It was subsequently recognized both by Maretinson himself and others who reviewed his original conclusion that this inferences were academically flawed since they did not accurately reflect the evaluation studies or the reality of specific circumstances (Lipton 1998). The reasons were varied, but essentially only part of the available data was used in the report and some successful programs were not included in the analysis. Whatever the reasons, it was clear the conclusions Martinson memorialized in 1974 assumed essentially that nothing in the way of rehabilitation programs worked.
In evaluating male and female prisoners, the same conclusion was reached for both, mainly that most correction programs did not work and lacked both short term and long term effectiveness. In later studies however, it was recognized that the root cause of the initial incarceration needed to be addressed as well as the learning style of male and female inmates, in order to reduce the likelihood that treatment programs were not effective (Dowden & Andrews 1999). For example, effective programs for female inmates needed to address such areas as victimization, abuse, parenting, and other issues that are primarily associated with females and their specific needs.