What Works in Offender Rehabilitation

An Evidence-Based Approach to Assessment and Treatment

Leam A. Craig, Theresa A. Gannon, Louise Dixon, Leam A. Craig, Theresa A. Gannon, Louise Dixon

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781118328934
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psicología
• Subtopic: Psicología forense

This comprehensive volume summarizes the contemporary evidence base for offender assessment and rehabilitation, evaluating commonly used assessment frameworks and intervention strategies in a complete guide to best practice when working with a variety of offenders.

• Presents an up-to-date review of 'what works' in offer assessment and rehabilitation, along with discussion of contemporary attitudes and translating theory into practice
• Includes assessment and treatment for different offender types across a range of settings
• Internationally renowned contributors include James McGuire, James Bonta, Clive Hollin, Anthony Beech, Tony Ward, William Lindsay, Karl Hanson, Ray Novaco and William Marshall

Part I
Introduction

1
Overview and Structure of the Book

Leam A. Craig^1,2, Louise Dixon² and Theresa A. Gannon³

¹Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd, UK
²University of Birmingham, UK
³University of Kent, UK

Introduction

The concept and public perception of offender rehabilitation has had a chequered history, influenced by the social and political climate of the day. From the early introduction of ­penitentiary, public and government opinion has had to strike a balance between punishment and rehabilitation (see Reynolds, Craig and Boer, 2009). Early research suggests there is a ‘duality’ to the public’s sanctioning ideology – ‘although citizens clearly want offenders punished, they continue to believe that offenders should be rehabilitated’ (Cullen, Cullen and Wozniak, 1988, p. 305). The public juxtaposition is one of getting tough on crime and that punishment should be accompanied by rehabilitation, that treatment can work and that prison inmates should be given the opportunity to reform themselves. This two-pronged finding, support for the ‘just deserts’ theory of punishment along with the ‘need for rehabilitation’, suggests that public attitudes towards crime are not one-dimensional. Instead, underlying the need for retribution is an element of optimism for offenders to reform and become ^­participating members of society.

However, the concept of change and rehabilitation took a blow during the 1970s following the publication of Martinson’s (1974) much-cited review in which he believed education or therapeutic intervention programmes cannot overcome the tendency for offenders to ­continue to engage in criminal behaviour. This was followed by the work of Lipton, Martinson and Wilks (1975) and Brody (1976) who suggested, due to poor methodologies and research designs, that the evidence for offender rehabilitation cannot be relied upon.

In response to the assumption that ‘nothing works’ in rehabilitation and reducing ­tendencies in offenders to continue criminal behaviour, the 1980s and 1990s witnessed a resurgence of research activity into offender assessment and treatment, and a number of theoretical advances have been made progressing our understanding of offender rehabilitation. New techniques such as meta-analyses marked a turning point in the understanding of reducing reoffending (Andrews et al., 1990). This methodology allowed for the analysis of data from multiple studies identifying significant factors associated with offending from which treatment targets could be identified.

Addressing the methodological concerns raised by Lipton, Martinson and Wilks (1975) and Brody (1976), research into offender rehabilitation has culminated in a ‘what works’ research literature – The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Andrews and Bonta, 1994, 1998, 2003, 2006, 2010), What Works: Reducing Reoffending (McGuire, 1995), Offender Rehabilitation and Treatment: Effective Programmes and Policies to Reduce Reoffending (McGuire, 2002), Offender Rehabilitation in Practice: Implementing and Evaluating Effective Programmes (Bernfield, Farrington and Leschied, 2001) and Offending Behaviour Programmes: Development, Application and Controversies (Hollin and Palmer, 2006) – the emphasis of which was evidence-based practice and empirical rigour.

Evaluating Offender Rehabilitation

‘Rehabilitation’ means literally ‘re-enabling’ or ‘making fit again’ (from the Latin ­rehabilitare). Some argue that it is, in part, the definitional ambiguities of the concept of ‘rehabilitation’ which have contributed to the difficulties faced in criminal justice settings. As McNeill (2012) highlights, rehabilitation in the work of eighteenth-century Classicists (e.g., Beccaria, 1764[1963]) who argued for the use of punishment as a way of ‘requalifying individuals’ (p. 22) suggests a utilitarian concept of rehabilitation.

The term ‘rehabilitation’, we suggest, in the prison context means readying prisoners to rejoin society, as useful and law-abiding members of the wider community. With an ­ever-expanding prison population, the successful rehabilitation of offenders is often considered the ‘holy grail’ of criminal justice systems around the world. The number of offenders in prison in England and Wales reached a record high of 88 179 prisoners on 2 December 2011, ­approximately 1100 places below the useable operational capacity of the prison estate (Berman, 2012). The number of people in Scottish prisons passed 8000 for the first time in August 2008 and reached its record level of 8301 on 7 November 2011 (Berman, 2012).

