You read “From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century” (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001) for this week. What parts of the “What works” principles presented on pp.331-333, make sense? Do you disagree with any of the principles?
Again, you don’t necessarily HAVE to respond to both questions, but you do want to make an interesting, intelligent, and informed contribution to the blog. dl
In this week’s reading, the authors review the history of “professional ideology” within the criminology profession. The authors explore six principles about “what works” (p. 331-333), they are:
1. Scientific criminology is the basis for effective correctional intervention;
2. Scientific criminology should be used to “destroy” knowledge that is not evidence based;
3. Scientific criminology should be used to “construct” knowledge about what does work;
4. Although pure research is a noble activity, it is equally legitimate for criminologists to produce knowledge that can reduce crime;
5. “What works” scientific criminology is not limited, a priori, to any one level of analysis or theoretical perspective; and,
6. Scientific criminology will result in more “good” in the world than a criminology that ignores what really works.
All of the principles make sense when it comes to implementing a “what works” mentality. The first principle is useful because “interventions can only be effective if they target for change the causes or known predictors of recidivism” (p. 331). The second principle guides us to no longer fund interventions based on faulty theories. The third point drives the process that in order to discern how to best deliver effective treatments in a correctional setting, we must believe that offenders can change. The fourth principle discusses how criminologists must “step up to the plate” and produce “evidenced based” recommendations for what should be done in corrections. Fifth, criminologists should also realize that “there is no inherent reason [sic] why a “what works” approach could not operate at, or across, different levels of analysis” (p. 332). Lastly, “doing the wrong thing” could cost society and offenders more than what it would be to implement evidence-based programs.
All principles are needed in order to change how some criminologists are viewing “what works.” We must “think outside the box” and fund programs that are shown to be effective and not just what seems popular (i.e. boot camps, etc.). Using evidence-based programs will surely lower recidivism rates and reduce costs to society.
The core beliefs of the “what works” professional ideology noted in the article, do indeed make sense. There are no core beliefs that I disagree with, however I question how those of us in the criminal justice field can begin to break down the practice of knowledge destruction and move towards knowledge construction since it is so pervasive within our field. The authors note, “knowledge destruction is a part of a criminologist’s role,” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001, pg. 333-334), and could therefore be beneficial to us by showing us what does not work in our approach. It would, in essence, serve as a reminder of why we should move towards evidence-based practices. I question how we can remove such a dominant concept from our practices and persuade criminal justice professionals to adopt the core beliefs of the “what works” professional ideology.
The core beliefs and principles are ideal. For the past decade we have seen a dramatic increase in incarceration rates and in the number of individuals under some form of criminal justice supervision. We have seen what does not work; it is now time that we start doing something that does work. I must agree with the authors when they say that “what works” professional ideology, “if embraced, this vision will improve criminology as a discipline and contribute more than ‘nothing works’ scholarship to the commonweal of both offenders and the public order” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001, pg. 313). As criminal justice professionals of the 21st century, we should be concerned with not just the well being of society, but with the offender as well.
Reference
Cullen, F.T. & Gendreau P. (2001). From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
The article “From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century” (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001) presents several principles of “what works”. These principles make clear sense to me.
Scientific criminology is the basis for effective correctional intervention (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001). Our criminal justice system is outdated. The need for change is apparent. It is necessary to study the causes of criminality, recidivism and produce theory’s to provide information regarding the risk factors of recidivism. This information needs to be absorbed into the criminal justice system so that we will begin transforming correctional methods to address the real causes of criminality and recidivism.
Measures should be taken to evaluate programs that do not work. Programs such as “boot camps” and “Scared Strait” are based on faulty theories and employ treatment techniques that are inconsistent with decades of social psychological research (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001). This knowledge should then be altered into a sanction/program that has been shown to work through evidence based studies.
Scientific criminology will result in more “good” than a criminology that ignores what really works (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001).Utilizing knowledge of programs that have been scientifically shown to reduce recidivism is our current criminal justice system’s only hope.
Reference
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: changing
professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 331-338.
Cullen and Gendreau’s 2001 article From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century has given us several principles for the ideology “what works” in criminology. These principles are the core beliefs on how to get to this point.
In review of the six sections, the ones that make the most sense to me are the Second, Third and Fifth Principles.
The second and third principles should be intertwined. There is a statement in the Third principle where it says that “knowledge construction is ever bit as important as knowledge deconstruction” (pg 331). It is important to gain the knowledge about what is working. If we don’t continue to work on gathering this information, then we are in the same place we are now and that is continuing to discuss what does not work. In addition in the closing paragraphs of the article, Cullen and Gendreau say that the, professional ideology in regard to knowledge deconstruction (second principle) is that is has outlived its utility and that it also has become counterproductive (pg 333-334). I disagree with this statement as I think we need to take all of the knowledge we have and combine it. We need to use what does not work to assist us in finding what does work.
Granted we certainly should not keep funding programs that do not work, but we have to learn from them and then replace them with ones that do. The information gathered from deconstruction is a valuable tool to assist us in proceeding with construction.
The fifth principle references that we need to operate across all different levels of analysis (individual to community). Some of the individual issues may not be resolved at this level and if we are working at the individual level, we may need to also include areas in the community to eliminate the proximate causes of crime/criminals. Cullen and Gendreau discuss Lombroso’s idea that “crime arises out of social conditions” (pg 316). If we are to agree with the fifth principle we can not completely dismiss Lombroso’s ideas all together.
Reference:
Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
The basic theory or principles of “From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century” (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001) seems to be logical. In the fourth principle of “What Works”, correctional institutions that fail to use “evidence –based” research to create policies and practices will ensure that ineffective interventions will continue to flourish (p.332).
This takes me back to the first principle, “scientific criminology is the basis for effective correctional intervention.” I agree with this principle, however, it seems today’s politics really does not allow or even want to know why criminals commit crime. They, the politicians, want more punishment and retribution. It is their desire to appear to be ‘Tough on Crime” that prevents any serious discussion on what really is the root cause of crime. Without their support for “evidence-based” research for interventions of crime, the correctional institutions will be burdened with ill fated programs like “boot camps and scared straight”.
Before you can find what works for offenders you must first discover what is causing the offender to offend.
Reference:
Cullen, F.T. and Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The
Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-Based Corrections: Identifying What Works, Crime Delinquency; 46; 457
The 6 principles put forth by Cullen and Gendreau (2001) make fine sense, and I can’t find myself able to disagree with any of them. It is hopeful and open to other disciplines (Psychology!), open to construction of effective approaches to researching and applying crime control and prevention measures. This ‘what works’ perspective appears to be self-evidently superior to the pessimistic ‘nothing works’ ideology so popular in criminology during the ‘70’s and ‘80’s.
