School of Psychology
Efficacy of Correctional
Cognitive
Skills Programmes
Dr. Ruth Hatcher
[email protected]
www.le.ac.uk
What are cognitive skills programmes?
• Interventions for offenders
• Based in
– prison (voluntary) and
– community (court mandated)
• Group work programmes with offenders
• Typically 50-100 hours of intervention
• Based on cognitive-behavioural principles
What are cognitive skills programmes?
• Aim to change behaviour
– reduce likelihood of subsequent reconviction
• Address social cognitive deficits associated with
offending
– Impulse control, emotional regulation, consequential
thinking, and problem-solving skills
• Help offenders develop pro-social skills
– “help offenders solve problems and make personal
decisions more effectively by helping offenders learn
how, rather than what, to think” (Travers, Mann, &
Hollin, 2014)
• Also serve a punitive function
– “A fine on time” (Rex & Gelsthorpe, 2002)
Cognitive skills programmes in practice
• General offending:
–
–
–
–
–
Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS),
Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R)
Think First
Thinking Skills Programme (TSP)
Priestley One to One
• Offence specific:
–
–
–
–
–
Community Sex Offender Group Programme (C-SOGP)
Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it (CALM)
Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP)
Addressing Substance Related Offending (ASRO or P-ASRO)
Lower Intensity Alcohol Programme (LIAP)
Origins of cognitive skills programmes
• Two distinct areas of research:
1. Research into cognitive functioning of offenders
– Offenders have distinct thinking styles (Ross &
Fabiano, 1985)
2. Meta-analytic research
– Remarkably consistent findings
– Findings condensed into the
• Risk-Need-Responsivity model of correctional service
(Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990), and
• Correctional Services Accreditation Criteria (Lipton, et al.,
2000; Maguire et al., 2010)
Developing and maintaining good practice:
Accreditation
Are cognitive skills programmes effective?
• Outcome research
• Focus on data from England and Wales
– Community
– Prison
• Focus on general offending behaviour
programmes
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
• Dataset = 4935 community based offenders
– Treatment group = 2186
• Think First
• Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS)
• Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R)
– Comparison group = 2749
• At Census point
– 65.6% of total sample of 4935 were
reconvicted
Hollin et al. (2008)
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
Treatment group – 66.64%
Comparison group – 64.79%
Hollin et al. (2008)
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
• However, early implementation suffered from high levels of
attrition from programmes:
– 28.2% completed
– 23.3% started but failed to complete (non-completers)
– 48.5% didn’t start (non-starters)
Hollin et al. (2008)
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
Completers– 39.8%
Non-completers–75.3%
Non-starters– 78.0%
Comparison– 64.8%
Hollin et al. (2008)
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
• Completers
– 38.7% less likely to be reconvicted than the Comparison group
– 66.8% less likely to be reconvicted than the Non Completers
– 70.9% less likely to be reconvicted than the Non Starters
• Non Completers
– 100% more likely to be reconvicted than the Comparison group
• Non Starters
– 130.9% more likely to be reconvicted than the Comparison
group.
Hollin et al. (2008)
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
“Overall, the evidence suggests that
compared to no-treatment controls,
there is a positive effect on reconviction
of program completion but a higher rate
of reconviction for program noncompleters”
Hollin et al. (2008)
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
• Non-completion effect
– Evidence that non-completers perform worse than appropriate
comparison groups
• At what point in the programme does the cross over happen?
