.. m... ....
wnmr

.
)

... (3. . .. . . .. 21.. , w...§fi...flmr:,?_...3 .. hm.»

. ... 1.. .
€45... ....

 

; aha... ... £9. ......ré. 3...... . ....p .._ ... ... . . . . .12.. . ..

3- -...

 

 

““5 "“I LIBRARY
1007 Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

EXPLAINING RECIDIVSM: THE IMPACT OF PROGRAM
INTEGRITY ON THE SUCCESS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE
OFFENDERS

presented by
Paul Elam Jr.

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Family and Child Ecology

WMé

 

Ma'or Professor’ SiZnature
MK, 1100/

Date

MSU is an affinnative—actjon, equal-opportunity employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K.IProjIAcc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

 

EXPLAINING RECIDIVSM: THE IMPACT OF PROGRAM INTEGRITY ON THE
SUCCESS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE OFF ENDERS

By

Paul Elam Jr.

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Family and Child Ecology

2008

ABSTRACT

EXPLAININ G RECIDIVSM: THE IMPACT OF PROGRAM INTEGRITY ON THE
SUCCESS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE OFFENDERS

By

Paul Elam Jr.
For many years, there has been much concern and inquiry on the subject of the impact of
community based correctional interventions and programs in reducing criminal behavior
and recidivism. Investigative studies conducted in the 19703 shed disbelief on the
effectiveness of community based correctional programs in reducing recidivism. Not
long after the publication of such research reviews, much research was conducted
indicating that some programs work with some offenders. Studies in this area have
advanced and quickly identified cognitive behavioral and other behaviorally based
programs as the most effective in reducing criminal behavior. Another significant area of
research on community-based correctional interventions has also evolved. This cutting
edge focus of study, coined program integrity, seeks to identify the characteristics of
programs, above and beyond type of treatment provided, that are related to a program’s
effectiveness in reducing recidivism. This study analyzed data from a prisoner re-entry
community-based correctional intervention program in the State of Michigan to
determine whether program characteristics relate to effectiveness. African American
male offenders who successfully complete effective community based treatment
programming were compared with offenders under parole/post release control who were
not placed in community based treatment programming. Research findings indicate no
significant relationship between correctional program integrity and treatment

effectiveness for African-American male parolees.

This research is dedicated to the late Herman Daniels Jr. who dropped me off on the
campus of Michigan State University as a freshman in 1991. Little did I know that I
would receive a Ph.D. 17 years later.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the Michigan Department of Corrections for making data available
to me to complete this research. Specifically I would like to thank Deputy Director
Dennis Schrantz and his research staff Steve Debor, Tom Korkoski and Ken Dimoff for
taking time to provide me with access to the Offender Management Information System
(OMNI), training me on utilization of the system and running queries to obtain additional
data. I would also like to thank my committee Dr. Griffore, Dr. Lang, Dr. Phenice and
Dr. Villarruel for sticking with me over the last two years and helping me overcome
several obstacles to complete my degree. I would not have completed this process
without your support. I would like to give special thanks to my committee Chair Dr. Carl
Taylor for taking me under his wing as a graduate student and consistently taking time to
educate my inside and outside of the classroom. In addition, I would like to thank Dr.
Julia Miller and the Department of Family and Child Ecology for selecting me to receive
a 4 year Economic Opportunity Fellowship. I would also like to thank the Department of
Family and Child Ecology for selecting me to receive a Dissertation Completion award to
finalize my research this summer. Without the financial support of the Department I
would not have been able to secure the resources required to complete my degree. Pastor
Trice, thanks for keeping me in your prayers and encouraging me. Mom, thank you for
telling me as a young boy that I would go to college and receive a degree. Your vision
and encouragement gave me the drive to see the process through when things got tough.
And finally, I want to thank my wife Kendra and kids Taylor, David, Kaleb and Lundyn
for supporting me. Honey I love you and thank you for your ongoing patience over the

years. Kids, this is our degree! David you will be the next professor in the family.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................... l
Correctional Population Growth Trends .......................................................................... 1
Minority Over-representation .......................................................................................... 3
Promising Community-Based Approaches ...................................................................... 5
Research Question ........................................................................................................... 7
Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................... 10
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 10
Characteristics and Risk Factors for Crime ................................................................... 12
Personal and Social Factors Associated with Crime ..................................................... 13
Gender and Crime ...................................................................................................... 14
Race and Crime .......................................................................................................... 15
Class and Crime ......................................................................................................... 17
Age and Crime ........................................................................................................... 19
Crime and the Individual Domain ................................................................................. 19
Classical/Rational Choice Theories ........................................................................... 20
Routine Activities Theory............ .............................................................................. 20
Trait Theories ............................................................................................................. 21
Criminal Atavism Theory .......................................................................................... 21
Biosocial Theory ........................................................................................................ 22
Psychological Theory ................................................................................................ 23
Behavioral Theory ..................................................................................................... 25
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 26
Crime and the Community Domain ............................................................................... 27
Social Structural Theories .......................................................................................... 27
Social Process Theories ............................................................................................. 3O
Explaining Crime Among African-American Males ..................................................... 31
Alternative Theoretical Perspectives ......................................................................... 34
Alternative Perspectives on African-American Male Crime ..................................... 34
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 41
Community-Based Treatment and Successful Interventions ......................................... 42
An Overview of Treatment and Community-Based Interventions ................................ 43
The Theory of Correctional Rehabilitation......................... ........................................... 46
The Human Service Principle .................................................................................... 47
Summary of the Human Service Principle ................................................................ 49
The Risk Principle ......................................................................................... 50
Summary of the Risk Principle .................................................................................. 54
The Need Principle .................................................................................................... 55

Summary of the Need Principle ................................................................................. 58

The Responsivity Principle ........................................................................................ 58
Summary of the Responsivity Principle .................................................................... 60
Other Factors ............................................................................................................. 61
Summary of Principles of Effective Intervention .......................................................... 65
Measuring Program Quality .......................................................................................... 65
Previous Research Using the CPAI ............................................................................... 67
Summary and Conclusion .............................................................................................. 69
CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................... 72
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 72
Research Question ......................................................................................................... 74
Methods ......................................................................................................................... 74
Sample ........................................................................................................................... 75
The MPRI as the Experiment ........................................................................................ 76
Phase One-Getting Ready .......................................................................................... 79
Phase Two-Going Home ............................................................................................ 79
Phase Three-Staying Home ....................................................................................... 80
Measures ........................................................................................................................ 81
Individual Level Measures ............................................................................................ 81
Composite Risk Measure ........................................................................................... 82
Demographic Characteristics ..................................................................................... 82
Recidivism ................................................................................................................. 82
Program-level Measures ................................................................................................ 82
Program Integrity Data .............................................................................................. 83
Dependent Variable ....................................................................................................... 86
Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 86
Individual Level Data Collection ............................................................................... 86
Program Integrity Data Collection ............................................................................. 87
Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 87
Summary and Conclusion .............................................................................................. 88
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................. 89
Results ............................................................................................................................ 89
Program Quality Measures ............................................................................................ 89
Program Implementation ........................................................................................... 89
Client Pre-Service Assessment .................................................................................. 90
Program Characteristics ............................................................................................. 91
Staff Characteristics ................................................................................................... 92
Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 92
Miscellaneous Characteristics ................................................................................... 93
Treatment Effectiveness ................................................................................................ 94
Treatment Effectiveness over Time ............................................................................... 95
Summary and Conclusion .............................................................................................. 98

vi

CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................. 100

Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 100
Major Findings ............................................................................................................. 101
Treatment Effects ..................................................................................................... 101
Program Integrity ..................................................................................................... 102
Research Findings within the Context of Previous Research ...................................... 103
Limitations of Current Research .................................................................................. 103
Implications for Correctional Policy ........................................................................... 105
Recommendations for Future Research ....................................................................... 107
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................... 110
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 1 16

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Ecological Risk Factors for Persistent Crime .................................... 13
Table 3-1. Number of Participants by Group Membership ................................ 77
Table 3-2. Descriptive Statistics for MPRI Reentry Site by Group Membership ...... 77
Table 4-1. Program Quality and Treatment Effectiveness for Parolees .................. 95
Table 4-2. Program Quality and Treatment Effectiveness over Time for Parolees. 96

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Michigan Prison Population Trend .............................................. 78

ix

CHAPTER ONE

INCARCERATION TRENDS AND COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONAL
INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

Introduction

This study is designed to contribute to the expanding body of literature on
effective community-based correctional intervention programs for African-American
males by administering a research methodology on a general parole/postrelease
population. The analyses in this study focus on identifying the characteristics of effective
community-based treatment programs for Afiican-American male prisoners returning
from prison to the community. As part of a larger project, a selected prisoner re-entry
program site in Michigan was evaluated on two dimensions: program integrity and
outcome. This dissertation aims to answer the question: Is there a relationship between
program integrity and program effectiveness for Afi'ican-American male parolees? In
this particular study, program effectiveness will be defined by the actual reduction in
recidivism observed between the treatment group identified in the re-entry program and a
matched comparison group. The integrity of the re-entry program was measured by
assessing the fidelity of the implementation process through interviews with program
directors and program staff, as well as by reviewing program materials.

Correctional Population Growth Trends

For the first time ever, more than one in every 100 adults in America is now
incarcerated in a jail or prison (Pew Center on the States, 2008). A recent report released
by the United States Department of Justice indicates that at the end of calendar year 2005

the correctional population reached a new high in this country at just over seven million

prisoners under correctional control (United States Department of Justice, 2006). This
figure is up from approximately 6.5 million at the end of calendar year 2000. While this
announcement represents only a 1 percent increase from the previous year, the gain in
2005 capped a 32 percent increase in the correctional population over the past decade.
More specifically, the prison population experienced considerable growth during this
time period (34 percent) along with the probation and parole populations, which grew by
35 percent and 15 percent, respectively (US. Department of Justice, 2006).

The constant growth in the number of individuals under community supervision,
added to reductions in resources available for community supervision agencies, creates
great concern, particularly with respect to ensuring public safety in neighborhoods and
communities. As one example, recent research on probation samples indicates recidivism
rates as high as 65 percent (Petersilia, 1985). While other research studies indicate much
lower recidivism rates of offenders (McGaha, F itcher, and Hirschburg, 1987; Vito, 1986),
a national sample from 1986 indicates that within three years of release from
incarceration, 62 percent of the sample had a disciplinary hearing for a violation of
probation or were rearrested for another felony (United States Department of Justice,
1992). In addition, 46 percent of the sample had been sentenced to prison or jail or had
absconded from supervision within that same three-year period (United States
Department of Justice, 1992).

Additional data pertaining to probation and parole populations show that
offenders under community supervision are still criminally active and choose to continue
to engage in criminal behaviors while under correctional supervision (Cohen, 1995).

Between 1975 and 1991 the number of individuals entering state prison systems as a

result of violations of community supervision increased from 18,000 to 142,000. In
1991, probation and parole violators represented 45 percent of the prison population. A
great majority (77 percent) of these community-supervision violators in prison were
sentenced to prison on a new felony conviction (Cohen, 1995).

Parole and probation violators in prison during 1991 equated to approximately
318,000 prisoners. Based on the new offense that led to incarceration, these 318,000
individuals committed approximately 13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, 19,200 assaults, and
39,500 robberies while under supervision in the community (Cohen, 1995). While felony
parolees and probationers are not permitted to carry firearms, 21 percent of the
community-supervision violators in prison due to committing a new offense while under
supervision reported possessing a firearm while under community control. A great
majority of these prisoners (21 percent) were armed when committing their new offense
(Cohen, 1995). Several additional crimes committed by individuals under community
supervision such as absconding, substance abuse, failure to pay fines and/or the failure to
meet other conditions of supervision are identified when reviewing data on parolees and
probationers (Bonzcar, 1997; Cohen, 1995; United States Department of Justice, 1992).
Data like these raise the question of the ability of community supervision to effect
meaningful behavioral change among parolees in a direction favorable to public safety.

Minority Over-representation

When analyzing incarceration rates by demographics it becomes very clear that
African-Americans are highly represented. The incarceration numbers are even more
profound for African-American males; 1 in 15 African-American men ages 18 or older

are incarcerated compared to 1 in 106 White men ages 18 or older (Pew Center on the

States, 2008). At the end of calendar year 2005, African-American inmates represented
an estimated 40 percent of all inmates with a sentence of more than one year, while
White and Hispanic inmates accounted for 35 percent and 20 percent, respectively
(United States Department of Justice, 2006). While African-American inmates represent
approximately 40 percent of all inmates, they only represent 11 percent of the total
United States male population aged 20 and over. White and Hispanic inmates represent
78 percent and 11 percent, respectively, of the total United States male population aged
20 and over (United States Census Bureau, 2001). These data indicate that minority
males — specifically African-American males — are truly overrepresented in the United
States correctional population.

Although the total number of sentenced inmates rose sharply — up 35 percent
between 1995 and 2005 — there were small changes in the racial and Hispanic
composition of the inmate population (United States Department of Justice, 2006). At
the end of calendar year 2005, African-American males (547,200) outnumbered White
males (459,700) and Hispanic males (279,000) among inmates with a sentence of more
than one year (United States Department of Justice, 2006).

When incarceration rates are estimated separately by age group, African-
American males in their twenties and thirties are found to have higher rates than other
groups (United States Department of Justice, 2006). Expressed in terms of percentages, 8
percent of African-American males aged 25 to 29 were in prison at the end of calendar
year 2005, compared to 3 percent of Hispanic males and about 1 percent of White males

in the same age group (United States Department of Justice, 2006).

Although incarceration rates drop with age, the percentage of African-American
males aged 45 to 54 in prison at the end of calendar year 2005 was 3 percent — a rate
higher than the highest rate among Hispanic males (3 percent for those aged 25 to 29),
and more than twice the highest rate among White males — which was 1 percent for
those aged 30 to 34 (United States Department of Justice, 2006).

Promising Community-Based Approaches

Is there anything that can be changed to improve the effectiveness of community-
based treatment programs for returning African-American male prisoners? Overall,
studies on intensive supervision programs and other supervision enhancements based on
custody and control have failed to indicate real promise in reducing the recidivism rates
of individuals supervised in the community (Cullen, Wright and Applegate, 1996;
Petersilia and Turner, 1993). With that said, one research study offers a promising
method of reducing the recidivism of individuals under community supervision. The
answer lies in the provision of “clinically relevant” community-based treatment
interventions (Andrews et al., 1990). While this research offers some insight into a
promising approach, there is considerable variation in the effectiveness of community-
based correctional treatment interventions. Cullen (2002) argues that to achieve program
effectiveness, a community-based treatment program must possess certain correctional
characteristics.

Cullen (2002) reviews a Theory of Correctional Rehabilitation that predicts which
correctional programs will be effective in reducing recidivism among parolees and which
programs will likely fail in reducing recidivism. Canadian scholars have developed the

basis for this theory, which in turn provides specific characteristics for successful

community-based correctional treatment programs (Gendreau and Andrews, 1996).
Researchers can determine if programs have incorporated correctional principles
associated with this theory by administering a Correctional Program Checklist similar to
a tool called the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory, or CPAI (Gendreau and
Andrews, 1996). While the CPAI has been administered to several correctional
programs, a review of the literature found no empirical research on the relationship
between the fidelity assessment yielded by the CPAI and community-based program
effectiveness for African-American males. This void in racial demographic research was
confirmed during verbal conversations with the developers of this Correctional Program
Checklist and other research staff employed by the Michigan and Ohio Departments of
Corrections.

In light of these findings, the current study proposes to investigate the relationship
between measures collected through a Correctional Program Checklist and program
outcomes and effectiveness among Afiican-American male parolees (see Appendix).
Determining an empirical association between program integrity and effectiveness in
reducing recidivism has substantial implications for developing successful community-
based correctional interventions and reducing recidivism rates among parolees, especially
African-American males who are overrepresented in US. prisons. Supportive results
could confirm and/or further define the correctional principles required for effective
community-based treatment interventions postulated by Gendreau and Andrews (1996).
Findings could also assist community-based correctional treatment programs in becoming
more effective for African-American males —- currently the largest group represented in

both the United States and State of Michigan correctional populations.

Research Question

While the main goal of this study is to determine if a high quality community-
based correctional treatment program reduces overall recidivism rates for African-
American male parolees, the following specific research question will be answered: Is
there a relationship between program integrity and program effectiveness for African-
American male parolees?

Summary and Conclusion

The number of prisoners that are released to the community to be supervised has
grown substantially over the last 25 years due to the increasing number of individuals
being incarcerated (United States Department of Justice, 2006). Recent research on
parolees in the community indicates that they continue to engage in criminal activity
(Cohen, 1995). Decreases in appropriations for incarceration and community-supervision
agencies have created a gap in the correctional system’s capacity to supervise, intervene
with and treat parolees (United States Department of Justice, 2006). Opportunities to
deal with this situation may be offered through the use of community-based correctional
treatment programs that may help supplement services provided by a prison or other
supervision agencies (Johnson-Listwan, Cullen and Latessa, 2006; Latessa and
Lowenkamp, 2006).

Studies show that community-based correctional treatment programs vary in their
ability to decrease future criminal behavior (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2005). There is a
Theory of Correctional Rehabilitation that may prove promising in providing direction
regarding the characteristics that community-based correctional programs need in order

to be effective for reducing recidivism among parolees, particularly African-American

male parolees (Cullen, 2002). Previous studies have operationalized this theory for the
general inmate population by creating an objective and standard measure of correctional
program quality. Operationalized, this measure quantifies how closely a particular
correctional treatment program adheres to the underlying Theory of Correctional
Rehabilitation (Cullen, 2002). The current research proposes to investigate the
relationship between measures based on a Correctional Program Checklist and
community-based program effectiveness for reducing recidivism among Afiican-
American male parolees.

Chapter two of this study begins with an introduction to ecological crime theory,
then expounds on specific African-American crime explanations and further introduces
the literature on program effectiveness. Additional literature is presented that reviews
existing meta-analyses to determine what principles or characteristics of correctional
programming are associated with the more effective programs. In closing, the chapter
discusses the evolution of evaluation studies in the field of community corrections and
how this research has lead to assessing the relationship between program integrity and
effectiveness for parolees.

Chapter three describes in detail the research methods used to conduct this study.
The parolee population for this research comes from a county-wide prisoner re-entry site
in the State of Michigan. The nature of this research required the development of
program-level measures of effectiveness. The procedure and data used for this process
will also be discussed in detail in Chapter three.

Chapter four presents the results of the analyses conducted and chapter five

provides a summary of the results, limitations of the study, implications for correctional

policy and implications for future research on correctional interventions for African-

American male parolees.

CHAPTER TWO

ECOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF CRIME AND COMMUNITY BASED
INTERVENTIONS

Introduction

More than 2 million individuals are arrested each year for crimes ranging in
seriousness from loitering to murder (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004). What is the
cause of the initial onset of crime? There are several theories that attempt to describe the
underlying causes of criminal behaviors. The latest generation of criminals have been
described as cynical and preoccupied with material acquisitions (Davis, 1999). Each year
viewers may see up to 1,000 rapes, murders, and assaults on TV (Davis, 1999). When
analyzing child well-being, minority children often face more problems than more well-
off Caucasian youth (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004). For example, more Afi'ican-
American and Hispanic children, 53 and 30 percent respectively, are living with only one
parent than white children (20%).

Because of family problems like this, more children are being polarized into two
distinct economic groups: those in affluent, two-eamer, married-couple households and
those in poor, single-parent households (Eggebeen & Lichter, 1991). In addition, many
children live in substandard housing which can have a negative influence on their long-
term psychological health (Evans, Wells, & Moch, 2003).

Individuals and families living in deteriorated urban areas are prevented from
having productive and happy lives. Many die from random bullets and drive-by
shootings (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2005). Some are

homeless and living on the street, where they are at risk of drug addiction and sexually

10

transmitted diseases (STDs), including AIDS (Federal Interagency Forum on Child and
Family Statistics, 2005). Today about one-third of US. households with children have
one or more of the following three housing problems: physically inadequate housing,
crowded housing, or housing that costs more than 30 percent of the household income
(Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2005).

Given the diversity and gravity of crime and other social problems, there is an
urgent need for strategies to combat such complex social phenomena. Formulating these
strategies requires a clear understanding of the causes of crime. Is crime a sole function
of the individual, family, school, community or peer group or is it a phenomenon that
must be explained through more holistic and ecological lenses?

Problems in the home, the school, and the neighborhood, coupled with health and
developmental hazards, have placed a significant portion of American households “at
risk.” Communities considered at risk are those exposed to various forms of dangerous
conduct such as drug abuse, alcohol use, sex, and other illegal behavior. Many adults are
living in families that, because of economic, health, or social problems, are unable to
provide adequate care and discipline (Children's Defense Fund, 2004a). Though it is
impossible to determine precisely the number of at-risk youth, the Children’s Defense
Fund, a Washington, DC. — based advocacy group reports that:

I An estimated three million children are reported to state child protective service
agencies each year.

I An estimated 40 percent to 80 percent of the families whose kids-become child
protective service cases have problems with alcohol or drugs.

I More than a half million kids are now in foster care, a 35 percent increase since 1990.

11

I More than 5 million children live in households headed by a relative other than a
parent; 39 percent of these children — 2.13 million — live in these households with no
parent.

I These data indicate that millions of youth are at risk for social problems including
crime and delinquency (Children's Defense Fund, 2004b).

Characteristics and Risk Factors for Crime

Individuals who have been exposed to a variety of personal and social problems
are the most at risk for engaging in ongoing crime. One study of crime found that
specific personal factors could predict chronic offending and that those individuals who
experienced these problems in the home and at school were at risk for repeat offending
(Schumacher & Kurz, 2000). In addition to gender, race, class and age, Schumacher and
Kurz identify four domains of characteristics that predict chronic offending: school
behavior/performance, family problems, substance abuse and delinquency. Additional
research has found that early involvement in criminal activity, coupled with low
intellectual development and parental drug involvement are also key predictors for
chronic criminal behavior (Jones, Harris, Fader, & Grubstein, 2001).

