To evaluate the CAP, Anson determined whether or not there were fewer crimes committed by probationers during the 2-year post program period than during the 2 years prior to entering the CAP. Anson (1987) used a paired t-test to identify any statistically significant reductions in the number of crimes. The authors of this article reanalyzed Anson's data (1990) and those generated by a separately selected CAP sample. The authors questioned Anson's approach, arguing that it tended to obscure the true performance of the CAP. Rather than use a pre-post paired t-test, the authors used the more conventional method of counting persons who were caught for committing new crimes and assessing the seriousness of those crimes. Anson replied to this reanalysis in a subsequent article (1990). In responding to Anson's reply, the authors reassert what they consider to be the general benefits of their evaluation methods, answer Anson's assertions that the authors failed to interpret his findings correctly, and address Anson's criticisms about the authors' use of crime-seriousness scaling. 3 notes and 6 references