I read the paper like a puzzle, since the six principles are dropped in a reader’s lap after pages of reinforcement that the professional ideology du jour should be met with skepticism, that it possibly exists in a vacuum, unrelated to the ‘real world’ of practice in criminal justice.
The writer’s sarcasm concerning the era of the ‘nothing works’ paradigm would be comical if it wasn’t such an ominous reminder that groups and their ideas can have a life of their own. In reading this paper I was reminded of the conflict outlined by Herman Hesse in ‘The Glass Bead Game’ (1943), where a future society had an elite order that concerned itself with an elaborate philosophy completely unrelated to actual day to day living.
Cullen and Gendreau establish that the professional ideology of today has come along way, that it allows reaching out to the wider ‘real world,’ that the discipline now and forever is going forward with eyes open. But didn’t professionals in the field during the ‘nothing works’ era feel the same way?
I gather from the paper that the ‘nothing works’ ideology was used to justify opposing approaches to crime control and rehabilitation. Cullen and Gendreau, regarding criminologists’ fight against both the ‘therapeutic state’ and the ‘punitive state’: ‘To select a somewhat arbitrary line, the “nothing works” professional ideology was fairly entrenched by 1980. Although this ideology arose largely as a critique of the “therapeutic state,” it was clear by this time that rehabilitation – although still seen as ineffective – was the least of criminologists’ problems … Worries about the use of rehabilitation to mask coercion were replaced by worries about policies explicitly formulated to deliver, as Clear (1994) aptly puts it, “penal harm.”‘ (2001, pp. 326-327)
But didn’t the criminologists of the ‘nothing works’ era create this ‘penal harm’ with their criticism of the ‘therapeutic state?’ Didn’t their ideology drive policy that resulted in prison overcrowding? Or did their professional ideology exist in a vacuum, was actual policy and practice only distantly related to criminological research? The creeping worry I am left with is not ‘what works’ but what’s real. What actually works in the big picture sense, beyond the discipline?
The 4th principle of Cullen and Gendreau’s paper does address this issue, referring to the value of pure research, but extolling the absolute need for practical applications in the field: ‘Unless criminologists can provide a persuasive blueprint for what should be done in corrections, we will be saddled with programs - such as boot camps – that potentially damage offenders and harm public safety.’ (2001, p. 332) The paper is a dizzying history of the swing of the criminal justice pendulum, a cautionary statement against repeating history.
Cullen, F.T. & Gendreau, P. (2001). From What Works to Nothing Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal, Vo. 81, No. 3. pp. 313-338.
Hesse, H. (1990). The Glass Bead Game. Holt Paperbacks, NY. (Orignally published in 1943)
The article “From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001) presents several principles of “what works”. All of the principles at their core make sense to me. I do however feel that each principle will be met with some sort of resistance whether that is from law enforcement, correctional facilities or social service programs.
The key to effective change is that when resistance is encountered it must be dealt with quickly and efficiently.
The key theme is that science is a way of knowing the world and changing it for the better Cullen & Gendreau, pg.331). The fourth principle deals directly with using evidence-based practices. Evidence practices must be used or we will continue to allow ineffective interventions to exist within the criminal justice system. We must not allow programs that do more harm than good to survive. It is imperative that we do not keep funding programs that do not work. I believe though that before we ‘destroy’ them we should take every opportunity to deconstruct them. This will allow us to gather information before proceeding with construction. Cullen and Gendreau (2001) admit that criminology and corrections has been dominated by knowledge destruction rather than knowledge construction for the past 25 year’s pg. 314).
In an ideal world we would be able to implement the six principles of “what works” and start witnessing change immediately. The reality though is that each principle must be dealt with individually and then brought together, to create change. What we are currently doing on many levels is not working, it is critical to embrace change.
Cullen, F.T. and Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The
Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
Of the six principles in “What Works,” each one makes complete sense. The two that jumped out to me most was the one that discussed destroying knowledge that is not evidence based and also the one that states that scientific criminology will result in more good in the world. As discussed last week, if we destroyed programs that didn’t work, such as correctional boot camps, then the money that was used to fund it could fund a new program that actually works.
If gears changed and we headed in the direction of scientific criminology, only good could come out of it. It would end programs that have proven inefficient while continuing to research others that have shown positive results and also finding new ones. It makes perfect sense to follow the path of things scientifically proven instead of ignoring results and continuing this path of correctional intervention failure.
Cullen, F.T. and Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The
Prison Journal, 81.
The focus of this article is the transition from the prevailing “nothing works” professional ideology to the ideology of “what works.” The rationale for moving away from the “nothing works” ideology is that it is dysfunctional: “It was a recipe for never being able to produce a positive agenda for corrections” (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001, p.332). The core principles of the “what works” professional ideology reaffirm the central tenets of positivist criminology and simultaneously reject “nothing works” ideology. As an example, the first principle of “what works” ideology identifies and defines a normative “scientific criminology,” thereby affirming earlier positivist approaches to corrections and rehabilitation. “Scientific criminology” also denounces the process of “knowledge destruction,” a key feature of “nothing works” ideology: knowledge destruction is, “the rejection of science as a means of building correctional knowledge and, instead, the use of science and, if need be, rhetoric- to show that virtually nothing related to the correctional system reduces crime” (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001, p. 324).
Reference
Cullen, F., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: changing
professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
The article, “From What Works to Nothing Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century”, by Cullen and Gendreau makes several interesting observations on the history of scientific research in the criminal justice field. It provides a well supported argument that the early pursuit for the understanding and controlling crime had roots in science. These early criminologists were interested in gathering research to explain the causes of crime in hopes to develop ways to prevent or control it. However, during the seventies, the mindset of “knowledge construction” shifted to “knowledge destruction” when the over arcing ideology that “nothing works” in corrections set in (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001, p. 314). Criminologists became more interested in proving what was wrong in criminal justice practices rather than seeking to establish understanding that would aid in the development and implementation of realistic correctional and law enforcement programs. The authors aptly describe this time frame in criminal justice research as dysfunctional. It may be that this is why so many programs emerged that had little science behind them as mentioned in the article from last week. Criminologists just weren’t supplying the knowledge for what works to the policy makers. Being bombarded with what they were doing wrong, law makers turned to common sense approaches to law enforcement which unfortunately, did not have much science behind them. Obviously, criminology does not benefit from a disproportionate effort to point out the failures of criminal justice. Granted, this is needed but, as the authors state, a transformation is called for as well to bring back “knowledge construction”-knowledge that can be used for the production of intervention and prevention strategies rather than their destruction.
