The "Effectiveness" of Differential Supervision

Crime and Delinquency

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 235-271

  Harris, Patricia M ^a   Gingerich, Raymond ^b   Whittaker, Tiffany A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^b Texas Department of Criminal Justice   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

Offender classification; Probation supervision; Responsivity principle

Indexed keywords

EID: 1642265548     PISSN: 00111287     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0011128703258939     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Andrews, D. A. (1999). Assessing program elements for risk reduction: The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory. In P. M. Harris (Ed.), Research to results: Effective community corrections (pp. 151-190). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
2. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
3. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
4. Baird, C., & Neuenfeldt, D. (1990). The Client Management Classification System. NCCD Focus, 1990, 1-7.
5. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (1986). Criminal careers and career criminals (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Bonta, J. (1995). The responsivity principle and offender rehabilitation. Forum on Corrections Research, 7, 34-37.
7. Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1992). Inmate classification. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 343-353.
8. Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney. J. (2000). A quasi-evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312-329.
9. Byrne, J. M., Lurigio, A. J., & Baird, C. (1989). The effectiveness of new intensive supervision programs. Research in Corrections, 2, 1-48.
10. Clear, T. R., & Gallagher, K. W. (1983). Screening devices in probation and parole: Management problems. Evaluation Review, 7, 217-234.
11. Clear, T. R., & Gallagher, K. W. (1985). Probation and parole supervision: A review of current practices. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 423-443.
12. Clear, T. R., & Latessa, E. J. (1993). Probation officers' roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10, 441-462.
13. Dooley, M. (1999). Classification and restorative justice: Is there a relationship? In Topics in Community Corrections. Annual Issue 1999: Classification and Risk Assessment (pp. 38-42). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
14. Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
15. Eisenberg, M., & Markley, G. (1987). Something works in community supervision. Federal Probation, 51, 28-32.
16. Fulton, B., Stichman, A., Travis, L., & Latessa, E. (1997). Moderating probation and parole officer attitudes to achieve desired outcomes. Prison Journal, 77, 295-312.
17. Gendreau, P. (1996). The principle of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (1994). The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (4th ed.). St. John, New Brunswick, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
19. Gendreau, P., & Goggin, C. (1997). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and realities. In P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell, & D. Lester (Eds.), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation (pp. 271-280). Cincinnati: Anderson.
20. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 180-187.
21. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.
22. Harris, P. M. (1994). Client Management Classification and prediction of probation outcome. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 154-174.
23. Hart. T. C., & Reaves, B. A. (1999). Felony defendants in large urban counties, 1996. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
24. Hoffman, P. B. (1994). Twenty years of operational use of a risk prediction instrument: The United States parole commission's salient factor score. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 477-494.
25. Jones, D. A., Johnson, S., Latessa, E., & Travis, L. F. (1999). Case classification in community corrections: Preliminary findings from a national survey. In Topics in Community Corrections. Annual Issue 1999: Classification and Risk Assessment (pp. 4-10). Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
26. Kennedy, S. (1999). Responsivity: The other classification principle. Corrections Today, 61, 48-51.
27. Kennedy, S., & Serin, R. (1997). Treatment responsivity: Contributing to effective correctional programming. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, 7, 46-52.
28. Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programs: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 22-29.
29. Leininger, K. (1998). Effectiveness of client management classification. Unpublished report prepared for the Florida Department of Corrections.
30. Lerner, K., Arling, G., & Baird, S. C. (1986). Client management classification strategies for case supervision. Crime & Delinquency, 32, 254-271.
31. McManus, R. F., Stagg, D. I., & McDuffie, R. C. (1988). CMC as an effective supervision tool: The South Carolina perspective. Perspectives, 1988, 30-34.
32. National Institute of Corrections. (1991). National Academy of Corrections lesson plans for strategies for case supervision. Unpublished manuscript.
33. National Institute of Corrections. (2000). Promoting public safety using effective interventions with offenders. Retrieved from http://www.ncic.org/resources/curriculum/016296.htm
34. Petersilia, J. (1998). Experience with intermediate sanctions: Rationale and program effectiveness. In J. Petersilia (Ed.), Community corrections: Probation, parole, and intermediate sanctions (pp. 68-70). New York: Oxford University Press.
35. Polizzi, D. M., MacKenzie, D. L., & Hickman, L. J. (1999). What works in adult sex offender treatment? A review of prison- and non-prison-based treatment programs. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 357-374.
36. Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737-748.
37. Schneider, A. L., Ervin, L., & Snyder-Joy, Z. (1996). Further exploration of the flight from discretion: The role of risk/need instruments in probation supervision decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 109-121.
38. Serin, R., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Treatment readiness and responsivity: Contributing to effective correctional programming (Research report R-54). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada.
39. Silver, E., Smith, W. R., & Banks, S. (2000). Constructing actuarial devices for predicting recidivism: A comparison of methods. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 733-764.
40. Van Voorhis, P. (1997). Correctional classification and the "responsivity principle." Forum on Corrections Research, 9, 46-50.
41. Vasoli, R. H. (1967). Some reflections on measuring probation outcome. Federal Probation, 31, 24-32.
42. Waldo, G., & Griswald, D. (1979). Issues in the measurement of recidivism. In L. Sechrest, S. O. White, & E. D. Brown (Eds.), The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: Problems and prospects (pp. 225-250). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
43. Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 347-368.