Editorial: Behavior analysis in criminal justice.

Abstract

Prison reform has always been a major social agenda. Large portions of state and local agency budgets are consumed with people who have involvement with the criminal justice system. Indeed, one out of every 35 Americans has involvement with the criminal justice system on some level. Keywords: Prison reform, criminal justice system, behavioral technologies, juvenile offenders. ********** First generation behavioral technologies used in the criminal justice setting have demonstrated effectiveness. Several programs exist based on practices of contingency management are at least moderately effective. The use of fines is a good example. Several studies support the use of examine fining practices (see Hillsman et al. 1984; Casale and Hillsman 1986; Cole et al. 1987; Glaser and Gordon 1988; Hillsman and Green 1987, 1988). Looking at impact, Gordon and Glaser (1991) examined traditional fines on recidivism rates of offenders. They used a quasi-experimental study, which compared financial penalties to similar sentences without the fine (probation or probation plus jail). While there were no statistically significant differences between the groups, offenders who received a fine with probation have lower recidivism rates than offenders who received only probation. Looking at more comprehensive first generation technology packages, Andrews et al (1990) undertook a meta-analysis of 154 treatment comparisons (behavioral and non-behavioral). In their meta-analysis they created a system to divide up studies and participants on whether the treatment was clinically indicated or not. They called this variable appropriate versus in appropriate treatment. In this meta-analysis, most of the studies were classified as behavioral in nature. Behavioral interventions were classified as strategies that focused on changing behaviors by setting behavioral goals and using positive and negative reinforcement to encourage or discourage clearly identified behaviors. Unfortunately, few of the studies could be classified on the basis of risk or treatment integrity. Inappropriate treatments were those that employed deterrence (e.g., Scared Straight), nondirective approaches, non-behavioral milieu approaches, and group interactions. They found an effect size of .63 for appropriate treatment and this was significantly larger than the mean values for inappropriate services and criminal justice sanctions (warnings, probation, intensive probation, custody). Recent meta analysis have found similar effects with general prison populations however the sizes are not as large (Redondo-Illescas, Sanchez-Meca, & Garrido-Genovaes, 2001) suggesting that their might be an appropriate type of prisoner for treatment. Behavioral interventions in prison have been shown to reduce misconduct of prisoners (French, & Gendreau, 2006) and build self control such as operant biofeedback programs (Quirk, 1995). With specialized populations, behavioral interventions in the criminal justice system have also shown effectiveness. Community reinforcement approach has been successful with alcoholics (Azrin, 1976) and drug abusers (Higgins, S.T., Budney, A.J., Bickel, Hughes, Foeg, & Badger, 1993; Meyer & Miller, 2001). Functionally based interventions have been successful with offenders with intellectual disabilities (Lindsay, W.R. Taylor, J.L., Sturmey, P., 2005). Community reinforcement has been helpful in helping family members get addicts into treatment (Smith, Milford, and Meyers, 2004; Smith, 2004). Behavioral parent training has been shown to be effective for juveniles (Bank, Marlow, Reid, Patterson, & Weinrott, 1991). In addition, with juveniles teaching family homes have shown some success (Kingsley, 2006) and replicable (Fixsen, Blase, Timbers and Wolf, 2007; Wolf, Kirigin, Fixsen, Blase, & Braukmann, 1995), even with adolescent drug addictions (Mata, & Quiroga, 1987). Third generation behavior therapies have recently been studied with juvenile offenders. …