Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2004-1129-Minutes for Meeting August 02,2004 Recorded 8/24/2004DESCH
TES COUNTY
FICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS CJ 7004.1119
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 08/24/2004 03:46:15 PM
1111111111111111111111111111111
2004-3129
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF MEETING
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 2004
Deschutes Services Center - Second Floor Conference Room
1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Judge Michael Sullivan, Circuit Judge; Becky Wanless, Adult Parole
& Probation; Michael Dugan, District Attorney; Jenny Scanlon, Juvenile
Community Justice; and Ernie Mazorol, Court Administrator. Also present were
Andy Jordan, Bend Police Chief; Robert Warsaw, Oregon Youth Authority;
Jacques DeKalb, Criminal Defense Attorney; Bob Smit, KIDS Center; and Jack
Blum, citizen member.
Also in attendance were media representative Lisa Rosetti of the Bulletin and four
other citizens.
1. Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.
2. Approval of the April 5, 2004 Meeting Minutes.
The minutes were unanimously approved as written.
3. Decision regarding New LPSCC Chairperson.
The previous Chair of LPSCC, Judge Stephen Tiktin, recently indicated that he
wishes to step down from his involvement in the group. Andy Jordan made a
motion that Judge Michael Sullivan assume the duties as Chair; this motion was
seconded by Jack Blum and unanimously approved.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, August 2, 2004
Page 1 of 5 Pages
4. Discussion of Planning for the Governor's Juvenile Justice Summit.
Jenny Scanlon gave a brief overview of the one -day summit, which convenes
on Tuesday, September 14. She distributed a handout that listed possible
questions and concerns to be discussed at the summit. (A copy of the handout is
attached as Exhibit B)
Ms. Scanlon said the Governor has requested that eight people from each
jurisdiction attend the summit; it is desired that the attendees represent schools,
the Department of Human Services, victims of crime, mental health
organizations, a referee, judge or referee of the Courts, law enforcement, and so
on. The list is long but only eight can attend, and thus far it is proposed that
Ms. Scanlon, Commissioner Tom DeWolf, Christina McMahon of the District
Attorney's Office, Bob Warsaw of the Oregon Youth Authority, Suzanne
Donovan of the Mental Health Department, Mark Mills of the Sheriff s Office, a
school resource officer, and Skip Alshire of the Commission on Children &
Families be asked to attend the Summit. Other possible attendees could be
from a local school, or a referee, judge or representative of the Courts.
It was pointed out that the last summit included over 400 attendees, and it was
hard to get anything accomplished with those numbers. It is unknown at this
point what kind of representation other groups may have at this year's summit.
It was decided that a work group would be formed prior to the summit to
narrow the scope of the questions and concerns to be addressed, and to
determine who will attend. Ms. Scanlon will contact the members of LPSCC
and others to make the appropriate arrangements. The findings of the work
group will be brought to the next LPSCC meeting for review and discussion.
5. Discussion of Indigent Substance Abuse Treatment for Parole & Probation
Offenders.
Becky Wanless introduced Scott McGuire and Barbara Ellingboe of M. E. &
Associates, a private probation monitoring company that was recently selected
by Parole and Probation to provide substance abuse treatment services to
indigent offenders who have been order to complete treatment as a condition of
their supervision.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, August 2, 2004
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Mr. McGuire gave a presentation to the group that provided an overview of the
work to be handled by his company. The target population is high-risk adult
male offenders who have had at least one prior treatment experience, and who
are currently on parole or probation supervision. Some may be dual diagnosed
offenders that have, for instance, both substance abuse and mental health
problems. (Various handouts were distributed; a set is attached as Exhibit C.)
Discussion occurred regarding why the program does not include juveniles or
female offenders. Ms. Wanless advised that there is funding available only for
adult offenders, and there is no female staff at this time to address the female
offender population. Judge Sullivan was adamant that a women's program be
developed as well, since he knows first hand of the impacts on families when
women are involved in illegal behavior, especially when the problem is the use
of drugs, particularly methamphetamines.
Andy Jordan pointed out that the treatment for women is significantly different,
and there is no "one size fits all". Mr. McGuire stated that the treatment would
typically be designed in a similar fashion, but a good female clinician is needed
to handle this work. It was observed that unfortunately the chances are high
that children will end up the same way as their offender parents, since the
children observe the actions of their parents and feel that the behavior is
normal.
The group then discussed the ramifications of offender relapses. It was felt that
relapse is often indicative of change, and is handled as part of the treatment.
Mike Dugan pointed out that there should be consequences when there's a
relapse. Andy Jordan added that what is being done now isn't working, so any
positive change in the numbers is good. Judge Sullivan stated that toughness is
good, but there need to be programs to deal with this very difficult problem.
6. Update on Parole & Probation Transition House.
Becky Wanless stated that the transition house, located in the old work center,
is up and running as of July 6. It includes one 20 -bed dorm with ten offenders
at this point. So far there has only been one problem, when an offender
experienced a heart attack; he is now recuperating. Most of the offenders seem
grateful for the opportunity to stay there.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, August 2, 2004
Page 3 of 5 Pages
Ms. Wanless point out that there is a curfew in place, but the offenders are not
locked down. They are served an evening meal and there is a small kitchen on
site, and some transportation has been made available.
7. Update on Senate Bill 267.
Becky Wanless said that SB 267, which was passed by the legislature in 2003,
is to be followed by mental health, adult and juvenile justice departments. It
states that if the work of these departments is subsidized, evidence based
practices are to be used.
Innovative thinking and new programs are allowed, but the majority of the work
needs to be based on evidence based practices. Ms. Wanless said that a variety
of treatment professionals provide services for Parole and probation, and that
the Oregon Department of Corrections is the agency responsible for evaluating
the treatment programs. The tool used to perform the evaluation is called the
Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI), and Ms. Wanless
indicated she has a sample CPAI available for review.
Deschutes County Juvenile Community Justice uses a report card system for
some services as a means to determine the success of a program. This system
was developed in part by Denny Maloney, previous Director of Juvenile
Community Justice and a current member of LPSCC. Ms. Wanless then
explained that the Department of Corrections distributes a report card for each
county parole and probation department; these reports cards detail performance
measures and outcomes. (Information on the CPAI is attached as Exhibit D.)
A consensus was reached that Denny Maloney be contacted regarding the report
card system he developed and how to measure results. The group also
expressed a desire to compare Deschutes County's results with other counties.
It is hoped that Becky Wanless and Denny Maloney will provide an update at
the next LPSCC meeting.
8. Other Business.
It was decided that due to the Labor Day holiday on the first Monday in
September, the next LPSCC meeting should be scheduled for Monday,
September 13.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, August 2, 2004
Page 4 of 5 Pages
Ernie Mazorol suggested, and consensus was reached, that the interim director
of the Commission on Children & Families, Julie Lyche, should be invited to
attend future LPSCC meetings. Scott Johnson, the Commission's previous
director, will begin working as the director for Mental Health in the near future.
It was point out that Mr. Johnson will need to be formally approved in his new
position.
Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Sign -in sheet (1 page)
Exhibit B: Discussion questions & information: 2004 Juvenile Justice Summit
(13 pages)
Exhibit C: M. E. & Associates' handout - "So Many Roads" Recovery Program,
magazine article regarding effective treatment, and an article from the
Bulletin newspaper (11 pages total)
Exhibit D: Documents regarding Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (23
pages)
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, August 2, 2004
Page 5 of 5 Pages
PWA
0
W
U)
Q
W
J
CL
Page / of /
i
0
0
N
N
�
C
C
o
0
4 -
-Z
Zi
�
I
v
C0
a
Ia
q
o
�Q
v
W
Exhibit
Page / of /
Y
LOCAL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS TO FRAME ISSUES
FOR THE 2004 JUVENILE JUSTICE SUMMIT
1. Review of the Policies, Provisions and Systems Changes Recommended
in the 1994 Juvenile Justice Summit and Enacted in Senate Bill 1(1995
Session)
a. Major revisions were made in Oregon's juvenile code in 1995 with the passage of
Senate Bill 1.
■ Are the basic principles in 419C.001 (Section 1 of SB 1) still valid?
■ Are there any adjustments or clarifications that need to be made in the primary
role and purpose of Oregon's juvenile justice system?
■ Are there any other sections of Oregon's juvenile code that need to be
modified or changed to accomplish the principles in 419C.001? If so, why
should these sections be modified or changed?
b. Review the outline of the major sections of Senate Bill 1 pertaining to the operation
of the juvenile justice system at the county level included with these questions.
■ Has your county experienced any barriers in fully implementing any of these
policies or procedures? If so, why?
Has your county developed or discovered any highly effective or model
approaches to implementing any of these policies or procedures? If so, what
are they?
c. A major goal in Senate Bill 1 was to increase resources to prevent further criminal
activity (recidivism) by use of early and certain sanctions and access to services to
reduce risk(s) to re -offend.
■ What progress has been made or not made in your county toward this goal?
d. A major goal in Senate Bill lwas to increase accountability and responsiveness to
victims.
■ What progress has been made or not made in your county toward this goal?
Exhibit
Page ___L_ of
Local Discussion Questions
2004 Juvenile Justice Summit
Page 2
2. Changes Over the Past 10 Years
a. What major or significant changes have occurred in the local landscape since Senate
Bill 1 was enacted in 1995 (i.e. changes in youth/family demographics, changes in
crime types and risk factors, changes in resource continuum and funding levels,
changes in public attitudes and./or in youth attitudes/beliefs, etc)?
b. How have these changes affected the operation of the juvenile justice system in your
county?
3. Data Trends (based on current JJIS data)1
a. Has the rate of total referrals to the juvenile department increased, decreased or
remained the same in recent years?
What are the primary reasons for the trend(s)? (i.e. less crime by juveniles, effect of
prevention programs, changes in youth attitudes/beliefs, fewer police officers, new
programs or partnerships, a significant incident(s), judicial policy, reduction in local
resources, etc)?
b. Have there been any significant changes in the percentages of youth referred for
categories or types of crime (i.e. increases/decreases in person crimes, property
crimes, sex offenses, drug offenses, etc.)?
■ What are the primary reasons for the trend(s)?
c. Has the recidivism rate in your county increased, decreased, or remained the same?
■ What are the primary reasons for the trend(s)?
■ What would your county need to make further reductions in your recidivism
rate (i.e. additional resources, system changes, improved access to current
resources, etc.)?
1 JJIS data to review these questions is available from the OYA website: http://www.oya.state.or.us/data.html
The Youth & Referrals link takes you to data on total referrals by county. Crime category information is also
available from these reports.
County level data on recidivism is available at: http://www.oya.state.or.us/RecidivismbyCounty.pdf
Recidivism information for 2001 and 2002 was handed out at the OJDDA meeting at Cannon Beach. The OJDDA
report called Applying and Interpreting Information from the JJIS Referral Report also contains most of this same
information.
Exhibit (5
Page Z of
Local Discussion Questions
2004 Juvenile Justice Summit
Page 3
4. Resource and System Improvement Issues
a. For many years, state -level juvenile corrections programs were part of the
Department of Human Services (previously CSD and DHR). Senate Bill 1 created the
Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) and transferred juvenile corrections programs and
related responsibilities to this new state agency. Many of the issues created by the
separation of responsibilities have been resolved.
■ What priority issues remain to be addressed and resolved from the separation
of juvenile corrections from DHS?
How are these unresolved issues affecting the operation of the juvenile justice
system in your county?
b. Improving cultural, racial, ethnic, and gender specific services is a continuing
improvement goal for Oregon's Juvenile Justice System.
■ How is your county addressing this continuing system improvement goal?
■ What barriers exist to achieving local goals and objectives in this area?
■ Are there local services or programs that you would recommend as best
practice approaches for other counties to consider in their efforts to improve
services in these areas?
5. Current Priorities for Improving Oregon's Juvenile Justice System
a. What are the three greatest priorities and/or resource needs for working
effectively with youth offenders, as well as youth at high risk of entering the
juvenile justice system?
What barriers exist to focusing on these priorities and/or to having these critical
resources in place?
■ How can counties help each other to overcome these barriers through
shared resources, technical assistance and/or regional approaches?
■ What can state agencies do to assist counties overcome these barriers
within the limits of current resources?
■ Which priorities should be addressed by the legislature?
Exhibi (�
Page _ of C
4w
.E
7
U
r9
N
m
a)
4j
m
c
W
O
v
V
W
a.+
U
7
0
U
d
E
1
opt ° Ln in °
o rn�
m ��
rnn o u°i c `�° v c m �_
�+ Gl
a) : .. m
v ra .0
41
ra a) F- L v°i C ° p ra
r
C�" 1 a)N
moo'' E aa� p1i--aW
*O'O
��, c
°x v o ccn ;o
rco�
a) c
t o L ra
°� ,w
ra v cn
Q) -
O� L U= Ln Q-
M
*'
iA •{�
cm= a, _
° c u ° EO'0'U
,,Q o�
a`u L 41
rn� ra oLn � Vi wQ ° o
� rp C
v 4m y 10
m C M 7(n 41 C ra CO O C
O a) C O O
4i
C V 7 -° rn N
C a) fa U
U C N i C C
U Ln CL
*'a
o.a 6°�w u
o °•p1E c
a)'a)LO
EcQ) E �',•O1"0 CL ° cn
.� = ° w
f0cW-COOM�o=a)°.Ow
Z
a)U°a)Ca)°°
U) Z a ra U o O.
cn ° V U
cn ._ -4 rn V v O— w 41 C. L O J
is
44 �
,.a
ko
Ln
2
14
L
O
L U'OO
ti N-I�
vnunrmunrn
C
M E acv
an
LM
3 0
oornr,0rn�0
w 3 GJO
.0w
4 Z 0)
M
M
v
MONNO)N
rnrln%D� v
-Dun Ln
�.1
u
u u u u
J—
I�
nnNO a)N a)00
m
O
100
< u a) V
a)
w
o
(Va)
rn u
cu
�
; )
Ln
w c
a)
�4.
(U
C4
0oo)c°
°
L- QC
.0
y~�u
LQc
L E o
•t
�C�o
�o 0
COaw-0
O
a)
CN () rO
t O a)LQ
L.
w Q) id
00 aC C O
41
0-0C+,
t
r0 a
au
oa O)w
L.
ay
3 0)
Baa)) >
L +� O
3 � O ani -N
V .0
-0—, L_�w
m
"c_� o Q 3
4-1
K
Emu
C ra L u-
OC. Ln
N O C C
(fO u- O C C
C
•L a) 0
C°rv�u
0 •- i+ ro °• fu C
r,>—
V► C u
0)• W:3 Q+'
C O w U 10 U
�.
°•u -
mE-w -pEs,a)Evcc�
cc°a)>L(no+OL
araa)w -° .
O V
N_a)wu0 Ln c:
41
'^ C
U J,'y (� �. a) °
E
t0 V L
1= EC •D
d a)
� a U •.-, ria
"O ` V O
La-) .� V
ra C ._
i a) C ra a) a) a)
a V a L L U L L
E -
C
C O O O C
U) a)
C ._ CCU •� C L
41
Qj
7 T t
a) C L i•'r
CL
E c` "D O j C C
-,
�- •-, L L c..-,-0 41
0 cn ._ _ c O
Q L O ra U •r ra O
=
O
L
N N
r
Iq
E
ri
IA
N O N a) N
10 01
O
O v
E Q1 N N N C O
�ZC�`�Ci
a�
Ln �h oc �� U)� Q)
I�p
r�•1
N 3
0000 00 N fu Ln O
L
d
G)minZ
Q%
C
NJ C
4)
O
O
O
.o
V
v
cn
V
a)
cn
U
u
(n
Exhibit
Page--�—of- 3
C)
O
w
O
O
4w
m
c
O
O
c
O
U
V
0)
U
A)
W
O
O:
c
7
O
V
m
rn� rno,° 0 0 c t
� rn n
v
LO
c ,_
u L O
41 C -0 3 U c z� fa °
° a) N V Q U 41 W 0 m
m
°;_ `��t`ovima ucate)aa))0=0�a;n�
t>>, 041O)o
p 0
-0 Mn 0) 0-0� c U o fO C� v E
3+; 4' 0 0�� !^ �` n
�+ O
o
C a) In •y L N O O u C N L .L, (a
L O- O U a) 0 L=
O p U ++ O 41 �-� � •-
°j of 41
3 tl)
v L > X O to !n o
C v a) a) 4- a o
E 0 v c cw c. In L o� w C u X o
a) O = m .. (a
,� E c a) a) Ln
L (n+, (n a) p rn,n—�
"D 'in
Mc
O_
.�
(a O fa O O C O L +� L p N Q) L^
V1 a) E U L C a) C C C ^ 0 rlj y 4 �' VI
Q
O Ln 'O -C •� w- C N 3
O ,C a) C 3 N ° fa a) C
•�
00 (a O u°i c c O a) `~ a) C
Ln t' O N U C C a) Ln .t -i • n
°au
D. o o Q) Lo w aL- o �� v o
'z
Q CL. ai L� 00 0d E
Ln O
O
0
Z
a) M-0 N ._ ` T '0 4O X C L U Q (O
00 v a °w.? C W a) 00 o 3= 0.0.-w.
M E �o p ro,�v
01 (a -0 p j �' a) U ..
O c L— Mn a) :3 c
oma. fo a�:v o cn-0O..._
41 �, v: In
a,. y
�o a
�E
Z
L.
