September 2002 BEYOND CORRECTIONAL QUACKERY 43 Beyond Correctional Quackery— Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment

Edward J. Latessa, University of Cincinnati Francis T. Cullen, University of Cincinnati Paul Gendreau, University of New Brunswick at Saint John

LONG-TIME VIEWERS of Saturday vey of current correctional practices yields the snickers from the crowd—a case where hu- Night Live will vividly recall Steve Martin’s disquieting conclusion that we are a field in mor unintentionally offers a damning indict- hilarious portrayal of a medieval medical which quackery is tolerated, if not implicitly ment of the field’s standards of care. practitioner—the English barber, Theodoric celebrated. It is not clear whether most of us In contrast to professionalism, quackery is of York. When ill patients are brought be- have ever had that reflective moment in which dismissive of scientific knowledge, training, fore him, he prescribes ludicrous “cures,” we question whether, “just maybe,” there and expertise. Its posture is strikingly over- such as repeated bloodletting, the applica- might be a more enlightened path to pursue. confident, if not arrogant. It embraces the tion of leeches and boar’s vomit, gory am- If we have paused to envision a different way notion that interventions are best rooted in putations, and burying people up to their of doing things, it is apparent that our reac- “common sense,” in personal experiences (or necks in a marsh. At a point in the skit when tion, after a moment’s contemplation, too clinical knowledge), in tradition, and in su- a patient dies and Theodoric is accused of often has been, “Nawwwwwwww!” perstition (Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, and “not knowing what he is doing,” Martin This appraisal might seem overly harsh, Paparozzi, forthcoming). “What works” is stops, apparently struck by the transform- but we are persuaded that it is truthful. thus held to be “obvious,” derived only from ing insight that medicine might abandon When intervening in the lives of offenders— years of an individual’s experience, and legiti- harmful interventions rooted in ignorant that is, intervening with the expressed inten- mized by an appeal to custom (“the way we customs and follow a more enlightened path. tion of reducing recidivism—corrections has have always done things around here has “Perhaps,” he says, “I’ve been wrong to resisted becoming a true “profession.” Too worked just fine”). It celebrates being anti- blindly follow the medical traditions and often, being a “professional” has been de- intellectual. There is never a need to visit a superstitions of past centuries.” He then pro- based to mean dressing in a presentable way, library or consult a study. ceeds to wonder whether he should “test having experience in the field, and showing Correctional quackery, therefore, is the use these assumptions analytically through ex- up every day for work. But a profession is of treatment interventions that are based on perimentation and the scientific method.” defined not by its surface appearance but by neither 1) existing knowledge of the causes And perhaps, he says, the scientific method its intellectual core. An occupation may lay of crime nor 2) existing knowledge of what might be applied to other fields of learning. claim to being a “profession” only to the programs have been shown to change of- He might even be able to “lead the way to a extent that its practices are based on research fender behavior (Cullen and Gendreau, 2000; new age—an age of rebirth, a renaissance.” knowledge, training, and expertise—a tri- Gendreau, 2000). The hallmark of correc- He then pauses and gives the much-awaited umvirate that promotes the possibility that tional quackery is thus ignorance. Such igno- and amusing punchline, “Nawwwwwww!” what it does can be effective (Cullen, 1978; rance about crime and its cures at times is The humor, of course, lies in the juxtapo- Starr, 1982). Thus, medicine’s “understandable”—that is, linked not to the sition and final embrace of blatant quackery professionalization cannot be separated willful rejection of research but to being in a with the possibility and rejection of a more from its embrace of scientific knowledge as field in which professionalism is not expected modern, scientific, and ultimately effective the ideal arbiter of how patients should be or supported. At other times, however, quack- approach to medicine. For those of us who treated (Starr, 1982). The very concept of ery is proudly displayed, as its advocates make a living commenting on or doing cor- “malpractice” connotes that standards of boldly proclaim that they have nothing to rections, however, we must consider whether, service delivery have been established, are learn from research conducted by academics in a sense, the joke is on us. We can readily universally transmitted, and are capable of “who have never worked with a criminal” see the humor in Steve Martin’s skit and won- distinguishing acceptable from unacceptable (a claim that is partially true but ultimately der how those in medieval societies “could interventions. The concept of liability for beside the point and a rationalization for have been so stupid.” But even a cursory sur- “correctional malpractice” would bring continued ignorance). 44 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 66 Number 2

