MSc AFP
Y1793579
An evaluation of the effectiveness of the JETS
programme.
1
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Contents
Abstract
page 1
Introduction
page 2
Method
page 21
Results
page 29
Discussion
page 37
Acknowledgements
page 55
References
page 65
Appendices
page 66
2
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Abstract
The Crime and Justice Survey 2003 indicates a prevalence of juvenile offending in the
UK (Budd and Sharp, 2005). The JETS programme is a cognitive-behavioural
intervention designed to address offending behaviour in juvenile offenders.
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the JETS programme with regards to
levels of cognitive deficits and levels of behaviour.
The participants in this study were 47 sentenced male juvenile offenders imprisoned
in HMYOI Wetherby between 2005 and 2006. The measures used to assess cognitive
deficits were: Modified Junior Impulsivity Scale – I6 (junior) (Eysenck and Eysenck,
1980) for impulsivity, venturesomeness and empathy, Emotional Behavioural Scale
(Clarbour and Roger, 2004) for social anxiety, social self-esteem and malevolent
aggression, Locus of Control Scale for Children (Nowicki and Strickland, 1973) for
locus of control and Sociomoral Reflection Measure – Short Form (Gibbs, Basinger
and Fuller, 1992) for moral reasoning. Behavioural measures were Governor’s
adjudications and Incentive and Earned Privilege levels.
A mixed analysis of variance was used to measure for significant differences between
and within the groups in the cognitive deficits. The sign test was used to identify
significant differences in the behaviour levels over the measured period.
A significant difference was found for moral reasoning between the treatment group
and control group post programme. No other significant differences were found
between or within the groups’ pre to post programme in the cognitive deficits or for
the JETS group in behavioural measures.
The findings are discussed including limitations of the current study and directions for
future research.
3
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Introduction
Research points to a prevalence of juvenile offending in the UK. The Crime and
Justice Survey 2003 (Budd and Sharp, 2005) statistics show that young people under
the age of 18 years committed over 36% of all recorded crime in the previous year.
There are also estimates that juveniles are responsible for a significant proportion of
serious crime. The Crime and Justice Survey 2003 statistics show that 58% of
offences committed by juvenile offenders are violent offences. This survey also shows
that offending rates rise dramatically in males from 14 to 17 years, with four in ten in
this age group being active offenders. The average age to stop offending was found to
be 23 years old.
These findings are supported in longitudinal research. The Cambridge Study in
Delinquent Development found that offending peaked at age 17 (Farrington et al,
2006). In the Cambridge Study (Farrington, 2001) 96% of the young males admitted
committing an offence which they could have been charged for. This suggests that
this rise in offending behaviour is a result of higher numbers of juveniles offending
rather than an increased rate in the offending by a few individuals.
Although evidence suggests that the majority of juvenile offenders desist from
offending as they reach their twenties, there is a small proportion who continues to
offend into later adulthood. Moffitt (1993) referred to the difference between the
“adolescent-limited” offenders who stop offending in early adulthood and the “lifecourse persistent” offenders who start at an early age and continue to offend as they
get older. Research has provided empirical evidence for Moffitt’s theory. Farrington
et al (2006) in the Cambridge Study found that 91% with a first conviction aged
between 10 and 13 years had been reconvicted and had a higher number of
convictions than those who were first convicted at later age. Aalsma and Lapsley
4
MSc AFP
Y1793579
(2001) collected data on 174 adolescents, identifying three groups of offenders: welladjusted, internalizing and externalizing. They found that the externalizing group
were engaged in more problem behaviours than the other groups.
Farrington (2001) in the Cambridge study found that what he termed as “persisters”,
individuals convicted both before and after the age of 21 years, had a tendency to be
significantly more deviant on a measure of adult social dysfunction at age 32, than
those who were only convicted before the age of 21 but not after (“desisters”). The
measure of adult social dysfunction included assessing elements of physical fighting,
substance abuse and psychiatric disorder. This study also found that the “persisters”,
whilst only making up 6% of the sample, were responsible for committing over half
of the offences recorded by the researchers. This would suggest that “persisters” have
a tendency to offend chronically. A later review of the Cambridge Study (Farrington
et al, 2006) found that on average “conviction careers” of these offenders lasted from
the ages of 14 to 35 years.
Researchers also refer to distinctions between offenders who commit “serious” crimes
and those who commit less serious crimes. Farrington and Loeber (1998) define
serious violent offences as including: murder, rape, assault, kidnapping and robbery.
They define serious non-violent offending as including: burglary, vehicle theft, theft
over £100, fraud, arson and drug trafficking. According to Farrington and Loeber,
committing one or more of these crimes allows an offender to be classified as a
“serious” offender. In a parallel to the “life-course persistent” classification, they
describe serious offenders as starting their offending at an early age and continuing
into later life.
The potential of distinguishing between “persisters” and “desisters” and the
seriousness of their adolescent offending is not yet clear due to a lack of research.
5
MSc AFP
Y1793579
There is some research that provides support that the small proportion of juvenile
offenders who are “persisters” also have a tendency to commit more serious violent
and non-violent offences in adolescence. Clingempeel and Henggeler (2003)
conducted research into factors that distinguish between “persisters” and “desisters”.
They assessed offenders who had committed one or more aggressive crime as
adolescents and then again five years later as they reached early adulthood. They
found that during adolescence, “persisters” committed more aggressive acts and
property crimes and behaved less positively with their peers.
It would appear that, although the majority of juvenile offenders are likely to desist in
early adulthood, there is a minority who will continue to persist in committing
offences well into later life. The evidence suggests that these juvenile offenders are
chronic offenders who commit more serious violent and non-violent offences and
continue in adulthood. This lends support to the case for interventions that can
effectively reduce juvenile offending behaviour.
There is a long history in the UK of attempts to reduce re-offending in convicted
juvenile offenders. The Youthful Offenders Act 1854 focussed on the aim of
reforming children who committed crime through the development of reformatories
and industrial schools as an alternative to punishment (Newburn, 1997). Following
this the borstal system was founded in 1908 with the aim of educating and
disciplining children in order to reform them (Newburn, 1997). Hollin (2001) refers to
interest in the application of psychological theories to identify causes of criminal
behaviour and develop interventions to address these dating back to the 1920’s.
Practitioners applying psychoanalytic approaches and operant learning theory, were
the predominant methods used in juvenile custodial settings until the 1970’s (Hollin,
2001).
6
MSc AFP
Y1793579
During the 1970’s an influential study by Martinson (1974) shifted the thinking about
interventions with offenders, including juveniles. He analysed the effectiveness of the
interventions that were being used with offenders at the time and concluded that there
was no real evidence that they worked in reducing re-offending. This work was very
influential in an assumption being adopted for a number of years that “nothing works”
in offender rehabilitation. A number of other researchers in the field criticised
Martinson’s work. Gendreau and Ross (1980) and McGuire and Priestley (1985)
compiled lists of interventions with offenders that had achieved positive outcomes
and others questioned the methodology used in the study. Martinson (1979) later
revised the conclusions that had been drawn from his original work. The debate
prompted by the “nothing works” doctrine resulted in a thorough re-evaluation of
what actually did work in offender rehabilitation.
In recent years adult offending behaviour has been addressed in custodial and
community settings with interventions based on the “What Works” principles
(McGuire, 1995). These principles were identified following the use of meta-analysis
on research since the 1980’s to determine which interventions worked with which
offenders. In meta-analysis, researchers treat studies as individual data points which
allows for the identification of overall trends and the distinguishing factors between
successful and unsuccessful interventions. McGuire (1995) determined that whilst an
all-encompassing approach was not apparent, based on meta-analyses by Andrews et
al (1990) and Lipsey (1993), that there were a number of principles adopted by
interventions in their design and delivery that appeared to improve their levels of
success. McGuire described these principles as: risk classification, criminogenic
needs, responsivity, community base, treatment modality and programme integrity.
7
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Risk classification involves matching the level of risk with the level of intervention;
the higher the risk, the more intensive the intervention. Criminogenic needs should be
a focus of the goals of an intervention designed to reduce re-offending (Andrews and
Bonta, 1994). Effective programmes have a responsive delivery style which is
matched to the learning styles of offenders. Community based programmes have
greater success rates. With regard to treatment modality; effective programmes were
multimodal, skills oriented and based on a cognitive-behavioural approach (Lipsey,
1992). Programme integrity ensures effective programmes when the aims are linked
to the methods used, for example, staff are trained and supported and the programme
is monitored and evaluated, with adequate resources to do this (Hollin, 1995).
McGuire (2000) made an estimate of a reduction in recidivism of about 10% as being
the impact of delivering interventions based on the “What Works” principles. Prison
and probation services have adopted these principles in order to design and deliver
offending behaviour group work programmes. These include the ETS (Enhanced
Thinking Skills) programme which will be discussed in detail later.
There are a number of meta-analyses that have focused on studies involving
interventions designed to address juvenile offending to identify “what works” with
this age group. Garrett (1985) analysed 111 papers based on work with over 13,000
imprisoned young offenders. She found that treatment had an overall significant effect
on re-offending. In contrast, Whitehead and Lab (1989) reported predominately
negative findings of the effect of treatment on reconviction rates. They considered 50
interventions that took place between 1975 and 1984. However, their results have
been called into question, as 60% of the studies in the analysis were diversion projects
that often lacked any intervention to address offending behaviour (Vennard, Sugg and
Hedderman, 1997). Also, McGuire and Priestley (1995) criticised Whitehead and Lab
8
MSc AFP
Y1793579
for their use of a too stringent benchmark for success: they considered all treatments
with an effect size of less than 0.2 as ineffective. When Andrews et al (1990)
conducted a re-analysis of the data for appropriateness of treatment to levels of risk,
need and responsivity the results were more positive. They found that in these terms
the interventions reduced reconviction rates by an average of 50%.
Lipsey (1992) followed Andrews et al’s work with a much larger meta-analysis that
lent support to their more positive results. Lipsey conducted a meta-analysis of 397
studies with over 40,000 young offenders aged between 12 and 21 years. He found
that out of these studies, 64.5% showed treatment had a positive effect in reducing
recidivism and revealed an overall reduction in reconviction of between 10% and
12%. This relatively low level of success is open to criticism. However, Losel (1993)
has argued that many medical interventions such as heart bypass surgery show no
greater effect size in meta-analysis.
Meta-analysis has also provided evidence that the success of an intervention is
influenced by its treatment characteristics. Wasserman and Miller (1998) identified
some important features for effective interventions in juvenile offending. These
include being age appropriate by incorporating a focus on peer relationships and a
family component. They suggest that without family involvement anti-social
behaviour is likely to be maintained and reinforced through lack of consistent rules,
insufficient monitoring and excessive use of physical punishment.
