No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
On the Road: The Challenges and Benefits of Agency Research
Abstract
The importance of researcher-practitioner collaborations is at the core of Edward J. Latessa’s work. He has been at the forefront of this domain by creating and disseminating evidence-based tools and practices throughout his career. His work with agencies has undoubtedly changed the face of correctional practices in America and throughout the world. The current essay outlines the work that Ed did to propagate the “what works” movement by doing translational criminology work, and the lessons learned from him on the road.
As evidence-based practices becomes an increasingly popular term, it is crucial that correctional programs are assessed to ensure that research is being translated and implemented with fidelity. Too often the corrections field is quick to treat different interventions as a panacea, without truly understanding how the program does or does not meet the literature on effective practices. Data is provided based on decades of assessment using the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory and the Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist. Findings suggest program adherence to effective practices has shown some improvement, but still has a way to go, particularly in the area of treatment characteristics and quality assurance.
Careful reading of the literature on the psychology of criminal conduct and of prior reviews of studies of treatment effects suggests that neither criminal sanctioning without provision of rehabilitative service nor servicing without reference to clinical principles of rehabilitation will succeed in reducing recidivism. What works, in our view, is the delivery of appropriate correctional service, and appropriate service reflects three psychological principles: (1) delivery of service to higher risk cases, (2) targeting of criminogenic needs, and (3) use of styles and modes of treatment (e.g., cognitive and behavioral) that are matched with client need and learning styles. These principles were applied to studies of juvenile and adult correctional treatment, which yielded 154 phi coefficients that summarized the magnitude and direction of the impact of treatment on recidivism. The effect of appropriate correctional service (mean phi = .30) was significantly (p
Donald Andrews’ overarching goal in the field of criminal justice was to assist offenders in changing their antisocial behavior. His means of doing so was to assist criminal justice agencies and their practitioners by changing the manner by which they worked with offenders. Beginning with the principles of differential association and social learning theory, Andrews crafted his own version of the psychology of criminal conduct (PCC). As a result of PCC, terms like “criminogenic needs” and “risk-need-responsivity” (RNR), which he coined and then researched extensively, have become commonplace in the lexicon of corrections. But that is only the beginning of his legacy. Translating theory to practice and then implementing it in countless criminal justice agencies represents his second monumental contribution to correctional and forensic psychology. The tools he developed were vital to his linking assessment with intervention and his translating theory and research to policy and practice. He also insisted that these efforts be conducted in a humane and just manner.
Previous research suggests traditional probation and parole services perform less than optimally in reducing recidivism. In response to these findings, several attempts to integrate the principles of effective intervention and core correctional practices into community supervision have been made. Preliminary results from several jurisdictions suggest that the use of core correctional practices within thecontext of community supervision has been associated with meaningful reductions in offender recidivism. This research provided the impetus for the development of a new model by the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute, entitled Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS). The purpose of the EPICS model is to teach community supervision officers how to translate the principles of effective intervention into practice, and, more specifically, how to use core correctional practices in face-to-face interactions with offenders. Results indicated that officers trained in the EPICS model demonstrated more consistent use of core correctional practices. Remarkably, trained officers also became more proficient in their use of these skills over time as a result of participation in coaching sessions. These preliminary findings underscore the importance of training and coaching as an on-going process to assist agencies in gaining adherence to the principles of effective intervention and core correctional practices.
For over 30 years, criminal justice policy has been dominated by a “get tough” approach to offenders. Increasing punitive measures have failed to reduce criminal recidivism and instead have led to a rapidly growing correctional system that has strained government budgets. The inability of reliance on official punishment to deter crime is understandable within the context of the psychology of human conduct. However, this knowledge was largely ignored in the quest for harsher punishment. A better option for dealing with crime is to place greater effort on the rehabilitation of offenders. In particular, programs that adhere to the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model have been shown to reduce offender recidivism by up to 35%. The model describes: a) who should receive services (moderate and higher risk cases), b) the appropriate targets for rehabilitation services (criminogenic needs), and c) the powerful influence strategies for reducing criminal behavior (cognitive social learning). Although the RNR model is well known in the correctional field it is less well known, but equally relevant, for forensic, clinical, and counseling psychology. The paper summarizes the empirical base to RNR along with implications for research, policy, and practice.
The issue of whether intervention of a feasible sort is able to decrease recidivism for the most serious delinquents is an important one. This chapter reviews pertinent intervention research. The review reported in this chapter used techniques of meta-analysis to synthesize experimental and quasi-experimental research on the effectiveness of intervention for serious juvenile offenders. Two different circumstances of intervention were examined: (a) programs for offenders in the community, though possibly on probation or parole, and (b) programs for institutionalized juvenile offenders. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Researcher–policymaker/practitioner partnerships (RPPs) have emerged as a successful tool for translating research into policy and practice. However, the available research has focused on RPPs with law enforcement and correctional agencies. Notably absent are studies that describe and evaluate RPPs between researchers and legislative bodies. Specifically, questions remain about the establishment, unique constraints, best practices for effective implementation, and sustainability of partnerships between researchers and policymakers. This study contributes to the literature by describing a unique RPP between a university and a state legislature. Through this retrospective case analysis, we describe the steps taken to initiate the partnership, its implementation, and outcomes. Importantly, in the context of the prior research, we describe the lessons learned, next steps, and implications for partnerships with policymakers.
