Implementing ebp in community corrections the principles of effective intervention

Implementing Evidence-Based Practice
in Community Corrections:
The Principles of Effective Intervention

Project Vision: To build learning organizations that reduce recidivism through systemic integration
of evidence-based principles in collaboration with community and justice partners.

Introduction and Background indicates are necessary to accomplish risk and recidi-
vism reduction. Despite the evidence that indicates
otherwise, officers continue to be trained and
Until recently, community correc- strategies, when applied to a expected to meet minimal contact standards which
tions has suffered from a lack of variety of offender populations, stress rates of contacts and largely ignore the opportu-
research that identified proven reliably produce sustained nities these contacts have for effectively reinforcing
methods of reducing offender reductions in recidivism. This behavioral change. Officers and offenders are not so
recidivism. Recent research same research literature suggests much clearly directed what to do, as what not to do.
efforts based on meta-analysis that few community supervision
(the syntheses of data from many agencies (probation, parole, An integrated and strategic model for evidence-based
research studies) (McGuire, 2002; residential community corrections) practice is necessary to adequately bridge the gap
Sherman et al, 1998), cost-benefit in the U.S. are using these between current practice and evidence supported
analysis (Aos, 1998) and specific effective interventions and their practice in community corrections. This model must
clinical trials (Henggeler et al, related concepts/principles. incorporate both existing research findings and
1997; Meyers et al, 2002) have operational methods of implementation. The biggest
broken through this barrier and The conventional approach to challenge in adopting better interventions isn’t
are now providing the field with supervision in this country empha- identifying the interventions with the best evidence,
indications of how to better sizes individual accountability so much as it is changing our existing systems to
reduce recidivism. from offenders and their supervis- appropriately support the new innovations. Identify-
ing officers without consistently ing interventions with good research support and
This research indicates that certain providing either with the skills, realigning the necessary organizational infrastructure
programs and intervention tools, and resources that science are both fundamental to evidence-based practice.

Specificity regarding the desired outcomes is essential to achieving
system improvement. -Harris, 1986; O'Leary & Clear, 1997

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP)
Evidence-based practice is a significant be quite concrete and detail oriented.
trend throughout all human service fields
The field of community corrections is
that emphasize outcomes. Interventions
beginning to recognize its need, not
within corrections are considered effective
only for more effective interventions,
when they reduce offender risk and
but for models that integrate seemingly
subsequent recidivism and therefore make
disparate best practices (Bogue 2002;
a positive long-term contribution to public
Carey 2002; Corbett et al. 1999;
safety.
Gornik 2001; Lipton et al. 2000;
This document presents a model or Taxman and Byrne 2001).
framework based on a set of principles for As a part of their strategy for
effective offender interventions within facilitating the implementation of
federal, state, local, or private community effective interventions, the National
Scientific learning is corrections systems. Models provide us Institute of Correction (NIC),
impossible without with tangible reference points as we face Community Corrections Division has
evidence. unfamiliar tasks and experiences. Some entered into a collaborative effort with
models are very abstract, for example en- the Crime and Justice Institute to
tailing only a set of testable propositions or
principles. Other models, conversely, may (Continued on pg 2) Page 1
April 30, 2004

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) (con’t.)
(Continued from pg 1)
develop a model for implementing evidence-based practice in criminal
justice systems. This Integrated Model emphasizes the importance of Community corrections will
focusing equally on evidence-based practices, organizational change, and only develop into a “science”
collaboration to achieve successful and lasting change. The scope of the as it increases its commitment
model is broad enough that it can be applied to all components of the to measurable outcomes.
criminal justice system (pretrial, jail, probation, parole, private/public, etc.)
and across varying jurisdictions (local, county, state, etc.).
This model recognizes that simply expounding on scientific principles is not sufficient to guide the ongoing political and
organizational change necessary to support implementation of evidence-based principles in a complex
system. While this paper focuses on the evidence-based principles, there are two additional papers that focus on the
other model components (organizational development and collaboration).
The evidence-based principles component of the integrated model highlights eight principles for effective offender
interventions. The organization or system that is most successful in initiating and maintaining offender interventions
and supervision practices consistent with these principles will likely realize the greatest recidivism reductions.

Clarifying Terms:
The terms best practices, what works, and evidence-based practice (EBP) are often used interchangeably.
While these buzz words refer to similar notions, pointing out the subtle distinctions between them helps to
clarify the distinct meaning of evidence-based practices.
For example, best practices do not necessarily imply attention to outcomes, evidence, or measurable standards.
Best practices are often based on the collective experience and wisdom of the field rather scientifically tested
knowledge.
What works implies linkage to general outcomes, but does not specify the kind of outcomes desired (e.g. just
desserts, deterrence, organizational efficiency, rehabilitation, etc.). Specificity regarding the desired outcomes
is essential to achieving system improvement (Harris 1986; O'Leary and Clear 1997).
In contrast, evidence-based practice implies that 1) there is a definable outcome(s); 2) it is measurable; and
3) it is defined according to practical realities (recidivism, victim satisfaction, etc.). Thus, while these three
terms are often used interchangeably, EBP is more appropriate for outcome focused human service disciplines
(Ratcliffe et al, 2000; Tilley & Laycock, 2001; AMA, 1992; Springer et al, 2003; McDonald, 2003).

Any agency interested in understanding Two fundamentally different
and improving outcomes, must reckon
approaches are necessary for such
with managing the operation as a set of
an alteration in priorities.
highly interdependent systems.
(See Appendix A.) (See Appendix B.)

The current research on offender rehabilitation and behavioral change is now sufficient to enable corrections to make
meaningful inferences regarding what works in our field to reduce recidivism and improve public safety. Based upon
previous compilations of research findings and recommendations (Burrell, 2000; Carey, 2002; Currie, 1998; Corbett et
al, 1999; Elliott et al, 2001; McGuire, 2002; Latessa et al, 2002; Sherman et al, 1998; Taxman & Byrne, 2001), there
now exists a coherent framework of guiding principles. These principles are interdependent and each is
Page 2
supported by existing research. (see Appendix A)

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) (con’t.)

The following framework of principles is listed in developmental order and they are all highly interdependent.
For example, offender assessments must consider both risk to reoffend and criminogenic needs, in that order.
Research indicates that resources are used more effectively when they are focused on higher-risk rather than
lower-risk offenders, therefore considering offenders’ risk to reoffend prior to addressing criminogenic needs
allows agencies to target resources on higher-risk offenders (see Appendix B).

Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions
1. Assess Actuarial Risk/Needs.
2. Enhance Intrinsic Motivation.
3. Target Interventions.
a. Risk Principle: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk offenders.
b. Need Principle: Target interventions to criminogenic needs.
c. Responsivity Principle: Be responsive to temperament, learning style, motivation, culture, and
gender when assigning programs.
d. Dosage: Structure 40-70% of high-risk offenders’ time for 3-9 months.
e. Treatment: Integrate treatment into the full sentence/sanction requirements.
4. Skill Train with Directed Practice (use Cognitive Behavioral treatment methods).
5. Increase Positive Reinforcement.
6. Engage Ongoing Support in Natural Communities.
7. Measure Relevant Processes/Practices.
8. Provide Measurement Feedback.

1) Assess Actuarial Risk/Needs.
Questions to Ask:
Develop and maintain a complete system of ongoing offender
risk screening / triage and needs assessments. Assessing offenders x Does the assessment tool we’re
in a reliable and valid manner is a prerequisite for the effective using measure for criminogenic risk
management (i.e.: supervision and treatment) of offenders. and need?
Timely, relevant measures of offender risk and need at the x How are officers trained to conduct
individual and aggregate levels are essential for the implementa- the assessment interview?
tion of numerous principles of best practice in corrections, (e.g., x What quality assurance is in place
risk, need, and responsivity). Offender assessments are most reli- to ensure that assessments are
able and valid when staff are formally trained to administer tools. conducted appropriately?
Screening and assessment tools that focus on dynamic and static x How is the assessment information
risk factors, profile criminogenic needs, and have been validated captured and used in the
on similar populations are preferred. They should also be sup- development of case plans?
ported by sufficiently detailed and accurately written procedures.
Offender assessment is as much an ongoing function as it is a formal event. Case information that is gathered
informally through routine interactions and observations with offenders is just as important as formal assessment
guided by instruments. Formal and informal offender assessments should reinforce one another. They should
combine to enhance formal reassessments, case decisions, and working relations between practitioners and
offenders throughout the jurisdiction of supervision.

(Andrews, et al, 1990; Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Gendreau, et al, 1996; Kropp, et al, 1995; Meehl, 1995; Clements, 1996)

Page 3

Eight Principles for Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) in
Community Corrections (con’t.)
2) Enhance Intrinsic Motivation. Questions to Ask:
Staff should relate to offenders in interpersonally sensitive and constructive x Are officers and program staff
ways to enhance intrinsic motivation in offenders. Behavioral change is an
trained in motivational
inside job; for lasting change to occur, a level of intrinsic motivation is
interviewing techniques?
needed. Motivation to change is dynamic and the probability that change
may occur is strongly influenced by interpersonal interactions, such as those x What quality assurance is in
with probation officers, treatment providers, and institution staff. Feelings place?
of ambivalence that usually accompany change can be explored through
motivational interviewing, a style and method of communication used to help x Are staff held accountable for
people overcome their ambivalence regarding behavior changes. using motivational interviewing
Research strongly suggests that motivational interviewing techniques, techniques in their day-to-day
rather than persuasion tactics, effectively enhance motivation for initiating interactions with offenders?
and maintaining behavior changes.
(Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Miller & Mount, 2001; Harper & Hardy, 2000; Ginsburg, et al, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000)

3) Target Interventions.
A. RISK PRINCIPLE: Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk offenders.
B. NEED PRINCIPLE: Target interventions to criminogenic needs.
C. RESPONSIVITY PRINCIPLE: Be responsive to temperament, learning style, motivation, gender, and
culture when assigning to programs.
D. DOSAGE: Structure 40-70% of high-risk offenders’ time for 3-9 months.
E. TREATMENT PRINCIPLE: Integrate treatment into the full sentence/sanction requirements.

a) Risk Principle
Prioritize primary supervision and treatment resources for offenders who are at higher risk to re-offend. Research
indicates that supervision and treatment resources that are focused on lower-risk offenders tend to produce little if any
net positive effect on recidivism rates. Shifting these resources to higher risk offenders promotes harm-reduction and
public safety because these offenders have greater need for pro-social skills and thinking, and are more likely to be
frequent offenders. Reducing the recidivism rates of these higher risk offenders reaps a much larger bang-for-the-
buck.
Successfully addressing this population requires smaller caseloads, the application of well developed case plans, and
placement of offenders into sufficiently intense cognitive-behavioral interventions that target their specific crimino-
genic needs.

(Gendreau, 1997; Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Harland, 1996; Sherman, et al, 1998; McGuire, 2001, 2002)

b) Criminogenic Need Principle
Address offenders’ greatest criminogenic needs. Offenders have a variety of needs, some of which are directly linked
to criminal behavior. These criminogenic needs are dynamic risk factors that, when addressed or changed, affect the
offender’s risk for recidivism. Examples of criminogenic needs are: criminal personality; antisocial attitudes, values,
and beliefs; low self control; criminal peers; substance abuse; and dysfunctional family. Based on an assessment of the
offender, these criminogenic needs can be prioritized so that services are focused on the greatest criminogenic needs.

(Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Lipton, et al, 2000; Elliott, 2001; Harland, 1996) (Continued on pg 5)

Page 4

(Continued from pg 4)
c) Responsivity Principle
Responsivity requires that we consider individual characteristics when matching offenders to services. These charac-
teristics include, but are not limited to: culture, gender, motivational stages, developmental stages, and learning
styles. These factors influence an offender’s responsiveness to different types of treatment.
The principle of responsivity also requires that offenders be provided with treatment that is proven effective with the
offender population. Certain treatment strategies, such as cognitive-behavioral methodologies, have consistently
produced reductions in recidivism with offenders under rigorous research conditions.
Providing appropriate responsivity to offenders involves selecting services in accordance with these factors,
including:
a) Matching treatment type to offender; and
b) Matching style and methods of communication with offender’s stage of change readiness.

(Guerra, 1995; Miller & Rollnick, 1991; Gordon, 1970; Williams, et al, 1995)

d) Dosage Questions to Ask:
Providing appropriate doses of services, pro-social structure,
x How do we manage offenders assessed
and supervision is a strategic application of resources. Higher
as low risk to reoffend?
risk offenders require significantly more initial structure and
services than lower risk offenders. During the initial three to x Does our assessment tool assess for
nine months post-release, 40%-70% of their free time should be criminogenic need?
clearly occupied with delineated routine and appropriate services, x How are criminogenic risk and need
(e.g., outpatient treatment, employment assistance, education, etc.) information incorporated into offender
Certain offender subpopulations (e.g., severely mentally ill, case plans?
chronic dual diagnosed, etc.) commonly require strategic,
extensive, and extended services. However, too often individuals x How are offenders matched to treatment
within these subpopulations are neither explicitly identified nor resources?
provided a coordinated package of supervision/services. x How structured are our caseplans for
The evidence indicates that incomplete or uncoordinated offenders, especially during the three to
approaches can have negative effects, often wasting resources. nine month period in the community
after leaving an institution?
(Palmer, 1995; Gendreau & Goggin, 1995; Steadman, 1995; Silverman, x How are staff held accountable for using
et al, 2000) assessment information to develop a
case plan and then subsequently using
e) Treatment Principle that caseplan to manage an offender?
Treatment, particularly cognitive-behavioral types, should be
applied as an integral part of the sentence/sanction process.
Integrate treatment into sentence/sanction requirements through assertive case management (taking a proactive and
strategic approach to supervision and case planning). Delivering targeted and timely treatment interventions will
provide the greatest long-term benefit to the community, the victim, and the offender. This does not necessarily
apply to lower risk offenders, who should be diverted from the criminal justice and corrections systems whenever
possible.