McGuire (1995) found that community based interventions had the greatest effect on
reducing re-offending. However, Lipsey (1992) found that regardless of location,
programmes that were based on cognitive-behavioural approaches, multi-modal and
skills based had the greatest effect. In contrast, deterrence or counselling based
interventions had a low or negative effect. The effectiveness of interventions that
9
MSc AFP
Y1793579
include a cognitive component has also been supported in international research. Izzo
and Ross (1990) investigated 46 studies on interventions for juvenile offenders and
they found that programmes with a cognitive component were twice as effective as
those that did not incorporate this. Lösel (1995) reviewed 13 meta-analyses of
intervention studies between 1985 and 1995 which included programmes with
juvenile offenders and found an overall average effect size of 0.10 for custodial
treatment programmes.
Lipsey and Wilson (1998) went on to conduct a systematic review about the elements
for an effective intervention in different settings with particularly serious younger
offenders. They considered 200 studies with males mostly aged between 14 and 17
years, comparing institutionalised with non-institutionalised young people. They
found that the most positive effects for interventions with both groups included those
with interpersonal skills, multiple services and behavioural elements. The
effectiveness of the custody based interventions was increased when they were of a
longer duration, had a high level of monitoring or it was a well-established
programme. For the non-institutionalised group of young people duration of the
programme was also a factor but interventions were more effective with fewer contact
hours.
These reviews provide evidence for the use of cognitive-behavioural approaches,
different interventions being suited to different settings, that custody based
interventions can be effective and that there are key features necessary to increase the
effectiveness of interventions with juvenile offenders. The most effective
interventions follow methods and take account of criteria as described by McGuire
(2002). The methods include: interpersonal and cognitive skills training, closely
matched mentoring of young people and mentors on key background variables,
10
MSc AFP
Y1793579
behavioural interventions such as modelling, graduated practice and role-playing,
structured individual counselling and teaching family homes which involves specially
trained staff acting in a parental role (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998). Criteria for effective
interventions includes: being responsive in the delivery and content of the
programme, focussing on dynamic risk factors, making links to other services and
matching programme intensity with level of risk of offenders.
A number of interventions for juvenile offenders have been designed over the past
few years that have attempted to adopt the conclusions made from the “what works”
research. The use of social skills training has been successful with young offenders,
this has included methods such as guided group discussion and modelling (Sarason,
1978). However, there appeared to be little long-term impact on offending behaviour
(Hollin and Henderson, 1984).
There has also been some success in the use of moral reasoning training to produce
changes in juvenile offenders (Arbuthnot and Gordon, 1986). The Moral Reconation
Therapy (MRT) (Little and Robinson, 1988) programme has been used with young
offenders aged between 15 and 22 years. MRT adopts a systematic approach for
treatment resistant clients. It is based on a simplified personality theory with the aim
of increasing offenders’ moral development using a cognitive-behavioural approach.
However, the success of the programme being implemented in real-world settings has
not shown the same success as the demonstration projects (Armstrong, 2003).
Interventions producing more encouraging results have included those which address
risk factors relating to a number of contexts that the young person functions in
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). These programmes have worked not just with the young
offenders but also with their peer groups and family. Multisystemic Therapy (MST)
(Hennggeler and Borduin, 1990) is an example of this style of intervention. MST is
11
MSc AFP
Y1793579
based on the idea that juvenile criminal behaviour is determined by a number of
factors; including family, peer, social, educational and individual elements. A
therapist provides about four months intervention to the young offender and their
family which involves educational assistance in both home and school, parental
empowerment and family preservation and targeted intervention on the young
offenders peer group membership (or gang) (Hennggeler, Melton and Smith, 1992).
Bourduin et al (1995) conducted a controlled study into the long-term effects of MST
when compared to individual counselling. They compared 92 MST treated families
with 84 families where the young offender received individual counselling and after a
four year follow-up period they found that only 22% of the MST group had been
rearrested compared to 71% of the individual counselling group. However, this level
of success has not yet been replicated in other studies.
Another programme that also targets a young offender’s family and peer groups is
Aggression Replacement Training (ART), which as the name suggests, focuses on the
apparent lack of social skills found in young people who are delinquent or aggressive
(Goldstein and Glick, 1996). A participant’s sibling or parent can also take part in the
programme. ART comprises of both cognitive and behavioural methods used to assist
in training of social skills, anger control and moral education. The training has been
used successfully with gang members (Goldstein, Glick, Carthan and Blancero, 1994)
with only 13% of the ART group being re-arrested compared to 52% of the control
group.
Offending behaviour programmes based on “what works” principles, which were
designed for adult offenders and have shown some success in reducing re-offending,
have also been delivered to juvenile offenders in the UK.
12
MSc AFP
Y1793579
The R&R (Reasoning and Rehabilitation) programme is a cognitive skills training
intervention originally developed for adult offenders by Ross and Fabiano (1985). The
intervention focuses on increasing cognitive skills including: problem solving,
rational and logical thinking, assessment of consequences, development of selfregulation, perspective taking and planning. It was originally delivered in Canadian
probation and correctional services and has been adopted by several other countries,
including the UK. It has been successful in significantly reducing reconvictions in
adult offenders (Robinson, 1995). Although it has been delivered to juvenile offenders
in the UK, there are few studies into R&R’s effectiveness with this age group and
these have provided mixed results and followed less rigorous methodologies than
adult studies. Mitchell and Palmer (2004) found a small reduction in re-offending
rates for juvenile offenders who completed the programme when compared to
matched controls, but this difference was not significant. The R&R programme is no
longer delivered to offenders in UK prison and probation services as it has been
replaced by the ETS (Enhanced Thinking Skills) programme.
The ETS (Enhanced Thinking Skills) programme was developed by the prison service
to address offending behaviour. The aim of the ETS programme is similar to the R&R
programme. It aims to increase the cognitive skills of offenders in order to reduce
cognitive deficits that lead to an inability for them to reach their goals in pro-social
ways. The target group for ETS are medium to high risk offenders and the developers
refer to the research conducted by Robinson (1995) who found that cognitive skills
programmes showed the best results with violent, sexual and drug abusing offenders.
The ETS programme is accredited by the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel,
formerly the Joint Prison/Probation Service Accreditation Panel.
13
MSc AFP
Y1793579
The ETS programme was developed with reference to the “what works” principles
(McGuire, 1995) using a cognitive-behavioural approach to address six key cognitive
deficits. These deficits are: interpersonal problem solving, cognitive style, selfcontrol, perspective taking, critical reasoning and moral reasoning. The programme
consists of 20 sessions of two hours duration. These sessions are supported with
homework tasks. The sessions are designed with reference to the “what works”
principles to be responsive and skills-oriented by using techniques including: skills
practices, relevant examples for illustration and use of discussions and games to
ensure learning is interactive.
There have now been three large scale evaluation studies to investigate the impact of
the ETS and R&R programmes delivered by the prison service in England and Wales.
The first, that considered reconviction data for adult male offenders, was conducted
by Friendship, Blud, Erikson and Travers (2002). They compared 670 adult male
offenders who completed either ETS or R&R between 1992 and 1996, with a matched
group of 1801 adult male offenders on two year reconviction rates. The researchers
separated the groups into four risk categories: low, medium-low, medium-high and
high. The results showed that the levels of reconviction were lower for programme
completers in all risk categories. However, the results were only significant for the
medium-low category who had a 14% points reduction and for the medium-high
category who had an 11% points reduction when compared to the matched group.
The second evaluation was conducted by Falshaw, Friendship, Travers and Nugent
(2003). They compared 649 adult male offenders who completed either ETS or R&R
between 1996 and 1998 with a matched control group. They found no significant
reduction in reconviction rates for any condition.
14
MSc AFP
Y1793579
The third evaluation was conducted by Cann, Falshaw, Nugent and Friendship (2003).
They compared 2195 adult males and 1534 young offenders who completed either
ETS or R&R between 1998 and 2000 with matched control groups. They found no
significant difference in reconviction rates between the group after both one and two
years of release. A significant reduction was found for one year reconviction rates
when non-completers were excluded from the data, but this effect was not present for
two year reconviction rates.
The ETS programme has been delivered to juvenile offenders in England and Wales,
however they were not included in any of these large scale evaluations and there is no
reconviction data for this age group. All of these evaluation studies are based on
reconviction rates. This type of research makes an assumption that all offenders will
respond in the same way to treatment. There is some evidence of the ETS
programme’s impact with juvenile offenders with regard to psychometric data.
Nugent and Birks (2000) considered psychometric data for 203 juvenile offenders
(aged 15 – 17 years old), 1818 young offenders (aged 18 – 21 years old) and 6281
adult offenders. They found that the juvenile offenders had higher pre-course levels of
risk and need, for example they had more previous convictions and they had higher
levels of egocentricity. In a comparison of the post-course levels; the juvenile
offenders had made similar improvements to levels of risk and need as the young
offenders, yet this was significantly less than the adult offenders. 21% of juvenile
offenders had worse post-course scores as compared to 14% of adult offenders. These
results indicate that whilst juvenile offenders were identified as having the highest
risk and need for the ETS programme, they actually improved the least.
These research results for the ETS programme’s impact on juvenile offenders,
alongside similar disappointing results for the R&R programme (Mitchell and Palmer,
15
MSc AFP
Y1793579
2004) appear to indicate that these interventions are not appropriate to make the
greatest impact on reducing re-offending in this age group. Andrews et al (1990)
meta-analysis research provided evidence for the positive impact on reducing reoffending of treatment that took account of the three key principles of risk, need and
responsivity. It is apparent that juvenile offenders’ levels of risk and need are
appropriate for the ETS programme (Nugent and Birks, 2000).
Nichols (2000) conducted a research project into how well the ETS and R&R
programmes were meeting the responsivity needs for both juvenile and young
offenders. The responsivity principle relates to how the style of delivery and material
is relevant for the ability and learning styles of the treatment participants. Nichols
developed a semi-structured interview to collect responses from the programmes’
tutors and treatment managers about what they thought worked well, least well and
changes that could improve responsivity for these offenders. In relation to the
responses for improving responsivity with juvenile offenders a number of changes
were suggested. These included: more relevant and flexible material with more
humour and fun, improving understanding through appropriate language to help
address low educational abilities, shorter sessions and exercises to help address
attention and concentration difficulties, more concrete material and relevant
examples, increased pace of delivery and interactive exercises and individual support
sessions, better selection of appropriate participants and improved tutor skills, with
increased awareness of adolescence and behaviour management.
