Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence Mapping to Advance Justice Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation

Part of the book series: Springer Series on Evidence-Based Crime Policy ((SSEBCP))

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the Evidence Mapping to Advance Justice Practice (EMTAP) project commissioned by the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence (ACE!) at George Mason University to summarize systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses related to behavioral health interventions in the justice system. An extensive overview of the EMTAP “review of reviews” methodology is provided and findings from the coding of more than 300 SRs and meta-analyses are discussed. Project findings highlight problematic variability in the descriptive validity of included SRs. Incomplete reporting of key intervention features limits the transportability of research synthesis findings to practice. Among coded reviews, only 48.3 % considered methodological quality of primary studies, 8.7 % considered implementation fidelity, and 37.2 % assessed for publication bias. EMTAP findings identify several important limitations that plague many existing research syntheses including poorly defined interventions, a lack of consideration of implementation issues, and inadequately reported findings that hinder transportability and replication. The implications of EMTAP findings for research and practice are discussed and recommendations are made for improving the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in criminology and related fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed by researchers to improve the reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (Begg et al., 1996). The CONSORT statement is designed to ensure that adequate information is reported to assess the internal and external validity of a trial. The CONSORT model has been adapted for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (see e.g., Delaney et al., 2005).

  2. 2.

    A copy of the automated protocol is available upon request from the corresponding author.

References

  • Altman, D. G. (2001). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134, 663‑694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, D. G. (2005). Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journal: A survey of instructions for authors. British Medical Journal, 330, 1056‑1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amato, L., Davoli, M., Vecchi, S., Ali, R., Farrell, M., Faggiano, F., Foxcroft, D., Ling, W., Minozzi, S., Chengzheng, Z. (2011). Cochrane systematic reviews in the field of addiction: What’s there and what should be. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 113, 96‑103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist, G., & Wooster, D. (1995). Meta-analysis: Synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10(6), 236‑240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1023‑1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, R., & Fernandez, E. (1998). Cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of anger: A meta-analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22(1), 63‑74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. A. & Oxman, O. D. (2011). Overviews of reviews. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (Chapter 22). www.cochrane-handbook.org.

  • Begg, C., Moher, D., & Schulz, K. F. (1996). Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 276(8), 637‑639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J. & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity model for offender assessment and treatment (User Report 2007‑06). Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caudy, M., Tang, L., Ainsworth, S. A., Lerch, J., & Taxman, F. S. (2013). Reducing recidivism through correctional programming: Using meta-analyses to inform the RNR Simulation Tool. In F. S. Taxman & A. Pattavina (Eds.), Simulation Strategies to Reduce Recidivism: Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) Modeling in the Criminal Justice System (pp. 167‑193). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence. (2012). Evidence mapping to advance justice practice [Data File]. http://www.gmuace.org/tools/evidencemapping.php

  • Chan, A., Hrobjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gotzsche, P. C. & Altman, D. G. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(20), 2457‑2465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cipriani, A., Furukawa, T. A., Salanti, G., Geddes, J. R., Higgins, J. P. T., Churchill, R., Watanabe, N., Nakagawa, A., Omori, IM., McGuire, H., Tansella, M., Barbui, C. (2009). Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: A multiple-treatments meta-analysis. The Lancet, 373, 746‑758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C. (1980). Reviewing the literature: A comparison of traditional methods with meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 48, 449‑472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23‑45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, A., Bagshaw, S. M., Ferland, A., Manns, B., & Laupland, K. B. (2005). A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analysis in the critical care literature. Critical Care, 9, R575‑R582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowden, C., Antonowicz, D., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). The effectiveness of relapse prevention with offenders: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(5), 516‑528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drake E. K. (2011). “What works” in community supervision: Interim report (Document No. 11-12-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, E., Aos, S., & Miller, M. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State (No. 09‑00-1201). Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998). Meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies. British Medical Journal, 361, 61‑66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Phillips, A. N. (1997). Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures. British Medical Journal, 315, 1533‑1537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feder, L., & Wilson, D. B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 239‑262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, C. A., Wilson, D. B., Paul Hirschfield, M. A., Coggeshall, M. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (1999). Quantitative review of the effects of sex offender treatment on sexual reoffending. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(4), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G. V. (1977). Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education, 5, 351‑379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Altman, D. G., Bastian, H., Boutron, I., Brice, A., Jamtvedt, G., Farmer, A., Ghersi, D., Groves, T., Heneghan, C., Hill, S., Lewin, S., Michie, S., Perera, R., Pomeroy, V., Tilson, J., Shepperd, S., Williams, J. W. (2010). Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice. British Medical Journal, 341, 384‑387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golder, S., Loke, Y. K., & Bland, M. (2011). Meta-analysis of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: Methodological overview. PLoS Medicine, 8(5), 1‑13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, L. W. & Glasgow, R. E. (2006). Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: Issues in external validation and translation methodology. Evaluation & Health Professions, 29, 126‑153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, J. W., Rowan-Szal, G. A., Roark, R. R., & Simpson, D. D. (2000). Contingency management in outpatient methadone treatment: A meta-analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 58(1‑2), 55‑66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., & Squires, J. E. (2012). Knowledge translation of research findings. Implementation Science, 7(50), 7‑50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G. C. N. (1995). Sexual offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(5), 802‑809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammerstrom, K., Wade, E. & Jorgensen, A. K. (2010). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/resources/research/new_information_retrieval_guide.php

  • Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., & Seto, M. C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14(2), 169‑194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. P. T., & Deeks, J. J. (2011). Selecting studies and collecting data. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 (Chapter 7). www.cochrane-handbook.org.

  • Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0. www.cochrane-handbook.org.

  • Holloway, K. R., Bennett, T. H., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). The effectiveness of drug treatment programs in reducing criminal behavior: A meta-analysis. Psicothema, 18(3), 620‑629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jadad, A. R., Cook, D. J., & Browman, G. P. (1997). A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 156(10), 1411‑1416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127‑144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E. & Glanville, J. (2011). Searching for studies. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.1.0 (Chapter 6). www.cochrane-handbook.org.

  • Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis good, bad and ugly. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 69‑81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 297‑320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M.W., Landenberger, N.A. & Wilson, S.J. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 3(6). http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/29/.

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, D. S., Pearson, F. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. (2008). The effects of therapeutic communities and milieu therapy on recidivism: Meta-analytic findings from the correctional drug abuse treatment effectiveness (CDATE) study. In J. McGuire (Ed.), Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment (pp. 39‑77). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, G. L. (2005). Meta-analysis of moral reconation therapy recidivism results from probation and parole implementations. Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Review, 14(1/2), 14‑16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lussier, J. P., Heil, S. H., Mongeon, J. A., Badger, G. J., & Higgins, S. T. (2006). A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction, 101(2), 192‑203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. S., Dorken, S. K., Wamboldt, A. D., & Wootten, S. E. (2011). Stopping the revolving door: A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of interventions for criminally involved individuals with major mental disorders. Law and Human Behavior, 36(1), 1‑15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meade, M. O., & Richardson, S. (1997). Selecting and appraising studies for a systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127(7), 531‑537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michie, S., & Abraham, C. (2008). Advancing the science of behavior change: A plea for scientific reporting. Addiction, 103, 1409‑1410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michie, S., Fixsen, D., Grimshaw, J. W., & Eccles, M. P. (2009). Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: The need for a scientific method. Implementation Science, 4(1), 40‑45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michie, S., & Prestwich, A. (2010). Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychology, 29(1), 1‑8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2007). Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? A meta-analytic synthesis of the research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3(4), 353‑375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. The Lancet, 354, 1896‑1901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Jones, A., & Lepage, L. (2001). Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: A comparative before-and-after evaluation. Journal of American Medical Association, 285(15), 1992‑1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1‑6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A. C., Sampson, M., & Altman, D. G., (2007). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine, 4(3), 0477‑0455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, F. S., Prendergast, M. L., Podus, D., Vazan, P., Greenwell, L., & Hamilton, Z. (2012). Meta-analyses of seven of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s principles of drug addiction treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 43, 1‑11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, A. E., Darwin, Z., Godfrey, C., McDougall, C., Lunn, J., Glanville, J., & Coulton, S. (2009). The effectiveness of interventions for drug-using offenders in courts, secure establishments and the community: A systematic review. Substance Use & Misuse, 44(3), 374‑400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, A. E., Weisburd, D., & Hewitt, C. (2010). Are criminologists describing randomized controlled trials in ways that allow us to assess them? Findings from a sample of crime and justice trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 245‑262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plint, A. C., Moher, D., Morrison, A., Schulz, K., Altman, D. G., Hill, C., & Gaboury, I. (2006). Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials? A systematic review. The Medical Journal of Australia, 185(5), 263‑267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, T. C. (2010). Meta-analysis in criminal justice and criminology: What it is, when it’s useful, and what to watch out for. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(2), 153‑168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, M., Podus, D., Finney, J., Greenwell, L. & Roll, J. (2006). Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Addiction, 101(11), 1546‑1560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, M. L., Podus, D., Chang, E., & Urada, D. (2002). The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: A meta-analysis of comparison group studies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 67(1), 53‑72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 215‑237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudes, D. S., Portillo, S., Murphy, A., Rhodes, A., Stitzer, M., Luongo, P., & Taxman, F.S. (2012). Adding positive reinforcements in a criminal justice setting: Acceptability and feasibility. The Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 42(3), 269‑270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2008). Does sexual offender treatment work? A systematic review of outcome evaluations. Psicothema, 20(1), 10‑19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenwald, S. K., & Hoagwood, K. (2001). Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: What matters when? Psychiatric Services, 52(9), 1190‑1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silagy, C. A., Middleton, P., & Hopewell, S. (2002). Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: Comparing what was done to what was planned. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(21), 2831‑2834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P., Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2002). The effects of prison and intermediate sanctions on recidivism: General effects and individual differences. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Solicitor General Canada, Ottawa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterne, J. A. C., & Harbord, R. M. (2004). Funnel plots in meta-analysis. The Stata Journal, 4(2), 127‑141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Belenko, S. (2012). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. A. (2000). The importance of systems in improving offender outcomes: New frontiers in treatment integrity. Justice Research and Policy, 2(2), 37‑58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. A. (2002). Assessing therapeutic integrity in modified therapeutic communities for drug-involved offenders. The Prison Journal, 82(2), 189‑212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The PLoS Medicine Editors. (2007). Many reviews are systematic but some are more transparent and completely reported than others. PLoS Medicine, 4(3), 0399‑0400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tong, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” programme in reducing reoffending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(1), 3‑24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visher, C., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. (2005). Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 295‑316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, E. (2009). Uses of meta-analysis in criminal justice research: A quantitative review. Justice Quarterly, 26(2), 268‑294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B. (2001). Meta-analytic methods for criminology. The Annals of the American Academy, 587, 71‑89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B. (2009). Missing a critical piece of the pie: Simple document search strategies inadequate for systematic reviews. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(4), 429‑440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B. (2010). Meta-analysis. In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.). Handbook of Quantitative Criminology (pp. 181‑208). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B., Bouffard, L. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(2), 172‑204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 347‑368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B., MacKenzie, D. L., & Mitchell, F. N. (2008). Effects of correctional boot camps on offending. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 1(6), 1‑42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research. (2009). WIDER recommendations to improve reporting of the content of behavior change interventions. http://interventiondesign.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wider-recommendations.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Michael S. Caudy

