What Works in Reducing Reoffending: A Global Perspective

Offender Rehabilitation:Recent History (1)• Strong rehabilitation optimism in the 1960s andearly 1970s• „Nothing works“ (Martinson, 1974)• Lack of methodologically sound research• Support for non-empirical arguments (e.g. gettingtough on crime, high costs, forced personalitychange, informalisation of criminal justice, justdeserts punishment)• Revitalisation of rehabilitation in the 1990s• Better theoretical foundation• More longitudinal research on desistance

Recent History (2)• More controlled evaluations• Systematic research reviews (meta-analyses)• More international exchange• „What works“ instead of „nothing works“• Programme accreditation & qualitymanagement (e.g., Canada, England & Wales,Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden)• Large-scale implementation of offendingbehaviour programmes

England & Wales: National Offender ManagementService (NOMS): Pathways to ReducingRe-offending (2006)

Attitudes, Thinking & BehaviourProgrammes• Social learning theories• Reinforcement & modeling• Social information processing &problem solving• Social integration & bonding• Action theory• Theries of moral attitudes & beliefs• Neuropsychological theories

Evidence comes by replication• More than 700 more or less well controlledevaluations of correctional treatmentworldwide• Majority from North America• For nearly all programmes: positive vs. zeroor sometimes even negative effects• Many factors are relevant: Methodology,samples, context, culture, staff motivation,implementation a.s.f.• No sound conclusions from one single study• Systematic reviews/meta-analyses of goodquality primary studies

Study Quality: Maryland Scale(Sherman et al., 1997, modified)1. No control/comparison group (CG)2. Nonequivalent CG (e.g., refusers)3. CG judged to be equivalent (e.g.,comparison of offender characteristics)4. Systematic strategy applied to achieveequivalence (e.g., matching)5. Randomized assignment (not impairedby attrition etc.)

Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analyses onGeneral Offender TreatmentLipsey & Landenberger (2005)In total >500 studiesTong & Farrington (2007)MacKenzie (2006)Lipton et al. (2002)Lipton et al (2002)Dowden & Andrews (2000)Redondo et al. (1999)Pearson et al. (1998)Lipsey & Wilson (1998)Lipsey (1992)Andrews et al. (1990)Gottschalk et al. (1987)Lösel et al. (1987)0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30

Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analyses onJuvenile Offender TreatmentLatimer et al. (2003)Cleland et al. (1997)Redondo et al. (1999)Petrosino (1997)Lipsey & Wilson (1998)Lipsey (1992)Andrews et al. (1990)Whitehead & Lab (1989)Gottschalk et al. (1987)Garrett (1985)0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40

Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analyses onSexual Offender Treatmentd0,60,50,40,30,20,10Alexander (1999)Aos et al. (2006)Furby et al. (1989)Gallagher et al. (2000)Hall (1995)Hanson et al. (2002)Lösel (2000)Lösel & Schmucker (2005)Polizzi et al. (1999)Reitzel & Carbonell (2006)Walker et al. (2004)

Meta-Analysis of High-quality Studieson Sex Offender Treatment• Schmucker & Lösel (2010): Update ofLösel & Schmucker (2005)• Only high-quality studies• Level 3 of Maryland Scale• Treatment & Control Group equivalent• 26 eligible studies, 28 independentcomparisons between TG and CG• N = 8,347 offenders (3,919 treated)• Mainly Cognitive-behavioural programmes(n = 20)

Recidivism Rates(Length of follow up: M = 5.7 years)%50,040,0Treatment groupControl group26% reduction32,430,027% reduction24,020,012,410,09,00,0sexualall offencesType of reoffending

Some Outcome ModeratorsLarger effects in• smaller samples• high risk offenders• group programmes with someindividual sessions• better descriptive validity

Mean Effect Sizes of OffenderRehabilitation (2)• In total ca. 10% - 30% reduction in reoffending• Statistically and practically significant• Benefit-cost ratios: 1 – 7 € payoff for each €invested• Lifetime costs for 1 persistent offender ca. 1 M• Effect sizes in medicine:• Radiation + chemotherapy of brain tumors: ca.10%• Aspirin therapy of cardiovascular events: ca. 13%• Passive smoking and lung cancer: ca. 22%• Drug treatment of depression: ca. 56%

Variation in Outcome BetweenOffender Rehabilitation Programmes• Previous figures: overall means• Differences between various programmes &even between studies on one and the sameprogramme• No single „magic bullet“ or „gold standard“programme• Programme content is only one reason foroutcome differences• Many other factors play a role• They explain more variance than programmecontent• ‚What works‘ question often too simple