2 O L V
��'�,--iM
M�00
41 .0c
Lm Lm 0 l.0'1 Un
�Itmm
LO'1 rl = = Un un = =
un
O. L
kD %D fa [P t
It 0 It 0 rn a% LO
U) M
4M Z
Z
NN W M00
IZ tD a 00 00
NmN0.-4 ItNm
N U)1 .D 0) 0) 1-1 N M
� u
J
u uu u
0)m
u u u u u u u u
m
0)01 LOO
010 000
(n0) -11 -+MMM
MMM00000
MMMOC)000
+1 +1 3NN
.-ice,-iNNNNN
r� L 41
a) L ° �
00o fa fa
Ln
o) = %o
N
> c
c +' Q)) `- m
(L) y Ln O +., d fa
.-of ar c
(a C• jO
U fa
r-Iu- N a) L L
-2fu N u
> C N C
00 4U
L .0 4O L Ln
a)
O a) �O V= (n
cu
H
O C' > a) 4- L
N C C
In �O Mc G.,
tn
rn � U= a)
0
O3vpE�'+C
-
vo 1=41C
3�
3 L 3+� o.£
a) o E
3 o > >
a0f
H
U) 0) m
o
c �0 c L
moo•_—fEa
+' '^ m
a =
C
_
C O C "' -0 3
C u u o Icfaa
,J-
�.
ul L. N Ol tn Q
yw� m O i 0 v
+, C X o
`n c a' E=
Ln
c o y� (n cu
c u a`)) N
uR�acn�> E°
EOU) 00x
a)=tea EU-)Lnn
E' (oa)La,�
Q� m0 3: %L-. m
Q 1 b 04S0 o
G
d k
3 tfi
O O N
Ln I
m p Qf
O N
N C 0 C� .2-.0 v
a
Vf Z V~
_�
a) •! a)
Q O a; o (n p O
yO
O U
4 O O
u C 0> C Q) v,
O U C
v2 -j4
74a)
V Z�6Cl. 4bQ))
L
a
m IA Z
Q1
M
O
0 �
C 0 Vq y
W C �
00
`yM
ko
a
U
cn
u
in
Exhibit d5
?age .-of 13
0
ri
m
O1
L C
41 f0
L
aJ 41
O
O � cn
V U m W
O a �, a)
C O S
a) a) >. L �,
p_ L
4)
�. a C u- O
E a) to O
01 E
C L O (0 01
(0 .O L 3 a U
O> > O a) U
7 r C i.. pi
N O
(0 Z. a)
p O i0 a)
m V N
m F.
J L
0 (0
(0 c O 0) a c 'O
C
O) a) in 0-0
Ol
c N c
�. Ln �O •` W O
id
cou>E�0 O°�
W — C V N 4- ro
u c
f6c `�
O to a) a)
L` I
V — y
CrnCcu=
N w a
o E
-W
O VJ
p m� — 0
is o Ln 4, e
3° -C=a to m
c
a��s
u o.
3` c -a
w rno.°iN`� cn
c p•'-41 o a)
a�}' ��
0o
�—�
EA
o C ._ ._E
o
00
C C
a7 y
�70
C
v° o h ��
Ln
�+ C a) ''' a) !.' C
L
?= aa) � w �i
to ++ E 'tn O
�� c M
J .� O :
O W- rn 03 o r`a
(n -O }' C U m 7
-0 a� '- V L Ln L N
•V1 E .- O O L L
N t C.0U to
Q w 0 C L 0
im L
M 'E +-'
N m C I E O�
M C I L i—
Z
W 41
p X p 7
-o
m a) ``� aVj
v o
CI m CU �,
N Ln -0:
CI 01CL + N C N
N M—
v O a V) N �o U
� U L U
�0 .p
3Z
2
L
O
C a L
cm U d
„Oj ♦�
m
O �y
ah
L �
3
a�
c
e
L
3 m Ln
Z V 'y
IA
L
G7
a
'p - � 3
�min2
01
O
Z,
C t0 A jr
W D �
w
tna
Exhibit ,5
?age (D of 13
0
CO
Ip
7 y
u- `
fll O C C
C C
(n L0 O M
X
L � [n4-
41 'O O QC N O fp L
_£
Q)O
U
0)�yu-0O
+O+roO O +��MC'cCO
J L
'0 0. 7 L f6
a U
L C- U fn
O
N L VI ;. N -a C C O �' = f�0
fo L
o>
fo G O E
Q; N+�
O w w
Q u v c C U
a v o L W Y a c
..� ao 20 c �, 3�.
*'O
�cw rncw
.f0
0 �_ o E �_
o, w tea°. -f' -0 Ln 0-C
-0— a..+ '+'' f0
4.1 C
-0 O C .O O
(O
-0
E U N "O
Ln Q' -0 O Ln f0 L
o O O
Ip o
iA .N
O C . 41
O U- N.
.-. 0) t6 L C
L U i V N f0
.. f6 —0-0 r.
.'-. O U O .�. fO C N Uf O C O
`'
•G)
O L — O
O m y N
O a-' m O m t C
N O U E
O }' V C O` O O C
N f0 O to N 00 tDO O
C:
N `�- t'
N • • U f0 V
f6
(LO N f6
D N O� N L Nro
z Lf'I Lf1 �'' 70 U .-
p
Oai fU 9 N
O
Oi E E 01 O O N V
O u- Oai , a m VO o Q) + C
O
Z
L r -I 0 0 N
v 3: —r,, Lo
rf f0 >_ L UJ
v cwc a-02:
.--I O �--I (b OO ,--f L S O N
m-0 t- v CL 4__ 0 C'0
Ali y
�a
33
a, Z
Z
0
'w N C
un Un LM Un un
cU
IV
LlN+'-fNN
U) £
7
W W W
lap
7 w
•I s
� %.D0.
0) .O tO 00 Oo
Z u
U U U U U V
J �_ O:
0) m 0) ON Ili
m
01(n0)m LOO
mmmm wa0
C
O
0)
V
o N 'a Of
C
N to +1 10 O N C O
0)
1
C
3�O
.�
H
C)) .0 C0i)C
•� p O N j ia
LO 'L '
m an d
3 C
occ�a)'o°cloa
L
o -X
air
`. _
Oj
dC� o
a V4_
fu
L L
_ a O
C
me c a� 41
C d
�
0
c a '- = i 01 to
X to . _ o O .- > a+ i
fD L c 0 3 ."
C=
X U O.- L
fnsmUca2ul
mo=
wi
00
w
C
I �
,E O
0.0
V U
4
7 V
n y
4w
v
.c 'a'wwe
` V/
nO
?age _, of l
W
0 0
_ m E aT, .0
3 G7
Im
> > d'
_� a1
y C
cl m a) a) m
C r
41
c�
J=
.0 UO c
C O
to O
W r- E n.0 ao cn
O.- O .X Ol.- C 0 y,, L
fll to
L
m L._ �,
c - u to c Ln m= a 041 a
a)-�—
>
a) a) V
°v
u C E U c O i.+ m O 4- a)
m
+•, a) fn
A
.n L- m
f`o m u a�
m0 o ,� E o fn fn fn o,m m
fa =w —0 u E W� as
`L° == o
c
O
^o a`ni fO O
O4.
^E O E "uLQ �• m D�
Oy, LO
c0=
y
•>
.N .0 fn
O O to U C
m c O Ci.+ =
w
fT O U C>.¢ `. w OL (n m m O) O
U c4,
). 4J =
M .N m N m N
N fn a) co E
M 4, m fri ra'o L a• Ln fn c L E
N C— E a) L M C 0 C a) "O . m_
m m E>.
V lu U M m
fll
=O m CO }, N O U m +.+ L �- L
CO
C ate-+ m .D
O
Z
O t0
v' Q. -o . q WO m
O) E
� 7 a) O f0 OL
v m .O m o E v U i5 Q=° 6 L d
O O a) O
> >. - 3
ma
3Z
Z
L
O
Z1- L V
00
,--i
CDC
un
un
�Zs�11,
U
u
kD
y
-+ —
rn
u
N
m
rn
rn
c
m
U
E
WWW
=r L
=_
—
E = 4'L a)
M 4, Ow
L m4-4.1
O_
m
iJ
.y
{L ;i.,� � O
3
.0
47
C -a cO
�O £ m
V
m 41
O `y
p 0 (n o Ln c
Q
3
p
L. at
N L C,Ln w
U
U I
OC 0
E
p
0 0
C
Ln a) L aO+
O L O m
O
U.
f0
Q m a) L
L y)
�
H
41
0� 0 41 � O
O c 'o
C
w (l
f0
c
fn d
CU C
3 E E w o
L y
� E
O) L 0
L I
m V ,O 2 a) UI
.i u C o)4-- L
" L
a) Im
fn L
a) p1
uQ Q O O
V)aLn
10
C
L
C C
L
ap+ Ch
j O
M NM
M o N
01
41
N ip C CL CZLC
N Q)
N C
{nZ
01 L a) V
01
11
E
y
fp
(n O
a
�minZ
01 C
74
Wm
C -I V
M
a
Ln
Ln
Ul) Exhibit
?age _, of l
00
WC7
In
C
4-1 = 4,
L
(A M w , m of
4 V
Of£
.0
� U
a) M W W a1
a t+� �+ o L �=
(n r0 °1
_
L Y C _O L 01 Ln c
v m C: o om
.j
y
o of v
z c 3� 0
oL E o `c°': 3•z a� o
L:0. E= v o v° �w N ai °� E -0'0 �—
O
M@ c cum m
° aXi cl
� C Om C -0 's
a) N t O h m -o O O a) E � 01 � C
3y
N3:aa,ucu
'' c
�o'°°'�a6io,�0000 0�cv` :3 in
rn o L
C
o_W
.y
v°�i
m m c
Ln 7 .�
OV
Ln m o a N N°
L m C 7 N d
6 o
�
41
Ln w 0 C
U C
� C � U C � a) i .c O � N r. +.C.+ 'O N -p v
f0 +� d �. m (n
>
f0 ° - O M a)
L a) (N' aJ
O "6 O .O °1 C f0 ° Ln O Ol L Ln E cr
t0 LD L
10
aJ .° °1 f0 a)
Ln (�6 (6 j O N '� Ln_ -0 L Ln 'V D
p
E v m E
L.
riQv CL 0) acro c fi °,E v ° c°
fo
Z
cnin u C° m
It0 rca ° o fu4 cm c o °'� m v �O E° 3 't L0 fu
— U
i
-W
c C
a ° a koko
3
a �tn4, 3LnLn
�Z
Z
rn to ozrvi(vi
—
N NV
v+.,m
i
L
O
n�
i+ C
,OO
Un LM wn
=%.
Z
N kD I
U
V U U
m
0) m O
O) m O
4
N
H
(gyp
(n
O y
�
p, hro
a
L
CL O1
UC
~
J
O
s U
� rn
LA c
a) +—
m c
B-0
L-
ra O
41
o
LU U
C
y L y
U Oi ,
3 Ln
t0 E
Oi �_ C + , C
M N C C ° N �D
-O z,,
O� C4.
01
U) V
U rj N.v �.0 tp �.0 i
clip i�Ln
V1
O� Q C J U rp .0 +
M U O
O
�.
�� Q v U OU vOi N+3+� L
[h��UU
L
O
a
�
�minZ
01
C m rq w
LYCvu
N
lfl
UU
a
m
V Exhibit
0age --T of
0
0)
41
m
C
a)
ul
O
c
O
U
U)
13
W
U
4)
4-
0
.4)
OC
ate+
C
O
U
Exhibit CD
Page /0 of
O
W
O
t`
cc
0.
O
C
N
C)
0
N
'a
Cro
10 c
10
'° m O 'n N N
O
O ,(U :u
+'
C O M 6
O -A 'D w v O i
W
f0
�o
41C
p C C L Q C
�E� a :
L
.�o�mN +,po
p U L =3 O L N C ,�,� .-4
-C v
O
3
0)i"scu
of
Ln �` 3 41 p,' E C -O t+
O,
�
0
a-0
Oa O d M C L C E 4, c
a s O
0 O O Y C
v U
r
C
'^ 10 N lD 4"' O
fO .0 U_ a--� 01 p• 7 N .i U
yCa
3 y
fo f0 N
L i O L 'O VI V
U a'' Oa
a-+ O
.-. fn fO Ln � .+..+
M C
U N -o N
(LO N E
'O 1 L -f
O NEn
w.
N O
N
.f0i U L L- L N'0 v N- f0 �
0.
j � aa) o f0 N
E i0 >.
7
.--i O a- O, a .-f -C
-- p o w i= p — O U
d '�
>
o O N J— w O r f0 E F�
cn O C U fn C f0 O li
'C CO
C
O ._
Ln .
O O 4• C f0 N f0 �, L O r. L
Ln .0 C p -c C O Ln [p
�
*+
C i 41 O N Q
41 O Q1 C C �-' y M
N
4.1
U
ti p U W f0 cn fy ..
U In �' t-+ O `O t'' E CUA N
O
Z
a..�
7 N f0 0 7 7 0 M O
O r, O` r O 0 0 �. N O
>
O p 14
rl ), m
01 0. -p 7 a..' O W N 0-,— •O
,-' L "O O p C 0@ L .-i C
N 0 41 N U U f0 .0 IT N
(n
-q' O m U Z O U O.
i4
i a
�Z
Z
L
O
d
L U
N
M .••i .-i N It
++ ,pC
Lm un Lm un un
A = m 47
'�
O
.M -1N000
Z t Y.
Ln
M fl N Ln LD
U
U
U U U U U
m
0)
m(MOOO
011
0) 01% O O O
C
fo O
N y
O fl'
.0
41�y O 10
m
m 47
N
7
y tn
p
N
O
O
fn
CL in
a+
Ch
C L
o
0
Q c
`.
L) 3
n
U
i
M
d
V
O 9
Q m
C
L
0
0.
y
I ]o
OLn
O O
O
Ln
d1
+O+ 3
V~
N O\
(A Z
U
z
�0
74O = LLn
4a��
N
L
a
7
�minZ
Q1
C O T4
1Y C`y
�
n
n
M
00
Al
U
cn
U
Exhibit CD
Page /0 of
O
W
O
t`
cc
0.
O
C
N
C)
0
N
E
E
Page / I of 8-
0
_0C
6 1 .-
00
L
0�
C 0 N m
10
C y 0 V
U
VI 0 a.1 01
a)
C%
n LO-
O 4- U r6 N N
r0 .0 N s
r0 O O. O N a� 0 fu r E cn
J~
L
07 N 610 61 0 y y
7
+1 N> •� L a..+ 0
Cl61
O
'0 O= O U a.., -O F" 0 3
LnIii
L_ u) O m m E>->•0
0 °
41 la oma=
C >,� C 7 0 c o
+r
C X. L-0 x ,� N
•- - a =a v-
U fo d
> N 7 t0 O N fO .?, 41 m U
R c
°; C`E vim, ° o
E
�� o
L.��
�L+ UU Ln4, C v v�
Vl y
y
•+�'-, N C M.0 O
Vf E ro Q y O> E
.N.. O O N 0 '�
O O c .9 C L
atefa -+
L r0
•0 t v" m O to m" 0
ro U in �n N 0,241.2
^
G1
m 00 .� L= O
� z_0 f0 V O= N
•6 3
.2
j N a T n N .-,
wcu
a+
N +� 0 6 C t0
01 �'' 0> O O. N
N 7 0 6
O O M N r0 v
L LL
Z
oL o aEi .E u E m 00
� L. 0L' M 4O M o
o .� aEi .E
N cmn L_ V ami '> a) L' u
'C
2
L
O
aL
lmZ
U
J
00
H
O .y
CL tri
L
3 Q1
a�
c
C
L V
M Ln
E
+�+ Qt
�ZV~
y
�0
L
�m Lm
01
O
1. � O
C M ri id
W C v
tn
.01
_xhibit 16
Page / I of 8-
0
d)
4j
m
C
Gl
O
IA
C
O
V
V
4)
V
Q)
O
w
O
W
ce
A
C
O
U
o+
�o
L- Cfria� ,��o
= (L) L. Q)
a) 0)m a) a)- a)cn
L.t :mac rca
> Q) m C fa 3
01 d
E
p C 6 T > Q a) N a) C `� fo
a) u V
a) N'0 C v .: V C V
N L C
C
C
m
J
a) a) f0 m L .c C a) �-+
47-0 O O i6 CL L +� � w c c
C cu O L a)
O O �-- C-0 f0
L
-0 p f0 v fo c c
a-+ dS 10-0 m^
L
C w
a) f0 O ' C L (0 L
f0 O p
^i C= u
C ^ -0 E O
— ... �. r, f0
W C W Q^ a. . t0 U
O�
0 C
4+ O u t0
L u- ,cu U a) a) u V O> p > p
a) aikD4-w 7� O �i- u
C
a) V C (6 ,--i f0 f0 p f j a)
CM N L ,�^v`�C�C aj�Ul
U)
C
f0
�p C ^.r-
m O C w- a) O f0 fn d c 'p
C a) L a)
a) E to v M' 1n 0 u ,C
E 7 O `-' cn `-'
Oin
,y
>- cn a) C .v' O L C C p
O d C O :u ',y0- C O Zn .0 C V `M O 7
uLn C
a) Z a ,._, C j i: O i: En w a)
'� O
U f0 f0 a)
C) L ..• M �n
v
+m+
t' -' +-' � f0 a) a=+ L E @ C j C ra i C
o
V O ,-� .-' a) O L O C yO_ f0
O
Z
�— N C L N 41 >, , a) V a) () C Q) a) w
O� � o �w a),,, M o. L p fo��
E
Q1 U > V V -11
� a)m (U c v Q) a) -o or, W
U f0 L u L O C' f0 a 7 O U O Y U 41
�' Ln (n L ._ to C fn ... N
v/
32
2
L
O
4j C
;'
f0 d
aL
s
o+ Z d
00
y �
O .H
ah
L ch
a�
e
c
L
� y Gl
7 h
ch
m j O
WZV~
h
i
d
a
74
�'oinZ
01
C M
W
IA
'O
Exhibit
Page / Z - of 1 3
0
Im
w rn rn
O c c .0
O
I0
cE
c a) - — -0
Ln
v�� X41
41
rn'.
mom'
to v fo a o m a—�
fo -O
c
E f0 -
J L
C> U U •— u-.