The principles on pp. 331-33 make sense to me, especially the sixth principle that states “scientific criminology will result in more ‘good’ in the world than a criminology that ignores what really works” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001, p.332). After, many of us enter the criminal justice arena because of a commitment to produce change and offer solutions to the problems faced by law enforcement and corrections. Being told that “nothing works” kills the passion to make a difference. But hopefully, the author’s presentation of the fallacy of that negative and limiting mindset will encourage the renewed pursuit of creating knowledge that will accomplish what most of us want to do which is to “do good in the real world and real people’s lives” (Cullen &Gendreau, 2001, p. 333.
References
Cullen, F.T. & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal, 81, pp. 313-338.
I do believe there is a movement towards “what works” and evidence-based practice in crime control. The principles that are presented in Cullen and Gendreau’s article “From nothing works to what works:changing professional ideology in the 21st century” are a good example of a sensible approach towards this movement.
A difficulty faced will be changing the traditional thoughts of the general population. The third principle discusses the use of treatment to effectively reduce recidivism. While this type of intervention makes sense to someone in the criminal justice field, it may not seem so obvious to a tax paying citizen, who has been negatively affected by crime. As the subtitle of this article says “changing professional ideology”, once professionals are convinced, the challenge lays with convincing and educating the general public.
Cullen, F., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338
I would have to say that the six “What works” principles presented in “From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century” by Cullen and Gendreau (2001) all made sense to me. One of the most interesting principles to me was number two, “scientific criminology should be used to “destroy” knowledge that is not evidence based.” This principle is especially interesting to me because it seems like such an obvious one.
Cullen and Gendreau (2001) state “resources should not be allocated to interventions that are based on faulty theories and employ treatment techniques that are inconsistent with decades of social psychological research on behavioral change.” Cullen and Gendreau are absolutely correct that these interventions that are already in place, with no evidence to back them up, like boot camps, should be evaluated. Ultimately these programs are not only draining money but they are also providing no benefit to their participants and in many cases they may be making the problem worse.
Reference:
Cullen and Gendreau (2001) From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The prison journal.
The six principles presented by Cullen and Gendreau (2001) all make perfect sense. The core beliefs are indeed philosophies that would prove beneficial to the rehabilitation of offenders. Core beliefs one and four are the ones that make the most sense.
The first belief is unique in that without first “understanding what causes persistent criminal involvement…” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001) criminal justice professionals will never be able to successfully implement effective treatment that would lower recidivism. Thus the methods imposed on offenders will prove wasteful as the levels of recidivism will continue to climb rather than fall.
Core belief four relies on evidence to prove what methods of “punishment” (prison, treatment programs, and boot camps) are effective. Criminologists’ believe that they should research the effectiveness of “punishment” and makes changes as needed to improve the manner in which it is implemented if deemed ineffective based on evidence. Implementing “punishment” without evaluating its’ effectiveness will only continue to contribute to high levels of recidivism. “The failure to make correctional policies and practices “evidence based” merely ensures that ineffective interventions will abound, as they do now” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001).
Without understanding why criminals engage in crime and failure to evaluate the methods of “punishment” implemented effective crime prevention methods will continue to remain nonexistent.
Bibliography
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal , 313-338.
“From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century.” What parts of the “What works” principles presented on makes disagree with any of the principle?
Since 1939 Sutherland’s studies have proved beneficial to our criminal justice system. Sutherland studies proved that individualize offenders treatment could find the origin of their criminology. According to Sutherland he cautioned that some interventions, such as boys clubs, could be criminogenic by “directly or indirectly” promoting delinquency probably through the associations of boys who were inclined to delinquency” (Cullen et al., p. 625). Since Lombroso’s positivist school of criminology, the criminal justice system embraced the principle how to control crime without searching for the cause of crime. According to many criminologists the modern approach to remedy crime must be by studying the cause.
According to Cullen et al., (2001) the professional ideology underlying the “what works” approach overlaps with that of the earlier days of modern American criminology. However, the key concept is that science is a way of knowing the world and changing it for the better. Moreover “what works” within professional ideology encompasses six principles.
From the six scientific criminology approaches of “what works” we encounter the first most effective for correctional intervention. According to researchers for correctional institutions to use the intervention approach correctional institutions must target the salient risk factors or the known predictors of recidivism. The second support that correctional approach to know the predictors of crime should be by a scientific evidence-based approach. The third approach support that scientific criminology is capable of producing knowledge about “what works.” The fourth approach persist that correctional policies and practices without “evidence-based programs it is destiny to continue with programs such as boot camps-that potentially damage offenders and harm public safety.
The fifth support the project to use science to build criminology knowledge that is basis of more effective interventions. The fifth approach contradicts the “nothing works’ ideology professional that focusing on offenders individual differences were incorrect and thus incapable of preventing the source of crime. The sixth approach supports the scientific and empirical research on using a non-scientific approach of “nothing works” doctrine to constructing knowledge about programs that can “do good” in the real world and in real people’s lives.
In conclusion the challenge is to use science to develop “evidence-based corrections that not only tells us “what not to do but also what to do” Cullen et al., (2001). Moreover the “what works approach is changing the way in how correctional institution viewing offenders criminology.
REFERENCE:
Cullen, Francis T., and Gendreau Paul (2001). From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal, 81: 313.
The six core beliefs by Cullen & Gendreau (2001) that encompass “what works” in regard to professional ideology in the 21st century certainly make sense. Moreover, I wholeheartedly agree that science or evidence-based practices will improve the discipline of criminology. However, I would temper this with a small dose of practicality since science is not likely to solve all crime related problems. In fact, Cullen & Gendreau hypothesized that to be really effective, ideology must be “an agreed-on set of beliefs and background assumptions that are obviously true” (2001, p. 314). In the spirit of sharing more about “what works” I will outline a few areas noted in a similar article written by Cullen et al (2002) that provides additional detail about how to enhance the success of this ideology as it relates to the six principles.
To begin with, Cullen, Gendreau & Latessa, wrote an article in (2002) stating that use of treatment interventions not based on existing knowledge of the causes of crime or programs shown to change offender behavior is “correctional quackery” (p. 2). The authors (very tongue-in-cheek) offer the “concept of correctional malpractice” which was presumed to bring laughter from the public (Cullen et al, 2002, p. 2).
Specifically, there are four sources of correctional quackery:
1.Failure to use research in designing programs: Correctional agencies may continue with business as usual without consideration of where the consequences lie for the offender, agency and the community. However, it is not commonplace for agencies to inquire about evidence supporting the program or intervention they plan on implementing. At its extreme, there is a reluctance to learn from research by academics “who have never worked with a criminal.” Incredibly, empirical evidence has established the “known” predictors of offender recidivism to be antisocial values; antisocial peers; poor self-control, self-management, and pro-social problem-solving skills; family dysfunction; and past criminality (Cullen et al, 2002, p. 4). In other words, interventions that disregard these predictors are likely to fail.
