ABSTRACT
Few would argue that the quality of a correctional intervention program has no effect on outcome. Nonetheless, correctional researchers have largely ignored the measurement of program quality. Traditionally, quality has been measured through process evaluations. This approach can provide useful information about a program’s operations; however, these types of evaluations often lack the “quantifiability” of outcome studies. Previously, researchers’ primary issue has been the development of criteria or indicators by which a correctional program can be measured. While traditional audits and accreditation processes are one step in this direction, thus far they have proven to be inadequate. For example, audits can be an important means to ensure if a program is meeting contractual obligations or a set of prescribed standards; however, these conditions may not have any relationship to effective intervention. It is also important to note that outcome studies and assessment of program quality are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Combining outcome indicators with assessments of program quality can provide a more complete picture of an intervention’s effectiveness. Fortunately, there has been considerable progress in identifying the hallmarks of effective programs ( Andrews et al., 1990; Cullen & Applegate, 1998; Gendreau & Paparozzi, 1995; Gendreau & Ross, 1979, 1987; Lowenkamp, Latessa & Smith, 2006; Palmer, 1995 ). This issue is examined later in this chapter.