> D
; a) O a) — O
s 'U
O
m u-6 mE a) o E� °�
�; c
7 H
7 p N C p> '- a) p 3 C
UD >
41— O
fop G
'
C a) o `� '^ to �-
- U N u,•�„�
U O U
U L
N
oC L a) .
.�,i N O
10
Q) — 'C O a) Cin 7 a) t p
0 c
0
3 0)M mL. �� > Ln c U 41 a� uoL.
o
32
2
L
O
�
rr)
> LL U
+I
++ m C
LOn
(A M
.IMZ
IT
V
V
J C:
n
m
�
O�
O O
4, a
r�
y, C
3 O
41
IN
H
fo
U m
m O N
o.
Nin
y
C
+L+
C a) >
CL
CL
c Ln
L ci
a °'
C
°
a) a)
to j
EU
v a�
>
E
++ p p
tna
C L L
=
aJ
O
o
o
m>
a)
D
fuo
in v o`
G
kn
d quL
'�°70v��`
.iso
� Z U "4
047
O c in
�.
V�
a
SLG IAZ
O1
IM
C M AUJ
O)
U
Ol
U
•O
cn
cn
0
Exhibit
'Page 13 of /3
�
x
Wz
Z
o
W
N Hi
N.o •vni
N o. �,:
J
IZ
TWO
Ld
o
Q
0.Q
J
ZZ
Z w °
Ld0
JAW
x�
O
0
_
®
T
W
x
Wz
u
woz
o
W
N Hi
N.o •vni
N o. �,:
F
ZZ
W
•Cf
O
0
V
®
C
_'�
V)
KJ
ry
y
zz:
a
aW
i
rn_Yn
_Yn
yoe
cs
LLU.0
y0
pQ
�
[0
F
Y
h
rl
Ed
11 ai o, D. o ani >
=O a 0 E o o w lt�w q> ani o° o
w by Q' 0 a� a� N VN oO
.0 'u. o w
k4 d a o D o c b C
�.y .o o O o a� �. w Z o a� o •� o o ° c
ai 42
d 3 N o ;c Q °� o o o
0 cc
o o. ' •'"- Q b o o: a, j X23 0 0 -b b , ---�,
to
;z0
a� oma"°a�°�° vo mangy= °� 3v�
iZ TS U w .� ami `' v v, o. C c d o
Zs ai w o a _° 04 a� 0 A b
w'w
$�o
m O +NUUZ
aoo0Us(\
q - o W°
aU�
�w
Li]_ n. .
F
ZZ
O
0
V
®
C
_'�
V)
KJ
ry
y
zz:
rl
Ed
11 ai o, D. o ani >
=O a 0 E o o w lt�w q> ani o° o
w by Q' 0 a� a� N VN oO
.0 'u. o w
k4 d a o D o c b C
�.y .o o O o a� �. w Z o a� o •� o o ° c
ai 42
d 3 N o ;c Q °� o o o
0 cc
o o. ' •'"- Q b o o: a, j X23 0 0 -b b , ---�,
to
;z0
a� oma"°a�°�° vo mangy= °� 3v�
iZ TS U w .� ami `' v v, o. C c d o
Zs ai w o a _° 04 a� 0 A b
w'w
$�o
m O +NUUZ
aoo0Us(\
q - o W°
aU�
�w
Li]_ n. .
o> c0c
, —4)
a:1 u
Cs > °' o GD O
pu�i U c 0cyiwz ell
OD to
o
00O
N CO is v as..
c> O a Q H b o
Cd
N �>, c.y'y Q
o W o 9 �:c=' aai c 0
p bO 3
(L) 41 Q �_ OD0�v3"y co>,=
In C �y 5- w tC`C �- J 0 aoia@:�bw4,E�abr��
O'It Z d 'ti O ca � o o 22JOU V � � � � w � p ' y.�
p� p w v o o N a o 0ex) y y c o E
h14
obiO� y y d VI O 0 0�` � .Na
a a o
p J 3 aoi 3 3 3 J O O y aCi w; b aoi' V 0
.ti v " ,cva44 > o
4) tyy O cpi O� ZZs O �ca�von
H cb c7 axi ani m
° o Y c0 95
y w
s,42 to
o y— on Zs IY�Sf o u y wtw 4) c E
as
O .Off) o 0, 0 = COO 0K 41 c
�i O G w
ti Uv0 OV 3 'y ao viN a� "o Ilt5O 1-21
w 5
t3 00 (u c oCOO � r EVq�, >�Wca
>�o.— N eea
4,p p
y
a O
S as o >
b p c cd ca E bLo `ti ZS U o �' a .� o Y
-,.t w w'Z � Ec� w� °off cane a 3
ti
O d❑ y � h O w O w.Q as o } 1
.�oo 'a4.icOi ai a� ❑ v y c
p w o Y 7 .Y w a� �• O �a..0 �, o- •2 ca o
.� ,+-.. C.•� C.1 CLQ ca .� O P+...
0.0
a. b on d o k o O h LtJ
O
O h p rcc} b ca b", Q N
twoqY O r. w ea v n
❑ [ C7
V" O N y O ca 0 O •❑ c CA p y y V N
O (L Z v .� cya O^ {L
p ca y b o ,�
O O b y e 'cc y b b o O h j v ' b '� o x' on o
oo}1aab"'�,ca�Yo
ea
• V V` r d 4 •U U t .�, •. A. < °? U CS V V t i <• y d 4 2 E .[ . w
h O
a�
2 2 y o°'i c,_,
cd m cd
a
2 & m o rrW �� c o e°ob>,C-)�
Q J c Ml Cd t
N2pOW c
>�.
Q
N �C N
O0 --
o O� co
Ot
b,o Q �4WOS�. (� o.�•Li.? c Q o }, ob
•ti Q�Z N bA N cci puo^w
JJtu 2 Qymze �� a
002 O O� p U QW� 0 hS > cl, t�.�•�."
w QQtj (� �b-d �• o
UU2� p+Q.dH °
� 2 W W \ '� bo ••� O 0( � � � o a `
J�W��JO e"i" � � Z �yt�tnnJ CS •°o � �'bb r" �'o `� N
WJWJy
ZWQ.�kVj0O ° o QQ��� 0( �". sa.p o
��� V Q �Ov� a�i�..� � cts °�'•s :-R a�
bn
', rrl n
September 2002
43
LONG-TIME VIEWERS of Saturday
Night Live will vividly recall Steve Martin's
hilarious portrayal of a medieval medical
practitioner—the English barber, Theodoric
of York When ill patients are brought be-
fore him, he prescribes ludicrous "cures,"
such as repeated bloodletting, the applica-
tion of leeches and boar's vomit, gory am-
putations, and burying people up to their
necks in a marsh. At a point in the skit when
a patient dies and Theodoric is accused of
"not knowing what he is doing," Martin
stops, apparently struck by the transform-
ing insight that medicine might abandon
harmful interventions rooted in ignorant
customs and follow a more enlightened path.
"Perhaps," he says, "I've been wrong to
blindly follow the medical traditions and
superstitions of past centuries." He then pro-
ceeds to wonder whether he should 'test
these assumptions analytically through ex-
perimentation and the scientific method."
And perhaps, he says, the scientific method
might be applied to other fields of learning.
He might even be able to "lead the way to a
new age --an age of rebirth, a renaissance."
He then pauses and gives the much -awaited
and amusing punchline, "Nawwwwwwwl"
The humor, of course, lies in the juxtapo-
sition and Anal embrace of blatant quackery
with the possibility and rejection of a more
modern. scientific, and ultimately effective
approach to medicine. For those of us who
make a living commenting on or doing cor-
rections, however, we must consider whether,
in a sense, the joke is on us. We can readily
see the humor in Steve Martin's skit and won-
der how those in medieval societies "could
have been so stupid." But even a cursory sur-
Edward J. Latessa, University of Cincinnati
Francis T. Cullen, University of Cincinnati
Paul Gendreau, University of New Brunswick at Saint John
vey of currentcorrectional practices yields the
disquieting conclusion that we are a field in
which quackery is tolerated, if not implicitly
celebrated. It is not clear whether most of us
have ever had that reflective moment in which
we question whether, "just maybe," there
might be a more enlightened path to pursue.
If we have paused to envision a different way
of doing things, it is apparent that our reac-
tion, after a moment's contemplation, too
often has been, "Nawwwwwwwwl"
This appraisal might seem overly harsh,
but we are persuaded that it is. truthful.
When intervening in the lives of offenders—
that is, intervening with the expressed inten-
tion of reducing recidivists ---corrections has
resisted becoming a true "profession." Too
often, being a "professional" has been de-
based to mean dressing in a presentable way,
having experience in the field, and showing
up every day for work But a profession is
defined not by its surface appearance but by
its intellectual core. An occupation may lay
claim to being a 'profession" only to the
extent that its practices are based on research
knowledge, training, and expertise--& tri-
umvirate that promotes the possibility that
what it does can be effective (Cullen, 1978;
Starr, 1982). Thus, medicine's
professionalization cannot be separated
from its embrace of scientific knowledge as
the ideal arbiter of how patients should be
treated (Starr, 1982). The very concept of
"malpractice" connotes that standards of
service delivery have been established, are
universally transmitted, and are capable of
distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable
interventions. The concept of liability for
"correctional malpractice" would bring
snickers from the crowd—a case where hu-
mor unintentionally offers a damning indict-
ment of the field's standards of care.
In contrast to professionalism, quackery is
dismissive of scientific knowledge, training,
and expertise. Its posture is strikingly over-
confident, if not arrogant. It embraces the
notion that interventions are best rooted in
"common sense," in personal experiences (or
clinical knowledge), in tradition, and in su-
perstition (Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, and
Paparozzi, forthcoming). "What works" is
thus held to be "obvious," derived only from
years of an individual's experience, and legiti-
mized by an appeal to custom ("the way we
have always done things around here has
worked just fine'). It celebrates being anti-
intellectual. There is never a need to visit a
library or consult a study.
Correctional quackery, therefore, is the use
of treatment interventions thai are based on
neither 1) existing knowledge of the causes
of crime nor 2) existing knowledge of what
programs have been shown to change of-
fender behavior (Cullen and Gendreau, 2000;
Gendreau, 2000). The hallmark of correc-
tional quackery is thus ignorance. Such igno-
rance about crime and its cures at times is
"understandable"—that is, linked not to the
willful rejection of research but to being in a
field in which professionalism is not expected
or supported. At other times, however, quack-
ery is proudly displayed, as its advocates
boldly proclaim that they have nothing to
learn from research conducted by academics
"who have never worked with a criminal"
(a claim that is partially true but ultimately
beside the point and a rationalization for
continued ignorance).
Exhibit
Page _
01
3 of /(
. e
44 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 66 Number 2
I
Need we nowpoint out the numerous pro.
grams that have been implemented with
much fanfare and with amazing promises of
success, only later to turn out to have "no
effect" on reoffending? "Boot camps," of
course. are just one recent and salient.
example. Based on a vague, if not unstated,
theory of crime and an absurd theory of be-
havioral change ("offenders need to be bro-
ken down through a good deal of
humiliation and threats—and then "built
back up"), boot tamps could not possibly
have "worked." In fact, we know of no major
psychological theory that would logically sug-
gest that such humiliation or threats are com-
ponents ofeffective therapeutic interventions
(Gendreau etal., forthcoming). Even so, boot
camps were put into place across the nation
without a shred of empirical evidence as to
their effectiveness, and oniynow has their ap-
peal been tarnished after years.of negative
evaluation studies (Cullen, Pratt, Miceli, and
Moon, 2002; Callen, Wright, and Applegate,
1996; Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, and Andrews,
2000; MacKenzie, Wilson, and Kider, 2001).
How many millions of dollars have been
squandered? How many opportunities to re-
habilitate offenders have been forfeited? How
many citizens have. been needlessly victimized
by boot camp graduates? What has been the
cost to society of this quackery?
We are not alone in suggesting that ad-
vances in our field will be contingent on the
conscious rejection of quackery in -favor of an
evidence -based corrections (Cullen and
Gendreau, 2000; MacKenzie, 2000; Welsh and
Farrington, 2001). Moving beyond correc-
tional quackerywheninterveningwith offend-
ers, however, will be a daunting challenge. It
will involve overcoming four central failures
now commonplace in correctional treatment.
We review these four sources of correctional
quackery not simply to show what is lacking
in the field but also in hopes of illuminating
what a truly professional approach to correc-
tions must strive to entail,
Four Sources of
Correctional Quackery
Failure to Use Research
in Designing Programs
Every correctional agency must decide "what
to do" with the offenders under its supervi-
sion, including selecting which "programs"
or "interventions" their charges will be sub-
jected to. But how is this choice made (a
choice that is consequential to the offender,
the agency, and the eommunhy)? Omen, no
real choice is made, because agencies simply
continue with the practices that have been
inherited from previous administrations.
Other times, programs are added incremen-
tally, such as when concern rises about drug
use or drunk driving. And still other times—
such as when punishment -oriented interme-
diate sanctions were the fad from the
mid-1980s to the trtid-1990s—jurisdictions
copy the much -publicized interventions be-
ing implemented elsewhere in the state and
in the nation.
TABLE 1
Questionable Theories of Crime
We Have Encountered in Agency
Programs
✓ "Been there, done that" theory.
s,' "Offenders lack creativity" theory.
✓ "Offenders need to get back to
nature" theory.
✓ "It worked for me" theory.
✓ "Offenders lack discipline" theory.
✓ "Offenders lack organizational
skills" theory.
✓ "Offenders have low self-esteem"
theory.
✓ "We just want them to be happy"
theory.
✓ The "treat offenders as babies and
dress them in diapers" theory.
✓" "Offenders need to have a pet in
prison" theory.
✓ "Offenders need acupuncture"
theory.
✓ "Offenders need to have healing
lodges" theory.
✓ "Offenders need drama therapy"
theory.
✓ "Offenders need a better diet and
haircut" theory.
✓ "Offenders (females) need to learn,
how to put on makeup and dress
better" theory.
✓ "Offenders (males) need to get in
touch with their feminine side"
theory.
Notice, however, what is missing in this
account; The failure to consider the existing
research on program efiectiveness. The risk
of quackery rises to the level of virtual cer-
tainty when nobody in the agency asks, "Is
there any evidence supporting what we are
intending to do?" The irrationalityof not con-
sulting the existing research is seen when we
consider again, medicine. Imagine if local
physicians and hospitals made no effort to
consult "what works" and simply prescribed
pharmaceuticals and conducted surgeries
based on custom or the latest fad. Such mal-
practice would be greeted with public con-
demnation, lawsuits, and a loss of legitimacy
by the field of medicine.
It is fair to ask whether research can, in fact,
direct us to more effective correctional inter-
ventions.Two decades ago, our knowledge was
much less developed. But the science of crime
and treatment has made important strides in
the intervening years. In particular, research
has illuminated three bodies ofknowledge that
are integral to designing effective interventions.
First, we have made increasing strides in
determining the empirically established or
known predictors of offender recidivism
(Andrews and Bonta,1998; Gendreau, Little,
and Coggin, t996; Henggeler, Mihalic, Rone,
Thomas, and Timmons -Mitchell, 1998).
These include, most importantly; 1) antho-
cial values, 2) antisocial peers, 3) poor self-
control, self-management, and prosocial
problem -solving skills, 4) family dysfunction,
and 5) past criminality. This information is
critical, because interventions that ignore these
factors are doomed to fail. Phrased alterna-
tively, successful programs start by recogniz-
ing what causes crime and then specifically
design the intervention to target these factors for
change (Alexander, Pugh, and Parsons, 1998;
Andrews and Banta, 1998; Cullen and
Gendreau, 2000; Henggeler et al., 1998).
Consider, however, the kinds of "theories*
about the causes of crime that underlie many
correctional interventions. In many cases,
simple ignorance prevails; those working in
correctional agencies cannot explain what
crime -producing factors the program is alleg-
edly targeting for change. Still worse, many
programs have literally invented seemingly
ludicrous theories of crime that are put for-
ward with a straight face. From our collective
experiences, we have listed in Table 1 crime
theories that either 1) were implicit in pro-
grams we observed or 2) were voiced by
agency personnel when asked what crime -
causing factors their programs were target_
Exhibit C
Page of %(
September 2002 BEYOND CORRECTIONAL. QUACKERY 45
ing. These "theories' would be amusing ex-
TABLE 2
cept that they are commonplace and, again,
Eight Principles of Effective Correctional intervention
potentially lead to correctional quackery. For
example, the theory of "offenders (males)
1. Organizational Culture
need togetintouch with their feminineside"
prompted one agency to have offenders dress
Effective organizations have well-defined goals, ethical principles, and a history
in female clothes. We cannot resist the temp-
of efficiently responding to issues that have an impact on the treatment facilities.
tation to note thatyou will nowknow whom
Staff cohesion, support for service training, self-evaluation, and use of outside
to blame ifyou are mugged by a cross -dresser!
resources also characterize the organization.
g
But, in the end, this is no laughing matter.