2.Failure to follow appropriate assessment and classification practices: Strides have been made to develop more effective classification instruments such as the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) which capture both static factors (criminal history) and dynamic factors (antisocial values, peer associations). In a study of 240 programs in 30 states; 64% of the programs “did not use a standardized and objective assessment tool that could assess risk/needs levels of offenders (Cullen et al, 2002, p. 5).
3.Failure to use effective treatment models: After an assessment, an appropriate treatment model is selected. The idea of the first principle by Cullen & Gendreau is to consult the empirical literature on “what works” but this may require a change of “consciousness” to embrace programs like Functional Family Therapy which promotes family cohesion and is shown to be effective.
4.Failure to evaluate what we do: There must be systematic evaluations of programs despite the obvious lack of funding or staff to do so. However, since evaluation creates accountability and the “commitment threat of having to change what is now being done” a professional must be to doing what is ethical and effective rather than being led by self-interest (Cullen et al, 2002, p. 7).
So, what can we do to become an evidence-based profession?
In response, the other five principles noted in the article by Cullen & Gendreau, offer broad based ideas on how to accomplish this such as using evaluation research to destroy knowledge that is not evidence-based; using science to develop “what works” instead of focusing on what does not; bridge the “practice gap” between academia and those in the field so a shared knowledge is created that will reduce crime; understand that an ideology includes both the individual and his or her environment in examining the causes of crime; and move past the “nothing works” doctrine that leaves our profession immobilized or supporting incorrect actions or plain old “doing the wrong thing” (2001, p. 331-333).
Specific principles of effective correctional intervention offered by Latessa et al, provide a clearer picture of what this means.
The principles are as follows:
1.Organizational Culture: Have well-defined goals, ethical principles and efficient responses to issues that arise in treatment facilities. This includes building staff cohesion, support and training.
2.Program Implementation/Maintenance: Base programs on empirically-defined needs that are consistent with the values of the agency. This includes financial stewardship, acknowledgement of stakeholder values, and current literature reviews.
3.Management/Staff Characteristics:Professional training with therapeutic skills to provide what the agency supports.
4.Client Risk/Need Practices: Utilization of psychometric instruments with proven predictive validity. Include both dynamic and static factors in assessments.
5.Program Characteristics: Target a wide variety of criminogenic needs and use empirically valid behavioral, social learning, and cognitive behavioral therapies.
6.Core Correctional Practices: Engage program therapists in anti-criminal modeling, effective reinforcement and disapproval, problem-solving techniques, structure learning procedures for skill-building, effective use of authority, cognitive self-change, relationship practices and motivational interviewing.
7.Inter-Agency Communication: Aggressively make referrals and advocate for offenders in order that they receive high quality services in the community.
8.Evaluation: Conduct program audits, consumer satisfaction surveys, process evaluations and follow-ups of recidivism rates. Evaluate the effectiveness of the program by comparing the respective recidivism rates of risk-control comparison groups of other treatments or those of a minimal treatment group.
Note: Items 1-8 were adapted from the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory, a 131 item questionnaire use to assess the quality of correctional treatment programs (Latessa et al, 2002, p. 10).
In sum, I do agree with the principles as the foundation of professional ideology and feel they will lend a degree of credibility to the actions of those who work so hard in this field as well as provide effective treatment to those they serve. My concern is how political differences will impact this ideology if the solutions we hope to achieve are different and the questions we ask about crime are different (Worrall, 2008, p. 36-37)? Interestingly, research evidence used by decision makers can be accomplished one of four ways: If the findings are not controversial, provoke rifts or run into conflicts of interest; if the changes are small scale and within current program ability; if the environment of the program is stable; and when the program is in crisis or paralysis and no one knows what to do as the decision maker may turn to evaluation (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, p. 169).
References:
Cullen, F.T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal, 81, 331-338.
Latessa, E., Cullen, F. & Gendreau, P. Beyond Correctional Quackery: Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment. Federal Probation, Vol. 66 Issue 2.
Welsh, B. & Farrington, D. (2001). Towards an Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime. American Academy of Political and Social Science. 578; 158. Sage Publications. Retrieved from: http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/578/1/158 .
Worrall, J.L. (2008). Crime Control in America – What Works? Pearson Education, Boston.
The “What Works” principals do make sense and I think that overall they are good ideas that would work if they were implemented into today’s criminal justice system. In the first principal they talk about only making changes if it reduces recidivism. I believe that that should be a primary thought that go in any changes. The second principal is the only principal that I don’t fully agree with. I don’t think that any knowledge should necessarily be destroyed. All knowledge needs to be learned from and weighed as useful or not useful. I do believe that a lot of these programs that are not working and have been proven not to be successful should be stopped and a different program proven to be successful could be enacted. The third principal talks about working with offenders that can be rehabilitated and giving them access to treatment and skills that would make their transition back to society easier and safer. The fourth principal talks about how correctional facilities need to change the way that they operate. I think we need to look at some of the things that other counties are doing and learn from them since we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. The fifth principal talks about finding the reasons why people commit the crimes that they do and the last principal talks a bout looking for a different way for doing things before half of the population is locked up.
Reference:
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: changing
professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
The introduction and implementation of evidence based research into corrections and for that matter, the rest of the criminal justice field is long over due. To begin with, the CJ field is its own worst enemy from the aspect that any type of change is viewed with suspicion and cynicism. As crime evolves, so too must the criminal justice field if the agents and agencies thereof are to effect any impact. To be frank, the criminal justice field has always been reactive; this is due to the ever changing and evolving tactics of those who violate the law. As for the influence of evidence based research and scientific methodology on the criminal justice field, the effect is twofold. First, evidence based research affords the opportunity to dispel out dated and ineffective strategies that long have had a chokehold on the field. Evidence based research affords those in criminal justice new views and ideas that have merit and are credible. Secondly, referencing the six ideological principles for the criminology profession, what once was a reactive position; scientific methodology and evidence based research will allow the criminal justice field to be more proactive.
Debra Lindberg wrote,
This is the DCF topic for Week 2:
You read “From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century” (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001) for this week. What parts of the “What works” principles presented on pp.331-333, make sense? Do you disagree with any of the principles?