The JETS programme was developed by Nichols and Mitchell (2004) in response to
the research evidence presented above. They used the ETS programme as a basis for
the JETS programme, as they argue that although recent research findings have been
disappointing, ETS is based on the “what works” principles for effective interventions
16
MSc AFP
Y1793579
(McGuire, 1995). They also refer to the findings of Lipsey and Wilson (1998) that
custodial based interventions showed higher success if they were based on wellestablished programmes. ETS has now been delivered for several years in prisons in
England and Wales. Like ETS, JETS uses a cognitive-behavioural approach to
address six key cognitive deficits. These deficits are: interpersonal problem solving,
cognitive style, self-control, perspective taking, critical reasoning and moral
reasoning. The JETS programme has been developed taking into account the criteria
for effective interventions with juvenile offenders (McGuire, 2002). Nichols and
Mitchell (2004) also refer to the incorporation of elements in response to the
responsivity research project (Nichols, 2000).
The JETS programme comprises of 25 sessions that two hours in duration and these
are either adapted from ETS or have been newly designed to be more responsive to
the target group of juvenile offenders aged between 15 and 18 years.
Nichols and Mitchell (2004) state that they have designed JETS sessions to be more
responsive to the juvenile age group, which is key to addressing the cognitive deficits
effectively. In order to increase the levels of understanding for participants; the
language and material used in sessions has been simplified, the individual sessions are
used to review sessions to ensure that individuals with low educational ability do not
fall behind and workbooks for the completion of work outside sessions have been
designed using colourful images and require minimal writing to complete
assignments. The individual sessions are also used to relate skills to real life examples
and problems with a greater level of tutor assistance in response to the more concrete
thinking in juveniles. In order to avoid too much repetition; the reviews at the start of
sessions have been designed to be minimal and homework reviews are completed in
individual sessions so that continuity and links are still made. Also the presentational
17
MSc AFP
Y1793579
structure of social skills and moral reasoning sessions, that follow the same structure
in the ETS programme, has been varied to avoid repetition. Each session varies in the
way that skills are introduced and different exercises are used to teach the skills.
The JETS sessions were designed to be more responsive to take account of the active
learning styles of juveniles and the importance of recognition of achievement
(McGuire, 2002). Nichols and Mitchell (2004) state that this was achieved through an
increase in the number and frequency of games and competitions, including the use of
ice-breaker exercises at the start of sessions to ensure immediate engagement of
participants. The use of certificates and prizes following completion of homework and
winning competitions also contributes to the element of recognition of achievement.
Nichols and Mitchell (2004) also state that they have made a number of adaptations to
sessions to ensure that the sessions remain relatively stress free. Adolescents can feel
threatened when asked to complete tasks in front of their peer group. To address this,
strategies such as graduating their involvement in social skills practices have been
adopted. Also there is an increase in the amount of visual material presented in
sessions to reduce the feelings of stress for participants with poor literacy skills.
Nichols and Mitchell (2004) argue that these changes will also assist in group control
and management of group behaviour. They state that they have incorporated additions
to tutor training in order to ensure a more responsive delivery of changes described
above. They refer to additional training requirements for tutors including;
motivational interviewing, group control and management and attending an
adolescence awareness course. This course is designed to increase the awareness and
knowledge of staff in key areas that impact on the juvenile offender age group,
including adolescence, child protection and substance misuse.
18
MSc AFP
Y1793579
The JETS programme selection process incorporates different elements to the ETS
programme. Nichols and Mitchell (2004) refer to the relevance of these changes with
regards to research evidence for effective programmes with juvenile offenders. The
removal of the consideration of offence type in the selection process is made with
reference to the systematic review conducted by Lipsey and Wilson (1998). They
found no relationship between prior or current offence type and treatment effects for
institutionalised juvenile offenders. The introduction of motivation as a selection
criteria is argued by Nichols and Mitchell (2004) as relevant for a number of reasons
including; evidence of high dropout rates in young offenders (Cann, Falshaw, Nugent
and Friendship, 2003), evidence of a higher risk of offending for dropouts (Robinson,
1995) and experience that low motivation can disrupt learning for the individual and
the group.
Group composition for the JETS programme includes differences in group size and
age range. Nichols and Mitchell (2004) refer to recommendations made by Merrell
and Gimpel (1998) about adolescent groups. They recommend that the optimal group
size for this age group is between three and eight and that the age range of the group
should vary no more than three years. Therefore, JETS groups consist of eight
participants aged between 15 and 18 years old.
Nichols and Mitchell (2004) have made a number of additions to the JETS
programme from the basis of the ETS programme again with reference to research
evidence. They have included a number of individual sessions designed to run
alongside and support the group sessions. They state that these sessions provide a safe
context away from the group setting to aid understanding and generalisation of skills
and that they offer individually tailored support for learning. Nichols and Mitchell
(2004) refer to evidence for the inclusion of these sessions from McGuire (2002) that
19
MSc AFP
Y1793579
a mix of individual and group methods is best practice with juveniles, and from
Lipsey and Wilson (1998) that structured individual counselling in a problem solving
framework is effective in reducing re-offending.
To complement the individual sessions Nichols and Mitchell (2004) have included a
workbook for participants to complete homework assignments outside sessions. It is
designed to help participants reinforce and generalise learning points. They also point
to the benefits of the workbook encouraging reflection and practice outside the group
sessions and how it acts as a record of achievement as shown as important in research
evidence (McGuire, 2002).
Nichols and Mitchell (2004) have also included elements of family support and
mentoring used in a structured way to support learning. This is based on evidence
from other programmes such as MST (Hennggeler and Borduin, 1990) which
demonstrated success with the inclusion of these elements. Also McGuire (2002)
referred to the increase in effectiveness of programmes which use closely matched
mentoring and teaching family homes.
It is apparent from the elements in design and delivery outlined above that the JETS
programme has been developed to incorporate a number of factors highlighted in
research to provide a more effective intervention in reducing re-offending in the
juvenile age group. The JETS programme has been delivered to juvenile offenders in
establishments in England since 2004. There has so far been one small study to
explore the effectiveness of the programme. Falgate (2007, unpublished) investigated
the level of clinically significant change (Jacobson and Truax, 1991) shown for eight
JETS participants on the deficits measured by psychometric tests administered pre
and post programme. She found that some participants moved in the desired direction,
crossed the cut-off between the dysfunctional groups and showed a clinically
20
MSc AFP
Y1793579
significant change in the deficits of empathy and locus of control. Falgate also found
that participants moved in the desired direction for the deficits of impulsivity and
venturesomeness, although this movement did not cross the cut-off between groups
and it was not a clinically significant change. These results show some positive
impact of the JETS programme in addressing the cognitive deficits measured by the
psychometric tests.
The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of the JETS programme in
addressing cognitive deficits. JETS participants who complete the programme will be
compared with a control group on pre and post programme measures. The deficits
measured will be moral reasoning, locus of control, impulsivity, venturesomeness,
empathy, social anxiety, social self-esteem and malevolent aggression. The JETS
group will also be compared to the control group for behaviour levels before, during
and after the programme. This will be measured by comparing numbers of Governor’s
adjudications and level attained on the Incentive and Earned Privilege scheme.
Hypotheses:
1)
Juvenile offenders who have attended the JETS programme will display
different levels of moral reasoning, locus of control, impulsivity, venturesomeness,
empathy, social anxiety, social self-esteem and malevolent aggression than before the
programme.
2)
Juvenile offenders who have attended the JETS programme will display
different levels of moral reasoning, locus of control, impulsivity, venturesomeness,
empathy, social anxiety, social self-esteem and malevolent aggression than juvenile
offenders who have not attended the JETS programme.
21
MSc AFP
3)
Y1793579
Juvenile offenders who have attended the JETS programme will display more
positive levels of behaviour than juvenile offenders who have not attended the JETS
programme.
22
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Method
Design
The current study uses both a between subjects and a within subject design as there
are two groups being tested on the same psychometrics and their scores compared
before and after the JETS programme. The independent variables are the juvenile
offenders who attend the JETS programme and a control group of juvenile offenders
who have not attended the JETS programme. The dependent variables are the
cognitive deficits measured by the psychometric tests and the levels of behaviour
assessed by the behavioural measures.
Participants
The participants in this study are 47 male juvenile offenders imprisoned in HMYOI
Wetherby between 2005 and 2006. HMYOI Wetherby houses approximately 360
remanded and convicted offenders aged between 15 and 18 years. The sentence
lengths served in this establishment range between four months and life. Index
offences of offenders in HMYOI Wetherby include: burglary, robbery, vehicle
offences, murder, sexual offences and grevious bodily harm. The participants in this
study were all convicted and sentenced offenders. All 32 JETS group participants
responded to all the pre and post programme questionnaires. There was a lower
response rate for the control group, only 15 participants completed both the pre and
post programme questionnaires.
23
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Table 1: JETS group participants
Participant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Age
17
18
17
17
17
18
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
17
17
16
16
17
16
16
16
18
17
16
18
17
17
17
18
18
17
16
Ethnic Origin
White British
Black Caribbean
White British
Asian Pakistani
White British
White British
White Irish
White British
White British
Black Other
White British
White British
White British
White British
White British
White British
Black Other
White British
White British
White British
White British
White British
White British
White British
White British
White British
White British
White British
Black Caribbean
White British
White British
White British
Offence
Grievous Bodily Harm
Supply Drugs
Robbery
Robbery
Theft
Robbery
Robbery
Actual Bodily Harm
Robbery
Attempted Burglary
Grievous Bodily Harm
Robbery
Robbery
Assault
Robbery
Arson
Burglary
Burglary
Burglary
Burglary
Escape
Theft
Robbery
Robbery
Burglary with intent to rape
Robbery
Grievous Bodily Harm
Indecent Assault
Burglary
Grievous Bodily Harm
Burglary
Grievous Bodily Harm
Sentence Length
4 years
1 year
2 years 3 months
1 year 6 months
1 year
2 years
1 year 6 months
1 year 6 months
3 years
1 year 6 months
3 years 6 months
3 years
1 year 8 months
10 months
1 year 6 months
3 years
1 year
1 year
1 year
1 year 6 months
1 year 6 months
1 year
1 year 6 months
1 year 6 months
6 years
3 years
2 years
3 years 6 months
1 year
1 year 6 months
2 years
1 year
24
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Table 2: Control group participants
Participant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Age
17
16
16
15
17
16
17
17
17
18
18
17
17
17
16
Ethnic Origin
White British
Black Other
White British
White British
White British
White British
White British
Black African
Asian Other
White British
White British
White British
White British
Black Caribbean
White British
Offence
Actual Bodily Harm
Grievous Bodily Harm
Burglary
Breach of Supervision Order
Criminal Damage
Grievous Bodily Harm
Burglary
Supply Drugs
Robbery
Robbery
Actual Bodily Harm
Supply Drugs
Robbery
Burglary
Robbery
Sentence Length
1 year 6 months
1 year 6 months
1 year
2 years
1 year
2 years
1 year
1 year 6 months
2 years
1 year 6 months
1 year 6 months
3 years
3 years 6 months
2 years
1 year
Recruitment and Selection of Participants
The participants were all referred and assessed to be suitable to participate in the
JETS programme. Risk was assessed by the ASSET juvenile offender management
system. This is an IT based structured assessment tool developed by the Youth Justice
Board (2003). There are 16 areas relating to different areas of risk and need, each is
rated on a scale of zero – four in terms of association with re-offending. A score of
zero represents an assessment of no association and a score of four indicates a strong
association. JETS developers (Nichols and Mitchell, 2004) outline the key areas that
directly reflect the treatment targets of the programme as being lifestyle, perception of
self and others, thinking and behaviour, motivation to change and attitudes to
offending. Offenders scoring highly on these areas are referred to be assessed for the
JETS programme.
