The Implementation and Maintenance of Quality Services in Offender Rehabilitation Programmes

Offending Behaviour Programmes: Development, Application, and Controversies

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 209-246

  Goggin, Claire ^a   Gendreau, Paul ^b,c  

^a ST THOMAS UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Department of Psychology ^*  (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK   (Canada)

Author keywords

Correctional programme assessment inventory; Criminal behaviour; Media; Offender treatment; Rehabilitation policies

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889472192     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470713341.ch7     Document Type: Chapter

References (205)

1. Andrews, D. A. (1979). The dimensions of correctional counseling and supervision process in probation and parole. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
2. Andrews, D. A. (1980). Some experimental investigations of the principles of differential association through deliberate manipulations of the structure of service systems American Sociological Review, 45, 448-462.
3. Andrews, D. A. (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending-Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 35-62). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
5. Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd edition). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.
6. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. & Hoge, R. D. (1990a). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
7. Andrews, D. A. & Dowden, C. (2005). Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta-analytic review of programme integrity Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 173-187.
8. Andrews, D. A. & Dowden, C. (2006) Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.
9. Andrews, D. A., Dowden, C. & Gendreau, P. (2004). Clinically relevant and psychologically informed approaches to reduce re-offending: A meta-analytic study of human service, risk, need, responsivity, and other concerns injustice contexts. Unpublished manuscript.
10. Andrews, D. A., Dowden, C. & Rettinger, L. J. (2001). Special populations within corrections. J. A. Winterdyk (Ed.), Corrections in Canada (pp. 170-212). Toronto, Ontario: Prentice Hall.
11. Andrews, D. A. & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional practices: A summary of the CaVIC research. R. R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 441-463). Toronto, Ontario: Butterworths.
12. Andrews, D. A., Kiessling, J. J., Mickus, S. & Robinson, D. (1986). The construct validity of interview-based risk assessment in corrections Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 460-471.
13. Andrews, D. A., Kiessling, J. J., Robinson, D. & Mickus, S. (1986). The risk principle of case classification: An outcome evaluation with young adult probationers Canadian Journal of Criminology, 28, 377-383.
14. Andrews, D. A. & Wormith, J. S. (1989). Personality and crime: Knowledge destruction and construction in criminology Justice Quarterly, 6, 289-309.
15. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P. & Cullen, F. T. (1990b). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically-informed metaanalysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
16. Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M. & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
17. Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R. & Lieb, R. (1999). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime: A review of national research findings with implications for Washington state. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
18. Apter, S. J. & Goldstein, A. P. (1986). Youth violence: Program and prospects. New York: Pergamon Press.
19. Ax, R. K. & Morgan, R. D. (2002). Internship training opportunities in correctional psychology: A comparison of settings Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 332-347.
20. Backer, T. E. & David, S. L. (1995). Synthesis of behavioral science learning about technology transfer. In T. E. Backer, S. L. David & G. Saucy (Eds), Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer NIDA Monograph 155 (pp. 262-279). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
21. Bauman, L. J., Stein, R. E. K. & Ireys, H. T. (1991). Reinventing fidelity: The transfer of social technology among settings American Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 619-639.
22. Blud, L., Travers, R., Nugent, F. & Thornton, D. (2003). Accreditation of offending behaviour programmes in HM prison service: "What works" in practice Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 69-81.
23. Blunkett, D. (2004, January). Reducing crime, changing lives: The government's plans for transforming the management of offenders. London: Home Office.
24. Bonta, J., Bogue, B., Crowley, M. & Motiuk, L. (2001). Implementing offender classification systems: Lessons learned. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington & A. W. Leschied (Eds), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 226-245). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
25. Boothby, J. L. & Clements, C. B. (2000). A national survey of correctional psychologists Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 715-731.
26. Borum, R. (2003). Managing at-risk juvenile offenders in the community: Putting evidence-based principles into practice Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 19, 114-137.
27. Bourgon, G. & Armstrong, B. (2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a "real world" prison setting Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 3-25.
28. Brodsky, S. (2000). Guest editorial: Judging the progress of psychology in corrections-The verdict is not good International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 141-145.