(Palmer, 1995; Clear, 1981; Taxman & Byrne, 2001; Currie, 1998; Petersilia, 1997, 2002, Andrews & Bonta, 1998)

Page 5

4) Skill Train with Directed Practice (using cognitive-behavioral treatment methods).
Provide evidence-based programming that emphasizes cognitive- Questions to Ask:
behavioral strategies and is delivered by well trained staff.
To successfully deliver this treatment to offenders, staff must x How are social learning techniques
understand antisocial thinking, social learning, and appropriate incorporated into the programs we deliver?
communication techniques. Skills are not just taught to the x How do we ensure that our contracted
offender, but are practiced or role-played and the resulting service providers are delivering services in
pro-social attitudes and behaviors are positively reinforced by alignment with social learning theory?
staff. Correctional agencies should prioritize, plan, and budget
x Are the programs we deliver and contract
to predominantly implement programs that have been scientifi-
for based on scientific evidence of recidi-
cally proven to reduce recidivism.
vism reduction?
(Mihalic, et al, 2001; Satchel, 2001; Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Lipton, et
al, 2000; Lipsey, 1993; McGuire, 2001, 2002; Aos, 2002)

5) Increase Positive Reinforcement. Questions to Ask:
When learning new skills and making behavioral changes, x Do we model positive reinforcement techniques
human beings appear to respond better and maintain learned in our day-to-day interactions with our
behaviors for longer periods of time, when approached with co-workers?
carrots rather than sticks. Behaviorists recommend applying
a much higher ratio of positive reinforcements to negative x Do our staff understand and use the four-to-
reinforcements in order to better achieve sustained behavioral one theory in their interactions with offenders?
change. Research indicates that a ratio of four positive to every
one negative reinforcement is optimal for promoting behavior changes. These rewards do not have to be applied consis-
tently to be effective (as negative reinforcement does) but can be applied randomly.
Increasing positive reinforcement should not be done at the expense of or undermine administering swift, certain, and real
responses for negative and unacceptable behavior. Offenders having problems with responsible self-regulation generally
respond positively to reasonable and reliable additional structure and boundaries. Offenders may initially overreact to
new demands for accountability, seek to evade detection or consequences, and fail to recognize any personal responsibil-
ity. However, with exposure to clear rules that are consistently (and swiftly) enforced with appropriate graduated conse-
quences, offenders and people in general, will tend to comply in the direction of the most rewards and least punishments.
This type of extrinsic motivation can often be useful for beginning the process of behavior change.
(Gendreau & Goggin, 1995; Meyers & Smith, 1995; Higgins & Silverman, 1999; Azrin, 1980; Bandura et al,1963; Bandura, 1996)

6) Engage On-going Support in Natural Communities.
Questions to Ask:
Realign and actively engage pro-social supports for offenders in their commu-
nities. Research indicates that many successful interventions with extreme x Do we engage community supports
populations (e.g., inner city substance abusers, homeless, dual diagnosed) for offenders as a regular part of
actively recruit and use family members, spouses, and supportive others in case planning?
the offender’s immediate environment to positively reinforce desired new x How do we measure our
behaviors. This Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA) has been community network contacts as
found effective for a variety of behaviors (e.g., unemployment, alcoholism, they relate to an offender?
substance abuse, and marital conflicts). In addition, relatively recent research
now indicates the efficacy of twelve step programs, religious activities, and
restorative justice initiatives that are geared towards improving bonds and ties to pro-social community members.
(Azrin, & Besalel, 1980; Emrick et al, 1993; Higgins & Silverman, 1999; Meyers & Smith, 1997; Wallace, 1989; Project MATCH
Research Group, 1997; Bonta et al, 2002; O’Connor & Perryclear, 2003; Ricks, 1974; Clear & Sumter; 2003; Meyers et al, 2002)

Page 6


7) Measure Relevant Processes/Practices.
Questions to Ask:
Accurate and detailed documentation of case information, along
with a formal and valid mechanism for measuring outcomes, is the x What data do we collect regarding
foundation of evidence-based practice. Agencies must routinely offender assessment and case
assess offender change in cognitive and skill development, and management?
evaluate offender recidivism, if services are to remain effective.
x How do we measure incremental
In addition to routinely measuring and documenting offender change, offender change while they are
staff performance should also be regularly assessed. Staff that are under supervision?
periodically evaluated for performance achieve greater fidelity to
program design, service delivery principles, and outcomes. Staff
whose performance is not consistently monitored, measured, and x What are our outcome measures
subsequently reinforced work less cohesively, more frequently at and how do we track them?
cross-purposes and provide less support to the agency mission.
x How do we measure staff
performance? What data do we
use? How is that data collected?
(Henggeler et al, 1997; Milhalic & Irwin, 2003; Miller, 1988; Meyers et al,
1995; Azrin, 1982; Meyers, 2002; Hanson & Harris, 1998; Waltz et al, 1993;
Hogue et al, 1998; Miller & Mount, 2001; Gendreau et al, 1996; Dilulio, 1993)

8) Provide Measurement Feedback.

Once a method for measuring relevant processes / practices is in Questions to Ask:
place (principle seven), the information must be used to monitor
x How is information regarding
process and change. Providing feedback to offenders regarding
their progress builds accountability and is associated with enhanced offender change and outcomes
motivation for change, lower treatment attrition, and improved shared with officers?
outcomes (e.g., reduced drink/drug days; treatment engagement; With offenders?
goal achievement).
x With whom do we share
The same is true within an organization. Monitoring delivery of information regarding outcome
services and fidelity to procedures helps build accountability and measures?
maintain integrity to the agency’s mission. Regular performance
x How is staff performance
audits and case reviews with an eye toward improved outcomes,
keep staff focused on the ultimate goal of reduced recidivism through data used in the performance
the use of evidence-based principles. evaluation process?

(Miller, 1988; Project Match Research Group, 1997; Agostinelli et al, 1995; Alvero et al, 2001; Baer et al, 1992; Decker,
1983; Luderman, 1991; Miller, 1995; Zemke, 2001; Elliott, 1980)

Page 7


Conclusion
Aligning these evidence-based principles with the core components of an agency is a consummate challenge
and will largely determine the impact the agency has on sustained reductions in recidivism. In order to accomplish
this shift to an outcome orientation, practitioners must be prepared to dedicate themselves to a mission that focuses
on achieving sustained reductions in recidivism. The scientific principles presented in this document are unlikely
to produce a mandate for redirecting and rebuilding an agency's mission by themselves. Leadership in
organizational change and collaboration for systemic change are also necessary.