2. program implementation/Maintenance
This intervention has no chance to be effec-
tive, and thus an important chance was for-
Programs are based on empirically -defined needs and are consistent with the
feited to improve offenders' lives and to
organization's values. The program is fiscally responsible and congruent with
protect public safety,
stakeholders' values. Effective programs also are based on thorough reviews of
Second, there is now a growing literature
the literature (i.e., meta-analyses), undergo pilot trials, and maintain the staff's
that outlines what does not work in offender
Professional credentials.
treatment (see, e.g., Cullen, 2002; Cullen and
Gendreau, 2000; Cullen et al., 2002, Cullen et
3. Management/Staff Characteristics
al., 19%; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau et al.,
The program director and treatment staff are professionally trained and have
2000; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; MacKenzie,
previous experience working in offender treatment programs. Staff selection is
2000). These include boot camps; punish-
based on their holding beliefs supportive of rehabilitation and relationship styles
ment -oriented programs (e.g., "scared
and therapeutic skill factors typical of effective therapies.
straight" programs), control -oriented pro-
4. Client Risk/Need Practices
grams (e g, intensive supervision programs),
interven-
psychologicalinterven-
wildernesssthata programsare
Offender risk is assessed by psychometric instruments of proven predictive
tions non -directive
direaind
validity. The risk instrument consists of a wide range of dynamic risk factors or
canal non-intervention
psychoanalytic), and non-intervention
(as
criminogenic needs (e.g., anti -social attitudes and values). The assessment also
s,
(as suggested by labeling theory). Ineffective
takes into account the responsivity of offenders to different styles and modes of
Y
programs also target for treatment low-risk
service. Changes in risk level over time (e.g., 3 to 6 months) are routinely as -
offenders and target for change weak predic-
sessed in order to measure intermediate changes in risk/need levels that may
tors of criminal behavior (e.g., self-esteem).
occur as a result of planned interventions.
Given this knowledge, it would be a form of
quackery to continue touseortofreshlyimple-
5, Program Characteristics
meat these types of interventions.
The program targets for change a wide variety of criminogenic needs (factors
Third, conversely, there is now a growing
that predict recidivism), using empirically valid behavioral/social learning/
literature that outlines what does work in of
cognitive behavioral therapies that are directed to higher -risk offenders. The ratio
fender treatment (Cullen, 2002; Cullen and
of rewards to punishers is at least 4:.1. Relapse prevention strategies are available
Gendreau, 2000). Most Importantly, efforts
once offenders complete tho formal treatment phase.
are being made to develop principles of ef-
fective intervention (Andrews, 1995; Andrews
6. Core Correctional Practice
and Bonta, 1998; Gendreau, 1996). These
Program therapists engage in tate following therapeutic practices: anti -criminal
principles are Hstedin Table 2. Programs that
modeling, effective reinforcement and disapproval, problem -solving techniques,
adhere to these principles have been found
structured learning procedures for skill -building, effective use of authority,
to achieve meaningful reductions in recidi-
cognitive self -change, relationship practices, and motivationel interviewing.
vistn (Andrews, Dowden, and Gendreau,
1999; Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta,
�, Inter -Agency Communication
Gendreau, and Cullen, 1990; Cullen, 2002).
The agency aggressively makes referrals and advocates for its offenders in order
However, programs that are designed with-
that they receive high quality services in the community.
out consulting these principles are almost cer-
g. Evaluation
tain to have
recidivism and rimay even rie or no pl `incn offnnder
The agency routinely conducts program audits, consumer satisfaction surveys,
offending. That is, if these principles are ig-
Process evaluations of changes in criminogenic need, and follow-ups of recidi-
nored, quackery is likely to result. We will
vism rates. The effectiveness of the program is evaluated by comparing the
return to this issue below.
respective recidivism rates of risk -control comparison groups of other treatments
or those of a minimal treatment group.
Note; Items adapted. from the correctional Program Assessment lnventory 2000, a 131 -item
Questionnaire that Is widely used In assessing the quality of correctional treatment
(Gendreau and Andrews, 2001). programs
Exhibit a
Page S of It
46 FEDERAL PROBATION
Failure to Follow Appropriate Assess-
ment and Classification Practices
The steady Bow ofoffendersinto correctional
agencies not only strains resources but also
creates a continuing need to allocate treat-
ment resources efficaciously. This problem is
not dissimilar to a hospital that must process
.a steady flow of patients. In a hospital (or
doctor's office), however, it Is immediately
recognized that the crucial first step to deliv.
ering effective treatment is diagnosing or as-
sessingthe patient's condition and its severity.
In the absence of such a diagnosis --which
might involve the careful study o£symptoms
or a battery of tests—the treatment pre-
scribed would have no clear foundation.
Medicine would be a lottery in which the till
would hope the doctor assigned the right
treatment. In a similar way, effective treat-
ment intervention requires the appropriate
assessment of both the risks posed by, and the
needs underlying the criminality of, offend-
ers. When such diagnosis is absent and no
classification ofoffenders is possible, offend-
ers in effect enter a treatment lottery in which
their access to effective intervention is a
chancy proposition.
Strides have been made to develop more
effective dassification instruments—such as
the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI)
(Bout&,1996),which, among its competitors,
has achieved the highest predictive validity
with recidivism (Gendreau et al., 1996). The
LSI and similar instruments classify offend-
ers by using a combination of 'static' factors
(such as criminal history) and "dynamic fac-
tors" (such as antisocial values, peer associa-
tions) shown by previous research to predict
recidivism. In this way, it is possible to clas-
sify. offenders by their level of risk and to dis-
cern the types and amount of "criminogenic
needs" they possess that should be targeted
for change in their correctional treatment.
At present, however, there are three prob-
lems with offender assessment and classifica-
tion by correctional agencies (Gendreau and
Goggin, 1997). First, many agencies simply
do not assess offenders, with many claiming
they do not have the time. Second, when
agencies do assess, they assess. poorly. Thus,
theyoften use outdated, poorlydesigned, and/
or empirically unvalidated classification in-
struments. In particular, they tend to rely on
instruments that measure exclusively static
predictors of recidivism (which cannot, by
definition, be changed) and that provide no
Information on the criminogenic needs that
offenders have. If these "needs" are not iden-
.. 4
tified and addressed --such as possessing an-
tisocial values—the prospects for recidivism
will be high. For example, a study of 240 (161
adult and 79 juvenile) programs assessed
across 30 states found that 64 percent of the
programs did not utilize a standardized and
objective assessment tool that could distin-
guish risk/needs levels for offenders
(Matthews, Hubbard, and Latessa, 2001;
Latessa, 2002).
Third, even when offenders are assessed
using appropriate classification instruments,
agencies frequently ignore the information.
It is not uncommon, for example, for offend-
ers to be assessed and then for everyone to be
given the same treatment. In this instance,
assessment becomes an organizational rou-
tine in which paperwork is compiled but the
information is ignored.
Again, these practices increase the likeli-
hood that offenders will experience correc-
tional quackery. In a way, treatment is
delivered blindly, with agency personnel
equipped with little knowledge about the risks
and needs of the offenders under their super-
vision. In these circumstances, it is impossible
to knowwhich offenders should receivewhich
interventions. Any hopes of individualizing
interventions effectively also are forfeited, be-
cause the appropriate diagnosis either is un-
available or hidden in the agency's unused files.
Failure to Use Effective
Treatment Models
Once offenders are assessed, the next step is
to select an appropriate treatment model. As
we have suggested, the challenge is to consult
the empirical literature on "what works," and
to do so .with an eye toward programs that
conform to the principles of effective inter-
vention. At this stage, it is inexcusable either
to ignore this research or to Implement pro-
grams that have been shown to be Ineffective.
Yet, as we have argued, the neglect of the ex-
isting research on effective treatment models
is widespread. In the study of 240 programs
noted above, It was reported that two-thirds
of adult programs and over half of juvenile
programs did not use a treatment model that
research had shown to be effective (Matthews
et al., 2001; Latessa, 2002). Another study --a
meta-analysis of 230 program evaluations
(which yielded 374 tests or effect sizes) --cat-
egorized the extent to which interventions
conformed to the principles of effective in-
tervention. In only 13 percent of the tests were
the interventions judged to fall into the "most
Volume 66 Number 2
appropriate" category (Andrews et al., 1999).
But this failure to employ an appropriate treat_
ment approach dots not have to be the case.
Why would an agenc)--in this information
age—tisk quackerywhen the possibilityof us-
ing an evidence -based program exists? Why
not select effective treatment models?
Moving in this direction is perhaps mostly
a matter of a change of consciousness—that
is, an awareness by agency personnel that
quackery trust be rejected and programs with
a trade record of demonstrated success em-
braced. Fortunately, depending on the of-
fender population, there is a growing number
of treatment models that might be learned
and implemented (Cullen and Applegate,
1997). Some of the more prominent models
in this regard are the "Functional Family
Therapy"_ model that promotes famtfy cohe-
sion and affection (Alexander et al., 1998,
Gordon, Graves, and Arbuthnot, 1995), the
teaching youths to think and react responsi-
blypeer-helping ("Equip') program (Gibbs,
Potter, and Goldstein, 1995), the "Prepare
Curriculum" program (Goldstein, 1999),
"Multisystemic Therapy" (Henggeler et al.,
1998), and the prison -based "Rideau Inte-
grated Service Delivery Model" that targets
criminal thinking, anger, and substance abuse
(see Gendreau, Smith, and Goggin, 2001).
Failure to Evaluate What We Do
Quackery has long prevailed in corrections
because agencies have traditionally required no
systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of
their programs (Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith,
2001). Let us admit that many agencies may
not have the human or financial capital to con-
duct ongoing evaluations. Nonetheless, It is not
dear that the failure to evaluate has been due
to a lack of capacity as much as to a lack of
desire. The risk Inherent In evaluation, of
course, is that practices that are now unques-
tioned and convenient may be revealed as in-
effective. Evaluation, that is, creates
accountability and the commitment threat of
having to changewhat is now being done. The
cost of change is not to be discounted, but so
too is the "high cost of ignoring success" (Van
Voorhis,1987). In the end, a professional must
be committed to doing not simply what is in
one's self-interest but what is ethical and ef-
fective. To scuttle attempts at program evalu-
ation and to persist in using failed interventions
is wrong and a key ingredient to continued
correctional quackery (more broadly, see Van
Voorhis, Cullen, and Applegate, 1995).
ExhibitC
(
Page of l (
September 2002 BEYOND CORRECTIONAL QUACKERY 47
Evaluation, moreover, is not an all -or -
nothing procedure. Ideally, agencies would
conduct experimental studies in which of-
fenders were randomly assigned to a treat-
ment or control group and outcomes, such
as recidivism, were measured over a lengthy
period of time. But let us assume that, in many
settings, conducting this kind of sophisticated
evaluation is not feasible. It is possible, how-
ever, for virtually all agencies to monitor, to
a greater or lesser extent, the quality of the
programs that they or outside vendors are
supplying. Such evaluative monitoring would
involve, for example, assessing whether treat-
ment services are being delivered as designed,
supervising and giving constructive feedback
to treatment staff/ and studying whether of-
fenders in the program are making progress
on targeted criminogenie factors (e g., chang-
ing antisocial attitudes, manifesting more
prosocial behavior). In too many cases, of-
fenders are "dropped off" in intervention pro-
grams and then, eight or twelve weeks later,
are deemed—without any basis for this con-
dusion—to have "received treatment." Imag-
ine
reatment"Imag-
ine if medical patients entered and exited
hospitals with no one monitoring their treat-
ment or physical recovery. Again, we know
what we could call such practices.
Conclusion�Becoming an
Evidence -Based Profession
In assigning the label "quackery" to much of
what is now being done in corrections, we run
the risk of seeming, if not being, preachy and
pretentious. This is not our intent. If anything,
we mean to be provocative—not for the sake
ofcausing a stir, but for the purpose ofprompt-
ing correctional leaders and professionals to
stop using treatments that cannot possibly be
effective. If we make readers think seriously
about how to avoid selecting, designing, and
using fafied correctional interventions, our ef-
forts will have been worthwhile.
We would be remiss, however, if we did
not confess that academic criminologists
share the blame for the continued use of in-
effective programs. For much of the past
quarter century, most academic criminolo-
gists have abandoned correctional practitio-
ners. Although some notable exceptions exist,
we have spent much of our time claiming that
"nothing works" in offender rehabilitation
and have not created partnerships with those
in corrections so as to build knowledge on
"whatworks" to change offenders (Cullen and
Gendreau, 2001). Frequently, what guidance
criminologists have offered correctional agen-
cies has constituted bad advice—ideologically
inspired, not rooted in the research, and likely
to foster quackery. Fortunately, there is a
growing movement among criminologists to
do our part both in discerning the principles
of effective intervention and in deciphering
what interventions have empirical support
(Cullen and Gendreau, 2001; MacKenzie,
2000; Welsh and Farrington, 2001). Accord-
ingly, the field of corrections has more infor-
mation available to find out what our "best
bets" are when intervening with offenders
(Rhine, 1998).
We must also admit that our use of medi-
cine as a comparison to corrections has been
overly simplistic. We stand firmlybehind the
central message conveyed—that what is done
in corrections would be grounds for malprac-
tice in medicine—but we have glossed over
the challenges that the field of medicine facts
in its attempt to provide scientifically -based
interventions. First, scientific knowledge is
not static but evolving. Medical treatments
that appear to work now may, after years of
study, prove ineffective or less effective than
alternative interventions. Second, even when
information is available, it is not clear that it
is effectively transmitted or that doctors, who
may believe in their personal "clinical expe-
rience," will be open to revising their treat-
ment strategies (Hunt, 1997). "The gap
between research and knowledge," notes
Millenson (1997, p. 4), "has real eonse-
quences....when family practitioners in
Washington State were queried about mat-
ing a simple urinary tract infection in women,
eighty-two physicians came up with an ex-
traordinary 137 different strategies." In re-
sponse to situations like these, there is a
renewed evidence -based movement in medi-
cine to improve the quality of medical treat-
ments (Millenson, 1997; Timmermans and
Angell, 2001).
Were corrections to reject quackery in fa-
vor of an evidence -based approach, it is likely
that agencies would face the some difficulties
that medicine encounters in trying base treat-
ments on the best scientific knowledge avail-
able. Designing and implementing an
effective program is more complicated, we re-
alize, than simply visiting a library in search
of research on program effectiveness (al.
though this is often an important first step).
Information must be available in a form that
can be used byagencies. As in medicine, there
must be opportunities for training and the
provision of manuals that can be consulted
in how specifically to carry out an interven-
tion. Much attention has to be paid to imple-
menting programs as theyare designed. And,
in the long run, an effort must be made to
support widespread program evaluation and
to use the resulting data both to improve in-
dividual programs and to expand ourknowl-
edge base on effective programs generally.
To move beyond quackeryand accomplish
these goals, the field of corrections wilt have
to take seriously what it means to be a profes-
sion. In this context, individual agencies and
individuals within agencies would do well to
strive to achieve what Gendreau et al. (forth-
coming) refer to as the "3 C's" of effective
correctional policies: First, employ creden-
tialed peoplei second, ensure that the agency
is credentialed in that it is founded on the prin-
ciples of fairness and the improvement of lives
through ethically defensive means; and third,
base treatment decisions on credentialed
knowledge (e.g., research from meta-analyses).
By themselves, however, given individu-
als and agencies can do only so much to
implement effective interventions—although
each small step away from quackery and to-
ward an evidence -based practice potentially
makes a meaningful difference. The broader
issue is whether the field of corrections will
embrace the principles that all interventions
should be based on the best research evidence,
that all practitioners must be sufficiently
trained so as to develop expertise in how to
achieve offender change, and that an ethical
corrections cannot tolerate treatments known
to be foolish, if not harmful. In the end, cor-
rectional quackery is not an inevitable state
of affairs—something we are saddled with for
the foreseeable future. Rather, although a for-
midable foe, it is ultimately rooted in our col-
lective decision to tolerate ignorance and
failure. Choosing a different future for cor-
rections—making the field a true profes-
sion—will be a daunting challenge, but it is a
future that lies within our power to achieve.
Exhibit (2 -
Page -7 of—/(
48 FEDERAL PROBATION
References
Alexander, James, Christie Pugh, and Bruce Par-
sons.1998. Functional Family Therapy Book
Three in tht Blueprints and Violence Pmention
Serra. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and
Prevention ofViolence, UniversityofColorado.
Andrews. D. A. 1995. "The Psychology of Crimi-
nai.Conduct and Effective Treatment.' pp. 35-
62 In lames McGuire (ed.), What Works:
Reducing Reoffending. West Sussex, UK John
Wiley.
Andrews, D. A. and James Bonta.1998. PsyrJwl-
ogy of Criminal Conduct, 2nd ed. Cincinnati:
Anderson.
Andrews, D. A,. Craig Dowden, and Paul
Gendreau. 1999. "Clinically Relevant and Psy-
chologicallyInformed Approaches to Reduced
Re -Offending: A Meta Analytic Study of Hu-
man Service, Risk. Need, Responsivity, and
Other. Concerns in Justice Contexts." Unpub-
lished manuscript, Carleton University.
Andrews. D. A., Ivan Zinger, R. D. Hoge, James
Bonta, Paul Gendreau, and Francis T. Cullen
1990. "Docs Correctional Treatment Work?
A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically In-
formed Meta -Analysis." Criminology 28.
369-404.