29. Byrne, J. M. & Kelly, L. M. (1989). Restructuring probation as an intermediate sanction: An evaluation of the implementation and impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Program. Final report to the National Institute of Justice (85-IJ-CX-0036). Washington, DC.
30. Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P. A. C., et al. (1999). Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1458-1465.
31. Cadigan, T. P. & Pelissier, B. (2003). Moving towards a federal criminal justice "system" Federal Probation, 67, 61-63.
32. Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F. & Friendship, C. (2003). Understanding what works: Accredited cognitive skills programmes for adult men and young offenders. Home Office Research Findings No. 226. London: Home Office.
33. Carter, P. (2003, December). Managing offenders, reducing crime: A new approach. London, UK: Cabinet Office.
34. Clark, D. (2000). Theory manual for Enhanced Thinking Skills. Prepared for Joint Accreditation Panel, UK.
35. Clarke, A., Simmonds, R. & Wydall, S. (2004). Delivering cognitive skills programmes in prison: A qualitative study. Home Office Research Findings No. 242. London: Home Office.
36. Cochran, D. (1992). The long road from policy development to real change in sanctioning practice. J. M. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio & J. Petersilia (Eds), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 307-318). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
37. Cohen, M. A. (2001). To treat or not to treat? A financial perspective. In C. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 35-49). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
38. Concilio, A. (2003). Correctional program and site accreditation in Canada Forum on Correctional Research, 15, 32-35.
39. Cooke, D. J. & Philip, L. (2001). To treat or not to treat? An empirical perspective. In C. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 17-34). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
40. Correctional Services Accreditation Panel. (2004, April). The Correctional Services Accreditation Panel report: 2003-2004. London: Prison and Probation Services.
41. Corrigan, P. W., Steiner, L., McCracken, S. G., Blaser, B. & Barr, M. (2001). Strategies for disseminating evidence-based practices to staff who treat people with serious mental illness Psychiatric Services, 52, 1598-1606.
42. Cullen, F. T. (2002). Rehabilitation and treatment programs. J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds), Crime: Public policies for crime control, (pp. 253-289). Oakland, CA: ICS Press.
43. Cullen, F. T. (2004, November). The twelve people who saved rehabilitation: How the science of criminology made a difference. 2004 Presidential Address, American Society of Criminology.
44. Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Trager, J. S. & Gendreau, P. (2005). The rise and fall of boot camps: A case study in common-sense corrections Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40, 53-70.
45. Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (1989). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: Reconsidering the "nothing works" debate. L. Goodstein & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds), The American prison: Issues in research and policy (pp. 23-44). New York: Plenum.
46. Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. J. Horney (Ed.), National Institute of Justice criminal justice 2000: Changes in decision making and discretion in the criminal justice system (pp. 109-175). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
47. Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
48. Davidson, W., Gottschalk, R., Gensheimer, L. & Mayer, J. (1984). Interventions with juvenile delinquents: A meta-analysis of treatment efficacy. Washington, DC: National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
49. Davies, K., Lewis, J., Byatt, J., Purvis, E. & Cole, B. (2004). An evaluation of the literacy demands of general offending behaviour programmes and their compatibility with the literacy skills of offenders. Home Office Research Findings No. 233. London: Home Office.
50. Davis, G. et al. (1997). Addressing the literacy needs of offenders under probation supervision. Home Office Research Study No. 169. London: Home Office.
51. Debidin, M. & Lovbakke, J. (2004). Offending behaviour programmes in prison and probation. G. Harper & C. Chitty (Eds), The impact of corrections on re-offending: A review of "what works" (pp. 31-54). Home Office Research Study No. 291. London: Home Office.
52. Dowden, C. & Andrews, D. A. (1999a). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 438-452.
53. Dowden, C. & Andrews, D. A. (1999b). What works in young offender treatment: A metaanalysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 21-24.
54. Dowden, C. & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 449-467.
55. Dowden, C., Antonowicz, D. & Andrews, D. A. (2003). The effectiveness of relapse prevention with offenders: A meta-analysis International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 516-528.
