James McGuire University of Liverpool Institute of Psychology, Health and Society

1. WHAT WORKS IN OFFENDER REHABILITATIONUniversity of Birmingham ∙ September 2014What works in reducing re-offending…19 years on James McGuire University of Liverpool Institute of Psychology, Health and Society Department of Psychological Sciences Whelan Building Liverpool L69 3GB United Kingdom merc@liv.ac.uk

2. Objectives To consider the effects of society’s dominant response to criminal conduct. To survey large-scale reviews of outcome evidence focused on efforts to reduce criminal recidivism. To consider (briefly) underlying change processes. To draw some general “big picture” conclusions.

3. Science and human purpose Reduce criminal recidivism = Reducing victimisation There is no conflict between addressing the problems presented by those who have broken the law and serving the goal of increasing public safety.

4. Where are we now? The language of “evidence based practice and policy” is widely spoken, but how influential is it? The current agenda appears to place “evidence” in a secondary position (or even lower)

5. Traditional objectives of sentencing • Retribution • Incapacitation • Deterrence • Rehabilitation • Restoration

6. Origins of deterrence theory • CesareBeccaria (1738-1794), the founder of classical criminology • On Crimes and Punishments (Dei delitti e dellepene), was published in 1764 • Forwarded the view that individuals calculate benefits and costs of action before deciding what to do • Principal means of influencing them is by increasing the costs • Modern equivalent in Rational Crime Theory

7. Deterrence: general and specific General deterrence The expectation that the public visibility of punishment will deter prospective offenders, i.e. there will be a broad suppressant effect of official punishments Specific deterrence The expectation that the experience of punishment will reduce or suppress the likelihood of criminal acts by those who have previously committed them

8. General deterrence:Homicide rates, Hong Kong and Singapore 1967-2007(Zimring & Hawkins, 2010, ‘A tale of two cities’)

9. Homicide rates in Hong Kong and Singapore and the impact of capital punishment

10. Prison populations around the worldRates of imprisonment per 100,000 populationSource: International Centre for Prison Studies, London, and University of Essex (2012)

11. Prison population, England and Wales1900-2009

12. Deterrence in action?Impact of “three strikes” laws in California

13. Reduction in prison population in California

14. Rehabilitation Attempt both to • reduce risk of re-offending, and • improve offenders’ prospects of reintegration in their communities by activities intended to influence their thoughts, feelings, attitudes or behaviour in relation to the above challenges

15. The evidence base • There are many hundreds of studies evaluating interventions to reduce criminal recidivism • At least 105 meta-analytic reviews as of mid-2014 • Positive though modest mean effect size …but some interventions have negative effects • There are consistent patterns in combinations of features that can increase effect sizes markedly • They can also result in significant cost savings • The principles of effective intervention are fairly well understood

16. The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model(Andrews & Bonta, 2010) • Identify general risk factors for offending • At an individual level those most reliably supported are labelled by Andrews and Bonta as “the big eight” • Use functional analysis and case formulation to identify the combination operating for an individual • Deliver interventions, designed according to a well-established theoretical model, and meeting evidence-based criteria • Take account of contextual variations and situational requirements; such “non-programmatic” factors have been neglected until recently

17. “Risk factors”: variables recurrently associated with serious and/or persistent offending • Poor parental supervision, low attachment to families • Difficulties in school and employment • Network of delinquent associates • Manifestation of anti-social attitudes • Distorted / biased patterns of information processing • Poor personal and social skills • Low levels of self-control; impulsiveness • Negative emotions and low level of constraint • Alcohol and other substance misuse

18. Extending the RNR model Initially developed for general offending (mixed or versatile criminal history), but analysis by specialists in related areas suggests it is also applicable with: • Sexual offending: Hanson et al., 2009 • Substance-related offending: Prendergast et al, 2013

19. Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural programmes (Lipseyet al., 2007) Review of 58 studies published between 1980-2004. Majority quasi-experimental designs: only 33% randomized Average follow-up interval of 12 months. • Mean Odds Ratio = 1.53 Corresponds to a 25% reduction in recidivism. • Significant heterogeneity: (Q) = 214.02. • No significant differences found between randomized and non-randomized designs. • Most prominent moderators = risk level of the participants, and the quality of implementation of programme. • Mean Odds Ratio for studies with “best practice” features = 2.86. (“Best practice” = intent-to-treat, zero attrition, moderate+ risk, median of 32 sessions) Corresponds to a 52% reductionin recidivism.

20. Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural programmes(Lipsey et al., 2007) Forest plot comparing outcomes

21. Review of programmes for adult violence(Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007/2009)

22. Five more meta-analyses

23. Comparative effects on recidivism of different interventions(various sources)

24. Recent work of the Correctional Services Advisory and Accreditation Panel (CSAAP) To fill gaps in the existing review literature by conducting a series of Rapid Evidence Assessments, for example on: • Pro-criminal attitudes • Criminal thinking styles • Adult female offenders • Offending by young adults • Young adults and problematic substance abuse • Alcohol-related offending • Mentoring • “What does not work”

25. Objective: to answer the question… What interventions, services or approaches designed to reduce reoffending have been evaluated specifically with young adult offenders and found to reduce reoffending?