Again, you don’t necessarily HAVE to respond to both questions, but you do want to make an interesting, intelligent, and informed contribution to the blog. dl
Link | January 12th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Chanelle Bouwmeester - Team 1 wrote,
In this week’s reading, the authors review the history of “professional ideology” within the criminology profession. The authors explore six principles about “what works” (p. 331-333), they are:
1. Scientific criminology is the basis for effective correctional intervention;
2. Scientific criminology should be used to “destroy” knowledge that is not evidence based;
3. Scientific criminology should be used to “construct” knowledge about what does work;
4. Although pure research is a noble activity, it is equally legitimate for criminologists to produce knowledge that can reduce crime;
5. “What works” scientific criminology is not limited, a priori, to any one level of analysis or theoretical perspective; and,
6. Scientific criminology will result in more “good” in the world than a criminology that ignores what really works.
All of the principles make sense when it comes to implementing a “what works” mentality. The first principle is useful because “interventions can only be effective if they target for change the causes or known predictors of recidivism” (p. 331). The second principle guides us to no longer fund interventions based on faulty theories. The third point drives the process that in order to discern how to best deliver effective treatments in a correctional setting, we must believe that offenders can change. The fourth principle discusses how criminologists must “step up to the plate” and produce “evidenced based” recommendations for what should be done in corrections. Fifth, criminologists should also realize that “there is no inherent reason [sic] why a “what works” approach could not operate at, or across, different levels of analysis” (p. 332). Lastly, “doing the wrong thing” could cost society and offenders more than what it would be to implement evidence-based programs.
All principles are needed in order to change how some criminologists are viewing “what works.” We must “think outside the box” and fund programs that are shown to be effective and not just what seems popular (i.e. boot camps, etc.). Using evidence-based programs will surely lower recidivism rates and reduce costs to society.
Link | January 14th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Angelica Mejia-Rutland_Team 3 wrote,
The core beliefs of the “what works” professional ideology noted in the article, do indeed make sense. There are no core beliefs that I disagree with, however I question how those of us in the criminal justice field can begin to break down the practice of knowledge destruction and move towards knowledge construction since it is so pervasive within our field. The authors note, “knowledge destruction is a part of a criminologist’s role,” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001, pg. 333-334), and could therefore be beneficial to us by showing us what does not work in our approach. It would, in essence, serve as a reminder of why we should move towards evidence-based practices. I question how we can remove such a dominant concept from our practices and persuade criminal justice professionals to adopt the core beliefs of the “what works” professional ideology.
The core beliefs and principles are ideal. For the past decade we have seen a dramatic increase in incarceration rates and in the number of individuals under some form of criminal justice supervision. We have seen what does not work; it is now time that we start doing something that does work. I must agree with the authors when they say that “what works” professional ideology, “if embraced, this vision will improve criminology as a discipline and contribute more than ‘nothing works’ scholarship to the commonweal of both offenders and the public order” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001, pg. 313). As criminal justice professionals of the 21st century, we should be concerned with not just the well being of society, but with the offender as well.
Reference
Cullen, F.T. & Gendreau P. (2001). From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
Link | January 16th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Katie Hayes Group 2 wrote,
The article “From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century” (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001) presents several principles of “what works”. These principles make clear sense to me.
Scientific criminology is the basis for effective correctional intervention (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001). Our criminal justice system is outdated. The need for change is apparent. It is necessary to study the causes of criminality, recidivism and produce theory’s to provide information regarding the risk factors of recidivism. This information needs to be absorbed into the criminal justice system so that we will begin transforming correctional methods to address the real causes of criminality and recidivism.
Measures should be taken to evaluate programs that do not work. Programs such as “boot camps” and “Scared Strait” are based on faulty theories and employ treatment techniques that are inconsistent with decades of social psychological research (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001). This knowledge should then be altered into a sanction/program that has been shown to work through evidence based studies.
Scientific criminology will result in more “good” than a criminology that ignores what really works (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001).Utilizing knowledge of programs that have been scientifically shown to reduce recidivism is our current criminal justice system’s only hope.
Reference
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: changing
professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 331-338.
Link | January 16th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Ann Swab wrote,
Cullen and Gendreau’s 2001 article From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century has given us several principles for the ideology “what works” in criminology. These principles are the core beliefs on how to get to this point.
In review of the six sections, the ones that make the most sense to me are the Second, Third and Fifth Principles.
The second and third principles should be intertwined. There is a statement in the Third principle where it says that “knowledge construction is ever bit as important as knowledge deconstruction” (pg 331). It is important to gain the knowledge about what is working. If we don’t continue to work on gathering this information, then we are in the same place we are now and that is continuing to discuss what does not work. In addition in the closing paragraphs of the article, Cullen and Gendreau say that the, professional ideology in regard to knowledge deconstruction (second principle) is that is has outlived its utility and that it also has become counterproductive (pg 333-334). I disagree with this statement as I think we need to take all of the knowledge we have and combine it. We need to use what does not work to assist us in finding what does work.
Granted we certainly should not keep funding programs that do not work, but we have to learn from them and then replace them with ones that do. The information gathered from deconstruction is a valuable tool to assist us in proceeding with construction.
The fifth principle references that we need to operate across all different levels of analysis (individual to community). Some of the individual issues may not be resolved at this level and if we are working at the individual level, we may need to also include areas in the community to eliminate the proximate causes of crime/criminals. Cullen and Gendreau discuss Lombroso’s idea that “crime arises out of social conditions” (pg 316). If we are to agree with the fifth principle we can not completely dismiss Lombroso’s ideas all together.
Reference:
Cullen, F. T. & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
Link | January 18th, 2009 at 1:46 am
David Killeen wrote,
The basic theory or principles of “From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century” (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001) seems to be logical. In the fourth principle of “What Works”, correctional institutions that fail to use “evidence –based” research to create policies and practices will ensure that ineffective interventions will continue to flourish (p.332).
This takes me back to the first principle, “scientific criminology is the basis for effective correctional intervention.” I agree with this principle, however, it seems today’s politics really does not allow or even want to know why criminals commit crime. They, the politicians, want more punishment and retribution. It is their desire to appear to be ‘Tough on Crime” that prevents any serious discussion on what really is the root cause of crime. Without their support for “evidence-based” research for interventions of crime, the correctional institutions will be burdened with ill fated programs like “boot camps and scared straight”.
Before you can find what works for offenders you must first discover what is causing the offender to offend.
Reference:
Cullen, F.T. and Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The
Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-Based Corrections: Identifying What Works, Crime Delinquency; 46; 457
Link | January 18th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Theo Krause Group 2 wrote,
The 6 principles put forth by Cullen and Gendreau (2001) make fine sense, and I can’t find myself able to disagree with any of them. It is hopeful and open to other disciplines (Psychology!), open to construction of effective approaches to researching and applying crime control and prevention measures. This ‘what works’ perspective appears to be self-evidently superior to the pessimistic ‘nothing works’ ideology so popular in criminology during the ‘70’s and ‘80’s.
I read the paper like a puzzle, since the six principles are dropped in a reader’s lap after pages of reinforcement that the professional ideology du jour should be met with skepticism, that it possibly exists in a vacuum, unrelated to the ‘real world’ of practice in criminal justice.
