Appropriate services: Examining the case classification principle

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1-22

  Hanley, Dena ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AKRON   (United States)

Author keywords

Classification; Corrections; Offender; Risk principle

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746537805     PISSN: 10509674     EISSN: 15408558     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J076v42n04_01     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Andrews, D.A. (1994). An overview of treatment effectiveness: Research and clinical principles. Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University.
2. Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct, 2nd ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
3. Andrews, D.A. & Kiessling, J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional practices: A summary of CaVIC research. In R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 441-463). Toronto: Butterworth.
4. Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. & Hoge, R. (1990a). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
5. Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990b). "Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis." Criminology, 28, 369-404.
6. Austin, J., Quigley, P. & Cuvelier, S. (1989). Evaluating the impact of Ohio's community Corrections programs on public safety and costs. Washington, DC: The National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
7. Banks, J., Porter, A.L., Rardin, R.L., Siler, R.R., & Unger, V.E. (1977). Intensive special probation projects-National evaluation program-Phase I-Summary report (LEAA No. 76 NI-99-0045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
8. Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A.T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). Quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312-329.
10. Byrne, J.M. (1986). The control controversy: A preliminary examination of intensive probation supervision programs in the United States. Federal Probation, 50, 4-16.
11. Byrne, J.M. (1990). The future of intensive probation supervision and the new intermediate sanctions. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 6-41.
12. Byrne, J.M., Lurigio, A.J. & Baird, J. (1989). "The effectiveness of new intensive supervision programs." Research in Corrections. 2 (1).
13. Clear, T.R., S. Flynn, S. & Shapiro, C. (1987). Intensive Supervision in Probation: A Comparison of Three Projects. In B.R. McCarthy (Ed.), Intermediate punishments (pp. 31-50). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree.
14. Clear, T.R. & Hardyman, P.L. (1990). The new intensive supervision movement. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 42-60.
15. Conrad, J.P. (1985). The penal dilemma and its emerging solution. Crime and Delinquency, 31, 411-422.
16. Cox, S.M., Davidson, W.S., & Bynum, T.S. (1995). A meta-analytic assessment of delinquency-related outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 219-234.
17. Cullen, F.T. & Gilbert, K. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
18. Cullen, F.T., Wright, J.P., & Applegate, B.K. (1996). Control in the community: The limits of reform? In A.T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 69-116). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Dowden, C. & Andrews, D. (1999a) What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
20. Dowden, C. & Andrews, D. (1999b). What works in young offender treatment: A meta-analysis. Forum on Corrections Research, May, 21-24.
21. Fulton, B.A., Stone, S.B., & Gendreau, P. (1994). Restructuring intensive supervision programs: Applying "what works." Lexington, KY: American Probation/Parole Association.
22. Garret, C.J. (1985). Effects of residential treatment on adjudicated delinquents-A meta analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 287-308.
23. Gendreau, P., Cullen, F., & Bonta, J. (1994). Intensive rehabilitation supervision: The next generation in community corrections? Federal Probation, 58, 72-78.
24. Gendreau, P. & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective correctional programming. Forum of Corrections Research, 8, 38-41.
25. Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-407.
26. Gottfredson, S. (1987). Prediction: An overview of selected methodological issues. In D. Gottfredson & M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making Vol. 12 (pp. 21-52). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
27. Gottfredson, M.R. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
28. Gove, W.R., Hughes, M. & Geerken, M. (1985). Are uniform crime reports a valid indicator of the index crimes? An affirmative answer with minor qualifications. Criminology, 23, 451-501.
29. Izzo, R.L. & Ross, R.R. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 134-142.
30. John Howard Society of Alberta (2000). Offender risk assessment. Retrieved June 22, 2001, from http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/C21.htm
31. Kennedy, S. (1999). Responsivity: The other classification principle. Corrections Today, 61, 48-51.
