18.8 ISSUES RELATED TO OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR PROGRAMMES
18.8.1 Engagement and Programme Non-completion
One of the biggest challenges to the delivery of offending behaviour programmes is that of offender engagement (or rather a lack of it!). Poor offender engagement can result in reduced understanding and skills acquisition, and consequently a reduction in treatment gains. Alternatively low engagement can result in attrition (i.e. dropout) from the programme.
Programme attrition is far more prevalent within community, as opposed to custodial, settings. General offending behaviour programme non-completion rates within prison have been reported to be in the region of 11% (Cann, Falshaw, Nugent, & Friendship, 2003) to 16% (Pelissier, Camp, & Motivans, 2003). Hollin et al. (2004) reported community-based attrition, however, to be as high as two thirds of those sentenced to the programme. More recently, Hatcher (2009) reported a community-based ETS attrition rate of 57%; 41.6% failed to commence the programme to which they were sentenced (non-starters) and 15.4% commenced but did not complete ETS (non-completers).
The main concern regarding low engagement is that those individuals who meet the criteria, and hence are identified as having a need for intervention, fail to benefit from the intervention. Hollis (2007) compared predicted OGRS2 reconviction rates against actual two-year reconviction rates. Programme completers were seen to fare well: a reduction of 17% was observed between the predicted (64.3%) and actual rate (47.3%) of reconviction. Differences between predicted and actual rates were not observed, however, for non-starters and non-completers. As such, those who failed to complete the programme took no benefit from it.
Other research has indicated, however, that rather than merely failing to benefit, dropouts may actually have detrimental outcomes. McMurran and Theodosi (2007) conducted a meta-analysis which compared the recidivism rates of programme non-completers against untreated comparisons of comparable risk. Non-completion was found to be associated with elevated levels of reoffending (d =−0.16). Such a pattern appears to be emerging across the literature; Hollin et al. (2008), van Voorhis, Spruance, Ritchey, Listwan, & Seabrook (2004), Hatcher (2009) and Hatcher, McGuire, Bilby, Palmer, & Hollin (2012) have all reported that the reconviction rates of programme dropouts to be higher than appropriate no-intervention comparison groups, indicating a detrimental “non-completion” effect. Further work suggests it is early dropouts (those that complete less than 40% of the programme) that are responsible for this effect (Hatcher, McGuire, Palmer, & Hollin, 2011); the reconviction rates of later dropouts do not differ significantly from the comparison group. The argument as to whether the non-completion effect is a function of methodological design, self-selection, some facet of the intervention, the organisational processes supporting the intervention, or the process of dropout itself continues to be debated within the literature. The challenge for services and practitioners, however, is to determine how to increase engagement and reduce attrition from offender interventions.
18.8.2 Targeting and Selection
You may remember from earlier within this chapter that the accreditation criteria for offending behaviour programmes recommend the selection of offenders based on their risk and need. Despite this, there is clear evidence of the selection for offending behaviour programmes of offenders falling outside of the specified criteria. For example, Palmer, McGuire, Hatcher, Hounsome, Bilby, & Hollin (2008, 2009) have demonstrated that the rate of “appropriate” allocation within the community varied between probation areas from 37.1% to 82.1%, with almost half of all offenders falling outside the recommended banding. Likewise Turner (2006) reported that a quarter of ETS programme participants had risk scores below the targeting criteria and Gill (2004) found that half of the Think First programme non-completers had risk scores above the upper limit whilst only one of the programme completers fell above this range.
Within Hatcher’s (2009) work assessing community-based offending behaviour programme attrition, 7% of the sample had risk scores that fell below the targeting criteria and over a third were considered to be too high risk for the programme. With completion rates varying with risk such that high risk offenders are the least likely group to complete programmes (30.2% compared to 46.4% from the appropriate risk category and 80.9% of the too low risk category), the finding that over a third of those allocated were “too high” risk lends weight to the argument that organisational factors perhaps contribute to attrition rates.
When considering this finding alongside subsequent reconviction rates, however, Palmer et al. (2008) found evidence of a large effect of completion on these individuals: “too high” programme completers were 44.7% less likely to be reconvicted than the comparison group. Given this, it would seem that correctional services have a conundrum to solve: the rate of programme completion amongst high risk offenders is low; however, those that do complete fare very well in terms of reconviction. The question for correctional services to consider is whether the reduction in reconviction amongst the minority of this group outweighs the effects of dropout and its subsequent consequences on reconviction. Of course, such rates are not necessarily static: further research on the correlates of dropout could inform practices that support larger proportions of high risk offenders through programmes.