56. Ellickson, P. & Petersilia, J. (1983). Implementing new ideas in criminal justice (R-2929-NIJ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
57. Ellis, T. & Winstone, J. (2002). The policy impact of a survey of programme evaluations in England and Wales. J. McGuire (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending (pp. 333-357). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
58. Emery, R. E. & Marholin, D. (1977). An applied behavior analysis of delinquency: The irrelevancy of relevant behavior American Psychologist, 32, 860-873.
59. Falshaw, L., Friendship, C., Travers, R. & Nugent, F. (2004). Searching for "What Works": HM Prison Service accredited cognitive skills programmes The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 6, 3-13.
60. Farabee, D., Prendergast, M., Cartier, J., Wexler, H., Knight, K. & Anglin, M. D. (1999). Barriers to implementing effective correctional drug treatment programs The Prison Journal, 79, 150-162.
61. Farrington, D. P., Petrosino, A. & Welsh, B. C. (2001). Systematic reviews and cost-benefit analyses of correctional interventions Prison Journal, 81, 339-359.
62. Ferguson, J. L. (2002). Putting the "What Works" research into practice: An organizational perspective Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 472-492.
63. Fishbein, M. (1995). Developing effective behavior change interventions: Some lessons learned from behavioral research. In T. E. Backer, S. L. David & G. Saucy (Eds), Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer NIDA Monograph 155 (pp. 246-261). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
64. French. S. A. & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 185-218.
65. Friendship, C., Blud, L., Erikson, M., Travers, R. & Thornton, D. (2003a). Cognitive-behavioural treatment for imprisoned offenders: An evaluation of HM Prison Service's cognitive skills programmes. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 103-114.
66. Friendship, C., Falshaw, L. & Beech, A. R. (2003b). Measuring the real impact of accredited offending behaviour programmes. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 115-127.
67. Friendship, C., Thornton, D., Erikson, M. & Beech, A. (2001). Reconviction: A critique and comparison of two main data sources in England and Wales Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 121-129.
68. Garrett, C. J. (1985). Effects of residential treatment on adjudicated delinquents: A metaanalysis Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 287-308.
69. Gendreau, P. (1996a). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. A. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
70. Gendreau, P. (1996b). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 144-161.
71. Gendreau, P. & Andrews, D. A. (1979). Psychological consultation in correctional agencies: Case studies and general issues. J. J. Platt & R. J. Wicks (Eds), The psychological consultant (pp. 177-212). New York: Grune and Stratton.
72. Gendreau, P. & Andrews, D. A. (1990). Tertiary prevention: What the meta-analyses of the offender treatment literature tells us about "what works" Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 173-184.
73. Gendreau, P. & Andrews, D. A. (2001). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory-2000 (CPAI-2000). Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
74. Gendreau, P., Cullen, F.T. & Bonta, J. (1994). Intensive rehabilitation supervision: The next generation in community corrections? Federal Probation, 58, 72-78.
75. Gendreau, P., French, S. A. & Gionet, A. (2004). What works (what doesn't work): The principles of effective correctional treatment. Journal of Community Corrections, 13, 4-6, 27-30.
76. Gendreau, P. & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective correctional programming Forum on Corrections Research, 8, 38-41.
77. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Cullen, F. T. (1999). The effects of prison sentences on recidivism (Research Report No. J42-87/1999E). Ottawa, Ontario: Corrections Research and Development and Aboriginal Policy Branch, Solicitor General of Canada.
78. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., Cullen, F. & Paparozzi, M. (2002). The common sense revolution and correctional policy. J. McGuire (Ed.), Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective programmes and policies to reduce reoffending (pp. 359-386). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
79. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., French, S. & Smith, P. (2006). Practicing psychology in correctional settings. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner, (Eds), The handbook of forensic psychology (3rd edition) (pp. 722-750). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
80. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Fulton, B. (2001a). Intensive supervision in probation and parole settings. C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 195-204). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
81. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Law, M. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 414-431.
82. 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.
83. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Smith, P. (2000). Generating rational correctional policies: An introduction to advances in cumulating knowledge Corrections Management Quarterly, 4, 52-60.
84. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Smith, P. (2001b). Implementation guidelines for correctional programs in the "real world." In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington & A. W. Leschied (Eds), Offender rehabilitation in practice (pp. 247-268). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
85. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Smith, P. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the "unparalleled" measure of offender risk? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397-426.
86. Gendreau, P. & Keyes, D. (2001). Making prisons safer and more humane environments Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43, 123-130.
87. Gendreau, P., Little, T. & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.
88. Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics Crime and Delinquency, 25, 463-489.
89. Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. R. (1981a). Correctional potency: Treatment and deterrence on trial. R. Roesch & R. Corrado (Eds), Evaluation and criminal justice policy (pp. 29-57). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
90. Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. R. (1981b). Offender rehabilitation: The appeal of success. Federal Probation, 45, 45-48.
91. Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. R. (1983-84). Correctional treatment: Some recommendations for successful intervention. Juvenile and Family Court, 34, 31-40.
92. Gendreau, P. & Ross, R. R. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-408.
93. Gendreau, P. & Smith, P. (2005). Effective correctional treatment: Contributions from theory, common sense and meta-analysis. F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright & K. R. Blevins (Eds), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 419-446). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Press.
94. Gendreau, P., Smith, P. & Goggin, C. (2001c). Treatment programs in corrections. J. Winterdyk (Ed.), Corrections in Canada: Social reaction to crime (pp. 238-263). Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall.
95. Glass, G., McGaw, B. & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
96. Hamm, M. S. & Schrink, J. L. (1989). The conditions of effective implementation: A guide to accomplishing rehabilitative objectives in corrections Criminal Justice and Behavior, 16, 166-182.
97. Harris, P. & Smith, S. (1996). Developing community corrections: An implementation perspective. A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work (pp. 183-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
98. Herie, M. & Martin, G. W. (2002). Knowledge diffusion in social work: A new approach to bridging the gap Social Work, 47, 85-95.
99. Hill, G. (1985). Predicting recidivism using institutional measures. D. P. Farrington & R. Tarling (Eds), Prediction in criminology (pp. 96-118). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
100. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2002). Annual report 2001/2002. London: Home Office.
101. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2003). Annual report 2002/2003. London: Home Office.
102. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2004). Annual report 2003/2004. London: Home Office.
103. HM Prison Service (2004). HM Prison Service (public sector prisons): Annual report and accounts 2003/2004. London: HM Prison Service.
104. Hollin, C. R. (1995). The meaning and implications of "programme integrity". J. McGuire (Ed.), What works in reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 195-208). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
105. Hollin, C. R. (1999). Treatment programs for offenders: Meta-analysis, "What Works", and beyond International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 361-372.
106. Hollin, C. R. et al. (2004). Pathfinder programmes in the Probation Service: A retrospective analysis. Home Office Online Report 66/04. London: Home Office.
107. Hollin, C. R., McGuire, J., Palmer, E. J., Bilby, C., Hatcher, R. & Holmes, A. (2002). Introducing Pathfinder programmes into the Probation Service: An interim report. Home Office Research Study No. 247. London: Home Office.
108. Homel, P., Nutley, S., Webb, B. & Tilley, N. (2004). Investing to deliver: Reviewing the implementation of the UK Crime Reduction Programme. Home Office Research Study No. 281. London: Home Office.
109. Hunt, M. (1997). How science takes stock: The story of meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
110. Hunt, M. (1999). The new know-nothings: The political foes of the scientific study of human nature. London: Transaction Publishers.
111. Joint Prison/Probation Accreditation Panel (2001, April). What works 2000-2001. London: Prison and Probation Services.
112. Joint Prison/Probation Accreditation Panel (2002, April). What works 2001-2002. London: Prison and Probation Services.
113. Kassebaum, G., Ward, D. A. & Wilner, D. M. (1971). Prison treatment and parole survival: An empirical assessment. New York: John Wiley.
114. Knott, C. (1995). The STOP programme: Reasoning and rehabilitation in a British setting. J. McGuire (Ed.), What Works: Reducing Reoffending-Guidelines from Research and Practice (pp. 115-126). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
115. Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery-Professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment Federal Probation, 66, 43-49.