Criminologists are often frustrated by the disconnect between sound empirical research and public policy initiatives. Recently, there have been several attempts to better connect research evidence and public policy. While these new strategies may well bear fruit, I believe the challenge is largely an intellectual one. Ideas and research evidence must guide public policy and practice. In this article, I present highlights from my tenure as the Director of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the research, development, and evaluation agency in the Department of Justice. One of the ideas that I emphasized at NIJ was “Translational Criminology.” I believe translational criminology acknowledges NIJ’s unique mission to facilitate rigorous research that is relevant to the practice and policy. I also discuss the challenges I faced in bringing research to bear on public policy and practice. I end with a call for my colleagues in criminology and criminal justice to become more involved in government.
This Bruce Smith, Sr. Award Address discusses the various types of public criminologies and highlights both advantages and disadavantages associated with public engagement. Two case studies are utilized as examples of public criminology, one focused on early childhood prevention and a second on immigration and crime. The crux of the argument advanced is that public policy can be smart on crime by being smarter on people. The common theme linking these two areas are the vulnerability of children and immigrants.
Over the past two decades, criminologists have attempted to better understand the process through which research is used by practitioners and policymakers to identify the conditions that facilitate its policy and practice use. As part of this effort, the current study examines the translational research process and the use of researcher-practitioner partnerships (RPPs) in two state correctional agencies. The methods include interviews with leading national researchers, Florida legislative personnel, and state-level decision makers in adult and juvenile corrections. The findings document barriers, facilitators, and mechanisms involved in the translation process and reveal the effectiveness of RPPs to translate research into policy and practice.
This book offers criminologists and students an evidence-based discussion of the latest trends in corrections. Over the last several decades, research has clearly shown that rehabilitation efforts can be effective at reducing recidivism among criminal offenders. However, researchers also recognize that treatment is not a "one size fits all" approach. Offenders vary by gender, age, crime type, and/or addictions, to name but a few, and these individual needs must be addressed by providers. Finally, issues such as leadership, quality of staff, and evaluation efforts affect the quality and delivery of treatment services. This book synthesizes the vast research for the student interested in correctional rehabilitation as well as for the practitioner working with offenders. While other texts have addressed issues regarding treatment in corrections, this text is unique in that it not only discusses the research on "what works" but also addresses implementation issues as practitioners move from theory to practice, as well as the importance of staff, leadership and evaluation efforts.
Reaffirming Rehabilitation, 2nd Edition, brings fresh insights to one of the core works of criminal justice literature. This groundbreaking work analyzes the rehabilitative ideal within the American correctional system and discusses its relationship to and conflict with political ideologies. Many researchers and policymakers rejected the value of rehabilitation after Robert Martinson's proclamation that "nothing works." Cullen and Gilbert's book helped stem the tide of negativism that engulfed the U.S. correctional system in the years that followed the popularization of the "nothing works" doctrine. Now Cullen traces the social impact on U.S. corrections policy. This new edition is appropriate as a textbook in corrections courses and as recommended reading in related courses. It also serves as a resource for researchers and policymakers working in the field of corrections.
Funding agencies now generally require that projects include an evaluation component as part of their grant proposals, but there are no clear guidelines to help researchers and practitioners work together once funding is awarded. The authors of this article have experience working together as the evaluators and program manager on a recently completed four-year demonstration project designed to provide multiagency services to youth on probation in South Oxnard, California. We believe that our experiences can help other researchers and practitioners to understand practical and philosophical components of collaboration. We first discuss our differing perspectives on key issues and resulting tensions that arose. Next, we discuss strategies that we used to create a good working relationship, as well as the benefits that we gained from this partnership.
Enormous gains in knowledge regarding the effective treatment of offenders for the purposes of reducing recidivism have been accomplished in recent years. Several successful assessment and treatment strategies have been identified in this regard. Nevertheless, there are obstacles to future progress in the field. These are identified as theoreticism, failure to effect technology transfer, and a dearth of suitable training programs. Some suggestions are advanced for addressing these problems.
We reviewed the offender rehabilitation literature for the period 1981–87 and assessed the following types of interventions: biomedical, diversion, early/family intervention, education, getting tough, individual differences, parole/probation, restitution, and work. We evaluated treatments applied to specific subgroups of offender populations: sexual offenders, substance abusers, and violent offenders. The hypothesis that the “nothing works” credo has had a pervasive influence and has suppressed the rehabilitative agenda was not borne out when we examined the number and variety of successfully reported attempts at reducing delinquent behavior. In fact, the rehabilitative literature is growing at a noticeable rate; moreover, it suggests several strategies for developing more effective programs. Finally, we speculated why the “nothing works” doctrine continues to receive support in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary.