The risk factor literature typically categorizes risk factors for crime into five
ecological domains: individual, family, peer, school, and community (Wasserrnan &
United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2003). Human
ecology scholars have noted the promise in studying individuals in their environment
from a comprehensive, holistic approach (Griffore & Phenice, 2001). Studying crime
from an ecological approach will provide a vast view of the interconnectedness and
patterns of criminals and their environments. The ecological risk factors that are highly
associated with persistent crime are listed below in Table 1. While not exhaustive, this

chapter summarizes many of the major theories grounded in the individual and

12

Table 2-1. Ecological Risk Factors for Persistent Crime

 

Individual Factors - Early antisocial behavior - Low intelligence
- Emotional factors - Hyperactivity

- Poor cognitive development

 

 

 

Family Factors - Parenting - Parental psychopathology
- Maltreatment - Familial antisocial behaviors
- Family violence - Teenage parenting
- Divorce - Large family size

Peer Factors - Association with deviant mers - Peer rejection

School Factors - Failure to bond in school - Low academic aspirations

- Poor academic performance

 

Community Factors - Living in a poor neighborhood - Access to weapons
- Neighborhood disadvantage - Concentration of criminals

- Disorganized neighborhoods

 

community domains. These two domains are being targeted because current correctional
policy and program efforts are largely aimed at changing offender behavior and linking
returning parolees to community resources.
Personal and Social Factors Associated with Crime

An important aspect of research on crime is measurement of the personal traits
and social characteristics associated with misbehavior. If, for example, a strong
association exists between criminal behavior and family income, then poverty and
economic deprivation must be considered in explanations of the onset of criminality. If
the crime-income association is not present, other factors may be responsible for
producing antisocial behavior (Siegel, Welsh, & Senna, 2006).

It would not be worthwhile to concentrate crime control efforts in areas such as
job creation and vocational training if social status were found to be unrelated to criminal

behavior. Similarly, if only a few criminals are responsible for most serious crimes,

13

crime control policies and programs might be made more effective by targeting and
treating these offenders (Siegel et al., 2006).
Gender and Crime

Males are significantly more criminal than females. The teenage gender ratio for
serious violent crime is approximately 4 to l, and for property crime approximately 2 to
1, male to female (Snyder, 2005). One relationship reverses this general pattern: girls are
more likely than boys to be arrested as runaways (Snyder, 2005). Two possible
explanations for this relationship could be that girls are more likely than boys to run away
from home or police view female runaways as a more serious problem due to
paternalistic attitudes toward girls.

In recent years, arrests of females have been increasing faster than those for
males. Between 1994 and 2004, the number of arrests of males decreased about 22
percent, whereas the number of females arrested increased about 12 percent (Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 2004). The change in serious violent crime arrests is even more
striking: males decreased 33 percent, whereas females’ violent-crime arrests remained
stable during this period (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004).

Females that live in large urban communities may be even more at-risk for
engaging in criminal behaviors when compared to their suburban or rural counterparts.
Self-reported research studies conducted in a large Midwest urban city indicated that
females carried weapons, engaged in violent fights, were members of gangs and were
being placed in residential facilities (Taylor, 1993). Taylor and colleagues argue further

that violence and crime committed by urban females may be the manifestation of

14

society’s reluctance to acknowledge and accept them (Taylor, Smith, McNeil, & Taylor,
2006).

Research studies conducting self-reported data also show that the prevalence of
female crime is much higher than believed and that the most common crimes committed
by males are also the ones most female offenders commit (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis,
1981). In a recent self-reported survey study, about 31 percent of boys and 23 percent of
girls admitted to shoplifting, 14 percent of boys and 5 percent of girls said they stole
something worth more than $50, and 19 percent of boys and 5 percent of girls said they
hurt someone badly enough that they required medical care (Institute for Social Research,
2004). Although self-report studies indicate that the content of girls’ crime is similar to
boys’, adolescents who report engaging frequently in serious violent crime are still
predominately male (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004).

Race and Crime

In the United States, there are approximately 40 million white and 9 million
African-Americans aged 5 to 17, a ratio of about 4.5 to 1 (US. Census Bureau, 2000).
While this is true, racial minorities are disproportionately represented in federal arrest
statistics (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004). African-Americans are arrested for a
disproportionate number of murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults, whereas whites are
arrested for a disproportionate number of arsons (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004).

Official statistics show that minorities are much more likely that whites to be
arrested for serious criminal behavior (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004). To many

criminologists, this pattern reflects discrimination in the criminal justice system. In other

15

words, African-Americans are more likely to be formally arrested by the police, in
contrast to informal treatment towards whites.

On the contrary, researchers have found that the relationship between race and
self-reported crime is virtually nonexistent (Akers, 1981). This suggests that the official
crime data may reflect that Afiican-Americans have a greater chance of being arrested
and officially processed (Dannefer & Schutt, 1982; Huizinga & Elliott, 1987). Self-
report studies also suggest that the criminal behavior rates of African-American and
white teenagers are generally similar and that differences in arrest statistics may indicate
discrimination by police (Tracy, 1987). However, some experts warn that Afiican-
Americans may underreport more serious crimes, limiting the ability of self-reports to be
a valid indicator of racial differences in the crime rate (Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 2004).

Although evidence of gender and racial bias exists in the justice system, it is also
possible that males and African-Americans are arrested at a disproportionately high rate
because they are simply committing more crime. According to this view of crime,
differentials in the crime rate may be tied to other exogenous factors related to social
and/or economic disparities (Siegel et al., 2006).

African-Americans have suffered through a long history of discrimination, which
has produced lasting emotional scars. Some argue that the burden of social and economic
marginalization has weakened the African-American family structure (Phillips, 1997).
For example, low employment rates among minority males place a strain on marriages.
When families are weakened or disrupted, their ability to act as agents of social control is
compromised. Divorce and separation rates are significantly associated with crime and

violence rates in the African-American community (Phillips, 1997). Even during times

16

of economic growth, lower-class African-Americans are left out of the economic
mainstream, a fact that is met with a growing sense of frustration and failure (Thomas,
1993). As a result of being shut out of educational and economic opportunities
experienced by the rest of society, minorities may be exposed to the lure of illegitimate
gain and criminality (Siegel et al., 2006).

Racial differentials in the crime rate may also be tied to frustrations over
perceived racism, discrimination, and economic disparity. Such frustration my also be
magnified by consistent exposure to violence. Afiican-Americans who live in poor areas
with high crime rates may be disproportionately violent because they are exposed to more
violence in their daily lives than other racial and economic groups. Research has shown
that that such exposure is a significant risk factor for violent behavior (Paschall,

F lewelling, & Ennett, 1998).

While this is true, African-Americans growing up in communities categorized by
poverty, high unemployment and single-parent households, but living in stable families
with reasonable income and educational achievement are less likely to engage in violent
behavior (McNulty & Bellair, 2003). Consequently, some argue that racial differences in
crime rates could be reduced if the social and economic characteristics of racial
minorities were improved to the current level of whites (Phillips, 2002).

Class and Crime

Defining the relationship between economic status and criminal behavior is also a

key element in the study of crime. If crime is purely a lower-class phenomenon, its cause

must be rooted in the social factors that are found solely in lower-class areas: poverty,

17

unemployment, social disorganization, culture conflict, and alienation (Fagan, Piper, &
Moore, 1986).

At first glance, the relationship between class and crime seems clear. Individuals
who lack wealth or social standing are the most likely to use criminal means to achieve
their goals (Siegel et al., 2006). Communities that lack economic and social
opportunities produce high levels of frustration. Individuals who live in these areas
believe that they cannot compete socially or economically with others who live in more
affluent areas (Siegel et al., 2006). They may turn to criminal behavior for monetary gain
and psychological satisfaction (Agnew, 1999).

In recent years, a new paradigm has emerged and scholars are now arguing that
the class-crime theory is not limited to the lower-class as a result of the evolution of Hip-
Hop (Taylor & Taylor, 2004). Hip-Hop is “a way of life, a culture that is intricately
woven into every aspect of individual’s daily lives” (Taylor & Taylor, 2004). Hip-Hop
has emerged and is providing a communication medium for urban, suburban and rural
adolescents that transcend all levels of social class. Today’s adolescents are defining
themselves through this new culture, which has also fostered a new phenomenon of
suburban and rural crime and violence that dispels many of the traditional beliefs that
being white and rich in America leads to the American dream (Taylor & Taylor, 2004).

In addition, the social class-crime relationship has been challenged by pioneering
self-report studies, specifically those that revealed no direct relationship between social
class and the commission of criminal acts (Short & Nye, 1958). Both poor and rich
individuals have been found to get into fights, shoplift, and take drugs, but lower—class

citizens are likely to be arrested and sent to court for these actions (Dunaway, Francis,

18

Velmer, & Evans, 2000). Many affluent individuals from “functional” families choose to
break the law, whereas most individuals who live in impoverished conditions remain law
abiding citizens (Siegel et al., 2006).
Age and Crime

Age is inversely related to criminality: As younger offenders mature, their
offending rates tend to decline (F arrington, 1986). Official statistics indicate that youth
are arrested at a disproportionate rate (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004). These
data are also supported by victim surveys (O'Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1988).
Youth 17 and under make up about 10 percent of the total US. population, but they
account for 27 percent of the index crime arrests and 17 percent of the arrests for all
crimes (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2004). In contrast, adults 50 and older, who
make up 32 percent of the population, account for about 10 percent of arrests (Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 2004). Self-report studies also indicate that rates for crimes such
as assault, robbery, and trespassing decline substantially between the ages of 17 and 23
(O'Malley et al., 1988; Steffensmeier, Allan, Harer, & Streifel, 1989).

Crime and the Individual Domain

To some theorists, the locus of crime is rooted in the individual. Research studies
that target the individual domain focus on how individuals make decisions, the quality of
biological makeup, and personality and psychological profiles (Siegel et al., 2006).
While this is true, there is more than one ecological explanation for why individuals

engage in crime.

19

Classical/Rational Choice Theories

The first formal explanations of crime held that human behavior was a matter of
choice. Philosophers Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham argued that people weigh the
benefits and consequences of their future actions before deciding on a course of behavior
(Bentham, Burns, & Hart, 1988). Their writings formed the core of what is referred to
today as classical criminology.

Classical theory argues that before individuals decide to commit crime, they
compare the possible benefits or profits with the potential costs or penalties of their
actions. Based on this view, the assumption is that most criminals would cease their
actions if the pain associated with crime is outweighed by gain (Van den Haag, 1975).
The theory further argues that punishment should be only severe enough to deter a
particular offense (Beccaria, Bellamy, Davies, & Cox, 1995).

One position, referred to as choice theory, suggests that individuals choose to
engage in antisocial activity because they believe their actions will be beneficial and
profitable (Siegel et al., 2006). According to this theory, criminal acts are motivated by
the belief that crime can be a relatively risk-free way to better their situation.

Routine Activities Theory

One example of a rationale choice theory is routine activities theory. Lawrence
Cohen and Marcus F elson argue that the volume and distribution of crime are influenced
by the interaction of three variables that reflect the routine activities in everyday life: the
lack of capable guardians, the availability of suitable crime targets, and the presence of
motivated offenders (L. E. Cohen & Felson, 1979). If each of these variables are present,

there is a greater likelihood that crime will take place.

20

Trait Theories

While rationale choice theory may explain some acts of crime, all crimes cannot
be traced to choice theory. Some violent acts of crime appear to be irrational, selfish or
not well thought out. In addition, many forms of crime, such as substance abuse and
vandalism, seem to be more impulsive. These acts of crime may be better explained by
biochemical imbalances or genetic defects. These explanations of crime are referred to as
trait theories because they link crime to biological or psychological traits that control
human development (Siegel et al., 2006).

Criminal Atavism Theory

The first attempts to discover why criminal tendencies develop focused on the
physical makeup of offenders. Biological traits present at birth were thought to
predetermine whether people would live a life of crime (Martin, Mutchnick, & Austin,
1990). Cesare Lombroso is generally credited for developing this school of thought
known as the theory of criminal atavism (Martin et al., 1990).

This theory argues that criminals manifest physical anomalies that make them
biologically and physiologically similar to primates. Criminals with certain physical
characteristics were seen as “savage throwbacks” to an earlier stage of human evolution.
The research focused on physical traits such as jaw size, nose shape, and rows of teeth
(Martin et al., 1990).

This early theory portrayed criminal behavior as a function of a single factor or
trait, such as body build or defective intelligence. Eventually, these views evoked

criticism for their unsound methodology and lack of scientific controls. By the middle of

21

the twentieth century, biological theories had fallen out of favor as an explanation of
crime (Siegel et al., 2006).
Biosocial Theory

Biosocial theory argues that crime is produced by the interaction between
predispositions and environmental factors (Fishbein, 1990). There is a suspected
relationship between antisocial behavior and biochemical makeup. One view is that body
chemistry can govern behavior and personality, including levels of aggression and
depression (Raine, 1993). When criminologists Paul Stretesky and Michael Lynch
examined lead concentrations in air across counties in the United States, they found that
areas with the highest concentrations of lead also reported the highest level of homicide
(Stretesky & Lynch, 2001).

Another focus of biosocial theory is the neurological structure of offenders.
Studies measure indicators of system functioning, such as brain waves, heart rate, arousal
levels, attention span, cognitive ability and spatial learning, and then compare them to
measures of antisocial behavior (Siegel et al., 2006). One View is that the neuroendocrine
system, which controls brain chemistry, is the key to understanding violence and
aggression (Siegel et al., 2006). Another view is that neurological dysfunction is a key
factor in causing aggression and violence. Individuals who manifest behavior
disturbances may have identifiable neurological deficits, such as damage to the
hemispheres of the brain (V oeller, 1986). Research also indicates that children exhibiting
neurological impairment also have an increased risk for a variety of developmental
problems, such as low IQ scores and cognitive impairment which have been associated

with crime (Beckwith & Parmelee, 1986).

22

Biosocial theory also focuses on the genetic makeup of criminals. This theory
argues that individuals inherit a genetic configuration that predisposes them to violence
and aggression (DiLalla & Gottesman, 1991). The same way that individuals inherit
genes for height and eye color, antisocial behavior characteristics and mental disorders
may be passed down from one generation to the next. To test these assumptions, genetic
research has focused on parent-child and sibling behavior (West & F arrington, 1977).
Psychological Theory

Some scholars view the cause of crime as essentially psychological. Sigmund
Freud’s psychodynamic theory argues that crime is a product of an abnormal personality
structure formed early in life, which thereafter controls human behavior choices (Freud &
Strachey, 1949). The theory poses that the human personality contains three major
components: the id, the ego, and the superego.

The id is the unrestrained, primitive, pleasure-seeking component with which all
individuals are born. The ego develops through the reality of living in the world and
helps manage and restrain the id’s need for immediate gratification. The superego
develops through interactions with parents and other significant people and represents the
development of conscience and the moral rules shared by most adults (Freud & Strachey,
1949). The theory further states that unconscious motivations for behavior come from
the id’s action in response to two primal needs — sex and aggression.

All three segments of the personality operate simultaneously. The id dictates
needs and desires, the superego counteracts the id by fostering feelings of morality and
righteousness, and the ego evaluates the reality of a position between these two extremes

(Freud & Strachey, 1949). If these components are properly balanced, the individual can

23

lead a normal life. If one aspect of the personality becomes dominant at the expense of
the others, the individual exhibits abnormal personality traits.

According to Freud, people who experience feelings of anxiety and are afraid that
they are losing control of their personalities are said to be neurotics and people who have
lost total control and who are dominated by their primitive id are know as psychotics
(Freud & Strachey, 1949). Psychoanalytic studies have shown that the most serious types
of antisocial behavior, such as murder, may be motivated by psychosis and neurotic
feelings may be responsible for less serious criminal acts and status offenses (Halleck,
1967)

Erik Erikson expanded on the work of Freud and explains the onset of antisocial
behavior by speculating that many individuals experience life crisis and feel emotional,
impulsive, and uncertain of their role and purpose (Erikson, 1968). He associated
criminal behaviors committed by adolescents with a period of “identity crisis.” Erikson
argued that youthful offending represents expressions of confusion of their place in
society, their inability to direct behavior toward useful outlets, and their dependency on
others to offer them solutions to their problems (Erikson, 1968).

Still other psychologists and experts have viewed crime as a consequence of
feeling unable to cope with feelings of oppression. Crime may actually serve as an outlet
for individuals to strive by producing positive psychic results such as feeling free and
independent or by giving them and exciting opportunity to use their skills and

imagination (Halleck, 1967).

24

Behavioral Theory

Not all scholars agree that crime is controlled by unconscious mental processes
determined by relationships developed early in childhood. John Watson and B. F.
Skinner’s behavioral theory argues that the personality of individuals is learned
throughout life during interaction with others (Siegel et al., 2006). If a particular
behavior is reinforced by a positive reaction or event, the behavior will be continued and
eventually learned. On the other hand, behaviors that are not reinforced or are punished
will be extinguished.

Albert Bandura, Walter Mischel, and Richard Walters expanded behavioral
theory by developing the social learning approach (Bandura & Walters, 1963). Social
learning theory argues that a person’s learning and social experiences, coupled with his or
her values and expectations, determine behavior. According to this assumption, youth
will model their behavior through observations of adults they are in close contact with or
indirectly through behaviors they are exposed to through mass media. If aggression is
consistently observed and approved by adults and the media, youth will likely react
violently in similar circumstances (Perry, Perry, & Rasmussen, 1986).

Another perspective grounded in psychological theory is the cognitive approach.
This approach focuses on the way individuals perceive and mentally represent the world
around them to solve problems (Siegel et al., 2006). Building on the work of Jean Piaget,
Wilhelm Wundt, Edward Titchener, and William James, Lawrence Kohlberg applied the
concept of developmental stages to cognitive theory to address issues of crime (Kohlberg,

1969).

25

Kohlberg argued that individuals travel through states of moral development,
during which the basis for moral and ethical decision making changes. Studies have
shown that criminals are found to be significantly lower in their moral judgment
development than law abiding citizens of the same social background (Kohlberg,
Kauffman, Scharf, & Hickey, 1973). In addition, studies have shown higher stages of
moral reasoning are associated with behaviors such as honesty, generosity, and
nonviolence (Henggeler, 1989).

Summary

Crime theories that target the individual domain have been criticized based on
several issues. One concern is that the research methodologies are weak and invalid.
Most research efforts utilized adjudicated or incarcerated offenders absent control groups.
With this selection process it is difficult to determine whether findings represent the
criminal population. Some opponents also argue that individual-level theory is limited as
a generalized explanation of criminal behavior because it fails to account for the known
patterns of criminal behavior (Siegel et al., 2006).

Criminal behavior trends seem to be better explained by more holistic social-
ecological factors like social class and gender roles rather than individual factors. These
social factors that appear to be influencing the onset and persistence of crime are not

accounted for by explanations that focus solely on the individual.

26

Crime and the Community Domain
Social Structural Theories

Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay developed social disorganization theory when
studying neighborhood crime rates in concentric zones in Chicago, Illinois. They found
that crime rates were the highest in transitional neighborhoods where family mobility was
very high and factories and other commercial establishments were interspersed with
neighborhoods (Shaw & McKay, 1969). On the contrary, neighborhoods farthest away
from the city’s center were the least prone to crime. The crime patterns identified in
these ecological zones remained stable for over a 65-year period (Thrasher & Short,
1963). Because different ethnic or racial groups lived in these zones over this time
period, Shaw and McKay argued that crime was tied to neighborhood characteristics
rather than the personal characteristics of residents (Shaw & McKay, 1969).

Shaw and McKay argued further that a process called “cultural transmission”
allowed for methods of crime and conformity to be passed from generation to generation
ensuring the survival of cultural traditions. Healthy and organized communities have the
ability to regulate themselves through social controls so that common goals and norms
can be realized. On the other hand, disorganized neighborhoods are incapable of
realizing social control because they are inundated with constant deterioration and
economic failure (Shaw & McKay, 1969).

Scholars have argued that urban communities that remain in constant
disorganization may breed crime (Lang, 1991; Sampson & Groves, 1989). William
Julius Wilson has described why this phenomenon occurs. White working and middle-

class families flee inner-city poverty areas, resulting in a poverty concentration effect

27

where elements of the most disadvantaged population are consolidated in urban ghettos
(Wilson, 1987). As the working and middle classes move out, they take with them their
financial and institutional resources and support. As a result, businesses are not inclined
to locate in poverty-stricken areas and banks become reluctant to lend money for new
housing and businesses. This concentration of poverty may motivate minorities to enter
an illegal enterprise, increasing the likelihood they will become involved in other acts of
crime (Fowles & Merva, 1996).

Robert Merton focused his research on another branch of social structure theory
called strain theory (Merton, 1968). Strain theory argues that crime is a function of the
conflict between the goals individuals have and the means they can use to legally obtain
them. While social and economic goals may be common to people across all socio-
economic strata, the opportunities to obtain these goals is dependent on class (Merton,
1968).

Merton (1968) claimed that most people desire wealth, material possessions,
power, prestige, and other life comforts. Because members of the lower class are rarely
able to achieve these success symbols through conventional means, they feel anger,
frustration, and resentment. If lower class individuals are not able to accept their socio-
economic conditions, they are very likely to choose criminal means of achieving success
(Merton, 1968).

Strain is even more pervasive in communities where the poor and the wealthy live
in close proximity to one another (Blau & Blau, 1982). Individuals who feel they are less
well off than others may begin to form negative self-feelings and hostility, which

motivates them to engage in criminal behavior (Stiles, Liu, & Kaplan, 2000). Studies

28

indicate that neighborhoods that experience high levels of strain have significantly higher
levels of crime (Stiles et al., 2000). The effect of inequality may be felt the most among
minorities who believe they are losing out in a society where there is an imbalance in
economic and social power. Under these conditions, the likelihood that relatively poor
individuals will engage in illegitimate behaviors may increase (Messner & South, 1986).

Robert Agnew expanded Merton’s strain theory and constructed what is known as
the general strain theory. Agnew’s theory attempts to explain why individuals who feel
strain are more likely to engage in crime, by offering a more general explanation of crime
rather than focusing on lower-class crime (Agnew, 1992). Agnew’s theory argues that
crime is the direct result of “negative affective states” or the anger, frustration, and
adverse emotions that emerge in the wake of negative and destructive social
relationships.

Agnew’s research found that negative affective states are produced by a variety
of strain sources including: strain caused by the failure to achieve positively valued goals,
strain caused by the disjunction of expectations and achievements, strain as the removal
of positively valued stimuli from the individual, and strain as the presentation of negative
stimuli (Agnew, 1992). Each type of strain may increase the likelihood of experiencing
negative emotions such as anger. Anger increases perceptions of being wronged and may
produce a desire for revenge or action.

Cultural deviance theory is another branch of structural theory and argues that
crime is a result of an individual’s desire to conform to lower-class neighborhood cultural
values that conflict with those of the mainstream (A. K. Cohen, 1955). Individuals who

share lower-class values such as being tough, living for today and disrespecting authority

29

figures are more likely to admire figures associated with criminality (A. K. Cohen, 1955).
In addition, these same individuals find it difficult to impress authority figures such as
teachers and employers and experience “culture conflict.” Because they are incapable of
achieving success through legitimate means, they often join gangs or other groups and
engage in criminal behavior (A. K. Cohen, 1955).

