UK Offending Behavior Programs: Evolution, Impact, and Recent Developments, Lecture notes of Criminology

Download UK Offending Behavior Programs: Evolution, Impact, and Recent Developments and more Lecture notes Criminology in PDF only on Docsity!

Mike Maguire

Professor of Criminology & Criminal Justice Cardiff University & University of Glamorgan Member of England & Wales Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP)

 Programmes and accreditation in UK: brief historical background  Recent developments in the UK: Recent research Changing ideas/theories/models and impact on programmes The changing policy environment Changing roles of Accreditation Panel  Issues of (hopefully mutual!) interest or concern

 New government shows strong interest in

rehabilitation/reducing re-offending

 Despite cuts in Ministry of Justice, prisons

and probation, still strong support for

offending behaviour programmes

 Despite major cull of ‘quangos’, CSAP

continues to operate very actively (and

is taking on new roles)

Big datasets now available & can be combined, allowing:

 Analysis of psychometric change  Large-scale re-offending and reconviction studies More sophisticated matching of intervention and comparison samples: Use of Propensity score matching Inclusion of dynamic factors in comparing groups Development of more sophisticated prediction tools (eg OGRS3, OVP, OGP)  Cohort studies (Prison, Community and youth cohorts being tracked and re-interviewed) Combine administrative data with self-report data Analysis of impact of combinations of interventions, not just single programmes?

 Analysis of all offenders referred to programmes in the community, 2004: 5,000 non-starters, 12,000 non-completers, 8,000 completers (no matched comparison group)  All three groups were reconvicted less than predicted (overall 10% fewer), but completers 26% fewer, non-starters 4%, drop-outs 3%.  Those referred to programmes did better (10% lower reconviction rate than predicted) than those on other community interventions (7%)  All stat. sig. except women’s and DV programmes  Weaknesses in study, but good indicative evidence

 Methodologically robust study (RCT) of psychometric change in prisoners attending Enhanced Thinking Skills  Significant improvement in ‘impulsivity’ scores (a major criminogenic need), also in attitudes to offending and fewer discipline reports in prison  These improvements should (but will they?) translate into reduced re-offending

 Best evidence yet? Combines data from prisoner

cohort study, OASys, Offending Behaviour Programmes

database, PNC. Minimises selection effects.

 Propensity score matching on ETS suitability criteria

(risk, responsivity, needs), static and dynamic risk

factors (motivation, attitudes to crime, substance

misuse, education, etc) = best matched samples so far

 One-year reoffending: ETS group 27%, cohort 33%

ETS group 60 offences per 100 ex-prisoners, cohort 120

Prisoners ‘suitable’ for ETS did better than those not

‘Risk- needs’ model challenged or modified, particularly by:  ‘Desistance’ literature (Maruna, Farrall) (Desistance achieved mainly through individual agency, motivation, readiness to change, personal narratives; + new skills, opportunities, social capital; change is not a one-off event – often a ‘zigzag’ process with frequent relapse)  ‘Good Lives’ model (Ward, Hudson, etc) (A fulfilling life depends on achieving a range of ‘human goods’ - eg knowledge, creativity, friendship, relatedness – through pro-social means. Therapy should focus on ‘whole person’, strengths not deficits, healthy lifestyle, skills)

 Major financial cuts

 Prison overcrowding

 Indeterminate sentence prisoners

 The ‘rehabilitation revolution’ :

‘Payment by results’

‘Localism’ and local commissioning

‘Contestability’ (private/vol/faith)

(What is the place of expensive

accredited programmes in all this?)

 Fewer qualified staff (eg Treatment Managers)  Audit resources cut (now 2-year cycle)  ‘Rationalisation’ of programmes portfolio (fewer programmes, ‘one size fits all’)  Pooled training (less programme-specific)  Less central influence on control of : local commissioners less willing to buy expensive programmes

 • A clear model of change  • Selection of Offenders  • Targeting a range of dynamic risk factors  • Effective methods  • Skills orientated  • Sequencing, intensity and duration  • Engagement and motivation  • Continuity of Programmes and Services  • Process Evaluation and Maintaining Integrity?  • Ongoing Evaluation.  A programme must score between 18-20 points to be awarded accredited status. The Panel will award recognised/provisionally accredited status where it has identified the need for specific changes that can be made in less than 12 months (or longer, where specified) and the programme has reached a score of around 16 points.

 More generally, what should be the role of the Panel and its limits? Should it accredit only? Reactively, or should it comment on what kinds of programmes are needed?  Offer wider advice on interventions? Or even have a collective (and sometimes critical) ‘voice’ aimed at influencing policy in the direction of effective interventions and evidence-led research?  How ‘ political ’ can it be?: resist damaging policies? Eg excessive government targets, pressure on the Panel to accredit prematurely?  Does ‘loss of independence’ make a difference?  In E & W now, many subpanels, few plenaries – we are very dispersed (USA members + drugs/sex/ TC/general) and less ‘voice’ (used to have VIP visitors!)

 Accredition criteria – should they include ‘continuity’? (and management/training/audit arrangements?) Justification = e.g Andrews’ Core Correctional Methods and Lowenkamp (CPAI – key role of delivery standards, staff skills and ‘wrap around’ services in what works)  ‘Systems’ accreditation? (ECP/CARATS?)  Use of ‘bought in’ material accredited elsewhere (eg American ‘workbooks’ as part of a ‘programme’– what are we accrediting?)  ‘Second level’ accreditation? (e.g. intervention ‘contributes’ but not expected to reduce offending itself) Is this Panel business?  Non-accredited programmes?  Other standards/accreditation bodies – eg health, education