Despite its accumulated theoretical and empirical heft, the discipline of criminology has had distressingly little impact on the course of public policy toward crime and criminal justice. This article addresses the sources of that troubling marginality, with special emphasis on the powerful disincentives to greater public impact that operate within the discipline itself and the research universities that mainly house it—including the pressure to publish ever more narrow research in peer-reviewed journals at the expense of efforts at synthesis and dissemination that could serve to educate a broader public. Achieving a greater voice in the world outside the discipline will require a concerted move toward a more explicitly public criminology, and seeing to it that the work of such a criminology is more reliably supported and rewarded within the universities and the profession as a whole.
This paper presents recent evidence, obtained from a review of the liter ature on correctional treatment published since 1973, appealing the ver dict that correctional rehabilitation is ineffective. Questions are raised about the quality of the research that led to the conclusion that "nothing works." Recent research on family intervention, contingency man agement, counseling, diversion, and biomedical techniques is discussed, as is the efficacy of treatment of such problems as alcoholism, drug addic tion, and sexual deviations. It is concluded that there are several types of intervention programs that have proved successful with offender popu lations. These intervention programs illustrate pointedly why there have been so many failures reported in correctional treatment.
present summary results from a large-scale meta-analysis of research on the effectiveness of treatment for juvenile delinquency
[discusses reasons] why it is difficult for even sophisticated reviewers to assess the practical importance of a research study or a body of such studies (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Three decades ago, it was widely believed by criminologists and policymakers that “nothing works” to reform offenders and that “rehabilitation is dead” as a guiding correctional philosophy. By contrast, today there is a vibrant movement to reaffirm rehabilitation and to implement programs based on the principles of effective intervention. How did this happen? I contend that the saving of rehabilitation was a contingent reality that emerged due to the efforts of a small group of loosely coupled research criminologists. These scholars rejected the “nothing works” professional ideology and instead used rigorous science to show that popular punitive interventions were ineffective, that offenders were not beyond redemption, and that treatment programs rooted in criminological knowledge were capable of meaningfully reducing recidivism. Their story is a reminder that, under certain conditions, the science of criminology is capable of making an important difference in the correctional enterprise, if not far beyond.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
Meta-analytic techniques were used to determine which predictor domains and actuarial assessment instruments were the best predictors of adult offender recidivism. One hundred and thirty-one studies produced 1,141 correlations with recidivism. The strongest predictor domains were criminogenic needs, criminal history/history of antisocial behavior, social achievement, age/gender/race, and family factors. Less robust predictors included intellectual functioning, personal distress factors, and socioeconomic status in the family of origin. Dynamic predictor domains performed at least as well as the static domains. The LSI-R was identified as the most useful actuarial measure. Recommendations for developing sound assessment practices in corrections are provided.
This article discusses the lack of congruence between academic research and practice in the field of public administration. It argues that this disconnect can be traced to the ambiguous and conflicting goals and expectations of scholarly research: (1) the creation of theoretical versus pragmatic knowledge; (2) the use of data-supported versus logic-driven information; (3) the use of the scientific method versus case studies; (4) the prestige of academic-oriented versus practitioner-oriented journals; and (5) the pressures of academic tenure versus the need for organizational effectiveness. The article explores the state of academic research in other disciplines and offers five solutions to narrow the gap between the academy and the agency settings.
The scholar vs. the practitioner: Innovate to collaborate
- W Daly
Daly, W. (2015, November/December). The scholar vs. the practitioner: Innovate to collaborate?
American Jails. American Jails Association.
Embedded criminologists in police departments
- A A Braga
What works? Questions and answers about prison reform
- R Martinson
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest,
35(Spring), 22-54. https://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/what-works-questionsand-answers-about-prison-reform
Reaffirming rehabilitation. Anderson
- F T Cullen
- K E Gilbert
The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI)
- P Gendreau
- D A Andrews
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1996). The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI).
University of New Brunswick.
Building collaborative evidence-based frameworks for criminal justice policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 088740342110112
- J Brancale
- T G Blomberg
- S Siennick
- G B Pesta
- N Swagar
- K Noorman
- J Caswell
- C Chouhy
What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism
- E J Latessa
- S Johnson
- D Koetzle
The Ohio Youth Assessment System: Final report
- E J Latessa
- B K Lovins
- K Ostrowski
Latessa, E. J., Lovins, B. K., & Ostrowski, K. (2009). The Ohio Youth Assessment System: Final report.
University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research.
Embedded criminologists in police departments
- J Bonta
- D A Andrews
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
Braga, A. A. (2013). Embedded criminologists in police departments. Police Foundation, 17
(December), 1-20. https://www.policefoundation.org/publication/embedded-criminologists-inpolice-departments/