Need we now point out the numerous pro- the agency, and the community)? Often, no Notice, however, what is missing in this grams that have been implemented with real choice is made, because agencies simply account: The failure to consider the existing much fanfare and with amazing promises of continue with the practices that have been research on program effectiveness. The risk success, only later to turn out to have “no inherited from previous administrations. of quackery rises to the level of virtual cer- effect” on reoffending? “Boot camps,” of Other times, programs are added incremen- tainty when nobody in the agency asks, “Is course, are just one recent and salient tally, such as when concern rises about drug there any evidence supporting what we are example. Based on a vague, if not unstated, use or drunk driving. And still other times— intending to do?” The irrationality of not con- theory of crime and an absurd theory of be- such as when punishment-oriented interme- sulting the existing research is seen when we havioral change (“offenders need to be bro- diate sanctions were the fad from the consider again, medicine. Imagine if local ken down”—through a good deal of mid-1980s to the mid-1990s—jurisdictions physicians and hospitals made no effort to humiliation and threats—and then “built copy the much-publicized interventions be- consult “what works” and simply prescribed back up”), boot camps could not possibly ing implemented elsewhere in the state and pharmaceuticals and conducted surgeries have “worked.” In fact, we know of no major in the nation. based on custom or the latest fad. Such mal- psychological theory that would logically sug- practice would be greeted with public con- gest that such humiliation or threats are com- demnation, lawsuits, and a loss of legitimacy ponents of effective therapeutic interventions by the field of medicine. (Gendreau et al., forthcoming). Even so, boot TABLE 1 It is fair to ask whether research can, in fact, camps were put into place across the nation Questionable Theories of Crime direct us to more effective correctional inter- without a shred of empirical evidence as to ventions. Two decades ago, our knowledge was We Have Encountered in Agency their effectiveness, and only now has their ap- much less developed. But the science of crime peal been tarnished after years of negative Programs and treatment has made important strides in evaluation studies (Cullen, Pratt, Miceli, and the intervening years. In particular, research Moon, 2002; Cullen, Wright, and Applegate, ߜ “Been there, done that” theory. has illuminated three bodies of knowledge that 1996; Gendreau, Goggin, Cullen, and Andrews, ߜ “Offenders lack creativity” theory. are integral to designing effective interventions. 2000; MacKenzie, Wilson, and Kider, 2001). First, we have made increasing strides in ߜ “Offenders need to get back to How many millions of dollars have been determining the empirically established or nature” theory. squandered? How many opportunities to re- known predictors of offender recidivism habilitate offenders have been forfeited? How ߜ “It worked for me” theory. (Andrews and Bonta, 1998; Gendreau, Little, many citizens have been needlessly victimized ߜ “Offenders lack discipline” theory. and Goggin, 1996; Henggeler, Mihalic, Rone, by boot camp graduates? What has been the ߜ Thomas, and Timmons-Mitchell, 1998). cost to society of this quackery? “Offenders lack organizational These include, most importantly: 1) antiso- We are not alone in suggesting that ad- skills” theory. cial values, 2) antisocial peers, 3) poor self- vances in our field will be contingent on the ߜ “Offenders have low self-esteem” control, self-management, and prosocial conscious rejection of quackery in favor of an theory. problem-solving skills, 4) family dysfunction, evidence-based corrections (Cullen and and 5) past criminality. This information is ߜ “We just want them to be happy” Gendreau, 2000; MacKenzie, 2000; Welsh and critical, because interventions that ignore these theory. Farrington, 2001). Moving beyond correc- factors are doomed to fail. Phrased alterna- tional quackery when intervening with offend- ߜ The “treat offenders as babies and tively, successful programs start by recogniz- ers, however, will be a daunting challenge. It dress them in diapers” theory. ing what causes crime and then specifically will involve overcoming four central failures ߜ “Offenders need to have a pet in design the intervention to target these factors for now commonplace in correctional treatment. prison” theory. change (Alexander, Pugh, and Parsons, 1998; We review these four sources of correctional Andrews and Bonta, 1998; Cullen and ߜ quackery not simply to show what is lacking “Offenders need acupuncture” Gendreau, 2000; Henggeler et al., 1998). in the field but also in hopes of illuminating theory. Consider, however, the kinds of “theories” what a truly professional approach to correc- ߜ “Offenders need to have healing about the causes of crime that underlie many tions must strive to entail. lodges” theory. correctional interventions. In many cases, simple ignorance prevails; those working in ߜ “Offenders need drama therapy” Four Sources of correctional agencies cannot explain what theory. Correctional Quackery crime-producing factors the program is alleg- ߜ “Offenders need a better diet and edly targeting for change. Still worse, many Failure to Use Research haircut” theory. programs have literally invented seemingly in Designing Programs ߜ “Offenders (females) need to learn ludicrous theories of crime that are put for- Every correctional agency must decide “what how to put on makeup and dress ward with a straight face. From our collective experiences, we have listed in Table 1 crime to do” with the offenders under its supervi- better” theory. sion, including selecting which “programs” theories that either 1) were implicit in pro- ߜ or “interventions” their charges will be