116. Latessa, E. &Holsinger, A. (1998). Importance of evaluating correctional programs: Assessing outcome and quality Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 22-29.
117. Leschied, A. W. (2001). Implementation of effective correctional programs. L. L. Motiuk & R. C. Serin (Eds), Compendium 2000 on effective correctional programming (pp. 41-46). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada.
118. Lester, D. & Van Voorhis, P. (1997). Cognitive therapies. In P. Van Voorhis, M. Braswell & D. Lester (Eds), Correctional counseling and rehabilitation (3rd edition) (pp. 109-125). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.
119. Lipsey, M. (1989). The efficacy of intervention for juvenile delinquency. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology annual meeting, Reno, NV.
120. Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, et al. (Eds), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83-127). New York: Russell Sage.
121. Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending-Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 63-78). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
122. Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law, 6, 611-641.
123. Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G. L. & Landenberger, N. A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 144-157.
124. Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
125. Lipton, D., Martinson, R. & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger.
126. Lipton, D. S., Thornton, D., McGuire, J., Porporino, F. J. & Hollin, C. R. (2000). Program accreditation and correctional treatment Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 1705-1734.
127. Logan, C. H., Gaes, G. G., Harer, M., Innes, C. A., Karacki, L. & Saylor, W. G. (1991). Can metaanalysis save correctional rehabilitation? Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons.
128. Lösel, F. (1995). The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of metaevaluations. J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending-Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 79-111). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
129. Lösel, F. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional programs: Bridging the gap between research and practice. G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington & A. W. Leschied (Eds), Offender rehabilitation in practice (pp. 67-92). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
130. Lovell, D. & Jemelka, R. (1996). When inmates misbehave: The costs of discipline Prison Journal, 76, 165-179.
131. Lowenkamp, C. (2003). Predicting outcome with the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: The importance of quality assurance. Unpublished manuscript.
132. Lowenkamp, C. (2004). A program level analysis of the relationship between correctional program integrity and treatment effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.
133. Maguire, M. (2004). The Crime Reduction Programme in England and Wales Criminal Justice, 4, 213-237.
134. Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P. & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 438-450.
135. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
136. Masters, J. C., Burish, T. G., Hollon, S. D. & Rimm, D. C. (1987). Behavior therapy: Techniques and empirical findings. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
137. Matthews, B., Hubbard, D. J. & Latessa, E. (2001). Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming The Prison Journal, 81, 454-472.
138. McGuire, J. (ed.) (1995). What works in reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
139. McGuire, J. (2001). What works in correctional intervention? Evidence and practical implications. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington & A. W. Leschied (Eds), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 25-43). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
140. McGuire, J. (2002). Evidence-based programming today. Draft paper for the International Community Corrections Association (ICCA) Annual Conference 2002, Boston, MA.
141. McGuire, J. (2004). Understanding psychology and crime: Perspectives on theory and action. Berkshire: Open University Press.
142. McGuire, J. & Priestley, P. (1995). Reviewing what works: Past, present and future. J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: Reducing reoffending-Guidelines from research and practice (pp. 3-34). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
143. Melnick, G., Hawke, J. & Wexler, H. K. (2004). Client perceptions of prison-based therapeutic community drug treatment programs The Prison Journal, 84, 121-138.
144. Melnick, G. & Pearson, F. (2000). A Multimodality Quality Assurance instrument. New York: National Development and Research Institutes, Inc.
145. Merrington, S. & Stanley, S. (2004). "What Works?": Revisiting the evidence in England and Wales Probation Journal: The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 51, 7-20.
146. Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Elliott, D., Fagan, A. & Hansen, D. (2001, July). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
147. Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Fagan, A., Ballard, D. & Elliott, D. (2004, July). Successful program implementation: Lessons from Blueprints. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
148. Miller, J. (1986). Sentencing: What lies between sentiment and ignorance Justice Quarterly, 3, 231-239.
149. Morgan, R. D. & Flora, D. B. (2002). Group psychotherapy with incarcerated offenders: A research synthesis Group Dynamics, 6, 203-218.