What works:Relatively consistent positive effects• Basic education (e.g. literacy, maths)• Vocational & employability programmes (if usefulin life)• Cognitive-behavioural programmes (CBT; e.g.,Reasoning & Rehabilitation, Cogn. Restructuring,Moral Reconation Therapy, Anger Management)• Most important elements in CBT: Angermanagement & interpersonal problem solving• Structured therapeutic communities (TCs), milieutherapy & Social-therapeutic prisons (Germany)

What works:Relatively consistent positive effects• Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and othermultimodal family-oriented programmes foryoung offenders• Restorative Justice (e.g., offender-victimmediation, restitution; not for all groups)• Drug courts• sychopharmacological/substitution drugtreatment

Promising: Not yet well-replicatedand/or rather small effects• Intensive supervision (probation, parole)• Electronic monitoring (problem of IS & EM:revocation, violation of orders)• Counseling (juveniles & adults)• Mentoring programmes• Challenge programmes• Social case work• Pharmacological treatment for aggressiveimpulsiveoffenders (SRIs) and sexual offenders(hormonal treatment)

What doesn‘t work:Mean zero or even negative effetcs• Pure sanction (e.g. custodial vs. non-custodialsentences, longer prison sentences, regularsanction vs. diversion)• Purely deterrent measures (e.g. ScaredStraight, shock incarceration for juveniles)• Strict discipline (e.g. Boot Camps, whenwithout treatment elements)• Purely psychodynamic and unstructuredtherapeutic approaches• Inappropriate programmes may even harm

The Good Lives Model (Ward, 2002):Nine Goods• Life (including healthy living and functioning)• Knowledge• Excellence in work and play• Excellence in agency (autonomy, self-directedness)• Inner peace (freedom from emotional turmoil, stress)• Friendship and community (intimate partner, familyrelations)• Spirituality (finding meaning and purpose in life)• Happiness• Creativity

Evaluation of the Good Lives Model• Increasingly popular in practice• Strength-oriented (as is MST)• Relations to humanistic psychotherapy,positive psychology & resilience research• Some indirect support from desistanceresearch• But: Not yet replicated empirical evidence inevaluations• Conclusion: Perhaps promising

Principles of Appropriate Offender• Risk principle(Adequate intensity)Treatment• Need principle(Address criminogenic needs)• Responsivity principle(Adequate modes of learning and teaching)• Up to 60% reduction of recidivism when all three R-N-Rprinciples realized• Smaller effect when 2 or 1 principle present; slightlynegative effect when no R-N-R principle addressed• Problems of R-N-R approach: Some circularity re.responsivity; risk not individualizedAndrews et al. (1990)

Transfer of ‚What Works‘ Principlesinto Policy & Practice• Best example: England & Wales• Ambitious political aims in the 1990s and 2000s:5% & 10% reduction of reoffending• Systematic programme development, accreditation& implementation• Intensive investment of Home Office/Ministry ofJustice• Coordinated action: NOMS, HMPS, NPD, CSAP• More than 40 accreditated programmes• Quality management (assessment, staff training &supervision, monitoring & audit, outcomeevaluation)

Criteria of the Correctional ServicesAccreditation Panel (CSAP) in E & W1. Clear model of change (evidence based)2. Selection of offenders (e.g., adequateassessment, risk level)3. Targeting a range of dynamic risk factors4. Effective methods (i.e., cognitivebehavioural)5. Skills orientation (concrete behaviour)

CSAP Accreditation Criteria(Continued)6. Sequencing, intensity and duration7. Engagement and motivation8. Continuity of programme and services(aftercare; community services)9. Maintaining integrity (context; selection,training, and supervision of personnel)10. Ongoing evaluationBased on principles of effective intervention: Andrews (1995), Lösel (1995)

Accredited Programmes in E & W (2)Some encouraging results (Harper & Chitti,2005):• Well-implemented cognitive-behaviouralprogrammes for medium to high risk offenders• Aggression replacement training in probation• Sex offender treatment programmes• Drug treatment programmes• Motoring offence programmes• Programmes including family relations intreatment and aftercareHarper & Chitti (2005)• However, methodologically weaker datasuggest some success of the treatment policy

