Understanding key program components has the added benefit of being able to support program implementation in other locations. For example, though some program models or offender rehabilitation strategies are developed with the best of intentions the field has a history of treating interventions as a panacea prior to fully understanding the components that lead to their effectiveness (Duriez, Cullen, & Manchak, 2014; Finckenauer, 1982). We have seen this in the past when interventions have gained great popularity and been touted as a cure for all that ails offenders. Whether it be boot camps, juvenile drug courts, Scared Straight, or more recently, Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE), these programs have had significant investment and been expanded to multiple locations all over the country only to find that, overall, they had little to no effect on recidivism or, worse, resulted in offenders recidivating at a higher rate than no treatment comparison groups (Duriez et al., 2014; Lattimore et al., 2016; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; MacKenzie, 2006; MacKenzie, Wilson, & Kider, 2001; Petersilia, 2004; Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, & Buehler, 2003; Sullivan, Blair, Latessa, & Sullivan, 2014). Programs have not always undergone such strict scrutiny to ensure that they are effective at reducing recidivism. In fact, program evaluation has evolved significantly over the years to assist the field with program development and implementation.
Posted on by Kelly Smith