First, hard-earned knowledge generated under standardized, objective conditions can be swept aside when new ideologies attain intellectual hegemony. Second, the emergence of the Masters in Business Administration (MBA) "management-fartcatcher syndrome" has contributed its fair share to the creation of poorly informed policies. Policymakers of this ilk may have some generic management skills, but often are virtually content-free regarding corrections, and more often than not they bend at will to the fickle nature of their political masters and popular trends. A third factor, beyond the control of policymakers, is the sheer amount of information available, much of which appears to be contradictory. Fourth, the apparent disarray within the social science literature is due to a subtle but substantive reason, that is, how knowledge accumulation translates into policy development. Traditionally, policymakers have relied on narrative summaries of a given literature as a guide to policy development. Therein lies a major problem. Critics of the narrative review have pointed out that key data often are missing and the information that is selected for processing and the conclusions reached are subject to the whims of prejudice and ideology. The fifth impediment to the development of rational correctional policies is the conundrum of significance testing. The authors propose that quantitative research synthesis of the literature that uses meta-analytic techniques will aid policymakers in cumulating knowledge that fosters the development of better policies. 1 table and 46 references