Social Process Theories

Not all sociologists believe that living in an impoverished, deteriorated, lower-
class neighborhood is associated with crime. Instead many scholars argue that crime is
associated with learning criminal attitudes from peers, becoming detached from school,
or experiencing conflict in the home (Siegel et al., 2006). The belief is that individuals
living in inner-city communities will not get involved in crime if their socialization
experiences are positive (Ingram, 1993). The family unit, schools, peers, and religion all
play a huge part in the socialization process. Individuals who have positive ties to all of
these institutions generally engage in lower rates of criminal behavior (Sutherland &
Cressey, 1960).

Edwin Sutherland developed a learning theory called differential association
theory to explain the importance of socialization (Sutherland & Cressey, 1960). The
theory argues that as individuals are socialized, they are exposed to and learn prosocial
and antisocial attitudes and behavior. If individuals learn more antisocial behaviors and
attitudes than prosocial behaviors and attitudes, they will more than likely choose a
criminal lifestyle.

David Matza expanded Sutherland’s concept and injected the notion of “drift”

(Matza, 1964). Matza argued that criminals hold values similar to those of law-abiding

30

citizens, but they learn techniques that enable them to neutralize those values and drift
back and forth between legitimate and criminal behavior. Drift is the process by which
an individual moves from one behavioral extreme to another, behaving sometimes in a
criminal manner and at other times with control. The theory further argues that
individuals develop justifications for their criminal behavior when it violates accepted
rules and norms (Sykes & Matza, 1957).

Travis Hirschi developed control theory, another prominent social process
theory (Hirschi, 1969). Control theory argues crime lies in the strength of the
relationships or social bonds that individuals form with conventional peers and groups. If
bonds to society are not maintained, individuals may feel free to violate the law because
they have nothing to lose. The theory assumes that all people have the potential to
commit crimes, are kept in check by their social bonds or attachments to society, and
weakened social bonds free individuals to engage in criminal behaviors.

Elements of social bonds are interrelated and include attachment to conventional
institutions, commitment to conventional activities, involvement in conventional
activities, and belief in mainstream values (Hirschi, 1969). Research has consistently
supported the concepts underlying control theory by showing that positive attachments to
family and peers help control crime (Anderson, Holmes, & Ostresh, 1999).

Explaining Crime Among African-American Males

On the surface, race is simply a way of classifying groups based on skin color.

Race is also used to locate and place people according to culturally defined social

positions (Rose, 2006). These social positions are unequal and location in the structural

31

hierarchy determines cultural experiences. As a result, it makes a difference what one is
called and into what social position one is placed (Rose, 2006).

By many, race is considered a dominant theme in American society. Few issues
can be discussed without the factor of race underscoring the analysis. For some time, the
topic of race and crime has become a proxy for studies of racial minorities and street
crime. Scholars have sought to explain why African-American adolescent males have
been overrepresented in arrest and prison statistics (Gabbidon & Greene, 2005; Mann,
1993; Russell, 1998). Crime statistics have traditionally suggested a disproportionate
involvement in criminal activity by people of color in comparison to their representation
in the population (Bureau of the Census, 2001; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001).
Official data point to African-American males as being the major perpetrators of crime
(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2001).

Generally, criminologists have attributed high rates of crime and violence among
African-American adolescent males to inequities in the social structure (Siegel, Welsh, &
Senna, 2006). Popular explanations such as social disorganization and strain theories
suggest that the greater involvement of minorities in crime is best explained by
conditions associated with their lower-class status (Siegel et al., 2006). Scholars argue
that these conditions weaken the proficiency of familial and communal institutions to
regulate adolescent aspirations and desires and decrease the ability of minorities to obtain
cultural goals (Siegel et al., 2006; Tatum, 2000). Blocked opportunities may lead to
frustration that is acted out through criminal and violent behaviors.

There are four general criticisms of the approach of social structural theories to

explain crime among African-American males. First, the theoretical models are primarily

32

class-based theories (Einstadter & Henry, 1994; Williams & McShane, 1998). These
theoretical models assume that high rates of African-American male crime are the result
of their lower-class status (Siegel et al., 2006). This approach confounds the effects of
race and class on structural opportunities, frustration—or strain—and social
disorganization, and suggests that the impact of the two variables are identical.

Second, mainstream structural theories fail to examine the influence or
importance of historical antecedents in determining structural experiences. As a result of
the institution of slavery and years of legal discrimination and segregation, the structural
experiences of Afiican-Americans differ sharply from those of other racial groups (Reed,
1993). Yet, mainstream structural models have provided little insight as to the impact of
these factors on crurent structural status, criminal or violent behavior (Siegel et al., 2006).

Third, classic structural models fail to account for differential responses to shared
structural conditions (Siegel et al., 2006). The theories fail to address why Afiican-
American males who face similar situations of structural exclusion choose different
behavioral responses.

Fourth, classic structural models measure frustration—0r strain—as a global
concept. General strain theory identifies three major types of deviant-producing strain: 1)
the failure to achieve an individual’s goals, 2) the removal of positive or desired stimuli
from the individual, and 2) the confrontation of the individual with negative stimuli
(Agnew, 1992). Based on this theory, it is possible that African-American males
experience different types of strain and that the various forms of strain will have different

effects on crime and violence.

33

Alternative Theoretical Perspectives

The failure of mainstream structural perspectives to adequately address the role of
race in explaining African-American crime has led to the development of alternative
models (Austin, 1983, 1987; Staples, 1975). In addition to factors related to social
structure, these models examine the effects of racial inequality—or oppression—on the
personality and behaviors of African-American males. Both mainstream and alternative
perspectives argue that crime are adaptive responses to structural inequities.

Earlier in this chapter, a review of many of the mainstream ecological
explanations of crime in the individual & community domains was provided. That
review of literature demonstrated that individual and sociological theories alone are not
able to account for all acts of crime and that additional ecological perspectives should be
reviewed and/or developed. This section will add to that review of literature by focusing
on alternative perspectives that use race versus class as the starting point of analysis.
Knowing that current correctional policy places great emphasis on class and social
structural issues, these perspectives may prove to be more promising in helping to
understand and reduce crime among African-American males. There is little evidence
that race is considered when developing state and national corrections policy that will
ultimately impact over 40 percent of the nations prison population.

Alternative Perspectives on African-American Male Crime

Ideas advanced by mainstream criminologists have assumed prominent positions
in the field, policy, and practice of criminology. Millions of dollars are spent each year
developing, testing, and refining theory and programs. In addition, billions of dollars are

spent implementing programs based on ideas that evolve out of mainstream theory. This

34

mainstream theory and practice has consistently produced costly, inefficient, and
ineffective results for African-American males. Research shows that crime and violence
are unraveling the nation’s social fabric and straining the existing capacity to finance the
administration of criminal justice across the country (Federal Bureau of Investigation,
2001; Siege] et al., 2006; Sims & Myers, 1988). Our current responses to crime fail to
respond quickly to challenging social problems associated with undesirable behavior and
rarely treat offenders in a humane manner. The crime and recidivism data clearly
indicate that field is in need of a significant paradigm shift (Pew Center on the States,
2008)

As summarized earlier, sociologists and criminologists use a number of causal
perspectives in the attempt to explain criminal behavior. Whether there is a distinct
theoretical paradigm that can be identified to best explain “African-American male
crime” is subject to debate along with the topic of crime in general. Varying views are
expressed in the wide range of literature on crime (Siegel et al., 2006). However, several
dominant themes have emerged from the writings of criminologists to help better explain
crime among African-American males. Some scholars argue that among the most
prominent theories, is that crime in Afi'ican-American neighborhoods can be attributed to
Whites’ segregative and discriminatory attitudes and practices against African-Americans
(Greene, 1979).

Many criminologists consistently argue that racism, discrimination, and
segregation are inextricably interwoven with crime (Greene, 1979). For example, some
scholars argue that crime can be attributed to a combination of causes stemming from the

patterns of segregation and discrimination uniquely imposed on African-American males

35

by the dominant group, while others view crime as a complex reaction to oppression
(Davis, 1976; Vontress, 1962). Structural and institutional racism, discrimination, and
segregation often manifest themselves as economic, social, or political problems such as
poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, over-crowded housing, inadequate nutrition, and
differential law enforcement (Sulton, 1989; Vontress, 1962).

Criminologists adhere to the notion that social structural inequities produce
variations in opportunities which may cause differential pressures to engage in criminal
behavior. Thus, the incidence of illegal behavior in African-American neighborhoods is
significantly related to and affected by social structures that substantially influence life
opportunities and experiences (Siegel etal., 2006). Because crime is a social phenomena,
criminal behavior should be evaluated within the context in which it occurs (Simms &
Myers, 1988). To understand the phenomena of crime, we must cast it against a
socioeconomic backdrop. Many times, the backdrop experienced by African-American
males is not totally represented by mainstream crime theory, literature, policy, and
programming (Greene, 1979; Tatum, 2000).

Many criminologists have challenged the theoretical adequacy of existing
explanations of crime and victimization in the Afiican-American community (Greene,
1979; Tatum, 2000). They argue that theories of crime causation attempting to explain
the involvement of Afiican-Americans have negated the impact of cultural and racial
identity by assuming that variables which tend to explain the behavior of non-African-
American individuals are necessarily adept at explaining the behavior of African-

Americans (Covington, 1984; Greene, 1979).

36

In addition to studying the etiology of criminal behavior, criminologists have
focused their attention on describing the statistical dimensions of the crime problem.
Criminologists examine available data such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
annual Uniform Crime Reports. However, unlike mainstream criminologists,
criminologists that propose alternative perspectives on crime question the usefulness of
government arrest data (Greene, 1979; Tattun, 2000). They interpret findings with
caution, noting that the data provide little insight into the relationships between variables
or the meaning of such relationships (Brown, 1974; Davis, 1976; Sulton, 1989; Vontress,
1962)

Other alternative theorists argue that African-American males in the United States
are sub-groups that are systemically controlled and exploited by the dominant culture
(Blauner, 1972, 1994; Staples, 1975, 1987; Tatum, 2000). These theorists specifically
point to the sharp and enduring differentiation in economic, political, and social statuses
between African-American and majority group members and the economic and political
control of African-American communities (Blauner, 1972, 1994; Staples, 1975, 1987;
Tatum, 2000). As in classical colonial societies, the relative permanence of these unequal
structural relationships causes alienation—or frustration—among African-American
males that, in turn, may lead to criminal and/or violent outcomes.

These deficit models were first proposed as alternatives to traditional theories of
race relations, and later as alternative explanations of Afi'ican-American crime (Austin,
1987; Staples, 1975, 1987). These alternative perspectives describe how the process of
colonialization affects the structural and cultural status of African-American males. In

colonial societies, the economic and political dominance of European Whites enables

37

them to create a social structure in which their culture and values are more salient than
those of African-Americans (Austin, 1987; Staples, 1975, 1987). African-American
culture is relegated to a lower status, systematically destroyed, and redefined in negative
terms.

Scholars argue that because of racism, the stratification of Afi'ican-American
group members is caste like and members of the dominant group enjoy economic,
political and social privileges while African-American males have little access to
society’s rewards (Austin, 1987; Staples, 1975, 1987). The primacy of race causes
African-Americans of any social class to have lower social status than members of the
dominant group. Representatives of the power structure—police, military, and
corrections—help to maintain this system of superior/subordinate relations.

The unequal relations between superior and subordinate groups negatively affect
the personalities of African-American males and often results in alienation. Staples
(1987) defines alienation as a feeling of psychological deprivation that arises from the
belief that the values of a nation are not congruent with one’s own orientation. The
literature suggests three behavioral adaptations to alienation (Bulhan, 1985). First, they
may respond to their alienation by assimilating to the dominant culture. Assimilation to
the dominant culture opens doors to limited structural opportunities available to Afiican-
American males (Bulhan, 1985).

Second, Afiican-Americans may respond to alienation by turning their anger and
frustration against themselves and/or other Afiican-Americans or minorities. These

forms of violence are manifested by high African-American crime rates (Bulhan, 1985).

38

Third, African-American males may resist the order developed by the majority
group. This behavioral response involves an attempt to restore traditions and self- and
group-confidence (Bulhan, 1985). Intragroup violence and other destructive behaviors
may give way to proactive behaviors and anger and tensions may find appropriate and
constructive avenues of expression.

The model of internal colonialism has been widely used to explain the structural
relationship of Afiican-Americans to dominant society (Blauner, 1972, 1994; Staples,
1975, 1987; Tatum, 2000). Taking a historical approach, the model describes the
detrimental effects of the institution of slavery and years of discrimination and
segregation on current structural statuses related to economics, politics, and social class.

Other alternative scholars advance a theoretical strategy that incorporates both
structural and cultural arguments regarding race, crime, and inequality in America
(Greene, 1979; Sampson & Wilson, 2005). The linkage between race and crime can be
viewed through contextual lenses that highlight the very different ecological contexts that
Afiican-Americans and whites reside in, in their communities.

Another prominent theoretical explanation is Wolfgang and F erracuti’s (1967)
subculture of violence theory. According to this theory, the unique historical experiences
of African-American males have led them to adopt a set of values and attitudes that are
conducive to violence (Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967). African-American males represent
an underprivileged class in American society. Concentrated at the bottom of the
economic ladder, African-American males see few legitimate prospects in which to
achieve future economic success (Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967). The African-American

male unemployment rate far exceeds that of other racial groups. A comparison of

39

Afi'ican-American and white unemployment rates shows that African-American
unemployment has quadrupled whereas white unemployment has remained relatively
constant (Duster, 1987).

Although more African-Americans are completing high school, the rising cost of
higher education and dwindling financial aid have reduced the number of African-
Americans attending college (Bureau of the Census, 2004). High Afiican-American
unemployment rates and the high concentration of African-Americans in low-paying and
low-status occupations provide little encouragement of future success in a society that
stresses wealth, status, and achievement (Tatum, 1996). Thus according to this
alternative analysis, the criminal behavior of African-American males may be a rational
response to present and future situations of intergenerational unemployment,
underemployment, low-paying, and low-status occupations (Tatum, 1996).

Research and theory also suggest that parenting is an important determinant of
criminal behavior among African-American males (Jackson, Henriksen, & Foshee, 1998;
Mincy, 1994). Poor parental supervision and monitoring, harsh and/or inconsistent
disciplinary practices, infrequent parent-adolescent communication, and poor parent-
adolescent relations have been shown to be associated with higher levels of crime and
aggression among African-American males (Griffin, Botvin, Scheier, Diaz, & Miller,
1999; Paschal], Ennett, & F lewelling, 1996).

In addition, there has been a great deal of concern about the absence of fathers
from African-American families and the negative effect this may have on the
development of African-American males (Gibbs et al., 1988; Mincy, 1994). Single

African-American mothers often have limited financial resources, greater social isolation,

40

and fewer coping resources than mothers in a two-parent family, which may limit their
ability to monitor, supervise, and communicate effectively with their children (McLoyd,
Jayarante, Ceballo, & Borquez, 1994; Taylor, 1991).

' Summary

Classic structural theories are not sufficient to thoroughly explain African-
American male crime. Structural models are deficient explanations of African-American
male crime because they: 1) confound the effects of race and class on behavior, b) fail to
control for historical experiences, c) fail to account for differential responses to shared
conditions, and d) measure strain as a global concept.

Alternative perspectives which use race as the starting point may be more
promising to better explain crime among African-American males. These alternative
perspectives argue that the limited structural opportunities available to Afi'ican-American
males are primarily the result of race instead of class. As a result, frustration and
alienation arises and leads to crime and violence.

To effectively provide services to African-American males, service professionals
need to be educated on the specific risk factors associated with criminal behavior. These
risk factors may differ from the risk factors identified in the mainstream literature on
crime that draws from large samples of racial, ethnic, and socio-economic groups.
Scholars have noted that there is very little scientific investigation on crime with a
primary focus on Afi’ican-American males. Furthermore, there is a neglect of African-
Americans in research on crime and the literature on the correlates of crime among

Afiican-American males has not been explicitly presented within the contextual

41

framework of relevant experiences and ecological domains (Cemkovich & Giordano,
1992).

Lessons learned from the application of policies and practices grounded in
mainstream and alternative perspectives may prove more promising in advancing the
field of criminal justice. Research shows that the current mainstream interventions are
not very successful for Afiican-American males. If practitioners are educated on the risk
factors associated with criminal behavior among African-American males, prevention
and intervention programs may be more likely to incorporate appropriate responses into
the formulation of strategies for service delivery. The alternative perspectives shared in
this chapter identify additional risk factors that should be targeted by intervention designs
that target African-American males, their homes, and their communities.

Community-Based Treatment and Successful Interventions

There is a substantial body of literature that describes what is effective when
intervening with inmates in correctional treatment settings and parolees in community-
based treatment settings (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2005). These studies stem back over
the last 25 years and began by identifying factors that were effective in reducing repeated
acts of crime (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2005). Shortly thereafter, the focus of this work
shifted to begin to identify the specific types of correctional programs that were most
effective (Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2005). Following several years where scholars spent
time identifying the most effective correctional treatment modalities, studies in
corrections evolved to measuring program integrity. The impact the quality of a

community-based correctional intervention has on the recidivism of Afi'ican-American

42

male parolees is an underdeveloped area of community-based correctional rehabilitation
research.

In this section of the chapter, the body of literature that exists on effective
community-based correctional treatment interventions is explored in greater detail. This
section includes four sub-sections: (1) an overview of treatment and community-based
interventions, (2) a review of literature on prisoner rehabilitation theory, (3) the
operationalization of the prisoner rehabilitation theory and research methods for
measuring program quality and (4) a review of the literature on the relationship between
program integrity and program outcomes.

An Overview of Treatment and Community-Based Interventions

Individualized treatment plans that characterize the rehabilitative ideal grew out
of research conducted in the early 19803 (Rothman, 1980; Cullen and Gilbert, 1982).
These client-specific treatment plans made use of presentence investigations,
indeterminate sentencing and the idea that interventions with prisoners should change
their criminal propensities and make them productive, law-abiding citizens. This practice
was very different when compared to the traditional practice of punishing individuals for
their criminal behavior (Rothman, 1980; Cullen and Gilbert, 1982).

This belief system was prevalent in the correctional field without major
opposition until the early 19705 (Cullen, 2002). During this time, social unrest and
increasing crime rates led to a change in opinion concerning the value of correctional
rehabilitation (Cullen, 2002). For several reasons, rehabilitation as a correctional strategy

was brought under great scrutiny by both liberals and conservatives. As a result, the field

43

began to rethink the goal of rehabilitating individuals (Cullen, 2002; Cullen and
Gendreau, 2000; and Cullen and Gilbert, 1982).

Research conducted by Robert Martinson (1974) also served as a source for
criticizing the philosophy of rehabilitation and ushered in an alternative viewpoint that
nothing works to reduce repeated acts of crime (Cullen and Applegate, 1997).
Martinson’s research included a review of 231 studies on correctional interventions. His
conclusion on the efficacy of correctional programming in reducing recidivism was
largely misinterpreted by practitioners that “nothing works.”

A closer review of Martinson’s (1974) work indicates that his findings concluded
that no particular program works for all prisoners; however, there are some programs that
appear to work in some instances. Further, Martinson pondered whether it is actually the
inability of correctional programming to effect behavioral change or poor research
methods and techniques that led to null findings. Nonetheless, policy makers simply
focused on the conclusion that indicated that nothing worked. This lack of efficacy
quickly became the characteristic of correctional rehabilitation (Cullen and Gendreau,
1989)

At about this same time, and shortly thereafter, a number of literature reviews of
correctional programming began to appear (Andrews et al., 1990; Davidson, Gottschalk,
Gensheimer and Mayer, 1984; Garrett, 1985; Gensheimer, Mayer, Gottschalk and
Davidson, 1986; Gendreau and Ross, 1979; 1220 and Ross, 1990; Gottschalk, Davidson,
Mayer and Gensheimer, 1987; Lab and Whitehead, 1990; and Ross and Gendreau, 1980).
These reviews of correctional programming continued into the 19905 and beyond with

more comprehensive reviews employing more sophisticated methods (Dowden and

44

Andrews 1999a, 1999b and 2000; Gallagher, Wilson and MacKenzie, 2000; Gendreau
and Goggin, 1996; Wilson, Gottfredson and Najaka, 2002; Lipsey, 1992, 1999a; Lipsey
and Wilson 1998; and Wilson, Gallagher and MacKenzie, 2000). All of these reviews,
even those that conclude that correCtional interventions as a whole are ineffective (Lab
and Whitehead, 1988; and Martinson, 1974), confirm what Palmer (1975) had stated
many years prior: that some programs are effective with some individuals.

A review of the correctional literature on interventions indicates that the majority
of reviews provide some assessment of the impact of different treatment regimens in
reducing recidivism. Heterogeneity in effectiveness is often noted across these differing
treatment types (Andrews et a1 1990; Gallagher, Wilson and MacKenzie, 2000; Garret,
1985; Lab and Whitehead, 1990; Lipsey, 1992; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; and Redondo,
Sanchez-Meca and Garrido, 2001). Even when looking within the same type of
treatment, heterogeneity in effectiveness continues to persist (Lipsey, Chapman and
Landenberger, 2001; Pearson, Lipton, Cleland and Yee, 2002; and Wilson, Gallagher and
MacKenzie, 2000). This begs the question: What other characteristics about correctional
interventions, aside from treatment modality, influence a program’s effectiveness?

Research on correctional interventions has led to an understanding that not all
correctional programs, even when using the same treatment modality, are equally
effective. That is, two correctional programs based on the same treatment philosophy
(e. g., cognitive behavioral) can have differing effects on post program recidivism rates.
This research and accumulation of knowledge has provided a basis for establishing a

theory of correctional rehabilitation that is capable of explaining some of the observed

45

heterogeneity in treatment effects across correctional programs (Cullen, 2002). The next
section of this chapter discusses this theory of correctional rehabilitation.
The Theory of Correctional Rehabilitation

During the last thirty years, criminologists have developed a number of principles
that guide effective correctional interventions (Andrews and Hoge, 1995; Andrews,
Bonta and Hoge, 1990; Andrews et al., 1990; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau and Ross,
1987). These principles have been summarized by Gendreau (1996) and refined by
Gendreau, French and Taylor (2002). While these principles have not been presented as
a theory, Cullen (2002) provides a review of these principles and places them in the
context of what he calls the theory of correctional rehabilitation.

This theory largely reflects four principles that have come to shape effective
correctional interventions. These principles are (1) the human service principle, (2) the
risk principle, (3) the need principle and (4) the responsivity principle. In addition to
these four overarching principles, Cullen (2002) also indicates that the theory calls for
program integrity, which includes such things as staff education, experience and values; a
program’s quality assurance procedures; program implementation; and director
qualifications (Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau, French and Taylor, 2002). Many other
characteristics should be considered when discussing program integrity and will be
detailed later in this chapter. The next several sections, however, deal with the four
overarching principles in this theory of correctional rehabilitation: human service, risk,

need and responsivity principles.

