The Intended & Unintended Outcomes of
Detention
Criminal Justice Platform
Brussels, 18 September 2014
Peter van der Laan
NSCR & VU University Amsterdam
Email contacts:
adirkzwager@nscr.nl
p.nieuwbeerta@law.leidenuniv.nl
What do you know about detention?
• Purposes
• Outcomes
Purposes
•
•
•
•
•
Protection by incapacitation
Retribution
General Prevention
Special (individual) prevention
Rehabilitation (resocialisation, reintegration)
Outcomes
• ……..
• ……..
• ……..
• Intended
• Unintended
Today
• Outcomes
• Intended and unintended
• Research-based
• Detention (Prison Project)
• Aftercare
• Electronic monitoring
• Dutch examples
Prison Project - design
• Large Scale Longitudinal Panel Study:
• 1,909 men (ages 18-65)
• taken into pre-trial detention
• in all 26 prison in The Netherlands
• from October 2010 to March 2010
• Interviewed within 3 weeks after prison entry
• subsequently interviewed over a long-term follow-up
period, i.e. both in detention and/or post-release
• We are interested in:
• life before imprisonment
• experience of imprisonment
• consequences of imprisonment
Prison Project - Focus
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Employment
Physical and psychological health
Social networks
Life in prison
Prison circumstances
Interventions in prison
Sentencing
Probation, parole
Marriage and divorce
Wellbeing of partners
Wellbeing of children
Deterrence, reofffending
• Leiden University, NSCR, Utrecht University
• Team of 15 researchers & 100+ interviewers (students)
Prison Project - Organization
• Leiden University, NSCR, Utrecht University
• Team of 15 researchers & 100+ interviewers (students)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Over 2m Euro
Dutch Science Foundation
Universities & NSCR
Ministry of Security and Justice
Dutch Prison Service
Dutch Probation Service
Council for the Judiciary
• Dutch Prison Museum
Prison Project - Health
•
Why?
• High prevalence of health problems
• Correctional institutions are seen as reservoirs of physical
and mental health problems which will flow back in the
community once prisoners are released
• Correctional institutions offer an important opportunity to
improve prisoners’ health (also benefit public health)
•
We know
• Prison populations experience serious mental and physical
health problems
•
We don’t know
• Whether and how imprisonment is affecting the health of
people entering prison
•
Longitudinal studies help!
Prison Project – General Health Status
How would you describe your health?
100
80
91
89
89
80
71
75
69
62
60
52
40
40
20
0
18-25 years
25-35 years
Prisoners
35-45 years
45-55 years
General population
55-65 years
Prison Project – Mental Health (BSI)
Prisoners
M1
General population
M1
SD
SD
BSI total score
0.69
0.70
0.35
0.33
Somatic complaints
0.52
0.76
0.29
0.40
Cognitive problems
0.80
0.87
0.51
0.52
Depressive problems 0.82
0.96
0.37
0.46
0.83
0.31
0.40
Anxiety
0.68
Prison Project – Mental Health (BSI)
Prisoners
General population
M1
SD
M1
SD
Hostility
0.61
0.77
0.38
0.43
Phobic anxiety
0.44
0.70
0.15
0.29
Paranoid thoughts
1.05
0.89
0.52
0.56
Psychoticism
0.62
0.75
0.30
0.39
Interpersonal
sensitivity
0.58
0.80
0.36
0.47
Prison Project – Physical Health
Prisoners
General
population
%
%
Fatigue
34
23
Migraine
20
10
Back problem/ hernia
16
9
Intestinal complaints
4
2
(longer than 3 months)
Prison Project - Drugs
Prisoners
General
population
%
%
Current smoker
77
24
Former smoker
8
41
Never smoker
15
36
Drugs – ever used
74
Drugs – last 12 months
59
Cannabis
Cocaine
Heroin
46
21
7
(Almost) daily use
27
10
2
0.1
Prison Project – Alcohol (Heavy Drinker)
Prison Project - Health
• Prisoners have diverse – pre-existing – health problems
at admission in prison:
• A worse health compared to general population
• A more unhealthy life style
• Less access to dentists and medical specialists but
more contact with psychological health care
Prison Project - Health
• Outcome:
• Health of prisoners improves
• Even within relatively short time
• After prison: can deteriorate easily and shortly care
• Caveat: in NL detention relatively short
Prison Project - Architecture
• Are prison design characteristics related to how inmates
perceive their autonomy, safety and relationships with
staff?