The writer’s sarcasm concerning the era of the ‘nothing works’ paradigm would be comical if it wasn’t such an ominous reminder that groups and their ideas can have a life of their own. In reading this paper I was reminded of the conflict outlined by Herman Hesse in ‘The Glass Bead Game’ (1943), where a future society had an elite order that concerned itself with an elaborate philosophy completely unrelated to actual day to day living.
Cullen and Gendreau establish that the professional ideology of today has come along way, that it allows reaching out to the wider ‘real world,’ that the discipline now and forever is going forward with eyes open. But didn’t professionals in the field during the ‘nothing works’ era feel the same way?
I gather from the paper that the ‘nothing works’ ideology was used to justify opposing approaches to crime control and rehabilitation. Cullen and Gendreau, regarding criminologists’ fight against both the ‘therapeutic state’ and the ‘punitive state’: ‘To select a somewhat arbitrary line, the “nothing works” professional ideology was fairly entrenched by 1980. Although this ideology arose largely as a critique of the “therapeutic state,” it was clear by this time that rehabilitation – although still seen as ineffective – was the least of criminologists’ problems … Worries about the use of rehabilitation to mask coercion were replaced by worries about policies explicitly formulated to deliver, as Clear (1994) aptly puts it, “penal harm.”‘ (2001, pp. 326-327)
But didn’t the criminologists of the ‘nothing works’ era create this ‘penal harm’ with their criticism of the ‘therapeutic state?’ Didn’t their ideology drive policy that resulted in prison overcrowding? Or did their professional ideology exist in a vacuum, was actual policy and practice only distantly related to criminological research? The creeping worry I am left with is not ‘what works’ but what’s real. What actually works in the big picture sense, beyond the discipline?
The 4th principle of Cullen and Gendreau’s paper does address this issue, referring to the value of pure research, but extolling the absolute need for practical applications in the field: ‘Unless criminologists can provide a persuasive blueprint for what should be done in corrections, we will be saddled with programs - such as boot camps – that potentially damage offenders and harm public safety.’ (2001, p. 332) The paper is a dizzying history of the swing of the criminal justice pendulum, a cautionary statement against repeating history.
Cullen, F.T. & Gendreau, P. (2001). From What Works to Nothing Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal, Vo. 81, No. 3. pp. 313-338.
Hesse, H. (1990). The Glass Bead Game. Holt Paperbacks, NY. (Orignally published in 1943)
Link | January 18th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Alex Hurlbert wrote,
The article “From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001) presents several principles of “what works”. All of the principles at their core make sense to me. I do however feel that each principle will be met with some sort of resistance whether that is from law enforcement, correctional facilities or social service programs.
The key to effective change is that when resistance is encountered it must be dealt with quickly and efficiently.
The key theme is that science is a way of knowing the world and changing it for the better Cullen & Gendreau, pg.331). The fourth principle deals directly with using evidence-based practices. Evidence practices must be used or we will continue to allow ineffective interventions to exist within the criminal justice system. We must not allow programs that do more harm than good to survive. It is imperative that we do not keep funding programs that do not work. I believe though that before we ‘destroy’ them we should take every opportunity to deconstruct them. This will allow us to gather information before proceeding with construction. Cullen and Gendreau (2001) admit that criminology and corrections has been dominated by knowledge destruction rather than knowledge construction for the past 25 year’s pg. 314).
In an ideal world we would be able to implement the six principles of “what works” and start witnessing change immediately. The reality though is that each principle must be dealt with individually and then brought together, to create change. What we are currently doing on many levels is not working, it is critical to embrace change.
Cullen, F.T. and Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The
Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
Link | January 18th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Lodi Presley wrote,
Of the six principles in “What Works,” each one makes complete sense. The two that jumped out to me most was the one that discussed destroying knowledge that is not evidence based and also the one that states that scientific criminology will result in more good in the world. As discussed last week, if we destroyed programs that didn’t work, such as correctional boot camps, then the money that was used to fund it could fund a new program that actually works.
If gears changed and we headed in the direction of scientific criminology, only good could come out of it. It would end programs that have proven inefficient while continuing to research others that have shown positive results and also finding new ones. It makes perfect sense to follow the path of things scientifically proven instead of ignoring results and continuing this path of correctional intervention failure.
Cullen, F.T. and Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The
Prison Journal, 81.
Link | January 18th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Maria Ochoa wrote,
The focus of this article is the transition from the prevailing “nothing works” professional ideology to the ideology of “what works.” The rationale for moving away from the “nothing works” ideology is that it is dysfunctional: “It was a recipe for never being able to produce a positive agenda for corrections” (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001, p.332). The core principles of the “what works” professional ideology reaffirm the central tenets of positivist criminology and simultaneously reject “nothing works” ideology. As an example, the first principle of “what works” ideology identifies and defines a normative “scientific criminology,” thereby affirming earlier positivist approaches to corrections and rehabilitation. “Scientific criminology” also denounces the process of “knowledge destruction,” a key feature of “nothing works” ideology: knowledge destruction is, “the rejection of science as a means of building correctional knowledge and, instead, the use of science and, if need be, rhetoric- to show that virtually nothing related to the correctional system reduces crime” (Cullen and Gendreau, 2001, p. 324).
Reference
Cullen, F., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: changing
professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
Link | January 18th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Melissa Forsythe-Group 1 wrote,
The article, “From What Works to Nothing Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century”, by Cullen and Gendreau makes several interesting observations on the history of scientific research in the criminal justice field. It provides a well supported argument that the early pursuit for the understanding and controlling crime had roots in science. These early criminologists were interested in gathering research to explain the causes of crime in hopes to develop ways to prevent or control it. However, during the seventies, the mindset of “knowledge construction” shifted to “knowledge destruction” when the over arcing ideology that “nothing works” in corrections set in (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001, p. 314). Criminologists became more interested in proving what was wrong in criminal justice practices rather than seeking to establish understanding that would aid in the development and implementation of realistic correctional and law enforcement programs. The authors aptly describe this time frame in criminal justice research as dysfunctional. It may be that this is why so many programs emerged that had little science behind them as mentioned in the article from last week. Criminologists just weren’t supplying the knowledge for what works to the policy makers. Being bombarded with what they were doing wrong, law makers turned to common sense approaches to law enforcement which unfortunately, did not have much science behind them. Obviously, criminology does not benefit from a disproportionate effort to point out the failures of criminal justice. Granted, this is needed but, as the authors state, a transformation is called for as well to bring back “knowledge construction”-knowledge that can be used for the production of intervention and prevention strategies rather than their destruction.