sub- “Offenders (males) need to get in grams we observed or 2) were voiced by jected to. But how is this choice made (a touch with their feminine side” agency personnel when asked what crime- choice that is consequential to the offender, theory. causing factors their programs were target- September 2002 BEYOND CORRECTIONAL QUACKERY 45 ing. These “theories” would be amusing ex- TABLE 2 cept that they are commonplace and, again, Eight Principles of Effective Correctional Intervention potentially lead to correctional quackery. For example, the theory of “offenders (males) 1. Organizational Culture need to get in touch with their feminine side” Effective organizations have well-defined goals, ethical principles, and a history prompted one agency to have offenders dress of efficiently responding to issues that have an impact on the treatment facilities. in female clothes. We cannot resist the temp- Staff cohesion, support for service training, self-evaluation, and use of outside tation to note that you will now know whom resources also characterize the organization. to blame if you are mugged by a cross-dresser! But, in the end, this is no laughing matter. 2. Program Implementation/Maintenance This intervention has no chance to be effec- Programs are based on empirically-defined needs and are consistent with the tive, and thus an important chance was for- organization’s values. The program is fiscally responsible and congruent with feited to improve offenders’ lives and to stakeholders’ values. Effective programs also are based on thorough reviews of protect public safety. the literature (i.e., meta-analyses), undergo pilot trials, and maintain the staff’s Second, there is now a growing literature professional credentials. that outlines what does not work in offender treatment (see, e.g., Cullen, 2002; Cullen and 3. Management/Staff Characteristics Gendreau, 2000; Cullen et al., 2002; Cullen et The program director and treatment staff are professionally trained and have al., 1996; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau et al., previous experience working in offender treatment programs. Staff selection is 2000; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; MacKenzie, based on their holding beliefs supportive of rehabilitation and relationship styles 2000). These include boot camps, punish- and therapeutic skill factors typical of effective therapies. ment-oriented programs (e.g., “scared straight” programs), control-oriented pro- 4. Client Risk/Need Practices grams (e.g., intensive supervision programs), Offender risk is assessed by psychometric instruments of proven predictive wilderness programs, psychological interven- validity. The risk instrument consists of a wide range of dynamic risk factors or tions that are non-directive or insight-oriented criminogenic needs (e.g., anti-social attitudes and values). The assessment also (e.g., psychoanalytic), and non-intervention takes into account the responsivity of offenders to different styles and modes of (as suggested by labeling theory). Ineffective programs also target for treatment low-risk service. Changes in risk level over time (e.g., 3 to 6 months) are routinely as- offenders and target for change weak predic- sessed in order to measure intermediate changes in risk/need levels that may tors of criminal behavior (e.g., self-esteem). occur as a result of planned interventions. Given this knowledge, it would be a form of 5. Program Characteristics quackery to continue to use or to freshly imple- The program targets for change a wide variety of criminogenic needs (factors ment these types of interventions. that predict recidivism), using empirically valid behavioral/social learning/ Third, conversely, there is now a growing literature that outlines what does work in of- cognitive behavioral therapies that are directed to higher-risk offenders. The ratio fender treatment (Cullen, 2002; Cullen and of rewards to punishers is at least 4:1. Relapse prevention strategies are available Gendreau, 2000). Most importantly, efforts once offenders complete the formal treatment phase. are being made to develop principles of ef- 6. Core Correctional Practice fective intervention (Andrews, 1995; Andrews Program therapists engage in the following therapeutic practices: anti-criminal and Bonta, 1998; Gendreau, 1996). These principles are listed in Table 2. Programs that modeling, effective reinforcement and disapproval, problem-solving techniques, adhere to these principles have been found structured learning procedures for skill-building, effective use of authority, to achieve meaningful reductions in recidi- cognitive self-change, relationship practices, and motivational interviewing. vism (Andrews, Dowden, and Gendreau, 7. Inter-Agency Communication 1999; Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, The agency aggressively makes referrals and advocates for its offenders in order Gendreau, and Cullen, 1990; Cullen, 2002). However, programs that are designed with- that they receive high quality services in the community. out consulting these principles are almost cer- 8. Evaluation tain to have little or no impact on offender The agency routinely conducts program audits, consumer satisfaction surveys, recidivism and may even risk increasing re- process evaluations of changes in criminogenic need, and follow-ups of recidi- offending. That is, if these principles are ig- vism rates. The effectiveness of the program is evaluated by comparing the nored, quackery is likely to result. We will return to this issue below. respective recidivism rates of risk-control comparison groups of other treatments or those of a minimal treatment group.