Need and motivation were assessed with the Cognitive Skills Semi-Structured
Interview (Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit and Pathfinder Projects, 2000).
This interview is designed to measure the level of the six cognitive deficits
25
MSc AFP
Y1793579
(interpersonal problem solving, self control, social perspective taking, cognitive style,
moral reasoning and critical reasoning) to assess for need. It is also designed to
measure for motivation to participate in the programme and to change. JETS tutors
are given guidance in conducting the interview and applying the scale to the
responses. The interview uses a five point scale to measure these dimensions, ranging
from a score of one denoting poor skills, to a score of three denoting average skills
and a score of five denoting excellent skills. All participants were assessed to meet the
need criteria with scores of three or below in at least five of the cognitive deficit
dimensions. Participants with higher levels of motivation to participate in the
programme and to change (a score of three and over) were placed in the JETS group
to complete the programme, participants with lower levels of motivation to participate
in the programme and to change (a score under three) were placed in the control
group.
It is acknowledged that the use of motivation as a criterion to distinguish between the
JETS group and the control group is problematic. This establishes a key difference
between the groups before any intervention has taken place. It is recognised that a
Randomised Control Trial (RCT) provides the most thorough and vigorous method
for conducting research that involves a control group and a treatment group. However,
the use of an RCT in this study was not possible within the guidelines for participant
selection and due to operational constraints at HMYOI Wetherby. Therefore, the
Cognitive Skills Semi-structured Interview (Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit
and Pathfinder Projects, 2000) was used to control for motivation. This has resulted in
a control group who are less motivated than the JETS group. As the Cognitive Skills
Semi-structured Interview measures participants’ level of motivation, a correlation
26
MSc AFP
Y1793579
between these motivation scores and the difference scores pre and post programme for
the measures will be used to determine if motivation has an impact on performance.
Measures
Psychometric tests were used to assess the dependent variables. These are:
Modified Junior Impulsivity Scale – I6 (junior) (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1980)
This is a 77 item questionnaire developed by Eysenck and Eysenck (1980) to measure
impulsivity, venturesomeness and empathy in children. Subjects are asked to give yes
or no responses to questions related to these areas. These responses are then scored to
provide a level of impulsivity, venturesomeness and empathy. The reliabilities for the
scale were derived from a sample of 633 British school boys aged 11.88 +/- 1.96. The
reliabilities were 0.74 for impulsiveness, 0.80 for venturesomeness and 0.70 for
empathy, and are considered satisfactory (Eysenck, Easting and Pearson, 1983).
Emotional Behavioural Scale (EBS) (Clarbour and Roger, 2004)
This is a 65 item questionnaire originally developed by Clarbour and Roger (2000) to
measure adolescent emotional behaviour comprising three sub-scales of social
anxiety, malevolent aggression and social self-esteem. Subjects are asked to respond
with either “more like me” or “less like me” to statements related to these areas.
These responses are then scored to provide a level of social anxiety, malevolent
aggression and social self-esteem. A sample of 609 adolescents aged between 11 and
14 years old derived internal consistency coefficients of 0.84 for social anxiety, 0.83
for malevolent aggression and 0.79 for social self-esteem, and these were considered
substantial and satisfactory (Clarbour and Roger, 2004). An independent sample of
175 Year Seven pupils was used to assess for test-retest reliability. The coefficients
were 0.76 for social anxiety, 0.73 for malevolent aggression and 0.79 for social self-
27
MSc AFP
Y1793579
esteem and again these were considered substantial and satisfactory (Clarbour and
Roger, 2004).
Locus of Control Scale for Children (LCSC) (Nowicki and Strickland, 1973)
The LCSC was designed to measure locus of control in children (Nowicki and
Strickland, 1973). It is a 40 item questionnaire that provides a single, dimensional
score of the degree of internal or external locus of control. An internal locus of control
is present when an individual believes their behaviour is under the control of the self
whereas an external locus of control is present when an individual believes that
consequences of behaviour are due to luck and chance (Sylva and Stevenson, 1997).
The reliabilities of the scale were taken from the original standardised sample of 1017
children from 9 – 18 years of age (Nowicki and Strickland, 1973). The internal
consistency of the scale was estimated using split half reliabilities for 15-17 year olds
(r=0.74) and test-retest reliability for 16 year olds (r=0.71).
Sociomoral Reflection Measure – Short Form (SRM-SF) (Gibbs, Basinger and
Fuller, 1992).
This is an 11 item measure developed by Gibbs, et al. (1992) to measure moral
reasoning. Subjects are asked to give explanations relating to areas that may be
important to them. These responses are then scored as to which stage of moral
reasoning they reflect. Gibbs, et al (1992) define four stages of moral reasoning, with
stages one and two being classed as ‘immature’ and stages three and four as ‘mature’.
This measure evidences acceptable levels of test-retest reliability (r = 0.88) and
internal consistency (r = 0.92). The measure also achieves acceptable concurrent
validity (r = 0.69).
28
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Behavioural Measures
The participants are also being compared by measuring behaviour in the
establishment before, during and after the treatment programme. Governor’s
adjudications are awarded for a breach of prison rules. The Incentive and Earned
Privilege (IEP) scheme is designed to reward prisoners for consistent good behaviour
and enforce sanctions for consistent poor behaviour. It is a three tier scheme where
the middle tier (named silver level at HMYOI Wetherby) is considered appropriate for
consistent acceptable levels of behaviour. The top tier (named gold level at HMYOI
Wetherby) is considered appropriate for consistent good levels of behaviour. The
bottom tier (named red level at HMYOI Wetherby) is considered appropriate for
consistent poor levels of behaviour.
The number of Governor’s adjudications was determined for each participant in the
six weeks before, the six weeks during and the six weeks after the programme. The
IEP level was determined for each participant on the programme start date,
programme end date and the date six weeks following the programme end date.
Statistical Analyses
As level of motivation was the distinguishing factor that determined whether
participants were placed in the JETS or control group, a Pearson’s correlation
coefficient will be used to measure for any linear relationships that exist between the
difference scores for each measure and the motivation scores.
As an analysis of both repeated measures and between subjects is required and in
order to reduce the probability of Type 1 errors, a mixed analysis of variance
(ANOVA) will be used to measure for any significant differences between and within
the groups on the pre and post programme scores. If any significant differences are
29
MSc AFP
Y1793579
found between the groups then a t-test will be used to determine where these
differences lay, pre or post programme.
The sign test will be used to measure for any significant differences between the
behaviour levels over the course of the intervention for both the control group and the
JETS group.
Procedure
Following selection to either the JETS programme group or the control group, written
consent was gained from participants to take part in the study. The participants were
given a consent form, which was also read out to them by the administrator, to
account for any literacy problems. Participants were informed that participation in the
study was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any time. (A copy
of the form can be found in appendix A). If participants agreed to take part in the
study, they were asked to sign the consent form.
The psychometric tests were administered to each participant on an individual basis.
They were administered in the week before the programme start date and then again
in the week immediately following the programme completion date. Participants were
given a copy of each of the psychometric tests and the instructions were read out for
each one in turn. The participants were encouraged to express any difficulty in
understanding a question, and the administrator would then further explain the
question. Once all the psychometrics had been completed, the participants were asked
if they had any further questions and then they were thanked for taking part.
30
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Results
Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to measure for any linear relationships that
exist between the difference scores from pre to post programme for each measure and
the motivation scores for all participants in the study. The assumptions for
homogeneity of variance and normal distribution were met.
Table 1: Results from the Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
Measure
Malevolent Aggression
r
p value 1
.46
.171
Social Anxiety
-.142
.379
Social Self-Esteem
.195
.094
Moral Reasoning
.087
.280
Locus of Control
-.079
.298
Empathy
.006
.484
Venturesomeness
-.099
.254
Impulsivity
-.094
.264
The results in Table 1 show that there was no significant relationship between the
difference in scores for any measure and the level of motivation. Therefore, it is likely
that the selection criteria for motivation did not have an impact on the treatment
effect.
1
Significance level p < .05
31
MSc AFP
Y1793579
A mixed analysis of variance was carried out on the data. The assumption of
homogeneity was met. The assumption of normal distribution was met for all sets of
data except for social self-esteem and moral reasoning. For social self-esteem, a
square root transformation was conducted to address a negative skew in the
distribution. For moral reasoning, two outliers were removed from the analysis, due to
the responses given by these participants in post-programme questionnaires being
minimal in nature and relevance. It was decided appropriate for these participants to
be excluded from the moral reasoning data.
Table 2. Mean scores (and standard deviations) pre and post treatment of the
JETS group and the control group.