In relation to the offenders who have risk scores below the targeting criteria, the completion rate of 80.9% (Hatcher, 2009) might appear to justify allocation of these individuals to an intervention. However, Palmer et al. (2008) reported no differences in reconviction between the programme completers in the “too low” category and their appropriate comparisons. As such, the programme had little to no effect on the reconviction rate of this group. As the risk principle would dictate, these offenders are of a level of risk of reconviction such that an intensive intervention is not required.
18.8.3 Manualised Groupwork
While the objective of the rigorous programme accreditation process is to ensure quality evidence-based programmes, opponents have criticised manualised groupwork on the basis that it is not tailored to individual needs, is at odds with the theoretical principles of cognitive behavioural therapy, and acts to deskill treatment deliverers by removing their ability to practice “clinical artistry” (Wilson, 1996, p. 295). Respondents to these criticisms have suggested the combination of one-to-one and group work interventions allowing more individualised approaches whilst retaining the practical and economic efficiencies of groupwork (Hollin & Palmer, 2006). Further, it has been proposed that a reduction in clinical artistry, whilst perhaps demoralising to staff, may not negatively impact on the programme or its efficacy (Hollin, 2006). Hollin has proposed that the limiting of this practice by manualisation might indeed protect against threats to the concept of programme integrity.
The term programme integrity refers to the practice of delivering an intervention in line with the programme manual’s instructions. If a well-designed and evidence-based programme is not delivered as intended, it is likely that the effectiveness of this programme will be undermined. The importance of this concept is demonstrated in its adoption as one of the principles of effective practice (see Table 18.5). Hollin (1995) has described three potential threats to programme integrity: programme drift (the gradual alteration of the aims and method of delivery of the programme); programme reversal (the undermining of the programme and its delivery due to resistance and opposition to the aims and methods); and programme non-compliance (the programme facilitators tinker with the programme altering the contents, aims, or treatment targets). All three of these threats compromise the programme in some way and could hence render the work completed as, at best, worthless or, at worst, damaging to the overall aim of reducing recidivism.
A study of the implementation of programmes within community settings in England and Wales discovered that practitioners were often confused about the perceived conflict between maintaining programme integrity and the need to ensure the Andrews and Bonta (2010) principle of responsivity (Hollin, McGuire, Palmer, Bi
lby, Hatcher, & Holmes, 2002). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, responsivity refers to the matching of the style and methods of delivery to the learning styles of the programme participants to ensure offender engagement with the intervention. On the one hand, therefore, practitioners understand that their practice should not deviate from the programme manual but, on the other hand, often feel the need to do so to be responsive to the needs of the programme participants. As such, the success of the programme may lie, in part, in the programme facilitator’s ability to do just this. The skills required to undertake this work successfully should not therefore be underestimated.
18.9 SUMMARY
Evidence-based offending behaviour programmes are now commonplace within correctional services throughout the western world.
Despite their prolific use, there is still a great deal to learn about how these programmes impact on the lives of those who are subject to them.
We can be confident, from the results of meta-analytical research, that these programmes can reduce the recidivistic behaviour of offenders who complete them.
We are still to gain answers to more specific questions, however, such as why people drop out from programmes, how offenders can be motivated to increase their engagement, and how organisational factors may impact on programme effectiveness.
It is only through the conduct of good quality research that these questions can be answered and correctional provision further enhanced.
ESSAY/DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Compare actuarial and clinical risk assessment methods. What are the limitations of these methods when they are used to assess the likelihood of an individual reoffending in the future?
Discuss the potential consequences of failing to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment on an offender. How might this impact on the offender, other individuals, and society?
How effective is the “one size fits all” approach to offender rehabilitation? Has programme accreditation been successful in the aim of reducing recidivist behaviour?
What are the methodological problems with evaluating offending behaviour programmes? What methodology would you use to test whether such programmes reduce recidivism?
ANNOTATED READING LIST
Beech, A. R., Craig, L. A., & Browne, K. D. (Eds.). (2009). Assessment and treatment of sex offenders: A handbook. Chichester: Wiley. An edited book that not only discusses theoretical and practical issues in the treatment of sex offenders but also tackles issues such as diagnostic problems with sex offenders, and risk assessment of sex offenders.