26. Who are “young adult offenders”? • Defined by age? • Note varying ages of majority status • Varying definitions of young adult age range in research studies • Starting at 16 or 18 • Ending at 21, 25, or 30 Most research reports include participants across these ranges and do not analyse data separately by specific age-bands

27. Why focus on this group? • This age-group is responsible for a disproportionately high volume of police-recorded crime • Though only 10% of the population, they account for one-third of prison admissions, of probation caseloads, and costs of crime (est. £19 billion) • Comparatively higher rate of self-harm in custody • Costs of crime in an average “criminal career” are at their highest in the age range 18-24

28. Search strategy • Electronic databases: • Scopus • Web of Knowledge • Web of Science • PsycINFO, PsyArticles • MEDLINE • NCJRS • Cochrane Library • Campbell Library • Reference lists of articles located

29. Inclusion and exclusion criteria • To be included, a study had to: • Have been published in the last 15 years • Have evaluated the impact of interventions or services on numbers or rates of reconviction, arrest, or some other measure of re-offending; or • Have measured change in a well-validated risk factor variable mediating criminal recidivism • Studies were excluded which: • Focused on reduction of substance abuse (16 studies in a related REA were checked for relevance)

30. Search and retrieval process Sequence of selection decisions Items retrieved and screened 2,967 Retained for detailed scrutiny 112 Full extraction 10 Downloaded 195

32. Key results In 6 out of 10 studies there are beneficial effects. They emerge from a range of methods. Strongest evidence (though still fairly limited): • Two studies of structured parole re-entry systems (Braga et al., 2009; Josi and Sechrest, 1999) • Prison-based offending behaviour programmes (Travers and Mann, 2013) • A structured high-intensity detention regime (Farrington et al, 2002) • Some evidence from victim-offender conferences, applying a Restorative Justice (RJ) model (Shapland et al., 2008) • Evidence of changes on cognitive skills measures following the Aggression Replacement Training (ART) programme (Currie et al., 2010) • Less consistent and more difficult to interpret findings from a study of mental health problems (Pullman, 2011)

33. Theory of change “There is nothing so practical… as a good theory” Kurt Lewin (1890-1947)

34. How do we decide if interventions are worth trying? Should it be aminimum requirement that any intervention designed to change offending behaviour should show the capacity to alter patterns of thinking, feeling and acting, and the relationship between them, in a way that could be reflected in neural change?

35. Brain changes as a function of experience • Increased cortical representation of the fingers of the left hand in string instrument players (Elbert et al., 1995) • Spatial navigation and hippocampus volume in London cab drivers (Maguire et al., 2000) • Bilingualism and structural changes in the parietal cortex (Mechelliet al., 2004) • Reactivation of previously stimulated memory circuits (Gelbard-Sagivet al., 2008) • Amygdala volume correlates with social network size and complexity (Bickartet al., 2010) • Socioeconomic disparities and prefrontal function in children (Kishiyamaet al., 2008; Lipona & Colombo, 2009)

36. Studies of neural change observed in fMRI scans following CBT

37. Illustrative CBT-based group offender rehabilitation programmes

38. “Non-programmatic” features of effective interventions

39. Client factors: Risk-need adherence There are clear indications from several meta-analyses of the importance of appropriate allocation in terms of risk • e.g. Lowenkampet al. (2006): • Study of 97 programmes, 13,676 participants • Programmes were evaluated using the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) • As additional CPAI criteria were met, correlations with recidivism effect increased from -0.05 to +0.18 (for residential programmes) and from -0.14 to + 0.09 (for non-residential programmes)

40. “Philosophy of treatment” Deterrence versus Human service / level of treatment integrity(Lowenkampet al., 2010)

41. “Core correctional practices” (Dowden & Andrews, 2004) Specifies five areas of activity that may play a crucial role in programme delivery: • Effective use of authority • Modelling and reinforcing pro-social and anti-crime attitudes and behaviour • Teaching concrete problem-solving skills for everyday use • Making effective use of community resources (“service brokerage”) • Relationship factors

42. Core correctional practicesMeta-analysis of 273 studies

43. New Jersey Intensive Probation Supervision (Paparozzi & Gendreau, 2005) Compared probation officers classed as belonging to three groups. Figures show outcomes in percentages: TECHNICAL NEW VIOLATION CONVICTION REVOCATION Law enforcement oriented 42.5 16.2 58.8 Social work oriented 5.4 32.3 37.9 Balanced 12.7 6.3 19.0 The “balanced role” can be induced through training in the “principles of effective intervention” (Fulton et al., 1997)

44. Level of coercion and community vs. institutional setting(Parharet al., 2008)

45. Conclusions • We can be more confident than ever regarding the evidence on reducing recidivism outcomes: there is a sizeable evidence base it is wasteful to ignore • It is difficult if not impossible to deliver high quality interventions without adequate provision of appropriately trained and well supported staff • The most fundamental change that could enhance system effectiveness would be a net transfer of resources from prisons to community - on a large scale • If planned and phased carefully, the sums released from reducing prison numbers could finance community developments and associated staff training