150. National Institute of Corrections (2004). Implementing effective correctional management of offenders in the community: An integrated model. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
151. National Probation Service for England and Wales (2004). Annual report 2003/2004. London: National Probation Directorate.
152. Nesovic, A. (2003). Psychometric evaluation of the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64 (09), 4674B. (UMI No. AAT NQ83525).
153. Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson revisited Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12, 133-152.
154. Palmer, T. (1992). The re-emergence of correctional interventions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
155. Palmer, T. (1994). Profile of correctional effectiveness and new directions for research. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
156. Palmer, T. (1995). Programmatic and non-programmatic aspects of successful intervention: New directions for research Crime and Delinquency, 41, 100-131.
157. Petersilia, J. (1990). Conditions that permit intensive supervision programs to survive Crime and Delinquency, 36, 126-145.
158. Porporino, F. J. (1997). Developing program accreditation criteria for the Correctional Service of Canada: Issues and a suggested approach. Toronto, Ontario: T3 Associates.
159. Porporino, F. J. & Fabiano, E. A. (2000). Theory manual for Reasoning and Rehabilitation (Rev.). Ottawa, Ontario: T3 Associates.
160. Porporino, F. J. & Robinson, D. (1995). An evaluation of the reasoning and rehabilitation program with Canadian federal offenders. R. R. Ross & R. D. Ross (Eds), Thinking Straight: The Reasoning and Rehabilitation program for delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation (pp. 155-191). Ottawa, Ontario: Air Training & Publications.
161. Prendergast, M. L., Podus, D. & Chang, E. (2000). Program factors and treatment outcomes in drug dependence treatment: An examination using meta-analysis Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 1931-1965.
162. Prime, J. (2002, October). Progress made against Home Office Public Service Agreement target 10. Home Office Online Report 16/02. London: Home Office.
163. Prison Service Order 4360 (2004, June 25). London: HM Prison Service (http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/resourcecentre/psispsos/listpsos/).
164. Quay, H. C. (1977). The three faces of evaluation: What can be expected to work Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 4, 21-25.
165. Raynor, P. (2003). Evidence-based probation and its critics Probation Journal: The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 50, 334-345.
166. Raynor, P. (2004). The Probation Service "Pathfinders": Finding the path and losing the way? Criminal Justice, 4, 309-325.
167. Raynor, P. & Vanstone, M. (2001). "Straight Thinking on Probation": Evidence-based practice and the culture of curiosity. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington & A. W. Leschied (Eds), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 189-203). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
168. Redondo, S., Sanchez-Meca, J. & Garrido, V. (1999). The influence of treatment programmes on the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders: A European meta-analytic review Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 251-278.
169. Rex, S. et al. (2002). Crime reduction programme: An evaluation of community service Pathfinder projects-Final report. RDS Occasional Paper No. 87. Cambridge: The Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.
170. Rex, S., Gelsthorpe, L., Roberts, C. & Jordan, P. (2004). What's promising in community service: Implementation of seven Pathfinder projects. Home Office Research Findings No. 231. London: Home Office.
171. Rex, S., Lieb, R., Bottoms, A. & Wilson, L. (2003). Accrediting offender programmes: A process-based evaluation of the Joint Prison/Probation Services Accreditation Panel. Home Office Research Study No. 273. London: Home Office.
172. Rezmovic, E. L. (1979). Methodological considerations in evaluating correctional effectiveness: Issues and chronic problems. L. Sechrest, S. O. White & E. D. Brown (Eds), The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: Problems and prospects (pp. 163-209). Washington, DC: National Academy of Science, Panel on Research on Rehabilitative Techniques.
173. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
174. Rosnow, R. L. & Rosenthal, R. (1999). Beginning behavioral research: A conceptual primer (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
175. Ross, R. R. & Fabiano, E. A. (1985). Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and offender rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of Social Science and Arts.
176. Ross, R. R., Fabiano, E. A. & Ewles, C. D. (1988). Reasoning and rehabilitation International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 32, 29-35.
177. Ross, R. R. & Gendreau, P. (1980). Effective correctional treatment. Toronto, Ontario: Butter-worths.
178. Ross, R. R. & McKay, B. (1978). Treatment in corrections: Requiem for a panacea Canadian Journal of Criminology, 20, 279-295.