Measure
Pre-programme
Control
JETS
Post-programme
Control
JETS
Malevolent Aggression
11.73 (3.95)
8.38 (4.96)
12.07 (4.98)
9.16 (4.62)
Social Anxiety
9.53 (4.82)
12.78 (5.09)
10.67 (6.32)
11.53 (4.61)
Social Self-Esteem
1.91 (.629)
1.67 (.685)
1.83 (1.068)
1.56 (.730)
Moral Reasoning
1.62 (.28)
1.81 (.31)
1.66 (.24)
2.09 (.31)
Locus of Control
15.87 (4.24)
12.75 (3.36)
16 (4.74)
12.66 (4.89)
Empathy
14.33 (4.47)
16.13 (3.78)
14.73 (5.01)
15.38 (4.32)
Venturesomeness
16.07 (3.28)
18.44 (3.72)
18.07 (3.24)
18.13 (4.76)
Impulsivity
13.87 (4.36)
14.19 (5.25)
14.67 (4.88)
13.72 (5.27)
The descriptive statistics in Table 2 show that the JETS group moved in the desired
direction of an increase in scores for the measures of social self-esteem and moral
reasoning. The JETS group moved in the desired direction of a decrease in scores for
the measures of social anxiety, locus of control, venturesomeness and impulsivity.
32
MSc AFP
Y1793579
The JETS group did not move in the desired direction for malevolent aggression and
empathy. The control group did not move in the desired direction for all measures
except for moral reasoning and empathy.
Table 3. Results from the mixed analysis of variance
Measure
Repeated measures
F
p value2
Between-subjects
F
p value2
Malevolent Aggression
.121
.730
5.608
.022*
Social Anxiety
2.183
.146
2.22
.143
Social Self-Esteem
.021
.884
1.524
.223
Moral Reasoning
3.587
.067
12.819
.001*
Locus of Control
.028
.869
7.818
.008*
Empathy
.543
.465
1.247
.270
Venturesomeness
2.278
.138
1.52
.224
Impulsivity
.537
.467
.056
.815
The results in Table 3 show that there is a significant difference between the JETS
group and the control group for malevolent aggression, F (1, 45) = 5.61, r = 0.33.
However, the estimated marginal means demonstrate that a similar level of difference
was present both pre and post programme. The difference pre-programme was
significant t (45) = 2.3, p < .05. Therefore, the difference post programme cannot be
attributed to treatment effect.
2
Significance level p < .05
* denotes significance
33
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Graph 1. Estimated marginal means for malevolent aggression in the JETS
group and the control group.
13
E
S
T
I
M 12
A
T
E
D
11
M
A
R
G
I 10
N
A
L
M
E
A
N
S
9
GROUP
Control
8
Pre-programme
JETS
Post-programme
The results in Table 3 also show that there is a significant difference between the
JETS group and the control group for locus of control, F (1, 45) = 7.82, r = 0.38.
However, the estimated marginal means demonstrate that a similar level of difference
was present both pre and post programme. The difference pre-programme was
significant t (45) = 2.72, p < .05. Therefore, the difference post programme cannot be
attributed to treatment effect.
Graph 2. Estimated marginal means for locus of control in the JETS group and
the control group.
E 17
S
T
I
M
16
A
T
E
D
15
M
A
R
G
I 14
N
A
L
GROUP
M 13
E
A
N
S
12
Pre-programme
Control
JETS
Post-programme
34
MSc AFP
Y1793579
The results in Table 3 show that there is a significant difference between the JETS
group and the control group for moral reasoning, F (1, 33) = 12.82, r = 0.53. The
estimated marginal means demonstrate that this difference was evident post
programme due to the increase in the desired direction of the scores for moral
reasoning for the JETS group. The difference pre-programme was not significant t(45)
= 1.1, p > .05. Therefore, the significant difference between the JETS and control
groups post programme can be attributed to treatment effect.
Graph 3. Estimated marginal means for moral reasoning in the JETS group and
the control group.
E 2.2
S
T
I 2.1
M
A
T
2.0
E
D
M 1.9
A
R
G
I 1.8
N
A
L 1.7
M
E
1.6
A
N
S
1.5
Pre-programme
GROUP
Control
JETS
Post-programme
35
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Behavioural Measures
The number of Governor’s adjudications in the six weeks before, six weeks during
and six weeks after the course are shown in Figure 1. The desired direction is a
decrease in the number of Governor’s adjudications over this period. The sign test
was used to determine any significant differences between before, during and after the
programme.
Figure 1: The number of Governor's adjudications for the JETS group
and control group before, during and after the programme.
16
14
12
10
No. of Governor's
adjudications
8
JETS group
6
Control group
4
2
0
Pre-programme
During programme Post-programme
Time Period
Results for control group extrapolated up to be comparable.
It is clear from Figure 1 that the JETS group show a movement in the desired
direction of a decrease in Governor’s adjudications over the measured period.
However, these differences did not yield a significant result, pre-programme to during
programme (sign test, n = 9, p ns) and pre-programme to post programme (sign test, n
= 10, p ns).
In contrast the control group showed a movement in the wrong direction with an
increase in the number of Governor’s adjudications over the measured period. The
36
MSc AFP
Y1793579
sign test could not be used to test for significant differences because there were fewer
than 6 pairs of scores (ignoring any tied pairs).
The movement in IEP level for the JETS group and control group during and after the
programme compared to the pre-programme level is shown in Figure 2. The desired
direction is the maintenance or improvement of the level at the programme start date.
Figure 2: The movement in IEP level for the JETS group and control
group during and after the programme when compared to the preprogramme level.
No. of participants
25
20
15
JETS group
10
Control group
5
0
Decrease Maintain Increase
during
during
during
prog.
prog.
prog.
Decrease Maintain Increase
post
post
post
prog.
prog.
prog.
Movement in IEP level compared to pre-programme level
Results for control group extrapolated up to be comparable.
It is clear from Figure 2 that the majority of the JETS group participants maintained
their privilege level both during and after the programme and that a slightly higher
number in the JETS group showed an increase in level than those showing a decrease
in level both during and after the programme. However, these differences did not
yield a significant result, pre-programme to during programme (sign test, n = 7, p ns)
and pre-programme to post programme (sign test, n = 9, p ns).
37
MSc AFP
Y1793579
The control group participants showed lower numbers maintaining a privilege level
during and after the programme, but higher numbers increasing in privilege level
during and after the programme than the JETS group. The difference between preprogramme to during programme yielded a significant result (sign test, n = 6, p 
0.05). However, the difference between pre-programme to post programme did not
yield a significant result (sign test, n = 10, p ns).
The percentage of JETS group and control group participants on red, silver and gold
IEP level before, during and after the programme is shown in Figure 3.
Incentives and Earned Privilege Scheme
100
90
% of participants
80
70
60
50
JET S group
40
Control group
30
20
10
0
Before During After
prog. prog. prog.
Red level
Before During After
prog. prog. prog.
Before During After
prog. prog. prog.
Silver level
Gold level
IEP level for time period
It is clear from Figure 3 that the majority of the JETS group participants were on the
highest privilege level (gold) before, during and after the programme. In contrast the
majority of the control group were on the middle privilege level (silver) before and
during the programme with an increase to the gold level evident after the programme.
38
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Discussion
The aim of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the JETS
programme. As level of motivation was the key distinguishing factor between the
JETS group and the control group, it was investigated to determine if there was a
relationship between motivation scores and difference in scores for all measures. No
significant relationship was found. Therefore, it is likely that the selection criteria for
motivation did not have an impact on the treatment effect.
There were three hypotheses for the current study. Hypothesis one: juvenile offenders
who have attended the JETS programme (JETS group) will display different levels of
moral reasoning, locus of control, impulsivity, venturesomeness, empathy, social
anxiety, social self-esteem and malevolent aggression as measured by the standard
JETS course battery than before the programme. The null hypothesis can be accepted
for hypothesis one. The mean scores for the JETS group showed a move in the desired
direction for the measures of moral reasoning, locus of control, impulsivity,
venturesomeness, social anxiety and social self-esteem. However, there were no
significant differences. The mean scores for the JETS group did not move in the
desired direction for malevolent aggression and empathy.
Hypothesis two: juvenile offenders who have attended the JETS programme will
display different levels of moral reasoning, locus of control, impulsivity,
venturesomeness, empathy, social anxiety, social self-esteem and malevolent
aggression as measured by the standard JETS course battery than juvenile offenders
who have not attended the JETS programme (control group). Partial support was
found for this hypothesis with a significant difference being found between the JETS
group and the control group for moral reasoning post programme. Significant
differences were also found post programme between the groups for locus of control
39
MSc AFP
Y1793579
and malevolent aggression. However, these significant differences were also present
pre-programme and so cannot be attributed to treatment effect. No other significant
differences were found.
Hypothesis three: juvenile offenders who have attended the JETS programme will
display more positive levels of behaviour than juvenile offenders who have not
attended the JETS programme. The null hypothesis can be accepted for hypothesis
three. The JETS group moved in the desired direction of reducing the number of
Governor’s adjudications over the measured period whereas the control group showed
an increase of Governor’s adjudications. However, there were no significant
differences. The majority of the JETS group participants maintained their Incentive
and Earned Privilege (IEP) level both during and after the programme. In contrast the
control group showed a significant increase in IEP level between pre-programme to
during programme, although this significant difference was not evident between preprogramme to post programme. However, the majority of the JETS group had
achieved the highest IEP level pre-programme whereas the majority of the control
group had achieved the middle level pre-programme. Therefore, the control group
were more able to increase their IEP level than the JETS group.
The results will now be discussed in more detail with regards to the measures and
potential explanations for the lack of significant differences.
Moral Reasoning
There was a significant difference in this deficit between the JETS group and control
group post programme, this significant difference was not present pre-programme.
There was no significant difference between pre and post programme scores for both
the JETS and the control group. However, there was a movement in the desired
40
MSc AFP
Y1793579
direction with an increase in the level of moral reasoning for both groups. The JETS
group showed higher levels of moral reasoning than the control group both pre and
post programme. It is interesting that whilst a significant difference was found
between the groups post programme, there was no significant difference found in the
JETS group from pre to post programme. A possible explanation for this is that the
JETS group had a higher level of moral reasoning pre-programme than the control
group and although the JETS group’s level post programme was not significantly
different to the pre-programme level there was some movement whereas the control
group showed very little movement. Therefore, the difference between the groups
post programme yielded a significant result. It may also be that a larger sample size
would have produced a more significant effect.
These results suggest that the JETS programme has had some positive impact on
moral reasoning because the mean scores for the JETS group show a greater increase
post programme compared to those of the control group.
These results are interesting as the moral reasoning sessions in JETS have been
designed very differently from the ETS programme. As previously stated, research
using psychometric data on juvenile offenders who completed the ETS programme
indicated that they made the least improvements when compared to young offenders
and adults (Nugent and Birks, 2000). It may be that the differences in the JETS design
for addressing this deficit could have impacted on these more positive results. Nichols
and Mitchell (2004) refer to the necessity to have a clear focus on moral development
with the juvenile age group. They point to research by Kohlberg (1976) who
identified three conditions for moral change: exposure to higher levels of moral
reasoning, role-taking opportunities and cognitive conflict developed through moral
dilemmas. Nichols and Mitchell (2004) have designed the JETS moral reasoning
41
MSc AFP
Y1793579
sessions with regard to these conditions. It would appear from the results found in this
study that this has had a positive impact on moral development.