• Non-completers categorised into quintiles
– Based on their point of dropout (i.e. percentage of programme
completed)
• Seven groups:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Comparison
Quintile 1 (1%-19% completed)
Quintile 2 (20%-39% completed)
Quintile 3 (40%-59% completed)
Quintile 4 (60%-79% completed)
Quintile 5 (80-99% completed)
Completers
Hatcher, et al, in preparation
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
n = 371
Hatcher, et al, in preparation
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
Reconviction (%)
Comparison: 0% (n = 2749)
64.8
Quintile 1: 1-19% (n = 146)
78.1
Quintile 2: 20-39% (n = 98)
82.7
Quintile 3: 40-59% (n = 69)
66.7
Quintile 4: 60-79% (n = 32)
65.6
Quintile 5: 80-99% (n =26)
65.4
Completers: 100% (n = 536)
40.1
χ2 (6, N = 3656) = 153.05, p < .001
Hatcher, et al, in preparation
Analysis - Multivariate
Hatcher, et al, in preparation
Analysis - Multivariate
Odds ratios
1
0.723
0.369****
0
Quintiles 1/2
Quintiles 3/4
Quintile 5
Completers
Hatcher, et al, in preparation
Analysis - Multivariate
Odds ratios
1.358
1
0.723
0.369****
0
Quintiles 1/2
Quintiles 3/4
Quintile 5
Completers
Hatcher, et al, in preparation
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
*** p = .001; **** p < .001
Hatcher, et al, in preparation
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
• Importance of allocation
– Eligibility and suitability criteria (accreditation)
– Clear that the eligibility criteria are not always
met
• 8.41% ‘too low risk’
• 39.62% ‘too high risk’
– Programme completion higher in the ‘too low’
group
– Programme dropout higher in the ‘too high’
group
Palmer, McGuire, Hatcher, Hounsome, Bilby & Hollin, 2008
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
Palmer, McGuire, Hatcher, Hounsome, Bilby & Hollin, 2008
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
Palmer, McGuire, Hatcher, Hounsome, Bilby & Hollin, 2008
Significant odd ratios
1
Too low
Appropriate
Too high
0
Quintiles 1/2 Quintiles 3/4
Quintile 5
Completers
Hatcher, et al, in preparation
Outcome Research: Pathfinder Evaluation
• Completion effect
– No completion effect among the ‘too low’
– Completion effect among the appropriate group
(29.3% difference)
– Large completion effect among the ‘too high’
group (44.7% difference)
• Non-completion effect
– Too low - 166.1%
– Appropriate - 90.0%
– Too high - 62.3%
Palmer, McGuire, Hatcher, Hounsome, Bilby & Hollin, 2009
Outcome Research: UK Prison
• Early evaluations of ETS and R&R provided mixed
results
– Friendship et al. (2002) compared treatment group
and matched comparison group
• 14% reduction low-medium treatment group
• 11% reduction medium-high treatment group
• Estimated that 21000 crimes were prevented
– Falshaw et al. (2003) and Cann et al. (2003) failed to
replicated these positive findings
• Although Cann et al. (2003) did find a completion effect
• 2.6% reduction adult completers
• 3.6% reduction young offender completers
Outcome Research: UK Prison
• Sadlier (2010) evaluated prison based ETS (257
starters 2006-2008)
– Matched treatment and comparison group
• Static risk factors
• dynamic risk factors e.g. drug use, attitudes, motivation to
stop offending…
– Proportion reconvicted
• 27.2% (ETS) vs 33.5% (Comparison)
– Reduction in frequency of reoffending
• 60 fewer offences per 100 prisoners
– No significant reduction in severity of offences
• 0.1% reduction
Outcome Research: UK Prison
• Travers and colleagues (2013, 2014)
– Compared ETS treatment group (~17000)
with cohort of similar prisoners (~20000)
– Compared predicted (OGRS) and actual
reconviction rates over two years
– Aims:
• Assess effectiveness of ETS
– Different risk levels (2013)
– Different offence types (2014)
Outcome Research: UK Prison
• Findings:
– ETS attendees reconvicted at
• 6.4% less than comparison group
• 9.5% less than predicted by OGRS (7.9% when
adjusted for comparison group reduction)
– Programme completers reconvicted at
• 7.5% less than comparison group
– Overall - significant reductions (compared to
comparison group) in all but the very highest
risk band (OGRS 91+)
Outcome Research: UK Prison
Offence
• Different responses to ETS by
offence type
• Offence type and risk
interacted
– Sexual – 0-60 OGRS
– Violence and Drugs – 11-80
OGRS
– Other – 31-90 OGRS
– Robbery and Acquisitive – no
risk bands
• Robbers, non-violent
acquisitive offenders, large
scale drug dealers did not
benefit from ETS
Predicted
Actual
Absolute
Differenc
e
Sexual
26.30
13.60
12.71
Violent
57.86
40.58
17.28
Robbery
49.78
52.84
-3.06
Acquisitive
71.90
71.48
0.32
Drugs
46.07
35.95
10.11
Other
68.83
56.87
11.96
Total
55.61
47.18
8.44
Summary and conclusion
• Accumulation of evidence across different
types of research indicating:
– Positive effect of completion on reconviction
– Negative effect of non-completion on
reconviction (within community at least)
• Emerging evidence as to who benefits most
from cognitive skills programmes
• Future direction for research?