32. Lab, S.P. & Whitehead, J.T. (1990). From 'nothing works' to 'the appropriate works': The latest stop on the search for the secular grail. Criminology, 28, 405-417.
33. Latessa, E. and Gordon, J.A. (1994). Chapter Four: Examining the factors related to success or failure with felony probationers: A study of intensive supervision. In C. Fields (Ed.), Innovative trends and specialized strategies in community-based corrections (pp. 63-83). New York: Garland.
34. Latessa, E., Travis, L., Fulton, B., & Stichman, A. (1998). Evaluating the prototypical ISP (National Institute of Justice No. 95-IJ-CX-0032). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
35. Latessa, E.J. & Vito, G.F. (1988). The effects of intensive supervision on shock probationers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 319-330.
36. Lipsey, M. (1992) "The effect of treatment on juvenile delinquency: Results from a meta-analysis." In F. Losel, D. Bender & T. Bliesner (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 131-143). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
37. Loeber, R. & LeBlanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of the research: Vol. 12 (pp. 375-473). Chicago: University of Chicago.
38. Losel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 79-111). New York: Wiley and Sons.
39. Lurigio, A.J. & Petersilia, J. (1992). The emergence of intensive probation supervision programs in the U.S. In J.M. Byrne, A.J. Lurigio, & J. Petersilia, (eds.) Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 3-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. McGuire, J. (2000, July/August). What works in reducing criminality. Paper presented at the 2000 Conference on Reducing Criminality: Partnerships and Best Practice, Australian Institute for Criminology. Retrieved June 23, 2001, from http://www. aic.gov.au/conferences/ criminality/mcguire.pdf.
41. Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 674-701.
42. Morris, N. & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation. New York: Oxford.
43. Nagayama Hall, G.C. (1995). Sexual offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802-809.
44. Neithercutt, M.G. & Gottfredson, D.M. (1974). Caseload size variation and difference in probation/parole performance (LEAA No. 75-DF-99-0014). Washington, DC: National Center for Juvenile Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.
45. Olsen, C. (1998, November). Generalizations of logistic regression. StatNews, 32. Retrieved July 2, 2001, from http://www.human.cornell.edu/ admin/statcons/Statnews/stnews32.htm.
46. Pearson, F.S. (1988). Evaluation of New Jersey's intensive supervision program. Crime and Delinquency, 34, 437-448.
47. Pearson, F.S. & Harper, A.G. (1990). Contingent intermediate sentences: New Jersey's intensive supervision program. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 75-86.
48. Petersilia, J. (1989). Implementing randomized experiments: Lessons from BJA's intensive supervision project. Evaluation Review, 13, 435-458.
49. Petersilia, J. (1998). Decade of experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned? Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1997-1998 Lecture Series, 2: 79-106.
50. Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1990a). Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high-risk probationers: Early results from an experiment in California. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 87-111.
51. Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1990b). Intensive supervision for high-risk probationers: Findings from three California experiments (Office of Justice Programs No. R-3936-NIJ/BJA). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
52. Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In D. Gottfredson & M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making, Vol. 17 (pp. 281-335). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
53. Petersilia, J., Turner, S., Kahan, J., & Peterson, J. (1985). Executive summary of Rand's study, granting felons probation: Public risks and alternatives. Crime and Delinquency, 31, 379-393.
54. Robey, R. & Dalebout, S.D. (1998). A tutorial on conducting meta-analyses of clinical outcome research. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 1227-1241.
55. Sampson, R.J. & Laub, J.H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University.
56. Turner, S. & Petersilia, J. (1991). Focusing on High-Risk Parolees: An Experiment to Reduce Commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections (National Institute of Justice No. WD-5376-1-NIJ). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
57. Turner, S. & Petersilia, J. (1992). An evaluation of intensive probation in California. Criminology, 82, 610-658.
58. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1990). Intermediate sanctions: Their impacts on prison crowding, costs and recidivism are still unclear (GAO Publication No. PEMD-90-21). Washington, DC: Author.
59. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Intensive probation supervision: Mixed effectiveness in controlling crime (GAO Publication No. PEMD-93-4). Washington, DC: Author.
60. Wilson, S.J. & Lipsey, M.W. (2000). Wilderness challenge programs for delinquent youth: A meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 1-12.