As part of the push towards reducing reoffending and offender rehabilitation, a number of countries have begun to introduce structured intervention programmes in prison and probation services. The introduction of programmes has been accompanied by an ‘accreditation’ process to select the programmes thought most likely to achieve good results, and an elaborate system of monitoring standards of delivery and evaluating outcomes has been developed.

With the American Psychological Association (APA), Chambless and colleagues (Chambless and Hollon, 1998; Chambless and Ollendick, 2001; Chambless et al., 1998) developed a methodology of examining the quality of evidence from outcome studies on the effectiveness of psychological therapy. One outcome of the APA criteria was that treatment should be ­supported by a manual to ensure consistency and standardization across sites.

In a report to the US Congress, Sharman et al. (1997) developed a ‘levels’ system for reviewing the quality of evidence supporting any given intervention in the field of criminal behaviour. They developed and employed the Maryland Scale of Scientific Methods ranking each study from Level I (weakest) to Level V (strongest) on overall internal validity. Level I represents correlation between a crime prevention programme and a measure of crime, or crime risk factors, at a single point in time. Level II represents a temporal sequence between the programme and the crime or risk outcome clearly observed, or the presence of a comparison group without demonstrated comparability to the treatment group. Level III represents a comparison between two or more comparable units of analysis, one with and one without the programme. Level IV represents comparison between multiple units with and without the programme, controlling for other factors, or using comparison units that evidence only minor differences. Level V represents random assignment and analysis of comparable units to programme and comparison groups. As part of the evaluation, they categorized programmes into ‘what works’, ‘what does not work’, ‘what is promising’ and ‘what is unknown’. They identified 15 programmes (including vocational training, rehabilitation programmes with risk-focused treatments and therapeutic community treatment programmes) on the list of ‘what works’ and 23 on the list of ‘what does not’. The longest list, however, is the 30 ‘promising programmes’. They argued that if even half of these programmes were found effective with one additional Level III impact evaluation, the number of programmes known to prevent crime through the scientific standards included in their review would double.

The Cochrane Collaboration created in 1993 has been influential in the United Kingdom in categorizing evidence on the effectiveness of psychological and pharmaceutical ­interventions from different studies. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews has led to the Cochrane Library (www.thecochranelibrary.com) which lists relevant research studies and treatment evaluations.

In England and Wales, the Crime Reduction Programme (2000) was introduced as part of an initiative into large-scale offender rehabilitation. As part of a review of correctional services in England and Wales, Carter (2003) concluded that rehabilitation has an important role to play in the prison regime:

well-designed, well-run and well-targeted rehabilitation programmes can reduce reconviction rates by 5–10 per cent… The maximum effect is achieved when programmes target a spectrum of risk factors – employment and education, along with behavioural or cognitive programmes. Although drug treatment is difficult, evidence suggests that it can be cost-effective in reducing crime and social harms. (p. 16)

However, Carter’s optimism of the success of offender change programmes was measured against the concerns of the scalability of some rehabilitative programmes and the extent to which pilot programmes can be maintained on a large scale. Indeed, the Carter report also highlighted systematic failures in the implementation of the programmes, and in response to the review in 2004, the UK government announced the development of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) which would have the twin aims of reducing reoffending and providing end-to-end management of offenders. As part of a gradual introduction of structured programmes in prison and probation services, a set of criteria was drawn up to assess the structure and delivery of intervention programmes. These criteria were based on what the research has identified to be those most reliably associated with better results in terms of reducing reoffending. A Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP), made up of independent group of experts, was appointed to examine and ‘accredit’ prospective ­programmes. The CSAP is a non-statutory body that helps the Ministry of Justice develop and implement high-quality ‘accredited’ offender change programmes. The measure that enabled the accreditation process to be brought in-house was included in the Offender Management Act which received Royal Assent in July 2007. This initiative led to the development of ‘­accredited offender change programmes’. As part of the accreditation process, emphasis was placed on treatment efficacy and revaluation, often recorded as a reduction in reconviction. Programmes such as Think First, Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R) and Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS) have been empirically reviewed and evaluated (McDougall, 2009; Palmer et al., 2007), ­demonstrating a reduction in reoffending behaviour. Positive results have also been reported for other structured interventions such as the Cognitive Self Change Programme (CSCP) (Baro, 1999; Dowden and Andrews, 2000) and the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) (Beech, Mandeville-Norden and Goodwill, 2012; Harkins and Beech, 2007). In a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Table of Contents
• Dedication
• Title
• Copyright
• About the Editors
• About the Contributors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Part I: Introduction
• Part II: What Works in Offender Assessment
• Part III: What Works in Offender Rehabilitation
• Part IV: What Works in Secure Settings
• Part V: Cultural Factors and Individualized Approaches to Offender Rehabilitation
• Index
• End User License Agreement