46

The Human Service Principle

The human service principle states that punishment alone is not sufficient to
change prisoners’ behavior. Further, some sort of human service must be delivered if
substantial reductions in criminal behavior are to occur. Several reviews of the
correctional literature have supported this contention. For example, studies by Andrews
et al. (1990); Dowden and Andrews (1999a, 1999b, and 2000); Gendreau and Goggin
(1996); Lipsey (1992); Lipsey and Wilson (1998); and Redondo, Sanchez-Meca and
_ Garrido (2001) all provide support for the idea that punishment alone and/or
control/surveillance-based interventions fail to adequately reduce recidivism.

In a review of 80 studies, Andrews et a1. (1990) found that programs that provided
only criminal sanctions actually increased recidivism by 2 percent. The authors also
categorized programs that delivered services as inappropriate service, appropriate service
or unspecified. Programs that provided some service were found to reduce recidivism by
13 percent (Andrews and Bonta, 1998) with appropriate programs reducing recidivism by
25 percent. This difference between the programs that provided only criminal sanctions
and the programs that included human services provides empirical support for the human
service principle.

A second meta-analysis conducted by Lipsey (1992) reviewed 443 studies of
correctional programs for prisoners. This review also provides support for the human
service principle. Lipsey found that programs based on punishment or deterrence, or that
were vague in their targeting of behaviors, also increased recidivism. Conversely,
programs that provided some services demonstrated positive effects on criminal behavior.

The best programs were those that would have been identified as “clinically relevant” by

47

Andrews et a1. (1990) and demonstrated reductions in recidivism of 20 percent to 40
percent. However, with some services, the results were inconsistent where programs of a
similar type demonstrated reductions, increases or null effects on subsequent criminal
behavior.

In a subsequent analysis using a subset of Lipsey’s (1992) original sample of
studies, Lipsey and Wilson (1998) calculated the effectiveness of correctional
programming with serious offenders. With this subset of studies (N = 200), Lipsey and
Wilson (1998) obtained results similar to Lipsey (1992). That is, Lipsey and Wilson
(2001) found that deterrence-based and/or vague services had null effects on criminal
behavior. Other programs categorized as delivering services demonstrated variable
reductions in recidivism (10 percent to 40 percent).

Lipsey (1992) and Lipsey and Wilson (1998) both provide support for the human
service principle. These two analyses indicate that deterrence- or punishment-based
programs and those programs that are vague in the behaviors targeted have null or
criminogenic effects on subsequent criminal behavior. Programs that provide services
are, however, able to reduce recidivism. These reductions are variable, indicating that
perhaps there are other factors that impact program effectiveness beyond the presence
and typelof service provided.

In a series of studies, Dowden and Andrews (1999a, 1999b and 2000) also
investigated the relationship between the human service principle and program
effectiveness (reductions in recidivism) for prisoners when using violent offending as an
outcome measure. Dowden and Andrews (1999a) found that programs for female

prisoners that provided services rather than sanctions were substantially more effective

48

(mean effect size of .18 for programs that delivered services versus a mean effect size of
.01 for programs that only provided sanctions). Dowden and Andrews (1999b), using a
sample of studies evaluating programming for prisoners, found a similar trend [mean
effect size of .13 for programs that delivered services versus a mean effect size of -.02
(increase in recidivism) for programs that used sanctions only]. Finally, Dowden and
Andrews (2000) investigated the relationship between the human service principle and
program effectiveness when using violent offending as the outcome measure. A review
of 35 studies that provided necessary recidivism data indicated that those programs that
followed the human service principle were, again, substantively more effective (mean
effect size of .12) than those programs that delivered only sanctions (mean effect size of -
.01).

Studies from Europe indicate a similar trend. Redondo et a1. (2001) conducted a
meta-analytic review of correctional interventions delivered in several European
countries. The authors categorized programs into several categories representing
treatment modality, including “penal theory.” Summarizing findings from 32 studies, the
authors found varying reductions in recidivism for programs that delivered services
compared to a small increase (-.006) in recidivism associated with penal theory programs.
Summary of the Human Service Principle

A review of the meta-analyses that relate to the human service principle and allow
for some assessment of its empirical basis provides support for this principle. It should
be noted, however, that several of these meta-analyses “recycle” samples of studies (e. g.,
Lipsey, 1992; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; Andrews et al., 1990; and Dowden and

Andrews, 1999a and 1999b). Other researchers have cautioned readers that the

49

methodology in some meta-analyses may be questionable (Lab and Whitehead, 1990;
Logan and Gaes, 1993). Nonetheless, several of these meta-analyses contain independent
samples and provide considerable support for the human service principle. In each of the
three meta-analyses that would be included in this category (Andrews et al., 1990;
Lipsey, 1992; and Redondo et al., 2001), empirical support for the human service
principle was found. It should be noted that none of these analyses compared effect sizes
by racial demographics.
The Risk Principle

Andrews, Bonta and Hoge (1990) stated that there are two aspects of the risk
principle. The first is concerned with prediction or the ability to accurately classify
prisoners based on the level of risk of reoffending. The second, and more germane
aspect, concerns the issue of matching services to the level of risk of the prisoner. The
risk principle indicates that higher-risk prisoners should be placed in higher-end
correctional interventions while lower-risk offenders should be given minimal services
(Andrews et al., 1990; Andrews, Bonta and Hoge, 1990). Gendreau (1996) also states
that higher-risk prisoners are much more likely to respond to treatment than lower-risk
prisoners; therefore, correctional programs should target higher-risk prisoners for
intervention.

Considerable research has been conducted indicating that higher-risk prisoners are
more likely to respond positively to correctional interventions (Andrews et al., 1990;
Andrews, Bonta and Hoge, 1990; Lipsey, 1992; Andrews and Dowden, 1999; Dowden

and Andrews, 1999a, 1999b and 2000; Bonta, Wallace-Capretta and Rooney, 2000;

50

Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2002). The following paragraphs review these meta-analyses
and some issues surrounding the measurement of the risk principle.

Andrews et al. (1990) investigated the impacts of correctional programming for
lower- and higher-risk prisoners. While the authors found a larger treatment effect for
higher-risk prisoners compared to lower-risk prisoners, not all studies included in their
analyses allowed for the calculation of such data. In addition, the methodology employed
by Andrews et al. in calculating low- and high-risk treatment effects was criticized due to
the lack of clarity in how risk was defined. In response, Andrews and Bonta (1998)
reanalyzed data using an alternate methodology employed by Lipsey (1992). These
reanalyses of the data continued to indicate that treatment programs were more effective
with hi gher-risk prisoners than with lower-risk prisoners (mean effect size for higher-risk
prisoners was .11 compared to .02 for lower-risk prisoners).

Another method used to estimate the risk level of the sample for a particular study
was put forth by Lipsey (1992). In conducting his meta-analysis, Lipsey coded each
study to represent the proportion of the sample that was higher-risk defined as either
being processed in the justice system or having a history of criminal behavior. Findings
indicated that if the majority of the sample was at higher risk, larger effect sizes were
noted; however, this difference was small and nonsignificant. Lipsey (1992) does note
that the possibility of such a relationship deserves further scrutiny in subsequent analyses.

One such analysis that bears upon the empirical validity of the risk principle was
completed by Lipsey and Wilson (1998). This study reviewed data from 200 studies on
serious offenders. The authors firrther disaggregated the data by setting (institutional

versus noninstitutional). Findings from programs in noninstitutional settings indicated

51

that treatment effects were larger when “all” the offenders had a prior record compared to
those studies where “most” of the sample had a prior record. When analyzing the data
for institutionalized offenders, no effect of offender characteristics was noted. The
authors noted that this might be attributable to reduced variation in the criminal history
characteristics of institutionalized individuals. Ultimately, the authors concluded that
their research on 200 studies of correctional interventions with serious offenders
supported the risk principle (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998).

Three meta-analyses conducted by Dowden and Andrews (1999a, 1999b and
2000) reviewed the impact of adhering to the risk principle on program effectiveness in
reducing criminal recidivism. In these three studies, an aggregate sample approach to
coding adherence to the risk principle was used. This methodology was used by Lipsey
(1992) and involves coding a study as including higher-risk cases if the majority of the
sample had penetrated the justice system or had a prior record for criminal behavior at the
time of the study. In all three studies, a program was coded as adhering to the risk
principle if the majority of the sample was at higher risk.

Andrews and Dowden (1999) reported on the results from a meta-analysis of 26
studies of correctional programs for female prisoners. Programs that adhered to the risk
principle had an average effect size of .19 while those programs that did not adhere to the
risk principle increased recidivism (average effect size -.04). Dowden and Andrews
(1999) investigated this same relationship with a sample of 229 studies that reported on
the effects of correctional interventions with prisoners. This meta-analysis revealed an
average effect size of .13 for programs that adhered to the risk principle versus an

average effect size of .03 for those programs that did not adhere to the risk principle.

52

Finally, Dowden and Andrews (2000) investigated the impact of adherence to the risk
principle on violent reoffending. A total of 35 studies were reviewed in this meta-
analysis, which indicated that while the programs that adhered to the risk principle were
slightly more effective than those that did not adhere to the risk principle (average effect
size .09 versus .04), this difference was not statistically significant.

A meta-analysis of drug courts conducted by Lowenkamp, Holsinger and Latessa
(2003) reveals a similar trend. This study reviewed 33 independent effect sizes from 22
studies. Using the aggregate method of coding for risk, the authors found drug court
programs to be twice as effective in reducing recidivism when the majority of the sample
had an indication of a prior record.

Also of interest are two meta-analyses that focus on reviewing the impact of
school-based intervention programs. The first, conducted by Wilson, Gottfredson and
Najaka (2002), reviewed the findings of 165 studies of school-based intervention
programs aimed at reducing conduct problems. This meta-analysis found that programs
that targeted high-risk populations were nearly three times as effective as those that
targeted the general school population. The authors concluded that school-based
interventions should be behavioral and should target higher-risk students rather than the
general student population.

The second study, conducted by Wilson, Lipsey and Derzon (2003), investigated
the affects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive behavior. Wilson et al.
(2003) identified 221 studies of interest for this meta-analysis. The authors conducted
analyses based on the risk-level of the sample in the study. Four categories of risk were

created and used for subanalyses.

53

Interestingly, the effect sizes, indicating reductions in aggressive behavior, were
related to the risk-level of the sample (Wilson, Lipsey and Derzon, 2003). The largest
effect sizes were noted for studies with samples that had a history of aggressive behavior
and were higher risk. The average effect size for the aggressive, high risk samples was
four times as large as the effect size noted for general population samples. This impact of
risk on effect size continues to hold even after controlling for other relevant variables in a
multiple regression model.

Finally, a study by Lowenkamp and Latessa (2002) investigated the relationship
between treatment effectiveness and risk level for over 50 community-based residential
programs in Ohio. The results of this study indicated that the programs increased the
recidivism rate of low-risk parolees relative to the comparison group. Further, substantial
reductions in recidivism, ranging from 10 percent to 30 percent, were noted when looking
at program effectiveness with high-risk parolees only. Again, it should be noted that
none of these analyses compared effect sizes by racial demographics.

Summary of the Risk Principle

Existing research clearly provides empirical support for the risk principle or the
notion that higher-risk prisoners should be targeted for treatment. It is with these
prisoners that the greatest reductions in recidivism should be expected. In addition, some
studies indicate that exposing lower-risk prisoners to programming increases recidivism
(Andrews and Dowden, 1999). Yet, evidence for the risk principle is not seen in every
individual study (Gaes, Flanagan, Motiuk and Stewart, 1999) or every meta-analysis
(Lipsey, 1992; Dowden and Andrews, 2000). Nonetheless, as Cullen (2002) noted, while

some contrary results do exist, overall, the evidence from research on correctional

54

interventions provides empirical support for the risk principle. This empirical support
comes from studies on adults in the correctional system (Andrews, Bonta and Hoge,
1990), juveniles in the correctional system (Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey and Wilson,
1998; Dowden and Andrews, 1999b), school-based interventions (Wilson et al., 2002;
Wilson et al., 2003), adults in drug courts (Lowenkamp et al., 2003) and programming
for female prisoners (Andrews and Dowden, 1999). There is not much empirical support
from studies of high risk Afiican-American males released from adult correctional
facilities.
The Need Principle

The need principle states that to be effective, correctional interventions should
assess and target criminogenic needs (Andrews, Bonta and Hoge, 1990; Andrews and
Bonta, 1998; Gendreau, 1996). Criminogenic needs refer to risk factors that can change
over time as opposed to static risk factors that do not change over time (Bonta, 1996).
Criminogenic needs or dynamic risk factors would include antisocial attitudes, antisocial
associates, antisocial personality (impulsivity, hostility, lack of empathy), educational
and vocational achievement or status, familial relations and substance abuse (Andrews
and Bonta, 1998). The importance of these risk factors has been confirmed by prior
research (Simourd and Andrews, 1994; Gendreau, Little and Goggin, 1996; Lipsey and
Derzon, 1998; Cottle, Lee and Heilbrun, 2001; and Jones-Hubbard and Pratt, 2002). This
research has also generated a list of factors that, when targeted, are ineffective in
reducing recidivism (Dowden and Andrews, 1999b; Gendreau et al., 1996). These

ineffective targets include: medical needs, self-esteem, physical activity, discipline,

55

artistic and creative abilities, stress, anxiety and other vague emotional problems
(Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau et al., 1996; Dowden and Andrews, 1999b).

Inquiries into the effectiveness of correctional programs, while not directly testing
the need principle, do provide information to evaluate whether the need principle would
hold up to empirical testing. Several meta-analyses report on types of treatment delivered
or the treatment targets of particular programs (Andrews et al., 1990). These treatment
types or targets are used to create groups of intervention programs for analysis purposes.
If the groups of programs that use a treatment type or treatment targets that are consistent
with the need principle show greater treatment effects than those programs that target
noncriminogenic needs, support for the need principle would be found. There are several
meta-analyses that review the impacts of focusing on different treatment targets on
recidivism.

While Andrews et a1. (1990) used the need principle in defining appropriate
programs, it was not possible to separate the effects of adhering to the need principle
from other characteristics that are used to define appropriate treatment programs.
Andrews and Bonta (1998), however, reporting on additional analyses, indicated that
those programs where a majority of their targets were criminogenic reduced recidivism
(mean phi coefficient = .25; n = 121) while programs where the majority of targets were
noncriminogenic had no effect on recidivism (phi coefficient = .00; n = 173).

Dowden and Andrews (2000) found support for the need principle when
reviewing the impact of targeting criminogenic needs on violent reoffending. Programs

that targeted more criminogenic than noncriminogenic needs had an average treatment

56

effect of .20 while programs that targeted more noncriminogenic needs than criminogenic
had an average treatment effect of .00 (overall n = 52).

Using the Andrews et al. (1990) data and additional studies — Andrews (1999),
Andrews and Bonta (1998), and Dowden (1998) — Dowden and Andrews (1999a)
investigated the impact of the need principle among correctional programs that serve
female prisoners. Using 26 unique studies that yielded 45 effect sizes, the authors found
that the need principle was associated with a treatment effect over six times (.26 versus
.04) as large as that found in programs that targeted more noncriminogenic needs than
criminogenic (Andrews and Dowden 1999). Interestingly, Andrews and Dowden (1999)
reviewed the impact of targeting particular criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs.
Largely, they found that targeting criminogenic needs decreases recidivism. When
reviewing the impact of targeting noncriminogenic needs, increases in recidivism were
noted. Lipsey (1992) also found that programs that are most effective in reducing
recidivism among prisoners are those that are behavioral, skill oriented and multimodal.

Gendreau, French and Taylor (2002) reported that programs that targeted more
criminogenic than noncriminogenic needs did better than those that failed to meet this
criterion. More specifically, programs that targeted one to three more criminogenic needs
than noncriminogenic needs produced a slight increase in recidivism. Programs that
targeted four to six more criminogenic needs than noncriminogenic needs demonstrated a
substantial reduction in recidivism (r = .31).

Support for the need principle is also found in meta-analyses that review
punishment-based programming (Gendreau and Goggin, 1996; Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen

and Andrews, 2001). These studies found that punishment-based programming actually

57

increases or has very small reductions in recidivism. In comparing these findings to
analyses of programs that target criminogenic needs (Lipsey, Chapman and
Landenberger, 2001; Wilson, et al., 2000; Mayer, et al., 1986) it is apparent that treating
at least certain criminogenic needs is much more effective in reducing recidivism than
treating noncriminogenic needs.
Summary of the Need Principle

Research that allows for an assessment of the relevance of the need principle
indicates that some needs are inappropriate for targeting when reductions in recidivism
are the desired outcome. Correctional programs need to direct services at those needs
that have been found to empirically relate to criminal behavior. When programs focus on
noncriminogenic needs, the intervention fails to reduce offending behavior and, in some
instances, can increase offending behavior (Dowden and Andrews, 1999b).
The Responsivity Principle

There are two aspects to the responsivity principle. The first aspect has to do with
general learning styles of prisoners. The second aspect is related to specific prisoner
characteristics that might impact an individual’s ability to respond to the treatment being
delivered such as anxiety, intelligence or reading ability (Cullen, 2002).
General Responsivity

The theory of correctional rehabilitation favors the use of programs based on
behavioral, cognitive behavioral and social learning theories (Cullen, 2002). The reason
for this is the presumption that most behavior is learned and supported or discouraged by
the consequences of behavior and one’s attitudes, values and beliefs about a particular

behavior (Andrews and Bonta, 1998). In order to retrain prisoners to exhibit prosocial

58

behaviors, the prisoners must be given the opportunity to learn behaviors in a way that is
consistent with the aforementioned theories. If this is accurate, one would presume to
find that programs based on such theories would be the most effective in reducing
criminal behavior.

Garrett’s (1985) review of 126 study findings on correctional interventions for
prisoners determined that behavioral programs, compared to psychodynamic, life skills-
based and “other” programs, were the most effective in reducing recidivism. In a review
of programs based on social learning theory, Mayer et al. (1986) found that the programs
were able to significantly impact recidivism and other aberrant behaviors and attitudes.
Wilson, et al. (2000) investigated the impacts of cognitive behavioral programs and found
that all but two of the studies analyzed demonstrated a reduction of offending behavior.
Similarly, Lipsey, Chapman and Landenberger (2001) found that only one of the
cognitive behavioral programs reviewed failed to reduce criminal behavior. Redondo et
al. (2001) reviewed studies on correctional interventions in several European countries
and also found that behavioral and cognitive-behavioral programs were more effective in
reducing recidivism than nonbehavioral, diversion, penal theory and therapeutic
community programs.

Finally, research on special populations of prisoners also indicates the importance
of general responsivity. Andrews and Dowden (1999) found this principle to be related
to effectiveness when intervening with female prisoners. The importance of this
principle when providing interventions to violent prisoners (Dowden and Andrews, 2000)

and sex offenders (Gallagher et al., 2000; and Polizzi et al., 1999) has also been found.

59

Specific Responsivity

The other aspect of the responsivity principle relates to specific prisoner
characteristics that may impact how an individual interacts with a particular mode of
service delivery or the characteristics of the individual delivering the services. Specific
responsivity focuses on “fine tuning” the delivery of services in such a way that prisoners
are best able to respond to the intervention (Cullen, 2002). Andrews et al. (1990)
reviewed a number of studies that demonstrated the importance of specific responsivity.
They demonstrated that programs can be more effective when taking into consideration
the motivation, maturity and anxiety level of prisoners when matching them to
caseworkers or programs. Recent research (J ones-Hubbard, 2002; Stageberg, Wilson and
Moore, 2001) has continued to identify responsivity characteristics (e.g., history of sexual
abuse) that impact participants’ responsiveness to programming.
Summary of the Responsivity Principle

The empirical research on the responsivity principle indicates strong support for
both the general and specific aspects of this principle. Programs that use modeling, role-
playing, problem solving, graduated practice of learned behaviors and/or are rooted in
social learning, behavioral or cognitive-behavioral theories have been demonstrated to be
the most effective as indicated by the responsivity principle. Similarly, a review of
studies that allow for a comparison of effectiveness based on prisoner characteristics and
treatment modality or caseworker characteristics also indicates the importance of specific
responsivity.

While the human service, risk, need and responsivity principles are the

overarching principles of the theory of correctional rehabilitation, other factors are

60

implicated in this theory. Given the necessity of service delivery and the types of
services delivered, factors related to program implementation, program management,
staff characteristics, quality assurance and other internal characteristics are deemed
important in the theory of correctional rehabilitation. The following section outlines
some of these characteristics and reviews the body of empirical literature on their
relationship with treatment effectiveness.
Other Factors

In addition to the human service, risk, need and responsivity principles, Gendreau
(1996) outlines eight additional principles of effective interventions. These principles
state that:

1. Programs should be intensive and behavioral in nature.

2. Behavioral programs should focus on criminogenic needs.

3. Programs should match characteristics of prisoners and staff.

4. Program contingencies and behavioral strategies should be enforced in a fair
manner, should be under the control of the staff, and should utilize positive
reinforcement more so than punishment (ratio of 4:1).

5. Staff should be able to relate to prisoners in interpersonally sensitive ways and
should be trained, supervised and evaluated. Staff should be selected based on
interpersonal skills and values associated with effective counseling.

6. Programming and activities should be designed to disrupt criminal networks.

7. Programs should provide relapse prevention or booster sessions.

8. Programs should refer parolees to quality community-based programming
when necessary and available.

The human service, risk, need and responsivity principles mentioned previously
are interwoven through these eight specific principles of effective interventions. As such,

a review of all of these principles would be redundant; however, there are some finer

61

details that should be highlighted. In summary, these eight principles underscore the
importance of delivering interventions that are of sufficient duration and intensity, that
are delivered by appropriate staff that are adequately trained and supervised, that include
aftercare and/or booster sessions, that provide referrals to community-based
programming when necessary and that enforce programming contingencies and
reinforcements in a consistent and judicious manner. Another factor that deserves
attention and is written about by Gendreau, Goggin and Smith (1999) and Lipsey (1999a)
is program implementation.

Gendreau (1996) recommends that programs occupy 40 percent to 70 percent of
the prisoners’ time and last in duration between three and nine months. In his research,
Lipsey (1992) noted that programs that were longer in duration and found to provide
larger amounts of meaningful contact were associated with increased effectiveness.
Lipsey (1999a) also found that when considering programs for prisoners, programs that
were six months or more in duration were more effective than those with shorter ‘
durations. In a more specific analysis, Lipsey (1999b) indicated that programs that lasted
18 or more weeks in duration, had distinct treatment sessions (rather than continuous as
in milieu therapy or therapeutic communities), had a mean number of contact hours
greater than five hours per week and did not have degradation in treatment delivery were
more effective in reducing recidivism than those programs that failed to meet these
criteria.