Note: Items adapted from the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory—2000, a 131-item Questionnaire that is widely used in assessing the quality of correctional treatment programs (Gendreau and Andrews, 2001). 46 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 66 Number 2

Failure to Follow Appropriate Assess- tified and addressed—such as possessing an- appropriate” category (Andrews et al., 1999). ment and Classification Practices tisocial values—the prospects for recidivism But this failure to employ an appropriate treat- The steady flow of offenders into correctional will be high. For example, a study of 240 (161 ment approach does not have to be the case. agencies not only strains resources but also adult and 79 juvenile) programs assessed Why would an agency—in this information creates a continuing need to allocate treat- across 30 states found that 64 percent of the age—risk quackery when the possibility of us- ment resources efficaciously. This problem is programs did not utilize a standardized and ing an evidence-based program exists? Why not dissimilar to a hospital that must process objective assessment tool that could distin- not select effective treatment models? a steady flow of patients. In a hospital (or guish risk/needs levels for offenders Moving in this direction is perhaps mostly doctor’s office), however, it is immediately (Matthews, Hubbard, and Latessa, 2001; a matter of a change of consciousness—that recognized that the crucial first step to deliv- Latessa, 2002). is, an awareness by agency personnel that ering effective treatment is diagnosing or as- Third, even when offenders are assessed quackery must be rejected and programs with sessing the patient’s condition and its severity. using appropriate classification instruments, a track record of demonstrated success em- In the absence of such a diagnosis—which agencies frequently ignore the information. braced. Fortunately, depending on the of- might involve the careful study of symptoms It is not uncommon, for example, for offend- fender population, there is a growing number or a battery of tests—the treatment pre- ers to be assessed and then for everyone to be of treatment models that might be learned scribed would have no clear foundation. given the same treatment. In this instance, and implemented (Cullen and Applegate, Medicine would be a lottery in which the ill assessment becomes an organizational rou- 1997). Some of the more prominent models would hope the doctor assigned the right tine in which paperwork is compiled but the in this regard are the “Functional Family treatment. In a similar way, effective treat- information is ignored. Therapy” model that promotes family cohe- ment intervention requires the appropriate Again, these practices increase the likeli- sion and affection (Alexander et al., 1998; assessment of both the risks posed by, and the hood that offenders will experience correc- Gordon, Graves, and Arbuthnot, 1995), the needs underlying the criminality of, offend- tional quackery. In a way, treatment is teaching youths to think and react responsi- ers. When such diagnosis is absent and no delivered blindly, with agency personnel bly peer-helping (“Equip”) program (Gibbs, classification of offenders is possible, offend- equipped with little knowledge about the risks Potter, and Goldstein, 1995), the “Prepare ers in effect enter a treatment lottery in which and needs of the offenders under their super- Curriculum” program (Goldstein, 1999), their access to effective intervention is a vision. In these circumstances, it is impossible “Multisystemic Therapy” (Henggeler et al., chancy proposition. to know which offenders should receive which 1998), and the prison-based “Rideau Inte- Strides have been made to develop more interventions. Any hopes of individualizing grated Service Delivery Model” that targets effective classification instruments—such as interventions effectively also are forfeited, be- criminal thinking, anger, and substance abuse the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) cause the appropriate diagnosis either is un- (see Gendreau, Smith, and Goggin, 2001). (Bonta, 1996), which, among its competitors, available or hidden in the agency’s unused files. has achieved the highest predictive validity Failure to Evaluate What We Do with recidivism (Gendreau et al., 1996). The Failure to Use Effective Quackery has long prevailed in corrections LSI and similar instruments classify offend- Treatment Models because agencies have traditionally required no ers by using a combination of “static” factors Once offenders