Bonn. James, 1996. "Risk Needa Assessment and
Treatment." Pp. 18-32 in Alan T. Harland
(ed.), Choosing OrrectioMolOption$ That Work
Dtfudng the Demand and Evaluating the Sup.
ply.']housand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cullen, Francis T. 2002. *Rehabilitation and Treat-
ment Programs." Pp. 253-289 in lames Q,
Wilson and Joan Petersilfa (eels.), Crime Pub-
lic Policies for Crime Control. Oakland, CA:
ICS Press,
Cullen, Francis T. and Brandon K. Applegate, eds,
.1997, Offender Rehabilitation: Effective Comte-
tional Intervention. Aldershot, UK Ashgatel
Dartmouth.
Cullen, Francis T. and Paul Gendrau. 2000. 'As-
sessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Prac-
tice,
raytice, and Prospects." Pp. 109-175 in Julie
Homey (td.), Criminal Justice20o0: Volume3-
Polkie4 Proewes, and Decisions of the Criminal
Justice System, Washington, DO U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Cullen, Francis T. and Paul Gendreau. 2001. "From
Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Pro-
fessional Ideology In the 21st Century." The
Prison Journal 81:313-338.
Cullen, Francis T., Travis C. Pratt, Sharon Levtnnt
Miceli, and Melissa M. Moon. 2002. 'Danger-
ous Liaison? Rational Choice Theory as the
Basis for Correctional Intervention" p. 279-
296 in Alex R. Piquero and Stephen G. Tibbetts
(eds.), Rational Choice and Criminal Behavior.
Recent Research and Future Chalitagm New
York. Routledge.
Cullen, Francis T., John Paul Wright, and Bran-
don K. Applegate. 1996. "Control in the Com-
munity: The Limits of Reform?` Pp, 69-116
In Alan T. Harland .(ed.), Choosing Correc-
tional Interventions That Work: Defining the
Demand andEvaluating theSupply. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cullen, John B. 1978. The Structure of Profession-
alism. Princeton, NJ. Petroeelli Books.
Gendreau, Paul. 1996. "The Principles of Effective
Intervention with Offenders." Pp. 117--130 in
Alan T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional
Options That Work: Defining the Demand and
Evaluating the Supply. Newbury Park, CA. Sage.
Gendreau, Paul.2000."1998 Margaret Mead Award
Address: Rational Policies for Reforming Of-
fenders." Pp. 329-338 in Maeve McMahon
(ed.). Asseument to Assistance: Programs jor'
Women in Community Corrections. Lanham,
MD: American Correctional Association.
Gendreau, Paul and D. A. Andrews. 2001. Correc-
tional Program Assessment Inventory -2000.
Saint John, Canada: Authors,
Gendreau, Paul and Claire Goggin. 1997. "Corrtc-
tional Treatment Accomplishments and Reali-
ties.' Pp. 271-279 in Patricia Van Voorhis.
Michael Braswell, and David Lester (eds.), Cor-
rectional Counseling and Rehabilitation. 3rd
edition. Cincinnati: Anderson.
Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, Francis T. Cullen,
and D. A.Andrews. 2000. "The Effects ofCom-
munity Sanctions and Incarceration on Red&
vism." Forum on t brrectionsResearch 12 (May).-
10-13.
May):10-13.
Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, Francis T. Cullen,
and Mario Paparozzi. Forthcoming. "The
Common Sense Revolution in Correctional
Polity." In James McGuire (ed.), Offender Re-
habilitation and Treatment. Effective Programs
andPolic?estoReduceRe•Offending. Chichester,
UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, and Paula Smith,
2001. "Implementing Correctional Interven-
tions in the'Rear World." Pp. 247-268 in Gary
A. Bernfeld, David P. Farrington, and Alan W.
Volume 66 Number
Leschied (eds.), Inside the "Black Box" in Cor-
rections, Chichester, UK: )ohn Wiley and Sons.
Gendreau, Paul, Tracy Little, and Claire Goggin.
1996. 'A Meta -Analysis of the Predictors of
Adult Offender Recidivism: What Works?"
Criminology 34:575-607.
Gendreau, Paul, Paula Smith, and Claire Goggin
(2001). "Treatment Programs in Corrections.'
Pp. 238-263 in John Winterdyk (ed.), Correc-
tions in Canada: Social Reaction to Crime.
Toronto, Canada: Prentice -Hall.
Gibbs, John C., Granville Bud Potter, and Arnold
P. Goldstein. 1995. 7,he1:Q(IIP Program: Teach-
ing Youths to Think andAaResponsibly Through
a Peer-HdpingApproacb. Champaign, ?L• Re-
search Press.
Goldstein, Arnold P. 1999. The Prepare Cturicu.
rum: Teaching Profocial Competencies. Rev. ed.
Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Gordon, Donald A., Karen Graves, and Jack
Arbuthnot. 1995. 'The Effect of Functional
Family Therapy for Delinquents on Adult
Criminal Behavior." Criminal Justice and Be-
havior 22:60-73.
Henggeler, Scott W., with the assistance of Sharon
IL Mihalic, Lee Rone, Christopher Thomas, and
Jane Timmons -Mitchell. 1998, Multisystemic
Therapy: Book Six in the Blueprints in Violence
Prevention Series. Boulder, CO: Center for the
Study and Prevention of Violence, University
of Colorado.
Hunt, Morton. 1997. How Science Takes Stock: The
StoryofMeta Analysis NewYorks Russell Sage
Foundation.
Latessa. Edward 1..2002. "Using Assessment to
improve Correctional Programming An Up-
date.' Unpublished paper, University of Cin-
cinnati.
Lipsey, Mark W. and Davld B. Wilson. 1998, 'Ef.
fective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Of.
fenders.' Pp. 313-345 inRolfLoeberand David
P. Farrington (eds.), Serious and Violent juve-
nile Offenders: Risk Factors and Suaessfrd In.
tervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
MacKenzie, Doris Layton. 2000. "Evidence -Based
Corrections: Identifying.What Works." Crime
and Dtlinquency46:457-471.
MacKenzie, Doris Layton, David B. Wilson, and
Suzanne B. Kider. 2001. "The Effects of Cur-
rectional Boot Camps on Offending.' Aunnls
of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 578 (Noveniber):126-143.
Exhibit C_
Page 0 of /I
September 2002 BEYOND CORRECTIONAL QUACKERY 49
Matthews, Betsy, Dana Jones Hubbard, and Ed-
ward J. Latessa. 2001. "Making the Next Step:
Using Assessment to improve Correctional
Programming." Prison Journal 81:454-472.
Millenson, Michael L. 1997. Demanding Medical
Excellence. Doctors and Accountability in the
Information Age, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Starr, Paul. 1982- The Social Transformation of
American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Pro-
fession and the Making of a Vast Industry. New
York: Basic Books.
Timmermans, Stefan and Alison Angell. 2001.
"Evidence -Based Medicine, Clinical Uncer-
tainty, and Learning to Doctor." journal of
Health and Social Behavior 42:342-359.
Rhine, Edward E. (ed.). 1998. Best Practices:,Excel- Van Voorhis, Patricia. 1987. "Correctional Effec-
knee in Corrections. Lanham, MD: American tiveness: The High Cost of Ignoring Success."
Correctional Association. Federal Probation 51(Mareh):59-62.
Van Voorhis, Patricia, Francis T. Cullen, and Bran-
don K. Applegate. 1995. "Evaluating Interven-
tions with Violent Offenders: A Guide for
Practitioners and Policymakers." Federal Pro=
basion 59 (June): 17-28.
Welsh, Brandon C. and David P. Farrington. 2001.
"Toward and Evidence -Based Approach to Pre-
venting Crime." Annals of the American Acad-
emy of Political and Social Science 578
(November): 158-173.
Exhibit Q -
Page _� of _t(
FRIDAY, JULY 30, 2004 • THE &ULLETIN
Probation, services privatized,
Deal with business means counties don't
pay to monitor misdemeanor offenders
By Lisa Rosetta
The Bulletin
Probation services at no cost.
It's music to taxpayers' ears.
That's what M.E. & Associates,
a private probation monitoring
company, does for Crook, De-
schutes and Jefferson counties.
The two -person company,
soon to expand to four employ-
ees, supervises misdemeanor of-
fenders at no cost to counties.
The cost for services is picked
up by the offenders, who in Ore-
gon counties pay monthly court-
ordered fees that range between
$25 and $50 that M.E. & Associ-
ates collects for its services.
The misdemeanor offenders'
crimes range from theft and ha-
rassment to menacing and DUIIs,
said Scott McGuire, who, with
Barbara Ellingboe, owns the
company.
"It's a gamut of different
charges, but the big majority are
DUIIs," McGuire said.
M.E. & Associates make sure
those offenders pay court-or-
dered fines, fulfill community -
service obligations and enroll in
drug and alcohol treatment pro-
grams.
See Probation / G8
Pete Erickson / The Bulletin
Steven Brown, 20, left, discusses his probation terms with M.E. &
Associates probation monitor Barbara Ellingboe.
Exhibit -
Page to of !
Probation
Company can do
the same job for less
money, they say
Continued from C1
The company also keeps an
updated database of offenders'
current addresses, phone num-
bers and other personal infor-
mation so the probation moni-
tors and offenders can keep in
touch.
Ellingboe and McGuire are
keeping tabs on offenders who
otherwise would be placed on
unsupervised bench probation,
and left on their own to meet the
court's conditions.
"It costs nothing to the county
and yet these low-level misde-
meanor offenders who would
otherwise be in the community
without any monitoring what-
soever are being monitored and
held accountable," said Becky
Wanless, director of Deschutes
County Adult Parole and Pro-
bation.
It's a win-win situation for the
county, whose offenders are un-
der the watchful eye of proba-
tion monitors, and for Ellingboe
and McGuire, who are making
a living and providing a com-
munity service at the same time.
M.E. & Associates opened its
doors July 1, 2003, five months
after Measure 28 failed and the
county's Adult Parole and Pro-
bation Department had to lay
off several of its employees.
The layoffs meant the depart-
ment's remaining probation of-
ficers, who already supervise,
felony offenders, as well as mis-
demeanor sex and family vio-
lence offenders, could no longer
manage the cases, Wanless said.
At about the same time the
county was struggling to find a
solution to the problem,
McGuire was laid off from the
Sheriff's Office's work center as
the result of budget cuts,
McGuire said.
McGuire and Ellingboe be-
gan brainstorming.
The result was M.E. and As-
sociates, with McGuire, who
has a background in treatment
services, and Ellingboe, who
has a background in business
and collections services, fusing
together their skills and enter-
ing the small business arena.
"They provide a tremendous
service to the community and
the court by providing monitor-
ing services;" Wanless said.
"We would like to be able to su-
pervise them (misdemeanor of-
fenders), but because the state
does not fund (misdemeanor su-
pervision), we just cannot do it."
Wanless estimates that if her
15 parole and probation officers
had to take on supervision of
misdemeanor offenders, each of
their caseloads would grow by
about 30 people, stretching her
department's already thin re-
sources.
"We would have to collect so
many more fees to fund even
one position to provide that
monitoring service because of
the overhead costs, if you will,
that the county have," Wanless
said.
A large chunk of the cost of
hiring a county employee is tied
to the person's benefits pack-
age, she said.
A company like M.E. & Asso-
ciates can do the same job, but
for less money, Ellingboe said.
And, because its income is de-
pendent on the monthly super-
vision fees, offenders are held
more accountable for paying
them.
The county's collection rate,
on the other hand, is low —
around 36 percent— which, ac-
cording to Wanless, is still bet-
ter than many counties in the
state.
Parole and probation officers
in Deschutes County are super-
vising higher-level offenders,
who have many more condi-
tions to comply with than if they
were just convicted of a misde-
meanor offense, Wanless said.
Many have to enroll in drug
or alcohol treatment programs,
and are ordered to pay thou-
sands of dollars in restitution to
victims.
"Restitution is a priority and
it often takes precedent over
trying _to. collect supervision.
fees," she said.
Since its inception last.year,
the company's clients have
grown to include Crook, and
more recently, Jefferson coun-
ties. Ellingboe said she hopes
M.E. & Associates' clients will
someday include every county
in the state, provided the com-
pany can manage it.
McGuire is also branching
out and developing his own
treatment program, designed to
be accessible to those offenders
who cannot afford private treat-
ment programs.
A full scholarship to cover tu-
ition for the program will be of-
fered to one participant quarter-
ly, he said.
"We're excited we're able to
make a living at this," Ellingboe
said.
"...The immediate goal was to
fill that gap (in probation ser-
vices). ...We wanted to keep that
level of community service up
when there was no longer fund-
ing to do it."
Lisa Rosetta can be reached
at 541-617-7812 or
lrosetta@bendbulle tin. com.
Exhibit
Page t of —
SUMMARY OF THE CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
INVENTORY
The CPAI is a tool that we use for assessing correctional intervention programs. The
CPAI was developed by Gendreau and Andrews and is used to ascertain how closely
correctional programs meets known principles of effective intervention. A recent study
conducted by the University. of Cincinnati involving nine community corrections facilities
for juveniles showed a very high correlation between scores on the CPAI and measures of
recidivism. To -date we have conducted over 300 assessments across the country.
There are six primary areas that the CPAI assesses: 1) program implementation and
leadership; 2) client pre -service assessment; 3) characteristics of the program; 4)
characteristics and practices of the staff; 5) evaluation and quality. control; and 6)
miscellaneous items such as ethical guidelines and levels of community support. Each
section is scored as either "very satisfactory" (70% t9 1001/o), "satisfactory" (60-691/o),
"satisfactory, but needs improvement" (50-59%), or "unsatisfactory" (less than 50%).
The scores from all six areas are totaled and the same scale is used for the overall
assessment score. Not all of the six areas are given equal weight, and some items may be
considered "not applicable", in which case they are not included in the scoring.
Data are collected. through structured interviews with selected program staff. Other
sources of information include policy and procedure manuals, treatment materials and
curriculum, a sample of case files, and other selected program materials. Once the
information is gathered and reviewed the program is scored, and a report is generated
which highlights the strengths, areas that need improvement and recommendations for
each of the six areas. Program scores are also compared to the averages from across all
programs that have been assessed.
There are several advantages to the CPAI. , First, it is applicable to a wide range of
programs (adult, juvenile, community, institutional, etc.). Second, it allows us to
"quantify" the quality of a program through a scoring process. This allows comparisons
across programs, as well as benchmarking. Third, the entire process can be completed
relatively quickly. Usually we can gather the information we need in a day or two and
have a report within a few weeks. Finally, it is designed to improve program effectiveness
and the integrity of treatment.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward J. Latessa, Ph.D.
Professor and Head
Division of Criminal Justice
PO Box 210389
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0389
513-556-5836
Fax: 513-556-' 303
E-mail: Edward.Latessa@UC.Edu
Exhibit
Page r of Z 3
r � �
Summary of the Program
The XX)G Girls School is located in xX<KXX and is a correctional facility for
youthful female offenders -operated . by the . Division of Juvenile Corrections. The
assessment included a review of all of the treatment services offered of XXXXXX,
including the. Juvenile Cognitive Intervention Program, skills streaming, victim impact,
substance abuse, and anger management. The program has been serving offenders since
1999, and the facility has a capacity to serve 75 youth. Additional services include
education, parenting, sexual abuse, and . mental health services (provided in a separate
unit). There are 25 full-time treatment staff working in the facility.
Procedures
The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI, Gendreau and Andrews, 1992) is
used to ascertain how closely a correctional treatment program meets known principles of
effective correctional treatment. There are six primary sections of the CPAI: 1) program
implementation and the qualifications of the treatment director; 2) offender pre -service
assessment; 3) characteristics of the program; 4) characteristics and practices of the staff;
5) quality assurance and evaluation; and 6) miscellaneous items such as ethical guidelines
and program stability.
Each section is scored as either "very satisfactory" (70% to 100%); `"satisfactory" (60%
to 69%); "needs improvement" (50% to 59%); or "unsatisfactory" (less than 50%). The
scores from all six areas are.totaled and the same scale is used for the overall assessment
score. It should be noted that not all of the six areas are given equal weight, and some
items may be considered „not applicable," in which case they are notincluded in the
scoring.
There are several limitations to the CPAI that should be noted. First, the instrument is
based on an "ideal' type. The criteria have been developed from a large body of research
and knowledge that combines the best practices from the empirical literature on "what
works" in reducing offender recidivism. Second, as with any research process, objectivity
and reliability are always: an issue. Although steps are taken to insure that the information
that is gathered is accurate and reliable, given the nature of the process, decisions about
the information and data gathered are invariably made by the assessor. Third, the process
is time specific. That is, the assessment is based on the program at the time of the
assessment. Changes or modifications may be planned for the future or under
consideration, however, only those activities and processes that are present at the time of
the review are considered for scoring. Fourth, the process does not take into account all
"system" issues that can affect program integrity. Finally, the process does not address
the reasons that a problem exists within a program. Rather, the process is designed to
determine the integrity of the program, not necessarily the reasons that certain practices
do or do not take place.
1 Exhibit --b
Page of 3
Despite these limitations, there are a number of advantages to this process. First, the
criteria are based on empirically derived principles of effective programs. Second, the
process provides a measure of program integrity and quality; it provides insight into the
"black box" of a program, something that an outcome study alone does not provide.
Third, the results can be obtained relatively quickly. Fourth, it identifies both the strengths,
and weaknesses of a program. It provides the program -with an idea of what it is doing
that is consistent with the research on effective interventions, as well as those areas that
need improvement. Fifth, it provides some recommendations for program improvement.
Finally, it allows for benchmarking. Comparisons with other programs that have been
assessed using the same criteria are provided, and since program integrity and quality can
change over time, it allows a program to reassess its progress.
Norm Information
Researchers at the University of Cincinnati have assessed over 300 programs nationwide
using the CPAI. Approximately 8 percent of the programs assessed have been classified
as "very satisfactory"; 20 percent "satisfactory", 36 percent "satisfactory but needs
improvement", and 36 percent "unsatisfactory". The average scores in each of the six
areas as well as the total score are contained in the figures at the endof the report.
