Corrections Community

Readers, and I hope participants, of this forum may be interested to know of a new article by Mark W. Lipsey and Francis T. Cullen, "The Effectiveness of Correctional Rehabilitation: A Review of Systematic Reviews."  Slated for publication in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Lipsey has posted a preprint here.  Their abstract ends with what could be a challenge to this forum:  "The rehabilitation treatments generally found effective in research do not characterize current correctional practice, and bridging the gap between research and practice remains a significant challenge."  Perhaps we would benefit from thoughts about "what works" in bridging that gap?  Examples to learn from of research effectively influencing practice?

I've lauded this post and article over at my place, Corrections Sentencing (http://correctionssentencing.blogspot.com/2007/12/recidivismwhat-works-what-doesnt.html), and have sent it to plenty of folks in the OK DOC.  The point of this forum, though, is to bring up points more directly related to correctional researchers, and I ran across a sentence in the report that I thought played into possible discussion for us.  On p. 28 of the Lipsey and Cullen article, they state:  "The greatest obstacle to using rehabilitation treatment effectively to reduce criminal behavior is not a "nothing works" research literature with nothing to offer, but, rather, a correctional system that does not use the research that is available and has no history of doing so."

I'm wondering if this is true.  I'm wonder if this is true because I just finished two weeks ago two days of training on reentry and rehab that was very strong on the literature and how it applies to our activities.  The presentations included both practitioners from other states and academics like Faye Taxman, obviously well versed in cutting edge material.  Her complaint to me about the use of the available research was that too many folks aren't aware of the latest stuff, not that they weren't aware or using research at all.  In my experience the field might not be completely aware, but their upper management leadership has been proactive in program applications of research findings.  And the point of the reentry conference was to ensure that COs and POs were up-to-date.  Is this unique to my department or is it true that, while the average officer or case manager may not be hitting the journals readily, the upper levels of management and research in DOCs are actively to bridge the gap?  How many DOCs are actually walking the "evidence-based" talk and what evidence are they actually using?  If in fact there are some DOCs active, others inactive, and some in between, then it seems this forum would be a wonderful opportunity to get the three groups talking.  I'm as aware as anyone that there is hesitancy to comment in something that could turn controversial or to express an opinion if your job is not merit, but surely we can ask each other questions about where and how successes and failures have been occurring, about the relevant research on particular topics (such as this article), and about what needs to be done to pull us all together in a common network similar to researchers in state statistical analysis centers and sentencing commissions.

So please consider responding to my questions from the standpoint of your state or experience.  Keep it objective if you must or express critiques if you can.  But let's talk about this challenge that Lipsey and Cullen have laid before us.  They seem ready to extend the research community toward us if we just reciprocate enough to show it's worth their time.  Here's what they said again on p. 28:

. . . We need a better understanding of how to package findings about effective treatment in ways that facilitate their dissemination and application in correctional settings.  We especially need a better understanding of the constraints inherent in the organizational context of correctional programs and how to tailor evidence-based treatment to those concepts in ways that make them easy to adopt and, most especially, to implement well and sustain.  On the other side of the exchange, it is essential that correctional systems attend to research evidence when making decisions about how much emphasis to place on rehabilitation treatment, which programs to implement, and how to implement them in ways that will ensure that the [sic] are effective.

Hi all. I just joined the group. By way of introduction, I'm the research director for the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, doing applied research here since 1984. Over these (many) years, I've seen research guide policy and practice and I've also seen, well, not so much of that. 

I've always considered it to be part of my job to translate the literature to both the folks in the trenches and the policy people. The audience that consistently is interested in our work remains the practitioners who work face-to-face with offenders, and often their supervisors. I don't know the extent that practitioners are exposed, in general, to the what works material, but they are the change agents.

When research drives practice/policy, these two things are present: leadership and leadership (not a typo). Even inside organizations that are not invested in change or research, certain people work beyond their job description (and more than 40 hours/week) and push "what works." This is happening in pockets everywhere across the country, from specific programs in prisons (such as our prison's sex offender therapeutic community-despite a general lack of support from the larger system) to a chief PO in Mesa County Colorado who is implementing EBP in her small district (despite the resistance from probation officers  who had been in the job more than 6 (!) years). Until line-staff are evaluated on their performance pertaining to EBP, nothing changes, as we learned from community policing research.

The work of the Kansas DOC is remarkable in terms of implementing EBP, and revocations, escapes, and new crimes are all on the decline, as well as the projected size of the prison population. It can be done. It takes leadership and a willingness to take risks-politicians are inherently risk-averse, so this is no small matter. Somewhere between 10% and 20% of the DOC staff resigned when Roger Werholtz began to move in this direction.

Efforts to promote "what works" require that services be delivered properly. Service delivery to offenders is an industrial complex, whereas the resources to study these services is not. Evaluating the 400 programs in Colorado that deliver substance abuse services to offenders is, well, critical isn't it? But even in California, where multiple studies over several years led its inspector general to conclude in writing that over a BILLION DOLLARS WAS WASTED on drug programs for prisoners, responding to the research findings requires leadership and risk-taking.

In the end, trainings on EBP need to be accompanied with equal time addressing how to implement organization change. NIC has terrific material on this topic.

In the end, Jim Austin, Todd Clear and colleagues are correct, in their new report Unlocking America (try not to be distracted by the fact that the report needed a serious edit before going to press). They make the point that reducing recidivism alone isn't going to begin to solve the problems associated with the (range of) costs of incarceration. We need deeper reforms: reduce length of stay by at least half, and do not use prison for drug offenders or technical violators.

It's good to see Kim in this group.  She's been as experienced with this problem as anyone in the country.  I agree with the "pockets" concept and hope that one thing that comes from this effort is the identification of more and more of those "pockets" and study of what makes them happen and maintain themselves.  I also agree with the importance of the leadership role in fostering an environment and in recognizing successful evidence-based practitioners.  To institutionalize and expand the "pockets," we need consistent reward and publicity for those willing to take the chance so the status quo no longer looks like the place to be and obstructionists get discouraged.  As Kim says, organizational change is key and will need as much emphasis as the material on evidence-based practice itself.

After almost fifty years of corrections experience, it's my observation that incorporating corrections-related research into correctional practice requires individuals knowledgeable about both sides in order to bridge the gap.  It is unrealistic to expect researchers to write in language that will appeal to practitioners.  And, equally, it cannot be expected that practitioners will read the literature in which research is published.  The required mediators are individuals who have been schooled/experienced on one side of the gap and work on the other.  While, few; there are some.  A greater number of them is needed.

Bob Levinson