Careful reading of the literature on the psychology of criminal conduct and of prior reviews of studies of treatment effects suggests that neither criminal sanctioning without provision of rehabilitative service nor servicing without reference to clinical principles of rehabilitation will succeed in reducing recidivism. What works, in our view, is the delivery of appropriate correctional service, and appropriate service reflects three psychological principles: (1) delivery of service to higher risk cases, (2) targeting of criminogenic needs, and (3) use of styles and modes of treatment (e.g., cognitive and behavioral) that are matched with client need and learning styles. These principles were applied to studies of juvenile and adult correctional treatment, which yielded 154 phi coefficients that summarized the magnitude and direction of the impact of treatment on recidivism. The effect of appropriate correctional service (mean phi = .30) was significantly (p <.05) greater than that of unspecified correctional service (.13), and both were more effective than inappropriate service (−.06) and non-service criminal sanctioning (−.07). Service was effective within juvenile and adult corrections, in studies published before and after 1980, in randomized and nonrandomized designs, and in diversionary, community, and residential programs (albeit, attenuated in residential settings). Clinical sensitivity and a psychologically informed perspective on crime may assist in the renewed service, research, and conceptual efforts that are strongly indicated by our review.

Does correctional treatment work? a clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis *

Four principles of classification for effective rehabilitation are reviewed: risk, need, responsivity, and professional override. Many examples of Case x Treatment interactions are presented to ill...

Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology.

We reviewed the offender rehabilitation literature for the period 1981–87 and assessed the following types of interventions: biomedical, diversion, early/family intervention, education, getting tough, individual differences, parole/probation, restitution, and work. We evaluated treatments applied to specific subgroups of offender populations: sexual offenders, substance abusers, and violent offenders. The hypothesis that the “nothing works” credo has had a pervasive influence and has suppressed the rehabilitative agenda was not borne out when we examined the number and variety of successfully reported attempts at reducing delinquent behavior. In fact, the rehabilitative literature is growing at a noticeable rate; moreover, it suggests several strategies for developing more effective programs. Finally, we speculated why the “nothing works” doctrine continues to receive support in spite of empirical evidence to the contrary.

Revivification of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s

Judgments about risk and need factors form the basis for important decisions about youths within juvenile justice systems. The judgments are particularly relevant to preadjudicatory diversion and detention actions as well as postadjudication disposition decisions. Research has shown, however, that these judgments are frequently made through informal and unsystematic procedures, and this in turn often results in inconsistency and bias in the decision process. An argument is developed in this article that these processes would be improved with the use of standardized risk and need assessment instruments. Three representative measures are described.

Standardized Instruments for Assessing Risk and Need in Youthful Offenders

Attrition in male battering treatment programs is a serious problem. To keep clients in treatment, it is crucial to understand why they drop out. The current study examined the contribution of both client and program characteristics in predicting dropout from treatment programs for abusive men. Data were collected at intake from 306 abusive men who sought treatment at four different sites. The rate of preprogram attrition (from intake to the first treatment session) was higher in the program that had a lengthy waiting list (46%) than in the other programs amp lpar3%-13%). In-program attrition was more highly related to client characteristics than program characteristics (all programs had rates between 36% and 42%). Those men who dropped out after starting treatment tended to have unstable lifestyles (e.g., substance abuse problems, criminal history, unemployment) and to have inflicted more severe abuse than those who completed treatment. Results also supported a significant interaction between verbal aptitude and structure of program; men with low verbal aptitude were the most likely to drop out of an unstructured program. Possible strategies for preventing attrition are discussed.

Predicting Attrition From Treatment Programs for Abusive Men

The Conceptual-Level Matching Model (CLMM) is reviewed with a focus to its application in the development of treatment/rehabilitation programs with offender groups. The CLMM is a theoretical model ...

Alan W. Leschied

Papers

The Conceptual-Level Matching Model in Corrections