Data for the assessment were collected through structured interviews with selected
program staff and residents on July 16, 2003. Other sources of information included the
examination of several representative case files and other- selected program materials.
Program Implementation
The first section examines the current program director, her involvement in designing and
implementing the program, her qualifications and experience, her current involvement with
the staff and the program participants, and the overall implementation of the program. For
the purpose of this review, X) C was identified as the person responsible for the day-
to-day supervision of treatment staff.
Strengths:
The first area concerns the qualifications and involvement of the program manager, or the
person responsible for overseeing the daily treatment components of the program.
Effective programs are characterized by the strong direct involvement of the program
director in selecting, training, supervising staff, and in the provision of services to
offenders. Experience and formal education in a helping profession are also important
attributes of effective correctional leaders.
The current program director has over six years experience working in correctional
treatment settings, and she is involved in selecting and supervising -program staff.
2
Exhibit
Page 3 of Z3
4
The second area of focus. is the creation of the program itself. Effective intervention
programs have several dimensions: they are designed to be consistent with the treatment
literature on effective programs; interventions and program components are piloted before
full implementation; the values and goals of the program should be consistent with existing
values in the community; the program meets a need; the program is perceived to be cost-
effective, and funding is adequate to sustain the program as designed.
Many of the groups - and interventions offered at XXCCM are based on a cognitive
behavioral model, and have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing recidivism.
The program was developed to address the treatment needs of youthful female offenders
in . Overall, the administration of the facility and the DOC appear to support the
values and goals of the program and overall support appears to be strong. Finally,
program funding is adequate to sustain the program as designed.
Areas that Need Improvement
The program director has had limited involvement into the development of the program
and interventions offered at XXDCXXX; she does not meet the criteria for education, and
she .has limited involvement in training staff. Finally, she does not routinely provide direct
services to offenders.
Although some of the groups offered at the XXXXXX School are cognitive behavioral,
overall, it appears that over the years the program has adopted a more eclectic
combination of approaches and techniques. The range of interventions and techniques
include educational, client centered, and 12 Step approaches.
There has also been concern expressed by some counties that the program is not cost-
effective.
Finally, it does not appear that any of the treatment components have been tested during a
definitive pilot. phase prior to full implementation.
Evaluation: Unsatisfactory
Recommendations:
• The program manager should be systematically involved in the provision of services to
offenders (e.g. managing a small caseload, regularly co -facilitating groups). This direct
involvement in service delivery will help the program manager keep abreast of the
challenges staff encounter and the resources needed to adequately perform staff duties.
•YXXXXX need to adopt an effective model across all program components and
interventions. The next section discusses this in more detail. Furthermore, as changes
are made to the program a comprehensive literature search should be conducted prior
Exhibit 7D
Page __�L of Z3
to these changes to identify relevant research concerning effective treatment
approaches. The search should consist of major criminological and psychological
journals and key texts, and should focus on the empirical research concerning effective
interventions for offenders. It is important that the core program and its components be
used on a theoretical model. ' Furthermore, the model chosen should have empirical
evidence demonstrating its. effectiveness .in reducing recidivism among an offender
population, should. focus on reducing criminogenic needs, and the staff should
understand the -interventions, why they are being used, and how to apply them.
• Any time a new program component is instituted, a pilot period of at least one month,
should be conducted to sort out the content and logistics of the program/component.
Modifications often are difficult to make once a program has been formally instituted.
• The program director should have at least a baccalaureate degree in a helping
profession.
• The program director should take a more active role in training new staff.
Offender Pre -Service Assessment
The extent to which offenders are appropriate for the service provided and the use of
proven assessment methods is critical to effective treatment programs. Effective programs
assess the risk, need, and responsivity of offenders, and then provide services and
treatment accordingly. The section on Offender Pre -Service Assessment examines three
areas regarding assessment: selection of offenders, the assessment of risk, need, and
- personal characteristics of the offender, and the manner in which these characteristics are
assessed.
Strengths:
According to the staff, the most common presenting programs include school attendance,
dysfunctional families, prior sexual abuse, mental health, and substance abuse.
Offenders are screened and assessed with a number of instruments prior to admission to
the program. Risk, needs, and some responsivity factors are assessed using the XX XXX
Delinquency Youth Assessment, Adolescent Alcohol and Drug Involvement Scale
(AADIS), Massachusetts Adolescent Youth Screening Instrument, Adolescent Diagnostic
Interview Light, and Suicide Risk Assessment. Upon release the XXXXXX Juvenile
Aftercare Risk Assessment is administered. Academic achievements tests are administered
as well.
Areas that Need Improvement:
It is not clear how youth are screened for the program, or whether or not the risk data is
used to screen offenders. Referrals are made by local courts, and there are no exclusionary
4 Exhibit `V
Page 5 of �_
criteria. There is also limited assessment of offenders on responsivity characteristics such
as level of motivation, personality, and other barriers to program engagement.
Evaluation: Very Satisfactory
Recommendations
• Low risk youth should not be placed in with high risk youth. Research indicates that
when low and high risk youth are placed in the same groups there is a iatrogenic
effect. Currently, unit assignment is made primarily based on bed space rather than
risk levels. Attempts should be made to screen out or separate low risk youth from
high risk youth.
• Additional responsivity factors that may affect treatment, such as level of motivation,
coping or stress levels, levels of anxiety, or verbal ability should be assessed upon
intake _using standardized and objective instruments that distinguish levels. Once
assessed, this information should beincorporatedinto treatment and case plans.
• Although the XXXXXX Delinquency Youth Assessment instrument produces risk
levels and identifies important need areas, there is little evidence that the information is
used in case or treatment planning by the social workers.
Program Characteristics
This section examines whether or not the program targets criminogenic behavior, the
types of treatment used to target these behaviors, specific treatment procedures, the use of
positive reinforcement and punishment, and methods used to ,prepare offenders for return
to the community. Other important elements of effective intervention include the ratio of
rewards to punishers; matching the offender's risk, needs, and personal ,characteristics
with the appropriate treatment programs, treatment intensity, and staff; and relapse.
prevention strategies designed to assist the .offender in anticipating and coping with
problem situations.
Strengths:
Staff of )0M have identified several crimmogemc needs and behaviors associated with
recidivism that they want to target including:
• changing attitudes, orientations, and values favorable to law violations
• reducing anti -social feelings
• reducing problems associated with drug and alcohol abuse
• reducing anger and hostility levels\
• promoting more positive attitudes and performance regarding education
• resolving emotional problems associated with child abuse
• focusing on harm done to the victims
5 ExhibitIV
Page _� of 0-3
improved skills in interpersonal conflict resolution
Some of the treatment and groups offered at X� are based on cognitive -behavioral
interventions. The program utilizes a curriculum called Choice and Changes, which was
specifically designed for youthful offenders. Other groups include Cage your Rage, and
STOMP. Groups are limited in size, and facilitators generally follow the manuals. The
most effective treatment interventions last between three and nine months, and . do not
exceed twelve months._ The average length of treatment is between 8 and 9 months. Most
of the groups utilize treatment manuals that outline objectives, targets. for change,
activities, assignments, homework, and supporting materials. While in the program
offenders are involved in structured therapeutic activities for a majority of time including
about five hours per day of school and two to three hours of groups. In addition, Girl
Scout activities are offered during the weekends.
The program does attempt to match staff to programs and there is some matching of
youth to groups based on need (i.e. mental health).
The program has a level system based on points that is designed to reinforcement
appropriate behavior. Appropriate rewards are used and include level advancement;
increases privileges (e.g. more canteen, getting their hair done). Punishment.includes loss
of points and levels, and segregation.
Effective correctional intervention programs train clients to monitor problem situations
and rehearse alternative, prosocial responses to these situations. The cognitive behavioral
groups utilized these techniques, however, there is considerable room for improvement in
this area.
Areas that Need hpprovement:
Some of the program's targets do not address criminogenic behavior. Attempting to
increase offender self-esteem, focusing on "empowerment", and "women's issues" are not
appropriate targets for reducing criminal behavior.'
The most effective programs are based on behavioral, cognitive -behavioral, family -based,
and social learning theories. While VCXXXX does employ some cognitive behavioral
interventions, the facility also uses approaches and interventions that have not
demonstrated effectiveness in reducing delinquent behavior. For example, the substance
abuse treatment includes 12 Step, drug education, lectures, self -actualization, and self-
help. There is little empirical evidence that these approaches will lead to long term
reductions in recidivism.
Effective correctional treatment programs vary the level of service according to the level
of offender risk. The risk level of participating offenders is known when they enter the
1 Due to funding reductions groups on self esteem and women's issues have been curtailed, but have been
part of the recent programming offered youth.
6 Exhibit �
Page _7 of Z3
program; however, this information is not being utilized. Furthermore, it appears that the
program receives a range of offenders in terms of risk and need levels. It does not appear
however, that the intensity and duration of treatment is appropriately matched to the
offender's level of risk and need. Essentially, dosage of treatment does not vary by risk.
Furthermore, there does not appear to be a systematic matching of offenders and staff, or
offenders to groups based on risk or responsivity characteristics.
Although the program has developed a level system that includes appropriate privileges,
the range of reinforcers and their application could use improvement. Specifically, it does
not appear that an appropriate ratio of rewards and punishers is applied consistently, or
that all staff consistently and systematically apply reinforcers. There is also an over
reliance on segregation for misbehavior: This is particularly problematic, since it allows
the girls to miss treatment groups. For many, this is a reward, not a punisher.
The program has also developed some completion criteria including levels of completion,
however, many girls simply "run out of time" rather than complete all of the groups and
treatment they need.
Community/family contact and support are essential to successful reintegration, and
become even more important once anoffender is discharged from the treatment program.
There is little 'evidence that the program systematically works with or trains -family
members to assist offenders when they are in the community. These services may be
provided during the aftercare phase; however, it does not appear that this is a formal part
of the program (either during the residential phase or during community: supervision).
Finally, brokerage to other services and agencies that can assist the youth upon release
needs to be improved, as does the aftercare services provided in the community.
Evaluation: Unsatisfactory
Recommendations:
• The program needs to identify a broader range of criminogenic target behaviors and
then provide or arrange for groups and other interventions directed at reducing the
identified risk factors. The first step will require improving and better utilizing the
assessment information that is gathered at intake The second step will require better
matching of offenders to treatment groups based on their identified risk and need
factors. It is important that at least 80 percent of the programs targets focus on
criminogenic factors. Given the limited time that the youth are in treatment is
important the vast majority of time is spend addressing anti social attitudes, peers, and
other dynamic risk factors that are more directly correlated with recidivism.
• The program needs to adopt an effective treatment model across the entire program.
The State of XX00= has already invested heavily in cognitive behavioral
interventions, and has developed a good core cognitive curriculum. That said,
i Exhibit <-P
Page 9 of Z
however, there are several steps that XXXXXX can take to improve the programs and
services offered. First, the goal should be to use a cognitive behavioral approach
within a structured social learning model. Interventions based on these approaches are
very structured and emphasize the importance of modeling and behavioral rehearsal
techniques that engender self-efficacy, challenge of cognitive distortions, and assist
offenders in developing good problem solving and self-control skills. These strategies
have, been demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism. This approach should
be used regardless of the target. For example, reductions in substance abuse are more
likely if one's attitudes about substance use changes, if there is a focus on -the present
factors that influence behavior,, rather than the past, and if one develops the skills
needed to resist peer pressure and other influences that contribute to use. On the other
hand, educating participants about the disease, bibliotherapy, encouraging spirituality,
admitting your powerless over drugs and alcohol, self -actualization, and self-help
approaches are not very effective with adolescents. There is little empirical evidence
that these approaches will lead to long-term reductions in recidivism. Second, the
program needs to increase the consistency of treatment, and the application of
behavioral strategies throughout the program's treatment components. Third, the
program needs to replace any client centered talking cures with a directive, skill
building, cognitive behavioral approach through the facility.
• For substance abuse the program should consider piloting Criminal Conduct and
Substance Abuse (available from Sage Publications). It is also recommended that the
program replace Cage Your Rage with Aggression Replacement Yherapy, which has
been empirically shown to reduce recidivism with adolescents. These curriculums will
help provide structure to groups, and will facilitate consistency and skill; development
activities and will help the program develop a more consistent model.
• The program needs to match' offenders to appropriate treatment groups based on risk,
need and responsivity levels. This will involve improving the assessment of
responsivity factors,. using the risk/need assessment information, incorporating
responsivity characteristics of the offenders, and developing additional treatment
options and groups. The program will want to consider matching offenders to groups
based on levels of cognitive functioning, motivation level, learning styles, levels of
anxiety, and communication style. For example, offenders with low motivation to
participate in treatment should be required to attend "pre-treatment" programming
designed to reduce resistance to change and to increase motivation.
• Treatment intensity, or "dosage," should be clearly matched to the offender's level of
risk as measured by the standardized assessment instrument used by DOC. Offenders
will have varying degrees of risk factors (e.g., antisocial values, antisocial peer
associations) that should be considered when determining the intensity and duration of
the program. Higher risk offenders should receive more intense (or longer duration)
levels of treatment.
Exhibit �
Page of Z 3
• All youth should be systematically trained in behavioral rehearsal techniques. That is,
they should be trained to observe and anticipate problem situations, and plan and
rehearse alternative prosocial responses in increasingly difficult situations. This should
be an integral part of the treatment, and should be routinely done throughout all
components of the program. One rule of thumb would be to have at least one half of
each group to be devoted to practicing the new skills that the facilitator is teaching.
The groups that were observed made limited use of practice techniques including role-
playing. .
• Program completion should be based on the acquisition of prosocial behavior and
attitudes, and should be based on more objective criteria. It is -recognized that the
program may not always control the time that a youth spends in the program,
however, that does not preclude distinguishing the level of performance and
achievement of all of the offenders who are served by the program. The program
needs to distinguish between offenders who actually progress through the program and
those who simply participate.
• XDDOXXX needs to develop a wider range of reinforcers. Appropriate behavior and
participation in treatment should be consistently rewarded, and inappropriate behavior
should be extinguished. The most effective rewards include natural rewards; praise
and privileges that are earned, and other incentives designed to reinforce prosocial
behavior. Rewards should outnumber punishers by at least 4:1, and should be
consistently applied. Rewards and punishers should be closely linked to behavior, and
all staff, including housing unit staff, should be trained in the effective use of rewards
and punishers and the role they play in a behavioral program. All staff .should be
trained to look for the negative effects of punishers (i.e. increased aggression,
withdraw, etc.).
• Expanding the reinforcers should also help in reducing the reliance on segregation as a
punisher. Although this is an appropriate punisher, in some instances it will be seen as
a reward, especially since many adolescents need time alone, and it means that they do
not have to attend groups. One option would be to allow some time alone to listen to
music or_ just "chill out as a reward for good behavior. In addition, girls in isolation
should not be exempt from treatment groups, in fact, this is probably an indication that
they need more treatment, not less.
• The program should develop a family component that begins which youth are
incarcerated and continues when ,they are released into the community. This
component may begin by focusing on the youth, but upon release can include family
members. Targets for change should include promoting family affection and
communication, improving family problem solving, and promoting family monitoring
and supervision. The component should train family members to assist offenders when
they are released from the program. As with the other treatment components, a
detailed manual should be developed which describes the intervention, objectives,
performance measures, and activities of this treatment.
Exhibit
Page ! of Z3
• The transitional services offered the youth from the institution to the community
should be improved, especially given the range of courts that are sending youth to the
facility. There are several recommendations. First, all youth released from the program
should receive aftercare services. Second, all probation officers supervising youth
released from the program should be trained on the Challenges curriculum. that is
being piloted at Ethan Allen. Third, there should be better coordination between
discharge and case planning activities and transition back into the community_
Staff Characteristics
This section concerns the qualifications, experience, stability, training, and involvement of
the program staff.2
Strengths:
The professional staff of )OCX)M meet the criteria for education; 100 percent posses a
baccalaureate degree or higher. It also appears that the new staff were selected based on
personal qualities such as empathy, flexibility, firmness, life experiences, etc. Staff receives
on-going training and are able to modify the program structure. Staff have input into the
program, are evaluated on service delivery, and it appears that the ,staff strongly support
the goals and values of the program.
,Areas that Need Improvement:
The staff does nod meet the criteria for relevant experience, longevity; initial training, and
clinical supervision:
Evaluation: Satisfactory
Recommendations:
• It is recommended that at least 75 percent of treatment staff have at least three years
prior experience working with offenders in a treatment setting. Attempts should be
made to recruit more experienced staff in the future.
State turnover is disruptive to program integrity. At least 50 percent of the staff
should remain with the program for at least two years. Steps should be taken to
reduce staff turnover.
• Staff should regularly receive some clinical supervision. Since the facility has several
licensed psychologists on staff it may be possible for them to provide some clinical
supervision.
2 The staff assessment does not include the program director.
to Exhibit
Page t of 7,3
• Staff should receive at least three months of formal training in theory and practice of
interventions employed by the program Staff training should include a review of the
principles of effective interventions; behavioral strategies such as modeling and the
application of reinforcers (both negative and positive), treatment planning, risk and
need factors related to criminal conduct, and the use and interpretation of assessment
instruments. In addition, all staff that are conducting groups and using curriculums
should be thoroughly trained on the proper application of the material.
+ Evaluation
This section centers on the type of feedback, assessments, and evaluations used to monitor
how well the program is functioning.