are assessed, the next step is systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of (such as criminal history) and “dynamic fac- to select an appropriate treatment model. As their programs (Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith, tors” (such as antisocial values, peer associa- we have suggested, the challenge is to consult 2001). Let us admit that many agencies may tions) shown by previous research to predict the empirical literature on “what works,” and not have the human or financial capital to con- recidivism. In this way, it is possible to clas- to do so with an eye toward programs that duct ongoing evaluations. Nonetheless, it is not sify offenders by their level of risk and to dis- conform to the principles of effective inter- clear that the failure to evaluate has been due cern the types and amount of “criminogenic vention. At this stage, it is inexcusable either to a lack of capacity as much as to a lack of needs” they possess that should be targeted to ignore this research or to implement pro- desire. The risk inherent in evaluation, of for change in their correctional treatment. grams that have been shown to be ineffective. course, is that practices that are now unques- At present, however, there are three prob- Yet, as we have argued, the neglect of the ex- tioned and convenient may be revealed as in- lems with offender assessment and classifica- isting research on effective treatment models effective. Evaluation, that is, creates tion by correctional agencies (Gendreau and is widespread. In the study of 240 programs accountability and the commitment threat of Goggin, 1997). First, many agencies simply noted above, it was reported that two-thirds having to change what is now being done. The do not assess offenders, with many claiming of adult programs and over half of juvenile cost of change is not to be discounted, but so they do not have the time. Second, when programs did not use a treatment model that too is the “high cost of ignoring success” (Van agencies do assess, they assess poorly. Thus, research had shown to be effective (Matthews Voorhis, 1987). In the end, a professional must they often use outdated, poorly designed, and/ et al., 2001; Latessa, 2002). Another study—a be committed to doing not simply what is in or empirically unvalidated classification in- meta-analysis of 230 program evaluations one’s self-interest but what is ethical and ef- struments. In particular, they tend to rely on (which yielded 374 tests or effect sizes)—cat- fective. To scuttle attempts at program evalu- instruments that measure exclusively static egorized the extent to which interventions ation and to persist in using failed interventions predictors of recidivism (which cannot, by conformed to the principles of effective in- is wrong and a key ingredient to continued definition, be changed) and that provide no tervention. In only 13 percent of the tests were correctional quackery (more broadly, see Van information on the criminogenic needs that the interventions judged to fall into the “most Voorhis, Cullen, and Applegate, 1995). offenders have. If these “needs” are not iden- September 2002 BEYOND CORRECTIONAL QUACKERY 47

Evaluation, moreover, is not an all-or- in corrections so as to build knowledge on alize, than simply visiting a library in search nothing procedure. Ideally, agencies would “what works” to change offenders (Cullen and of research on program effectiveness (al- conduct experimental studies in which of- Gendreau, 2001). Frequently, what guidance though this is often an important first step). fenders were randomly assigned to a treat- criminologists have offered correctional agen- Information must be available in a form that ment or control group and outcomes, such cies has constituted bad advice—ideologically can be used by agencies. As in medicine, there as recidivism, were measured over a lengthy inspired, not rooted in the research, and likely must be opportunities for training and the period of time. But let us assume that, in many to foster quackery. Fortunately, there is a provision of manuals that can be consulted settings, conducting this kind of sophisticated growing movement among criminologists to in how specifically to carry out an interven- evaluation is not feasible. It is possible, how- do our part both in discerning the principles tion. Much attention has to be paid to imple- ever, for virtually all agencies to monitor, to of effective intervention and in deciphering menting programs as they are designed. And, a greater or lesser extent, the quality of the what interventions have empirical