The elements of responsivity incorporated in the design of JETS that were referred to
earlier may have been a factor in producing these results. The presentational structure
of the moral reasoning sessions are varied to avoid repetition, the dilemmas have
simpler language and they are presented in more visual ways through cartoons and
videos to help address poor literacy issues.
The Social Reflection Measure – Short Form (Gibbs et al, 1992) used to measure
participants’ moral reasoning defines four stages of moral reasoning, with stages one
and two being classed as ‘immature’ and stages three and four as ‘mature’. The
immature level consists of stage 1: unilateral and physical and stage 2: exchanging
and instrumental. The mature level consists of stage 3: mutual and pro-social and
stage 4: systemic and standard. This is evident from the results which show that,
although there was not a significant difference, the mean scores for the JETS group
moved up in the immature level from stage 1 into stage 2 during the programme. The
normative data for this measure showed high school students, average age 17,
functioning in the mature level at stage 3. It also shows that school children, average
age 12, function at stage 2. It would appear that the JETS programme has shown some
effectiveness in moving the participants closer to the norm for their age group.
These results are consistent with the findings of research into the effectiveness of the
Moral Reconation Therapy programme (Arbuthnot and Gordon, 1986). This offers
some further support to the use of cognitive-behavioural approaches to develop moral
reasoning in juvenile offenders.
42
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Locus of Control
No significant difference was found in the deficit of locus of control for the JETS
group and the control group between pre and post programme levels. However, the
JETS group moved in the desired direction of a decrease in locus of control whereas
the control group showed an increase. A significant difference was found pre and post
programme between the JETS group and the control group. The JETS group showed
lower levels of locus of control both pre and post programme.
The results for the mean scores moving in the desired direction for the JETS group
and not the control group for locus of control indicates the possibility that the JETS
programme may have had some impact in decreasing an externalised locus of control
that could result in taking more personal responsibility for actions and outcomes and
that without the programme the level may have increased.
Skills taught on the JETS programme, such as the problem solving strategy, enable
participants to feel more in control in dealing with difficult situations that they might
face. Also additions made to the programme by Nichols and Mitchell (2004), as
previously mentioned, may have reinforced development in this area. The workbook
for completion of tasks outside sessions encourages participants to take personal
responsibility of their development during the programme. The individual sessions
allow participants with the opportunity to take ownership of the use of the skills by
providing opportunities to apply them directly to their own situations.
These results are consistent with the findings of Falgate (2007, unpublished) that
showed a move in the desired direction in locus of control for some JETS participants
between pre and post programme. However, the results for three participants in that
study yielded a significant difference not evident in the present study.
43
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Impulsivity and Venturesomeness
There was a move in the desired direction for the JETS group in reducing impulsivity
and venturesomeness between pre and post programme, whereas the control group
showed an increase in both deficits. However, none of these differences was
significant. There was also no significant difference between the groups pre and post
programme for both deficits, although the JETS group showed higher levels of
impulsivity pre-programme and lower levels post programme than the control group.
The JETS group showed higher levels of venturesomeness both pre and post
programme than the control group.
The results for the mean scores moving in the desired direction for the JETS group
and not the control group for both impulsivity and venturesomeness indicates the
possibility that the JETS programme may have had some impact in reducing the
impulse to act on the spur of the moment regardless of whether an awareness of risk is
present and that without the programme levels of both deficits may have increased.
The JETS programme is designed to teach participants skills in managing emotions
and in assessing risk. Also responsivity elements included by Nichols and Mitchell
(2004) referred to earlier may have had a positive effect on this deficit. An important
element of the design of JETS is that skills are delivered in an accessible manner for
this age group with the incorporation of simplified materials, the use of visual aids
and games to encourage engagement. These may all have contributed to reducing
negative impulsive reactions to skills that address impulsivity and venturesomeness,
increasing the likelihood that they gain a greater understanding of these skills.
These results are consistent with the findings of Falgate (2007, unpublished) that
showed a move in the desired direction in impulsivity and venturesomeness for some
JETS participants between pre and post programme.
44
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Empathy
The JETS group did not move in the desired direction for empathy, whereas the
control group did. However, the JETS group showed higher levels of empathy both
pre and post programme than the control group. There was no significant difference
found within either group or between the groups pre and post programme.
It is concerning that in the current study the measured levels of empathy decreased for
the JETS group from pre to post programme. However, these results contrast with the
findings of Falgate (2007, unpublished) that showed a move in the desired direction in
empathy for some JETS participants between pre and post programme with a
significant difference found for one participant. Therefore, the impact of the JETS
programme on levels of empathy requires further exploration.
Social Anxiety
The JETS group showed higher levels of social anxiety both pre and post programme
than the control group. A move in the desired direction of reducing social anxiety was
evident in the JETS group, whereas the control group showed an increase in this
deficit. However, none of these differences was significant. There was also no
significant difference between the groups pre and post programme.
The results for the mean scores moving in the desired direction for the JETS group
and not the control group for social anxiety indicates the possibility that the JETS
programme may have had some impact in reducing this deficit and that without the
programme levels of social anxiety may have increased.
Skills taught on the programme and the responsivity elements included in the
programme design might have had an influence in the positive observed change in the
JETS group for social anxiety. Social skills are taught in JETS to provide effective
45
MSc AFP
Y1793579
approaches to dealing with people. The presentational structure of these sessions has
been varied to avoid the negative impact of repetition on this age group (Nichols and
Mitchell, 2004). Also Nichols and Mitchell (2004) included elements to reduce
possible stressors when learning these skills in order in increase engagement and
confidence in using them, such as graduated involvement in skills practices. Additions
to the programme such as the workbook and individual sessions are used to reinforce
the learning of the social skills in a safe context outside the group sessions.
Social Self-Esteem
No significant differences were found for the JETS group and the control group or
between the groups pre and post programme for social self-esteem. However, the
JETS group moved in the desired direction of increasing the level of social selfesteem, whereas the control group moved in the opposite direction decreasing their
levels in this deficit. The JETS group showed higher levels in social self-esteem both
pre and post programme.
The results for the mean scores moving in the desired direction for the JETS group
and not the control group for social self-esteem indicates the possibility that the JETS
programme may have had some impact in increasing social self-esteem and that
without the programme levels of social self-esteem may have decreased.
As with the deficit of social anxiety, the increase in social self-esteem evident in the
JETS group could be attributed to the social skills taught in the programme, similar
elements of responsivity incorporated in the design of the programme and
reinforcement of skills through the workbook and individual sessions having a
positive impact (Nichols and Mitchell, 2004). In addition tutors are trained to place an
46
MSc AFP
Y1793579
emphasis on praise and positive reinforcement for appropriate behaviour that could
have had an influence on increasing the participants’ social self-esteem.
Another factor that might have influenced the increase in social self-esteem for the
JETS group is the reduction that was evident in the level of social anxiety experienced
by the participants post programme. It is possible that if the JETS programme is
successful in reducing social anxiety then this could contribute to an increase in social
self-esteem.
Malevolent Aggression
No significant difference was found in the deficit of malevolent aggression for the
JETS group and the control group between pre and post programme levels. Neither
group moved in the desired direction, instead showing an increase in the deficit. There
was a significant difference between the groups, however this was evident both pre
and post programme. The JETS group showed lower levels of malevolent aggression
both pre and post programme than the control group.
It is concerning that in the current study the measured levels of malevolent aggression
increased for the JETS group from pre to post programme. Therefore, the impact of
the JETS programme on levels of malevolent aggression requires further exploration.
Behavioural Measures
There was decrease in the number of Governor’s adjudications for the JETS group
from before through to during and after the programme and an increase in the number
of Governor’s adjudications over the same period for the control group. However,
none of these differences were significant.
47
MSc AFP
Y1793579
The results for the Incentive and Earned Privilege (IEP) levels show that the majority
of JETS group participants maintained their privilege level during and after the
programme when compared to the pre-programme level. In contrast, the control group
shows a greater number increasing their IEP level than the JETS group. None of the
differences in the JETS group yielded a significant result. However, for the control
group there was a significant difference between pre and during the programme,
although this was not evident between pre and post programme. These results appear
to suggest that participants who did not participate in the JETS programme were more
successful in increasing their IEP level. However, the results also show that the
majority of the JETS group were on the highest privilege level before, during and
after the programme, whereas the majority of the control group were on the middle
privilege level. Therefore, the control group had a greater likelihood of increasing
their IEP level than the JETS group.
It is also possible that the nature of an IEP scheme may impact on how reliable it is as
a measure of behaviour levels. IEP schemes are designed to reward prisoners for
maintaining positive behaviour over a period of time. As a result, the level achieved
by a prisoner can be influenced by the length of time he has been in the prison.
Therefore, it is possible that two prisoners may be demonstrating similar levels of
positive behaviour but be on different IEP levels due to the length of time they have
been in the prison.
Overall, there is some positive movement evident in these results for the potential
impact of the JETS programme, however there is a lack of significant differences.
One potential explanation for this is that JETS is a very new treatment programme. As
previously mentioned more positive outcomes are found in custody based
48
MSc AFP
Y1793579
programmes that are well-established (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998). The JETS
programme is still very much in its infancy, as despite being based on the established
ETS programme, the changes and additions to make JETS effective for the juvenile
age group are numerous and those responsible for applying the programme are
relatively inexperienced in doing so.
The majority of tutors that delivered the JETS programme at HMYOI Wetherby to the
participants in this study are relatively new to delivering cognitive skills programmes
to juvenile offenders and in the main have only received the initial tutor training.
Some aspects of the additional training for tutors, such as group control and
management and motivational interviewing, that Nichols and Mitchell (2004)
emphasise is necessary, have not yet been available for tutors to attend.
Also the JETS programme, during the data collection period, was relatively new to
the staff and managers at HMYOI Wetherby. Research has shown that the
environment for treatment is key to delivering effective programmes. The theoretical
basis of skills training (Hansen, Nangle and Meyer, 1998) suggests that skills need to
be positively received in the environment in which they are used. JETS participants
may acquire skills in sessions, however if they are not positively reinforced when they
practice them out of sessions then they are unlikely to continue to use them.