The framework of principles and the developmental model they comprise can and should be operationalized at
three critical levels: 1) the individual case; 2) the agency; and 3) the system. At each of these levels thorough,
comprehensive, and strategic planning will be necessary in order to succeed. Identifying, prioritizing, and
formulating well-timed plans for addressing such particular issues are tasks requiring system collaboration and
a focus on organizational development.

A final caveat here is a caution about implementation; the devil’s in the details. Though the track record for
program implementation in corrections may not be especially stellar, there is helpful literature regarding
implementation principles. Prior to embarking on any implementation or strategic planning project, a succinct
review of this literature is recommended (Mihalic & Irwin, 2003; Ellickson et al, 1983; Durlak, 1998; Gendreau et
al, 1999; Gottfredson et al, 2000; Henggeler et al, 1997; Harris & Smith, 1996).

Initial assessment followed by At an organizational level, gaining
motivational enhancement will help appreciation for outcome
staff to prepare for the significant measurement begins with establishing
changes ahead. relevant performance measurement
(See Appendix C.) (See Appendix D.)

Too often programs or practices are promoted as having
research support without any regard for either the quality
or the research methods that were employed.
(See Appendix E.)

Page 8

Project Contact Information:
National Institute of Corrections
(NIC), Community Corrections
Division
www.nicic.org
Dot Faust,
Correctional Program Specialist
dfaust@bop.gov
(202) 514-3001
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Crime and Justice Institute (CJI)
Www.cjinstitute.org
Supporting the Elyse Clawson, Project Director
Creative,
effective eclawson@crjustice.org
(617) 482-2520, ext. 120 collaborative
management and approaches to
operation of the Lore Joplin, Project Manager
complex social
nation's community ljoplin@crjustice.org
(617) 482-2520, ext. 124 issues
corrections agencies

Special recognition and deepest thanks go to the following project team members
who contributed to these documents:
Brad Bogue (primary author), Nancy Campbell, Mark Carey, Elyse Clawson, Dot Faust, Kate Florio,
Lore Joplin, George Keiser, Billy Wasson, and William Woodward

The project team is committed to enhancing community corrections systems
to better reduce recidivism using research-supported principles.

List of Appendices
i Appendix A (page 9):
Components of Correctional Interventions
i Appendix B (pages 10-11):
Implementing the Principles of Evidence-Based
Practice
i Appendix C (page 12):
Applying the Principles at the Case, Agency
and System Levels
i Appendix D (page13-15):
Seven Recommended Strategies for
Implementing Effective Interventions
i Appendix E (page 16):
Levels of Research Evidence
i References (pages 17-19)
Page 9

Appendix A: Components of Correctional Interventions

One way to deconstruct a community corrections treatment program for planning or evaluation purposes is to
consider the separate aspects of the program experienced by an offender that might affect their outcome or potential
for behavioral change. Researchers and practitioners are quick to recognize a number of common elements in all
programs that have some potential impact on outcomes such as recidivism:

Ÿ (The Skills of Staff)—a wide array of ongoing interpersonal relations specifically pertaining
to the communication skills and interactions exercised between staff and offenders;

Ÿ (Decisions on Program Assignment)—continuous programmatic decisions that match
offenders to varying levels and types of supervision conditions;

Ÿ (Programming) – services, i.e. both treatment and monitoring interventions;

Ÿ (Sanctions)—determinations of accountability for assigned obligations and accompanying
compliance consequences, i.e., both positive and negative reinforcements;

Ÿ (Community Linkages)—formal and informal interfaces with various community organiza-
tions and groups;

Ÿ (Case Management)—a case management system that relegates individual case objectives
and expectations within a prescribed set of policies and procedures; and

Ÿ (Organization)—internal (operational) and external (policy environment) organizational
structures, management techniques, and culture.

Each of these factors can be construed as separate processes that interact with each other continuously in any
community corrections setting (e.g., probation, parole, outpatient treatment, residential, etc.). Depending on how
well the processes are aligned and managed, they can either enhance or diminish successful outcomes. An agency, for
example, might provide an excellent cognitive skill-building curriculum that has good research support but is delivered
by staff with relatively limited clinical skills. Conversely, an agency might be structured so that there is no differentia-
tion of services (one size fits all) and the programming has limited or negligible research support, but staff's overall
skills are excellent. A broad interpretation of the existing research suggests that each of the above seven factors have
their own independent effect on successful outcomes.

Any agency interested in understanding and improving outcomes, must reckon with managing the operation as a
set of highly interdependent systems. An agency's ability to become progressively more accountable through the
utilization of reliable internal (e.g., information) controls is integral to EBP. This approach is based on established
business management practices for measuring performance objectives and achieving greater accountability for
specified outcomes. Providing routine and accurate performance feedback to staff is associated with improved
productivity, profit, and other outcomes.

Page 10

Appendix B: Implementing the Principles of Evidence-Based Practice
Implementing the principles of evidence-based practice in corrections is a tremendous challenge requiring strong leadership
and commitment. Such an undertaking involves more than simply implementing a research recommended program or two.
Minimally, EBP involves:
a) developing staff knowledge, skills, and attitudes congruent with current research-supported practice (principles #1-8);
b) implementing offender programming consistent with research recommendations (#2-6);
c) sufficiently monitoring staff and offender programming to identify discrepancies or fidelity issues (#7);
d) routinely obtaining verifiable outcome evidence (#8) associated with staff performance and offender programming.
Implementing these functions is tantamount to revolutionizing most corrections organizations. Nevertheless, many agencies
are taking on this challenge and have begun to increase their focus on outcomes and shift their priorities. Two fundamentally
different approaches are necessary for such an alteration in priorities. One brings insights gleaned from external research
evidence to bear on internal organizational practices. The other increases organizational capacity to internally measure
performance and outcomes for current practice. When these two interdependent strategies are employed, an agency acquires
the ability to understand what's necessary and practicable to improve its outcomes. The following describes how these
approaches support EBP in slightly different ways.

Outside (Evidence) — In Approach
Adopting research-supported program models fosters an outcome orientation and minimizes the syndrome of
‘reinventing-the-wheel’. Insights, practices, and intervention strategies gleaned from external research can
significantly improve the efficacy any program has if implemented with appropriate fidelity.