Similarly, Andrews and Dowden (1999) found that programs that were of
adequate dosage were more effective than programs that were not. More specifically,

programs that were categorized as being delivered in an adequate dosage were associated

62

with an average treatment effect of .22. Programs that failed to deliver interventions in
an adequate dosage were associated with an average effect size of .09.

Research from other meta-analyses also indicates the importance of treatment
intensity and duration on program effectiveness. Redondo et al. (2001) found
relationships between program intensity and duration when reviewing the effects of
correctional programs on recidivism in European countries. Lipsey and Wilson (1995)
also found a relationship between program intensity and duration when reviewing studies
of correctional programs for serious offenders.

Gendreau (1996) also recommended that programs be delivered by staff that are
adequately trained, supervised and have qualities and characteristics of effective
counselors. Gendreau and Ross (1979) reviewed the literature on correctional programs
and came to the conclusion that staff qualities and abilities, and the degree to which staff
deliver the actual treatment, are important to the success of a program. Quay (1977) also
made such a statement when outlining issues to be considered in evaluating correctional
interventions. Several individual studies indicate the importance of staff characteristics
in producing favorable results (Andrews and Kiessling, 1980; Jesness, 1975; Jesness et
al., 1975; Palmer 1965; Warren, 1971; and Palmer, 1973). Palmer (1991 and 1994)
reviewed several“ studies on the relationship between staff characteristics and offender
outcomes and came to the same conclusion: the characteristics of staff can have an
important impact on a program’s ability to reduce recidivism. Finally, Andrews and
Dowden (1999) found that having trained workers that are clinically supervised increased
the effectiveness of correctional programs. In their study, programs that had trained

workers were over three times as effective as those programs that did not, and those

63

programs that had clinical supervision of workers were almost five times as effective as
the programs that were categorized as lacking clinical supervision of workers.

Gendreau (1996) indicated that once formal treatment has ended, programs should
provide relapse prevention to increase treatment effectiveness. The importance of
relapse-prevention programming has been stressed as an aspect of substance abuse
treatment (Prendergast, Anglin and Wellisch, 1995) and sex offender treatment
(Maletzky, 1991). Such programming can also be adapted for all types of prisoners to
reinforce skills and behavioral changes made throughout programming. Research in this
area has largely focused on the impact of relapse prevention on substance abusing
behavior and indicates the importance of including aftercare as part of treatment. For
example, see Wexler, Melnick, Lowe and Peters (1999), and Martin, Butzin, Saum and
Inciardi (1999). Both of these studies indicated that those parolees that completed
aftercare were substantially and significantly less likely to engage in drug-using behavior
and/or engage in subsequent criminal behavior.

The last characteristic of effective programs to be discussed is program
implementation. Implementation encompasses organizational factors, program factors,
the change agent and staff factors (Gendreau, Goggin and Smith, 1999). While these
factors are based on the clinical experience of Gendreau, et al. (1999), additional research
on implementation has been provided by Lipsey (1999a). Lipsey found that strong
implementation was important for the development of quality institutional and

noninstitutional programs.

64

Summary of Principles of Effective Intervention

There are several characteristics of programs that make up the theory of
correctional rehabilitation covered in this section. First, programs should focus on
higher-risk prisoners. In addition, treatment and supervision duration and intensity
should be commensurate with the prisoners’ risk levels. Programs should be behavioral
in nature and of adequate dosage. Programming should assess and target criminogenic
needs. In order to reach the largest groups of prisoners, programs should employ
behavioral, cognitive-behavioral or social-leaming models that utilize modeling, role-
playing and graduated practicing of acquired skills. Programs should also provide
aftercare and brokerage of services and should have a staff that is selected based on
desired characteristics and adequate training and supervision. It is theorized that these
factors are capable of explaining substantial portions of the heterogeneity observed across
correctional interventions (Cullen, 2002). The next section discusses how several
researchers have measured adherence to the theory of correctional rehabilitation.

Measuring Program Quality

The principles reviewed in the previous sections have informed the development
of correctional program checklists like the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory
(CPAI). In 2002, Gendreau, French and Taylor provided an update of these principles
that more closely linked the CPAI to the principles of effective interventions. These
principles are listed below.

1. Organizational Culture: Organization should be receptive to change.

Organizations should be characterized by low staff turnover, staff training and
sharing of information.

65

. Program Implementation and Maintenance: The program implementation
should be based on the need for the service in that location and a review of
relevant literature to identify the most promising interventions.

. Management/ Staff Characteristics: The director of the program should have a
post-Bachelor’s degree in the helping professions with several years of
experience in working with prisoners. The program director should be
involved with the supervision, training and hiring of staff.

. Client Risk/Need Practices: Prisoners’ risks and needs should be assessed and

targeted with the interventions provided.

. Program Characteristics: The most important characteristics are that the
program is behavior based and targets criminogenic needs of high-risk
prisoners.

. Core Correctional Practice: Therapists should engage in anticriminal
modeling, should use effective reinforcement and punishment and should have
problem-solving skills, motivational-interviewing skills and interpersonal-
relationship skills.

. Interagency Communication: The agency engages in advocacy and brokerage,
where appropriate.

. Evaluation: The agency conducts program audits and parolee satisfaction
surveys and follows the recidivism rates of the parolees served by the
program.

These principles are similar to those found on the CPAI and initially shaped the

content of the CPAI. The CPAI was originally developed by Gendreau and Andrews

(1994) and provides a standardized way of assessing the extent to which a correctional

program adheres to the theory of correctional rehabilitation. This instrument has been

identified as the standard in program quality assessment by some researchers (Van

Voorhis and Brown, 1996).

The initial version of the CPAI contains 65 items across 6 substantive areas.

These areas are (1) program implementation, (2) client preservice assessment, (3)

characteristics of the program, (4) characteristics of practices and staff, (5) evaluation and

66

(6) miscellaneous. Each section contains anywhere from 6 to 22 items. Each item is
scored based on the presence or absence of what it is the item is measuring.
Previous Research Using the CPAI

To date, hundreds of assessments with the CPAI have been conducted on
correctional programs in the United States and Canada. Data indicate that, overall, most
programs are in need of improvement with many programs failing (scoring less than 50
percent), and only a few scoring in the very satisfactory range (70 percent to 100
percent). Holsinger and Latessa (1999), reviewed the scores of 51 programs assessed
with the CPAI. The programs, on average, scored 56 percent on the CPAI. Most
programs (60 percent) scored in the satisfactory but needs improvement or unsatisfactory
range with only 12 percent scoring in the very satisfactory range.

Similarly, Matthews, Hubbard and Latessa (2001) reported on the CPAI
assessments of 86 correctional programs. The data reported by Matthews et al. (2001)
indicated again that a small percentage of the programs (10 percent) scored very
satisfactory, 54 percent scored in the satisfactory or needs improvement range and 35
percent scored in the unsatisfactory range.

Reviews of CPAI scores by other researchers have indicated a similar trend. For
example, Gendreau and Goggin (2000) reported on an early research effort in 1991 that
assessed 101 correctional programs. These programs produced a mean CPAI score of 25
percent. Only 10 percent of the programs in this review received a satisfactory score.
Another analysis of CPAI scores by Hoge, Leschied and Andrews (1993) summarized the

CPAI scores of 135 programs. This review again noted an average program integrity

67

score that was failing (35 percent). Only ten percent of the programs in Hoge et al.’s
review received a CPAI score of satisfactory or better.

In an assessment of the Wayne County, Michigan Juvenile Detention Facility,
Taylor, Elam, and Minifee (2004) found that a fairly new, state of the art detention
facility developed with ongoing assistance from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJ DP) surprisingly received only average scores in 2 of the 6
substantive areas. While the scores in the remaining 4 areas were very satisfactory, the
findings also supported the general trend found in Gendreau and Goggin’s (2000) review.

While the programs assessed in these studies typically did poorly overall, some
areas assessed by the CPAI were better than others, indicating that programs have some
integrity in some areas. In addition, while the overall means were in the 50 percent range
for the United States samples, some variability exists in the overall scores and the
specific-area scores. An analysis of 250 CPAI assessments (137 of which were used in
two articles above and 123 were unpublished) indicates an average of 53 percent with a
range from 25 percent to 80 percent and a standard deviation of 11.

Given the vast number of CPAI assessments completed, it is becoming clear that
the field of corrections has begun to realize the importance of program-integrity
assessment. However, the void that still exists in this area is empirically linking program
integrity, as measured by a standardized assessment like the CPAI, to program outcomes.
As Gendreau, Goggin and Smith (2001 :260 fir 17) noted, “The ultimate validity, based on
correlations between the CPAI scores and the recidivism rates associated with the

programs being assessed, is a long way off.” The only research published to date that

68

uses the CPAI as a predictor of success rates of prisoners that were served by the assessed
programs are those by Gray (1997), Holsinger (1999) and Nesovic (2003).

Gray (1997) used a 20-item abbreviated version of the CPAI to assess program
quality from 67 previously published evaluation studies on community-based
interventions. The correlation between this abbreviated version of the CPAI and program
outcome was 0.41.

Holsinger (1999) investigated the relationship between program integrity and
program outcome for nine community-based correctional facilities in Ohio. The results
of his analysis indicated that the CPAI score was a significant predictor of many
postrelease outcome measures including re-arrest, arrest for a personal offense and a new
adjudication. The analysis conducted in this research used pooled logistic regression
where the CPAI total score was entered into the equation predicting individual-level
outcomes.

Nesovic (2003), using a modified version of the CPAI, scored correctional
programs based on information reported in published outcome evaluations. This study
will contribute to this body of research by assessing the impact of correctional program
quality on the success of African-American male parolees in a selected county in the
State of Michigan.

Summary and Conclusion

The research reviewed in this chapter clearly illustrates the importance of
identifying the underlying causes of crime, explanations that are relevant to African-
American males and characteristics of effective correctional programs. While scholars

argue that many mainstream efforts have not resulted in successful outcomes for African-

69

American male offenders, early reviews of cutting edge, evidence based correctional
interventions indicate that something does, in fact, work in reducing recidivism for the
overall correctional populations. Subsequent reviews of correctional interventions
focused on identifying what types of treatment were most effective.

An important body of research by scholars served to provide a theory of
correctional rehabilitation that identifies what types of programming should work in
reducing recidivism and what types of programs should fail in reducing recidivism
(Cullen, 2002). The latest reviews of correctional interventions have begun to investigate
the connection between program integrity and program effectiveness in an effort to
explain greater proportions of heterogeneity observed in correctional programs’ impact
on recidivism.

This empirical and theoretical research led to the development of the theory of
correctional rehabilitation. The principles of this theory have reshaped the efforts to
measure correctional program quality and likelihood of effectiveness. These efforts have
produced the CPAI and other correctional program checklists, which are designed to
objectively measure program integrity—the degree to which programs adhere to this
theory—in a standardized way.

This study seeks to improve our understanding of the relationship between
measures of effective program implementation and correctional program effectiveness for
African-American males and to improve upon existing efforts aimed at measuring
program quality. In this process, this study will also be applying and testing the theory of

correctional rehabilitation among a population of African-American male prisoners

7O

released to a community-based correctional treatment program in the State of Michigan.

The next chapter will outline the methods used to answer these important questions.

71

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS
Introduction

This chapter provides detailed information on the question this research sets out to
address, the data that will be used to answer these questions, and the methods that will be
employed in collecting data, creating measures, and analyzing the data. The data for this
study came from a larger research project related to the Michigan Department of
Corrections’ (MDOC) Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI). While the
measures and methods of data collection are fixed, the expansive nature of the project for
the MDOC will allow for the studying of many important issues related to program
integrity and the impact on African-American male parolees.

The MPRI began in 2003 with a planning and development process. Designed to
be a comprehensive effort that focuses on all offenders, including those presenting a high
risk of re-offending, MPRI has provided funding to develop, implement and enhance
reentry strategies that seek to increase public safety through reducing the extent to which
offenders commit subsequent crimes and reduce correctional cost through their not
returning to prison. The mission of the MPRI is to enhance public safety by
implementing a seamless system of services for prisoners from the time of their entry to
prison through their transition, community reintegration, and aftercare in their
communities. The initial implementation, funded in part through the J EHT foundation,
began in 2005 and included 8 pilot sites covering 18 counties. The initiative expanded

statewide in 2007 and includes 18 reentry sites covering all 83 Michigan counties.

72

The advantages of this potential dataset and study are many and lead to several
contributions to the literature on measuring program integrity and specifying the exact
nature of the relationship between program integrity and program effectiveness for
African-American male offenders. This study will conduct an analysis between measures
of effective program implementation and program effectiveness for African-American
male parolees. Again, the principles for measuring effective program implementation are
listed below.

1. Organizational Culture: Organization should be receptive to change.
Organizations should be characterized by low staff turnover, staff training and
sharing of information.

2. Program Implementation and Maintenance: The program implementation
should be based on the need for the service in that location and a review of
relevant literature to identify the most promising interventions.

3. Management/Staff Characteristics: The director of the program should have a
post-Bachelor’s degree in the helping professions with several years of
experience in working with prisoners. The program director should be
involved with the supervision, training and hiring of staff.

4. Client Risk/Need Practices: Prisoners’ risks and needs should be assessed and
targeted with the interventions provided.

5. Program Characteristics: The most important characteristics are that the
program is behavior based and targets criminogenic needs of high-risk
prisoners.

6. Core Correctional Practice: Therapists should engage in anticriminal
modeling, should use effective reinforcement and punishment and should have
problem-solving skills, motivational-interviewing skills and interpersonal-
relationship skills.

7. Interagency Communication: The agency engages in advocacy and brokerage,
where appropriate.

8. Evaluation: The agency conducts program audits and parolee satisfaction

surveys and follows the recidivism rates of the parolees served by the
program.

73

Given the size of the research sample and the quality of the data, all of the items
will be investigated in terms of their relationship with program-level outcome data. The
items will be scored based solely on the MDOC’s assessment of specific program
characteristics. The substantive contributions of this research will assist in developing a
better understanding of the relationship between program integrity and effectiveness for
Afiican-American male offenders.

Research Question

This study attempts to answer one basic question: Is there a relationship between
program integrity and program effectiveness for African-American male parolees?
Research does in fact indicate that certain types of interventions are quite effective in
reducing recidivism. However, there is less literature that provides strong evidence of the
empirical link between program integrity and program effectiveness. There is even a
smaller body of literature that provides strong evidence of the empirical link between
program integrity and program effectiveness for African-American male offenders. This
study proposes to provide empirical analyses of the relationship between measures of
effective program implementation and program effectiveness for African-American male
offenders.

Methods

In order to answer the question listed above, secondary analysis was conducted on
program integrity and program effectiveness data that were collected by the MDOC from
one of its 18 MPRI correctional re-entry program sites. To collect and produce data on
program integrity, MDOC staff and evaluation consultants conducted site visits to each

reentry program site during summer 2007. Based on the presence, or lack thereof, of the

74

8 principles of effective program implementation, a correctional program score was
produced for all 18 re-entry program sites by administering an assessment with a
correctional program checklist. Information was gathered through interviews with
individuals responsible for overseeing and coordinating the delivery of local correctional
programs and reviewing correctional program materials. The site that scored the highest
on the correctional program assessment was selected for inclusion in this study.

Additional measures were also developed that pertain to services provided to the
offender and length of participation in the community based correctional treatment
program. For every intake into one of these programs data pertaining to demographics,
criminal history, and service needs were collected.

Comparing the recidivism rates of a treatment and comparison group in the
selected reentry program site served as the measure of program effectiveness. The
recidivism data are based on reincarceration rates computed between a 1-month to 2-year
follow up period and were collected from the MDOC Offender Management Information
System (OMNI) on offenders in the treatment and comparison group. Statistical analyses
involve calculating Pearson Chi-Square values to test for significant differences between
groups.

Sample

The sampling method for this research is fairly basic. The sample includes male
parolees released to a high quality reentry program site funded by the MPRI in the State
of Michigan that provides seamless re-entry services to MPRI designated parolees and
parolees released to a low quality reentry program site in the same county that provides

uncoordinated referrals for services to non-MPRI designated parolees. To be included in

75

the sample parolees had to be released to the reentry site between January 2006 and July
2007. This sampling method yielded a total of 522 male parolees; 100 parolees in the
comparison group and 422 parolees in the experimental group. There were 59 African-
Americans in the comparison group and 254 Afiican-Americans in the experimental
group; an adequate number to track over the 1- to 2-year follow up period.

The comparison cases were drawn from a larger sampling frame and were
selected based on county of conviction, sex, risk level, and crime type. The descriptive
statistics on demographic characteristics for the experimental and comparison group are
contained in Table 3-2. Data reported in this table indicate that the comparison group
was significantly younger than the treatment group (38 versus 46 years old). The two
groups were equal in terms of racial composition. While the two groups differed in terms
of the specific crimes that were committed most participants had been incarcerated more
than once prior to inclusion in this study.

The MPRI as the Experiment

The Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI) is focused sharply on crime
reduction. Michigan’s prison population grew by 2,142 inmates in 2002, continuing 19
consecutive years of annual growth that nearly tripled the number of incarcerated
offenders in the State prison system from year-end 1983 to year-end 2002 (Michigan
Department of Corrections, 2008). The forecast was for more of the same through 2003
and beyond unless decisive action was taken. In response, the planning for MPRI was
launched in October 2003 beginning with a complete review of the literature on what
works to reduce crime and culminating in a strategy for building a statewide, seamless

system of risk-reduction services and supervision for every prisoner.

76

Table 3-1. Number of Participants by Group Membership

 

 

Comparison Treatment
Program Group Group Total
MPRI Reentry Site 100 422 522

 

Table 3-2. Descriptive Statistics for MPRI Reentry Site by Group Membership

 

 

Comparison Treatment
Variable Group Group
Mean (N) Mean (N)
Age (Average Age in Years) 38 (100) 46 (422)
Race % (N) % (N)
African-American 59 (59) 60 (254)
White 37 (37) 37 (155)
Other 4 (4) 3 (l3)
% (N) % (N)
Prior Incarceration (Yes) 96 (96) 100 (422)

 

The method of delivery of correctional services central to the MPRI represents a
fundamental departure from the historical punitive practices mentioned in chapter two.
Traditional correctional practices were generally applied to all offenders and often based
upon security classification. The new model is individually focused with levels of
services, supervision, and intervention based upon a systematic assessment of individual
levels of risk and criminogenic needs as identified by MDOC’s ecological assessment
instrument. The MPRI model involves decision making at seven points during three
critical phases: custody (Phase One), release (Phase Two), and community
supervision/discharge (Phase Three).

An integral component of the three phases of the model is the Transition

Accountability Plan (TAP). During each phase of the MPRI model Transition

77

Ewe—6 0L. 335mm: 018: 035.33: 5.2:.

2.8203 025332: 0* 00:60:03

>O._.C>_. _u_~_m02 _u0_uc_.>._._OZu .53ch 400‘ - .526... N000

 

 

00.000 II. - .

   

04.000 .

50.000 ..

K3.000 .

~«0.000 .

 

 
     

09.9.5 0*

~5.000 - 3m 32»—

 

 

 

fiboo I

Monthly Population

00000 I
8.000 .
00.000 .
00.000 .

UA.OOO ..Il I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.004 .50» Ag 400k— .80 300 400V ‘80 .000 ~000 n03 Noon ~80 woo» ~80 ~80 NOON N000

06: ca <84

78

Accountability Plans (TAPS) are created for each offender. This tool directly describes
for the offender, the staff, and the community exactly what is expected and needed for the
offender to achieve success. During the three phases of the MPRI transition process, the
TAP is created, revised, or updated at four points: at offender prison intake, at the point
of the parole decision, when the offender returns to the community, and before the
offender’s discharge.
Phase One-Getting Ready

The custody/institutional phase describes the details of events and responsibilities
which occur during the offender’s imprisonment from admission until the point of the
parole decision and involves the first two major decision points: assessment and
classification and inmate programming. The first point involves using the COMPAS to
measure the offender’s risks, needs, and strengths. This information is used to create the
offender’s first TAP (Case Management Plan). The offender’s first TAP outlines the
expectations for the prison term. The material in the TAP is dynamic and changing to
facilitate transitional planning. This information is then used to assign the offender to
programming aimed towards reducing risk, addressing their needs, and building on their
strengths.
Phase Two-Going Home

The transition to the community or re-entry phase begins approximately two-four
months prior to the offender’s target release date. During this phase, specific re-entry
plans are created to address the offender’s housing, employment, addiction, and mental

health needs. As in Phase One, there are two important decision points: inmate release

79

preparation and release decision making. At this point, the offender’s second TAP is
created. The second TAP presents the offender’s reentry plan. This document outlines the
specific terms and conditions of the offender’s release to the community. The inmate
release preparation point involves the creation of a public-safety-focused parole plan.
The goal is to improve the parole release supervision process for the offender and to
make sure that the services, supports, and supervision are in place to maximize the
offender’s chance for success.
Phase Three-Staying Home

The final phase of the model is the Community and Discharge Phase. This phase
begins when the inmate is released from prison and continues until discharge from parole
supervision. During this phase, it is the responsibility of the ex-offender, the parole agent,
human service providers, and the ex-offender’s community support network to work
together to address the factors that may lead to the offender’s failure in the community.
This phase includes the final three critical decision points of the re-entry process:
supervision and services, revocation and decision making, and discharge from aftercare.
During the supervision and services point, the ex-offender is provided flexible and firm
supervision and needed services. Additionally, during this phase the offender’s TAP is
updated creating the offender’s Parole Supervision Plan. This TAP outlines the
supervision and services offenders will experience in the community. Next, graduated
sanctions to respond to the ex-offenders behavior (should problems arise) may be
employed during the violations process. During this phase, the offender’s final TAP is
created. This TAP includes the offenders plan for eventual discharge from parole.

During the final point of the MPRI transition process, the community takes over

80

responsibility for continuing to work with offenders as they are finishing their parole
supervision period.

The cornerstone of the MPRI model is the use of evidence based practices.
During each phase, MPRI prison and community programs are to employ procedures and
programs that are driven by evidence based practices; EBP provides specific guidelines
for offender assessment, classification, programming, supervision, and release
preparation that have been established through consistent findings in a variety of
evaluations of correctional interventions and studies of offender reintegration and
recidivism. These guidelines are specific as to the dosage, duration, and content of
correctional interventions.

This study focuses in on phase three by looking at the outcomes of African-
American male parolees that participated in the MPRI reentry program in a selected
county in the State of Michigan.

Measures

The following sections describe the measures to be used in these analyses and the
justification for such measures. The method and data used for the independent variables
are presented followed by the method and data for the dependent variables.

Individual Level Measures

While this study is focused at the program-level, individual level measures were

aggregated to control for differences across the two groups (treatment and comparison).

The next several paragraphs discuss the relevant individual level measures.