Adult Re-offending Rates in E & WPercentage of offenders committing at least one offence within one yearof discharge from prison or commencement of probation supervision50452000-06: - 11%40353025202000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Note. No valid data available for 2001 MoJ Evidence Digest (2009)

Adult Re-offending Rates in E & WNumber of offences per 100 offenders within one year of discharge fromprison or commencement of a court order under probation supervision2302101901701501301109070502000-06: - 23%2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Note. No valid data available for 2001 MoJ Evidence Digest (2009)

Re-Offending Rates of Prisoners bySentence Length (HMPS 2007)807060504030200020022003200420< 1 year ≥ 1 & < 2years≥ 2 & < 4years≥ 4 yearsDiff. actual/ - .02% - 6.3% - 10.1% - 13.4% Total: - 3.1%predicted

Re-offending rates for offending behaviourprogrammesPredicted ratesActual rates%75706560555045403530Non-starters Starters / Dropouts CompletersDiff = 7.3% Diff = 4.8% Diff = 26.4%

Interim Accredited Programmes Software:2004 Community Cohort (Hollis, RDS NOMS, 2007)Reduction in Re-Offending Using Predicted DataTotal (n = 25,255)Drink impaired drivers (1,148)General offend. behav. (12,924)Domestic violence (1,148)***Sex offender progr. (741)Substance misuse (5,081)Anger management (1,148)Women's programme (62)***0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Conclusions for internationalpractice• In total positive results of correctionalprogrammes• However, most ‚what works‘ research fromNorth America• Experience in Europe: Local adaptation andevaluation necessary• Very few controlled studies in non-Englishspeakingcountries• Problems of transfer from/to other countries• Remember: Many factors determine outcome

Factors that have an impact on outomein meta-analyses: Examples (1)• Programme content/type (++)• Content of the control condition (+)• Quality of evaluation design (?)• Length of follow up (-)• ‚Hard‘/official outcome measures (-)• Small vs. large samples (++)• High vs. low risk offenders (++)• Juvenile vs. adult offenders (+)

Factors that have an impact beyondprogramme content: Examples (2)• Many dropouts, counted as treated (--)• Voluntary vs. mandatory treatment (?)• Integrity of programme implementation (+)• Staff training & supervision (+)• Staff-prisoner relations/social climate (+)• Demonstration project vs. routine practice (+)• Researchers involved in programmedevelopment/delivery (+)• Community vs. custody (+)

Problems of transnational transfer• Different cultural traditions• Different justice systems• Different age ranges for juveniles• Different minority problems• Different organizational structures ofprison & probation• Different staff roles

Problems of transnational transfer• Different experiences in evaluation• Differences in financial resources• Different weighting of various penalaims: compensation of guilt,protection of the public, generaldeterrence, rehabilitation, restitution• Differences in crime policy• Differences in incarceration rates

Incarceration Rates

Incarceration Rates in EuropePer 100,000 population in 200-08 ( Walmsley, 2009)Russia 629Belarus 468Georgia 415Ukraine 323Latvia 288Estonia 259Lithuania 234Poland 221Czech Republic 182Spain 160England & Wales 153Scotland 152Hungary 149Slovakia 148Bulgaria 134Romania 124Serbia 122Greece 109

Incarceration Rates in EuropePer 100,000 population in 200-08 ( Walmsley, 2009)Netherlands 100France 96Austria 95Croatia 93Italy 92Belgium 93Germany 89Northern Ireland 88Switzerland 76Sweden 74Norway 69Slovenia 65Denmark 63Finland 64Iceland 44Liechtenstein 22

: England & Wales

Incarceration rates• Since the 1990s increase in many countries• Not clearly related to crime rates• Political decisions• Recently decrease in several countries• Incarceration very costly• Lack of resources for effective treatmentand prevention? (e.g. California)• Reduction by effective offender treatment& less short-term imprisonment• The chance of ‚older‘ populations

Conclusions and Perspectives (1)• Global findings on rehabilitationprogrammes positive• Continuity & stepwise improvement insteadof pendulum movements in policy• Cultural adaptation & differentiation• Quality management, process & outcomeevaluation• Centers of excellence, clearing houses• Knowledge transfer and management ofinnovation

Conclusions & Perspectives (2)• Integrating correctional programmeswith the whole range of services (no„silo“ approach)• Linkage to routine case work• Relations to natural processes ofdesistance• Relations to developmental prevention• Crime not only a criminal justice issue(e.g. public health, education, welfare& economy)

Contact:starr@crim.cam.ac.ukfal23@cam.ac.uk