Adhering to the risk and need principles: Does it matter for supervision-based programs?

Federal Probation

Volumn 70, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 3-8

  Lowenkamp, Christopher T ^a   Pealer, Jennifer ^b   Smith, Paula ^a   Latessa, Edward J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^b NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35248884428     PISSN: 00149128     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Andrews, D.A., & Dowden, C. (1999). A meta-analytic investigation into effective correctional intervention for female offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 18-21.
2. Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
3. Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990b). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
4. Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
5. Bonta, J., S. Wallace-Capretta, and J. Rooney, (2000). A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 312-329.
6. Community Corrections Act. (Retrieved 5/30/ 2006). www.drc.state.oh.us/ web/bcs.htm
7. Dowden, C., & Andrews, D.A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
8. Fulton, B., Gendreau, P., & Paparozzi, M. (1996). APPA's prototypical intensive supervision program: ISP as it was meant to be. Perspectives, 19(2), 25-41.
9. Fulton, B., Stone, S. & Gendreau, P. (1994). Restructuring intensive supervision programs: Applying "what works." Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.
10. Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective interventions with offenders. In A.T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining Demand and Evaluating the Supply. (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Gendreau, P., French, S., & Taylor, A. (2002). What works (what doesn't) revised 2002: The principles of effective correctional treatment. Unpublished manuscript, University of New Brunswick, St. John, New Brunswick, Canada.
12. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Paparozzi, M. (1996). Principles of effective assessment for community corrections. Federal Probation, 60(3), 64-70.
13. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.
14. Glaze, L.E. (2004). Probation and parole in the United States, 2003. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
15. Johnson, G., & Hunter, R. (1992). Evaluation of the specialized drug offender program for the Colorado Judicial Department. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder, Center for Action Research.
16. Lipsey, M.W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L.V. Hedges, R.J. Light (eds.) Meta-analysis for explanation: A Casebook (pp. 83-127). New York: Russell Sage.
17. Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson. D.B. (1995). Reply to comments on Lipsey and Wilson (1993). American Psychologist, 50, 113-115.
18. Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D.P. Farrington (eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Lowenkamp, C.T. (2004). A program level analysis of the relationship between correctional program integrity and treatment effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
20. Lowenkamp, C.T. & Latessa, E.J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio's community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs. Technical Report. University of Cincinnati.
21. Lowenkamp, C.T. & Latessa, E.J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 501-528.
22. Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective interventions. Submitted to Criminology and Public Policy.
23. Petersilia, J. (1985). Probation and felony offenders. Federal Probation, 49, 4-9. Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1993). Evaluating intensive supervision probation/parole: Results of a nationwide experiment. Research in Brief. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.
24. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (revised). Newbury Park: Sage.
25. Simourd, L. & Andrews, D.A. (1994). Correlates of delinquency: A look at gender differences. Forum on Corrections Research, 6, 26-31.