Evidence-Based or Just Promising? Lessons Learned in Taking Inventory of State Correctional Programming

Evidence-Based or Just Promising? 
Lessons Learned in Taking Inventory of State Correctional Programming

Problem

The problem the study aimed to address: 

The research investigates the disconnect between criminogenic needs and the availability of programs in state correctional systems. It aims to evaluate whether existing programs are truly evidence-based or merely promising, addressing the lack of rigorous evaluation and uniform standards in correctional programming.

General impact on the system and/or public: 

The inefficiency of correctional systems to match offender needs with proper evidence-based programs leads to continued overcrowding, fiscal burdens, and potential public safety risks due to unaddressed recidivism.

Research Questions:

  1. How can correctional programming inventory align with the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model?
  2. What constitutes evidence-based versus promising practices in correctional programs?
  3. How can gap analyses identify program strengths and weaknesses in meeting criminogenic needs?
     

Method and Analysis

Program Evaluated: 

The study examined programs offered by the Washington State Department of Corrections, focusing on their adherence to evidence-based standards and principles of effective intervention.
 

Data and Sample Size: 

  • Comprehensive inventory of 1,433 correctional programs in Washington State (fiscal year 2013).
  • Analysis focused on six categories: offender change, substance abuse treatment, sex offender treatment, transitional programs, education, and correctional industries.
     

Analysis Used:

  • Development of operational definitions for evidence-based, research-based, and promising practices.
  • Use of meta-analyses, vote counting, and gap analyses to evaluate program efficacy.
  • Decision-tree methodology to rank programs along evidence-based criteria.
     

Outcome

Key Findings:

  • Only a fraction of programs were evidence-based, with many categorized as promising or lacking sufficient evaluation.
  • Criminogenic needs were not consistently addressed due to mismatched program components or populations.
  • Programs with clear adherence to principles like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) demonstrated more consistent positive outcomes.
     

Implications or Recommendations: 

  • Correctional systems should adopt rigorous evaluation tools like the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) and ongoing quality assurance processes.
  • Gap analyses should be institutionalized to match offender needs with effective programs.
  • Legislatures should ensure funding for evaluations and foster the development of a robust evidence-based program repository.
  • Future research should refine meta-analytical methods to address setting-specific differences (e.g., institutional vs. community corrections).

This structured approach outlines the critical elements of the research for Criminology or Criminal Justice professionals aiming to enhance evidence-based practices in correctional systems.

Authors

Christopher M. Campbell, Portland State University
Mia J. Abboud, Washington State University
Zachary Hamilton, Washington State University
Jacqueline G. van Wormer, Washington State University
Brianne Posey, Washington State University
 

Tags

Evidence-Based Practices

 

Report