A Human Science Approach or More Punishment and Pessimism: A Rejoinder to Lab and Whitehead

Abstract

Lab and Whitehead describe our positive finding regarding appropriate treatment as interesting and worthy of further research along the lines we suggested. Although this is appreciated warmly, overall their comments are not enthusiastically supportive of our approach. For example, they charged that our coding was biased in favor of our hypotheses. Positively, this motivated us to reexamine our analyses, and, as is described in an appendix to this rejoinder, we uncovered a few problems that indeed required clarification and correction. Our conclusion, however, remains favorable to psychologically sound treatment because, as we will show, our empirical findings were unaffected by the introduction of controls for the problems identified by Lab and Whitehead. Overall, their lively and multidirectional critique provides an opportunity to compare our message with their message. Even with the caveats and qualifications in their papers, Lab and Whitehead offer a pessimistic message with little guidance as to where next to turn (other than away from rehabilitation), whereas we try to show how human science research in criminology may illuminate promising avenues for achieving treatment effectiveness. The human science (or psychology) of crime and corrections (Andrews and Wormith, 1989) recognizes and values human diversity (e.g., individual differences in risk, need and responsivity) as well as diversity in social reaction (e.g., a distinction between the penalty and the service and differentiations among services according to level, targets, and mode or style of intervention).Our rejoinder begins with a restatement of the opening argument of our paper because Lab and Whitehead object to our characterization of earlier reviews of the literature. We also restate our fundamental findings because CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME 28 NUMBER 3 1990 419 420 ANDREWS ET AL.Lab and Whitehead introduced a few distractions by paying so much attention to peripheral issues. This is followed by an examination of some of their specific charges of bias, as well as a review of their more rhetorical comments.

CDATE: UPDATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT 25 YEARS LATER

“…CDATE will update E a in the light of a reawakening during the last decade to the rehabilitative potential within the criminal justice system (Garren 1985;Geismar and Wood 1985;Greenwood and Zimring 1985;Ross and Fabiano 1985;Lipsey 1989Lipsey , 1991Mayer et al 1986;Palmer 1986;Basta and Davidson 1988;Cunie 1989;Cullen and Gendreau 1989;Gendreau and Ross 1987;Andrews et al 1990;l u o and Ross 1990;Wexler 1991;Antonowicz and Ross 1992). A current view held by many is that "The effectiveness of correctional treatment is dependent upon what is delivered to whom in particular settings," a view asserted by Andrews et al in several publications (1983Andrews et al in several publications ( , 1990.…”

“…Rather, it raised the question of whether some programs might work for certain types of offenders. Since that time, a growing body of evaluation studies has come under careful scrutiny, and several authors have concluded that certain rehabilitation programs effectively reduce recidivism (Andrews et al 1990;Gendreau and Ross 1987;Greenwood and Zimring 1985;Izzo and Ross 1990;Lipsey 1989Lipsey , 1991Palmer 1975;Lipton 1988, 1990;Van Voorhis 1987); but some are pessimistic still (Lab and Whitehead 1988;Rosenbaum 1988;Whitehead and Lab 1989).…”

“…This is echoed by Greenberg (1977) and Brody (1976). Whitehead and Lab (1989) are noteworthy for having reviewed "an impressively complete set of controlled evaluations of juvenile treatment for the years 1975 to 1984" (Andrews et al 1990) from which they conclude that the "nothing works" belief with respect to recidivism for juvenile treatment is unfortunately still viable, although they are careful to deny their alliance with the "nothing works" ideologues and assert their limitcd optimism (Lab and Whitchead. 1990).…”

Aggression Replacement Training in Australia: Youth Justice Pilot Study

“…Questions and answers about prison reform'' there has been a pervasive belief that lasting behaviour change among criminal offenders was at best unlikely, if not impossible (Hollin, Browne, & Palmer, 2004). More recently, several meta-analytic studies (Andrews et al, 1990;Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005;Lipsey, Chapman, & Landenberger, 2001;Lipsey & Wilson, 1998) have reported favourable results in treating offender populations using structured cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) programmes. Lipsey et al (2001) reviewed 14 studies in which CBT group treatments were used with juvenile (M age 15-18 years) or adult (M age 20-30 years) offenders.…”

Psychopathy: Theory, Research and Implications for Society

“…In the last 10 years, more than a dozen meta-analyses have integrated hundreds of studies on the treatment of antisocial behavior (e.g., Andrews et al, 1990;Antonowicz & Ross, 1994;Garrett, 1985;Gendreau & Ross, 1987;Gensheimer et al, 1986;Lipsey, 1992a;Losel et al, 1987;Redondo, 1994, Whitehead & Lab, 1989see, for an overview, Losel, 1995a). Although samples of primary studies overlap in the North American integrations, the material is very heterogeneous.…”