what works in reducing reoffending: a global …cep-probation.org/uploaded_files/pres starr cam 10...
TRANSCRIPT
What Works in Reducing Reoffending:A Global Perspective
Friedrich Lösel
First European Seminar of the STARR Project,27 April 2010, Cambridge, UK
Institute of CriminologyUniversity of Cambridge
Institute of PsychologyUniversity of Erlangen-Nuremberg
Offender Rehabilitation:Recent History (1)
• Strong rehabilitation optimism in the 1960s and early 1970s
• „Nothing works“ (Martinson, 1974)• Lack of methodologically sound research• Support for non-empirical arguments (e.g. getting
tough on crime, high costs, forced personalitychange, informalisation of criminal justice, just deserts 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 Management Service (NOMS): Pathways to Reducing
Re-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. zero
or 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 good
quality primary studies
Study Quality: Maryland Scale
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 achieve equivalence (e.g., matching)
5. Randomized assignment (not impaired by attrition etc.)
(Sherman et al., 1997, modified)
Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analyses on General Offender Treatment
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30
Lösel et al. (1987)
Gottschalk et al. (1987)
Andrews et al. (1990)
Lipsey (1992)
Lipsey & Wilson (1998)
Pearson et al. (1998)
Redondo et al. (1999)
Dowden & Andrews (2000)
Lipton et al (2002)
Lipton et al. (2002)
Lipsey & Landenberger (2005)
MacKenzie (2006)
Tong & Farrington (2007)
In total >500 studies
Mean Effect Sizes of OffenderRehabilitation (1)
• General and violent offenders
• Typical range: d = 0.10 - 0.30
• Example: d = 0.20
• 50% recidivism in CG vs. 40% in TG
• 10 percentage points or 18% reduction
• Small but highly significant
Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analyses on Juvenile Offender Treatment
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40
Garrett (1985)
Gottschalk et al. (1987)
Whitehead & Lab (1989)
Andrews et al. (1990)
Lipsey (1992)
Lipsey & Wilson (1998)
Petrosino (1997)
Redondo et al. (1999)
Cleland et al. (1997)
Latimer et al. (2003)
Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analyses on Sexual Offender Treatment
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
Alexan
der (1
999)
Aos et
al. (2
006)
Furby e
t al. (
1989
)
Gallag
her e
t al. (
2000
)
Hall (1
995)
Hanso
n et a
l. (20
02)
Löse
l (200
0)
Löse
l & S
chmuc
ker (2
005)
Polizz
i et a
l. (19
99)
Reitze
l & C
arbon
ell (2
006)
Walk
er et
al. (2
004)
d
Meta-Analysis of High-quality Studieson Sex Offender Treatment
• Schmucker & Lösel (2010): Update of Lösel & Schmucker (2005)
• Only high-quality studies• Level 3 of Maryland Scale• Treatment & Control Group equivalent• 26 eligible studies, 28 independent
comparisons 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)
9,0
32,4
24,0
12,4
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
sexual all offences
Type of reoffending
%Treatment groupControl group
27% reduction
26% reduction
Some Outcome Moderators
Larger effects in• smaller samples• high risk offenders• group programmes with some
individual 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 programme
content• ‚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: Anger management & 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 aggressive-
impulsive offenders (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, family
relations)• 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 desistance
research• But: Not yet replicated empirical evidence in
evaluations• Conclusion: Perhaps promising
Principles of Appropriate OffenderTreatment
• Risk principle(Adequate intensity)
• Need principle(Address criminogenic needs)
• Responsivity principle(Adequate modes of learning and teaching)
• Up to 60% reduction of recidivism when all three R-N-R principles 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 individualized
Andrews 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 of
Justice• Coordinated action: NOMS, HMPS, NPD, CSAP • More than 40 accreditated programmes• Quality management (assessment, staff training &
supervision, monitoring & audit, outcomeevaluation)
Criteria of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP) in E & W
1. Clear model of change (evidence based)
2. Selection of offenders (e.g., adequateassessment, risk level)
3. Targeting a range of dynamic risk factors
4. Effective methods (i.e., cognitive-behavioural)
5. Skills orientation (concrete behaviour)
CSAP Accreditation Criteria(Continued)
6. Sequencing, intensity and duration
7. Engagement and motivation
8. Continuity of programme and services
(aftercare; community services)
9. Maintaining integrity (context; selection, training, and supervision of personnel)
10. Ongoing evaluation
Based on principles of effective intervention: Andrews (1995), Lösel (1995)
Accredited Programmes in E & W (1)
• Fast & widespread programme implementation• More than 30,000 offenders p.a. on programmes• Some problems of integrity & continuity• Sometimes violation of eligibility critera• Non-starters and dropout problems in the
community• Not much well-controlled evaluation; often weak
designs (e.g. non-equivalent CG, short follow-up)• Only small correlations between intermediate
factors (e.g. psychometric) and recidivism
Accredited Programmes in E & W (2)Some encouraging results (Harper & Chitti,2005):• Well-implemented cognitive-behavioural
programmes 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 in
treatment and aftercare
• However, methodologically weaker datasuggest some success of the treatment policy
Harper & Chitti (2005)
Adult Re-offending Rates in E & W
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Percentage of offenders committing at least one offence within one yearof discharge from prison or commencement of probation supervision
Note. No valid data available for 2001 MoJ Evidence Digest (2009)
2000-06: - 11%
Adult Re-offending Rates in E & W
507090
110130
150170
190210230
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Number of offences per 100 offenders within one year of discharge fromprison or commencement of a court order under probation supervision
Note. No valid data available for 2001 MoJ Evidence Digest (2009)
2000-06: - 23%
Re-Offending Rates of Prisoners bySentence Length (HMPS 2007)
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
< 1 year ≥ 1 & < 2years
≥ 2 & < 4years
≥ 4 years
2000200220032004
Diff. actual/ - .02% - 6.3% - 10.1% - 13.4% Total: - 3.1%predicted
Re-offending rates for offending behaviourprogrammes
30354045505560657075
%
Non-starters Starters / Dropouts Completers
Predicted rates Actual rates
Diff = 7.3% Diff = 4.8% Diff = 26.4%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Women's programme (62)
Anger management (1,148)
Substance misuse (5,081)
Sex offender progr. (741)
Domestic violence (1,148)
General offend. behav. (12,924)
Drink impaired drivers (1,148)
Total (n = 25,255)
Interim Accredited Programmes Software:2004 Community Cohort (Hollis, RDS NOMS, 2007)Reduction in Re-Offending Using Predicted Data
*
*
**
**
Conclusions for international practice
• In total positive results of correctionalprogrammes
• However, most ‚what works‘ research fromNorth America
• Experience in Europe: Local adaptation and evaluation necessary
• Very few controlled studies in non-English-speaking countries
• 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 programme
development/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 of
prison & probation• Different staff roles
Problems of transnational transfer
• Different experiences in evaluation• Differences in financial resources• Different weighting of various penal
aims: 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 259 Lithuania 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 89 Northern 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 treatment
and 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 rehabilitation
programmes positive• Continuity & stepwise improvement instead
of pendulum movements in policy• Cultural adaptation & differentiation• Quality management, process & outcome
evaluation• Centers of excellence, clearing houses• Knowledge transfer and management of
innovation
Conclusions & Perspectives (2)• Integrating correctional programmes
with the whole range of services (no „silo“ approach)
• Linkage to routine case work• Relations to natural processes of
desistance• Relations to developmental prevention• Crime not only a criminal justice issue
(e.g. public health, education, welfare& economy)