Doris Layton MacKenzie’s research while affiliated with Pennsylvania State University and other places

In this article, we review the recommendations on corrections made by the U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson in 1967 and compare these with the changes made in U.S. corrections over the past 50 years. Shortly after the Commission completed its report, dramatic changes occurred that impacted correctional policy and practice as support for law and order and correctional control moved corrections far from the Commission's recommendations for rehabilitation. The results of this research demonstrate that these approaches have not solved the nation's crime problems and have imposed hardships on individuals and communities. A current focus on evidence‐based corrections may provide a model for future decision making depending on whether the “times are ripe” for a return to a philosophy of rehabilitation. Any new commission will benefit from the research evidence that points to successful correctional interventions. Yet, there is much that still needs to be studied and learned. A new commission must be aware of and respond to the broader social conditions and beliefs and opinions of policy makers and the public that will influence receptivity to correctional reform. Recommendations should include clear guidelines for how research findings could be used to answer the still unanswered questions about rehabilitation interventions, as well as for how to ensure quality program delivery and public safety.

Research Summary More than 1,500 probationers in four sites were randomly assigned to probation as usual (PAU) or to Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE), which is modeled on Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (Hawaii HOPE) program that emphasizes close monitoring; frequent drug testing; and swift, certain, and fair (SCF) sanctioning. It also reserves scarce treatment resources for those most in need. The four sites offered heterogeneity in organizational relationships and populations as well as implementation that was rated very good to excellent—thus, providing a robust test of the HOPE supervision model. Recidivism results suggest that HOPE/SCF supervision was not associated with significant reductions in arrests over PAU with the exception of a reduction in drug‐related arrests in one site. There were significant—albeit conflicting—differences in time to revocation, with survival models suggesting shorter times to revocation in two sites and longer times to revocation in one site. Policy Implications HOPE—or the more general SCF approach to community supervision—has been widely praised as an evidence‐based practice that reduces substance use, violations, new arrests, and revocations to prison. Substantial reductions in return to prison have been associated with claims of significant cost savings for HOPE/SCF over PAU despite the need for additional resources for warning and violation hearings, drug testing, and warrant service. Results from this recently completed, four‐site randomized control trial (RCT) showed that recidivism arrest outcomes were largely similar between those on HOPE/SCF probation and those on PAU and are consistent with findings from the Delaware Decide Your Time (DYT) RCT reported in this issue. No differences in arrests between HOPE and PAU probationers suggest that HOPE can be implemented to provide greater adherence to an idealized probation in which violations are met with a swift (but non‐draconian) response without compromising public safety. Nevertheless, the larger numbers of revocations for HOPE probationers in two sites, coupled with the additional expenses for drug testing, warrant service, and so on associated with HOPE, also suggest that overall cost savings may not be realized. Although additional research is needed to determine whether there are groups for whom HOPE may be more effective than PAU, HOPE/SCF seems unlikely to offer better outcomes and lower costs for broad classes of moderate‐to‐high–risk probationers.

Objectives The main aim of this article is to review knowledge about what works in preventing future offending by delinquents and offenders. We examine what has been learned from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in the past 10 years about the effectiveness of correctional interventions. Methods We focus on important recent RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses from 2005 onwards. Where reported in the meta-analyses, we examine the number of RCTs included in the analyses and whether results from experiments differ from those contained in non-experimental designs. Results Interventions based on surveillance, control, deterrence, or discipline are ineffective. Interventions based on restorative methods and skills training are effective. The effectiveness of interventions providing services and opportunities is unclear. Conclusions More randomized trials are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of programs. Only evidence-based programs should be implemented.

This article investigates perceived danger among the nation’s confined youth. Although a number of studies have examined etiology of danger in prison, few have examined juvenile residents or focused on decomposing facility-level from individual-level effects. Addressing these limitations, this study draws on survey data at 48 juvenile institutions across the US and compares perceived danger between pooled and fixed-effects model specifications. The data showed juveniles who were younger and had prior maltreatment histories perceived more danger than others (within the same facilities). The data also showed that several variables ostensibly impacting perceptions were operating through contextual bias – including geographic background, criminal history, and race. For example, minorities perceived more danger than White adolescents overall (pooled models) but not within the same facilities (fixed effects). This may suggest minority adolescents serve time in ‘harsher’ facilities – an understudied form of disparity in the criminal justice system.

Correctional researchers have increasingly focused on social bonding as a key pathway by which parolees desist from crime after release. Most work to date has focused on levels of bonds, either at reentry or as a function of events occurring in the community. However, few have assessed whether the magnitude of change in bonds during incarceration has an additional effect on desistance. Distinguishing between levels and change with respect to bonds may have important implications for understanding how bonds impact behavior. This paper addresses this gap by drawing on survey data from a sample of inmates at the start and end of their six-month prison terms. Recidivism is assessed as a function of change in social bonds (attachments and beliefs) from entrance to exit from prison, as well as levels of bonds at release. Our findings indicate that changes in social relationships predict recidivism, whereas improvements in prosocial beliefs do not. The data also suggest that the level of prosocial belief at release is significantly related to recidivism, whereas the level of attachment is not. The implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