179. Rowland, C. (2000). Discovering the new world of accreditation standards Corrections Today, 62, 76-80.
180. Salend, S. J. (1984). Therapy outcome research: Threats to treatment integrity Behavior Modification, 8, 211-222.
181. Scheirer, M. A. & Rezmovic, E. L. (1983). Measuring the degree of program implementation: A methodological review Evaluation Review, 7, 599-633.
182. Sechrest, L., White, S. O. & Brown, E. D. (1979). The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: Problems and prospects. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science, Panel on Research on Rehabilitative Techniques.
183. Simpson, D. D. (2002). A conceptual framework for transferring research into practice Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 171-182.
184. Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research Educational Researcher, 37, 15-21.
185. Smith, P., Goggin, C. & Gendreau, P. (2002). The effects of prison sentences and intermediate sanctions on recidivism: General effects and individual differences. A Report to the Corrections Research Branch. Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General of Canada.
186. Spiegler, M. D. & Guevremont, D. C. (1998). Contemporary behavior therapy (3rd edition). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
187. Stewart, L. & Millson, W. A. (1995). Offender motivation for treatment as a responsivity factor Forum on Corrections Research, 7, 5-7.
188. Stewart-Ong, G., Harsent, L., Roberts, C., Burnett, R. & Al-Attar, Z. (2004, June). Think First prospective research study: Effectiveness and reducing attrition. London: National Probation Service.
189. Taylor, R. (1999). Predicting reconvictions for sexual and violent offences using the revised Offender Group Reconviction Scale. Home Office Research Findings No. 104. London: Home Office.
190. Thornton, D. (1998/9). Criteria for accrediting programmes. London: HM Prison Service, Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit.
191. Torrey, W. C. et al. (2001). Implementing evidence-based practices for persons with severe mental illnesses Psychiatric Services, 52, 45-50.
192. Underdown, A. (1998). Strategies for effective offender supervision: Report of the HMIP What Works project. London: HM Inspectorate of Probation.
193. Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F. T. & Applegate, B. (1995). Evaluating interventions with violent offenders: A guide for practitioners and policymakers Federal Probation, 59, 17-28.
194. Van Voorhis, P., Spruance, L. M., Ritchey, P. N., Listwan, S. J. & Seabrook, R. (2004). The Georgia cognitive skills program: A replication of reasoning and rehabilitation Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 282-305.
195. Walker, N., Farrington, D. P. & Tucker, G. (1981). Reconviction rates of adult males after different sentences British Journal of Criminology, 21, 357-360.
196. Webster, R., Hedderman, C., Turnbull, P. J. & May, T. (2001, September). Building bridges to employment for prisoners. Home Office Research Study No. 226. London: Home Office.
197. White, T. F. (2004, February). A framework for implementing evidence-based practice in probation and parole. Hartford, CT: Court Support Services Division, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
198. Whitehead, J. T. & Lab, S. P. (1989). A meta-analysis of juvenile correctional treatment Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 276-295.
199. Williams, W. (1976). Implementation analysis and assessment. W. Williams & R. Elmore (Eds), Social program implementation (pp. 267-292). New York: Academic Press.
200. Wilson, S., Attrill, G. & Nugent, F. (2003). Effective interventions for acquisitive offenders: An investigation of cognitive skills programmes Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 83-101.
201. Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W. & Soydan, H. (2003). Are mainstream programs for juvenile delinquency less effective with minority youth than majority youth? A meta-analysis of outcomes research Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 3-26.
202. Wozniak, E. (2001). Programme accreditation: Perceptions and realities. International Community Corrections Journal, July, 7-11.
203. Wrench, P. (2004, May 5). Justice 1 Committee: HM Prison Service memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee Inquiry into the rehabilitation of prisoners. http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/justice1/currentInquiries.htm. (October 29, 2004).
204. Yeaton, W. H. & Sechrest, L. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 156-167.
205. Youngken, M. (2000). The Commission on Accreditation for Corrections: Raising the bar of excellence Corrections Today, 62, 98-101.