MOST EVALUATIVE STUDIES SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT REHABILITATIVE TREATMENT IN ENGLAND HAS FAILED. BUT CRITICS OF EVALUATIVE RESEARCH POINT TO METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS AND NOTE THAT WITHIN THE GENERALLY NEGATIVE FINDINGS LIES SOME EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS, WHICH SHOULD NOT BE SWEPT ASIDE OR IGNORED. ONE PROBLEM WITH EVALUATIVE RESEARCH HAS BEEN THAT EVEN THE MOST CONCLUSIVE STUDIES HAVE HAD LITTLE IMPACT, NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE OF ANY AMBIGUITY OR METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS IN THE RESEARCH ITSELF, BUT BECAUSE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS MAY NOT BE SHARED BY RESEARCHERS AND POLICYMAKERS. RESEARCHERS SHOULD REVIEW THE PURPOSE AND RELEVANCE OF EVALUATION STUDIES OF PENAL TREATMENT, ADDRESSING QUESTIONS OF CONCERN TO GROUPS (MAGISTRATES, JUDGES, THE GENERAL PUBLIC) OTHER THAN THEMSELVES. NARROW EMPIRICAL EVALUATIONS BASED ON QUESTIONABLE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE PRIMACY OF INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT SHOULD BE REPLACED BY BROAD-BASED ANALYSIS OF THE AIMS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PENAL POLICY AND BY NEW MORAL AND SOCIAL EVALUATIONS OF OLD CONCEPTS--PUNISHMENT, RESPONSIBILITY, JUSTICE. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE USE OF IMPRISONMENT BY THE COURTS HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY UNAFFECTED BY EVALUATION FINDINGS, IT SEEMS THAT A BETTER APPROACH TO INFLUENCING SENTENCING POLICY MAY LIE IN THE CREATION OF NEW STRUCTURES FOR ENHANCING THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. (LKM)