One approach to EBP is to pay strict attention to the external
research and carefully introduce those programs or interventions
that are supported by the best research evidence. There are a The Blueprint Project
growing number of examples of internal promotion of external
evidence-based programs. The Blueprint Project, conducted by the The Blueprint Project, conducted by the Center
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence uses independent for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV),
outside research to promote the implementation of effective juvenile examined literature on over 500 different program
programs. interventions with at-risk or delinquent youth.
Ten programs met CSPV’s strict criteria for
The National Institute of Justice commissioned research investiga- scientific support. These were labeled Blueprint
tors to conduct similar reviews of both adult and juvenile offender programs, while programs that partially met the
programming, recommending programs according to the caliber of criteria were designated Promising (Mihalic et al.
the research support (Sherman et al, 1998). The Washington State 2001).
Institute for Public Policy regularly conducts and publishes similar
reviews for adult and juvenile offender programming implemented CSPV documented the operational details of
in Washington (Aos, 1998). these programs and distributed the descriptions to
practitioners, emphasizing the importance of
What these strategies have in common is the promotion of research- maintaining fidelity to the program models.
supported external program models within internal implementation
and operations. These are outside-in applications striving to Programs that were scientifically determined to
replicate proven models with fidelity. This approach is limited by produce systematic and significant results were
the fact that environmental, cultural, and operational features vary identified and promoted through a central clear-
between organizations and often have significant effect on program ing-house.
efficacy (Palmer 1995). Thus, the second inside-out approach to
evidence-based practice attends to these internal factors.

Page 11

Appendix B: Implementing the Principles of Evidence-Based Practice
(con’t.)

Inside (Evidence) — Out Approach
Developing and maintaining ongoing internal controls, particularly information controls related to key service
components (e.g., treatment dosage, treatment adherence measures, etc.) ensures greater operational ability to
effect outcomes.

The program evaluation, performance, and audit research literature emphasizes that insufficient information controls
not only hamper program assessment, but impede program performance (Mee-Lee et al, 1996; Burrell, 1998; Lipton
et al, 2000; Dilulio, 1993). Such internal control issues appear not only in program evaluation research, but also in
organizational development, business, and systems analysis.
Internal controls provide information and mechanisms for ensuring that an agency will accomplish its mission (i.e.,
recidivism reduction). Agencies with custodial corrections orientations that emphasize just-desserts applications
rarely utilize the same level of sophisticated information controls required by outcome-oriented corrections (Burrell
1998; Dilulio 1993; Lipton et al. 2000). Therefore, developing new methods for gathering operational information
and then sharing and learning from them is a large part of the transition from custodial to outcome orientation in
corrections.
Information controls necessary for implementing new or best practices specifically focus on key components within
the desired practices. They include an ongoing process of identifying, measuring, and reporting key operational
processes and functions:

Ÿ Offender measures: Ÿ Operational measures: Ÿ Staff measures:

-Risk Level -Program Availability -Interpersonal skills
-Abilities to discern anti-social thinking and
-Criminogenic Needs -Program Integrity
behavior
-Motivation -Program Quality Assurance Norms
-Attitudes and beliefs regarding interventions

Page 12

Appendix C: Applying the Principles at the Case, Agency
and System Levels
Eight Guiding The Eight Principles as a
Principles for Guiding Framework
Risk/Recidivism ENGAGE ON-GOING
SUPPORT IN COMM.
Reduction The eight principles (see left) are
MEASURE RELEVANT PRACTICES
INCREASE POSITIVE organized in a developmental sequence
REINFORCEMENT and can be applied at three

MEASUREMENT FEEDBACK
fundamentally different levels:
SKILL TRAIN WITH
DIRECTED PRACTICE
1) the individual case;
TARGET INTERVENTION
2) the agency; and

ENHANCE INTRINSIC
3) the system.
MOTIVATION
Given the logic of each different
principle, an overarching logic can be
RISK/NEED: ASSESS inferred which suggests a sequence for
ACTUARIAL RISK operationalizing the full eight principles.

Case Level At the case level, the logical implication is that one must assess (principle #1) prior to triage or target-
ing intervention ( #3), and that it is beneficial to begin building offender motivation ( #2) prior to engaging these offenders in skill
building activities (# 4). Similarly, positively reinforcing new skills (#5) has more relevancy after the skills have been introduced
and trained (#4) and at least partially in advance of the offender’s realignment with pro-social groups and friends (#6 ). The
seventh (measure relevant practices) and eighth (provide feedback) principles need to follow the activities described throughout all
the proceeding principles. Assessing an offender’s readiness to change as well as ability to use newly acquired skills is possible
anywhere along the case management continuum. These last two principles can and should be applicable after any of the earlier
principles but they also can be considered cumulative and provide feedback on the entire case management process.

Agency Level The principles, when applied at the agency level, assist with more closely aligning staff behavior and
agency operations with EBP. Initial assessment followed by motivational enhancement will help staff
to prepare for the significant changes ahead. Agency priorities must be clarified and new protocols established and trained.
Increasing positive rewards for staff who demonstrate new skills and proficiency is straightforward and an accepted standard in
many organizations. The sixth principle regarding providing ongoing support in natural communities can be related to teamwork
within the agency as well as with external agency stakeholders. The seventh and eighth principles are primarily about developing
quality assurance systems, both to provide outcome data within the agency, but also to provide data to assist with marketing the
agency to external stakeholders.

System Level The application of the Framework Principles at the system level is fundamentally no different than the
agency level in terms of sequence and recommended order though it is both the most critical and
challenging level. Funding, for most systems, channels through state and local agencies having either population jurisdiction or
oversight responsibilities. Demonstrating the value of EBP is crucial at this level, in order to effectively engage the debate for fu-
ture funding. However, as the scope and complexity increases with a system-wide application of these principles, the difficulties
and challenges increase for communication, accountability, and sustaining morale. Therefore, in addition to adherence to a
coherent strategy for EBP, development of implementation plans is warranted. Another distinction in applying the principles at the
system level is the need for policy integration. The principles for EBP must be understood and supported by policy makers so that
appropriate policy development coincides effectively with implementation. Once a system decisively directs its mission towards
an outcome such as sustained reductions in recidivism, it becomes incumbent on the system to deliberately rely upon scientific
methods and principles.

Page 13

Appendix D: Seven Recommended Guidelines for Implementing
Effective Interventions

Seven Recommended Guidelines for Implementing Effective Interventions
I. Limit new projects to mission-related initiatives.
II. Assess progress of implementation processes using quantifiable data.
III. Acknowledge and accommodate professional over-rides with adequate accountability.
IV. Focus on staff development, including awareness of research, skill development, and management of
behavioral and organizational change processes, within the context of a complete training or human
resource development program.
V. Routinely measure staff practices (attitudes, knowledge, and skills) that are considered related to
outcomes.
VI. Provide staff timely, relevant, and accurate feedback regarding performance related to outcomes.
VII. Utilize high levels of data-driven advocacy and brokerage to enable appropriate community services.