support in the long run, an effort must be made to programs that they or outside vendors are (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001; MacKenzie, support widespread program evaluation and supplying. Such evaluative monitoring would 2000; Welsh and Farrington, 2001). Accord- to use the resulting data both to improve in- involve, for example, assessing whether treat- ingly, the field of corrections has more infor- dividual programs and to expand our knowl- ment services are being delivered as designed, mation available to find out what our “best edge base on effective programs generally. supervising and giving constructive feedback bets” are when intervening with offenders To move beyond quackery and accomplish to treatment staff, and studying whether of- (Rhine, 1998). these goals, the field of corrections will have fenders in the program are making progress We must also admit that our use of medi- to take seriously what it means to be a profes- on targeted criminogenic factors (e.g., chang- cine as a comparison to corrections has been sion. In this context, individual agencies and ing antisocial attitudes, manifesting more overly simplistic. We stand firmly behind the individuals within agencies would do well to prosocial behavior). In too many cases, of- central message conveyed—that what is done strive to achieve what Gendreau et al. (forth- fenders are “dropped off” in intervention pro- in corrections would be grounds for malprac- coming) refer to as the “3 C’s” of effective grams and then, eight or twelve weeks later, tice in medicine—but we have glossed over correctional policies: First, employ creden- are deemed—without any basis for this con- the challenges that the field of medicine faces tialed people; second, ensure that the agency clusion—to have “received treatment.” Imag- in its attempt to provide scientifically-based is credentialed in that it is founded on the prin- ine if medical patients entered and exited interventions. First, scientific knowledge is ciples of fairness and the improvement of lives hospitals with no one monitoring their treat- not static but evolving. Medical treatments through ethically defensive means; and third, ment or physical recovery. Again, we know that appear to work now may, after years of base treatment decisions on credentialed what we could call such practices. study, prove ineffective or less effective than knowledge (e.g., research from meta-analyses). alternative interventions. Second, even when By themselves, however, given individu- Conclusion—Becoming an information is available, it is not clear that it als and agencies can do only so much to Evidence-Based Profession is effectively transmitted or that doctors, who implement effective interventions—although may believe in their personal “clinical expe- each small step away from quackery and to- In assigning the label “quackery” to much of rience,” will be open to revising their treat- ward an evidence-based practice potentially what is now being done in corrections, we run ment strategies (Hunt, 1997). “The gap makes a meaningful difference. The broader the risk of seeming, if not being, preachy and between research and knowledge,” notes issue is whether the field of corrections will pretentious. This is not our intent. If anything, Millenson (1997, p. 4), “has real conse- embrace the principles that all interventions we mean to be provocative—not for the sake quences….when family practitioners in should be based on the best research evidence, of causing a stir, but for the purpose of prompt- Washington State were queried about treat- that all practitioners must be sufficiently ing correctional leaders and professionals to ing a simple urinary tract infection in women, trained so as to develop expertise in how to stop using treatments that cannot possibly be eighty-two physicians came up with an ex- achieve offender change, and that an ethical effective. If we make readers think seriously traordinary 137 different strategies.” In re- corrections cannot tolerate treatments known about how to avoid selecting, designing, and sponse to situations like these, there is a to be foolish, if not harmful. In the end, cor- using failed correctional interventions, our ef- renewed evidence-based movement in medi- rectional quackery is not an inevitable state forts will have been worthwhile. cine to improve the quality of medical treat- of affairs—something we are saddled with for We would be remiss, however, if we did ments (Millenson, 1997; Timmermans and the foreseeable future. Rather, although a for- not confess that academic criminologists