7/29/2019 Evaluation Report Word

1/5

Woodhill protects thecommunity

by reducing the

HM Prison Woodhill

Tattenhoe Street

Milton Keynes

MK4 4DA

Introduction

Feeling Safe Standing strong was introduced to HMP Woodhill in February 2007. Itaimed to work with short sentenced prisoners, to provide them with skills which mayaddress their offending behaviour.

Feeling Safe Standing Strong is a group work programme based on protectivebehaviours.

Protective behaviours is a practical and down to earth approach to personalsafety. It is a process which encourages self empowerment and brings with itthe skills to avoid being victimized by helping to raise self esteem and

personal confidence; improving communication skills; developing problemsolving skills; empowering people to make appropriate behavioural choices;enabling people to feel and keep themselves safe

(Protectivebehaviours.co.uk)

Protective behaviours have been used to assist with victimisation. For instance, toprovide children with strategies to avoid being sexually abused. It was firstconceived in United States of America as abuse prevention and then widely practisedin Australia, and is used by the police there (Protectivebehaviours.co.uk).

An aim of undertaking Feeling Safe Standing Strong at HMP Woodhill was to addressoffending behaviour, so analysis of the programme is based around the Risk Needand Responsivity principles (see Bonta and Andrews, 2007). It has been found thatfor offending behaviour programmes to be most effective they must meet the threefollowing principles:

Risk principle: Match the level of service to the offenders risk of re-offending

Need principle: Assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment

Responsivity principle: Maximize the offenders ability to learn from arehabilitative intervention by providing cognitive behavioural treatment andtailoring the intervention to the learning style, motivation, abilities and

strengths of the offender.

It has been found that if all three principles are adhered to, then recidivism can bereduced by up to 35 %, with this dropping if only two and then one principle isadhered to. If none of the principles are adhered to offending behaviour interventionhas been found to have little, and often negative effect on recidivism (Andrew andBonta, 2006). Therefore, this report investigates how Feeling Safe Standing Strongadheres to the three principles to assess effectiveness.

Data

Four courses of Feeling Safe Standing Strong were completed at HMP Woodhill.Thirty four individuals started the course, with only twenty-five completing it. Thiswas for a

1

7/29/2019 Evaluation Report Word

2/5

Woodhill protects thecommunity

by reducing the

HM Prison Woodhill

Tattenhoe Street

Milton Keynes

MK4 4DA

variety of reasons, including prisoners prisoners being transferred to differentestablishments. Prisoners who attended the course were asked to sign a consentform to take part in the research. The procedure for the research was for individualsto complete pre course psychometrics and to repeat these after the course.Adjudication and IEP data werealso collected; however, the number of these was solow that analysis was meaningless.

The following psychometrics were used:

Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Style (PICTS) (Walters, 1995a,1995b)

This measures the extent of criminal thinking styles. A higher score indicates agreater need and therefore the desired change is a decrease in scores.

Locus of Control (LOC) (Craig, Franklin & Andrews, 1984)This measures the extent to which individuals feel events in their life are eithercontrolled by external factors or under their own control. The aim is to a movefrom an external to an internal locus of control. This is demonstrated by anincrease in scores.

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) (Milne, 1992)This measures difficulties that theindividual may have with relating to others. It istherefore hoped that scores decrease with intervention.

In total, thirty-one individuals agreed to take part in the research. However, sevendid not complete the course, seventeen completed pre-course psychometrics andonlyten completed post-course psychometrics.

Information was gathered from Offender Assessment System (OASys) on individualsrisk level and general offending information. This included individuals OffenderGroup Reconviction Scale (OGRS) percentage score. OASys is an assessment whichgathers information on offenders which research have found to be related to theiroffending, criminogenic needs. The OGRS is a static risk assessment tool whichpredicts from a limited number of criminal history and demographic factors, the

probability that an offender will be reconvicted within two years of release fromcustody or community sentence.

Evaluation

Risk principle:The course was primarily targeted at short-term prisoners because of its relativelyshort duration and the lack of other interventions for this group of prisoners.Groupmembers were not selected in terms of risk level.

Risk levels of individuals werecollated after the course, according to the ORGs andOASys. Treatment change on the PICTS (see later need principle section forexplanation of this significant result) was found to be correlated with ORGs risklevels, but not OASys. Those who had lower risk level on the ORGs showed a higher

2

7/29/2019 Evaluation Report Word

3/5

Woodhill protects thecommunity

by reducing the

HM Prison Woodhill

Tattenhoe Street

Milton Keynes

MK4 4DA

level of change, according to the PICTS. This means that Feeling Safe Standingappears to have more of an impact with those with lower risk of recidivism. Therewas no correlation found with OASys risk level.