These recommended guidelines for implementing effective interventions are based on recent preliminary
implementation research as well as some of the collective experience and wisdom of the field. They are
not necessarily based on scientifically tested knowledge.

I. Limit new projects to mission-related initiatives.

Clear identification and focus upon mission is critical within business and the best-run human service agencies.
When mission scope creep occurs, it has a negative effect on progress, morale, and outcomes.

(Harris & Smith, 1996; Currie, 1998; Ellickson et al, 1983)

II. Assess progress of implementation processes using quantifiable data.

Monitoring system implementations for current, valid information regarding progress, obstacles, and direction
changes is pivotal to project success. These monitoring systems can not always be designed in advance but
implementation plans should include provisions for obtaining this type of ongoing information.

(Harris & Smith, 1996; Burrell, 2000; Dilulio, 1993; Palmer, 1995; Mihalic & Irwin, 2003; Gottfredson et al, 2002)

Page 14

Effective Interventions (con’t.)

III. Acknowledge and accommodate professional over-rides with adequate accountability.

No assessment tool, no matter how sophisticated, can (or should) replace a qualified practitioner’s professional
judgment. In certain instances, only human judgment can integrate and make the necessary subtle distinctions to
adequately recognize and reinforce moral or behavioral progress. All professional over-rides need to be adequately
documented, defensible, and made explicit.

(Burrell, 2000; Clear, 1981; Andrews, et al, 1990; Kropp, et al, 1995; Gendreau et al, 1999)

IV. Focus on staff development, including awareness of research, skill development, and management
of behavioral and organizational change processes, within the context of a complete training or
human resource development program.

Staff need to develop reasonable familiarity with relevant research. Beginning in the 1990’s there has been tremen-
dous growth in the volume and quality of corrections related research. Much of the more recent research is directly
relevant to everyday operational practice, therefore it is incumbent on professionals in the field to keep abreast of this
literature. The current research literature includes in-house investigations, internet resources, and other public sector
articles, as well as professional and academic journal publications. This literature is also evolving and becoming more
international and inter-disciplinary in scope.

It is the responsibility of agency leadership to assist in the successful dissemination of recent research findings rele-
vant to respective classes of job performers. Informed administrators, information officers, trainers, and other organ-
izational ambassadors are necessary to facilitate this function in larger agencies or systems. Effective fulfillment of
this principle is essential to promoting Learning Organizations.

(Latessa, et al, 2002; Elliott, 1980; Harland, 1996; Andrews, 1989; Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Taxman & Byrne, 2001;
Taxman, 2002; Baer, et al, 1999; Gendreau, et al, 1999; Durlak, 1998)

V. Routinely measure staff practices (attitudes, knowledge, and skills) that are considered related to
outcomes.

Critical staff processes and practices should be routinely monitored in an accurate and objective manner to inform
managers of the state of the operation. These measures occur at multiple levels (e.g., aggregate, for example: turnover
and organizational cultural beliefs; and individual, for example: interviewing skills and ability to identify thinking
errors) and should be organized accordingly and maintained in ongoing databases for the purposes of both supporting
management and staff development.

(Gendreau, et al, 1999; Henggeler et al, 1997; Miller & Mount, 2001)

Page 15

Effective Interventions (con’t.)

VI. Provide staff timely, relevant, and accurate feedback regarding performance related to
outcomes.

Programs and agencies that want to produce better outcomes will ultimately learn to pay closer and more attention
to what is involved in generating their own outcomes. Initially, agencies have much to learn and incorporate into
policy from the generic research literature in corrections. Ultimately however, in order to achieve deeper
adaptations and organizational support of effective practices, immediate, objective, and internal measures of the
respective agency will be routinely required.

At an organizational level, gaining appreciation for outcome measurement begins with establishing relevant
performance measures. Measuring performance implies a relationship between a given activity and a given output
or outcome. These types of measures can be established at either the agency (aggregate) or individual job performer
levels and there are several important issues related to establishing effective performance measures:

1) If a certain kind of performance is worth measuring, it’s worth measuring right (with reliability and validity);
2) Any kind of staff or offender activity is worth measuring if it is reliably related to desirable outcomes;
3) If performance measures satisfy both the above conditions, these measures should be routinely generated and
made available to staff and/or offenders, in the most user-friendly manner possible.

The primary ingredients of any correctional system or treatment program are staff and offenders. Therefore when a
commitment emerges to develop greater focus on outcomes, it behooves management to learn how to better measure
staff, offenders, and their related interactions. The latter is an evolutionary and ongoing process rather than change
of operational components. Some examples of promising performance measures at the organizational level are: pro-
portion of resource gaps at various treatment levels; degree of implementation and program fidelity; staff turnover;
and organizational cultural norms. Examples of promising job performer level measures are: adequacy of communi-
cation (motivational interviewing) skills; consistency in certain functions (e.g., assessment, case planning, treatment
referrals); and caseload average gain scores for offender dynamic risk indicators.

(Burrell, 1998; Lipton, et al, 2000; Carey, 2002; O’Leary & Clear, 1997; Bogue, 2002; Maple, 2000; Henggeler,
1997; Miller & Mount, 2001)

VII. Utilize high levels of data-driven advocacy and brokerage to enable appropriate community
services.
In terms of producing sustained reductions in recidivism, the research indicates that the treatment service network
and infrastructure is the most valuable resource that criminal justice agencies can access. Collaborating and provid-
ing research and quality assurance support to local service providers enhances interagency understanding, service
credibility, and longer-term planning efforts. It also contributes to the stability and expansion of treatment services.
(Corbette, et al, 1999; Gendreau & Goggin, 1995; Gendreau, et al, 1993; Meyers & Smith, 1995; Bogue, 2002;
Maple, 1999)

Page 16

Appendix E: Levels of Research Evidence

This paper identifies eight principles from the research literature that are related to reduced recidivism outcomes. Research
does not support each of these principles with equal volume and quality, and even if it did, each principle would not
necessarily have similar effects on outcomes. Too often programs or practices are promoted as having research support
without any regard for either the quality or the research methods that were employed. Consequently, we have established a
research support gradient (below) indicating current research support for each principle. All of the eight principles for
effective intervention fall between EBP (Gold) and Promising EBP (Bronze) in research support.