– Further assessment of responsivity to aid
• selection of offenders
• development of interventions
References
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R.D. ( 1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation:
Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 17, 19-52.
Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F., & Friendship, C. (2003). Understanding what works: Accredited
cognitive skills programmes for adult men and young offenders (Research Findings No.
226). London, England: Home Office.
Falshaw, L., Friendship, C., Travers, R., & Nugent, F. (2003). Searching for what works: An
evaluation of cognitive skills programmes (Home Office Research Findings No. 206).
London, England: Home Office.
Friendship, C., Blud, L., Erikson, M., & Travers, R. (2002). An evaluation of cognitive behavioural
treatment for prisoners (Home Office Research Findings No. 161). London, England:
Home Office.
Hatcher, R.M., Chapman, R.C., McGuire, J., Palmer, E.J., and Hollin, C.R. (in preparation).
Offending behaviour program dosage: program completion is necessary for reductions in
reconviction (working title).
Hollin, C. R., McGuire, J., Hounsome, J. C., Hatcher, R. M., Bilby, C. A. L., & Palmer, E. J. (2008).
Cognitive skills offending behavior programs in the community: A reconviction analysis.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 269-283.
Lipton, D. S., Thornton, D. M., McGuire, J., Porporino, F. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2000). Program
accreditation and correctional treatment. Substance Use and Misuse, 35, 1705–1734.
References
Maguire, M., Grubin, D., Losel, F., & Raynor, P. (2010). ‘What Works’ and the correctional services
accreditation panel: Taking stock from an inside perspective. Criminology and Criminal
Justice, 10, 37–58.
Palmer, E.J., McGuire, J., Hatcher, R. M., Hounsome, J., Bilby, C.A.L., Hollin, C.R. (2008). The
importance of appropriate allocation to offending behavior programs. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 206-221.
Palmer, E.J., McGuire, J., Hatcher, R. M., Hounsome, J., Bilby, C.A.L., Hollin, C.R. (2009).
Allocation to offending behaviour programs in the English and Welsh Probation Service.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36,909-922.
Rex, S. & Gelsthorpe, L. (2002). The role of community service in reducing re-offending: Evaluating
Pathfinder projects in the UK. The Howard Journal 41, 311-325.
Ross, R. R., & Fabiano, E. A. (1985). Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention
and offender rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of Social Sciences and Arts.
Sadlier, G. (2010). Evaluation of the impact of the HM Prison Service Enhanced Thinking Skills
programme on reoffending: Outcomes of the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR)
sample (Ministry of Justice Research Series 19/10). London, England: Ministry of Justice.
References
Travers, R., Mann, R., & Hollin, C. R. (2014). Who benefits from cognitive skills programmes?
Differential impact by risk and offense type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 11031129.
Travers, R., Wakeling, H. C., Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2013). Reconviction following a cognitive
skills intervention: An alternative quasi-experimental methodology. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 18, 48-65.
Download

Introduction to Assessment and Treatment of Offenders Dr. Ruth