Strengths:
There is some within -program reassessment of youth on target behaviors, (primarily
pre/post testing on knowledge acquisition). In addition, goal attainment is monitored
through case planning. There has been some tracking of offender recidivism.
.Areas that Need Improvement:
The quality assurance process is limited primarily to case audits. This area needs to be
improved. In addition, the assessment of youth on some target behaviors can be improved.
More thorough reassessment will provide the staff with a measure of success to determine
in what areas the program is having effects, and whether dosage of treatment should be
increased. Finally, there has not been 'an outcome evaluation of the program since it began.
Evaluation: Unsatisfactory
Recommendations
• Steps to monitor the quality of the treatment services and .program deliver should be
improved and standardized. Quality assurance mechanisms should include regular file
review, offender feedback, clinical supervision, and periodic monitoring and
observation of groups.
• A standardized reassessment of offenders should be conducted to measure whether or
not offenders are improving in problem areas specifically related to their criminogenic
behavior. These measures should be objective and periodically done and should focus
on specific criminogenic needs and risk factors. This can be accomplished by
developing a wider range of pre -post measures, or through formal reassessment using
standardized and objective instruments.
1l Exhibit 1T
page hof %3
• The program should conduct a formal outcome evaluation, which includes a
comparison group. The program should also consider retaining an evaluator to assist
with research.
Other
The final section in the CPAI includes miscellaneous items pertaining to the program such
as disruptive changes- in program, funding, or community support, ethical guidelines and
the comprehensiveness of participant's files. -
Strengths:
Offender records are maintained in confidential files and include assessment information;
case management plans, progress notes and discharge information. There is a documented
code of ethics that guide staff behavior with the offenders. There have been no changes in
the program; funding, or community support over the last two years that have jeopardized
the program. Finally, the program has an oversight committee that advises and reviews
the program periodically,
Areas that Need Improvement:
None
Evaluation: Very Satisfactory
OVERALL PROGRAM RATING:
The 3X School for Girls received an overall score of 55.4 percent on the CPAI.
This score is in the "needs improvement" range of the scale.
12 Exhibit `-D
Page 13 of 7Z3
The Importance of Evaluating. Correctional
Programs: Assessing Outcome and Quality .
Edward J. Latessa and Alexander Holsinger
The importance of evaluatingcomcdonaI
programa, especially those operating In
the community, has never been more
pronounce4 vastsumsof money are spent
on correctional programming; and the
public is demanding programs that work
The critical question of course -is indeed
"juhat works' This article examines some
of tiie`issues surmundingprogram
effectiveness: what is important to
r; measurs, what do we know about.
. program of j`ectivertm, and what harm is.
done when use fail to develop effective,
p'rogrants.: ,
Key words correctional intervention, emiva-
tion, principles of i ffad ve intervention,
• pr'ogramquality; ncidtvl3rn
CorrectionshfanagemmrQuarrerly,1S98.2(4).22-29
0 1998.Aspen PubUshers. Inc;
22
tiM OF -Pm most Important areas of tontem-
porary concern for correctional of rials b
the design and operation of effective cor-
0
rectios, nal intervention. programThis is
partictilarly relevant since there pis consis_trnt evi-
dence that the public supports rehabilitation pro-
gtams: for 'offenders .1-2 Furthermore, survey research
also reveals strong support for. public; protection as
an important goal of correcdoiis.' Consequently, dis-
agreements arise, focusing on _what: are the best
methods toi achieve these -and, other correctional
goals.. On.one side,are advocates for more punitive
policies such as an increased use of incarnation,
punishing,..smarter (e.g; boot _camps, electronic
monitoring,. day reporting faciiides), or-siiaply in-
creasing control,. and monitoring -,if the . offender is
supervised in the •-community.. Those. advocating
these strategies of crime control do saoirthe basis of
the._often interrelated goals of punishmen"eter-
rence, retribution,. and incapacitation: The limits of
these approaches hive been:outliried<and debated by
oihers?a The ultimate,effect ofmost of these polides
has been described as "penal harm" by -gear' "
As Cullen and Applegate implyt the most disheart-
ening aspect of these..".get lough" policies' is their
dismissal of the importance of.programming that is
designed to rehabilitate offenders.' Cullen and
Applegate. further.question whether:the penal harms
movement's rejection of rehabilitation is sound pub-
ic policy. As many states have found. strip!_: !-.ckrg
up offenders and "throwing away the key" has
proven to be a very expensive approach to crime con -
Edward J..Latessa, PhD, Is Professor and Neal Division of
Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati. Circinnart.
Ohio,
AletanderHolsinger, MS, is ResearchAssoctad, D*ision of
Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati,
Ohio,
Exhibit
Page 1Y of Z3
The Importance of Evaluating Correctional Programs 23
croI. This approach is also very limited, since the vast
majority of offenders wW one day return to society.
Many will return unchanged at best, and, at worst,
with many more problems and intensified needs for
service! For those advocating incapacitation, one
must also ask what should be done with offenders
while incarcerated? Some scholars, such as Cullen
and Applegate, do not believe that Incapacitation
and rehabilltation-are mutually exclusive. Further-
more,aincethevast majority of offenders are super-
vised -In the community atdiffedng degrees of inten-
31ty;4t iseven more important that we develop
programs that work to ratd t tieing recidivism.
Many of the "intermediate sanctions" that have
been developed over thepa 7 few years are but a few
examples of "ptogiams" that often `fail to live up to
their expectations, pardcWidyin terms ofreductions
In recidivism.'U These results are often atutbuted to
'policies that emphasize control and surveManceover
treatment and -service delivery's
Despite the punitive movement, there'is fncreas-
Ing ,evidence than correctional treatmentcan be ef-
fective in reducing,recidivism among of.inders.1au
Nonetheless, some scholars iemain unconvinced."-
'"'TheAdbate surrounding treatment effectiveness
has, been on going since tifardwo'n's'proclamation
that "nothing -works, with'many still clinging to this
mantel despite evidence to the contrary. Principal
among the reasons for disbelief In die potential effec-
tiveness:of correctional'programming ar"the failure
to measure- outcome properly and the lack of quality
programs -
Measuring Outcome and the WhItations
of Recidivism
Correctional outcome, which Is usually
operationalized as recidivism, has some inherent
limitations. The indicators used to measure recidi-
%Uni,.length of follow-up, and external and internal
factors affect recidivism rates. Indeed, the best way to
ensure a low recidivism rate is to define it very nar-
rowly (e.g., incarceration in a state penal institution)
and to utilize a very short -follow-up period.
Too often, arrest (and only arrest) Is used as a pri-
mary indicator when measuring recidivism and, con-
sequently, program outcome. Certainly, arrest may
serve as an indicator of postprogram (or postrelease)
performance.. but in and of itself arrest has many
limitations. Some of the other factors that are over-
looked when considering the impact of a correctional
program or criminal sanction, even when arrest is
being used, are time until arrest; offense for which an
offender was arrested (type of offense as well as se-
verity level); whether or not the offender was con-
victed; and, If convicted, what the resulting disposi-
tion was.
Despite these limitations, recidivism remains the
most important Weasure' of public protection. When
legislators and other public oflidals ask,if a program
works, they are generallyrefeiring to recidivism, out-
come studies: piovide much of our knowledge about
the effectiveness, of correctional 'programs'in reduc-
ing recidivism. Unfortunately,. outcomestudies focus
on the results of intervention and provide little; if
any► useftil infotrnation about why a program is or is
not of%cave. In addition to the measurement of out
come, another factor that can influencerecidivism
rates fs the quality of a program.
Measuring Program Quality
Few would argue that the quality of correctional
intervention program has no effect on ' outcome.
Nonetheless, correctional researchers,,have largely
ignored the measurement of program quality. Tradi-
tionally, quality has been measured through process
evaluations. This approach can provide useful infor-
mation about a program's operations; however.
these types of evaluations often lack the
"quantifiability" of outcome. studies. Previously, re-
searchers' primary Issue has been the development
of criteria or indicators by which a treatment pro-
gram can be measured. While traditional audits and
accreditation processes are one step In this direction,
thus far they have proven to be Inadequate. For ex-
ample, audits can be an important means to ensure if
a program Is meeting contractual obligations or a set
of prescribed standards; however, these conditions
may not have any relationship to effective Interven-
tion. It Is also important to note that outcome studies
and assessment of program quality are not necessar-
ily mutually exclusive. Combining outcome Indica-
tors with assessments of program quality can provide
a more complete picture of an intervention's effec-
tiveness. Fortunately, there has been considerable
progress in identifying the hallmarks of effective pro-
grams.
Exhibit V
Page of z3
24 ColtMCnoys )YLk1 AGr:M>;wT Qu.Aim_uv/Ru.t 1998
30
40
'- - �--------- ------------------.-----
- .
30
--. .a>,.<,r. �� --+---
-'.-�-----------
Percenta e
20
r.- -.- -- '- --
_ 1,0
--;
Unsaasfa SaG. Needs tm rove
Satuiacto
Y &ictory
Percentage
29.4 313
27.4
M7
Figure 1. Average Correctional Program Assessment Inventory scores. The average scores are based on 51 CPAI results across a
wide range of programs: The CPAI was developed and -is copyrighted by Paul Gendreau and Don' Andrews.
Principles Of Effective Intervention°Picograms
should disrupt criminal networks.
• Programs should provide relapse prevention in
As mentioned above, evidence shows that many
file comtnunity.
rehabilitation programs have In fact produc11 ed sig-
HlghlevelsofadvoCacyand brokerage shouldbe
nificant reductioAs ii s recidivism The next critical
ptovitIed.
• issue became the` identification of thost.characferis-
11 order to deterntiine whether ornot a program is
tits most commonly associated; with effective pro-
meeting these principles; each of them need to be
grams. Through the work -.of scholars such as
operatlor;446d into a set of standards or guidelines.
Andrews and colleagues10 and'Gendreau, t,several
GendreauandAndrews"ccomplishedthis through .
"principles of effective intervention" have been {den.
'the developnent.of an instrument known as the Cor-
tlfied. The following statements summarize these
rectionalProgram AssessmentInventory (CPAn.
principles of effective intervention:
The CPAI is a- toot that has. been used for assessing
• Services should be intensive, behavioral in na.
correctional intervention programs. The CPAI as-
ture, and focused on higher risk offenders.
sesses a program on six primary areas: 1) program
• Behavioral strategies should be enforced in a
implementation and leadership; 2) offender assess -
firm but fair manner by qualified staff.
ment and classification; 3) characteristics of the pro -
Programs "should target criminogenic needs
gram; 4) characteristics and practices of the staff; 5)
(e.g., antisocial attitudes, value and beliefs sup-
evaluation and quality control; and 6) miscellaneous
portive of criminal behavior, negative peer asso-
items such as ethical guidelines.and levels of support
ciations, substance abuse, etc.).
Eachsectionisscored aseither "very satisfactory" (70
• Responsivity should occur between staff, of-
percent to 100 percent), "satisfactory" (60 percent to
fenders, and programs:
69 percent), "satisfactory but needs improvement"
Exhibit t
Page (p of Z 3
The Importance of Evaluating Correctional programs 25
(50 percent to 59 percent; or "unsatisfactory" (less then "satisfactdry but needs improvement" or "un -
than 50 percent)' The scores from all six areas are satisfactory."
totaled and the same rating scale is used for the over- Although there is a great deal of variation between
all assessment score. Not all of the six areas are given (and within) programs; we have summarized some of
equal weight, and some items may be considered the major strengths and weaknesses in each of the
"not applicable," In which case they are not included CPAI areas across the 51 programs we have assessed.
In the scoring. Program implementation and leadership
To date, researchers from the University of Cincin-
nati have assessed more than 50 correctional pro- Strengtfix Effective programs:have strong leader.
grams across the country. The average scores from 'ship. and'involveraent of the,. program directors For
across '$! programs are presented In,-. igured! TA two the most part we foirid quall8e=d and experienced
of the areas, including the most icctportant (treat- program directors. who were1avolved In designing
ment), the average scores were less than 50 percent, : the prog;m. ,, ,They tend to be involved in the biting
which is in the unsatisfactory range of the scale, the and iii, ng of stn ahi in many instances theypro-
assessment and staff scores were sli hiihOr fall- vide some direct services to offenders. It is also im-
Ing in the satisfactory; but needs Lriprovemenc portantforthessup
port ofaprograrnthat
range. ItnplementatiorL' aril the "QtlierF category i;he,values and gods of P.gram be consistent
were found to W,,! V66 satisfactory "Overall, the a 1 with,e.�clsting:vaittes'in the community or Institution
programs we assessed averaged -just fewer thana6 in witch it resides and that there be a documented
percent on the CPAt Figure 2 shows the percentages...need for tt}e program. Support for the program also
of programs that scored in.ea�eh category. Onljr 11.? depends4 on- perceptions "of'cost -effectiveness. We
percent of the.piograms we assess &scored in the usually find that most correctional programs meet
"very satisfactory" range, while 60 percent scored el- these: conditions.
;Very
Satisfactory .
Satisfactory.
Satisfactory, Needs
improvement
IUnsatisfactory
Figure 2. Programs in each CPAI category (based on i 1 CPAI assessments across 'a wide variety of programs.
Exhibit
Page j of
{
26 CORncnoNs NtAmGma , r Qwmmi/Fuc 1998
Weaknesses: There -are two flaws that,are common
. target these behaviors (although we still find pro.
in this area. Effective programs are based on strong
grams that provide intensive services and treatment
theoretical models., that are derived from the treat-
in nop-•crime producing areas, such as self-esteem).
ment literature. Regardless, many of the correctional
Another common strength was that many programs
:• intervention programs we examined were basically
have criteria, for program completion, and upon dis-
designed with little regardfor the empirical research
charge many offenders are routinely referred to pro -
on what works -with the type of -offenders they were
gram's -an services that help meet their needs.
serving.: In • addition, effective programs are usually
Weaknesses Offenders typically have not been
started ow a pilot basis to•work out the logistics. Thus-
spending a significant percentage' of theJ time in
'.far, we have -found few programs that piloted their
structured prograrns.In addition, the arriount of ser -
treatment components before fullimplementation.
vices and treatment provided has not iieen varying
Offender assess aeD and classification
by risk and need levels Yet`anbther characteristic of
R `
an elle
effective program is the use of a treatment model
:Strengths: The vast majority of programs we stud-
that has been found to -be 'effeccive Since programs
red have stated criteria for admissions, receive ap-
are rarelydes ghtdaround a'theoretical model, itwas
proptiate'lclients, and have a r'attonal legal/clinical
not surprisingto Curd a lack of a consistently applied
basis for.the exclusion of certain types of offenders.
treatment model in place: In general, the major
Weaiso foundYthat; in general, -most programs at-
shortcomings found when considering the "Charac-
tempt to assess some of%rider characteristics related
terlsdcs of l'rograin" portion of the CPAI include lade
to risk and*need >>
ofprogrammatic structure; incomplete or'nonexist-
Weaknesses. While many programs did. indeed at-
ent tzeatment "manuals, .few rewards to encourage .
tempt to assess •offenders regarding risk and need,
program participation and `compliance; the meffec-
doing;so did not involve the incorporation of a stan-
five use of punishment; staff being allowed to design
dardfzed, objective, actuarial instrurrient. The ab- .
their own interventions regardless*of the treatment
Bence of actuarial risk/needs assessment instru-
literature°base; and a hose ofvery obvi'bus 'and defin-
ments was particularly evident in programs, that deal.
able, yet ineffective, treatment models- This area of
with juvenile offenders ; Everrwlien a standardlzed�
the CPA! also erart ines'the-e.ttent to which matching
assessment is being performed at some point in the
occurs between L oifenders' and staff, offenders and
of erider's<entry/progiess,itfsseldom;found that the
programs, and staff and programs. ,Even when
information gathered is being used to distinguish of-
matching Is found co_ occur; it is uncommon to ob-
fenders ,by.�HsIL In other -words; even when proper,-
serve it being based on specific respoinsivity criteria. ° -
(and potentially beneficial) assessments are being-
ro addition, it is very rare to find "a program that in -
performed; the information Is not influencing the de-
eludes family and/or friends of the offender In the
vision-maklrtg.process, let alone: service delivery. In
treatment'process.Tinally, many programs failed to
addition:it.is generally found that staff assessments
- provide aftercare services or booster sessions.
of =offenders are L.based on a quasicllnical approach
that does not result Ina summary score. Likewise, it .
Characteristics and practices of the staff .
has been very rare to find that programs are routinely
Strengths. Although there Is a great deal `of varia-
measurinc, with . stan`dardized instruments
donfromprogramtoprogram regardingsta_ffquatiry,
responsivity characteristics, such as levels of motiva-
for the most- part we found educated and experi-
tion, Intelligence, or psychological development.
enced staff worldng with offenders. Often staff were
Characteristics of the program
selected on personal characteristics such as life expe-
rience, fairness, firmness, and problem -solving skills.
Strengths. This is a critical area in scoring the CPAL
We also found, that staff usually had Input in the
Unfortunately ft is also one that typically results in
structure of the programs and that on-going training
low scores? Effective intervention programs focus
was provided.
the vast majority of their efforts on targeting crimino-
Weaknesses: Staff tumover was often a problem
genic needs and behaviors-' In general we have
with some types of correctional programs (e.g., half -
found that many correctional intervention programs
way houses), and we rarely found staff who had re -
Exhibit 0
Page I of 2_3
t •�
The Importance of Evaluating Correctional Program z7
ceived sufficient training on the interventions and
treatments utilized by the program. Clinical supervi -
sion was not routinely provided, and staff were rarely
assessed on service deltvery skills.