The principles on pp. 331-33 make sense to me, especially the sixth principle that states “scientific criminology will result in more ‘good’ in the world than a criminology that ignores what really works” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001, p.332). After, many of us enter the criminal justice arena because of a commitment to produce change and offer solutions to the problems faced by law enforcement and corrections. Being told that “nothing works” kills the passion to make a difference. But hopefully, the author’s presentation of the fallacy of that negative and limiting mindset will encourage the renewed pursuit of creating knowledge that will accomplish what most of us want to do which is to “do good in the real world and real people’s lives” (Cullen &Gendreau, 2001, p. 333.
References
Cullen, F.T. & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal, 81, pp. 313-338.
Link | January 18th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Michelle Baglioni-Group One wrote,
I do believe there is a movement towards “what works” and evidence-based practice in crime control. The principles that are presented in Cullen and Gendreau’s article “From nothing works to what works:changing professional ideology in the 21st century” are a good example of a sensible approach towards this movement.
A difficulty faced will be changing the traditional thoughts of the general population. The third principle discusses the use of treatment to effectively reduce recidivism. While this type of intervention makes sense to someone in the criminal justice field, it may not seem so obvious to a tax paying citizen, who has been negatively affected by crime. As the subtitle of this article says “changing professional ideology”, once professionals are convinced, the challenge lays with convincing and educating the general public.
Cullen, F., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338
Link | January 18th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Christy Holodnak - Group Two wrote,
I would have to say that the six “What works” principles presented in “From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century” by Cullen and Gendreau (2001) all made sense to me. One of the most interesting principles to me was number two, “scientific criminology should be used to “destroy” knowledge that is not evidence based.” This principle is especially interesting to me because it seems like such an obvious one.
Cullen and Gendreau (2001) state “resources should not be allocated to interventions that are based on faulty theories and employ treatment techniques that are inconsistent with decades of social psychological research on behavioral change.” Cullen and Gendreau are absolutely correct that these interventions that are already in place, with no evidence to back them up, like boot camps, should be evaluated. Ultimately these programs are not only draining money but they are also providing no benefit to their participants and in many cases they may be making the problem worse.
Reference:
Cullen and Gendreau (2001) From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The prison journal.
Link | January 18th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Tashema Eubanks wrote,
The six principles presented by Cullen and Gendreau (2001) all make perfect sense. The core beliefs are indeed philosophies that would prove beneficial to the rehabilitation of offenders. Core beliefs one and four are the ones that make the most sense.
The first belief is unique in that without first “understanding what causes persistent criminal involvement…” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001) criminal justice professionals will never be able to successfully implement effective treatment that would lower recidivism. Thus the methods imposed on offenders will prove wasteful as the levels of recidivism will continue to climb rather than fall.
Core belief four relies on evidence to prove what methods of “punishment” (prison, treatment programs, and boot camps) are effective. Criminologists’ believe that they should research the effectiveness of “punishment” and makes changes as needed to improve the manner in which it is implemented if deemed ineffective based on evidence. Implementing “punishment” without evaluating its’ effectiveness will only continue to contribute to high levels of recidivism. “The failure to make correctional policies and practices “evidence based” merely ensures that ineffective interventions will abound, as they do now” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2001).
Without understanding why criminals engage in crime and failure to evaluate the methods of “punishment” implemented effective crime prevention methods will continue to remain nonexistent.
Bibliography
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal , 313-338.
Link | January 19th, 2009 at 2:21 am
D-Wurzburg--week 2 wrote,
“From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century.” What parts of the “What works” principles presented on makes disagree with any of the principle?
Since 1939 Sutherland’s studies have proved beneficial to our criminal justice system. Sutherland studies proved that individualize offenders treatment could find the origin of their criminology. According to Sutherland he cautioned that some interventions, such as boys clubs, could be criminogenic by “directly or indirectly” promoting delinquency probably through the associations of boys who were inclined to delinquency” (Cullen et al., p. 625). Since Lombroso’s positivist school of criminology, the criminal justice system embraced the principle how to control crime without searching for the cause of crime. According to many criminologists the modern approach to remedy crime must be by studying the cause.
According to Cullen et al., (2001) the professional ideology underlying the “what works” approach overlaps with that of the earlier days of modern American criminology. However, the key concept is that science is a way of knowing the world and changing it for the better. Moreover “what works” within professional ideology encompasses six principles.
From the six scientific criminology approaches of “what works” we encounter the first most effective for correctional intervention. According to researchers for correctional institutions to use the intervention approach correctional institutions must target the salient risk factors or the known predictors of recidivism. The second support that correctional approach to know the predictors of crime should be by a scientific evidence-based approach. The third approach support that scientific criminology is capable of producing knowledge about “what works.” The fourth approach persist that correctional policies and practices without “evidence-based programs it is destiny to continue with programs such as boot camps-that potentially damage offenders and harm public safety.
The fifth support the project to use science to build criminology knowledge that is basis of more effective interventions. The fifth approach contradicts the “nothing works’ ideology professional that focusing on offenders individual differences were incorrect and thus incapable of preventing the source of crime. The sixth approach supports the scientific and empirical research on using a non-scientific approach of “nothing works” doctrine to constructing knowledge about programs that can “do good” in the real world and in real people’s lives.
In conclusion the challenge is to use science to develop “evidence-based corrections that not only tells us “what not to do but also what to do” Cullen et al., (2001). Moreover the “what works approach is changing the way in how correctional institution viewing offenders criminology.
REFERENCE:
Cullen, Francis T., and Gendreau Paul (2001). From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal, 81: 313.
Link | January 19th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Marie Cervantes: Team 1: Week 2 wrote,
The six core beliefs by Cullen & Gendreau (2001) that encompass “what works” in regard to professional ideology in the 21st century certainly make sense. Moreover, I wholeheartedly agree that science or evidence-based practices will improve the discipline of criminology. However, I would temper this with a small dose of practicality since science is not likely to solve all crime related problems. In fact, Cullen & Gendreau hypothesized that to be really effective, ideology must be “an agreed-on set of beliefs and background assumptions that are obviously true” (2001, p. 314). In the spirit of sharing more about “what works” I will outline a few areas noted in a similar article written by Cullen et al (2002) that provides additional detail about how to enhance the success of this ideology as it relates to the six principles.
To begin with, Cullen, Gendreau & Latessa, wrote an article in (2002) stating that use of treatment interventions not based on existing knowledge of the causes of crime or programs shown to change offender behavior is “correctional quackery” (p. 2). The authors (very tongue-in-cheek) offer the “concept of correctional malpractice” which was presumed to bring laughter from the public (Cullen et al, 2002, p. 2).
