ABSTRACT
Another major problem in evaluating treatment effectiveness in community corrections is that it is rare to have only one treatment in operation at a time. For example, an offender (“Bob”) may be sentenced initially to probation and restitution. The victim-offender interaction and mediation may have very positive effects on Bob’s attitudes and behavior. His drinking problem, however, may lead the probation officer (PO) to recommend that the court tightens the conditions of probation to include mandatory participation in substance abuse treatment from which Bob derives much immediate and long-term benefit. Former antisocial friends may become reacquainted with Bob, and misdemeanor crime may occur. Alerted by Bob’s subsequent arrest, the PO may have Bob (a failure?) assigned to group counseling that includes relapse prevention techniques that assist him in identifying highrisk situations and coping with them. After 3 years of probation, when the victim’s losses have been compensated and with Bob securely employed in a job with a future and now voluntarily participating in substance abuse treatment, it is impossible to determine which of the treatment program elements will have been most effective in turning Bob around and aiding his reintegration. Was it probation supervision? Quality of PO supervision? Mediation and remorse associated with restitution? Substance abuse treatment and direction? Relapse prevention techniques? Employment? Or some combination of treatment elements? Because “probation” is a generic term that can refer to a combination of treatment, supervision, and intermediate sanctions (“punishing smarter”), what element should be recognized as the “best intervention”?
