TY  - JOUR
PY  - 1990//
TI  - Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis
JO  - Criminology
A1  - Andrews, D. A.
A1  - Bonta, James L.
A1  - Hoge, Robert D.
A1  - Zinger, Ivan
A1  - Gendreau, Paul
A1  - Cullen, Francis T.
SP  - 369
EP  - 404
VL  - 28
IS  - 3
N2  - VioLit summary:   OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study by Andrews et al. was to predict whether criminal sanctioning without attention to the delivery of correctional service will minimally relate to recidivism.  METHODOLOGY: This study was quasi-experimental, in which both content and meta-analyses were utilized. The first sample consisted of 45 previous studies conducted by Whitehead and Lab (1989). The Whitehead and Lab sample included only studies of juvenile treatment that appeared in professional journals between 1975 and 1984 and that presented effects of treatment on binary measures of recidivism. Studies that focused on imprisonment or the treatment of substance abuse were not included. The second sample included 35 studies in the authors' research files as of February 1989 that were not included in the Whitehead and Lab set but had employed binary measures of recidivism. Studies in sample 2 dated from the 1950's through 1989. Sample 2 provided a tentative means of generalization based on the conclusions of the Whitehead and Lab sample. The authors' first hypothesis was that the type of treatment was the major source of variation in estimates of effect size. The second hypothesis was that appropriate correctional services will yield an average estimate of impact on recidivism that was positive and exceeded those of criminal sanctions, unspecified service, and inappropriate service.  FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: A preliminary comparison of the two samples was conducted on various control variables. Overall, the two samples of studies were found to be reasonably comparable across the various potential predictors of treatment effect size. The first hypothesis was strongly supported; type of treatment was clearly the strongest of the correlates of effect size sampled in this study. In addition, the second hypothesis was supported to a stronger degree than was initially anticipated; both appropriate and unspecified correctional services were significantly more effective in reducing recidivism than were criminal sanctions and inappropriate service.  AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS: The authors contended that critiques and revisions of the principles of risk, need, and responsivity were needed. Also, reserved for future reports were the many issues surrounding therapeutic integrity, the measurement of recidivism, and methodological issues such as sample size. In addition, the authors believed that further research into gender effects and the treatment of sex offenders, substance abusers, and inmates of long-term institutions be employed.  (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)  1970s 1980s Offender Recidivism Correctional Institution Intervention Correctional Decision Making Correctional Institution Treatment Intervention Program Treatment Program Program Effectiveness Justice System Evaluation Justice System Program Justice System Treatment Justice System Intervention Adult Inmate Adult Treatment Adult Offender Inmate Treatment Offender Treatment 02-05<p />
LA  - en
SN  - 0011-1384
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/
ID  - ref1
ER  -