Craig, L. A., Gannon, T. A., & Dixon, L. (Eds.). (2013). What works in offender rehabilitation: An evidence based approach to assessment and treatment. Chichester: Wiley. An edited book presenting the latest research in the field of offender assessment and treatment. This book contains information relating to the treatment of numerous types of offenders including personality disordered, domestic violence, arson and females offenders.
Hollin, C. R. (Ed.). (2001). Handbook of offender assessment and treatment. Chichester: Wiley. A comprehensive guide to offender assessment and treatment covering issues such as risk assessment, the discussion of theoretical approaches to treatment, and the assessment and treatment of different types of offenders. All chapters are written by experts within each field. The book is also available in a shorter “essential” handbook.
Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (Eds.). (2006). Offending behaviour programmes: Development, application, and controversies. Chichester: Wiley. A perfectly readable edited book, which introduces offending behaviour programmes for general and offence specific offenders. Provides a detailed view of the current situation relating to offending behaviour programmes, the evaluative evidence for and against them, and the issues and controversies that surround them.
McGuire, J. (Ed.). (1995). What Works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines from research and practice. Chichester: Wiley. A classic text that stimulated the debate concerning “What Works” in offender rehabilitation during the mid-1990s and onwards. Covers a discussion of the “What Works” debate, as well as issues in practice, delivery and implementation or offending behaviour programmes.
REFERENCES
Andrews, D. A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory – Revised manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence, NJ: LexisNexus.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P. & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology 28, 369–404.
Antonowicz, D. H. (2005). The Reasoning and Rehabilitation program: Outcome evaluations with offenders. In M. McMurran & J. McGuire (Eds.), Social problem solving and offending (pp. 163–181). Chichester: Wiley.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Barnett, G. (2012). Gender-responsive programming: A qualitative exploration of women’s experiences of a gender-neutral cognitive skills programme. Psychology, Crime and Law, 18, 155–176.
Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123–142.
Bunton, J., & Morphew, R. (2007). Continuing professional development: Lessons from a European Union twinning project. Forensic Update, 89, 25–28.
Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F., & Friendship, C. (2003). Understanding what works: Accredited cognitive skills programmes for adult men and young offenders. Home Office Research Findings, 226. London: Home Office.
Clark, D. A. (2000). Theory manual for Enhanced Thinking Skills. Prepared for Joint Prison-Probation Accreditation Panel. London: Home Office.
Cleckley, H. (1964). The mask of sanity. St. Louis, MI: CV Mosby.
Cooke, D. (2000). Annex 6: Current risk assessment instruments. In Scottish Executive, Report of the committee on serious and violence offenders. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Copas, J. B. & Marshall, P. (1998). The Offender Group Reconviction Scale: The statistical reconviction score for use by probation officers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C 47, 159–171.
Coulson, G., Nutbrown, V., & Giulekas, D. (1993). Using the Level of Supervision Inventory in placing female offenders in rehabilitation programmes or halfway houses. IARCA Journal, 5, 12–13.
Dingwall, R. (1989) Some problems about predicting child abuse and neglect. In O. Stevenson (Ed.), Child abuse: Public policy and professional practice (pp. 28–53). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Douglas, K. S., Cox, D. N., & Webster, C. D. (1999). Violence risk assessment: Science and practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 149–184.
Douglas, K. S., Guy, L. S., & Weir, J. (2006). HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Overview and annotated bibliography. Burnaby, Canada: Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University.
Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Belfrage, H. (2013). HCR-20V3: Assessing risk of violence - User guide. Burnaby, Canada: Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
Douglas, K. S., & Webster, C. D. (1999). The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Concurrent validity in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 3–19.
Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1990). Assessment of psychopathy in male young offenders. Psychological assessment, 2, 342–344.
Gill, E. J. (2004). Attrition or completion on the Think First programme: Offender perspectives. Unpublished thesis (MSc Forensic Psychology). Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University.
Gobbett, M. J., & Sellen, J. L. (2014). An evaluation of the HM Pri
son Service “Thinking Skills Programme” using psychometric assessments. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 454–473.
Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical–statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293–323.
Grubin, D. (1997). Predictors of risk in serious sex offenders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, s17–s21.
Forensic Psychology Page 85
