Reducing criminal recidivism: evaluation of Citizenship, an evidence-based probation supervision process
Tóm tắt
‘Citizenship’ is a structured probation supervision program based on ‘what works’ principles, designed for offenders on community orders or licenses supervised within the UK National Probation Service. The program was evaluated using survival analysis comparing the reconvictions of a cohort of all offenders in one probation area eligible for Citizenship over a 2-year period (n = 3,819) with those of a retrospective cohort of all eligible offenders in the same probation area receiving ‘traditional’ probation supervision (n = 2,110), controlling for risk related factors. At the 2-year stage, 50% of offenders in the comparison group had reoffended compared to 41% in the experimental group, and the difference between the survival curves was statistically significant. The hazard ratio was 0.69, which represents a 31% reduction in reconvictions in the experimental group over the proportion in the comparison group at any given time. Time to violation of a supervision order or post custody license was also statistically significantly longer in the experimental group. A key element of the program, promoting contact with community support agencies, was statistically significantly related to reduced reoffending in the Citizenship group. The overall effects remained after controlling for differences in risk scores although effectiveness varied by risk level. Contrary to other ‘what works’ research findings, the program was found to be most effective across the low–medium and medium–high risk thresholds, and was not effective with the highest risk group. This difference can be explained and is discussed in terms of risk, need, and responsivity principles. The Citizenship program was found to be cost-beneficial.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alexander, M., & VanBenschoten, S. (2008). Evolution of supervision in the federal probation system. Federal Probation, 72(2), 15–21.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). LSI-R: The level of service inventory-revised. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark: LexixNexis.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990a). Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 17, 19–52.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990b). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7–27.
Antonowicz, D. H., & Ross, R. R. (1994). Essential components of successful rehabilitation programs for offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38, 97–104.
Bonta, J., & Cormier, R. (1999). Corrections research in Canada: impressive progress and prospects. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 41(2), 235–248.
Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., Rooney, J., & McEvoy, K. (2002). Evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to incarceration. Justice Review, 5(4), 319–338.
Bowles, R. A., & Pradiptyo, R. (2004). Reducing burglary initiative: an analysis of costs, benefits and cost effectiveness. Home Office Online Report 43. London: Home Office.
Bowles, R. A., & Florackis, C. (2007). Duration of the time to reconviction: evidence from UK prisoner discharge data. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 365–378.
Brand, S., & Price, R. (2000). The economic and social costs of crime. London: Home Office.
Bruce, R., & Hollin, C. R. (2009). Developing citizenship. EuroVista: Probation and Community Justice, 1(1), 24–31.
Coid, J., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Zhang, T., Roberts, A., Roberts, C., et al. (2007). Predicting and understanding risk of reoffending: the prisoner cohort study. Research Summary, 6. London: Ministry of Justice.
Copas, J., & Marshall, P. (1998). The offender group reconviction scale: a statistical reconviction score for use by probation officers. Applied Statistics, 47, 159–171.
Cox, D. R. (1972). Regression models and life tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 34, 187–220.
Crow, I. (2001). The treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. London: Sage.
Cullen, F., Wright, J., & Applegate, B. (1996). Control in the community: the limits of reform. In A. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 69–116). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dhiri, S., & Brand, S. (1999). Analysis of costs and benefits: guidance for evaluators, Crime Reduction Program Guidance Note 1. London: Home Office.
Dubourg, R., Hamed, J., & Thorns, J. (2005). The economic and social costs of crime against individuals and households 2003/04. London, Home Office Online Report 30/05. London: Home Office.
Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). Correctional Program Assessment Inventory – 2000 (CPAI-2000). Saint John: Gendreau and Andrews.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2001). Implementing correctional interventions in the 'real world'. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington, & A. W. Leschied (Eds.), Inside the black box in corrections (pp. 247–268). Chichester: Wiley.
Gray, T., & Olson, K. (1989). A cost-benefit analysis of the sentencing decision for burglars. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 708–722.
Gray, R., & Pearson, D. A. S. (2006). An interim investigation into the effectiveness of the Citizenship Programme. Unpublished paper. Research study 11: Durham Tees Valley Probation Trust
Gray, N., Snowden, R. J., MacCulloch, S., Phillips, H., Taylor, J., & MacCulloch, M. J. (2004). Relative efficacy of criminological, clinical, and personality measures of risk of offending in mentally disordered offenders: a comparative study of HCR-20, PCL-SV, and OGRS. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 523–530.
Hale, C. (2005). Economic marginalization, social exclusion and crime. In C. Hale, K. Hayward, A. Wahldin, & E. Wincup (Eds.), Criminology (pp. 325–344). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143, 29–36.
H.M. Treasury. (2003). The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: TSO Publications.
Hollin, C. R. (1995). The meaning and implications of program integrity. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works: effective methods to reduce reoffending (pp. 195–208). Chichester: Wiley.
Hollin, C. R. (1999). Treatment programs for offenders: meta-analysis, ‘What works’, and beyond. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 361–372.
Home Office. (1993). Reconvictions of those given probation and community service orders in 1987. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/93. London: Home Office.
Home Office. (1999). 'What Works' reducing reoffending: evidence-based practice. London: Home Office Communications Directorate.
Home Office. (2002). Offender Assessment System: user Manual. London: National Probation Service.
Home Office. (2008). Total recorded offences rate per 1000 population by local authority district. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html.
Howard, P., Clark, D., & Garnham, N. (2006). An evaluation of the Offender Assessment System (OASys) in three pilots. London: Home Office.