The number of individuals for which risk information was available and who weretherefore included in this analysis was very small, meaning that this only givessuggestions of what might be occurring in terms of risk level. These results indicatethat lower risk individuals benefit more, suggesting these individuals probably shouldbe selected for the programme, rather than higher risk offenders. However, this doesin part go against the risk principle, as this states resources should focus on thosewith higher risk levels. However, Feeling Safe Standing Strong is a relatively small

dose of intervention.

Further research is needed to investigate the impact of risk and appropriate level ofoffenders who benefit the most. Overall, Feeling Safe Standing Strong appears towork best with low risk offenders.

Need principle:Criminongenic Needs should be targeted for offending behaviour programmes to beeffective. (See Andrews and Bonta, 2007). Andrews and Bonta identified that theseven major criminogenic needs are:

Anti-social personality pattern

Pro-criminal attitudes

Social support for crime

Substance Abuse

Family/marital relationships

School/work

Absence of pro-social recreational activities

It is hypothesised that Feeling Safe Standing Strong targets the area of pro-criminalattitudes. It is thought Feeling Safe Standing Strong targeted pro-criminal attitudesby the emphasis on respecting everyone and the need for everyone to feel safe. The

psychometric measures used to investigate this were the PICTS, LOC and IIP.

Comparison between before and after the course demonstrated a significant changein PICTS scores, which provides evidence that Feeling Safe Standing Strong made asignificant difference to criminal attitudes. This is an exceptionally positive findingconsidering the small sample size.

The LOC and IIP psychometric data did not show any noticeable changes pre,compared to post course. The sample size was so small that these findings areinconclusive and further research is needed, with a bigger sample size.

Group members were not selected according to need for the course. It would beuseful to develop this and investigate the impact better targetinghas on treatment

3

7/29/2019 Evaluation Report Word

4/5

Woodhill protects thecommunity

by reducing the

HM Prison Woodhill

Tattenhoe Street

Milton Keynes

MK4 4DA

change. Overall, there has been a positive treatment change in terms of criminalthinking styles associated with completing Feeling Safe Standing Strong.

Responsivity principle:The responsivity principle has two parts to it:

General responsivity cognitive social learning methods

Specific responsivity takes into account strengths, learning style, personality,motivation and bio-social characteristics of the individual

(Andrews and Bonta, 2007).

Feeling Safe Standing Strong did not directly use cognitive social learning methods,

however, there were similarities between these methods and the methods used onthe course. For instance, Feeling Safe Standing Strong explored the impact ofthinking on behaviour. It would be useful to consider how Feeling Safe StandingStrong could use further techniques from cognitive social learning methods so that itmeets this principle. However, the methods it did use have appeared to make apositive impact on criminal attitudes, suggesting they did meet the responsivityprinciple.

It is not possible to know how course facilitators responded to individual responsivityissues. For this, qualitative interviews are planned with some of the coursecompleters.

Responsivity is an area that needs further investigation.

Discussion

Feeling Safe Standing Strong has achieved positive treatment change in terms ofcriminal thinking styles, with there being a reduction in these thinking styles. Theresearch was limited by the small sample and incomplete data collected, with manyareas needing further investigation. The high non-completer rate is concerning andneeds addressing for Feeling Safe Standing Strong to maximise its potential for

making positive change. Initial results suggest low risk prisoners may benefit morefrom Feeling Safe Standing Strong, but further investigation is needed. Risk andNeed assessments were not undertaken before the course. Implementing suchassessments in the future could be beneficial. Further research is needed to assessresponsivity in Feeling Safe Standing Strong. Overall, Feeling Safe Standing stronghas been shown to have a positive impact on those that complete it. However,further recommendations are made to continue investigating the impact of thecourse and to develop the course in line with Risk, Need and Responsivity principles.

Recommendations

4

7/29/2019 Evaluation Report Word

5/5

Woodhill protects thecommunity

by reducing the

HM Prison Woodhill

Tattenhoe Street

Milton Keynes

MK4 4DA

More structured selection to incorporate OASys assessment with the aim ofidentifying risk and need for potential participants of Feeling Safe StandingStrong.

Qualitative research to investigate theResponsivity principle.

Further research to investigate the effect of offence type and risk of recidivismon the positive impact of Feeling Safe Standing Strong.

More structured research to be incorporated into course, ensuring all measuresare completed and identified.

Continued research on behavioural change to see if the psychometric changeis also demonstrated in behavioural change

Rachel Lynds, Trainee Psychologist

References

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2007) Public Safety Canada Corrections Research: User Report 2007-06.www.publicsafety.gc.ca

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2006) The Psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.) Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.

Craig, A.R., Franklin, J.A., & Andrews, G.

(1984) A scale to measure locus of controlof behaviour. British Journal of MedicalPsychology, 57, 173-180.Milne, D. (1992) Interpersonal Difficulties. Nfer-Nelson.

Walters, G.D. (1995a) The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: Part I: Reliability andPreliminary Validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 307-325.

Walters, G.D. (1995b) The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: Part II: Identifying

Simulated Response Sets. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 307-325.

www.Protectivebehaviours.co.uk

5