Staff awareness training for the JETS programme is delivered to staff in order to
promote the course and address the issue of environment for treatment. However, due
to the relative newness of the JETS programme over the data collection period and the
high staff turnover at HMYOI Wetherby, not all staff will have attended this training.
Another potential explanation for the lack of significant differences is participants’
level of understanding of the programme. As previously mentioned, Nichols and
Mitchell (2004) incorporated a number of elements into the programme design to
49
MSc AFP
Y1793579
increase participants’ level of understanding, including simplified material and
language and the inclusion of individual sessions to review skills. However, it is
possible that these elements are either ineffective or insufficient to increase levels of
understanding.
Nichols and Mitchell (2004) recommend that JETS participants demonstrate a level of
intellectual functioning that ensures they will benefit from the programme. However,
due to resources, participants at HMYOI Wetherby are not currently tested with
regards to their level of intellectual ability before the programme. Therefore, there
may have been some participants who did not meet the appropriate level of
intellectual functioning and this may have been a factor that influenced their level of
understanding.
Another potential factor that might inhibit participants’ understanding of the
programme is the negative impact of disruptive behaviour in sessions. Problematic
behaviour displayed by participants may have a negative impact on the effectiveness
of the programme as it may impede participants’ level of understanding. This could
include both the participants displaying disruptive behaviour and other participants
who are distracted by the behaviour. Some of the participants in this study displayed
some disruptive behaviour during sessions, these incidents were recorded in the
individual daily debrief files and included refusing to complete exercises, throwing
objects at other participants and distracting others by talking.
As previously mentioned, in response to the responsivity research (Nichols, 2000)
which highlighted the need to address concentration and attention difficulties
experienced by juvenile offenders, Nichols and Mitchell (2004) incorporated a
number of elements into the JETS programme design, including ones to improve
understanding and reduce repetition. Also, they incorporated systems of reward to
50
MSc AFP
Y1793579
ensure recognition of achievement (McGuire, 2002) and provide the opportunity to
positively reinforce good behaviour. However, it is possible that these elements are
either ineffective or insufficient to address disruptive behaviour so that it does not
impact on programme effectiveness.
Also, as stated above, tutors who delivered the JETS programme to participants in the
current study have not yet received training in group control and management.
Therefore, they may not have the required skills to effectively manage disruptive
behaviour so that it does not negatively impact on programme effectiveness.
The lack of significant differences might also be in part a result of group composition.
As previously stated, Nichols and Mitchell (2004) determined that a group size of
eight participants would be appropriate for the JETS programme. They state that this
decision was made with reference to Merrell and Gimpel (1998) who recommend that
the optimal group size for adolescent groups is between three and eight participants. It
is possible that a total of eight participants is not the most appropriate group size for
the JETS programme and that this has an impact on the effectiveness of the
programme.
Other factors that might have influenced the lack of significant differences found in
the current study may include limitations and sources of error in the design of the
study.
Limitations and Sources of Error
It is important to consider that there are some factors that could have influenced the
results found in this study.
The requirement of the JETS course to allocate according to levels of motivation may
have had an impact in producing other differences between the JETS group and the
51
MSc AFP
Y1793579
control group pre-programme. Random allocation would have reduced the level of
systematic bias in allocation pre-programme and increased the level of internal
validity. However, this was not possible due to the guidelines for operating the course
and operational constraints at HMYOI Wetherby.
It is worth considering that JETS includes a number of aspects that are designed to
provide continuity to the learning that takes place in sessions, including family
support and mentoring (McGuire, 2002). These are designed to continue after the
programme is completed. As previously mentioned, Multisystemic Therapy (MST)
(Hennggeler and Bourduin, 1990) which includes elements of family support showed
positive results after a four year follow-up, 22% of the MST group had been
rearrested compared to 71% of the comparison group. The current study only
measured for impact as soon as the programme was complete and so it cannot account
for the impact of these elements.
In addition to this there is research that indicates personality traits of juveniles are not
that stable over time and in different settings (Steinberg and Cauffman, 1996). This
could account for any changes found in the deficits measured in this study. The
current study only considers a small snapshot of change for participants by measuring
just pre and post programme levels. A better reflection of any change would be gained
if the tests were administered over a longer period of time.
The sample used in the current study may have limited the results that were found.
The sample was only drawn from one establishment, HMYOI Wetherby. This may
cause problems of external validity; same results might not have been found if
participants had been available from other establishments in the juvenile prison estate.
Aspects of HMYOI Wetherby may have influenced the results. For example, the
52
MSc AFP
Y1793579
social self-esteem of a participant may have been affected by the prison regime and by
their experiences with the staff who look after them.
The sample size was small and only included 47 participants (32 JETS participants
and 15 in the control group). However, HMYOI Wetherby are only resourced to
deliver five programmes in a 12 month period with eight participants on each one so it
took this period of time to collect the data. Also population pressures across the prison
estate at the time of the data collection and the fact that prisoners are transferred to
young offender establishments when they turn 18 years old, resulted in a number of
original control group participants being transferred out of HMYOI Wetherby before
post programme measures could be administered. The small sample size restricts the
current study as it may have made it more difficult to detect any differences between
the two groups. Also, despite finding a significant difference in the deficit of moral
reasoning between the two groups, a larger sample size may have produced a more
significant effect.
Further potential limitations of this study may be found in the administration of the
measures used. Gudjonsson and Haward (1998) point to a number of factors that may
have influenced the test scores of participants in the current study including: the
participant’s attention, concentration, co-operation, motivation, cultural factors and
response bias.
In order to maximize the quality of data collected the tests were administered on an
individual basis. The tests were designed to be appropriate for use with the juvenile
age group. However, a total of four psychometric tests were administered and this
resulted in a required response to a total of 193 questions. Participants were asked to
complete these tests twice. It is possible that some participants had difficulty in
attending to and concentrating on completing so many responses, particularly as many
53
MSc AFP
Y1793579
of them will have been identified with deficits in self-control (impulsivity and
venturesomeness).
Many
participants
expressed
feelings
of
frustration
to
administrators when completing the test battery particularly on the second occasion.
Participants also experienced some difficulty in understanding some of the questions
on the Modified Junior Impulsivity Scale – I6 (junior). These questions were those
that required a response to a comparison, e.g. “at the fairground, would you prefer to
play darts and see sideshows to going on the big dipper and the dodgem cars?” Some
participants expressed confusion as to which response (yes or no) reflected their
intent. Administrators would assist in resolving their confusion when asked, however
it is possible that some participants did not express their confusion or even recognise
the conflict in responses this would have resulted in inaccurate responses.
Another factor potentially limiting the current study involves the co-operation and
motivation of the participants. The first test battery was conducted during a process of
selection for the treatment programme. It is possible that participants will have felt the
need to respond in certain ways in order to gain a place on a programme that can have
a beneficial impact in achieving early release or parole. This factor will still have been
present for the JETS group post programme. Participants’ suspicions were expressed
in the form of questions such as, “am I meant to have changed?” The current study
tried to gain honesty in responses by promising confidentiality and anonymity and by
explaining that the findings would not affect their sentences in any way. However,
some participants may have still had suspicions that influenced their responses. This
limitation might have influenced the findings, resulting in inconsistencies.
The test battery for the current study was administered by members from the
programmes team at HMYOI Wetherby who are JETS programme tutors. Therefore,
the participants may not have felt that the administrator was impartial and may have
54
MSc AFP
Y1793579
believed they had a particular ideology about what responses were wanted, ultimately
influencing the responses given.
Participants in the present study may have been subject to other treatment that might
have had an impact on the deficits measured in the current study. None of the
participants in this study had attended any other offending behaviour programme
during their current sentence. However, every juvenile offender who in HMYOI
Wetherby is allocated a Young Person’s Substance Misuse worker who, dependent on
the levels of reported misuse, conduct individual and group interventions. Also it is
possible that this study’s participants may have attended another offending behaviour
or treatment programme on a previous sentence. The presence of other treatment may
have influenced the findings, resulting in inconsistencies.
Future Research
It is encouraging that the JETS programme appears to show some effectiveness in
improving levels of moral reasoning. It would be useful for future research to
investigate what is effective about the way that the programme addresses moral
reasoning and whether any aspects related to this are missing from the way the other
cognitive deficits are addressed.
It is clear that while the current study offers some evidence for the positive impact of
the JETS programme in addressing cognitive deficits to help reduce the likelihood of
re-offending by participants, more research is necessary to support this. It would be
useful for future research to incorporate reconviction data, larger randomized samples
of participants and to control for any other treatment effects in order to increase the
likelihood of a producing a more significant effect.
55
MSc AFP
Y1793579
It is recommended that in future research, data is collected over a longer period of
time than the current study, as this would help to take account of the potential
instability of personality traits shown in this age group (Steinberg and Cauffman,
1996) that may impact on levels of reliability and validity. Also, as previously stated,
an extended period of data collection would enable measurement of the impact of
elements, such as family support and mentoring (McGuire, 2002) that are designed to
provide continuity following the end of the programme.
Further exploration is required into the potentially negative impact of the JETS
programme on empathy and malevolent aggression as shown in the results of the
current study. It would also be useful to explore if the current recommended group
size of eight participants (Nichols and Mitchell, 2004) has a negative impact on the
effectiveness on the JETS programme.
56
MSc AFP
Y1793579
References
Aalsma, M.C. and Lapsley, D.K. (2001). A typology of adolescent delinquency: sex
differences and implications for treatment. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,
11, 173–191.
Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R.D., Bonta, J. Gendreau, P. and Cullen, F.T.
(1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and
psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct.
Cincinnati: Anderson.
Arbuthnot, J. and Gordon, D.A. (1986). Behavioural and cognitive effects of a moral
reasoning development intervention for high-risk behaviour-disordered adolescents.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 208-216.
Armstrong, T.A. (2003). The Effect of Moral Reconation Therapy on the Recidivism
of Youthful Offenders. A Randomised Experiment. Criminal Justice and Behaviour,
Vol. 30, No. 6, 668-687.
Borduin, C.M., Mann, B.J., Cone, L.T., Henggeler, S.W., Fuci, B.R., Blaske,
M., and Williams, R.A. (1995). Multisystemic therapy of serious juvenile
offenders: Long-term prevention of criminality and violence. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 569-587.
57
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by
nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Budd, T. and Sharp, C. (2005). Offending in England and Wales: first results from the
2003 Crime and Justice Survey. Home Office Findings No. 244. London: Home
Office.
Cann, J., Falshaw, L., Nugent, F. And Friendship, C. (2003). Understanding
What Works: accredited cognitive skills programmes for adult men and
young offenders. Home Office Findings No. 226. London: Home Office.
