S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 2 Federal PROBATION a j o u r n a l o f c o r r e c t i o n a l p h i l o s o p h y a n d p r a c t i c e Managing the Correctional Enterprise—The Quest for “What Works” SPECIAL ISSUE: by Alvin W. Cohn, Guest Editor “WHAT WORKS” IN CORRECTIONS Valuing Evaluation by Felicia G. Cohn Supervision—Exploring the Dimensions of Effectiveness by Faye S. Taxman Environmental Corrections—A New Paradigm for Effective Supervision by Francis T. Cullen, John E. Eck, Christopher T. Lowenkamp Why “What Works” Matters Under the “Broken Windows” Model by Edward E. Rhine Beyond Correctional Quackery by Edward J. Latessa, Francis T. Cullen, Paul Gendreau What Works in Juvenile Justice Outcome Measurement by Kristin Parsons Winokur, Ted Tollett, Sherry Jackson Gender-Responsive Programming in the Justice System by Marcia Morgan, Pam Patton School-Based Substance Abuse Prevention by Michelle R. Burke Juvenile Corrections and Continuity of Care in Community Context by David M. Altschuler, Troy L. Armstrong Treatment of Antisocial and Conduct-Disordered Offenders by Henry R. Cellini Federal A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E PROBATION s p e c i a l a d v i s o r a j o u r n a l o f c o r r e c t i o n a l Merrill A. Smith p h i l o s o p h y a n d p r a c t i c e m e m b e r s Dan Richard Beto Correctional Management Institute of Texas Huntsville, Texas P U B L I S H E D B Y The Administrative Office of the United States Courts Loren Buddress Chief Probation Officer Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director San Mateo County, California John W. Byrd John M. Hughes, Assistant Director United States Pretrial Office Office of Probation and Pretrial Services San Antonio, Texas Honorable James G. Carr United States District Court Federal Probation ISSN 0014-9128 is dedicated to informing its readers about current Toledo, Ohio thought, research, and practice in corrections and criminal justice. The journal welcomes the contributions of persons who work with or study juvenile and adult offenders and Alvin W. Cohn Administration of Justice Services, Inc. invites authors to submit articles describing experience or significant findings regarding the Rockville, Maryland prevention and control of delinquency and crime. A style sheet is available from the editor. Ronald P. Corbett, Jr. Federal Probation is published three times yearly, in June, September, and December. Executive Director, Supreme Judicial Court Boston, Massachusetts Permission to quote is granted on the condition that appropriate credit is given the author and Federal Probation. For information about reprinting articles, please contact the editor. Cecil E. Greek Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida Subscriptions to Federal Probation are available from the Superintendent of Documents at an annual rate of $14.00 ($17.50 foreign). Please see the subscription order form on the last Thomas Henry page of this issue for more information. United States Pretrial Office Newark, New Jersey Magdeline Jensen United States Probation Office Tucson, Arizona E D I T O R I A L S T A F F Jolanta Juszkiewicz Pretrial Services Resource Center Timothy P. Cadigan, Executive Editor Washington, DC Ellen Wilson Fielding, Editor Janice G. Barbour, Editorial Secretary Honorable David D. Noce United States District Court St. Louis, Missouri Federal Probation Joan Petersilia Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts University of California, Irvine Irvine, California Washington, DC 20544 telephone: 202-502-1600 Charles F. Wellford fax: 202-502-1677 University of Maryland College Park, Maryland Postmaster: Please send address changes to the editor at the address above. September 2002 1 THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF This September’s issue of Federal Probation considers “What Works” in Corrections—and how we can tell. Our guest editor, Alvin W. Cohn, is familiar to regular readers as the contributor of the “Juvenile Focus” column. But he also carries on a very productive career charting the course of correctional work. Over the years he has seen several fads in corrections come and go, and thus commands the kind of perspective that several of this distinguished group of contributors also achieve. We hope you find these articles both thought- provoking and helpful in figuring out how to ask and answer that bottom-line question, “What works?” Ellen Wilson Fielding, Editor Introduction Heightened concern for improved performance and increased productivity have led agency administrators throughout the field of justice administration to seek programs that will produce such results. Moreover, the demand for programs that work leads to a dilemma: even if a program is successful at one agency, this does not necessarily translate into a workable program for another, for there are organizational and programmatic variables that may or may not be conducive to replication. Therefore, a successful program in one place may prove to be dysfunctional elsewhere. Observation, unfortunately, reveals