California Research at the Crossroads

Palmer's critique of "What Works?" is a strong defense of what was best in the California tradition of "recidivism only" research; it is also a stubborn refusal to take the step forward from that kind of thinking to the era of "social planning" re search.

The primary reason for the impact of "What Works?" is the extraordinary gap between the claims of success made by proponents of various treatments and the reality revealed by good research.

Palmer bases his critique on grounds of research methods. In doing so, he makes an interpretation error by construing as "studies" the "efforts" Martinson mentions in his conclusion. In fact, "effort" represents an independent variable category; this use of the term does not justify Palmer's statement that Martinson inaccurately described individual studies, whose results had been favorable or partially favorable, as being few and isolated exceptions. The table in which Palmer tabulates 48 per cent of the research studies as having at least partially positive results is meaningless; it includes findings from studies of "interventions" as dissimilar as probation placement and castration. Palmer does not understand the difficulties of summarizing a body of research findings. The problem lies in drawing together often conflicting findings from individual studies which differ in the degree of reliance that can be placed on their conclusions. It is essential to weigh the evi dence and not merely count the studies. The real conclusion of "What Works?" is that the addition of isolated treatment elements to a system in which a given flow of offenders has generated a gross rate of recidivism has very little effect in changing this rate of recidivism.

To continue the search for treatment that will reduce the recidivism rate of the "middle base expectancy" group or that will show differential effects for that group is to become trapped in a dead end. The essence of the new "social plan ning" epoch is a change in the dependent variable from recidivism to the crime rate (combined with cost). The public does not care whether a program will demonstrate that the experimental group shows a lower recidivism rate than a con trol group; rather, it wants to know whether the program re duced the overall crime rate. To ask "which methods work best for which types of offenders and under what conditions or in what types of settings" is to impose the narrowest of questions on the search for knowledge. The economists, too, do not live in Palmer's world of "types" of offenders. To them, recidivism is an aspect o f occupational choice strength ened by the atrophy of skills and opportunity for legitimate work that occurs during a stay in prison.

The aim of future research will be to create the knowledge needed to reduce crime. It must combine the analytical skills of the economist, the jurisprudence of the lawyer, the sociol ogy of the life span, and the analysis of systems. Traditional "evaluation" will play a modest but declining role.