ABSTRACT
No one truly interested in the study of rehabilitation can be unaware of the eulogy placed on treatment that “with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative eorts that have been reported so far have had no appreciable eect on recidivism” (Martinson, 1974). With this single statement, the very basis of correctional intervention was shaken. e foundation for this assessment was an examination of literature on rehabilitation appearing between 1945 and 1967 (Lipton et al., 1975). e authors considered 231 studies in which there was a treatment evaluation with a control group, an outcome measure attributable to the treatment, sucient information about the intervention and evaluation for making a judgment, a suciently large sample size to make inferences, and, in general, a sound research methodology. e authors examined a wide range of intervention techniques, including counseling, educational and vocational training, medical treatment, psychological therapy, probation, parole, and community programs. As already noted, the eect of these various programs on recidivism was negligible (Martinson, 1974). Other outcome variables, such as adjustment to prison, attitude adjustment, and educational improvement, show some positive eects on oenders. ese changes, however, are relatively unimportant given the major goal of preventing further criminal behavior.