that too few agency administrators are committed to evaluating their programs. Further, many programs are designed and implemented without explicit goals and objectives that are measurable. This is especially true when there are goals, but they are latent rather than manifest. When this occurs, researchers have significant difficulty in designing evaluation strategies. It is axiomatic that evaluation for evaluation’s sake is just as irresponsible as designing change simply for the sake of change. Evaluation must be structured and purposeful if it is to have significance both for policy- and decision-making efforts. Moreover, the implementation of any program without consideration for eventual assessment reveals both poor management and irresponsible administration. While a number of studies have been published that attempt to address the issue of “what works” (many of which are cited in the articles that follow), it is quite likely that many programs throughout the field of justice administration plod along without any attempt to measure success or failure. Perhaps this is due to administrative incompetence or unwillingness to face potential negative assessment results. Or, failure to research may be a consequence of lack of knowledge on just how a program should and can be evaluated. Or, no research may occur if there is disdain for outside consultants peeking into organizational activities. Administrators who are pedestrian in their approach to program management instead of being progressive and visionary are likely to lay constraints on information-sharing on the very superordinates who provide the resources needed by the agency. This failure to recognize the legitimate needs of true customers can only result in mediocre delivery systems of services to clients as well as communities. On the other hand, the sharing of programmatic successes and failures undoubtedly could lead to better communications as well as better support for the programs that do indeed attain defined and explicit goals. In this special issue of Federal Probation, which has as its theme “What Works,” the articles that follow reflect various aspects of program evaluation, some of which point to successes and others, to an extent, to questionable results. All, however, reveal that appropriate program design is inextricably linked to program assessment—a linkage that cannot or should not be minimized. In the lead article, “Managing the Correctional Enterprise: The Quest for ‘What Works,’” Alvin W. Cohn suggests that the results of any program evaluation have significant implications for both policy- and decision-makers, as a consequence of the values administrators and researchers bring to the assessment process, notwithstanding the supposed “value-neutral” approach of the evaluator. Felicia G. Cohn’s article, “Valuing Evaluation,” explores what is meant by “values” and discusses evaluation as fundamentally an ethical enterprise: an effort to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad, and degrees of goodness and badness. She posits that while evaluation can be valuable, it does not necessarily mean that it will be valuable in particular situations or that it will answer particular questions. In “Supervision: Exploring the Dimensions of Effectiveness,” Faye S. Taxman analyzes the role of supervision, which is a fundamental task in every correctional agency. She reflects on the fact that there has been little in the way of rigorous research on the subject. She examines such issues as the relationship of supervision to risk assessments, practices related to changing offender behavior, the use of social controls, offender accountability, and successes and failures in intervention strategies. Francis T. Cullen, John E. Eck, and Christopher T. Lowenkamp look at supervision from another perspective and report in “Environmental Corrections: A New Paradigm for Effective Probation and Parole Supervision” that limited effectiveness of community supervision practices is prompting calls to reinvent probation and parole. They argue that a key to reducing recidivism is reducing offenders’ access to crime opportunities, which results in less focus on the amount and more on the nature of offender supervision— an approach they describe as “problem-oriented” supervision. A new paradigm for probation practice is discussed by Edward E. Rhine in “Why ‘What Works’ Matters Under the ‘Broken Windows’ Model of Supervision,” a model he helped to design. He reviews the “Broken Windows” paradigm, which includes seven key strategies for re-engineering offender supervision, the most important of which is leadership; that is, the responsibility of leaders to attend to the importance of creating public value in the work that they do. He goes on to state that this paradigm requires leaders to “embrace accountability” for producing results that contribute to public safety and community wellbeing. 2 2 FEDERAL PROBATION Volume 66 Number 2 The values and beliefs of both administrators and researchers as well as the role of the supervisory process are further discussed by Edward J.