Specifically, there are four sources of correctional quackery:
1.Failure to use research in designing programs: Correctional agencies may continue with business as usual without consideration of where the consequences lie for the offender, agency and the community. However, it is not commonplace for agencies to inquire about evidence supporting the program or intervention they plan on implementing. At its extreme, there is a reluctance to learn from research by academics “who have never worked with a criminal.” Incredibly, empirical evidence has established the “known” predictors of offender recidivism to be antisocial values; antisocial peers; poor self-control, self-management, and pro-social problem-solving skills; family dysfunction; and past criminality (Cullen et al, 2002, p. 4). In other words, interventions that disregard these predictors are likely to fail.
2.Failure to follow appropriate assessment and classification practices: Strides have been made to develop more effective classification instruments such as the Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI) which capture both static factors (criminal history) and dynamic factors (antisocial values, peer associations). In a study of 240 programs in 30 states; 64% of the programs “did not use a standardized and objective assessment tool that could assess risk/needs levels of offenders (Cullen et al, 2002, p. 5).
3.Failure to use effective treatment models: After an assessment, an appropriate treatment model is selected. The idea of the first principle by Cullen & Gendreau is to consult the empirical literature on “what works” but this may require a change of “consciousness” to embrace programs like Functional Family Therapy which promotes family cohesion and is shown to be effective.
4.Failure to evaluate what we do: There must be systematic evaluations of programs despite the obvious lack of funding or staff to do so. However, since evaluation creates accountability and the “commitment threat of having to change what is now being done” a professional must be to doing what is ethical and effective rather than being led by self-interest (Cullen et al, 2002, p. 7).
So, what can we do to become an evidence-based profession?
In response, the other five principles noted in the article by Cullen & Gendreau, offer broad based ideas on how to accomplish this such as using evaluation research to destroy knowledge that is not evidence-based; using science to develop “what works” instead of focusing on what does not; bridge the “practice gap” between academia and those in the field so a shared knowledge is created that will reduce crime; understand that an ideology includes both the individual and his or her environment in examining the causes of crime; and move past the “nothing works” doctrine that leaves our profession immobilized or supporting incorrect actions or plain old “doing the wrong thing” (2001, p. 331-333).
Specific principles of effective correctional intervention offered by Latessa et al, provide a clearer picture of what this means.
The principles are as follows:
1.Organizational Culture: Have well-defined goals, ethical principles and efficient responses to issues that arise in treatment facilities. This includes building staff cohesion, support and training.
2.Program Implementation/Maintenance: Base programs on empirically-defined needs that are consistent with the values of the agency. This includes financial stewardship, acknowledgement of stakeholder values, and current literature reviews.
3.Management/Staff Characteristics:Professional training with therapeutic skills to provide what the agency supports.
4.Client Risk/Need Practices: Utilization of psychometric instruments with proven predictive validity. Include both dynamic and static factors in assessments.
5.Program Characteristics: Target a wide variety of criminogenic needs and use empirically valid behavioral, social learning, and cognitive behavioral therapies.
6.Core Correctional Practices: Engage program therapists in anti-criminal modeling, effective reinforcement and disapproval, problem-solving techniques, structure learning procedures for skill-building, effective use of authority, cognitive self-change, relationship practices and motivational interviewing.
7.Inter-Agency Communication: Aggressively make referrals and advocate for offenders in order that they receive high quality services in the community.
8.Evaluation: Conduct program audits, consumer satisfaction surveys, process evaluations and follow-ups of recidivism rates. Evaluate the effectiveness of the program by comparing the respective recidivism rates of risk-control comparison groups of other treatments or those of a minimal treatment group.
Note: Items 1-8 were adapted from the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory, a 131 item questionnaire use to assess the quality of correctional treatment programs (Latessa et al, 2002, p. 10).
In sum, I do agree with the principles as the foundation of professional ideology and feel they will lend a degree of credibility to the actions of those who work so hard in this field as well as provide effective treatment to those they serve. My concern is how political differences will impact this ideology if the solutions we hope to achieve are different and the questions we ask about crime are different (Worrall, 2008, p. 36-37)? Interestingly, research evidence used by decision makers can be accomplished one of four ways: If the findings are not controversial, provoke rifts or run into conflicts of interest; if the changes are small scale and within current program ability; if the environment of the program is stable; and when the program is in crisis or paralysis and no one knows what to do as the decision maker may turn to evaluation (Welsh & Farrington, 2001, p. 169).
References:
Cullen, F.T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From Nothing Works to What Works: Changing Professional Ideology in the 21st Century. The Prison Journal, 81, 331-338.
Latessa, E., Cullen, F. & Gendreau, P. Beyond Correctional Quackery: Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment. Federal Probation, Vol. 66 Issue 2.
Welsh, B. & Farrington, D. (2001). Towards an Evidence-Based Approach to Preventing Crime. American Academy of Political and Social Science. 578; 158. Sage Publications. Retrieved from: http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/578/1/158 .
Worrall, J.L. (2008). Crime Control in America – What Works? Pearson Education, Boston.
Link | January 19th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Jon Flick wrote,
The “What Works” principals do make sense and I think that overall they are good ideas that would work if they were implemented into today’s criminal justice system. In the first principal they talk about only making changes if it reduces recidivism. I believe that that should be a primary thought that go in any changes. The second principal is the only principal that I don’t fully agree with. I don’t think that any knowledge should necessarily be destroyed. All knowledge needs to be learned from and weighed as useful or not useful. I do believe that a lot of these programs that are not working and have been proven not to be successful should be stopped and a different program proven to be successful could be enacted. The third principal talks about working with offenders that can be rehabilitated and giving them access to treatment and skills that would make their transition back to society easier and safer. The fourth principal talks about how correctional facilities need to change the way that they operate. I think we need to look at some of the things that other counties are doing and learn from them since we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. The fifth principal talks about finding the reasons why people commit the crimes that they do and the last principal talks a bout looking for a different way for doing things before half of the population is locked up.
Reference:
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: changing
professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313-338.
Link | January 19th, 2009 at 2:47 am
Peter Burrell wrote,
The introduction and implementation of evidence based research into corrections and for that matter, the rest of the criminal justice field is long over due. To begin with, the CJ field is its own worst enemy from the aspect that any type of change is viewed with suspicion and cynicism. As crime evolves, so too must the criminal justice field if the agents and agencies thereof are to effect any impact. To be frank, the criminal justice field has always been reactive; this is due to the ever changing and evolving tactics of those who violate the law. As for the influence of evidence based research and scientific methodology on the criminal justice field, the effect is twofold. First, evidence based research affords the opportunity to dispel out dated and ineffective strategies that long have had a chokehold on the field. Evidence based research affords those in criminal justice new views and ideas that have merit and are credible. Secondly, referencing the six ideological principles for the criminology profession, what once was a reactive position; scientific methodology and evidence based research will allow the criminal justice field to be more proactive.
Link | March 25th, 2009 at 8:05 pm