81

Composite Risk Measure

Research indicates that services and supervision should be directed towards high-
risk offenders (Andrews et al., 1990; Bonta, et al., 2000). In order to compare outcomes
between from the treatment and comparison group and determine whether programs
provided effective services to high-risk offenders, only high-risk offenders were included
in the sample. Offenders were designated as high-risk by the Michigan parole board
upon release.
Demographic Characteristics

Prior research has indicated differences in the effectiveness of programs based on
the age of the participants (Redondo et al. 2001. Individual level age was defined as the
number of years from month of birth to July 2008 when the data were extracted from the
MDOC OMNI system.
Recidivism

The measure of recidivism used in this research will be return to a Michigan
Correctional Facility for any reason (technical violation or new arrest). The decision to
use this measure over others is based on the unreliable nature of arrest and conviction
data available. While incarceration is a conservative measure of future criminality, the
data on prison intakes is quite complete and easy to access and query from the MDOC
OMNI system.

Program-level Measures
Some measures at the program-level were developed from aggregated offender

level data however most of the measures were developed based on program-level

82

characteristics. This section discusses all of the program-level measures and how they
were developed if they were created from individual level data.
Program Integrity Data

Program integrity was measured using a program checklist with concepts derived
from a correctional program checklist. The checklist contained several items across the
six substantive areas outlined below:
Program implementation
Client pre-service assessment
Characteristics of the program
Characteristics of practices and staff

Evaluation
Miscellaneous

Each section contains anywhere from 6 to 26 items. Each item was scored based on the
presence or absence of what the item measured.

The items on the program checklist were scored in such a fashion that one point is
assigned for each characteristic that is observed. The total number of points in each
section was divided by the total number of questions in each section providing a
percentage score for each section. To obtain the overall score, all points from all sections
were added together and then divided by the total number of items. The following
sections outline all of the areas and the intent of each area.

Program Implementation

How well a program is developed prior to implementation, how qualified is the
program director, and the program director’s involvement could be related to program
effectiveness. Andrews (1999) states that this area is not necessarily that relevant to the
assessment of a program’s rehabilitative potential. However, an empirical analysis of this

relationship may indicate otherwise. As such, measures from the program checklist will

83

be used to assess program implementation and determine its relationship with program
effectiveness.

The focus of this section is to ascertain the program initiators’ previous
experience and training and how involved the program director is in the program. This
section also assesses the need for the program, whether its values are congruent with
those of the criminal justice community and the community-at-large, whether or not the
program has sustainable funding, and the degree to which research and planning has
figured into program design. These have all been previously identified as important
factors relating to program success (Gendreau et al., 1999 and Lipsey, 1999a, 1999b).
Client Assessment

This section measures the types of clients accepted into the program, whether the
program has relevant exclusionary criteria, and how offenders’ risk, need, and
responsivity are assessed.

Program Characteristics

The section given the most weight on the checklist assesses a correctional
program’s treatment characteristics. This is expected as meta-analyses and individual
studies have indicated that the type of programming is certainly a substantial and
significant predictor of program effectiveness. Items in this section will capture
information pertaining to the quality of programming and supporting materials. As well,
this section will measure the utilization of rewards and punishers, and the existence of
booster sessions and aftercare. While the checklist’s coverage of the program
characteristics section is quite comprehensive, additional measures will be developed

from data pertaining to offenders served in each program.

84

Staff Characteristics

Staff characteristics can greatly influence the integrity of the services being
delivered. This is not a new development in correctional programming and was
discussed by Quay (1977) over 25 years ago. In addition, research by Palmer (1991,
1994, and 1995) indicates that staff characteristics are related to individual outcomes.
The staff characteristics section of the checklist measures how well staff members are
trained, their experience, supervision, the extent of staff turnover, and the degree to
which they are able to change the program.

Evaluation

The evaluation section of the checklist contains items that ascertain how well a
program evaluates its services. This section measures internal audits and quality
assurance processes and audit or quality assurance mechanisms for external service
providers. This section also measures whether the program conducts outcome
evaluations based on the offenders that are served by the program. Research conducted
by Lipsey (1992) indicated that programs that have an involved researcher are more
effective than programs that do not.

Miscellaneous Characteristics

The last section of the checklist measures the existence of several miscellaneous
factors. The manner in which client records are kept and the existence of ethical
guidelines are both evaluated. Program support and changes along with the existence of
an advisory board are also measured in this section. Given the independent variables of
previous meta-analyses, several additional measures may be developed from the

COMPAS database. These measures include: the percentage of offenders that are

85

African-American males, whether the facility served a single sex or mixed population,
the average age of offenders served by the program, how long the program has been in
operation, and the size of the facility.

The preceding paragraphs outline the intended focus to operationalize the
independent variables used in these analyses. The nature of the data allowed for analyses
in the assessment of the relationship between program integrity and program efficacy for
African-American male offenders. The next section details the methods and data that
were utilized in developing the dependent variable in these analyses.

Dependent Variable

The aggregate measure of recidivism measures the difference in re-incarceration
rates for any reason (technical violation or new criminal offense) between the treatment
and comparison groups.

Data Collection

Data on the treatment and control groups were collected from the MDOC OMNI
database system. Data on program integrity was collected through interviews with the
program staff responsible for overseeing and coordinating the delivery of program
services to returning MPRI prisoners. In addition, criminal history data and record
checks for subsequent criminal behavior were also collected from the MDOC OMNI

database.

Individual Level Data Collection
Data pertaining to demographic characteristics and county of conviction were

extracted from the OMNI database. Criminal history data were also collected from the

MDOC OMNI database.

86

Program Integrity Data Collection

Site visits were conducted at all 18 MPRI funded reentry program sites. During
each visit, assessors conducted a survey of program staff responsible for overseeing and
coordinating the delivery of MPRI programs and services. In addition, reviews of
program materials such as treatment manuals, offender assessments, and other supporting
materials were conducted. The correctional program checklist was scored for each site
from the interviews with program staff and the review of supporting documentation. The
site that was selected for this study scored the highest on the program integrity checklist.

These assessments were conducted between the months of April and September
2007. There may be a concern in that the programs may have changed substantially from
FY 2006 (when a significant portion of the treatment group was served by the program)
to 2007 when the checklist assessments took place. To address this issue, interviews with
the program staff were conducted based on the program’s operations as they existed
during fiscal year 2006.

Analysis

To answer the research question stipulated earlier in this chapter several separate
stages of statistical analyses were conducted. First, crosstabs between the experimental
and comparison group were calculated to assess any difference in parolee recidivism.
Second, crosstabs between the experimental and comparison group were calculated to
assess any difference in African-American parolee outcomes. Third, a time series
analysis was completed to assess any difference in time to failure between the

experimental and comparison group. Last, a time series analysis was completed to assess

87

any difference in time to failure between the experimental and comparison group for

African-American parolees.

Summary and Conclusion

This chapter has provided information on the methods utilized to conduct this
research. Information and data on the sampling methods, samples, data collection, data
sources, measures and analyses were provided. The proposed analyses for this research

focus on answering the research question listed earlier in this chapter.

88

CHAPTER FOUR

Results

The analyses conducted for this dissertation focus on answering the question: Is
there a relationship between program integrity and program effectiveness for Afiican-
American male parolees? This chapter presents the results of the analyses conducted to
answer this research question. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first
section provides the results from the analyses of program quality on treatment
effectiveness. The second section provides the results from the analyses of program
quality and treatment effectiveness on time to failure. The third section provides a
summary of the chapter.

Program Quality Measures

The program checklist focused on six areas. The analyses for each section are
reported here and provides the results of the descriptive analyses related to parolee
outcomes. Each section discusses the survey-based items and the presence or lack
thereof within the experimental and comparison programs.
Program Implementation

It has been argued that program implementation is extremely important to the
effectiveness of correctional programs (Gendreau et al., 1999). Programs that are
effectively implemented have adequate mechanisms in place to deliver the services
associated with the program, have leadership that is involved in the program, and support
from the community that they serve. The impact of program implementation has been

verified empirically by Lipsey (1999a). The following section reviews the results of the

89

qualitative analyses of the program implementation section of the program checklist and
the survey items that measure similar factors.

The experimental program received points for program initiation, literature review
and research, designer qualifications, selecting staff, training staff, staff meetings,
supervising staff, and being valued by the community at large and criminal justice
community. The experimental program had a director that had adequate experience in
working with offenders and was involved in coordinating service delivery to offenders.
A structured review and implementation of the literature was evident in the programs that
were being implemented. The comparison program did not receive points for these areas
because returning prisoners were not provided with coordinated programming.

Client Pre-Service Assessment

The client pre-service assessment area measures how well a program assesses the
risk, need, and responsivity factors of clients. This information should drive targeting of
offenders and should identify treatment targets and responsivity factors to consider in
assigning case managers and services. While prior research has looked at the impact of
adhering to the risk, need, and responsivity principles, this section of the program
checklist and survey items measured whether the program gathers the information that
will allow staff to adhere to the aforementioned principles.

Again, the parolees in the comparison and treatment groups were all considered
high-risk by the Michigan parole board upon release. So, while both programs should
have received appropriate clients, only the experimental program collected information
on important risk and need factors during the prisoner’s community transition process.

The experimental program also used a standardized risk and need assessment instrument

90

to collect risk and need information; the comparison program did not. While the
experimental program showed evidence of using a standardized risk and need assessment
tool, it was not evident that processes were in place to assess responsivity. In fact, when
asked about responsivity, staff did not define it correctly nor were they able to clearly
articulate the methods that were in place to delivery responsive programming.

These concerns all bear on the assessment practices of the program and can be
thought of as measuring a common component of programming: how offenders are
targeted for entry into the program and assessed once they enter the program. Using a
standardized risk and need assessment for initial assessments and reassessments prior to
termination are important aspects of a correctional program.

Program Characteristics

The characteristics of the actual programming provided by an agency should be
strongly tied to effectiveness. Specifically, a program that uses an effective treatment
model, varies intensity by risk and need, uses rewards and punishers to change behavior,
and trains offenders in new skills and allows them opportunity to practice those skills
should be more effective than programs that do not. The experimental program showed
evidence of implementing treatment interventions that had great promise to provide
offenders with new skills. These programs were established through a competitive
bidding process that allowed the reentry site to purchase high quality programming
services from local providers. Again the comparison program lacked these programs.

The experimental program also collaborated with parole agents through the use of
collaborative case management to track the offenders’ whereabouts while in the program.

While promise was seen in the experimental program, there was no requirement for

91

offenders to stay engaged in programming for three to nine months, nor to involve
offenders in treatment for 40 to 70 percent of their time as suggested by the literature. In
addition it was not clear if parolees were allowed an opportunity to provide input
regarding programming or if there was a consistent use of appropriate rewards. It should
also be noted that good quality aftercare was not provided by the experimental or
comparison programs and parole terminations were typically not based on successfully
completing suggested programming.

Staff Characteristics

Quay (1977) argued that the effectiveness of programming could not be evaluated
without considering several factors of the agency providing the intervention. One of
these factors is who is delivering the intervention. This notion, that staff characteristics
impact the effectiveness of an intervention, is also reflected in the correctional program
checklist. This section reviews the items on the staff section of the checklist.

The experimental program received points for hiring or subcontracting with staff
that meet the educational requirement for the provision of treatment and points for
providing structured training on the interventions used in the program. Because the
MPRI is fairly new, the experimental program did not receive points for having staff that
met the experiential requirement for providing services to parolees.

Evaluation

It is theorized that effective programs consistently deliver the intervention that
underlies the program. To do this, quality assurance measures need to be in place. It is
also theorized that programs that evaluate what they do know whether the intervention is

having the intended consequences. Previous research has indicated the involvement of a

92

researcher is associated with increased effectiveness. This relationship is possibly due to
the direction that outcome evaluations can provide for a program in terms of reshaping
the intervention to become more effective if the treatment effects desired are not initially
observed.

The experimental program received points for internal and external quality
assurance procedures and conducting client satisfaction surveys but did not receive points
for conducting in program reassessments and outcome evaluations. Again, none of these
practices were a part of the comparison program. Efforts at evaluating whether the
program has intended consequences on the offenders that have participated in the
program'need to be enhanced in order to help practitioners identify program areas that
need to be improved. Without investing in ongoing evaluation, it will be hard to improve
upon the outcomes that were uncovered through this research project.

Miscellaneous Characteristics

This section covers miscellaneous characteristics that do not fall into one of the
other categories. Measures include the capacity of the program, the successfisl
termination rate, having ethical guidelines, staff turnover, whether the facility served
males and females, how long the program has been in operation, and the percentage of
offenders that were female. The experimental program only received points for having
ethical guidelines. The other characteristics were not evident during the review of this
particular reentry program site. Again the comparison program did not receive any

points.

93

Treatment Effectiveness

When comparing the number of parolees in the experimental group that returned
to prison with the number of parolees in the comparison group that returned to prison
there was no statistical significance. The Pearson Chi-Square reported a value of .182
and the significance was .670.

When comparing the number of African-American parolees in the experimental
group that returned to prison with the number of African-American parolees in the
comparison group that returned to prison there was no statistical significance. The
Pearson Chi-Square reported a value of .008 and the significance was .929. Table 4.1
provides the return to prison rate outcomes for the comparison and treatment groups.

When comparing the number of white parolees in the experimental group that
returned to prison with the number of white parolees in the comparison group that
returned to prison, again there was no statistical significance. The Pearson Chi-Square
reported a value of .118 and the significance was .732. Table 4.1 provides the return to
prison outcomes for the comparison and treatment groups. While there was no
significant difference between the comparison and treatment groups it should be noted
that a larger percentage of African-American males returned to prison in both groups
when compared to white parolees. In addition, the comparison program served younger
offenders and appeared to be more effective. This might be related to risk in that younger
offenders are likely to be higher risk. Higher risk offenders are better targets for

correctional interventions according to the risk principle.

94

Table 4-1. Program Quality and Treatment Effectiveness for Parolees

 

 

 

Comparison Treatment
Returned to Prison Group Group Total
Race % (N) % (N) % (N)
White 24 (9) 27 (42) 27 (51)
African-American 31 (18) 31 (79) 31 (97)
Total % (N) % (N) % (N)
27 (27) 29 (123) 29 (150)

 

Treatment Effectiveness over Time

When analyzing failure over time between the comparison and experimental
group there appears to be a meaningful difference worth noting. Both African-American
and white male parolees in the experimental group tend to fail 3 to 4 months quicker than
their counterparts in the comparison group. It could be hypothesized that the added
visibility, community attention and intensity of supervision brought to bear on offenders
under the MPRI might possibly yield worse rather than better outcomes because of local
response to better detection of negative behaviors instead of focus on offender success, as
well as the release of more marginal offenders in the comparison group. Table 4.2
provides the return to prison rate outcomes for the comparison and treatment groups over
time.

The outcomes noted here are not consistent with previous research on
correctional interventions, which indicates that good implementation is strongly tied to

effectiveness (Gendreau et a1, 1999; Lipsey, 199%). It should be noted that the findings

could be related to lack of community and/or criminal justice support and can be

95

Table 4-2. Program Quality and Treatment Effectiveness over Time for Parolees

 

 

 

Months to Return to Comparison Treatment
Prison Group Group Total
Race Mean (N) Mean (N) Mean (N)
White 14 (9) 10 (42) ll (51)
African-American I4 (18) I l (79) 12 (97)
Total Mean (N) Mean (N) Mean (N)
14(27) 11023) 12(150)

 

explained in one of two ways. First, it could be that programs that don’t receive support
from the community-at-large and the criminal justice community are not able to operate
as designed and don’t receive the appropriate referrals and other types of support.
Altemately, it could be that a reentry program just established in the community has not
proven itself in a sense and therefore does not receive the desired support from the
community-at-large and criminal justice community. It should be noted that the
treatment program was implemented in January 2006 and may not have been
implemented long enough to have a significant impact on the initial program participants
that are being tracking in this particular study. In addition, no difference between parolee
outcomes could be the result of negative staff attitudes and values about offenders and
rehabilitative interventions (Maahs and Pratt, 2001). After all, a quality program can
only be as good as the staff that are responsible for implementing it with fidelity to a
quality model.

In a review of the research on correctional officers Farkas (2001) reports that
officers with less than five years of experience were less likely to favor rehabilitative

roles (see Farkas, 2000; Toch & Klofas, 1982). Officers with 20 years experience or

96

more were likely to support being involved with the delivery of services to offenders (see
Toch & Grant 1982). Other research indicates that the longer one is employed in
corrections the more likely that individual is to develop custody oriented attitudes and
disbelief in the rehabilitative ideal (see Jurik 1985; Poole and Pogrebin, 1988). If
attitudes are related to behaviors, length of time employed in the field of corrections
might impact a program’s effectiveness. Perhaps ongoing training of staff is one way to
mitigate the effects of years of service and education on program effectiveness if attitudes
are in fact related to the behaviors of staff.

In addition, the slightly better return to prison percentages reported by the
comparison group could be due to the fact that the traditional parole program has
historically provided more services to higher risk offenders and has been in operation for
a greater number of years. Both of these findings are consistent with previous research
on the need principle (Andrews and Dowden, 1999; Dowden and Andrews, 1999a &
1999b) and research that investigates the effectiveness of programs based on years in
operation (Lipsey, 1999a). While not significantly different, it is worth noting.

Findings could also be related to the current level of fimding that is provided to
the program to ensure that parolees have an opportunity to participate in programming
and treatment and that the proper dosage is being provided to parolees that are high-risk
and high-need. Even further, findings could be do to a difference in defining what is an
adequate set of risk and need factors to be assessed. That is, while staff that were
surveyed might think that the program’s process is adequate for measuring risk and need
and that a survey of such factors is conducted, reality could be that the assessment is not

valid and is really overlooking meaningful underlying causes of crime. Referencing back

97

to the section on alternative perspectives on African-American male crime in chapter
two, it may be that quality programs are being implemented, but they are focused on
class-based issues rather than race related issues.

Lastly, given that some key components of the MPRI Model have yet to be fully
implemented (especially the front-end Phase I model components mentioned in chapter
3), it is truly premature to attempt a definitive evaluation of MPRI outcomes of African-
American male parolees at this time. The methodology used in this study to track the
outcomes of African-American male parolees should serve as a starting point to establish
whether the results to date are consistent with expectations that offender outcomes will
show improvement rather than either no change or negative results, as all of the various
elements of the MPRI are gradually brought on-line.

Summary and Conclusion

The results presented in this chapter provide information to evaluate the
relationship between program integrity and program effectiveness. The analyses provided
a measure of program effectiveness that captured the difference in recidivism rates
between a treatment and comparison group. Program integrity was measured using
assessor rated items and items from staff surveys. The measure of program integrity is
consistent with the dominant mainstream principles of effective correctional
interventions; however, this does not generalize beyond this sample.

The correctional program checklist scores do not appear to be significantly related
to the return to prison outcomes for African—American male parolees nor the
experimental group in general. Based on these findings, it is not apparent that programs

that adhere to the principles implicated by the theory of rehabilitation are more effective

98

for African-American male parolees. To address this issue, different groupings of
checklist items should be are investigated to determine if there are other components of
program integrity related to African-American success as indicated by Palmer (1995),
Quay (1977) and Tatum (1996).

The next chapter provides a summary of the results reported in this chapter within
the context of the research and literature reviewed in Chapter Two. The following
chapter also reviews the limitations of the current study, implications for correctional

policy, and implications for future research.

99

CHAPTER FIVE

Summary and Conclusions

Over the past 25 years there has been a focus on identifying which correctional
interventions are effective in reducing recidivism. This research has converged to
identify cognitive behavioral and behavioral programs as being the most effective with
the greatest percentage of offenders. This research, however, often indicated
considerable heterogeneity in the effectiveness of correctional programs that were based
on cognitive-behavioral or behavioral therapies (Lipsey, Chapman and Landenberger,
2001; Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, and Lee, 2002; and Wilson, Allen, and MacKenzie,
2000). That is, when pooling all the studies on correctional interventions where a
cognitive behavioral or behaviorally based program was studied, some programs were
very effective, some were moderately effective, and some had no effect or negative
effects. It has been argued that some of this heterogeneity can be explained by program
integrity (Quay, 1977; Gendreau, 1996; Cullen, 2002; and Palmer, 1995). Given the
problems associated with criminal behavior and the rehabilitation of offenders in this
country, it is imperative to understand the link between program implementation,
program integrity, and program effectiveness. This research set out to answer the
question: Is there a relationship between program integrity and program effectiveness for
African-American male parolees?

To investigate these questions, data on program integrity was collected from a
high quality prisoner reentry program in the State of Michigan. Data were also collected
on over 400 offenders placed in this program during calendar years 2006 and 2007.

Additionally, data were collected on 100 comparison cases that were not placed in a high

100

quality MPRI reentry program. Offenders were compared on risk-level, county of
conviction, sex, and type of offense. Comparing offenders on risk level and county of
conviction neutralizes differences in recidivism rates due to individual differences and
differences associated with criminal justice system processing. Recidivism data were
used to calculate treatment effects for each program. More specifically, recidivism was
defined as any return to a state correctional facility during a two year follow-up period.
Treatment effectiveness was calculated using Pearson Chi-Square.

Analyses focused on determining whether there is a relationship between program
integrity and program effectiveness for African-American males. This chapter
summarizes the results within the context of the literature reviewed in Chapter Two,
provides a discussion of the limitations of this study, and the implications for correctional
policy and fiiture research.

Major Findings

This section summarizes the major research findings of this study. First, the
analyses of treatment effects are summarized. The findings regarding the measurement
of program integrity and its relationship with program effectiveness are reviewed.
Finally, the findings are then placed in the larger context of existing research on program
effectiveness.

Treatment Effects

The analyses of the treatment outcomes calculated indicated that no effect was
demonstrated by the MPRI reentry program for African-American males in the analysis
(Pearson Chi-Square of .008 and significance of .929). This effect was observed when

calculating treatment effects using data on all program participants.

101

Program Integrity

The analyses of the program integrity data revealed several important findings.
This section summarizes the steps taken in constructing the measures of program
integrity and the analyses relating these measures to the treatment effects.

A correctional program checklist was used to create measures of program
integrity. The data used to score the program checklist were collected during interviews
of reentry staff responsible for overseeing the implementation of all programs related to
the MPRI site selected for this study. Relevant program material was also collected and
used to assist in the scoring of the correctional program checklist. The checklist was only
used as standardized method to collect data on program integrity.

Scores for the measures of program integrity were calculated. There were two
measures of program implementation, client pre-service assessment, treatment
characteristics, staff characteristics, evaluation, and “other” characteristics. Analyses
involved noting the presence or lack thereof for each component of program integrity and
determining the total impact on the return to prison outcomes for African-American male
parolees. The results are reviewed in the following paragraphs.

Some aspect of the program checklist measures were noted or observed in the
experimental program for all six areas. That is the experimental program produced
evidence of implementing characteristics related to program integrity, treatment, client
assessment, evaluation, staffing, and other. While these characteristics where present in
the experimental program they were not significantly related to the return to prison

outcomes for African-American males.

102

Research Findings within the Context of Previous Research

This research is rather inconsistent with the previous research related to program
integrity discussed in Chapter Two, but supports the research in the same chapter that
encourages the review and implementation of alternative policies and perspectives to
improve upon the success of African-American male parolees. The theory of
rehabilitation implicates several principles that should be related to program effectiveness
and should help us predict which programs will be effective and which programs will
have no effects on recidivism. In particular there are four main principles that are
implicated: treatment, risk, need, and responsivity. The analyses contained in this
research do not provide support for these principles.

There are several reasons that could underlie the lack of support for these
principles including: the control group was made up of a younger and very likely higher-
risk sample; a lack of community and/or criminal justice support for the program;
negative staff attitudes and values about offenders and rehabilitative interventions;
minimal training of staff; traditional parole is more responsive to higher risk offenders;
inadequate level of funding that provides proper treatment and dosage; the use of invalid
risk and needs assessment instruments; and the infancy state of a program that was not
fully implemented at the time of this study.

Limitations of Current Research

This research has provided information on the lack of a relationship between
program integrity and program effectiveness for Afi'ican-American male parolees. And
while this research adds to the literature base on this topic there are several limitations of

the current study. First, the sample size is small. There was only one experimental

103

program included in this dataset. The sample is further limited to adult offenders and
findings should not be extrapolated to apply to juvenile offenders. The final limitation
that relates to the sample is that the reentry program was situated in one jurisdiction in the
State of Michigan and only provided services to offenders released from a state prison
facility. Given these considerations the generalizability of the findings are very limited
and should be interpreted with caution.

The second limitation involves the timing of the data collection on program
integrity. While the offenders were released to the program during fiscal year 2006 and
2007, the program integrity data was collected during summer 2007. And while attempts
were made to gather data on the program as it operated in 2006 this was not always
possible due to staff changes.

Third, the correctional program checklist was not scored in the standard format as
the CPAI, nor was data collected to score the entire instrument. Due to the brevity of the
site visits, many items on the checklist could not be verified and may have been scored
improperly. In addition, the scoring of the checklist was based on information reported
by the staff for overseeing the implementation of the programs rather that the
subcontractors that were responsible for the actual delivery of services. I full CPAI
assessment is scored based on interviews with the program director, program staff,
offenders in the program, supporting documentation, and observation of treatment
groups.

Finally, the only outcome measured used is reincarceration in a state facility.

This is a conservative estimate of recidivism. While this measure was used consistently

across the treatment and comparison groups, additional measures of recidivism might

104

indicate differing relationships. Similarly, the follow-up period was only for two years
and did not differentiate return to prison for a technical violation versus return to prison
for a new criminal offense. Perhaps using a longer follow-up period and differentiating
between reincarceration for new criminal offense and technical violations would also
yield different results.
Implications for Correctional Policy

Not withstanding the limitations, this research has substantial implications for
correctional policy. Community based correctional reentry programs have become
increasingly popular for a number of reasons. This programs have become a popular
method for reintegrating offenders returning to the community from prison. These
programs have also become a means to reducing prison and or jail populations.

Research on the theories that drive many of our existing correctional prison and
jail interventions indicates that they are not based on sound theory and research, and that
the interventions typically fail to embody the principles of effective correctional
interventions. While there is research on individual principles of effective correctional
interventions, these studies are often limited by the data and information presented by the
original researcher. The current research is unique as data could be collected that
specifically relates to program integrity and provides measures of many of the principles
of effective interventions according to mainstream theory and literature. Given this
advantage a more complete testing of these principles was possible. The results of such
have several implications for community based correctional reentry interventions and

correctional policy.

105

First, it appears that program integrity by itself does not guarantee success for
African-American male parolees. While several of the principles related to effective
interventions have been verified through meta-analyses and traditional literature reviews,
there is limited research that tests the measurement of program integrity and its
relationship with program effectiveness for African-American male parolees. This
research has demonstrated, with a limited sample, that additional measures of program
integrity should be considered and tested to determine the characteristics that are strongly
related to program effectiveness for African-American male parolees. Anecdotally,
correctional practitioners often question the utility of program assessment. Prior literature
has also identified dysfunctional attitudes about evaluation research (Van Voorhis,
Cullen, and Applegate, 1995).

Second, the factors measured and methodology used to assess program integrity
are malleable or dynamic. While it would likely take considerable time and effort for a
correctional reentry program to increase the quality of the program, it certainly is
possible. Furthermore the assessment of program integrity can facilitate change in
current programing. After having program integrity assessed, a correctional program can
focus on problem areas identified in an effort to increase the program’s effectiveness.
Finally, this research can help funding agencies determine which programs are likely to
have substantial impacts on recidivism, those programs that are likely to have negligible
effects, and those that are likely to have negative effects. Given the budgetary constraints
that have historically and continue to plague corrections, this research will help policy

makers and funding agencies make decisions regarding the financial support of programs.

106

Understanding that crime trends among African-American males are not
improving, it is urgent that sound and effective policy and program solutions be
developed. Absent these solutions, state and federal resources that were once used for
education, transportation, community revitalization and things of the like will be
consistently redirected to deal with our nation’s unsuccessful battle on crime, recidivism
and public safety. Surely, US. citizens and tax payers deserve a system that produces
better outcomes.

Recommendations for Future Research

This research has provided information that can be used to answer questions
regarding correctional program integrity. It has also raised a number of questions and
underscored the importance of continued research in this area.

First, researchers should continue to investigate and refine the components of
program integrity with a major emphasis on characteristics of race and ethnicity. The data
in this research indicates that program integrity may be a much more narrow construct
than initially thought or only applicable on certain p0pulations of prisoners or parolees.
Another possible explanation is that the measures employed did not adequately measure
the constructs. In either case, research on program integrity should focus on identifying
the underlying constructs and methods for more accurately measuring the constructs
thought to compose program integrity. A particular area of interest is the characteristics
that deal with offender responsivity. This may be a promising area for including
questions that allow for assessing race related issues that may underlie the criminal
behaviors of African-American males. Perhaps questions concerning institutional racism

and bias can built in as checklist items.

107

Second, different methods should continue to be used when assessing program
integrity. As these different methods are used more concrete criteria can be developed to
assess program integrity. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods should
also be used. Such measures might include counts of relevant activities, surveys of staff
and surveys of offenders, observation of treatment interventions, and interviews with
staff, clients and key stakeholders. Once a substantial database of these data is
developed, attempts can be made to integrate the different sources for a more complete
and accurate picture of program integrity for African-American male parolees. Such
measures can then be refined and validated using various sources of recidivism data.

Third, research should focus on expanding the number and types of programs that
these data are collected on. Efforts should focus on collecting data on programs that
provide services for juvenile offenders and other special populations (violent offenders,
domestic violence offenders, mentally ill offenders) to see if findings are replicable.
These data collection efforts should also include measures of risk, demographic
characteristics, and recidivism data. When possible data on comparison groups should
also be collected. Such a collection of data will allow for the testing of multivariate
models that will allow for the inclusion of all six component scores together in one
model. Multivariate analyses will help to develop our understanding of whether these
areas have unique contributions in explaining program effectiveness and will also allow
for tests to determine if these areas act synergistically.

Finally, and ultimately, research on program integrity should continue to
investigate the link between program integrity and program effectiveness for African-

American males since they are incarcerated at a higher rate than any other demographic

108

in the State of Michigan and the US. These efforts will help programs and funding
agencies at all levels develop effective correctional options in the community and
prison settings. This information should be shared with correctional practitioners along
with support for implementing what is revealed by future research. Such efforts should
lead to a pool of quality correctional interventions that are able to provide long-term

public safety though behavioral changes in African-American male offenders.

109

APPENDIX

110

CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM CHECKLIST

Name of Program: Location of Program:

 

 

Date: Name of Reviewer: Type of Program:

 

 

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION:

The current program director refers to the person responsible for the treatment/service
delivery.

Was the current program director involved in designing the program or current
interventions?

Does the program director have at least a baccalaureate degree in a helping
profession?

Does the program director have at least three years experience working with
offenders?

Is the program director directly involved in hiring staff?
Is the program director directly involved in training staff?
Is the program director directly involved in supervising staff?

Is the program director directly involved in providing some direct services to
offenders?

Were the treatment/criminological literature used in designing the current program?

Were'the interventions/program piloted for at least one month prior to full
implementation?

Does a documented need for the program exist?

Are the values and goals of the program consistent with the values in the community
at-large?

Are the values and goals of the program consistent with the values in the criminal
justice community?

Is the program perceived as cost effective by staff and administration?

Is the program funding adequate to sustain the program as designed?

111

CLASSIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

Are the vast majority of referrals appropriate for the program?

Are there legal/clinical/community criteria for the exclusion of certain types of
offenders from the program?

Is there a reasonable survey of risk factors at intake?

Does the program use a standardized and objective risk assessment instrument?
Is there a reasonable survey of need factors at intake?

Does the program use a standardized and objective need assessment instrument?
Is there a reasonable survey of responsivity factors?

Does the program use standardized and objective responsivity assessment
instruments?

Does the risk instrument provide a summary score and distinguish levels?

Does the need instrument provide a summary score and distinguish levels?

Do the responsivity instruments provide summary scores?

Has the risk/need instrument(s) been validated within the last five years on a local

population?

PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS

Are at least 80 percent of the program’s services and interventions designed to target
criminogenic needs and behaviors?

Does the program utilize an effective treatment model (i.e. cognitive behavioral)?
Does the program last between 3 and 12 months in duration (not including aftercare)?

Are the whereabouts and associates of the offenders monitored closely or, if in an
institution, are the offenders in treatment kept separate from the general population?

Does the program have detailed treatment manuals?
Do offenders spend between 40-70% of their time in structured activities?

Does the intensity of treatment vary by risk of offender (if risk is not determined by
an objective instrument do not check)?

112

Does the duration of treatment vary by the risk of offender (if risk is not determined
by an objective instrument do not check)?

Does the program use responsivity factors to match offenders and programs (if
responsivity factors are not assessed do not check)?

Does the program assign staff to treatment/groups based on skills/ interests?

Does the program use responsivity factors to match offenders and staff (if
responsivity factors are not assessed do not check)?

Do the offenders have input in the structure of the program?

Has the program developed appropriate rewards?

Do rewards outnumber punishers in their application by at least 4:1?

Does the program utilize a theory of punishment?

Does the program utilize appropriate punishers?

Are punishers administered in the following manner: escape impossible, applied
immediately, maximum intensity, after each occurrence, punishers vary, prosocial
alternative taught after punishment administered?

Are staff trained to look for negative responses to punishers?

Does the program have completion criteria based on offender progress in meeting
target behaviors?

Does the program systematically train offenders to monitor and anticipate problem
behaviors?

Does the program systematically train offenders to plan and rehearse alternatives to
problem behaviors?

Does the program have offenders practice alternatives to problem behaviors in
increasingly difficult situations?

Does the program routinely refer clients to other services and agencies that help
address their needs?

Does the program train family members to assist offenders when they are released
from the program?

Are offenders able to return to the program for “booster sessions?

ls aftercare provided?

113

STAFF CHARACTERISTICS

Do a minimum of 75% of the staff possess at least a baccalaureate degree?
Do a minimum of 10% of the staff possess a graduate degree?
Do 75% of the staff have their degree in a helping profession?

Does at least 75% of the staff have at least two years experience working with
offenders?

Are staff selected on personal qualities (e.g. empathy, flexibility, firmness, and life
experiences)?

Have 50% or more of the staff remained on the job for at least two years?

Are staff regularly assessed and evaluated on their service delivery skills?

Do the program staff receive regular clinical supervision?

Do the program staff receive 3-6 months of training on the program’s interventions?
Do the program staff regularly participate in on-going training and workshops?

Are the program staff able to modify the program structure?

Does the program staff support the goals and objectives of the program?

EVALUATION

Are there quality assurance mechanisms in place to monitor service delivery by the
program?

Are quality assurance mechanisms in place to monitor service delivery by outside
providers?

Are offenders surveyed as to their satisfaction with the services that are being
provided?

Is offender progress measured with periodic, objective and standardized assessments
on target behaviors?

ls offender recidivism tracked at least 6 months after leaving the program?

Have there been any formal outcome evaluations conducted on the program that
include a comparison group?

Have the results from the evaluation been written into a report or article?

114

Have the results from the evaluation been published in a referred journal?

MISCELLANEOUS
Are the client records complete and kept in a confidential file?
Does the program have ethical guidelines for staff?

Have there been any changes in the program over the past two years that have
jeopardized the program?

Have there been any changes in program funding over the past two years that have
jeopardized the program?

Have there been any changes in community support over the past two years that have
jeopardized the program?

Is there an advisory board in place to oversee and advise the program?

115

BIBLIOGRAPHY

116

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency.
Criminology, 30, 47-87.

Agnew, R. (1999). A General Strain Theory of Community Differences in Crime Rates.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(2), 123-155.

Ainsworth-Damell, J. W., & Downey, D. B. (1998). Assessing the Oppositional Culture
Explanation for Racial/Ethnic Differences in School Performance. American
Sociological Review, 63(4), 536-553.

Akers, R. (1981). Social Characteristics and Self-Reported Delinquency. In G. F. Jensen
(Ed.), Sociology of Delinquency (pp. 48-62). Beverly Hills: Published in
cooperation with the American Society of Criminology [by] Sage Publications.

Allan, E. A., & Steffensmeier, D. J. (1989). Youth, Underemployment, and Property
Crime: Differential Effects of Job Availability and Job Quality on Juvenile and
Young Adult Arrest Rates. American Sociological Review, 54, 107-123.

Anderson, B. J ., Holmes, M. D., & Ostresh, E. (1999). Male and Female Delinquents'
Attachments and Effects of Attachments on Severity of Self-Reported
Delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(4), 43 5-452.

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J ., & Hoge, R. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation:
Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.

Andrews, DA. (1999). Assessing program elements for risk reduction: The correctional
program assessment inventory. In Patricia M Harris (eds.). Research to results:
Effective community corrections. (pp. 151-170). Lanham, MD: American
Correctional Association.

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (1998). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati,
OH: Anderson Publishing Co.

,Andrews, D.A. & Dowden, C. (1999). A meta-analytic investigation into effective

correctional intervention for female offenders. Forum on Corrections Research,
11, 18-21.

Andrews, D.A. & Kiessling, J .J . (1980). Program structure and effective correctional
practices. A summary of CaVIC research. (pp. 441-463). In R.R. Ross & P.
Gendreau (Eds), Effective correctional treatment. Toronto: Butterworths.

Andrews, D.A., & Hoge, RD. (1995). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct and
Principles of Effective Prevention and Rehabilitation, Forum on Corrections, 7,
34-36.

117

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, 8, 369-404.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2004). Kids Count, 2004. Retrieved June 6, 2006, from
mvw.aecf.orgfl<idscount/databook/indicators.htm

Armstrong, B., & Bourgon, G. (2001). New directions in effective correctional treatment.
Forum on Corrections, 13, 53-55.

Auletta, K. (1982). The Under Class. New York: Random House.

Austin, R. L. (1983). The colonial model, subcultural theory, and intragroup violence.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 11(2), 93-104.

Austin, R. L. (1987). Progress toward racial equality and reduction of black criminal
violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15(6), 437-459.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New
York: Holt.

Beccaria, C., Bellamy, R., Davies, R., & Cox, V. (1995). On crimes and punishments,
and other writings. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Beckwith, L., & Parmelee, A. H., Jr. (1986). EEG Patterns of Preterm Infants, Home
Environment, and Later IQ. Child Development, 5 7(3), 777-789.

Bentham, J ., Burns, J. H., & Hart, H. L. A. (1988). A fragment on government (New
authoritative ed.). Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Blalock, H. M. (1979). Social statistics. New York: McGraw Hill.

Blau, J. R., & Blau, P. M. (1982). The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and
Violent Crime. American Sociological Review, 4 7(1), 114-129.

Blauner, R. (1972). Racial oppression in America. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

Blauner, R. (1994). Colonized and immigrant minorities. In R. Takaki (Ed.), From
different shores: perspectives on race and ethnicity in America (pp. 149-160).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bonta, J. (2000). Offender assessment: General issues and considerations. Forum on
Corrections, 12, 14-18.

118

Bonta, J. (1996). Risk/needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Hartland (Ed.), Choosing

correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply.
(pp. 18-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bonta, J ., Wallace-Capretta, S., & Rooney, J. (2000). A quasi-experimental evaluation of
an intensive rehabilitation supervision program. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
27, 312-329.

Bonzcar, T. P. (1997). Characteristics of adults on probation, 1995. Washington DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, US. Department of Justice.

Brown, K. (1996). Intensive supervision probation: The effects of supervision philosophy
on intensive probationer recidivism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Oh.

Brown, L. (1974). Crime, criminal justice and the Black community. Journal of A fro-
American Issues, 11, 87-100.

Bulhan, H. (1985). Frantz F anon and the psychology of oppression. New York, NY:
Plenum.

Bureau of the Census. (2001). US. population estimates by age, sex, race, and hispanic
origin. Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice.

Bureau of the Census. (2004). The Black population in the United States: March 2004 .
Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office.

Carmines, E.G. & Zeller, RA. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Cemkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1992). School bonding, race, and delinquency.
Criminology, 30(2), 261.

Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2004). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice (3rd
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Children's Defense Fund. (2004a). Key Facts About American Children. Retrieved May
28, 2006, from http://wwwchildrensdefense.org/data/keyfactsaspx

Children's Defense Fund. (2004b). The Leave No Child Behind Movement. Retrieved
May 28, 2006, from http://wwwchildrensdefense.org/data/default.aspx

 

Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: the culture of the gang. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine
Activity Approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.

119

Cohen, R. L. (1995). Probation and parole violators in state prison, 1991. Washington
D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US. Department of Justice.

Cottle, C.C., Lee, R.J., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The prediction of criminal recidivism in
juveniles: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28:367-394.

Covington, J. (1984). Insulation from Labelling: Deviant Defenses in Treatment.
Criminology, 22, 619-643.

Cullen, F. T. (2002). Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In James Q. Wilson & Joan
Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and Public Policy 2nd edition. (pp. 253-289). San
Francisco, CA: ICS Press.

Cullen, F. T. & Gilbert, K.T. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Cincinnati: Anderson
Publishing.

Cullen, F.T. & Applegate, B. (1997). Introduction. In Francis T. Cullen & Brandon K.
Applegate (Eds.), Offender Rehabilitation: Effective Correctional Intervention.
Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (1989). The Effectiveness of correctional treatment:
reconsidering the ‘nothing works’ debate. In Lynne Goodstein & Doris L.
MacKenzie (Eds.), The American Prison: Issues in Research and Policy. (pp. 23-
44). New York: Plenum.

Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (2000) Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy,
Practice, and Prospects.” In Julie Homey (Ed), Criminal justice 2000: Volume
3— policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system. (pp. 109-
175). Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Cullen, F. T., Gendreau, P., Jarjoura, G.R., & Wright, J .P. (1997) Crime and the bell
curve: Lessons from intelligent criminology. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 387-
411.

Cullen, F. T., Wright, J .P., & Applegate, B.K. (1996). Control in the community: The
limits of reform? In Alan T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing Correctional Options That
Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. (pp. 69-116). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dannefer, D., & Schutt, R. (1982). Race and Juvenile Justice Processing in Court and
Police Agencies. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 1113-1132.

Davidson, W., Gottschalk, R., Gensheimer, L., & Mayer, J. (1984). Interventions with

juvenile delinquency: A meta-analysis of treatment efficacy. Washington D. C.:
National Institute of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

120

Davis, J. A. (1976). Blacks, Crime, and American Culture. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 423, 89-98.

Davis, N. J. (1999). Youth crisis: growing up in the high-risk society. Westport, Conn.:
Praeger.

DiLalla, L. F., & Gottesman, I. I. (1991). Biological and Genetic Contributors to
Violence-Widom's Untold Tale. Psychological Bulletin, 109(1), 125-129.

Dowden, C. (1998). A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Risk, Need and Responsivity
Principles and their Importance Within the Rehabilitation Debate. Unpublished
M.A. thesis, Ottawa, ON: Psychology Department, Carleton University.

Dowden, C. & Andrews, D.A. (1999a). What works for female offenders: A meta-
analytic review. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 43 8-452.

Dowden, C. & Andrews, DA. (1999b). What works in young offender treatment: A
metaanalysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 21-24.

Dowden, C. & Andrews, DA. (2000). Effective correctional treatment and violent
reoffending: A meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 449-467.

Dunaway, R. G., Francis, T. C., Velmer, S. B., Jr., & Evans, T. D. (2000). The myth of
social class and crime revisited: An examination of class and adult criminality.
Criminology, 38(2), 589-632.

Duster, T. (1987). Crime, youth unemployment, and the Black urban underclass. Crime
and Delinquency, 33(2), 300-316.

Eggebeen, D. J ., & Lichter, D. T. (1991). Race, Family Structure, and Changing Poverty
Among American Children. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 801-817.

Einstadter, W., & Henry, S. (1994). Criminological theory: An analysis of underlying
assumptions. Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis ([lst ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.

Evans, G. W., Wells, N. M., & Moch, A. (2003). Housing and Mental Health: A Review
of the Evidence and a Methodological and Conceptual Critique. Journal of Social
Issues, 59(3), 475-500.

Fagan, J ., Piper, E., & Moore, M. (1986). Violent Delinquents and Urban Youths.
Criminology, 24(3), 439-471.

F arkas, MA. (2000). Attitudes of correctional officers in a ‘get tough’ era. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 27, 495-506.

121

Farkas, M.A., (2001). Correctional officers: What factors influence work attitudes?
Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 20-26.

Farrington, D. (1986). Age and Crime. In M. H. Tonry & N. Mom's (Eds.), Crime and
Justice, An Annual Review (Vol. 7, pp. 189-250). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2001). Crime in the United States. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Crime in the United States, 2003. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2005). America's Children:
Key National Indicators of Children's Well-Being 2005. Retrieved May 29,
2006, from http://www.childstats.gov/pubs.asp

F ishbein, D. H. (1990). Biological perspectives in criminology. Criminology, 28(1), 27-
72.

Fowles, R., & Merva, M. (1996). Wage inequality and criminal activity: An extreme
bounds analysis for the United States, 1975-1990. Criminology, 34(2), 163-182.

Freud, S., & Strachey, J. (1949). An outline of psychoanalysis ([lst ed.). New York: W.
W. Norton.

Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2005). Race, crime, and justice. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Gaes, G. G., Flanagan, T.J., Motiuk, L.L., & Stewart, L. (1999). Adult correctional
treatment. In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons. (pp. 361-426). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Gallagher, C.A., Wilson, D.B., & MacKenzie, D.L. (2000). A meta-analysis of the
effectiveness of sex offender treatment programs. Unpublished paper, University
of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Gallagher, C.A., Wilson, D.B., & MacKenzie, D.L. (2001). A quantitative review of the
effects of sex offender treatment on sexual reoffending. Corrections Management

Quarterly, 3, 19-29.

