The Effectiveness of Correctional Programs

Abstract

Justifications for the development of special correctional programs and for the choice of sentencing disposition for an individual offender are frequently based on claims of greater rehabilitative efficacy. While considerable evidence exists that some types of offenders have relatively more or less likelihood of recidivism than others , there is , as yet , almost no evidence that available correctional alternatives have any impact on those likelihoods. The article reviews findings from studies of correction in California for five critical choices in offender processing : (1) imprisonment or probation , (2) length of stay in prison , (3) treatment program in prison , (4) intensity of parole or probation supervision , and (5) outright discharge from prison or release on parole. The authors conclude that variations in recidivism rates among these alternatives are , for the most part , attributable to initial differences among the types of offenders processed and that the remaining differences in violation rate between programs may be accounted for by differences in interpreting an event as a violation or in officially designating it as such. No evidence was found to support claims of superior rehabilitative efficacy of one correctional alternative over another. Research into the correctional system has been concerned with answering these five basic questions about the behavior of convicted persons 3 California Legislature, "Analysis of the Budget Bill of the State of California for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1968, to June 30, 1969," 1969.

Criminal Justice: Review of a Field

“…Although we had some decisive evaluations earlier (Kassebaum, Ward, and Wilner, 1971;Robison and Smith, 1971), Viano could still say in 1975, "The rehabilitative or therapeutic ideal dominates academics and practitioners alike, and it is widely assumed that matters of treatment and reform of the offender are the only questions worthy of serious attention" (1975:xi (1975), reporting on a review of evaluations at the behest of the New York Governor's Special Committee on Criminal Offenders (and the prior and subsequent publicizing of the survey conclusion, especially by Martinson) had a dramatic impact on the whole field of criminal justice. Their conclusion that the addition of specific treatment programs has little or no impact on the success of a general type of program (such as prison or parole) for a given type of offender has been widely interpreted to mean that "nothing"…”

Interaction of criminological research and public policy

“…The initial response to the null-effect results came from the liberal left (e.g., Robison and Smith, 1971), which argued that, since rehabilitation, as represented in reduction of recidivism by actions of the criminal justice system, was so futile, the criminal justice system should interfere less in people's lives. Of course, that argument did not hold much sway in the political arena in which criminal justice policy gets set.…”

Apolitical courts? Rape sentencing in Montana

“…Even in the absence of specific state statutes, state court judges would have more direction in their sentencing decisions if they had a clear idea of the underlying policy objectives in this area. However, as noted by Frankel (1 973) and others (Moms, 1981;Allen, 1981;Robinson & Smith, 1981;Rothman, 1981) the goals of criminal justice systems, of which sentencing is a part, have not been clearly articulated.…”