A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program

Over the past 20 years, an increased understanding has been developed of what interventions do and do not work with offenders. Treatment programs that attend to offender risk, needs, and responsivity factors have been associated with reduced recidivism. There is also a recognition that sanctions without a rehabilitative component are ineffective in reducing offender recidivism. This study evaluates a cognitive-behavioral treatment program delivered within the context of intensive community supervision via electronic monitoring (EM). Offenders receiving treatment while in an EM program were statistically matched on risk and needs factors to inmates who did not receive treatment services. The results showed that treatment was effective in reducing recidivism for higher risk offenders, confirming the risk principle of offender treatment. The importance of matching treatment intensity to offender risk level and ensuring that there is a treatment component in intensive supervision programs is reaffirmed.

[1]  Thomas A. Louis,et al.  Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. , 1992 .

[2]  D. Cressey,et al.  Principles of Criminology. , 1947 .

[3]  T. Flanagan,et al.  Getting Tough on Prisoners: Results from the National Corrections Executive Survey, 1995 , 1997 .

[4]  D. McDowall,et al.  BOOT CAMP PRISONS AND RECIDIVISM IN EIGHT STATES , 1995 .

[5]  C. O’Donnell,et al.  The Buddy System , 1979 .

[6]  D. A. Andrews,et al.  The level of service inventory – revised , 1995 .

[7]  Alan T. Harland.  Choosing correctional options that work. Defining the demand and evaluation the supply. (Weber) , 1999 .

[8]  J. Petersilia,et al.  An Evaluation of Intensive Probation in California , 1991 .

[9]  Richard G Fox,et al.  Dr Schwitzgebel's machine revisited: Electronic monitoring of offenders , 1987 .

[10]  P. Gendreau,et al.  A META‐ANALYSIS OF THE PREDICTORS OF ADULT OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: WHAT WORKS!* , 1996 .

[11]  Robert D. Hoge,et al.  DOES CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT WORK? A CLINICALLY RELEVANT AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY INFORMED META-ANALYSIS * , 1990 .

[12]  Lamar T. Empey,et al.  The effectiveness of correctional treatment : a survey of treatment evaluation studies , 1976 .

[13]  K. Heilbrun.  Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. , 1998 .

[14]  Jane B. Sprott.  Understanding Public Opposition to a Separate Youth Justice System , 1998 .

[15]  D. Andrews.  Some Experimental Investigations of the Principles of Differential Association Through Deliberate Manipulations of the Structure of Service Systems , 1980 .

[16]  C. Hollin.  Handbook of Offender Assessment and Treatment , 2001 .

[17]  F. Porporino,et al.  Validation of an Adult Offender Classification System for Newfoundland and Labrador , 1989 .

[18]  James Bonta,et al.  A Comparison Between Self-Report and Interview-Based Inventories in Offender Classification , 1992 .

[19]  Bob Ross,et al.  Effective Correctional Treatment: Bibliotherapy for Cynics , 1979 .

[20]  Vincent N. Schiraldi,et al.  The Will of the People? The Public's Opinion of the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997 , 1998 .

[21]  F. Lösel.  Increasing consensus in the evaluation of offender rehabilitation? lessons from recent research syntheses , 1995 .

[22]  Paul Gendreau,et al.  Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s , 1987 .

[23]  Joseph E. Scott,et al.  Public Support for Correctional Treatment , 1990 .

[24]  Francis T. Cullen,et al.  Intensive rehabilitation supervision: The next generation in community corrections? , 1994 .

[25]  Lisa Stolzenberg,et al.  “Three Strikes and You're Out”: The Impact of California's New Mandatory Sentencing Law on Serious Crime Rates , 1997 .

[26]  D. A. Andrews,et al.  Classification for Effective Rehabilitation , 1990 .

[27]  R. Rosenthal.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[28]  Antonio Andrés Pueyo,et al.  THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT , 2008 .