Clarbour, J. and Roger, D. (2004). The construction and validation of a new
scale for measuring emotional response style in adolescents. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45:3, 496-509.
Clarke, A., Simmonds, R. and Wydall, S. (2004). Delivering cognitive skills
programmes in prison: a qualitative study. Home Office Research Findings No. 242.
London: Home Office.
Clingempeel, W.G and Hennggeler, S.W. (2003). Aggressive Juvenile Offenders
Transitioning Into Emerging Adulthood: Factors Discriminating Persisters and
Desisters. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 73, No. 3, 310-323.
58
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Eysenck, S.B.G. and Eysenck, H.J. (1980). Impulsiveness and
Venturesomeness in children. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 1, 7378.
Eysenck, S.B.G., Easting, G. and Pearson, P.R. (1984). Age norms for impulsiveness,
venturesomeness and empathy in children. Person. Individ. Diff., Vol. 5, No. 3, 315321.
Falgate, C. (2007). Assessing the Impact of Treatment on Juvenile Offenders: A
model of clinical change (Unpublished).
Falshaw, L., Friendship, C., Travers, R. and Nugent, F. (2003). Searching for “What
Works”: an evaluation of cognitive skills programmes. Home Office Findings No.
206. London: Home Office.
Farrington, D. P. (2001). Key Results from the First Forty Years of the
Cambridge Study. In T.P. Thornberry & M.D. Krohn (Eds.) Taking Stock of
Delinquency: An Overview of Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal
Studies. New York: Kluwer / Plenum.
Farrington, D.P. and Loeber, R. (1998, Eds.) Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders;
Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Farrington, D.P., Coid, J.W., Harnett, L., Jolliffe, D., Soteriou, N., Turner, R. and
West, D.J. (2006) Criminal careers and life success: new findings from the Cambridge
Study in Delinquent Development. Home Office Findings No. 281. London: Home
Office.
Field, A. (2005) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 2nd Edition. Sage Publications:
London.
Friendship, C., Blud, L, Erikson, M and Travers, R. (2002). An evaluation of
cognitive behavioural treatment for prisoners. London: Home Office.
Garrett, C.J. (1985). Effects of residential treatment on adjudicated delinquents; A
meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 287-308.
Gendreau, P. and Ross, R.R. (1980). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy
for cynics. In R. Ross and P. Gendreau (Eds.) Effective Correctional Treatment.
Toronto: Butterworths.
Gibbs, J.C., Basinger, K. S. and Fuller, D. (1992). Moral Maturity: Measuring the
Development of Sociomoral Reflection. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New Jersey.
Goldstein, A.P. and Glick, B. (1996). Aggression replacement training: Methods and
outcomes. In C.R. Hollins and K. Howells (eds.), Clinical Approaches to Working
with Young Offenders. Chichester: Wiley.
60
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Gudjonsson, G.H. and Haward, L.R.C. (1998). Forensic Psychology: A Practitioners
guide. Routledge: London.
Hansen, D.J., Nangle, D.W. and Meyer, K.A. (1998). Enhancing the Effectiveness of
Social Skills Interventions with Adolescents. Education and Treatment of Children,
Vol. 1, 4, November 1998.
Hennggeler, S.W. and Borduin, C.M. (1990). Family therapy and beyond: A
multisystemic approach to treating the behaviour problems of children and
adolescents. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Hennggeler, S.W., Melton, G.B. and Smith, L.A. (1992). Family preservation using
multisystemic therapy: An effective alternative to incarcerating serious juvenile
offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 953-961.
Hollin, C.R. and Henderson, M. (1984). Social Skills training with young
offenders. False expectations and “failure of treatment”. Behavioural
Psychotherapy, 12, 331-341. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hollin, C.R. (1995). The Meaning and Implications of “Programme Integrity”. In J.
McGuire, (Ed.) What Works, Reducing Re-offending. Wiley Series in Offender
Rehabilitation. Chichester: Wiley.
Hollin, C.R. (2001). To treat or not to treat? A historical perspective. In C. Hollin
(Ed.), The Handbook of Offender Assessment and Treatment. Chichester: Wiley.
61
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Jacobson, N. S. and Truax, P. (1991). Clinical Significance: A Statistical
Approach to Defining Meaningful Change in Psychotherapy Research.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1991, Vol. 59, No 1, 12-19.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stage and moralisation: The cognitive-behavioural model
approach. In T. Lickona (ed.) Moral Development and Behaviour: Theory, Research
and Social Issues. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Lipsey, M.W. (1992). Juvenile delinquent treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry
into the variability of effects. In T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H
Hartmann, L.V. Hedges, R.J. Light, T.A. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta
Analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York: Russell Sage.
Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational,
and behavioural treatment; confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist,
48, 1181-1209.
Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (1998). Effective interventions for serious juvenile
offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D.P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious
and Violent Juvenile Offenders (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Little, G.L. and Robinson, K.D. (1988). Moral reconation therapy: A systematic stepby-step treatment system for treatment resistant clients. Psychological Reports, 62,
135-151.
62
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Lösel, F. (1993). Evaluating psychosocial interventions in prisons and other penal
contexts. Paper presented to the 20th Criminological Research Conference, Council of
Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform.
Public Interest, 10, 22-54.
Martinson, R. (1979). New findings and new views: A note of caution regarding
sentence reform. Hofstra Law Review, 7, 243-258.
McGuire, J. (2000). An introduction to theory and research: Cognitive- Behavioural
approaches. HM Inspectorate of Probation report. HMSP: The Stationary Office.
McGuire, J. (2002). Elements of effective practice in offending behaviour
programmes. Final Report. University of Liverpool.
McGuire, J. and Priestley, P. (1985). Offending Behaviour: Skills and Stratagems for
Going Straight. London: Batsford.
McGuire, J. and Priestley, P. (1995). Reviewing 'what works': Past, present and
future. In J. McGuire, (Ed.), What Works, Reducing Re-offending. Chichester: Wiley.
Mitchell, J. and Palmer, E.J. (2004). Evaluating the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation”
Program for Young Offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Vol. 39(4), 31-45.
63
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial
behaviour: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 644-701.
Newburn, T. (1997). Youth, crime and justice. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R.
Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Nichols, C.E. (2000). Responsivity Research, main findings reported in
Treatment Manager Conference notes for December 2000. JETS Theory Manual,
2004. HMPS Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit, Home Office.
Nichols, C.E. and Mitchell, J. (2004). The JETS Living Skills Programme: An
integrated cognitive behavioural programme for juvenile offenders. Theory Manual.
HMPS Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit, Home Office.
Nowicki, S. and Strickland, B.R. (1973). A locus of control scale for children
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 409, 148-154.
Nugent, F. and Birks, E. (2000). The effectiveness of living skills programmes with
young inmates: An exploration of the cognitive skills data. Unpublished Report.
Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit, HM Prison Service, London.
Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit and Pathfinders Project. (2000). Cognitive
Skills Semi-structured Interview.
64
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Robinson, D. (1995). The impact of cognitive skills training on post-release
recidivism among Canadian Federal Offenders. No. R-41. Research Branch. Ottawa:
Correctional Service Canada.
Ross, R.R. and 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.
Sarason, I.G. (1978). A cognitive social learning approach to juvenile delinquency. In
R.D. Hare and D. Schalling (Eds). Psychopathic Behaviour: Approaches to Research.
New York: Wiley.
Steinberg, L. and Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgement in adolescence:
Psychosocial factors in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behaviour, 20,
249-272.
Sylva, K. and Stevenson, J. (1997). Social Behaviour and Competence in Childhood.
In I. Sclare (Ed.) Child Psychology Portfolio. NFER-NELSON Health and Social
Care, London.
Vennard, J., Sugg, D. and Hedderman, C. (1997). Changing offender's attitudes and
behaviour: What works? Home Office Research, Development and Statistics
Directorate Research Study 171. London: Home Office.
65
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Wasserman, G. A. and Miller, L. S. (1998). The prevention of Serious and Violent
Juvenile Offending. In R. Loeber & D. Farrington (Eds), Serious and Violent Juvenile
Offenders (pp. 13-29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whitehead, J.Y. and Lab, S.P. (1989). A meta-analysis of juvenile correctional
treatment. Journal of Research and Crime and Delinquency, 26, 276-295.
Youth Justice Board (2003). ASSET: an assessment framework for young people
involved in the youth justice system. London.
66
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my academic supervisor, Professor Cynthia McDougall for her
support, guidance and patience. I would like to express my gratitude to my
practitioner supervisor, Kirstin Barnes for her support and guidance and the Governor
of HMYOI Wetherby for funding my MSc and enabling my research to take place. To
my husband Paul and my friends Sally, Emily, Caroline and Becky thank you for all
your encouragement and patience that helped me maintain my sanity.
67
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Appendices
68
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Appendix A
69
MSc AFP
Y1793579
Participant Consent Form
MSc in Applied Forensic Psychology
Investigators name: xxxxxxxxxx
Title of study: The Effectiveness of the JETS Programme in changing thoughts, feelings
and behaviours.
Brief description of study:
I am currently carrying out a study into the thoughts, feelings and behaviours of juvenile
offenders in prison and the impact that the JETS Programme has on these. Therefore, I have
some questionnaires that I would be very grateful if you would fill in.
There are a number of questionnaires that will take about ½ an hour to complete. These
questionnaires will only be used for my research. I would like you to complete them three
times over the next three months. Nobody taking part in the study will be identified and all
information will be kept in the strictest of confidence.
I will help you understand how to fill them in, and I will read them to you if you have difficulty
reading.
A summary of the research findings will be made available on request from the Establishment
Research Contact.
If you are willing to do the questionnaires, please sign this letter at the bottom of this paper.
Declaration of consent:
The person giving me the questionnaires has explained to me the purpose of them, and I
have agreed to fill them in. I understand that the information will be used only for research
purposes, that I will not be identified as having taken part, and that all information will be kept
in strictest confidence and in compliance with the Data Protection Act. However, should I give
any information that puts others or myself at risk of harm, or breaks the establishment rules,
or is illegal, I understand that the relevant agencies will be informed. I understand that my
participation in this study will not affect my sentence and that I have the right to take away my
consent at any time. If I decide to withdraw from this study any information that I have
provided as part of this study will be destroyed or my identity removed unless I agree
otherwise.
I do agree to take part in this research and I allow prison records about me and my
offence(s) to be examined for the purpose of this study.
Name:
Signature:
Date:
Thank you for your help
(Note: this form will be kept separately from your data, so you will not be identifiable).
70