RESEARCH SUPPORT GRADIENT
GOLD
•Experimental/control research design with controls for attrition
•Significant sustained reductions in recidivism obtained
•Multiple site replications
•Preponderance of all evidence supports effectiveness

SILVER
•Quasi-experimental control research with appropriate statistical controls
for comparison group

BRONZE
•Matched comparison group without complete statistical controls

IRON
•Conflicting findings and/or inadequate research designs

DIRT
•Silver and Gold research showing negative
outcomes

The five criteria listed above are similar to what has already been employed in a number of nationally recognized projects
such as the Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Mihalic et al, 2001) and the National Institute of Justice's independent
review of crime prevention programs (Sherman et al, 1998).
The highest quality research support depicted in this schema (gold level) reflects interventions and practices that have been
evaluated with experimental/control design and with multiple site replications that concluded significant sustained reductions
in recidivism were associated with the intervention. The criteria for the next levels of support progressively decrease in terms
of research rigor requirements (silver and bronze) but all the top three levels require that a preponderance of all evidence
supports effectiveness. The next rung lower in support (iron) is reserved for programs that have inconclusive support
regarding their efficacy. Finally, the lowest level designation (dirt) is reserved for those programs that have research
(utilizing methods and criteria associated with gold and silver levels) but the findings were negative and the
programs were determined not effective. Page 17

References for Effective Interventions
Agostinelli, G., Brown, J.M. and Miller, W.R.. (1995) Effects of normative feedback on Consumption among heavy drinking
college students. Journal of Drug Education 25: 31-40.
Alvero, A.M., Bucklin, B.R. & Austin, J. (2001) An objective review of the effectiveness and essential characteristics of
perform ance feedback in organizational settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 21(1): 3-29.
AMA. (1992) Users' Guides to Evidence-based Medicine. Nov 4; 268(17):2420-5. Copyright 1992, American Medical As
sociation. Or http://www.cche.net/usersguides/ebm.asp
Andrews, D.A, J. Bonta, and R. Hoge. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal
Justice and Behavior 17:19-52.
Andrews, D.A. (1989). “Personality and Crime: Knowledge Destruction and Construction in Criminology." Justice Quarterly
6:291-309.
Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.
Aos, S. (1998) Watching the bottom line: Cost-effective interventions for reducing crime in Washington. Washington State
Institute for Public Policy. Olympia, WA.
Azrin, N. H. and V. A. Besalel (1980). Job club counselor's manual. Austin, TX, Pro-Ed.
Azrin, N. H., Sisson, R. W., Meyers, R. & Godley, M. (1982). Alcoholism treatment by disulfiram and community
reinforcement therapy. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Psychiatry 13(2): 105-112.
Baer, J.S., Marlatt, A.G., Kivlanhan, D.R., Fromme, K., Larimer, M.E. & Williams, E. (1992) An experimental test of three
methods of alcohol risk reduction with young adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 60(6): 974-979.
Baer, J.S., D.R. Kivlahan, and D.M. Donovan. (1999). Integrating Skills Training and Motivational Therapies: Implications
for the Treatment of Substance Dependence. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 17:15-23.
Bandura, A. (1996). Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology 71:364-374.
Bandura, A., D. Ross, et al. (1963). Vicarious Reinforcement and Imitative Learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology 67(6): 601-607.
Bigelow, G., E. & Silverman, K. (1999). “Theoretical and empirical foundations of contingency management treatments for
drug abuse.” Pp. 15-31 in Motivating Behavior Change Among Illicit-Drug Abusers, edited by Stephen T. Higgins &
Kenneth Silverman. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bonta, J., S. Wallace-Capretta, J. Rooney and K. McAnoy. (2002) An outcome evaluation of a restorative justice alternative
to incarceration. Justice Review, 5(4): 319-338.
Bogue, B. (2002). An evolutionary model for examining community corrections. Report to CT Judicial Branch Court Sup-
port Services Division, November, 2002.
Burrell, W. (1998). Probation and Public Safety: Using Performance Measures to Demonstrate Public Value. Corrections
Management Quarterly 2:61-69.
Burrell, W.D. (2000). Reinventing probation: Organizational culture and change. Community Corrections Report 7:49-64.
Carey, M. (2002). Social learning, social capital and correctional theories: Seeking an integrated model. Paper presented at
International Community Corrections Association conference, November, 2002.
Clear, T.R. (1981). Objectives-Based Case Planning. NIC, Monograph 1981.
Clear, T.R. (2002). Prisoners, prisoners, and religion: Religion and adjustment to prison. Religion, the Community, and the
Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders, Vol. 35 (3/4), pp 129-161.
Clements, C.B. (1996). Offender Classification, Two Decades of Progress. Criminal Justice and Behavior 23:121-143.
Corbett, R.P., D.R. Beto, B. Coen, J.J. DiIulio, B.L. Fitzgerald, I. Gregg, N. Helber, G.R. Hinzman, R. Malvestuto, M.
Paparozzi, J. Perry, R. Pozzi, and E.E. Rhine. (1999). "Broken Windows" Probation: The next step in fighting crime.
Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, New York.
Currie, E. (1998). Crime and punishment in America. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
Decker, P.J. (1983) The effects of rehearsal group size and video feedback in behavior modeling training. Personnel Train-
ing 36: 763-773.
Page 18

References for Effective Interventions (con’t.)
Dilulio, J.J. (1993). Performance Measures for the Criminal Justice System. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington,
DC.
Durlak, J. A. (1998). Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the community 17:
5-18.
Ellickson, P., Petersilia, J., Caggiano, M. & Polin, S. (1983). Implementing new ideas in criminal justice. Santa Monica, CA,
The Rand Corporation.
Elliott, D., N. J. Hatot, et al. (2001). Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General.
Elliott, D. (1980). A Repertoire of Impact Measures. Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation: 507-515.
Emrick, C.D., J.S. Tonigang, H. Montgomery, and L. Little. 1993. Alcoholics Anonymous: Opportunities and Alternatives.,
edited by B.S. McCrady and W.R. Miller. New Brunswick, NJ: Alcohol Research Documentation, Inc., Rutgers Cen-
ter of Alcohol Studies.
Gendreau, P. and C. Goggin (1997). Correctional Treatment: Accomplishments and Realities. Correctional Counseling and
Rehabilitation. P. V. Voorhis, M. Braswell and D. Lester. Cincinnati, Anderson.
Gendreau, P. and C. Goggin. (1995). Principles of effective correctional programming with offenders. Center for Criminal
Justice Studies and Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, New Brunswick.
Gendreau, P., M. Paparozzi, et al. (1993). Does "Punishing Smarter" Work? An Assessment of the New Generation of Alter-
native Sanctions in Probation. Forum On Corrections Research 5: 31-34.
Gendreau, P., T. Little, et al. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program implementa-
tion. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 43(2): 180-187.
Gordon, T. (1970). Parent Effectiveness Training. NY:NY, Wyden.
Gottredson, D. C. & Gottfredson, G.D. (2002) Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national survey.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39: 3-35.
Hanson, R. K. & Harris, A. (1998). Triggers of sexual offense recidivism. Research Summary: Corrections Research and
Development 3(4): 1-2.
Harland, A. T. (1996). Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harper, R. and S. Hardy. (2000). An evaluation of motivational interviewing as a method of intervention with clients in a
probation setting. British Journal of Social Work 30:393-400.
Harris, P. M. & Smith, S. (1996). Developing community corrections: An implementation perspective. pp. 183-221, in
Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Edited by A. Harland.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Brondino, M.J., Scherer, D.G. & Hanley, J.H. (1997). Multisystemic therapy with violent
and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of treatment fidelity in successful dissemination. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65: 000-0013.
Higgins, S. T. and K. Silverman, Eds. (1999). Motivating behavior change among illicit-drug abusers: Research on contin-
gency management interventions. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association.
Hogue, A., Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C., Turner, R.M., Dakof, G.A. & Lapann, K. (1998). Treatment adherence and differentia-
tion in individual versus family therapy for dolescent substance abuse. Journal of Counseling Psychology 45: 104-
114.
Kropp, P., Hart, S., Webster, C., Eaves, D. (1995). Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide.
Latessa, E., F. Cullen and Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond correctional quackery: Professionalism and the possibility of profes-
sional treatment. Federal Probation. September.
Lipsey, M. W. and D. B. Wilson (1993). The Efficacy of Psychological, Educational, and Behavioral Treatment. American
Psychologist 48(12): 1181-1209.
Lipton, D. S., D. Thornton, et al. (2000). Program accreditation and correctional treatment. Substance Use & Misuse 35(12-
14): 1705-1734.
Ludeman, K. (1991) Measuring skills and behavior. Training & Development Nov.:61-66. Page 19