  2. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Faye S. Taxman, Liansheng Tang & Carolyn Watson

Authors
  1. Michael S. Caudy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Faye S. Taxman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liansheng Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carolyn Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Caudy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

    David Weisburd

  2. Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    David P. Farrington

  3. Department of Criminology, Law & Society, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

    Charlotte Gill

Appendix A: Summary of EMTAP Percent Reductions by Intervention Category (Source: Adapted from Caudy, Tang, Ainsworth, Lerch, & Taxman (2013))

Appendix A: Summary of EMTAP Percent Reductions by Intervention Category (Source: Adapted from Caudy, Tang, Ainsworth, Lerch, & Taxman (2013))

Intervention

Control group

Recidivism reduction (%)

Kd

N

Interventions for general offenders

Cognitive behavioral therapy

    

(Lipsey, Landenberger & Wilson, 2007)

NT or Non-CBT

25

58

‑

Moral reconation therapy

    

(Little, 2005)

Non-MRT

16a

9

10,139

(Wilson, Bouffard & MacKenzie, 2005)

NT, Non-CBT, or min tx

35

6

14,118

Reasoning and rehabilitation

    

(Tong & Farrington, 2006)

‑

14

25

18,234

(Wilson, Bouffard & MacKenzie, 2005)

NT, Non-CBT, or min tx

14

7

2753

Restorative justice

    

(Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005)

No participation in restorative justice

14b

22

‑

CBT for anger management

    

(Beck & Fernandez, 1998)

‑

51

50

1640

Intensive supervision probation w/ Tx

    

(Drake, Aos & Miller, 2009)

Any, excluding non-completers

17.9

11

‑

RNR supervision

    

(Drake, 2011)

NT, TAU, Non-RNR

16

6

‑-

Electronic monitoring

    

(Renzema & Mayo-Wilson, 2005)

Traditional or ISP Probation or Parole, Incarceration, or other

2a

3

879

Interventions for substance using offenders

General drug treatment

    

(Holloway, Bennett & Farrington, 2006)

NT

12a

22

‑

(Prendergast, Podus, Chang & Urada, 2002)

NT, TAU, placebo tx, or tx not intended to produce change

22a

25

‑

Therapeutic community

    

(Lipton, Pearson, Cleland & Yee, 2008)

TAU or unrelated tx

16a

35

10,881

(Mitchell, Wilson & MacKenzie, 2007)

