Meta-analysis in criminal justice rehabilitation effectiveness

Intervention

On most topics, especially those associated with clinical research and the implementation of solutions to solve a problem, such as recidivism and other criminal justice issues, a great body of work exists. In order to draw any real conclusions from these studies, one must look at the entire body or research. A meta-analysis makes this easier. A "quantitative syntheses of the results of evaluation studies," meta-analyses provide succinct data regarding "what works" and what does not within a certain topic or research question (Cullen and Gendreau 2000, p.113). Put more simply, the meta-analysis conducts a correlation test using Pearson's r from the entire assembled sample sizes of analogous studies (Cullen 2002, p.262). The "meta-analysis" is different from other ways of reviewing the research because it provides a quantitative, numerical, synthesis of the entire body of work done about a particular topic. Thus, instead of wading through research and being swayed by discussions at the end of findings that mitigate the findings, or instead of concentrating on just a few studies whose results may have been tainted by sampling and other error, the meta-analysis provides the most un-biased, simple summary of research available. Meta-analyses are so effective in answering the question, "Does rehabilitation work?" In two ways. First, the meta-analysis provides law enforcement officers, politicians, and the community with the numbers they need to understand the effectiveness of rehabilitation. For example, Cullen and Gendreau (2000) point out that "across evaluation studies, the recidivism rate is, on average, 10 percentage points lower for the treatment group than for the control group" (p.110). This hard, numerical value allows law enforcement and political issues to see real, documented and measured change across a variety of studies, giving them the solid evidence then must bring to their superiors and constituents in order to effect change. Second, the meta-analysis provides these individuals with reasoning behind the numbers, allowing them to pinpoint why the recidivism rates were lower. For example, Cullen and Gendreau's (2000) citation of the recidivism meta-analysis presented a breakdown of which treatments worked and which did not when assessing recidivism and types of rehabilitation therapies. Thus, both the provision of numbers and cause and effect allow those evaluating the meta-analysis to see how real programs can be implemented to cause real change.

Based on the assigned readings, the principals of effective intervention have changed wildly as the times have changed. The probation officer program, however, has managed to survive past Martinson's "Nothing Works" doctrine. Cullen (2002) suggests that even today, when rehabilitation programs have been met with skepticism by some, "probation officers continue to broker or deliver services when they can" (p.255). In my personal experiences with probation officers, each has seemed to have a genuine interest and care for the delinquents with whom they deal. Each has been able to switch between compassionate and strict attitudes when advising and counseling offenders, taking on a sort of parent relationship with the offender. Furthermore, each has given his or her best effort into encouraging the offender to make positive choices, though many of the officers have expressed in private that they are often frustrated by the offenders' inabilities to make good choices.