Evaluation and quality control
Programs that„study themselves tend to be more
effective than prograYns that do not. Data provides
Insight Into program and offender performance,
helps identify w io Js successful and who is not, and
,allows adf ust=nents to be made.
Stretigt File review and case: audits were usually
:conducted.
assessment of offenders to seelfcriminogencfactors
were being,reduced was,uncor�amon. It1 short, most
programs do not develop meaningful performance
measures to measure either program or'offender
performance over time). We also found that the ma
jonty of programs were not tiacking offenders after
they have .left the program, and formal evaluations
involving comparlson groups were the exception.
. fltYier items .
Strengths: Most,gf.the programs we.,examined
score well m this area. In general, offender records
are complete and.. are kept Ina confidential file.
Changes thatjeogardie programs, funding, or com-
munity support are rare.
Weaisnesses:; Some programs do not have ethical
guidelines for Intervention; public, agencies tend not,
to haveadvisory .boards, while those operated by
nonprofits do.,
Wttlte these results Indicate that the majority of
correctional programs we assessed are not fully
meeting the principles of effective Intervention, they
also provide some useful information onhow to Im-
prove the. quality of correctional interventions. The
most common shortcomings of programs we have
assessed include the following;
• Programs tend to be atheoretical.
• A lack of standardized, objective riskineed as-
sessments (especially with juveniles) are con-
ducted, and everyone gets the same treatment.
• Little attention Is given to responsivity between
staff, offenders, and programs.
- Staff training is inadequate, and the quality of
staff varies greatly.
- There are too few rewards and too many punish -
ers. However, the punishers are .not effective
because of how they are administered.
Few measures of program performance are
taken.. ,
•- Family -members are not involved to the treat•
ment process.
• Aftercare and booster sessions are lacking.
Few formal evaluations are conducted.
There are.m several advantages to° evaluating a cor-
rectional treatment program using the OPAL First,
the CPAI Isaversatile,assessment toot applicable to a
wide range of programs (adult, juvenile community,
Institutional, etc.)': Second, the`instrumeint allows for,
the quality ofa;program to be quantified through a
scoring process. This allows . for comparisons be-
tween.programs, ,as well as benchmarking: Third, the
Insavment is relatively efficient-,and.:caw be com-
pleted
ompleted in a short period.of time.:Fuzally, the'CPAI can
be' used as an evaluation tool. Programs that do not
achieve at least a "satisfactory” score -on the instru-
ment would probably, not be: expected -to reduce re-
cidivisuL Investment in an outcome study would be
inadvisable until the prograrnmade.the changes nec-
essary,to reach. an acceptable level of program qual-
Ity.
Treatment Harm
The,previous section outlined many of the perti-
nent issues of evaluating program. effectiveness. It
has become;apparentthat the way recidivism is mea-
suied may need to be reconsidered in order to more
fully understand the essence of a program's crime -
reducing potential. Further, and -perhaps more im-
portantly, the-CPAI allows for measures of program
quality, across many different areas, to be included In
future program evaluations. However, given that not
all areas of the -country are yet aware of the CPAs, it is
quite likely thatineffective programs will.continue to
receive new and/or continued financial support. The
result of allowing ineffective correctional strategies
to continue is quite likely to be treatment harm;
which manifests itself In many ways.
• The undermining of confidence and support.
When faced with the existence of ineffective cor-
rectional treatment strategies, judges, legisla-
tors, and the public lose confidence in treatment
efforts, which in tum undermines support for
effective programs. In the realm of public opin-
Exhibit T
Page 11 of Z3
}
A
28 CottttRcrtoNs NLA_v.AmwxT QuARTERcrlFAm 1998
ion regarding correctional treatment, some bad
apples may indeed spoil the entire bushel—pro-
grams that.are doing good.treatmeatbased on
what we_.know works can be harmed by pro-
grams that are not. In short, if ineffective treat-
ment strategies continue to flourish, the risk of
retumirig to a "nothing,woTks" doctrine will un-
doubtedly increase.
Empowers fartcatchers. Gendreaul.8 has used
this ..term Ito. describe those staff: members, bu-
reaucrats; and politicians who lack (substantive
kztowledge ui criatinal- behayior and criminal
jusace.`� ese"MBA-types" are often making
policy on,the basis of limlted or "quick fid' solu-
tions•thathave empirical support. The result has
often been programsr'thatpromise a quick fix to
the; problem of criminal behavior; -or what
Cullen efecs: to as correctional '"quackery."
There fs no,panacea approach t, changing of
fender behavior- Those searching for a "magic
pill" for reducing crime and changing hurn%an
behavior will' not only be 'disappointed but will,
at best; perpetuate tiie myth that there is some
simple solution and, at worst, erode`faith in the
Potential for effective intervention.
Offenders get all the blame. Perhaps the greatest
harm that is p'erpptuated Is what is done to the
offender. When we use progratus.that are not
elf ective..th " ffender receives; the blame, not
the program. Too ;often we hear judges say that
theyhave already sent the offender to some pro -
gran and'that they have failed. This `failure" is
then used to justify even harsher punishments.
Sending, as offender toL a program, that does not
adequately meet the.prinaples of effective inter-
vention should not be expected to change crims-
nal behaNior. Blaming the offender absolves us
from designing and operating high-quality and
effective intervention programs.
What Can Be Done To Evaluate
Correctional Intervention Programs?
First, measure outcome. Recidivism cannot be ig-
nored. Use multiple indicators (arrests, convictions,
incarceration rates, program completion, type and
severity of offenses, and technical violations). Con-
duct follow-up studies of sufficient length to ad-
equately assess recidivism. Develop comparison
groups. While experimental designs are the most
powerful approaches, -.do not hesitate to use quasi-
experimental, research designs, it, necessary; to de-
velop comparison groups..
,Second, measure program. quality. Get Inside the
"black box of an intervention program and do not
hesitate to ask about program quality. Are. the pro-
grams you are operating or funding of suffident qual-
ity to reduce the criminal behavior of the offenders It
is serving? If so, what evidence exists to prove this?
Third, make evaluation ,an integral part of your
program, not simply an afterthought. A goodevalua-
tion., can assist your, program in many -ways. You
should alsoformi partnership§ with researchers. De-
veloping relationships with evaluators and'research-
ers can'yieldvaluable' returns that often go beyond
research reports. Evaluators. can help to develop da-
tabases, ',provide interns, assist In :developing of
fender selection processes and criteria, help in the
Identification and selection of assessment and classi-
fication instruments, and ensure that j'aportant in
forma . dabout the offenders being sewed and the
program Itseif are being captured in.austful form.
Fourth, do not ignore established programs. Often
it is the `n'ewer programs that undergo evaluation
scrutiny: Rarely are 'older programs subjected to
evaluation. This is a mistake ,for several reasons.
First, all programs can be improves, and data from
evaluations can provide _useful information for pro-
gram change. Second, just because a program has
been in operation for along time does not mean that
it Is effective: Again, are.we perpet iating"correcdonal
"quackery" by failing to assess and evaluate pro-
grams?
Finally, use data to improve your program. Unfor-
tunately, reports that collect dust on shelves are often
the rule rather than the exception. Programs that are
data driven tend to be more effective than those
which are not.
What do we know from the correctional research?
When we review the body of literature on program
effectiveness, there are several important points that
can be made. First, programs that meet the principles
of effective intervention are more effective than pro-
grams that do not. Second, the importance of sound
empirical research and periodic evaluation of correc-
Exhibit
Page ZO
of z3
The Jmportaw of Evaluating Correctional Programs 29-
2.
9-
tional programs cannot be stressed enough. Without
empirical evidence we will continue to operate and
support programs that do not work Our failures can-
cel out our successes,u and we will be unable to dis-
tinguish between our successful programs and our
fibres. Firtally, as part of our evaluation efforts we
cannot afford to ignore the measurement of program
Integrity.
ENDNOTES.. ,
a. This study round results sirn9w to other stiudies and concluded
that support tot rehabilitation, which appeaned lo have weakened
In, the:I97os, may have s4bMaed in the inteNeding 1 S: years.
b. Those programs that have shown some reductions in recidivism
have adopted a more balanced approach to offender supervision.
%Kid►. this model, aq equal emphasis is placed on- monitoring the
"offender and deliverinil seivices.
c. Lab and VHhite}ead concluded that there was not evidence that
treatment programs for juvenile offenders' werr.not effective de-
spite ihe
e-spite.ihe fact that40 percent of the programs they had reviewed
""seductions In recidivism. For an excellent rebuttal to Logan
and Gies, see Cullen and Appiegite (1998) 'Introduction" in
Olferider' Rehabititadon: Ellective Correctional Intervention.
Brooldim, VT: AASate Dartmouth: xviirxix.
d. The *satisfactory burneeds tmomi vemenr category was anted
because of what we -felt were substantial- diffentnces between a
program that scored in the sixties and one that scored in the fifties.
In ctuatity, all;scores in these ranges need improvement.
e. The programs include adult and juvenile, and community based
as well as institutional. .
.f. 'Piognm-directs rcfen to the individual responsible for service or
treatment delivery. This Is not necessarily the administrator of the
program.
g. The Program Characteristic area of the CPAI accounts for about
one*ird of the total score.
h.Ciiminogenienee& refer tothoseareasthat are found lobe stron
predictors of criminal behavior, such as antisocial attitudes, crimi
nal values, and beliefs, negative peer associations, eta
REFERENCES
1. Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F.T., and Fisher, B.S.'Public Support (o
Correctional Treatment: The Continuing Appeal of the Rehabilita
tive Ideal." The PrFson Joumal77 (1997): 237-258.
2. Currie, E. Confronting Gime: An American Dilemma. New Yo(Ic
Pantheon, 1985._
3. Bennett, W. J., Dilul(o, Jr... jj.. and Walters, J.P. Body Coune
Moral Poverty..•.and How to Mn America's War Agairw Crime
and Drugs New Yodc Simon and Schuster, 1996.
4. Clear, T.R. Hann In American Penology.Ofirender4 Victims, and
Their Communldex Albany+, NY: Albany State University of New
.York -Press, :1994.
S. Cullen, F. T., and Applegate, B.K. Offender Rehabilitation: Mac-
tive Correctional'Jntervention. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate
Dartrnouft 1998.
6. Petersilis, J.'California's` Prison Policy: Causes, Costs, and Corse.
quences" The Pdm Joumal 73 (1.9921: 81-36.
7.1 atessa. E.1. Travis; LF;, and Holsinger, A. Evaluadon or Ohio's
Comm ir* Correction Act and Communhy-Bumf Cmectibmt
Fend lilies Ci rinaQ, 64, Dion olCriminal Justice, University
d'Ciir�nnad._7997. .
4 PeteiAIa 1, 'Probation in the United Stites.- in M. Tonry, d.
Olin* ac diw0ce A Review of Rweardl Vol, 22 (pp. 149-200).
Chil ga University of Chi ago Press, .1997..,;
9. Fulton, 8„ Latessa, E.1;, Stichman,_A., and Travis, LF. 'The State
of ISPs Researck'and Policy,lmpiications. Fed nal Probation 61,
no. 4 (1997k 65'=75.
10 Ahdrevivs D.A.,` Zinger, ( Hoge, R.D., Bona, 1, Gendreau, P..
and Cullen, F.T. 'Does Correctional Treatment Wodti A Clint
-
ally Relevant and Psychologically Informed Meta Malysk.'
CrfMkx*gy2841990k 97-104.: .
11. Gendreau, -0, and Andrews, D.'Tertlary Prevention: What the
INeta=Analysis of the Offender Treatment Literature Tells us Abort
NKhat Works." Canadlan jotrmal olCriminotogy32 (199(Yr 173-
184.
12. Cullen; F. T.,,and Gendreau, P; 7Oe Effectiveness of Correctional
Rehabilitation: Reconsidering the 'N,othing Works' Debate.' In L
Goodstein and D. MacKenzie eds..Amerlan Prisons: Issues in
Res2arr ' and P -1 (pp. 23-44) New Yorin %enum,1989,
137 Van Voorhis;+'.P 'Cortectional Effectiveness: The High Cost of
`=
Exhibit_
Page Z.7—of Z3
= u
E x
r,.
o
O
O
0
�o
00
7
00
0o
Q1
0
0
N
O
0
0
M
oo
O
0
--+
O
O
0
00
h
0
o0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
U
O
It
O
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
M
V
O
O
1'1
d.
O
O
N
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
e
d
e
H
o
V
h
V'
ul
.-..
...
D1
b
b
M
`.•
b
M
M
ul
Vl
.h.
•--.
h
....
O
N
7
N
A p
E E
zo
v
O
O
•� 'fl
r
O
y mO
N
M
h
ri
o\
01
N
M
O
01
O
4
10
O
O
f
�
N
V
M
O
�
O'-!
O
In
00
In
O
b
O
�
N
M
h
h
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
h
7
�
O
O
V'
D\
M
�
N
h
b
O
W
o1
w
N
Vl
In
M
M
M
N
o
00
F C
� o
M
N
b
b
N
o1
h
ON
C,
E:
v,
z
(,
u
-'y
N
h
a
O
O)
ao
h
N
01
O
Vl
C:;
h
o0
N
10
M
o\
00
.-�
h
.--
01
O
•--
ao
V
M
M
--�
O
O
y
V
1-
M
V
V
7
M
^
Vl
Vl
V
kn
N
M
V'.
N
O
1n
N
V'f
h
10
l0
b
M
O
N
C
M
M
d'
M
h
M
O
V)
Vl
C
M
O
M
Cl
N
l�
N
V
CF
h
N
M
N
M
7
M
vl
N
N
I
O
e
U M
u
t,.
O O E
H
E O
O
.-.
M
01
O
O
N
V
V
N
•-•
N
W
7
7
h
D\
00
b
o0
V
10
N
Vt
o0
00
N
h
h
.-.
ul
h
h
M
-�
to
z a
,R.
`'a
N
,_,
n�'1
N
V
N
M
M
h
0 0
ry
0
p a+
A _i,
ed .
M
.--•
M
O
7
w)
10
b
.+
-.
00
V)
`-•
M
10
h
O
V'
O
N
M
10
Do
V)
10
V)
N
h
V')
00
N
O
In
V
Vl
h
N
h
10
o1
M
N
2,
V.
V
01
cD
N
(� �
E •
�v
z
o
d'
b
a0
N
W
o0
4
O\
h
01
M
O
O
V'
01
01
N
;00
1 00
V)
6
M
t6
—
V
V')
o1
00
h
00
h
M
V)
Vl
M
M
h
M
00
N
M
N
Co
.-•
N
M
O\
10
V'
V1
N
E
W
7
V
10
7
10
V
7
G
b
4
u
M
V
b
b
7
h
V
b
"t
V)
.-.
v
..
1
Vl
N
M
M
N
M
10
h
V
h
kn
-It
V
R
V
M
M
M
V
N
e
p
L
G it
M
M
M
M
V)
O
01
7
00
V'1
O
00
01
C'
O
O
00
00
N
V
N
V
o
M
10
E
W
d �
A
�.
h
01
h
V
O
b
v1
O
01
O
N
oo
w)
O
No
N
m
M
01
vl
N
V
h
M
p1
0o
O
V
W
O
V)
N
O
h
M
h
Qi
lo
01
Vl
h
O\
DD
'�t
h
10
O
b
o0
--•
O
Ql
M
7
E
tV
O
N
N
h
r
M
-
N
N
N
V
00
N
N
M
N
M
m
N
N
N
N
C
�
O
�
X
o
x
x
N
a
o
o
m
W
Q
04
O
°
�°
o
o
E
a
o
E
E
o
v
w
y
m
X
q
U
U
W
V
v)
C'saoi
m
m
U
U
U
U
o
U
ca
A
c�
t7
x
x
:;
ti
a
a
a
a
Exhibit_
Page Z.7—of Z3
Exhibit
Page Z-:3 of Z3
G
N
'D
W
O
N
m
O0
0
E" Y
L
O
O
ON
O
O
n
N
Vl
Vl
N
U�
°
v
•i
N
O
d
T
00
D
00
O
� O
E E
N
W)
°
zoE
0
0
•:.' .
O
O
O
O
O
c
a
00
O
M
O
O
O
06
r-
0
00
D �
N
M
V
a
O
N
"
E
a
z
z�
o�
w
b
H
U h
°
u
D
a,
oo
t-
o
O
a,
W)
O
kn
.
en
O
L
_
v
O
b
_
b
b
M
M
N
�c
N
w
N
N
O E r+
o
� � •�
U o M
w b
W d
d
-:5 o
r
"
a
;;a
o
d
N O
ago
w
to mY o
U N
C4 Q
W '-+
= „
x O
o a
A Ci i,
W
v
M
O
O^
_
m
to
z
O
U cz
ti
u "'
'
Q
E
E
°' w'� v •� � .�
°
U
zo
Y a ti
O w
a
cl
a
M
M
Oi
O�
O
a,
O0
�n
O0
O
O
O
N
M1
I�
'•
0
0
n
O
V
h
In
ID
1-
Vl
V
n
V;'
y Y 0
FE
°
a w
o �
10
�
In
vi
00
In
ON
N O
C P.
N
r
�
;q,
N
Nm
M
N
N O
W•"'
N
O 0 p v �•, 0
G. '
p
tr � Y y U
40 O
W
CD
rkn
rte -
d=' ..fir V C..
O.
NV
N
N
O
N
N
N0.O
z E
U w T7
d
cz
m
U W
ed Wcj
cd b
o
0 c cz o.n
co
O 4 w L� ami
0
0
o
a s
3
o
c°
v 15
x
m
m
o
o°
ani aoi v4
w
H
3
3
3
P. a s a a 3 �
Exhibit
Page Z-:3 of Z3