TAU, eligible but not referred, historical, other jurisdiction/ facility

27

30

‑

Therapeutic community (Hard Drugs)

    

(Holloway, Bennett & Farrington, 2006)

NT

45

7

‑

Counseling (General)

    

(Mitchell, Wilson & MacKenzie, 2007)

TAU, eligible but not referred, historical, other jurisdiction/ facility

20

25

‑

Narcotic maintenance

    

(Mitchell, Wilson & MacKenzie, 2007)

TAU, eligible but not referred, historical, other jurisdiction/ facility

9 INCREASE

5

‑

Narcotic maintenance (Hard Drugs)

    

(Holloway, Bennett & Farrington, 2006)

NT

27a

4

‑

Boot camp

    

(Mitchell, Wilson & MacKenzie, 2007)

TAU, eligible but not referred, historical, other jurisdiction/ facility

5

2

‑

Intensive supervision program

    

(Perry et al., 2009)

Randomly assigned: minimal, different, or NT

33a

24

8936

Post-release supervision

    

(Dowden, Antonowicz & Andrews, 2003)

‑

26c

24

‑

Post-release supervision (hard drugs)

    

(Holloway, Bennett & Farrington, 2006)

NT

33a

3

‑

Interventions for offenders with mental illness

Mental health treatment

    

(Martin, Dorken, Wamboldt & Wootten, 2011)

Could not be from treatment refusals and dropouts

17a

36

15,512

Vocational/educational programs

General vocation/education

    

(Wilson, Gallagher & MacKenzie, 2000)

No educational, vocational, or work program

21

33

‑

Ex-offender employment

    

(Visher, Winterfield & Coggeshall, 2005)

TAU or NT

3a

8

‑

Academic/educational

    

(Wilson, Gallagher & MacKenzie, 2000)

No educational, vocational, or work program

18

14

‑

Post-Secondary Correctional Education

    

(Wilson, Gallagher & MacKenzie, 2000)

No educational, vocational, or work program

27

13

‑

Vocational

    

(Wilson, Gallagher & MacKenzie, 2000)

No educational, vocational, or work program

22

17

‑

Correctional industries

    

(Wilson, Gallagher & MacKenzie, 2000)

No educational, vocational, or work program

19

4

‑

Supervision only interventions for general offenders

Incarceration (vs. community)

    

(Smith, Goggin & Gendreau, 2002)

Offenders sentenced to community

14 INCREASE

104

268,806

Intermediate sanctions

    

(Smith, Goggin & Gendreau, 2002)

Lesser sanctions (e.g., regular probation)

2

167

66,500

Boot camp

    

(Wilson, MacKenzie & Mitchell, 2008)

Probation or incarceration in an alternative facility

1

32

‑

Interventions for domestic violence offenders

General DV treatment (police report)

    

*Experimental design only

NT, dropouts, other tx, or incarcerated

16

4

1480

(Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004)

    

(Feder & Wilson, 2005)

NT, TAU, Probation, or Jail

32

4

1962

General DV treatment (Partner Report)

    

*Experimental design only

NT, dropouts, other tx, or incarcerated

0

4

1771

(Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004)

    

(Feder & Wilson, 2005)

NT, TAU, Probation, or Jail

10

3

1247

Interventions for Sexual Offenders

Sex offender treatment (sexual recidivism)

    

(Gallagher et al., 1999)

NT, TAU, non-participants, dropouts

37

22

‑

(Hanson et al., 2002)

NT

16

38

8164

(Hall, 1995)

NT or other tx

28

12

1313

(Schmucker & Losel, 2008)

NT, TAU, or other tx

36

74e

22,181

Sex offender treatment (violent recidivism)

    

(Schmucker & Losel, 2008)

NT, TAU, or other tx

44

20e

‑

Sex offender treatment (gen. recidivism)

    

(Hanson et al., 2002)

NT

31

38

8164

(Schmucker & Losel, 2008)

NT, TAU, or other tx

32

49e

‑

  1. aCalculation assumed 0.50 control recidivism base rate
  2. bStandardized mean difference was converted to odds ratio. Phi coefficient was converted to an odds ratio with an assumed 0.50 control recidivism. Success/failure rates for treatment and control groups were used to calculate odds ratio
  3. cTreatment and control group recidivism rates were converted to percent reduction
  4. dK reflects number of studies included
  5. eK reflects number of comparisons included

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Caudy, M.S., Taxman, F.S., Tang, L., Watson, C. (2016). Evidence Mapping to Advance Justice Practice. In: Weisburd, D., Farrington, D., Gill, C. (eds) What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation. Springer Series on Evidence-Based Crime Policy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3477-5_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3477-5_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-3475-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-3477-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation