What Works in Reducing Reoffending:A Global Perspective

Friedrich Lösel

First European Seminar of the STARR Project,27 April 2010, Cambridge, UK

Institute of CriminologyUniversity of Cambridge

Institute of PsychologyUniversity of Erlangen-Nuremberg

Offender Rehabilitation:Recent History (1)

• Strong rehabilitation optimism in the 1960s and early 1970s

• „Nothing works“ (Martinson, 1974)• Lack of methodologically sound research• Support for non-empirical arguments (e.g. getting

tough on crime, high costs, forced personalitychange, informalisation of criminal justice, just deserts punishment)

• Revitalisation of rehabilitation in the 1990s• Better theoretical foundation• More longitudinal research on desistance

Recent History (2)• More controlled evaluations

• Systematic research reviews (meta-analyses)

• More international exchange

• „What works“ instead of „nothing works“

• Programme accreditation & qualitymanagement (e.g., Canada, England & Wales, Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden)

• Large-scale implementation of offendingbehaviour programmes

England & Wales: National Offender Management Service (NOMS): Pathways to Reducing

Re-offending (2006)

Attitudes, Thinking & BehaviourProgrammes

• Social learning theories• Reinforcement & modeling• Social information processing &

problem solving• Social integration & bonding• Action theory• Theries of moral attitudes & beliefs• Neuropsychological theories

Evidence comes by replication

• More than 700 more or less well controlledevaluations of correctional treatmentworldwide

• Majority from North America • For nearly all programmes: positive vs. zero

or sometimes even negative effects• Many factors are relevant: Methodology,

samples, context, culture, staff motivation, implementation a.s.f.

• No sound conclusions from one single study• Systematic reviews/meta-analyses of good

quality primary studies

Study Quality: Maryland Scale

1. No control/comparison group (CG)

2. Nonequivalent CG (e.g., refusers)

3. CG judged to be equivalent (e.g., comparison of offender characteristics)

4. Systematic strategy applied to achieve equivalence (e.g., matching)

5. Randomized assignment (not impaired by attrition etc.)

(Sherman et al., 1997, modified)

Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analyses on General Offender Treatment

0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30

Lösel et al. (1987)

Gottschalk et al. (1987)

Andrews et al. (1990)

Lipsey (1992)

Lipsey & Wilson (1998)

Pearson et al. (1998)

Redondo et al. (1999)

Dowden & Andrews (2000)

Lipton et al (2002)

Lipton et al. (2002)

Lipsey & Landenberger (2005)

MacKenzie (2006)

Tong & Farrington (2007)

In total >500 studies

Mean Effect Sizes of OffenderRehabilitation (1)

• General and violent offenders

• Typical range: d = 0.10 - 0.30

• Example: d = 0.20

• 50% recidivism in CG vs. 40% in TG

• 10 percentage points or 18% reduction

• Small but highly significant

Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analyses on Juvenile Offender Treatment

0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40

Garrett (1985)

Gottschalk et al. (1987)

Whitehead & Lab (1989)

Andrews et al. (1990)

Lipsey (1992)

Lipsey & Wilson (1998)

Petrosino (1997)

Redondo et al. (1999)

Cleland et al. (1997)

Latimer et al. (2003)

Mean Effect Sizes (d) in Meta-Analyses on Sexual Offender Treatment

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

Alexan

der (1

999)

Aos et

al. (2

006)

Furby e

t al. (

1989

)

Gallag

her e

t al. (

2000

)

Hall (1

995)

Hanso

n et a

l. (20

02)

Löse

l (200

0)

Löse

l & S

chmuc

ker (2

005)

Polizz

i et a

l. (19

99)

Reitze

l & C

arbon

ell (2

006)

Walk

er et

al. (2

004)

d

Meta-Analysis of High-quality Studieson Sex Offender Treatment

• Schmucker & Lösel (2010): Update of Lösel & Schmucker (2005)

• Only high-quality studies• Level 3 of Maryland Scale• Treatment & Control Group equivalent• 26 eligible studies, 28 independent

comparisons between TG and CG• N = 8,347 offenders (3,919 treated)• Mainly Cognitive-behavioural programmes

(n = 20)

Recidivism Rates(Length of follow up: M = 5.7 years)

9,0

32,4

24,0

12,4

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

sexual all offences

Type of reoffending

%Treatment groupControl group

27% reduction

26% reduction

Some Outcome Moderators

Larger effects in• smaller samples• high risk offenders• group programmes with some

individual sessions• better descriptive validity

Mean Effect Sizes of OffenderRehabilitation (2)

• In total ca. 10% - 30% reduction in reoffending• Statistically and practically significant• Benefit-cost ratios: 1 – 7 € payoff for each €

invested• Lifetime costs for 1 persistent offender ca. 1 M• Effect sizes in medicine:• Radiation + chemotherapy of brain tumors: ca.

10%• Aspirin therapy of cardiovascular events: ca. 13%• Passive smoking and lung cancer: ca. 22%• Drug treatment of depression: ca. 56%

Variation in Outcome BetweenOffender Rehabilitation Programmes

• Previous figures: overall means• Differences between various programmes &

even between studies on one and the sameprogramme

• No single „magic bullet“ or „gold standard“programme

• Programme content is only one reason foroutcome differences

• Many other factors play a role• They explain more variance than programme

content• ‚What works‘ question often too simple

What works:Relatively consistent positive effects

• Basic education (e.g. literacy, maths)

• Vocational & employability programmes (if usefulin life)

• Cognitive-behavioural programmes (CBT; e.g., Reasoning & Rehabilitation, Cogn. Restructuring, Moral Reconation Therapy, Anger Management)

• Most important elements in CBT: Anger management & interpersonal problem solving

• Structured therapeutic communities (TCs), milieutherapy & Social-therapeutic prisons (Germany)

What works:Relatively consistent positive effects

• Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and othermultimodal family-oriented programmes foryoung offenders

• Restorative Justice (e.g., offender-victimmediation, restitution; not for all groups)

• Drug courts

• sychopharmacological/substitution drugtreatment

Promising: Not yet well-replicatedand/or rather small effects

• Intensive supervision (probation, parole)• Electronic monitoring (problem of IS & EM:

revocation, violation of orders) • Counseling (juveniles & adults)• Mentoring programmes• Challenge programmes• Social case work• Pharmacological treatment for aggressive-

impulsive offenders (SRIs) and sexual offenders(hormonal treatment)

What doesn‘t work:Mean zero or even negative effetcs

• Pure sanction (e.g. custodial vs. non-custodialsentences, longer prison sentences, regularsanction vs. diversion)

• Purely deterrent measures (e.g. ScaredStraight, shock incarceration for juveniles)

• Strict discipline (e.g. Boot Camps, whenwithout treatment elements)

• Purely psychodynamic and unstructuredtherapeutic approaches

• Inappropriate programmes may even harm

The Good Lives Model (Ward, 2002):Nine Goods

• Life (including healthy living and functioning)• Knowledge• Excellence in work and play• Excellence in agency (autonomy, self-directedness)• Inner peace (freedom from emotional turmoil, stress)• Friendship and community (intimate partner, family

relations)• Spirituality (finding meaning and purpose in life)• Happiness• Creativity

Evaluation of the Good Lives Model

• Increasingly popular in practice• Strength-oriented (as is MST)• Relations to humanistic psychotherapy,

positive psychology & resilience research• Some indirect support from desistance

research• But: Not yet replicated empirical evidence in

evaluations• Conclusion: Perhaps promising

Principles of Appropriate OffenderTreatment

• Risk principle(Adequate intensity)

• Need principle(Address criminogenic needs)

• Responsivity principle(Adequate modes of learning and teaching)

• Up to 60% reduction of recidivism when all three R-N-R principles realized

• Smaller effect when 2 or 1 principle present; slightlynegative effect when no R-N-R principle addressed

• Problems of R-N-R approach: Some circularity re. responsivity; risk not individualized

Andrews et al. (1990)

Transfer of ‚What Works‘ Principlesinto Policy & Practice

• Best example: England & Wales• Ambitious political aims in the 1990s and 2000s:

5% & 10% reduction of reoffending• Systematic programme development, accreditation

& implementation• Intensive investment of Home Office/Ministry of

Justice• Coordinated action: NOMS, HMPS, NPD, CSAP • More than 40 accreditated programmes• Quality management (assessment, staff training &

supervision, monitoring & audit, outcomeevaluation)

Criteria of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP) in E & W

1. Clear model of change (evidence based)

2. Selection of offenders (e.g., adequateassessment, risk level)

3. Targeting a range of dynamic risk factors

4. Effective methods (i.e., cognitive-behavioural)

5. Skills orientation (concrete behaviour)

CSAP Accreditation Criteria(Continued)

6. Sequencing, intensity and duration

7. Engagement and motivation

8. Continuity of programme and services

(aftercare; community services)

9. Maintaining integrity (context; selection, training, and supervision of personnel)

10. Ongoing evaluation

Based on principles of effective intervention: Andrews (1995), Lösel (1995)

Accredited Programmes in E & W (1)

• Fast & widespread programme implementation• More than 30,000 offenders p.a. on programmes• Some problems of integrity & continuity• Sometimes violation of eligibility critera• Non-starters and dropout problems in the

community• Not much well-controlled evaluation; often weak

designs (e.g. non-equivalent CG, short follow-up)• Only small correlations between intermediate

factors (e.g. psychometric) and recidivism

Accredited Programmes in E & W (2)Some encouraging results (Harper & Chitti,2005):• Well-implemented cognitive-behavioural

programmes for medium to high risk offenders• Aggression replacement training in probation• Sex offender treatment programmes• Drug treatment programmes• Motoring offence programmes• Programmes including family relations in

treatment and aftercare

• However, methodologically weaker datasuggest some success of the treatment policy

Harper & Chitti (2005)

Adult Re-offending Rates in E & W

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Percentage of offenders committing at least one offence within one yearof discharge from prison or commencement of probation supervision

Note. No valid data available for 2001 MoJ Evidence Digest (2009)

2000-06: - 11%

Adult Re-offending Rates in E & W

507090

110130

150170

190210230

2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number of offences per 100 offenders within one year of discharge fromprison or commencement of a court order under probation supervision

Note. No valid data available for 2001 MoJ Evidence Digest (2009)

2000-06: - 23%

Re-Offending Rates of Prisoners bySentence Length (HMPS 2007)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

< 1 year ≥ 1 & < 2years

≥ 2 & < 4years

≥ 4 years

2000200220032004

Diff. actual/ - .02% - 6.3% - 10.1% - 13.4% Total: - 3.1%predicted

Re-offending rates for offending behaviourprogrammes

30354045505560657075

%

Non-starters Starters / Dropouts Completers

Predicted rates Actual rates

Diff = 7.3% Diff = 4.8% Diff = 26.4%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Women's programme (62)

Anger management (1,148)

Substance misuse (5,081)

Sex offender progr. (741)

Domestic violence (1,148)

General offend. behav. (12,924)

Drink impaired drivers (1,148)

Total (n = 25,255)

Interim Accredited Programmes Software:2004 Community Cohort (Hollis, RDS NOMS, 2007)Reduction in Re-Offending Using Predicted Data

*

*

**

**

Conclusions for international practice

• In total positive results of correctionalprogrammes

• However, most ‚what works‘ research fromNorth America

• Experience in Europe: Local adaptation and evaluation necessary

• Very few controlled studies in non-English-speaking countries

• Problems of transfer from/to other countries• Remember: Many factors determine outcome

Factors that have an impact on outomein meta-analyses: Examples (1)

• Programme content/type (++)

• Content of the control condition (+)

• Quality of evaluation design (?)

• Length of follow up (-)

• ‚Hard‘/official outcome measures (-)

• Small vs. large samples (++)

• High vs. low risk offenders (++)

• Juvenile vs. adult offenders (+)

Factors that have an impact beyondprogramme content: Examples (2)

• Many dropouts, counted as treated (--)• Voluntary vs. mandatory treatment (?) • Integrity of programme implementation (+)• Staff training & supervision (+)• Staff-prisoner relations/social climate (+)• Demonstration project vs. routine practice (+)• Researchers involved in programme

development/delivery (+)• Community vs. custody (+)

Problems of transnational transfer

• Different cultural traditions• Different justice systems• Different age ranges for juveniles• Different minority problems• Different organizational structures of

prison & probation• Different staff roles

Problems of transnational transfer

• Different experiences in evaluation• Differences in financial resources• Different weighting of various penal

aims: compensation of guilt, protection of the public, generaldeterrence, rehabilitation, restitution

• Differences in crime policy• Differences in incarceration rates

Incarceration Rates

Incarceration Rates in EuropePer 100,000 population in 200-08 ( Walmsley, 2009)

Russia 629Belarus 468Georgia 415Ukraine 323Latvia 288Estonia 259 Lithuania 234Poland 221Czech Republic 182Spain 160England & Wales 153Scotland 152Hungary 149Slovakia 148Bulgaria 134Romania 124Serbia 122Greece 109

Incarceration Rates in EuropePer 100,000 population in 200-08 ( Walmsley, 2009)

Netherlands 100France 96Austria 95Croatia 93Italy 92Belgium 93Germany 89 Northern Ireland 88Switzerland 76Sweden 74Norway 69Slovenia 65Denmark 63Finland 64Iceland 44Liechtenstein 22

: England & Wales

Incarceration rates

• Since the 1990s increase in many countries• Not clearly related to crime rates• Political decisions• Recently decrease in several countries• Incarceration very costly• Lack of resources for effective treatment

and prevention? (e.g. California)• Reduction by effective offender treatment

& less short-term imprisonment• The chance of ‚older‘ populations

Conclusions and Perspectives (1)• Global findings on rehabilitation

programmes positive• Continuity & stepwise improvement instead

of pendulum movements in policy• Cultural adaptation & differentiation• Quality management, process & outcome

evaluation• Centers of excellence, clearing houses• Knowledge transfer and management of

innovation

Conclusions & Perspectives (2)• Integrating correctional programmes

with the whole range of services (no „silo“ approach)

• Linkage to routine case work• Relations to natural processes of

desistance• Relations to developmental prevention• Crime not only a criminal justice issue

(e.g. public health, education, welfare& economy)

Contact:

starr@crim.cam.ac.uk

fal23@cam.ac.uk