9–38
Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph, JL (2002) Gender, crime, and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation. Am J Sociol 107(4):990–1064
Latessa EJ, Holsinger AM (1998) The importance of evaluating correctional programs: assessing outcome and quality. Correct Manage Q 2(4):22–29
Lipsey MW, FT Cullen (2007) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: a review of systematic reviews. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 3:297–320. http:// lawsocsci.annualreviews.org
Lipsey MW, Wilson DB (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Lipton DS, Martinson R, Wilks J (1975) The effectiveness of correctional treatment: a survey of treatment evaluation studies. Praeger, New York
Losel F (2012a) Offender treatment and rehabilitation: what works? In: Maguire M, Morgan R, Reiner R (eds) The Oxford handbook of criminology, 5th edn. 986–1016
Losel F (2012b) What works in correctional treatment- and rehabilitation for young adults? In: Lo¨ sel F, Bottoms A, Farington DP (eds) Young adult offenders: lost in transition? Routledge, London/New York, pp 74–112
Mackenzie DL (2000) Evidence-based corrections: identifying what works. Crime Delinq 46(4):457–471
Mackenzie DL (2001) Corrections and sentencing in the Experiential Effects 21st century: evidence-based corrections and sentencing. Prison J 81(3):299–312
MacKenzie D (2006) What works in corrections. Cambridge University Press, New York
Martinson R (1974) What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest 35:22–54
Maruna S (2001) Making good: how ex-convicts reform and build their lives. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
Nagin DS, Cullen FT, Jonson CL (2009) Imprisonment Experimental and reoffending. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of the research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Paternoster R, Bushway S (2009) Desistance and the “feared self”: toward an identity theory of criminal desistance. J Crim Law Criminol 99:1103–1156
Petersilia J (2004) what works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Fed Prob 68(2):4–8
Sherman LW (1998) Evidence-based policing. Police Foundation, Washington, DC
Taxman FS, Friedmann PD (2009) Fidelity and adherence at the transition point: theoretically driven experiments. J Exp Criminol 5:219–226