Angell, 2001). midable foe, it is ultimately rooted in our col- share the blame for the continued use of in- Were corrections to reject quackery in fa- lective decision to tolerate ignorance and effective programs. For much of the past vor of an evidence-based approach, it is likely failure. Choosing a different future for cor- quarter century, most academic criminolo- that agencies would face the same difficulties rections—making the field a true profes- gists have abandoned correctional practitio- that medicine encounters in trying base treat- sion—will be a daunting challenge, but it is a ners. Although some notable exceptions exist, ments on the best scientific knowledge avail- future that lies within our power to achieve. we have spent much of our time claiming that able. Designing and implementing an “nothing works” in offender rehabilitation effective program is more complicated, we re- and have not created partnerships with those 48 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 66 Number 2

References Cullen, Francis T., Travis C. Pratt, Sharon Levrant Leschied (eds.), Inside the “Black Box” in Cor- Alexander, James, Christie Pugh, and Bruce Par- Miceli, and Melissa M. Moon. 2002. “Danger- rections. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons. ous Liaison? Rational Choice Theory as the sons.1998. Functional Family Therapy: Book Gendreau, Paul, Tracy Little, and Claire Goggin. Basis for Correctional Intervention.” p. 279– Three in the Blueprints and Violence Prevention 1996. “A Meta-Analysis of the Predictors of 296 in Alex R. Piquero and Stephen G. Tibbetts Series. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Adult Offender Recidivism: What Works?” (eds.), Rational Choice and Criminal Behavior: Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado. Criminology 34:575-607. Recent Research and Future Challenges. New Andrews, D. A. 1995. “The Psychology of Crimi- York: Routledge. Gendreau, Paul, Paula Smith, and Claire Goggin nal Conduct and Effective Treatment.” Pp. 35– (2001). “Treatment Programs in Corrections.” Cullen, Francis T., John Paul Wright, and Bran- 62 in James McGuire (ed.), What Works: Pp. 238–263 in John Winterdyk (ed.), Correc- don K. Applegate. 1996. “Control in the Com- Reducing Reoffending. West Sussex, UK: John tions in Canada: Social Reaction to Crime. munity: The Limits of Reform?” Pp. 69–116 Wiley. Toronto, Canada: Prentice-Hall. in Alan T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correc- Andrews, D. A., and James Bonta. 1998. Psychol- tional Interventions That Work: Defining the Gibbs, John C., Granville Bud Potter, and Arnold ogy of Criminal Conduct, 2nd ed. Cincinnati: Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Thousand P. Goldstein. 1995. The EQUIP Program: Teach- Anderson. Oaks, CA: Sage. ing Youths to Think and Act Responsibly Through a Peer-Helping Approach. Champaign, IL: Re- Andrews, D. A., Craig Dowden, and Paul Cullen, John B. 1978. The Structure of Profession- search Press. Gendreau. 1999. “Clinically Relevant and Psy- alism. Princeton, NJ: Petrocelli Books. chologically Informed Approaches to Reduced Goldstein, Arnold P. 1999. The Prepare Curricu- Gendreau, Paul. 1996. “The Principles of Effective Re-Offending: A Meta-Analytic Study of Hu- lum: Teaching Prosocial Competencies. Rev. ed. Intervention with Offenders.” Pp. 117–130 in man Service, Risk, Need, Responsivity, and Champaign, IL: Research Press. Other Concerns in Justice Contexts.” Unpub- Alan T. Harland (ed.), Choosing Correctional lished manuscript, Carleton University. Options That Work: Defining the Demand and Gordon, Donald A., Karen Graves, and Jack Evaluating the Supply. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Arbuthnot. 1995. “The Effect of Functional Andrews. D. A., Ivan Zinger, R. D. Hoge, James Family Therapy for Delinquents on Adult Gendreau, Paul. 2000. “1998 Margaret Mead Award Bonta, Paul Gendreau, and Francis T. Cullen. Criminal Behavior.” Criminal Justice and Be- Address: Rational Policies for Reforming Of- 1990. “Does Correctional Treatment Work? havior 22:60–73. A Clinically Relevant and Psychologically In- fenders.” Pp. 329–338 in Maeve McMahon formed Meta-Analysis.” Criminology 28: (ed.), Assessment to Assistance: Programs for Henggeler, Scott W., with the assistance of Sharon 369–404. Women in Community Corrections. Lanham, R. Mihalic, Lee Rone, Christopher Thomas, and MD: American Correctional Association. Jane Timmons-Mitchell. 1998. Multisystemic Bonta, James. 1996. “Risk-Needs Assessment and Therapy: Book Six in the Blueprints in Violence Gendreau, Paul and D. A. Andrews. 