What Works in Reducing Reoffending: A Global Perspective

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 2 and 3: Offender Rehabilitation:Recent Hist
Page 4 and 5: England & Wales: National Offender
Page 6 and 7: Evidence comes by replication• Mo
Page 8: Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analy
Page 11: Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analy
Page 15 and 16: Mean Effect Sizes of OffenderRehabi
Page 17 and 18: What works:Relatively consistent po
Page 19 and 20: Promising: Not yet well-replicateda
Page 21 and 22: The Good Lives Model (Ward, 2002):N
Page 23 and 24: Principles of Appropriate Offender
Page 25 and 26: Criteria of the Correctional Servic
Page 28 and 29: Accredited Programmes in E & W (2)S
Page 30 and 31: Adult Re-offending Rates in E & WNu
Page 32 and 33: Re-offending rates for offending be
Page 34 and 35: Conclusions for internationalpracti
Page 36 and 37: Factors that have an impact beyondp
Page 38 and 39: Problems of transnational transfer
Page 40 and 41: Incarceration Rates in EuropePer 10
Page 42 and 43: : England & Wales
Page 44 and 45: Conclusions and Perspectives (1)•
Page 46: Contact:starr@crim.cam.ac.ukfal23@c

What Works in Reducing Reoffending: A Global Perspective

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?