Garrett, C. J. (1985). Effects of residential treatment on adjudicated delinquents: A
metaanalysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 287-308.

122

Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective interventions with offenders. In Alan T.
Harland (Ed.), Choosing Correctional Options That Work: Defining the Demand
and Evaluating the Supply. (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gendreau, P. & Andrews, DA. (1996). The correctional program assessment inventory
(CPAI) (6th ed.). Saint John, NB: University of New Brunswick.

Gendreau, P. & Goggin, C. (1996). Principles of effective correctional programming.
Forum on Corrections, 8, 38-41.

Gendreau, P. & Goggin, C. (2000). Correctional treatment: Accomplishments and
realities. In Patricia Van Voorhis, Michael Braswell, & David Lester (Eds.),
Correctional counseling & rehabilitation 4th edition. (pp. 271-280). Cincinnati,
Oh: Anderson Publishing.

Gendreau, P. & Ross, RR. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for
cynics. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 463-489.

Gendreau, P. & Ross, RR. (1987). Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the
19803. Justice Quarterly, 4, 349-407.

Gendreau, P. Goggin, C., Cullen, F.T., & Andrews, DA. (2001). The effects of
community sanctions and incarceration on recidivism. Forum on Corrections, 12,
10-13.

Gendreau, P., French, S., & Taylor, A. (2002). What works (what doesn’t work)-revised
2002: The principles of effective correctional treatment. University of New
Brunswick at Saint John: Unpublished Manuscript.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective

correctional treatment: Program implementation. International Journal of
Offender Therapy, 43, 180-187.

Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2001). Implementation guidelines for correctional
programs in the “real world”. In G.A. Bemfeld, D.P. F arrington, & A.W.
Leschied (Eds.), Offender Rehabilitation and Practice. (pp. 247-268). New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult
offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.

Gensheimer, L.K., Mayer, J .P., Gottschalk, R., & Davidson, W.S. (1986). Diverting
youth from the juvenile justice system: A meta-analysis of intervention efficacy.

In S.J. Apter & A.P. Goldstein (Eds.), Youth violence: Program and prospects.
(pp. 39-56). New York, New York: Pergamon Press.

123

Gibbs, J. T., Brunswick, A. F., Connor, M. E., Dembo, R., Larson, T. E., Reed, R. J ., et
a1. (1988). Young, black, and male in America: An endangered species. Dover,
MA: Auburn House.

Gottschalk, R., Davidson, W.S., Mayer, J .P., & Gensheimer, L.K. (1987). Behavioral
approaches with juvenile offenders: A meta-analysis of long-term treatment
efficacy. In E.K. Morris & C.J. Braukmann, (Eds.), Behavioral Approaches to
Crime and Delinquency. (pp. 399- 422). New York, New York: Plenum.

Gray, G. A. (1997). Does coercion play a significant role in community treatment
programs that reduce offender recidivism? Master Thesis. The University Of New
Brunswick.

Greene, H. T. (1979). A Comprehensive Bibliography of Criminology and Criminal
Justice Literature by BlackAuthors from 1895 to 1978. College Park, MD:
Author.

Griffin, K. W., Botvin, G. J ., Scheier, L. W., Diaz, T., & Miller, N. (1999). Parenting
practices as predictors of substance use, delinquency and aggression among urban

minority youth: Moderating effects of family structure and gender. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 14, 174-184.

Griffore, R. J ., & Phenice, L. A. (2001). The language of human ecology: a general
systems perspective. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Halleck, S. L. (1967). Psychiatry and the dilemmas of crime; a study of causes,
punishment, and treatment ([1 st ed.). New York: Harper and Row.

Henggeler, S. (1989). Delinquency in Adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Hindelang, M. J ., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hoffman, P. B. (1994). Twenty years of operation use of a risk prediction instrument:
The United States parole commission’s salient factor score. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 22, 477-494.

Hoge, R., Leschied, A., & Andrews, DA. (1993). An investigation of young offender

service in the province of Ontario: A report of the repeat offender project.
Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of community and Social Services.

124

Holsinger, A. M. (1999). Opening the 'black box': Assessing the relationship between
program integrity and recidivism. Doctoral Dissertation. The University of
Cincinnati.

Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. (1987). Juvenile Offenders: Prevalence, Offender Incidence,
and Arrest Rates by Race. Crime and Delinquency, 33, 206-223.

Ingram, A. L. (1993). Type of Place, Urbanism, and Delinquency: Further Testing of the
Determinist Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 192-212.

Institute for Social Research. (2004). Monitoring the future, 2003. Ann Arbor, MI.:
University of Michigan Survey Research Center.

1220, R.L. & Ross, RR. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile
delinquents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 134-142.

Jackson, C., Henriksen, L., & F oshee, V. A. (1998). The authoritative parenting index:
predicting health risk behaviors among children and adolescents. Health

Education and Behavior, 25, 319-337.

J esness, CF. (1975). Comparative effectiveness of behavior modification and
transactional analysis programs for delinquents. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 43, 758-779.

Jesness, C.F., Allison, T., McCormick, P., Wedge, R., & Young, M. (1975). Cooperative
Behavior Demonstration Project: Final Report. Sacramento: Office of Criminal
Justice and Flaming.

J ohnson-Listwan, S., Cullen and Latessa. (2006). How to Prevent Prisoner Re-Entry
Programs From Failing: Insights From Evidence Based Corrections. Federal
Probation, 70, 3, 19-25.

Jones, P. B., Harris, P. W., Fader, J ., & Grubstein, L. (2001). Identifying chronic juvenile
offenders. Justice Quarterly, 18(3), 479-507.

Jones-Hubbard, D. & Pratt, TC. (2002). A Meta-Analysis of the Predictors of
Delinquency Among Girls. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 1-13.

J ones-Hubbard, Dana (2001). Behavioral treatment: An analysis of gender and other
responsivity characteristics and their effects on success in offender rehabilitation.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

Jurik, N. (1985). Individual and organizational determinants of correctional officers’
attitudes towards inmates. Criminology, 23, 523-539.

125

Kennedy, S. & Serin, R. (1997). Treatment responsivity: Contributing to effective
correctional programming.” The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, p. 46-
52.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stages in the Development of Moral Thought and Action. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kohlberg, L., Kauffman, K., Scharf, P., & Hickey, J. (1973). The Just Community
Approach in Corrections: A Manual. Niantic, CT: Connecticut Department of
Corrections.

Lab, S. P., & Whitehead, J .T. (1988). An analysis of juvenile correctional treatment.
Crime and Delinquency, 34, 60-83.

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.

Lang, M. (1991). Contemporary urban America: problems, issues, and alternatives.
Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.

Latessa, E.J. & Travis, L.T. (1992). Residential Community Correctional Programs. In
Byme, J ., Lurigio, A., & Petersilia, J. (eds.) Smart sentencing: The emergence of
intermediate sanctions. (pp. 166-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.

Latessa, Edward, J. & Holsinger, AM. (1999). The importance of evaluating correctional
programs: Assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2,
22-29.

Latessa, E.J. & Lowenkamp, GT. (2006). What Works in Reducing Recidivism.
University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 3, 3, 521-535.

Lewis, 0. (1966). The Culture of Poverty. Scientific American, 215, 19-25.

Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the
variable of effects. In Thomas D. Cook, Harris Cooper, David S. Cordray, Heidi
Hartmann, Larry V. Hedges, Richard J. Light, Thomas A. Lewis, & Frederick
Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook. (pp. 83-127). New
York: Russell Sage.

Lipsey, M. W. (1999b). Can rehabilitative programs reduce the recidivism of juvenile
offenders? An inquiry into the effectiveness of practical programs. The Virginia
Journal of Social Policy and the Law, 6, 611-641.

126

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and
behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist,
48,1181-1209.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1995). Reply to comments on Lipsey & Wilson (1993).
American Psychologist, 50, 113-115.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile
offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. F arrington (Eds.),
Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful
Interventions. (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

Lipsey, M.W. (1999a). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? The Annals [of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science], 564, 142-166.

Lipsey, M.W. & Derzon, J.H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in
adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R.
Loeber & D.P. Farrington (Eds). Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk
Factors and Successful Interventions. (pp. 86-105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lipsey, M.W., Chapman, G.L. & Landenberger, NA. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral
programs for offenders. The Annals [of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science], 578, 144-157.

Logan, C.H. & Gaes, G.G. (1993). Meta-analysis and the rehabilitation of punishment.
Justice Quarterly,10, 245-263.

Lowenkamp C.T., Holsinger, A.M., & Latessa E.J. (2003). Are drug courts effective? A
metaanalytic review. Forthcoming, National Drug Court Institute Review,
Volume 5.

Lowenkamp, C.T. & Latessa, E.J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio's community based
correctional facilities and halfway house programs. Technical Report. University
of Cincinnati.

Lowenkamp, C.T. & Latessa, E.J. (2005). Developing Successul Reentry Programs:
Lessons Learned from the "What Works" Research. Corrections Today. April
2005.

Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., and Smith, P. (2006). Does Correctional Program
Quality Really Matter - The Impact of Adhearing to the Principles of Effective
Interventions. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 3, 575-594.

Maahs, J. & Pratt, T. (2001). Uncovering the predictors of correctional officers’ attitudes
and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 13-19.

127

Martin, S.S., Butzin, C.A., Saum, C.A., & Inciardi, J .A. (1999). Three-year outcome of
therapeutic community treatment for drug involved offenders in Delaware: From
prison to work release and aftercare. The Prison Journal, 79, 294-320.

Maletzky, B. (1991). Treating the sexual offender. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mann, C. R. (1993). Unequal justice: A question of color. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.

Martin, R., Mutchnick, R. J ., & Austin, W. T. (1990). Criminological thought: pioneers
past and present. New York: Macmillan.

Martinson, R. (1974). What works?———Questions and answers about prison reform. The
Public Interest, 35, 22-54.

Matthews, B., Jones-Hubbard, D. & Latessa, E.J. (2001). Making the next step: Using
evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming. The Prison
Journal, 81, 454-472.

Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York: Wiley.

Mayer, J ., Gensheimer, L., Davidson, W.S., & Gottschalk, R. (1986). Social learning
treatment within juvenile justice: A meta-analysis of impact in the natural
environment. In S. Apter & A. Goldstein (Eds.), Youth Violence: Program and
Prospects. (pp. 24-3 8). New York, New York: Pergamon.

McGaha, J ., Fitcher, M., & Hirschburg, P. (1987). Felony Probation: A re-examination of
public risk. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 12:1-9.

McLoyd, V., Jayarante, T., Ceballo, R., & Borquez, J. (1994). Unemployment and work
interruption among Afi'ican-American single mothers: Effects on parenting and
adolescent socioemotional functioning. Child Development, 65, 562-589.

McNulty, T. L., & Bellair, P. E. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic differences in
adolescent violence: Structural disadvantage, family well-being, and social
capital. Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 1-32.

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (1968 en]. ed.). New York: Free
Press.

Messner, S. F., & South, S. J. (1986). Economic Deprivation, Opportunity Structure, and

Robbery Victimiztion: Intra- and Interracial Patterns. Social Forces, 64(4), 975-
991.

128

Michigan Department of Corrections (2008). MPRI Quarterly Status Report.
http://michi gan. gov/ documents/ corrections/ 04-1 6-08_MPRI_Quarterly_Statue_
Report_Addendum_23 1669_7.pdf.

Mincy, R. B. (1994). Nurturing young black males: Challenges to agencies, programs,
and social policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Nesovic, Aleksandra. (2003). Psychometric Evaluation of the Correctional Program
Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton
University, Ottawa, Ontario.

O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1988). Period, Age, and Cohort
Effects on Substance Use among Young Americans: A Decade of Change, 1976-
86. American Journal of Public Health, 78(10), 1315-1321.

Palmer, T. (1965). Types of treaters and types of juvenile offenders. Youth Authority
Quarterly, 18, 14-23.

Palmer, T. (1973). Matching worker and client in corrections. Social Work, 18, 95-103.

Palmer, T. (1975). Martinson revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, l 2, 131- 152.

Palmer, T. (1991). The effectiveness of intervention: Recent trends and current issues.
Crime and Delinquency, 37, 330-346.

Palmer, T. (1994). A profile of correctional effectiveness and new directions for research.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Palmer, T. (1995). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful
intervention: New directions for research. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 100-131.

Paschall, M. J ., Ennett, S. T., & Flewelling, R. L. (1996). Relationships among family
characteristics and violent behavior by black and white male adolescents. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 177-197.

Paschall, M. J ., F lewelling, R. L., & Ennett, S. T. (1998). Racial Differences in Violent
Behavior among Young Adults: Moderating and Confounding Effects. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(2), 148-165.

Pearson, F.S., Lipton, D.S., Cleland, C.M., & Yee, D.S. (2002). The effects of
behavioral/cognitive behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime and Delinquency,

48, 476-496.

Perry, D., Perry, L., & Rasmussen, P. (1986). Cognitive Social Learning Mediators of
Aggression. Child Development, 57, 700-711.

129

Petersilia, J. (1985). Probation and Felony Offenders. Federal Probation, 49, 4-9.

Petersilia, J. (2000). When prisoners return to the community: Political, economic, and
social consequences. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice, US.
Department of Justice.

Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In Michael Tonry (ed.),
Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 17, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, pp. 281- 335.

Pew Center on the States, (2008). One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008.
Washington DC.

Phillips, J. A. (1997). Variation in Afiican-American homicide rates: An assessment of
potential explanations. Criminology, 35(4), 527-559.

Phillips, J. A. (2002). White, Black, and Latino Homicide Rates: Why the Difference?
Social Problems, 49(3), 349-373.

Prendergast, M., Anglin, D. & Wellisch, J. (1995). Treatment of drug-abusing offenders
under community supervision. Federal Probation, 59, 66-75.

Poole, E.D. & Pogrebin, M. (1988). Deputy sheriffs as jail guards. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 15(2), 190-209.

Pratt, T. (2002). Meta-analysis and its discontents: Treatment destruction techniques
revisited. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35, 23-40.

Quay, H. C. (1977). The three faces of evaluation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 4, 341-
354.

Raine, A. (1993). The psychopathology of crime: criminal behavior as a clinical
disorder. San Diego: Academic Press.

Redondo, S., Sanchez-Meca, J ., & Genoves, V.G. (2001). Treatment of offenders and
recidivism: Assessment of the effectiveness of programs applied in Europe.

Psychology in Spain, 5, 47-62.

Reed, W. (1993). African Americans: Essential perspectives. Westport, CT: Auburn
House.

Rose, P. I. (2006). They and we: racial and ethnic relations in the United States. Boulder,
CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Ross, R & Gendreau, P. (1980). Effective correctional treatment. Toronto: Butterworths.

130

Rothman, D. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in
progressive America. Boston: Little Brown.

Russell, K. K. (1998). The color of crime. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Sampson, R. J ., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community Structure and Crime: Testing
Social-Disorganization Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774-802.

Sampson, R. J ., & Wilson, W. J. (2005). Toward a Theory of Race, Crime and Urban
Inequality. In S. L. Gabbidon & H. T. Greene (Eds.), Race, Crime, and Justice
(pp. 177-189). New York, NY: Routledge.

Schumacher, M. A., & Kurz, G. A. (2000). The 8% solution: preventing serious, repeat
juvenile crime. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

Serin, R. & Kennedy, S. (1997). Treatment readiness and responsivity: Contributing to
effective correctional programming. Ontario, Canada: Correctional Services of
Canada.

Siegel, L. J ., Welsh, B. C., & Senna, J. J. (2006). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice,
and Law. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas; a study of
rates of delinquency in relation to differential characteristics of local
communities in American cities (Rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Short, J ., & Nye, I. (195 8). Reported Behavior as a Criterion of Deviant Behavior. Social
Problems, 5, 207-213.

Simms, M. C., & Myers, S. L. (1988). The Economics of race and crime. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Simourd, L. & Andrews, DA. (1994). Correlates of delinquency: A look at gender
differences Forum on Corrections Research, 6, 26-31.

Snyder, H. (2005). Juvenile Arrests 2003. Juvenile Justice Bulletin Retrieved May 27,
2006, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/oiflidp/209735.pd_f

Spector, PE. (1992). Summated rating scale construction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

Stageberg, P., Wilson, B., & Moore, RC. (2001). Final Report on the Polk County Adult
Drug Court. Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and
Juvenile Justice Planning.

131

Staples, R. (1975). White Racism, Black Crime, and American Justice: An Application of
the Colonial Model to Explain Crime and Race. Phylon, 36(1), 14-22.

Staples, R. (1987). The Urban Plantation: Racism and Colonialism in the Post Civil
Rights Era. Oakland, CA: The Black Scholar Press.

Steffensmeier, D. J ., Allan, E. A., Harer, M. D., & Streifel, C. (1989). Age and the
Distribution of Crime. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 803-831.

Stiles, B. L., Liu, X., & Kaplan, H. B. (2000). Relative Deprivation and Deviant
Adaptations: The Mediating Effects of Negative Self-Feelings. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(1), 64-90.

Stretesky, P. B., & Lynch, M. J. (2001). The Relationship Between Lead Exposure and
Homicide. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 155(5), 579-582.

Sulton, A. T. (1989). Inner-City crime control. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation.

Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1960). Principles of criminology (6th ed.). Chicago:
Lippincott.

Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency.
American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.

Tatum, B. L. (1996). An analysis of factors contributing to the delinquency of the black
youth. Journal of Black Studies, 26(3), 356-368.

Tatum, B. L. (2000). Crime, violence and minority youths. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Taylor, C. S. (1993). Girls, gangs, women, and drugs. East Lansing: Michigan State
University Press.

Taylor, C. S., Elam, P., & Minifee, P. (2004). Overview of the Wayne County, Michigan
Juvenile Detention Facility. Commissioned by the Department of Children and
Family Services. Detroit, MI. Journal of Urban Youth Culture,
http://www.juyc.org.

Taylor, C. S., Smith, P. R., McNeil, R., & Taylor, V. A. (2006). Growing Up Urban:
Dunbar Press Publications.

Taylor, C. S., & Taylor, V. (2004). Hip-Hop and Youth Culture: Contemplations on an
emerging cultural phenomenon. Journal of Urban Youth Culture Retrieved May
3, 2006, from http://www.iuvc.org/current/040l/hiphop.html

 

132

Taylor, R. L. (1991). Poverty and adolescent black males: The subculture of
disengagement. In P. B. Edelman & J. Ladner (Eds.), Adolescence and poverty
(pp. 139-162). Washington, D.C.: Center for National Policy Press.

Thomas, M. E. (1993). Race, Class, and Personal Income: An Empirical Test of the
Declining Significance of Race Thesis, 1968-1988. Social Problems, 40(3), 328-
342.

Thrasher, F. M., & Short, J. F. (1963). The gang; a study of1,313 gangs in Chicago.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Toch, H., & Grant, J .D. (1982). Reforming human services: Change through
participation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Toch, H. & Klofas, J. (1982). Alienation and desire for job enrichment among
correctional officers. Federal Probation, 46, 35-47.

Tracy, P. (1987). Race and Class Differences in Official and Self-Reported Delinquency.
In M. E. Wolfgang, T. P. Thomberry & R. M. Figlio (Eds.), From boy to man,
from delinquency to crime (pp. 120). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

United States Census Bureau. (2000). National Population Estimates. Retrieved May 27,

2006, from http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/20005/vintage_2001/US-
2001EST-ASRO-03.html

 

United States Census Bureau. (2001). Male Population by Age, Race and Hispanic or
Latino Origin for the United States: 2000. Washington D.C.: US. Census
Bureau.

United States Department of Justice. (1992). Recidivism of felons on probation, 1986-89.
Washington D.C.: US. Department of Justice.

United States Department of Justice. (2006). Prisoners in 2005. Washington D.C.: US.
Department of Justice.

Van Voorhis, P. & Brown, K. (1996). Risk classification in the 19903. National Institute
of Corrections.

Van den Haag, E. (1975). Punishing criminals: concerning a very old and painful
question. New York: Basic Books.

Van Voorhis, P. Cullen, F.T., & Applegate, B.(1995). Evaluating interventions with

violent offenders: A guide for practitioners and policy makers. Federal Probation
59, 17-28.

133

Velez, M. B., Krivo, L. J ., & Peterson, R. D. (2003). Structural inequality and homicide:
An assessment of the black-white gap in killings. Criminology, 41(3), 645-672.

Vito, G. (1986). Felony probation and recidivism: Replication and response. Federal
Probation, 50, 17-25.

Voeller, K. K. (1986). Right-hemisphere deficit syndrome in children. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 143(8), 1004-1009.

Vontress, C. E. (1962). Patterns of Segregation and Discrimination: Contributing Factors
to Crime Among Negroes. The Journal of Negro Education, 31(2), 108-116.

Walker, S., Spohn, C., & DeLone, M. (2004). The color of justice: race, ethnicity, and
crime in America (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Wallace, R. (1991). Expanding Coupled Shock Fronts of Urban Decay and Criminal
Behavior: How US. Cities Are Becoming 'Hollowed Out'. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 7, 333-355.

Warren, M. (1971). Classification of offenders as an aid to efficient management and

effective treatment. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science,
62, 239- 268.

Wasserman, G. A., & United States Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. (2003). Risk and protective factors of child delinquency.
[Washington, DC]: US. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

West, D. J ., & Farrington, D. P. (1977). Who Becomes Delinquent. In D. J. West, D. P.
Farrington & Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. (Eds.), The
delinquent way of life: third report of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent
Development (pp. 1-28). London: Heinemann.

Wexler, H.E., Melnick, G., Lowe, L., & Peters, J. (1999). Three-year reincarceration
outcomes for Amity in-prison therapeutic community and aftercare in California.
The Prison Journal, 79, 321-336.

Whitehead, J .T., & Lab, SP. (1989). A meta-analysis of juvenile correctional treatment.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 276-295.

Williams, F ., & McShane, M. (1998). Criminological theory: Selected readings (2nd
ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., Coggeshall, M. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). A

quantitative review and description of corrections-based education, vocation, and
work programs. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3, 8-18.

134

Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S. (2002). School-based prevention of
problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17,
247-272.

Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of
corrections based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders.
Journal on Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 347-368.

Wilson, S.J., Lipsey M.W., & Derzon, J .H. (2003). The effects of school-based
intervention programs on aggressive and disruptive behavior: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 2003, 71, 136 —- 149.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass, and public
policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wolfgang, M., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence: Toward an integrated
theory in criminology. London: Tavistock.

135

 

 

.......

(mu Ill! 111114

293 02956 6944