Maple, J. (1999). Crime Fighter. NY:NY, Doubleday Publishing.
McDonald, C. (2003) Forward via the Past? Evidence-Based Practice as Strategy in Social Work, The Drawing Board: An
Australian Review of Public Affairs. March. Vol. 3(3): 123-142. Or
http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/journal/0303/mcdonald.pdf
McGuire, J. (2001). What works in correctional intervention? Evidence and practical implications. Pp. 25-43 in Offender
rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs., edited by D. F. Gary Bernfeld, Alan
Leschied. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, LTD.
McGuire, J. (2002). Evidence-based programming today. Paper presented International Community Corrections Association
conference, Boston, MA, November, 2002.
Mee-Lee, D., L. Gartner, et al. (1996). Patient Placement Criteria for the Treatment of Substance-Related Disorders, Second
Edition. American Society of Addiction Medicine PPC-2.
Meyers, R.J. and J.E. Smith. (1995). Clinical Guide to Alcohol Treatment: The Community Reinforcement Approach. NY:NY,
Guilford Press.
Meyers, R.J. and J.E. Smith. (1997). Getting off the fence: Procedures to engage treatment-resistant drinkers. Journal of
Substance Abuse Treatment, 14, 467-472.
Meyers, R.J, W.R. Miller, J.E. Smith, and S. Tonnigan. (2002) A randomized trial of two methods for engaging treatment-
refusing drug users through concerned significant others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 70:5,
1182-1185.
Mihalic, S., K. Irwin, D. Elliott, A. Fagan, and D. Hansen. (2001). Blueprints for Violence Prevention. U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, DC.
Mihalic, S. & Irwin, K. (2003). Blueprints for violence prevention: From research to real world settings - factors influencing the
successful replication of model programs. Boulder, CO, Center for the Study & Prevention of Violence.
Miller, W.R., Sovereign, G.R. & Krege, B. (1988) Motivational interviewing with problem drinkers: II. The drinker's check up
as a preventive intervention. Behavioral Psychotherapy 16: 251-268.
Miller, W. and S. Rollnick. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Miller, W. R. and K. A. Mount (2001). A small study of training in Motivational Interviewing: Does one workshop change
clinician and client behavior? Albuquerque, NM.
O’Connor, T. & Perryclear, M. (2002) Prison religion in action and its influence on offender rehabilitation.
O’Leary, V. & Clear, T. (1997). Community corrections: Approaching the 21st century. National Institute of Corrections,
Washington, DC, 1-60.
Palmer, T. (1995). Programmatic and non-programmatic aspects of successful intervention: New directions for research. Crime
& Delinquency, 41(1): 100-131.
Petersilia, J. (1997). Probation in the United States: Practices and Challenges. National Institute of Justice Journal: 2-8.
Project Match Research Group (1997) Therapist effects in three treatments for alcohol problems. Psychotherapy
Research 8(4):455-474.
Ratcliffe, M.R., Collins, S., Leach, J., Millar, R.H. and Osborne, J.F. (2000). Towards Evidence- based Practice in Science
Education (EPSE) - an ESRC funded Teaching and Learning Research Network. Paper presented to the British
Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Cardiff, 7-9 September. Or
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/projs/publications.html
Ryan, R.M. and E.L. Deci. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist 55:68-78.
Sherman, L.W., D.C. Gottfredson, D.L. Mackenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S.D. Bushway. (1998). Preventing Crime: What
works, what doesn't, what's promising. National Institute of Justice.
Springer, D.W.; McNeece, C.A.; and Arnold, E.M. (2003) Substance Abuse Treatment for Criminal Offenders: An Evidence-
Based Guide for Practitioners. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. (RC 564 S585 2003).
Steadman, H., S. Morris, et al. (1995). The Diversion of Mentally Ill Persons from Jails to Community-Based Services:
A Profile of Programs. American Journal of Public Health 85 (12): 1630-1635.
Page 20

Taxman, F. (2002). Supervision: Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, September-Special Issue: 14-27.
Taxman, F. and J. Byrne. (2001). Fixing broken windows probation together. Perspectives Spring: 23-29.
Boulder, Colorado, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence: 1-20.
Tilley, N. and G. Laycock (2001) Working Out What To Do: Evidence-based Crime Reduction. Crime Reduction Series Paper
11, London: Home Office ISSN: 1468-5205, ISBN 1-84082-792-0 Or http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/skills14.htm
Waltz, J., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K. & Jacobson, N.S. (1993). Testing the integrity of a psychotherapy protocol: Adherence
and competence ratings. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 620-630.
Wanberg, K. and H. Milkman. (1998). Criminal conduct and substance abuse treatment: Strategies for self-improvement and
change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Health & Human Service: 1-176.
Williams, K.R., & D. Elliott, N.G. Guerra. (1999) The DART model: Linking development and Risk Together. The Center for
the Study and Prevention of Violence, Boulder, CO.
Zemke, R. (2001) Systems Thinking. Training February, 39-46

This article was supported under cooperative award #03C05GIW2 from the National Institute of Corrections,
Community Corrections Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of
the U.S. Department of Justice.

Page 21

Implementing ebp in community corrections the principles of effective intervention

More Related Content

What's hot (8)

Similar to Implementing ebp in community corrections the principles of effective intervention (20)

More from sevans-idaho (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Implementing ebp in community corrections the principles of effective intervention