Prison Project – Architecture (autonomy)
2.9
2.84
2.8
2.73
2.68
2.69
Panopticon
Cruciform
Wing
Atrium
High-rise
N=181
SD=.69
N=759
SD=.68
N=332
SD=.70
N=133
SD=.72
N=49
SD=.72
2.7
2.6
2.52
2.5
2.4
2.3
Prison Project – Architecture (safety)
Panopticon
Cruciform
Wing
Atrium
High-rise
N=179
SD=.61
N=759
SD=.62
N=339
SD=.64
N=132
SD=.69
N=48
SD=.63
Prison Project – Architecture (relationships with staff)
3.4
3.32
3.3
3.31
3.25
3.21
3.2
3.1
3
2.99
2.9
2.8
Panopticon
Cruciform
Wing
Atrium
High-rise
N=176
SD=.75
N=752
SD=.72
N=326
SD=.74
N=132
SD=.77
N=48
SD=.73
Prison Project - Architecture
• In high-rise design prisoners are most positive about the
perceived autonomy, safety and relationships with staff
• In panopticon designs prisoners are least positive about
the perceived autonomy, safety and relationships with
staff
Prison Project - Employment
• Imprisonment limits employment opportunities and wages
by 10 to 15 %
• Before imprisonment 62% did not work
• Within 6 months after release 50% has found a job
Prison Project – Employment (support during detention)
Prison Project – Employment (work in prison)
100
90
Percentage
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Niet gewerkt in detentie (25,6%)
Wel gewerkt in detentie (74,4%)
Prison Project – Employment (vocational training)
100
90
Percentage
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Niet deelgenomen aan cursus
(76,5%)
Wel deelgenomen aan cursus
(23,5%)
Prison Project - Employment
• Likelihood of employment after imprisonment increased
by:
• Being employed before imprisonment
• Short period of detention
• Positive about support
• No impact:
• Work in prison
• Vocational training in prison
Aftercare
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nieuwe Perspectieven bij Terugkeer (NPT) (New
Perspectives at Re-entry), aftercare programme for
adolescent and young adult detainees (16-24)
RCT in Amsterdam, The Hague & Utrecht
Programme accredited by Dutch Accreditation Panel
Programme started in 2009
Part of evaluation: meta-analysis of similar programmes
elsewhere
Evaluation by University of Amsterdam & NSCR
Aftercare – Meta-Analysis
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Re-entry and aftercare programs
Excluded: external control and coercion only
Ages 10-30
Outcome measure: re-offending/recidivism
Various moderators: offender characteristics, program
characteristics, study characteristics
‘Campbell approach‘: i.e. computerized databases,
search engines, cross-referencing biblioghraphies, hand
searching, contacting authors
Published and unpublished studies
Experimental and quasi-experimental designs (level 3-5
SMS)
22 studies
Table 1: Linear Regression Analysis for Continuous Moderator Variables
Moderator variables
N_winsorized
K
Beta
Z
p
Mean Age
4595
22
.42
9.16
.000
Age of First Arrest
1492
9
.07
1.01
.312
Number of Prior Arrests
1376
9
.09
1.36
.173
Proportion Minority
4595
22
.09
1.97
.048
Proportion Gang involvement
1642
8
.54
6.03
.000
Proportion of Drug Abusers
2356
14
-.22
-3.73
.000
Treatment Duration
3683
19
-.09
-1.46
.143
Treatment Intensity
2543
14
.27
5.01
.000
Publication Year
4595
22
.12
2.66
.008
Impact of Journal
2134
8
-.43
-7.87
.000
Study Quality
4595
22
.13
2.84
.005
Proportion Sample Attrition
3592
15
-.29
-5.68
.000
Attrition Difference
2856
13
.12
2.25
.024
Table 2: Univariate Analysis of Variancce for Categorical Moderator Variables
Moderator variables
Number of
respondents, N
Number of
studies K
Effect size d
p
95% confidence
interval
