PSYC 2400: Offender Treatment

Contents

1. 1. Offender Treatment
   1. 1.1 Historical Background
   2. 1.2 Why Meta-Analysis?
      1. Development of the Meta-Analysis
      2. What Works: Carleton University Meta-Analysis
      3. Empirical Evidence for RNR Principles

1. Offender Treatment

1.1 Historical Background

• Extensive debate over “what works” in offender rehabilitation
• Early literature reviews did not present favourable conclusions regarding the effectiveness of correctional interventions
• Martinson presented the “nothing works” conclusion in his paper that evaluated 231 primary research studies

In Summary: since the 70s, the meta-analytic approach has become more common.

1.2 Why Meta-Analysis?

• Meta-Analysis: statistical aggregation of the results derived from many independent studies in order to integrate the findings
• Effect Size: (the primary unit) this reflects the degree to which the comparison and treatment groups differ on a particular measure – the size of the effect.
  

Development of the Meta-Analysis

• First meta-analysis: found cognitive-behavioural/family treatment was the best (still used today)
• Whitehead and Lab (1998): did not find promising evidence from their meta-analysis.
• Andrews and colleagues: meta-analysis on a broad sample of offender treatment studies, they developed principles of ECT (Effective Correctional Treatment) which incorporates Human Service, Risk, Need and Responsivity (RNR Strategy).

RNR Strategy

1. Risk Principle:  correctional interventions should target offenders who are at high risk to reoffend (not low risk offenders).
2. Need Principle: interventions should target criminogenic needs (dynamic attributes, when changed, are associated with changes in the probability of recidivism)
1. Criminogenic Needs: can be changed through intervention – the Big Four...
   Antisocial attitudes;
   Antisocial personality;
   History of antisocial behaviour; and
   Antisocial peers – targeting these needs will have a great impact on the probability of recidivism.
2. Non-Criminogenic Needs: though the offender needs to improve in these areas, they do not affect the probability of recidivism.
   Increasing self-esteem;
   Focusing on vague emotional/personal problems;
   Increasing cohesiveness of antisocial peer groups; and
   Neighbourhood-wide improvements without touching the needs to higher risk individuals, etc.
3. Responsivity Principle: refers to delivering treatment programs in a style and mode that is matched to the ability and learning style of the offender and their personality.
   • General Responsivity: (learning) we have to deliver the intervention in a way that we know the offender will respond to.
   • Specific Responsivity: (personality) we have to deliver the intervention in a way that acknowledges the individual differences that exist in an individual.

What Works: Carleton University Meta-Analysis

The CU Meta-Analysis database can make 374 comparisons.
Major Findings:

• Processing Increases Recidivism: More processing through the CJS is associated with a slightly increased recidivism rate;
• Positive Programs: Only 2 comparisons produced a positive effect of .20 and .22 (i.e. the recidivism rates from these treatment programs was lower than the comparison program)
• Ignore the study in the book that deals with Effect Sizes.
• We’re Making Things Worse: Mean effect size was minimal -.03, as in, the programs we’ve developed make recidivism rates slightly worse.
• Less is Better than More: If you can give less and maintain public safety, less is better than more.
• RNRs: In addition, they also examined the principles of RNR by creating an appropriate treatment variable (0-3); in other words, if the treatment program was characterized with a 3, it incorporated all three RNRs.
• Explored their utility with specific populations as well and explored the impact of staff characteristics on program effectiveness.

Empirical Evidence for RNR Principles

The following summarizes the empirical evidence we’ve collected:

• Responsivity: results show that meeting responsivity in your treatment program is the most effective way to reduce rates of recidivism (with need and risk following shortly after).
• RNRs: incorporating more of a combination of the RNRs increases the success of the treatment program; not including the RNRs results in an increase in recidivism rates.
• Setting: programs offered in the community are better than in residential areas (i.e. offender facility).
• Targets: targeting criminogenic has better results than targeting non-criminogenic needs.
• Women Offenders: some criminologists don’t believe in gender-neutral treatment programs.