Over the past 20 years, an increased understanding has been developed of what interventions do and do not work with offenders. Treatment programs that attend to offender risk, needs, and responsivity factors have been associated with reduced recidivism. There is also a recognition that sanctions without a rehabilitative component are ineffective in reducing offender recidivism. This study evaluates a cognitive-behavioral treatment program delivered within the context of intensive community supervision via electronic monitoring (EM). Offenders receiving treatment while in an EM program were statistically matched on risk and needs factors to inmates who did not receive treatment services. The results showed that treatment was effective in reducing recidivism for higher risk offenders, confirming the risk principle of offender treatment. The importance of matching treatment intensity to offender risk level and ensuring that there is a treatment component in intensive supervision programs is reaffirmed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, S. (1975). Evaluation: A way out of the rhetoric. Paper presented at the Evaluation Research Conference, Seattle, WA.
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. , & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
4.
Andrews, D. A. , & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
5.
Andrews, D. A. , Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
6.
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.
7.
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.
8.
Bonta, J. , Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (1999). Electronic monitoring in Canada (User Rep. No. 1999-01). Ottawa, Canada: Solicitor General Canada.
9.
Camp, G. , & Camp, C. (1993). The corrections yearbook: Probation and parole. South Salem, NY: Criminal Justice Institute.
10.
Cullen, F. T. , & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
11.
Cullen, F. T. , Skovron, S., Scott, J., & Burton, V. (1990). Public support for correctional rehabilitation: The tenacity of the rehabilitative ideal. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 6-18.
12.
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.
13.
DeKeseredy, W. S. , & Schwartz, M. D. (1996). Contemporary criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
14.
Fox, R. G. (1987). Dr. Schwitzgebel's machine revisited: Electronic monitoring of offenders. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 20, 131-147.
15.
Gendreau, P. (1996). A review of the Learning Resources Program, John Howard Society of Newfoundland. Report to Corrections Research, Solicitor General Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
16.
Gendreau, P. , & Andrews, D. A. (1996). Correctional Programs Assessment Inventory (CPAI) (6th ed.). Saint John, Canada: University of New Brunswick.
17.
Gendreau, P. , Cullen, F. T., & Bonta, J. (1994). Intensive rehabilitation supervision: The next generation in community corrections. Federal Probation, 58, 72-78.
18.
Gendreau, P. , & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective programming with offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 8, 38-40.
19.
Gendreau, P. , Goggin, C., & Fulton, B. (2000). Intensive supervision in probation and parole settings. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Handbook of offender assessment and treatment (pp. 195-204). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
20.
Gendreau, P. , Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult recidivism: What works!Criminology, 34, 401-433.
21.
Gendreau, P. , & Ross, R. R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 463-489.
22.
Gendreau, P. , & Ross, R. R. (1987). Revivication of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-408.
23.
Johnson, W. W. , Bennett, K., & Flanagan, T. J. (1997). Getting tough on prisoners: Results from the National Corrections Survey, 1995. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 24-41.
24.
Lipsey, M. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the viability of effects. In T. Cook, H. Cooper, D. Cordray, H. Hartman, L. Hedges, R. Light, T. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83-127). New York: Russell Sage.
25.
Lipton, D. , Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger.
26.
Lösel, F. (1995). Increasing consensus in the evaluation of offender rehabilitation? Lessons from recent research synthesis. Psychology, Crime and Law, 2, 19-39.
27.
MacKenzie, D. L. , Brame, R., McDowall, D., & Souryal, C. (1995). Boot camp prisons and recidivism in eight states. Criminology, 33, 327-357.
28.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
29.
McNutt, M. (1995, April). Issues facing Canadian corrections. Paper presented at the Biennial Congress of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
30.
Mortimer, E. , & May, C. (1997). Electronic monitoring in practice: The second year of the trials of curfew studies. London: Research and Statistics Directorate, Home Office.
31.
Motiuk, M. S. , Motiuk, L. L., & Bonta, J. (1992). A comparison between self-report and interview-based inventories in offender classification. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 143-159.
32.
Newman, G. (1995). Just and painful: A case for corporal punishment of criminals (2nd ed.). New York: Harrow and Heston.
33.
O'Donnell, C. R. , Lydgate, T., & Fo, W.S.O. (1971). The buddy system: Review and follow-up. Child Behavior Therapy, 1, 161-169.
34.
Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson revisited. Crime and Delinquency, 12, 133-152.
35.
Petersilia, J. , & Turner, S. (1991). An evaluation of intensive probation and parole in California. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 610-658.
36.
Quinsey, V. L. , Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
37.
Robinson, D. , & Porporino, F. J. (1989). Validation of an adult offender classification system for Newfoundland and Labrador (Research Rep. No. R-04). Ottawa, Canada: Correctional Service of Canada.
38.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
39.
Schiraldi, V. , & Soler, M. (1998). The will of the people? The public's opinion of the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of 1997. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 590-601.
40.
Somander, L. (1996). The second year of intensive supervision with electronic monitoring: Results for the period 1 August-28 February 1996. Norrköping, Sweden: National Prison and Probation Administration.
41.
Sprott, J. B. (1998). Understanding public opposition to a separate youth justice system. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 399-411.
42.
Stolzenberg, L. , & D'Alessio, S. J. (1997). “Three strikes and you're out”: The impact of California's new mandatory sentencing law on serious crime rates. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 457-469.
43.
Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