Overall
4595
22
.12
.000
.09 to .15
Proportion Males in Sample
Mixed sample 50 – 95%
Male sample > 95%
2500
1939
10
11
.07
.19
.000
.000
.03 to .11
.14 to .23
Predominant Current Offense
Violent
Non-violent
1176
2351
6
11
.29
-.01
.000
.480
.24 to .35
-.05 to .03
Recidivism Risk Rating
Moderate
High
1137
2527
6
10
.07
.18
.021
.000
.01 to .13
.14 to .22
Treatment modality
Systemic
Individual
Both
736
2355
1504
2
11
9
.14
.26
-.10
.000
.000
.000
.07 to .22
.21 to .30
-.16 to -.05
Treatment design
Individual treatment
Group therapy & individual therapy
2871
1503
14
7
.23
-.15
.000
.000
.19 to .26
-.20 to -.10
736
1838
296
297
1207
2
8
2
4
5
.14
.23
.21
.44
-.23
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.07 to .22
.18 to .27
.10 to .33
.33 to .56
-.29 to -.18
Start before release
Yes
No
2902
1245
16
4
.12
.13
.000
.000
.08 to .16
.07 to .18
Study Design
RCT
Matched control group
Quasi-experimental
1270
1486
1839
9
6
7
.08
.10
.17
.005
<.000
.000
.02 to .14
.05 to .15
.12 to .21
Publication Source
Article in journal
Report
Dissertation
2138
1899
562
8
12
2
.15
.08
.14
.000
.001
.001
.11 to .20
.03 to .12
.06 to .23
Implementation
Does not mention implementation quality
Assessed implementation, well implemented
Assessed implementation, reported difficulties
1507
1768
1320
6
9
7
.20
.19
-.07
.000
.000
.000
.15 to .25
.14 to .24
-.12 to -.01
Time of Last Follow-up
< 12 months
≥ 12 months
302
4293
3
19
.50
.09
.000
.000
.38 to 61
.06 to .12
Nature of Control group
No treatment
Care as Usual
352
4012
4
14
.27
.11
.000
.000
.19 to .33
.07 to .15
Pre-differences between treatment and control
Yes
No
2109
2024
12
9
.06
.12
.000
.003
.02 to .11
.07 to .16
Treatment Combination
Systemic / individual treatment
Individual / individual treatment
Individual / individual treatment & group
therapy
Systemic & Individual / individual treatment
Systemic & Individual / individual treatment
& group therapy
Q statistic
between
studies
15.98
73.69
9.42
67.70
181.43
246.80
.02
6.45
6.42
64.87
43.98
14.84
2.51
p
Q statistic
within
studies
p
476.38
.000
341.93
118.47
.000
.000
42.97
271.02
.000
.000
38.53
176.18
.000
.000
25.29
105.08
228.17
.000
.000
.000
147.94
147.01
.000
.000
25.29
79.71
1.97
24.54
98.07
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
355.86
120.43
.000
.000
111.91
81.77
276.24
.000
.000
.000
331.57
85.20
53.18
.000
.000
.000
311.87
50.22
49.42
.000
.000
.000
14.89
417.51
.000
.000
17.98
397.98
<.000
.000
275.21
164.29
.000
.000
.000
.000
.002
.000
.000
.000
.877
.040
.040
.000
.000
<.000
.113
Aftercare - Outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overall: small positive effect on recidivism
Most effective if well implemented (limited attrition)
Individual treatment most effective
Intensity of programme important for effectiveness
Duration of programme of fewer importance
More effective for older youths
More effecyive for offenders at high risk of recidivism
Age of first arrest and number of prior arrests: no
influence
• Higher level of drug abuse: smaller effect sizes
• Starting aftercare before release from prison does not
increase effectiveness
• Better quality of study smaller effect sizes
Electronic monitoring
•
•
•
•
•
Strong increase
Short time outcomes: few incidents incl. reoffending
Long term outcomes: limited
Support vs. control
We know too little
Policy & Practice
•
•
•
•
We need to know more
We need to know more details
We need to include more outcome measures
We need to have better designs (propensity score
matching)