2001. Correc- Treatment.” Pp. 18–32 in Alan T. Harland Prevention Series. Boulder, CO: Center for the tional Program Assessment Inventory—2000. (ed.), Choosing Correctional Options That Work: Study and Prevention of Violence, University Saint John, Canada: Authors. Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Sup- of Colorado. ply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gendreau, Paul and Claire Goggin. 1997. “Correc- Hunt, Morton. 1997. How Science Takes Stock: The tional Treatment: Accomplishments and Reali- Cullen, Francis T. 2002. “Rehabilitation and Treat- Story of Meta-Analysis. New York: Russell Sage ties.” Pp. 271–279 in Patricia Van Voorhis, ment Programs.” Pp. 253-289 in James Q. Foundation. Wilson and Joan Petersilia (eds.), Crime: Pub- Michael Braswell, and David Lester (eds.), Cor- lic Policies for Crime Control. Oakland, CA: rectional Counseling and Rehabilitation, 3rd Latessa, Edward J. 2002. “Using Assessment to ICS Press. edition. Cincinnati: Anderson. Improve Correctional Programming: An Up- date.” Unpublished paper, University of Cin- Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, Francis T. Cullen, Cullen, Francis T. and Brandon K. Applegate, eds. cinnati. 1997. Offender Rehabilitation: Effective Correc- and D. A. Andrews. 2000. “The Effects of Com- tional Intervention. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate/ munity Sanctions and Incarceration on Recidi- Lipsey, Mark W. and David B. Wilson. 1998. “Ef- Dartmouth. vism.” Forum on Corrections Research 12 (May): fective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Of- 10–13. fenders.” Pp. 313–345 in Rolf Loeber and David Cullen, Francis T. and Paul Gendreau. 2000. “As- P. Farrington (eds.), Serious and Violent Juve- Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, Francis T. Cullen, sessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Prac- nile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful In- and Mario Paparozzi. Forthcoming. “The tice, and Prospects.” Pp. 109–175 in Julie tervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Horney (ed.), Criminal Justice 2000: Volume 3— Common Sense Revolution in Correctional Policies, Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Policy.” In James McGuire (ed.), Offender Re- MacKenzie, Doris Layton. 2000. “Evidence-Based Justice System. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- habilitation and Treatment: Effective Programs Corrections: Identifying What Works.” Crime ment of Justice, National Institute of Justice. and Policies to Reduce Re-Offending. Chichester, and Delinquency 46:457-471. UK: John Wiley and Sons. Cullen, Francis T. and Paul Gendreau. 2001. “From MacKenzie, Doris Layton, David B. Wilson, and Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Pro- Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, and Paula Smith. Suzanne B. Kider. 2001. “The Effects of Cor- fessional Ideology in the 21st Century.” The 2001. “Implementing Correctional Interven- rectional Boot Camps on Offending.” Annals Prison Journal 81:313–338. tions in the ‘Real’ World.” Pp. 247–268 in Gary of the American Academy of Political and Social A. Bernfeld, David P. Farrington, and Alan W. Science 578 (November):126–143. September 2002 BEYOND CORRECTIONAL QUACKERY 49

Matthews, Betsy, Dana Jones Hubbard, and Ed- Starr, Paul. 1982. The Social Transformation of Van Voorhis, Patricia, Francis T. Cullen, and Bran- ward J. Latessa. 2001. “Making the Next Step: American Medicine: The Rise of a Sovereign Pro- don K. Applegate. 1995. “Evaluating Interven- Using Assessment to Improve Correctional fession and the Making of a Vast Industry. New tions with Violent Offenders: A Guide for Programming.” Prison Journal 81:454–472. York: Basic Books. Practitioners and Policymakers.” Federal Pro- bation 59 (June):17–28. Millenson, Michael L. 1997. Demanding Medical Timmermans, Stefan and Alison Angell. 2001. Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the “Evidence-Based Medicine, Clinical Uncer- Welsh, Brandon C. and David P. Farrington. 2001. Information Age. Chicago: University of tainty, and Learning to Doctor.” Journal of “Toward and Evidence-Based Approach to Pre- Chicago Press. Health and Social Behavior 42:342–359. venting Crime.” Annals of the American Acad- emy of Political and Social Science 578 Rhine, Edward E. (ed.). 1998. Best Practices: Excel- Van Voorhis, Patricia. 1987. “Correctional Effec- (November):158–173. lence in Corrections. Lanham, MD: American tiveness: The High Cost of Ignoring Success.” Correctional Association. Federal Probation 51 (March):59–62.