Izzo, R. L., & Ross, R. R. (1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents: a brief report. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 17, 134–142.
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53, 457–481.
Latessa, E. (1986). The cost effectiveness of intensive supervision. Federal Probation, 50(2), 70–74.
Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. (1998). The importance of evaluating correctional programs: assessing outcome and quality. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 22–29.
Latessa, E., & Lowenkamp, C. (2006). What works in reducing recidivism. University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 3(3), 521–535.
Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: a meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartman, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: a casebook (pp. 83–127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: a synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 313–345). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lipsey, M. W., Landenberger, N. A., & Wilson, S. (2007). Effects of cognitive-behavioural programs for criminal offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2007, 6. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.php.
Lloyd, C., Mair, G., & Hough, M. (1994). Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis. Home Office Research Study 136. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Lösel, F., & Köferl, P. (1989). Evaluation research on correctional treatment in West Germany: a meta-analysis. In H. Wegener, F. Lösel, & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal behaviour and the justice system: psychological perspectives (pp. 334–247). New York: Springer-Verlag.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 457–471.
May, C. (1999a). Explaining reconviction following a community sentence: the role of social factors. Home Office Research Study 192. London: Home Office.
May, C. (1999b). The role of social factors in predicting reconviction for offenders on community penalties. Home Office Research Findings 97. London: Home Office.
McDonald, C. (2003). Forward via the past? Evidence-based practice as strategy in social work. The Drawing Board: an Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(3), 123–142.
McDougall, C., Perry, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Overview of effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in the UK. In A. Perry, C. McDougall, & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Reducing crime: the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions (pp. 163–226). Chichester: Wiley.
McDougall, C., Cohen, M., Swaray, R., & Perry, A. (2008). A benefit-cost analysis of sentencing. Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.php.
McGuire, J. (Ed.) (1995). What works: reducing reoffending. Chichester: Wiley.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (1991). Motivational interviewing: preparing people to change addictive behaviours. New York: Guildford Press.
Ministry of Justice. (2008). Reoffending of adults: results from the 2006 cohort. Ministry of Justice Statistics Bulletin. London: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Justice. (2010). Local adult reoffending: latest statistics on the reoffending of adults on the probation caseload. Retrieved on February 17, 2010 from http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/local-adult-reoffending.htm.
Myers, R., Miller, W., Smith, J., & Tonnigan, S. (2002). A randomized trial of two methods for engaging treatment-refusing drug users through concerned significant others. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(5), 1182–1185.
National Institute of Corrections. (2005). Implementing evidence based practice in community corrections: the principles of effective interventions. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. (2008). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal, London. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.nice.org.uk.
Office for National Statistics (2010). Census 2001 – Ethnicity and religion in England and Wales. Retrieved February 11, 2010, from www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/north_east.asp#country.
Oldfield, M. (1997). What worked? A five year study of probation reconvictions. Probation Journal, 44(1), 2–10.
Paparozzi, M., & Gendreau, P. (2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 445–466.
Pearson, F. S., & Harper, A. G. (1990). Contingent intermediate sentences: New Jersey's Intensive Supervision Program. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 75–86.
Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., & Cleland, C. M. (1997, November). Rehabilitative programs in adult corrections: CDATE meta-analyses. (Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology. San Diego, CA.)
Petersilia, J. (1999). Parole and prisoner re-entry in the United States. In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons: Crime and Justice: a review of research ((pp, Vol. 26, pp. 479–529). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Petersilia, J., Turner, S., & Deschenes, E. (1992). Intensive supervision for drug offenders. In J. Byrne, A. Lurigio, & J. Perersilia (Eds.), Smart sentencing: the emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 12–17). Newbury Park: Sage.
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2002). Scared Straight and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency: a systematic review of the randomized experimental evidence. Campbell Collaboration Systematic Reviews. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.php.
Posovac, E. J., & Carey, G. (2003). Program evaluation: methods and case studies. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Priestley, P. (2000). One-to-one cognitive behavioural program, theory and evidence. UK: McGuire and Priestley Associates.
Redondo, S. (1994). El tratamiento de la delincuencia en Europa: Un estudio metaanalirico [The treatment of offenders in Europe: a meta-analysis]. Doctoral Thesis, University of Barcelona.
Robinson, G., & Raynor, P. (2006). The future of rehabilitation: what role for the probation service? Probation Journal, 53(4), 334–346.
Sherman, L., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B., & MacKenzie, D. (2002). Evidence-based crime prevention. London: Routledge.
Taxman, F. (2002). Supervision - Exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation, 66(2), 14–27.
Taxman, F. (2008). No illusions: offender and organizational change in Maryland's proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302.
Taxman, F., Shepardson, E., & Byrne, J. (2004). Tools of the trade: a guide for incorporating science into practice. Washington: Community Corrections Division, National Institute of Corrections.
Taxman, F., Thanner, M., & Weisburd, D. (2006). Risk, need and responsivity (RNR): it all depends. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 28–51.
Thanner, M. H., & Taxman, F. (2003). Responsivity: the value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24(2), 137–147.
Trotter, C. (1996). The impact of different supervision practices in community corrections: cause for optimism. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 29, 29–46.
Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1992). Focusing on high risk parolees: an experiment to reduce commitments to the Texas Department of Corrections. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(1), 54–61.
United States General Accounting Office. (1993). Intensive probation supervision: Crime control and cost-saving effectiveness. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.
Van Voorhis, P., & Brown, K. (1996). Risk classification in the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
Weibush, R. (1993). Juvenile intensive supervision: the impact on felony offenders diverted from institutional placement. Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 68–89.