This updated Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness incarceration‐based drug treatment interventions in reducing postrelease recidivism and drug use. The review summarises findings from 74 studies, 65 of which were conducted in the United States, four in Canada, three in Australia, one in Taiwan and one in the United Kingdom. The main evidence presented in this review suggests that the effectiveness of treatment programs varies by the type of treatment. These findings most strongly support the effectiveness of therapeutic communities, as these programs produced relatively consistent reductions in recidivism and drug use. Boot camps have no effect on either outcome. These conclusions should be read with caution given the limited number of such evaluations and general methodological weakness. Therapeutic community programs were the only programs to consistently show modest reductions in recidivism and drug relapse however, there is evidence of publication bias that could have over‐estimated its effectiveness. Given all these shortcomings, further evidence regarding the effectiveness of this type of intervention is needed. Structured Abstract BACKGROUND Many, if not most, incarcerated offenders have substance abuse problems. Without effective treatment, these substance‐abusing offenders are likely to persist in non‐drug offending. The period of incarceration offers an opportunity to intervene in the cycle of drug abuse and crime. Although many types of incarceration‐based drug treatment programs are available (e.g., therapeutic communities and group counseling), the effectiveness of these programs is unclear. OBJECTIVES The objective of this research synthesis is to systematically review quasi‐experimental and experimental (RCT) evaluations of the effectiveness of incarceration‐based drug treatment programs in reducing post‐release recidivism and drug relapse. A secondary objective of this synthesis is to examine variation in effectiveness by programmatic, sample, and methodological features. In this update of the original 2006 review (see Mitchell, Wilson, and MacKenzie, 2006), studies made available since the original review were included in an effort to keep current with emerging research. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched bibliographic databases, hand searched select journals, and reviewed websites of several research organizations involved in drug treatment research to identify potentially eligible studies. SEARCH CRITERIA Eligible studies needed to assess the effectiveness of incarceration‐based (e.g., jail, prison) drug treatment programs, use experimental or quasi‐experimental comparison group research designs, measured a post‐release recidivism or drug use outcome, and be conducted between 1980 and 2011, inclusive. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS From each evaluation, we coded an effect size that quantified each program's effect on various measures of recidivism and/or drug relapse. We also coded features of the program, research methodology, and sample. We analyzed effect sizes using the random‐effects inverse‐variance weight method of meta‐analysis. MAIN RESULTS Seventy‐four evaluations met our eligibility criteria. The overall average effect of these programs was approximately a 15 to 17% reduction in recidivism and drug relapse. The effectiveness of such programs, however, varied by program type. Therapeutic communities had relatively consistent but modest reductions in recidivism and drug relapse. Counseling and narcotic maintenance programs had mixed effects. Specifically, counseling programs on average reduced recidivism but not drug relapse, narcotic maintenance programs had sizeable reductions in drug relapse but not recidivism, and boot camps had negligible effects on both recidivism and drug relapse. CONCLUSIONS This synthesis of evaluations of incarceration‐based drug treatment programs found that such programs are modestly effective in reducing recidivism. These findings most strongly support the effectiveness of therapeutic communities, as these programs produced relatively consistent reductions in recidivism and drug use. Both counseling and incarceration‐based narcotic maintenance programs had mixed effects. Counseling programs were associated with reductions in recidivism but not drug use; whereas, incarceration‐based narcotic maintenance programs were associated with reductions in drug use but not recidivism. Note that our findings regarding the effectiveness of incarceration‐based narcotic maintenance programs differ from a larger review of community‐based narcotic maintenance programs (see Egli, Pina, Christensen, Aebi, and Killias, 2009). Finally, boot camp programs for drug offenders had negligible effects on both recidivism and drug use. Plain Language Summary This research synthesized results from 74 evaluations of incarceration‐based drug treatment programs using meta‐analysis. Incarceration‐based drug treatment programs fell into four distinct types: therapeutic communities (TCs), group counseling, boot camps specifically for drug offenders, and narcotic maintenance programs. We examined the effectiveness of each of these types of programs in reducing post‐release offending and drug use, and we also examined whether differences in research findings can be explained by variations in methodology, sample, or program features. Our results consistently found support for the effectiveness of TC programs on both outcome measures, and this finding was robust to variations in method, sample, and program features. We also found support for the effectiveness of group counseling programs in reducing offending, but these programs' effects on drug use were negligible. The effect of narcotic maintenance programs was also mixed with reductions in drug use but not offending. Boot camps had no substantive effect on either outcome measure.

Objectives The challenges of conducting a field experiment in a correctional setting. Methods This paper discusses the issues related to planning, design, and completion of a randomized control study of a correctional boot camp including the difficulties confronted and how these were or were not overcome. Results At the beginning, correctional administrators were interested in and supportive of the study and this greatly facilitated our initial work. However, as described in this paper, during the course of the research obstacles and difficulties arose. Using the boot camp experiment as an example, we review the trials and tribulations of trying to do a field experiment in corrections. The importance of collecting quantitative and qualitative in order to understand the experiences of both the control and experimental groups is emphasized, as is the need to examine the theoretical mechanisms hypothesized to lead to changes in outcomes. Conclusion Some of the challenges confronted in this randomized control trial are those facing anyone attempting to conduct a field experiment, others relate to the particular issues faced by those who are conducting experiments in correctional settings. The paper concludes with a discussion of the issues confronting researchers who are doing field experiments in corrections.